The obligatory “rabbi fears Tebow Super Bowl win might cause Christians to rampage or something” post

posted at 7:24 pm on December 14, 2011 by Allahpundit

Insane, I know, but look at it this way: If Tebow and that gimpy read-option offense find a way to beat the Pack, it’ll be proof positive that the End Times are upon us. And in that case, everyone’s going on a rampage. I’ve already got a shotgun, a machete, and a camouflage Broncos number 15 jersey ready for self-defense, just in case.

I wonder if Aaron Rodgers realizes he might soon be atheism’s greatest champion.

People are always looking for signs of God’s beneficence, and a victory by the Orange Crush over the blue-clad Patriots, from the bluest of blue states, will give fodder to a Christian revivalism that has already turned the Republican presidential race into a pander-thon to social conservatives, rekindling memories of those cultural icons of the ‘80s, the Moral Majority and “Hee Haw.” The culture wars are alive and well, and, if the current climate in Washington is any indicator, the motors are being revved up for what will undoubtedly be the most cantankerous Presidential campaign ever. When supposedly well-educated candidates publicly question overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change and evolution and then gain electoral traction by fabricating conspiracies about a war on Christmas, these are not rational times…

If Tebow wins the Super Bowl, against all odds, it will buoy his faithful, and emboldened faithful can do insane things, like burning mosques, bashing gays and indiscriminately banishing immigrants. While America has become more inclusive since Jerry Falwell’s first political forays, a Tebow triumph could set those efforts back considerably.

I admire much of what Tebow stands for. His mom’s decision to risk her own life rather than abort her fetus flies against my own – and Judaism’s – values, but neither am I pro-choice in all cases. His story is so improbable that if he were to win it all, a part of me would be wondering whether there is a Purpose behind it, just as I saw a divine hand in the equally unbelievable Red Sox victory of 2004. And it makes me wonder whether other Jews, the ones who don’t happen to have advanced degrees in religion and a few decades of rabbinic experience, might be even more seduced by this unfolding drama. Will legions of Southern Baptist missionaries hit the college campuses the very next day, spreading this new gospel of Tim? Already there is a “Jews for Tebow” Facebook page.

I know what you’re thinking, but no, this is really only the second-worst sports column ever. Still bad enough, though, that the middle paragraph quoted above has now been quietly expunged from the original op-ed at Jewish Week; I had to crib it from Dan Foster’s blockquote in his post at The Corner. (Foster also had a nifty piece last week at NRO exploring why Tebowmania has hit a cultural nerve.) The whole thing smacks of those urban legends about a spike in domestic violence on Super Bowl Sunday but larded up with a religious paranoia that’s actually bizarrely flattering to Tebow. Hammerman seems to think TT really might be magical; if he took the Broncos all the way, this doofus could have an honest-to-goodness crisis of faith about it. (Just wondering: What exactly does he think the 2004 Red Sox’s role in the divine plan is?) Personally, I can’t bring myself to root against Tebow, however deep our religious differences, just because he’s a consummate scrappy underdog in a league full of more talented guys and because, as Foster explained in his NRO piece, his sheer earnestness is refreshing and endearing. He’s Rudy with a Bible, basically. In a world full of people worth disliking, why would you dislike that guy?

Exit prediction: My Jets, the least likeable team in the league, will bump off the Broncos in the AFC playoffs in a classic triumph of evil over good, thereby sparing Hammerman the ordeal of watching Christians high-fiving on the day after the Super Bowl or whatever.

Update: And now the entire op-ed is gone at Jewish Week.

Update: Via Breitbart TV, “The Five” talked about this today and even Beckel was underwhelmed.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

Virtually every book of the current cannon, certainly the Gospels, Acts and all the works of Paul were universally accepted from the first century on. We see them quoted extensively in the works of the early Church fathers, works written and disseminated in the late first and second century. The Spirit created the cannon and the Church, not the other way around.

tommyboy on December 15, 2011 at 11:49 AM

that is the answer! the holy spirit created the cannon and the church! the devil created the rest.

nathor on December 15, 2011 at 7:19 PM

Believe it or not: One day, every knee shall bow, every tongue confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord. If it doesn’t happen, okay with me as I would be no worse than everyone else. But what if it does happen?

miron on December 15, 2011 at 7:25 PM

Believe it or not: One day, every knee shall bow, every tongue confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord. If it doesn’t happen, okay with me as I would be no worse than everyone else. But what if it does happen?

miron on December 15, 2011 at 7:25 PM

Why is bowing and accepting Jesus as your lord and savior necessary?

Because someone told you it was?

SauerKraut537 on December 15, 2011 at 7:32 PM

Why is bowing and accepting Jesus as your lord and savior necessary?
SauerKraut537 on December 15, 2011 at 7:32 PM

Why is the speed of light the exact, unvarying speed it is?

tommyboy on December 15, 2011 at 7:41 PM

Why is the speed of light the exact, unvarying speed it is?

tommyboy on December 15, 2011 at 7:41 PM

Well I wasn’t exactly asking you, but why’d you respond with a question that doesn’t relate?

SauerKraut537 on December 15, 2011 at 7:53 PM

Only in minority position, liberal, obscurantville. The vast consensus puts it in the early 3rd century. Dr. Michael Evans, probably the the foremost authority on ancient languages and texts puts it during the first two decades of the third century. Most of it is taken directly from the Diatesseraon, a Syriac harmony of the traditional four Gospels and created by Tatian late in the second century. Thomas could not have been written before Tatian’s works.

what liberalism has to do with this?

wikipedia explains there are 2 camps debating the date of the composition and the late camp is 100-150 AD not 200 ad as you claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas#Date_of_composition
other sources found on google repeat the time ranges. the gospel of thomas is early!

First off, neither the manicheans or, for a large part, the valentinians considered themselves “Christians”. So I not sure the relevance, however neither was a large or widespread movement. Certainly both were much more obscure than the Epicurians, Stoics, Platonists, Neo-Platonists, Donatists and many other philosophical movements which came and left during this time period. ,

i know manicheans were popular. the valentinians i am not sure, i would like some reference to their popularity or lack of this movement. what is certain is that early christians apologists wrote extensively against the valentinians. i not sure they would care if the movement was insignificant as you claim.

First off there were no Marcionite texts to even consider for cannonicity. There is nothing to connect Marcion with the Apostle Peter and seeing as how he wasn’t born until at least two decades after Peter’s crucifixion there is basis to “claim” Peter. And by the way, there is no “peter of tarsus”. Paul, born Saul, was known as Saul of Tarsus. Peter was from Galilee.

sorry, i meant Paul of tarsus, not peter.

marcion did have cannon.
from here:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/marcion.html

Marcion taught that the god of the Old Testament was not the true God but rather that the true and higher God had been revealed only with Jesus Christ. Marcion wrote the Antitheses to show the differences between the god of the Old Testament and the true God.

Marcion was excommunicated from the Roman church c. 144 CE, but he succeeded in establishing churches of his own to rival the catholic Church for the next two centuries.

Marcion is often thought to have first established an explicit canon. Marcion’s canon consisted of the Euangelion, or the Gospel of the Lord, and the Apostolikon, ten epistles of Paul, not including the pastorals. There is debate over whether Marcion truncated Luke and Paul or whether later orthodox scribes may have expanded them in some cases.

Marcion receives derogatory references from contemporary apologist Justin Martyr and heresiologist Irenaeus of Lyons. We can reconstruct Marcion’s writings through the references in Tertullian’s Adversus Marcionem and Epiphanius’ Panarion.

One interesting point. Out of the early heretics you mention Marcion and Valentineus I could add Montana, Arius, Pelagius, Cerenthius, Celcius, and a dozen others and NOT one was martyred or physically harmed by Christians for their heresies. Where is the period of ruthless persecution of unorthodox Christians you describe? For such a ruthless, vicious, period why were all the most famous heretics were left alone to preach their heresy? All the Christians did was to excommunicate them, preach against them and pray for them vociferously.
tommyboy on December 15, 2011 at 7:06 PM

Christian persecutions of the heretics and pagans only happened in large scale in the 4th\5th century, not before.
as you said, early orthodox christians did label other as heretics, but had no power to persecute them. that came with constatine.
by the way, the texts of other early Christians disappeared. it possible and probable that they too labeled the orthodox Christians as heretics.

nathor on December 15, 2011 at 7:55 PM

Believe it or not: One day, every knee shall bow, every tongue confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord. If it doesn’t happen, okay with me as I would be no worse than everyone else. But what if it does happen?

miron on December 15, 2011 at 7:25 PM

google “pascal wager”

nathor on December 15, 2011 at 8:19 PM

So Sauerkraut, if you don’t believe in a higher power, what do you believe in?

j_ehman on December 15, 2011 at 9:01 PM

wikipedia explains there…

Wiki is not a reliable source of anything. You have cited no authoritative sources for any of this discredited junk. Another “google” expert. This stuff was popular with the liberal, neo-orthodox “Jesus Seminar” crowd of the 70′s. It has been totally discredited by every reputable scholar who has addressed the issue except Ehrman, who is the current darling of the higher critical crowd. This as opposed to over 50 world class scholars who have paintakingly refuted every aspect of the Bauer thesis. You can’t cite one authority with regard to the Gospel of Thomas who has personally examined and translated the Nag Hamadi texts who put Thomas earlier than the early third century. The fact it borrowed heavily from the Diatesseraon is conclusive proof of this date, you can’t get around it.

tommyboy on December 15, 2011 at 9:12 PM

SauerKraut537 on December 15, 2011 at 7:32 PM

Because first man (Adam) caused himself and his posterity to be divided and separated from God.

listens2glenn on December 15, 2011 at 10:46 PM

Wiki is not a reliable source of anything. You have cited no authoritative sources for any of this discredited junk. Another “google” expert. This stuff was popular with the liberal, neo-orthodox “Jesus Seminar” crowd of the 70′s. It has been totally discredited by every reputable scholar who has addressed the issue except Ehrman, who is the current darling of the higher critical crowd. This as opposed to over 50 world class scholars who have paintakingly refuted every aspect of the Bauer thesis. You can’t cite one authority with regard to the Gospel of Thomas who has personally examined and translated the Nag Hamadi texts who put Thomas earlier than the early third century. The fact it borrowed heavily from the Diatesseraon is conclusive proof of this date, you can’t get around it.

tommyboy on December 15, 2011 at 9:12 PM

i am well aware of wikipedia faults. but if people reference their facts there, its more or less reliable.
i not saying wikipedia is right. but on the concrete issue of thomas gospel dating the facts have references that you can follow.
researching and following its discovered that many scholars delved into the thomas gospel dating issue:
Maurice Casey
Robert E. Van Voorst
Craig A. Evans
Klyne Snodgrass
Nicholas Perrin
Gerd Theissen
Annette Merz
Bart Ehrman

i did some research and apparently most scholars authors place thomas as early as 40 ad and and 150 ad century the discussion is between the ranges of this dates,

nicholas perrin seems to be the main proponent of the Diatessaron origin which would (place thomas at 172+) thesis but has strong critics:
Nicholas Perrin argues that Thomas is dependent on the Diatessaron, which was composed shortly after 172 by Tatian in Syria.[58] Perrin explains the order of the sayings by attempting to demonstrate that almost all adjacent sayings are connected by Syriac catchwords, whereas in Coptic or Greek, catchwords have been found for only less than half of the pairs of adjacent sayings.[59] Peter J. Williams analyzed Perrin’s alleged Syriac catchwords and found them implausible. [60] Robert Shedinger wrote that since Perrin attempts to reconstruct an Old Syriac version of Thomas without first establishing Thomas’ reliance on the Diatessaron, Perrin’s logic seems circular.[61]
a full critic of perrin thesis can be found here:
http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/nicholas-perrin-thomas-other-gospel_23.html and resumes how Peter Williams, Jan Joosten and David Parker deconstruct the thomas from Diatessaron theory.

concluding, Perrin thesis seems probably wrong and thomas gospel is early. live with it.

nathor on December 16, 2011 at 6:45 AM

An atheist and a theist are siting in a room. How do you tell who is who?

The atheist is preaching.

peacenprosperity on December 16, 2011 at 11:07 AM

Oh, another thing. There is no Gospel of Peter in the bible.

tommyboy on December 16, 2011 at 5:04 PM
i meant peter epistles.

nathor on December 16, 2011 at 5:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6