So-called color blind racism is a tough nut to crack.  It can be so subtle and hard to get a handle on.  This from the Victor Ray book on CRT.

 The rain falls in Shelby County late Sunday afternoon. The rain falls on the just and the unjust. Dylan's got his rainy day women #12 and #35. Like Gene Kelley I am singing in the rain in my driveway. "Hang on Sloopy, Sloopy hang on!" We need the rain. Sure we do. Rain, rain, go away. Come again some other day. No, no. I'll take the rain this day.

Paula Fredricksen - When Christians Were Jews - Notes

 This scholarly work is very illuminating.

-The author, a recognized NT scholar, makes some strong claims based on critical scholarly analysis of the material.

-The synoptic gospels claim that Jesus's public ministry lasted only one year and that his fateful donkey ride into Jerusalem for Passover was his first, last, and only visit to Jerusalem during Passover.

-John claims the mission lasted several years and that Jesus had been in Jerusalem many times before teaching in the temple, and that the Jewish and Roman authorities knew that he was harmless. This author believes that John is likely correct.

-But this last time the crowd got worked up into a frenzy and Jesus was arrested not because anybody was afraid of him but because the Jewish and Roman authorities were afraid of the incited crowd during this particular, volatile Passover weekend. In other words, the crowd caused the arrest.

-Whether Jesus thought he was the messiah is a moot point. Enough of the Passover crowd in Jerusalem were proclaiming he was indeed the messiah, enough to lead to his arrest and execution.

The Davidization of Jesus after the crucification and resurrection appearances is breathtaking. Just saying.

Into a synagogue in Damascus, then, within a few years of Jesus' crucification, came apostles in his name, proclaiming the gospel. They witnessed; they interpreted scripture; they performed deeds of power; they prophesied and they healed. They drew both Jews and gentile god fearers into their tiny new assembly, which formed within the penumbra of the Jewish community.

And it was there they encountered Paul the prosecutor. P. 143

A Writing of Peter that *Barely* Got Into the New Testament August 4, 2022 by Bart Ehrman In my previous posts I’ve talked about writings that claimed to be written by Peter, the closest disciple to Jesus – a Gospel, and Apocalypse, and an Epistle . These are not the only Petrine writings floating around in the early church. Among other things, we have two other (different) apocalypses, one of them unusually fascinating that was discovered only in 1945 (a Gnostic writing). None of these was actually written by Peter, and I don’t think there’s a biblical scholar on the planet who seriously thinks it was. It appears that writing books in the name of Peter was something of a cottage industry in early Christianity. That should give us pause. There are two books that also claim to be written by Peter that actually are in the New Testament. If we know that such pseudepigrapha were floating around, on what grounds should we think these two were authentic? Of all the books of the NT that have been thought to be forged – written by an author falsely claiming to be someone else – 2 Peter is by far the one most widely regarded as falling into the category. Even some more left wing evangelicals think so. My own conservative Christian mentor, the great scholar Bruce Metzger, thought it could not actually be by Peter. The common reason: the writing style is so massively different from 1 Peter that there is simply no way both were written by the same person. That, as you might realize, is a specious argument, because it presupposes that 1 Peter was written by Peter, and that cannot simply be assumed. In my view neither one was written by Peter, but I won’t get into that here. What I’m interested in here are the grounds invoked by church leaders for thinking a book was inspired Scripture. And it is a historical fact that unlike 1 Peter, which appears to have been regarded as apostolic and authoritative from early on, 2 Peter had a dark cloud circling about it for a very long time. Almost no one considered this short letter either authentic or canonical in the first three centuries of its existence. It is virtually never quoted by Christian authors; when it is mentioned it is either said to be “disputed” or is out right rejected. The grounds for suspicion or rejection are usually explicit. For one thing, since it was not widely known, let alone used, there here was little reason to push for its importance or authoritative character. Moreover, Christian leaders who did know it usually suspected it on internal literary grounds. As late as the end of the fourth century, Didymus the Blind, the prominent Christian teacher of Alexandria Egypt, explicitly labeled it a “forgery.’ But the letter eventually made its way into the canon. The reason: despite its low profile there were copies in circulation, and by the end of the fourth and early fifth century church leaders came to see its utility. For one thing, unlike other Petrine texts in circulation (not just the epistle to James), this book argues strongly for the complete unanimity of the early apostles. He openly reveres the apostle Paul and praises his letters as Scripture (3:16). Even more important, the letter addresses a view that, as we have seen, came to be hotly debated by the end of the fourth century. 2 Peter insists that salvation will not come to everyone; the wicked will be condemned. For this author, God is the judge who exacts his judgment on the earth. He had done so before, when he cast the sinful angels into the place of torment and by destroying the world in the days of Noah, and he will soon do it again. Why hasn’t the Day of Judgment, expected for years to be imminent, not yet arrived? God decided to delay action for the time being to allow more people an opportunity to repent. But those who remain recalcitrant need to pay heed: they will bear the full brunt of his divine judgment when Christ comes in power to destroy everything and everyone opposed to him. Here we have an apostolic denunciation of the idea of universal salvation. The book was not just acceptable but useful; as a result its apostolic origin seemed more plausible. The author certainly goes out of his way to argue he really is Peter. He insists he was personally present at Jesus’ transfiguration (as in the Gospels) and states that this now is the second letter he has sent to his readers. Everyone already knew his first letter (1 Peter). In the end, church leaders tacitly agreed that even though the book was not among the most important apostolic Christian writings produced, it was indeed written by Peter and so deserved a place in Scripture as a bulwark against the theological “heresy.” Other works that equally claimed to be written by the apostle (The Apocalypse, the Gospel, the Letter to James) were rejected on corollary grounds, never to see the light of canonical day. August 4th, 2022|Public Forum

Donald Trump is a type of fascist terminator. He will not stop. He will not get tired. He is relentless in his pursuit of power and will do anything to get and keep it. And he is here right now. He is not alone. Many of Trump's followers are willing to engage in acts of terrorism and other violence at his command. Others in Trump's orbit are using him as a weapon to advance their own agenda of creating a new American apartheid Christian fascist plutocracy. They have no use for Trump personally. Some of them will even acknowledge, in private, that he is very dangerous. But they have convinced themselves that Trump can be deployed to do their bidding. To this point, they have been proven correct. Ultimately, Donald Trump's first regime was but a preview of the American nightmare he and the Republican-fascists are advancing. If Trump returns to power in 2024 or beyond, matters will be far worse. Donald Trump and his coup confederates must be prosecuted, tried, convicted and given the maximum punishment allowed under the law as a necessary first step in saving American democracy and the country's future from the rising fascist tide -Chauncey Devega in Salon.com

It Didn't Start with Trump (2)

But a sober look at history might have lessened the shock, for the seeds of sedition had been planted earlier — a quarter-century earlier — in that same spot on the West Front of the Capitol. This forthcoming book promises to be a good one. Called to Washington by Trump, who promised a “wild” time, and sent to the Capitol with instructions to “fight like hell,” the mob halted Congress’s certification of Biden’s victory, sending lawmakers and staff fleeing for their lives. At least seven people died in the riot or its aftermath, and more than 140 police officers were hurt. Some 845 insurrectionists, several with ties to white-supremacist or violent extremist groups, have faced charges including seditious conspiracy. Image without a caption Many Americans were shocked that Trump, after first considering a plan to seize voting machines, had orchestrated an attempted coup, knowingly dispatching armed attackers to Capitol Hill and then refusing for 187 minutes to call off the assault. And many Americans have been shocked anew to see elected Republicans, after initially condemning Trump’s attack on democracy, excuse his actions and rationalize the violent insurrection itself as “legitimate political discourse.” But a sober look at history might have lessened the shock, for the seeds of sedition had been planted earlier — a quarter-century earlier — in that same spot on the West Front of the Capitol. On Sept. 27, 1994, more than 300 Republican members of Congress and congressional candidates gathered where the insurrectionists would one day mount the scaffolding. On that sunny morning, they assembled for a nonviolent transfer of power. Bob Michel, the unfailingly genial leader of the House Republican minority for the previous 14 years, had ushered Ronald Reagan’s agenda through the House. But he was being forced into retirement by a rising bomb thrower who threatened to oust Michel as GOP leader if he didn’t quit. “My friends,” a wistful Michel told the gathering, “I’ll not be able to be with you when you enter that promised land of having that long-sought-after majority.” Newt Gingrich had almost nothing in common with the man he shoved aside. Michel was a portrait of civility and decency, a World War II combat veteran who knew that his political opponents were not his enemies and that politics was the art of compromise. Gingrich, by contrast, rose to prominence by forcing the resignation of a Democratic speaker of the House on what began as mostly false allegations, by smearing another Democratic speaker with personal innuendo, and by routinely thwarting Michel’s attempts to negotiate with Democrats. Gingrich had avoided service in Vietnam and regarded Democrats as the enemy, impugning their patriotism and otherwise savaging them nightly on the House floor for the benefit of C-SPAN viewers. -Dana Milbank

It Didn't Start with Trump

Opinion The GOP is sick. It didn’t start with Trump — and won’t end with him. Image without a caption By Dana Milbank It began where it ended, on the West Front of the United States Capitol. On Jan. 6, 2021, an armed mob invited and incited by President Donald Trump smashed barriers, overpowered police and stormed the Capitol. The insurrectionists scaled the scaffolding erected for President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration and proceeded to sack the seat of government for the first time since the War of 1812. Called to Washington by Trump, who promised a “wild” time, and sent to the Capitol with instructions to “fight like hell,” the mob halted Congress’s certification of Biden’s victory, sending lawmakers and staff fleeing for their lives. At least seven people died in the riot or its aftermath, and more than 140 police officers were hurt. Some 845 insurrectionists, several with ties to white-supremacist or violent extremist groups, have faced charges including seditious conspiracy. Image without a caption Follow Dana Milbank's opinions Follow Many Americans were shocked that Trump, after first considering a plan to seize voting machines, had orchestrated an attempted coup, knowingly dispatching armed attackers to Capitol Hill and then refusing for 187 minutes to call off the assault. And many Americans have been shocked anew to see elected Republicans, after initially condemning Trump’s attack on democracy, excuse his actions and rationalize the violent insurrection itself as “legitimate political discourse.”