Rome in transition

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

) I know that the GoT is meaningful since it reflects a transcendent perspective normal for Christianity.

That is your choice to view that text in that manner. I don't see it in the text, I see a simplified version of the cannonized gospels.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

4) Christianity is self referral validation. A Christian validates the corrupted human condition within himself and carries his cross for the sake of his "being" potential.

I suppose there are those who believe themselves faithful and even zealous for doing so...I am not one of them. Suffering is overrated, particularly self-inflicted suffering.

Originally Posted by Nick_A

A point of view is just a subjective appreciation initiating from the fallen human condition within ourselves. The task of the Christian is to experience direct affirmation of reality so that they can begin to serve the conscious purpose intended for Man.and is our potential

I'm not sure I am understanding...are you no longer in a fallen condition? Are you somehow "above" the need for a POV?

Even if I could accept the comment at face value, it evades the obvious. Jesus, and even Christianity, and even Monotheism, is not necessary for a metaphysical experience. Why rail on about a monolithic authoritarian religious structure if it serves no purpose to your spirituality? Just dump it and be done...

On the other hand, either Jesus was a real flesh and blood human, or he was not. If he was, then the message is clear. If he was not, then it is all a sham anyway.

[juantoo3]

Council of Arles - 314

The first council of Arles formally condemned the heresy of Donatism. It began as an appeal by the Donatists to Constantine the Great against the decision of the Roman Council of 313 under Pope Miltiades. This is the first instance of an appeal of a Christian party to the secular power, and it turned out unfavorably to the Donatists who afterwards became enemies of the Roman authorities. The Council of Arles was the first called by Constantine and is the forerunner of the First Council of Nicaea. Augustine of Hippo called it an Ecumenical Council.

It excommunicated Donatus and passed twenty-two canons concerning Easter (which should be held on one and the same day), against the non-residence of clergy, against participation in races and gladiatorial fights (to be punished by excommunication), against the rebaptism of heretics, and on other matters of discipline. Clergymen who could be proven to have delivered sacred books in persecution (the traditores) should be deposed, but their official acts were to be held valid. The assistance of at least three bishops was required at ordination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Arles


A tidbit I stumbled on doing other research...

Edict of Milan was a letter signed by emperors Constantine and Licinius, that proclaimed religious toleration in the Roman Empire. The letter was issued in 313, shortly after the conclusion of the Diocletian Persecution.

While it is true that Constantine and Licinius must have discussed religious policy when they met at Milan in February 313, the text usually called the Edict of Milan is in fact a letter to the Governor of Bithynia of June 313, one of a series of letters issued by Licinius in the territory he conquered from Maximinus in 313. Both toleration and restitution had already been granted by Constantine in Gaul, Spain and Britain (in 306), and by Maxentius in Italy and Africa (in 306 toleration and 310 restitution). Galerius and Licinius had enacted toleration in the Balkans in 311, and Licinius probably extended restitution there in early 313. Thus the letters which Licinius issued in the names of himself and Constantine (as was routine for imperial documents, which were formally issued in the names of all legitimate co-rulers) were designed solely to enact toleration and restitution in Anatolia and Oriens, which had been under the rule of Maximinus.

The Edict, in the form of a joint letter to be circulated among the governors of the East,[1] declared that the Empire would be neutral with regard to religious worship, officially removing all obstacles to the practice of Christianity and other religions.[2] It "declared unequivocally that the co-authors of the regulations wanted no action taken against the non-Christian cults."[3]

Christianity had previously been decriminalized in April 311 by Galerius, who was the first emperor to issue an edict of toleration for all religious creeds, including Christianity.[4] The Christian historian Philip Schaff noted that the second edict went beyond the first edict of 311: "it was a decisive step from hostile neutrality to friendly neutrality and protection, and prepared the way for the legal recognition of Christianity, as the religion of the empire."[5] The wording of the Edict reveals that such developments, however, remained in the future. The letter gives detailed instructions to the governor for the restitution of sequestered Christian property.

The Edict of Milan transformed the status of Christianity, as it initiated the period known by Christian historians as the Peace of the Church, and it has been interpreted by Christians as officially giving imperial favor to Christianity, as Constantine became the first emperor to actually promote and grant favors to the Church and its members.[6] The document itself does not survive.

Edict of Milan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Diocletianic Persecution was the last, and most severe, episode of persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire.[1] It took place under Emperor Diocletian, and lasted from 303 to 311.[2]

Christians in the army

At the conclusion of the Persian wars in 299, co-emperors Diocletian and Galerius traveled from Persia to Syrian Antioch (Antakya, Turkey). The Christian rhetor Lactantius records that, at Antioch some time in 299, the emperors were engaged in sacrifice and divination in an attempt to predict the future. The haruspices were unable to read the sacrificed animals, and failed to do so after repeated trials. The master haruspex eventually declared that this failure was the result of interruptions in the process caused by profane men: certain Christians in the imperial household were seen to have made the sign of the cross in an attempt to create a defense against the demons called into service in the pagan ceremonies. Diocletian, enraged by this turn of events, declared that all members of the court need perform their own sacrifice. They sent letters to the military command as well, demanding that the entire army perform the sacrifices or else face discharge.[76] Since there are no reports of bloodshed in Lactantius' narrative, Christians in the imperial household must have survived the event, perhaps after a whipping.[77]

Manichean persecution

Affairs quieted after the initial persecution. Diocletian remained in Antioch for the following three years. He visited Egypt once, over the winter of 301–2, where he began the grain dole in Alexandria.[89] In Egypt, some Manicheans, followers of the prophet Mani, were decried in the presence of the proconsul of Africa. On March 31, 302, in a rescript from Alexandria, Diocletian, after consultation with the proconsul, ordered that the leading followers of Mani, be burnt alive along with their scriptures. Low-status Manicheans were to be executed; high-status Manicheans were to be sent to work in the quarries of Proconnesus (Marmara Island, Turkey) or the mines of Phaeno. All Manichean property was to be seized and deposited in the imperial treasury.[90]

Diocletian believed quite firmly in these policies, and his religious passion motivated him to use violent and hateful language in their expression. He found much to be offended by in Manichean religion.[91] The proconsul of Africa forwarded Diocletian an anxious inquiry on the Manichees. In late March 302, Diocletian responded: the Manicheans "have set up new and hitherto unheard of sects in opposition to the older creeds so that they might cast out the doctrines vouchsafed to us in the past by divine favour, for the benefit of their own depraved doctrine". He continued: "..our fear is that with the passage of time, they will endeavour...to infect...our whole empire...as with the poison of a malignant serpent". "Ancient religion ought not to be criticized by a new-fangled one", he wrote. The Christians of the empire were vulnerable to the same line of thinking.[92]

First Edict

On February 23, 303, Diocletian ordered that the newly-built Christian church at Nicomedia be razed, its scriptures set to flame, and the treasures of the church collected as treasure.[99] February 23 was the feast of the Termnialia, for Terminus, the god of boundaries. The emperors must have thought it appropriate: It was the day they would terminate Christianity.[100] The next day, Diocletian's first "Edict against the Christians" was published.[101] The key targets of this piece of legislation were, as they had been during Valerian's persecution, Christian property and senior clerics.[102] The edict ordered the destruction of Christian scriptures, liturgical books, and places of worship across the empire,[103] and prohibited Christians from assembling for worship.[104] Christians were also deprived of the right to petition the courts,[105] making them potential subjects for judicial torture;[106] Christians could not respond to actions brought against them in court;[107] Christian senators, equestrians, decurions, veterans, and soldiers were deprived of their ranks; and imperial freedmen were reduced to the status of slaves.[108]

Diocletian had requested that the edict be pursued "without bloodshed",[109] in spite of Galerius' demands that all those refusing to sacrifice should be burned alive.[110] The practice nevertheless became quite widespread in the East.[111] In spite of Diocletian's request, the death penalty was widely used, following the discretion of local judges.[112] After it was posted, a man on the street named Eutius tore it down and ripped it up, shouting "Here are your Gothic and Sarmatian triumphs!" He was arrested for treason, tortured, and burned alive soon after, thus becoming the edict's first martyr.[113] The provisions of the edict were known and enforced in Palestine by March or April (just before Easter), and was in use by local officials in North Africa by May or June.[114] The earliest martyr at Caesarea was executed on June 7;[115] the edict was in force at Cirta from May 19.[116]

The edict might not actually have been an "edict" in the technical sense; Eusebius does not refer to it as such, and when the Passio Felicis states "exiit edictum imperatorum et Caesarum super omnem faciem terrae", it may simply be as an echo of Luke's Gospel 2:1: "exiit edictum a Caesare Augusto ut profiteretur universus orbis terrae".[117] Elsewhere in the passion, the text is called a programma.[118] The text of the edict itself does not actually survive.[119]

Second, Third, and Fourth Edicts

The First Edict was the sole legally binding edict in the West.[120] In the East, however, progressively harsher legislation was devised. In the summer of 303,[121] following a series of rebellions in Melitene (Malatya, Turkey) and Syria, a Second Edict was published, ordering the arrest and imprisonment of all bishops and priests.[122] The prisons began to fill—they underdeveloped prison system of the time could not handle the deacons, lectors, priests, bishops, and exorcists forced upon them. Eusebius writes that the edict netted so many priests that ordinary criminals were crowded out, and had to be released.[123]

In anticipation of the upcoming twentieth anniversary of his reign on November 20, 303, Diocletian declared a general amnesty in a Third Edict: Any imprisoned clergyman could be freed, so long as they agreed to make a sacrifice to the gods.[124] This was unacceptable to many of the imprisoned, but wardens often managed to obtain at least nominal compliance with the rule. Some of the clergy sacrificed willingly; others did so on pain of torture. Wardens were eager to be rid of the clergy in their midst: Eusebius, in his Martyrs of Palestine, records the case of one man who, after being brought to an altar, had his hands seized and made to complete a sacrificial offering. The clergyman was told that his act of sacrifice had been recognized and was summarily dismissed. Others were told they'd sacrificed even when they'd done nothing.[125]

In 304, the Fourth Edict ordered all persons, men, women, and children, to gather in a public space and offer a collective sacrifice. If they refused, they were to be executed.[126] The precise date of the edict is unknown,[127] but it was probably issued in either January or February 304, and was still being applied in the Balkans in March.[128] This last edict was not enforced at all in the domains of Maximian and Constantius. In the East, it remained applicable until the issue of the Edict of Milan by Constantine and Licinius in 313.[129]

Diocletian and Maximian resigned on May 1, 305. Constantius and Galerius became Augusti, while two new emperors, Severus and Maximinus, took up the office of Caesar.[130] As they left office, Diocletian and Maximian probably imagined Christianity to be in its last throes. Churches had been destroyed, the Church leadership and hierarchy had been snapped, and the army and civil service had been purged. Eusebius declares that apostates from the faith were "countless" (μυρίοι) in number.[131] In the West, however, the loose ends of the Diocletianic settlement were about to bring the whole Tetrarchic tapestry down. Constantine, son of Constantius, and Maxentius, son of Maximian, had been overlooked in the Diocletianic succession, offending the parents and angering the sons.[130] At first, however, the new Tetrarchy seemed to be even more vigorous than the first. Maximinus in particular was eager to persecute.[132] In 306 and 309, he published his own edicts demanding universal sacrifice.[133] Eusebius accuses Galerius of pressing on with the persecution as well.[134]

Britain and Gaul

The sources are inconsistent regarding the extent of the persecution in Constantius' domain, though all portray it as quite limited. Lactantius states that the destruction of churches was the worst thing that came to pass.[160] Eusebius explicitly denies this in both his Historia Ecclesiastica and his Vita Constantini, although he lists Gaul among the areas suffering from the effects of the persecution in his Martyribus Palestinae.[161]

Donatist bishops also declared that "Gaul was immune" (immunis est Gallia) from the persecutions under Constantius.[162] The martyrdom of Saint Alban was once dated to this era, but most now assign it to the reign of Septimius Severus.[163] The second, third and fourth edicts seem not to have been enforced in the West at all.[164] It is possible that Constantius' weak persecutionary spirit was the result of Tetrarchic jealousies: the persecution, after all, had been the project of the Eastern emperors, not the Western ones.[165] After Constantine succeeded his father in 306, he urged the recovery of Church property lost in the persecution, and legislated full freedom for all Christians in his domain.[166]

Diocletianic Persecution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

VERY extensive article on the Diocletian Persecutions of Christians.

[juantoo3]

bump for reference

[juantoo3]

An absolutely fascinating study about Mithraism in Rome and how it influenced and led into Christianity:

LacusCurtius ? Mithraism: an essay by David Fingrut

[nativeastral]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

An absolutely fascinating study about Mithraism in Rome and how it influenced and led into Christianity:

LacusCurtius ? Mithraism: an essay by David Fingrut

very interesting; 'now ruz' is celebrated by the bahai as l remember posts; and St Augustine was a follower of Mani before converting..

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by nativeastral

St Augustine was a follower of Mani before converting..

Ah yes, those little truths that are seldom brought to light...

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Again we have St. Augustine playing Pagan themes into and off of Christian themes. I suspect this is deliberate in an effort to reach a broader audience with a majority appeal. I hadn’t before this research realized the impact St. Augustine seems to have had on the metamorphasis of the Christian church soon after Constantine. Apparently he was pretty instrumental in developing a PR program that sold Christianity to a Pagan audience, by playing to common themes and mutually understood concepts, rituals and superstitions.

At least, that is how this seems to be unfolding to me…

St. Augustine was a man of his times though. Coming along just after the Nicean Council, and modifying his "belief system" as convenient (no doubt with some political urging of one form or other), he does come across to me as a spin meister extraordinaire, and does a great deal to sell the "new and improved" Christianity to the masses of Pagan Romans. Angel or devil, just depends which side of the stands you are sitting in...

[juantoo3]

I've had this idea brewing in the back of my mind for quite a while now, and last night it was trying to gell, but I'm still not sure I can set it into words yet.

Christianity is Jewish, and yet it is Pagan. Jewish and Pagan are pretty distinctly different. If Jewish is "virgin" and Pagan is "pregnant," then Christianity is "sort of pregnant." Which is just not possible, yet here we are, depending how one counts, from 1925 to 1716 years later, and Christianity is still struggling with its identity crisis.

Some of the stuff going through my mind yesterday:

Christianity has this superstitious substructure definitely borrowed from Paganism, most likely Mithraism. Not long back I would have really had to choke on this and hesitated to get it out, but it is really beginning to make too much sense.

Christianity has this dichotomy or duality, (G-d versus Satan, Good versus Evil) that is a hallmark of Mithraism (and I presume the foundational Zoroastrianism from which Mithraism came). Mithraism was endemic and pervasive throughout the Roman military ranks at the time, including Constantine's troops. The difference being that Constantine also had troops that were of Celtic British Christian inclination, and it probably didn't hurt that his Mother Helena was Christian, and his Father Constantius Chlorus was at least sympathetic to the Christian cause and neglected to pursue the governmentally sanctioned persecutions of that era (Diocletion, some of the worst persecutions Christians faced). Throughout the Empire Christians were under threat of persecution, except in Britain under Constantius and later under Constantine.

Here's the rub; Constantine is historically noted as being anti-semetic. This is not a minor issue, even if it is subtle. Christians for intents and purposes are at this time a fringe sect of Judaism. Now, if I understand correctly (and I am open to correction by our Jewish members), this superstitious dichotomy as practiced by Mithraic Christianity is a foreign concept to Judaism. I am going to try to explain.

There is a wide vein that runs through Christianity that has this superstitious attitude about Good over Evil which corresponds directly with Mithraic attitudes. Good isn't done for the sake of good (protests to the contrary notwithstanding), good is done for the checkmarks on the balance sheet; get enough good checkmarks and you go to heaven; too many bad checkmarks and you go to hell. Christians hold to a reverential magic in the checkmarks on the balance sheet.

By contrast, Judaism as I understand, emphasizes good for the sake of good. There isn't any superstitious focus on heaven and hell (some Jews don't even believe in hell, or the devil, and a few don't even believe in heaven). Even if they do believe in heaven, hell or the devil, there isn't the emphasis like there is in Christianity. In Judaism it isn't about checkmarks on a balance sheet, it is about doing good because it is the right thing to do.

Now, in saying all of this it is not my intent to imply that either format is correct or incorrect, certainly there are those within each outlook that fall short or fail and can be held out as poor examples, just as there are those of each outlook that can be held out as good examples of how things are *supposed to* work.

It is still a major intrigue to me about how a peripheral sect of Judaism could shift its way of looking at the metaphysical from one outlook to the other. I think we've well established the political motivation and assistance in achieving that end (most notably the Nicean Council), but there is still that underlying nagging question of the logistics and practical implications to the common lay person of what was discarded and what was superimposed.

It is evident that the Christianity of today is not the Christianity of Yashua circa 30 AD. What we have today isn't even a glimmer of the Christianity of 100 AD. Certainly there are echoes and hints of the earliest teachings, but the Christianty we have today also strongly exudes a definitive kinship with Mithraic dualism. For better or worse.

There's more to be said for Constantine's sympathetic leanings as well, and I believe it was Eusebius and Licantius (I've got the notes around here somewhere) that were the spin meisters for Constantine.

According to chroniclers such as Eusebius of Caesarea and Lactantius, the battle marked the beginning of Constantine's conversion to Christianity. Lactantius recounts that Constantine and his soldiers had a vision that God promised victory if they daubed the sign of the cross on their shields. The Arch of Constantine, erected in celebration of the victory, certainly attributes Constantine's success to divine intervention; however, the monument does not display any overtly Christian symbolism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Milvian_Bridge

Excellent article, very insightful.

More and more I am finding my assertions regarding Constantine's pardon of Christians as a political thank you for services rendered to have some substance, but the twist of his mother being Christian was a recent discovery that helps feed the personal motivations as to why when he obviously had a negative outlook on Judaism generally.

The so-called Edict of Milan (religious toleration) seems to have included Judaism, yet interestingly provides for official antagonism of Manicheanism. Such is the nature of politics, and as we see shortly after, not *all* of Christianity was acceptable to the political powers that be either...and true to Roman tradition, what was acceptable at any given time was subject to change on the whim of fashion or fancy.

In case it hasn't been obvious, the point of transition I am refering to is the period roughly from the battle of Milvian Bridge and Constantine's ambiguous conversion to defeat Maxentius and become Roman Emperor, up to the Council of Nicea, a period of about 12 or 13 years. That seems to be the period during which the major transformation took place and Christianity shifted most from its Jewish roots and became more Pagan and Mithraic in design and outlook.

In reasearching Constantine I am finding that while he did thumb his nose somewhat at Roman convention by dissing certain long established Pagan norms (such as sacrificing at Pagan altars as thanks for various victories, especially after Milvian Bridge), it is also clear that Constantine was not overtly Christian either. His deathbed baptism underscores this point, but throughout Constantine's political career he did conduct himself as a nominal Pagan, and interestingly at the same time as a nominal Christian. It was political posturing, and Constantine was a consummate politician. He was able to posture himself in ways that appealed to either constituency. Quite brilliant, actually.

[wil]

Namaste uno2tree,

Wunnerful contemplation and look forward to the discussion.

The founders of my church, Unity were husband and wife. The wife came to a spiritual conclusion from feelings and faith. She had a healing and a mantra, "I am a child of G!d and therefor do not inherit disease." Her husband acknowledged her healing but could not her faith. He went at it from a logical, more analytical perspective and tested it by committing to prayer and meditation every day, once he also experienced a healing he continued his study.

I have not the capacity to dissect as you have, I feel and understand and internally know more and enjoy reading your analysis.

I like what you are contemplating, I don't know if it is becausre you are onto something or because it validates my tinking and feeling. Either way, thanx.

[Avi]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

By contrast, Judaism as I understand, emphasizes good for the sake of good. There isn't any superstitious focus on heaven and hell (some Jews don't even believe in hell, or the devil, and a few don't even believe in heaven). Even if they do believe in heaven, hell or the devil, there isn't the emphasis like there is in Christianity. In Judaism it isn't about checkmarks on a balance sheet, it is about doing good because it is the right thing to do.

Now, in saying all of this it is not my intent to imply that either format is correct or incorrect, certainly there are those within each outlook that fall short or fail and can be held out as poor examples, just as there are those of each outlook that can be held out as good examples of how things are *supposed to* work.

Juan, I saw your post on the separate thread, and I am glad to try to offer an opinion.

As usual, you have done a wonderful job of framing an interesting question. I will try to answer, but as I have said before, I will answer from a Reform perspective and as my ideas evolve, one with a strongly rationalist pov as well. Orthodox or Conservative Jews might have a different view.

To start with, I think you summarized the Jewish position on heaven and hell quite well. I would like to include a couple of wiki quotes and expand as well:

There is little Jewish literature on heaven or hell as actual places, and there are few references to the afterlife in the Hebrew Bible. One is the ghostly apparition of Samuel, called up by the Witch of Endor at King Saul's command.

This is a wonderful part of Samuel with vivid images of the witch and Samuel's ghost.

Another is a mention by the Prophet Daniel of those who sleep in the earth rising to either everlasting life or everlasting abhorrence.[12]

I had forgotten this section from Daniel but I think I will go back and re-read it. It appears to be the first description of resurrection.

Maimonides also included the concept of resurrection in his Thirteen Principles of Faith.

It seems like this concept may come from the Daniel quote above ?

In Judaism, Heaven is sometimes described as a place where God debates Talmudic law with the angels, and where Jews spend eternity studying the Written and Oral Torah. Jews do not believe in "Hell" as a place of eternal tormenmt. Gehenna is a place or condition of purgatory where Jews spend up to twelve months purifying to get into heaven,[citation needed] depending on how sinful they have been, although some suggest that certain types of sinners can never be purified enough to go to heaven and rather than facing eternal torment, simply cease to exist. Therefore, some violations like suicide would be punished by separation from the community, such as not being buried in a Jewish cemetery (in practice, rabbis often rule suicides to be mentally incompetent and thus not responsible for their actions). Judaism also does not have a notion of hell as a place ruled by Satan since God's dominion is total and Satan is only one of God's angels.

I am just quoting from memory here, but I think Gehenna is also a place in Jerusalem outside of the Temple area. It is derived from the Valley of Hinnom.

The issue that you bring up about the devil is interesting as well. My conception of the devil comes from the reading of the Book of Job. In this book the devil causes some serious problems for Job, but it all works out in the end. My understanding is that the traditional view of Satan was the he was the inquisitor, like the prosecuting attorney, , and not the red dressed fellow with the nasty pitch fork.

As a Reform Jew, my ideas continue to evolve from the traditional Jewish concept of these issues. I have been reading R. Zalman's book, "Integral Halacha" (which is discussed in depth on a thread by that name in the Judaism subforum) and I am struck by the notions of "deconstruction" and "reconstruction" which have played such a major role in the modern Jewish movements of Renewal and Reconstructionism. What this means is that we have to try to deconstruct the present idea back to its fundamental froms to reach a deeper understanding. This might be done by breaking the complex ideas down to mulitple, simpler ones. Then we have to reconstruct it by synthesizing a new form which is relavent to today's Judaism.

So I have to ask myself (and you folks as well) what do deconstruction and reconstruction mean in the context of heaven, hell and Satan?

At first thought, it seems to me that these were early notions of keeping order and good and evil in society. If you are bad, evil, you will go to hell. Satan is sort of the the trouble maker of hell (a rather nasty fellow, who can make life miserable). If you are good you go to heaven. How does this translate to present day ? That is the interesting question, isn't it ?

It seems to me that heaven and hell can provide us visual images to help guide us in our daily decisions. But in order to do this we need to be well read in ethics, morality, and justice. Are there other possibilities of deconstruction and reconstruction that I am missing ???

[bananabrain]

juan has asked me to poke my nose into this debate - with pleasure!

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

when Jesus divides the two fish among the five thousand (unit square) the two fishes become two circles equal in diameter to a circle which fits exactly in the square. The circumference of the two circles crossing the center point of the center circle creates two vessica pisces, or fishes, within the 5,000 square. Each vessica pisces has a horizontal axis of 61.2 units. Together they measure 122.4 units. 1224 is the gematrical value of the Greek word FISHES, kinda thing. Of course we should bear in mind what Bananabrain has said numerous times about the limited value of gematria. Still, it seems to me that there is a credible and demonstrable influence coming from what I'm calling the "mystery school" source.

well, anything i have to say about gematria is about hebrew gematria - i don't know about the rules around greek or arabic gematria. my comment on the loaves and the fishes episode tends to be a quote i once heard in a lecture the eminent student of comparative monotheism, karen armstrong:

five thousand jews go on a tiyul (countryside walk) to hear a Torah shiur - and *nobody* brought a picnic?

Similarly, there was no cultural chasm between Judaism's dialog about ethics and that of the Stoics, Cynics, and Epicureans of the day.

i don't believe that is true. judaism does not treat ethics as a separate category. moreover, the common ground between judaism and stoicism can be easily gleaned from a reading of the "meditations" of marcus aurelius and the talmudic tales of the friendship of rabbi yehuda ha-nassi, the redactor of the mishnah and the "emperor antoninus" (usually assumed to have been marcus aurelius, see here: The Antoninus Agadot in Medrash and Talmud - Wikisource). on the other hand, the most usual epithet for a "heretic" in the talmud is "apikoros", the greek work for "epicurean". i don't know much about the cynics, but it isn't as straightforward as this suggestion would seem to make it.

Originally Posted by Ahanu

During the time, we know the famous belief was that a militant messiah, like Joshua, is going to victoriously defeat the roman empire and deliver the people like Moses did in the past.

depends which messiah you're talking about and whose sources you use.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

with Jesus one didn't need to go through a bunch of blood letting ritual and appeasement of religious officials to reach out to G-d. I sense that one didn't need to all along, but by his time everyone had gotten so caught up in the ritual and routine they had lost sight of the reasons why. They just did it because it was expected, "it's how we've always done it." It had become superstitious routine rote...kill three turtle doves, two goats and a heifer, drop a couple of gold sheckles in the pot and do obesience on your knees and you are absolved of whatever ritual uncleanness for the moment (until next time...).

and if you know the jewish sources, the same thing was bothering the rabbis about the Temple cult.

Jesus opened a door into a whole new way of looking at the matter.

well, perhaps. the fact is that other rabbis came up with very similar stuff about the same sort of time.

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

We need a broader picture of the socio political soup that this type of movement is spawning from. Did these earliest movementarians have particular customs? Were they really anal about observing the ceremonial law? Did they have secret handshakes. In what circles of Jewish society did they ambulate? How were they thought of within the social structure of the synagogues? Were they wanted by the law? We need to know these things to understand who Jesus is when he steps out to be baptized. He will never again be more Jewish than at that moment. The problem is, of course, that everything that might help us answer those questions has been bloody excised from the text. It's been sanitized away in the process of snipping off all the loose and unruly ends.

it's also been sanitised away so as to create an [arguably false] dichotomy between "jesus-ism" and the judaism of the "scribes, pharisees and doctors of the law" - but if you know something about the jewish context you'd find jesus as far more of a jewish figure than you'd probably expect. you need to look at what the contemporary jewish texts say about heretics and sectarians, also about the jewish groups the rabbis disliked, such as "'amei ha-aretz" (vulgarians, hoi-polloi) the sadducees, the romans and the greeks. the real change comes with the pauline break with the mosaic Law and that is when the "de-judaisation" of jesus probably starts.

Josephus' Account of Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum

largely agreed nowadays to be an insertion by an overzealous christian, i believe. that's insofar as you can ever really take josephus' word on anything, particularly when it involves the romans.

the Essenes appear to have been ascetic Jews, yet still Jews. They did seem to hold some rather strong (even by "typical" Jewish standards) separatist views, and seemed to be preoccupied with strict piety.

for which they were roundly criticised by the rabbis - yet considered perfectly jewish.

Jesus was a Jew. He was born to observant Jewish parents, in a Jewish household, raised in the Jewish Temple religion through the Jewish Bible (Old Testament *only*), in turn he taught his followers from the Jewish Bible (Old Testament *only*).

not *only*. he would have been taught the Oral Law and aggadic material and he is clearly familiar with techniques such as "derash" (homiletical exposition) and "mashal" (parable).

For some reason he was Tortured and executed in a Roman manner, ostensibly for some gross insult to the Jewish Temple priests.

well, it didn't take an awful lot to get crucified back then - you just had to have a lot of followers and be on the news a lot saying controversial things. a lot of people got crucified or executed by other means for precisely this reason - potentially being an inconvenience to the roman occupation.

It's like there are two distinct individuals; Yeshua the renegade rabbi (meant as a compliment), and Jesus the mythological analogue to G-d.

that's certainly how it seems to me. clearly the guy had some questionable teaching methods (violating the sabbath for of dubious reasons if you ask me) but equally clearly he had a genius for getting to the moral heart of a situation.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

For example, the prophecy that the Messianic child would be of both the lines of King and Priest (I forget where, but I do remember reading it long ago, I need to look it up).

i don't remember that myself - the king does have some Temple duties to fulfil, but he doesn't have to be a priest for that, i don't think.

However, to cover the Kingship line requires his father's pedigree...but wait a minute, he doesn't have an earthly father, he was Divinely conceived. So there is no connection to the Davidic line unless he is conceived in a "normal" fashion, and if he is Divinely conceived he doesn't fulfill the prophecy. What's more, if he has no earthly father, then what on earth is Joseph's genealogy doing in the Gospel?

that was always my question. i also heard that mary was of a prominent benjaminite family, rather than a levite, thus, in royal terms, re-integrating the royal claim of benjamin from saul, which was i believe still a point of complaint at the time.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Tacitus, the Roman historian ... there's an interesting commentary on how he saw the degeneration of Roman culture in the 1st century AD.

tacitus, i believe, thought the jewish sabbath a most degenerate institution. i think nowadays he would have been working on wall st and saying things like "lunch is for wimps".

if Jesus was 'strictly' Jewish, He would not have become alienated from the community, nor arrested, tried and killed.

i don't think it's quite as straightforward as that. your statement assumes that there was *one* community. in fact, there were even two sanhedrins; one, the halakhic sanhedrin, is that referred to as the "court of 71" in the talmud, whereas it seems pretty clear that the one from the gospels is the "political" sanhedrin, which considered itself a religious court, but was politically compromised, filled with collaborators with the romans and did not follow correct halakhic procedure.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I have heard many arguments in both directions as to how familiar and conversant the typical Jew of the day was with the Greek language, some suggesting Paul's familiarity with that language was a fluke and not the norm.

i would say that would depend on whereabouts you were talking. if you think about alexandria, more jews spoke greek than anything else, aramaic generally was not so much of a lingua franca, whereas in judaea and to the north you'd get more aramaic i'd have thought. then you have to think in terms of where the jewish communities were, many of them would have spoken latin or phoenician or arabic or syriac or whatever.

Outside of Judaism a Jewish sacred text would be a curiosity at best, certainly not a best-seller.

i disagree - that was the purpose of josephus' "jewish antiquities" - it was a history of judaism for a roman audience. philo's works were similar, communicating jewish insights for a greek-dominated society.

Originally Posted by Thomas

every source regarded Jesus as teaching something 'new' ... a new covenant that surpassed the Law

i don't know about that. they might have regarded him as such, but about 60-70% of it as far as i can see was very much part and parcel of the rabbinic programme of renewal.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[juantoo3]

Many thanks to everybody!

That is a lot to digest, but it does help shed some light!

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

tacitus, i believe, thought the jewish sabbath a most degenerate institution.

I posted excerpts from Tacitus's perceptions of Judaism in a far older thread here, along with a few other points of information that stood out when I originally read it:
Tacitus - The Histories

Tacitus also seemed to think it was perfectly normal for Divine Intervention in Roman affairs - good decisions were always accompanied by divine omens, and that great men could heal the sick:

In the months during which Vespasian was waiting at Alexandria for the periodical return of the summer gales and settled weather at sea, many wonders occurred which seemed to point him out as the object of the favour of heaven and of the partiality of the Gods.

One of the common people of Alexandria, well known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor's knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity.

This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity.

He begged Vespasian that he would deign to moisten his cheeks and eye-balls with his spittle.

Another with a diseased hand, at the counsel of the same God, prayed that the limb might feet the print of a Caesar's foot.

At first Vespasian ridiculed and repulsed them.

They persisted; and he, though on the one hand he feared the scandal of a fruitless attempt, yet, on the other, was induced by the entreaties of the men and by the language of his flatterers to hope for success.

At last he ordered that the opinion of physicians should be taken, as to whether such blindness and infirmity were within the reach of human skill.

They discussed the matter from different points of view. "In the one case," they said, "the faculty of sight was not wholly destroyed, and might return, if the obstacies were removed; in the other case, the limb, which had fallen into a diseased condition, might be restored, if a healing influence were applied; such, perhaps, might be the pleasure of the Gods, and the Emperor might be chosen to be the minister of the divine will; at any rate, all the glory of a successful remedy would be Caesar's, while the ridicule of failure would fall on the sufferers."

And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required.

The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood.

The real point being, this was all an acceptable part of the system of Roman belief.

It's interesting to compare this account (and similar ancient literature) to the Gospels, because it underlines the point that - in retrospect - great people commonly had miracles attributed to them. Conversely, for someone to be regarded as great, they had to have miracles attributed to them. It's a system of belief we can follow in some form or another from the Iliad of the ancient Greeks, until well into the Mediaeval at least.

[juantoo3]

Thank you very much Avi.

Originally Posted by Avi1223

I will answer from a Reform perspective and as my ideas evolve, one with a strongly rationalist pov as well. Orthodox or Conservative Jews might have a different view.

I appreciate that. I have long enjoyed the "ask 5 rabbis and get 6 answers" train of thought. I think Christians actually do this too, but are afraid to admit to it. I think it is crucial to understanding to be able to step outside of the comfort zone in order to look back and get an overall view, and that overall view is essential to comprehending historical truth.

When we get too close to our cherished mythos and become comfortable in that closeness, we have a tendency to forego historic truth in exchange for philosophical and mythological truth. Not necessarily a bad thing, but decidedly different truths.

Originally Posted by Avi1223

It appears to be the first description of resurrection.

OK, this raises a question I believe is relevent. If Jews believe in resurrection, but not in heaven or afterlife, where do those who resurrect go?

Originally Posted by Avi1223

but I think Gehenna is also a place in Jerusalem outside of the Temple area. It is derived from the Valley of Hinnom.

That sounds about right. Let's see: Hebrew Sheol - the grave. Greek Hades - the grave, Gehenna - the trash pit, and Tartaros - the prison for the fallen angels (only used once). I could expand, but the subject has been covered repeatedly before, so I will spare the readers.

Originally Posted by Avi1223

The issue that you bring up about the devil is interesting as well. My conception of the devil comes from the reading of the Book of Job. In this book the devil causes some serious problems for Job, but it all works out in the end. My understanding is that the traditional view of Satan was the he was the inquisitor, like the prosecuting attorney, , and not the red dressed fellow with the nasty pitch fork.

BB and Dauer both have brought this "prosecuting attorney" idea forward (nothing Freudian about Jews and Attorneys now, is there?), so I think I have a basic handle on the idea. Interesting, the "red dressed fellow with the nasty pitch fork" was a foreign concept to Christianity until Dante writing around 1300 AD. It was a political satire intended as a sublime joke, but at a time when few could read and trusted the pulpit to steer them straight, I can't help but think some took advantage of the situation, deemed Dante's satire "inspired," and used it from then on to bully parishoners into submission.

Dante Alighieri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Avi1223

I am struck by the notions of "deconstruction" and "reconstruction" which have played such a major role in the modern Jewish movements of Renewal and Reconstructionism. What this means is that we have to try to deconstruct the present idea back to its fundamental froms to reach a deeper understanding. This might be done by breaking the complex ideas down to mulitple, simpler ones. Then we have to reconstruct it by synthesizing a new form which is relavent to today's Judaism.

I missed the thread, and as I have little formal experience with Judaism, I wouldn't have anything of value to offer. Perhaps I could learn though. It sounds like you and I are on similar paths conceptually, although I am looking at deconstructing Christianity. While I haven't given your path much consideration, I am tempted to believe that my path should be the more difficult because of the deliberate convolution that has taken place over time. Judaism seems to me to have retained its cultural sense of identity in exile, persecution seems to have served to strengthen Judaism. I cannot make the same statement about Christianity without some serious caveats. Even during the Roman persecutions I think Christianity likely morphed into some clever permutations in an effort to blend in while simultaneously trying to "separate from the world."

I realize the Roman persecutions were fickle, and it is common knowledge of throwing Christians to the lions, for example...was this done to the Jews as well? Don't get me wrong, I understand the Romans booted the Jews from their homeland circa Bar Kochba, the razing of the Temple what?, 60 or so years earlier. So I am not trying to make this a comparison, but I am wondering what role the Roman government had in distinguishing the Christians from the Jews early on? As far as I know, Nero persecuted the Christians for the burning of Rome, not the Jews. Please correct me if I have missed something.

Originally Posted by Avi1223

So I have to ask myself (and you folks as well) what do deconstruction and reconstruction mean in the context of heaven, hell and Satan?

Good question.

I think like so much in our preferred mythologies that heaven, hell and Satan have become stylized and idealized. They are representative, images or idols if you will, that we have symbolically given weight to. That weight is ostensibly ethical and moral, but I think after how many thousand years (almost two for Christians, certainly more for Jews) that weight has also taken on some additional considerations...what was meant as allegory and metaphor has become a distinct literal promise of mansions within mansions. Certainly Satan may well be a prosecuting attorney, just another angel with a dirty job no one else really wants (but hey! somebody's got to do it!). Hell may well be no more than a hole in the dirt.

I don't know. There seems to be a balance required. Even in my search for the historic truth, my own personal crusade to find the real man Jesus (Yashua), I understand that I cannot view everything literally. Unless the soul ends definitively at death, the soul must go somewhere. Reincarnation, or rebirth? I am not opposed to the idea conceptually, but I also haven't seen anything to back it up either. Besides, at what point does the metaphysical well run dry? 6 billion individual souls alive now and counting...even if every one of them has been here several times before, at some point the metaphysical well of souls has got to run dry...

Heaven, as I imagine it, isn't so much a place as being "back home" with the Heavenly Father. Yeah, I know I'm stuck on that old patristic paternal nomenclature, it is what I grew up with and am comfortable with. Yes, I refer to G-d as "He" out of respect and tradition, but in my heart He isn't male or female, He is both and yet neither. How's that for a non-traditional Christian deconstruction?

Hell, I don't know. Maybe there is just enough previous indoctrination that I am scared to let go of. Maybe I still find value in guilt and shame as deterrents. I don't know what hell is, but I'm not anxious to go there.

As for Satan, again I don't know. I have seen a few things in my life to make me think there are evil entities in the metaphysical world. I don't think they hide behind every bush or try to trick us at every turn, but I also do not think they should be taken lightly. But this is based on my personal experiences and my feeble attempt to translate through my referential religious symbols. I suppose if I had a different set of referential religious symbols, I might try to frame what I am trying to say in a somewhat different manner. Is Satan evil? Maybe the Jewish outlook is correct, maybe he is an angel following albeit unpleasant orders. Maybe the Mithraic / Christian duality is more correct, and Satan is the leader of a gang of rebel angels that attempted to overthrow G-d and were cast out for their insolence. Maybe another consideration is the factual truth, ethical truth, and philosophical truth.

Originally Posted by Avi1223

But in order to do this we need to be well read in ethics, morality, and justice. Are there other possibilities of deconstruction and reconstruction that I am missing ???

I think you hit the high note here: "we need to be well read in ethics, morality, and justice." I would add we need to put these things into practice. The rest will resolve itself as the universe deems appropriate.

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

When we get too close to our cherished mythos and become comfortable in that closeness, we have a tendency to forego historic truth in exchange for philosophical and mythological truth. Not necessarily a bad thing, but decidedly different truths.

agreed, but we mustn't get sucked into thinking that historical truth is the same as, for example, scientific truth. often, historical hypotheses are presented as if they are factual, when in fact they are simply the results of conjecture based on circumstantial evidence. all you can really say in the case of much of it is that it represents the "best guess" or "the hypothesis that best fits the data we have available" - and, philosophically, that is far from being "truth".

OK, this raises a question I believe is relevent. If Jews believe in resurrection, but not in heaven or afterlife, where do those who resurrect go?

resurrection or reincarnation? reincarnation is as you would expect, albeit there are multiple opinions as to the precise details. resurrection again depends on whether you are talking about the "iminent return of of the messiah" or "the messianic age". the opinions vary from "no more death" to "one more life and then off to heaven", but basically it is down to how you interpret the term "the world to come".

Judaism seems to me to have retained its cultural sense of identity in exile, persecution seems to have served to strengthen Judaism.

the issue here is basically that christianity is a universalist evangelising religion, whereas judaism has dropped the evangelising, settling for particularism, so has found it easier to stay close to its core values; it's not had to embrace a hugely different influx of influences like christianity has, at least not often and not continuously.

I realize the Roman persecutions were fickle, and it is common knowledge of throwing Christians to the lions, for example...was this done to the Jews as well?

i think the issue was more that christians were seen to be a subversive sect whereas jews, like greeks, were a distinct national/religious component around the territories of the roman empire. i seem to remember that at one point around 20% of the population (outside italy proper) identified as jewish. before the "jewish war" and, later, the bar kokhba revolt, it was more a matter of keeping an eye on political sedition and potential trouble. as the christians were perceived as "stirring the jews up with their end-of-the-world nonsense", they were both a useful scapegoat and a useful stick to beat the jews with, i dare say.

6 billion individual souls alive now and counting...even if every one of them has been here several times before, at some point the metaphysical well of souls has got to run dry...

you're assuming that a soul stays in one piece. we would say that the different sections recombine rather like hereditary features.

I think you hit the high note here: "we need to be well read in ethics, morality, and justice." I would add we need to put these things into practice. The rest will resolve itself as the universe deems appropriate.

in short, as micah says, what does G!D Ask of us? only to act justly, be honest and walk humbly with the Divine.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Dream]

Hello, folks. This is a difficult as well as enjoyable thread.


There is an indicator that there some change in the RC's unifying mechanism, and this could also represent a Rome that is still in transition. The Church has historically shown a great deal of flexibility in successfully coexisting with & unifying Pagan religious groups and countries but not so much anymore. It appears to me that lately it has shown some disinterest in modern post-Protestant congregations. Could it be that the little train that could is getting a little pooped?

If not, I wonder what compromises would the church make towards unification? In the past, various images were added to buildings, paintings, clothes etc. as a compromise to cause Pagans to see themselves as full church members: Halos, for instance. Are we going to see a sort of 'Protestantization' of the church's image to reunite the fold? I guess what I'm wondering is how far will the Church go towards this end? A longtime criticism of Rome among post-Protestants has been objection to priestly garb and titles such as 'Pope' or 'Priest'. These, to me, seem like they are just symbolic trinkets in the real mission of the church. Perhaps getting rid of them will be on the bargaining table someday. Of course I've no idea whether the church will ever be able or willing to unify.