Rome in transition

[Dream]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I agree Thomas has left some important things to consider. Every scholar and every person who looks at any matter to consider must distinguish how they will go about that consideration. Sincerity has a value, belief in what is being said has a value, and sacredness has a value. But are these values alone sufficient in delineating what is truth?

We end up back at the age old philosophical argument: "what is truth?" If truth to a person is limited to what is sacred alone; then nothing profane, nothing secular and nothing external to that sacredness will serve to validate nor refute.

The 'What is truth' phrase I had thought came from Pilate's speech in John. It never appears in the synoptic gospels, by-the-way. By 'sacred' I am talking about Greater Truths, such as Godel's theorem. It could be something secular, too. A greater truth is timeless and sometimes even independent of context, like 2+2=4. Christianity has likely always held these truths on a truth scale, and a lesser truth is 'Less important' than a greater truth. An evidential verse to support this point of view: I Cor 13:8-9 Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will
cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. (I'll bet verses like this one figure prominently in the Koran.)

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I have known people to whom the absolute indisputable truth is that Adam was created 6 thousand years ago, and nothing will serve to sway them from that truth. Such people are nothing if they are not sincere, they obviously believe what they have to say, and such reasoning to them is sacred. I will go so far as to say that to them such reasoning is a kind of truth. But it is not *the truth* in the sense I am attempting to pursue here. I suppose it could be argued it is not "my" truth. But then, I have always seen truth and reality as synonymous. It was actually quite a shock to me to learn that philosophically "truth" can hold a wide variety of meanings, little of which actually has anything to do with reality.

I have been and sometimes still am one of those people. They cannot accept that sometimes art (or a lie) is required to teach truths, mainly tragic ones. This is an important life lesson, a greater truth. A child learns morals in an egg of false security -- then they hatch when they are fully formed and not one second before. A child, however sweet, must learn to compete. When people refuse to accept this, they are like chickens that dip their own eggs in wax thinking to preserve them. The result is oxygen-starved chicks. I do not say parent's shouldn't value truth but that they must love it all the more.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Which is my long winded way of saying, because Thomas views something as sacred, is that enough to validate that view as truth? I think the answer lies in how much weight one chooses to grant the sacred, and how much reality one is willing to forgo to maintain that sacredness...

Exactly. I think he is stubbornly saying that unless you are a believer, they cannot teach you their truth in a way that would make it accessible to you. It is in their liturgy, mysticism etc. and told in that language. "Livergoods esoterism" or one of those.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

To Thomas' credit, he has gone where I have not seen any other Catholic dare to go before. The typical Catholic of my experience is either blissfully ignorant of church history, or they feel a compulsion to tactfully dance around and dismiss the subject. So I have taken Thomas' comment here with a grain of salt, and considered it in the light of his comments alone, and which to his credit he has attempted to be as forthright as he knows to be, "warts and all." I am simply not prepared to make that a blanket presumption across the typical Catholic teaching because it just isn't there in my experience. As for an "authentic rising of a culture," that to me seems an historic given. Many cultures can be shown to have arisen, and many cultures can be shown to have fallen. That is the nature of historic anthropology.

I don't think I disagree. I think unauthentic may not be an appropriate thing to call a culture. I guess one comparison could be Ethiopia vs Liberia, where one is ancient and one is young and started on purpose. Both value their origins.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Yes, but is sacred and truth the same thing? There is a crucial distinction to be made here, and I really don't think most people get it at first glance.

For instance, is the Bible literal? Wholly and totally literal? Or is there metaphor and allegory, parable and association? Was the world created in seven literal days, or is this a poetic metaphor to describe certain aspects of the creation as it relates to metaphysics and morality? Is it live, or is it Memorex? For our purposes, is it truth, or is it real? As Thomas said, it can't be both ways.

I refer to that precedence of nature called 'Childhood'. Some things are best learned as a child. Mark 10:15 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." Do you disagree with this? In other words, do you regret having been born a child instead of being born fully-grown & handsome? It doesn't matter whether you regret it, and you know your kids are going to get the same raw deal. That's just the way it is!

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Fair enough, I suppose in some sense there are those who may see me in a manner like the dumb-ass kings. Let me clarify, it is not my interest to denegrate or dismantle or otherwise deface Christianity.

I surely don't think you're a dumb-ass king! Also, it would not really be possible for you (or me) to denigrate or truly dismantle Christianity. Your voice is very, very tiny in a big, big world. It doesn't really matter what you or I do except on a very, very small scale.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

That is the reason this thread has been built on the history board and not the Christianity board. Christianity is my chosen path. I have the mental freedom to walk away at any time, but have no desire to do so. I find a sacred value in Christianity, but that sacred value to my way of reasoning is outside the remit of pursuit of historical reality, what I view as truth. The sacred to me is a faithful hope that what I am holding on to has a value that transcends writing on some pages in a book. But there is a distinction to be made between a faithful hope and an educated guess based on historical evidences. The one is a very personal and intimate pursuit, the other is a very public and broad scoped verifiable (or at least substantiated) look at a point in the historic past...in this case the formative years and particularly the transitional years of the Christian institution.

I hope you find both the sacred and the unsacred truths, and me too. I have a feeling that they are much better even than those things that we would like. I don't know. Maybe we just need to get out more.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Well, see, here's the thing: Constantine was nothing if he was not a consummate politician. He lived his life as a nominal Pagan while simultaneously living his life as a nominal Christian. He gave just enough lip service to both to be appreciated by both constituencies. When he finally got around to getting baptised as a Christian, on his deathbed, it was as an Arian Christian. The part Thomas managed to leave out is that Arius was pardoned by the ecclesiastical authority just prior, only he died before he made it to receive the official pardon. Arianism was OK'd to "co-exist" within the Empire for some time after Constantine died, and it was under one of the later "Christian" Roman Emperors that Arianism was dealt the death blow.

Very interesting. Does this not work for a historically 'Catholic' church? I am asking you based upon your research. According to you the Nicenes were willing to co-exist with the Arians. That sounds Catholic. Is it that the Arians couldn't stand the Nicenes perhaps, or is it that the Nicenes couldn't stand the Arians?

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Maybe as a Protestant I am comfortable with the idea of schism, I don't know, but I think Constantine was only too happy to play the ends against the middle. I know Thomas belittles the political implications, and it is a fair and reasonable argument that perhaps I give the political implications too much weight. But I also think the political implications are more of a player in the historic reality than the institution is comfortable acknowledging. There is an historic correlation between the Emperorship and the Papacy that is the reality, as opposed to the "sacred" truth of the Papacy being descended from Peter, and that conflict between the sacred and the secular is a great source of strife...and I suspect a huge part of the reason that typically Catholic teaching avoids this period of history like the plague.

Well, you know my theory about Jesus. Anyway, Constantine may have set some rules but assuming that people were already 'Catholic' -- as in counting love as being more important than knowledge -- then Constantine really could not have changed much in the short term as the church culture would have been very springy. Like a big waterbed. Constantine's dark influence would not have been the 'Doctrine' itself but the fact that he tried to end the ability to disagree with it. Seems consistent with the 100 yr coexistence between the Arians & Nicenes, too.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

In my own way I am doing the same. I am attempting to honor the eternal by showing its reality. That which preserves it, to my way of thinking, has done much to conceal it, and that troubles me. But that is my burden, it is not my intent to place that burden on any others.

Let not your heart be troubled! One of the pitfalls of working with such amazing materials has always been the temptation to think you are Napoleon or some kind of wizard. The sheer magnitude of everything literally is mentally jarring, however nothing we are discussing right now is new or previously unknown. It is not a conspiracy but an open story. It isn't anything that hasn't been published before or that wont be published again. "Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a desire fulfilled is a tree of life."(Proverbs 13:12)

Baby steps!

[Avi]

Quote Juan:

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*).

Quote BB:

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).

BB, you jumped through this topic pretty quickly, but it is actually one of the real kickers. It seems that Jesus rejected the Oral Torah, and that, to my understanding was one of the main reasons for the events which followed.

There was another interesting story that I read, I cannot piece together the details right now, about the events that led up to the destruction of the Second Temple. Apparently, one of the Roman leaders was insulted at a dinner and initated the destruction out of a sort of revenge. Maybe you know the story better than I ?

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Well, OK, but then that is about as situational as it gets, no? I know what I *want* to be true -the promise of Isaiah- but I also know that is my want, and I can separate my want from my desire to try to see what is...at least to the extent that what is can actually be seen. It remains that what can be seen may not be quite enough to ascertain what actually *is,* but that is a chance I am willing to take.

you really need to read this book: James Kugel - How to Read the Bible - i had the privilege of sharing a duvet with prof kugel last winter and am just finishing the book. it is exactly what you need to address the point you're at.

it would still imply that the metaphysical well of "potentially recombined" souls would eventually run dry.

not if the law of conservation of energy holds true for spiritual energy like the soul.

how could we know those who we love(d) on the other side when we get there if their "soul stuff" was scrambled? How would mom or dad or our beloved spouse or best friend come to greet us as we made our way into the next plane of existance?

i suppose if a soul is constituted in such a way as to allow the different "roots" to be part of different people's souls during different transmigrations, in the "world to come" one might speculate that the immediacy of a five-dimensional space would allow you similarly to interact with all transmigrations at once, or indeed if you yourself were functioning in five-dimensional space, you would also be subject to this and have interactions in five-dimensions, so not only would you be talking to rabbi aqiba, but he would be talking to the soul-roots he recognised from his own time, simultaneously. it's a bit of a headfeck, it has to be said.

as Solomon tells us, "the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all."

indeed - we are subject to the vagaries of the fourth dimension, but we can affect the others.

I think an expansion on this here would be a welcome addition, if you care to and have the time.

have a look at the procedure for yom kippur in mishnah tractate "yoma", which is all about what happened in the Temple that day. you will find from any commentary from the gemara to the magen avraham (which is in the standard artscroll books) that by the time the mishnah itself was written, it was the opinion of the sages that even the high priest himself could not be relied upon to know the correct hebrew or the procedures, so they had to go through and document the process. if you don't have a copy of the mishnah, i recommend the neusner translation.

Again, I think this would be a welcome addition. Unfortunately from my perspective I am largely limited to the typical western "encyclopedia" view, which usually fails to note the Jewish perspective.

try geza vermes' work like "jesus the jew" or "jesus in his jewish context".

seemingly innocuous statements like "Son of G-d" can have attached political inference that can elicit unrelated presumptions (at best) or evoke strong emotive reactions (at worst).

"ben adam" (son of man) has been treated the same way, at the time it just meant something like "muggins here".

Ooooooh, OK. I had heard something in this regard concerning the trial of Jesus and how there were inconsistencies and inappropriateness in how it was conducted (in the middle of the night, etc.)

well, put it this way, the procedure described is certainly not correct for the full court of seventy-one which was the only one that had the power to try capital offences.

Originally Posted by Avi1223

For instance, is the Bible literal? Wholly and totally literal? Or is there metaphor and allegory, parable and association? Was the world created in seven literal days, or is this a poetic metaphor to describe certain aspects of the creation as it relates to metaphysics and morality? Is it live, or is it Memorex? For our purposes, is it truth, or is it real? As Thomas said, it can't be both ways.

i think you *really* need to read james kugel. i certainly would disagree strongly with thomas on this point, i think.

BB, you jumped through this topic pretty quickly, but it is actually one of the real kickers. It seems that Jesus rejected the Oral Torah, and that, to my understanding was one of the main reasons for the events which followed.

no, i don't think so. remember, that at this point, the Oral Law had not been *canonised*, it didn't start getting written down until the mid-C2nd, by which time the correct opinions had been established for most of the decisions made in the early tannaitic era, which is when jesus was around the place. put it this way, he might have rejected some decisions of the oral law, but he would have been unlikely to have rejected it wholesale, let alone the principle of having one at all. much of his reported speech can be taken as methodologically part of the oral process - it's just that some of his major positions differed from the position of the majority of the sages, whereas where he didn't differ from them, it was not a point of issue and therefore it could probably be safely assumed that he, for example, kept most of the 39 avot melakhot (categories of sabbath work) whereas he obviously disagreed with a couple of them, like perhaps the ones involved in healing and picking corn. on the other hand if you read the parable of the "good samaritan" in light of the halakhic principle of the "met mitzvah" (someone who has no close relatives to look after his dead body) it can easily be argued that he is lambasting his interlocutors for their ignorance of this part of the law compared to a despised, ignorant samaritan who gets it better than they do.

There was another interesting story that I read, I cannot piece together the details right now, about the events that led up to the destruction of the Second Temple. Apparently, one of the Roman leaders was insulted at a dinner and initated the destruction out of a sort of revenge. Maybe you know the story better than I?

the only two stories i can remember are the one about sinat hinam (causeless hatred) about getting kamtza and bar kamtza mixed up - and the "what have the romans ever done for us" argument which led to r. shimon bar yohai hiding in the cave. that ought to be able to help you to find it...

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Avi]

BB, this was not my quote, oh well, I guess as long as it was not profane it doesn't matter .

Originally Posted by Avi1223
For instance, is the Bible literal? Wholly and totally literal? Or is there metaphor and allegory, parable and association? Was the world created in seven literal days, or is this a poetic metaphor to describe certain aspects of the creation as it relates to metaphysics and morality? Is it live, or is it Memorex? For our purposes, is it truth, or is it real? As Thomas said, it can't be both ways.

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Avi1223

BB, this was not my quote, oh well, I guess as long as it was not profane it doesn't matter .

Ouch! Hate it when that happens! he he. By-th-way its not related to the thread but I wonder if you'd tell me what Avi 1223 means? You don't have to tell me but its driving me crazy. It is like a license plate, and those are so cruel. Like when you drive through traffic and see the same license plates everyday but can't figure them out?

[Avi]

Sure, when I registered my name I wanted Avi, which is short for Avraham. The 1223 doesn't mean anything. It is not a secret code or anything like that . Maybe at some point I will change it, but it hasn't seemed too urgent . I have this vague memory that when I originally signed in as Avi the website software prompted me for additional characterers (so I guess it knew I had more character ). !! Is there a minimum number of characters for a name ?

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Avi1223

Sure, when I registered my name I wanted Avi, which is short for Avraham. The 1223 doesn't mean anything. It is not a secret code or anything like that .

no...secret code? How did you know I wanted a secret code? I've never heard the short name for Abraham, so thats sort of like a code. Avi is a cool codename.

Originally Posted by Avi1223

Maybe at some point I will change it, but it hasn't seemed too urgent .

How about 'Avi' followed by a secret code? That would be even better. How about the coordinates to a restaurant?

Originally Posted by Avi1223

I have this vague memory that when I originally signed in as Avi the website software prompted me for additional characterers (so I guess it knew I had more character ).

Personally I believe that the software could have guessed Abraham from Avi if Google provided a script for it. Their advert targeting is starting to show real intelligence. Some not so good, but some good guesses.

[Avi]

By the way Dream, your name and Avatar are cool too. I just noticed that you have a secret code inside the bubble in your gum bubble, but I cannot read it. If it is subliminal maybe my mind knows what it says, and I just don't know it yet.

Now come to think of it I do have a craving for some bubble gum .

[juantoo3]

Wow! Some awesome answers! Thanks for the pointer to the book, BB, I'll have to chase that one down.

I'll probably be a couple of days before I can reply properly, please be patient with me.

[Avi]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

the one about sinat hinam (causeless hatred) about getting kamtza and bar kamtza mixed up

Yes, that is the one, what an amazing story. I had forgotten that it is Talmudic. Thanks.

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Avi

By the way Dream, your name and Avatar are cool too. I just noticed that you have a secret code inside the bubble in your gum bubble, but I cannot read it. If it is subliminal maybe my mind knows what it says, and I just don't know it yet.

Now come to think of it I do have a craving for some bubble gum .

Oh, its the copyright notice. I sometimes borrow things since my avatar is non-profit. Joseph was a very impressive Bible figure, who probably I would have found very annoying. I had a best friend like him once when I was just getting out of high school. We had split an apartment, and he was always fastidious and neat, on time, etc. His schedule was always getting in the way of my non-schedule.