The Wrath of God
Qbaal
did evil for the first place. The difference between God and man is
that since God is sinless, HE has the right to judge mankind in his own
way. I know many non-christians would call that hypocrisy, but that's
the truth, God is a righteous judge.
I really believe we should try to understand Israel's history by way of
geography. How did the weather,
Palestinian mountain ranges, rivers and lakes effect the history,
culture and relgion of God's people.
The ancient prophets of Israel, maybe even Jesus, were unduly
pessimistic regarding human
nature. But they had reason to be so. The nation was born in terror
(Exodus), established in blood (the conquest of Caanan) and then it was
all downhill from there.
One great reality of Palestine is that it's a bridge between three
continents where powerful nations travelled back and forth (trampled
and marched). The armies of merciless armies, Egyptian, Babylonian,
Persian, Greek and Roman looted, sacked and raped the "holy"
Land repeatedly. Thus, since the myth of the Fall (starring Adam and
Eve) locked misfortune and the wrath of God unholy wedlock, the
religious leaders of Israel wanted to affirm a good father God and
could only interpred the foreign invasions as God backed and the
pitiless expression of God's wrath. All this on top of plague,
famine and the usual drawbacks of human existence. So the greater the
misfortune the environment imposed the more the prophets blew their
stack blaming the Children of Israel and the sinful ways. To the point
where Jesus had to devote half his ministry to affirming the goodness
of the Father, and diverting folk from an absolute, necessary
connection between pain/misfortune and God's wrath.
Thus secular studies (history and economics) do not undercut the New
Testament. Rather, they help us understand what happened in the life
of Jesus. Why he was wary of the title of Messiah. How and why he
came to be crucified.
Regards, Qbaal
Welcome to Qbaal's Website and Historical-critical shool of Theology
http://geocities.com/qbaal_99/index.htm
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
dbi...@hotmail.com
Qbaal <davenorth...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> As for the verses relating to the judgement of God, mankind sinned and
> did evil for the first place. The difference between God and man is
> that since God is sinless, HE has the right to judge mankind in his
own
> way. I know many non-christians would call that hypocrisy, but that's
> the truth, God is a righteous judge.
Humanity (according to Christian interpretation of a Jewish myth) sinned
by disobeying a ridiculous rule that God made specifically to be broken
so that Jesus could come into the world (O felix culpa). Sinning is (in
Christianity) disobeying God. God could have chosen to order things
differently but did not. Therefore God (this particular one) is, at
best, a spoilt brat and, at worst, a malignant dictator who delights in
the suffering of His (sic) creatures. This is no righteous judge!
> I really believe we should try to understand Israel's history by way
of
> geography. How did the weather,
> Palestinian mountain ranges, rivers and lakes effect the history,
> culture and relgion of God's people.
Easily seen in the practices of all Jews today. You have a question?
Just ask.
> The ancient prophets of Israel, maybe even Jesus, were unduly
> pessimistic regarding human
> nature. But they had reason to be so. The nation was born in terror
> (Exodus), established in blood (the conquest of Caanan) and then it
was
> all downhill from there.
Please give evidence of this pessimism of which you speak (I find it not
in the prophets). Exodus is a myth (a handy nation-building myth but
essentially no different from George Washington and his boyhood cherry
tree). The conquest of Canaan is bloody by modern standards but was
essentially enlightened by those of the time (try reading contemporary
histories).
> One great reality of Palestine is that it's a bridge between three
> continents where powerful nations travelled back and forth (trampled
> and marched). The armies of merciless armies, Egyptian, Babylonian,
> Persian, Greek and Roman looted, sacked and raped the "holy"
> Land repeatedly.
Ummmmn. Actually no. The 'armies of merciless armies' (sic) of which you
speak did not often sack or rape. Egypt never did there. Babylon
conquered but with some compassion for the survivors. The Persians were
more ruthless but no less compassionate. The Greek/Macedonian conquest
of the area encompassed by modern Israel was peaceful. Rome was invited
in by the Jews.
Thus, since the myth of the Fall (starring Adam and
> Eve) locked misfortune and the wrath of God unholy wedlock, the
> religious leaders of Israel wanted to affirm a good father God and
> could only interpred the foreign invasions as God backed and the
> pitiless expression of God's wrath.
You are reading Christian exegesis into Jewish motives. It doesn't wash.
Original sin is a Christian invention so Jews never read the creation
myth(s) in that particular way. Therefore we had no reason to react in
that way. That is why we didn't!
All this on top of plague,
> famine and the usual drawbacks of human existence. So the greater the
> misfortune the environment imposed the more the prophets blew their
> stack blaming the Children of Israel and the sinful ways.
Nice theory - no evidence.
To the
point
> where Jesus had to devote half his ministry to affirming the goodness
> of the Father, and diverting folk from an absolute, necessary
> connection between pain/misfortune and God's wrath.
This from the man who invented eternal wrath, hell, human sacrifice and
original sin? I think you are fantasising.
> Thus secular studies (history and economics) do not undercut the New
> Testament. Rather, they help us understand what happened in the life
> of Jesus. Why he was wary of the title of Messiah. How and why he
> came to be crucified.
Yes they would, if you applied them, which you have not. Jesus was one
of a long line of self proclaimed Jewish Messiahs. Unfortunately, like
all the others, he did not fit the bill. But his life and ministry were
quite typical, he was the Benny Hinn of his day.
Cheers
David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Robert Howard
dbi...@hotmail.com wrote in article <86oank$c5r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
> Please give evidence of this pessimism of which you speak (I find it not
> in the prophets). Exodus is a myth (a handy nation-building myth but
> essentially no different from George Washington and his boyhood cherry
> tree). The conquest of Canaan is bloody by modern standards but was
> essentially enlightened by those of the time (try reading contemporary
> histories).
The Jews were nomads. The problem with the nomadic life is that when the
population grows too large to be supported by such a life style then
intensive farming is necessary. When the Jewish population reached crisis
point they found themselves pushing up against the Canaanite farmers fences
and needing their arable land. That resulted in war with the Hebrews taking
over. In the winner's history God told them to do it and promised them the
land. The Canaanites probably saw them as bloodthirsty bastards something
like the Iraqis recently taking over Kuwait.
It is impossible to know how to interpret the exodus. Yet present day Jews
think it justifies them holding on to Arab land.
>
> > One great reality of Palestine is that it's a bridge between three
> > continents where powerful nations travelled back and forth (trampled
> > and marched). The armies of merciless armies, Egyptian, Babylonian,
> > Persian, Greek and Roman looted, sacked and raped the "holy"
> > Land repeatedly.
They appeared to be a small nation with powerful neighbours like Poland
today and like Poland were invaded every now and again.
Bob Howard.
dbi...@hotmail.com
Or the British taking Australia, the Pilgrims taking the Americas
(North), the Spaniards taking South America, etc.
>
> It is impossible to know how to interpret the exodus. Yet present day
Jews
> think it justifies them holding on to Arab land.
Not quite (certainly there are Jewish fanatics who would so claim but
they are a distinct minority. The argument over modern Israel/Palestine
is more about the machinations of 19th century British politicians than
about Exodus. And the refusal of both sides to try to find a happy
accommodation where all may live together in peace is more about the
rise and supremacy of the modern Nation State than about anyone's
religion. There are many Arab Israelis, many Christian Palestinans. Last
Friday night Yasser Arafat celebrated the arrival of the Sabbath with a
family of Jewish Palestinians in Gaza City. And I could go on.
> >
> > > One great reality of Palestine is that it's a bridge between three
> > > continents where powerful nations travelled back and forth
(trampled
> > > and marched). The armies of merciless armies, Egyptian,
Babylonian,
> > > Persian, Greek and Roman looted, sacked and raped the "holy"
> > > Land repeatedly.
>
> They appeared to be a small nation with powerful neighbours like
Poland
> today and like Poland were invaded every now and again.
Successfully invaded only four times that I can think of: The Hebrews,
the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the British. Any other takers?
Robert Howard
dbi...@hotmail.com wrote in article <86or8f$ncu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
> Or the British taking Australia, the Pilgrims taking the Americas
> (North), the Spaniards taking South America, etc.
Yes. The Spaniards were particularly brutal killing off the Inca
civilisation.
> >
> > It is impossible to know how to interpret the exodus. Yet present day
> Jews
> > think it justifies them holding on to Arab land.
>
> Not quite (certainly there are Jewish fanatics who would so claim but
> they are a distinct minority. The argument over modern Israel/Palestine
> is more about the machinations of 19th century British politicians than
> about Exodus. And the refusal of both sides to try to find a happy
> accommodation where all may live together in peace is more about the
> rise and supremacy of the modern Nation State than about anyone's
> religion. There are many Arab Israelis, many Christian Palestinans. Last
> Friday night Yasser Arafat celebrated the arrival of the Sabbath with a
> family of Jewish Palestinians in Gaza City. And I could go on.
I agree with that. However some time ago there was a documentary on TV on
the Arab-Israeli conflict. A NZ Jewish family moved to Israel taking a
house on Arab land. The TV crew asked them why and the lady replied God
gave them the land 3,000 years ago. Sure she is only one and I have seen on
TV the clashes between police and religious extremists.
> > >
> > > > One great reality of Palestine is that it's a bridge between three
> > > > continents where powerful nations travelled back and forth
> (trampled
> > > > and marched). The armies of merciless armies, Egyptian,
> Babylonian,
> > > > Persian, Greek and Roman looted, sacked and raped the "holy"
> > > > Land repeatedly.
> >
> > They appeared to be a small nation with powerful neighbours like
> Poland
> > today and like Poland were invaded every now and again.
>
> Successfully invaded only four times that I can think of: The Hebrews,
> the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the British. Any other takers?
Bob Howard.
Qbaal
not
> in the prophets). Exodus is a myth (a handy nation-building myth but
> essentially no different from George Washington and his boyhood cherry
> tree). The conquest of Canaan is bloody by modern standards but was
> essentially enlightened by those of the time (try reading contemporary
> histories).
>
> > continents where powerful nations travelled back and forth (trampled
> > and marched). The armies of merciless armies, Egyptian, Babylonian,
> > Persian, Greek and Roman looted, sacked and raped the "holy"
> > Land repeatedly.
>
> David Bisman
> Dunedin
> New Zealand
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
My home page has been called a "clearing house
for left-wing Christianity." Probably, so.
Take a stab at historical-critical Christian
thinking at
<a href="http://www.deja.com/
[LBURL=_LBHTgeocities.com_LBFSqbaal_99_LBFSindex.htm,LBT=Return!]/thread
msg_ct.xp?AN=578080639">Deja.com message: Re: The Wrath of God</a> <a
href="http://www.deja.com"><img
src="http://g.deja.com/gifs/deja_30x24_white.gif" width=30 height=24
alt="Deja.com" align=middle border=0></a>
Qbaal
Qbaal replies:
Just look at the prophets Jeremiah.... And then there’s John the
Baptist –the axe is poised to strike, the fire is burning to evermore
consume the chaff. God is angry. And, with Nehemiah the essential
thing in Israel is to be pure lest you again provoke God’s wrath and
get shoved back into exile. Israel always harked back to he wilderness
experience of Exodus. This was a petty punishment exercise by God in
punishment. The nation that entered the promise land was essentially
just as sinful as the one that left Egypt.
Yes Exodus is maybe a myth with a kernel of historical truth re
the founding of the nation. Yet, myth or history its all part of
the Jewish psyche.
One great reality of Palestine is that it's a bridge between three
continents where powerful nations travelled back and forth (trampled
and marched). The armies of merciless enemies, Egyptian, Babylonian,
Persian, Greek and Roman looted, sacked and raped the "holy" Land
repeatedly.
Ummmmn. Actually no. The 'armies of merciless enemies of which you
speak did not often sack or rape. Egypt never did there. Babylon
conquered but with some compassion for the survivors. The Persians were
more ruthless but no less compassionate. The Greek/Macedonian conquest
of the area encompassed by modern Israel was peaceful. Rome was invited
in by the Jews.
Qbaal replies: Some invite. Soon the Romans would be exacting onerous
hateful taxes. And lining Palestine’s roads with the crosses holding
the messiahs you refer to below. And raping too. The word among
1st century Palestinian Jews was Jesus was the result of a forced union
between Mary and a Roman soldier. Nicely covered by the Virgin Birth.
Egypt was probably like any other invader/occupier – pushing folks
around. And doing what they wanted with those who would say them
nay. Read some history of the Maccabean revolts. And Jesus was
not crucified by Jews. Rather Romans. Then Rome sacked (AD 70)
Jerusalem and eventually any Jew that moved in Palestine and dispersed
the survivors to the four winds. Then lets skip to the Crusades when
blood flowing neck high was order of day. Then first World War I and
British occupation. See movie Exodus. And still Palestine threatens
as for last 50 + to escalate the animosity between Jew and Arab .....
Thus, since the myth of the Fall (starring Adam and
Eve) locked misfortune and the wrath of God unholy wedlock, the
religious leaders of Israel wanted to affirm a good father God and
could only interpret the foreign invasions as God backed and the
pitiless expression of God's wrath.
You are reading Christian exegesis into Jewish motives. It doesn't wash.
Original sin is a Christian invention so Jews never read the creation
myth(s) in that particular way. Therefore we had no reason to react in
that way. That is why we didn't!
All this on top of plague,
Qbaal says:
I’m giving no exegesis. Look at the bare text which Jewish religious
leaders always have read and expounded. It was part of the Jewish
religious atmosphere. And Jews today do speak of an inclination to
evil in the human heart. Not as pessimistic as St. Augustine Christian
thinking. But pessimistic. Maybe even realistic.
famine and the usual drawbacks of human existence. So the greater the
misfortune the environment imposed the more the prophets blew their
stack blaming the Children of Israel and the sinful ways.
Nice theory - no evidence.
This is just everyday life, in ancient times everywhere and still most
places today. Do you really believe the prophets and religious leaders
of old were not shaped by the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
when every Jew believed he was the apple of God’s eye. Look at what
God did back at Exodus. Myth but also formative power. So now in
exile or under Greek influence, Roman rule would not the Jew see
himself punished by God. After all, so the story went, God punishes
no one without reason. Cause he a just God.
It’s the universal way religions deal with evil. Both Karma and Hell
are simply covers for the reality God is responsible for a lot of evil
in the world. It has nothing to do with human conduct. So the
prophets would continue the age old game of pessimism toward
human conduct. Any monumental evil was connected to monumental
sin and rebellion on the part of God’s people.
Thus, hell and original sin sprung up logically among the early
Christians who were Jews, after all. And among many other
cultures too. That’s what Karma is, a eastern version of hell
and coverup for a universe made by a good God and filled to
overflowing with pain, evil and death.
To the point
where Jesus had to devote half his ministry to affirming the goodness
of the Father, and diverting folk from an absolute, necessary
connection between pain/misfortune and God's wrath.
This from the man who invented eternal wrath, hell, human sacrifice and
original sin? I think you are fantasising.
Jesus as critical studies of the gospels make clear, very rarely spoke
of Hell. Leave that to the late, AD 85, Gospel of Matthew. Augustine
and Calvin. Human sacrifice was not Jesus game either. St. Paul et al.
yes. Actually the early Christians though rationalizing the crucifixion
as God intended blood sacrifice to deal with sin. Yet even then, as
in Hebrews, its quite clear this is the end of the sacrificial system.
The Jews themselves dropped the idea of animal sacrifice with the
destruction of the temple (AD 70).
For Christians the emphasis from the beginning was on faith as avenue
to God. However, the sacrifice of Jesus is still celebrated in
Mass/communion around the world to this day. But plenty of theologians
want to call such ritual game over and done. It’s primitive religion
derived from an angry God who aims to punish with death rebellion and
will unless there is a covering offering human or otherwise.
Thus secular studies (history and economics) do not undercut the New
Testament. Rather, they help us understand what happened in the life of
Jesus. Why he was wary of the title of Messiah. How and why he came to
be crucified.
Yes they would, if you applied them, which you have not. Jesus was one
of a long line of self proclaimed Jewish Messiahs. Unfortunately, like
all the others, he did not fit the bill. But his life and ministry were
quite typical, he was the Benny Hinn of his day.
Cheers David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand
Qbaal:
Re application of principles of historical study and economics I
suggest you go to the master, John Dominic Crossan in his book, The
Birth of Christianity.
Dominic’s writing makes it clear Jesus died standing, prophet like for
the oppressed and poor. The Palestinian peasantry reduced to
subsistence level by those invited Romans. The elites, Roman and
Jewish, picked up the heart of Jesus message – you rich, your
oppressors, God is the God of justice. Otherwise, he’s nothing. And
your oppression is the vary antithesis of God’s kingdom. So kiss your
arrogant life style goodbye. For soon you are going to experience the
dreadful fruit of you cheating, lying ways.
Jesus Christ or Jesus the Messiah. This is the supreme irony of
history. The gospels, one way or other, bust a gut to project Jesus as
Messiah. Yet the same gospels betray the reality Jesus was much more
reserved than his followers to appropriate the title. Maybe saw too
many Roman crosses.
Yes, 1st century Palestine was dancing and intoxicated with messianic
expectations. And Jesus followers wanted the title for their master.
However, even they realized that Jesus and the Messiah were not a
entirely harmonious match. In fact you could easily argue the
non-violent meek Jesus was/is the very antithesis of Messiah. Jesus
promotes a spiritual kingdom. Messiah and earthly power, glory,
wealth are synonymous.
So those not always spiritual geniuses that wrote the 4 gospels
were smart enough, in the light of Jesus’ life and teaching, to see
a much better title for Jesus was Suffering Servant of Is 53 fame. But
even then the suffering servant is a sacrificial lamb of sorts
who bears with sins of others and by his pain brings salvation
to others.
Regards Qbaal
More Qbaal at
http://geocities.com/qbaal_99/index.htm
David Bisman
Qbaal <davenorth...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> Qbaal replies:
>
> Just look at the prophets Jeremiah....
Huh? There were three Isaiahs I now but only one Jeremiah. We even have
contemporary historical backing for this. Now personally I love Jeremiah
(the boy seduced by God) and I find his writings very uplifting and
positive. While his Lamentations are one of the most poignant pieces I
know about loss and bereavement.
And then there’s John
the
> Baptist –the axe is poised to strike, the fire is burning to
evermore
> consume the chaff. God is angry.
John the Baptist is clearly outside the mainstream of Jewish tradition.
And, with Nehemiah the essential
> thing in Israel is to be pure lest you again provoke God’s
wrath and
> get shoved back into exile.
Nehemiah and Ezra had a particular agenda which is ultimately positive.
Israel always harked back to he
wilderness
> experience of Exodus. This was a petty punishment exercise by God in
> punishment. The nation that entered the promise land was essentially
> just as sinful as the one that left Egypt.
That the nation was still essentially sinful and yet was granted entry
speaks eloquently against your thesis, I would have thought.
> Yes Exodus is maybe a myth with a kernel of historical truth re
> the founding of the nation. Yet, myth or history its all part of
> the Jewish psyche.
I am not sure what you mean by "the Jewish psyche".
> Ummmmn. Actually no. The 'armies of merciless enemies of which you
> speak did not often sack or rape. Egypt never did there. Babylon
> conquered but with some compassion for the survivors. The Persians
were
> more ruthless but no less compassionate. The Greek/Macedonian conquest
> of the area encompassed by modern Israel was peaceful. Rome was
invited
> in by the Jews.
>
> Qbaal replies: Some invite. Soon the Romans would be exacting
onerous
> hateful taxes. And lining Palestine’s roads with the crosses
holding
> the messiahs you refer to below. And raping too.
Nevertheless, the invitation is an historical fact. And the Jews of the
time knew that this would mean bein subject to Roman law. As for rape,
this was illegal and a capital crime under Imperial Roman law.
The word among
> 1st century Palestinian Jews was Jesus was the result of a forced
union
> between Mary and a Roman soldier.
Actually, the Talmud says it was the result of a voluntary union. I have
never seen any reference (prior to this) that suggests rape.
Nicely covered by the Virgin Birth.
> Egypt was probably like any other invader/occupier – pushing
folks
> around. And doing what they wanted with those who would say them
> nay.
Egpt never invaded or occupied the Holy land.
Read some history of the Maccabean revolts.
I am aware of the Maccabean revolts. These were against the Assyrians.
And Jesus was
> not crucified by Jews. Rather Romans.
That is certainly what the Greek Testament says.
Then Rome sacked (AD 70)
> Jerusalem and eventually any Jew that moved in Palestine and dispersed
> the survivors to the four winds.
This was after the rebellion of Bar Kochba in 135 CE. A quite normal
Roman response (and rather constrained when compared with, say,
Carthage).
Then lets skip to the Crusades when
> blood flowing neck high was order of day.
But the Islamicists won (backed by their Jewish allies).
Then first World War I and
> British occupation.
General Allenby took Jerusalem, yes.
See movie Exodus.
I have done so. Nice fiction. The truth is both more interesting and
more fascinating. Hollywood does tend to dumb down history.
And still Palestine threatens
> as for last 50 + to escalate the animosity between Jew and Arab .....
Ummmmn. Many Jews are Arabs. Many Arabs support Israel. Many Jews don't.
The sorry situation in the Middle East is not purely a religious one.
More, it is historical, economic and political.
> Qbaal says:
>
> I’m giving no exegesis. Look at the bare text which Jewish
religious
> leaders always have read and expounded. It was part of the Jewish
> religious atmosphere. And Jews today do speak of an inclination to
> evil in the human heart. Not as pessimistic as St. Augustine
Christian
> thinking. But pessimistic. Maybe even realistic.
Original Sin is a Christian exegesis. The "Evil Inclination" is a
necessary part of the human condition, which is why the Talmud says,
"The evil inclination is good". This is a realistic ratherthan a
pessimistic outlook. Judaism teaches that humanity is basically good,
made in the image of God it could not be otherwise. This is optomistic.
Christianity teaches that we all suffer from the sin of Adam and Eve,
basically pessimistic. It is for this reaso (amongst others) that St
Augustine of Hippo refers to "Carnal Israel".
> famine and the usual drawbacks of human existence. So the greater the
> misfortune the environment imposed the more the prophets blew their
> stack blaming the Children of Israel and the sinful ways.
> Nice theory - no evidence.
>
> This is just everyday life, in ancient times everywhere and still most
> places today. Do you really believe the prophets and religious
leaders
> of old were not shaped by the slings and arrows of outrageous
fortune
> when every Jew believed he was the apple of God’s eye.
More theory. Still no evidence. And when did every Jew believe he (or
she) was the "apple of God's eye"?
Look
at what
> God did back at Exodus. Myth but also formative power.
The main point of the Exodus story is that God has a plan and,
regardless of what we do God will work to see that plan fulfilled. This
is, again, a positive story.
So now in
> exile or under Greek influence, Roman rule would not the Jew see
> himself punished by God. After all, so the story went, God punishes
> no one without reason. Cause he a just God.
I'm afraid you're being a bit too simplistic here. Judaism teaches that
lots of stuff just happen, rather than being "punishments". Jews are
co-creators and personal responsibility is important. And more than
being a just God, Judaism teaches of a merciful and compassionate God.
The ten aspects of God, according to Jewish tradition, are Crown,
Wisdom, Understanding, Loving-Kindness, Judgement, Beauty, Victory,
Glory, Foundation and Sovereignty. Three are to do with Justice, while
six are to do with Compassion and one is ineffable.
> It’s the universal way religions deal with evil.
There is no universality amongst religious dogma - religious experience
is another matter.
Both Karma
and Hell
> are simply covers for the reality God is responsible for a lot of evil
> in the world.
This speaks of a fundamental misunderstanding of Karma, AFAICS. And of a
very Christian take on sin.
It has nothing to do with human conduct.
In Christianity this is s. In both Judaism and Islam you are wrong.
So the
> prophets would continue the age old game of pessimism toward
> human conduct.
Pessimistic prophets play no part in my religion (remember it was
Christian prophets who invented the ultimate pessimism: hell. While
Jewish prophets proclaimed that all have a place in the world to come -
defined as a place of eating, drinking, sexuality, love, joy and
happiness and therefore quite different to the Christian Heaven).
Any monumental evil was connected to monumental
> sin and rebellion on the part of God’s people.
Not always. Sometimes they were seen as nature or just AS.
> Thus, hell and original sin sprung up logically among the early
> Christians who were Jews, after all.
Some (a very few) were. Both hell and original sin were well known Greek
concepts that were introduced by the early Hellenisers just as soon as
the early Church was removed as a Jewish sect by Paul and severed ties
with Judaism. The early Christian Church ceased to be Jewish or Jewish
dominated or Jewish in doctrine and thought within living memory of the
life of its Jewish founder!
And among many other
> cultures too. That’s what Karma is, a eastern version of hell
> and coverup for a universe made by a good God and filled to
> overflowing with pain, evil and death.
Actually, no. Karma (correctly titled the Wheel of Karma) is life on
this plane. Breaking the Wheel of Karma is synonomous with the Christian
concept of 'turning the other cheek', itself borrowed from the Jewish,
"Whatever is hateful to you, do not unto another". All of these repay
evil done to you by good, thus breaking the vicious cycle and making the
world a better place. In my tradition this is known as Tikkun Olam
(Repairing the broken world) and creating the Messiah. This was the
secret Ghandi learnt, and Te Whiti before him, and countless others too.
> To the point
> where Jesus had to devote half his ministry to affirming the goodness
> of the Father, and diverting folk from an absolute, necessary
> connection between pain/misfortune and God's wrath.
> This from the man who invented eternal wrath, hell, human sacrifice
and
> original sin? I think you are fantasising.
>
> Jesus as critical studies of the gospels make clear, very rarely spoke
> of Hell. Leave that to the late, AD 85, Gospel of Matthew. Augustine
> and Calvin. Human sacrifice was not Jesus game either. St. Paul et
al.
> yes. Actually the early Christians though rationalizing the
crucifixion
> as God intended blood sacrifice to deal with sin. Yet even then, as
> in Hebrews, its quite clear this is the end of the sacrificial system.
> The Jews themselves dropped the idea of animal sacrifice with the
> destruction of the temple (AD 70).
Nevertheless, animal sacrifices were not made for sins (except in one
special circumstance for unintentional ones). While Christianity
developed a theology that said there is no remission from sin without
blood. And Judaism always and ever condemned human sacrifice inthe
strongest possible terms, whereas Christianity is based upon one.
> For Christians the emphasis from the beginning was on faith as avenue
> to God. However, the sacrifice of Jesus is still celebrated in
> Mass/communion around the world to this day. But plenty of
theologians
> want to call such ritual game over and done. It’s primitive
religion
> derived from an angry God who aims to punish with death rebellion and
> will unless there is a covering offering human or otherwise.
Again, Christian exegesis with which I differ. Judaism taught and
teaches that action is the avenue to God. Faith is an adjunct (often an
irrelevant one). This is one of the essential differences between the
two religions. Likewise, Judaism does not emphasise an angry God but a
merciful one.
> Thus secular studies (history and economics) do not undercut the New
> Testament. Rather, they help us understand what happened in the life
of
> Jesus. Why he was wary of the title of Messiah. How and why he came to
> be crucified.
>
> Yes they would, if you applied them, which you have not. Jesus was one
> of a long line of self proclaimed Jewish Messiahs. Unfortunately, like
> all the others, he did not fit the bill. But his life and ministry
were
> quite typical, he was the Benny Hinn of his day.
> Qbaal:
>
> Re application of principles of historical study and economics I
> suggest you go to the master, John Dominic Crossan in his book, The
> Birth of Christianity.
Master he ma be to you, but he is writing from a Christian perspective.
This taints his writing AFAIAC.
> Dominic’s writing makes it clear Jesus died standing, prophet
like for
> the oppressed and poor.
Then how does he explain Luke's contention that Jesus and the disciples
lived off the wealth of women? Or the spikenard that annointed his feet?
The Palestinian peasantry reduced to
> subsistence level by those invited Romans.
Quite untrue. Their lifestyles actually improved under the Romans. They
developed a true middle class for the first time. Also, Jesus spent his
time with Publicani, winebibbers, prostitutes, landowners, small
businesspeople and so forth rather than the peasantry.
The elites, Roman and
> Jewish, picked up the heart of Jesus message – you rich, your
> oppressors, God is the God of justice. Otherwise, he’s
nothing. And
> your oppression is the vary antithesis of God’s kingdom. So
kiss your
> arrogant life style goodbye. For soon you are going to experience the
> dreadful fruit of you cheating, lying ways.
And how does "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" fir into this
revisionist theology?
> Jesus Christ or Jesus the Messiah. This is the supreme irony of
> history. The gospels, one way or other, bust a gut to project Jesus as
> Messiah. Yet the same gospels betray the reality Jesus was much more
> reserved than his followers to appropriate the title. Maybe saw too
> many Roman crosses.
They do bust a gut to portray him as the Jewish Messiah but he fails to
meet the test.
> Yes, 1st century Palestine was dancing and intoxicated with messianic
> expectations. And Jesus followers wanted the title for their master.
> However, even they realized that Jesus and the Messiah were not a
> entirely harmonious match. In fact you could easily argue the
> non-violent meek Jesus was/is the very antithesis of Messiah. Jesus
> promotes a spiritual kingdom. Messiah and earthly power, glory,
> wealth are synonymous.
Non-violent? What about the claim that he came to set a sword between
family members?
> So those not always spiritual geniuses that wrote the 4 gospels
> were smart enough, in the light of Jesus’ life and teaching, to
see
> a much better title for Jesus was Suffering Servant of Is 53 fame.
Not very bright then, as Is 53 refers to Israel! As clear as a bell.
But
> even then the suffering servant is a sacrificial lamb of sorts
> who bears with sins of others and by his pain brings salvation
> to others.
Israel. It makes sense in that context, not as a person.
Cheers
David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand
Qbaal
In article <86qpi4$5ft$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
David Bisman <dbi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <1a5a307d...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com>,
Qbaal <davenorth...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> > Qbaal replies:
> > Just look at the prophets Jeremiah....
> Huh? There were three Isaiahs I now but only one Jeremiah. We even
have
> contemporary historical backing for this.
Qbaal: the extra s on Jeremiah was a error. Sorry
Now personally I love Jeremiah
> (the boy seduced by God) and I find his writings very uplifting and
> positive. While his Lamentations are one of the most poignant pieces I
> know about loss and bereavement.
Qbaal: Yes, but he attributes the loss and sorrow of God's people
to sin. Then emphasizes God's wrath in response to the sin of the
people.
The exile, and Jeremiah doesn't seem to realize this, would have
happened anyway, even if 99% of the folk were pure and righteous.
It's
just what happens when you lived next to great empires when they got
in the expanionist mood.
My point - the prophets tend to blame any evil visited upong
God's people as punishment for their sins. All the time the evil
"wrath" boils down to the laws of physics and chemistry (geography
and economics) working themselves out in history. In other words
religious leaders, especially today when they know better, should
face up to the fact much evil is attibutable to God himself.
Earthquakes,
disease, famine, genetic diseases are to be laid at
the feet of God. Even armies raping and pillaging are explicable
as part of human nature which God created. So much so some theologians
think God is still trying to shake off his own evil. Or he is not as
good or wise or powerful as we once thought him.
> And then there's John
> the
> > Baptist- the axe is poised to strike, the fire is burning to
> evermore
> > consume the chaff. God is angry.
>
John the Baptist is clearly outside the mainstream of Jewish tradition.
And that's why Jesus claimed he was the greatest man ever born??
Actually John fits quite well into mainstream Jewish apocalyptic
tradition. Including a dark day of violence and bloodshedding before
the great and terrible Day of the Lord.
Qbaal Yes he does seem to be link between Old and New Testement.
But St. Matthew, pessimist and unsound theologian, carries
on the tradition of John the Baptist. I mean emphasis on Hell for
sinners. Or a infinite punishment for a finite act.
>
> And, with Nehemiah the essential
> > thing in Israel is to be pure lest you again provoke God's
> wrath and
> > get shoved back into exile.
>
> Nehemiah and Ezra had a particular agenda which is ultimately
positive.
Positive or negative, Nehemiah's influence was combated by Jesus.
If you think like Nehemiah you bust a gut to obey the law (this is
death and destruction says St. Paul). Jesus in a counterstroke to
Nehemiah puts the emphasis, not on obedience or human sin, but on
trust in a good God who provides liberally for our needs ( you get
your High Definition TV next year). Jesus saw humanity's big enemy
as anxiety (as opposed to trust in God) and not sin. And he knew
sin destroys people. But he realized as Martin Luther was to centuries
later sin is grounded in fear/angst.
> Israel always harked back to he
> wilderness
> > experience of Exodus. This was a petty punishment exercise by God
in
> > punishment. The nation that entered the promise land was essentially
> > just as sinful as the one that left Egypt.
>
> That the nation was still essentially sinful and yet was granted entry
> speaks eloquently against your thesis, I would have thought.
Forty years is a heck of a long time for some sin in Isreal.
Or if you touched the Ark you got zapped dead. Come on
its just a box. Of course, you have to reinforce the message of
God's sovereingty, and the priest's, with severe santions. Otherwise,
folk will begin thinking and who know where that may lead...
> > Yes Exodus is maybe a myth with a kernel of historical truth re
> > the founding of the nation. Yet, myth or history its all part of
> > the Jewish psyche.
>
> > Ummmmn. Actually no. The 'armies of merciless enemies of which you
> > speak did not often sack or rape. Egypt never did there. Babylon
> > conquered but with some compassion for the survivors. The Persians
> were
> > more ruthless but no less compassionate. The Greek/Macedonian
conquest
> > of the area encompassed by modern Israel was peaceful. Rome was
> invited
> > in by the Jews.
> >
> > Qbaal replies: Some invite. Soon the Romans would be exacting
> onerous
> > hateful taxes. And lining Palestine’s roads with the
crosses
> holding
> > the messiahs you refer to below. And raping too.
>
> Nevertheless, the invitation is an historical fact. And the Jews of
the
> time knew that this would mean bein subject to Roman law. As for rape,
> this was illegal and a capital crime under Imperial Roman law.
The invite was a big mistake. To ward off God's punishment from
some lesser nation. Come into my parlour said the spider to the fly..
Roman law, British law its all the same. You have to give up your law
or have it severely modified and subject always to countermand? Good
bye
to your most precious comodity - freedom. Why do you think the
peasant from Galilee, the home of justice and love and brotherhood, was
slain along with plenty of his compatriots? Why were there zealots?
Why was Matthew a despised man. Taxes. I am not arguing the invite.
But lets be realistic about the Roman empire. You joined the Roman
pax but you paid the price in coin and in blood. And hid your daughters.
Actually with the power-loving but efficient Romans and their army
you could not win. If you fought you lost (especially a Jewish army)
if you invited and welcomed, you lost freedom, money, honor and
eventually
land. At least eventually, as Crossan points out the whole economy is
title to urban requirements and the local farming peasants are drained.
The founding of a Roman city, in Jesus time, in Palestine was not good
news for the peasant.
I still think one of Jesus main purposes was to remind folk Rome's
occupation
was not God's punishment. Rather blessed, by God, are you poor,.
Blessed are you hungry, for thought the Romans are robbing the food
off your table, ... you shall be fed. Blessed are you who weep for
for you shall laugh and the Romans shall weep and howl.
> The word among
> > 1st century Palestinian Jews was Jesus was the result of a forced
> union
> > between Mary and a Roman soldier.
>
> Actually, the Talmud says it was the result of a voluntary union. I
have
> never seen any reference (prior to this) that suggests rape.
The Talmud says one thing. But the rumors circulating to counter
the Christian claim of Virgin birth among Jews is another thing.
Or maybe the Virgin birth was concocted, in part, to cover the ugly
rumors. And even if Mary wasn't raped by a Roman soldier, the
consentual
agreement would not endear her to many compatriats. Or
enhance the reputation of the fruit of that happy union.
> Nicely covered by the Virgin Birth.
> > Egypt was probably like any other invader/occupier – pushing
> folks
> > around. And doing what they wanted with those who would say them
> > nay.
>
> Egpt never invaded or occupied the Holy land.
I've read many times that Moses leading the Exodus did not take the
coastal, easy, route into Palesting. Too many Egyptian garrisons there.
This is occupation of some description and presupposes some kind of
invasion.
Perhaps, you think the ancient folk of Palestine always reacted to the
Egyption threat by issuing another of their invitations.
> Read some history of the Maccabean revolts.
>
> I am aware of the Maccabean revolts. These were against the Assyrians.
Qbaal: Yes, with bloody massacres on both sides, in Palestine. And
both
armies ravaged the land and farms just to eat. They had no K rations
in those days or parachute supply drops. And I don't think the
Assyrians
or Maccabean forces paid for the grain, etc. Maybe issued some
promises
or ancient confederate notes.
> And Jesus was
> > not crucified by Jews. Rather Romans.
>
> That is certainly what the Greek Testament says.
>
> Then Rome sacked (AD 70)
> > Jerusalem and eventually any Jew that moved in Palestine and
dispersed
> > the survivors to the four winds.
>
> This was after the rebellion of Bar Kochba in 135 CE. A quite normal
> Roman response (and rather constrained when compared with, say,
> Carthage).
Things got so bad in Jerusalem in this constrained seige that parents
ate their children. And the center of the Jewish religion was virtually
obliterated. I mean the temple.
> Then lets skip to the Crusades when
> > blood flowing neck high was order of day.
>
> But the Islamicists won (backed by their Jewish allies).
Qbaal but it's still war in Palestine where armies hack back and forth
> Then first World War I and
> > British occupation.
>
> General Allenby took Jerusalem, yes.
Qbaal: but its more war in Palestine.
> See movie Exodus.
>
> I have done so. Nice fiction. The truth is both more interesting and
> more fascinating. Hollywood does tend to dumb down history.
Qbaal: Fiction, yes. But based on historical fact. And, in fact,
the Jews of Palestine, backed by worldwide Jewish money and
influence,
were in a severe struggle with British authority. And entailed some
blood shed and property destruction, in Palestine. The British had
promised
Palestine to both Jews and Arabs after W War I ??? And, I only saying
the violence in Palestine goes back to ancient times and continues until
this very day even if a bomb doesn't go off in a Jerusalem market on
Jan. 28/00 And lets not look to God's wrath. Let's at least consider
human stupidity.
> And still Palestine threatens
> > as for last 50 + to escalate the animosity between Jew and Arab
....
>
> Ummmmn. Many Jews are Arabs. Many Arabs support Israel. Many Jews
don't.
Qbaal: And the moon orbits the earth and the sky is sometimes blue
in the daytime. And water tends to flow downhill....
You are welcome to visit Qbaal home web page at
Qbaal
Qbaal says:
I'm giving no exegesis. Look at the bare text which Jewish religious
leaders always have read and expounded. It was part of the Jewish
religious atmosphere. And Jews today do speak of an inclination to evil
in the human heart. Not as pessimistic as St. Augustine Christian
thinking. But pessimistic. Maybe even realistic.
Original Sin is a Christian exegesis. The "Evil Inclination" is a
necessary part of the human condition, which is why the Talmud says,
"The evil inclination is good". This is a realistic rather than a
pessimistic outlook.
Judaism teaches that humanity is basically good, made in the image of
God it could not be otherwise. This is optomistic. Christianity teaches
that we all suffer from the sin of Adam and Eve, basically pessimistic.
It is for this reaso (amongst others) that St Augustine of Hippo refers
to "CarnalIsrael".
Qbaal
First the Adam and Eve text is in the Jew's Bible. Actually part of
the Penteteuch. And read, I presume, as origin story/myth in Jewish
synagogues. Even if explained away it has negative detrimental effect
that no talk of "basically good human nature" can totally overcome.
Sure, God threw Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden for one minor
chomp and subjected the whole creation to the rule of death. That's the
way the myth goes. This is the thinking that informs all Jewish and
Christian thinking to recent times. And you want to call this optimism.
And Jesus says there is only One who is good. Big parcel of general
pessimism. Not that I advocate it. And how about "vanity of vanity,
all is vanity." And then there's the reality no one denies we the
basic good are going to die. If its not punishment what is it. There
must be better way of getting to heaven.
famine and the usual drawbacks of human existence. So the greater the
misfortune the environment imposed the more the prophets blew their
stack blaming the Children of Israel and the sinful ways. Nice theory -
no evidence.
This is just everyday life, in ancient times everywhere and still most
places today. Do you really believe the prophets and religious leaders
of old were not shaped by the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
when every Jew believed he was the apple of God’s eye.
More theory. Still no evidence. And when did every Jew believe he (or
she) was the "apple of God's eye"? The famine etc are the hard facts
of reality
Qbaal:
Look at what God did back at Exodus. Myth but also formative power.
The main point of the Exodus story is that God has a plan and,
regardless of what we do God will work to see that plan fulfilled. This
is, again, a positive story.
Qbaal:
OK God uses pessimistic prophets speaking of doomsday and mind boggling
punishment by God for sin on the part of his people to get his way
with folk when they are totally cowed into submission. Thus the earth
is at peace.
So now in exile or under Greek influence, Roman rule would not the Jew
see himself punished by God. After all, so the story went, God punishes
no one without reason. Cause he a just God.
I'm afraid you're being a bit too simplistic here.
Qbaal: I believe the saner Jewish teachers would not link the evils
of life under Rome, or dispersal throughout the Mediter. world as
simply punishment. But I said feeling - and in many sad moments
of reflection I imagine many Jews wondered, as they did at the first
exile in Bablyon, if God was punishing them. Along the lines of some
Christians anxious over the "unforgiveable" sin
Judaism teaches that lots of stuff just happen, rather than being
"punishments". Jews are co-creators and personal responsibility is
important. And more than being a just God, Judaism teaches of a
merciful and compassionate God. The ten aspects of God, according to
Jewish tradition, are Crown, Wisdom, Understanding, Loving-Kindness,
Judgement, Beauty, Victory, Glory, Foundation and Sovereignty. Three
are to do with Justice, while six are to do with Compassion and one is
ineffable.
Qbaal:
You tend to talk about Judaism saying so and so. I have a Christian
bias but really am talking about the ancient Hebrew prophets
and the writings attributed to same.
Still, the Jewish God is a just God. Or nothing. And I suggesting
its sometimes hard to see the justice of his ways? This is really
the Problem of evil.
Both Karma and Hell are simply covers for the reality God is responsible
for a lot of evil in the world.
This speaks of a fundamental misunderstanding of Karma, AFAICS. And of
a very Christian take on sin.
Not really. Karma suggests one is responsible for one actions. You
move up or down in the scale of being according to one's good conduct
or misconduct. Thus the evil you suffer now is your own fault since
it's tied to past deeds in a previous life. This takes the blame
off God who actually created the evil or most of it. I don't see
Hindu or Buddhist ideas of misconduct or righteousness as completely
non-overlapping.
prophets would continue the age old game of pessimism toward human
conduct.
Pessimistic prophets play no part in my religion (remember it was
Christian prophets who invented the ultimate pessimism: hell. While
Jewish prophets proclaimed that all have a place in the world to come -
defined as a place of eating, drinking, sexuality, love, joy and
happiness and therefore quite different to the Christian Heaven).
Thus, hell and original sin sprung up logically among the early
Christians
who were Jews, after all.
Some (a very few) were.
Qbaal:
The reality is that Christianity was born a Jewish sect. And they were
few Jews for there were then few Christians. Are you suggesting Jesus
or St. Paul were deficient in their Jewish religious background?
cultures too. That s what Karma is, a eastern version of hell and
coverup for a universe made by a good God and filled to overflowing with
pain, evil and death.
Actually, no. Karma (correctly titled the Wheel of Karma) is life on
this
plane. Breaking the Wheel of Karma is synonomous with the Christian
concept
of 'turning the other cheek', itself borrowed from the Jewish,
"Whatever is
hateful to you, do not unto another". All of these repay evil done to
you by
good, thus breaking the vicious cycle and making the world a better
place.
In my tradition this is known as Tikkun Olam (Repairing the broken
world)
and creating the Messiah. This was the secret Ghandi learnt, and Te
Whiti
before him, and countless others too.
Qbaal: This is not what religion text books teach. Nor is it the
present understanding of Karma in the world in general. So if you don't
like the traditional ideas you "modify" them. I'm bit of a revisionist
myself.
To the point where Jesus had to devote half his ministry to affirming
the goodness of the Father, and diverting folk from an absolute,
necessary connection between pain/misfortune and God's wrath. This
from the man who invented eternal wrath, hell, human sacrifice and
original sin? I think you are fantasising.
Jesus as critical studies of the gospels make clear, very rarely spoke
of Hell. Leave that to the late, AD 85, Gospel of Matthew. Augustine
and Calvin. Human sacrifice was not Jesus game either. St. Paul et al.
yes. Actually the early Christians though rationalizing the crucifixion
as God intended blood sacrifice to deal with sin. Yet even then, as in
Hebrews,
its quite clear this is the end of the sacrificial system. The Jews
themselves dropped the idea of animal sacrifice with the destruction of
the
temple (AD 70).
Nevertheless, animal sacrifices were not made for sins (except in one
special circumstance for unintentional ones). While Christianity
developed a theology that said there is no remission from sin without
blood. And Judaism always and ever condemned human sacrifice inthe
strongest possible terms, whereas Christianity is based upon one.
This is true - the condemnation. Yet, in Exodus the lamb's blood on the
door lentil? represents a sacrifice whereby the Jews within the home
were spared from the wrath of God. Jewish lore taken over by the
Christians and maybe wedded with Is 53 to portray the suffeing sevant
Jesus who bears the sins of many.
And lets look at the psychology of sacrifice. What are you doing? One
way or other your trying to keep God on side. Showing your a loyal
subject. And, if God happens to remember you sins and failings, he will
perhaps forgive and forget. No matter what the doctrine says or doesn't
say. Much like the mafia figure throwing ten thousand on the offering
plate. He know's he can't buy God but the "sacrifice" shouldn't hurt.
For Christians the emphasis from the beginning was on faith as avenue to
God. However, the sacrifice of Jesus is still celebrated in
Mass/communion round the world to this day. But plenty of theologians
want to call such ritual game over and done. It's primitive religion
derived from an angry God who aims to punish with death rebellion and
will unless there is a covering offering human or otherwise.
Again, Christian exegesis with which I differ.
It's Christian alright. And not endorsed by Qbaal.
Judaism taught and teaches that action is the avenue to God. Faith is
an adjunct (often an irrelevant one). This is one of the essential
differences between the two religions. Likewise, Judaism does not
emphasise an angry God but a merciful one.
OK that's your position. And it's an essential difference as the
writings of St. Paul make clear. And Jesus, too is heavily into faith
as avenue to God.
I can't see why you, and Jews in general, claim faith often and
irrelevant one?? I look at it this way - faith emphasizes that
religion is a matter of relationship from beginning to end. It's not
saying, off top of head, "Yes, God exists." It's more "God and I are
intimate friends." And the God side of the relationship guarantees a
internal reformation of one's being. Getting together one's dung.
And, what's more, allied with God one can loosen the grip of angst,
anxiety about one's material being, and boldly obey God. Actually, the
very presence of God in one's life leads to good conduct and the
enhancement of society and community living.
I, by the way, would be the last to disparage a Jew's, or Moslem's,
approach to God. They are what they are by the workings of history
which God created and through which his goals are met.
Thus secular studies (history and economics) do not undercut the New
Testament. Rather, they help us understand what happened in the life of
Jesus. Why he was wary of the title of Messiah. How and why he came to
be crucified.
Yes they would, if you applied them, which you have not. Jesus was one
of a
long line of self proclaimed Jewish Messiahs. Unfortunately, like all
the
others, he did not fit the bill. But his life and ministry were quite
typical, he was the Benny Hinn of his day.
Qbaal:
Re application of principles of historical study and economics I
suggest you go to the master, John Dominic Crossan in his book, The
Birth of Christianity.
Master he may be to you, but he is writing from a Christian
perspective. This taints his writing AFAIAC.
Qbaal: There is little writing historical or theological that is purely
objective. But Corssan knows this and tries to be objective. In fact
a lot of his work in The Birth of Christianity is based on secular
historical sources. I know that only means that they are historical
sources that coincide with Crossan views. Therefore, still biased.
Dominic's writing makes it clear Jesus died standing, prophet like for
the oppressed and poor.
The Palestinian peasantry reduced to subsistence level by those invited
Romans.
Quite untrue. Their lifestyles actually improved under the Romans. They
developed a true middle class for the first time. Also, Jesus spent his
time with Publicani, winebibbers, prostitutes, landowners, small
businesspeople and so forth rather than the peasantry.
Qbaal: and they also had a aristocracy who bled the peasants.
A religious aristocracy that made money on the temple
sacrifices. And the middle class were also supported
from below.
Jesus may even have had friends among the elite -
Roman and Jewish.
I don't know if I want to call prostitues middleclass.
I suppose the serviced all classes and were from
all classes.
And how does "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" fir into this
revisionist theology?
Qbaal:
Easy. But remember the revision of the actual story of Jesus
(historical Jesus) starts long ago with the writings of the gospels and
maybe before in the oral tradition that led to it. The blame for
the murder of Jesus is shifted from the Romans, who actually killed
Jesus, to the Jews and their leaders. The early Christians knew what
side of their bread was buttered on! Jesus, no violent Messiah, loved
Romans and Jews. He knew rebellion or even a neutral position re Roman
authority might invite disaster for his movement and followers. So why
not give Caesar his due as a powerful occupying force? And I sure the
gospel writer would ingratiate the young Christian movement with Rome by
saying Christians ARE friends of Caesar. And having Jesus say
same. Even if he never pronounced anything on Rome and political
authority.
Jesus Christ or Jesus the Messiah. This is the supreme irony of
history. The gospels, one way or other, bust a gut to project Jesus as
Messiah. Yet the same gospels betray the reality Jesus was much more
reserved thans his followers to appropriate the title. Maybe saw too
many Roman crosses.
They do bust a gut to portray him as the Jewish Messiah but he fails to
meet the test.
Qbaal:
Yes, 1st century Palestine was dancing and intoxicated with messianic
expectations. And Jesus followers wanted the title for their master.
However, even they realized that Jesus and the Messiah were not a
entirely harmonious match. In fact you could easily argue the
non-violent meek Jesus was/is the very antithesis of Messiah. Jesus
promotes a spiritual kingdom. Messiah and earthly power, glory, wealth
are synonymous.
Non-violent? What about the claim that he came to set a sword between
family members?
Qbaal:
Isolated text up against many that indicate "I am meek and mild.... Turn
the other cheek. Take the Roman soldiers backpack and carry it a mile
an offer to go the second with it. They that live by the sword will
die with it.(Maybe just common sense addage from Greek or Roman culture)
So those not always spiritual geniuses that wrote the 4 gospels were
smart enough, in the light of Jesus' life and teaching, to see a much
better title for Jesus was Suffering Servant of Is 53 fame.
Not very bright then, as Is 53 refers to Israel! As clear as a bell.
We agree entirely. Is 53 is Israel. But I'm happy the early Christians
appropriated (stole and distorted) Is. 53 to give a more enlightened
picture of Jesus than the Messianic expectations of ancient Israel and
Jesus time, too.
The cross of Jesus, IMHO, is not sacrifice or appeasement, it is
atonement with God and dealing not with just sin but the mechanism
of its birth. This is acheived mysteriously in the death of the
suffering servant who goes meekly and mildly to his fate. The
cross and Isaiah 53, orginally referring to the nation, serve
to define Jesus. Thus, the early Christians could claim Jesus
as Son of David, for the propaganda value, if nothing else,
and the resulting Son of God could be cleased of its crass
nationalistic thrash and bash'em Messianic connotations
(thrashing gentiles) and the real Agent of God on earth,
Son of God or Son of Man, or Son of David was forevermore
defined clearly by the crucifixion/Resurrection. I'm talking
about the Messiah projected in the life and teachings of
the historic Jesus. Not the icon of classical and most
modern Christianity.
Cheers David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
David Bisman
Qbaal <davenorth...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> Part 1 of present response to David Bisman
>
> In article <86qpi4$5ft$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> David Bisman <dbi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <1a5a307d...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com>,
> Qbaal <davenorth...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> Now personally I love Jeremiah
> > (the boy seduced by God) and I find his writings very uplifting and
> > positive. While his Lamentations are one of the most poignant pieces
I
> > know about loss and bereavement.
>
> Qbaal: Yes, but he attributes the loss and sorrow of God's people
> to sin. Then emphasizes God's wrath in response to the sin of the
> people.
> The exile, and Jeremiah doesn't seem to realize this, would have
> happened anyway, even if 99% of the folk were pure and righteous.
> It's
> just what happens when you lived next to great empires when they
got
> in the expanionist mood.
Well, if you recall, Jeremiah sided with the Babylonians (causing
consternation to the Hebrews) because of the sin and apostasy of his
people. But he did, quite correctly, predict the temporary nature of the
exile and worked to instill a spirituality that was less geographically
based. Again, he ultimately saw what was happening as a good and
positive thing. I still see no evidence for the pessimism of which you
speak.
> My point - the prophets tend to blame any evil visited upong
> God's people as punishment for their sins. All the time the evil
> "wrath" boils down to the laws of physics and chemistry (geography
> and economics) working themselves out in history. In other words
> religious leaders, especially today when they know better, should
> face up to the fact much evil is attibutable to God himself.
> Earthquakes,
> disease, famine, genetic diseases are to be laid at
> the feet of God. Even armies raping and pillaging are explicable
> as part of human nature which God created. So much so some
theologians
> think God is still trying to shake off his own evil. Or he is not as
> good or wise or powerful as we once thought him.
The incomplete and 'broken' state of creation is a fundamental in
Judaism (as it is not in Christianity). Thus the theological
rationalisation of which you speak has no place in m religion. Rather,
we Jews are urged to participate in Tikkun Olam - repairing the broken
world - thus becoming co-creators and creating Moshiach - Messiah. These
natural phenomena are due to this incomplete and broken nature rather
than down to God's will or wrath or any such. Please remember that you
are quoting the language of the prophets in translation and that is
fraught at the best of times. When it comes to the Bible so many
Christians are so wedded to the translation that they fail to realise
that that is NOT what the original Hebrew and Aramaic says! I repeat
that I find no evidence for labelling the prophets as pessimistic.
> > And then there's John
> > the
> > > Baptist- the axe is poised to strike, the fire is burning to
> > evermore
> > > consume the chaff. God is angry.
> >
> John the Baptist is clearly outside the mainstream of Jewish
tradition.
>
> And that's why Jesus claimed he was the greatest man ever born??
Probably. As Jesus was even further outside the mainstream of Judaism.
The John and Jesus mutual admiration society is no basis for sound
judgement on the matter.
> Actually John fits quite well into mainstream Jewish apocalyptic
> tradition. Including a dark day of violence and bloodshedding
before
> the great and terrible Day of the Lord.
Jewish apocolyptic tradition was never mainstream - in fact, only the
Book of Daniel (in this genre) made it into the canon (even then with
much of the apocolyptic removed as it is in the Protestant version, but
not by the Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox). Apocalypticism only
came into its own with the advent of Christianity, Mithraism, Essenism
and the other local sects heavily influenced by Hellenistic, Persian and
Roman apocalypticism, particularly Zoroastrianism (which is also where
Christianity got its eternal struggle between the [almost] evenly
matched forced of light and darkness). Remember that Gnosticism was the
growing Greek sect at the time.
> Qbaal Yes he does seem to be link between Old and New Testement.
> But St. Matthew, pessimist and unsound theologian, carries
> on the tradition of John the Baptist. I mean emphasis on Hell for
> sinners. Or a infinite punishment for a finite act.
Which shows just how far they were both outside mainstream Judaism. BTW,
please demonstrate the link you claim between the TaNaKh and the Greek
Testament. I can't see it.
> > And, with Nehemiah the essential
> > > thing in Israel is to be pure lest you again provoke God's
> > wrath and
> > > get shoved back into exile.
> >
> > Nehemiah and Ezra had a particular agenda which is ultimately
> positive.
>
> Positive or negative, Nehemiah's influence was combated by Jesus.
Positive is important as you are suggesting a pessimistic
(negative) slant to him, I deny this. Which makes Jesus not only NOT the
Jewish Moshiach but an actual heretic. Nehemiah's agenda was to restore
the laws of Moses to the Children of Israel, Public education in
scripture and observance of the commandments. If Jesus was opposed to
these then he was the enemy of Judaism and the Jewish God!
> If you think like Nehemiah you bust a gut to obey the law (this is
> death and destruction says St. Paul).
St Paul says many stupid things. And Judaism is not about "bust[ing] a
gut", but about voluntary and joyful compliance. This is, was, always
has been and alwys will be the basis of Judaism. There is no effort in
it (if there is then you have it wrong) rather, it is a joyful
liberation. For instance, Sabbath rests, Sabbatical Years and Years of
Jubilee could teach a few things about basic human rights to the new
right today. Not to mention the laws pertaining to the poor, slaves,
strangers, women and even enemies. The ditching of compliance with these
(amongst other) rules led to the Crusades, the Inquisition,
antebellum Dixie, the Holocaust, The Former Yugoslavia, Rwanda &
Burundi, Aceh and so on.
Jesus in a counterstroke to
> Nehemiah puts the emphasis, not on obedience or human sin, but on
> trust in a good God who provides liberally for our needs ( you get
> your High Definition TV next year).
Pie in the sky when you die has always been a hallmark of Christianity
whereas personal responsibility for one's actions and one's future is
that of Judaism. I prefer the latter.
Jesus saw humanity's big enemy
> as anxiety (as opposed to trust in God) and not sin.
Jesus spoke of sin more often than of love. The Torah and the prophets
speak of sin and forgiveness, the Greek Testament speaks of sin and
punishment. I prefer Judaism as both healthier and more rational.
And he knew
> sin destroys people. But he realized as Martin Luther was to
centuries
> later sin is grounded in fear/angst.
Martin Luther, in the name of Jesus, was the first German to suggest
that all the Jews be put in ovens! He saw this as a positive and not a
sin. I prefer an honest attitude to sin along with a practical way of
overcoming it. This is the basis of Judaism.
> > Israel always harked back to he
> > wilderness
> > > experience of Exodus. This was a petty punishment exercise by God
> in
> > > punishment. The nation that entered the promise land was
essentially
> > > just as sinful as the one that left Egypt.
> >
> > That the nation was still essentially sinful and yet was granted
entry
> > speaks eloquently against your thesis, I would have thought.
>
> Forty years is a heck of a long time for some sin in Isreal.
Forty years is part of the myth. In Hebrew literature 'Forty years'
means a generation. There is no evidence of the Exodus in history or
archeology because it plain did not happen. Years later a 'morality
tale' was invented to tell people why they lived where they did. Tiny
kernels of fact were woven in a tapestry of fantasy to produce the
stories we have now. The stories are moral and educational and
profoundly nation-building but to confuse them with reality is insanity.
> Or if you touched the Ark you got zapped dead.
Another nice story. Written at a time when the priests were trying to
emphasise their (waning) uniqueness. This was part of their strategy.
The facts are there for anyone with eyes and a brain. You really must
learn to distinguish fact from fiction in scripture.
Come on
> its just a box. Of course, you have to reinforce the message of
> God's sovereingty, and the priest's, with severe santions. Otherwise,
> folk will begin thinking and who know where that may lead...
Well, it wasn't "just a box", it was a link with a legendary past.
However the fantastical stories that were invented about it were just
that.
Mistake or not. It was a fact!
To ward off God's punishment from
> some lesser nation.
This is not true.
Come into my parlour said the spider to the fly..
Hindsight is often 20/20.
> Roman law, British law its all the same.
Actually, quite different. British law, as codified by Alfred the cakes
(he who burned the cakes) is based on the Brehon laws of the Celts and
the principle that the accuser must prove the accusation ('innocent
until proven guilty') whereas Roman Law was based on the concept of
mutliple divinities and absolutes where the accused must prove his or
her innocence (as is still the case where Roman Law prevails today:
rance, Italy, Canon Law, etc.).
You have to give up your law
> or have it severely modified and subject always to countermand?
I don't understand what the question is here. Nevertheless, I can say,
for a Jew the Law is God's Law so giving it up is to deny God and
Judaism! However, like all law it is constantly being modified,
interpreted, reinterpreted, appealed, and so on. This is the basis of
Jewish Oral Law.
Good
> bye
> to your most precious comodity - freedom.
A basic misunderstanding. Freedom is only capable of being known within
bounds. In an absolute anarchy there is no freedom. Within the bounds of
the Torah there is the greatest freedom. This is the joyful discovery of
every Jew. I fear you are confusing freedom with license.
Why do you think the
> peasant from Galilee, the home of justice and love and brotherhood,
was
> slain along with plenty of his compatriots?
Whoa. Jesus was no peasant. He was a carpenter, a tradesman, and
therefore a part of the elite in that place at that time. As to Galil
being the home of justice, love and brotherhood (what ever happened to
the sisters BTW?) you are severely mistaken. Why do you think the modern
Israeli Defence Force calls its main assault rifle the Galil? (Galilee
is a mistranslation. The Hebrew is simply Galil). Also, Jesus was killed
between two common criminals (according to Christianity's only sources)
in the prescribed Roman manner for a non-citizen.
Why were there zealots?
Why are there ever zealots? Why did Whina Cooper bring down the Third
Labour Government? Why did the Chinese support North Korea's war of
agression against the south? Why are there rebels in every society?
> Why was Matthew a despised man. Taxes.
Actually, no, not taxes per se. Matthew was a publicanus. Usually
(mis)translated as a tax gatherer. However the Romans had very few
employed civil services. The Treasury let contracts for taxes in each
province, private companies (publicani) bid and, upon winning the
contract, squeezed the specified amounts out of the locals (non-citizens
only) as well as as much profit as they could. Roman soldiers were
available to back up the operation. Brutus, the murderer of Julius
Caesar, was infamous for his extortionate demands and brutal methods in
this area when he was Praetor in Cilicia. Matthew was despised due to
taking so much OVER the tax rate. Jesus made it clear that taxes per se
were no problem, "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God
that which is God's". He told his followers to pay their civil and
religious taxes.
I am not arguing the invite.
Fine, that was the issue. You stated that the Romans ivaded, I denied
this. You have now agreed. Nyet Problema.
> But lets be realistic about the Roman empire. You joined the Roman
> pax but you paid the price in coin and in blood. And hid your
daughters.
Quite untrue. First, the province of Judaea was uniqe in all Roman
history as the only one to petition Rome for entry as a province by way
of plebiscite. Rome accepted even though they did not want another
province there. Second, you paid a price in coin and reaped a benefit in
protection and coin. Roman laws were far more lenient and enlightened
than most other laws in operation around the Mediteranean at that time
so the price you paid in blood was less of it. And very few Roman would
wed or bed non-Romans as this was thought beneath them (hence the
attempt to impeach Julius Caesar when he took a Gallic mistress). And
rape was punishable by death. The Roman Empire was, at that time, a far
safer place for women than any of the adjoining lands. Although
prostitution was a problem as it was so lucrative.
> Actually with the power-loving but efficient Romans and their army
> you could not win. If you fought you lost (especially a Jewish army)
> if you invited and welcomed, you lost freedom, money, honor and
> eventually
> land.
This statement is untrue in so many respects it deserves several threads
all to itself, and we are getting dangerously off topic. So I'll just
say that your statement flies in the face of ALL the evidence I have
seen and, without corroborating documantation I decline to accept it.
At least eventually, as Crossan points out the whole economy is
> title to urban requirements and the local farming peasants are
drained.
Again. So untrue as to be ridiculous. If it were true then the Roman
latifundia would never have prospered, they did and were the basis of
many a Senatorial fortune. Farmers were, in Republican as well as
Imperial Rome, then as now, landed gentry rather than peasants.
> The founding of a Roman city, in Jesus time, in Palestine was not good
> news for the peasant.
Which city do you speak of? And I would have thought that the abolition
of peasantry and the chance to aspire to become a citizen of the
greatest empire in the known world would have been great news - as did
they by the overwhelming vote in favour.
> I still think one of Jesus main purposes was to remind folk Rome's
> occupation
> was not God's punishment.
Rather, there was no Roman occupation of Judaea. The only province in
the history of that great people to achieve the status without one.
Therefore, it could never have been seen as God's punishment - could it?
Rather blessed, by God, are you poor,.
A dangerous philosophy expounded everywhere by the privileged in order
to placate the chattering classes. Whereas Judaism taught that we should
all strive together to eliminate all forms of poverty, Jesus said "the
poor are with you always" and thus absolved the well-to-do from tithes,
charity, aid, and other obligations of Jewish Law. A genuinely
self-fulfilling prophecy.
> Blessed are you hungry, for thought the Romans are robbing the
food
> off your table, ... you shall be fed.
Robbery of a non-citizen by a citizen (or non-citizen soldier) was
punishable by death if tried outside Rome and exile if tried inside the
Pomerium. This was clearly not a problem. Jewish law provided that the
wealthy had to feed the hungry (see the Book of Ruth for this
commandment in action) but Jesus transferred this responsibility to God.
Jesus the friend of the oppressors always.
Blessed are you who weep for
> for you shall laugh and the Romans shall weep and howl.
"Vengeance is mine saith the Lord" and "Rejoice not in the downfall of
thine enemy" is replaced by this sort of petty gloating! Jesus as Rambo!
> > The word among
> > > 1st century Palestinian Jews was Jesus was the result of a forced
> > union
> > > between Mary and a Roman soldier.
> >
> > Actually, the Talmud says it was the result of a voluntary union. I
> have
> > never seen any reference (prior to this) that suggests rape.
>
> The Talmud says one thing. But the rumors circulating to counter
> the Christian claim of Virgin birth among Jews is another thing.
Really? Please give a source for these rumours. I have studied this
question (amongst others) for over a quarter of a century and have never
come across any such evidence so I intrigued by your emphatic claims.
BTW, during the 1st century CE the Talmud was being redacted and parts
of it consist entirely of the rumours circulating then. Just thought I'd
let you know.
> Or maybe the Virgin birth was concocted, in part, to cover the ugly
> rumors. And even if Mary wasn't raped by a Roman soldier, the
> consentual
> agreement would not endear her to many compatriats. Or
> enhance the reputation of the fruit of that happy union.
It was quite common amongst prostitutes in the provinces that they gave
birth. In Rome itself there were sophisticated methods of birth control
and abortion was a relatively safe and routine procedure but the
provinces had few of the amenities. We learn from the time that Mary
became the mistress of a Centurion named Panthus who looked after her
well. And while some would frown upon this union such condemnation was
by no means universal, or even in the majority.
> > Nicely covered by the Virgin Birth.
> > > Egypt was probably like any other invader/occupier
– pushing
> > folks
> > > around. And doing what they wanted with those who would say them
> > > nay.
> >
> > Egpt never invaded or occupied the Holy land.
>
> I've read many times that Moses leading the Exodus did not take the
> coastal, easy, route into Palesting. Too many Egyptian garrisons
there.
Then I suggest you read better informed authors. The Egyptians never
kept garrisons! In fact, by the time of the birth of Jesus Egypt didn't
even have an army, she relied solely on mercenaries, Rhodans and similar
on sea and Jews on land. So, the Jews were in a position to invade Egypt
rather than the other way around! History will give you a whole new
perspective on scripture and you will see just how the followers of the
opressor Jesus have lied and covered up in order to make him more
acceptable to the unwashed.
> This is occupation of some description and presupposes some kind of
> invasion.
Were it true it would be, as it is not then it ain't.
> Perhaps, you think the ancient folk of Palestine always reacted to
the
> Egyption threat by issuing another of their invitations.
The Egyptians were never an expansionist country. The only territory
they ever took over outside their own borders was the Island of Crete
and that was because it was being used as a base by pirates who were
threatening their economy. This is historical fact. There never was any
threat of invasion by Egypt, to anyone, EVER!
> > Read some history of the Maccabean revolts.
> >
> > I am aware of the Maccabean revolts. These were against the
Assyrians.
>
> Qbaal: Yes, with bloody massacres on both sides, in Palestine. And
> both
> armies ravaged the land and farms just to eat. They had no K
rations
> in those days or parachute supply drops. And I don't think the
> Assyrians
> or Maccabean forces paid for the grain, etc. Maybe issued some
> promises
> or ancient confederate notes.
I will profer you the same advice you proferred me: read some history.
The Assyrian armies had supply trains (if you devestate the farmlands in
the battle then the reason for fighting disappears - it makes perfect
sense) for their armies and camps. The Maccabeans were the locals, they
were fed by their friends and relatives. The Maccabeans were never an
army as such but a guerilla force comparable to the Viet Cong (with
similar end results). The Maccabean rebellions were popular uprisings.
Each year they are commemorated by all Jews the world over with the
eight day festival of Hannukah during which we study the history of the
time. I have been doing this all my life.
> > And Jesus was
> > > not crucified by Jews. Rather Romans.
> >
> > That is certainly what the Greek Testament says.
> >
> > Then Rome sacked (AD 70)
> > > Jerusalem and eventually any Jew that moved in Palestine and
> dispersed
> > > the survivors to the four winds.
> >
> > This was after the rebellion of Bar Kochba in 135 CE. A quite normal
> > Roman response (and rather constrained when compared with, say,
> > Carthage).
>
> Things got so bad in Jerusalem in this constrained seige that
parents
> ate their children. And the center of the Jewish religion was
virtually
> obliterated. I mean the temple.
Sieges often ended that way (and still do where they are still
practised) that is in the nature of a siege. Check out what happened at
Nola on the Italian peninsula just a few years previously and the Roman
response to the survivors upon capitulation and you will see what I mean
by lenient. For further proof, read Julius Caesar's accounts of the
Gallic Wars. As for the temple: only one sect within Judaism regarded it
as the center of Jewish religion, the Sadducees. With the destruction of
the temple came the obliteration of the temple cult and the Saducees
with it. The Pharisees, who had always emphasised spirituality over
temple ritual and personal religion over cultishness were on the up.
When the zealots were defeated (135 CE) Rabbi Yochanan escaped the seige
and did a deal with Vespasian, establishing a community of scholars at
Yavneh. This community was responsile for the redaction of the Oral Law
and formed the foundation for modern Judaism.
> > Then lets skip to the Crusades when
> > > blood flowing neck high was order of day.
> >
> > But the Islamicists won (backed by their Jewish allies).
>
> Qbaal but it's still war in Palestine where armies hack back and
forth
Nevertheless, who won is important.
> > Then first World War I and
> > > British occupation.
> >
> > General Allenby took Jerusalem, yes.
>
> Qbaal: but its more war in Palestine.
Very little actually, General Allenby took Jerusalem without a single
shot being fired.
> > See movie Exodus.
> >
> > I have done so. Nice fiction. The truth is both more interesting and
> > more fascinating. Hollywood does tend to dumb down history.
>
> Qbaal: Fiction, yes. But based on historical fact. And, in fact,
> the Jews of Palestine, backed by worldwide Jewish money and
> influence,
> were in a severe struggle with British authority.
Oh Puleeeeeeeeeze! Worldwide Jewish money and influence? This was in the
wake of the Holocaust. What money there was had largely been looted by
the Nazis and their allies: the Swiss and American bankers. What
influence they had was severely diminished. The British attacked and
sank boatloads of refugees in the Mediteranean, they machine-gunned
people on the beaches. The war of independance was analogous with the
Maccabean uprising.
And entailed some
> blood shed and property destruction, in Palestine. The British had
> promised
> Palestine to both Jews and Arabs after W War I ???
Actually, the promises were made prior to WWI.
And, I only saying
> the violence in Palestine goes back to ancient times and continues
until
> this very day even if a bomb doesn't go off in a Jerusalem market on
> Jan. 28/00 And lets not look to God's wrath. Let's at least consider
> human stupidity.
The current situation in Israel is not a part of a continuum as you
suggest and there is no fighting at present in Palestine.
> > And still Palestine threatens
> > > as for last 50 + to escalate the animosity between Jew and Arab
> ....
> >
> > Ummmmn. Many Jews are Arabs. Many Arabs support Israel. Many Jews
> don't.
>
> Qbaal: And the moon orbits the earth and the sky is sometimes blue
> in the daytime. And water tends to flow downhill....
You point being?
David Bisman
Qbaal <davenorth...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> In response to Dave Bisman
>
> Qbaal says:
>
> I'm giving no exegesis. Look at the bare text which Jewish religious
> leaders always have read and expounded. It was part of the Jewish
> religious atmosphere. And Jews today do speak of an inclination to
evil
> in the human heart. Not as pessimistic as St. Augustine Christian
> thinking. But pessimistic. Maybe even realistic.
>
> Original Sin is a Christian exegesis. The "Evil Inclination" is a
> necessary part of the human condition, which is why the Talmud says,
> "The evil inclination is good". This is a realistic rather than a
> pessimistic outlook.
>
> Judaism teaches that humanity is basically good, made in the image of
> God it could not be otherwise. This is optomistic. Christianity
teaches
> that we all suffer from the sin of Adam and Eve, basically
pessimistic.
> It is for this reaso (amongst others) that St Augustine of Hippo
refers
> to "CarnalIsrael".
>
> Qbaal
>
Ø First the Adam and Eve text is in the Jew's Bible.
Which Jew? It is a myth. Not to be taken literally.
Ø Actually part of
> the Penteteuch. And read, I presume, as origin story/myth in Jewish
> synagogues. Even if explained away it has negative detrimental effect
> that no talk of "basically good human nature" can totally overcome.
Sorry, but you are wrong. It explains (in simple and simplistic terms)
how we got to be like we are. That is all. There is only a negative and
detrimental effect if it is read either literally or as having ongoing
consequences or, God forbid, both as Christians tend to.
> Sure, God threw Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden for one minor
> chomp and subjected the whole creation to the rule of death. That's
the
> way the myth goes. This is the thinking that informs all Jewish and
Ø Christian thinking to recent times.
You are still overlaying Christian exegesis on a Jewish myth here. And
it is not "the thinking" that informs anything in Judaism. It is one of
our creation myths and is seen as such. It has moral implications, sure,
but they are, bye and large, positive.
And you want to call this
optimism.
Sure do.
Ø And Jesus says there is only One who is good.
Which, by extrapolation, means that all the rest of us are evil. I don't
buy it. It is way too pessimistic for me.
Ø Big parcel of general
> pessimism. Not that I advocate it. And how about "vanity of vanity,
> all is vanity."
A little thing called context. The Book of Ecclesiastes is a pretty damn
good case study in neurotic depression, but with a light at the end of
the tunnel, thankfully.
And then there's the reality no one denies we the
Ø basic good are going to die.
If death is seen as a part of life then this is no bad thing and not at
all pessimistic. I look forward to the next stage of my journey, how
about you?
Ø If its not punishment what is it. There
> must be better way of getting to heaven.
>
Ah. Heaven. To which only some may enter. Another pessimistic future
dragged out in optomistic threads. I don't hold with it either. Jews
accept the possibility of an afterlife but its nature is unknowable,
some mystics refer to it in code form as a return to Gan Aden (the
Garden of Eden) or as Paradise but mostly we refer to it as "the world
to come" and we believe that all have a place in it.
> famine and the usual drawbacks of human existence. So the greater the
> misfortune the environment imposed the more the prophets blew their
> stack blaming the Children of Israel and the sinful ways. Nice theory
-
> no evidence.
>
> This is just everyday life, in ancient times everywhere and still most
> places today. Do you really believe the prophets and religious leaders
> of old were not shaped by the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
> when every Jew believed he was the apple of
GodÃÆ'¢âââ‚šÂÂââ₞¢s eye.
>
> More theory. Still no evidence. And when did every Jew believe he (or
> she) was the "apple of God's eye"? The famine etc are the hard facts
> of reality
>
> Qbaal:
>
> Look at what God did back at Exodus. Myth but also formative power.
>
> The main point of the Exodus story is that God has a plan and,
> regardless of what we do God will work to see that plan fulfilled.
This
> is, again, a positive story.
>
> Qbaal:
>
> OK God uses pessimistic prophets speaking of doomsday and mind
boggling
> punishment by God for sin on the part of his people to get his way
> with folk when they are totally cowed into submission. Thus the earth
> is at peace.
You have shown no pessimistic prophets. The Jewish God does not speak of
doomsday or mind boggling punishment (we leave that sort of sadism to
the Christian one. Thus no cowering in submission. Rather, Judaism
speaks of a partnership with God, a contract, freely entered into, and
the building of a better world.
> So now in exile or under Greek influence, Roman rule would not the Jew
> see himself punished by God. After all, so the story went, God
punishes
> no one without reason. Cause he a just God.
>
> I'm afraid you're being a bit too simplistic here.
>
> Qbaal: I believe the saner Jewish teachers would not link the evils
> of life under Rome, or dispersal throughout the Mediter. world as
> simply punishment. But I said feeling - and in many sad moments
> of reflection I imagine many Jews wondered, as they did at the first
> exile in Bablyon, if God was punishing them. Along the lines of some
> Christians anxious over the "unforgiveable" sin
Imagine away but acknowledge it for what it is: imagination, rather than
reality.
> Judaism teaches that lots of stuff just happen, rather than being
> "punishments". Jews are co-creators and personal responsibility is
> important. And more than being a just God, Judaism teaches of a
> merciful and compassionate God. The ten aspects of God, according to
> Jewish tradition, are Crown, Wisdom, Understanding, Loving-Kindness,
> Judgement, Beauty, Victory, Glory, Foundation and Sovereignty. Three
> are to do with Justice, while six are to do with Compassion and one is
> ineffable.
>
> Qbaal:
>
> You tend to talk about Judaism saying so and so. I have a Christian
> bias but really am talking about the ancient Hebrew prophets
> and the writings attributed to same.
But your reading of them is coloured by your Christian bias. You, the
Christian, looks for and finds pessimism, I, the Jew, looks for and
finds optimism. Who is better off? And, as they were Jews too, who is
closer to their reality?
> Still, the Jewish God is a just God. Or nothing. And I suggesting
> its sometimes hard to see the justice of his ways? This is really
> the Problem of evil.
You'll have to accept that I disagree with you on the above statement.
No just God could allow Auschwitz. Therefore, either God is not. Or God
is not always just. Judaism came to terms with that many moons ago (the
holocaust is not a lone or unusual event in our history) and we evolved
our understanding of God beyond the "Just or nothing" choice.
> Both Karma and Hell are simply covers for the reality God is
responsible
> for a lot of evil in the world.
>
> This speaks of a fundamental misunderstanding of Karma, AFAICS. And of
> a very Christian take on sin.
>
> Not really. Karma suggests one is responsible for one actions. You
> move up or down in the scale of being according to one's good conduct
Ø or misconduct.
Karma is a wheel, not a ladder. One always returns to one's starting
point. Judaism also teaches this. The Wheel of Life is a central
mystical concept in Judaism. Breaking the wheel of Karma is the goal of
the Buddhist, stepping off the wheel of life is the goal of the Jew (we
are less violent than the Buddhists J
Thus the evil you suffer now is your own fault since
Ø it's tied to past deeds in a previous life.
That is not the Buddhist teaching of Karma. Buddhists teach that good
and evil are, both alike, Maya or illusion and ways of keeping you
chained to the wheel of Karma.
This takes the blame
> off God who actually created the evil or most of it. I don't see
> Hindu or Buddhist ideas of misconduct or righteousness as completely
> non-overlapping.
Study more.
> prophets would continue the age old game of pessimism toward human
> conduct.
>
> Pessimistic prophets play no part in my religion (remember it was
> Christian prophets who invented the ultimate pessimism: hell. While
> Jewish prophets proclaimed that all have a place in the world to come
-
> defined as a place of eating, drinking, sexuality, love, joy and
> happiness and therefore quite different to the Christian Heaven).
>
> Thus, hell and original sin sprung up logically among the early
> Christians
> who were Jews, after all.
>
> Some (a very few) were.
>
> Qbaal:
Ø The reality is that Christianity was born a Jewish sect.
And ceased to be such within the span of the writing of the Gospels.
John's Gospel, the last written, has broken all ties with Judaism and is
quite antagonistic to it. Paul universalised Christianity over the
objections of the original disciples (see Acts) and by the time he was
writing to the Corinthians (for instance) there is no trace of Judaism
in what he has to teach.
And they
were
> few Jews for there were then few Christians. Are you suggesting Jesus
> or St. Paul were deficient in their Jewish religious background?
Definitely Jesus was deficient. He misquoted scripture! Paul claimed to
be a Pharisee and a student of Rabban Gamaliel. If that claim is true
then he was a very poor student because in his extant writings on the
subject he makes some fundamental bloopers. Both these seminal founders
of Christianity were deficient in the Jewish religious backgrounds but
Paul was more influential. For proof examine the Ethiopian Coptic
Church, the oldest Christian Church in the world, founded before the
conversion of Paul and still very outwardly Jewish looking to the casual
observer. Paul remade the new sect in his own image and universalised
and de-Judaised it.
revisionist
> myself.
Religion is, and has always been, a bit of a hobby with me. I have
studied a number of them and have always felt that the best way, so to
do, is to live them. Thus I have studied different branches of Buddhism
under appropriate teachers in their Ashrams. I have studied Kashmir
Shaivism (one of the many religions that make up Hinduism) under its
premier teacher, Gurumayi Chidvilinasanda. I studied Roman Catholicism
while living in a Dominican Priory. Anglicanism in Christ Church
Cathedral, Christchurch. Pentecostalism under a variety of Pentecostal
Pastors (and one Reverend, as Reverend Worsfold was insistent upon that
title as he had a degree). Wicca under appropriate practitioners. Islam
under several learned Mullahs. And so on, and so on (and always Judaism
under many learned Rabbis and teachers). So I tend to use religious
terms in their religious meaning and as correctly as possible. I have
loved finding the correspondences and divergences between the different
families of faith that I have visited and try to repay their kindness by
not twisting their words or concepts. Therefore, what I said above
stands AFAIAC.
> To the point where Jesus had to devote half his ministry to affirming
> the goodness of the Father, and diverting folk from an absolute,
> necessary connection between pain/misfortune and God's wrath. This
> from the man who invented eternal wrath, hell, human sacrifice and
> original sin? I think you are fantasising.
> Jesus as critical studies of the gospels make clear, very rarely spoke
> of Hell. Leave that to the late, AD 85, Gospel of Matthew. Augustine
> and Calvin. Human sacrifice was not Jesus game either. St. Paul et al.
> yes. Actually the early Christians though rationalizing the
crucifixion
> as God intended blood sacrifice to deal with sin. Yet even then, as in
> Hebrews,
> its quite clear this is the end of the sacrificial system. The Jews
> themselves dropped the idea of animal sacrifice with the destruction
of
> the
> temple (AD 70).
>
> Nevertheless, animal sacrifices were not made for sins (except in one
> special circumstance for unintentional ones). While Christianity
> developed a theology that said there is no remission from sin without
> blood. And Judaism always and ever condemned human sacrifice inthe
> strongest possible terms, whereas Christianity is based upon one.
>
> This is true - the condemnation. Yet, in Exodus the lamb's blood on
the
Ø door lentil?
This was not a sin sacrifice. This was a Passover. I know Christians
equate the crucifixion with the paschal lamb but this is fuzzy theology
in anyone's book. If Jesus' blood was shed for the remission of sins
then it bore nothing in common with the Passover blood. If it is
synonomous with the Passover blood then it is not efficacious for the
remission of sins. You are in a Catch 22 situation. The blood daubed
with Hyssop on the door lentils was a symbol, nothing more.
represents a sacrifice whereby the Jews within the home
Ø were spared from the wrath of God.
Be careful, we are again speaking of myth.
Jewish lore taken over by the
> Christians and maybe wedded with Is 53 to portray the suffeing sevant
> Jesus who bears the sins of many.
Sloppy theology. The context of Is 53 is clear. Israel herself is the
suffering servant (in fact the text makes no sense if read any other
way). And, once again, the door lintel blood had nothing to do with sin.
Ø And lets look at the psychology of sacrifice. What are you doing?
Giving of your bounty to your deity. That is why all religions demanded
that the best "without spot or blemish" (a shame that the Greek
Testament reports Jesus was scourged before crucifixion so he failed
this test also). If you compare to contemporary Greek, Roman, Persian,
Egyptian, etc. practices you will find basic similarities.
One
> way or other your trying to keep God on side. Showing your a loyal
> subject. And, if God happens to remember you sins and failings, he
will
Ø perhaps forgive and forget.
Within Judaism there were special sacrifices made for the forgiveness of
sin, they did NOT involve the shedding of blood! This is important. The
case you are making is valid if Christianity has its profoundest roots
in paganism but NOT if you wish to claim they are in Judaism.
No matter what the doctrine says or
doesn't
> say. Much like the mafia figure throwing ten thousand on the offering
> plate. He know's he can't buy God but the "sacrifice" shouldn't hurt.
Umm. I think that might be a typo. The sacrifice SHOULD hurt. As Mother
Teresa was fond of saying "God does not want you to give out of your
bounty, if it doesn't hurt then you have not made an acceptable
sacrifice to God". Thus Jewish sacrifices included (but were not
confined to) ten percent of everything, of which one third went to the
poor who also received the lions share of the other religious taxes,
while priests and levites, who had no other form of income, received
certain portions of the sacrificial animals and produce to live on (some
good cuts and some bad, all prescribed by the law).
> For Christians the emphasis from the beginning was on faith as avenue
to
> God. However, the sacrifice of Jesus is still celebrated in
> Mass/communion round the world to this day. But plenty of theologians
> want to call such ritual game over and done. It's primitive religion
> derived from an angry God who aims to punish with death rebellion and
> will unless there is a covering offering human or otherwise.
>
> Again, Christian exegesis with which I differ.
>
> It's Christian alright. And not endorsed by Qbaal.
>
> Judaism taught and teaches that action is the avenue to God. Faith is
> an adjunct (often an irrelevant one). This is one of the essential
> differences between the two religions. Likewise, Judaism does not
> emphasise an angry God but a merciful one.
>
> OK that's your position. And it's an essential difference as the
> writings of St. Paul make clear. And Jesus, too is heavily into faith
> as avenue to God.
Another reason why I see Jesus as no great Jewish scholar!
> I can't see why you, and Jews in general, claim faith often and
> irrelevant one?? I look at it this way - faith emphasizes that
Ø religion is a matter of relationship from beginning to end.
That's the point. For the Jew it is not. So such an emphasis would be
wrong.
It's not
> saying, off top of head, "Yes, God exists." It's more "God and I are
> intimate friends." And the God side of the relationship guarantees a
Ø internal reformation of one's being.
Another point of divergence. For the Jew internal reformation must come
from within. To expect God to do all my work is a cop-out and a lazy one
at that. Also, I would posit that such a reformation brought about by an
outside agency is far less likely to 'take' than a genuine internal
reformation wrought from within.
Getting together one's dung.
> And, what's more, allied with God one can loosen the grip of angst,
Ø anxiety about one's material being, and boldly obey God.
Sorry about the angst and anxiety, truly. But my material being is me
and it is up to me and no-one else to take care of it. I obey the
Mitzvot (the commandments) of God because of the contract. We are
partners, they are MY commandments too.
Actually,
the
> very presence of God in one's life leads to good conduct and the
> enhancement of society and community living.
That is not the picture of the Christian life available to the external
observer. John Chrysostem, Torquemada, Isabella, Joseph Smith, General
Booth, the Reformed Church, the Reverend Ian Paisley, the leaders of
God's Army, Hitler, Franco, Pinochet, the KKK, Bishop Selwyn, etc. all
claim(ed) the very presence of God in their lives and I would suggest
that their conduct is/was anything but good and that they diminish(ed)
society and community living.
> I, by the way, would be the last to disparage a Jew's, or Moslem's,
> approach to God. They are what they are by the workings of history
> which God created and through which his goals are met.
I admire your faith, even if I don't share it.
> Thus secular studies (history and economics) do not undercut the New
> Testament. Rather, they help us understand what happened in the life
of
> Jesus. Why he was wary of the title of Messiah. How and why he came to
> be crucified.
> Yes they would, if you applied them, which you have not. Jesus was one
> of a
> long line of self proclaimed Jewish Messiahs. Unfortunately, like all
> the
> others, he did not fit the bill. But his life and ministry were quite
> typical, he was the Benny Hinn of his day.
>
> Qbaal:
>
> Re application of principles of historical study and economics I
> suggest you go to the master, John Dominic Crossan in his book, The
> Birth of Christianity.
>
> Master he may be to you, but he is writing from a Christian
> perspective. This taints his writing AFAIAC.
>
> Qbaal: There is little writing historical or theological that is
purely
> objective. But Corssan knows this and tries to be objective. In fact
> a lot of his work in The Birth of Christianity is based on secular
> historical sources. I know that only means that they are historical
> sources that coincide with Crossan views. Therefore, still biased.
I haven't read any of his work. I shall - and get back to you.
> Dominic's writing makes it clear Jesus died standing, prophet like for
> the oppressed and poor.
>
> The Palestinian peasantry reduced to subsistence level by those
invited
> Romans.
>
> Quite untrue. Their lifestyles actually improved under the Romans.
They
> developed a true middle class for the first time. Also, Jesus spent
his
> time with Publicani, winebibbers, prostitutes, landowners, small
> businesspeople and so forth rather than the peasantry.
>
> Qbaal: and they also had a aristocracy who bled the peasants.
> A religious aristocracy that made money on the temple
> sacrifices. And the middle class were also supported
> from below.
Just like Jesus and his followers, tradesmen and middled class all. They
lived off the money of their women camp followers and had little to do
with the peasantry at all.
> Jesus may even have had friends among the elite -
> Roman and Jewish.
I would say tha is a certainty.
> I don't know if I want to call prostitues middleclass.
> I suppose the serviced all classes and were from
> all classes.
Prostitution has always been a way for women to advance themselves.
> And how does "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" fir into this
> revisionist theology?
>
> Qbaal:
>
> Easy. But remember the revision of the actual story of Jesus
> (historical Jesus) starts long ago with the writings of the gospels
and
> maybe before in the oral tradition that led to it. The blame for
> the murder of Jesus is shifted from the Romans, who actually killed
> Jesus, to the Jews and their leaders. The early Christians knew what
> side of their bread was buttered on! Jesus, no violent Messiah,
loved
> Romans and Jews. He knew rebellion or even a neutral position re
Roman
> authority might invite disaster for his movement and followers. So
why
> not give Caesar his due as a powerful occupying force? And I sure the
> gospel writer would ingratiate the young Christian movement with Rome
by
> saying Christians ARE friends of Caesar. And having Jesus say
> same. Even if he never pronounced anything on Rome and political
> authority.
Nice theory, pity it flies in the face of all available facts.
> Jesus Christ or Jesus the Messiah. This is the supreme irony of
> history. The gospels, one way or other, bust a gut to project Jesus as
> Messiah. Yet the same gospels betray the reality Jesus was much more
> reserved thans his followers to appropriate the title. Maybe saw too
> many Roman crosses.
>
> They do bust a gut to portray him as the Jewish Messiah but he fails
to
> meet the test.
>
> Qbaal:
>
> Yes, 1st century Palestine was dancing and intoxicated with messianic
> expectations. And Jesus followers wanted the title for their master.
> However, even they realized that Jesus and the Messiah were not a
> entirely harmonious match. In fact you could easily argue the
> non-violent meek Jesus was/is the very antithesis of Messiah. Jesus
> promotes a spiritual kingdom. Messiah and earthly power, glory, wealth
> are synonymous.
Not in Judaism they aren't. BTW, the Romans renamed Judaea and Israel as
Palestine after the failed revolt of Bar Kochba in 135 CE so there was
no such place as "1st century Palestine".
> Non-violent? What about the claim that he came to set a sword between
> family members?
>
> Qbaal:
>
> Isolated text up against many that indicate "I am meek and mild....
Turn
> the other cheek. Take the Roman soldiers backpack and carry it a mile
> an offer to go the second with it. They that live by the sword will
> die with it.(Maybe just common sense addage from Greek or Roman
culture)
Jesus spoke more of hell than heaven, more of punishment than reward, he
acted more violently than non-violently. The facts speak for themselves.
> So those not always spiritual geniuses that wrote the 4 gospels were
> smart enough, in the light of Jesus' life and teaching, to see a much
> better title for Jesus was Suffering Servant of Is 53 fame.
>
> Not very bright then, as Is 53 refers to Israel! As clear as a bell.
>
> We agree entirely. Is 53 is Israel. But I'm happy the early
Christians
> appropriated (stole and distorted) Is. 53 to give a more enlightened
> picture of Jesus than the Messianic expectations of ancient Israel and
> Jesus time, too.
You have a strange interpretation of the Jewish Moshiach. Is 53 makes no
sense in any interpretation other than literal: ie. Israel is the
suffering servant.
> The cross of Jesus, IMHO, is not sacrifice or appeasement, it is
> atonement with God and dealing not with just sin but the mechanism
Ø of its birth.
Judaism has a non-violent, non-blood ritual for atonement. The Christian
substitution of a bloody human sacrifice is repugnant to me.
This is acheived mysteriously in the death of the
> suffering servant who goes meekly and mildly to his fate. The
> cross and Isaiah 53, orginally referring to the nation, serve
> to define Jesus. Thus, the early Christians could claim Jesus
Ø as Son of David, for the propaganda value, if nothing else,
Certainly, the two (contradictory) genealogies do not support this
claim.
> and the resulting Son of God could be cleased of its crass
> nationalistic thrash and bash'em Messianic connotations
Ø (thrashing gentiles)
Where do you get that interpretation of Jewish aspirations for the
Messiah? It forms no art of Judaism as I have practiced and studied it
all my life and it forms no part of the history I have studied.
and the real Agent of God on earth,
> Son of God or Son of Man, or Son of David was forevermore
> defined clearly by the crucifixion/Resurrection. I'm talking
> about the Messiah projected in the life and teachings of
> the historic Jesus. Not the icon of classical and most
> modern Christianity.
Talk away but what you say about Judaism bears no relationship to
anything any Jew would recognise.
Cheers
David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand
Qbaal
trying to emphasise their (waning) uniqueness. This was part of
their strategy. The facts are there for anyone with eyes and a
brain. You really must learn to distinguish fact from fiction in
scripture.
Come on
its just a box. Of course, you have to reinforce the message of
God's sovereingty, and the priest's, with severe santions.
Otherwise, folk will begin thinking and who know where that may
lead...
Well, it wasn't "just a box", it was a link with a legendary
past. However the fantastical stories that were invented about
it were just that.
It is a box. And the stories were fantastical. But part of the
formative lore of the religion of the day. And living
powerfully in the mind of fundamentalist Christians today.
Yes Exodus is maybe a myth with a kernel of historical truth re
the founding of the nation. Yet, myth or history its all part of
the Jewish psyche.
The invite was a big mistake.
Mistake or not. It was a fact!
Qbaal says the same. But it led to conquest backed by Roman
authority which
you want to project in positive terms. The Romans did allow
local authority but
it was Rome with the ultimate say.
To ward off God's punishment from
some lesser nation.
This is not true.
Qbaal: It is true. The invite was to have Rome on side as
bulwark against any nation
invading the Jewish nation.
Come into my parlour said the spider to the fly..
Hindsight is often 20/20.
Roman law, British law its all the same.
Actually, quite different. British law, as codified by Alfred
the cakes (he who burned the cakes) is based on the Brehon laws
of the Celts and the principle that the accuser must prove the
accusation ('innocent until proven guilty') whereas Roman Law
was based on the concept of mutliple divinities and absolutes
where the accused must prove his or her innocence (as is still
the case where Roman Law prevails today: rance, Italy, Canon
Law, etc.).
You never pick up the point, you want to show everyone wrong but
the 100% correct you
and your rigid views. I know there are plenty of differences
between the codes, but
the point is not the law but who lays down the law on the
subjugated nation or, if you
will the nation inviting ones friendly presence on their
territory.
You have to give up your law
bye
to your most precious comodity - freedom.
A basic misunderstanding. Freedom is only capable of being known
within bounds. In an absolute anarchy there is no freedom.
Within the bounds of the Torah there is the greatest freedom.
This is the joyful discovery of every Jew. I fear you are
confusing freedom with license.
Qbaal: Basic misunderstanding of what. And why? This is not a
class in philosophy
of law or religion. We are talking about the ancient Jews NOT
in full control of their
destiny. And why, in Jesus time, everyone wanted a Messiah to
deliver them from
Roman oppression.
Why do you think the peasant from Galilee, the home of justice
and love and brotherhood, was slain along with plenty of his
compatriots?
Whoa. Jesus was no peasant. He was a carpenter, a tradesman, and
therefore a part of the elite in that place at that time. As to
Galil being the home of justice, love and brotherhood (what ever
happened to the sisters BTW?) you are severely mistaken. Why do
you think the modern Israeli Defence Force calls its main
assault rifle the Galil? (Galilee is a mistranslation. The
Hebrew is simply Galil). Also, Jesus was killed between two
common criminals (according to Christianity's only sources) in
the prescribed Roman manner for a non-citizen.
Qbaal: Jesus was maybe a stone mason. Therefore, still a
tradesman. But he became
a wandering itenerant preacher, Rabbi some thought. "The son of
Man has no place to
lay his head, even though foxes have holes........" And as
you said above the poor
wandering had himself and movement bankrolled by some wealthy
women. And he,
in my and Crossan view, identified with the cause of the
peasants against the religious rip off artists in Jerusalem and
in the Temple there.
Why was Matthew a despised man. Taxes.
Actually, no, not taxes per se. Matthew was a publicanus.
Usually (mis)translated as a tax gatherer. However the Romans
had very few employed civil services. The Treasury let contracts
for taxes in each province, private companies (publicani) bid
and, upon winning the contract, squeezed the specified amounts
out of the locals (non-citizens only) as well as as much profit
as they could. Roman soldiers were available to back up the
operation. Brutus, the murderer of Julius Caesar, was infamous
for his extortionate demands and brutal methods in this area
when he was Praetor in Cilicia. Matthew was despised due to
taking so much OVER the tax rate. Jesus made it clear that taxes
per se were no problem, "render unto Caesar that which is
Caesar's and unto God that which is God's". He told his
followers to pay their civil and religious taxes.
Qbaal: All you say may be true. But I doubt any tax lover is
loved whether he takes
over or below the set rate. Even today, anywhere. Human
nature. What Jesus said
and what the common folk thought re tax and tax collects, for a
hated foreign power at
that, are two different things. I think the New Testament is
correct in writing up
Matthew as an outcast of some sort. Embarrassing but true.
I am not arguing the invite.
Fine, that was the issue. You stated that the Romans ivaded, I
denied this. You have now agreed. Nyet Problema.
Qbaal:
I don't argue the invite. Plenty of other nations have invaded
the holy land through the
centuries before and after the invite to Rome and her extended
visit in response. And the
reality of Rome is "I have an offer you can't refuse." Do you
think Rome was all sweetness and light either in Europe or Italy
or in the Middle East.
But lets be realistic about the Roman empire. You joined the
Roman pax but you paid the price in coin and in blood. And hid
your
daughters.
Quite untrue. Qbaal not untrue. Rome had a very ruthless army
and effecient. I'm not referring just to Palestine. Why do you
thing the Titus Arch was built in Rome after the
big put down of the Jews? Why was Rome in Palestine in the
first place? Yes, I know
they were invited. But why did they come and why did they
stay? Why did they sacrifice
their young men's blood over centuries. I don't think
economics explains everything in history but it does explain a
great deal. Money, honey.
First, the province of Judaea was uniqe in all Roman history as
the only one to petition Rome for entry as a province by way of
plebiscite. Rome accepted even though they did not want another
province there. Second, you paid a price in coin and reaped a
benefit in protection and coin. Roman laws were far more lenient
and enlightened than most other laws in operation around the
Mediteranean at that time so the price you paid in blood was
less of it. And very few Roman would wed or bed non-Romans as
this was thought beneath them (hence the attempt to impeach
Julius Caesar when he took a Gallic mistress). And rape was
punishable by death. The Roman Empire was, at that time, a far
safer place for women than any of the adjoining lands. Although
prostitution was a problem as it was so lucrative.
Qbaal: Ok . I agree with the obvious benefits of the Roman
pax. I am denying nothing
of this, the positive side of Roman rule. But I can't get you
to see the negative and dark
side, both in Palestine and elsewhere. Once Rome established
control there were smiles
all round. But, as you know there was plenty of unrest in
Palestine in the first century.
Messiah were a dime a dozen with their rebellions against Rome.
Not entirely unrelated
to the crucifixion of Jesus. And where not the general
uprisings supressed with fierce
violence. What happened to the great Temple in Jerusalem Why
did Jews give up
the sacrificial system of the Temple? What is Masada all
about? A siege of epic
proportions to destroy a few rebels. Why? And was not plenty
of Jewish blood
then and before flowing. And girls raped? And temple artifacts
stolen.
And even in peaceful times, bedding down with Rome was of
necessity a flea
sleeping with an elephant.
Actually with the power-loving but efficient Romans and their
army you could not win. If you fought you lost (especially a
Jewish army) if you invited and welcomed, you lost freedom,
money, honor and eventually
land.
This statement is untrue in so many respects it deserves several
threads all to itself, and we are getting dangerously off topic.
So I'll just say that your statement flies in the face of ALL
the evidence I have seen and, without corroborating
documantation I decline to accept it.
Qbaal accept it or shove it I care less. You and I don't read
the same books but
I read plenty of them. You don't know what it is to be under
any foreign power especially
in the ancient world. Just don't deny my statement go to
Crossan book and look at
the argument and sources. Then bring your sources. Which you
fail on every point to
do. Even when I make the reference.
You don't think Rome loved power? YOu don't think their
government and army and
builders were efficient. YOu don't think they extracted money
from countries of t heir
far flung empire, along with grain and tribute....... And it
very much to the point
that the Holy Land is where nations from time immemorial have
marched, killed,
and , thought they built cities and temples, they razed to the
ground cities, temples,
and murdered priests and rebels...........
At least eventually, as Crossan points out the whole economy is
title to urban requirements and the local farming peasants are
drained.
Again. So untrue as to be ridiculous. If it were true then the
Roman latifundia would never have prospered, they did and were
the basis of many a Senatorial fortune. Farmers were, in
Republican as well as Imperial Rome, then as now, landed gentry
rather than peasants.
Are you saying people don't get rich at the expense of others.
The Mafia and others
in power, anywhere only profit when others are comfortable and
well off. Sometimes,
but not always. Heck, the Romans exploited fellow tribes in
Italy and regularly
had a mega civil war, or general led uprisings through much of
their history.
The founding of a Roman city, in Jesus time, in Palestine was
not good news for the peasant.
Which city do you speak of? And I would have thought that the
abolition of peasantry and the chance to aspire to become a
citizen of the greatest empire in the known world would have
been great news - as did they by the overwhelming vote in
favour.
I still think one of Jesus main purposes was to remind folk
Rome's occupation
was not God's punishment.
Rather blessed, by God, are you poor,.
A dangerous philosophy expounded everywhere by the privileged in
order to placate the
chattering classes. Whereas Judaism taught that we should all
strive together to eliminate all forms of poverty, Jesus
said "the poor are with you always" and thus absolved the well-
to-do from tithes, charity, aid, and other obligations of Jewish
Law. A genuinely self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'm not arguing the philosophy's merits. The Bible says Jesus
expounded it.
The poor with you always maybe just a general
observation that
holds in too many places today and in general in the time
of Jesus. It
may have been just common lore of the age, with Greek or
Roman input.
I truly believe Jesus was crucified because he rubbed the
privileged the
wrong way for his Judaism type thinking you describe. I
would interpret
blessed are you poor to mean - don't think because they're
rich God
loves them and not you, the poor. God in fact loves the
poor. And
the rich who rob the widows and peasants will be judged.
God will
deal with them.
Blessed are you hungry, for thought the Romans are robbing the
food off your table, ... you shall be fed.
Robbery of a non-citizen by a citizen (or non-citizen soldier)
was punishable by death if tried outside Rome and exile if tried
inside the Pomerium. This was clearly not a problem. Jewish law
provided that the wealthy had to feed the hungry (see the Book
of Ruth for this commandment in action) but Jesus transferred
this responsibility to God. Jesus the friend of the oppressors
always.
Blessed are you who weep for
for you shall laugh and the Romans shall weep and howl.
"Vengeance is mine saith the Lord" and "Rejoice not in the
downfall of thine enemy" is replaced by this sort of petty
gloating! Jesus as Rambo!
Qbaal: Jesus wanted the contract for t he role but thought the
money would
spoil his peasant image.
The word among
1st century Palestinian Jews was Jesus was the result of a
forced > union between Mary and a Roman soldier.
Actually, the Talmud says it was the result of a voluntary
union. I have never seen any reference (prior to this) that
suggests rape.
The Talmud says one thing. But the rumors circulating to counter
the Christian claim of Virgin birth among Jews is another thing.
Really? Please give a source for these rumours. I have studied
this question (amongst others) for over a quarter of a century
and have never come across any such evidence so I intrigued by
your emphatic claims. BTW, during the 1st century CE the Talmud
was being redacted and parts of it consist entirely of the
rumours circulating then. Just thought I'd let you know.
Qbaal: I agree with your Talmud references. But it was hardly
the National Enquirer of the day. My claims are not empatic.
Just risky extrapolation beyond the New Testament
and Talmud references.
Or maybe the Virgin birth was concocted, in part, to cover the
ugly rumors. And even if Mary wasn't raped by a Roman soldier,
the consentual
agreement would not endear her to many compatriats. Or enhance
the reputation of the fruit of that happy union.
It was quite common amongst prostitutes in the provinces that
they gave birth. In Rome itself there were sophisticated methods
of birth control and abortion was a relatively safe and routine
procedure but the provinces had few of the amenities. We learn
from the time that Mary became the mistress of a Centurion named
Panthus who looked after her well. And while some would frown
upon this union such condemnation was by no means universal, or
even in the majority.
Nicely covered by the Virgin Birth.
Egypt was probably like any other invader/occupier âââ
€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ pushing > folks around. And doing what
they wanted with those who would say them nay.
Egpt never invaded or occupied the Holy land.
I've read many times that Moses leading the Exodus did not take
the coastal, easy, route into Palesting. Too many Egyptian
garrisons
there.
Then I suggest you read better informed authors. The Egyptians
never kept garrisons! In fact, by the time of the birth of Jesus
Egypt didn't even have an army, she relied solely on
mercenaries, Rhodans and similar on sea and Jews on land. So,
the Jews were in a position to invade Egypt rather than the
other way around! History will give you a whole new perspective
on scripture and you will see just how the followers of the
opressor Jesus have lied and covered up in order to make him
more acceptable to the unwashed.
This is occupation of some description and presupposes some kind
of invasion.
Were it true it would be, as it is not then it ain't.
Perhaps, you think the ancient folk of Palestine always reacted
to the Egyption threat by issuing another of their invitations.
Qbaal: My sources could be mistaken. But books like
Andersons
Understanding the Old Testament
are not to be
taken lightly. And there are
plenty of other reputable
scholars I could list.
What are you sources on Eygyptian garrisons and the Exodus
as history
or pseudo-history. By the way I tend to regard Exodus
as essentially
a myth.
The Egyptians were never an expansionist country. The only
territory they ever took over outside their own borders was the
Island of Crete and that was because it was being used as a base
by pirates who were threatening their economy. This is
historical fact. There never was any threat of invasion by
Egypt, to anyone, EVER!
This is a mind boggling escalation of the subject, thinks
Qbaal. Are you saying Cleopatra did not have expansionist
schemes and represent a threat to Rome The Roman senate thought
not. Nor Wm. Shakespeare. And my point is that armies fought
in Palestine through the centuries, some of them occupied the
land, and some armies dragged folk in to exile. I don't
want to discuss the whole history. Only that the geography
influenced the volatile history of the region. And that
the prophets of old might have been a little more objective
in their assessement of events and not attribute every foreign
incursion, depopulation or bloody supression as planned by God
to punish folk for their sin.
Read some history of the Maccabean revolts.
I am aware of the Maccabean revolts. These were against the
Assyrians.
Qbaal: Yes, with bloody massacres on both sides, in Palestine.
And both
armies ravaged the land and farms just to eat. They had no K
rations in those days or parachute supply drops. And I don't
think the Assyrians
or Maccabean forces paid for the grain, etc. Maybe issued some
promises or ancient confederate notes.
I will profer you the same advice you proferred me: read some
history. The Assyrian armies had supply trains (if you devestate
the farmlands in the battle then the reason for fighting
disappears - it makes perfect sense) for their armies and camps
Qbaal: And Sherman did not burn his way through Georgia
because the reason for fighting disappeared, literally. And
don't kill the enemy because your reason for warring disappears.
The Maccabeans were the locals, they were fed by their friends
and relatives. The Maccabeans were never an army as such but a
guerilla force comparable to the Viet Cong (with similar end
results). The Maccabean rebellions were popular uprisings. Each
year they are commemorated by all Jews the world over with the
eight day festival of Hannukah during which we study the history
of the time. I have been doing this all my life.
And Jesus was
not crucified by Jews. Rather Romans.
That is certainly what the Greek Testament says.
Then Rome sacked (AD 70)
Jerusalem and eventually any Jew that moved in Palestine and
dispersed the survivors to the four winds.
This was after the rebellion of Bar Kochba in 135 CE. A quite
normal Roman response (and rather constrained when compared
with, say, Carthage).
Things got so bad in Jerusalem in this constrained seige that
parents ate their children.
David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
David Bisman
Qbaal <davenorth...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
Come on
its just a box. Of course, you have to reinforce the message of
God's sovereingty, and the priest's, with severe santions.
Otherwise, folk will begin thinking and who know where that may
lead...
Well, it wasn't "just a box", it was a link with a legendary past.
However the fantastical stories that were invented about
it were just that.
It is a box. And the stories were fantastical. But part of the
formative lore of the religion of the day. And living
powerfully in the mind of fundamentalist Christians today.
Yes Exodus is maybe a myth with a kernel of historical truth re
the founding of the nation. Yet, myth or history its all part of the
Jewish psyche.
Actually it is a throne, not a box (Raiders of the Lost Ark was
fiction). Reread the biblical passages pertaining to it.
The invite was a big mistake.
Mistake or not. It was a fact!
Qbaal says the same. But it led to conquest backed by Roman
authority which you want to project in positive terms. The Romans did
allow
local authority but it was Rome with the ultimate say.
But by choice and the majority were happy with it. It was positive.
To ward off God's punishment from
some lesser nation.
This is not true.
Qbaal: It is true. The invite was to have Rome on side as
bulwark against any nation invading the Jewish nation.
No. The invitation was to avaid another in a line of inept Idumean
Kings. Sorry to disillusion you.
Roman law, British law its all the same.
Actually, quite different. British law, as codified by Alfred
the cakes (he who burned the cakes) is based on the Brehon laws
of the Celts and the principle that the accuser must prove the
accusation ('innocent until proven guilty') whereas Roman Law
was based on the concept of mutliple divinities and absolutes
where the accused must prove his or her innocence (as is still
the case where Roman Law prevails today: rance, Italy, Canon
Law, etc.).
You never pick up the point, you want to show everyone wrong but the
100% correct you
and your rigid views.
Ad hominem.
I know there are plenty of differences
between the codes, but the point is not the law but who lays down the
law on the
subjugated nation or, if you will the nation inviting ones friendly
presence on their
territory.
Point taken. But my point was that Roman law was an improvement - a
positive.
You have to give up your law
bye
to your most precious comodity - freedom.
If you freely choose that new law then you need not give up your
freedom. Besides which, Roman law only overruled the right to inflict
capital punishment in the provinces (all other law was kept) and the
Jews had voluntarily given up this right over 500 years previously. So,
they gained much and gave up nothing.
A basic misunderstanding. Freedom is only capable of being known within
bounds. In an absolute anarchy there is no freedom.
Within the bounds of the Torah there is the greatest freedom.
This is the joyful discovery of every Jew. I fear you are
confusing freedom with license.
Qbaal: Basic misunderstanding of what. And why? This is not a class
in philosophy
of law or religion. We are talking about the ancient Jews NOT
in full control of their destiny. And why, in Jesus time, everyone
wanted a Messiah to
deliver them from Roman oppression.
Sorry. That wasn't what I was speaking of. Because I see no evidence for
"everyone" wanting that. IMO the Jews at that time were in full control
of their destiny (that they did not exercise that control as we might is
another matter). The vast majority of them did not see the Roman
presence as oppression but as liberation.
Why do you think the peasant from Galilee, the home of justice
and love and brotherhood, was slain along with plenty of his
compatriots?
Whoa. Jesus was no peasant. He was a carpenter, a tradesman, and
therefore a part of the elite in that place at that time. As to Galil
being the home of justice, love and brotherhood (what ever happened to
the sisters BTW?) you are severely mistaken. Why do you think the
modern Israeli Defence Force calls its main assault rifle the Galil?
(Galilee is a mistranslation. The Hebrew is simply Galil). Also, Jesus
was killed between two common criminals (according to Christianity's
only sources) in
the prescribed Roman manner for a non-citizen.
Qbaal: Jesus was maybe a stone mason.
What is your evidence for this claim?
Therefore, still a tradesman. But he became a wandering itenerant
preacher, Rabbi some thought. "The son of Man has no place to lay his
head, even though foxes have holes........" And as you said above the
poor wandering had himself and movement bankrolled by some wealthy
women. And he,
in my and Crossan view, identified with the cause of the peasants
against the religious rip off artists in Jerusalem and in the Temple
there.
Harsh words for the religious authorities. What makes you call them "rip
off artists"?
Why was Matthew a despised man. Taxes.
Actually, no, not taxes per se. Matthew was a publicanus.
Usually (mis)translated as a tax gatherer. However the Romans
had very few employed civil services. The Treasury let contracts for
taxes in each province, private companies (publicani) bid and, upon
winning the contract, squeezed the specified amounts
out of the locals (non-citizens only) as well as as much profit
as they could. Roman soldiers were available to back up the
operation. Brutus, the murderer of Julius Caesar, was infamous
for his extortionate demands and brutal methods in this area
when he was Praetor in Cilicia. Matthew was despised due to
taking so much OVER the tax rate. Jesus made it clear that taxes per se
were no problem, "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto
God that which is God's". He told his
followers to pay their civil and religious taxes.
Qbaal: All you say may be true. But I doubt any tax lover is
loved whether he takes over or below the set rate. Even today,
anywhere. Human
nature. What Jesus said and what the common folk thought re tax and
tax collects, for a
hated foreign power at that, are two different things. I think the
New Testament is
correct in writing up Matthew as an outcast of some sort.
Embarrassing but true.
Embarrassing for whom?
I am not arguing the invite.
Fine, that was the issue. You stated that the Romans ivaded, I
denied this. You have now agreed. Nyet Problema.
Qbaal:
I don't argue the invite. Plenty of other nations have invaded
the holy land through the centuries before and after the invite to
Rome and her extended
visit in response. And the reality of Rome is "I have an offer you
can't refuse." Do you think Rome was all sweetness and light either in
Europe or Italy or in the Middle East.
No, I don't think they were all sweetness and light (history records
that Pontius Pilate was recalled to Rome early, tried and convicted for
extortion and brutality to the Judeans).. However, I think that they
were as benign a force as was available at the time. I also think that
attempting to link them, by association, with invaders is disingenuous.
But lets be realistic about the Roman empire. You joined the
Roman pax but you paid the price in coin and in blood. And hid
Your daughters.
Quite untrue. Qbaal not untrue. Rome had a very ruthless army
and effecient. I'm not referring just to Palestine. Why do you thing
the Titus Arch was built in Rome after the big put down of the Jews?
Why was Rome in Palestine in the
first place? Yes, I know they were invited. But why did they come
and why did they
stay? Why did they sacrifice their young men's blood over centuries.
I don't think
economics explains everything in history but it does explain a
great deal. Money, honey.
I agree. Money was Rome's prime motivator, that coupled with lust for
power explains the proliferation of provinces in the late Republican and
early Imperial years. It is a fact that Octavius (the Emperor Augustus)
did not want Judaea as a province but allowed it to settle a power
struggle in the Senate. The Roman Army, as restructured by Gaius Marius,
some 150 years earlier, was a useful device for exporting disaffected
Plebeans from the City herself. Few of the Romans who counted (those of
the upper two classes) ever were in any danger in the army which
consisted mainly of the Capiti Censii. However, Judaea was not a wealthy
province (why it was never annexed earlier) so money played little part
in its history at that point (Pompey the Great had looted the Temple
years earlier and there was little portable wealth left in the
province).
First, the province of Judaea was uniqe in all Roman history as
the only one to petition Rome for entry as a province by way of
plebiscite. Rome accepted even though they did not want another
province there. Second, you paid a price in coin and reaped a
benefit in protection and coin. Roman laws were far more lenient and
enlightened than most other laws in operation around the
Mediteranean at that time so the price you paid in blood was
less of it. And very few Roman would wed or bed non-Romans as
this was thought beneath them (hence the attempt to impeach
Julius Caesar when he took a Gallic mistress). And rape was
punishable by death. The Roman Empire was, at that time, a far
safer place for women than any of the adjoining lands. Although
prostitution was a problem as it was so lucrative.
Qbaal: Ok . I agree with the obvious benefits of the Roman
pax.
I'm not actually talking about the Roman pax. This was another thing
entirely.
I am denying nothing
of this, the positive side of Roman rule. But I can't get you
to see the negative and dark side, both in Palestine and elsewhere.
I see them quite clearly. I just don't see them as outweighing the
positive in this place and time.
Once Rome established
control there were smiles
all round. But, as you know there was plenty of unrest in
Palestine in the first century.
As in every other century. One of the surprising aspects of the 20th
century is how peaceful it has been.
Messiah were a dime a dozen with their rebellions against Rome.
Most 'messiahs' were not anti-Rome. Hence the reluctance of the Roman
authorities to become involved in purely religious internecine strife.
Not entirely unrelated to the crucifixion of Jesus. And where not the
general
uprisings supressed with fierce violence.
All uprisings against lawful authority always have been and still are
ruthlessly supressed.
What happened to the great Temple in Jerusalem Why
did Jews give up the sacrificial system of the Temple? What is
Masada all
about? A siege of epic proportions to destroy a few rebels. Why?
And was not plenty
of Jewish blood then and before flowing. And girls raped? And temple
artifacts stolen.
After the series of revolts from 68 to 135 CE the Romans responded as
they always did in such circumstaces. There is no record (Roman or
Jewish) of any rapes whatsoever during these wars (why are you so
obsessed that there must be rapes?) And the Temple artifacts were the
legitimate booty of war.
And even in peaceful times, bedding down with Rome was of
necessity a flea sleeping with an elephant.
Certainly not the view of the Greeks, the Macedonians, the Cilicians,
the Rhodans, the Aventine Gauls or the Jews.
Actually with the power-loving but efficient Romans and their
army you could not win. If you fought you lost (especially a
Jewish army) if you invited and welcomed, you lost freedom,
money, honor and eventually land.
This statement is untrue in so many respects it deserves several
threads all to itself, and we are getting dangerously off topic. So I'll
just say that your statement flies in the face of ALL
the evidence I have seen and, without corroborating
documantation I decline to accept it.
Qbaal accept it or shove it I care less. You and I don't read
the same books but I read plenty of them.
Ad hominem.
You don't know what it is to be under any foreign power especially
in the ancient world.
Neither do you. However, I visited countries behind he Iron Curtain
before the collapse of Communism so I have some idea of what it is like
to live under a foreign power. I was raised Jewish with the history of
my family and people instilled into me with my mother's milk so I have
some notion of the conditions they lived under.
Just don't deny my statement go to Crossan book and look at
the argument and sources.
I have said I will, I have it on order from UBS. It will take time.
Then bring your sources.
Why wait until then?
Which you fail on every point to do.
OK, my major sources for Judaic life 2,000 years ago are the Talmud,
Josephus' History of the Jewish Wars, the writings of Philo. For Roman
Life they are: Caesar's works, particularly his Gallic Wars, Sallust,
Suetonius, Livy, and the Cicero letters. For subsequent history I try to
use similarly contemporary works. That should be enough to be going on
with.
Even when I make the reference.
I stated previously that I would read Crossan's book. I also referred to
my source as the Talmud on at least one previous occasion.
You don't think Rome loved power?
I think many Romans did.
YOu don't think their government and army and builders were efficient.
On the contrary, I think they were very much so.
YOu don't think they extracted money from countries of their far flung
empire, along with grain and tribute.......
Money and grain are tribute! And yes, I know they did. In fact it was I
who gave the mechanism by which they did that (in regard to Matthew)
above. So I don't understand your point.
And it very much to the point that the Holy Land is where nations from
time immemorial have
marched, killed, and , thought they built cities and temples, they
razed to the ground cities, temples,
and murdered priests and rebels...........
To what point is that? Surely not the Roman one. We have established
that they were NEVER one of THOSE nations.
At least eventually, as Crossan points out the whole economy is title
to urban requirements and the local farming peasants are drained.
Again. So untrue as to be ridiculous. If it were true then the
Roman latifundia would never have prospered, they did and were
the basis of many a Senatorial fortune. Farmers were, in
Republican as well as Imperial Rome, then as now, landed gentry
rather than peasants.
Are you saying people don't get rich at the expense of others.
Not at all. Whatever gave you that idea? And what has this to do with
what we are discussing?
The Mafia and others in power, anywhere only profit when others are
comfortable and
well off.
True, who but those with discretionary income can afford bootleg hooch?
Or drugs? Or the other commodities that the Mafia sell?
Sometimes, but not always.
When not?
Heck, the Romans exploited fellow tribes in Italy and regularly had a
mega civil war, or general led uprisings through much of their history.
The Romans traced their history to Troy (Ilium) and therefore saw no
kinship with the tribes of Italy. Yet they eventually admitted them to
the citizenship. Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, Octavius and one other
(whose name escapes me) were the only Generals to march on Rome in a
thousand years of history.
The founding of a Roman city, in Jesus time, in Palestine was
not good news for the peasant.
Which city do you speak of? And I would have thought that the
abolition of peasantry and the chance to aspire to become a
citizen of the greatest empire in the known world would have
been great news - as did they by the overwhelming vote in
favour.
I note you choose not to respond to this question. Why?
I still think one of Jesus main purposes was to remind folk Rome's
occupation
was not God's punishment. Rather blessed, by God, are you poor,.
A dangerous philosophy expounded everywhere by the privileged in order
to placate the
chattering classes. Whereas Judaism taught that we should all
strive together to eliminate all forms of poverty, Jesus
said "the poor are with you always" and thus absolved the well- to-do
from tithes, charity, aid, and other obligations of Jewish Law. A
genuinely self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'm not arguing the philosophy's merits. The Bible says Jesus
expounded it.
OK, but you claim it was to remind 'folk' that Rome's 'occupation' was
not God's punishment. Since there was no occupation and the philosophy
was anti-poor I find your argument a bit difficult to swallow.
The poor with you always maybe just a general observation that holds in
too many places today and in general in the time of Jesus. It may have
been just common lore of the age, with Greek or Roman input.
But a denial of Judaism that put him outside his birth religion.
I truly believe Jesus was crucified because he rubbed the privileged
the wrong way
I think the evidence of the gospels points to the exact opposite.
for his Judaism type thinking you describe.
I would interpret blessed are you poor to mean - don't think because
they're
rich God loves them and not you, the poor. God in fact loves the
poor. And the rich who rob the widows and peasants will be judged.
God will deal with them.
Interesting interpretation but it flies in the face of the plain words
of the text and was never interpreted by the early followers of Jesus as
meaning such. This would mitigate against such an interpretation, I
suggest.
Blessed are you hungry, for thought the Romans are robbing the
food off your table, ... you shall be fed.
Robbery of a non-citizen by a citizen (or non-citizen soldier)
was punishable by death if tried outside Rome and exile if tried inside
the Pomerium. This was clearly not a problem. Jewish law provided that
the wealthy had to feed the hungry (see the Book
of Ruth for this commandment in action) but Jesus transferred this
responsibility to God. Jesus the friend of the oppressors always.
Blessed are you who weep for
for you shall laugh and the Romans shall weep and howl.
"Vengeance is mine saith the Lord" and "Rejoice not in the downfall of
thine enemy" is replaced by this sort of petty gloating! Jesus as Rambo!
Qbaal: Jesus wanted the contract for t he role but thought the
money would spoil his peasant image.
I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence.
The word among
1st century Palestinian Jews was Jesus was the result of a
forced > union between Mary and a Roman soldier.
Actually, the Talmud says it was the result of a voluntary
union. I have never seen any reference (prior to this) that
suggests rape.
The Talmud says one thing. But the rumors circulating to counter the
Christian claim of Virgin birth among Jews is another thing.
Really? Please give a source for these rumours. I have studied
this question (amongst others) for over a quarter of a century
and have never come across any such evidence so I intrigued by
your emphatic claims. BTW, during the 1st century CE the Talmud
was being redacted and parts of it consist entirely of the
rumours circulating then. Just thought I'd let you know.
Qbaal: I agree with your Talmud references. But it was hardly
the National Enquirer of the day. My claims are not empatic.
Just risky extrapolation beyond the New Testament
and Talmud references.
So, you have no evidence? You 'extrapolated'? Made it up?
Egypt was probably like any other invader/occupier ÃÆ'Æ’Ã�€
â��™ÃÆ'â��šÃ‚¢ÃÆ'ƒÂ¢ÃÆ'¢
ââ��šÂ�Å¡ÃÆ'â��šÃ‚Â�ÃÆ'ƒÂ¢ÃÆ'¢ââ
‚�šÂÂ�ÃÆ'â��¦Ã¢â‚�Å“
pushing > folks around. And doing what they wanted with those who would
say them nay.
Egpt never invaded or occupied the Holy land.
I've read many times that Moses leading the Exodus did not take
the coastal, easy, route into Palesting. Too many Egyptian
garrisons there.
Then I suggest you read better informed authors. The Egyptians
never kept garrisons! In fact, by the time of the birth of Jesus Egypt
didn't even have an army, she relied solely on mercenaries, Rhodans and
similar on sea and Jews on land. So,
the Jews were in a position to invade Egypt rather than the
other way around! History will give you a whole new perspective
on scripture and you will see just how the followers of the
opressor Jesus have lied and covered up in order to make him
more acceptable to the unwashed.
This is occupation of some description and presupposes some kind of
invasion.
Were it true it would be, as it is not then it ain't.
Perhaps, you think the ancient folk of Palestine always reacted
to the Egyption threat by issuing another of their invitations.
Qbaal: My sources could be mistaken. But books like Andersons
Understanding the Old Testament
are not to be taken lightly. And there are plenty of other reputable
scholars I could list.
I too can list reputable scholars. The question is whether or not they
agree with my assertions.
What are you sources on Eygyptian garrisons and the Exodus as history or
pseudo-history.
The Talmud, Who Wrote the Bible by Fox, Archaeology Monthly, The Cairo
Museum, The Vatican Library OnLine, Buber and Goldstein.
By the way I tend to regard Exodus as essentially a myth.
It contains myths as well as history and legend as well as fragments
of law, poetry and commentary.
The Egyptians were never an expansionist country. The only
territory they ever took over outside their own borders was the
Island of Crete and that was because it was being used as a base by
pirates who were threatening their economy. This is historical fact.
There never was any threat of invasion by
Egypt, to anyone, EVER!
This is a mind boggling escalation of the subject, thinks
Qbaal.
Sorry, it was stated apropos of your assertions regarding invasions.
Are you saying Cleopatra did not have expansionist schemes and represent
a threat to Rome
I most certainly am. She was fighting for her country since Rome was
trying to annex it (money again) based on a spurious will that Sulla had
extorted out of Ptolemy Auletes. (Sources: Sallust & Caesar's
Commentaries).
The Roman senate thought not.
The Roman Senate thought (rightly) that Caesar was besotted with her and
might not annex Egypt.
Nor Wm. Shakespeare.
Hardly noted for his historical accuracy!
And my point is that armies fought in Palestine through the centuries,
some of them occupied the
land, and some armies dragged folk in to exile. I don't want to
discuss the whole history. Only that the geography influenced the
volatile history of the region. And that the prophets of old might
have been a little more objective in their assessement of events and not
attribute every foreign incursion, depopulation or bloody supression as
planned by God to punish folk for their sin.
And my point is that the prophets did no such thing. We are disagreed on
this point. As I said earlier, you represent classic Christian exegesis
and thought on this issue and I represent traditional Jewish views. I
doubt that common ground can be found.
Read some history of the Maccabean revolts. I am aware of the
Maccabean revolts. These were against the Assyrians.
Qbaal: Yes, with bloody massacres on both sides, in Palestine.
And both armies ravaged the land and farms just to eat. They had no K
rations in those days or parachute supply drops. And I don't
think the Assyrians or Maccabean forces paid for the grain, etc. Maybe
issued some
promises or ancient confederate notes.
I will profer you the same advice you proferred me: read some
history. The Assyrian armies had supply trains (if you devestate the
farmlands in the battle then the reason for fighting disappears - it
makes perfect sense) for their armies and camps
Qbaal: And Sherman did not burn his way through Georgia
because the reason for fighting disappeared, literally. And
don't kill the enemy because your reason for warring disappears.
Nice sarcasm, but it fails to advance the discussion. The facts of
ancient warfare were quit different to those of the industrialised (or
semi-so) 19th century.
Cheers
David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand
Qbaal
Bisman stated:
And my point is that the prophets did no such thing. We are
disagreed on this point. As I said earlier, you represent
classic Christian exegesis and thought on this issue and I
represent traditional Jewish views. I doubt that common ground
can be found.
Qbaal states:
You are very anxious to disassociate yourself and Judaism
from classical Christian exegesis. But if the prophets were
so optimistic, in Judaism, why would Christianity pick up
pessimism quoting same as source. And how can you or
Judaism,which wasn't even born until after the Christ event(and
in response to the terrible destruction of Jewish persons,
temple, nation and culture by Rome, say Christianity was in
error to think Jeremiah foretold, and witnessed the Captivity
(forget any rape) and connected these horrors (even if not one
drop of blood was shed), which were viewed by surviving Jews,
initially anyway, as catastrophic since the Jewish religion was
closely tied to the land and temple. Christian or Jew, apart
from exegesis the plain text, who cares if it is historical
truth, clearly states* Jeremiah viewed the exile and attendant
enemy conquest as God's punishment of unfaithful Israel.
And I'm not talking Judaism anyway. But Christianity. Founded
initially by Jews. They were indeed, as was one ST. Paul,
mainstream Jews in that they adhered to ethical monotheism. And
took both the Torah and Prophets seriously. With their pet
distortions and misinterpretations and all. They began an
admittedly radical process that turned the Roman world upside
down. But this evolution doesn't mean a wipeout or erasure of
the past's positives. Rather a forsaking of the negatives, a
reaffirmation of the positives of monotheism. Christianity
shifted to trust in God as opposed to adherence of the Law. Not
to undermine the Torah but to affirm it's positives. After all
what central in Christianity is one's relationship with God.
And obedience to the law/social justice flow from this
relationship. Even Mt. Sinai, Exodus 20, first states the
relationship and then sets forth the parameters of the union.
Judaism can interpret God and God's will as they please.
My Christianity is big enough to realize that the Jews have
brains and character (along with tradition, etc.) to proceed
apace with their own special witness to God in their
own special way. And so does Christianity with its own
interpetation of the same Old Testament material and comcomitant
historical background. And each has to struggle to achieve
as much an objective interpretation of that history as possible.
However, the really important element of whatever interpretation
is realized is not empirical, nor entirely free of subjective
judgement or bias, since spiritual unseen reality is central.
And we struggle, on the empirical, level to figure out just
what did happen in the historical situations.
And of course, there is the obvious problem, and I'm not speaking
for Judaism here, Bible studies continues apace this very day.
And there is plenty of divergent opinion on many important
points of study even within, say, the Roman Catholic tradition
or various differing Protestant theological camps. So even if
you have the formost experts in any field, you can pick and
choose as to which position you regard as the "truth" of the
matter.
Crossan's effort to see Jesus as a peasant from the north of
Palestine possessed of an attitude may not be the final word
on the historical Jesus, but it is a honest attempt to use
historical sources and experts on the subject. And there are
probably millions of Christians who disagree with his findings.
But time will tell who the real historical Jesus was. We hope,
since there are experts who have said and still say the
historical Jesus is beyond the grasp of both historians and
theologians. Anyways, we quite honestly await your posting of
your informed opinion re Crossan's view of the real Jesus.
Regards, Qbaal
Jeremiah 47
At the noise of the stamping of the hoofs of his stallions, at
the rushing of his chariots, the fathers look not back to their
children, so feeble are their hands because of the day that is
come to destroy all the Philistines, to cut off from Tyre and
Sidon and every helper that remains. For the Lord is destroying
the Philistines, ..
Jer 48
Hark! a cry from Horonaim "Desolations and great destruction!'
Moab is destroyed.. Therefore, behold, the days are coming,
says the Lord, when I shall send to tilters who will tilt him,
and empty his vessels, and break his jars in pieces.
The destroyer of Moab and his cities has come up, and the
choicest of his young men have gone down to slaughter, says the
King, whose name is the Lord of hosts.
Jer 47
"Thus says the Lord: Behold, waters are rising out the north,
and shall become and overflowing torrent; they shall overflow
the land and all the fills it, the city and those who dwell in
it. Men shall cry out, and every inhabitant of the land shall
wail.
Jer 6 Blow the trumpet in Tekoa, ... for evil looms out ot
the north, and great destruction. The comely and
delicately bred I will destroy, the daughter of Zion.
6. For thus says the Lord of hosts: "Hew down her trees;
cast up a seige mound against Jerusalem. This is the city
which must be punished; there is nothing but oppression within
her. Be warned, O jerusalmen, lest I be alienate from you; lest
I make you a desolation, an uninhabited land."
Their houses shall be turned over to others, their fields and
wives together (sex again, maybe); for I will stretch out my
hand agains the inhabitants of the land,"
David Bisman
Qbaal <davenorth...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> Response to D Bisman
>
> Bisman stated:
>
> And my point is that the prophets did no such thing. We are
> disagreed on this point. As I said earlier, you represent
> classic Christian exegesis and thought on this issue and I
> represent traditional Jewish views. I doubt that common ground
> can be found.
>
> Qbaal states:
>
> You are very anxious to disassociate yourself and Judaism
> from classical Christian exegesis.
Absolutely. Look where classical Christian exegesis lead.
But if the prophets were
> so optimistic, in Judaism, why would Christianity pick up
> pessimism quoting same as source.
The historical reasons for this are multiple and fascinating. I will try
to list the major ones as briefly as possible:
a) Early Christianity saw the continued existence of Judaism as a threat
(it proclaimed by its very being that the Messiah had not yet come) and
actively sought to disassociate itself from it. This led to early
Christian theologians deliberately and pointedly rejecting Jewish
interpretations and exegesis. (interestingly enough, similar rejections
occurred amongst early Islamists and Protestants, both of whom saw their
religion as the fulfilment of Jewish Messianic hopes and were angered to
the point of violence by the Jews' stubborn refusal to convert).
b) Such a pessimistic reading is natural to Christianity which is, after
all, such a pessimistic religion. With its hell and sacrifice and
insistence on both the worthlessness (sinfulness) of humanity and each
human through no fault of their own and the inability of humanity and
each human to do anything about this state of affairs. The total
reliance for help on an outside agency that appeared capricious
(abandoning millenia-old covenants in favour of brand new ones without
consultation with the other partner), vicious (causing the death of his
own son), duplicitous (freely breaking his own laws), uncaring ('the
poor are with you always'), and so on.
c) Christianity was influenced by the prevailing philosophies of the
time (Hellenism and Romism) which were profoundly pessimistic in nature.
d) Most Christian theologians and exegetes had either specifically
rejected or had no access to Jewish Oral Law which went a long way to
expounding the essentially optimistic nature of her teachings.
e) Without a pessimistic reading of the prophets there is no need for a
suffering Messiah so the very basis of Christianity required such a
break from tradition.
And how can you or
> Judaism,which wasn't even born until after the Christ event(and
> in response to the terrible destruction of Jewish persons,
> temple, nation and culture by Rome, say Christianity was in
> error to think Jeremiah foretold, and witnessed the Captivity
> (forget any rape) and connected these horrors (even if not one
> drop of blood was shed), which were viewed by surviving Jews,
> initially anyway, as catastrophic since the Jewish religion was
> closely tied to the land and temple.
Judaism existed long before the Romans did and was not born out of their
actions. Like all living things, Judaism is shaped by events which
impinge on it. For instance, the Babylonian captivity (the one Jeremiah
was talking about) altered Judaism as did the Roman destruction and the
advent of Christianity, the rise of official anti-semitism, the
Crusades, the expulsions, the Inquisitions, the Enlightenment, the
emancipation, the Holocaust the establishment of modern Israel and so
forth. It is one, continuous, yet evolving religion. That is how it (and
I as a member of it) can easily interpret its past.
Christian or Jew, apart
> from exegesis the plain text, who cares if it is historical
> truth, clearly states* Jeremiah viewed the exile and attendant
> enemy conquest as God's punishment of unfaithful Israel.
We are speaking here of the Babylonian exile which lasted less than a
generation and was quite different in time, nature, geography, religious
context to the Roman exile. Jeremiah gave specific ways of (physically)
ending that exile which were efficacious. The same was never true of the
Roman exile. That the Jewish people (ultimately) followed Jeremiah's
advice with the subsequent happy outcome declares, in and of itself,
that his was an essentially positive message.
> And I'm not talking Judaism anyway. But Christianity. Founded
> initially by Jews.
The classical dilemma of the Christian apologist. I'm afraid that one
cannot talk about the Jewish prophets without reference to Judaism, as
much as Christians would like to, as this de-culturises their words and
renders them essentially meaningless. When you started talking of
Jeremiah, Nehemiah and the other Jewish prophets then you were, like it
or not, talking about Judaism. And the first Christians were indeed
originally Jews. That is a matter of historical record. That they
swiftly abandoned their Judaism is also on record.
They were indeed, as was one ST. Paul,
> mainstream Jews in that they adhered to ethical monotheism.
Such a definition of 'mainstream Judaism' is very narrow and one that
Jews have never applied. However, you are in good company in trying, as
a Christian, to dictate to Jews what we are and are not. Christians have
attempted to do this from Chrysostem to Torquemanda, from Luther to
Hitler. Nevertheless, we reserve the right to define ourselves.
And
> took both the Torah and Prophets seriously.
Then why misquote them? Also, Jewish scripture is made up of three
written parts and six oral parts. Anyone that claims to be Jewish but
ignores one third of the written scripture and all of the oral scripture
is being disingenuous.
With their pet
> distortions and misinterpretations and all.
Which placed them, ipso facto, outside mainstream Judaism.
They began an
> admittedly radical process that turned the Roman world upside
> down.
Have you read Gibbon, the Rise and Fall of Rome? I suggest you do before
making such unsubstantiated and grandiose claims.
But this evolution doesn't mean a wipeout or erasure of
> the past's positives.
Yet that is precisely what you are trying to do! Erasing the positive
prophets and replacing them with your negative ones.
Rather a forsaking of the negatives, a
> reaffirmation of the positives of monotheism.
Monotheism, while at the heart of Judaism, is not Judaism. Were it so
then the followers of Islam would deserve greater kudos than the
Christians. Christians insist on three Gods which they call monotheism
(problematic to say the least) whereas, in Islam, the Oneness of God is
emphasised to the exclusion of almost all else. Further, you (that is
Christians) have invented these so called 'negatives' that you now want
to forsake. Since we never had them then we have no need to forsake them
and we will continue to affirm (no return needed) the positives of
monotheism.
Christianity
> shifted to trust in God as opposed to adherence of the Law.
How can one trust in a God who gave a law "for all time" then abrogated
it later? If the Law is not to be adhered to then God cannot be trusted.
Christians are, therefore, once again hoist on their own petard.
Not
> to undermine the Torah but to affirm it's positives.
Doing what it says affirms its positives far more than failure so to do,
IMHO.
After all
> what central in Christianity is one's relationship with God.
Which is why hristianity needs the negatives as that relationship is
predicated on fear. Central to Judaism is partnership. That is quite
different.
> And obedience to the law/social justice flow from this
> relationship.
Out of interest. What do you think Jewish "obedience to the law/social
justice flow from"?
Even Mt. Sinai, Exodus 20, first states the
> relationship and then sets forth the parameters of the union.
Again, this is Christian exegesis. As a matter of fact, that passage
(Yitro) was the one read in synagogues all around the world this past
Shabbat, and a great deal of Jewish exegesis was given on the subject.
Once again, we differ fundamentally as Christian and Jew.
> Judaism can interpret God and God's will as they please.
Thankyou for your permission. He have been, we are, we will.
> My Christianity is big enough to realize that the Jews have
> brains and character (along with tradition, etc.) to proceed
> apace with their own special witness to God in their
> own special way.
Cut the crap. Please don't put such blatantly Christianisms (not to
mention Americanisms) onto me and mine. Jews have no "special witness to
God". We are and we do what we will. Period.
And so does Christianity with its own
> interpetation of the same Old Testament material and comcomitant
> historical background.
If you genuinely believe that then why use the pejorative term "Old
Testament"? Why reject all Jewish commentary? Why reject the Oral Law?
Why reinterpret the plain meaning of the words of the text? Pious
claptrap will impress some but not this one.
And each has to struggle to achieve
> as much an objective interpretation of that history as possible.
You struggle if you wish. I assure you, that for me, there is no
struggle.
> However, the really important element of whatever interpretation
> is realized is not empirical, nor entirely free of subjective
> judgement or bias, since spiritual unseen reality is central.
I do not recall electing you to be the arbiter of what is and is not
"really important". And I'm afraid you show Christian bias and exegesis
again. To the Jew the physical seen reality is central. I am not a soul
with a body, I am a body with a soul (see Genesis 1). The Physical
Universe IS the real universe in Judaism (remember St Augustine and his
"Carnal Jews" quote. Spirituality is subject to Physicality, the Unseen
is subject to the Seen, Reality is. Hence the Zohar which proclaims "as
it is below so shall it be above". I am aware that Christianity and
Judaism are 100% at odds on this but there you have it.
> And we struggle, on the empirical, level to figure out just
> what did happen in the historical situations.
I don't struggle at all. I read the first hand accounts (one of the
advantages of a 4,000 year unbroken written history).
> And of course, there is the obvious problem, and I'm not speaking
> for Judaism here, Bible studies continues apace this very day.
> And there is plenty of divergent opinion on many important
> points of study even within, say, the Roman Catholic tradition
> or various differing Protestant theological camps. So even if
> you have the formost experts in any field, you can pick and
> choose as to which position you regard as the "truth" of the
> matter.
You certainly don't speak for Jews here. Speaking as one, I prefer first
hand accounts to latter day try hards.
> Crossan's effort to see Jesus as a peasant from the north of
> Palestine possessed of an attitude may not be the final word
> on the historical Jesus, but it is a honest attempt to use
> historical sources and experts on the subject.
If he sees Jesus as a peasant in the face of all evidence to the
contrary then how can this be honest (yes, I will read the book when I
get it but I cannot reconcile your above statement)?
And there are
> probably millions of Christians who disagree with his findings.
> But time will tell who the real historical Jesus was.
Yes, time will. Past time. The future can only ever know a pale echo of
the past but the past knows itself in all its glory, hence the Maori
proverb that "We must march forward to the future with our history
before us". This is what we, as Jews do with our Talmud and its
commentaries. That is why we possess the ONLY contemporary account of
Jesus outside the gospels. You want source material, we have it. Does
Crossan use it? Do you? Does any Christian? (Well, I know of one and can
recommend Bishop Shelby Spong's seminal work on the subject: "This
Hebrew Lord").
We hope,
> since there are experts who have said and still say the
> historical Jesus is beyond the grasp of both historians and
> theologians. Anyways, we quite honestly await your posting of
> your informed opinion re Crossan's view of the real Jesus.
I promise to post my views as soon as I have read the ook.