Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
Farmer Geddon

Does Jesus fit in context to Jewish belief in the 1st CE?

This is for Lexi, who doesn't fit on the other site:




So where does Jesus fit in context to Jewish belief in the early 1st century Common Era?


I guess to understand Jesus’ way of thinking we first have to understand the Jewish sects that were prevalent at the time of Jesus:

The Jewish Historian Josephus mentions four of these groups, the New Testament explicitly references three, but all of them are important when trying to understand the ‘historical’ Jesus.

It is important to note that most Jews at this time DID NOT belong to any of these groups because of their cast.

According to Josephus the largest sect of the time, the Pharisees, numbered around 6000.

The Essenes around 4000.

The Sadducees numbered a hell of a lot less.

Considering that at the time there must have been approximately three and a half million ordinary Jews in the known world, these numbers are significantly small.

But it matters not, compared to how influential they were.

So how did these sects see themselves in the Grand Jewish scheme of things in the early 1st century of the Common Era? No doubt they would have subscribed to the basic principles of their Jewish religion:  They would have believed in the one, true creator G-d as revealed to them in their scripture, who had chosen Israel as its people, who had promised to protect and defend them in exchange for their committed devotion to it by following the Laws it had dictated to them.

The Ancient History of Palestine and its peoples are complicated at best, convoluted at worst, but in a nutshell in 721 B.C.E. the northern part of the kingdom know as Israel was conquered by the Assyrians, then in B.C.E. 587-86 the southern part known as Judah was overthrown by the Babylonians. Jerusalem was razed to the ground, the Jewish Temple destroyed and the Jewish leaders were banished into exile.

After roughly 50 years of Babylonian imposed rule the Persians fought and defeated the Babylon Empire and brought an end to this forced excel and allowed the Judean leaders/aristocracy to return to Palestine, they were allowed to rebuild their holy city and more importantly their Holy Shrine – The Temple of Jerusalem.  During this time the “High Priest” of the Temple was given jurisdiction as the local ruler of his people, and had to be from an ancient family line of a priests called “Zardok”. Although, at the end of the day, the Persian king of the time had final authority over the Land and its People.

This state of affairs lasted well over 2 centuries until Alexander the Great put an end to the Persian Empire and brought the Greek culture with him; building Greek style cities with its schools and gymnasia. Encouraging the acceptance of Greek Culture and Religion and promoting the Greek language as the lingua factor of the regions he conquered.
Then when he was killed his generals divvied up his Empire and Palestine came under the rule of Ptolemy, during all this time the Jewish High Priest still had nominal rule of his people and land known as Judea until the ruler of Syria wrestled control of this land from the Ptolemeans around 198 B.C.E.

One Syrian ruler in particular decided to bring greater cultural unity to his empire by requiring all his subjects adopt the aspects of Greek civilisation and way of life. Some of the Jews of course welcomed this innovation, but most didn’t. In fact most were so abhorrent to this Hellenisation of their culture and thought it was absolutely offensive to their Religion - How did this Syrian ruler respond to their protestations?  Why he made Circumcision illegal, essentially making Jewish identity illegal. To cap it all he turned the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem into a Pagan shrine and made it mandatory that the Jews were to sacrifice to his Pagan gods..

Well, what can I say – Judas “Maccabeus” started a little revolt that ended some 25 years later with the Syrians being driven out of the area and the “Hasmoneans” assuming full control and governance of what they believed was their God-given Lands creating the 1st Jewish sovereign state in over 400 years. They rededicated the Temple to their God and installed a Jewish high priest as supreme leader of their Land, not from the traditional and ancient priestly line of Zardok, but from one of the common stock of Hasmonean priests, which didn’t really sit well with most of Jews at the time, but they accepted it because at last they were an autonomous state.
It was during this period that the well-known Jewish Sects started to form, mainly as a response to the social, political and religious crisis of the Maccabean rule, but we’ll chat about what these Sects represented a little later on.

Some 80 years later, around 63 B.C.E The Roman General Pompey came in conquest and so started what I will call the Roman period of Rule. Now they weren’t bad rulers, they allowed the high priest to remain in office as a liaison between Rome and the local Jewish leadership/nation, which work quite well until in 40 B.C.E. Rome decided the land needed a king and appointed Herod the Great as Leader of the Palestinian Jews.

After Herod died his son Antipas took over as ruler of Galilee in the North and Judea in the south was ruled by Rome under the governance of Roman administrators known as prefects, of which Pilate was one. It was during this time of Roman occupation that numerous non-violent and even violent uprising occurred during the lifetime of Jesus, mainly because of the sense of inequity this foreign rule of what they saw as their promised land inspired in the locals. After generations of self rule yet another foreign power was dominating and surely would have been seen as politically and religiously unacceptable to the vast majority of Jews living in this “Promised Land”.

Now we have reached Palestine around Jesus’ time, and it would be a good time to review the various Jewish Sects that Jesus might have been a part of.
Even the most innocuous of internet searches will yield this information on these various sects in Palestine circa 30 C.E.

But this has been a long treatise, so I'll get to who and what the 3 main Jewish Sects [Pharisee/Essenes/Sadducees] would have stood for during Jesus' time in my next post...



..........................................


So where had we got to?

Oh Yeah; who were the most influential Jewish Sects around when Jesus was doing his stuff?

The Pharisees:

What can we say about the Pharisees?

Apparently they are Hippocrates.. Sorry Hypocrites, even though they never took the Hippocratic Oath, sorry Hypocritic oath? Ach it’s all Greek to me!!

But is not really justified, is it?

What we know about said Pharisees is:  They kind of formed during the Maccabeus revolt around the late BCE as a group of devout Jews who were intent in following the “entire will of G-D”.

The [Greek] Culture that was being forced on them was abhorrent. So these tried to encourage their fellow Jews to obey the Laws of what they saw as their unique God to the FULLEST extent possible, without question.

These rules and regulations that the Pharisees developed over time became known as the “Oral” Law, which became in later incarnations to be just as important as the “Written Law”.
From what we can gather the Pharisees believed that if you can keep the “oral” law, then as a Jew keeping the “Written Law” would follow.

They didn’t see the “Written Law” as legally binding, what was more important to them was obedience to what their God had commanded… and as such they would have kept fellowship with like minded souls who would have maintained a high level of obedience to their god, whist shunning those as they saw as unclean…

They were kinda popular during Jesus' time, but didn't seem to have any sort of political clout.

I guess they should be seen as a Separatist Group who wanted to maintain their own 'purity', but did so by isolating themselves from the mainstream Jewish population until the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE when Rome gave them greater authority and the oral traditions they exulted grew in power until 200 years later it was written into 'Law'...




It is also important to note that these Pharisees were not the big political player at the time of Jesus.

That accolade falls on the Sadducees…

Who after the great defeat of 70 CE kinda disappear for the annuls of Jewish History... even though these were the buggers who crucified the Christ!!


I just realised - You do know what the HIPPOCRATIC Oath is.............. Don't you?


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::



So any Hoops - The Pharisees conclusion. They didn't really have any clout in Jesus' time but after the Jewish War they were given greater authority by Rome and their Oral traditions grew until they kinda found a divine status as revealed Law, which was eventually written down a couple of hundred years later as the Mishnah, the central core of the Sacred texts known as the Talmud.

Was Jesus a Pharisee?

I doubt it: Jesus, as far as we know, battled with the Pharisees because he didn't believe in the scrupulous and absolute adherence to the Laws of the Torah as they did.

Which brings us to the Sadducees..

Unlike our friends, the Pharisees, we actually really know bugger all about the Sadducees. Not one single literary work survives from the pen of this sect. The Pharisees have the Talmud and the works of Josephus, The Sadds?

Nuttin'

What we know of them mainly comes from the pen of Josephus.

Who tells us they appear to be made up of principally of the Jewish Aristocracy of Jerusalem and were closely connected to the Priesthood in charge of Temple Cult, most of them were themselves priests, but it has to be added that not all Temple priests were Sadducees..

Now as member of the Jewish Aristocracy the Roman overlords seem to grant them limited power and also seemed to have been given conciliatory powers by the Roman governor to create a Jewish council that was occasionally called on to decide on local matters and transactions in the public or private interest; which was known as the "Sanhedrin".

It also seems that they emphasised that for the Jews to be involved in the worship of God, they needed to prescribe solely to the writing of the Torah and agree with them that the first 5 books of Moses was the only authoritative texts that were to be accepted.

They were aggrieved by the Pharisee insistence of oral traditions, to them personal purity and dietary regulations which they saw as unimportant.

The Temple sacrifice was more important and they expended their political energy on working with Rome so then could permanently carry out this tradition.

After the fall of Jerusalem in 70C.E. the Sadds just seem to disappear.

Maybe it was their rejection of ALL written authority outside of the 5 books of Moses where they denied the existence of angels, to disavow the future notion of the resurrection of the Dead. To teach that either the "soul" perishes with the body, or at worse continues in a shadowy underworld regardless of its quality of life when it was on earth that, after the fall, caused them to just fade into the ether.. Social chemeleons that most Aristocracy are...

Jesus seems to have righteously pissed of these Sadds by claiming that God would soon arrive to destroy the locus of their social and religious authority - their beloved Temple. Is it any wonder that their most prominent members urged the Rome Prefect to execute the usurper?

So I doubt he was Sadd.


What does that leave us with?


:::::::::::::::::::::::::


So what we got left?

We got the Essenes – who, by a twist of fate, we in fact know a heck of a lot about; thanks to Josephus and the “Dead Sea Scrolls”.

The Essenes were a community who lived in the wilderness area North East of Jerusalem, by the Dead Sea, in an area now known as Qumran.

They appear to have established themselves sometime by the early Maccabean period, around 150 BCE, by pious Jews who were convinced that the Hasmoneans had taken over their authority by appointing a non-Zadokite as high priest.

Because they believed the Jews of Jerusalem had forsaken the teachings of god they chose to form their own community, where they could keep what they saw as the Mosaic Law religiously and maintain their own ritual purity in the wilderness.

The reason they did so was because they seem to believe that there was soon going to be a final battle between the forces of Good and Evil, the children of the light and those of the dark. This apocalyptic battle would climax with the triumph of god and the entry of it children into its blessed kingdom.

If you read these scrolls some of them indicate that this kingdom would be ruled by 2 messiahs; 1 a king, the other a teacher.

The Teacher would lead the faithful in their worship of God to a purified temple when sacrifices could once more be made in accordance with Gods will.

These “True” followers needed to be removed from the impurities of the world, which included the Jewish Temple of the time and those Jews who ‘worshipped’ it.

The Essenes started a monastic-like community, where a 2 year initiation was required. If you were approved then you were to donate all you possessions to the community fund and share a common meal with all the other members. Rigorous guidelines were to be adhered to – fixed hours of work, rest and meals. Required times for fasting and strict penalties for what was deemed inappropriate behaviour.

As Jesus was obviously an apocalyptic preacher,  would he have been a member of this sect?

After all he did believe that the end times were near and his people had to prepare for the coming onslaught.
Lexilogio

Interesting. Although I don't know what you mean about me not "fitting" on the other site. Which site? I haven't joined any other sites?

Anyway. I've come across some of this before. As I recall, there is a view that John the Baptist was an Essene, so although Jesus wasn't one, he was well acquainted with its belief system.
Farmer Geddon

Aww Lexi..  

(The one that Ketty is now a moderator).... The one you don't know about!!

Farmer Geddon

If you have a few moments the discussion can be found here:

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=6793.0
Farmer Geddon

Oh you'll have to wait for a few days before my next response. The moderating team over there are wayyy too sensitive, and waaayyyy too quick with the ban button.

No discussion or thought or reason behind their decisions - but it is final.

Thank fuck Lexi has listen to their whining and not us - must be a flea in her ear..

**Not edit by Lexi any more**



LOL
The Boyg

Ketty

Farmer Geddon wrote:
Oh you'll have to wait for a few days before my next response. The moderating team over there are wayyy too sensitive, and waaayyyy too quick with the ban button.

No discussion or thought or reason behind their decisions - but it is final.
Farmer Geddon

The Boyg wrote:


Seems like Lexi has no control over her minions...

But likes to lick them to keep them harpy...
Ketty

 
Farmer Geddon

** Edited **
Farmer Geddon

Urgghh
Farmer Geddon

Any whore.. I think I need Green eyes to look at this thread.

The latest instalment was:

"So how could the Jews claim their God was on their side, to protect and defend them, if they were being constantly overthrown?

Well they have the stories in their "Bible", especially those by Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, Hosea and Daniel. According to these books the Jews continued to suffer military and political setbacks because they had disobeyed God. It was still their God and remained the all powerful ruler of their world, able to command the course of Human events, but they had sinned against it. So their military defeats and economic disasters symbolised its punishment for their sins. These prophets had the solution though - return to the ways of their God, and once again become devoted to keeping the Laws then it would relent and establish them once more as the sovereign nation of their promised land.

Around the time of Maccabean revolt some Jewish thinkers became dissatisfied with this solution - because it didn't answer the question of why, when they did repent and return to God by committing themselves to keeping its Laws; why did they as the righteous still suffer the same as the sinner. Why did they continue to be punished, whilst other nations who made no effort to appease their God continued to prosper?

Mainly because of Antiochus Epiphanes, who didn't allow them to keep the Laws of Moses under pain of death...  these thinkers began to speculate that their suffering couldn't be explained as a penalty for their sins. Why would their God punish them for doing what was right by keeping its Laws and let others succeed?

Can you guess what their solution at the time was?."


What was the Jewish solution?
Farmer Geddon

Powwow

Why quote that liar Bart Simpson, oops I mean Ehrman?
Leonard James

pow wow wrote:
Why quote that liar Bart Simpson, oops I mean Ehrman?


What's up, Pow? Don't you like what he says? Can you show it to be a lie?
Derek

Leonard James wrote:
pow wow wrote:
Why quote that liar Bart Simpson, oops I mean Ehrman?


What's up, Pow? Don't you like what he says? Can you show it to be a lie?


As it is he who is saying it can he prove that it is true?
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
pow wow wrote:
Why quote that liar Bart Simpson, oops I mean Ehrman?


What's up, Pow? Don't you like what he says? Can you show it to be a lie?


As it is he who is saying it can he prove that it is true?

Professor Ehrman isn't here to ask - when he is, I'll be sure to ask him.

In the meantime, pow wow is the one here who has made an allegation (i.e. that Prof. Ehrman is a liar, to wit: "Why quote that liar Bart Simpson, oops I mean Ehrman?") and therefore he bears the burden of proof.

Of course, he won't supply a jot, tittle, iota or scrap of evidence to back up his claims. He never does. But that merely strengthens the case against him, already formidably evidenced as it is, as a drive-by troll incapable of rational debate.
Leonard James

Ralph2 wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
pow wow wrote:
Why quote that liar Bart Simpson, oops I mean Ehrman?


What's up, Pow? Don't you like what he says? Can you show it to be a lie?



As it is he who is saying it can he prove that it is true?


I dunno, but as pow said it was a lie, I assumed he could show why.
Powwow

Make ya a deal. When a Christian says God exists the atheist instantly says the onus is on the Christian to prove it. But the Christian is not lodging a complaint. The onus is actually on the one who makes a complaint. That being that God does not exist. So pretend we are in a courtroom, the onus is on the one making the complaint to prove that the Christian is lying and that God does not exist.  So GO. When you accept that the onus is actually on the atheist, and provide scientific evidence of God's non existence, that will be when I take on those Bart Simpson lies. lol
trentvoyager

Quote:
When a Christian says God exists the atheist instantly says the onus is on the Christian to prove it



You are starting from a false premise here.

So a con artist makes a claim that a specific type of water will cure say Parkinsons disease (this = your claim that God exists) - we aren't by your shaky logic allowed to say hang on a minute, can you just prove that ?

So the onus is  still on you - you make the claim for God's  existence - you therefore have to prove it.
Shaker

trentvoyager wrote:
Quote:
When a Christian says God exists the atheist instantly says the onus is on the Christian to prove it



You are starting from a false premise here.

So a con artist makes a claim that a specific type of water will cure say Parkinsons disease (this = your claim that God exists) - we aren't by your shaky logic allowed to say hang on a minute, can you just prove that ?

So the onus is  still on you - you make the claim for God's  existence - you therefore have to prove it.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but I thought that that was what powsers said - the burden of proof rests with the one making a claim  
trentvoyager

Shaker wrote:
trentvoyager wrote:
Quote:
When a Christian says God exists the atheist instantly says the onus is on the Christian to prove it



You are starting from a false premise here.

So a con artist makes a claim that a specific type of water will cure say Parkinsons disease (this = your claim that God exists) - we aren't by your shaky logic allowed to say hang on a minute, can you just prove that ?

So the onus is  still on you - you make the claim for God's  existence - you therefore have to prove it.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but I thought that that was what powsers said - the burden of proof rests with the one making a claim  


Sorry - I think I've copied the wrong bit of his post I was referring to this:

Quote:
When you accept that the onus is actually on the atheist, and provide scientific evidence of God's non existence,
Shaker

Aaaaaaah, all becomes clear now  

He's quite wrong, of course. As far as I'm concerned the first duty of anyone putting forward some idea or proposition is to define it adequately since everything hinges upon that. It makes no sense even to try to discuss something without having a tolerably clear conception of what that thing is. It's literally just meaningless noise otherwise ... if we were in the Bear Pit I'd say that that brings us neatly back to where we started. But we're not. So I won't The burden of proof is a vitally important concept in the gods/no gods discussion, but secondary to adequate definition, which always has to come first. Maybe I've missed it somewhere along the way but in all my readings and discussions theists just don't seem to come up with the goods in this regard: atheism or non-theism, whichever you prefer, goes through on the nod in this case because the presumption of atheism satisfies Occam's Razor in making the smaller number of unevidenced and unjustifiable assumptions.
Leonard James

Shaker wrote:
Maybe I've missed it somewhere along the way but in all my readings and discussions theists just don't seem to come up with the goods in this regard: atheism or non-theism, whichever you prefer, goes through on the nod in this case because the presumption of atheism satisfies Occam's Razor in making the smaller number of unevidenced and unjustifiable assumptions.


Yes of course it does, but it takes away their warm, woolly comfort blanket and brings them face to face with the stark truth that death is the end of us.

That is what they find impossible to accept, so they will cling to any daft story that helps them avoid the issue.
bnabernard

Shaker wrote:
Aaaaaaah, all becomes clear now  

He's quite wrong, of course. As far as I'm concerned the first duty of anyone putting forward some idea or proposition is to define it adequately since everything hinges upon that. It makes no sense even to try to discuss something without having a tolerably clear conception of what that thing is. It's literally just meaningless noise otherwise ... if we were in the Bear Pit I'd say that that brings us neatly back to where we started. But we're not. So I won't The burden of proof is a vitally important concept in the gods/no gods discussion, but secondary to adequate definition, which always has to come first. Maybe I've missed it somewhere along the way but in all my readings and discussions theists just don't seem to come up with the goods in this regard: atheism or non-theism, whichever you prefer, goes through on the nod in this case because the presumption of atheism satisfies Occam's Razor in making the smaller number of unevidenced and unjustifiable assumptions.


Problem arises when science stands shaking its head from side to side with it's hands on hips sucking in air and saying it can't quite fathom it, here I refer to dark matter or what  was once nothing.

Anyone found out where infinity began in my absence?  

bernard (hug)
Leonard James

Welcom back, Bernie, you old bugger! Where've you bin?
bnabernard

Popped out for a stroke Len, gone and got it in the neck now, (they went for me juguler   )
Other than that just got bored.
Hope you in fine fettle    

bernard (Hug)
Leonard James

bnabernard wrote:
Popped out for a stroke Len, gone and got it in the neck now, (they went for me juguler   )
Other than that just got bored.
Hope you in fine fettle    

bernard (Hug)


Blimey man, I'm sorry to hear that. Hope it hasn't cramped your style too much.

I'm with you on the bored bit ... but my compulsion to argue won't leave me.  
Farmer Geddon

Everytime I want to knock down the pretentious twat I get a ban..  who?
Lexilogio

bnabernard wrote:
Popped out for a stroke Len, gone and got it in the neck now, (they went for me juguler   )
Other than that just got bored.
Hope you in fine fettle    

bernard (Hug)


You ok, Bernie?

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum