| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| Spirituality, Consciousness, & Awareness Spirituality, beliefs, the nature of reality, consciousness, awareness, metaphysics, truth, philosophy, religion |
|
Welcome to the Personal Development for Smart People Forums, the place for lively, intelligent discussion of all personal growth issues -- physical, mental, financial, social, emotional, spiritual, and more. You're currently viewing as a guest, which gives you limited read-only access. By joining our free community, you'll be able to post your own messages, access many members-only features, see the new messages posted since your last visit, and of course remove this header message. Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please join today. If you arrived here from a search engine, you may want to explore the main site first, which includes hundreds of deep and insightful articles on a variety of personal development topics. |
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
12-10-2006, 01:39 AM
| |||
| |||
 The Holy of Holies: On the Constituents of Emptiness Mitchell Stephens writes this interesting essay: http://www.futureofthebook.org/mitch.../holyofholies/ I thought people here might find it interesting. It appears to be, in a way, an argument for atheism as a logical step from Jewish culture. I don't buy it, personally, but some of the commentators did a reasonable job of picking it apart, so I'll let you read their take.
__________________ "I read, I interpret, I think, I criticize, I oppose, I listen, I write, I question, I reply, I quote, I tell, I name, I discuss, I interpolate..., I learn, I teach, I live, therefore I am." -- Marc-Alain Ouaknin, "Mysteries of the Kabbalah", p383. Favorite Essays I Wrote: love, identity & growth, economics, education, equality, definitions. Recent Books I liked: Anansi Boys, Fly By Night, Hyperion.      |
|
12-10-2006, 04:03 PM
| |||
| |||
| Mh, i havent read it all but, in the bible says that most of jewish people wouldnt belive in him because god gave them "eyes that dont see, and ears that dont hear" so that they wouldnt belive in him, the prohpecies of the messiah even say that they wouldnt belive in him, and it also says "i allways extended my hands to a rebel and contradictory people", "with their mouth they worship me but their hearts are away from me", so youll realize that jews as a majority never actually belived in him, thats why they were punished by god time after another by so many years, the only times that they behaved correctly where when a leader summoned by god stablished things by force, like kings solomon and david... god allways saves a minority of his people, he saves a choosen remnant, thats where christianity came since few jewish belived in him, but most jewish as allways dissobeyed. On a side note, dont you think that there is a limit on the amount of ramblings, thoughts, and divagations that one came come up from a subject such as the bible?, i mean, there are so many paths that one could invent just by interpreting something that if you go from one idea to another and so on it becomes so theorized that it losses any purpose other than the theory for the theory... with the only result of beign lost chasing ideas in your own mind. |
|
12-10-2006, 06:59 PM
| |||
| |||
 hmm... Quote:
__________________ dishing out tough love.  |
|
12-10-2006, 08:34 PM
| |||
| |||
| There's some merit to what he says. After all, Christianity was founded based on a misunderstanding of Jewish scripture (the Gospels, written after the fact, conflating the concept of the Messiah with the concept of the Suffering Servant), so it stands to reason that the Jews were not particularly devoted at the time. Either that, or it was intentional; far be it from me to play historian. Christian: Also keep in mind that King Saul was chosen by God at the demand of the Jewish people against God's wishes. I believe that's in First Samuel. Quote:
__________________ "I read, I interpret, I think, I criticize, I oppose, I listen, I write, I question, I reply, I quote, I tell, I name, I discuss, I interpolate..., I learn, I teach, I live, therefore I am." -- Marc-Alain Ouaknin, "Mysteries of the Kabbalah", p383. Favorite Essays I Wrote: love, identity & growth, economics, education, equality, definitions. Recent Books I liked: Anansi Boys, Fly By Night, Hyperion. |
|
12-10-2006, 09:12 PM
| |||
| |||
| Michael, can you probe that Christianity started as a misunderstanding of scripture? i would like to hear more about that point of view since i dont really undertsand what you said. Besides, when do you think Christianity was founded?, and by who?, after all, there are thousands of Christians that do all kinds of different things (even oposing things), wich one of those Christian sects is the original one? (since you seem to know the origins and its foundation then you must now...). And what do you mean by naming King Saul?, i cant see the connection. Also, i dont mean there is a limit to only ramble about the bible, i mean there are other subjects that people try to theorize too much and it gets so deep that it looses any kind of sense and purpose, anyway, that was just a rambling or something... About the apology, i didnt mean to offend you or anyone (im not hatefull either about anyone since all of us can be saved if we repent, and thats what happened with many jews after they killed Jesus), i just wanted to bring what is written on the bible, but if you can probe im wrong or that i used a rethoric to twist the scriptures then ill give an apology, otherwise not, because i was just saying what the bible says (from the tanaj/old testament also, so they should know it...), nothing more, i cant apology for what its written on the bible. I repeat so this is clear, i didnt want to offend anyone, i was just saying what the bible says, if you are offended by it, take notice, i didnt offend you, its the bible that offends you. |
|
12-12-2006, 08:59 AM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
Hiding behind the Bible is not an effective method of brushing off responsibility because you trust it as a true and inspired work. Yes, I am clearly offended at the Bible's position on the matter, but I am equally as offended that you do not take responsibility for your beliefs. Your argument might hold if it could be objectively proven that the Bible is true. That is not the case. Yes, you did offend me, whether it's by saying the hateful things yourself or by trusting in and defending a hateful text, and the request for an acknowledgement and apology still stands. Also, claiming that "the Jews", categorically speaking, killed Jesus? This was a carefully orchestrated operation by certain Jewish officials and sects - Mary was Jewish, did she kill Jesus too? The disciples were practicing Jews, did the disciple Jesus loved kill him?
__________________ dishing out tough love. |
|
12-12-2006, 10:32 AM
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Quote:
 The basic argument, to my recollection, is that there were two distinct characters anticipated by Jewish culture. One was the Suffering Servant, the prophecies for which are often quoted when discussing Jesus' crucifixion. The other was the Messiah, the prophecies for which are often quoted when discussing Jesus' role on Earth. It is therefore argued that these two distinct figures were conflated and merged as Jesus. This link looks useful: Isaiah 53 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If God needs a leader to tell his people what to do, why did he try to persuade them not to get a king? The simplest of counterexamples is Moses, but he messed things up by asking for a competent public speaker who turned out to be an idol-maker. Oh yeah, he also got denied the Promised Land for that. Nothing else Biblical comes to mind. Quote:
__________________ "I read, I interpret, I think, I criticize, I oppose, I listen, I write, I question, I reply, I quote, I tell, I name, I discuss, I interpolate..., I learn, I teach, I live, therefore I am." -- Marc-Alain Ouaknin, "Mysteries of the Kabbalah", p383. Favorite Essays I Wrote: love, identity & growth, economics, education, equality, definitions. Recent Books I liked: Anansi Boys, Fly By Night, Hyperion. |
|
12-12-2006, 10:48 AM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
In Auschwitz, a group of Jews put God on trial for cruelty and betrayal. They found no excuse for God, no extenuating circumstances, no justification at all. So they found him guilty, and presumably, worthy of death. The Rabbi made the declaration, looked up and said it was time for evening prayer. The story supposedly comes from Elie Wiesel... and I just found some more solid confirmation. Wiesel created a play, "The Trial of God", about three Jewish scholars who did this. Amazon.com: The Trial of God: Books: Elie Wiesel Quote:
__________________ "I read, I interpret, I think, I criticize, I oppose, I listen, I write, I question, I reply, I quote, I tell, I name, I discuss, I interpolate..., I learn, I teach, I live, therefore I am." -- Marc-Alain Ouaknin, "Mysteries of the Kabbalah", p383. Favorite Essays I Wrote: love, identity & growth, economics, education, equality, definitions. Recent Books I liked: Anansi Boys, Fly By Night, Hyperion. |
|
12-12-2006, 12:23 PM
| |||
| |||
| September, Jesus was Jew, so how is it posible i hate Jews if My lord was one?, that probes im not a hater i guess... I was just saying what the bible says, but you are asking me to probe that the bible is right, and i cant do that, i never tried to do that either, so if you dont belive what the bibles says im sorry... Regarding the hollocaust, where you say that God didnt apply any direct power there, i can only respond you with the bible, god doesnt need to come down from heaven with a whip to punish people, he sends other people to do it, for example the king of babilon, the philistees, and so many more, actually in Isahia 10 it explains it very well, it says that he sends a king to punish israel, but the king he sends doesnt know it, he thinks he does it because of his own motives, in the end that same king is punished too. So we may see the facts with our eyes, but that doesnt mean that God isnt there, but i have no objetive probe of that, sorry again. You say that im not responsible for my belifes, and i think i am, because the bible says that you cant probe it objectively, but faith in him a gift of god, there are two things oposing each other, the spirit of god and human flesh and mind, both opose each other se we can not comprehend god with our human mind, the humand mind comprehends the human things and the spirit of god comprehends the things of god, thats what i have learned from the bible, wich cant be proben to be objective truth, sorry again. With my first post i wasnt trying to probe anything, i just wanted to share what the bible says, you may belive it or not, if you dont and get offended by it, im sorry, but i cant apologize for what i belive, and i dont belive in hate, i just belive in what god has left writen in the bible. |
|
12-12-2006, 01:18 PM
| |||
| |||
| Michael, i see now how they say that Christianity started as a misunderstanding, but, remember that it cant be said it was a misunderstanding, i mean, there where jews that where awaiting Jesus and recognized him when he came because of what writen of the scriptures they all had, that at least probes that there was a division of interpretations of the scriptures among the jews, who misunderstood it?, thats beyond the discussion... The foundation of Christianity is, i think, just a name of category that defines a common belief, wich is Jesus, so, who started the belief in Jesus, Jesus himself with all his miracles?, it seems to be a complicated subject though... Now, i think you dont really get it (from my point of view) when you say that the first "Christians" where taught to go underground to wait for the second comming, im not saying that they wherent hidden underground, but thats was a consecuense of persecution, not a teaching of god, they needed to hide to not get killed or tortured or whatever, all Christians await the second comming, not only those. Now the famous millenium is a big subject because there are many interpretations of what the millenium means, it is to be taken literally or figuratively?... The first curches where only houses, then caves or tombs, them someone with power came and said "this is a church" pointing to a big and impressive building, imagine... King Sauls, yes i know the story, what meant was "leaders", kings are laders so..., like moses, who was a judge, and the many more that came after him, then as you say after the judges came the kings because they wanted them, oposing god, the thing is that god allways choosed one to guide the people, a leader, i named the kings because if you read the bible you see that when a king behaves like god wants then all the people behaves too, when a king doesnt then all the people doesnt either, now, none was perfect, but still, there where big differences between both kinds of leaders, judges or kings. Crazy people never admit they are crazy, specially if they are intelligent enough to give good excuses... |
|
12-12-2006, 01:59 PM
| |||
| |||
| I think maybe we'd be better off if rather than calling it "misunderstandings" of the Bible, we called it simply "different understandings". One thing that is easy to lose sight of is that, in the time when Christianity was developing, Judaism was developing, too. Within the community of Jews, there were wide ranging beliefs about interpretation of the Bible, and these interpretations were in constant flux. A common way of looking at this is to say that Christianity developed out of one of these interpretations, and Rabbinic (modern) Judaism developed out of another, and that many other varieties died out. That's oversimplifying things, but it will do for now. I will give one example; there's a whole literature out there that argues that Paul's letters were a form of Midrash (Jewish commentary on Scripture) -- then again, there's other literature that say he was doing classical rhetoric. More than likely, he was doing a bit of both. But what we do know is that Christians were interpreting the texts which the Jewish communities of the time were also working through and interpreting -- many of which, by the way, never made it into the Bible. The founder of Christianity (and the "which Christianity") question has been duly raised and answered very well by Michael Chui, so I will but add my voice to his. I especially liked the description of Christianity as a "viral marketing scheme", although I will disagree that it was intended to get people to "go underground" and "wait for the second coming." Sure, a lot of people thought of it that way. But a lot of people didn't. Some people thought of Jesus as an enlightened man, a sage, who could lead them to a higher consciousness (I'm using modern terms, but the ideas were there in the first century, too). Others thought that he was a magical healer, and that his name was to be used in magical incantations for healing (note that magic and medicine were pretty much interchangeable in antiquity). Others believed that he was a son of God, and others that he was the son of God. Others thought he was more like an angel. Some that he was an emmination from the divine, intended as a light to illuminate mankind. I've heard it said that there were more forms of Christianity in the beginning than there are denominations now. And when I say "forms", I mean radically different views on the nature of the religion, on the nature of Christ, on the nature of reality, even. It's just something to ponder. I'm not even going to touch the Holocaust issue. It's majorly thorny, and a discussion of "who was right" and "who was wrong" and "who brought it on the Jewish people" never ends up well. But for some good Jewish perspectives, try Leo Baeck, Elie Wiesel (already mentioned), Eliezer Berkovits, Emil Fackenheim and Richard Rubenstein. A webpage that gives an overview of all of these can be found at: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/RelS...Holocaust.html Although it's a set of course notes, and as such, doesn't go into a lot of depth, it's a decent primer. |
|
12-12-2006, 02:12 PM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
 More accurate would be to say that Christians first met in houses or apartments (often in secret -- depending on the attitude toward Christians in that time and place -- contrary to popular opinion, the Christians weren't persecuted by the Romans all the time). At this time, church was not a place where one goes, but the simple notion of "assembly". If you assembled, you were a church. Over time, they started adapting houses to accomodate larger gatherings and specific ritual acts (the first evidence we have of this comes from about the year 232 -- a largely intact building found after WWI -- but the transition could likely have happened before then). By about 400, when Constantine came on the scene, the development of specifically Christian architecture arose. It's hard to pin an exact date, because Christianity was so far flung at that point changes didn't always happen at the same time. Often modelled on Greco-Roman legal halls (this is where our word "basilica" comes from), these buildings included not only "churches" but also baptisteries, martyrium, and other ritually important structures. Caves and tombs were used sporatically during the first phase -- how much, we can't really know -- but it seems safe to say that the house assembly never went out of style in favor of the caves. More than anything, the tombs were used for specific ritual assemblies surrounding death. Not to say regular assembly (literally, "going underground") couldn't have happened there, but just that I don't know that it can accurately be called a specific stage in the development of Christian meeting places. Especially since, as I noted, the periods of persecution were not constant, and since the use of homes as gathering places is fairly well attested from the get to up until the beginnings of "true" Christian architecture around 300-400. |
|
12-12-2006, 07:41 PM
| |||
| |||
| Maverick, you seem to study a lot of history, thats great, i dont study history at all, just some bits here and there, what i study the most is the bible. Anyway, you dont seem to say anything i disagree with  Let me ask you something, you say that Rome didnt persecute Christians as often, the thing is, when did they started doing it? or what are the periods of persecution of the romans?, and also, i have read in the bible that Paul started to persecute Christians, do you know something about this kinds of persecutions?. |
|
12-13-2006, 03:25 PM
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
Quote:
As for the first systematic, significant persecution of Christians that we have solid evidence for, this would probably be the persecution under Nero in 64 CE. The thing is that (at least according to the Roman historian Tacitus), this persecution wasn't based on anything the Christian believed -- that is to say, it wasn't ideological -- but that the Christians were just a scapegoat, and excuse. Then again, we can't really tell who exactly these Christians were that Nero was persecuting, since Christianity hadn't really developed much beyond the point of being a brand of Judaism at that point ... only one, at most two, of the gospel accounts found in the New Testament had even been written at that time! But we also know that by the early 100s, Christians were being "tolerated" so long as they didn't present a threat to the Emperor, at least in the region of Bythynia. We're fortunate enough to have a surviving letter from Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan (and Trajan's response), which you can read (in translation) here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ary/pliny.html As a side note, for those studying Latin, if you want something really interesting to read that gives you a glimpse into Roman life, you could go farther wrong than to pick up a volume of Pliny's letters. His description of the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius is one of my personal favorites. Finally, regarding your question about the persecutions described in the Acts of the Apostles (and I believe also in Paul's letters). I must admit that I don't know as much as I could/should about this particular element of Christian development, but I see no reason why some Jewish groups would not have been upset with a rival sect like Christianity. We know that there was (occasionally, at least) tension between rival Jewish groups like the Pharisees and Sadduccees over a whole matter of things. It certainly makes sense that similar treatment would have been given to the (at the time) Jewish sect of Jesus-followers. A note on this though... take everything in the book of Acts with a grain of salt ... or preferably a whole shaker. It's primarily a doctrinal book, not a history account. Take Paul's accounts as being more authoritative, especially when his account and that in Acts come in conflict. I don't have the time or resources to elaborate further, so instead, I'll recommend John Dominic Crossan's "In Search of Paul". There's a great section at the beginning of it about the historicity (or lack thereof) of the Acts of the Apostles. |
|
12-13-2006, 05:59 PM
| |||
| |||
 Moderator Note: I would like to remind everyone to please read and adhere to what is posted in the Forum Etiquette Guidelines and to please make an effort to respect the beliefs and religious beliefs of others. In particular, I would like to bring attention to the following points from the Etiquette Guidelines: Quote:
With that said, please feel free to continue on with the discussion. |
|
12-13-2006, 11:48 PM
| |||
| |||
| Thanks for taking the time to write all that maverick, thats interesting info. |
