Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 04-12-2013, 08:00 AM

Quote:

The leader of an empire invades Iraq. He has inadequate intelligence and underestimates the resistance of the locals, but he believes his overwhelming military strength will bring him a swift victory. His army overruns the area between the Tigris and the Euphrates, but as soon as he occupies the area a massive insurgency arises, made up of various ethnic and religious groups. What began as a simple conquest for dominance bogs down in deadly fighting as the once-victorious commander-in-chief now desperately searches for an exit strategy.... This scenario could be any number of Roman campaigns, not to mention America in 2003 CE. Both ancient and modern attempts to invade Iraq have been plagued with the same problems. These problems have been caused by lack of adequate intelligence gathering, both strategic and tactical, and have resulted in long drawn out wars that have been costly in both money and manpower. Ultimately, they led to little political or military gain. Could more have been accomplished through diplomacy rather than brute force? This book details Rome's military encounters with Parthia from the bumbling campaign of Crassus to the fall of the Parthian regime. America's recent war in Iraq has shown that invading Mesopotamia without proper intelligence is a bad idea, but it is not a new idea. Time after time the Romans stormed into the area between the Tigris and Euphrates thinking 'shock and awe' was all they needed to prevail. What they discovered was that it takes more than just overrunning an empire to defeat it. *** "Of particular value is Sheldon's analysis of the consequences of the frequent conflicts on the political, economic, and military health of both empires, noting that periods in which diplomatic solutions were employed generally proved more beneficial than any of the wars. Rome's Wars in Parthia is an important read for anyone interested in ancient military history, and one that can be enjoyed by the interested layman as well." - New York Military Affairs Symposium (NYMAS), March 3, 2013Ã²

From Amazon. Don't forget the converse! Marathon?

Actually, why do we focus history on this bit of land?

Horatio Parker · 04-12-2013, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

I think that there are basic misunderstandings about the period.

For one thing the destruction of the Temple wasn't as earthshaking as it's made out to be. I think that was a little less significant than 9/11 Twin Towers.

The Bar Kochba war was probably more important than the Temple. Now that seems like a footnote.

The Jews seem to have resisted more than we would expect. I sort of think that this was because they were assholes. Probably the truth is somewhere in between my view and Mary's.

Or the Maccabean revolt was a Pyrric victory.

Chili · 04-12-2013, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

So the black people in SA should just have learned to live with apartheid??

That not how people should have to live - hope springs eternal - what is does not have to be.....Utopia might never be reached - but the striving for betterment of the social/political situation is a driving force that some people will harness - time and time again.....

Whatever the context in which one bases ones identity, whether that is race, culture, religion or country - stamp ones feet on a person's identity - and be prepared for the fallout.....Why? Challenge reality and one will come up short....We are not context free - we are born into a social network - and it encodes us with it's identity...early imprinting and all that......

Just like with [reservation] apartheid here in Canada, the natives are just as right about their destiny as we are about ours, with the only difference that those who created it, apartheid here, fail to realize that the complexity of their civilization is in direct relation to the complexity of its mythology that they do not understand. And so it is wrong and will forever be the cause of conflict.

Please understand here that the 'thousand year reign' is also native to them and is wherein harmony originates (logos here). In Plato's words it is from where their neologic condition (soul nature) emanates as different, perhaps inferior, that here those 'invaders' do not actualize to see.

This then is why 'as' greater in complexity it must take the host mythology under its wings to nurse and nurture it as a [universal] sacrifice instead of trying to stamp it out.

Chili · 04-12-2013, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

The leader of an empire invades Iraq. He has inadequate intelligence and underestimates the resistance of the locals, but he believes his overwhelming military strength will bring him a swift victory. His army overruns the area between the Tigris and the Euphrates, but as soon as he occupies the area a massive insurgency arises, made up of various ethnic and religious groups. What began as a simple conquest for dominance bogs down in deadly fighting as the once-victorious commander-in-chief now desperately searches for an exit strategy.... This scenario could be any number of Roman campaigns, not to mention America in 2003 CE. Both ancient and modern attempts to invade Iraq have been plagued with the same problems. These problems have been caused by lack of adequate intelligence gathering, both strategic and tactical, and have resulted in long drawn out wars that have been costly in both money and manpower. Ultimately, they led to little political or military gain. Could more have been accomplished through diplomacy rather than brute force? This book details Rome's military encounters with Parthia from the bumbling campaign of Crassus to the fall of the Parthian regime. America's recent war in Iraq has shown that invading Mesopotamia without proper intelligence is a bad idea, but it is not a new idea. Time after time the Romans stormed into the area between the Tigris and Euphrates thinking 'shock and awe' was all they needed to prevail. What they discovered was that it takes more than just overrunning an empire to defeat it. *** "Of particular value is Sheldon's analysis of the consequences of the frequent conflicts on the political, economic, and military health of both empires, noting that periods in which diplomatic solutions were employed generally proved more beneficial than any of the wars. Rome's Wars in Parthia is an important read for anyone interested in ancient military history, and one that can be enjoyed by the interested layman as well." - New York Military Affairs Symposium (NYMAS), March 3, 2013Ã²

From Amazon. Don't forget the converse! Marathon?

Actually, why do we focus history on this bit of land?

Nice lines.

Let me explain. Gen 2:10-14 is about salvation wherein the seventh day is made manifest and not a piece of land. It so is the Efficient Cause presented in Gen.2 of the Formal Cause proclaimed in Gen.1.

Here the river of life is alive in us as we sojourn that life and call it ours.

And we will wind throughout the land of Havilah where first the Phison flows where there is gold, and that gold is good to have [to decorate our chest] and there are lots of goodies there as outsider to our own self. It gives us pleasure here to seek and find the goodies in life for us as alien here.

The second river is the Gihon that also winds the same but here now the land is called Cush to make to pain known as an opposite to pleasure; and on we go in until it gets the best of us and look back in life and there the mighty Tigris see, rising now, as if from the place we first left behind, and maybe a hint of Eden is what we see.

This river no longer winds in search for more but is where a 180 is made and back we go (metanoia here) as Second Adam now to reach our final destiny called Eu-phrates, and that spells bright-mind for us.

There is a beautiful poem on this written by "The River Merchants Wife." We would call her Mary who is 'looking out' for us because it is her river that we navigate in life as per Gen.3:15.

http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/15425

Notice that the narrows of Kiang is where the Tigris begins and She will take us through to reach the Euphrates. Cho-fu-sa, is called the gate of Eden and is where the narrows will begin.

So it is beyond silly to fight over a piece of land, that now in turn makes Israel as a peace of land equal to hell on earth for them.

mountainman · 04-12-2013, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

There is also an interesting comparison between the Christian concept of Redemption through blood and the Jewish concept of Redemption through Sin.

Gershom Scholem, "Redemption through Sin," Two Parts

Thanks for that semiopen.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

andrewcriddle · 04-13-2013, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The story that Pilate fiound no fault with Jesus and was crucified because of the Jews is mere propaganda and was written in opposition to the claims by Josephus that the Roman soldiers Hated the Jews and would crucify them just for fun.

Wars of the Jews 5.11

Quote:

So the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest, when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies....

This is talking about behaviour in the midst of a bitter war. Peacetime attitudes may have been different.

Andrew Criddle

Chili · 04-13-2013, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The story that Pilate fiound no fault with Jesus and was crucified because of the Jews is mere propaganda and was written in opposition to the claims by Josephus that the Roman soldiers Hated the Jews and would crucify them just for fun.

Wars of the Jews 5.11

Quote:

So the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest, when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies....

This is talking about behaviour in the midst of a bitter war. Peacetime attitudes may have been different.

Andrew Criddle

Oh for sure as religion must lead us on and on, and further still as the protagonist in us to which we are true in what is known as the Church Millitant, which is what the Roman here represents = the faithfulness and loyalty to Judaism as a Jew, to his own self, mind you (and so not the neighbor or his wife).

So it is an inner journey really, but now notice that when Aristotle explained his "stand and the rout" (Posterior Analytics 100a12 ff.), he used 'war' to compare it with wherein here now Judaism becomes the antagonist instead of the protagonist and so is thus at war within in answer to the question: "Who am I really" wherein the arche (beginning) must be reached and there will find the 'son,' (Plato's Telic vision here).

This is made known in John 13:18 where Judas as 'the faith' (called Judaism) "raised his heel against me" to say that the war was internal wherein now the war is at to reach the arche and in understanding is set free.

So now the soldiers are Romans (reason) in their anti-Jewishness that set (poised) the man against the Jew in the above passage so that deliverance may be from the very faith that led him yonder while in 'the light of common day' along 'the road-dust of the sun' (pleasure and pain) as upright Jew himself.

This John 13:18 is a good passage to explain 'foot-washing' to validate metanoia as opposite to Gen 3:15 where woman send him West and away from Eden wherein Judaism was to be his 'incense hour' (tithing) to also counts his days (and not just his money is the message here).

aa5874 · 04-13-2013, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The story that Pilate fiound no fault with Jesus and was crucified because of the Jews is mere propaganda and was written in opposition to the claims by Josephus that the Roman soldiers Hated the Jews and would crucify them just for fun.

Wars of the Jews 5.11

Quote:

So the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest, when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies....

This is talking about behaviour in the midst of a bitter war. Peacetime attitudes may have been different.

Andrew Criddle

Please explain when enslaved people are at peace?

We have the writings of Philo and Josephus.

In "Peacetime" [Before the War] Jews were massacred by Romans.

The Romans massacred thousand of people in "Peacetime".

When did the Romans cut off the head of the False Prophet and massacred his followers?

See Antiquities of the Jews 20.

Quote:

1. NOW it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, (9) persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive.

They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem.

This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government.

Cupius Fadus was procurator of Judea 44-46 CE.

DCHindley · 04-13-2013, 09:17 AM

Jay,

Sorry to let 87 posts fly by before adding my input to your basic issue. I do agree that the gospels, each in their own way, convey the idea that Jesus was not really an illegal Royal claimant who justly deserved punishment. Instead, they portray an innocent sage who was callously used as a pawn by the Jewish leadership in order to eradicate any possibility that his teachings about the future kingdom would spawn open rebellion. Romans held local leaders ultimately accountable for any uprising, either on account of lax oversight or not taking appropriate action to nip any sort of uprising in the bud.

According to David Trobisch, The First Edition of the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk) (2000), the party that published the edition of the NT canonical books, from which all current copies derive, organized them into groups and also at times linked passages together by word or theme.

In the "4 gospel" corpus (Mat-John) the rhetorical framework is Pilate washing his hands after the Jews called out in unison "(May) His blood be on us and on our children!" (Mat 27:25f) and the Chief Priests saying "it is expedient for you (chief priests) that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish." (John 11:50).

The inescapable context of this is irony:

1) The chief priests hand over Jesus to save the nation from the Roman military repercussions of a possible revolt, with the Jews accepting the consequences of urging his execution.

2) The Judean peoples ultimately revolted, with the participation of the high priests, resulting in the Roman destruction of the nation's infrastructure and crushing of the people.

This puts the publication of the 4 Gospel corpus after the destruction of Jerusalem, and reinforces the idea expressed elsewhere in the NT of God taking away his blessing from the Jewish people and placing it instead on righteous gentiles.*

DCH

*FWIW, I do not endorse that position, although I do believe that this transfer of the blessing was a key concept in the evolution of Christianity as we see it in the NT. It is actually a complicated matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

In all four gospels, both the Jewish and Roman trials of Jesus are designed for clear rhetorical purposes. The Jewish trial is designed to show that Jewish religious leaders betrayed Jesus to the Romans, while the Roman trial conveys the idea that Pilate and the Romans were innocent of Jesus' death and the Jewish religious leaders and the Jewish people were responsible for Jesus' death. These are the major points that the trial text is trying to prove: 1) The Jewish religious leaders betrayed Jesus, 2) Pilate and the Romans were innocent of Jesus' death and 3) Jewish leaders and the Jewish people were responsible for the death of Jesus

...

The concept of betrayal should be kept separate from the concept of responsibility for the death. We can see the development of the ideas being gradual.

1. Pilate responsible for Jesus' death
2. Betrayal of Jesus, but Pilate still held responsible for Jesus' death
3. Betrayal of Jesus and Pilate exonerated and Jewish leaders held responsible.
4. The story of Barabbas changes the responsibility to the whole Jewish people.

SLD · 04-13-2013, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

In all four gospels, both the Jewish and Roman trials of Jesus are designed for clear rhetorical purposes. The Jewish trial is designed to show that Jewish religious leaders betrayed Jesus to the Romans, while the Roman trial conveys the idea that Pilate and the Romans were innocent of Jesus' death and the Jewish religious leaders and the Jewish people were responsible for Jesus' death. These are the major points that the trial text is trying to prove: 1) The Jewish religious leaders betrayed Jesus, 2) Pilate and the Romans were innocent of Jesus' death and 3) Jewish leaders and the Jewish people were responsible for the death of Jesus

There are interesting differences between the Gospels. The simplest expression of these three ideas are in Mark:

Quote:

15.1And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation; and they bound Jesus and led him away and delivered him to Pilate...

15.13And they cried out again, "Crucify him." 15.14And Pilate said to them, "Why, what evil has he done?" But they shouted all the more, "Crucify him." 15.15So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barab'bas; and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

Matthew adds the dramatic theatrical touch of Pilate washing his hands to demonstrate his innocence:

Luke wants to emphasize the innocence of Jesus and Pilate. He has Herod also pronounce Jesus innocent and Herod pronounce Jesus innocent no less than three times:

John also has Pilate declare his innocent three times and even seeking to release him until the Jewish religious leaders personally threaten him:

Quote:

18.24 Annas then sent him bound to Ca'iaphas the high priest.
18.28 Then they led Jesus from the house of Ca'iaphas to the praetorium. It was early. They themselves did not enter the praetorium, so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover...

." 18.38 Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" After he had said this, he went out to the Jews again, and told them, "I find no crime in him...

19.4 Pilate went out again, and said to them, "See, I am bringing him out to you, that you may know that I find no crime in him."...

!" 19.6 When the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, "Crucify him, crucify him!" Pilate said to them, "Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no crime in him."...

?" 19.11 Jesus answered him, "You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin." 19.12 Upon this Pilate sought to release him, but the Jews cried out, "If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend; every one who makes himself a king sets himself against Caesar."...Pilate said to them, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar."
19.16 Then he handed him over to them to be crucified.

We may assume that the Gospel writers are arguing these points because they wanted to attack the Jewish religious leadership and exonerate the Romans in the death of Jesus. This would suggest that prior to these Gospel writings, it was not known that the Jewish religious leadership had turned over Jesus to the Romans. Likewise, the innocence of Pilate and the Romans and the guilt of the Jewish leaders and people in his death are also concoctions of the Gospel writers. Before the gospel writings, there was most likely text indicating that Pilate had arrested and crucified Jesus. The gospel writers are shifting the responsibility for the death away from the Pilate and the Romans and onto the Jews.

The theme of betrayal also fits in very much here. Judas betrays Jesus, Peter betrays Jesus, the Jewish leaders betray Jesus and finally at the trial of Barabbas, the Jewish people betray Jesus.

The concept of betrayal should be kept separate from the concept of responsibility for the death. We can see the development of the ideas being gradual.

1. Pilate responsible for Jesus' death
2. Betrayal of Jesus, but Pilate still held responsible for Jesus' death
3. Betrayal of Jesus and Pilate exonerated and Jewish leaders held responsible.
4. The story of Barabbas changes the responsibility to the whole Jewish people.

The story of Barabbas may have originally been presented to show the cruelty of Pilate or some other leader. He made the Jews choose between executing a Jewish King figure or his son (Barabbas - Son of the Father). In this way, the judge involved the Jews themselves in the death of a popular and beloved figure and made it seem as if it was their choice.

The Gospel writers used this story to shift blame, the way that Pilate in the story shifted blame onto the Jews.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hey, Jay!

Apologies for joining this late, but I couldn't resist my two cents.

I wholeheartedly agree that the whole Passion scene is designed to shift blame away from the Romans, and onto the Jews. It seems odd at first, but makes sense in light of the times in which it was written. Mark was written down, probably shortly after the Nero persecutions. Those came about because of Nero's need to shift blame for his failures to a hated foreigner. In this case, the Jews, who already had pissed off the Romans enough with their constant rebelliousness. But Nero can't blame the entirety of the Jews or he'll cause even more trouble than he needs at the time, so he picked a subset of Jews, and blamed and persecuted them, i.e. the Christians. It's actually a masterful political stroke appeasing the Jews of Rome, and still finding a needed scapegoat for his failures and the devastating fire.

The reaction of the Christians is to distance themselves from the Jews. So they finally put down in writing what they say happened. At the same time, Judea explodes in revolt. For them, this is a perfect way for them to break with the Jews. Blame them for their god's crucifixion, absolve the Romans, and that way you appease your Roman masters so they stop the persecution. It may have even worked, because we really don't have too much indication of significant persecutions of Christians for quite awhile after that, and even those tend to be sporadic and haphazard. They could operate as long as they didn't make too many waves or weren't too open about it. (Don't ask, don't tell)

Well, that's always been my take on the issue anyways.

SLD

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.