IamJoseph

The earliest example of the separation of state and religion, or at least its prototype source, is with King David, some 3000 years ago. Here, the king represented the ruling sector [as with the Government or President today], and the religion represented the law and the Supreme Court. David was appointed by the prophet Samuel, who also impeached the previous king Saul. Later, David was taken to task in a legal confrontation by the prophet Nathan, accusing him of adultry and issueing a punishment - which David accepted. If there is an earlier example of a great king being over-ruled by a prophet or preist - I don't know of it.

The separation mode came again when the US Constitution was born, which was a negation of the ruling church in Europe.

bacht

Is arrogance the right word to describe how 2nd temple Jews felt about themselves? Does our word 'racism' accurately reflect the thinking of Mediterranean people two thousand years ago?

Susan2

Arrogant racism is a flaw of mankind. It is not specific to the Jews, nor are they immune to it. I don’t agree that they were insignificant, nor do I think their contributions to the development of mankind insignificant. We are talking about them to this day, how insignificant is that? How to ascertain, hence classify their contributions is another matter; I would presume that these classifications are not unlike any other classifications that mankind makes, i.e., good/bad, positive/negative, etc. I am sure their contributions were a mixture of both, as is every ones.

This is what human beings do, judge, make contributions, revise, judge, make contributions, revise.

Having said that, thank you for responding. I have read the link that you provided, and yes, it is interesting.

Perhaps you would could elaborate that for me. I don't understand the point you are trying to make.


Some days I think the whole world is full of bunk, and that would include me.


That may be true, and I have no reason to deny it unless I know otherwise, which at this time I do not.

Having said that, I still don't get what Christianity is to be truthful. I do know this;

Every December for my entire life I have celebrated the birth of a family. I don't care what their names are, their religions, or nationality. I see them as symbolic. They represent men, women and children to me, as well as individuals. In the very seed of that celebration I find something very touching, something very beautiful.

What upsets me is that 3-4 months later we kill the child, then claim that this is God's will, a human sacrifice. I can't wrap my brain around that, and I hope I never will.

I see that as a slippery slope. When does it end?


I will purchase the book that you have recommended (Penguin Press). And if you don't mind my asking, do you have a reliable reference as to paganism?

Thank you all again for responding. There were some other responces that I wanted to address, but would like to sort some thoughts through.

Susan

Roger Pearse

This could easily mislead, so we ought to say a little more.

Elagabalus was a priest of a Syrian Baal, El-Gabal, whom he brought to Rome and described as "sol invictus". It wasn't really monotheistic. When he was lynched, the cult was shipped back to Syria.

Various deities, including Mithras, were also described as the unconquered sun.

Aurelian in 274 instituted a new solar cult, which he named as purely "Sol Invictus". This was a state cult, but certainly wasn't monotheistic either (although little is really known about it) as we can tell from the number of inscriptions indicating that its priests also held priesthoods in other cults.

bacht

To be fair, Christians didn't invent these festivals, they just overlaid their own interpretations on existing solstice and spring holy days. It could be said that Easter was a progression from real sacrifices to a "spiritual" one, especially if it turns out there was no real person Jesus who died on a cross as described in the gospels.

The idea of placating the gods is old. Scapegoating as an emotional phenomenon is probably very old. Don't forget that New World cultures were doing human sacrifices up to the Spanish conquest.

andrewcriddle

The Son of Simeon ben Shetach story, supposedly deals with events in the 1st Century BCE.

Since however it is first found in the Gemara to the Talmud of Jerusalem Tractate Sanhedrin, where it appears to be a legendary expansion of material in the Tosefta, the story is unlikely to go back before 200 CE.

Hence the story is probably post-Christian not pre-Christian.

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley

G R S Mead wrote an interesting book around the turn of the 20th century (1903 I believe) entitled Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.? He combs through a good deal of information from early church fathers to Jewish midrash and legends and some Roman sources like Celsus, but just presents the evidence without forming a final conclusion.

While Mead was a well known Theosophist, he was also a trained academic and it does show in his book. Albert Schweitzer referred to it favorably in The Quest of the Historical Jesus (E.T. 1910, German 1906). Not wild crap at all. It is available used (possibly new) and can be found online if you search for it.

Per Schweitzer:

A work which is written with some ability and with much out-of-the-way learning is "Did Jesus live 100 B.C.?" (329n2) The author compares the Christian tradition with the Jewish, and finds in the latter a reminiscence of a Jesus who lived in the time of Alexander Jannaeus (104-76 B.C.). This person was transferred by the earliest Evangelist to the later period, the attempt being facilitated by the fact that during the procuratorship of Pilate a false prophet had attracted some attention. The author, however, only professes to offer it as a hypothesis, and apologises in advance for the offence which it is likely to cause.

329n2) [G. R. S. Mead - dch] Did Jesus live 100 B.C.? London and Benares. Theosophical Publishing Society, 1903. 440 pp.

A scientific discussion of the "Toledoth Jeshu," with citations from the Talmudic tradition concerning Jesus, is offered by S. Krauss, Das Leben Jesu nach judischen Quellen. 1902. 309 pp. According to him the Toledoth Jeshu was committed to writing in the fifth century, and he is of opinion that the Jewish legend is only a modified version of the Christian tradition.

If you want to look closer at the Jewish sources, I can also recommend R. Travers Herford's Christianity in Talmud & Midrash (1903, but available used, maybe new, and probably online).

DCH

PS: Don't be put off by the publication dates. This period (1875-1920 or so) was the HEIGHT of scholarship using the historical-critical method. There are more modern treatments in expensive and hard to find academic tomes, but these are available as reprints or used for $20 or so, or free if you can deal with misspelled scans and weird formatting of online versions. At least you can search the online versions if they were digitized. These books both lack indexes, although they do have good Tables of Contents.

Toto

Christianity in Talmud and Midrash is available on Amazon (or via: amazon.co.uk) and also in an "Augmented Edition" (or via: amazon.co.uk). It is also on Google Books, downloadable in pdf or text format.

Mead's "Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?" is online here in html format on or google books or in several versions on Amazon (or via: amazon.co.uk).

PapaverDeum

Nonetheless, this is the implication of Pliny's words. Pliny believes from his personal experience as governor, and from his interactions with the Christians, that the chirstians can be reformed. I note that this is a very different story from the classic one that Christians were stubborn and held to their faith to the death. Pliny does not think that to be the case.


Possibly not. I I will concede that this would be a more modern interpretation of such attitudes.

But, still to refer t othemselves as the chosens people ? Jesus's words to the Samaritan woman and another foreign woman ? (not to "cast pearls before swine" ?).

Consider this. How in the world could they possibly, in their wildest imagination, think that they could defeat the Roman empire ? Could it be that they truly thought that they would get divine aide ?
Why think such a thing ? What would have lead them to think that ?


Consider that if Chrisianity had not become the dominant religion of the Roman empire, had some other religion become so, say one based in some ancient Carthaginain religion, we might now be discussing Carthaginians and not the Jews.


When compared to the culture and accomplishments of Egypt, Greece, Rome and Babylon the culture and accomplishments of the Jews to the ancient world are relatively insignificant. Again, we are talking about them today only because Christianity, which is based within Judaism and whose story takes place in Judea about a Jewish sage (or madman, hard to tell which), they became the dominant religion of the roman empire, in large part due to emperor Constantine.

Is there any evidence that, without the influence of Constantine, that Christianity would have come out on top ?

semiopen

Personally, I'm more of a humble racist.

I don't recall anyone clearly stating why the Jews rebelled. Could the doctrine of divine reward and punishment of the Jewish people actually have been believed, leading the Jews to think that they would win their hopeless rebellion because they were acting righteously?

And all this around the beginning of Christianity.