Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 06-27-2013, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

On the other hand, the Talmud discusses distinctions between fake Pharisees and real ones, fake ones being those who practice false piety.
The authors of the gospels must have been familiar with some of these ideas.
See this link in the tractate of Sotah in English, starting from page 21b through 22b.
http://halakhah.com/pdf/nashim/Sotah.pdf

There were divisions within the Pharisees, and they were a diverse group as Judaism was so at the time.

Some were some pretty crooked people. They were known to steal tithes using Roman muscle, and others were divided along Hellenistic lines.

The whole group was very complex and generalizations dont really work.

So far I see both you and Davka being right describing different aspects of the same group.

James The Least · 06-27-2013, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

And why did the author of GMatthew in Chapter 5:20 like the Pharisees more than in the rest of the text??!!
Then we find this in Matthew 23:
23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.

It is so bizarre. How could a group of people sitting in Moses' seat be considered so negatively?? The author was quite confused even in his own premise. Especially since under halacha there is no particular significance to having wide boxes of tefillin or long strings of the tzitzit. In fact there is no evidence in any Jewish halachic source at all that the size of the tefillin or length of the strings had anything to do with one being considered a greater person or smarter person. Nowhere that I know of. Not in a mishnah, not in a tosefta, not in a midrash. Not in the gemara. Nowhere. And yet this is deemed a negative treat for those sitting IN MOSES' SEAT!

And of course the author has Jesus tell his followers to do what the Pharisees TEACH but not what they DO. Here are those in Moses seat who teach the people what to do which is different than what they do themselves. It's so strange.
They would not be considered bonafide teachers of the law if they fulfilled the negative maxim of "Maykel al atzmo ve-machmir al-acherim" (Being lenient with oneself while requiring others to be stringent.). Indeed, the very accusation is not of leniency in the law, but of extra stringencies.......

It isn't bizarre. It's just more Jew-bashing from skilled Greco-Roman liars.

"They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long..."
is probably lifted from Josephus or some other lost source. It certainly was not written by a Jew intimately involved with Pharisees, as our scholars love to fantasize.

outhouse · 06-27-2013, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

It isn't bizarre. It's just more Jew-bashing from skilled Greco-Roman liars.

".

Far from true.

Jews in general were not happy with the Pharisees. They were factually part of the corrupt government.

But you did have some Pharisses sympathetic to traditional Judaism that were almost identical to philosophy of Zealots if one can even generalize that.

James The Least · 06-27-2013, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Here's a thought: The combination of OT prophecies, astrological predictions, and various mystical teachings led a number of people to believe that the Messiah was due some time in the first century CE. Then the Temple was destroyed, and all those who believed the above drek were deeply confused, because Messiah could not arrive with no Temple - so what happened?

The answer? Messiah already came, but we missed him! Next step, search the various stories of iconoclastic prophetic teachers to see if any of them might have been Messiah. Construct a story from these fragments to fit your certainty that Messiah has already come.

That's a good theory, except that Christianity isn't a Jewish religion. They really didn't understand who or what the Messiah was supposed to be, because they were Greeks and Romans with no rabbinical training. So they created their own concept of the Messiah, complete with a Greek title.

outhouse · 06-27-2013, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

because they were Greeks and Romans with no rabbinical training.

So Greek culture didnt have any position within Judaism?

Hellenism completely missed Judaism?

These people were highly skilled in the Jewish theology and ran the Jewish government and treasury, and were responsible for the building of the temple and cities like Tiberious and Sepphoris.

Judaism was multi cultural and had a Greek bible, what are you even talking about.

J-D · 06-27-2013, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

detailing a hypothesis without ever attempting to present evidence to support it

That is not true. I have presented this evidence on other boards and am happy to do so here on request.

I thought I had requested it already, but in case I didn't, and for the record, I request that you present your evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

This hypothesis of how the New Testament encodes precession of the equinox as a basis for the Christ Myth is more coherent with the existing evidence than any other. It is relevant to this thread because it provides a scientific explanation of Christian origins.

Would you like me to present more evidence or have you personally decided a priori that the case cannot be made?

I am interested in evidence, so please go ahead and present some.

J-D · 06-27-2013, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If recognition of that particular transition in the precession of the equinoxes were sufficient by itself to start a new religion, then new religions would start everywhere where such transitions were recognised, but that doesn't seem to be the case, so your explanation appears at best incomplete; also, even if you have an explanation for where people got symbolic ideas from, it doesn't explain why people accepted them as the basis for a new religion--people coming up with new symbols and concepts is something that happens often without a new religion resulting.

This goes back to a comment on page 12. I'm not sure that J-D understands this issue of precession that well.

I'm not sure how well you think I need to understand it ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

We can go back to Copernicus, whose book explaining the heliocentric theory also explains (accurately) that there are three motions of the earth, the day, the year and the precession. The precession is not just some arbitrary choice that is like any other motion, it is one of three actual motions of the earth. There are also some slower motions, but the three motions were known in antiquity, and provide the basis of visual cosmology.

... I think I understand it well enough to know that it's a real motion, but I'm not sure why you think it's important to contrast that with some other kind of motion that is an 'arbitrary choice', or what you might mean by that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Precession takes about 2000 years to move the spring point through each zodiac sign. That is the only coherent meaning of the old concept of an age (or world). This is a coherent natural premise that enables us to understand Biblical mythology, explaining everything from the seven days of creation to the holy city.

I don't see how any of this is in any way responsive to any part of the post of mine which you were nominally responding to. My point is as before: if the movement of the spring equinox to a new zodiac sign starts new religions, then we would see a pattern of new religions starting whenever and wherever such a transition took place, but we don't.

J-D · 06-27-2013, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Indeed they did, but what they accepted were things that, for the most part, they already believed. In other words, Joe Smith is the "Who", whereas existing concepts, even re-packaged ones, is the "What".

Whether or not there were existing concepts the Mormon religion was started when people BELIEVED what Joseph Smith wrote.

If no-one accepted and did NOT Believe what Joseph Smith wrote then there would be no Mormon religion started by Joseph Smith.

I agree with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It must be noted that Joseph Smith did also write about Jesus in his Bible "copied" from golden plates as "directed" by the Angel Moroni.

It was a similar thing with the Jesus cult.

The cult started when people accepted and believed the stories about Jesus.

I mostly agree with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Some Non-Jew wrote a story that the Son of God came down from heaven and was Killed by the Jews and the cult STARTED when people accepted the story as history.

Aristides in his Apology explains WHAT started the Jesus cult of Christians.

1. They trace the START of their religion to a STORY of Jesus.

2. The people who BELIEVED the story called themselves CHRISTIANS.

Aristides' Apology

Quote:

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High.

And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man.

This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.

This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished.

But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven.

Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness.

And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous.

Davka · 06-27-2013, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Indeed there is.

And the exact same sentiment can be expressed using different words.

For example, the sentiment that someone is stubborn, ignorant, and only marginally literate could also be expressed by saying that they are inflexible, unschooled, and in desperate need of basic language skills. It is the exact same sentiment, using different words.

See how that works?

Please, again. You are now confirming that you did not know the difference between EXACT SAME SENTIMENTS and SIMILAR SENTIMENTS.

1. There is NO EXACT SAME sentiment about Jesus of Nazareth in the OT. There is NO Jesus of Nazareth in the OT.

2. There is NO EXACT SAME sentiment about Pharisees in the OT. No Pharisees are mentioned in the OT.

2. There is NO EXACT SAME sentiment in the OT that the Jews were of their Father the Devil who was a Murderer. In the OT there is no claim whatsoever that the Father of the Jews was the Devil.

Your failure to grasp simple English-language constructs is superlative.

Davka · 06-27-2013, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

"They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long..."
is probably lifted from Josephus or some other lost source. It certainly was not written by a Jew intimately involved with Pharisees, as our scholars love to fantasize.

You haven't spent much time around Jews, have you?

If you go to Israel today, you will find these self-same complaints being lodged by Jews against the ultra-orthodox, who all too often use their supposed piety as a shield for very impious lives.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.