I find that very interesting too. Of course, in religious terms, if Jesus was the son of God, then there would be no reason why he shouldn't speak several languages, especially such as were spoken at the time in Roman Palestine.

But I think in cultural terms it is also interesting to consider that when Jesus sat down with his disciples at his last meal or supper, he was probably not sitting on a chair as later imagined by artists, but he and his group were reclining on couches in the Greek fashion that was also popular in other parts of the Roman Empire.

This was accurately shown in early frescoes but not in later medieval depictions which actually reflects the changing culture and loss of awareness of historical fact.

Jesus Reclined To Dine

And, of course, that was exactly how Greek and Roman philosophers reclined during a symposium.

I fully agree with that. Language is an expression of culture. And as Scott Gleaves and other NT scholars have observed, Greek culture and language were highly influential in Roman Palestine. So there was certainly a very interesting and obviously productive fusion of cultures that in turn gave rise to a new culture that has lasted for two millennia into the present. This is one of the reasons that make Christianity an interesting and important area of study.

To what extent are human beings hopeless and beyond redemption.I — Jack Cummins

That is an idiosyncratic Christian question. It's not a question in Judaism. In fact, such talk, even if aimed at yourself would seem possubly forbidden as evil speech (lashon hara). http://www.myrtlerising.com/blog/insights-into-lashon-hara-about-yourself

That is, what right does one have to criticize God's creation, regardless of whether it is your own self's creation you criticize?

This meekness, self depreciation, unworthiness, bowing before the Lord as a hopeless sinner is not a universal suffering, but a symptom of a very specific belief system.

So where do you think Jesus fits in here? — Fooloso4

He's a necessary remedy for the inherited sin brought from Adam's original sin. He suffered and absorbs our sins as long as we accept him on faith as our savior. It is through this ultimate grace of God that he gave his only son to die for our eternal salvation.

Or so the story goes.

And, of course, that was exactly how Greek and Roman philosophers reclined during a symposium. — Apollodorus

The last supper was on Passover. Jewish law requires that you recline when eating on Passover to celebrate their freedom from slavery from Egypt. Only royalty would recline in those days, and reclining is an act of freedom.https://www.chabad.org/holidays/passover/pesach_cdo/aid/1707/jewish/Reclining.htm

Jesus was Jewish. He reclined as a Jew. .

What I am asking about is Jesus the man, not the mythology.

Jesus was Jewish. — Hanover

This is what I was getting at. Christians were for the most part pagans. I do not think Jesus would have approved of their making a pagan god out of him. The story of being born of a god and a human is not something he would have allowed.

Jesus was Jewish. He reclined as a Jew. — Hanover

Well, from a Christian viewpoint Jesus was the son of God so it would be difficult to establish to what extent, if any, he was Jewish.

There is no evidence that he reclined exclusively at Passover.

Apparently, "Jews followed many of the customs found in other associations [Greek and Roman], including meals in communal halls, eating sacrifices, and reclining at triclinia"

JEWISH ASSOCIATIONS IN ROMAN PALESTINE:FIRST CENTURY EVIDENCE FROM THE MISHNAH

Eating in a reclining position was probably introduced from Persia from where the Greeks also adopted the custom. As this was widespread in the areas of the Roman Empire that were at the time under Greek influence, Jesus and his group were still reclining in the same or similar manner.

The story of being born of a god and a human is not something he would have allowed. — Fooloso4

And of course you spoke to him and he told you exactly how he felt about it. Therefore you know. Makes perfect sense.

Well, from a Christian viewpoint Jesus was the son of God so it would be difficult to establish to what extent, if any, he was Jewish. — Apollodorus

It is generally accepted he lived as a Jew. https://dioceseofjoliet.org/discover/content1.php?secid=5 . He would have reclined on Passover. It's a basic rule of the Seder.

I don't doubt that reclining by royalty or even the aristocracy was a custom of other cultures, but any portrait of a Jew reclining at the Passover Seder can't be understood as anything other than the performance of a biblical commandment.

There is no evidence that he reclined exclusively at Passover. — Apollodorus

Strange double negative. We have no evidence he didn't recline on only Passover. Do you have evidence he did recline on a date other than Passover? Seems if you don't, your only evidence is that he reclined only on Passover.

It is generally accepted he lived as a Jew — Hanover

That is quite possible. However, reclining at triclinia in the Roman/Greek manner was also practiced among Jews in Roman Palestine. Why would Jesus have been an exception?

There is no historical evidence to support the view that reclining at Passover was particularly old at the time of Jesus.

"It seems more likely that reclining became normal because this was customary throughout the civilised world when associations met for a sacrificial meal, and that it only became a “Jewish” custom after they had followed this Greek custom for hundreds of years." See link provided above.

Reclining at Passover was compulsory but Jews were reclining at other meals like everybody else, not only at Passover.

Mathew 26:17 to 26:20 very specifically describes him reclining at the Passover Seder. It is not coincidental that is the ancient custom of his people. Where else in the NT does it speak of his reclining on days other than Passover?

I do think we agree though that the custom of Jews reclining while eating as symbolic of their freedom arose from the Greek tradition you describe.

Reclining at Passover was compulsory but Jews were reclining at other meals like everybody else, not only at Passover. — Apollodorus

OK, but as to the question, why was Jesus reclining at the Last Supper, the answer is because he was required to.

Compulsory reclining at Passover may not be as old as it is thought.

"The earliest evidence in m.Pes.10.1, which is difficult to date but is probably late 1st Century"

"In later rabbinic literature we only find references to reclining at Passover, but Philo records that the Therapeutae reclined at a non-Passover meal (Contemplative Life 9, 69)"

(link provided above)

Edit. I'm not sure he was actually required at the time. But even if he was, it was a Jewish custom to recline at meals, particularly, at special meals, just like their Greek and Roman neighbors from whom they adopted the custom.

Also, “Jesus is presented as the long-awaited Messiah, who was expected to be a descendant of King David. Matthew begins by calling Jesus the son of David, indicating his royal origin”

Genealogy of Jesus – Wikipedia

So, the accuracy of describing Jesus as "not royalty" seems rather doubtful.

I have just finished reading 'The Bible: A Biography' by Karen Armstrong(2007), who was a nun, but left her life in the convent eventually. One idea she points to is how so little is really known about the life of Jesus. She suggests,
'Jesus himself remains an enigma. There have been attempts to uncover the figure of the "historical" Jesus, a project that has become something of a scholarly industry. But the fact remains that the only Jesus we really know is the Jesus described in the New Testament, which was not interested in scientifically objective history. There are no other contemporary accounts of his mission and death. We cannot even be certain why he was crucified. The gospel accounts indicate that he was thought to be the king of the Jews. He was said to have predicted the imminent arrival of the kingdom of heaven. In the literature of the Late Second Temple period, there had been hints that a few people were expecting a righteous king of the House of David to establish an eternal kingdom, and this idea seems to have become more popular during the years leading up to the war. Josephus Tacitus and Suetonius all note the importance of revolutionary religiosity, both before and after the rebellion. There was now keen expectation in some circles of a meshiah(in Greek, christos), an "anointed king of the House of David, who would redeem Israel. We do not whether Jesus claimed to be this Messiah _ the gospels are ambiguous on this point. Other people rather than Jesus himself may have made this claim on his behalf. But after his death some of his followers had seen him in visions that convinced them that he had been raised from the tomb_ an event that heralded the general resurrection of all the righteous when God would inaugurate his rule on earth.'

:halo:

Why does it (still) matter whether Yeshua ben Yosef was a historical figure or not, when, in fact, "the prophesy" at the foundation of Christianity's soteriological creed had failed so conspicuously? — 180 Proof

I still feel that it is important to know about the nature of the historical Jesus, in order to think about and contextualize Christian thinking and The Bible, but, of course, that is my own personal perspective.

But the fact remains that the only Jesus we really know is the Jesus described in the New Testament, which was not interested in scientifically objective history. — Jack Cummins

Very good observation. I'm not sure if there are any Jewish records of a revolutionary called "Jesus" which one would expect to find if this had been the case.

But, at the end of the day, we can only go by the evidence we have and by what Christianity sees as the truth. And the ultimate truth, of course, is spiritual or metaphysical. We can only find it by experiencing it within ourselves.

"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" (1 Cor 3:16)

Hence the practice of prayer and meditation or contemplation as an extension of religion and philosophy in many traditions, not only Christianity.

Understood. For me, however, "the historical nature of Socrates" has had no bearing on my thinking about the significance of Socratic dialectics and Hellenic philosophy. Same for Laozi, Confucius, Buddha ...; what's primarily mattered is whether their teachings are 'more truthful than fictional' or the other way around, which contextualizes their respective legacies. I don't see how Jesus is any different in this regard.

I think that understanding of any set of ideas is aided by thinking about the person who wrote them, because the ideas arise in the context of a person's life. I am interested in the lives of the Buddha, Kant and Nietzsche in connection with their work. Also, I feel that reading about Jim Morrison's life helps me to understand the music of The Doors, and this applies to Bob Dylan, Prince and so many others.

There's hardly any recorded history on Jesus outside of the bible because he was ( originally) just a symbol a kind of place holder in the story but thanks to how stupid mankind seems to be and are lovely inherent habit to misunderstand and in force said misunderstanding we have turned the bible in to this fallacious literal thing that would look absolutely ridiculous to a people that have never seen or heard of it before and the only reason we justify are belief in it is do to indoctrination and the biological drive to survive so seeing others believe in something subconsciously makes us lean toward believing in it .

Karen Armstrong suggests the importance of contemplation of texts. But, I do think that a critical reading is also important, especially in some of the books is useful, especially the books which are harder to understand. I know some people who have read The Bible from cover to cover.

One other tradition which I find interesting is the legend of the grail, but I do believe that this is probably a symbolic quest.

"Biography" is interesting, but only interesting. The historical and social context of a thinker's (teacher's) works, I think, is much more important for interpretating their meanings and assessing their value for a comparatively alien (e.g. our contemporary) context.

There are some people who believe that Jesus did not even exist at all. But, my own understanding is that of him being one of a wandering Jew, and that there were many such people in his time. There are also some books which suggest that Jesus spent time in India, but I am not sure that there is any real basis for thinking that.

I think that the people who take so many of the ideas in The Bible miss the symbolic level and esoteric aspects. I do believe that what was taught to the inner circle of disciples was different to that which was taught to the wider circles of people. But, another part of this is the way in which meanings of the texts has probably varied and been changed a lot in the various translations.

Karen Armstrong suggests the importance of contemplation of texts. But, I do think that a critical reading is also important, — Jack Cummins

I think Armstrong is absolutely correct. Contemplation of Bible passages is an established practice. Of course critical reading is important especially from a philosophical perspective.

However, at the end of the day, we can't get anywhere without practice, so we may choose a passage that we understand or appeals to us for contemplation, and look into others when we are not engaged in contemplation. That way, we kill two birds with one stone and hopefully make some progress not only intellectually, but also spiritually. I don't think that would be a bad thing.

By the way, I think you did mention the subject of ethics which I thought was important. If you were to construct a moral philosophy based on the NT, what would you say is the best way to go about it?

Armstrong's interpretation of the ethics of the NT is the idea of my own. My own view is more about how there is a basis for compassion, especially avoiding judging others detrimentally. The joke of that is that people often claim that Christian's can be so judgemental and narrow minded. But, of course that is more the hypocrisy that Jesus criticised the Pharisees for. I think that one important parable is that of the good Samaritan, and I am sure that is where the organisation to help the suicidal, got its name, The Samaritans, from.

I think that the centre of any ethics of from the NT has to be that of loving others as oneself. Sometimes, I think that people forget that a starting point for loving others is to love oneself. Also, I don't think loving oneself and others is a simple task. One aspect of this is how we have so many neighbours. One idea which I think is useful for thinking about this concern for others is what the sociobiologist, Edward O Wilson, described as the extending circle. One begins with the idea of thinking about the needs of family and friends, gradually moving outside of this to the concerns of the more remote sphere of others.

Being religious means living a religious life, inserting philosophy in religion leads to confusion. The main job of philosophy is clearing confusion caused by misuse of language. Religious language makes sense if you are religious yourself. Otherwise, it sounds ridiculous.

I can't see why inserting philosophy leads to confusion, especially as the have a shared history. You say that the main purpose of philosophy is about language, and I think that is a focus within contemporary philosophy, but there are also the fields of metaphysics and epistemology too.