The problem is that the more one disregards them, or interprets them, or treat them as metaphorical, the less "holy" they seem to be. — Ciceronianus

But what you say hasn't been borne out. What has happened is the opposite, which is that the more they've been interpreted, the more they've been venerated. Jewish interpretation of the Torah has been imaginative for thousands of years and it continues to define a culture.

Take a look at the midrash, if you're interested: https://jewishcurrents.org/midrash-the-stories-we-tell/

It's a lawyer's nightmare to be sure, where documents that talk about snakes and gardens are later learned to actually be foretelling of the rising of Christ thousands of years later. What cures this problem is that the interpreters are a select group and what they say perseveres. It's not terribly different from Constitutional analysis and how we treat that document as sacred, but we've long passed worrying about only the words in that document.

We say what we say and then we link it back to a divine command from some sacred ancient past writing for a mark of legitimacy. I don't find that troubling. Anchors keep us from drifting out at sea.

The emperor wears no clothes, but the truth is there was never such an actual naked emperor, so even that time honored saying isn't rooted in reality.

Hadrian did that. I mean, the region was devastated by Hadrian's legions circa 130 AD, with millions of deaths. Jewish presence was purposefully erased from the area. Hence the Jewish Christians disappeared together with the Essenes, the Saducees and scores of other groups, and what was left was gentile Christians on the one hand and rabbinical Jews on the other. — Olivier5

Yes agreed. The Bar Kochba rebellion may have represented an irrevocable split between the Jewish Christians and other Jews, especially ones supporting Bar Kochba. Thus, you probably see total separation in synagogues by this time. You pretty much explain it there with the only ones left being rabbinical Jews and gentile Christians in that region.

That's interesting. If you mean that they're more inspiring to us for being metaphors, I think I understand. But is their effect on us, or some of us, what makes them "holy"? — Ciceronianus

No, they're sometimes metaphors for what's inside you. Jesus screams on the cross and then asks why God has abandoned him. It's odd that they kept that detail in there after all these years.

And that's just one line. Christianity is amazing.

I know what you mean. And, a good deal of the ritual involved in the worship of the traditional gods seems devoted to keeping them happy enough not to smash us, or abandon us, and induce them to do favors for us. Traditional Roman religion seems almost legal in its devotion to rules; if you got one step wrong during the ritual, you had to start all over again. More than that seems to have been involved in the mysteries.

It seems that most looked to philosophy for ethics. Epicureanism and Stoicism were quite popular among the elite during the Empire. — Ciceronianus

Right. Ethics was its own prescriptions and science of human behavior, separated out from the gods. Philosophy developed perhaps as a result of having a religion where metaphysics was lacking. The gods were capricious. They did what they wanted. Gods weren't moral. Humans could be more moral than a god, but gods could demand things that you must do to make things go well for you. Well, these kind of contradictions could create opportunities for a more coherent and complete religious system. Greco-Romans were able to fill the existential cracks with philosophy. This was really only amenable to the elite. The majority of poor people had their capricious gods, household alters and such, but here you have a religion that can provide a little more existential fulfillment without the intense literacy and understanding needed to grasp the major philosophies. Thus, Christianity's ability to shapeshift as simple "salvation" and "charity" for the poor and "theology" for the literate and academic oriented, became a great two-pronged approach.

ut what you say hasn't been borne out. What has happened is the opposite, which is that the more they've been interpreted, the more they've been venerated. Jewish interpretation of the Torah has been imaginative for thousands of years and it continues to define a culture. — Hanover

That would seem to make them "holy" not because of what they are, but because of how they came to be interpreted centuries after they were written by people in different circumstances under different influence.

Jesus screams on the cross and then asks why God has abandoned him. It's odd that they kept that detail in there after all these years. — frank

It is, yes.

Christianity is amazing. — frank

On that we agree, though not perhaps for the same reasons.

My take is to try and understand better what Jesus said — Olivier5

Brave and noble goal. I tried to read the New Testament, and got to a point a few times, where they started to quote Jesus, like when he goes out to sea with the fishermen. I got excited. Unfortunately the text did not say anything beyond words. My recollection: Fishermen: "We worship God, our God." Jesus: "FOOLS! YOU MUST WORSHIP GOD! FOOLS!" That was about the size of it. The passages I read (which was not many) and in which Jesus spake, there was nothing of any importance or revelation. It was a bit disappointing for me.

The most compelling resurrection story I read was in a book titled "Saint Saul A skeleton key to the historical Jesus" An incredibly riveting book.

He was assassinated in 1948. — T Clark

My bad. I don't know history. I failed high school history five times. I can't memorize dates, names, etc. So i gave up all efforts at one point.

So Gandhi was murdered, therefore he IS a martyr. I stand corrected. By suffering I meant his self-imposed hunger strike. That's about all I now about his life. And that he made love to (at least one) American woman, whom Elaine of Seinfeld fame visited a few times, as an effort to give back via a volunteer job, except Elaine could not abide by looking at the large thyroid gout on the neck of the woman, who was in her eighties or nineties at that time.

Very interesting way of looking at the historical Jesus. I don't resonate with your ideas, but you should not read anything into that; I am not a man of religion, and know almost nothing about religion. So your interpretation is compelling, that much I can say, but from where I sit, I am not sure how likely it could have been. Then again, like I said before, I ain't no expert, not even a novice.

No, they're sometimes metaphors for what's inside you. Jesus screams on the cross and then asks why God has abandoned him. It's odd that they kept that detail in there after all these years. — frank

My take on this is that might be the only real thing in that NT :lol:. I would say that Jesus may have thought something was going to happen to save him.. Didn't happen. Jesus was looking for a miracle.. The whole "seeing Jesus after he died" and "empty tomb" thing were embellishments of disciples that had their movement stamped out too early. Oddly parallels can be seen in the Lubavitch Jewish community today in Brooklyn. A vocal minority there think that even though their beloved rebbe is dead, they think he really didn't "die" but is in sort of stasis and will come back to reveal he is the King Messiah. Now that is some ironic shit!



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad_messianism

Some scholars of religion have made comparison with the development of early Christianity[94] and some have sought to describe Chabad messianism as "halakhic Christianity".[citation needed]

Anthropologist Joel Marcus writes:

The recent history of the modern Chabad (Lubavitcher) movement of Hasidic Judaism provides insight into the development of early Christianity. In both movements successful eschatological prophecies have increased belief in the leader's authority, and there is a mixture of ‘already’ and ‘not yet’ elements. Similar genres of literature are used to spread the good news (e.g. miracle catenae and collections of originally independent sayings). Both leaders tacitly accepted the messianic faith of their followers but were reticent about acclaiming their messiahship directly. The cataclysm of the messiah's death has led to belief in his continued existence and even resurrection.[95]

Such comparisons make many Orthodox Jews uncomfortable. Mark Winer has noted that "The Lubavitcher movement's suggestions that their late Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson is the Messiah, reflect Christian millenarianism."[96]

Anthropologist Simon Dein noted:

Lubavitchers held that the Rebbe was more powerful in the spiritual realm without the hindrance of a physical body. However some have now claimed that he never died. Several even state that the Rebbe is God. This is a significant finding. It is unknown in the history of Judaism to hold that the religious leader is God and to this extent the group is unique. There are certain Christian elements which apparently inform the messianic ideas of this group.[65]

Jacob Neusner writes:
A substantial majority of a highly significant Orthodox movement called Lubavitch or Chabad Hasidism affirms that the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who was laid to rest in 1994 without leaving a successor. . . will soon return to complete the redemption in his capacity as the Messiah. Hasidim who proclaim this belief hold significant religious positions sanctioned by major Orthodox authorities with no relationship to their movement.[97] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad_messianism

Thanks :D.

But what you say hasn't been borne out. What has happened is the opposite ... — Hanover

I think it is an open question if when Maimonides denied the physicality of God and interpreted all physical aspects of the divine, whether this elevated the status of the "holy" or whether something primitive and fundamental was lost. That as a result we became something less human. That in the process we literally lost touch. What it meant to be made in God's image made us strangers to both what it means to be human and to be a god. The sacred was diminished when the tangible and immediate experience of being alive were downplayed in favor of an imagined transcendence.

The Bar Kochba rebellion may have represented an irrevocable split between the Jewish Christians and other Jews, especially ones supporting Bar Kochba. — schopenhauer1

Importantly, the Roman supression of the Bar Kochba revolt killed millions of Jews and left Palestine unrecognisable, "ethnically cleansed". So what may have been left of the Ebionites or any other Jewish Christian sect in Palestine at the time was simply killed by the Romans with the rest of the nation.

I think it is an open question if when Maimonides denied the physicality of God and interpreted all physical aspects of the divine, whether this elevated the status of the "holy" or whether something primitive and fundamental was lost. That as a result we became something less human. That in the process we literally lost touch. What it meant to be made in God's image made us strangers to both what it means to be human and to be a god. The sacred was diminished when the tangible and immediate experience of being alive were downplayed in favor of an imagined transcendence. — Fooloso4

I think the evolution of the religion required a move towards the incorporeal. There are just too many theological problems with positing an actual location of God. Interestingly though, the Mormons believe in a corporeal anthropomorphic god, so if you actually do think there was a loss with this theological change, there are still religions out there for you.

Critical to religion holding value is personal acceptance of the tenants and I don't think many of the modern mindset could actually actually accept the ancient perspectives of God.

Importantly, the Roman supression of the Bar Kochba revolt killed millions of Jews and left Palestine unrecognisable, "ethnically cleansed". So what may have been left of the Ebionites or any other Jewish Christian sect in Palestine at the time was simply killed by the Romans with the rest of the nation. — Olivier5

Agreed. Interestingly, it is known that the "Jerusalem Church", was headed by a series of Jesus' brothers, followers, and relatives (first James, then Simeon-both Jesus' brothers, the last was Judas, the son of Jude, another of Jesus' brothers, which would make him his nephew). All were considered "Jewish Christians". The cutoff from the Jewish Christian leaders and the gentile Christian leaders in that church is exactly demarcated at the Bar Kochba Rebellion's defeat in 135 CE. So yes, I believe this did represent a breaking point between the last remnants of the original followers/traditions and the Proto-Orthodox Gentile Church that became "Christianity". They were removed as other Jews in a sort of ethnic cleansing.

Ironically, a strong contingent of scholars remained, not in Judea proper (that was forbidden for a while) but in the Galilee area around Caesarea and Tiberius. The Mishna was compiled there in 200 CE and the Jerusalem Talmud around 400 CE. So there was still a small presence allowed there, more as academic enclaves, but important ones.

I'm actually an admirer of the Rebbe and the Lubavitch movement, especially their positivity doctrines (tracht gut vet zein gut!). For a hasidic sect, they are vey welcoming, which is a very different case with some others. I do think it's unfortunate that a small number within that community have gone down that path and declared the Rebbe the Messiah. It detracts from the real message, but this is a thread about Jesus, so I won't annoy anyone here with the teachings of the good Rebbe, but I do think it is in his spirit to portray events in their most positive light.

That would seem to make them "holy" not because of what they are, but because of how they came to be interpreted centuries after they were written by people in different circumstances under different influence. — Ciceronianus

From what I gather, the term "holy" is incoherent to you in any other sense though.

That is, if holy only means that which is consecrated by God, and you reject such a thing can occur, then we must define the term how we use it.

I'm actually an admirer of the Rebbe and the Lubavitch movement, especially their positivity doctrines (tracht gut vet zein gut!). For a hasidic sect, they are vey welcoming, which is a very different case with some others. I do think it's unfortunate that a small number within that community have gone down that path and declared the Rebbe the Messiah. It detracts from the real message, but this is a thread about Jesus, so I won't annoy anyone here with the teachings of the good Rebbe, but I do think it is in his spirit to portray events in their most positive light. — Hanover

I'm not trying to trash talk the Rebbe :wink:. However, I can't resist bringing up the parallels with the very small number of Messianists in that group and the early Jesus followers for natural responses to the death of very charismatic leaders. I don't think the group was intentionally following the Christian model, and that's why I find it fascinating. I think this is actually one outcome that presented itself to the early followers of Jesus after his death. What do you do when you think your leader was ASSUREDLY the messiah? You make the move that he didn't really "die" or he was "resurrected".. Maybe the "first" in what will be the End Times, when EVERYONE will be resurrected! So While this group does represent a sort of weird deviation from the usual Jewish understanding of the role of the messiah, it is also a good thing in (possibly) shedding light on how the early followers of Jesus responded to his death. Does that make sense?

There are just too many theological problems with positing an actual location of God. — Hanover

It is not as if incorporeal version are free of theological problems. It could be argued that "theology" is part of the problem. Why should God conform to human reason?

This is seen as a blessed period and Cyrus is called 'messiah' in the Bible (ie indeed: anointed by God) for it. — Olivier5

For citation:
2 Chronicles 36:23
Ezra 1:1
Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1

A vocal minority there think that even though their beloved rebbe is dead, they think he really didn't "die" but is in sort of stasis and will come back to reveal he is the King Messiah. — schopenhauer1

I think the same thing happened to Shia Islam. They're waiting for some guy.

it's unfortunate that a small number within that community have gone down that path and declared the Rebbe the Messiah. It detracts from the real message, but this is a thread about Jesus, so I won't annoy anyone here with the teachings of the good Rebbe, but I do think it is in his spirit to portray events in their most positive light. — Hanover

In a way, the same thing applies to Jesus: the messianic and son-of-god 'mythology' has come at the expense of the message. What the man had said became largely irrelevant once he was made a god. His idealization trumped his ideas; his exaltation was his humbling (Matthew 23:12).

Today he is best characterized as just another empty idol. Which of course has been the official rabbis' view him all along but I think it's a bit unfair.

Muslims, as is well known, did not make of Jesus a god. For them he is a prophet, ie a human being inspired by Allah. In fact he is one of the most important if not the most important of all of Allah's prophets, after the top boss Mohamad. Isa ben Mariam (Jesus son of Marie) is the most frequently cited guy in the Qoran. Peace be upon him -- literally, in that you don't pronounce his name in an muslim context without adding 'la isalam'. Eg: "Jesus, peace be upon him, was the son of Mariam, peace be upon her." It can get tedious.

Little is reported of his message in the Quran except universal love and kindness, and then the miracles, once again more 'newsworthy' than the philosophy ... Many Quranic miracles by Jesus are not from the canonical gospels, like the miracle of the table (a bit like the multiplication of fish and bread, but with a table coming from the sky with delicious food on it). Or the story that when Jesus was a child he fashioned birds out of clay, then he breathed on them and they flew away... So cute.

In a way, the same thing applies to Jesus: the messianic and son-of-god 'mythology' has come at the expense of the message. What the man had said became largely irrelevant once he was made a god. His idealization trumped his ideas; his exaltation was his humbling (Matthew 23:12). — Olivier5

:up: exactly. I see interesting parallels.

I think the same thing happened to Shia Islam. They're waiting for some guy. — frank

Yep, interesting how these things take the same form. I don't think its intentional.. just how groups create an escape hatch for what "has" to be a sure thing.

I think there's more to it than that. It's about a fulfillment of prophecy, the idea that where we're headed is better than where we are.

Think about the character of a culture that fully believes that; that therefore lives it.

Yeah I can see what you mean. I'm just saying, that prophecy cannot NOT be fulfilled for them, and there is the result. It's THIS guy cannot NOT be the one. How can that be so, we were so feeling it! haha

Yep.

But is their effect on us, or some of us, what makes them "holy"? — Ciceronianus

What else?

What else? — Janus

In that case we may speak of them as being contingently holy, or holy at some point or to some person, sometime, maybe not now but maybe in the future. They become holy, then; they aren't holy themselves. Sometimes, in fact, they aren't holy, if they don't have the requisite impact on the particular reader.