Story of Civilization ~ Will & Ariel Durant ~ Volume III, Part 5 ~ Nonfiction
jane
May 12, 2004 - 10:49 am
What are our origins?
Where are we now? Where are we headed?
Share your thoughts with us!
|
"I want to know what were the steps by which man passed from barbarism to civilization." (Voltaire) |
|
Volume Three ("Caesar and Christ")
"Four elements constitute Civilization -- economic provision, political organization, moral traditions, and the pursuit of knowledge and the arts.
"
"I shall proceed as rapidly as time and circumstances will permit, hoping that a few of my contemporaries will care to grow old with me while learning.
"
"These volumes may help some of our children to understand and enjoy the infinite riches of their inheritance."
"Civilization begins where chaos and insecurity ends."
"
|
A SEMITIC DYNASTY -- ANARCHY -- THE ECONOMIC DECLINE -- THE TWILIGHT OF PAGANISM -- THE ORIENTAL MONARCHY -- THE SOCIALISM OF DIOCLETIAN
"The Alemanni and the Marcomanni broke through the Roman limes and ravaged eastern Gaul."
"Seeing the wealth and weakness of the Empire, the barbarians poured down into the Balkans and Greece."
"The cultural graph of the third century follows loosely the curve of declining wealth and power."
"The Roman state did what all nations must do in crucial wars. It accepted the dictatorship of a strong leader."
In
this Discussion Group we are not examining Durant.
We are examining Civilization but in the process constantly
referring to Durant's appraisals.
In this volume Will Durant recounts the flaming pageant of the rise of Rome from a crossroads town to mastery of the world. He tells of its achievements from the Crimea to Gibraltar and from the Euphrates to Hadrian's Wall, of its spread of classic civilization over the Mediterranean and western European world. He relates Rome's struggle to preserve its ordered realm from a surrounding sea of barbarism and its long slow crumbling and final catastrophic collapse into darkness and chaos.
Turning to the eastern Mediterranean, we accompany Christ on his ministry, witness the tragic scenes of the Passion, and sail and walk with Paul on his missionary labors. The Empire attains a new invincibility under the Emperor Aurelian, declines, and finally stiffens into a bureaucratic mold.
This volume, and the series of which it is a part, has been compared with the great work of the French encyclopedists of the eighteenth century. The Story of Civilization represents the most comprehensive attempt in our times to embrace the vast panorama of man's history and culture.
This, then, is about YOU. Join our group daily and listen to what Durant and the rest of us are saying. Better yet, share with us your opinions.
Your Discussion Leader:
Robby Iadeluca
Story of Civilization, Vol. III, Part 1
Story of Civilization, Vol. III, Part 2
Story of Civilization, Vol. III, Part 3
Story of Civilization, Vol. III, Part 4
Books main page | B&N Bookstore | Suggest a Book for Discussion
We sometimes excerpt quotes from discussions to display on pages on SeniorNet's site or in print documents.
If you do NOT wish your words quoted, please Contact Books
Internet Citation Procedure
jane
May 12, 2004 - 10:51 am
Justin
May 13, 2004 - 04:08 pm
Joan: Are you saying that women don't really give a damn whether they have sex with one man or a dozen. They remain loyal to one man just to get a father or a provider for the children.
JoanK
May 13, 2004 - 04:09 pm
It seems like just yesterday I first discovered this site: worried that I wouldn't get my book before the discussion was over. Now it's almost 4000 posts later. WOW!!!
JoanK
May 13, 2004 - 04:13 pm
JUSTIN: No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying men are so harsh in punishing infidelity because they want to ensure that property and rank passes down to their sons, not someone else's. (note: this is not my theory. I can't remember a cite just offhand)
robert b. iadeluca
May 13, 2004 - 04:51 pm
Any further comments about Germany before Durant moves us on?Robby
Justin
May 13, 2004 - 06:04 pm
Joan: Ok. I won't hold you to authorship. I think the thing is more complicated than that. Don't you? Not only do men want to pass on to legitimate heirs, they also tend to consider wives a possession and when a posession wanders off the reservation, the male is unhappy. I think that is also characteristic of herd animals.
Justin
May 13, 2004 - 06:08 pm
The interesting thing about the Germans is that they mingled with their neighbors creating British Germans, Italian Germans, etc and then they all went to fight those nasty aggressive German Germans.
robert b. iadeluca
May 14, 2004 - 03:20 am
We have examined in the past Greece's effect on the development of Rome. Now we will very briefly examine Rome's effect on Greece.Roman Greece
robert b. iadeluca
May 14, 2004 - 03:34 am
"Rome tried hard to be generous to Greece and did not quite fail. No garrisons were placed in the new province of Achaea. Less was exacted from it than its own taxgatherers had claimed before. The city-states were allowed to govern themselves by their old constitutions and laws, and many of them -- Athens, Sparta, Plataea, Delphi, and others -- were 'free states' exempt from all restrictions except the right to wage foreign or class war."Nevertheless, hungry for its ancient liberties, and bled by Roman generals, moneylenders, and businessmen skilled in buying cheap and selling dear, Greece joined in Mithridates' revolt and paid the heaviest penalty. Athens suffered a devastating siege, and Delphi, Elis, and Epidaurus were pillaged of their sanctuary hoards.
"A generation later Caesar and Pompey, then Antony and Brutus, fought their duels on Greek territory, conscripted Greek men, requisitioned Greek crops and gold, levied twenty years' taxes in two, and left the cities destitute. Under Augustus Greek Asia recovered, but Greece herself remained poor, ruined not so much by the Roman conquest as by a stifling despotism in Sparta, a chaotic freedom in Athens, a blighting sterility in soil and men.
"Her most enterprising sons deserted her for younger and richer lands. The rise of new powers in Egypt, Carthage, and Rome, and the development of industry in the Hellenistic East, left the homeland of the classic spirit outmoded and forlorn. Rome loaded Greece with compliments and ravaged her art. Scaurus took 3000 statues for his theater. Caligula ordered the husband of his mistress to comb Greece for statuary. Nero alone took half the sculptures of Delphi.
"Not until Hadrian would Athens smile again."
I ask myself if there is a small analogy here to the relationship of China and Hong Kong.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 14, 2004 - 04:35 am
"There is no more pleasant character in our tale than Plutarch of Chaeronea. He was born there about A.D. 46, and died there about 126. He was a student at Athens when Nero collected triumphs in Greece. He must have had a fair income, for he traveled in Egypt and Asia Minor and twice in Italy. He lectured in Greek at Rome and seems to have served his country in some diplomatic role."He liked the great capital and the good manners and honorable life of its new aristocracy. He admired their stoic code, and agreed with Ennius that Rome had been made by morality and character. As he contemplated these living nobles and the noble dead, the thought came to him of comparing the heroes of Rome with those of Greece. He proposed not merely to write history or even biography, but to teach virtue and heroism by historic exemplars. Even his Parallel Lives were in his mind, Moralia.
"He was always a teacher and never lost a chance to tie a moral to a tale, but who has ever done it more gracefully? He warns us in his 'Alexander' that he is more interested in character than in history. He hopes that by pairing and comparing great Romans with great Greeks he will pass on some moral stimulus, some heroic impulse, to his readers.
"With disarming candor he confesses that he himself has become a better man throgh keeping company so long with distinguished men."
Participants here who have discussed both Greece and Rome may have their own opinions. Any thoughts regarding Plutarch's comment that "Rome was made by morality and character?"
Robby
Justin
May 14, 2004 - 01:49 pm
Perhaps, he is right. Rome was built on morality and character. It's character was formulated from Stoic morality. It is the character of the physically strong,, of the dominant personality. Greece on the other hand, particularly Athenian Greece, is more given to negotiation than to simply taking by force of arms. A dominant power always has it's admirers and Plutarch may well have been such a person. However, in the following Plutarch seems to admire the Greek manner.
In his comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero we find him taking Ciscero to task for jest and boastfulness while praising Demosthenes for never touching upon his own praises, for modesty. " It is necessary indeed, he says, for a political leader to be a good speaker; but it is an ignoble thing for any man to admire and relish the glory of his own eloquence"
Reflecting on that statement could easily lead one to conclude that characteristic in Cicero led to his demise at Antony's bid.
Scrawler
May 14, 2004 - 03:21 pm
I had a cousin living in Greece at the time of WWII. She was about sixteen and had already had two children. As the story goes, she was acused of collaberating with the Germans. The women in her village caught her one night when she was coming back from where the Germans were and shaved her head and probably would have killed her, except that my uncle who was head of the resitance sent his men to rescue her. They did and she left the Greek islands never to see her children again. There has been much speculation about this in my family. The women all seem to have hated her, but the men, like my grandfather welcomed her into our homes. From bits and pieces, because nobody will really talk about it, I have come to the conclusion that she was working for the resitance and that is why they rescued her from her own people.
I met her once in the 1950s when I was nine and at the time she looked like Grace Kelly and was married to a Greek shipping tycoon.
robert b. iadeluca
May 14, 2004 - 04:50 pm
Says Plutarch:-"We must not forget those blessings and comforts which we share with many more, but must joy in this, that we live, that we have our health, that we behold the light of sun. Will not the good man consider every day a festival?
"For the world is the most august of temples, and most worthy of its Lord. Into this temple man is introduced at his birth, into the presence not of statues made with hands and motionless, but such as the Divine Mind has manifested to our senses even the sun, moon, and stars, and the rivers ever pouring forth fresh water, and the earth producing food.
"As this life is the most perfect of initiations into the most exalted of mysteries, we should ever be filled with good cheer and rejoicing."
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 14, 2004 - 05:33 pm
"Plutarch exemplified two movements of his time -- the return to religion and the passing renaissance of Greek literature and philosophy. The former was universal -- the latter was confined to Athens and the Greek East."Six cities of the Peloponnesus prospered, but contributed little to Greek thought. Western commerce and a busy textile industry kept Patrae alive through Roman and medieval history even to our day. Olympia throve on the leavings of tourists coming to see Pheidias' Zeus or the Olympic games.
"It is one of the pleasantest aspects of Greek history that these quadrennial contests continued from 776 B.C. to A.D. 394, when Theodosius ended them.
"Sparta and Argos were still moderately alive, and Epidaurus grew rich on the visits of sick bodies and souls to the shrine of Aselepius. Corinth, controlling the trade across the isthmus became, within half a century of its re-establishment by Caesar, the wealthiest city in Greece. Its heterogeneous population of Romans, Greeks, Syrians, Jews, and Egyptians, most of them uprooted from their native lands and morals, was notorious for commercialism, epicureanism, and immorality.
"Meanwhile the unrivaled fame of Athens in letters, philosphy, and education brought a stream of rich youths and needy scholars to her schools. The University of Athens consisted of ten professorships endowed by the city or the emperor, and a host of private lecturers and tutors. Instruction was given in literature, philology, rhetoric, philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, medicine, and law -- usually in gymnasia or theaters, sometimes in temples or homes.
"The dominant philosophy had long since been Stoicism. The rigorous perfectionism of its early forms had been softened by Panaetius and Poseidonius, both citizens of Rhodes.
"The Stoic theory of moral discipline moved closer to Cynic asceticism. In the second century A.D. Cynicism, as one observer put it, differed from Stoicism only by a torn cloak.
"In Epictetus, as in Marcus Aurelius, we see both movements advancing toward Christianity. If we sum up Greek thought in the first two centuries of our era, we find it overwhelmingly religious.
"Men had once lost faith in faith and taken to logic. Now they were losing faith in logic and were flocking back to faith.
"Greek philosophy had completed the circuit from primitive theology through the skepticism of the early sophists -- the atheism of Democritus -- the reconciliatory blandishments of Plato -- the naturalism of Aristotle -- and the pantheism of the Stoa back to a philosopy of mysticism, sumission and piety.
"Stocism was ceasing to be the proud and scornful philosophy of aristocrrats, and had found its final most eloquent voice in a slave. Its doctrine of a final conflagration of the world -- its rejection of all pleasures of the flesh -- its humble surrender to the hidden will of God -- were preparing for the theology and ethics of Christianity.
"The Oriental mood was capturing the European citadel."
How subtly Durant takes us full circle back to religion and prepares us for the "new" religion of Christianity.
Robby
Justin
May 14, 2004 - 10:53 pm
Stoicism was contemporary with Christianity in the early years of the latter religion and its tenets, those of stoicism, fit nicely with the Christianity of Paul. The Stoics expected the world to come a violent end. Paul predicted the same end with a second coming and harsh judgement by a Christian God to follow. Paul rejected sex and thought women should be obedient to their husbands, fathers and brothers. Paul asked gentiles to submit to the will of a God described only by Paul himself. So too, did the stoics.
But it was not only the stoics that paved the way to Christianity. All the tales of mysteries in the east were popular in the Roman world of the first century and these contributed greatly to the shape and content of Christianity.
robert b. iadeluca
May 15, 2004 - 03:10 am
The Hellenistic Revival
robert b. iadeluca
May 15, 2004 - 03:29 am
"Egypt should have been the happiest of lands, for not only was the earth freely nourished by the Nile, but the country was the most self-sufficient in the whole Mediterranean basin -- rich in cereals and fruits -- cutting three crops a year -- unexcelled in its industries -- exporting to a hundred nations -- and seldom disturbed by foreign or civil war."And yet -- perhaps for these reasons -- 'The Egyptians,' Josephus notes, 'appear never in all their history to have enjoyed one day of freedom.' Their wealth tempted, their semitropical lassitude suffered, one despot or conqueror after another through fifty centuries.
"Rome classed Egypt not as a province but as the property of the emperor, and ruled it through a prefect responsible only to him. Native Greek officials administered the three divisiions -- Lower, Middle, and Upper Egypt, and the thirty-six 'nomes' or counties. The official language remained Greek. No attempt was made to urbanize the population for Egypt's imperial function was to be the granary of Rome.
"Large tracts of land were taken from the priests and returned over to Roman or Alexandrian capitalists to be worked as latifundia by fellaheen accustomed to merciless exploitation. The state capitalists of the Ptolemies was continued in refuced form. Every step in the agricultural process was planned and controlled by the state. Proliferating buraucrats determined what crops should be sown and in what quantities -- annually allotted the requisite seed -- received the product into government warehouses (thesaurai, treasuries) -- exported Rome's quota -- took out taxes in kind -- and sold the rest to the market.
"Corn and flax were state monopolies from seed to sale. So, at least in the Fayum, was the production of bricks, perfumes, and sesame oil. Private enterprise was permitted in other fields, but under ubiquitous regulation. All mineral resources were owned by the state, and the quarrying of marble and precious stones was a governmental privilege.
"From Augustus to Trajan the country -- or its masters -- prospered. After that zenith it succumbed to the discouragement and exhaustion of endless tribute and taxation and the lethargy of a regimented economy."
I continue to have great admiration for Durant's story-telling ability and his smooth way of moving us along through history. As we move toward Christianity, I see here how he is helping us to see the importance of the Egypt we hear about so often in the Bible.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 15, 2004 - 06:18 am
"Greeks, Egyptians, Jews, Italians, Arabs, Phoenicians, Persians, Ethiopians, Syrians, Libyans, Cilicians, Scythians, Indians, Nubians -- nearly every Mediterranean people had its quota in Alexandria. They made a volatile and inflammable mixture -- quarrelsome and disorderly -- intellectually clever and irreverently witty -- shameless in speech -- skeptical and superstitious -- loose in morals and gay in mood -- fanatically fond of the theater, music, and public games."Dio Chrysotom describes life there as 'a continuous revel of dancers, whistlers, and murderers.' The canals were alive with merry makers in gondolas at night on their five-mile sail to the amusement suburb at Canopus. There were musical contests that rivaled the horse races in raising excitement and claques.
"If we may believe Philo, forty percent of the city's population was Jewish. Most Alexandrian Jews were employed in industry and trade, and lived in great poverty. Many were merchants, a few were moneylenders, some were rich enough to win enviable places in the government.
"Originally confined to one fifth of the city, they had now overflowed to occupy two fifths. They were governed by their own laws and elders, and Rome confirmed the privileges that the Ptolemies had given them to ignore any ordinance that conflicted with their religion. They gloried in their magnificent central synagogue, a colonnaded basilica so vast that a system of signals had to be used to secure proper resonse at proper times from worshipers too distant from the sanctuary to hear the words of the priest.
According to Josephus the moral life of the Alexandrian Jews was exemplary compared with the sexual looseness of the 'pagan' population. They had an active intellectual culture and contributed substantially to philosophy, historiography, and science.
"Racial hostility agitated the city at various times. The Roman prefect, Avillius Flaccus, annulled the Alexandrian citizenship of the Jews and ordered those of them who lived outside the original Jewish section to return to it within a few days. When these had elapsed the Greek populace burned down 400 Jewish homes, and killed or clubbed Jews, outside the ghetto. Thirty-eight members of the Jewish gerousia or senate were arrested and publicly scourged in a theater.
"Thousands of Jews lost their homes, their businesses, or their savings. Flaccus' successor submitted the matter to the Emperor, and two separate delegations -- five Greeks and five Jews -- went to Rome (A.D. 40) to plead their causes before Caligula. He died before he could judge.
"Claudius restored the rights of the Jews in Alexandria, confirmed them in their municipal citizenship, and sternly bade both factions keep the peace."
Scrawler
May 15, 2004 - 09:15 am
"A government, said Plutarch, "ought to give a people two boons above all: liberty and peace. "As to peace," he wrote, "there is no need to occupy ourselves, for all war has ceased. As to liberty, we have that which the government [Rome] leaves us; and perhaps it would not be good if we had any more."
Why do you think Plutarch said that: "it would not be good if we had any more [liberty]"?
robert b. iadeluca
May 15, 2004 - 10:21 am
Some items regarding the JEWS IN ALEXANDRIA. Robby
JoanK
May 15, 2004 - 12:08 pm
""From Augustus to Trajan the country -- or its masters -- prospered. After that zenith it succumbed to the discouragement and exhaustion of endless tribute and taxation and the lethargy of a regimented economy."
Russian leadersd should have read this. they managed the discouragement without the preceding prosperity.
Justin
May 15, 2004 - 12:42 pm
The Alexandrian Jews spoke Greek. They were unable to read Hebrew and as a result were unable to read the Torah. Seventy scholars were appointed to translate the Torah as well as other books of the OLd Testament from Hebrew to Greek. This translation is called the Septuagint. It is the basic source for the King James version and subsequent translations of the Bible.
JoanK
May 15, 2004 - 12:51 pm
JUSTIN: do you know the date for the Septaquint?
robert b. iadeluca
May 15, 2004 - 12:55 pm
"The leader of the Jewish delegation to Caligula was the philosopher Philo, brother of the arabarch, or manager of the Jewish export trade in Alexandria. We know hardly anything else of his life. But his pious and generous character stands out in the many works tht he wrote to expound Judaism to the Greek world."Brought up in a sacerdotal atmosphere, intensely loyal to his people, and yet fascinated by Greek philosophy, he made it the aim of his life to reconcile the Scriptures and customs of the Jews with Greek ideas and above all with the philosophy of 'the most holy' Plato. He adopted for his purpose the principle that all events, characters, doctrines, and laws in the Old Testament have an allegorical as well as a literal meaning and symbolize certain moral or psychological truths. By this method he was able to prove anything.
"God, in Philo, is the essential being of the world, incorporeal, eternal, indescribable. Reason can know his existence, but can ascribe no quality to him, since every quality is a limitation. To conceive him as having human form is a concession to the sensuous imagination of men.
"But he is not everything. Matter is also eternal and increate. However, it has no life, motion, or form until infused with the divine force. To create the world by giving form to matter, and to establish relations with man, God used a host of intermediary beings, called angels by the Jews, daimones by the Greeks, and Ideas by Plato. These, says Philo, may popularly be conceived as persons, although really they exist only in the Divine Mind, as the thoughts and powers of God. Together these powers constitute what the Stoics called the Logos, or Divine Reason creating and guiding the world.
"Fluctuating between philosophy and theology, between ideas and personifications, Philo sometimes thinks of the Logos as a person. In a poetic moment he calls the Logos 'the first-begotten of God,' son of God by the virgin Wisdom, and says that through the Logos God has revealed himself to man.
"Philo's Logos was one of the most influential ideas in the history of thought. Its antecedents in Heracleitus, Plato, and the Stoics are obvious. Persumably he knew the recent Jewish literature that had made a distinct person of the Wisdom of God as creator of the world.
"Philo was a conatemporary of Christ. He apparently never heard of him. But he shared unknowingly in forming Christian theology. The rabbis frowned upon his allegorical interpretations as likely to be used as an excuse for neglecting literal obedience to the Law. They suspected the Logos doctrine as a retreat from monotheism. They saw in Philo's passion for Greek philosophy a threat of cultural assimilation, racial dilution, and consequent disappearance, of the dispersed Jews.
"The Fathers of the Church admired the Jew's contemplative devotion -- made abundant use of his allegorical principles to answer the critics of the Hebrew Scriptures -- and joined with gnostics and Neo-Platonists in accepting the mystical vision of God as the crown of human enterprise.
"Philo had tried to mediate between Hellenism and Judaism. From the Judaic point of view he had failed. From the historical point of view he had succeeded. The result was the first chapter of the Gospel of John."
Help me folks!! I'm getting beyond my depth. I'm trying to understand the thoughts of this Jewish thinker who tried to explain Judaism to the Greek world. In doing so, he tried to reconcile Scriptures and Jewish customs with Greek ideas.He looked up to Plato. He believed that the stories in the Old Testament were allegorical and not literal. He considered God "indescribable." He did not see God as having a human form. He saw Jewish angels (Plato's ideas) as being only in the Divine Mind.
According to Durant Philo was both theologian and philosopher. He saw the Divine Reason (Logos) as the "son" of Wisdom and through this method was being revealed to mankind.
So if I get all this, Philo entered into deep contemplation in trying to explain Judaism to the Greeks but they "didn't buy it." At the same time, without his realizing it, he came up with the beliefs expressed, to some degree, in the Gospel of John.
I'm lost, folks!! Any ideas?
Robby
Shasta Sills
May 15, 2004 - 01:56 pm
You don't sound lost to me, Robby. You sound like you understood
exactly what he said. It's so much more interesting to read about
a man with ideas after that long run of murdering emperors.
Malryn (Mal)
May 15, 2004 - 09:03 pm
Justin
May 15, 2004 - 10:15 pm
Joan: I think the Septuagint dates to 250 BCE. The Septuquint is a new term to me but it could refer to the Pentateuch which were the first books translated into Greek.
Justin
May 15, 2004 - 10:55 pm
Philo is a connecting link between Hellenism and Judaism and between Judaism and Christianity. While he was a contemporary of Jesus, Peter, James, and Paul there is no indication that he was aware of them or they of him. Philo was an Alexandrian Greek and a Jewish sage. He tried to compare Jewish teaching with Hellenic concepts. His writing is difficult to grasp because he goes wherever the theme leads him. He starts with one concept, writes about it then finds something interesting in the concept and goes off on the tangent. After he has done this several times the reader is lost. Reading Philo is a little like reading Joyce. It's a stream of consciousness.
Philo's writings are really a review of and criticism of the books of the Old Testament. He sees the tales as history but also as allegory and in some cases as myth. He is well versed in Greek philosophy, particularly in the works of Plato.
Heracleitas introduced the idea of the Logos. In general it means "the word". The Logos he said, is shared by all. Epictetus said the logos promises us peace which god proclaimed through his logos. Vitruvius who generally writes about architecture says, Let no one think I have erred if I believe in the logos. The Logos is divine. It is God in the Christian scheme of things. Hence when
Philo writes about the Logos he is writing about his concept of God or the Word. That idea is related to the fourth Gospel in which John says, " In the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and the word was God.
Justin
May 15, 2004 - 11:03 pm
Christians personify the relationship between the Logos and God as the "Son of God". Yet Father and Son are just aspects of one another. This is a paradox and it is expressed in John as "The Logos was with God, and the Logos was God."
I'm sure this will come up again as we enter the Christian era.
JoanK
May 15, 2004 - 11:04 pm
"The Septuquint is a new term to me but it could refer to the Pentateuch which were the first books translated into Greek."
OK, JUSTIN. So some of us can spell and others of us can copy a word and still misspell it. Never mind, a teacher once told me that most gifted indeviduals can't spell!!
Justin
May 16, 2004 - 12:27 am
Joan: It's not that obvious to me that you misspelled it. I was serious.
Malryn (Mal)
May 16, 2004 - 02:02 am
The Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, was done in the 3rd century BCE.
I don't think the way people spell has anything to do with whether they are gifted or not. I have Microsoft Reference installed in my computer and have a dictionary available to me anywhere I am online and any time I turn the computer on. I use the dictionary all the time, the encyclopedia less, but it is immediately available if I need it -- a very handy bit of software for me.
History of the Septuagint
Bubble
May 16, 2004 - 02:43 am
Justin, I am sure that Alexandrian Jews could read Hebrew. The probability is that they could not understand it anymore. The fact that they were Jews made them learn to read it so they could have their Bar Mitzva at 13y old.
Cairo too had a very old synagogue. There is a curious story about it. As you know, it is forbidden to destroy any text with holy writting in Hebrew on it. They are usually burried in a consecrated place. Until that can be done, old tattered books and other scripts are kept hidden in a "Genizah" a kind of safe hole in the construction. Some years ago, the Cairo synagogue had some repair or construction done to it and a Genizah, totally forgotten for long years, was found with very interesting papers in it like marriage contracts and other personal very old documents. I am sure it is on the web somewhere. It shed light on the old communities. I don't remember if it went back as far as Roman times.
Logos in Greek: a word, saying, speech, discourse, thought, proportion, ratio, reckoning, akin to the verb logein to choose, gather, recount, tell over, speak.
Philos.: the rational principle that governs and develops the universe. (Webster's)
robert b. iadeluca
May 16, 2004 - 03:43 am
In the link that Mal gave us about Philo's writings, Emil Schurer gives the following as some of Philo's thoughts regarding Genesis in the Old Testament:-
"The history of mankind as related in Genesis is in reality nothing else than a system of psychology and ethic. The different individuals, who here make their appearance, denote the different states of soul (ôñïðïé ôçò øõ÷çò) which occur among men. To analyse these in their variety and their relations both to each other and to the Deity and the world of sense, and thence to deduce moral doctrines, is the special aim of this great allegorical commentary. Thus we perceive at the same time, that Philo's chief interest is not—as might from the whole plan of his system be supposed—speculative theology for its own sake, but on the contrary psychology and ethic. To judge from his ultimate purpose he is not a speculative theologian, but a psychologist and moralist."
robert b. iadeluca
May 16, 2004 - 04:54 am
"In science Alexandria was the unchallenged head of the Hellenistic world. Claudius Ptolemy must be ranked among the most influential astronomers of antiguity, for despite Copernicus, the world is still Ptolemaic in its speech."Born at Ptolemais on the Nile (whence his name), he lived most of his life at Alexandria, where he made observations from A.D. 127 to 151. The world remembers him chiefly for his rejection of Aristarchus' theory that the earth revolves around the sun. This immortal error was enshrined in Ptolemy's Mathematike Syntaxis, or 'Mathematical Arrangement' of the stars. The Arabs referred to the work with a Greek superlative as Al-megiste, 'The Greatest.' The Middle Ages corrupted the phrase into Almagest, by which the book is known to history.
"It ruled the skies until Copernicus upset the world. And yet Ptolemy did not claim to do more than systematize the work and observation of previous astronomers, Hipparchus above all. He pictured the universe as spherical and as daily revolving around a spherical, motionless earth. Strange as this view seems to us (although there is no telling what some future Copernicus will do to our present Ptolemies), the geocentric hypothesis made it possible to compute the position of the stars and planets more accurately than the heliocentric conception could do in the state of astronomic knowledge at the time.
"Ptolemy suggested further a theory of eccentrics to explain the orbits of the planets, and discovered the evection, or orbital aberration, of the moon. He measured the moon's distance from the earth by the parallax method still in use, and calculated it as fifty-nine times the earth's radius.
"This is approximately our current reckoning but Ptolemy followed Poseidonius in underestimating the diameter of the earth."
Again - science and religion clash.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 16, 2004 - 06:59 am
Click HERE for various artists' versions of Ptolemy.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 16, 2004 - 09:17 am
A MAP OF THE WORLD as visualized by Ptolemy. Allow for slow downloading.Robby
JoanK
May 16, 2004 - 02:26 pm
BUBBLE: YOU SAY "Logos in Greek: a word, saying, speech, discourse, thought, proportion, ratio, reckoning, akin to the verb logein to choose, gather, recount, tell over, speak" rANDOM THOUGHT: COULD "LOGEIN" be related to our login?
Below a too wordy and detailed, but interesting, discussion of Ptolemy's work.
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Ptolemy.html
Justin
May 16, 2004 - 05:08 pm
Joan; Good peice on Ptolomy. I see even Laplace attacks the poor old guy. How would he feel if we were to attack his transforms. Since he notes the errors in Ptolomy are not random, I guess we have to assume he made some adjustments in the data to fit the theory. Copernicus, and Gallileo particularly took some lumps for a nonPtolomaic view of the solar system.
robert b. iadeluca
May 16, 2004 - 05:17 pm
Here are some DIFFERENT ANCIENT VIEWS of the solar system.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 16, 2004 - 05:31 pm
"Alexandria had long since been the chief center of medical education."There were famous schools of medicine at Marseilles, Lyons, Saragossa, Athens, Antioch, Cos, Ephesus, Smyrna, and Pergamum. But medical students came to the Egyptian capital from every province. Even as late as the fourth century, when Egypt was in decline, Ammianus Marcellinus wrote that 'it is enough to commend a physician's skill if he can say that he was trained at Alexandria.'
"Said Philostratus (ca. A.D. 225) 'Specialization was progressing. No one can be a universal physician. There must be specialists for wounds, fevers, eyes, consumption.' Dissection of cadavers was practiced at Alexandria, and there seem to have been cases of human vivisection. Surgery was probably as well developed there in the first century A.D. as anywhere in Europe before the nineteenth century.
"Women physicians were not rare. One of them, Metrodera, wrote an extant treatise on diseaes of the womb. Soranus of Ephesus, about A.D. 116, published a treatise on the diseases of women and the birth and care of children. It ranks only below the Hippocratic collection and the works of Galen among the extant products of ancient medicine. He describes a vaginal speculum and an obstetric chair -- gives an excellent anatomy of the uterus -- offers almost modern dietetic and operative advice -- such as bathing the eys of the newborn child with oil -- suggests half a hundred contraceptive devices, mostly by vaginal medication and (unlike Hippocrates) allows abortion where delivery would endanger the mother's life."
robert b. iadeluca
May 17, 2004 - 03:28 am
"The most famous physician of the period was the son of a Pergamese architect, who named him Galenus, i.e. quiet and peaceable, in the hope that he would not take after his mother. At seventeen he turned to medicine, studied in Cilicia, Phoenicia, Palestine, Cyprus, Crete, Greece, and Alexandria (a mobility typical of ancient scholars), served as a surge3on in the gladiatorial school at Pergamum, and practiced for a time in Rome (A.D. 164-168)."He showed that an excised heart can continue to beat outside the body. He proved that the arteries contain blood, not air. He was the first to explain the mechanism of respiration, and brilliantly conjectured that the principal element in the air we breathe is also that which is active in combustion.
"He showed that injujries to one side of the brain produce derangements in the opposite side of the body. He was so skilled in symptomatology that he preferred to diagnose without questioning the patient. He made much use of diet, exercise, and massage, but he was also an expert on drugs and traveled widely to secure rare medicines.
"Galen's teleology and monotheism won him favor with Christians, as later with Moslems. Nearly all his writings were lost to Europe in the chaos of the barbarian invasions, but in the East they were preserved by Arab scholars, and were translated from Arabic into Latin from the eleventh century onward.
"The last creative age of Greek science ended with Ptolemy and Galen. Experiment ceased -- dogma ruled -- mathematics relapsed into restatements of geometry -- biology into Aristotle -- natural science into Pliny -- and medicine marked time until the Arab and Jewish physicians of the Middle Ages renewed the noblest of the sciences."
Any comments about medicine?
Robby
Shasta Sills
May 17, 2004 - 08:22 am
Is it just my computer or has S.N. changed something? When I hit
"Check Subscriptions", I get a screen stating that there are no more
messages.
Marcie Schwarz
May 17, 2004 - 08:43 am
Shasta, you get the no more messages page if you have already read all of the messages in your subscribed discussions. Sometimes the subscriptions 'hiccup' and you may miss a group of new messages. Let me know if you continue to get that message when you have not read all of the messages in the subscribed discussion.
Justin
May 17, 2004 - 01:53 pm
We are examining the early signs of the dark ages when ignorance and dogma ruled. We are seeing the coming of Christianity and it's effect on science and medicine. Some of the associated ignorance is still with us. It was only recently that the Vatican confessed it's error in supressing the message of Gallileo. I wonder how they resolved this conflict in schools. Did parochial school nuns teach that the earth was the center of the universe? What did Notre Dame teach on this subject? Has the Vatican weighed in on stem cell research?
Galen's work is available because the arabs saved it from destruction. Perhaps they will conduct experiments with stem cells and save us once again.
robert b. iadeluca
May 17, 2004 - 04:08 pm
Marcie:-I'm so pleased to see you here from time to time. Is there any rule which says a Director of Education can't participate?Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 17, 2004 - 04:27 pm
"Across the Red Sea from Egypt lay Arabia. Neither the Pharaohs nor the Achaemenids nor the Seleucids nor the Ptolemies nor the Romans had been able to conquer the mysterious peninsula."Arabia Deserta knew only Arab nomads, but in the southwest a mountain range and its streams gave milder temperatures and fruitful vegetation to Arabia Felix, the Yemen of today. In those recesses the little kingdom of Saba hid, the Sheba of the Bible, so rich in frankincense and myrrh, cassia and cinnamon, aloes and nard, senna and gum and precious stones that the Sabateans could build at Mariaba and elsewhere cities proud with temples, palaces, and colonnades.
"Arab merchants not only sold Arab products at high prices, but carried on a caravan trade with northwestern Asia and an active commerce by sea with Egypt, Parthia, and India.
"In 25 B.C. Augustus sent Aelius Gallus to absorb the kingdom into the Empire. The legions failed to take Mariaba and returned to Egypt decimated by disease and heat. Augustus contented himself with destroying the Arab port at Adana (Aden) and thereby secured control of the trade between Egypt and India.
"Never again until our own century has urbanization been so pronounced. Lucullus, Pompey, Caesar, Herod, Hellenistic kings and Roman emperors prided themselves on founding new cities and embellishing old ones. So, moving northward along the eastern Mediterranean coast, one could hardly go twenty miles without encountering a city -- Raphia (Rafa) - Gaza -- Ascalon -- Joppa (Jaffa) - Apollonia -- Samaria-Sebaste -- and Caesarea (Kaisaria).
"These cities, although in Palestine, were half Greek in population and predominatntly Greek in language, culture, and institutions. They were Hellenistic bridgeheads in the pagan invasion of Judea. Herod spent large sums making Caesarea worthy of Augustus, for whom it was named. He provided it with a fine harbor, a lofty temple, a theater, an amphitheater, 'sumptuous palaces, and many edifices of white stone.'
"Farther inland were other Greek Palestinian cities -- Livias, Philadelphia, Gerasa (Djeraseh), and Gadara (Katra).
Look in today's newspaper. Look in the Bible. Re-read this section by Durant. See any familiar names?
Robby
Justin
May 17, 2004 - 04:54 pm
The Divine John, sitting on Patmos, hears a loud voice, that tells him to write what he sees and hears and send it to the churches in the seven cities of Asia. Philadelphia is one of the cities. I suppose, that is where Philadelphia, PA, found it's name but from whence came Philadelphia cream cheese?
robert b. iadeluca
May 17, 2004 - 04:57 pm
Here is an EXCELLENT MAP of the Arabian Peninsula. Printing it out will help us to understand what Durant is saying.A suggestion -- pause and take a significant amount of time to slowly scan the map. Note Yemen (Arabia Felix) in the south where there is "fruitful vegetation" and the home of the Queen of Sheba.
Durant speaks of "gum." Note the proximity of Sudan to the west where a current ethnic cleansing is going on -- a location of great interest to the Western civilization because of its monopoly on the trees that produce "gum arabic" -- an emulsifier used in many products, not the least of which is Coca-Cola.
Note the port of Aden at the southern tip, conquered by Augustus in order to control the trade route between Egypt and India.
Moving northward toward the Mediterranean, note the ancient city of Gaza (how can we ignore it these days) and Haifa. Durant says that these cities were predominatly Greek in language and culture. I wonder if today's language and culture reflects that. Durant calls them bridgeheads in the Hellenistic "invasion" of Judea.
And, of course, all of these so close to the city of Basra in what we nowadays call "Iraq."
Justin
May 17, 2004 - 06:54 pm
No luck with the maps Robby. They just won't open.
JoanK
May 17, 2004 - 09:00 pm
Galen and Ptolemy show a pattern that I have noticed often in my reading: how what in one generation can be an advance in learning, in future generations can retard learning. Both those men made what, in terms of the knowledge of their times, were signifigent advances in understanding. Both their works later became codified as "the truth" and impeded furtheradvances in understanding (I have seen references to how many patients doctors killed in the 18th century and later by following Galen). While it is true that the connecting of their work to medieval religeon was responsible for this, it is also true, I think, that this is a general tendancy in human civilizations. I wonder how many "truths" we cling to today will later be seen as burdens.
Bubble
May 18, 2004 - 12:39 am
Apollonia is a well known site on the shore of Israel, slightly North of Herzliya. Extensive archeological work is done there presently and shows many ruins from Roman times. It also has a Mosque "Sidni Ali".
When I was still working At the local American School AIS, the students had the possibility to choose as after school activity to help in the digs and learn in sity more about history.
I am sure there must be a site on that.
Bubble
JoanK
May 18, 2004 - 01:24 am
Bubble
May 18, 2004 - 01:43 am
Thanks Joan. I thought they would have had pictures of the finds. It is quite an interesting place.
Is the David Bader of your quote the RAF ace Bade, the pilot without legs? He was my childhood hero/star/inspiration after I saw the film about his life in the late 50s.
JoanK
May 18, 2004 - 01:50 am
SEA BUBBLE: I don't know. I only know his humor books: "Zen Juaism: for you a Little Wisdom" that I took the quote from, and "Haikus for Jews". Both combine Yiddish humor and Eastern phiosophy.
robert b. iadeluca
May 18, 2004 - 04:04 am
"Northward along the coast lay the ancient cities of Phoenicia, part, with Palestine, of the province of Syria. Their industrious workers skilled in handicrafts, their favored position as traditional ports of trade, their rich and subtle merchants sending ships and agents everywhere, had kept them alive through all the vicissitudes of a thousand years."Tyre (Sur) had taller dwellings than Rome's and worse slums. Sidon had probably discovered the art of blowing glass and now specialized in glass and bronze. Berytus (Beirut) was distinguished for its schools of medicine, rheteoric, and law.
"No province of the Empire surpassed Syria in industry and prosperity. Where now 3,000,000 inhabitants find a precarious existence, 10,000,000 lived in Trajan's time. Half a hundred cities here enjoyed the pure water -- the public baths -- the underground drainage system -- the clean markets -- the gymnasia and palaestras -- the lectures and music -- the schools and temples and basilicas -- the porticoes and arches -- the public statuary and picture galleries -- characteristic of the Hellenistic cities in the first century after Christ.
"The oldest of them was Damascus, over the Lebanons from Sidon, fortified by the surrounding desert, and turned almost into a garden by the spreading arms and tributaries of a stream gracefully called 'the river of gold.' Many caravan routes converged here, and poured into the bazaars the products of three continents.
"A similar sight meets the traveler who strikes eastward across the desert from Homs, the ancient Emesa, to Tadmor, which the Greeks translated into Palmyra, City of a Myriad Palms. Its fortunate position and fertile soil around two gushing springs on the roads from Emesa and Damascus to the Euphrates made it grow in affluence until it was one of the major cities of the East. The glory of the city was the Temple of the Sun, dedicated (A.D. 30) to the supreme trinity of Bel (Baal), Yarhibol (the sun), and Aglibol (the moon).
"A main route eastward from Palmyra reached the Euphrates at Dura-Europus. There (A.D. 100) the merchants shared their gains with the Palmyrene trinity by rearing a temple half Greek and half Indian. An eatern painter adorned the walls with frescoes that vividly illustrate the Oriental origin of Byzantine and early Christian art.
"The river Orontes and a great network of roads brought the goods of the East to Antioch, while its Mediterranean port, Selucia Pieria, fourteen miles down the stream, brought in the products of the West.
"The general picture of Syria under Roman rule is one of prosperity more continuous than in any other province. The Greek language prevailed in government and literature, but native tongues -- chiefly Aramaic -- remained the speech of the people. Scholars were plenty and made the world ring with their moment's fame."
I can hear the strains of "Scherezade" playing in my mind as Durant reminds us of "our Oriental Heritage" existing centuries BCE. I recall passages in the Bible as he gives us the names of rivers and cities. And I simultaneously think of bombed out cities in these areas existing in our current day.Thousands of years passing in the twinkling of an eye and we, of the brief Western civilization, believing that we are the pinnacle of all that was and is. How short-sighted!!
robert b. iadeluca
May 18, 2004 - 04:24 am
Here is a MAP of Syria. Hope you can pull it up, Justin!Names pop out at us -- Damascus -- Beirut -- Lebanon -- and Sur (Tyre) in the lower left-hand corner, not too far from where our good friend Bubble lives.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 18, 2004 - 04:30 am
As we look at this map of ASIA and then look at the section we are now examining, it makes one pause to think of the tremendous effect this comparatively small area has had on a significant portion of the world.Robby
Malryn (Mal)
May 18, 2004 - 05:23 am
Malryn (Mal)
May 18, 2004 - 05:35 am
Justin
May 18, 2004 - 12:44 pm
No maps, Robby. Lots of ruins.
robert b. iadeluca
May 18, 2004 - 07:06 pm
Eloise, Mal, and I will be at the Virginia Bash in Richmond on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. Eloise and I met at both the Bash in Williamsport, Pa. and at Calgary, Alberta. Each of us are looking forward to meeting our "old" friend, Mal, personally for the first time. I believe that Eloise has left Montreal already. I will be leaving very very early Thursday morning so my last post until Sunday will be Wednesday night. I believe that Mal will be leaving on Thursday or Friday.I'm sure the rest of you folks will continue to have lots of "ancient" comments to discuss with each other while we are gone.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 18, 2004 - 07:20 pm
"North of Syria was the client kingdom -- later on the province -- of Commagene, with a populous capital at Samosata, Lucian's childhood home."Across the Euphrates stood the little realm of Osthoene. Rome fortified its capital, Edessa (Urfa), as a base against Parthia. We shall hear more of it in Christian days.
"Westward from Syria one passed into Cilicia (as now into Turkey) at Alexandria Issi (Alesandretta). This, Cicero's province, was highly civilized along the southern Asia Minor coast, but still barbarous in the Taurus hills. Tarsus (Tersous), the capital, was 'no mean city,' said its son Saint Paul, but was renowned for its school and philosophers.
"North of Cilicia lay arid and mountainous Capppadocia, mining preceious metals, and raising wheat, cattle, and slaves for export. West of it, Lycaonia would enter into history with the visits of Saint paul to Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium.
"Farther north Alexandria Troas was made a Roman colony by Augustus in memory of Rome's supposed Trojan origin -- which gave Rome a convenient claim to all these parts. On a near-by hill (Hissarlik) old Troy was rebuilt, as new Ilium, and became a goal for tourists to whom guides pointed out the exact spot of every exploit in the Iliad, and the cave where Paris had judged Hera, Aphrodite, and Athena.
"On the Propontis Cyzicus built ships and sent out a ubiquitous merchant fleet rivaled only by that of Rhodes. Here Hadrian built a Temple of Persephone which was one of the glories of Asia. Rising from a hill, it towered so high that Aelius counted the harbor's lighthouse superfluous.
"From the Red to the Black Sea a hundred cities flourished under the Roman peace."
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 18, 2004 - 07:31 pm
Here is a MAP showing Cilicia (Turkey). Note Tarsus, Urfa (Edessa) and the Isle of Cyprus. All this is in Asia with Greece to the left in Europe across the Straits of Bosphorous.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 18, 2004 - 07:50 pm
This map of EUROPE helps us to see Turkey as a bridge between two continents.Robby
Malryn (Mal)
May 18, 2004 - 07:58 pm
robert b. iadeluca
May 18, 2004 - 08:12 pm
Fascinating, Mal!!!
Bubble
May 19, 2004 - 02:44 am
Bubble
May 19, 2004 - 03:03 am
JoanK
May 19, 2004 - 03:14 am
Fascinating!!
robert b. iadeluca
May 19, 2004 - 04:15 am
Those are great, Bubble! Thank you.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 19, 2004 - 04:30 am
"Religion, which had bided its time and nourished its roots through all the learned or ribald skepticism of the Periclean and Hellenistic periods, now in the second century resumed its immemorial sway as philosophy, baffled by infinity and human hope, confessed its limitations and abdicated its authority."The people themselves had never lost their faith. Most of them accepted in outline the Homeric description of the afterlife, sacrificed religiously before undertaking a voyage, and still placed an obol in the mouth of the dead to pay his passage across the Styx.
"Roman statecraft welcomed the aid of established priesthoods and sought popular support by building costly temples to local gods. Throughout Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor, the wealth of the clergy continued to grow. Hadad and Atagaris were still worshiped by the Syrians and had an awesome shrine at Hierapolis.
"The resurrection of the god Tammuz was still hailed in the towns of Syria with the cry,-'Adonis (i.e. the Lord is risen,' and his ascension into heaven was celebrated in the closing scenes of his festival. Similar ceremonies commemorated in Greek ritual the agony, death, and resurrection of Dionysus.
"From Cappadocia the worship of the goddess Ma had spread into Ionia and Italy. Her priests (called fanatici as belonging to the fanum, or temple) danced dizzily to the sound of trumpets and drums, slashed themselves with knives, and sprinkled the goddess and her devotees with their blood.
"The making of new deities went on assiduously. Caesar and the emperors, Antinous and many local worthies, were deified (i.e. canonized) in life or death. Cross-fertilized by trade and war, pantheons were everywhere in flower, and prayers rose hopefully in a thousand tongues to a thousand gods.
"Paganism was not one religion. It was a jungle of rival creeds, often merging in eclectic confusion."
"Philosophy was baffled by the concept of infinity." Eternity? World without end? Forever and ever?
Robby
Justin
May 19, 2004 - 02:52 pm
Religious concepts that we have seen in our oriental heritage and in Greece appear to be still alive and thriving in the first three centuries of the common era. For awhile I thought that many of these concepts came and went but now I see that they simply pass through a variety of iterations before arriving at whatever stage we are examining at the moment. Resurection has been with us several times as has the trinity and the eucharist. These appear to be concepts that replicate again and again. Here we are in the second century CE and they are all still here and note worthy. They will soon metamorphose into what will be called Christianity and Roman Catholicism.
robert b. iadeluca
May 19, 2004 - 04:38 pm
"Each of the great cults of the Mediterranean region had 'mysteries' which were usually ceremonies of purification, sacrifice, initiation, revelation, and regeneration, centering about the death and resurrection of the god. New members were admitted into the worship of Cybele by being placed naked in a pit over which a bull was slain. The blood of the sacrificed animal, falling upon the candidate, purified him of sin and gave him a new spiritual and eternal life."All sects assumed the possibility of magic. The Magi had disseminated their art through the East and had given a new name to old jugglery. The Mediterranean world was rich in magicians, miracleworkers, oracles, astrologers, ascetic saints, and scientific interpreters of dreams. Every unusual occurrence was widely hailed as a divine portent of future events.
"Preachers claiming divine inspiration traveled from city to city, performing apparently miraculous cures. Alexander of Abonoteichus trained a serpent to hide its head under his arm and allow a half-human mask to be affixed to its tail. He announced that the serpent was the god Asclepius come to earth to serve as an oracle. He amassed a fortune by interpreting the sounds made by reeds inserted in the false head.
"Beside such charlatans there were probably thousands of sincere preachers of the pagan faiths. What were the qualities that won half of Rome, half the empire, to these new faiths? Partly their classless, raceless character. They accepted all nationalities, all freemen, and all slaves, and rode with consoling indifference over inequalities of pedigree and wealth. Their temples were made spacious to welcome the people as well as to enshrine the god.
"Cybele and Isis were mother-goddesses acquainted with grief, who mourned like millions of bereaved women. They could understand what the Roman deities seldom knew -- the emptied hearts of the defeated. The desire to return to the mother is stronger than the impulse to depend on the father. It is the mother name that comes spontaneously to the lips in great joy or distress. Therefore men as well as women found comfort and refuge in Isis and Cybele.
"Even today the Mediterranean worshiper appeals more often to Mary than to the Father or the Son. The lovely prayer that he most frequently repeats is addressed not to the virgin but to the Mother, blessed in the fruit of her womb.
"The new faiths not only entered more deeply into the heart. They appealed more colorfully to the imagination and the senses with processions and chants alternating between sorrow and rejoicing, and a ritual of impressive symbolism that brought fresh courage to spirits heavy with the prose of life.
"The new priesthoods were filled not by politicians occasionally donning sacerdotal garb, but by men and women of all ranks, graduating through an ascetic novitiate to continual ministration. By their help the soul conscious of wrongdoing could be purified. Sometimes the body racked with illness could be healed by an inspiring word or ritual.
"The mysteries at which they officiated symbolized the hope that even death might be overcome.
"Once men hd sublimated their longing for grandeur and continuance in the glory and survival of their family and their clan, and then of a state that was their creation and collective self. Now the old clan lines were melting away in the new mobility of peace. The imperial state was the spiritual embodiment only of the master class, not of the powerless multitude of men.
"Monarchy at the top, frustrating the participation and merger of the citizen in the state, produced individualism at the bottom and through the mass. The promise of personal immortality, of an endless happiness after a life of subjection, poverty, tribulation, or toil, was the final and irresistible attraction of the Oriental faiths and of the Christianity that summarized, absorbed, and conquered them.
"All the world seemed conspring to prepare the way for Christ."
Powerful words, people, preparing us for a resurge of the East. Your thoughts, please?
robert b. iadeluca
May 19, 2004 - 05:20 pm
I'm on my way to Richmond.See you there, Mal and Dorian.
Keep the Roman fires burning, folks!! I'll be back Sunday at which time we enter that most historical era of "Rome and Judea."
Robby
Malryn (Mal)
May 19, 2004 - 05:27 pm
We'll see you Friday, ROBBY!
Mal
Justin
May 19, 2004 - 05:43 pm
Mal; I am so pleased you are going to Rchmond. It will be a wonderful trip and I know you will enjoy being with Robby and Eloise. Good Luck.
JoanK
May 19, 2004 - 06:54 pm
Have a ball, you two. I envy you. We want to hear all about it.
Okay, JUSTIN and the rest of you all. It's our job to prove we can make just as much noise and get into just as much trouble without them.
JoanK
May 19, 2004 - 06:57 pm
I'll start. I've been reading the old sites from our Oriental heritage. In them, someone said they thought Durant was an atheist. What do you all think.
Malryn (Mal)
May 19, 2004 - 08:38 pm
JOAN, I remember that statement and the discussion about it. I thought it was a ridiculous issue then, and I think it's ridiculous now.
Mal
Malryn (Mal)
May 19, 2004 - 08:43 pm
"He was once called William James Durant. His pious French-Canadian mother had chosen the name in deference to one of Christ’s apostles, however, rather than out of respect (or even knowledge) of the famed American psychologist-philosopher. In time, the youth became a compromise of sorts; becoming an apostle for philosophy.
"First, however, Durant was destined for holy orders. Born in North Adams, Massachusetts, in 1885, he studied in Catholic parochial schools there and in Kearny, New Jersey. His teachers were nuns, and he practiced his religion so fervently that no one doubted that he would become a priest. In 1900 he entered St. Peter's Academy and College in Jersey City, where his teachers were Jesuits, and, one of these, Father McLaughlin, urged him to enter the Jesuit Order following his graduation in 1907.
"But in 1903 he discovered the works of some alluring infidels in the Jersey City Public Library -- Darwin, Huxley, Spencer and Haeckel. Biology, with its Nature "red in tooth and claw," did some harm to his faith, and suddenly, in his 18th year, it dawned upon him that he could not honestly dedicate himself to the priesthood – but how could he break the news to his mother, who had pinned her hopes, both for this world and the next, on offering her son in service to God?
"The outcome was extraordinary, for, while Durant was losing one faith, he was taking on another in compensation. In 1905 he exchanged his devotion for Socialism. An earthly paradise, he felt, would compensate for the heaven lost in the glare of biology.
"He became a cub reporter for ten dollars a week on the New York Evening Journal."
In 1907 he took a teaching job at Seton Hall College in New Jersey. In 1090 he entered the seminary attached to the college. He left the seminary in 1911, against his parents' wishes and moved to New York where he became associated with some
people in some of the most radical groups in Manhattan. Finally, he accepted a job at Ferrer Modern School, an experiment in libertarian education. He fell in love with one of his pupils (a Jew) whose transportation to their wedding was roller skates.
Durant said after his daughter was born:
"Even before Ethel's coming I had begun to rebel against that mechanical conception of mind and history which is the illegitimate offspring of our industrial age: I had suspected that the old agricultural view of the world in terms of seed and growth did far more justice to the complexity and irrepressible expansiveness of things. But when Ethel came, I saw how some mysterious impulse, far outreaching the categories of physics, lifted her up, inch-by-inch and effort by effort, on the ladder of life. I felt more keenly than before the need of a philosophy that would do justice to the infinite vitality of nature. In the inexhaustible activity of the atom, in the endless resourcefulness of plants, in the teeming fertility of animals, in the hunger and movement of infants, in the laughter and play of children, in the love and devotion of youth, in the restless ambition of fathers and the lifelong sacrifice of mothers, in the undiscourageable researches of scientists and the sufferings of genius, in the crucifixion of prophets and the martyrdom of saints -- in all things I saw the passion of life for growth and greatness, the drama of everlasting creation. I came to think of myself, not as a dance and chaos of molecules, but as a brief and minute portion of that majestic process ... I became almost reconciled to mortality, knowing that my spirit would survive me enshrined in a fairer mold ... and that my little worth would somehow be preserved in the heritage of men. In a measure the Great Sadness was lifted from me, and, where I had seen omnipresent death, I saw now everywhere the pageant and triumph of life."
Source:
Will Durant, A Life
Malryn (Mal)
May 19, 2004 - 08:59 pm
"Every once in a while I had to go off and be myself and do my own adventures and I came back and I met people and we exchanged ideas, and meanwhile I was growing all the time. When you met me, Will, I was a tabula rasa, and you knew that it was because I knew nothing that you could make something of me. And because you knew that I was good for you; that my adventurous spirit, my energies, and my desire to know everything; I would fill myself up and I would bring it to you. You were stationary, you had to sit all the time; you had to read the words of books, the great knowledge in the world, and I had to go out and meet people, gather adventures and bring every kind of personality to you. I introduced you, didn’t I, to all the artists that were in Greenwich Village? I brought them to your table – you never knew with whom you were going to eat, did you? I brought them all to you from Woodstock. We had great adventures, but I brought the world to you so that, though you were learning the world from books, you had not had many adventures because you were almost like a little monk. From the age of four to the age of twenty-seven -- when you were excommunicated -- you knew nothing but Church history, Church philosophy and the word of God, but did you know much about the word of man? Did you know much about what man was around you, or everywhere within us? I was the adventure in your life and I brought you this life, and what did you do for me? You educated me; you quieted my wild blood. You brought unity and meaning to our lives so that now, after 59 years of marriage you have toned me down so that I may be a helpmate to you and I have been so happy to think that, as I believe in the Woman’s Liberation Movement, women should go shoulder-to-shoulder with men. I was so happy the first time that I saw my name with yours in the books that we were working on together for so many years. So many years of research and labor and love before we could see our names united before the whole world as representative of the unity that a man and woman can achieve and must achieve – and will achieve all over the world. I believe the time is right for all that -- with or without a Woman’s Liberation Movement. If you have character, endeavor, personality, courage and the capacity for concentrated labor, you will do what is your destiny – and, perhaps, even do it well. And for so much of the life that we have lived together, learning, contributing to each other’s way of life and character and considering the complexity of the universe, I have so many years of happy memories. And so much of it I believe I have to thank you for, Will. Not only all the attractions of a husband and a lover, but the deep companionship that has developed between us so that we almost have one breath, one life, one interest."
~~Ariel Durant
Justin
May 19, 2004 - 11:09 pm
I don't know whether Durant is an atheist or not, but having read and discussed two of his volumes in some depth, I see in him a qualified historian whose conception of historical treatment is above that, is above religious affiliation, is above personal bias. I see him not as a Roman Catholic trained at Saint Peter's College nor as a "fallen away" rebel. I see him much as I see myself. My approach to history is one of covering the material,of knowing what is available and selecting enough to describe an event in context,and of attempting to identify cause and effect. Does he exercise bias in the selection process? Yes, but not a bias given to consistently producing a particular result, rather one designed to to permit objectivity in assessment. From time to time I have seen him draw illogical conclusions but that is acceptable when the overall pattern is logical and to the extent that history can be considered logical at all.
JoanK
May 19, 2004 - 11:51 pm
WOW! Thank you Mal and Justin.
Justin
May 20, 2004 - 12:29 am
JoanK. Durant is a balmelocheh. ( A skilled worker). Is that the right term?
JoanK
May 20, 2004 - 12:38 am
Yep.
Bubble
May 20, 2004 - 03:49 am
Thanks for that quote from Ariel, Mal.
What I think of Durant? That one should keep a volume always on the bedside table. Even a five minute read from any of them will give much matter for fruitful reflexion.
I am so glad I found this discussion...
Bubble
Malryn (Mal)
May 20, 2004 - 05:02 am
"Religious concepts that we have seen in our oriental heritage and in Greece appear to be still alive and thriving in the first three centuries of the common era. For awhile I thought that many of these concepts came and went but now I see that they simply pass through a variety of iterations before arriving at whatever stage we are examining at the moment. Resurection has been with us several times as has the trinity and the eucharist. These appear to be concepts that replicate again and again. Here we are in the second century CE and they are all still here and note worthy."
JUSTIN, why do you think these ancient ideas took hold at this time and lasted for 2000 years without much interference by philosophy and science?
Mal
Bubble
May 20, 2004 - 05:12 am
maybe they fulfill a basic inner need of the masses?
Malryn (Mal)
May 20, 2004 - 05:36 am
BUBBLE, if that's the case, why didn't they last the first, second, third, fourth, or any other previous time they came around? There have always been masses with needs to satisfy, haven't there?
Mal
Bubble
May 20, 2004 - 05:52 am
Other ideas had to be tested until these seemed more convincing?
I don't know about US, be around here and in Europe as well, I have met more and more people attracted by the Eastern beliefs and Buddhism is gaining ground apparently. Maybe because it sems to exalt peace and serenity.
There are lamas centres of learning growing and prospering in France and many businessmen and serious adults often go there for retreats of month long learning.
Bubble
Malryn (Mal)
May 20, 2004 - 06:35 am
BUBBLE, according to the American Religious Identification Survey of 2001 there are 159,000,000 Christians in the United States. This is down over a million in the past ten years.
Out of 7,740,000 classified as "other" there are:
2,831,000 Jewish people
1,104,000 Muslims
1,082,000 Buddhists
766,000 HIndus
29.4 million who have no religious affiliation
The fastest growing religion in the United States is Wicca (Witchcraft).
Mal
Bubble
May 20, 2004 - 07:03 am
It means that people are dissatisfied with the traditional beliefs, doesn't it?
Justin
May 20, 2004 - 12:07 pm
I am amazed that the country is 82% Christian and 18% Other. It's encouraging that the dominant element is down, but one million, easily, could be lost in the sampling error.That drop is only one half of one percent. Who conducted the survey, Mal? Whose auspices? I wonder how the questions were formed and posed. It's not a good thing the ratio is so disproportional for they are frequently forced by their number to take advantage of us in the "Other" category. They legislate for themselves and "Others" must put up with it. The founding Fathers had other ideas about the minority.
Justin
May 20, 2004 - 12:50 pm
Mal; You pose a worthy question-why these concepts were prevalent in 2nd Century and why they lasted for 2000 years. The answers may be simpler than we expect. Let's put some ideas forward for testing. One possible reason is economic. Priests keep the concepts alive because they depend upon them for a livlihood. Another reason is the natural credulousness of large portions of any given population when coupled with vunerability and the normal frustrations of coping with uncertainty. The herd instinct may also be very strong in humans. We readily adopt without criticism the practices of our neighbors. Conformity has always been a limiting force for humans.
If the question is," why these concepts and not some other concepts" then the response should be concerned with the reasons priests thought these concepts would be more readily adopted. Resurection establishes an authoritarian personality. It does things that normal humans cannot. Eucharist is the process of eating the god to acquire some of its power. The practice appears often in ancient cultures. Trinity is an effort, I think, to make the god appear more representative of those to whom it appeals. It looks like humans, made in one's image or vice versa which may have even more appeal.
Malryn (Mal)
May 20, 2004 - 01:36 pm
JUSTIN, I'm not surprised that there is such a large percentage of Christians in the United States. I'm a little surprised by the fact that the numbers have dropped and continue to drop. I notice that the religion in which I raised is considered non-Christian. Hey, Ralph Waldo Emerson, minister of this religion in the 19th century, did you hear that? "Well, of course," he says. "We don't consider Christ to be divine."
The American Religious Identification Survey was done by professors at CUNY, who published a book about it. You can read about that HERE
Mal
Shasta Sills
May 20, 2004 - 01:49 pm
I don't think these concepts prevail because of the priests. It's
the other way around. Priests preach whatever they can get people
to accept. Ancient beliefs that keep showing up in new forms are
reflecting deeply-ingrained elements in the human psyche. People
believe whatever they NEED to believe, in order to make their lives
bearable. The concept of the Trinity puzzles me though. Why three?
Has there ever been a trinity before Christianity?
Scrawler
May 20, 2004 - 02:03 pm
I don't know whether Durant is an atheist or not, but I think he is a very good historian and tries to present his material from the historical view point rather than the religious. Most of the time he does very well.
I tend to lean toward the Eastern beliefs and Buddhism because these belifs and practices have given me some peace and serenity. I find them easier to live with on a daily basis than the Catholic religion of my youth.
I have often wondered why one religous belief survived and another did not or was incorported into still another belief. For example Mithraism, a rival religion of Christianity was celebrated on December 25 by pagan Romans. They celebrated Natalis Solis Invicti, "Birthday of the Invicible Sun God - Mithras. The cult originated in Persia and rooted itself in the Roman world in the first century BC. By AD 274 Mithrism was so popular with the masses that Emperor Aurelian proclaimed it the offical state religion. In the early 300s, the cult seriously jeoporadized Christianity, and for a time it was unclear which faith would emerge victorius.
I agree that perhaps the reasons for one to survive over the other, could have been economic or simply you were born into a certain cult and if you found peace and harmony you stayed with it. But if you could not find any peace or harmony you went looking for it elsewhere.
Justin
May 20, 2004 - 02:50 pm
Shasta; Bubble just showed us an ancient Trinity or Triad.
We are not in disagreement. I think the priests select the message that will sell and deliver it to the congregation. It just happens that they select resurection, eucharist, and trinity often because it is saleable. It has proven acceptance. It worked before so why not now.
Justin
May 20, 2004 - 03:48 pm
Scrawler: Mithraic ideas were incorporated into Christianity just as many other early religions became part of the new concept. These two may have been in conflict for awhile but the conflict ended with a merger.
JoanK
May 20, 2004 - 04:29 pm
Shasta asks a good question. Most philosophic/religeous systems are dualist. What othe trinities have there been?
Justin
May 20, 2004 - 05:11 pm
Bubble in Post 68 tells us of a Syrian moon god that forms a powerful triad with the supreme god Bel. There are others in Hindi who are multiple deities in one form.
Justin
May 20, 2004 - 10:32 pm
Let's go back to Plutarch for a minute. I was surprised to find him saying," If a man in private life commit some pecadillo with a maid servant, his wedded wife ought not to be indignant but she should reason that it is respect for her that leads him to share his licentiousness with another woman." At the same time he, as Plato does, advocates equal opportunity for women. This guy is a smart guy he is not one of the joe-six-packs of the Greco-Roman world. Why would he not recognize such inconsistency in his thinking?
JoanK
May 21, 2004 - 01:08 am
I've been wondering for years why people's brains fly out the window when it comes to sex. (I'd like to pretend that's only true of men, but unfortunately I've seen too many examples of both sexes.) Present company excepted, of course.
There's another thing working here too. It seems to me, in cases of inequality, the dominant group protects itself by not recognizing the full extent of the inequality. Elaborate structures and ideologies build up to hide the fact of unequal treatment and expectations. Even people who see the inequality don't see it fully. So all the time we see intelligent well meaning people who perpetuate this inequality without knowing it. I've come to the conclusion we are all racist and sexist to a certain extent: I know I am.
Malryn (Mal)
May 21, 2004 - 04:16 am
So long, everybody. I'll soon be off to Richmond where it's going to be 89 degrees today.
I'll be back on Sunday. You be good, hear?
( Keep your minds on Rome, not sex! )
Mal
Scrawler
May 21, 2004 - 01:10 pm
Plutarch:
I think Plutarch was talking about equal opportunity for Other women, but not his wife. Quite possibly these Other women would be in the arts and sciences. His wife, after all, was his property and she did as he wanted. In a sense he thought he was doing her a favor by having sex with other women. By today's standards I can see where Plutarch would be considered as inconsistent in his thinking, but I'm not sure this would be truth in ancient Rome.
Justin
May 21, 2004 - 01:28 pm
Joan: I think you are right on the money. We are all a little sexist and a little racist-some more so than others, of course. However, I do think, more people than ever before are aware of the dangers of these prejudices, and recognize the signs in other people,although less so in themselves. It is difficult to cleanse oneself. Self examination is often fruitless although the process is well recomended.
Shasta Sills
May 21, 2004 - 01:46 pm
I've been thinking about Justin's remark about plural gods. I went
back and read about the Babylonian trinity, but I'm not sure what
the third god represented. It's the same problem I had when I was
in my catechism class and I asked the nun what the Holy Ghost was
good for and why we needed him. Her answer never made any sense to
me and I've never understood it since. I understood about Jesus. He
was half-human and in a better position to understand human problems.
I've left the Catholic Church long ago, but it still bothers me that
I can't understand what the Holy Ghost is.
Justin
May 21, 2004 - 10:25 pm
I don't blame you for not understanding the nature of the Holy Ghost. The concept of the Trinity is an "absolute mystery" as defined by the Catholic Church. It is a mystery in that it is "hidden in God and cannot be known unless revealed by God". This is a teaching of the First Vatican Council in 1870. The Council of Nicea in 325 expressed the idea that God is a Triune composed of Father,son,and Holy Ghost. Pope Damasus in 384 declared that there is one God of three coequal, coeternal persons each distinct from the other but not to the point where we have three separate gods.
"Holy Ghost (Spirit) is the father's gift through the son. It is through the Spirit that the father is communicated to us and it is through the Spirit that we are able to accept the self-communication of the Father."I am paraphrasing here from the book "Catholicism" by Richard McBrien.
After having read this material, I have to admit that I don't understand it either. Of course the Church says that it is not to be understood so we are not alone. No one else understands it either. You may not have realized when you were a member of the Church that you were expected to accept things you were not expected to understand. I certainly did not. The truth is,as a boy I cared not one whit whether I understood this stuff or not. I wonder if many adult members of this Church, who recite their acceptance of these mysteries in the Nicene Creed every Sunday, actually recognize their inability to grasp the message of the Creed. They may just "go along."
Scrawler
May 22, 2004 - 01:32 pm
Vishnu, major god of Hinduism was regarded as the preserver of the universe. He is the second god of the Trimurti, or Hindu triad. Brahma is first and Shiva the third. Brahma is the creator of the universe and Shiva or Siva personifies both the destructive and the procreative forces of the universe.
Jupiter or Jove in Roman mythology was the ruler of the gods, the son of the god Saturn, whom he overthrew. Originally the god of the sky and king of heaven and with the goddeses Juno and Minerva, Jupter formed the triad.
Amon originally a local Theban god of reproductive forces, represented as a ram. Amon, his wife, Mut (Egypt, "the mother"), and his son, the moon god Khon (Egypt, "to traverse the sky), formed the divine triad of Thebes. Later Amon was identified with the sun god Ra of Heliopolis, and was known as Amon-Ra, "the father of the gods, the fashioner of men, the creator of cattle, the lord of all being."
Shasta Sills
May 22, 2004 - 01:39 pm
Justin, since you don't know what the Holy Ghost is, and I don't know
what the Holy Ghost is, I asked Google. He knows everything. He gave me 92l,000 answers! I read a few of them, and found one that
was fascinating. It gave the history of the concept all the way
back to the Hindus. I had forgotten about Siva, Brahma, and Vishnu.
"Plutarch, in his Life of Numa, confirms that the incarnation of the
Holy Spirit was known both to the ancient Romans and Egyptians. The
doctrine was nearly universal."
Now, I am happy. I still don't know what it is, but it has an authentic history. It didn't just spring out of nowhwere. People
have intuited that there are three manifestations of some truth about
life, and they have tried repeatedly to explain it in religion after
religion.
Shasta Sills
May 22, 2004 - 01:41 pm
Scrawler, I posted before I read your post about the trinity. It's
very interesting.
Justin
May 22, 2004 - 02:41 pm
It is hard for me to accept that if there were a god, that he/she/it would be this complicated and this difficult to understand. Of course, we would have little need for priests to explain it all to us if the god idea were simple.
Justin
May 22, 2004 - 09:12 pm
Durant tells us "all the world seemed conspiring to prepare the way for Christ." When he came, he was simply an itinerant preacher like many others wandering the countryside. This new priesthood talked to all ranks, and, on occasion, was helpful in healing the sick and offering hope that even death might be overcome. The promise of personal immortality and endless happiness after death conquered many. It was all here when Christ came but he engendered only part of the message. Later,others would expand his message and incorporate the ideas of his contemporary world into a new religion named for him.
Bubble
May 23, 2004 - 02:28 am
Simplification of the concept of a triad would be : He, She, IT.
Has anyone here read the "Yoshuah's Letter to Mel Gibson" about Gibson The Passion film?
Bubble
JoanK
May 23, 2004 - 09:20 am
I did. I won't post it here, since some might find it offensive, but it's available on the internet.
robert b. iadeluca
May 23, 2004 - 09:38 am
I see that there are 41 messages for me to read but I have jumped to the end to let you all know I am back and will then go back to read those messages. As I am just 2-3 hours from Richmond, I am home first but I expect that Mal will be along soon. Eloise, who lives in Montreal, and who traveled with other Senior Netters, will be here later.Both Eloise and I were so pleased to meet Mal personally as well as her lovely daughter, Dorian. They both have great senses of humor which fit in well with the spirit of the Bash. I will let them speak for themselves.
I will read all 41 postings and will then continue on in the same flow following Durant and not turn this forum into a discussion about the Bash. However, I know that some of you would like to see photos that were taken. So -- now and then, without disrupting our discussion here, we will give you links to the Virginia discussion group, where you can go and see how we enjoyed ourselves.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 23, 2004 - 09:53 am
Stupid me!! It just occurred to me. Here is a link to Pat Scott "Virginia Bash Photos May 20-23, 2004 in Richmond" 5/19/04 8:08am"> VIRGINIA PHOTOS. When you get there, be sure to SUBSCRIBE and automatically every time there are new photos, you will be taken there without our having to comment on them or to give you another link.One final word about Bashes. I have noticed since I have been in Senior Net that there are people who say:-"No, not me! I don't go to gatherings. That doesn't interest me." Then they go to "just ONE!" and are hooked.
The next one will be in September, 2005 in Las Vegas. The following year (2006) our Eloise will Host one in Montreal. She will tell you about it.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 23, 2004 - 09:59 am
I'll try again. Here is a LINK to the Virginia Bash photos.Robby
Malryn (Mal)
May 23, 2004 - 11:34 am
I'm home, and what a wonderful time I had meeting some of the nicest people in the world in a real Southern city that lives and breathes its history!
I'm sure you all want to know what your discussion leader is like in Real Time, not Cyberspace Time, but I promised I wouldn't tell! (Actually, he's a very nice guy with a great big smile, and he's a lot of fun, but don't tell him I told you that, please!)
Eloise is a delight, a real lady and charming (even at breakfast!)
Everything was so great that I'm having a bit of a hard time getting my head out of the clouds and back where it belongs so I can
even begin to think about Rome.
Mal
robert b. iadeluca
May 23, 2004 - 12:04 pm
I have read all your postings made while I was away and you have posed some profound questions which have required some profound answers. Unless I missed something, none of you (and that would include me) were able to come up with answers concerning the concept of the Trinity.We are now ready to move on and perhaps Durant will give, if not the answers, at least some ideas which will help us to come up with our own answers.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 23, 2004 - 12:08 pm
Rome and Judea132 B.C. - A.D. 135
robert b. iadeluca
May 23, 2004 - 12:43 pm
Please note the new GREEN quotes in the Heading. We now continue the words of Durant."Between Pontus and the Caucasus rose the troubled mountains of Armenia, on whose crest, story told, Noah's ark had found a mooring. Through the fertile valleys ran the roads that led from Parthia and Mesopotamia to the Black Sea. Hence empires competed for Armenia.
"The people were Indo-European, akin to the Hittites and the Phrygians, but they had never surrendered their sweeping Anatolian nose. They were a vigorous race, patient in agriculture, skilled in handicrart, unequaled in commercial acumen. They made the best of a difficult terrain and raised enough wealth to keep their kings in luxury if not in power.
"Darius I, in the Behistun inscription (521 B.C.), named Armenia among the satrapies of Persia. Later it gave a nominal allegiance to the Seleucids and then alternately to Parthia and Rome. Its remoteness allowed it a practical independence.
"Its most famous king, Tigranes the Great (94-56 B.C.), conquered Cappadocia, added a second capital, Tigranocerta, to Artaxata, and joined Mithridates' revolt against Rome.
"When Pompey accepted his apologies he gave the victorious general 6000 talents ($21,600,000), 10,000 drachmas ($6000) to each centurion, and fifty to each soldier, in the Roman army.
"Under Caesar, Augustus, and Nero Armenia acknowledged the suzerainty of Rome, and under Trajan it was for a time a Roman province. Nevertheless, its culture was Iranian, and its usual orientation was toward Parthia.
"The Parthians had for centuries occupied the region south of the Caspian Sea as subjects of the Achaemenid, then of the Seleucid, kings. they were of Scythian-Turanian stock -- i.e. they belonged racially with the peoples of southern Russia and Turkestan.
"About 248 B.C. a Scythian chief, Arsaces, revolted against the Seleucid authority, made Parthia a sovereign state, and established the Arsacid dynasty.
"The Seleucid kings, weakened by Rome's defeat of Antiochus III (189 B.C.), were unable to defend their territory against the reckless half-barbarous Parthians, and by the end of the second century B.C. all Mesopotamia and Persia were absorbed into a new Parthian Empire.
"Three capitals, according to the season, entertained the new royalty:-Hecatompylus in Parthia, Ecbatana in Media, and Ctesiphon on the lower Tigris.
"Across from Ctesiphon lay the former Seleucid capital Selucia, which remained for centuries a Greek city in a Parthian realm. The Arsacid rulers kept the administrative structure built up by the Seleucids, but overlaid it with a feudalism derived from the Achamenid kings.
"The mass of the population was composed of agricultural serfs and slaves. Industry was backward, but the Parthian iron workers made a fine steel, and 'the brewing trade was highly profitable.'
"The wealth of the state came partly from the trade that passed along the great rivers, partly from the caravans that crossed Parthia on the way between farther Asia and the West.
"From 53 B.C., when the Parthians defeated Crassus at Carrhae, to A.D. 217, when Macrinus bought peace from Arahanus, Rome fought war after war for the control of these routes and the Red Sea."
I take it that, in order to better understand Judea, Durant finds it necessary for us to go back to B.C. times and to sort out these names of people and states. Perhaps by all of us doing this together, we will be able to better understand just where we are and where we are going.
Shasta Sills
May 23, 2004 - 12:53 pm
Since we are going to discuss Christianity, there is a question I've
always wondered about. Why didn't Jesus write anything down? All we
know about him comes from other people. He had a message that he
thought was important for people to hear, but he never wrote anything. It seems strange to me that he would have depended on others to convey his message. Was he illiterate? As the son of a
carpenter, he might have been. But he knew the Jewish scriptures.
Had he read them or was his knowledge gained from listening to the
rabbis in the temple? Of course, the people who gathered to listen
to him were probably mostly illiterate, and the best way to reach them was through the spoken word, and he was undoubtedly a charismatic speaker.
robert b. iadeluca
May 23, 2004 - 01:06 pm
Shasta;-We haven't yet come to the birth of Jesus. Maybe Durant will have an answer for us at that time. In the meantime, here is a MAP AND INFO about Armenia.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 23, 2004 - 01:13 pm
Click HERE for information regarding the Search for the Ark.Robby
Justin
May 23, 2004 - 01:20 pm
Yoshua's letter to Mel Gibson cannot remain unlinked, Joan. We are all big girls and boys here. The game is called understanding the past. Some of the past offends and some supports. If we become selective, we lose important insights that others may have for us. Risk offense and link it. Let people quarrel with Yoshua.
robert b. iadeluca
May 23, 2004 - 01:23 pm
Click HERE for information regarding the Search for the Ark.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 23, 2004 - 01:26 pm
I never heard of Parthia. And no wonder -- it's called the "Forgotten Empire." Now I find, according to this MAP that it's part of what we now call Iran.Once again we are discussing from the ancient point of view the very same geographical areas that are in our current newspapers every day. Allow time for downloading.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 23, 2004 - 01:53 pm
Here is a map of ANATOLIA. Note Damascus at the bottom. I am sure we will come across that more than once. Now it's coming together in my mind -- Anatolia, Parthia, Armenia -- and I am beginning to see where Judea fits into all this.
Robby
Justin
May 23, 2004 - 03:00 pm
The big Roman bully and the US have much in common these days. We have both felt threatened by Parthia and have attacked it's inhabitants to protect our outer borders and allies. Rome is remote from Parthia as is Washington but both felt it's power bearing on them. We seem to be less successful in controlling our conquered peoples in Parthia than the Romans were. The Romans crucified and enslaved them for resistance to Roman ways. We tried to make them over in our image, as well, but we seem to be failing at the job. Instead of crucifying the resisters we humiliate them sexually.
robert b. iadeluca
May 23, 2004 - 03:25 pm
"The Parthians excelled in man's favorite art -- personal adornment. Both sexes curled their hair. The men nursed frizzed beards and flowing mustaches, and clothed themselves in tunic and baggy trousers, usually covered with a many-colored robe. The women swarthed themselves in delicate embroideries and decked their hair with flowers."Free Parthians amused themselves with hunting, ate and drank abundantly, and never went on foot when they could ride. They were brave warriors and honorable foes, treated prisoners decently, admitted foreigners to high office, and gave asylum to refugees. Sometimes, however, they mutiliated dead enemies, tortured witnesses, and corrected trifling offenses with the scourge.
"They practiced polygamy according to their means, veiled and secluded their women, severely punished the infidelity of their wives, but permitted divorce to either sex almost at will.
"When the Parthian general Surena led an army against Crassus, he took with him 200 concubines and a thousand camels for his baggage. All in all, the Parthians impress us as less civilized then the Achaemenid Persians and more honorable gentlemen than the Romans.
"They were tolerant of religious diversities, allowing the Greeks, Jews, and Christians among them to practice their rituals unhindered. They themselves, veering from Zoroastrian orthodoxy, worshiped the sun and the moon, and preferred Mithras to Ahura-Mazda, much as the Christians preferred Christ to Yalveh.
"The Magi, neglected by the later Arsacid kings, abetted the overthrow of the dynasty.
"On the death of Vologases IV (A.D. 209) his sons Vologases V and Artabanus IV fought for the throne. Artabanus won, and then defeated the Romans at Nisibis. Three centuries of war between the empires ended in a modified victory for Parthia. On the Mesopotamian plains the Roman legions were at a disadvantage against the Parthian cavalry. Artabanus in turn fell in civil war. His conqueror, Ardashir, feudal lord of Persia, made himself King of Kings (A.D. 227) and established the Sassanid dynastry.
"The Zoroastrian religion was restored, and Persia entered upon a greater age."
As an aside, I notice that it was common in those days for men to wear a multi-colored robe.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 23, 2004 - 04:05 pm
"In 54 B.C. Crassus, on his way to play the part of Pentheus at Ctesiphon, robbed the Temple of the treasures that Pompey had spared, amounting to some 10,000 talents. When news came that Crassus had been defeated and killed, the Jews took the opportunity to reclaim their freedom. Longinus, successor of Crassus as governor of Syria, suppresed the revolt and sold 30,000 Jews into slavery (43 B.C.). In that same year Antipater died, the Parthians swept across the desert into Judea and set up, as their puppet king, Antigonus, the last of the Hasmoneans. Antony and Octavian countered by naming Herod -- son of Antipater -- king of Judea and financing his Jewish army with Roman funds."Herod drove out the Parthians -- protectd Jerusalem from pillage -- sent Antigonus to Anthony for execution -- slew all Jewish leaders who had supported the puppet -- and so auspiciously entered upon one of the most colorful reigns in history (17-4 B.C.)
"Herod's character was typical of an age that had produced so many men of intellect without morals, ability without scruple, and courage without honor. He was in his lesser way the Augustus of Judea. Like Augustus he overlaid the chaos of freedom with dictatorial order -- beautified his capital with Greek architecture and sculpture -- enlarged his realm -- made it prosper -- achieved more by sublety than by arms -- married widely -- was broken by the treachery of his offspring -- and knew every good fortune but happiness.
"Josephus describes him as a man of great physical bravery and skill, a perfect marksman with arrow and javelin, a mighty hunter who in one day caught forty wild beasts, and 'such a warrior as could not be withstood.'
"He must have added some charm of personality to these qualities, for he was always able to outtalk or outbribe the enemies who sought to discredit him with Antony, Cleopatra, or Octavian. From every crisis with the Triumvirs he emerged with larger powers and territory than before, until Augustus judged him 'too great a soul for so small a dominion,' restored the cities of Hasmonean Palestine to his kingdom, and wished Herod might rule Syria and Egypt too."
Now we learn a bit more about the Herod we heard about in our younger days.
Robby
Justin
May 23, 2004 - 04:22 pm
Veiling and seclusion of women predates Mohammad by almost a thousand years. It looks as though muslimas are simply carrying forward a very ancient custom.I wonder if there is anything in the Koran that dictates these practices.
I know that married Jewish women from certain countries wore wigs to cover up their hair and that they discarded the wigs when they immigrated to the US.
Is it possible these two customs could be related and have originated in the same ancient source.
robert b. iadeluca
May 23, 2004 - 04:54 pm
Here is a MAP of Ancient Judea.Robby
Justin
May 23, 2004 - 06:04 pm
Where is Bubble's Netanya on the map?
JoanK
May 23, 2004 - 06:20 pm
JUSTIN: Natanya is a lovely town on the Mediterranean about 2/3 as far north of Jappo (Jaffa) as Ashkalon is South. Acording to this map, it would have been north of Judea in Sumaria. Beersheeba, where I used to live is on Robby's map in the south (you have to scroll down to see it) on the edge of the Negev dessert. Apparently, it was just south of Judea, in something called Idumaea.
Justin
May 23, 2004 - 07:34 pm
Was Judea the northern or southern settlement in the period of the Babylonian captivity? What parcel of land was it that the Parthians invaded? What portion did the Hasmoneans have? What portion did Herod have and did Augustus actually give him an expanded portion? A map of the complete lay out would be nice.
Justin
May 23, 2004 - 07:38 pm
Mal:If I judge by the smile on your face, I'd say you thoroughly enjoyed your visit to the Bash. I am happy for you. It's good to get out once in a while, isn't it?
Justin
May 23, 2004 - 08:02 pm
I saw the film "Troy" Friday afternoon. It is filled with bloody warfare as expected. Some of the scenes are quite gory but the heroic qualities of Hector and Achilles are made evident. The story is Hollywoodized a little but acceptable. Agamemnon is killed by Priam's daughter instead of Clymnestra but so what. In the end Priam's second son meets Aeneas bearing Anchises on the way out of burning Troy. He gives him the famous sword, that had been carried by the founder of Troy, to start another Troy. In spite of what critics are saying I liked Brad Pitt, the blond god, in the role of Achilles.
This comment carries us back to the founding of Rome so many months ago.
Bubble
May 24, 2004 - 01:42 am
Netanya is a 20 min drive North of Joppa, on the coast. It did not exist at that time: it was founded in '50 I think, as an agricultural colony famous for its orange groves. None of it left today except in abandonned lots on the outskirts of town or a few trees still in private gardens.
robert b. iadeluca
May 24, 2004 - 03:20 am
Here is a MAP of Judea in the time of Herod. I am saying Judea but the map says "Palestine." Maybe Bubble can help me separate the two in my mind.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 24, 2004 - 03:29 am
"Herod had become king by the help and money of Rome, and remained to the end of his life a friend and vassal of the power from which the people night and day plotted to regain their liberty. The modest economy of the country bent and at last broke under the taxes imposed upon it by a luxurious court and a building program out of proportion to the national wealth."Herod sought in various ways to appease his subjects, but failed. He forgave taxes in poor years -- persuaded Rome to reduce the tribute it exacted -- secured privileges for Jews abroad -- relieved famine and other calamities promptly -- maintained internal order and external security -- and developed the natural resources of the land. Brigandage was ended, trade was stimulated, the markets and ports were noisy with life.
"At the same time the King alienated public sentiment by the looseness of his morals, the cruelty of his punishments, and the 'acccidental' drowning, in the bath, of Aristobulus, grandson of Hycanus II and therefore the legitimate heir to the throne.
"The priests whose power he had ended, and whose leaders he appointed, conspired against him, and the Pharisees abominated his apparent resolution to make Judea a Hellenistic state."
Except for some personal habits, he doesn't sound like too bad a leader to me.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 24, 2004 - 03:34 am
Here is one definition of THE PHARISEES. There appear to be many definitions and, as I always say, consider the source.Robby
Malryn (Mal)
May 24, 2004 - 05:55 am
Malryn (Mal)
May 24, 2004 - 06:11 am
Bubble
May 24, 2004 - 06:57 am
Judea is the region around Jerusalem, Samaria is just north of it with the narrow adjacent strip along the sea called the Sharon plain.
I was told that the name Palestine was not used at that time.
Justin
May 24, 2004 - 04:45 pm
Robby, Let's see if we can find another definition of Pharisee. The one you provided is so distorted I hardly know where to begin to make it objective.
3kings
May 24, 2004 - 05:34 pm
Here is another view, perhaps, of the Pharisees, one not so centured on the views of St. Paul, who seems to have done all he could to present the Pharisees in a bad light.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisee Sorry I don't know how to make a clickable. == Trevor
robert b. iadeluca
May 24, 2004 - 05:38 pm
Additional definitions of PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES. Again, consider the source.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 24, 2004 - 05:56 pm
"Ruling many cities that were more Greek than Jewish in population and culture, and impressed with the refinement and variety of Hellenic civilization, Herod, himself not by origin or conviction a Jew, naturally sought a cultural unity for his realm, and an imposing facade for his rule, by encouraging Greek ways, dress, ideas, literature, and art."He surrounded himself with Greek scholars, entrusted to them high affairs of state, and made Nicolas of Damascus, a Greek, his official counselor and historian. He raised at great expense a theater and an amphitheater in Jerusalem, adorned them with monuments to Augustus and other pagans, and introduced Greek athletic and musical contests and Roman gladiatorial combats.
"He beautified Jerusalem with other buildings in what seemed to the people a foreign architectural style, and set up in public places Greek statuary whose nudity startled the Jews as much as the nakedness of the wrestlers in the games. He built himself a palace, doubtless on Greek models, filled it with gold and marble and costly furniture, and surrounded it with extensive gardens after the manner of his Roman friends. He shocked the people by telling them that the Temple which Zerubbabel had set up five centures before was too small, and proposing to tear it down and erect a larger one on its site.
"Despite their protests and their fears he realized his plan and reared the lordly Temple that Titus would destroy."
A culture clash?
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 24, 2004 - 06:40 pm
A fascinating story of the importance of water to JERUSALEM. Scroll toward the bottom to see how important Herod was to that.Robby
Malryn (Mal)
May 24, 2004 - 07:24 pm
Malryn (Mal)
May 24, 2004 - 07:26 pm
Malryn (Mal)
May 24, 2004 - 07:38 pm
Justin
May 24, 2004 - 09:32 pm
In defining the Pharisees and distinguishing betweem them and the essenes and the Sadducees I think it is important to recognize that the Pharisees were the teachers, the Rabbis, the thinkers in the synagogues and not a political organization. They were not priests. It was the family of Levi, the decendants of Aaaron, who were the priests and high priests. It was the priests who carried out ceremonial functions in the Temple and for that reason they were seen by the Romans as a controlling force. It is certainly understandable that the Romans would want to appoint the High priest and probably did do that. In this sense, the Sadducees were a political force, not the Pharicees.
JoanK
May 25, 2004 - 12:32 am
Fascinating material. It seems from the Wickepedia arcticle that it was the changes in the religeon that the Pharasees made that enabled Judaism to survive so long in dispersion, by moving the center of the religeon from the temple to the family and the synagogue, and by enforcing isolation from the surrounding peoples. Whether there was some forthought for the need for this,I guess is impossible to know.
The pictures of Masada are great. They were excavating it when I lived in Israel, and I really wanted to volunteer. Unfortunately, I'm terrified of heights. So I missed a great experience.
Bubble
May 25, 2004 - 02:28 am
when I first visited Israel in '56 or '57, it was a time of penury there, the 'tsena', in food as well as water. I remember being on the top floor while visiting my kins in J'lem and wondering at all the concrete barrels and cisterns on top of flat roofs. I was told that they provided the necessary water for each building because the water supply was so irregular otherwise. The height also incresed the pressure of the water supply which otherwise would not have reached the upper floors.
Bubble
robert b. iadeluca
May 25, 2004 - 03:22 am
"The main structures of this historic edifice were finished in eight years. The work of adornment, however, continued for eighty years, and was just completed when Titus' legions came. The people were proud of the great shrine, which was ranked among the marvels of the Augustan world. For its splendor they almost forgave the Corinthiian columns of the porticoes and the golden eagle that -- defying the Jewish prohibition of graven images -- symbolized at the very entrance to the Temple the power of Judea's enemy and master, Rome."Meanwhile Jews who traveled brought back news of the completely Greek buildings with which Herod was remaking the other cities of Palestine, and told how he was spending national funds and (rumor said) the gold that had been hidden in David's tomb, in constructing a great harbor at Caesarea, and lavishing gifts upon such foreign cities as Damascus, Byblus, Berytus, Tyre, Sidon, Antioch, Rhodes, Pergamum, Sparta, and Athens.
"Herod, it became clear, wished to be the idol of the Hellenic world, not merely the King of the Jews. But the Jews lived by their religion, by their faith that Yahveh would someday rescue them from the bondage and oppresssion. The triumph of the Hellenic over the Hebraic spirit in the person of their ruler foreboded to them a disaster as great as the persecutions of Antiochus.
"Plots were formed against Herod's life. He discovered them, arrested the conspirators, tortured and killed them, and in some cases put their entire families to death.
"He set spies among the people, disguised himself to eavesdrop on his subjects, and punished every hostile word. He foiled all his enemies except his wives and his children. Of wives he had ten, once nine at a time. Of children, fourteen. His second wife, Marianne, was the granddaughter of Hyreanus II and the sister of Aristobulus, both of whom Herod had slain.
"There was an unpardoning hatred among the women of the royal household. Herod's sister persuaded him that Marianne was plotting to poison him. He accused his wife before the members of his court. They condemned her, and she was executed. Doubtful of her gilt, Herod was for a time mad with remorse. He called out her name repeatedly, sent his servants to summon her, gave up public affairs, went into the desert, afflicted himself bitterly, and was brought to his palace in a state of fever and insanity.
"Marianne's mother joined with others in an attempt to depose him. He suddenly recovered his powers of mind and throne, and put the plotters to death. Soon therafter Antipater, his son by his first wife, laid proofs before him of an attempted conspiracy by Alexander and Aristobulus, his sons by Marianne. He submitted the matter to a council of 150 men, who sentenced the youths to die (6 B.C.).
"Two years later Nicolas of Damascus convicted Antipater himself of scheming to replace his father. Herod had the youth brought before him and 'began to weep, lamenting the misfortunes he had suffered from his children.'
"In a moment of mercy he ordered Antipater jailed.
"Meanwhile the old king was breaking down with disease and grief. He suffered from dropsy, ulcer, fever, convulsions, and loathsome breath. After frustrating so many attempts against his life he tried to kill himself, but was prevented.
"Hearing that Antipater had sought to bribe the guard to free him, Herod had him slain. Five days afterward he too died (4 B.C.) in the sixty-ninth year of his age, hated by all his people.
"It was said of him by his enemies that 'he stole to the throne like a fox, ruled like a tiger, and died like a dog.'"
"Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown."
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 25, 2004 - 03:30 am
I don't know the author of this ESSAY but it depicts another kindly side of Herod as a friend of the Jews.Robby
Malryn (Mal)
May 25, 2004 - 04:15 am
Malryn (Mal)
May 25, 2004 - 04:32 am
Bubble
May 25, 2004 - 05:03 am
The amphitheater in the ruins of Ceasarea is still used today for concerts and operas. I saw Aida there,in the moonlight with the stars above. The sea is nearby with its smell of idode and the sounds of waves at high tides.
In the picture of the aquaduc that Mal provided, you can see people under one of the arches. The aquaduc is literally on the beach, parallel to the sea and people bathing there enjoy the shade provided by the arches and have their picnics there. Some come with folding chairs and tables and play cards while keeping an eye on their children.
The small scaled down model of old Jerusalem is in the Gardens of the Holyland Hotel and was a great attraction to all the tourists particularly when access was not possible to the old city, previous to the 6 Days War.
The things I wanted to see when this became finally possible were the eight different gates of old Jerusalem. One is called the Herod's Gate.
http://info.jpost.com/2000/Supplements/Millennium/centuries3.html
http://www.bibleplaces.com/oldcitygates.htm
in this site you will see an exact replica in 24k of the menorah which graced the Temple.
http://www.thirdtemple.com/OldCity/gallery.htm
Justin
May 25, 2004 - 01:58 pm
The travelogue is wonderful. I especially enjoyed the J'lem (spoken like an insider)Gates. I wonder if the existence of earlier gates beneath the current ones indicates construction since Titus. Are we not, today, looking at the walls and gates that Titus faced in 70 CE?
One remaining thought about the Pharisees is worth mentioning for later on the question will come up again, I'm sure. Pauline Christians, during Hadrian's time, inserted the word "Pharisee" in the Gospels replacing "Sadducee", "high priest", and "Herodians", whenever these were mentioned as persecutors of Jesus. This description of the alteration comes from Trevor's WIki encyclopedia article but there are many other scholarly references to the changes.
robert b. iadeluca
May 25, 2004 - 05:20 pm
"Religion was to the Jews the source of their law, their state, and their hope. To let it melt away in the swelling river of Hellenism would, they thought, be national suicide."Hence that mutual hatred of Jew and gentile which kept the little nation in a kind of undulating fever of racial strife, political turbulence, and periodic war. Moreover, the Jews of Judea scorned the people of Galilee as ignorant backsliders, and the Galileans scorned the Judeans as slaves caught in the cobwebs of the Law.
"Again, a perpetual feud burned between Judeans and Samaritans. The latter claimed that their hill of Gerizim, and not Zion, had been chosen by Yahveh as his home, and they rejected all the Scriptures except the Pentateuch.
"All these factions agreed in hating the Roman power which made them pay a heavy price for the unwelcome privilege of peace.
"There were now in Palestine some 2,500,000 souls, of whom perhaps 100,000 lived in Jerusalem. Most of them spoke Aramaic. Priests and scholars understood Hebrew. Officials and foreigners and most authors used Greek. The majority of the people were peasants, tilling and irrigating the soil, tending the orchard, the vine, and the flock.
"In the time of Christ Palestine grew enough wheat to export a modest surplus:-its dates, figs, grapes and olives, wine and oil were prized and bought throughout the Mediterranean. The old command was still obeyed to let the land lie fallow in each sabbatical year.
"Handicrafts were largely hereditary and were usually organized in guilds. Jewish opinion honored the worker, and most scholars plied their hands as well as their tongues. Slaves were fewer than in any other Mediterranean country. Petty trade flourished, but there were as yet few Jewish merchans of large means and range. Said Josephus:-'We are not a commercial people. We live in a country (eastern Judea) without a seaboard, and have no inclination to foreign trade.'
"Financial operations were of minor scope until Hillel, perhaps at Herod's suggestion, abrogated the law of Deuteronomy (xv. 1-11) requiring the cancellation of debts evry seventh year. The Temple itself was the national bank."
I am hoping that those of you here who have greater knowledge of Jewish culture than I have will share your expansive knowledge with us.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 25, 2004 - 05:31 pm
The following is about Hellenism and the Jews. (From Hellenistic Civilization by Frank E. Smiths.)
"In the middle of the transformations from Marseille to India were the Jews. Contact between them and the peoples around them had increased, beginning with the military colonies Alexander had established at Samaria and Gaza and the Greek bureaucrats and soldiers who filled Palestine. Alexander's successors, Perdiccas, Antigonus and the Ptolemies, also established cities in Palestine, and their armies frequently passed back and forth across the land, including Judah -- called Judea by those speaking Greek. Some Jews were taken as slaves. Some of Judea's young men joined the invading armies as mercenaries, and Jews became military colonists for various kings -- mainly for Ptolemy. After Judea came under the rule of Ptolemy, many Jews emigrated to Egypt, especially to Alexandria. Some other Jews migrated along the Mediterranean and Black Seas and settled in Asia Minor.
Cultural Diffusions and Preservations
"Ptolemy interfered in Judea's affairs more than had the Persians. His tax collectors were more prevalent, but he allowed the Jews the freedom of worship and the same autonomy that they had enjoyed under the Persians. Judea's Jews continued to be governed by their High Priest and Council of Elders, and most Jews continued to worship Yahweh.
"Many Jews, especially in rural areas, were among those in West Asia who preferred their old ways. It was from them that a revolt against Hellenism would come in the following century. Nevertheless, for the time being, many Jewish merchants, aristocrats and intellectuals came to admire Greek education, Greek schools and libraries. Some of them found lofty ideals in Greek philosophy, significance in Greek logic, and beauty in Greek art. Many Jews were attracted by the excitement of Greek athletic games and tournaments, and in Jerusalem a Greek-style amphitheater and gymnasium were built. Many Jews adopted Greek dress. Jews with Greek names -- including Alexander -- became common. Many Jews who traveled had a Hebrew name for use within their community and a Greek name for contacts with others. And Jews began using Greek style grave inscriptions.
"Influenced by Hellenism, Jews began giving titles and honors to women. Some among them tolerated the mixed marriages that Ezra had forbidden. Some Hellenized Jews abandoned circumcision, restrictions on foods and other laws that their Hellenized neighbors thought barbaric. A few Hellenized Jews decided that people everywhere worshiped the same god under different names and that religions could therefore be united. Some others decided that Yahweh was not just the god of the Jews but the god of the whole world. Some of these Jews wanted to convert non-Jews to their god. And in places outside Judea, where Jews and gentiles spoke Greek, some curious gentiles came to Jewish synagogues, listened, and were converted to Judaism.
"Some Jewish writers in Egypt wished to instill in their fellow Jews a pride in their Jewish heritage, to counter the feelings of cultural inferiority that many felt. Near the end of the 200s, a Jewish scribe named Demetrius wrote a work describing Judean kings, and he tried to prove that all of Jacob's many children could have been born within seven years. Other Jewish writers attempted to describe Jewish culture as the oldest in the world and the Jews as teachers of other peoples rather than having been influenced by others.
"Greek was the language of educated Jews, and Greek translations of the Zoroastrianism of the Persians made Zoroastrian ideas more accessible to literate Jews. But Aramaic remained the language of most Jews -- in Judea and Mesopotamia -- and an effort was made to preserve Hebrew as the main language of literature and religious gatherings, while Jewish scribes writing in Hebrew adopted Greek literary forms in their religious writings. And scholars believe that in these adoptions, Jewish scribes borrowed concepts that were not commonly known to Jews before the rise of Hellenistic society, including concepts borrowed from Plato's Book of Wisdom and Aristotle's Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.
The Septuagint
"Perhaps because most literate Jews could no longer read Hebrew, Jewish scribes in Alexandria were put to work translating into Greek the Five Books of Moses. The finished product became known as the Septuagint. Demonstrating their conviction that the Septuagint was the final word on Jewish history, the high priests in charge of the work proclaimed a curse upon any changes that might be made to it. And it would be Judaic doctrine that seventy-two translators had worked independently of each other on the translation and had produced exactly the same result, word for word -- a miracle in keeping with the belief that the books were the works of divine intervention.
"The Septuagint was written in a Greek that was difficult for Greeks and Greek speakers to understand, and because Jews from different areas used words differently and interpreted what they read differently, when the Septuagint was distributed to Jews outside of Alexandria it created confusion. For the sake of clarification, different Jewish communities ignored the curse that had been put on making changes to the Septuagint, and they inserted new words to fit local meaning. With the passing of decades, the Septuagint was reproduced by hand and more changes were made. Then other writings were imperfectly translated into Greek and added to the Septuagint: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Kings, Judges, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Daniel. The last book of the Old Testament, the Book of Esther, would be translated into Greek around 77 BCE. It would be from the Septuagint that various other translations would be made: an old Latin translation, Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, Jerome's Latin Vulgate and others that led to the King James version, commissioned in England in 1604 of the Common Era (CE)."
robert b. iadeluca
May 25, 2004 - 05:46 pm
Click HERE for Josephus' description of Galilee, Samaria, and Judea.
robert b. iadeluca
May 25, 2004 - 06:10 pm
Here is a link describing the relationship between the JEWS AND SAMARITANS. This includes another link showing a map of Galilee, Sarmaria, and Judea.Robby
Justin
May 25, 2004 - 10:47 pm
The histories of Judea, of Samaria, and of Galilee are so tied up with the Pentateuch, the Laws of Moses, the tales of Kings, and of the prophets that it is difficult to discern a cultural life apart from the story of the Bible.
Yet, we know that specific events occurred in these places apart from what appears in the Massoretic chronolgy, in the Dead Sea scrolls, in the Mishnaic and in Talmudic traditions. We know there were internecine squabbles between these communities, but much of that is overshadowed by the religious interest.
Scholars, today, seriously question the historical value of much that is thought to be "Jewish" history in these religious sources. Yet, when someone asks for comments on the cultural life of the people living in Galilee,Samaria,and Judea, one is hard pressed to discuss the life outside the tradition.
robert b. iadeluca
May 26, 2004 - 03:05 am
"The Pharisees (Perushim, separatists) were so named by the Sadducees as meaning that they separated themselves (like good Brahmans) from those who contracted religious impurity by neglecting the requirements of ritual cleanliness. They were a continuation of the Chasidim, or Devotees, of the Maccabean age, who had upheld the strictest application of the Law."Josephus, himself, a Pharisee, defined them as 'a body of Jews who profess to be more religious than the rest, and to explain the laws more precisely.' For this purpose they added to the written Law of the Pentateuch, the oral tradition of interpretations and decisions made by recognized teachers of the Law.
"These interpretations were necessary, in the judgment of the Pharisees, to clarify the obscurities of the Mosaic Code, to specify its applications in particular cases, and to modify its letter, occasionally, in adaptation to the changed needs and conditions of life. They were at once rigorous and lenient, softening the Law here and there as in Hillel's decree on interest, but demanding the full observation of the oral tradition as well as of the Torah.
"Only through this full obedience, they felt, could the Jews escape assimilation and extinction. Reconciled to Roman domination, the Pharisees sought consolation in the hope of a physical and spiritual immortality. They lived simply, condemned luxury, fasted frequently, washed sedulously, and were now and then irritatingly conscious of their virtue. But they represented the moral strength of Judaism, won the middle classes to their support, and gave their followers a faith and role that saved them from disintegration when catastrophe came.
"After the Temple was destroyed (A.D. 70), the priesthood lost influence, the Sadducees disappeard, the synagogue replaced the temple, and the Pharisees, through the rabbis, became the teachers and shephereds of a scattered but undefeated people."
I am learning a lot here. Any comments?
Robby
Bubble
May 26, 2004 - 03:06 am
This discussion is so fast moving!
First, a word about the Levy and Cohen families. They were both the keepers of the Temple and of traditions. They were responsible for keeping those traditions active during the 40years in the desert.
The Levy were in charge of all the material side such as checking the accounts and supply for the Temple, keeping the order among the pilgrims and the people visiting, locking the doors, singing or calling people for special prayers. The Cohen on the other side were those observing the spiritual side and those allowed deeper inside the Temple. They were strict about the purity laws and from them the Great Prist was elected. He alone had the right to enter the Saint of Saints one day only during the year, at Yom Kipur, to commune directly with God.
All these rulews are written down and codified in the greatest detail and covering every single possibility that can occur in life.
The old comman of giving the earth its sabbatical rest is still observed nowadays in the religious kibbutzim and the fruits are left to fall and rot but will not be picked up. The ultra religious will not buy their produce at their regular places that year but from special suppliers so as to be sure that these fruit and vegs did not grow on Jewish soil.
today too Jews with Greek names, or names blending with those of their Goy neighbors, have a Hebrew name as well to be used in religious ceremonies like a Brith, a Barmitzvah , a wedding ot a burial.
About the map on post #168 - Samaria. The Samaritans main town is called Shechem and is also known today by its Arab name of Naplouse. Mt Gerezim is their Holy Mountain (it reminds me of Olympus in Greece). Sacrifices are still made there today, especially the sheep killed before Passover eve.
The Samaritans live among themselves and intermarry. There are two main comunities, ine in Naplouse living as Arabs, and one in Israel in Bat Yam, that is south of Tel Abiv on the coast.
robert b. iadeluca
May 26, 2004 - 03:13 am
I am a neophyte in this area so I found this OUTLINE OF THE PENTATEUCH most helpful. Others here who are more learned in this field may make some corrections or modifications.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 26, 2004 - 03:19 am
Thank you for your enlightening comments, Bubble. You are helping to make this section of Durant even more meaningful.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 26, 2004 - 03:28 am
Taken from a college course entitled Judaism 101:-
Hillel and Shammai
These two great scholars born a generation or two before the beginning of the Common Era are usually discussed together and contrasted with each other, because they were contemporaries and the leaders of two opposing schools of thought (known as "houses"). The Talmud records over 300 differences of opinion between Beit Hillel (the House of Hillel) and Beit Shammai (the House of Shammai). In almost every one of these disputes, Hillel's view prevailed.
Rabbi Hillel was born to a wealthy family in Babylonia, but came to Jerusalem without the financial support of his family and supported himself as a woodcutter. It is said that he lived in such great poverty that he was sometimes unable to pay the admission fee to study Torah, and because of him that fee was abolished. He was known for his kindness, his gentleness, and his concern for humanity. One of his most famous sayings, recorded in Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers, a tractate of the Mishnah), is "If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?" The Hillel organization, a network of Jewish college student organizations, is named for him.
Rabbi Shammai was an engineer, known for the strictness of his views. The Talmud tells that a gentile came to Shammai saying that he would convert to Judaism if Shammai could teach him the whole Torah in the time that he could stand on one foot. Shammai drove him away with a builder's measuring stick! Hillel, on the other hand, converted the gentile by telling him, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study it."
The final quote here of Hillel is what many of us call The Golden Rule, is it not?
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 26, 2004 - 03:40 am
This DEFINITION helped me to see the difference between a temple and a synagogue.Robby
Bubble
May 26, 2004 - 06:06 am
A synagogue is a meeting place for prayers. Any building, any room in it can become a synagogue. In my neighborhood at least 3 basement shelters serve as synagogues for morning and evening prayers of the old population around. It is to be remembered that some prayers require a minyan - a quorum of ten males of age - to be present. One such prayer is the kaddish said to the memory of the death.
That saying of Hillel is often quoted (if I don't do for myself, who will, etc.) and institutions called Beit Hillel can be found all over the world.
When I arrived in UK as a refugee-student during the Zaire war, I was contacted by the Beit Hillel in London asking if I needed any help or a place to spend the shabbat. They gave me an open invitation to attend shabbat services and meals. I was in Aylesbury, somewhat far from London and never visited them. Still it was good to know I could call on them.
Bubble
robert b. iadeluca
May 26, 2004 - 06:11 am
Bubble:-Every now and then you sneak in a phrase about yourself indicating what a rich life you have had. "A refugee-student from the Zaire War." All your experiences may not have been happy ones, but you have definitely had a rich life.Robby
Bubble
May 26, 2004 - 06:19 am
Life is good Robby, it is all a question of attitude. The more trials you encounter and the richer in experiences you become.
Bubble
moxiect
May 26, 2004 - 10:17 am
Hi Robby
Just to let you know, I am still around learning.
Am I wrong in thinking that the differences between the Palestians and Israli's go back to eons ago?
robert b. iadeluca
May 26, 2004 - 10:20 am
Hi, Moxi!! Maybe Bubble can answer that. I suppose it depends on the length of an eon.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 26, 2004 - 11:18 am
"The most extreme of the Jewish sects was tht of the Essenes. They derived their piety from the Chasidim, their name probably from the chaldaic aschai (bather), their doctrine and practice from the stream of ascetic theory and regimen circulating through the world of the last century before Christ."Possibly they were influenced by Brahmanic, Buddhist, Parsee, Pythagorean, and Cynic ideas that came to the crossroads of trade at Jerusalem. Numbering some 4000 in Palestine, they organized themselves into a distinct order, observed both the written and the oral Law with passionate exactitude, and lived together as almost monastic celibates tilling the soil in the oasis of Engadi amid the desert west of the Dead Sea.
"They dwelt in homes owned by their community, had their meals in common and in silence, chose their leaders by a general vote, mingled their goods and earnings in a common treasury, and obeyed the Chasidic motto:-'Mine and thine belong to thee.' Many of them, says Josephus, 'lived more than a hundred years because of their simple diet and regular life.'
"Each clothed himself in white linen, carried a little hoe to cover his droppings, washed himself like a Brahmin afterward, and considered it a sacrilege to evacuate on the Sabbath.
"A few of them married and lived in towns, but practiced the Tolstoian rule of cohabiting with their wives only to beget children. The members of the sect avoided all sensual pleasure and sought through meditation and prayer a mystic union with God.
"They hoped that by piety, abstinence, and contemplation they might acquire magic powers and foresee the future. Like most people of their time they believed in angels and demons, thought of diseases as possession by evil spiritsk and tried to exorcise these by magical formulas. From their 'secret doctrine' came some parts of the Cabala.
"They looked for the coming of a Messiah who would establish a comunistic egalitarian Kingdom of Heaven (Malchuth Shamayim) on earth. Into that Kingdom only those would enter who had led a spotless life.
"They were ardent pacifists and refused to make implements of war. But when the legions of Titus attacked Jerusalem and the Temple, the Essenes joined other Jews in depending their city and its shrine and fought until nearly all of their order were dead.
"As Josephus describes their customs and their sufferings we enter into the atmosphere of Christianity:--
"'Although they were tortured and racked, burnt and torn to pieces, and went through every torment to force them either to blaspheme their legislator, or to eat what was forbidden them, yet could they not be made to do either of them. No, nor once to flatter their tormentors, or to shed a tear.
"'But they smiled in their very pains, and laughed those to scorn who tortured them, and gave up their souls in great cheerfulness, as expecting to receive them again.'"
robert b. iadeluca
May 26, 2004 - 11:22 am
Here is additional information about the ESSENES. Robby
Éloïse De Pelteau
May 26, 2004 - 11:28 am
"Life is good Robby, it is all a question of attitude. The more trials you encounter and the richer in experiences you become." I find too that those who have heavily burdened are less inclined to be self centered and are more likely to be loving. That is what I see in you Bubble.
The last few days of posts are so rich in meaning that I find nothing else to say. Thank you all.
Eloïse
robert b. iadeluca
May 26, 2004 - 11:39 am
In Richmond Eloise asked me the name of the upcoming fourth volume so I will answer her here by letting all of you know what the future holds. The remaining eight volumes, in order, are:-
The Age of Faith
The Renaissance
The Reformation
The Age of Reason Begins
The Age of Louis IV
The Age of Voltaire
Rousseau and Revolution
The Age of Napoleon.
Stay alive, folks!! We have an enlightening stimulating road ahead of us! Drink plenty of liquids -- go to bed at an early hour -- exercise daily -- easy on the medications -- as Bubble says, maintain a positive attitude.
We have only just begun. We have built a foundation for ourselves and now the fun starts!!
Robby
Justin
May 26, 2004 - 02:35 pm
The Essene sect is not described in Rabinic literature but in Josephus and to some extent in Philo. They are thought to be the authors of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. These are biblical works that were not taken into the canon.
In 1947 an Arab shepherd found the dead sea scrolls in Wadi Qumran, an area where acheologists have found evidence of the presence of Essenes. The scrolls were thought to have been written sometime between 170BCE and 70CE. The scrolls were probably hidden in caves at the time of Titus' attack on Jerusalem. The Essenes fought side by side with the Fanatics. The evidence from the scrolls suggests that the Essenes were a subgroup of Pharisees. They observed most of the laws prescribed in the Pharisaic Halaka. They revered Moses as the lawgiver.
A few years ago, some of the scrolls, but mostly pictures of the scrolls and sites, were exhibted at the San Fancisco Museum of Art.
The exhibition gave many of us an opportunity to examine the tiny bits of scroll that had to be pieced together like a jig saw puzzle and to study the assembled pages, many in translation. It is a remarkable find and one day we will have exhausted our ability to assemble bits and pieces and then we will know what guided the Essenes as well as what the full Bible looks like.
Justin
May 26, 2004 - 02:46 pm
The outline of the Pentateuch in post 172 is well worth reading for it gives two views of authorship. One view is that Moses is responsible for the writing. Another view is that of Spinoza who analyzed the material and concluded that many authors were involved and that the writing occurred at diferent times and in different places. We discussed this in one of the earlier books, I think, and observed that Durant agreed with Spinoza but I can't find the specific postings or the references in Durant. We need some wonderful programmer to design a key word search and retrieval system for us.
JoanK
May 26, 2004 - 03:48 pm
Here is a light and amusing "Course on the Dead Sea Scrolls" which I enjoyed very much.
http://www.lehrhaus.org/online/scrolls/scrolls_1.html
Shasta Sills
May 26, 2004 - 04:07 pm
In that link about the Essenes, it was stated that St. Ann, Joseph
and Mary, John the Baptist, and Jesus were all Essenes. Is this an
accurate statement? Has there ever been any proof that any of them
were Essenes?
Éloïse De Pelteau
May 26, 2004 - 04:08 pm
Robby, Louis Quatorze. Louis IVX.
JoanK
May 26, 2004 - 04:10 pm
Eloise: do you mean XIV?
Éloïse De Pelteau
May 26, 2004 - 04:16 pm
Yes Joan, Louis XIV rather.
Justin
May 26, 2004 - 04:49 pm
I read that Essene thing. It looks to me like a group of contemporary Essenes are trying their luck at attracting proselytes. Some scholars think Jesus was a Pharisee. Many things attributed to him are Pharisean in nature. Of course, the Essenes were thought to be a sub sect of the Pharisees also. Everybody wants to join the act. The only ones who have not claimed the body are the Sadducees who were on the side of the Romans in the deed.
robert b. iadeluca
May 26, 2004 - 05:24 pm
Joan:-I printed out some of your links and will read them at leisure.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 26, 2004 - 05:30 pm
"These -- Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes -- were the chief religious sects of Judea in the generation before Christ. The Scribes (Hakamin, learned) whom Jesus so often bracketed with the Pharisees were not a sect but a profession. They were scholars learned in the Law, who lectured on it in synagogues, taught it in schools, debated it in public and private, and applied it in judgment on specific cases."A few of them were priests, some were Sadducees, most were Pharisees. They were in the two centuries before Hillel what the rabbis were after him. They were the iurisprudentes of Judea, whose legal opinions, selected by time and transmitted by word of mouth from teacher to pupil, became part of that oral tradition which the Pharisees honored along with the written Law.
"Under their influence the Code of Moses proliferated into thousands of detailed precepts designed to meet every circumstance."
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 26, 2004 - 05:40 pm
Your MISSION, should you accept it, is to compare the Law of Moses with the Code of Hammurabi.Robby
JoanK
May 27, 2004 - 12:08 am
In the course I linked above, you may find especially interesting the controversy on whether the scrolls mention the crucifiction of Jesus or not (the dates overlap his life, so it would have been possible). The difference of opinnion stems from the omission of one vowel: which enables a sentance to be read in two opposite ways. (Vowels were not added to Hebrew writing until later, by scribes, to make copying and reading easier)
Here is another description of the scrolls, from the Library of Congress.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/ And here, if you scroll down to the bottom, are many more links, including the two I posted.
http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/dss.html But of all this, I recommend the first one I posted (the "course").
JoanK
May 27, 2004 - 12:23 am
Severa years ago there was a symposium marking the fifty year aniversery of the finding of the dead sea scrolls. One of the participants was lamenting that,even though the copies of the books of the Bible that were found (all were found except Esther) are much older than copies previously known, no one had attempted a translation of the Bible based on them. Does anyone know if that is still true? There was a translation of the Book of Isaeh done.
robert b. iadeluca
May 27, 2004 - 03:48 am
"The Jewish literature that has come down to us from this period is almost entirely religious. Just as it seemed to the orthodox Hebrew a profanation to make images of the deity, or to adorn his temples with plastic art, so it seemed to him an error to write philosophy or literature for any other ultimate purpose than to praise God and glorify the Law. "There were of course many exceptions, of which the pretty story of Susannah may serve as an instance. It tells of a fair Jewess falsely accused of unchastity by two unsatisfied elders, and freed through the skillful cross-examination of witnesses by a youth named Daniel. Even this romance found its way into some editions of the Book of Daniel.
"The book of Joshua, son of Sirach, which we know as Ecclesiasticus, may be as late as this period. It is one of many Apocrypha -- 'hidden' or unauthentic compositions not accepted into the Jewish canon of the Old Testament. Rich in beauty and wisdom, it did not deserve to be excluded from the company of Ecclestiastes and Job.
"In its twenty-fourth chapter we find again, as in the eighth chapter of Proverbs, the doctrine of the Logos or Incarnate Word. 'Wisdom: the first product of God, created from the beginning of the world.' Between 30 B.C. and A.D. 40 an Alexandran Jew - or a number of Hellenistic Jews -- published a Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, which sought, like Philo, to harmonize Judaism and Platonism, and called Hellenizing Jews back to the Law in prose as noble as any since Isaiah.
"A lesser work, the Psalms of Solomon (ca. 50 B.C.), is rich in anticipation of a Redeemer for Israel."
There is much here to examine and possibly discuss.
Robby
Malryn (Mal)
May 27, 2004 - 02:06 pm
It seems to me that the Hammurabi Code and Moses laws are very much alike. The Hammurabi Code is much more specific and detailed, though. It sounds to me as if what was considered misbehavior and crime had stayed pretty much the same.
Mal
Justin
May 27, 2004 - 05:15 pm
The cannon is fixed. The deed was done many centuries ago. Religions have been built on the current canon. Priests have persecuted others based on the canon. People have been excluded, tortured, and murdered based on the canon. Just because we have found an earlier version does not mean that we must change the canon. That means admitting that those Alexandrian Jews who selected the books for the Septuagint may have been wrong and let us not forget St. Jerome who made some selections of his own.
A book may be written and published containing all the books of the Bible as they are known today but that book will never be accepted as THE BIBLE.
The Vatican councils will spend centuries debating the issue and world Protestant organizations will each decide for themselves what the composition of the Bible is to be. World Jewry will do the same and even Islam may be required to adjust a few things. Never the less, I personally would like to read an updated version of the document. I don't know that one has been started.
robert b. iadeluca
May 27, 2004 - 05:46 pm
"The hope of salvation from Rome and earthly suffering through the coming of a divine Redeemer rings through nearly all the Jewish literature of this age. Many productions took the form of apocalypses or revelations, whose aim was to make the past intelligible and forgivable by persenting it as a prelude to a triumphant future revealed to some seer by God."The Book of Daniel, written about 165 B.C. to encourage Israel against Antiochus Epiphanes, was still circulating among Jews who could not believe that Yahveh would let them long remain under pagan domination. The Book of Enoch, probably the work of several authors between 170 and 66 B.C., took the form of visions vouchsafed to the patriarch who, in Genesis (v. 24), had 'walked with God.' It recounted the fall of Satan and his cohorts -- the consequent intrusion of evil and suffering into human life -- the redemption of mankind by a Messiah --and the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven.
"About 150 B.C. Jewish writers began to publish Sibylline Oracles, in which various sibyla or prophetesses were represented as defending Judaism against paganism, and foretelling the final victory of the Jews over their enemies."
We have spent months observing the cruelties of the Romans. Now we see it from the side of the conquered Jews.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 27, 2004 - 05:56 pm
Various definitions of APOCALYPSE. Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 27, 2004 - 06:20 pm
Some comments about the BOOK OF DANIEL.
robert b. iadeluca
May 27, 2004 - 06:26 pm
Here is the BOOK OF ENOCH. Robby
Justin
May 27, 2004 - 07:19 pm
Book of Enoch. More righteous vengence. Will this God never stop chastising?
Malryn (Mal)
May 28, 2004 - 02:24 am
Why such a wrathful God? When was the book of Enoch written? Does it reflect the temper of those times?
Is it true that Christianity did not take hold until 300 years after the birth of Jesus?
Mal
robert b. iadeluca
May 28, 2004 - 03:47 am
"The idea of the saving god has probably come to western Asia from Persia and Babylonia. In the Zoroastrian creed all history and life were represented as a war between the holy forces of light and the diabolical powers of darkness. In the end a savior would come -- Shausyant or Mithras -- to judge all men and establish an everlasting reign of righteousness and peace."To many Jews the rule of Rome seemed part of the transient victory of evil. They denounced the greed, treachery, brutality, and idolatry of 'gentile' civilization and the 'atheistic' hedonism of an epicurean world.
"According to the Book of Wisdom:-
"'The ungodly said:-'Our life is short and tedious, and in the death of a man ther is no remedy. Neither was there any man known to return from the grave. For the breath in our nostrls is as smoke, and a little spark in the moving of our heart. Which being extinguished, our body shall be turned into ashes, and our spirit shall vanish as the soft air. And our name shall be forgotten, and our life shall pass away as the trace of a cloud, as a mist dispersed by the beams of the sun.
"'Come on, let us enjoy the good things that are present. Let no flower of the spring pass us by. Let us crown ourselves with rosebuds before they be withered. Let us leave tokens of our joyfulness in every place.'
"These epicureans reason flsely, says the author. They hitch their wagon to a falling star, since pleasure is a vain and transitory thing.
"'For the hope of the ungodly man is as chaff swept away by the wind, and as thin hoar-frost scattered by the tempest. It passeth as the remembrance of a guest who tarrieth but a day. But the righteous shall live forever, and the care of them with the Most High. Therefore shall they receive a glorious kingdom, and a diadem of beauty from the hand of the Lord.'
"The reign of evil will be brought to an end, according to the apocalytptic books, either by the direct intervention of God himself or the earthly coming of his son or representative, the Messiah or Anointed One. Had not the prophet Isaiah, a century back foretold him?
"'For unto us a child is born, a son is given. And the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called the mighty God, the Prince of Peace.'"
The law of physics tells us that for every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. The "greed, treachery, and brutality" of the Roman Empire did not seem (as I read it) to cause an opposite and equal reaction from the Jewish population. Their reaction seemed to be one of acceptance -- some of them with the belief that their God would change their lives and some with no hope at all. In previous readings here Durant has told us of slave or subservient populations who rose up and fought to the death. I don't see that here. I wonder why.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 28, 2004 - 05:41 am
Click HERE for the Zoroastrian Creed.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 28, 2004 - 05:45 am
There are many BOOKS OF WISDOM. Take your choice.Robby
Scrawler
May 28, 2004 - 01:13 pm
Perhaps the Jews were biding their time before they rose up against the Romans and fought to the death. They were waiting for the Anointed One or the Messiah to lead them. And I think too that they were observing the Romans and saw both their strengths and weaknesses.
Shasta Sills
May 28, 2004 - 02:18 pm
To inject a light note into this serious discussion, I was listening
to Larry King interviewing Kathy Lee Gifford the other night. Larry,
who is Jewish, asked her why she had left the Jewish faith to become
a Christian. She replied that she had not left the Jewish faith.
She said she was a Jew who had found the Messiah. I thought that
was very innovative of her. She has fused the two religions together
and created her own private religion.
Justin
May 28, 2004 - 03:49 pm
Saul, David, and Solomon were the annointed ones, they were the messiahs.When Isaiah looked for a messiah he was looking for a strong leader to break the tight Babylonian bonds that held them. He was looking for another King in the manner of David who would defeat the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, and finally the Romans. When Jesus said he was the Messiah he was making a political statement that would naturally upset the Romans and the Sadducees.
Justin
May 28, 2004 - 03:53 pm
Mal: Certainly a big increase in followers occurred after 320 or so when Constantine said Christianity was an ok religion. Before that time it was risky to believe and much earlier,before Paul, one had to be circumcised to become a member of the cult. That requirement wasn't too popular.
Justin
May 28, 2004 - 04:05 pm
I think, the sparseness of the documents we have on hand contributes to the impressions we have of these early Jews. They must have rebelled many times yet we hear of of the Maccabean and of Masada of course. There is no dearth of aggressiveness in the Israeli postures today. Why should we expect a quiessent response from the early Jews?
Éloïse De Pelteau
May 28, 2004 - 04:07 pm
For those who are not familiar with
MESSIANIC JEWS this link will tell you about it.
Eloïse
Justin
May 28, 2004 - 04:27 pm
Also aggressiveness was not lacking in the invasion of Canaan and we can't forget the military ability of Saul and of David. The Hasmoneans although Jews by adoption, were a pretty tough bunch also.
robert b. iadeluca
May 28, 2004 - 05:49 pm
"Many Jews agreed with Isaiah (XI,1) in describing the Messiah as an earthly king who would be born of the royal house of David. Others, like the authors of Enoch and Daniel, called him the Son of Man, and pictured him as coming down from heaven."The philosopher of Proverbs and the poet of the Wisdom of Solomon, perhaps influenced by Plato's Ideas or the Stoic anima mundi, saw him as incarnate Wisdom, the first-begotten of God, the Word or reason (logos) that would soon play so great a role in Philo's philosophy.
"Nearly all the apocalyptic authors thought that the Messiah would triumph speedily. But Isaiah in a remarkable passage had conceived him as --
"'despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows. He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities and with his stripes we are healed. The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all. He was taken from prison and from judgment, and was cut off out of the land of the living. He bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.'
"All, however, agree that in the end the Messiah would subdue the heathen, free Israel, make Jerusalem his capital, and win all men to accept Yahveh and the Mosaic Law.
"Thereafter a 'Good Time' would come of happiness for the whole world. All the earth would be fertile -- every seed would bear a thousandfold -- wine would be plentiful -- poverty would disappear -- all men would be healthy and vituous -- and justice, good fellowship, and peace would reign over the earth.
"Some seers thought that this joyful age would be interrupted, that the powers of darkness and evil would make a last assault upon the happy kingdom, and that the world would be consumed in chaos and conflagration.
"In the final 'Day of God' the dead would rise and be judged by the 'Ancient of Days' (Yahveh), or by the 'Son of Man,' to whom absolute and everlasting dominion would then be given over a renovated world, the Kingdom of God.
"The wicked would be cast down headlong and speechless 'into Hell,' but the good would be received into unending blessedness."
I find it interesting that so many conceived of heaven as a place of fertile earth, plentiful wine, abundant crops, and good health for all -- all the things that the downtrodden masses did not have. People were willing to go there because here on earth they were destitute.Now in this affluent Western civilization, while there are undoubtedly many people living in poverty, a significant number of the population are quite well off and do not think of Heaven as a place to which they can escape. I bring to mind that bumper sticker often seen which says:-"Everyone wants to go to Heaven but no one wants to die."
Robby
Justin
May 28, 2004 - 07:41 pm
Everyone is doomed to hell for that is the lot of being human. No human is capable of being good all the time. We fail and therefore fall in with the lot on the way to hell. Too bad.I was looking forward to having all those bumper crops to sell and a little of that promised good health. It's interesting that heaven is seen simply as the good earth with abundance. Because we are all bad, forgiveness is an escape valve.Where did that concept come from? Salvation precedes the Christian idea but I can't remember where we encountered it before. We have met so many religious concepts on our journey to this time.
How is heaven viewed today by the faithful? The bounty we now share must have had an effect upon our concept of heaven. Perhaps, it is seen as a state of being.
Justin
May 28, 2004 - 07:49 pm
It is no wonder Yeshua was seen as a political figure and a threat even though he seemed to say good things. If all the Jews believed the Messiah would subdue the heathen, free Israel and make Jerusalem his capitol, and win all men to accept YHWH and follow the Mosaic laws, then the Romans must have said to themselves," we are the heathen" and he wants to subdue us. Actually, I think there were a number of these fellows running about at this time.
Justin
May 28, 2004 - 07:56 pm
The passage from Isaiah is remarkable for it's applicability. The author conceived of a Messiah that someone later would recognize as appropriate and attribute it to Yeshua. Maybe Paul did that. I must track that down.
Bubble
May 29, 2004 - 12:57 am
Reading from Eloise's link on Messianic Jews, I read: they use Yeshua and not Jesus since it was the name he was called when he was alive. A name is just a name? Not in Israel.
It suddently dawned on me that yeshua has a meaning and is a commonly-used word. It means redemption, deliverance. His parents chose him a prophetic name the day of the circumcision.
Meaning of names would be evident at first glace to a native Hebrew speaker I suppose. For me it is a conscious effort to remember that proper names usually have a meaning to.
Justin, I think that the Jewish spirit for decades and maybe centuries had been submissive and trying to blend in its surrounding as much as possible. That is why the Warsaw ghetto uprising came as such a surprise. The modern proud stand and fighting is a direct result of the last WWW. After biblical times, as a rule I think that Jews were more intellectuals than fighters, don't you agree?
Is it Hillel or Rabbi Akiva who said: Help for yourself and God will be on your side? (Aide-toi et le ciel t'aidera)
Éloïse De Pelteau
May 29, 2004 - 03:29 am
BUBBLE: "After biblical times, as a rule I think that Jews were more intellectuals than fighters, don't you agree?" Yes. Is that a consolation against persecution I wonder? Why are there few Jews in politics outside of Israel, because they excel in business and especially medicine. My doctors have almost always been Jewish. Today there are several great Jewish musicians and orchestra leaders.
(Aide-toi et le ciel t'aidera) My mother used to say that too, meaning don't be lazy, expecting others to do what you should be doing for yourself.
Eloïse
Malryn (Mal)
May 29, 2004 - 03:42 am
Thank you, BUBBLE, for that interesting and informative post. There's so much that we who don't understand Hebrew don't know about the Bible and certain parts of history.
JUSTIN you say: "Everyone is doomed to hell for that is the lot of being human."
When and how did this idea that humans are born tainted and full of sin come about? As I recall in reading Durant and from this discussion, that was not always so. It's very hard for me to understand this born in sin idea because I wasn't brung up that way.
Guilty before being proved innocent? Or guilty without being offered the chance to prove anything at all?
Other religions exist which are not so negative about humans. Other religions do not have such a wrathful god. What brought this angry, negative deity into being? Was it to keep people in line and down? So much to think about.
I know many people who aren't keen about the idea of dying, but who are champing at the bit to get to heaven, that paradise of milk and honey, good wine, where everybody's nice to each other. Like what everybody? The good ones go in earthly form, but different clothes or something? Is that what people believed and believe now? Where did I get the idea that souls were ethereal somethings and more spiritual than that?
What kind of Jew was Jesus? Was he a Pharisee?
I ask, "Was he?" As SHASTA said, I believe, why didn't he write anything down? Why didn't anyone make a bas relief or statue of him? They did of every other god-figure I can think of, so why not him?
Wasn't Jesus a Jew until he died? Did he have the intention of spurning Judiaism completely and starting what exists now? Where did this Christian thing really come from? Seeds were planted long before him.
Will Durant answer all my questions?
Mal
robert b. iadeluca
May 29, 2004 - 03:48 am
Regarding Bubble's remark that "proper names have a meaning.""My father was of Italian heritage and my mother of Swedish heritage. My Italian grandmother wanted me to be named Pasquale after my grandfather. My mother, in effect, said "No way!" Pasquale is a perfectly good and respected name meaning "Patrick." But to many Americans it means a foreigner -- someone just off the boat -- one of those Ities. My mother knew that I would labeled with that for life. So she gave me the good old "English" well-known name in those days of "Robert." And I became my name -- that is, American.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 29, 2004 - 04:04 am
"Essentially the movement of thought in Judea was parallel with that in the pagan theology of the time. A people that had once thought of the future in terms of its national destiny lost its trust in the state and thought of salvation in spiritual and individual terms. The mystery religions had brought this hope to many millions in Greece, the Hellenic East, and Italy. But no where was the hope so earnest, or its need so great, as in Judea."The poor or bereaved, the oppressed or scorned of the earth, looked for some divine redeemer of their subjection and their suffering. Soon, said the apocalypses, a savior would come, and in his triumph all just men would be lifted up, even out of the grave, into a paradise of eternal bliss. Old saints like Simeon, mystic women like Anna, daughter of Phanuel, passed their lives about the Temple, fasting, waiting, praying that they might look upon the Redeemer before they died.
"A great expectation filled the hearts of men."
This, to me, is one of the wonders of the newly formed United States of America. Those people who "lost their trust in the state" could rise up and without loss of blood, replace it with another state. The founders of this new nation did not see the need or even wisdom of waiting for "someone or something" in the "future" to do it for them. Again -- Bubble's reminder that "God helps those who help themselves." I wonder if such a maxim existed in those ancient times. This new nation's founders constantly used the term "God" in their remarks -- and yet?
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 29, 2004 - 04:21 am
Here is the life of SAINT SIMEON. Robby
Malryn (Mal)
May 29, 2004 - 04:22 am
As far as I know, God didn't write our Constitution.
Mal
robert b. iadeluca
May 29, 2004 - 04:27 am
Here is the life of SAINT SIMEON. Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 29, 2004 - 04:29 am
A painting of ANNA THE PROPHETESS. Robby
Malryn (Mal)
May 29, 2004 - 04:37 am
robert b. iadeluca
May 29, 2004 - 05:01 am
Thank you for that marvelous painting, Mal. Rembrandt was, indeed, a genius.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 29, 2004 - 05:26 am
"No people in history has fought so tenaciously for liberty as the Jews, nor any people against such odds. From Judas Maccabee to Simeon the Cocheba, and even into our own time, the struggle of the Jews to regain their freedom has often decimated them, but has never broken their spirit or their hope."When Herod the Great died the nationalists, spurning the pacific counsels of Hillel, declared a revolt against Herod's successor Archelaus, and encamped in tents about the Temple. Archelaus' troops slew 3000 of them, many of whom had come to Jerusalem for the passover festival (4 B.C.).
"At the following feast of Pentecost the rebels gathered again, and once more suffered great slaughter. The Temple cloisters were burned to the ground, the treasures of the sanctuary were plunderd by the legions, and many Jews killed themselves in despair.
"Patriot bands took form in the countryside, and made life precarious for any supporter of Rome. One such band, under Judas the Gaulonite, captured Sepphoris, the capital of Galilee. Varus, governor of Syria, entered Palestine with 20,000 men, razed hundreds of towns, crucified 2000 rebels, and sold 30,000 Jews into slavery. A delegation of leading Jews went to Rome and begged Augustus to abolish the kingship in Judea. Augustus removed Archelaus, and made Judea a Roman province of the second class, under a procurator responsible to the governor Syria (A.D.6)."
I guess I was wrong about the Jews just accepting their fate.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 29, 2004 - 06:45 am
robert b. iadeluca
May 29, 2004 - 07:02 am
"Patriot bands took form in the countryside and made life precarious for any supporter of Rome."Two thousand years between that and colonial Concord but, to me, it sounds exactly the same.
Robby
JoanK
May 29, 2004 - 07:17 am
ROBBY: " My Italian grandmother wanted me to be named Pasquale after my grandfather. My mother, in effect, said "No way!" Pasquale is a perfectly good and respected name meaning "Patrick." But to many Americans it means a foreigner -- someone just off the boat -- one of those Ities. My mother knew that I would labeled with that for life. So she gave me the good old "English" well-known name in those days of "Robert." And I became my name -- that is, American."
My father was named Pasquale, because he was born on Easter (that name has a meaning too) and he was thoroughly American. Almost too much so -- I wish I knew more about my Italian roots. He did, however, go by the name Pat.
I'm ashamed to admit that I once teased my Jewish mother-in-law, when I was pregnant with my son. It was the custom the mother picked the name of the first-born. I told her I was going to name him after my father. "Oh, good -- what is his name?" When I said "Pasquale", there was a dead silence. I had no intention of doing it -- I don't know what got into me.
Bubble
May 29, 2004 - 08:50 am
Mal, Yeshua would never, as a good practising Jew, have accepted to have an image of himself done. This would have been an unforgiveable transgression in his eys. He lived as a devout Jew, kept to the traditions as seen in the last Supper, the Passover eve meal, taught in the Temple. I am sure he was also buried as a Jew.
Robby, Pasquale means related to Easter. Pessah is the translation in Hebrew and is also a first name used for males.
Joan, what is the name of your first born then?
Bubble
robert b. iadeluca
May 29, 2004 - 10:16 am
Here is a EXTREMELY DETAILED LIST of Biblical names and the meanings behind them. Note the clickable at the bottom for completing the list.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 29, 2004 - 02:33 pm
In this ARTICLE about today's Washington Mall dedication to World War II veterans, Gen. Kelley called that war "the most significant event in the history of mankind." I have lived through most of the 20th century and now as I begin to appraise all the events of that century, I have come to the conclusion that WWII was, in fact, the most significant event of the 20th century.But "in the history of mankind?" Many of us here have followed the progress of mankind from Sumeria onward. What do you think?
Robby
Justin
May 29, 2004 - 04:41 pm
War is war. People killing people. I think General Kelly is very wrong. You too Robby. I think the most significant event in the Twentieth century was the formation of the United Nations. It is the first time so many diverse national interests have been harnessed in a quest for world peace. It may also be the most significant event in the history of mankind. Battles and wars are a dime a dozen in the history of mankind. I think the General has a professional bias.
robert b. iadeluca
May 29, 2004 - 05:01 pm
I think you have a point, Justin.Robby
moxiect
May 29, 2004 - 08:16 pm
Just in passing the most astounding event that occurred in my lifetime was the LEADERS of EVERY FAITH coming together!
Justin
May 29, 2004 - 09:01 pm
It's a long, long time from Masada to WW1 and the Zionist movement but I think there is much in what you say, Bubble. The Jew, to some extent, attempted to melt into society. His efforts were resisted by Christians who forced him into ghettos and limited his occupational opportunities to functions Christians could not perform. Notable among these professions was banking. Christians were forbidden to charge interest for the use of money. Many old Jewish banking houses are still quite strong. The Rothchilds is one such house.
Justin
May 29, 2004 - 09:25 pm
Mal: The idea that humans are born tainted resides in the concept of original sin and the reason for baptism. If one accepts the idea that we all originated in Adam and Eve, the first parents, then the sin of Adam is borne in each of us and absolved by baptism. Later on we will discover that St. Augustine presumes that the carrier of the sin is sexual intercourse. It is ok to have sex but one should be aware that it carries the sin of Adam along with the fun.
I had something else in mind when I said we are all human therefore we are all bad at some point in our lives and with the benefit of forgiveness we are all doomed to hell. Heaven would be a lonely place without us sinners to warm things up.
Justin
May 29, 2004 - 09:51 pm
Mal: I think Durant will respond to some of the questions you raise. We are just a little bit ahead of him.I have asked the same questions earlier and I think I have some reasoned responses, though not necessarily answers. To whit.. Jesus was born a Jew to Jewish parents. He was circumcised and given Jewish name-Yeshua (Jesus in Greek). He was executed as a Jewish criminal by the Romans who would not put up with any pretenders to the Hebrew throne. He did not start this thing called Christianity and probably would have been revolted by the idea of eating with uncircumcised gentiles and equally dismayed by the idea of starting a revolt against the law of Moses. He did not see himself as a God nor did he have a new religion in mind.Christians were simply another cult of Judaisism. They remained thus through James and Peter and it was not until Paul came along to fight with James and Peter that Christianity was launched and given form. But all that is to come. I'm sure Durant will cover it all for us.
Justin
May 29, 2004 - 09:56 pm
Mal: In 243 I intended to say "without the benefit of forgiveness..."
Malryn (Mal)
May 29, 2004 - 09:59 pm
JUSTIN, of course, I know about original sin and the reason for baptism, what I don't know is when this (I want to say "awful")idea began. Early civilizations didn't focus on what we call original sin. It had to start somewhere, but where and when?
Mal
JoanK
May 29, 2004 - 10:12 pm
BUBBLE: we named him Daniel.
robert b. iadeluca
May 30, 2004 - 12:21 am
"Caligula, wishing to make the worship of the emperor a unifying religion throughout the Empire, ordered all cults to include a sacrifice to his image, and bade the Jerusalem officials to install his statue in the Temple. The Jews had compromised, under Augustus and Tiberius, by sacrificing to Yahveh in the name of the emperor, but they were so averse to setting up the graven image of a pagan in their Temple that thousands of them, went to the governor of Syria and asked to be slaim in cold blood before the edict should be carried out."Procurators complained that the Jews were a very troublesome people to oppress. Bands of 'Zealous' and 'Dagger-men' (Sicari) were formed in protest against this misrule. Their members, pledged to kill any disloyal Jew, mingled in street gatherings, stabbed their appointed victims from behind, and disappeared in the chaos of the crowd.
"The old or well-to-do Hebrews counseled patience, arguing that revolt against so powerful an empire would be national suicide. The young or poor accused them of connivance and cowardice. The two factions divided the city and nearly every family. One seized the upper part of Jerusalem, the other the lower, and each attacked the other with every weapon at hand. A rebel force surrounded the Roman garrison at Masada, persuaded it to disarm, and then slaughtered every man of it.
"The approach of the legions brought the defenders to a belated and fanatical unity. Tacitus reckons that 600,000 rebels had gathered in the city. All who were capable of serving appeared in arms and the women were not less martial than the men.
"Josephus, from the Roman lines, called upon the besieged to surrender. They branded him as a traitor, and fought to the last. Starving Jews made desperate sorties to forage for food. Thousands of them were captured by the Romans, and were crucified. Said Josephus:-'The multitude of these was wo great that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses were wanting for the bodies.'
"In the later stages of the five-month siege the streets of the city were clogged with corpses. Ghouls wandered about despoiling and stabbing the dead. We are told that 116,000 bodies were thrown over the walls. Some Jews swallowed gold pieces and slipped out from Jerusalem. Romans or Syrians, capturing them, slit open their bellies, or searched their offal, to find the coins.
"Having taken half the city, Titus offered what he thought were lenient terms to the rebels. They rejected them. The flaming brands of the Romans set fire to the Temple, and the great edifice, much of it of wood, was rapidly consumed. The surviving defenders fought bravely, proud, says Dio, to die on Temple grounds.
"Some killed one another, some fell upon their own swords, some leaped into the flames. The victors gave no quarter, but slew all Jews upon whom they could lay their hands. 97,000 fugitives were caught and sold as slaves. Many of them died as unwilling gladiators in the triumphal games that were celebrated at Berytus, Caesarea Philippi, and Rome.
"Josephus numbered at 1,197,000 the Jews killed in this siege and its aftermath. Tacitus calculated them at 600,000 (A.C. 70).
"The Jews were a very troublesome people to oppress."
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 30, 2004 - 12:53 am
This version of the REBELLION suggests that the Temple was destroyed more as a result of the Jewish civil strife than the actions of the Romans. It describes that revolt as the greatest Jewish tragedy prior to the Holocaust.Robby
Bubble
May 30, 2004 - 01:18 am
And the puzzle remains: was the Tabernacle destroyed in the Temple's fire or was it salvaged and hidden ... where? The stuff for legends to come. Some put it in Aksum Ethiopia.
robert b. iadeluca
May 30, 2004 - 06:07 am
I found this ARTICLE extremely interesting based on Bubble's reference to Aksum in Ethiopia.Does anyone here remember Haile Selassie walking in the procession at President Kennedy's funeral?
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 30, 2004 - 06:33 am
"Resistance continued here and there until 73, but essentially the destruction of the Temple marked the end of the rebellion and of the Jewish state. The property of those who had shared in the revolt was confiscated and sold. Judea was almost shorn of Jews, and those that remained lived on the edge of starvation. Even the poorest Jew had now to pay to a pagan temple at Rome the half shekel that pious Hebrews had formerly paid each year for the upkeep of the Temple at Jerusalem."The high-priesthood and the Sanhedrin were abolished. Judaism took the form that it has kept until our own time -- a religion without a central shrine, without a dominant priesthood, without a sacrificial service.
"The Sadducees disappeared, while the Pharisees and the rabbis became the leaders of a homeless people that had nothing left but its synagogues and its hope."
According to Durant, "The approach of the legions brought the defenders to a belated and fanatical unity."I realize we are coming upon an emotional topic for those of Jewish heritage. I hope that they will help the rest of us to understand that "fanaticism." Has history shown other nations and peoples to be as willing to die for their nation when besieged? What is it within some of us that allows us willing to die? A strong belief in God? But there are others beside the Jewish people who have strong beliefs in a deity.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 30, 2004 - 06:40 am
Here are some definitions of HOMELESS. Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 30, 2004 - 06:53 am
Here are some definitions of HOMELESS. Robby
Bubble
May 30, 2004 - 08:42 am
Haile Selassie was a man full of dignity. My Canadian cousin who worked for a time for the United Nation in Addis Abeba was married to Selassie's niece. Unfortunately I only met her once before they settled in Canada. It is from then that I heard of Aksum.
The Tabernacle or Ark apparently in in a square stone building surrounded by a tall metal fence. Noone is allowed inside apart from the guardian and when this guardian gets old, another is chose to succeed him on his death. Even with the door open, no pictures can show the interior and no guardian has ever talked and told what it is like.
The belief is that whoever tries to get in will be struck death and dissapear without trace.
I seem to remember that the National geographic had a long article about it in the 80s.
Our currency today is also called the shequel.
Bubble
Justin
May 30, 2004 - 12:57 pm
Mal you raise a more profound question than I responded to. Of course you are aware of Original Sin. I apologize if there was a didactic tone in my response.That was not intended. The question you raise is a tough one requiring much more thought.
Scrawler
May 30, 2004 - 01:36 pm
I would say that the significant event has not as yet happened. To me when all the nations come together to insure that our natural resources are preserved not for one or two nations but for all peoples - than that day will be one to be claimed as a "significant event".
Just last night I was reading Anne Rice's novel "The Servant of the Bones" in which a plot to destroy the world except the Western civilization involves the destruction of the world's water supply. It's not a new plot, but it got me thinking that with all the wars we have had and are now involved in, it would be relaively simple to destroy the world through its water supply.
robert b. iadeluca
May 30, 2004 - 01:40 pm
Scrawler:-If I remember correctly, some group tried that back in the Roman Empire. I don't recall the details.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 30, 2004 - 01:52 pm
"The flight or enslavement of a million Jews so accelerated their spread through the Mediterranean that their scholars came to date the Diaspora from the destruction of Herod's Temple. We have seen that this Dispersion had begun six centuries before in the Babylonian Captivity, and had been renewed in the settling of Alexandria."Since fertility was commanded and infanticide sternly forbidden by Jewish piety and law, the expansion of the Jews was due to biological as well as economic causes. Hebrews still played a very minor role in the commerce of the world. Fifty years before the fall of Jerusalem, Strabo, with Anti-Semitic exaggeration, reported that 'it is hard to find a single place on the habitable earth that has not admitted this tribe of men, and is not possessed by it.'
"By A.D. 70 there were thousands of Jews in Seleucia on the Tigris, and in other Parthian cities. They were numerous in Arabia, and crossed thence into Ethiopia. They abounded in Syria and Phoenicia. They had large colonies in Tarsus, Antioch, Miletus, Ephesus, Sardis, Smyrna. They were only less numerous in Delos, Corinth, Athens, Philippi, Patrae, Thessalonica.
"In the west there were Jewish communities in Carthage, Syracuse, Puteoli, Capua, Pompeii, Rome, even in Horace's native Venusia.
"All in all we may reckon 7,000,000 Jews in the Empire -- some seven percent of the population, twice their proportion in the United States of America today."
I am curious to know why one doesn't indicate the percentage of Greeks, or Romans, or Persians, for example, in the various cities of the Mediterranean world.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 30, 2004 - 01:57 pm
Click HERE to see annual Jewish population in the United States. Compare to those in the Roman Empire. Please note the sudden influx in the early 20th Century.Robby
Bubble
May 30, 2004 - 11:53 pm
Hey! Ben's family is from Smyrna from as long as records show!
Robby why not the other people? **Shrug** - Easy to answer: sooner or later the Chosen People were always singled out!
You could also have seen a huge influx everywhere in the Old world after the expulsion from Spain by the Inquisition around 1500.
JoanK
May 31, 2004 - 12:36 am
"Please note the sudden influx in the early 20th Century".
This was the period of biggest population growth (proportionately) in our history. The US population literally doubled in ten years, from a combination of immegration and decreaseed mortality rates. Clearly the Jewish population increased even faster, as there were many Jewish immegrants.
It seems that since then, Jewish population growth here has not kept up with overall population growth. I wonder why.
robert b. iadeluca
May 31, 2004 - 03:58 am
"Since the Law was now the indispensable cement of scattered and stateless Jewry, the teaching of the Law became the chief occupation of the synagogue throughout the Diaspora. The synagogue replaced the temple, prayer replaced sacrifice, the rabbi replaced the priest."Tannaim -- expositors -- interpreted one or another of the orally transmitted laws (Halaoha) of the Jews, usually supported it with scriptural quotation, sometimes added to it, and illustrated it with stories, homilies, or other material (Haggada).
"The most famous of the Tannaim was Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph. At the age of forty (ca. A.D. 80) he joined his five-year-old son at school, and learned to read. Soon he could recite the whole Pentateuch by heart.
"After thirteen years of study he opened his own school under a fig tree in a village near Jamnia. His enthusiasm and idealism, his courage and humor, even his lusty dogmatism, brought him many students. When, in 95, word came that Domitian was planning new measures against the Jews, Akiba was chosen with Gamaliel and two others to make a personal appeal to the Emperor.
While they were in Rome Domitian died. Nerva heard their plea favorably, and ended the fiscus Iudaicus -- the tax laid upon Jews for rebuilding Rome. On his return to Jamnia Akiba set himself the lifelong task of codifying the Halacha. His pupil Rabbi Meir and their successor Judah the Patriarch (ca. 200) completed the undertaking.
"Even in this classified form the Halacha remained part of the oral tradition, handed down from generation to generation by scholars and professional memorizers -- living textbooks of the Law.
"Akiba's methods were as absurd as his conclusions were sound. He derived liberal principles from a weird exegesis in which every letter of the Torah, or written law, was held to have a ysterious meaning. Perhaps he had observed that men will accept the rational only in the form of the mystical.
"From Akiba came that painstaking organization and exposition of theology and ethics which passed down through the Talmud to Maimonides, and ultimately to the methods of the Scholastic philosophers.
"Resolved to destroy the recuperative virility of Judaism, Hadrian forbade not merely circumcision, but the observance of the Sabbath or any Jewish holiday, and the public performance of any Hebrew ritual.
"A new and heavier poll tax was placed upon all Jews. They were allowed in Jerusalem only on one fixed day each year, when they might come and weep before the ruins of their Temple. The pagan city of Aelia Capitolina rose on the site of Jerusalem, with shrines to Jupiter and Venus, and with palaetras, theaters, and baths. Public instruction in the Law was prohibied on pain of death. Several rabbis were executed for disobeying this injunction.
"Akiba, now ninety-five, insisted on teaching his pupils. He was imprisoned for three years, but taught even in jail. He was tried and condemned, and died, we are told, with the basic tenet of Judaism on his lips:-'Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one.'
"The Jews did not for centuries recover from the disaster of Bar Cocheba's revolt. From this moment they entered their Middle Ages, abandoning all secular learning except medicine, renouncing every form of Hellenism, and taking comfort and unity only from their rabbis, their mystic poets, and their Law.
"No other people has ever known so long an exile, or so hard a fate. Shut out from their Holy City, the Jews were compelled to surrender it first to paganism, then to Christianity.
"Scattered into every province and beyond -- condemned to poverty and humiliation -- unbefriended even by philosophers and saints -- they retired from public affairs into private study and worship, passionately preserving the words of their scholars, and preparing to write them down at last in the Talmuds of Babylonia and Palestine.
"Judaism hid in fear and obscurity while its offspring, Christianity, went out to conquer the world."
Many intriguing thoughts upon which we can comment. "The Law was the indispensable cement of scattered and stateless Jewry." "Oral tradition handed down from generation to generation." "Professional memorizers." "Painstaking organization and exposition of theology and ethics." "The recuperative virility of Judaism." "No other people has ever known so long an exile."Your comments, please?
Robby
Éloïse De Pelteau
May 31, 2004 - 05:40 am
"Perhaps he had observed that men will accept the rational only in the form of the mystical." Only faith provides the will to sustain a sometimes unbearable existence.
"No other people has ever known so long an exile." Without their faith they would surely have been assimilated.
"Professional memorizers" With our computer I wonder if we need to memorize that much any more, but like anything else, "you use it or loose it".
Eloïse
robert b. iadeluca
May 31, 2004 - 10:29 am
The Youth of Christianity4 B.C. - A.D. 325
robert b. iadeluca
May 31, 2004 - 10:54 am
robert b. iadeluca
May 31, 2004 - 11:00 am
Following is a reminder to current participants and a notice to all new ones regarding this forum's guidelines.
"To my knowledge, no civilization of any sort has existed without some sort of ritual which one can call religious. For this reason, it will be impossible to participate in this forum without discussing "religion" from time to time.
"However, the following guidelines will be enforced by the Discussion Leader to avoid confrontations and digressions about personal religious views.
"1 - You may make one post describing your own beliefs related to religion (whether you have a religious faith or do not) in order to explain your viewpoint toward the topic at hand. Making additional posts about your religious beliefs or faith is not permitted.
2 - Do not speak of your religion or absence of religious beliefs as "the truth."
3 - Do not attempt to change another's conviction about religion.
"Comments about issues are welcomed. Negative comments about other participants are not permitted.
"Those participants who do not believe they are being treated fairly in this respect always have the right to contact Marcie, Director of Education. I will follow her guidance."
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 31, 2004 - 12:02 pm
"Did Christ exist? Is the life story of the founder of Christianity the product of human sorrow, imagination, and hope -- a myth comparable to the legends of Krishna, Osiris, Attis, Adonis, Dionysus, and Mithras?"Early in the eighteenth century the circle of Bolingbroke, shocking even Voltaire, privately discussed the possibility that Jesus had never lived. Volney propounded the same doubt in his ruins of Empire in 1791.
"Napoleon, meeting the German scholar Wieland in 1808, asked him no petty question of politics or war, but did he believe in the historicity of Christ?
"One of the most far-reaching activities of the modern mind has been the 'Higher Criticism' of the Bible -- the mounting attack upon its authenticity and veracity, countered by the heroic attempts to save the historical foundations of Christian faith. The results may in time prove as revolutionary as Christianity itself.
"The first engagement in this two-hundred-year war was fought in silence by Hermann Reimarus, professor Oriental languages at Hamburg. On his death in 1768 he left, cautiously unpublished, a 1400-page manuscript on the life of Christ.
"Six years later Gotthold Lessing, over the protests of his friends, published portions of it as the Wolfenbuttel Fragments. Reimarus argued that Jesus can only be regarded and understood not as the founder of Christianity, but as the final and dominant figure in the mystical eschatology of the Jews -- i.e. Christ thought not of establishing a new religion, but of preparing men for the imminent destruction of the world, and God's Last Judsgment of all souls.
"In 1796 Heinrich Paulus, summarizing the life of Christ in 1192 pages, proposed a rationalistic interprtation of the miracles -- i.e. accepted their occurrence but ascribed them to natural causes and powers.
"In an epoch-marking Life of Jesus (1835-36) David Strauss rejected this compromise. The supernatural elements in the Gospels, he thought, should be classed as myths, and the actual career of Christ must be reconstructed without using these elements in any form. Strauss's massive volumes made Biblical criticism the storm center of German thought for a generation.
"In the same year Ferdinand Christian Baur attacked the Epistles of Paul, rejecting as unauthentic all but those to the Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans.
Whatever one's beliefs over the centuries, there is no doubt that this topic occuped the minds of thinkers across Europe. Let us pause to examine some of their theories, and perhaps to comment on them.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 31, 2004 - 12:19 pm
Another famous man, ALBERT SCHWEITZER took the time to examine the "historical" Jesus.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 31, 2004 - 12:34 pm
In this article about NAPOLEON note the ninth paragraph where he declares France the homeland of the Jews.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
May 31, 2004 - 01:25 pm
Please note the change in the GREEN quotes above. We are currently in "The Sources."Robby
Éloïse De Pelteau
May 31, 2004 - 01:25 pm
This is from the link above on Napoleon:
"THE TRUTH GOES THROUGH THREE STAGES:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently attacked;
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."
Didn't Gandhi say something similar: "First they laugh at you -- Then then ignore you -- They they fight you -- Then you win"
I know my mother just adored Napoleon, but I didn't know everything he had done. Quebec is the only province in Canada that goes under 'Le Code Napoléon'.
Eloïse
Scrawler
May 31, 2004 - 01:38 pm
I have a question: Why weren't other ancient religions such as the pagan faiths of Egypt, Greek, Persia, and the Oriential persecuted like the Jews? What made the Jews such a target?
robert b. iadeluca
May 31, 2004 - 02:54 pm
"In 1840 Bruno Bauer began a series of passionately constroversial works aiming to show that Jesus was a myth, the personified form of a cult that evolved in the second century from a fusion of Jewish, Greek, and Roman theology. "In 1863 Ernest Renan's Life of Jesus, alarming millions with its rationalism and charming millions with its prose, gathered together the results of German criticism, and brought the problem of the Gospels before the entire educated world.
"The French school reached its climax at the end of the century in the Abbe Loisy, who subjected the New Testament to such rigorous textual analysis that the Catholic Church felt compelled to excommunicate him and other 'Modernists.'
"Meanwhile the Dutch school of Pierson, Naber, and Matthas carried the movement to its farthest point by laboriously denying the historical reality of Jesus.
"In Germany Arthur Drews gave this negative conclusion its definitive exposition (1906).
"In England W.B. Smith and J.M. Robertson argued in a like denial.
"The result of two centuries of discussion seemed to be the annihilation of Christ."
Shasta Sills
May 31, 2004 - 03:22 pm
During World War II, the town where I lived was surrounded by three
military bases, and the streets were swarming with soldiers. Daring
young devils with no idea what they were getting into. Yesterday,
at the Memorial services, I looked at the veterans, old and wrinkled
and gray. And I thought, "Could these old codgers have ever fought
a war?" Yes, they did. They were asked to do a job and they went out and did it. And I was so proud of them I couldn't stop crying.
I mention that here because some of you guys were among those daring
young devils.
robert b. iadeluca
May 31, 2004 - 03:28 pm
Shasta:-You're right. I looked in the mirror and I am indeed old, wrinkled, and gray. And you are also right. I didn't know what I was getting into.Old Codger
Malryn (Mal)
May 31, 2004 - 05:16 pm
Old Codger, baloney! You can't fool me, ROBBY IADELUCA. I had dinner with you and some friends a week ago last Saturday night and sat next to you at breakfast following day, so can say without hesitation Old Codger you are not!
Mal
Éloïse De Pelteau
May 31, 2004 - 05:36 pm
Mal, there are Old Codgers and Old Codgers don't you think?
robert b. iadeluca
May 31, 2004 - 06:05 pm
Any comments about the beginnings of Christianity?Robby
Justin
May 31, 2004 - 10:43 pm
We just look like old codgers. Underneath we are as young and viable as we were during the war and after my afternoon nap I am especially viable.
Justin
May 31, 2004 - 10:59 pm
Scrawler: I think, in some degree, the Jews made themselves a target by being different,by isolating themselves from the general run of society, by being clanish,by adhering to laws that made them different, by implying they were better than others, and by being better than others. These are the ingredients that make a group a target.
Justin
May 31, 2004 - 11:07 pm
Myth almost always wins out over the truth. Renan,Loisy,Pierson,Naber,Matthas, Drews, Smith and Robertson all told a rational tale about the myth of Jesus but these guys are but straws in the wind compared with the tales of the ministers and priests whose livlihood depends on a real-live-crucified-human called Jesus.
JoanK
June 1, 2004 - 03:10 am
JUSTIN:"These are the ingredients that make a group a target".
They are also the ingredients that enabled Judaism to survive for thousands of years. Where are those other religeons that Scrawler mentioned today?
robert b. iadeluca
June 1, 2004 - 03:41 am
"What evidence is there for Christ's existence? The earliest non-Christian reference occurs in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews (A.D.93?):-"'At that time lived Jesus, a holy man, if man he may be called, for he performed wonderful works, and taught men, and joyfully received the truth. And he was followed by many Jews and many Greeks. He was the Messiah.'
"There may be a genuine core in these strange lines. But the high praise given to Christ by a Jew uniformly anxious to please either the Romans or the Jews -- both at that time in conflict with Christianity -- renders the passage suspect, and Christian scholars reject it as almost certainly an inperpolation.
"There are references to 'Yeshu'a of Nazareth' in the Talmud, but they are too late in date to be certanly more than counterechoes of Christian thought. The oldest known mention of Christ in pagan literature is in a letter of the younger Pliny (ca. 110), asking the advice of Trajan on the treatment of Christians.
"Five years later Tacitus described Nero's persecution of the Chrestiani in Rome, and pictured them as already (A.D.60) numbering adherents throughout the Emire. The paragraph is so Tacitean in style, force, and prejudice that of all Biblical critics only Drews questions its authenticity.
"Suetonius (ca. 125) mentions the same persecution, and reports Claudius' banishment (ca. 52) of 'Jews who, stirred up by Christ (impulsore Chresto), were causing public disturbances. The passage accords well with the Acts of the Apostles, which mentions a decree of Claudius that 'the Jews should leave Rome.'
"These references prove the existence of Christians rather than of Christ. Unless we assume the latter we are driven to the improbable hypothesis tht Jesus wss invented in one generation. Moreover, we must suppose that the Christian community in Rome had been established some years before 52, to merit the attention of an imperial decree.
"About the middle of this first century a pagan named Thallus, in a fragment preserved by Julius Africanus, argued that the abnormal darkness alleged to have accompanied the death of Christ was a purely natural phenomenon and coincidence. The argument took the existence of Christ for granted. The denial of that existence seems never to have occurred even to the bitterest gentile or Jewish opponents of nascent Christianity.
"The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. Some of these are of uncertain authorship. Several, antedating A.D. 64, are almost universally accountd as substantially genuine. No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John. Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in the flesh.
"The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper and the crucifixion."
Many snippets of "evidence" here. Any comments?
Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 1, 2004 - 05:03 am
I guess this is the first time I fully comprehended that the New Testament writings in the Bible were done so long after Jesus's death. The myths are too strong and many for me ever to have questioned the existence of this man. I have never believed he or any other human being was or is divine. I very much question what is written in the Bible about what he said and did. So much of it seems to be the writer's idea about what people needed to hear.
As a kid I had the impression that this man was a good person, a maverick and a rebel who appeared to want a kind of separation between religion and the state (the money-changers in the temple) and people to be tolerant and kind to each other. (What an extraordinary idea !)
Jews believed in one god; the Romans didn't. Somehow the god of Jesus became turned into three. Never satisfied, are we? I have wondered if a good part of the conflict between others and Jews was based on economics. Keep the minority down, they might steal our jobs. The course of least resistance Jewish people sometimes took made them easy prey.
It seems as if people have needed an intermediary between themselves and some ethereal, all-powerful, punishing god. A leader, so to speak.
There are elements of paganism in Christianity, which have been mentioned here before. The religions SCRAWLER mentioned are most certainly still in existence. I am surprised that Wicca is the largest growing religion today, though I don't know why I should be with such a strong need for easy-fix magic so prevalent.
It's hard for me to understand why Christianity took such a hold in the Western world. The idea of original sin is a destructive one. Ask any psychologist or psychiatrist about the guilt it creates. Why was this concept so appealing to the masses of ordinary people? Was it passing the buck of responsibility for what they did to somebody or something else? Denial that people alone determine much of their own fate?
With its laws and traditions Judaism is a way of life in a way that Christianity is not. Go to church, or confess your sins, then go out and do it all over again -- Unless the belief that someone or something (besides yourself) will punish you is so strong that you try never to repeat your mistake.
It's often hard to assume responsibility for what you are and do. Ask any alcoholic in AA. Those on a good road will tell you that any hope for recovery can come only when you do.
Is Christianity or any other religion a kind of behavior control, a Big Daddy mechanism that will keep us on the straight and narrow when we're all grown up and don't have a father any more to tell us what to do?
Mal
robert b. iadeluca
June 1, 2004 - 05:10 am
I have a patient who is a practitioner of Wicca. She thinks of it not so much as "magic" as being closer to nature.Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 1, 2004 - 05:28 am
robert b. iadeluca
June 1, 2004 - 06:15 am
Various comments about THALLUS and his statements regarding the "darkening" of the sun.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 1, 2004 - 06:19 am
Pliny's LETTER TO TRAJAN regarding the Christians.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 1, 2004 - 06:28 am
"Matters are not so simple as regards the Gospels. The four that have come down to us are survivors from a much larger number that once circulated among the Christians of the first two centuries. Our English term gospel (Old English godspel, good news) is a rendering of the Greek euangelion, which is the opening word of Mark, and means 'glad tidings' -- that the Messiah had come, and the Kingdom of God was at hand."The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are 'synoptic.' Their contents and episodes allow of being arranged in parallel columns and 'viewed together.'
"They were written in the Greek koine of popular speech, and were no models of grammar or literary finish.
"Nevertheless, the directness and force of their simple style -- the vivid power of their analogies and scenes -- the depth of their feeling -- and the profound fascination of the story they tell give even the rude originals a unique charm, immensely enhanced for the English world by the highly inaccurate but lordly version made for King James."
Bubble
June 1, 2004 - 07:17 am
Sorry to comment so late on post 263... different time zones.
Professional memorisers have been known word wide. Troubadours and traveling story tellers were exactly that. They told pages of history together with their other tales. The middle age poem about Roland and his sword has much history in it. I can also remind you that Ethiopians, Africans in general and RSA Aficans in particular had the genealogy and history of their tribes memorised for decades and probably centuries (see the ascendance of king Shaka from the Nxumalo-Ksumalo tribe, Msiri, Mzilikazi, Chief Dingiswayo, they knew all their ascendants).
robert b. iadeluca
June 1, 2004 - 07:22 am
On a personal note, my French wife and I named our second son, Roland, after that hero of the Middle Ages.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 1, 2004 - 07:44 am
I found this article about the LANGUAGE OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE extremely interesting. Suggestion: - When you get there, click on to the link marked "Introduction."I realize the built-in bias of this article but still found it interesting. I don't only read authors that agree with me.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 1, 2004 - 08:24 am
I hope that everyone here is reading and sharing with an open mind. We can hold our own views while hearing the views of others.Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 1, 2004 - 08:35 am
I'm getting afraid to post in this discussion. I posted a quote by Thomas Paine about his idea that there is very little truth in the Bible. Robby came in with Post #294, so I deleted the Paine quote.
What Paine said is not my opinion, it was his. Perhaps there should be some kind of guideline here. Should we post a kind of apologia when we quote something that does not coincide with what we personally think?
Mal
robert b. iadeluca
June 1, 2004 - 08:40 am
"The oldest extant copies of the Gospels go back only to the third century. The original compositions were apparently written between A.D. 60 and 120, and were therefore exposed to two centuries of errors in transcription, and to possible alterations to suit the theology or aims of the copyist's sect or time."Christian writers before 100 quote the Old, but never the New, Testament. The only reference to a Christian gospel before 150 is in Papias, who, about 135, reports an unidentified 'John the Elder' as saying that Mark had composed his gospel from memories conveyed to him by Peter. Papias adds:-'Matthew transcribed in Hebrew the Logia' -- apparently an early Aramaic collection of the sayings of Christ.
"Probably Paul had some such document, for although he mentions no gospels he occasionally quotes the direct words of Jesus.
"Criticism generally agrees in giving the Gospel of Mark priority, and in dating it between 65 and 70. Since it sometimes repeats the same matter in different forms, it is widely believed to have been based upon the Logia, and upon another early narrative which may have been the original composition of Mark himself.
"Our Gospel of Mark was apparently circulated while some of the apostles, or their immediate disciples, were still alive. It seems unlikely, therefore, that it differed substantially from their recollection and interpretation of Christ.
"We may conclude, with the brilliant but judicious Schweitzer, that the Gospel of Mark is in essentials 'genuine history.'"
robert b. iadeluca
June 1, 2004 - 08:43 am
Mal, please don't be so sensitive. It was not my intention to have you delete Paine. Please post it again. I was merely making a general remark which applied to everyone including myself.I may make this remark again as time passes.
Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 1, 2004 - 08:48 am
ROBBY, I am extremely sensitive about other people's feelings and beliefs when discussing a sensitive subject. I'll probably never be able to find the quote by Paine, which I stumbled on while looking for something else, so we'll let it pass. The quote surprised me. It probably shouldn't have, since Paine was a rationalist through and through.
Mal
Bubble
June 1, 2004 - 09:37 am
"I have a question: Why weren't other ancient religions such as the pagan faiths of Egypt, Greek, Persia, and the Oriential persecuted like the Jews? What made the Jews such a target? "
No idea of an answer...
Jews in general would shrug and say jealousy for the brain and capacity or for being th Chosen People...which appears to be a FORCE.
Personally? I'd say: Who cares? Just I see the desastrous results and I try to minimize it in mind when possible. I love peace, I long for peace, and peace escapes me...
I cannot even shout " Why have You forsaken me", since I believe I am not important in the time context. On the individual basis I myself am responsible for my peace of mind, of my immediate surroundings.
Who can truly say why?
Bubble
Scrawler
June 1, 2004 - 01:08 pm
Just in passing: Wicca practices involve mankind in harmony with Mother Earth.
Malryn (Mal)
June 1, 2004 - 02:14 pm
That's not all they were 25 years ago when I was in the throes of my "New Age" phase. See the link I posted in Post #287.
Mal
Shasta Sills
June 1, 2004 - 02:36 pm
The language of the Bible is very beautiful, especially the King James version. When I was a child, I told myself, "This is how God
talks." Now, as an old woman, I still cannot help saying, "If there
were a God, this is how he would talk."
JoanK
June 1, 2004 - 03:41 pm
I have always thought the language of the King James version was very beautiful. But when I learned to read Hebrew (even though badly), I found that some of the music I was hearing was not in the translation, but in the Hebrew.
JoanK
June 1, 2004 - 03:44 pm
"the Logia' -- apparently an early Aramaic collection of the sayings of Christ".
Durant comes through again!! I work a crossword puzzle over the phone for an hour a day with a shut-in friend, and today we were going crazy over a word "the sayings of Jesus l-g--". thanks, Durant.
robert b. iadeluca
June 1, 2004 - 06:52 pm
"Orthodox tradition placed Matthew's Gospel first. Irenaesus describes it as originally composed in 'Hebrew' -- i.e. Aramaic. But it has come down to us only in Greek. Since in this form it apparently copies Mark, and probably also the Logia, criticism inclines to ascribe it to a disciple of Matthew rather than to the 'publican' himself. Even the most skeptical students, however, conceded to it as early a date as A.D. 85-90."Aiming to convert Jews, Matthew relies more than the other evangelists on the miracles ascribed to Jesus, and is suspiciously eager to prove that many Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in Christ.
"Nevertheless, it is the most moving of the four Gospels, and must be ranked among the unconscious master pieces of the world's literature.
"The Gospel according to St. Luke, generally assigned to the last decade of the first century, announces its desire to co-ordinate and reconcile earlier accouants of Jesus, and aims to convert not Jews but gentiles. Very probably Luke was himself a gentile, the friend of Paul, and the author of the Acts of the Apostles.
"Like Matthew he borrows much from Mark. Of the 661 verses in the received text of Mark over 600 are reproduced in Matthew, and 350 in Luke, mostly word for word. Many passages in Luke that are not in Mark occur in Matthew, again nearly verbatim. Apparently Luke borrowed these from Matthew, or Luke and Matthew took them from a common source, now lost.
"Luke weorks up these candid borrowings with some literary skill. Renan thought this Gospel the most beautiful book ever written."
I'm going to have to pull out my Bible to examine some of these verses.
robert b. iadeluca
June 1, 2004 - 06:58 pm
Here is an ARTICLE on the Beauty of the Matthew Gospel.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 1, 2004 - 07:11 pm
Here are the THREE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES of the Bible.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 1, 2004 - 07:39 pm
Click HERE for the History of the English Bible.Robby
Bubble
June 2, 2004 - 02:23 am
About post # 307
In today's Hebrew, "ketoneth passiym" means a robe with stripes.
I am wearing today a "khultzat passiym", a striped shirt or blouse.
About the Aramaic magician - "hartummim": this word in Hebrew means hieroglyphs and as everyone knows, that was a secret writing.
There are many Aramaic words in spoken Hebrew today but unfortunately I am not enough of a languist to differenciate the sources of the Hebrew vocabulary. My Latin teacher would have.
I have not found - althought I know it exists - on the net a site with the daily reading of Bible versets. The Hebrew Bible, regardless of the content, is beautifully musical to the ear. Radio's main station starts the programs with that reading in the mornings.
Bubble
robert b. iadeluca
June 2, 2004 - 03:38 am
Thank you, Bubble, for that interesting information. You say that the Hebrew Bible is beautifully musical to the ear. Many people say the same thing about the King James version which is written in 16th-17th century English. It is my understanding that the revised version written in more current English is not as popular. I wonder if that might be because the words and phrases do not have the same melodic sound.Eloise:-Any thoughts on that matter regarding the French-written Bible?
Robby
Bubble
June 2, 2004 - 03:46 am
The French one for me is nothing to brag about. If in another tongue, I would choose Italian. John XXII read it beautifully too!
Bubble
robert b. iadeluca
June 2, 2004 - 03:50 am
The words anon, bestow, eschew, privily and hundreds of other words which most of us recognize but rarely use are in this VERY COMPLETE LIST of 17th century words found in the Bible.Robby
JoanK
June 2, 2004 - 04:06 am
To inject an irrelevance, ROBBY you once mentioned that your mother was Swedish. In playing RUBBISH, this week, the subject is Scandinavia and Finland, and we are finding incredible resources on the web. The best of them is
http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/ Come join us.
robert b. iadeluca
June 2, 2004 - 04:19 am
The words anon, bestow, eschew, privily and hundreds of other words which most of us recognize but rarely use are in this VERY COMPLETE LIST of 17th century words found in the Bible.Robby
Bubble
June 2, 2004 - 04:20 am
Ma nishma, Joan?
Bubble
robert b. iadeluca
June 2, 2004 - 04:21 am
An interestng ARTICLE showing the history of the Bible as it moved through various versions during the centuries. Again -- consider the source of the link.Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 2, 2004 - 04:26 am
How can anyone possibly know the true meaning of what's written in the Bible when in Hebrew the change of one letter changes the meaning of the word? Some are untranslatable in the same way that there can be no literal translation of the German word, "schadenfreude". Words in English can have several different meanings depending on the usage. What is one to believe?
Bible verses are most beautiful, I think, when they're sung. Anyone who has studied voice will tell you that there are many, many oratorios filled with words from the Bible, which are sung in churches and concert halls. Look at the number of masses that have been composed and performed. Fauré's Requiem is one of the most beautiful pieces of music I've ever heard.
It is a pleasure to listen to Jewish cantors. This was the Bible Jesus grew up with and knew. Would he ever have dreamed that so much music would come from words that are ascribed to him?
Yes, much of the Bible is poetry and musical. How much is the truth? What is the truth?
Mal
robert b. iadeluca
June 2, 2004 - 04:33 am
Durant continues:-"The Fourth Gospel does not pretend to be a biography of Jesus. It is a presentation of Christ from the theological point of view, as the divine Logos or Word, creator of the world and redeemer of mankind. It contradicts the synoptic gospels in a hundred details and in its general picture of Christ.
"The half-Gnostic character of the work, and its emphasis on metaphysical ideas, have led many Christian scholars to doubt that its author was the apostle John. Experience suggests, however, that an old tradition must not be too quickly rejected. Our ancestors were not all fools. Recent studies tend to restore the Fourth Gospel to a date near the end of the first century.
"Probably tradition was correct in assigning to the same author the 'Epistles of John'. They speak the same ideas in the same style.
"In summary, it is clear that there are many contradictions between one gospel and another -- many dubious statements of history -- many suspicious resemblances to the legends told of pagan gods -- many incidents apparently designed to prove the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies -- many passages possibly aiming to establish a historical basis for some later doctrine of ritual of the Church.
"The evalgelists shared with Cicero, Sallust, and Tacitus the conception of history as a vehicle for moral ideas.
"And presumably the conversations and speeches reported in the Gospels were subject to the frailties of illiterate memories, and the errors or emendations of copyists."
Bubble
June 2, 2004 - 04:40 am
Post #312
TERAPHIM: The Hebrew plural meaning "household gods", prob. a family's sort of 'coat of arms' or hereditary identification figures, statuettes poss. formerly worship icons peculiar of a family, and which may have been evidence of hereditary ownership rights; possibly during pagan relapses, still worshipped by the Hebrews, perh. in corruption of true worship [Genesis 3119; Judges 17.5; 18.14].
I remember reading about them in the book The Red Tent, which is the story of Jacob's daughter. There were described there as idols which were a vestige of ancient idolatric cult. BTW this is a good read to have a feel of what living then was like.
Mal, Have you heard cantors of different backgrounds? Ezhkenazy (western Europe origin) as well as Sephardic (Spanish origin)? The differences are enormous, both with their own charm. Like listening to Wagner or to one of the Italians. As with Latin pronunciation, noone can tell which it was in Biblical times.
Bibble
robert b. iadeluca
June 2, 2004 - 04:40 am
Durant continues:-"The Fourth Gospel does not pretend to be a biography of Jesus. It is a presentation of Christ from the theological point of view, as the divine Logos or Word, creator of the world and redeemer of mankind. It contradicts the synoptic gospels in a hundred details and in its general picture of Christ.
"The half-Gnostic character of the work, and its emphasis on metaphysical ideas, have led many Christian scholars to doubt that its author was the apostle John. Experience suggests, however, that an old tradition must not be too quickly rejected. Our ancestors were not all fools. Recent studies tend to restore the Fourth Gospel to a date near the end of the first century.
"Probably tradition was correct in assigning to the same author the 'Epistles of John'. They speak the same ideas in the same style.
"In summary, it is clear that there are many contradictions between one gospel and another -- many dubious statements of history -- many suspicious resemblances to the legends told of pagan gods -- many incidents apparently designed to prove the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies -- many passages possibly aiming to establish a historical basis for some later doctrine of ritual of the Church.
"The evalgelists shared with Cicero, Sallust, and Tacitus the conception of history as a vehicle for moral ideas.
"And presumably the conversations and speeches reported in the Gospels were subject to the frailties of illiterate memories, and the errors or emendations of copyists."
robert b. iadeluca
June 2, 2004 - 04:44 am
Following up on the theme of music combined with the words, I don't know if THIS is it, but there is one rendition of the Lord's Prayer put to music which never fails to bring tears to my eyes. It is nothing more than just the words themselves as we all know them but the rise and fall of the music is powerful.And then, of course, there are the Ave Maria's. Schubert's Ave Maria brings back memories to me because, as a boy, I sang it in my soprano voice and also played it on the violin.
Robby
Ann Alden
June 2, 2004 - 04:56 am
Come join us today while we are getting started on "The Islamic Threat"!!
Malryn (Mal)
June 2, 2004 - 04:57 am
Below is a link to a midi of the Lord's Prayer. Ignore the page and listen to the music. Can't tell you the composer. I'll try to find out.
Midi file of the Lord's Prayer. Please wait for the download
Malryn (Mal)
June 2, 2004 - 05:01 am
I believe that music was composed by Albert Hay Malotte.
Mal
Malryn (Mal)
June 2, 2004 - 05:25 am
Below is a link to several Biblical versions of the gospel of Matthew, King James, etc. You'll find an interesting article if you click the link below these, which is titled "The Synoptic Problem".
Gospel of Matthew
robert b. iadeluca
June 2, 2004 - 05:42 am
Yes, Mal, that is the one. It is beautiful but your midi was one being played by a piano. But when it is sung, especially by a man with a powerful voice, it is so moving.Robby
Éloïse De Pelteau
June 2, 2004 - 06:39 am
BUBBLE, I beg to differ on your statement that the French bible is nothing to brag about. I know, I know
but it is not your mother tongue you see. To me it is the only language worth bragging about!!!! and I have Bibles in two languages and 4 different versions. In English, for those who look for poetry, the King James, for those who want clarity, the New International Version there are other versions which I am not familiar with. In French, la Bible Second and "la bible en français courant". The NIV was the one I had to change because it was in tatters.
Then there are scholars who look for 'proof' in everything and especially in what is written in the Bible. I am not one and don't aspire to ever become a deep academic. It would certainly make me sick.
Then there are the believers. It would take several pages to explain why we believe. If I want one word to describe it, that word is LOVE. I can only say that as humans none of us has found it in totality. We only seek it more, that is all. Love of God first and love of others next.
There is no other book that has been sold more in every language. No other book equals it in beauty in meaning and it raises to a maximum the levels of intellectual and emotional satisfaction (for lack of a better word) for those who believe. It is a gift and nothing can match it in this life. To lose it is to lose the most precious thing you have.
Eloïse
Malryn (Mal)
June 2, 2004 - 06:42 am
ROBBY, I sang that version of the Lord's Prayer at my brother's wedding. Got so choked up I nearly cried. Afterward somebody told me I'd never sung better in my life. It's the music -- especially the tonal progression up the scale at the end with the big crescendo to the high note for the word, "forever".
Mal
Malryn (Mal)
June 2, 2004 - 06:48 am
There's also bloodshed, guilt, envy, jealousy, sin, prejudice and bigotry, lust, incest, eroticism, murder, hatred, inconsolable grief, terrible loss, severe punishment and cruelty in the Bible, ELOISE. The Bible is not the book I'd take with me if I had to spend the rest of my life on a desert island. In fact, I wouldn't take a book. I'd take many reams of paper and many pens and pencils and write books instead.
Mal
Bubble
June 2, 2004 - 08:08 am
Eloise, but French IS my mother tongue! I am or was also better at writing it than English which I did not start to speak until I was 15 or 16.
I did not touch the subject of the meaning or values of faith.
Mal, I think I would take Durant's SoC on that island! Bubble
Scrawler
June 2, 2004 - 01:40 pm
I think my one word wouldn't be Love, but rather Understanding. If only we could understand another person's feelings and accept them for who they are - I think than Love would be a part of this understanding.
Shasta Sills
June 2, 2004 - 01:50 pm
I imagine all people think their sacred books are beautiful. I don't
know any Muslims but I'll bet they consider the Koran beautiful.
JoanK, when you learned Hebrew, did you read it from right to left?
Did you find it hard to do that?
Justin
June 2, 2004 - 02:05 pm
I have a copy of Le Nouveau Testament Avec Les Psaumes that I swiped from a hotel room in Montreal. It is a Gideon give-away. The book contains a French version and an English version printed side by side. The English version is the New American Standard, a derivative of the King James and the French version Le Nouvelle de Geneve, a derivative of Louis Segonde, revised in 1910. I have read whole sections of Matthew in both languages and found that I had to really stretch in many places to make the sentences agree. Perhaps the fault lies in the differences between King James and Louis Segond.
robert b. iadeluca
June 2, 2004 - 04:12 pm
When my French wife came over from France in 1947, we agreed to attend a weekly Bible study session given by a childhood buddy of mine. He attempted to discusss the various verses but we had trouble because she could not understand the King James English so I bought her a Bible in French.
Matters became worse because when he tried to get across a particular point, it turned out that the French verses often said something entirely different.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 2, 2004 - 04:21 pm
"All this granted, much remains. The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance. In essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ."In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testment tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies -- e.g. Hammurabi, David, Socrates -- would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed -- the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom -- their flight after Jesus' arrest -- Peter's denial -- the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee -- the references of some auditors to his possible insanity -- his early uncertainty as to his mission -- his confessions of ignorance as to the future -- his moments of bitterness -- his despairing cry on the cross. No one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them.
"That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.
"After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature in the history of Western man."
Any comments as we leave the "sources?"
Robby
Éloïse De Pelteau
June 2, 2004 - 05:19 pm
Bubble, somehow I knew this and along the way it slipped my mind. Although French is my mother tongue and I love it, English is easier for me in some respect, I don't know why.
Mal, no, for me I don't think I would have time to read on a desert island.
Justin, sometimes I read different versions of the bible to compare. Both versions would be translated from Hebrew or Greek differently from each other and differently from Hebrew and Greek. What is the problem with that, I don't understand.
Eloïse
robert b. iadeluca
June 2, 2004 - 05:44 pm
Continue to follow the GREEN quotes in the Heading. We are now in "The Growth of Jesus.""Both Matthew and Luke assign Jesus' birth to 'the days when Herod was king of Judea' -- consequently before 3 B.C. Luke, however, describes Jesus as 'about thirty years old' when John baptized him 'in the fifteenth year of Tiberius' -- i.e. A.D. 28-29. This would place Christ's birth in the year 2-1 B.C. Luke adds that 'in those days there went out a decree of Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed when Quirinius was governor of Syria.'
" Quirinius is known to have been legate in Syria between A.D. 6 and 12. Josephus notes a census by him in Judea, but ascribes it to A.D. 6-7. We have no further mention of thie census. Tertullian records a census of Judea by Saturninus, governor of Syria 8-7 B.C.. If this is the census that Luke had in mind, the birth of Christ would have to be placed before 6 B.C.
"We have no knowledge of the specific day of his birth. Clement of Alexandria (ca. 200) reports diverse opinions on the subject in his day, some chronologists dating the birth April 19, some May 20. He himself assigned it to November 17, 3 B.C.
"As far back as the second century, the Eastern Christians celebrated the Nativity on January 6. In 354 some Western churches, including those of Rome, commemorated the birth of Christ on December 25. This was then erroneously calculated as the winter solstice, on which the days begin to lengthen.
"It was already the central festival of Mithraism, the natalis invicti solis, or birthday of the unconquered sun. The Eastern churches clung for a time to January 6, and charged their Western brethen with sun worship and idolatry, but by the end of the fourth century December 25 had been adopted also in the East."
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 2, 2004 - 05:58 pm
Here is the GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE (King James version)This link to Luke brings us a bit ahead of where Durant is but I thought re-reading this chapter which is so familiar to most of us might be of greater interest as Durant gives us the historical side of events.
Robby
Justin
June 2, 2004 - 09:54 pm
There is additional support for a BCE birth date. Herod was said to be alive at the time of Jesus' birth. Herod died in 4BCE.
Fifi le Beau
June 2, 2004 - 09:55 pm
At the age of twelve or so I decided to read the Bible, King James version of course. My grandmother suggested I begin in the New Testament, but I wanted to go from start to finish.
The Old Testament stories were easy enough to understand, but the names were so foreign to me that I knew I was not of that world. This was a strange and distant land, and though I had a concordance to help in locating the ancient names and maps, I was still lost in someone else's story. We had our own ancient gods, but they had been discarded so long ago as irrational, I wondered how these people had kept their story alive so long. Writing it down of course was the answer.
The English translation in the King James version was done so that the phrasing appealed to the English speakers ear. Without that version, I doubt the spread of that religion would have happened so quickly or lasted as long in Britain or America, and the English speaking world.
By the time I finished the New Testament, I was a stranger in a strange land.
Being so young, I knew there was much more to learn, and that I would find the answer in the history that brought this religious writing to the world. I studied other religions and the history of their times. History exposed the myths and has not been kind.
I had never read the Book of Enoch, but was delighted to read it here. Perhaps if the Muslims had the advantage of having this book included, they might have thought twice about putting all those virgins in heaven servicing the martyrs. In Enochs heaven there were no women, and according to him God destroyed the world with a flood because of sex.
......
......
robert b. iadeluca
June 3, 2004 - 03:46 am
Fifi:-From the age of childhood, you have obviously been an avid reader thirsty for knowledge. We appreciate your participation here.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 3, 2004 - 04:01 am
"Matthew and Luke place the birth of Christ in Bethlehem, five miles south of Jerusalem. Thence, they tell us, the family moved to Nazareth in Galilee. Mark makes no mention of Bethlehem, but merely names Christ 'Jesus of Nazareth.' His parents gave him the quite common name Yeshu'a (our Joshua), meaning 'the help of Yahveh'. The Greeks made this into Iesous, the Romans into Iesus."He was apparently one of a large family, for his neighbors, marveling at his authoritative teaching, asked:-'Where did he get this wisdom, and the power to do these wonders? Is he not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother named Mary, and are not his brothers named James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? And do not his sisters live here among us?'
"Luke tells the story of the Annunciation with some literary art, and puts into the mouth of Miriam -- Mary -- that Magnificat which is one of the great poems embedded in the New Testament.
"Next to her son, Mary is the most touching figure in the narrative -- rearing him through all the painful joys of motherhood -- proud of his youthful learning -- wondering later at his doctrine and his claims -- wishing to withdraw him from the exciting throng of his followers and bring him back to the healing quiet of his home ('thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing') -- helplessly witnessing his crucifixion -- and receiving his body into her arms. If this is not history it is supreme literature, for the relations of parents and children hold deeper dramas than those of sexual love.
"The tales later circulated, by Celsus and others, about Mary and a Roman soldier are by critical consent 'clumsy fabrication.' Not so awkward are the stories, chiefly contained in the apocryphal or uncanonical gospels, about the birth of Christ in a cave or stable, the adoration of the shepherds and the Magi, the massacre of the innocents, and the flight into Egypt. The mature mind will not resent this popular poetry.
"The virgin birth is not mentiond by Paul or John. Matthew and Luke, who tell of it, trace Jesus back to David through Joseph, by conflicting genealogies. Apparently the belief in the virgin birth rose later than that in the Davidic descent."
Your thoughts, please?
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 3, 2004 - 04:05 am
Click HERE for further information about the Magnificat.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 3, 2004 - 04:09 am
Here is the MAGNIFICAT in the New International version.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 3, 2004 - 04:15 am
Here is the MAGNIFICAT in the King James version. To me, this version is much more poetic and beautiful.Robby
JoanK
June 3, 2004 - 05:33 am
BUBBLE: Tov todah
SHASTA: you asked "JoanK, when you learned Hebrew, did you read it from right to left? Did you find it hard to do that? "
Yes and yes. I will never be the fluent reader in Hebrew I am in English. But I think the fact that it is in a different alphabet, makes reading from right to left less confusing. If it were written in the English alphabet (siht ekil) I would go nuts. But you quickly get the habit :English alphabet left to right, Hebrew alphabet right to left.
The different alpabet is more of a slower-downer. in English, we read a phrase at a time. In Hebrew, I only advanced to a word at a time at best.
Being American doesn't help. As a rule, we Americans, unless we grow up in a bi-lingual household, have much less experience dealing with a variety of languages than people in many other countries, and it's hard to begin as an adult. I'm always impressed by people like Bubble and Eloise who are fluent in several languages.
Bubble
June 3, 2004 - 07:44 am
Joan I also read word by word in Hebrew and it is very frustrating. So I read only notices and bills. I am illiterate in Hebrew, it is hopeless.
I don't remember who wondered about the language of the Koran. I heard it read and even if I don't understand, it is beautifully musical. In translation some parts are well worth reading too. Inspired. Bubble
JoanK
June 3, 2004 - 08:09 am
Translations: I find this subject very interesting. I was lucky to find in a used book store a translation of the "Song of Songs" with the Hebrew and English side by side, and extensive notes about the reasons for the translation and differences with the King James and others. It was fascinating. I've lost the book (sob) but I remember some examples.
In the King James translation, the Shulamite says "I am black but beautiful". My book's translation translated the word (ve) as "and", "I am black and beautiful", an interesting example of how a small difference can change the sense.
The phrase in the King James version "Stay me with flagons, comfort me with apples, for I am sick with love" I had always thought came from Shakespeare: it sounds exactly like the 1600s when it was translated. It turns out the word "flagons" is a word in Hebrew that only appears in this one place: no one knows what it means. Sometimes, they can guess at the root, but not in this case. So the translator has an open guess, and perhaps the guess reflects their culture.
These differences make little difference in the overall sense of this lovely poem, but I find them interesting.
These differences make
Scrawler
June 3, 2004 - 01:34 pm
The Greek church still celebrates Christmas on January 6th. As a kid I used to celebrate Christmas on 12/25 because my father was Catholic and on 1/6 because my mother was Greek Orthodox. We also celebrate separate Easters as well.
robert b. iadeluca
June 3, 2004 - 04:37 pm
"The evalgelists tell us little of Christ's youth. When he was eight days old he was circumcized. Joseph was a carpenter, and the occupational heredity usual in that age suggests that Jesus followed that pleasant trade for a time. He knew the craftsmen of his village, and the landlords, stewards, tenants, and slaves of his rural surroundings. His speech is studded with them."He was sensitive to the natural beauties of the countryside, to the grace and color of flowers, and the silent fruitfulness of trees.
"The story of his questioning the scholars in the Temple is not incredible. He had an alert and curious mind, and in the Near East a boy of twelve already touches maturity. But he had no formal educaton. His neighbors asked:-'How is it that this man can read when he has never gone to school?' He attended the synagogue, and heard the Scriptures with evident delight. The Prophets and the Psalms above all sank deep into his memory, and helped to mold him.
"Perhaps he read also the books of Daniel and Enoch, for his later teaching was shot through with their visions of the Messiah, the Last Judgment, and the coming Kingdom of God.
"The air he breathed was tense with religious excitement. Thousands of Jews awaited anxiously the Redeemer of Israel. Magic and witchcraft -- demons and angels -- 'possession' and exorcism -- miracles and prophecies -- divination and astrology were taken for granted everywhere. Probably the story of the Magi was a necessary concession to the astrological convictions of the age.
"Thaumaturgists -- wonder-workers -- toured the towns. On the annual journeys that all good Palestinian Jews made to Jerusalem for the Passover festival, Jesus must have learned something of the Essenes, and their half-monastic, almost Buddhistic, life. Ashoka had sent his Buddhist missionaries as far west as Egypt and Cyrene. Very likely, therefore, to the Near East. Possibly he heard also of a sect called 'Nazarenes' who dwelt beyond the Jordan in Peraca, rejected Temple worship, and denied the binding character of the Law.
"But the experience that aroused him to religious fervor was the preaching of John, the son of Mary's cousin Elizabeth."
Bubble, does the Israel of today reflect any of what is described here?
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 3, 2004 - 04:54 pm
Here is an ENLIGHTENING ARTICLE about Judaism at the time of Jesus and through the first century.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 3, 2004 - 09:38 pm
Here is an ARTICLE about the purpose of circumcision.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 3, 2004 - 09:46 pm
Just what is THAUMATURGY?Robby
Justin
June 3, 2004 - 10:41 pm
In order to complete the Bar Mitzvah ritual a Jewish boy must be able to read. Is it reasonable to assume that Jesus learned to read Hebrew in order to meet the requirements of his Bar Mitzvah? Is teaching one to read Hebrew not a function of the Synagogue. Is the Synagogue not a Schoole? One story has it that he argued with the Synagogue elders. He must have prepared for that by reading and forming opinions of the Scriptures. Later when he lectures to the people is what he says a product of the Scriptures or something new? Consider the Sermon on the Mount. Can the elements of the sermon be found in Scripture to which he might have been exposed? Bubble Help. Where is our old friend George?
Bubble
June 3, 2004 - 11:44 pm
Circumcision at 8 days old, beauty of the countryside, the knowing by heart of much of the Bible by a young religious boy and the using of quoted images in the daily language, all that is very familiar and similar today.
What I find strange is that a religious boy of that age preparing for his Bar Mitzva would not know how to read. Nowadays Rabbis deplore that boys from abroad coming here for that ceremony have to learn by heart with a recording the verset they will have to read in the community because they don't know Hebrew. The same is true for the boys from unreligious families since they are unfamiliar with the prescribed melodic reading.
Justin, most religious men here, like Joseph probably was, would work at their trade part time and study the commentaries a few hours a day as well. He would surely have taken his son with him to listen to the sages around. This was an excellent preparation in pilpul for the future.
Bubble
robert b. iadeluca
June 4, 2004 - 03:54 am
"Josephus tells John's story in some detail. We tend to picture the Baptist as an old man. On the contrary, he was apparently of the same age as Jesus. Mark and Matthew decribe him as garbed in haircloth, living on dried locusts and honey, standing beside the Jordan, and callintg people to repentance. "He shared the asceticism of the Essenes, but differed from them in holding one baptism to be enough. His name 'the Baptist' may be a Greek equivalent of 'Essene' (bather). To his rite of symbolic purification John added a menacing condemnation of hypocrisy and loose living, warned sinners to prepare themselves for the Last Judgment, and proclaimed the early coming of the Kingdom of God.
"If all Judea should repent and be cleased of sin, said John, the Messiah and the Kigndom would come at once.
"In or shortly after 'the fifteenth year of Tiberius,' says Luke, Jesus came down to the Jordan to be baptized by John. This decision, by a man now 'about thirty years old,' attested Christ's acceptance of John's teaching. His own would be essentially the same. His methods and character, however, were different. He would himself never baptize anyone, and he would live not in the wilderness but in the world.
"Soon after this meeting Herod Antipas, tetrarch ('ruler of four cities') of Galilee, ordered the imprisonment of John. The Gospels ascribe the arrest to John's criticism of Herod's acts in divorcing his wife and marrying Herodias while she was still the wife of his half brother Philip. Josephus attributes the arrest to Herod's fear that John was fomenting a political rebellion in the guise of a religious reformation.
"Mark and Matthew tell here the story of Salome, Herodias' daughter, who danced so alluringly before Herod that he offered her any reward she might name. At her mother's urging, we are told, she asked for the head of John, and the tetrarch reluctantly accommodated her.
"There is nothing in the Gospels about Salome loving John, nor anything in Josephus about her share in John's death."
robert b. iadeluca
June 4, 2004 - 04:03 am
Here is additional information about HEROD ANTIPAS. Click on to the map to get a larger version of the Kingdom at that time.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 4, 2004 - 04:17 am
Over the centuries the story of SALOME has been the source of the creation of many paintings, stories, plays, and musical works.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 4, 2004 - 05:57 am
Here is some interesting information about the JORDAN RIVER. Allow time for downloading.Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 4, 2004 - 08:05 am
The link below takes you to a painting of John the Baptist based on the painting by Velazquez.
John the Baptist
Malryn (Mal)
June 4, 2004 - 08:11 am
Éloïse De Pelteau
June 4, 2004 - 08:20 am
Psaume 23 (Bible Segond)
L’éternel est mon berger; je ne manquerai de rien. -- Il me fait reposer dans de verts pâturages -- Il me dirige près des eaux paisibles -- Il restaure mon âme -- Il me conduit dans les sentiers de la justice. – Quand je marche dans la vallée de l’ombre de la mort, je ne crains aucun mal, car tu es avec moi : ta houlette et ton bâton me rassurent. – Tu dresses devant moi une table en face de mes adversaires; tu oins d’huile ma tête, et ma coupe déborde – Oui le bonheur et la grâce m’accompagneront tous les jours de ma vie, et j’habiterai dans la maison de l’Éternel jusqu’à la fin de mes jours.
Psalm 23 (NIV)
The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not be in want – He makes me lie down in green pastures – he leads me beside quiet waters , he restores my soul – He guides me in paths of righteousness for his name’s sake even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows – Surely goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.
Psalm 23 (King James)
The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want -- He maketh me to lie down in green pastures; he leadeth me beside the still waters -- He restoreth my soul He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake. – Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. – Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. – Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.
In any language or any version, I never get tired of hearing the melody of these words and if I could hear them in Hebrew I am sure they would sing to me also.
Eloïse
Malryn (Mal)
June 4, 2004 - 08:29 am
moxiect
June 4, 2004 - 09:29 am
Eloise. Tres Bon. I also love that palsm.
Robby, I sure am learning a lot these days!
Malryn (Mal)
June 4, 2004 - 10:21 am
robert b. iadeluca
June 4, 2004 - 02:06 pm
What are you learning, Moxi?Robby
Shasta Sills
June 4, 2004 - 02:43 pm
I suppose some of us have read "The DaVinci Code" by Dan Brown. He
suggested that the person next to Jesus in "The Last Supper" was really Mary Magdalene. I thought the whole book was a pack of nonsense, but after looking at that picture of "John the Baptist",
which I don't remember ever seeing before, I wonder if the DaVinci
paintings really did contain some hidden message. That painting of
John the Baptist is almost obscene. I find it repulsive. What do
you think, Justin?
robert b. iadeluca
June 4, 2004 - 02:59 pm
"When John was imprisoned Jesus took up the Baptist's work, and began to preach the coming of the Kingdom. He 'returned to Galilee,' says Luke, 'and taught in the synagogues.' We have an impresive picture of the young idealist taking his turn at reading the Scriptures to the congregation at Nazareth, and choosing a passage from Isaiah.:-"'The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach glad tidings to the poet. He hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set the down-trodden free.'
"Luke adds:-'The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fixed upon him. And he began by saying to them, 'This passage of Scripture has been fulfilled here in your hearing today.' And they all spoke well of him, and were astonished at the winning words that fell from his lips.'
"When the news came that John had been beheaded, and his followers sought a new leader, Jesus assumed the burden and the risk, at first retiring cautiously to quiet villages, always refraining from political controversy, then more and more boldly proclaiming the gospel of repentance, belief, and salvation.
"Some of his hearers thought he was John risen from the dead.
"It is difficult to see him objectively, not only because the evidence is derived from those who worshiped him, but even more because our own moral heritage and ideals are so closely bound up with him and formed on his example that we feel injured in finding any flaw in his character.
"His religious sensitivity was so keen that he condemned severely those who would not share his vision. He could forgive any fault but unbelief. There are in the Gospels some bitter passages quite out of key with what else we are told about Christ. He seems to have taken over without scrutiny the harshest contemporary notions of an everlasting hell where unbelievers and unrepentant sinners would suffer from inextinguishable fire and insatiable worms.
"He tells without protest how the poor man in heaven was not permitted to let a single drop of water fall upon the tongue of the rich man in hell. He counsels nobly"-'Judge not, that ye be not judged,' but he cursed the men and cities that would not receive his gospel, and the fig tree that bore no fruit.
"He may have been a bit harsh to his mother. He had the puritan zeal of the Hebrew prophet rather than the broad calm of the Greek sage.
"His convictions consumed him. Righteous indignation now and then blurred his profound humanity. His faults were the price he paid for that passionate faith which enabled him to move the world."
According to what I read here (which apparently was taken from the Bible), Jesus started his campaign in the less populated areas making it a point not to offend any local authority, then slowly moving to the larger communities where he spoke against the "rich establishment" on behalf of the poorer classes. Having assumed John's mantle by his own volition, he would not accept any point of view opposed to his own. Although he preached "forgiveness," he did not forgive those with differing opinions. Instead, he announced that those who did not agree with him would suffer unbearable pains.
Dare I suggest that his message seemed to be:-"Those who are not with me are against me?"
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 4, 2004 - 03:14 pm
As I have continued to read through these three volumes, there always (ALWAYS!) seemed to be a class war. It was always the "have-nots" fighting the "haves." Is there any difference in what we are reading here? Please don't anyone get excited -- but is this not similar to what happened during the Russian Revolution?Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 4, 2004 - 03:23 pm
Click HERE to see Jesus reading the Isaiah scroll.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 4, 2004 - 04:15 pm
The voice of ISAIAH.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 4, 2004 - 06:02 pm
"For the rest Jesus was the most lovable of men. We have no portrait of him nor do the evangelists describe him. He must have had some physical comeliness, as well as spriitual magnetism, to attract so many women as well s men."We gather from stray words that, like other men of that age and land, he wore a tunic under a cloak, had sandals on his feet, and probably a cloth headdress falling over his shoulders to shield him from the sun. Many women sensed in him a sympathetic tenderness that aroused in them an unstinted devotion. The fact that only John tells the story of the woman taken in adultery is no argument against its truth. It does not help John's theology, and is completely in character with Christ.
"Of like beauty, and hardly within the inventive powers of the evangelists, is the account of the prostitute who, moved by his ready acceptance of repentant sinners, knelt before him, anointed his feet with precious myrrh, let her tears fall upon them, and dried them with her hair. Of her Jesus said that her sins were forgiven 'because she loved much.'
"We are told that mothers brought their children to be touched by him, and 'he took the children in his arms, laid his hands upon them, and blessed them.
"Unlike the prophets, the Essenes, and the Baptists, he was no ascetic. He is represented as providing abudant wine for a marriage feast, as living with 'publicans and sinners,' and receiving a Magdalene into his company. He was not hostile to the simple joys of life, though he was unbiologically harsh on the desire of a man for a maid.
"Occasionally he partook of banquets in the homes of rich men. Generally, however, he moved among the poor, even among the almost untouchable Amhaarez so scorned, and shunned by Sadducees and Pharisees alike.
"Realizing that the rich would never accept him, he built his hopes upon an overturn that would make the poor and humble supreme in the coming Kingdom. He resembled Caesar only in taking his stand with the lower classes, and in the quality of mercy. Otherwise what a world of outlook, character, and interests separated them!
"Caesar hoped to reform men by changing institutions and laws. Christ wished to remake institutions, and lessen laws, by changing men. Caesar too was capable of anger, but his emotions were always under the control of his clear-eyed intellect.
"Jesus was not without intellect. He answered the tricky questions of the Pharisees with almost a lawyer's skill, and yet with wisdom. No one could confuse him, even in the face of death. But his powers of mind were not intellectual, did not depend upon knowledge. They were derived from keenness of perception, intensity of feeling, and singleness of purpose.
He did not claim omniscience. He could be surprised by events. Only his earnestness and enthusiasm led him to overestimate his capacities, as in Nazareth and Jerusalem.
"That his powers were nevertheless exceptional seems proved by his miracles."
Fifi le Beau
June 4, 2004 - 06:27 pm
Isaiah 1-18 was one of President Lyndon Johnson's favorite bible verses.
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
By the end of '67 into '68 President Johnson was trying to set up talks with the North Vietnamese for an end to the warfare in that country. It did not work out, and he eventually withdrew from the race for a second term.
I have heard him speak the words, "Come now, and let us reason together," but I think the next two verses may have had more impact on his thinking at that time.
On the tapes he made in secret that have recently been released by his library, he seems to be tortured by all the deaths of Americas young soldiers. Perhaps the words scarlett and red like crimson reminded him of the blood that was shed in that war.
Just a thought.
......
moxiect
June 4, 2004 - 09:25 pm
Robby, you asked what I am learning, besides history, how human beings interprets written words of past, present and who knows what for the future, because it appears humanity likes to go in circles.
3kings
June 4, 2004 - 09:55 pm
That story about cursing a fig tree because it bore no fruit, strikes me as the behaviour of an irrational person. One would have to think a tree was a conscious being, before one could react in that way.
Surely the story can not be true, but if not, what is it doing in the Bible ? ++ Trevor
Justin
June 5, 2004 - 12:21 am
Shasta: There are several levels of interest in Leonardo's works. The St. John has all the ear marks of the Mona Lisa. The painting has the enigmatic smile, the emergence from shadow, and the thick coiling hair that characterize many of his paintings. The pointing finger which is probably the source of your concern was a religious symbolism. He is pointing to Jesus in Heaven. If you will examine Leonardo's "Virgin of the Rocks," you will find the pointing finger and the target in the same painting. Saint Anne and the child John both point to the Child Jesus. In other works by Leonardo you will see the Child using two fingers to "bless" others. The use of the fingers by Leonardo is an iconographic device used to indicate the central person in a work of mixed images.
There is a second level of interest in Leonardo and that is one you recognized. Leonardo was homosexual. His iconography for St. John is a delight in the gay community. St John is a beautiful boy who displays a finger that plays a prominent part in gay relationships.
Bubble
June 5, 2004 - 01:30 am
"We are told that mothers brought their children to be touched by him, and 'he took the children in his arms, laid his hands upon them, and blessed them."
This is a very common habit even today when visiting a Rabbi from a renowned family or one called KHakham/Sage. I suppose it is to be compared to the blessing of crowds by the Pope?
Trevor:
http://www.secureserving.com/biblestudy.org/question/figtree.html
Malryn (Mal)
June 5, 2004 - 02:57 am
TREVOR was being witty; talking tongue in cheek about how literally people accept the Bible as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Leonardo was being witty, too, as he so often is in his paintings. People like Dan Brown interpret his wit as a mysterious code? That's their loss. They don't know the "in" joke. Leonardo does, and he's putting one over on his viewers and laughing at them, as well he should.
I often write humor and pieces that are full of wit, some rather subtle, but not so subtle that readers can't "get" it if they have a sense of humor. It stuns me and amuses me, too, to see how dry and lacking of humor most people seem to be. Everything is a great big serious problem. They can't stand back and see the humor in life unless it socks them in the face. What a pity! How sad!
Is there humor in the Bible? There certainly is everything else. I was reading the Songs of Solomon the other day. What luscious, sensual poetry!
Mal
robert b. iadeluca
June 5, 2004 - 03:12 am
Lots of interesting comments here. Thank you for all that sharing!Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 5, 2004 - 03:30 am
"Jesus' presence was itself a tonic. At his optimistic touch the weak grew strong and the sick were made well. The fact that like stories have been told of other characters in legend and history does not prove that the miracles of Christ were myths. With a few exceptions they are not beyond belief. Similar phenomenona may be observed almost any day at Lourdes, and doubtless occurred in Jesus' time at Epidaurus and other centers of psychic healing in the ancient world. The apostles too would work such cures."The psychological nature of the miracles is indicated by two features. Christ himself attributed his cures to the 'faith' of those whom he healed. He could not perform miracles in Nazareth, apparently because the people there looked upon him as 'the carpenter's son,' and refused to believe in his unusual powers. Hence his remark that 'a prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and in his own house.'
"We are told of Mary Magdalene that 'seven demons had been driven out of her,' i.e. she suffered from nervous diseases and seizures (the word recalls the theory of 'possession'). These seemed to abate in the presence of Jesus. Therefore she loved him as one who had restored her to life, and whose nearness was indispensable to her sanity.
"In the case of Jairus' daughter, Christ said frankly that the girl was not dead but asleep -- perhaps in a cataleptic state. In calling upon her to awake he used not his wonted gentleness but the sharp command, 'Little girl, get up!'
"This is not to say that Jesus considered his miracles to be purely natural phenomena. He felt that he could work them only through the help of a divine spirit within him. We do not know that he was wrong, nor can we yet set limits to the powers that lie potential in the thought and will of man. Jesus himself seems to hav experienced a physical exhaustion after his miracles.
"He was reluctant to attempt them, forbade his followers to advertise them, reproved men for requiring a 'sign,' and regretted that even his apostles accepted him chiefly because of the 'wonders' he performed."
I use various procedures in the practice of Clinical Psychology. One of them is to give my patients "tools" to take home and regularly read and re-read. One of them says:-"If you believe it will work, it will." So often this has been successful in the case of my patients who want to stop smoking. The powers of the mind have been discussed endlessly. The yet unanswered question is:-"What is the source of this power?"
Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 5, 2004 - 04:19 am
From David Hume, Scottish philosopher and historian (1711-1776): An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
"A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be, that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation.
"The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish.... When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.
"In the foregoing reasoning we have supposed, that the testimony, upon which a miracle is founded, may possibly amount to an entire proof, and that the falsehood of that testimony would be a real prodigy: But it is easy to shew, that we have been a great deal too liberal in our concession, and that there never was a miraculous event established on so full an evidence."
robert b. iadeluca
June 5, 2004 - 04:25 am
Click HERE to read about Lourdes.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 5, 2004 - 04:33 am
Here is information about EPIDAURUS, the healing center of the ancient world.Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 5, 2004 - 04:35 am
Until we begin to understand the human brain and how it works, we will not be able to know "the source of this power". We haven't even scratched the surface when it comes to knowing what the human brain is all about.
On very, very rare occasions I have had flashes of creativity, inspiration and realization that border on genius. Why doesn't my brain work that way all the time? What did I tap to make this come about? Was it what I ate (or did not eat) for breakfast? Was it a state of more or less mindless relaxation that opened these doors? I know I can't do this intentionally or force myself into this state. Until we know about things like this and other as yet unexplained processes, the source will remain unknown.
Is Durant suggesting with some proof that Jesus wasn't perfect? That he did not practice what he preached? My way or the highway (I hate that expression), was that his method of attracting and holding followers who certainly knew less than he did, intellectually or instinctively?
Mal
robert b. iadeluca
June 5, 2004 - 04:35 am
Here is information about EPIDAURUS, the healing center of the ancient world.Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 5, 2004 - 04:41 am
robert b. iadeluca
June 5, 2004 - 04:42 am
A thought regarding DEMONS AND ILLNESS. Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 5, 2004 - 04:49 am
I have a patient who had been in the hospital due to kidney failure. He was found on the floor next to his hospital bed and was declared "dead" by the attending physician. He "returned" to life. He is now seeing me on an outpatient basis -- speaks logically and has a wry sense of humor but has low self-esteem and describes himself as being confused.Was he, indeed, dead? What is death?
Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 5, 2004 - 05:18 am
When I was in my late teens the aunt and uncle who raised me took me to Montreal. My aunt had heard of St. Joseph's Oratory and how pilgrims went there and were miraculously healed. Brother Andre, known as the healer of Mount Royal (Montreal), built a rude chapel where the Oratory is now located, and the Oratory is known as a place of healing. This is one of the principal reasons why my aunt wanted to go.
We climbed the many, many steps where pilgrims were kneeling on each one praying, as they ascended to the door. At the top of these steps there were braces, crutches, surgical corsets, artificial limbs, other orthotic appliances and protheses, which people who had been healed left near the door.
My aunt (not a Catholic) wanted me to take my leg brace off and walk without it. At the time I did not use a cane, crutches or a wheelchair. No amount of urging from my aunt or prayers said that day healed the damage to my central nervous system from Polio and the atrophied muscles in my leg, or would ever heal them.
I had learned that lesson some years before after praying faithfully "to get all better" with no results except that I knew God wasn't going to heal me, I had to do it myself.
Because I knew my leg would collapse under me if I removed the brace, I refused to do it. My aunt was angry in one way because she hated my handicap, and glad in another because she enjoyed playing the role of martyred caregiver.
I had faith in God then. I had faith in myself. But I did not (and do not) have faith in my withered leg.
St. Joseph's Oratory in Montreal, Canada
Brother Andre
Pictures of, and an article about, St. Joseph's Oratory
Éloïse De Pelteau
June 5, 2004 - 05:55 am
Thanks Mal for those links. I am off to a family picnic in Ottawa all day and will be away most of the day tomorrow too. Montreal has churches on almost every corner. Beautiful structures can you show one of Église Notre Dame, my favorite.
Eloïse
Bubble
June 5, 2004 - 06:15 am
My best school friend was a fervent catholic. While in holiday with her parents in Europe, she requested to visit Lourdes specially so as to bring back a big bottle of the holy water from that source. She insisted on massaging my legs with it and was so distressed that the polio had not been cured, that she accused my lack of faith for the failure.
She was right: I never believed it would work. Bubble
Fifi le Beau
June 5, 2004 - 10:04 am
Robby you ask if your patient was indeed dead when pronounced so by the attendant. Medical lore is full of people being declared dead, who are actually alive. The holding of a wake for those declared dead, and sitting with the family for three days was practiced in the culture here. It still is to some extent, though the body is at a mortuary instead of the home, but the burial is usually on the third day.
On television this week, and also in my local paper, was a story similar to yours. A child had fallen into water and was not found for some time. He was taken to a local hospital where they tried to revive him, but he was pronounced dead. Some three hours later an attendant was preparing him for transport to the local funeral home, when he noticed that the child was breathing. He was removed from the body bag, and put in intensive care.
Were they dead? No. The medical profession is as fallible as the rest of society.
I am always amazed at the lengths man will go to in trying to escape the inevitability of death, and the scenes he will paint to triumph over death. In my grief over the loss of a loved one, I have painted some scenes of triumph myself, but they all dissolved in the first light of morn.
To change the laws of life and death, we would have to change the Universe and the laws of nature. Having no belief in any afterlife, my genetic DNA alone will live on in my children and their offspring as long as they produce.
It has been predicted that eventually the human race will be brown with dark hair and eyes. If that occurs, then my contribution of blonde hair, blue eyes, and freckles will die a natural death.
......
robert b. iadeluca
June 5, 2004 - 11:30 am
"The Gospels realistically differentiate their characters, and honestly expose their faults. They were frankly ambitious. To quiet them Jesus promised that at the Last Judgment they would sit upon twelve thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel."When the Baptist was imprisoned, one of his followers, Andrew, attached himself to Jesus, and brought with him his brother Simon, who Christ called Cephas -- 'the rock.' The Greeks translated the name into Petros. Peter is a thoroughly human figure, impulsive, earnest, generous, jealous, at times timid to the point of a forgivable cowardice. He and Andrew were fisherman on the Lake of Galilee. So were the two sons of Zebedee -- James and John. These four forsook their work and their families to become an inner circle about Christ.
"Matthew was the collector of customs at the frontier town of Capernaum. He was a 'publican' -- i.e. a man engaged in public or state business, therefore in this case serving Rome, and hated by every Jew who longed for freedom.
"Judas of Kerioth was the only one of the apostles who did not come from Galilee. The Twelve pooled their material possessions, and entrusted Judas with their common funds.
"As they followed Christ in his missionary wandering, they lived on the country, taking their food now and then from the fields they passed, and accepting the hospitality of converts and friends.
"In addition to the Twelve, Jesus appointed seventy-two others as disciples, and sent two of them to each town that he intended to visit. He bade them 'carry no purse, nor wallet, nor shoes'. Kindly and pious women joined the apostles and disciples, contributed to their support, and performed for them those solicitous domestic functions which are the supreme consolation of male life.
"Through that little band, lowly and letterless, Christ sent his gospel into the world."
If Jesus sent disciplines ahead to the towns he intended to visit, that would indicate to me that he had an organized plan -- similar to the way that a political nomineee sends ahead "advance men". I'm not sure why he would not want them to carry money.
Robby
Bubble
June 5, 2004 - 11:46 am
Capernaum still exist today, it is known Kfar Nahum, just like the Village of Cana where the miracle of multiplication was performed for a wedding is Kfar Kana. Kfar means village in Hebrew and is Kaf'r in Arabic (Kaf'r Nahum?).
Rabbis and such Wise men would never be expected to pay for the hospitality. Maybe it was so they would be recognised as such? Of course no religious person would carry a purse or money on Shabbat either.
Malryn (Mal)
June 5, 2004 - 12:12 pm
Buddha did much the same thing that Jesus did to spread the word. Click the link below and scroll down to "Spreading the Doctrine".
The Buddha
robert b. iadeluca
June 5, 2004 - 12:27 pm
Here is an absolutely AMAZING STORY OF APOSTLE ANDREW or at least to me. I know a bit about the Roman Catholic Church (Church of the West) but very little about the Church of the East. I found this article most intriguing and urge you to read it. When I read about Jesus' first apostle living there in Israel, it never occurred to me to think about Russia. And a connection between Russia and Scotland was fathest from my thoughts.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 5, 2004 - 12:35 pm
Story of the CHURCH OF THE EAST. Robby
Scrawler
June 5, 2004 - 01:23 pm
I was under impression that Christ did not forgive those who didn't believe in his religious ideals, but he accepted other opinions dealing with other functions of life. Didn't He say at one time: "Render the things to Caesar's the things that are Casesar's and those things to God the things that are God's?
Shasta Sills
June 5, 2004 - 03:10 pm
No, no, Justin, you misunderstood me. It is not the hand gesture
that makes the painting obscene. DaVinci probably hated the Christian church, and especially hated having to paint religious
pictures for them. But he needed their patronage. He could have
refused to work for the Church, but he didn't dare. So he made
paintings that contained these hidden insults. Homosexuality was
common in his day. There was no need to be secretive about it,
but the Christians were opposed to it. So he paints one of their
favorite prophets as a homosexual with an effeminate smirk on his face. People have a right to disagree with one another, but sneering
at somebody else's belief is a repulsive thing to do.
robert b. iadeluca
June 5, 2004 - 05:27 pm
I printed out and read completely the article about the Church of the East. While it is long and I would expect that most people here are not interested in reading all 22 printed pages, I did so because I want to keep in the back of my mind, as we move through Durant, that although Christianity moved westward into Europe, it simultaneouly moved eastward into India and China and northward into Russia. According to the author, Mark Dickens, "the strength of that Church was its continued love and loyalty to Christ" as opposed to the materialism which developed in much of the Church of the West.I have no idea how accurate that is, but I found the article fascinating.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 5, 2004 - 05:46 pm
Here is information about the APOSTLE MATTHEW. Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 5, 2004 - 05:56 pm
A small bio of JUDAS OF KERIOTH. Robby
Justin
June 5, 2004 - 06:00 pm
Shasta: Oh! That's what you think is obscene and repulsive. You must think political cartoonists such as Herblock and similar others are repulsive as well. One can't open the daily paper without seeing a cartoonist sneering at some political figure. It's a big business today.
I, once had a similar experience although the intent of the event was not to sneer but to express the right to participate. I attended a Mass offered by a woman gowned in the sacred vestments. When she reached the transubstantiation part and served communion, I was reluctant to participate. It was at that point I was repulsed. Later, I realized the full significance of the event and encouraged her efforts.
Justin
June 5, 2004 - 10:24 pm
I have come upon a curiosity. Durant reports that "the experience that aroused Jesus to religious fervor was the preaching of John, the son of Mary's cousin Elizabeth. Leonardo, on the other hand, depicts the baby John, with Mary's mother St. Anne in company with Mary and Jesus. The reason for the switch is not clear. A more common composition would have been one of the two mothers- Mary and Elizabeth and the two children Jesus and John.
Bubble
June 6, 2004 - 12:48 am
Aceldama - the name which the Jews gave in their proper tongue, i.e., in Aramaic, to the field which was purchased with the money which had been given to the betrayer of our Lord. The word means "field of blood." It was previously called "the potter's field" (Matt. 27:7, 8; Acts 1:19), and was appropriated as the burial-place for strangers. It lies on a narrow level terrace on the south face of the valley of Hinnom. Its modern name is Hak ed-damm.
http://www.biblelearn.com/east0063.htm
Judas Iscariot, as he is called, is a malformation of the Hebrew "Isch Krayot" or the man from Krayot which even today is a subbub of Haifa in NE of Israel.
We all have some unconscious well-hidden-discriminations in ourselves, and they are the hardest to uproot.
I find it hard to think those were Da Vinci hidden motives. That John's sibylic smile is brilliant.
Justin could you reword your #404?
I can't see what you mean? Why would it be more logical to have only one woman there
I take it you are talking of the two versions of the Virgin of the rocks?
Bubble
robert b. iadeluca
June 6, 2004 - 02:50 am
As we are on the subject of Faith, and as today is the 60th anniversary of a momentous event in the history of the world, let us pause from our current discussion and remember.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 6, 2004 - 02:54 am
Public prayer by US President Franklin Roosevelt after D-Day Invasion, June 6, 1944
"Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity."
"Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith. They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph."
"Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom."
"And for us at home -- fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them -- help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice. Give us strength, too -- strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces."
"With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace -- a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil."
robert b. iadeluca
June 6, 2004 - 02:58 am
(From WWII files):
Operation Overlord -- the invasion of Normandy -- was the supreme effort in Europe. More than a million men, more than 5,000 ships, more than 12,000 aircraft were necessary to establish the foothold in Normandy. From the vantage point of 60 years, the success of the Normandy invasion looks inevitable. It was not. Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, the German commander in Normandy, wanted to stop the Allies at the low-water mark. He envisioned an impassable zone 100 meters deep all along the English Channel coast. By mid-May 1944, the Germans had planted more than 4 million mines. In addition, the Germans erected more than 500,000 obstacles on the beaches and in likely airborne drop zones and glider landing fields. But Rommel did not depend on this simple armored belt. Adolf Hitler issued a preinvasion alert for forces in France. The number of German divisions in France rose from 46 to 55. Their quality rose as well.
The Allied leaders of the Normandy invasion were well aware of the risks. U.S. Army Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, the supreme Allied commander, was tailor-made for waging coalition warfare, according to many historians. When Roosevelt named Eisenhower Overlord commander in December 1943, planning for the operation was already well under way. Original plans called for a three-division assault, the numbers being limited by a critical shortage of landing craft. Eisenhower immediately pushed for a five-division assault, coupled with a three- division airborne landing. He carried the day.
Just after midnight June 6, thousands of British and American airborne troops landed in Normandy. However, weather, German flak and inexperience combined to disperse the drops. Some troops landed as many as 35 miles from their drop zones. Still, no matter where they were and no matter how few they were, the paratroopers contributed to a sense of growing confusion in the German high command.
American troops landed on Omaha and Utah beaches at 6:30 a.m. On Utah, fortune smiled. A strong current off the beach swept the first wave 2,000 yards south of their intended beachhead. The landing craft touched down on one of the weakest defended sections in Normandy.On Omaha, infantrymen ran into a cyclone. German strongpoints in and atop the 200-foot bluffs behind the beach were hardly touched by the preinvasion bombardment. German artillery hit many landing craft well before they reached the beach. When other craft reached the beach and lowered ramps, well-aimed machine-gun fire cut down GIs. Soon, dead and wounded GIs littered the beach. Some soldiers reached the comparative safety of a sea wall, where many remained pinned down. Subsequent landing waves faced the same onslaught as the first, and soon the beach was in chaos.
First U.S. Army Commander Lt. Gen. Omar Bradley received reports from Omaha and contemplated diverting American troops to other beaches. But even as he struggled with the decision, the courage and plain moxie of the American soldier decided the battle. By ones, twos and in small squads, GIs climbed the bluffs, outflanking and eliminating German positions. On the beach, inspirational leadership from senior officers got the soldiers moving. By noon, troops began moving inland, and while soldiers still died on the beach and the handhold on shore was tenuous, the crisis was past. The price: more than 2,000 dead.
On June 6, 1944, Americans across the country paused in their work to pray for service members invading France. Their work made the invasion possible. In 1939, the United States had the 17th largest army in the world, behind even Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. But during World War II, American production workers -- including women in great numbers for the first time -- turned out 296,429 warplanes, 102,351 tanks, 372,431 artillery pieces, 2,455,964 trucks, 87,620 warships, 5,425 cargo ships, 5,822,000 tons of bombs, more than 20 million small arms and around 44 billion rounds of ammunition.The United States delivered the tools of war. Those praying for the safety of those in Normandy won the production battle of the Home Front.
The men and women who served during World War II are old now. Tempered by the Depression and steeled in the fires of World War II, these men and women did not come home to peace. Instead, they had further work to do. They helped rebuild the shattered economies of Europe and Japan. They confronted Soviet aggression, and their sons and daughters fought in Korea and Vietnam. Their generation did have, as Franklin Roosevelt said, a "rendezvous with destiny." And the world became a better place due to their sacrifices.
Malryn (Mal)
June 6, 2004 - 03:08 am
I remember where I was on D Day. Where were you, ROBBY?
Mal
robert b. iadeluca
June 6, 2004 - 03:43 am
I was at Ft. Meade, Maryland, in a unit getting ready to be sent overseas. I landed at Omaha Beach a few weeks after the invasion itself and was able to escape that carnage, joined the 29th Infantry Division, and then fought across France, Holland, Belgium, and Germany.Robby
Éloïse De Pelteau
June 6, 2004 - 03:52 am
Amen to that.
robert b. iadeluca
June 6, 2004 - 04:14 am
Editorial in today's NY Times:-
Sixty years ago today, the free world held its breath. In America, daily life paused almost completely, subdued by the news that the invasion of Europe — D-Day — had begun. From the 21st century, we try to imagine the scale of what went forward in that gray dawn after years of preparation — the ships and men and matériel, the reserves of willpower and determination. What we sometimes forget to imagine is the almost prayerful nature of the day, the profound investment of hope and fear it entailed. It was a day in America and in Europe when civilians as surely as soldiers felt the whole of their lives concentrated on the outcome of a few hours. There has not been another time like it, when we knew that history was about to turn before our eyes.
In a way, D-Day sums up for us the whole of World War II. It was the frontal clash of two ideas, a collision between the possibility of human freedom and its nullification. Even now, we are still learning what to make of it, still trying to know whether we are dwarfed by the scale of such an effort or whether what happened that day still enlarges us. It certainly enlarges the veterans of Normandy and their friends who died in every zone of that war.
It's tempting to politicize the memory of a day so full of personal and national honor, too easy to allude to the wars of our times as if they naturally mirrored World War II. The iconic starkness of the forces that met on the beaches of Normandy makes that temptation all the greater. But beyond the resemblance of young soldiers dying in wars 60 years apart, there is no analogy, and that is something we must remember today as well. D-Day was the result of broad international accord. By D-Day, Europe had been at war — total war — for nearly five years, at profound cost to its civilian population. American civilians, in turn, had willingly made enormous material sacrifices to sustain the war effort. There was no pretense that ordinary life would go on uninterrupted and no assumption that America could go it alone.
We may find the heroics of D-Day stirring in the extreme. We may struggle to imagine the special hell of those beaches, the almost despairing lurch of the landing craft as they motored toward France. Those were brave times. But it was a bravery of shared sacrifice, a willingness to rise to an occasion that everyone prayed would never need to come again. This is a day to respect the memory of 60 years ago and, perhaps, to wonder what we might rise to if only we asked it of ourselves.
robert b. iadeluca
June 6, 2004 - 05:53 am
Is there a relationship between FAITH AND WAR?Robby
Éloïse De Pelteau
June 6, 2004 - 07:38 am
In the name of God, men make war
In the name of God, men make peace
Do we blame God for war?
Do we thank God for peace?
Is there a relationship between faith and war?
Yes, men have faith, especially during war
Eloïse
robert b. iadeluca
June 6, 2004 - 07:59 am
While in the States, a chaplain one Sunday told us:-"If God be for us, who can be against us?" While crossing the Rhineland, I entered an empty house to see a plaque on the wall saying:-"Wenn Gott für uns ist, die gegen uns sein können?"
Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 6, 2004 - 10:06 am
I'm curious. We've discussed numerous other religions since we began this discussion of Story of Civilization with the first book, "Our Oriental Heritage". We did not discuss the "faith" of the followers of those religions, we examined each religion as objectively as we could and tried to define their position and relate their effect on the history of the time. I sense a difference now and ask why this discussion of Christianity should be any different from those?
Is the fact that most of us here are, or have been, Christians and live in predominantly Christian countries -- except for one -- going to color our conclusions in a way that we lose what objectivity we have to the point where we express testimonies to faith? There are all kinds of faith. Why aren't we qualifying it by saying "religious faith" or "Christian faith"?
I see plenty of other things to talk about. Like, for example, the fact that each one of the men who wrote these gospels claims to be the voice of God. "God saith this. God saith that." They have stated opinions and rules about what should be done for and about the society of their time, which was not the time of Jesus Christ, and made them universal laws and the responsibility of God.
What made this come about? Have we seen this before, 12 men who claim to be the voice of gods or one god, who make statements which they purport have come from God or from a man they claim is the son of God? 12 men giving a hard sell about a religion which they claim to be the best thing that has come along since leavened bread? 12 men who say life is everlasting, there is no death, be good and you'll live forever in heaven?
Why, this is the ultimate dream. Throughout all the civilizations we've discussed I've seen a great fear of death, the kind of fear which seems to me to be a strong part of the basis for religions we've dicussed. What the Christian apostles say is what people for milennia have been waiting to hear. Is it any wonder that this religion "took" in the way it did? Let's discuss this and what brought it about rather than testimonials to faith.
Mal
Scrawler
June 6, 2004 - 01:13 pm
D-Day:
I was not yet a year old when D-Day occurred. My war would come in 1963. My father was in the South Pacific and would be another 2 years before I saw him.
It is hard for my generation who were not adults during WWII to understand what you went through. You at least had the backing of the people of the United States. Our generation didn't have that and that alone changed our lives forever.
I still remember when my husband returned from overseas. He was not well emotionally and he used to wear his uniform all the time like it was a security blanket. One day we were walking down Castro Street in San Franciso and people actually spit on him and cursed him. What's ironic was that they didn't know that we had just come from a peace rally where people like my husband had been speaking against the war in Vietnam.
To all of you who survived WWII I wish you well and I'm glad you are all here and to ask that you be patient with us.
robert b. iadeluca
June 6, 2004 - 01:19 pm
You are so correct, Scrawler. We of the WWII generation acknowledge that. As our ship pulled into NY Harbor, a huge sign said:-"WELCOME HOME!" Nothing was too good for us, not the least of which was the GI Bill. I received my undergraduate degree through the GI Bill and the house I own and in which I live was made available through the GI Bill. I received all this from a grateful nation.I, myself, marched against the Vietnam War but the troops did their job and the GI Bill should be made available to veterans of all wars.
Robby
Justin
June 6, 2004 - 04:34 pm
We have slowly learned to support our troops while opposing some of the wars our country has engaged in. Studs Terkel pointed out that WW11 was a "good war" in the sense that the entire citizenry supported it but wars like Korea,Viet Namn, and Iraq are preemptive activities that the entire citizenry does not support.
One valuable lesson we have learned from Viet Namn is that of supporting our troops regardless of our attitudes regarding their orders. It is the political leaders we must blame and they are our responsibility. Unfortunately, we are not always smart enough to recognize incompetence when it is clothed in Madison Avenue finery.
Justin
June 6, 2004 - 06:14 pm
Bubble: As you know, Leonardo was an inventor. In the Virgin in the Rocks the iconography copies that of Fra Lippi's Virgin and angel. The figures are posed in a trianglar format. Leonardo adds chiaroscuro and finger pointing but that is all.
When he does the Virgin with St. Anne as in the cartoon in the National Gallery in England, he picks St. Anne, the Virgin's mother for a companion rather than Elizabeth, the mother of John, because he wants to break away from reliance upon a triangular format. He breaks one side of the triangle by having the Virgin sit upon the lap of her mother. That is the reason the composition contains St Anne and not Elizabeth. The Virgin could not very well sit upon the lap of Elizabeth or upon the lap of an angel. Art Historians are concerned about such trivia. (I may write a paper on the topic for one of the journals.)
Justin
June 6, 2004 - 07:48 pm
Jesus offered the Kingdom of Heaven to the meek. Punishment to those who did not accept his advice. Yahwey punished all his chosen people when some of them did not obey him.I don't remember him offering rewards for more acceptable behavior. The great bulk of the Greeks went to hell. A few,great warriors, went to a heaven of sorts. Perhaps,Jesus' contribution was an offering of eternal life after death as in the Egyptian format. In exchange for certain forms of behavior eternal life could be spent with the Father. Alternatively, one could spend eternal life with the bad angels stoking furnaces.
The growth of Christianity was slow for the first three hundred years. It was not until Constantine made the concept the official religion of Rome that it began to grow rapidly. In this early period of formation we have only a Jewish sect whose growth among gentiles was inhibited by the need to be circumcised, as well as prohibitions among the Jews concerning eating with gentiles.
Malryn (Mal)
June 6, 2004 - 08:18 pm
Click the link below to see the Fra Lippi madonna and the Leonardo Virgin of the Rocks paintings side by side for comparison.
Comparison of paintings, Fra Lippi on the left, Leonardo on the right
Justin
June 6, 2004 - 09:36 pm
Mal; See of you can find version two of the Virgin in the Rocks and the cartoon of St Anne and the Virgin. In version two the angel points at John while Jesus blesses with two fingers.
Malryn (Mal)
June 7, 2004 - 02:27 am
Malryn (Mal)
June 7, 2004 - 02:34 am
Malryn (Mal)
June 7, 2004 - 02:41 am
Monday morning musings.
JUSTIN, I am running out of web page space. Before I can put up more web pages with art on them I have to dig up more space (or buy more.)
Last night I saw a wonderfully irreverent movie called "Dogma" in which the voice of God was in the human form of a man and the "body" of God was a woman in a tutu who cavorted around a garden, taking pratfalls from time to time. Lucifer was a pimp. There was more, a lot more, including a descendant of Jesus, who immaculately conceived. It could have been done better, but it was an interesting take on guardian angels, fallen angels, limbs of Satan and all kinds of things, with a strong message about faith and what real faith is.
Mal
robert b. iadeluca
June 7, 2004 - 03:31 am
Durant continues:-"Jesus taught with the simplicity required by his audiences, with interesting stories that insinuated his lessons into the understanding, with pungent aphorisms rather than with reasoned argument, and with similes and metaphors as brilliant as any in literature. The parable form that he used was customary in the East, and some of his fetching analogies had come down to him, perhaps unconsciously from the prophets, the psalmists, and the rabbis.
"Nevertheless, the directness of his speech, the vivid colors of his imagery, the warm sincerity of his nature lifted his utterances to the most inspired poetry. Some of his sayings are obscure, some seem at first sight unjust, some are sharp with sarcasm and bitterness.
"Nearly all of them are models of brevity, clarity, and force.
"His starting point was the Gospel of John the Baptist, which itself went back to Daniel and Enoch. Historia non facit saltum. The Kingdom of Heaven was at hand, he said. Soon God would put an end to the reign of wickedness on earth. The Son of Man would come 'on the clouds of the sky' to judge all humanity, living and dead. The time for repentance was running out. Those who repented, lived justly, loved God, and put their faith in his messenger would inherit the Kingdom, would be raised to power and glory in a world at last freed from all evil, suffering, and death.
"All these ideas were familiar to his hearers. Christ did not define these clearly, and many difficulties obscure his conception now. What did he mean by the Kingdom? A supernatural heaven? Apparently not, for the apostles and the early Christians unanimously expected an earthly kingdom.
"This was the Jewish tradition that Christ inherited. He taught his followers to pray to the Father:-'Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heven.' Only after that hope had faded did the Gospel of John make Jesus say:-'My kingdom is not of this world.'
"Did he mean a spritual condition, or a material utopia? At times he spoke of the Kingdom as a state of soul reached by the pure and sinless -- the Kingdom of God is within you. At other times he pictured it as a happy future society in which the apostles would be rulers, and those who had given or suffered for Christ's sake would receive a hundredfold reward.
"He seems to have thought of moral perfection as only metaphorically the Kingdom, as the preparation and price for the Kingdom, and as the condition of all saved souls in the Kingdom when realized."
Each of us has our own interpretation of this but apparently interpretation was necessary. In any event, Jesus raised the thinking of those who listened to him.
Robby
Bubble
June 7, 2004 - 04:00 am
Thanks Justin, I had forgotten about the Filippo Lippi cartoon. I saw the Virgin on the Rocks in London and always spent some moments in that room when I was at the National gallery. Bubble
Bubble
June 7, 2004 - 04:41 am
The early message seems very consistent with what is in the Torah/Tanakh. It is what local orthodoxes believe too when they say that good deeds and moral purity lead to higher spirituality and contentment.
Had it not been for the creation of a different religion and the excesses done in its name, Yoshua would have been one of the sages. It would have been interesting if one ever found some contemporary writing about him by scribes or rabbis writing it as impartial onlookers ...
robert b. iadeluca
June 7, 2004 - 05:07 am
For those who want to get into the BASICS OF INTERPRETATION here are some thoughts on the space between the sender of the message and the receiver of the message.Robby
Bubble
June 7, 2004 - 05:23 am
How strange. This morning, while thinking about WREX, I was pondering on the mysteries of communication... and how different the skills needed seem to be when it is online or in real life. Bubble
Éloïse De Pelteau
June 7, 2004 - 07:58 am
In any event, Jesus raised the thinking of those who listened to him.
Yes he did.
Eloïse
Malryn (Mal)
June 7, 2004 - 10:23 am
Was James Jesus's brother? Read the National Geographic article linked below.
2000 year old burial box
Scrawler
June 7, 2004 - 12:04 pm
At some point I read in Durant that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Does anyone know anything about them? This is the first time I even knew that could of existed.
Malryn (Mal)
June 7, 2004 - 12:24 pm
How can one say so certainly and without hesitation that "Jesus raised the thinking of those who listened to him" when the reports of this man and what he said and did came so long after he was said to be crucified? There is nothing which shows me that Jesus said anything that is attributed to him in the Bible. There is no journal kept by him which says, "On June 28th I told the story of the good Samaritan to the twelve apostles and four others."
It is said that Christianity did not really take hold until 312 CE when Constantine, at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge on the Via Flamina on the Tiber River, looked up at the sun and saw a cross. Not long after that this powerful man converted to Christianity, and the Roman Empire became Christian.
That being the case, there had been only a relative handful of Christians up until then. From what is written about him, one can assume that Jesus had the kind of charisma that attracted people and made them listen. He also was said to have spoken in a way that even the lowliest person could understand. He was able to communicate with them. Ronald Reagan was called "The Great Communicator". He spoke to people in language they could understand. People listen to and follow people who are able to make them think are on their side.
The parables Jesus was said to have told were not new. Most of them had been handed down as oral history for centuries. The message was essentially the same message that had come before and is here today: -- Don't worship the god Mammon (money). Live simply and humbly and focus on a power that is higher than yourself. When you do, you will achieve a richness as a person greater than any earthly wealth. It's a very old story, much older than 2004 years.
I believe the references to the Kingdom of Heaven were a hope for Israel. If the purpose of Jesus was to allay and even stop the sin and corruption prevalent in his day, the way to do that was to clean his own house first and hope that would rub off on other "houses". It was the apostle John who wrote years later as the words of Jesus: "My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36)
(It is true that people communicate according to their various backgrounds. Questions I've asked here and statements I've made are based on the fact that I have never in my life believed Jesus was divine.)
Mal
Malryn (Mal)
June 7, 2004 - 12:47 pm
13:53 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.
13:54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
robert b. iadeluca
June 7, 2004 - 04:41 pm
"Many have interpreted the Kingdom as a communist utopia, and have seen in Christ a social revlutionist. The Gospels provide some evidence for this view. Christ obviously scorned the man whose chief purpose in life is to amass money and luxuries."He promised hunger and woe to the rich and filled, and comforted the poor with Beatitudes that pledged them the Kingdom. To the rich youth who asked what he should do besides keeping the commandments, Christ answered:-'Sell your property, give your money to the poor, and follow me.'
"Apparently the apostles interpreted the Kingdom as a revolutionary inversion of the existing relationships between the rich and the poor. We shall find them and the early Christians forming a communistic band which 'had all things in common.'
The charge on which Jesus was condemned was that he had plotted to make himself 'King of the Jews.'
"But a conservative can also quote the New Testament to his purpose. Christ made a friend of Matthew, who continued to be an agent of the Roman power. He uttered no criticism of the civil government, took no known part in the Jewish movement for national liberation, and counseled a submissive gentleness hardly smacking of political revolution.
"He advised the Pharisees to 'render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.' His story of the man who, before going on a journey, called on his slaves,s and put his property in their hands, contains no complaint against interest or slavery, but takes these institutions for granted.
"Christ apparently approves of the slave who invested the ten minas ($600) that the master had entrusted to him, and made ten more. He disapproves of the slave who, left with one mina, held it in unproductive safekeeping against the master's return. And he puts into the master's mouth the hard saying that 'to him who has, more will be given, and from him who had nothing, even that which he has will be taken away' -- an excellent summary of market operations, if not of world history.
"In another parable workers 'grumbled at their employer,' who paid as much to one who had labored an hour as to those who had toiled all day. Christ makes the employer answer:-'Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with my own?'
"Jesus does not seem to have thought of ending poverty. 'The poor ye have always with you.' He takes for granted, like all ancients, that a slave's duty is to serve his master well. 'Blessed is the slave whom his master, returning, finds performing his charge.' He is not concerned to attack existing economic or political institutions. On the contrary, he condemns those ardent souls who would 'take the Kingdom of Heaven by storm.'
"The revolution he sought was a far deeper one, without which reforms could only be superficial and transitory. If he could cleanse the human heart of selfish desire, cruelty, and lust, utopia would come of itself, and all those institutions that rise out of human greed and violence, and the consequent need for law, would disppear.
"Since this would be the profoundest of all revolutions, beside which all others wold be mere coups d'etat of class ousting class and exploiting in its turn, Christ was in this spiritual sense the greatest revolutonist in history."
The term "revolution" often has a negative connotation. Is revolution necessarily a bad thing?
Robby
Justin
June 7, 2004 - 05:10 pm
Mal: I do so appreciate you putting up the two versions of Leonardo's Virgin of the Rocks.( I am often tempted to say "on" rather than "of")
The Louvre version with the finger pointing was done in Florence. The finger points to St. John who is patron of Florence. The irises in the lower left are also symbolic of Florence. These were dropped in the London version because the work was done in Milan for a Milan church group. The copy in the Louvre is completely in the hand of Leonardo. The version in the National Gallery is in the hands of both Leonardo and a pupil. It is rare that we have a chance to examine these paintings side by side. Their relationship is quite complex but much of that complexity disappears when they are side by side. Thank you Mal.
robert b. iadeluca
June 7, 2004 - 05:21 pm
Here are some definitions of COMMUNISM. Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 7, 2004 - 05:27 pm
Here are some definitions of CAPITALISM. Robby
Bubble
June 8, 2004 - 12:47 am
A revolution is also a turn or a rotation completing a full cicle... so no good and no bad in the word itself.
Revolution (Webster's dict)
1. an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
2. Sociol. a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, esp. one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence. Cf. social evolution.
3. a sudden, complete or marked change in something: the present revolution in church architecture.
4. a procedure or course, as if in a circuit, back to a starting point.
5. a single turn of this kind.
6. Mech.
a. a turning round or rotating, as on an axis.
b. a moving in a circular or curving course, as about a central point.
c. a single cycle in such a course.
7. Astron.
a. (not in technical use) rotation (def. 2).
b. the orbiting of one heavenly body around another.
c. a single course of such movement.
8. a round or cycle of events in time or a recurring period of time.
9. Geol. a time of worldwide orogeny and mountain-building.
[1350–1400;
—Syn. 5. cycle, circuit, round, rotation.
Justin
June 8, 2004 - 12:58 am
I am sure you are thinking of political revolutions and in that sense I must agree that revolution is not necessarily a bad thing. The process of overturning may be violent but the result can be a good thing though that is not always the case. The Russian turnover was a bad thing. The American turnover was a good thing. The French turnover continues to be uncertain. They are on their fourth variation. The Romans saw Jesus as a revolutionary threat to their government. For him to be King of the Jews, he would have to remove the Roman appointed King and that would take a revolution. That result might have been a bad thing if he gave it all away to the poor and ended privileged enterprise.(I think I am beginning to sound like Martha Stewart)
robert b. iadeluca
June 8, 2004 - 03:11 am
"Christ's achievement lay not in ushering in a new state, but in outlining an ideal morality. His ethical code was predicated on the early coming of the Kingdom, and was designed to make man worthy of entering it. Hence the Beatitudes, with their unprecedented exaltation of humility, poverty, gentleness, and peace -- the counsel to turn the other cheek -- and be as little children (no paragons of virtue!) -- the indifference to economic provision, property, government -- the preference of celibacy to marrige -- the command to abandon all family. "These were not rules for ordinary life. They were a semimonastic regimen fitting men and women for election by God into an imminent Kingdom in which there would be no law, no marriage, no sexual relations, no property, and no war. Jesus praised those who 'leave house, or parents, or brethen, or wife, or children,' even those 'who make themselves eunuchs, for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake.'
"Obviously this was intended for a devoted religious minority, not for a continuing society. It was an ethic in purpose but universal in its scope, for it applied the conception of brotherhood and the Golden Rule to foreigners and enemies as well as to neighbors and friends.
"It visioned a time when men would worship God not in temples but 'in spirit and truth' -- in every deed rather than in passing words.
"Were these moral ideas new? Nothing is new exceept arrangement.
"The central theme of Christ's preaching -- the coming Judgment and Kingdom -- was already a century old among the Jews. The Law had long since inculcated brotherhood:-'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself' said Leviticus. Even 'the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself.'
"Exodus had commanded the Jews to do good to their enemies. A good Jew will restore the straying ox or ass even of the 'enemy that hateth thee.' The prophets, too, had ranked a good life above all ritural, and Isaiah and Hosea had begun to change Yahveh from a Lord of Hosts into a God of Love. Hillel, like Confucius, had phrased the Golden Rule.
"We must not hold it against Jesus tht he inherited and used the rich moral lore of his people."
How, then, can anyone be against "good?" Why would anyone fight against "sweetness and light?"
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 8, 2004 - 03:16 am
This is just one version of THE BEATITUDES. Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 8, 2004 - 04:24 am
Here are some comments about the GOLDEN RULE. Robby
Shasta Sills
June 8, 2004 - 05:52 am
Mal asked why the 12 disciples were so important. Why 12 and only 12? I think it's a case of history repeating itself. To the Jews,
12 was an important number because the Jewish race sprang from the
12 tribes of Israel. Jesus and his followers were Jews, through and
through. They weren't trying to form a new religion. They were trying to bring their own religion to its logical culmination. The
Jews had always waited for a Messiah, and they thought they had found
him. But they needed to authenticate his credentials, so they repeated the number 12. When the Jewish establishment refused to
accept this messiah, then his followers founded their own religion.
The number 12 has always been one of those symbolic numbers that
intrigue the human brain for some reason.
Shasta Sills
June 8, 2004 - 05:54 am
By the way, do modern Jews still expect a messiah, or have they given
up hope? I mean other than the sect of Messianic Jews.
Shasta Sills
June 8, 2004 - 05:56 am
Justin, when you write your paper about triangular arrangements in
paintings, will you try to explain the symbolic meaning of the triangle, and why it emerges in religions as a trinity of gods?
Malryn (Mal)
June 8, 2004 - 09:41 am
Before I leave this discussion for good, I want to say:SHASTA, maybe somebody questioned the importance of the 12 apostles, but it wasn't I.
It's bad enough that people in here misinterpret what I say without their misquoting me, too.
That's all there is. There won't be any more.
Mal
Scrawler
June 8, 2004 - 01:03 pm
Before a revolution can take effect we must rid ourselves of what we have believed in or have been doing for a long period of time. Human nature makes this much more difficult than it would seem. Change doesn't come easy to most folks. I can remember when the computer first was made available to the public in the '60s I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole. Now I can't live without it with both good and bad results. For example I've forgotten what it means to write a letter without spell check!
Shasta Sills
June 8, 2004 - 02:13 pm
Mal, I'm sorry I misquoted you. But why do you take it so seriously?
Everybody here knows that I say stupid things all the time and they
pay no attention to my errors. You should pay no attention to them too.
Fifi le Beau
June 8, 2004 - 02:16 pm
Excerpts from Durant......
the preference of celibacy to marriage -- the command to abandon all famiy...... no law, no marriage, no sexual relations, no property, and no war. Jesus praised those who 'leave house, or parents, or brethen, or wife, or children,' even those 'who make themselves eunuchs, for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake.
Jesus taught within a small geographical area to his own religious sect. The Jews were his concern, and if he had accomplished his goals set forth above, eventually the entire sect would have disappeared. Perhaps similar to the Shakers who disappeared from the American scene.
The approval of castration would have given a head start to this utopia he invisioned. I have always wondered why those who had this vision, did not ask themselves why God had created man with all these imperfections they forever rail against as evil and wrong. The means of procreation seems to be one of the worst offenders.
Watch five minutes of animals of prey in action, look at the stats on pornography use worldwide, the death and torture of innocents by world leaders, the list is endless and all the gods, rituals, and religions we have read about in SOC have not changed mans nature.
......
robert b. iadeluca
June 8, 2004 - 05:04 pm
Blame me, folks. Mal is angry at me because after her stating her belief that Jesus was not divine, I sent her an email calling her attention to the fact that she was close to that dividing line where we are not to give our personal belief. I pointed out that there are participants here who have a different belief. I also pointed out to her that there is a difference between saying that Universalist-Unitarians do not believe he was divine and that "I" do not believe he is divine. In the event that she felt I was prejudiced against Universalist-Unitarians, I added that I had been married in that church.Mal is a valued member of our "family" and that is why I sent that comment in a private email. However, if any of you had stated your belief that Jesus IS divine, I would have sent you the same email.
She and I met personally at the Virginia Bash and I mentioned to her at that time that I felt she was overly sensitive. However, that is her prerogative. She continues to be most welcome.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 8, 2004 - 05:33 pm
"For a long time Christ thought of himself purely as a Jew, sharing the ideas of the prophets, continuing their work, and preaching like them only to Jews. In dispatching his disciples to spread his gospel he sent them only to Jewish cities. 'Go not into the way of the gentiles, nor into the city of the Samaritans.' Hence, the apostles, after his death, hesitated to bring the Good News to the 'heathen' world."When he met the Samaritan woman at the well, he told her:-'Salvation is of the Jews' -- though we must not judge him from words perhaps put into his mouth by one who was not present, and who wrote sixty years after the event. When a Canaanite woman asked him to heal her daughter, he at first refused, saying:-'I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.' He told the leper whom he had cured to 'go to the priest and offer the gift that Moses prescribed.' 'Do everything that the scribes and Pharisees tell you, and observe it all, but do not do as they do.
<"In suggesting modifications and mitigations of the Judaic Law Jesus, like Hillel, did not think that he was overthrowing it. 'I came not to destroy the Law of Moses but to fulfill it.' 'It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tittle of the Law to fail.'
"Nevertheless, he transformed everything by the force of his character and his feeling. He added to the Law the injunction to prepare for the Kingdom by a life of justice, kindliness, and simplicity.
"He hardened the Law in matters of sex and divorce, but softened it toward a readier forgiveness, and reminded the Pharisees that the Sabbath was made for man. He relaxed the code of diet and cleanliness, and omitted certain fasts. He brought religion back from ritual to righteousness, and condemned conspicuous prayers, showy charities, and ornate funerals.
"He left the impression, at times, that the Judaic Law would be abrogated by the coming of the Kingdom."
Malryn (Mal)
June 8, 2004 - 10:36 pm
I have to laugh. There is all kinds of talk in the "Passion of Christ" discussion about "those who have faith" and "those who don't have faith," That's what the big difference boils down to -- even here. It's my contention that everybody has faith in something. It's when people are positive that their particular faith is absoutely the only right and true thing, and somebody else's faith is wrong and not acceptable that there's trouble. Frankly, I think it's perfectly all right for you to believe what you do and I to believe whatever I do. I have a son and daughter-in-law and two grandchildren who are Catholic and another grandson who is Jewish. Their faiths are fine for them. Mine is fine for me. We accept this, and there are no problems among us.
Durant says, ". . . we must not judge him from words perhaps put into his mouth by one who was not present, and who wrote sixty years after the event." This is what I've been saying, and apparently some people find it offensive.
I'm not angry at Robby; I'm angry at people who direct their differences in opinion and complaints about posts in a discussion not to the people who wrote them, but to the Discussion Leader. We're not children, so why isn't it possible to bring an issue or a complaint to the person who is the reason for the complaint? Why not iron things out and air differences here? I'm not going to bite your head off or tell you you're wrong if you complain to me about something I've said. I'll consider what you say and your point-of-view long after you point it out to me, and try to rearrange my thinking.
I don't know if I'll come back and again risk the possibility of offending somebody. (I'm not the only one who is sensitive in here.) I'll miss the family Robby mentioned very much if I don't return to this discussion, but I always have plenty of other things to do, even if I have to tax my brain to create them.
Mal
Justin
June 8, 2004 - 10:49 pm
Shasta: The term "pyramidal" might well be used to describe the formation of figures in painting in the Late Renaisance in preference to "triangular". The latter term is often used but does create a problem for the triangular symbol applies almost exclusively, as you imply, as a nimbus in God the Father imagery to indicate the Trinity.
Leonardo begins the breakdown of pyramidal formations in the "Virgin with St. Anne" and I am thinking of treating that issue in a paper and not the Trinitarian aspects of the triangle.
You raise a valid point.
Justin
June 8, 2004 - 11:08 pm
Jesus said to his Apostles, " Go not unto the way of the gentiles." This admonition guided the missionary work of the Apostles until late in the first century, when Paul came along. It was Paul who urged the Apostles to ignore that admonition as well as the law of Moses and to proselytize among the gentiles. He soon discovered that gentiles did not like the idea of circumcision, particularly, in adulthood. So he unilaterally, removed that requirement, and in so doing started Christianity in the Gentile world.
Had the Apostles continued dominant, had Peter and James remained in control of the movement, the directions of Jesus would have been carried out and the sect would have remained entirely Jewish.
Justin
June 8, 2004 - 11:20 pm
When Jesus tells the Canannite woman that he was "sent only to the lost sheep of Israel," he is distinguishing between Gentiles and Jews in a time when Gentiles were Pagan. He here confirms his interest in forming a Jewish cult and not a new religion. Again and again we will see this charcteristic brought out until the appearance of Paul when the words of Jesus will be ignored and Christianity will be formed among the Gentiles.
Justin
June 8, 2004 - 11:39 pm
Fundementalist Christians say they read the Bible and that they follow the words of Jesus to the letter. Few, however, are celibate in preference to marriage. Few abandon all family to follow Jesus. Few psass up the opportunity to acquire property. Does the inconsistency here lie in the failure of the American public schools to teach reading and reading comprehension well? Or does the failure lie elsewhere?
robert b. iadeluca
June 9, 2004 - 04:21 am
"Jews of all sects except the Essenes opposed his innovations, and especially resented his assumption of authority to forgive sins and to speak in the name of God. They were shocked to see him associate with the hated employees of Rome, and with women of low repute. "The priests of the Temple and the members of the Sanhedrin watched his activity with suspicion. Like Herod with John, they saw in it the semblance or cover of a political revolution. They feared lest the Roman procurator should accuse them of neglecting their responsibility for maintaining social order. They were a bit frightened by Christ's promise to destroy the Temple and not quite sure it was only a metaphor.
"For his part Christ denounced them in sharp and bitter terms:-
'The scribes and Pharisees put heavy loads of the Law upon men's shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them. They do everything they do to have men see it. They wear wide Scripture texts as charms, and large tassels, and they like the best places at dinners and the front seats in the synagogues.
'But alas for you hypocritical scribes and Pharisees -- you blind guides -- blind fools! -- You let the weightier matters of the Law go -- justice, mercy, and integrity. You clean the outside of the cup and the dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.
'You hypocritical scribes and Pharisees are like whitewashed tombs! OUtwardly you appear to men to be upright, but within you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
'You are descended from the murderers of the prophets. Go and and fill up the measure of your forefathers' guilt! You serpents! You brood of snakes! How can you escape being sentenced to the pit? The publicans and the harlots go into the Kingdom of God before you!'
"Was Jesus just to the Pharisees? Probably there were some among them who deserved this castigation, many who, like numberless Christians a few centuries later, substituted outward piety for inward grace.
"But there were also many Pharisees who agreed that the Law should be softened and humanized. Very likely a large number of the sect were sincere men, reasonably decent and honorable, who felt that the ceremonial laws neglected by Jesus should be judged not in themselves but as part of a code that served to hold the Jews together, in pride and decency, amid a hostile world.
"Some of the Pharisees sympathized with Jesus, and came to warn him that plots were being made to kill him. Nicodemus, one of the defenders of Jesus, was a rich Pharisee."
We here, in this discussion group, have over the years watched the actions of hypocritical priests of various cultures and civilizations say one thing and do another. In most cases, they seemed to get away with it. Jesus, as Durant said earlier, was a revolutionary. He spoke up publicly against them. He was an activist. He was a "whistle blower."What is the usual future of a whistle blower?
Robby
Éloïse De Pelteau
June 9, 2004 - 04:23 am
MAL, we have been participating in Robby's discussions for years you and me so you must know that I value your posts while still having my own personal opinions. Please stay with us, I beg of you.
Discussion Leaders want to keep all their participants especially those who have different views because they bring to light several aspects of a book that were perhaps overlooked before.
Thank you Robby for your fine leadership.
Eloïse
Malryn (Mal)
June 9, 2004 - 04:55 am
Shasta asks in Post 441:~ "By the way, do modern Jews still expect a messiah, or have they given up hope?"
Rabbi Shraga Simmons talks about this in an article on www.aish.com (a site I refer to often) called "Why Don't Jews Believe in Jesus?" aish.com is written and maintained by Aish HaTorah, a group which in part explains what it is to be Jewish. Rabbi Simmons states that the Messiah must be:
A prophet.
A descendant of David
One will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. Anyone who changes the Torah is a false prophet.
"BRINGING THE MESSIAH
"Maimonides states that the popularity of Christianity (and Islam) is part of God's plan to spread the ideals of Torah throughout the world. This moves society closer to a perfected state of morality and toward a greater understanding of God. All this is in preparation for the Messianic age.
"Indeed, the world is in desperate need of Messianic redemption. War and pollution threaten our planet; ego and confusion erode family life. To the extent we are aware of the problems of society, is the extent we will yearn for redemption. As the Talmud says, one of the first questions a Jew is asked on Judgment Day is: "Did you yearn for the arrival of the Messiah?"
"How can we hasten the coming of the Messiah? The best way is to love all humanity generously, to keep the mitzvot of the Torah (as best we can), and to encourage others to do so as well.
"Despite the gloom, the world does seem headed toward redemption. One apparent sign is that the Jewish people have returned to the Land of Israel and made it bloom again. Additionally, a major movement is afoot of young Jews returning to Torah tradition.
"The Messiah can come at any moment, and it all depends on our actions. God is ready when we are. For as King David says: 'Redemption will come today -- if you hearken to His voice.' "
Source of this quote
moxiect
June 9, 2004 - 06:48 am
Glad to see you here, Mal!
Malryn (Mal)
June 9, 2004 - 07:09 am
Thanks, LAWRENCE.
Haverhill
(Though she's younger than I am, Moxie and I grew up in neighboring cities with those names in northeastern Massachusetts, which have a fierce high school football rivalry to this day. We didn't meet until we ran into each other in a book discussion here in SeniorNet. I recognized her immediately because of her name, "Moxie", which is a soft drink we love and others think is bitter and awful. Now we know each other as Lawrence and Haverhill.
And thank you, ELOISE and ROBBY. I guess it's impossible for me to stay away from this S of C family.)
Scrawler
June 9, 2004 - 01:42 pm
Robby, was Jesus really a whisle blower in the sense that we know it today? Can you give me an example so I might better understand your concept.
robert b. iadeluca
June 9, 2004 - 02:52 pm
Scrawler:-Would you accept the definition of WHISTLE BLOWER as "someone who exposes wrongdoing?"Robby
Justin
June 9, 2004 - 04:25 pm
There were three classes of Jew at the turn of the millennium; Pharisee, Essene, Sadducee. The Sadducees were rich, and aristocratic.The Essenes were fanatical celibates living in isolation. The Pharicees were Rabbis, teachers, and adherants of the law. The priests were all members of the Cohen family. The Family of Levi was responsible for the sacrifices and other celebratory activity in the Temple. The Scribes were literates who sold their skills. Where in all this does Jesus fit? Where does this whistle-blower hang his hat?
robert b. iadeluca
June 9, 2004 - 06:32 pm
We, here, in this forum have read about countless rituals of emperor after emperor in the Roman Empire. My watching the ritual regarding President Reagan's death and my memory of the ritual regarding President Kennedy's death helped me to realize the importance to us human beings of ritual. For whatever reason, we need that.Robby
Justin
June 9, 2004 - 10:05 pm
Yes, Robby it is all here- the 21 gun salute, the empty boot in an empty saddle, the gun caisson, the Lincoln catafalque, the four corner guards from the four services, the drum led cadence, the citizen review, taps,and the flag draped casket. Egyptians stored away pharaohs in much the same way. The vikings of Beowolf turned their heros to watery ashes with much the same pomp. These ritualisitc endings have very ancient roots.
robert b. iadeluca
June 10, 2004 - 03:48 am
"The final break came from Jesus' growing conviction and clear announcement that he was the Messiah. At first his followers had looked upon him as the successor to John the Baptist. Gradually they came to believe that he was the long-awaited Redeemer who would raise Israel out of Roman bondage and establish the reign of God on Earth. They asked him:-'Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?'"He put them off by saying 'It is not for you to know the times and seasons which the Father has set' and he gave an equally vague answer to emissaries of the Baptist who asked him:-'Art thou he that was to come?' To turn his followers from their conception of him as a political Messiah, he repudiated all claim to Davidic descent.
"Gradually however the intense expectations of his followers, and his discovery of his unusual psychic powers, seem to have persuaded him that he had been sent by God, not to restore the sovereignty of Judea, but to prepare men for the reign of God on earth. He did not (in the synoptic Gospels) identify or equate himself, with the Father.
"He asked:-'Why do you call me good? There is none good but one, that is God.' He prayed in Gethsemane:-'Not as I will but as thou wilt.' He took the phrase 'Son of Man,' which Daniel had made a synonym for the Messiah, used it at first without clearly meaning himself, and ended by applying it to himself in such statements as 'The Son of Man is master of the Sabbath' which seemed high blasphemy to the Pharisees.
"He called God 'Father' at times in no exclusive sense. Occasionally, however, he spoke of 'my Father,' apparently signifying that he was the son of God in an especial manner or degree.
"For a long time he forbade the disciples to call him the Messiah. But at Caesarea Philippi he approved Peter's recongition of him as 'the Christ, the Son of the living God.'
"When, on the last Monday before his death, he approached Jerusalem to make a final appeal to the people, 'the whole throng of his disciples' greeted him with the words, 'Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord,' and when some Pharisees asked him to reprove this salutation, he answered 'I tell you, if they keep silence, the stones will cry out.
"The Fourth Gospel reports that the crowd hailed him as 'King of Israel.' Apparently his followers still thought of him as a political Messiah, who would overthrow the Roman power and make Judea supreme.
"It was these acclamations that doomed Christ to a revolutionist's death."
Bubble
June 10, 2004 - 04:34 am
Justin, you name three sorts of Jews and I wonder... Always there are many who do not fit the categories, the labels. Those who are not followers of certain parties, who just live their lives pecefully and in desired silence - 'the people'. I think Mary and Joseph were such persons, not learned rabbis, nor of the Levi/Cohen tribe. It is the same today with the silent majority not wanting to take part in the conflict between ultra-orthodox, hassidim, modern reformists.
Éloïse De Pelteau
June 10, 2004 - 05:02 am
the silent majority not wanting to take part in the conflict between ultra-orthodox, hassidim, modern reformists.
I am glad that you mention that BUBBLE because the media focuses on the opposite, that the majority belongs to one of the three that you mentioned.
ROBBY, the rituals and the pageantry, processions during Holy Feasts, the crowds acclaiming Sports heroes, the Miss Universe Pageant, the Oscars, The Olympic Games are all a sort of rituals.
Eloïse
Bubble
June 10, 2004 - 09:09 am
Eloise, they are the ones who make the most noise. Why do extremists always fight the hardest and the loudest?
moxiect
June 10, 2004 - 09:25 am
Bubbles - so they (the extremist) can be heard!
Bubble
June 10, 2004 - 09:30 am
Ha ha ha ha! Right! Thanks Moxie!
How didn't I see it? Bubble (who never learned to shout)
Éloïse De Pelteau
June 10, 2004 - 09:51 am
The squeaky wheel gets the oil? I had to learn to squeak AFTER I became a widow. I practiced squeaking the loudest at the bank.
Eloïse
Malryn (Mal)
June 10, 2004 - 11:42 am
What happened to humility? When and how did Jesus decide he was the Messiah?
He didn't fulfill the Judaic requirements:~ He was not a prophet.or a descendant of David. He did not try to lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. Judaism bases its belief on national revelation, or God speaking to the entire nation. Jesus announced that he was the Messiah to a few people. According to the Bible, the announcement did not come from God's speaking to all of the nation of Israel.
Was he so taken by the fact that he could mesmerize a crowd of 4000 with seven loaves and a few little fishes (Matthew 15: 36-38) that they thought they were fed and full, that he was convinced he was the Messiah? What made him believe this, and where in the Bible does one find it?
Durant tells us on Page 555 of Caesar and Christ that "the oldest extant copies of the Gospels go back only to the third century. The original compositions were apparently written between A.D. 60 and 120, and were therefore exposed to two centuries of errors in transcription, and to possible alterations to suit the theology or aims of the copyist's sect or time."
If, however, one assumes that the words of Jesus in the New Testament of the Bible are truly what he said, what made him change himself from a kind of political revolutionary to the long-awaited Messiah?
Mal
Justin
June 10, 2004 - 03:47 pm
Bubble: I think you are right about Mary and Joseph. He was a carpenter after all, not rich, and not educated except perhaps in his duties to follow the Law. But Jesus was something else. He was a samrt guy- a teacher, probably a Rabbi, a debater knowledgeable about the scriptures, a public speaker with a sense of psychic powers and politically astute. He must have alligned himself with one or the other of the leading sects.
Éloïse De Pelteau
June 10, 2004 - 05:05 pm
We read in the Bible the Genealogy of Jesus in Matthew l:1.
Matthew l:17 - Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.
Eloïse
robert b. iadeluca
June 10, 2004 - 05:25 pm
"The Feast of the Passover was at hand, and great numbers of Jews were gathering in Jerusalem to offer sacrifice in the Temple. The outer court of the shrine was noisy with vendors selling doves and other sacrificial animals, and with money-changers offering locally acceptable currency for the idolatrous coins of the Roman realm."Visiting the Temple on the day after his entry into the city, Jesus was shocked by the clamor and commercialism of the booths. In a burst of indignation he and his followers overthrew the tables of the money-changers and the dove merchants, scattered their coins on the ground, and with 'a scourge of rods' drove the traders from the court.
"For several days thereafter he taught in the Temple, unhindered, but at night he left Jerusalem and stayed on the Mount of Olives, fearing arrest or assassination.
"The agents of the government -- civil and ecclesiastical, Roman and Jewish -- had kept watch on him probably from the time when he had taken up the mission of John the Baptist. His failure to secure a large following had inclined them to ignore him. But his enthusiastic reception in Jerulsalem seems to have set the Jewish leaders wondering whether this excitement, working upon the emotional and patriotic Passover throngs, might flare up into an untimely and futile revolt against the Roman power, and issue in the suppression of all self-government and religious freedom in Judea.
"The high priest called a meeting of the Sanhedrin, and expressed the opinion 'that one man should die for the people, instead of the whole nation being destroyed. The majority agreed with him, and the Council ordered the arrest of Christ.
"Some news of this decision seems to have reached Jesus, perhaps through members of the Sanhedrin minority. On the fourteenth day of the Jewish month of Nisan (our April third), probably in the year 30, Jesus and his apostles ate the Seder, or Passover supper, in the home of a friend in Jerusalem.
"They looked to the Master to free himself by his miraculous powers. He, on the contrary, accepted his fate, and perhaps hoped that his death would be received by God as a sacrificial atonement for the sins of his people.
"He had been informed that one of the Twelve was conspiring to betray him. At this last supper he openly accused Judas Iscariot. In accord with Jewish ritual Jesus blessed (in Greek, eucharistisae) the wine that he gave the apostles to drink, and then they sang together the Jewish ritual song Hallel.
"He told them, says John, that he would be with them 'only a little longer. I give you a new command. Love one another. Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God and believe in me. In my Father's house are many mansions. I go to prepare a place for you.'
"It seems quite credible that in so solemn a moment he should ask them to repat this supper periodically (as Jewish custom required), in commemoration of him, and not improbable that, with Oriental intensity of feeling and imagery, he asked them to think of the bread they ate as his body, and of the wine they drank as his blood."
robert b. iadeluca
June 10, 2004 - 06:49 pm
Here are some facts about the FEAST OF THE PASSOVER.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 10, 2004 - 06:54 pm
Photo of MOUNT OF OLIVES and other related photos.Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 10, 2004 - 08:03 pm
Numerous scholars have agreed that it's almost impossible to have an accurate geneaology for Jesus. Matthew's has three blocks of 14 names. Luke has 77 names. Then there is a difference in names in Luke's list and the list in Chronicles.
Jesus himself denied that he was descended from David. See Mark 12:35-37. Besides, if Jesus was the son of God, his line would have to be traced back to Adam, wouldn't it? Scholars have tried to do that, too.
Don't ask me. If Bible scholars can't figure it out, it's beyond me. (It certainly is fun to read through some of the scholarly and not so scholarly papers I've found, though.)
Mal
Malryn (Mal)
June 10, 2004 - 08:09 pm
Malryn (Mal)
June 10, 2004 - 08:16 pm
Justin
June 10, 2004 - 11:41 pm
Eloise: If you will read Post 470, you will see that Jesus himself repudiated all claim to Davidic descent. Do we believe Jesus or Matthew on this point? If you will read Matthew 1:17 you will see that he is not talking about lineage he is talking about the passage of time.
There is a window in Chartres depicting the lineage of the Virgin back to Jesse but many Medieval artists embellished rumors and hearsay. They needed subject matter to proceed. Not everything depicted had papal sanction.
Bubble
June 10, 2004 - 11:42 pm
Justin # 478
One last comment : Yes Jesus was smart and charismatic. Debates in the scriptures are something so common here in "normal" people who learn daily in "Heder" and are carpenters, mechanics, or electricians, that we don't notice it anymore. In my eyes, because of his charisma he had been accepted successively by the different sects and had reached his own conclusions, but he must have been more of a loner and did not conform.
Robby # 482
I was much interested in this link because it showed me how a respected tradition can be used for the purpose of a new sect and then faith. It has been the same time and again in civilizations. But the Seder is not preserved in Christian households I think. Am I wrong? The Messe has replaced it? This is a genuine question.
Mal, I am nostalgic when I see the Dore lithographies of Holy Land. They were my first Picture Book as a baby!
Justin
June 11, 2004 - 12:00 am
I am sure Christians don't see the Mass as a Passover Seder but that's exactly what it is. Jesus asked for repetition. Thats what the Law called for and as law abiding Jews the apostles would follow the custom.
Yes, I agree, Bubble, even carpenters are able to debate. I forget the name of the practice of debate in Synagogue. Can you refresh me?
Justin
June 11, 2004 - 12:10 am
Eloise: The denial of descent comes in Mark. You will recall that Mark is the first gospel writer and that Matthew is largely a word for word copy of the material in Mark.
Justin
June 11, 2004 - 12:23 am
The presence of money changers in the Temple is not an abuse but a convenience for those who wished to buy sacrificial doves to conform to the Law. When Jesus tossed them out he did so with violence. He did not approve of sacrifice, perhaps, but he became the ultimate sacrifice. By tossing out the moneychangers and the dove sellers he was taking violent action against the priests who profited from the sale of doves and who, following the law advised one to sacrifice in the Temple. He retreats to the Mount of Olives concerned that he will be assasinated for his actions. If you,if any of us, were a member of the Sanhedrin,how would you vote. Remember this rabble rouser was making it hard for his people to pray and making their position as peacekeepers untenable in Roman eyes. Remember,Rome was used to killing thousands for any act of rebellion.
robert b. iadeluca
June 11, 2004 - 02:55 am
Here is a description of a SANHEDRIN. Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 11, 2004 - 03:10 am
"That night, we are told, the little band hid in the Garden of Gethsemane, outside Jerusalem. There a detachment of Temple police found them, and arrested Jesus. He was taken first to the house of Annas, a former High priest, then to that of Caiaphas. Accordint to Mark the 'Council' -- probably a committee of the Sanhedrin -- had already gathered there. Various witnesses testified against him, especially recalling his threat to destroy the Temple."When Caiaphas asked him whether he was 'the Messiah, the Son of God,' Jesus reported to have answered 'I am he.' In the morning the Sanhedrin met, found him guilty of blasphemy (then a capital crime), and decided to bring him before the Roman procurator, who had come to Jerusalem to keep his eye on the Passover crowds.
"Pontius Pilate was a hard man, who would later be summoned to Rome, accused of extortion and cruelty, and removed from office. Nevertheless, it did not seem to him that this mild-mannered preacher was a real danger to the state. 'Are you the king of the Jews?' he asked. Jesus, says Matthew, answered ambiguously:-'You have said it (sic eipas). Such details, reportd presumably from hearsay and long after the event, must be held suspect. If we accept the text we must conclude that Jesus had resolved to die, and that Paul's theory of atonement had some support in Christ.
"John quotes Jesus as adding:-'For this I was born, to give testimony for the truth.' The procurator asked:-'What is truth?' -- a question perhaps due to the metaphysical propensities of the Fourth Gospel, but well revealing the chasm between the sophisticated and cynical culture of the Roman and the warm and trustful idealism of the Jew.
"In any case, after Christ's confession, the law required conviction, and Pilate reluctantly issued the sentence of death."
I think of judges in our time who do not want to convict a particular prisoner but are required to do so by law.
robert b. iadeluca
June 11, 2004 - 03:20 am
Here is one biographical version of the life of PONTIUS PILATE. Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 11, 2004 - 03:50 am
JUSTIN, you mention the type of debate in the synagogue. Do you mean Pilpul?
PILPUL
Malryn (Mal)
June 11, 2004 - 04:45 am
Below is a link to a picture of the Pilate inscription.
"In June 1961 Italian archaeologists led by Dr. Frova were excavating an ancient Roman amphitheatre near Caesarea-on-the-Sea (Maritima) and uncovered this interesting limestone block. On the face is a monumental inscription which is part of a larger dedication to Tiberius Caesar which clearly says that it was from 'Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea.' "
The inscription reads:
Line 1 --- Tiberierium
Line 2 --- (Pon)tius
Line 3 --- (Praef)ectis iuda (EAE)
Except for mention by Josephus, this is the only known occurrence of Pilate's name.
Picture: Pilate inscription
Malryn (Mal)
June 11, 2004 - 05:03 am
robert b. iadeluca
June 11, 2004 - 05:15 am
Mal:-That link to "parallels" is extremely interesting, especially for those looking for more historical information related to Biblical times.Robby
Justin
June 11, 2004 - 11:47 pm
That's the word, Mal,"pilpul". Thanks. What we see in the Temple activity of Jesus is a young boy engaging in the practice of pilpul. As we learned earlier it is an expected activity in the life of a Jewish boy. One tends to treat these things as exceptional activity on the part of Jesus because it is reported in the gospels but in the normal course of life a young person is expected to engage in pilpul.We are not seeing a god like figure acting in an omnipotent capacity but the normal activity of a young Jewish boy in his synagogue.
Bubble
June 12, 2004 - 02:54 am
So true Justin. I wonder if that is the reason why young Sabras are discussing and contradicting forever whenever one affirms something in front of them.
Of course it makes for a very quick and active mind, never taking anything for granted.
robert b. iadeluca
June 12, 2004 - 03:34 am
"Crucifixion was a Roman, not a Jewish form of punishment. It was usually preceded by scourging, which, carred out thoroughly, left the body a mass of swollen and bloody flesh. The Roman soldiers crowned Christ with a wreath of thorns, mocking his royalty as 'King of the Jews,' and placed upon his cross an inscription in Aramaic, Greek, and Latin:-Iesus Nazarathaeus Rex Ioudaeorunt."Whether or not Christ was revolutionist he was obviously condemned as one by Rome. Tacitus, too, understood the matter so. A small crowd, such as could gather in Pilate's courtyard, had called for Christ's execution. Now, however, as he climbed the hill of Golgotha, 'he was followed by a great crowd of the people,' says Luke, and of women who beat their breasts and mourned for him. Quite clearly the condemnation did not have the approval of the Jewish people.
"All who cared to witness the horrible spectacle were free to do so. The Romans, who thought it necessary to rule by terror, chose, for capital offenss by other than Roman citizens, what Cicero called 'the most cruel and hideous of tortures.' The offender's hands and feet were bound (seldom nailed) to the wood. A projecting block supported the backbone or the feet. Unless mercifully killed, the victim would linger there for two or three days, suffering the agony of immobility, unable to brush away the insects that fed upon his naked flesh, and slowly losing strength until the heart failed and brought an end.
"Even the Romans sometimes pitied the victim, and offered him a stupefying drink.
"The cross, we are told, was raised 'at the third hour' -- i.e. at nine in the morning. Mark reports that two robbers were crucified with Jesus, and 'reviled him.' Luke assured us that one of them prayed to him. Of all the apostles only John was present. With him were three Marys -- Christs's mother, her sister Mary, and Mary Magdalene. 'There were also some women watching from a distance.'
"Following the Roman custom, the soldiers divided the garments of the dying men. As Christ had but one, they cast lots for it. Possibly we have here an interpolated remembrance of Psalm xxii, 18. 'They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.' The same Psalm begins with the words:-'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' -- and this is the desperately human utterance that Mark and Matthew attribute to the dying Christ.
"Can it be that in those bitter moments the great faith that had sustained him before Pilate faded into black doubt?
"Luke, perhaps finding such words repugnant to the theology of Paul, substitutes for them:-'Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit' -- which in turn echoes Psalm xxxi, 5 with suspicious accuracy.
"A soldier pitying Christ's thirst, held up to his mouth a sponge soaked in sour wine. Jesus drank, and said;-'It is consummated.' As the ninth hour -- at three in the afternoon -- he 'cried out with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.' Luke adds -- again revealing the sympathy of the Jewish populace -- that 'all the people that came together to that sight smote their breasts and returned' to the town.
"Two kindly and influential Jews, having secured Pilate's permission, took the body down from the cross, embalmed it with aloes and myrrh, and placed it in a tomb."
Malryn (Mal)
June 12, 2004 - 04:43 am
I woke this morning thinking that what I had considered unusual about the boy Jesus was not unusual at all. BUBBLE has told us some interesting things about boys of Bar Mitzvah age and how they question their teachers, as it is reported that Jesus did. She also said that analysis and discussion of the Torah and Talmud are common among Jewish men of every walk of life, including carpenters. There's so much most of us don't know about Judaism that has a bearing on Christianity, isn't there?
I imagine crucifixions were quite the spectacles and that they drew large audiences, regardless who was crucified. Since Jesus was a Jew, there would be a Jewish type of mourning. Was it wailing and beating of breasts partly by people who were more or less professional-type mourners, I wonder? A friend of mine went to the funeral of a person of Lebanese background not long ago and told me about it. The exhibition and expression of grief were quite different from the restrained, silent weeping that people of my English background do.
"Why hast thou forsaken me?" is a very human response to a terrible, abusive punishment, isn't it? It reminds me of Job's "Why me?", also a very human response.
One thing I'll say about Durant's book, Caesar and Christ, is that it's making me look at the Bible in a way I never read it before. I find that what Josephus wrote is a big help in better understanding what I realize now had become something like a fairy story in my mind rather than a real part of history.
Mal
robert b. iadeluca
June 12, 2004 - 05:12 am
Here is a brief article about the DEATH PENALTY THROUGHOUT THE AGES. Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 12, 2004 - 05:44 am
Read about the HISTORY OF TORTURE. Robby
Éloïse De Pelteau
June 12, 2004 - 06:22 am
This link of
NOTRE DAME CATHEDRAL IN MONTREAL takes you to a virtual and sound tour that is absolutely wonderful.
Eloïse
robert b. iadeluca
June 12, 2004 - 11:29 am
A cathedral tour or torture -- take your choice.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 12, 2004 - 11:43 am
I'm glad I chose the "cathedral" link. It is magnificent!!Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 12, 2004 - 01:03 pm
Durant continues:-"Was Jesus really dead? The two robbers beside him were still alive. Their legs were broken by the soldiers so that the weight of the body would hang upon the hands, constricting the circulation and soon stopping the heart. This was not done in Jesus' case, although we are told that a soldier pierced his breast with a lance, drawing forth first blood and then lymph.
"Pilate expressed surprise that a man should die after six hours of crucifixion. He gave his consent to Christ's removal from the cross only when the centurion in charge assured him of Christ's death.
"Two days later Mary Magdalene, whose love of Jesus partook of that nervous intensity which characterized all her feelings, visited the tomb with 'Mary the mother of James, and Salome.' They found it empty. 'Frightened and yet overjoyed,' they ran to tell the news to the disciples.
"On the way they met one whom they thought to be Jesus. They bowed down before him and clasped his feet. We can imagine the hopeful incredulity with which their report was greeted. The thought that Jesus had triumphed over death, and had thereby proved himself Messiah and Son of God, filled the 'Galileans' with such excitement that they were ready for any miracle and any revelation.
"That same day, we are told, Christ appeared to two disciples on the road to Dmmaus, talked with them, and ate with them. For a long time 'they were prevented from recognizing him.' But when 'he took the bread and blessed it, their eyes were opened, and they knew him, and he vanished from them. The disciples went back to Galilee, and soon thereafter 'saw him and bowed down before him, though some were in doubt.'
"While they were fishing they saw Christ join them. They cast their nets and drew in a great haul."
Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 12, 2004 - 01:51 pm
Thanks for the Cathedral, Eloise. I was hoping for Gregorian chants. Instead there is original music that appears to have been synthesized on a computer, except for the organ which must be an mp3 file. The organ is a majestic instrument in this cathedral, I would presume.
Unlike many people I have never really liked organ music. I have played this instrument many times, though the left pedaling is impossible for me, and my right foot can only reach just so far. It has seemed presumptuous to think one instrument could assume the character of all the instruments in an orchestra, and that's why it bothers me. However, I imagine when the organist lets out all the stops, that the cathedral in Montreal shakes on its foundation.
Today I went out for the first time since returning from the Virginia Bash in Richmond May 23rd. My daughter and I spent a considerable amount of time, in between looking at some very expensive clothes in a small mall which closed it doors awhile back because people weren't shopping there and reopened with a whole new face I'd not seen before, talking about Durant's Caesar and Christ. We had lunch on the patio of the brand new Weathervane Restaurant, with a chilly Northeast wind blowing. It is a part of a gourmet food, wine and gift shop called A Southern Season, a place I really loved when it was small and friendly and not located in the mall. We talked about spirituality and religion. When I asked her, my daughter said, no, she has no religion, and yes, she thinks she is a spiritual person. I think she is, too.
It was interesting to be in a small mall after all this time. Prices were so high that I gasped for breath. How do they expect to attract customers? These are the temples of my society. Part of me wanted to tear down the sacrifice lures, just as Jesus threw out the doves.
Well, whether or not you have faith, whatever faith is, and whether or not you believe in the power of Jesus, he surely had something to say that applies even today. It had been said before, and it will be said again because people, the human beings we are, don't change.
End of commercial interruption.
Mal
Justin
June 12, 2004 - 05:15 pm
A body hanging from a cross must feel excruciating pain in the shoulders. Try putting your arms back into that position. You may find it very difficult to do, even without body weight pressing down upon you. The Romans must have expected the victims to remain alive for several days. A lance in the breast, unless it touched the heart, would not be enough to bring on death. Why only six hours? Yet, the centurian in charge had to certify death. If Jesus lived, where did he disappear to? He must have feared the Romans would just do it all again.
robert b. iadeluca
June 12, 2004 - 05:21 pm
"Forty days after his appearance to Mary Magdalene, says the beginning of the Book of Acts, Christ ascended physically into heaven. The idea of a saint being so 'translated' into the sky in body and life was familiar to the Jews. They told it of Moses, Enoch, Elijah, and Isaiah. The Master went as mystically as he had come. But most of the disciples seem to have been sincerely convinced that he had, after his crucifixion, been with them in the flesh.Says Luke:-'They went back with great joy to Jerusalem and were constantly in the Temple, blessing God.'"
Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 12, 2004 - 07:01 pm
JUSTIN, in 1940 the orthopedist I went to at the Harvard Infantile Paralysis Commission clinic decided on a treatment to avert spinal curvature for me. I was outfitted with straps under my chin and around my head and cuffs around the wrists of my outstretched arms and hung by them from the ceiling of the room where I was. I was not nailed to a cross, but I was hanging from my head and wrists in a cross-like position while a plaster cast was applied to my torso. It was a long time from the minute when the first plaster was applied until the end when the whole thing had dried, and I was taken down.
There was extreme pain in my shoulders, arms and back and under my chin while I hung there. I remember something happening. It was as if I left that poor, hurting body and went and perched like a bird on the cabinet near the door while I waited for that punishment in the name of help to be over.
Mal
Bubble
June 13, 2004 - 01:20 am
Mal, I was doing "stretching" with my back to a gym ladder (espalier in French), feet hanging 50cm above the ground, only hanging by my hands in each corner. I could stay 20 or 30 min in that position. After the first few moments it felt so great! All pressure and tension left my spine. I did that on each occasion I had, while my schoolfriends had their regular gym lesson. I am sure it is the reason my scoliosis is not worse now. Unfortunalely it also gave me loose joints and today my ligaments are very loose.
Was Marie Magdalene Jewish? Marie certainly was. It is astouning that they would enter the cemetery and be on the tomb after only 3 days.
This is strictly forbidden to kins and family since they have to "sit" for seven days of mourning and stay home. The grave cannot be visited before the seventh day when the people are freed from sitting. A tombal stone is placed only after that and up to the end of a lunar month.
robert b. iadeluca
June 13, 2004 - 04:08 am
robert b. iadeluca
June 13, 2004 - 04:26 am
Please note change in GREEN quotes in Heading:-"Christianity arose out of Jewish apocalyptic-esoteric revelations of the coming Kingdom.
"It derived its impetus from the personality and vision of Christ.
"It gained strength from the belief in his resurrection and the promise of eternal life.
"It received doctrinal form in the theology of Paul.
"It grew by the absorption of pagan faith and ritual.
"It became a triumphant Church by inheriting the organizing patterns and genius of Rome.
"The apostles were apparently unanimous in believing that Christ would establish the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. Says the first epistle of Peter:-'The end of all things is near. Be serious and collected, therefore, and pray.' Says the first epistle of John:-'Children, it is the last hour. You have heard that Antichrist was coming, and many Antichrists' have indeed appeared. So we may be sure that it is the last hour.' (Nero, Vespasian, Domitian?)
"The belief in the Messianic mission, bodily resurrection, and earthly return of Christ formed the basic faith of early Christianity. This creed did not prevent the apostles from continuing to accept Judaism. Says Acts:-'Day after day they all went regularly to the Temple.' They obeyed the dietetic and ceremonial laws. They proclaimed their faith at first only to Jews, and often preached in the Temple courts.
"They believed that they had received from Christ or the Holy Spirit miraculous powers of inspiration, healing, and speech. Many sick and infirm persons came to them. Some were cured, says Mark, by anointing with oil -- always a popular treatment in the East. The author of Acts draws a touching picture of the trustful communism in which these early Christians lived:-
'There was but one heart and soul in the multitude who had become believers, and not one of them claimed anything that belonged to him as his own, but they shared everything they had with one another. No one among them was in any want, for any who owned lands or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds and put them at the disposal of the Apostles. They they were shared with everyone in proportion to this need.'"
Your thoughts, please?
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 13, 2004 - 04:34 am
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
- - - Karl Marx
robert b. iadeluca
June 13, 2004 - 04:56 am
If you haven't yet done so, go to Post 504 and click onto Eloise's "Cathedral" link. Then click onto the Audio and listen to some magnificent audio clips -- very appropriate for Sunday listening.Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 13, 2004 - 05:23 am
What Durant quoted from Acts is the way I always thought Christianity should be. There seems to be a hierarchy system in nature from the lowest forms to the highest, which prevents this kind of thing. People are not created equal, so this idealistic community of equal sharing cannot be unless enforced by law. Young people in the 60's and 70's, who were attracted to "Jesus Super Star", certainly proved this to be true with the failure of their attempts toward creating a kind of wholesome communism.
Though I know what you're saying, ROBBY, I see no difference between Sunday and any other day when it comes to listening to music. I say this with a smile.
Mal
Éloïse De Pelteau
June 13, 2004 - 05:49 am
Mal, Notre Dame has one of the famous Casavant organs and because I am not very fond of organ music I havn's heard it played often. The accoustics is special and symphony orchestra concerts are held there every summer. Hearing great music combined with seeing great architecture in this church is an unforgettable experiences. Saint-Jean-Baptiste church is also among those chosen for its wonderful accoustics. Because there are so many large churches in Quebec, symphony orchestras and choir music concerts are often performed.
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." The poor are more inclined to share their wealth than the rich who are afraid of loosing a bit of comfort or afraid of becoming poor. When someone sells everything he owns to share the benefits with others who have less, that gesture is admirable.
Eloïse
robert b. iadeluca
June 13, 2004 - 06:00 am
If you haven't yet done so, go to Post 504 and click onto Eloise's "Cathedral" link. Then click onto the Audio and listen to some magnificent audio clips -- very appropriate for Sunday listening.Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 13, 2004 - 06:14 am
Malryn (Mal)
June 13, 2004 - 06:27 am
JoanK
June 13, 2004 - 07:15 am
ELOISE, ROBBY: I don't get any sound with the Cathedral link, except when it's loading. I don't see any audio to click on. What am I missing?
Malryn (Mal)
June 13, 2004 - 07:27 am
JOAN, Click GALLERY. Then click CLIPS near the bottom of the screen.
Mal
JoanK
June 13, 2004 - 08:02 am
Thanks, MAL. What a lovely site, ELOISE. I love cathedrals. When we were in Europe,I dragged my poor Jewish husband through dozens of them (he said it felt like hundreds). I wasn't even daunted when I discovered that in the Washington Cathedral here, the roof leaks!
robert b. iadeluca
June 13, 2004 - 08:11 am
Speaking of cathedrals and religion, any comments on the forward move of Christianity as described in Post 514?Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 13, 2004 - 09:04 am
Please note change in GREEN quotes in Heading:-
"Christianity arose out of Jewish apocalyptic-esoteric revelations of the coming Kingdom.
"It derived its impetus from the personality and vision of Christ.
"It gained strength from the belief in his resurrection and the promise of eternal life.
"It received doctrinal form in the theology of Paul.
"It grew by the absorption of pagan faith and ritual.
"It became a triumphant Church by inheriting the organizing patterns and genius of Rome.
"The apostles were apparently unanimous in believing that Christ would establish the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. Says the first epistle of Peter:-'The end of all things is near. Be serious and collected, therefore, and pray.' Says the first epistle of John:-'Children, it is the last hour. You have heard that Antichrist was coming, and many Antichrists' have indeed appeared. So we may be sure that it is the last hour.' (Nero, Vespasian, Domitian?)
"The belief in the Messianic mission, bodily resurrection, and earthly return of Christ formed the basic faith of early Christianity. This creed did not prevent the apostles from continuing to accept Judaism. Says Acts:-'Day after day they all went regularly to the Temple.' They obeyed the dietetic and ceremonial laws. They proclaimed their faith at first only to Jews, and often preached in the Temple courts.
"They believed that they had received from Christ or the Holy Spirit miraculous powers of inspiration, healing, and speech. Many sick and infirm persons came to them. Some were cured, says Mark, by anointing with oil -- always a popular treatment in the East. The author of Acts draws a touching picture of the trustful communism in which these early Christians lived:-
'There was but one heart and soul in the multitude who had become believers, and not one of them claimed anything that belonged to him as his own, but they shared everything they had with one another. No one among them was in any want, for any who owned lands or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds and put them at the disposal of the Apostles. They they were shared with everyone in proportion to this need.'"
Your thoughts, please?
Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 13, 2004 - 09:13 am
Durant tells us on Page 553 that Hermann Reimarus, professor of Hebrew and Oriental languages at the Hamburg Gymnasium, or preparatory school, wrote that the purpose of Jesus was not to start a new religion but to prepare men for "the imminent destruction of the world and God's Last Judgment of all souls." It seems as if this could have been at least part of Jesus's plan. If this were the case, it also seems that the logical thing for the apostles to do would be to go out and spread the word, and carry on the work Jesus had started. According to Acts, this is exactly what some of the apostles did.
JOAN, I think cathedrals are open to all people of whatever faith. When I lived in St. Augustine, I spent time in the Cathedral of Saint Augustine there, a pleasant place for meditation in the center of a busy, touristy, little town.
Mal
Justin
June 13, 2004 - 06:28 pm
Bubble: Your knowledge of Jewish customs is of great value in this discussion. We now learn from you that a seven day mourning period keeps people in the house and away from the cemetery for that period and that it is only after the period of mourning that a tombal stone is placed. The gospels say three days lapsed, two , I think,in one case before the Mary's appear at the tomb. Moreover, the stone is placed almost immediately. Something is wrong here. These people were religious Jews. They would not commit such a breach of custom. Perhaps the Gospel writers were not Jewish. The four evangelists were Jewish. We know that. But some ghost writer must not have been familiar with Jewish custom.
Justin
June 13, 2004 - 06:43 pm
It is quite clear that the Messianic Mission of Jesus was seen by the Romans as part of the revolutionary activity then in progress in Judah. It is also probably true that the Sadducee dominated Sanhedrin saw Jesus as a danger to their well being. The High Priest served at the pleasure of the Romans and was expected to keep the peace. Someone who claimed to be the long awaited successor to the line of David could be nothing other than a trouble maker. He was taken by the Romans, with the aid of the Sanhedrin police, tried and crucified as a criminal. Was he a criminal? He certainly led everyone to believe he was a threat. When asked, he failed to deny the dangerous intentions ascribed to him.
Justin
June 13, 2004 - 06:58 pm
Resurection and return were prominent expectations of the Apostles and, I think , of the Jerusalem Christian sect as a whole. The Gospel writers of the last part of the first century inspired by the writings of Mark, clearly believed that after the third day he arose again, went to Hell for a visit, and returned to walk with the Magdelene, and to visit with Matthew and others. The remainder of Christianity still awaits a Second Coming.
Bubble
June 14, 2004 - 12:59 am
Since we talk so much about the Messiah, I think it is appropriate to remind all of the Chabad Movement Messiah: Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson of Chabad-Lubavitch
http://www.moshiachlisten.com/history.html
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/schneerson.html
http://rebbe.chabadonline.com/life/timeline/1991.html
From the last URL.
"The Rebbe explained: because the basic nature of our world is perfect and good, our every good action is real and enduring, while every negative thing is just that—a negative phenomenon, a void waiting to be dispelled. In this sense evil and good are like darkness and light. Darkness, no matter how ominous and intimidating, is merely the absence of light. Light need not combat and overpower darkness in order to displace it—where light is, darkness is not. A thimbleful of light will therefore banish a roomful of darkness.
No matter how dark the world may seem or feel, light is just a single action away
The idea of a universal redemption, heralded by a global leader called Moshiach (“the anointed”) is a basic tenet of the Jewish faith. The Jew believes that world which G-d created possesses the potential to fully reflect the infinite goodness and perfection of its Creator. And the Jew believes that the realization of this goal is the very purpose to which his or her soul has been invested within a physical body and life.
The Rebbe explained: because the basic nature of our world is perfect and good, our every good action is real and enduring, while every negative thing is just that—a negative phenomenon, a void waiting to be dispelled. In this sense evil and good are like darkness and light. Darkness, no matter how ominous and intimidating, is merely the absence of light. Light need not combat and overpower darkness in order to displace it—where light is, darkness is not. A thimbleful of light will therefore banish a roomful of darkness.
No matter how dark the world may seem or feel, light is just a single action away"
After his death they reconstructed in every details his American house in Israel, so that he would feel at home here when waking up from death. The expectancy lasted long but did not get fullfilled. During that first year there was much singing in streets and synagogues on Shabbats, urging people to join in so as to precipitate the happy event.
robert b. iadeluca
June 14, 2004 - 03:34 am
Bubble:-I remember very well articles in the New York Times about Rabbi Schneerson (the Rebbe) and crowds at his house in Brooklyn and full page ads containing various messages.Thank you, Bubble, for enlightening us as we all strive to understand what was going on 2000 years ago.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 14, 2004 - 03:57 am
"As the number of proselytes increased, the apostles, by a laying on of hands, ordained seven deacons to administer the affairs of the community. For some time the Jewish authorities tolerated the sect as small and harmless but as the 'Nazarenes' multiplied in a few years from 120 to 8000, the priests became alarmed. "Peter and others were arrested and questioned by the Sanhedrin. The Sadducees wished to condemn them to death, but a Pharisee named Gamaliel -- probably the teacher of Paul -- advised a suspended judgment. As a compromise the prisoners were flogged and released. A little later (A.D. 30?) Stephen, one of the ordained deacons, was summoned before the Sanhedrin on the charge that he had 'used abusive language about Moses and about God.'
"He defended himself with reckless vehence:-
'You stubborn people, with heathen hearts and ears, you are always opposing the Holy Spirit, just as your forefathers did! Which of the prophets did not your forefthers persecute? They killed the man who foretold the coming of the righteous one, whom you have now betrayed and killed -- you who had the Law given you by angels, and did not obey it!'
"The Sanhedrin, in a rage, had him dragged outside the city and stoned to death. A young Pharisee named Saul aided the attack. Thereafter he went from house to house in Jerusalem, seized adherents of 'the Way,' and put them in jail.
"The Jewish converts of Greek name and culture, who had had Stephen as their leader, fled to Samaria and Antioch, where they established strong Christian communities. Most of the apostles, apparenlty spared in this persecution because they still observed the Law, remained in Jerusalem with the Judaic Christians.
"While Peter carried the Gospel to the towns of Judea, James, 'the Just,' 'the brother of the Lord,' became the head of the now reduced and impoverished church in Jerusalem. James prcticed the Law in all its severity and rivaled the Essenes in asceticism. He ate no meat, drank no wine, had only one garment, and never cut his hair or beard. For eleven years, under his guidance, the Christians were left undisturbed.
"About 41 another James, the son of Zebedee, was beheaded. Peter was arrested, but escaped. In 62 James the Just was himself put to death.
"Four years later the Jews revolted against Rome. The Jerusalem Christians, too convinced of the coming 'end of the world' to care about politics, left the city and established themselves in pagan and pro-Roman Pella, on the farther bank of the Jordan.
"From that hour Judaism and Christianity parted. The Jews accused the Christians of treason and cowardice and the Christians hailed the destruction of the Temple by Titus as a fulfillment of Christ's prophecy.
"Mutual hatred enflamed the two faiths, and wrote some of their most pious literature."
Any comments about this half century of inter-group hatred and revolutionary activity? I keep wondering if new faiths always develop out of hatred?
Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 14, 2004 - 07:14 am
Thanks to BUBBLE, who gives us information and knowledge about Judiasm and the Jews. To JUSTIN, too, who posts about Jewish history here. I told my daughter Saturday when we were out that it is my feeling that we cannot truly understand Christianity unless we learn about Judaism.
I think religions came about because of fear. The earliest so-called pagan religions appear to have sprung up because of fear of death and things in nature human beings did not understand and could not control. Out of fear comes hatred, I think. People find answers that satisfy them, and hate different ideas and the people who have them that seem to threaten the conclusions which subdue their fear.
The Protestant religion in which I was raised is unitarian. That is to say, its tenets say there is one God, not three -- the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. For that reason, it has been reviled not only by the Catholic Church, but other Protestant religions.
Tolerance can only come about when people are able to accept that the faith they have is right and true for them, and different faiths are right and true for others, and that beliefs can be accepted even when they are not the same as our own.
Mal
Éloïse De Pelteau
June 14, 2004 - 07:57 am
"Tolerance can only come about when people are able to accept that the faith they have is right and true for them, and different faiths are right and true for others, and that beliefs can be accepted even when they are not the same as our own."
Yes I think so too Mal.
Eloïse
Malryn (Mal)
June 14, 2004 - 08:37 am
What I quote below is the small part of an article in the back of my Bible called "Jewish Sects and their Beliefs" by George H. Sandison, Ph.D. The Scribes
"It was a necessity of the times ( after the Babylonion captivity ) that there should be a class of men, learned in the law and capable of interpreting it with authority, and this class was found in the Scribes or Sopherin, under whose teaching the ancient law -- the Thorah -- became the statute book of the Jewish people. They embraced in their calling the Tanaim or teachers of the law; the Amorain, or doctors of the law (whose work is comprehended in the Talmud; the Saboraim, teachers who followed after the conclusion of the Talmus; and the Gaonim or later doctors."
The Pharisees
"Their name was derived from the Hebrew word, perushim
( separatists ). After the Captivity, a certain number of those who had been most ardent in their advocacy of complete religious restoration, attached themselves to the tribe of Levi, the priesthood being the centre of the new national life. They emphasized fore-ordination, and implicitly believed that as long as they kept faithful to their trust as guardians of the ancient laws and customs, not only would they themselves be divinely protected, but theholy heritage of the nation would be impregnable. They lived temperately, seeking neither riches nor pleasure, and holding, as declared in the Talmud, that 'he who acquires a knowledge of the divine law, acquires for himself life in the world to come.' "
The Sadducees
"The Sadducees, or Tsaddikim ('righteous ones') represented the aristocratic priestly families, who clung tenaciously to ancient privilege and legal observance. Unlike the Pharisees, they attached lttle importance to oral or traditional law, but exalted the Thorah -- the written law of Moses --denyiing the authority of all subsequent revelation or tradition. They upheld the Roman power, and when Rome destroyed Jerusalem and the Jewish state, the sect of the Sadducees fell."
The Essenes
"The Essenes, Esseni, or Essaeans ( variously interpreted as healers, teachers, baptists ) were a fraternity of mystico-ascetics. It is reasonably certain that the sect was an ancient one -- probably the outgrowth of the religious feeling which sprang up under the Greek domination and which was tinctured strongly with Persian philosophy. In the days of Josephus they numbered probably 4000. They were celibates and semi-monistics, living in great austerity. They rejected the Temple sacrifices, believed in the transmigration of souls, and held other tenets derived, it is supposed, from the Persians. They were vegetarians, practised baptism and were credited with being visionaries and with the possession of prophetic powers. By living pure lives, they sought to come into such communion with Deity that they might receive the gifts of prophecy and miracles."
The Zealots
"At a time when oppression weighed most heavily upon the Jews, about 27 B.C., the Zealots came into existence as a nationalistic party, combining intense patirotism with a fervent zeal for the law. They adopted as a watchword, 'No Lord but Jehovah; no tax but that of the Temple; no friend but the Zealots.' Their leader, Judas of Galilee, aimed to become a second Judas Maccabaeus. His death is referred to in Acts 5:37. The Zealots absorbed the Galileans, a sect which was charged by Josephus with causing much sedition and trouble in the Jewish nation. The Gallileans taught that all foreign control was unscriptural, and they would neither acknowledge nor pray for foreign princes. Their successors, the Zealots, emphasized and broadened these principles.
They were famed for their undying love of liberty, their contempt of danger and their splendid courage. They resisted the Roman power to the utmost, and opposed the census.
The Nazarites
"The Nazarites, who derived their name from the Hebrew word 'Nazir' ( separatist ) were 1. those invididuals of either sex who were in infancy devoted by their parents to the Lord, and 2. those who by their own voluntary act, placed themselves under a solemn vow to God, either for life or for a certain period. Shaving or cutting of hair was considered as defilement. They separated themselves from certain functions, were forbidden to partake of certain foods and personally consecrated to the Lord. The vow did not necessarily include separation from domestic or social ties, nor was it in any sense a departure from the individual exemplifcations of pure and holy living. Special care was taken to avoid participation in any ceremony involving contact with the dead. John the Baptist and James the Just, according to tradition, were Nazarites, and it is recorded that Paul joined himself to them for a time while he sojourned in Jerusalem."
Scamper
June 14, 2004 - 12:51 pm
Hello,
I just discovered this wonderful group going through Durant's great work. Can you tell me how you operate? Is there a reading schedule? I've read the first two volumes of Durant and am starting on the third one, which I think you are nearing completion. I've looked through the notes and enjoyed the posts, but I'm still puzzled as to what you are reading when! I'd really appreciate it if someone could help me out here. Thanks,
Pamela
Scrawler
June 14, 2004 - 01:01 pm
I think religions develop because people are searching for peace, harmony, and balance to their lives. So it is Love rather than hate or fear that I think different beliefs come into being.
Malryn (Mal)
June 14, 2004 - 02:15 pm
Welcome to the Story of Civilization discussion, PAMELA. You can tell where we are in the book by looking at the word in GREEN at the top of this page in the heading. We are currently on Page 576 of Caesar and Christ. The discussion leader, ROBBY IADELUCA, posts portions of the book every day, and we go on from there.
SCRAWLER, in prehistoric times people created gods out of trees, rocks, rivers, mountains, etc. because they were afraid they'd be eaten up by wild animals, struck by fire coming out of the sky, or the earth would open up and swallow them or something. It was fear that prompted this. Later people turned to religion because they were afraid they'd go to some kind of hell if they didn't. The idea of love come along millennia after that. That may be today's reason for seeking religion, but it hasn't been for long.
Mal
Éloïse De Pelteau
June 14, 2004 - 02:22 pm
SCAMPER, Wonderful that you have found us. I am looking forward to your participation in this discussion. Robby, our discussion leader, will surely give you all the information you need to know and you just have to jump right in, you are most welcome Pamela.
Eloïse
robert b. iadeluca
June 14, 2004 - 04:44 pm
I have just returned home and can see, Pamela, that you have been warmly welcomed by our "family" here. That gives you an idea of what type of people we are. We are a diverse group with points of view on all sides but we all follow the general rule of courtesy and consideration. Sometime we agree with each other but if we don't, we disagree in an agreeable way.You say that you have read Durant's first two volumes, "Our Oriental Heritage" and "The Life of Greece." That will benefit you tremendously in this discussion as we tend to take the longer view, occasionally referring back to events described in those first two volumes. You are encouraged not be just a "lurker" but to come forth with your opinions. None of us here pretends to be an expert, least of all I, as your discussion leader.
If you have the volume, then you can follow along as I reprint some of the paragraphs. I skip some of the paragraphs depending on interest shown. Those here who don't have the book can, as Mal indicated, follow the GREEN quotes in the Heading above which are periodically changed. This also helps the rest of us to keep together as we discuss various subtopics.
Whenever a new participant enters this discussion, I reprint our guidelines on the subjct of religion. I will bring this up in the next posting.
Again, a hearty and cordial welcome, Pamela!!
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 14, 2004 - 04:49 pm
Pamela, here is the posting to which I referred:-
"To my knowledge, no civilization of any sort has existed without some sort of ritual which one can call religious. For this reason, it will be impossible to participate in this forum without discussing "religion" from time to time.
"However, the following guidelines will be enforced by the Discussion Leader to avoid confrontations and digressions about personal religious views.
"1 - You may make one post describing your own beliefs related to religion (whether you have a religious faith or do not) in order to explain your viewpoint toward the topic at hand. Making additional posts about your religious beliefs or faith is not permitted.
2 - Do not speak of your religion or absence of religious beliefs as "the truth."
3 - Do not attempt to change another's conviction about religion.
"Comments about issues are welcomed. Negative comments about other participants are not permitted.
"Those participants who do not believe they are being treated fairly in this respect always have the right to contact Marcie, Director of Education. I will follow her guidance."
robert b. iadeluca
June 14, 2004 - 04:58 pm
We are now on Page 577."Thereafter Judaic Christianity waned in number and power, and yielded the new religion to be transformed by the Greek mind. Galilee, where Christ had lived nearly all his life, and where the Magdalene and the other woman who had been among the first to follow him were now lost in obscurity, turned a deaf ear to the preachers who proclaimed the Nazarene as the Son of God.
"The Jews, who thirsted for liberty, and reminded themselves daily that 'the Lord is One,' were repelled by a Messiah who ignored their struggle for independence, and were scandalized by the announcement that a god had been born in a cave or stable in one of their villages. Judaic Christianity survived for five centuries in a little group of Syriac Christians called Ehionim ('the poor'), who practiced Christian poverty and the full Jewish Law.
"At the end of the second century the Church condemned them as heretics."
"Judaic Christianity?" An interesting combination of words. I am wondering what present day Jews and/or Christians think of that phrase.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 14, 2004 - 06:03 pm
Here is an interesting LINK to the Hebraic Roots of Christianity. It contains link after link after link. Again, consider the source.Robby
Justin
June 14, 2004 - 07:10 pm
Scholarship has advanced beyond the level Durant was aware of when writing of the trials of Peter, James, and Stephen. In Durant we are told that Gamaliel the leading Pharisaic defender of Peter and James, is also the teacher of Paul in Pharisaic learning. It is questionable whether Saul as he was then known had any training in Pharisaism and it is quite unlikely that Gamaliel was his teacher. Gamaliel was a rabbi of very high standing in Jerusalem. He was a personage comparable in stature to that Hillel. Saul had recently come from Tarsus, seeking work. He found work as a policeman employed by the High Priest, a Sadducee and an opponent of the Pharicees. Gamaliel would take only qualified scholars as students not policemen who work for a Sadducean high priest. The attribution is very unlikely.
Bubble, what do you think about this aspect of the Saul-Gamaliel reference in 533.
Justin
June 14, 2004 - 07:55 pm
The trial and stoning of Stephen seems questionable to me. In the Gospels, Stephen is said to be arguing with some Pharisee Jews who denounce him to the Sanhedrin charging him with speaking against Moses, against the Law, and Against the Temple. Then in a speech to the Sanhedrin Stephen berates the members for attacking the prophets of the past and now for rejecting another, the Rightuous One. In an ensuing episode Stephen says he had a vision of Jesus standing at the right side of God. This was considered blasphemy. The members were so enraged they bore him outside and stoned him. That's the story. One can find it all in Mark.
Let us examine one of these charges.
He is accused of speaking against the Temple. His accusers say "we have heard him say that Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place. We heard Jesus say, 'I will pull down this Temple with human hands and in three days I will build another.' " Is this charge likely to be a charge presented to the Sanhedrin? I don't think so. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah which to Jews was not a divinity but a human king in the line of David. Such a Messiah would be expected to tear down a Temple built by the hated Herod.
Who would feel threatened by these words? You guessed it. The Sadducean High Priest and his henchmen like Saul would feel threatened by this talk. They had just rid themselves of one and here comes another and worse these guys are growing.
Could it have been a Parisee argument. I don't think so. Gamaliel, the leading Pharisee, had just successfully defended Peter and James against similar charges.
I think the story is very weak as presented. There may have been reasons for telling it as it is but they are not evident to me now.
Fifi le Beau
June 14, 2004 - 09:22 pm
I have always thought of Christianity as a sect of Judaism. Christ and his followers followed Jewish law because they were Jews, and like all the other factions at the time thought they had a better way for their people to follow. They were only interested in saving the Jews, not the thousands who surrounded them.
The Greeks will take this Jewish faction and change it until it becomes a seperate religion, but they did not sever the roots, and the connection of the old Testament to the New Testament through the Bible implies a continuation of Christs Jewish faith and teachings to his fellow Jews.
The three largest world religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all began in the Middle East with the story of their foundation myth written by the Jews became the foundation of the other two religions, which themselves were founded in the area.
Europeans had their own foundation myths, but they were not written down and taught as the middle east foundation myths. They were passed down through oral history, and did not have the zealotry of the middle easterners. Their gods were either frightening or human and they lacked the mysticism of the middle east. They were not gods who handed out promises of salvation for believers.
In addition to reading Durant, I am reading 19th and 20th century history of the area to see what these three religions have brought to the middle east up to the present. Though Christianity was born there, Christians have all but disappeared from the landscape today. The Jews are there in the tiny state of Israel, surrounded by the overwhelming majority, Islam.
Europeans long ago dismissed their foundation myths, and relegated them to the dust bin of history. The middle east has clung to theirs even through two drastic changes.
......
Malryn (Mal)
June 14, 2004 - 09:47 pm
The link below takes you to an interesting site with links to several articles about the Nag Hammadi Library. It is especially intriguing to read about the Gospel of Thomas." The Nag Hammadi Library, a collection of thirteen ancient codices containing over fifty texts, was discovered in upper Egypt in 1945. This immensely important discovery includes a large number of primary Gnostic scriptures -- texts once thought to have been entirely destroyed during the early Christian struggle to define 'orthodoxy' -- scriptures such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Truth."
Nag Hammadi Library
Bubble
June 15, 2004 - 12:56 am
Justin: As you said Gamliel was a rabbi of high stature (I suppose he is the same one that is mention in the Passover Agadah). As such he would have been a known presence daily in the Temple, much in the way of the 2nd URL. Anyone can attend those lessons and join. So "being a pupil of" does not mean much.
I do agree totally with your analysis based on the facts. Facts are always changed to suit the intentions of a particular story reporter.
http://rabbishmuel.com/
the second link is long, hard to read but a good example of how a lesson would be in a heder, trying to comment on a line from the Torah.
http://www.senderberl.com/jewish/trial.htm
"Rabbi Gamliel taught Torah and so did his daughter, though the Talmud records her teachings without mentioning her name.
Rabbi Meir taught Torah, and so did his wife Beruriah, though our tradition was so uncomfortable with her learning, that later generations developed legends of her coming to a bad end.
http://www.shirhadash.org/rabbi/030607-women.html Rabbi Gamliel here was being very revolutionary: women were not seen as worthy of those high learnings on the Bible because they had other more important duties. They certainly were not permitted to do so in the company of males. When Bruriah, the wife of a celebrated Rabbi teacher took his place, it is said that she did so from behind a curtain.
robert b. iadeluca
June 15, 2004 - 02:46 am
I hope that Pamela thought of clicking onto the "Subscribe" button so that she can find her way back here.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 15, 2004 - 03:12 am
"Meanwehile the apostles and disciples had spread the Good News, chiefly among the Jews of the Dispersion, from Damascus to Rome."Philip made converts in Samaria and Caesarea.
"John developed a strong church in Ephesus.
"Peter preached in the cities of Syria.
"Like most of the apostles, Peter took a 'sister' with him on his missions to serve as his wife and aide. He healed the sick so successfully that at Samaria a magician, simon Magus, offered him money for a share in his mysterious powers. At Joppa he raised Tabitha from apparent death. At Caesarea he won a Roman centurion to Christianity.
"A vision, says the Book of Acts, convinced him that he should accept pagan as well as Jewish converts. From this time forward, with some amiable vacillations, he contented himself with baptizing, rather than also circumcizing, non-Jewish proselytes.
"We feel some of the ardor of these early missionaries in the first epistle of Peter:--
'Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those Christian Jews who are scatered as foreigners over Pontus, Galatia, Cappaducia, Asia, and Bithynia, God bless you and give you perfect peace. My dearly beloved, I pray you as aliens and exiles, to live upright lives among the gentiles so that they may from observing the uprightness of your conduct come to praise God.
'Submit to all human authority for the Master's sake. Live like free men, but do not make your freedom an excuse for wrong doing. Servants, be submissive to your masters, and perfectly respectful to them. Not only to those who are kind and considerate, but also to those who are unreasonable.
'You married women, likewise, must be submissive to your husbands, so that any who refuse to believe may be won over when they see how chaste and submissive you are. You must not adopt the external attractions of arranging your hair or wearing jewelry. You must be a quiet and gentle spirit.
'You married men also must be considerate to your wives. Show deference to women as the weaker sex, sharing the gift of life with you.
'Return not evil for evil. Above all keep your love for one another strong, for love covers a multitude of sins.'
"We do not know when and by what stages Peter made his way to Rome. Jerome (ca. 390) dates his first arrival there as early as 42. The tradition that he played a leading role in establishing the Christian community in the capaital has survived all criticism. Lactantius speaks of Peter's coming to Rome in Nero's reign. Probably the apostle visited the city on divers occasions.
"He free, and Paul in prison, labored as rivals to win converts there, until both of them suffered martyrdom, perhaps in the same year 64. Origen reports that Peter 'was crucified head downward, for he had asked tht he might suffer that way,' perhaps hoping that in that position death would come sooner, or (said the opinion of the faithful) holding himself unworthy to die in the same manner as Christ. Ancient texts testify tht his wife was killed with him and that he had to see her led to execution.
"A later story named Nero's Circus, on the Vatican field, as the place of his death. Over the site the Cathedral of St. Peter rose, and claimed to enshrine his bones."
I keep wondering -- what is it about the act of conversion that furnishes people with what Durant calls "ardor?" Why do "new" religions contain more "get up and go" than "older" religions? Or is that not so?
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 15, 2004 - 03:51 am
In my home library I have a copy of William James' "Varieties of Religious Experience." William James has been called the Father of current day Psychology. Click HERE to read his lecture on the topic of conversion. It is long and detailed but easily read for those interested in this topic.Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 15, 2004 - 05:27 am
I'm not sure that it is new religions which contain more "get up and go" than "older" religions, or whether it is that converts have this brilliant spark of spirituality.
The most poignant testimonial of conversion I know is called "Bill's Story."
"My musing was interrupted by the telephone. The cheery voice of an old school friend asked if he might come over. He was sober.
"The door opened and he stood there, fresh-skinned and glowing. There was something about his eyes. He was inexplicably different. What had happened?
"I pushed a drink across the table. He refused it. Disappointed but curious, I wondered what had got into the fellow. He wasn't himself.
"Come, what's all this about? I queried.
"He looked straight at me. Simply, but smilingly, he said, 'I've got religion.' "
"My friend sat before me, and he made the pointblank declaration that God had done for him what he could not do for himself. His human will had failed. Doctors had pronounced him incurable. Society was about to lock him up. Like myself, he had admitted complete defeat. Then he had, in effect, been raised from the dead, suddenly taken from the scrap heap to a level of life better than the best he had ever known!
"Despite the living example of my friend there remained in me the vestiges of my old prejudice. The word God still aroused a certain antipathy. When the thought was expressed that there might be a God personal to me this feeling was intensified. I didn't like the idea. I could go for such conceptions as Creative Intelligence, Universal Mind or Spirit of Nature but I resisted the thought of a Czar of the Heavens, however loving His sway might be. I have since talked with scores of men who felt the same way.
"My friend suggested what then seemed a novel idea. He said, "Why don't you choose your own conception of God?"
"That statement hit me hard. It melted the icy intellectual mountain in whose shadow I had lived and shivered many years. I stood in the sunlight at last.
"It was only a matter of being willing to believe in a Power greater than myself. Nothing more was required of me to make my beginning.
"Thus was I convinced that God is concerned with us humans when we want Him enough. At long last I saw, I felt, I believed. Scales of pride and prejudice fell from my eyes. A new world came into view.
"I humbly offered myself to God, as I then understood Him, to do with me as He would. I placed myself unreservedly under His care and direction."
After Bill Wilson's conversion to a power greater than himself, he and another man went on to found Alcoholics Anonymous, whose simple message has "saved" millions of alcoholics and drug addicts. Alcoholics Anonymous is not a religious program, but it most certainly is a spiritual one.
Shasta Sills
June 15, 2004 - 09:37 am
Why does William James only describe conversions to Christianity?
If conversion is a sudden influx of subliminal contents, as he suggests, there is no reason why this explosion should always take
the form of conversion to Christianity. It could result in all kinds
of life changes. Didn't Mohammed experience some sort of conversion
when he left his wealthy family and became concerned with human suffering? James does mention briefly that Tolstoy was an exception.
Apparently, his conversion was not theological.
Justin
June 15, 2004 - 01:21 pm
The stature of Rabbi Gamaliel must have been very great if he was able with others to alter the composition of the Seder in such substantial ways as discontinuance of the Paschal Lamb sacrifice,substitution of the Exodus story, and the presentaion of the Torah to the people.
If Rabbi Gamaliel's lectures in the Temple were open I suppose it is possible Saul could have attended but it is not likely that a Sadducean High Priest would have hired and retained a policeman who was a Pharicee.
Bubble,your links were very informative, particularly Rabbi Schmuel's comments.
Justin
June 15, 2004 - 02:17 pm
Bubble: I read the Trial of Eliezer Ben Hyrcanus from the Talmud. It's relevance to the posture of Israel in today's world is truly significant.
Scamper
June 15, 2004 - 03:14 pm
Yep, I did think to subscribe so I'm back. This is great! But, um, I must be a little slow, because I don't see anything green in the headings which tell me what page you are on. (I do understand it's around p 577, but is it listed on the site?) At what pace are you reading?
I'm planning on catching up with you in about a month. In the meantime, I'll be lurking. Loved the story about creating your own conception of God and then being true to that conception,
Pamela
Malryn (Mal)
June 15, 2004 - 04:29 pm
PAMELA, there is no set reading schedule for this discussion.
ROBBY posts paragraphs from the book each day. The length of time we spend discussing these paragraphs depends on how much thought and how many comments are engendered from them. It has turned out that we have spent about a year discussing each book.
Mal
robert b. iadeluca
June 15, 2004 - 05:04 pm
Pamela:-Please don't get caught up in what page we are on. As Mal indicated, the pace of this discussion group is determined by the interests of the participants and the content of their postings. We might move ahead three pages in one day and, then again, spend three days on one paragraph. "Sometimes we are not pontificating on any particular comments of Durant at all but are reacting to what someone else here said. Visualize in your mind the group of us sitting around in a living room with Durant's book on the table. Sometimes we pick up the book and read a paragraph or two and then discuss it. Other times one of the participants makes what seems to be a separate topic but then shows how it relates to what we are discussing.
And then again, a link that one of us furnishes may be cause for a heated discussion for a day or two.
Please note the phrase written in brown in the Heading which says:- "Join our group daily." This is a fast-paced forum. Those who don't check in for a couple of days often find themselves behind. You say:- "I'm planning on catching up with you in about a month." I submit to you that you will find this impossible. Don't try to catch up. Dive in head first. Don't let the GREEN quotes throw you. That is merely a guide. Just read Durant's words written here (always in italics), listen to the words spoken by the rest of us, and throw in your views.
Most of us post here daily. We will be looking forward to hearing your opinions.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 15, 2004 - 05:36 pm
Durant continues:-"Peter's missions in Asia Minor and Rome must have helped to preserve many Judaic elements in Christianity. Through him and the other apostles it inherited Jewish monotheism, puritanism, and eschatology. Through them and Paul the Old Testament became the only Bible that first-century Christianity knew. Until 70 Christianity was preached chiefly in synagogues or among Jews.
"The form, ceremony, and vestments of Hebrew worship passed down into Christian ritual. The Paschal lamb of sacrifice was sublimated in the Agnus Dei -- the expiatory Lamb of God -- of the Catholic Mass.
"The appointment of elders (presbyteri, priests) to govern the churches was adopted from Jewish methods of administering the synagogue. Many Judaic festvals -- e.g. Passover and Pentecost -- were accepted into the Christian calendar, however altered in content and date.
"The Jewish dispersion aided the rapid dissemination of Christianity. The frequent movement of Jews from city to city, and their connections throughout the Empire, co-operated with commerce, Roman roads, and the Roman peace, to open a path for the Christian faith.
"In Christ and Peter Christianity was Jewish.
"In Paul it became half Greek.
"In Catholicism it became half Roman.
"In Protestantism the Judaic element and emphasis were restored."
Just this simple small paragraph has opened my eyes to the many questions I have had regarding the connection between diverse religions. Durant has helped me to see the flow of change as Jews dispersed far and wide.
Even in this day we have the Jewish diaspora and I wonder if their constant movement has caused change of one sort or another.
Robby
Scamper
June 15, 2004 - 05:38 pm
Thanks, Robby, for the clarification. When I said I was going to try to catch up with you, I only meant I planned to read volume 3 in the near future. I understand what you are saying about posting and dwelling as everyone sees fit. In fact, it's a wonderful approach!
Pamela
robert b. iadeluca
June 15, 2004 - 05:43 pm
Pamela:-Please keep in mind that we will be entering the fourth volume, "The Age of Faith," somewhere around the beginning of September. This gives you (and everyone here) a "heads up" on buying this volume second hand or getting the paper-back issue. It is cheap this way. Don't bother to pay good money for a hard cover.Only your Discussion Leader is wealthy enough to own all eleven hard back volumes.
Robby
P.S. I got the whole set for $10.
Shasta Sills
June 15, 2004 - 06:31 pm
"In Protestantism the Judaic element and emphasis were restored."
Now, that's an interesting statement, and I would like to understand
what Protestantism and Judaism have in common. Can somebody enlighten me?
Fifi le Beau
June 15, 2004 - 06:51 pm
Robby, in reading one of William James "Vatieties of Religious Experience", the one on young Mr. Alline got my attention because of an item on the news tonight.
Mr. Alline was very despondent and then he saw a bright light, which he believed to be a sign from God. He felt so much better immediately and acclaimed it as a religious experience.
Tonight on the news they discussed a new electronic device than can be implanted in the body, and will give a small jolt of electricity by schedule to the brain. The device has been used for those who are very depressed, and have not responded to therapy or drugs.
I have had a "light" go on in my brain a few times while in bed with my eyes closed but not asleep. It is so quick and bright that I never even opened my eyes. It lit up the entire brain and was visual in a dark room with eyes closed. I call it recharging.
I have had bouts of melancholy, usually through circumstances beyond my control, but I do not go to a doctor or take any prescription medicine. Eventually I see the light and feel better. My own body seems to make the adjustment, and life goes on.
Mr. Alline's description of his experience is cloaked in a religious conversion and therefore more elaborate, but the story struck me as similar to the person on tonights news explaining how wonderful she felt after having the electrical device implanted. For those whose bodies do not adjust normally, it seems a godsend.
......
robert b. iadeluca
June 15, 2004 - 07:06 pm
I would be very cautious about having a device implanted which gives a jolt of electricity to the brain. ECT (electroconvulsive therapy) has been used for years to help recover from depression. The patient loses consciousness for a time. At times it has been "successful' but the patient often has memory losses. The latest is TMS (transmagnetic stimulation) where the patient does not lose consciousness and it has, also, been successful.The brain creates its own electrochemical action. Where possible, psychotherapy appears to be the best procedure, sometimes aided by psychotropic medication.
When Bill Wilson, creator of Alcoholics Anonymous, was in a hospital trying to recover from addiction, he reported having seen a sudden bright light which he attributed to a Higher Power and, for a long time after that, he did not drink.
The apostles, as described by Durant, seemed to be proselytizing as they traveled to foreign lands. I suppose this is one method of converting. And then, I suppose, conversion can come about through introspection.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 15, 2004 - 07:18 pm
We have just finsished reading about Jesus' tirade against the rich on behalf of the poor. This NY TIMES ARTICLE helps us to see how far we have come in 2000 years.Robby
moxiect
June 15, 2004 - 07:50 pm
Hi Robbie
I've been following the posts with great interest. I still believe it is "man's interpretation" of civilization's history and/or religion.
Justin
June 15, 2004 - 10:27 pm
Very astute observation, Moxie.
Bubble
June 16, 2004 - 12:28 am
Isn't our view from the world around us, our reactions to it and to other people's talk or sight, isn't all that "man's own interpretation" ? Who can say it is really true and correct?
I think I like it, and myself in it, even if it is all an illusion. Bubble
Éloïse De Pelteau
June 16, 2004 - 01:30 am
Robby, Every word in the NY TIMES ARTICLE by Kofi Annan, Post #566, is so absolutely true that "terrorism is the only option developing nations have against growing poverty and despair" that it is no consolation to me that I will probably be dead before it hits home, but my grand children will have to live with the consequence of apathy and greed.
Eloïse
robert b. iadeluca
June 16, 2004 - 03:12 am
"The founder of Christian theology was born at Tarsus in Cilicia about the tenth year of our era. Paul's father was a Pharisee, and brought up the youth in the fervent principles of that sect. The Apostle of the Gentiles never ceased to consider himself a Pharisee, even after he had rejected the Judaic Law. The father was also a Roman citizen and transmitted the precious franchise to his son."Probably the name Paul was the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Saul, so that both names belonged to the apostle from infancy. He did not receive a classical education for no Pharisee would have permitted such outright Hellenism in his son, and no man with Greek training would have written the bad Greek of the Epistles. Nevertheless, he learned to speak the language with sufficient fluency to address an Athenian audience and he occasionally referred to famous passages in Greek literature.
"We may believe that some Stoic theology and ethics passed from the university environment of Tarsus into the Christianity of Paul. So he uses the Stoic term pneuma (breath) for what his English translators call spirit.
"Like most Greek cities, Tarsus had followers of the Orphic or other mystery religions, who believed that the god they worshiped had died for them, had risen from the grave, and would, if appealed to by lively faith and proper ritual, save them from Hades, and share with them his gift of eternal and blessed life.
"The mystery religions prepared the Greeks for Paul, and Paul for the Greeks.
"After the youth had learned the trade of tentmaking, and had received instruction in the local synagogue, his father sent him to Jerusalem, where, Paul tells us, he was 'educated at the feet of Gamaliel according to the srict manner of th Law." Gamaliel was reputedly the grandson of Hillel. He succeeded Hillel as president of the Sanhedrin, and carried on the tradition of interpreting the Law with a lenient regard for the frailty of mankind. Stricter Pharisees were shocked to find him gazing appreciately even upon pagan women.
"He was so learned that the Jews, who keenly honor scholarship, called him 'the beauty of the Law,' and gave to him first, as to only six men after him, the title of rabban, 'our master.' From him and others Paul learned that shrewd and subtle, sometimes casuistic and sophistical, manner of Biblical interpretation which was to disport itself in the Talmud.
"Despite initiation into Hellenism he remained to the end a Jew in mind and character, uttered no doubt of the Torah's inspiration, and proudly maintained the divine election of the Jews as the medium of man's salvation."
I find very interesting the Greek influence as the religion of Christianity comes into being.
Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 16, 2004 - 04:43 am
Malryn (Mal)
June 16, 2004 - 04:49 am
JoanK
June 16, 2004 - 08:02 am
MAL: that last link is extremely interesting.
I hope I don't divert attention from this great discussion, but I wanted to share a link with you. This weeks rubbish subject is dance, and I found this fascinating link on Roman dance. Look at the pictures.
http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Saltatio.html
JoanK
June 16, 2004 - 08:50 am
Here is a related site about "funabulis", dancing on a tight rope. Sounds like fun!!
robert b. iadeluca
June 16, 2004 - 04:55 pm
"Paul describes himself as 'insignificant in appearance' and adds:-'To keep me from being too much elated, a bitter physical affliction was sent me' but he dos not further specify. Tradition pictured him at fifty as a bent and bald and bearded ascetic, with vast forehead, pale face, stern countenance, and piercing eyes."Durer imagined him so in one of the greatest drawings of all times. But in truth these representations are literature and art, not history.
"His mind was of a type frequent among Jews -- penetrating and passionate rather than genial and urbane -- emotional and imaginative rather than objective and impartial. He was powerful in action because he was narrow in thought. Even more than Spinoza he was a 'God-intoxicated man,' consumed with religious enthusiasm in the literal sense of this word -- holding 'a god within.'
"He believed himself divinely inspired, and endowed with the ability to work miracles. He was also a practical soul, capable of laborious organization, impatiently patient in founding and preserving Christian communities. As in so many men, his faults and virtues were near allied and mutually indispensable.
"He was impetuous and courageous -- dogmatic and decisive -- domineering and energetic -- fanatical and creative -- proud hefore man and humble before God -- violently wrathful and capable of the tenderest love.
"He advised his followers to 'bless them that persecute you' but he could hope that his enemies -- 'the party of circumcision' -- would get themselves emasculated. He knew his failings, struggled against them, and begged his converts to 'put up with a little folly from me.'
"The postscript to his first epistle to the Corinthians sums him up:-'This farewell I, Paul, add in my own hand. A curse upon anyone who has no love for the Lord! Lord,come quickly! The blessing of the Lord Jesus be with you! My love be with you all.'
"He was what he had to be to do what he did."
Would you like to have this man as your next door neighbor?And I've been wondering -- is there a disadvantage to seeing both sides of a question? Can it be advantageous to be narrow minded?
Robby
Fifi le Beau
June 16, 2004 - 07:04 pm
Robby asks, Can it be advantageous to be narrow minded?
It is not only advantageous, it is imperative if you are beginning a new religion, a cult, selling useless articles to people who don't need them, or any other crowd controlling enterprise. Take your eye off the prize for a moment and all can be lost.
When Christianity was introduced to China, it led to the Taipei Rebellion. An epilectic who thought he was Jesus brother gathered an army and 20 million people died.
I have come to the conclusion that the world has for the most part been run and controlled by the slightly mad, the mad as a hatter, and the stark raving lunatic.
We have had just enough luck to occasionally get someone in a position of power who can and does have the ability to look at both sides of an issue, and walk and chew gum at the same time.
......
Malryn (Mal)
June 16, 2004 - 08:09 pm
Justin
June 16, 2004 - 10:22 pm
Johnny-come-lately religious leaders such as Smith, Young, Robertson, Falwell, Paul, draw followers by being publicly focused on the message. Having one of these guys as a neighbor would be unpleasant, I think, because off-topic conversation would be stifled. One can get pretty tired of "God" when it is an everyday topic.
Justin
June 16, 2004 - 11:16 pm
There is so much distortion in the New Testament that it difficult to sort out the truth from the fiction. The Pharicees under Hillel and Gamaliel are quite favorable to the Judaic Christians. Gamaliel actually saves the tails of Peter and James in a Sanhedrin trial and Hillel says of Jesus "Let God decide his usefulness."
Now we come to Paul who says he is a Pharicee and Luke says he (Paul)studied under Gamaliel. Paul meanwhile is persecuting the Judaic Christians all over the place and actually stoning one of their leaders. He works for a Sadducean Hign Priest. None of these things are the teaching of Gamaliel and certainly not Hillel and Hillel's followers.
One possible answer lies in Shammai. Apparently there were conservative fundementalists among the Pharisees as well as liberals. The Gamaliel-Hillelites were liberals and the Shamaites were conservatives. Paul apparently resembles the Shamaites much more than the Hillelites. If Luke, writing Acts, long after the facts, is confused about Paul's teacher, that might explain some of the discrepancy.
robert b. iadeluca
June 17, 2004 - 03:11 am
"Paul began by attacking Christianity in the name of Judaism, and ended by rejecting Judaism in the name of Christ. At every moment he was an apostle. Shocked by Stephen's disrespect for the Law, he joined in killing him, and led the first persecution of Christians in Jerusalem. Hearing that the new faith had made converts in Damascus, he obtained authorization from the high priest to go there, arrest all 'who belonged to the Way,' and bring them in chains to Jerusalem (A.D. 31?). "It may be that the fervor of his persecution was due to secret doubts. He could be cruel, but not without remorse. Possibly the vision of Stephen stoned to death, perhaps even some youthful glimpse of Golgotha, troubled his memory and his journey, and fevered his imagination. As his party neared Damascus, says the Acts:--
'a sudden light flashed upon him from heaven, and he fell to the ground. Then he heard a voice saying to him:-'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?' He asked:-'Who are you, sir?' The voice said:-'I am Jesus.' Saul's fellow-travelers stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could not see anyone. When he got up from the ground and opened his eyes, he could see nothing. They had to take him by the hand and lead him into Damascus. For three days he could not see.'
"No one can say what natural processes underlay this pivotal experience. The fatigue of a long journey, the strength of the desert sun, perhaps a stroke of heat lightning in the sky, acting by accumulation upon a frail and possibly epileptic body, and a mind tortured by doubt and guilt, may have brought to culmination the half-conscious process by which the passionate denier became the ablest preacher of Stephen's Christ.
"His Greek environment in Tarsus had spoken of a Soter or Savior who redeemed mankind. His Jewish lore had told of a Messiah to come. How could he be sure that this mysterious and fascinating Jesus, for whom men were ready to die, was not the promised one?
"When, weak and still blind at the end of his journey, he felt upon his face the kindly, soothing hands of a converted Jew, 'something like scales dropped from his eyes, and his sight was restored. He got up and was baptized, and after taking some food, regained his strength.'
"A few days later he entered the synagogue of Damascus, and told their congregations that Jesus was the Son of God.:
Might we say, in current-day religious terms, that he was "born again?"
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 17, 2004 - 03:47 am
Here are some thoughts by a scholar on the ART AND SCIENCE OF CHANGING ONES MIND. Robby
Bubble
June 17, 2004 - 03:49 am
Mal, Rabbi Moshe Reiss seems someone it would be interesting to meet. I sent him a mail saying we are in the mid of a discussion about early Christianity and that his article had been mentionned. I have been to the Kibbutz Ness Amim when it was founded long ago and was impressed with the friendly approach with which all were approached.
I have met two years ago a born-again primitive baptist and we often compare the similarities between his and my religion. I do feel the need to be careful on my phrasing because I see the movement as single minded as the Paul described here.
The verb "Soter" means "to differ", to have a different opinion.
Bubble
robert b. iadeluca
June 17, 2004 - 03:55 am
Bubble:-If, as you say, Soter means "to differ" and Durant tells us that Soter means Savior, might we say that the goal of a "savior" is to "save" us from a different "mistaken" opinion?On the topic of "single-mindedness," I find it intriguing that some single-minded persons can jump completely from A to Z -- that they are now as strongly against eating carbohydrates, just as an example, as they were previously for doing so. It seems that the process is more important to them than the content -- that being "for" or "against" something is more important than the belief itself.
Robby
Bubble
June 17, 2004 - 04:16 am
Yes Robby, single minded can reverse views totally and be as opiniate in the new. My son is a good example.
After his Bar Mitzva he became totally imbued and fanatical about religion. He forced us to have only kosher food in the house and checked every single piece of meat, poultry or whatever to see if it had been properly salted etc. He was a pain in the neck for a few years and we never could go all together to my favorite restaurant even if it served good food because it did not display a kosher certificate (reason: they are they open on shabbat).
In the army he made a total volte-face and refused to eat food bought in a religious store! He even joined a political party helping the yeshivah boys wanting to leave that stream.
Now he is extremist in his expressions in regards to that part of the population. Of course there is no point to start arguing with him about it.
Bubble
Rabbi oedipus
June 17, 2004 - 05:23 am
I was pleased that someone mentioned my work in the chat box. In my website 'moshereiss.org' I suggest that Paul was actually a disciple of Shammai, the arch conservative and not of Gamaliel, the descendant of Hillel. In one chapter I compare Jesus and Hillel, not as disciples but Jesus following the 'liberal' view of Judaism which was in fact the majority view, Shammai was almost comsidered an apostate and his followers sentenced 'metaphorically' to death. Luke wrote this much later than the event and may have confused a current Gamaliel, a grandson of the original Gamaliel with Paul's teacher. I have also suggested that Paul was not only not an 'anti-Semite' but teaching pagans Jewish ethics. He desired the world to follow the Jewish God, the God of creation. He did not suggest faith versus 'works' since works ie not obeying the commandments, at least the seven Noahide laws means ethical chaos.
Shalom
Moshe
Rabbi oedipus
June 17, 2004 - 05:25 am
I was pleased that someone mentioned my work in the chat box. In my website 'moshereiss.org' I suggest that Paul was actually a disciple of Shammai, the arch conservative and not of Gamaliel, the descendant of Hillel. In one chapter I compare Jesus and Hillel, not as disciples but Jesus following the 'liberal' view of Judaism which was in fact the majority view, Shammai was almost comsidered an apostate and his followers sentenced 'metaphorically' to death. Luke wrote this much later than the event and may have confused a current Gamaliel, a grandson of the original Gamaliel with Paul's teacher. I have also suggested that Paul was not only not an 'anti-Semite' but teaching pagans Jewish ethics. He desired the world to follow the Jewish God, the God of creation. He did not suggest faith versus 'works' since works ie not obeying the commandments, at least the seven Noahide laws means ethical chaos.
Shalom
Moshe
robert b. iadeluca
June 17, 2004 - 05:40 am
Rabbi: Welcome to our discussion group and thanks to Bubble for bringing you to us. We appreciate hearing these remarks from a learned scholar. As you have undoubtedly been told by Bubble, we are not a religious forum but a historical forum. For the past two years plus we have been discussing Durant's first volume, "Our Oriental Heritage," his second volume, "The Life of Greece," and, as you can see, we are now in the third volume, "Caesar and Christ."If Bubble has not already told you, be sure to click onto the button labeled "Subscribe" and that will regularly bring you back to our latest postings.
Again, welcome!
Robby
Shasta Sills
June 17, 2004 - 08:54 am
I was fascinated by Rabbi Moshe Reiss' comments on early Christianity. I wish I had known, before reading them, who Rabbi
Moshe is and what his viewpoint is towards Judaism, Christianity,
and Islam. I think it is wonderful that somebody is trying to
bring about understanding and tolerance among these three religions.
Éloïse De Pelteau
June 17, 2004 - 09:16 am
Welcome Rabbi Moishe to our discussion. Your post about early Christianity is very interesting and I will look forward to your future participantion in this forum.
Eloïse
Shasta Sills
June 17, 2004 - 01:31 pm
I had never heard of the Noahide laws so I had to look this up, and
find out what they are. A revision of the Ten Commandments? I found
an excellent site comparing the two sets of laws, and was surprised
to learn that these Noahide laws were enacted into law by the U.S.
Congress during the administration of George Bush I. I don't clearly
understand the 7th law about not tearing a leg from a living animal.
Who would do such a thing anyway? Of course, the congress interpreted it as a law against cruelty to animals, but what did it
mean to the Jews when they set up this law?
Scrawler
June 17, 2004 - 01:59 pm
Fifi de Beau: I have to agree with your post, especially the last line.
Justin & Robby: I don't think I'd want to find Paul on my frontdoor step when I came home every night after a hard day's work - I think of him as being over-zealous.
Rabbi oedipus
June 17, 2004 - 03:30 pm
Someone asked where the Noahide laws come from. They are comparable to 'natural law'. They include the following seven commanments:
1. Believe in one God as a creator of the World.
2. Not to bear false witness nor lying)
3. Do not Murder
4. Do not Steal
5. Do not engage in Incestual sexual relations
6. Do not engage in cruelty to animals
7. Establish a system of Law and Justice
They are discussed in the Christian Bible by James (the brother of Jesus) at a meeting with Paul. James mentioned four of them in Acts 15:19. The one about strangled animals is an ancient term for cruelty to animals.
Justin
June 17, 2004 - 04:10 pm
Shasta; Please link us to the site that relates the Noahide to the Mosaic commandments. If what you say is correct the Congress has overreached its bounds and should be taken to task for the error of its ways. In the Bush 1 years, the Congress was Democratic, as I recall, and that would make passage of such legislation almost impossible. Further, I don't think the Republicans would dare to pass such legislation but of course, I could be wrong. They are today in complete control and it may have gone to their heads.
Justin
June 17, 2004 - 04:28 pm
Rabbi Oedipus: You are here at the right moment in our discussion. Nice to have you. We are at that point where the question of Paul's authority to speak for the Jews is relevant. I seriously question the observations of Durant that Paul was raised a Pharisee by a Pharisee tentmaker and sent on to study at Jerusalem with Gamaliel. He comes to town and hires on as a policeman for the Sadducean High Priest who assigns him the task of policing this growing sect called Judaic Christians. He participates in the stoning of Steven, a leading member of this new sect. He says he is a pupil of Gamaliel but he does not learn anything from him. Gamaliel does not persecute Christians. He teaches in the Hillel tradition. Perhaps the Ebionites are right. This fellow was not a Pharisee and he adopted the connection to establish continuity with Judaism.
I would like to read your work on Hillel and Jesus. Can you link us to it?
What's with this reference to Oedipus? Are you showing a link to Hellenism in this way?
Nice to have you here by the way.
robert b. iadeluca
June 17, 2004 - 05:04 pm
Durant continues:-"The governor of Damascus, urged by the offended Jews, issued an order for Paul's arrest. Paul's new friends lowered him in a basket over the city walls. For three years, he tells us, he preached Christ in the hamlets of Arabia. Returning to Jerusalem, he won the forgiveness and friendship of Peter, and lived with him for a while. Most of the apostles distrusted him, but Barnabus, himself a recent convert, gave him a cordial hand, and persuaded the Jerusalem church to commission its persecutor as a bearer of the Good News that the Messiah had come and would soon establish the Kingdom.
"The Greek-speaking Jews to whom he brought the Gospel tried to kill him, and the apostles, perhaps fearing that his ardor would endanger them all, sent him to Tarsus.
"For eight years he was lost to history in his native city. Perhaps again he felt the influence of the mystic salvation theology popular among the Greeks. Then Barnabas came and asked his aid in ministering to the church at Antioch.
"Working together (43-44?), they made so many converts that Antioch soon led all other cities in the number of its Christians. There for the first time the 'Believers,' 'Disciples,' 'Brethren,' or 'Saints,' as they had called themselves, received from the pagans, perhaps in scorn, the name Christianoi -- followers of the Messiah or Anointed One. There, too, for the first time, gentiles (i.e. people of the gentes or nations) were won to the new faith.
"Most of these were 'God fearers,' predominantly women, who had already accepted the monotheism, and in some part the ritual, of the Jews.
"The Antioch converts were not as poor as those in Jerusalem. A considerable minority belonged to the merchant class. With the enthusiasm of a youthful and growing movement, they raised a fund to spread the Gospel. The elders of the church 'laid their hands upon' Barnabas and Paul, and sent them out on what history, unduly belittling Barnabas, calls the 'first missionary journey of Saint Paul' (45-47?).
"They sailed to Cyprus and met with encouragng success among the many Jews of the island. From Paphos they took ship to Perga in Pamphylia, and traveled over dangerous mountain roads to Antioch in Pisidia. The synagogue gave them a courteous hearing. But when they began to preach to gentiles as well, the orthodox Jews persuaded the municipal officers to banish the missionaries.
"Similar difficulties developed at Iconium. At Lystra Paul was stoned, dragged out of the town, and left for dead. Still 'full of the joy of the Holy Spirit,' Paul and Barnabas carried the Gospel to Derbe. Then they returned by the same route to Perga, and sailed to Syrian Antioch.
"There they found themselves faced by the most crucial problem in the history of Christianity."
Mountain roads -- heavy seas -- dusty deserts -- angry hoardes -- stoning -- the passing of years. One has to truly have a strong belief to undergo such hardships.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 17, 2004 - 05:42 pm
Here is an Outline of the LIFE AND WORKS OF PAUL indicating in detail the Bible references from which these items of information were taken.Robby
Justin
June 17, 2004 - 07:11 pm
Life of Paul by Snyder etc. is made to fit Lutherinism very precisely.There are no questions about his life. He is just a well adjusted college boy off to see the wizzard in Jerusalem. Such a well adjusted life with documentation is a model for all good boys to follow. No wonder these folks are so adamant. They are given well tailored positive role models to follow in life- somewhat like a holy picture. What the followers of this group seem to ignore is that simplicity is the essence of fiction.
Bubble
June 17, 2004 - 11:11 pm
Justin: your mention :Life of..." opened a box of memories.
As I said here before I did all my schooling in a convent school because they were the only ones who accepted to take a kittle girl crippled with polio. There each class had its library a reading one book a week from it was a required task. Every year I was in charge of the books because I could no go out to play at recess. No need to say I was a voracious reader.
The 99 % of books were saints lives like Ste Theresa of Avila, St Anne, or people nominated for sainthood like Tharsicius (sister Tharcisius was our headmistress), ernadette Soubirou and other virtuous children. The lives were all exemplary and too good to be true, but we kids believed it.
Two from our class entered the order later on.
robert b. iadeluca
June 18, 2004 - 02:54 am
Bubble tells me that in answer to a question I posted, Rabbi Moshe gave his answer in an email to her. As it was meant for us to read, I am posting it here:--
Religion and Theology can not exist out of history. My Bible begins with creation and the Christian one ends with the
apocalypse - the end of history (not in Fukuyama's sense). This means we believe in progress from a beginning to an end. This differs
from Islam; the Koran is not written in chronological order, but rather the
largest chapters are first and the shortest are last.
It suggest that Islam does not believe in progress, perhaps that is why
they have so much trouble with modernity.
robert b. iadeluca
June 18, 2004 - 03:26 am
"Some leading disciples of Jerusalem, hearing that the two preachers were accepting gentile converts without requiring circumcision, had come to Antioch 'to teach the brethren that unless they were circumcized as Moses prescribed, they could not be saved.' To the Jew circumcision was not so much a ritual of health as a holy symbol of his people's ancient covenant with God. The Christian Jew was appalled at the thought of breaking that covenant. For their part Paul and Barnabas realized tht if these emissaries had their way, Christianity would never be accepted by any significant number of gentiles. It would remain 'a Jewish heresy' (as Heine was to call it), and would fade out in a century."They went down to Jerusalem (50?) and fought the matter out with the apostles, nearly all of whom were still faithful worshipers in the Temple. James was reluctant to consent. Peter defended the two missionaries. Finally it was agreed that pagan proselytes should be required only to abstain from immorality and from the eating of sacrificial or strangled animals.
"Apparently Paul eased the way by promising financial support for the impoverished community at Jerusalem from the swelling funds of the Antioch church.
"The issue, however, was too vital to be so easily laid. A second group of orthodox Jewish Christians came from Jerusalem to Antioch, found Peter eating with gentiles, and persuaded him to separate himself, with the converted Jews, from the uncircumcized proselytes. We do not know Peter's side of this episode. Paul tells us that 'he withstood Peter to his face' at Antioch, and accused him of hypocrisy. Perhaps Peter had merely wished, like Paul, to be 'all things to all men.'
"Probably in the year 50 Paul left on his second missionary journey. He had quarreled with Barnabas, who now disappeared from history in his native Cyprus. revisiting his churches in Asia Minor, Paul attached to himself at Lystra a young disciple named Timothy, whom he came to love with a profound affection that had long been starved for an object.
"Together they went through Phrygia and Galatia as far north as Alexandria Troas. Here Paul made the acquaintance of Luke, an uncircumcized proselyte to Judaism, a man of good mind and heart, probably the author of the Third Gospel and the Book of Acts -- both designed to soften the conflicts that from the beginning marked the history of Christianity.
"From Troas Paul, Timothy, and another aide, Silas, sailed to Macedonia, for the first time touchng European soil. At Philippi, where Antony had conquered Brutus, Paul and Silas were arrested as disturbers of the peace, were scourged and jailed, but were freed on the discovery tht they were Roman citiens.
"Passing on to Thesalonica, Paul went to the synagogue, and for three Sabbaths preached to the Jews. A few were convinced, and organized a church. Others roused the town against Paul on the ground that he was proclaiming a new king. His friends had to spirit him away to Beraea during the night.
"There 'the Jews received the message with great eagerness' but the Thessalonians came to denounce Paul as an enemy of Judaism, and he took ship for Athens (51?), discouraged and alone."
As Paul "fought the matter out" with the apostles, I can't help but comparing them in my mind with members of Congress negotiating their principles, offering funds to the other side to get what they want, and attaching amendments to their bills. The original "beliefs" seemed to have been either forgotten or ignored.
robert b. iadeluca
June 18, 2004 - 04:04 am
Here is some information about the CEREMONY OF CIRCUMCISION.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 18, 2004 - 04:14 am
Here is some information about JEWISH DIETARY LAWS. Robby
Shasta Sills
June 18, 2004 - 09:18 am
Justin, I don't know how to make a link, but this is what I did. I
went through Google and typed in: "Compare Noahide Laws with Ten
Commandments." I received a list of sites, and it was about the
second or third, entitled: "The Seven Laws of Noah and Related Concepts." There is a panel on the right side about the enactment
of these laws by Congress. As you scroll down, there are neat charts
comparing the two sets of laws. I wish you would check this and tell
me if I have understood it correctly because it seems surprising
to me too.
JoanK
June 18, 2004 - 09:37 am
Here is the link
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/7laws.html You are exactly right, Shasta. Amazing!
Putting in a link is simple on my Dell. You highlight the link by putting your cursor at the beginning of it (in the little address box, holding down the left button and dragging the cursor across what you want to highlight. You can tell what you have highlighted because it become outlined in Black. If you make a mistake, click your cursor elsewhere on the screnn: the black will disappear, and you can do it again. (Sometimes it takes several tries).
When you have it highlighted, press ctrl c. This stores the phrase somewhere (cuts it). Then go to where you want to paste it -- in this case the "post-a-message box) and hit ctrl v. It won't look like a link in the box, but when you post it, it will be.
If you have a Mac, it's a little different. Ask me, and I'll ask my sister.
I don't know how to do those nice titles like Robby. There was a lesson that explained it, but I can't find it.
Shasta Sills
June 18, 2004 - 09:57 am
JoanK, thanks for your instructions. I have printed them out and will try to learn to do this. It's about time I learned how!
Bubble
June 18, 2004 - 10:12 am
I just left click on the internet explorer icon that is in the little address box and drag it to the "post-a-message" box. That is all!
JoanK
June 18, 2004 - 10:13 am
WOW! I don't have that icon.
Fifi le Beau
June 18, 2004 - 10:19 am
Here is the site for the actual proclamation. It is not a law, but everything that goes through congress gets a number, including proclamations. Both the web sites are religious sites and have put their own spin on things.
It is a proclamation honoring education day. Congress issues proclamation days for everything from the "Hog Breeders Assn." to "Little League". They all get a congressional number, but they are not laws, but are usually honoring some constitute they have just fleeced.
http://torah.5u.com/Education%20Day%20USA.htm ......
winsum
June 18, 2004 - 12:53 pm
I'm baaaaack. learning more in one half hour of reading posts about my jewish background than I want to know and as for Paul, it's a favored name among present day jewish families. also david, but barnabas gets slighted here too. My anti religious bias has more or less kept me from becoming educated in this background but I think I can lurk without making waves and expand beond my predudice. forgive typos. . I'm not going to fix em because y spelling is bad too and I'm not aware of half of them. . . . . Claire
Shasta Sills
June 18, 2004 - 01:43 pm
So now I know the difference between an hypothesis and a theory. And
the difference between a proclamation and a law. I keep learning things every day. Maybe I will even learn to make a link.
Malryn (Mal)
June 18, 2004 - 01:55 pm
<a href="The URL address of the website you want to link goes here">Its Name</a>
robert b. iadeluca
June 18, 2004 - 04:53 pm
Hi, Claire! I thought I had lost you!Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 18, 2004 - 05:20 pm
"In Athens, the heart of pagan religion, science, and philosophy, Paul found himself quite friendless. There were few Jews to give him a hearing. He had to take his stand in the market place, like any modern haranguer of city crowds, and compete with a dozen rivals for passing ears."Some listeners argued with him. Some laughed at him, and asked;-'What is this ragpicker trying to make out?' Several were interested, and led him up to the Areopagus, or Hill of Mars, for a quieter hearing. He told them how he had noted, in Athens, an altar inscribed 'To an Unknown God.' This dedication, which probably expressed the desire of the donors to thank, appease, or enlist the aid of a god of whose name they were not certain, Paul interpreted as a confession of ignorance concerning the nature of God.
"It was a brave effort to reconcile Christianity with Greek philosophy. Nevertheless, it impressed only a few. The Athenians had heard too many ideas to have much enthusiasm for any.
"Paul left the city in disappointment and went to Corinth, where commerce had gathered a substantial community of Jews. He stayed there eighteen months (51-52?), earning his living as a tentmaker, and preaching every Sabbath in the synagogue. The leader of the synagogue was converted, and so many others that the alarmed Jews indicted Paul before the Roman governor, Gallio, on the charge of 'trying to induce people to worship God in ways that are against the law.'
"Gallio replied:-'As it is only a question of words and titles and your own law, you must look after it yourselves. I will not decide such matters' and he dismissed them from the court. The two parties fell to blows, 'but Gallio paid no attention.' Paul offered his gospel to the gentiles of Corinth, and made many converts among them. Christianity may have seemed to them an acceptable variation of the mystery faiths that had so often told them of resurrected saviors.
"Possibly in accepting it they assimilated it to these beliefs, and influenced Paul to interpret Christianity in terms familiar to the Hellenistic mind."
Again the philosophy-religion clash.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 19, 2004 - 03:57 am
Bubble is in the midst of a birthday celebration and will be back with us tomorrow. Rabbi Moshe may be currently celebrating Shabbat.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 19, 2004 - 04:32 am
Here is a map of Apostle Paul's FIRST MISSIONARY JOURNEY. Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 19, 2004 - 04:38 am
Here is a map of Apostle Paul's SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. One can see how his fervor has increased.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 19, 2004 - 04:57 am
"From Corinth Paul went to Jerusalem (53?) to 'salute the church.' Soon, however, he was off on his third missionary journey, visiting the Christian communities in Antioch and Asia Minor, and reinvigorating them with his fervor and confidence. At Ephesus he spent two years, and 'did such extraordinary wonders' that many looked upon him as a miracle-worker, and sought to cure ailments by applying to the sick the linens Paul had used."The manufacturers of the images that pagan worshipers dedicated in the Temple of Artemis found their trade slackening. Perhaps Paul had repeatd here his Athenian indictment of image worship or idolatry. One Demetrius, who made silver models of the great shrine for pious pilgrms, organized a protest against Paul and the new faith, and led to the city theater a crowd of Greeks whose catchword, repeated for two hours, was 'Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!'
"A local official dissolved the gathering, but Paul thought it the better part of valor to leave for Macedonia.
"He spent some happy months with the little congregations he had founded in Philippi, Thessalonica, and Beraea. Hearing that dissension and immorality were disordering the church at Corinth, he not only reprimanded it in several epistles, but went down to it in person (56?) to face his detractors. They had accused him of profiting materially from his preaching, laughed at his visions, and renewed the demand that all Christians should obey the Jewish Law.
"Paul reminded the turbulent community that he had everywhere earned his living with the work of his hands. As to material profit, what had he not suffered from his missions? -- eight floggings, one stoning, three shipwrecks, and a thousand dangers from robbers, patriots, and streams.
"Amid this turmoil word was brought him that the 'party of the circumcision,' apparently violating the Jerusalem agreement, had gone into Galatia and demanded of all converts the full acceptance of the Jewish Law.
"He wrote to the Galatians a wrathful epistle in which he broke comletely with the Judaizing Christians, and declared that men were to be saved not by adherence to the Mosaic Law, but by an active faith in Christ as the redeeming Son of God. Then, not knowing what sharper tribulations awaited him there, he left for Jerusalem, eager to defend himself before the Apostles, and wishing to celebrate in the Holy City the ancient feast of Pentecost.
"From Jerusalem, he hoped, he might go to Rome, even to Spain, and never rest until every province of the Empire had heard the news and promise of the risen Christ."
At previous locations it had been philosophy versus religion. Now it was the world of business versus religion.
Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 19, 2004 - 05:00 am
robert b. iadeluca
June 19, 2004 - 05:02 am
Here is a map of Apostle Paul's THIRD MISSIONARY JOURNEY. Robby
Éloïse De Pelteau
June 19, 2004 - 05:25 am
Excellent Maps Mal and Robby. Travelling in Paul's time meant walking or sailing. Incredible journey if we compare it with today's practically instant travelling by jet.
Eloïse
robert b. iadeluca
June 19, 2004 - 08:55 am
And consider, Eloise, the strength of the belief that he must have had to move him on and on for years and years.Robby
Éloïse De Pelteau
June 19, 2004 - 10:18 am
And it was mainly through Paul's writings and teaching that Christianity became the largest religion in the world even surpassing Judaism while Islam is fast becoming the largest religion.
Aside from Communist Russia, which always had its underground religious followers, is there no other country that claims Atheism? Perhaps China? I wonder if there is an underground religion as well in modern China?
Eloïse
robert b. iadeluca
June 19, 2004 - 01:43 pm
Click HERE to read about some of Apostle Paul's attitude toward women. Again, consider the source of the article.Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 20, 2004 - 07:11 am
Below is a link to an article in which its author examines the Greek words Paul used when he wrote about women. It is interesting because many times there are two words which say the same thing, but have different meanings. There are also words which have double meanings. What we read in translation is how the translator interpreted the words and their meanings and not necessarily what Paul intended.
What Paul Really Said About Women
moxiect
June 20, 2004 - 09:27 am
And to me, it is still MAN's interpertation of the language!
Shasta Sills
June 20, 2004 - 12:31 pm
Paul's attitude toward women seems pretty clear to me. They should
keep their heads covered and their mouths shut.
winsum
June 20, 2004 - 11:13 pm
Paul would have been happy in Orange County.
""In Athens, the heart of pagan religion, science, and philosophy, Paul found himself quite
friendless. There were few Jews " and I probably belong in ATHENS of his day. personalizing, but robby you said to do that. read history as if it could affect us today.
winsum
June 20, 2004 - 11:29 pm
according to your post, Mal Paul was entreating women to play a subordinate role . . . which seems a stretc to me, but I don't know the subtleties of the languages. words have different meanings in different contexts. I do inow that certain modern hustbands believe the "husbands should command
their wives and rule over them,"
, a not uncommon position. Is that to be atributed to a misunderstanding of christian thought?
winsum
June 20, 2004 - 11:31 pm
according to your post, Mal Paul was entreating women to play a subordinate role . . . which seems a stretch to me, but I don't know the subtleties of the languages. words have different meanings in different contexts. I do know that certain modern husbands believe the
"husbands should command
their wives and rule over them,"
, a not uncommon position. Is that to be atributed to a misunderstanding of christian thought? And it also occurs to me that current jewish households give the wife and mother the place at the head of the table and that in domestic affairs she is often the one in charge. (a jewish mother) a common phraze for this position. It also has been interpretted as a YENTA or a jewish woman who not only minds her own business but that of others in matchmaking activities.
Bubble
June 20, 2004 - 11:51 pm
winsum... please do not generalize about " that current Jewish households give the wife and mother the place at the head of the table". Alas in many houses she is at the head of the table because she barely sits there but goes back and forth between kitchen and table, serving, responding to every whims of the husband and male children. She does it with love? yes, true because she was educated that way, unthinkable she could think of herself first. If by chance she didn't, in the religious household, the wife of the rabbi if not the rabbi himself would have a little word with her about the precepts of the Bible.
Sorry, I am going on like that: I helped a woman this week, beaten by her "better half" because she was to slow ironing his shirt (she is in the end of her 8th month and with problems!). This is not an unusual case either. Read Naomi Regan's books...
There is good and bad everywhere. I laughed at the "matchmaker". How else to grow and multiply much if you do not start early?
I am out for the day: cousins arrived from Australia for just 5 days!
Bubble
winsum
June 21, 2004 - 12:07 am
You're right about GENERALIZATIONS. I shouldn't, no one should (another generalization). it's hard to avoid them, but I'll try. . . . . Claire
robert b. iadeluca
June 21, 2004 - 03:17 am
Claire (Winsum):-It's good to see you back here again!Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 21, 2004 - 03:35 am
"The leaders of the mother church gave Paul 'a hearty welcome' (57?) but privately they admonished him:-'You see, brother, how many thousand believers there are among the Jews, all of them zealous upholders of the Law. They have been told that you teach all Jews who live among the heathen to turn away from Moses, that you tell them not to circumcize their children, nor to observe the old customs. They will be sure to hear that you have come. So do what we tell you. We have four men here who are under a vow. Join them, undergo the rites of purification with them. and pay their expenses. Then everybody will understand that there is no truth in the stories told about you, but that you yourself observe the Law.'
"Paul took the advice in good spirit and went through the rites of purification. But when some Jews saw him in the Temple they raised an outcry against him as 'the man who teaches everybody everywhere against our people and the Law.'
"A mob seized him, dragged him from the Temple and 'were trying to kill him' when a squad of Roman soldiers rescued him by arrest. Paul turned to speak to the crowd, and affirmed both his Judaism and his Christianity. They shouted for his death. The Roman officer ordered him to be flogged but desisted when he learned of Paul's Roman citizenship.
"The next day he brought the prisoner before the Sanhedrin. Paul addressed it, proclaimed himself a Pharisee, and won some support. But his excited opponents again sought to do him violence, and the officer withdrew him into the barrcks. That night a nephew of Paul came to warn him that forty Jews had vowed not to eat or drink until they had killed him.
"The officer, fearing a disturbance that would compromise him, sent Paul in the night to the procurator Felix at Caesarea.
"Five days later the high priest and some elders came up from Jerusalem and accused Paul of being 'a pest and a disturber of the peace among Jews all over the world.' Paul admitted that he was preaching a new religion, but added:-'I believe everything that is taught in the Law.'
"Felix dismissed the accusers. Nevertheless, he kept Paul under house arrest -- accessible to friends -- for two years (58-60?), hoping, perhaps, for a substantial bribe."
"Affirmed both his Judaism and his Christianity." "Admitted that he was preaching a new religion but believed everything that is taught in the Law."Talking out of both sides of his mouth? Wanting to be all things to all people?
Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 21, 2004 - 06:24 am
Do you suppose Paul thought he was telling the truth? Or was he just trying to save his skin?
Mal
robert b. iadeluca
June 21, 2004 - 06:45 am
"When Festus succeeded Felix he suggested that Paul should stand trial before him at Jerusalem. Fearing that hostile environment, Paul exercised his rights as a Roman citizen, and demanded trial before the emperor. King Agrippa, passing through Caesarea, gave him another hearing, and judged him 'mad with great learning,' but otherwise innocent. Said Agrippa:-'He might be let go if he had not appealed to the emperor.'"Paul was put on a trading vessel, which sailed so leisurely that it encountered a winter storm before it could reach Italy. Through fourteen days of tempest, we are told, he gave crew and passengers an encouraging example of a man superior to death and confident of rescue. The ship broke to pieces on Malta's rocks, but all on board swam saely to shore. Three months later Paul arrived in Rome (61?).
"The Roman authorities treated him leniently, awaiting his accusers from Palestine, and Nero's leisure to hear the case. He was allowed to live in a house of his choosing with a soldier to guard him. He could not move about freely but he could receive whomever he wished.
"He invited the leading Jews of Rome to come to him. They heard him patiently, but when they perceived that in his judgment the observance of the Jewish Law was not necessary to salvation, they turned away. The Law seemed to them the indispensable prop and solace of Jewish life.
"Said Paul;'Understand, then, that this message of God's salvation has been sent to the heathen. They will listen to it!' His attitude offended also the Christian community that he found in Rome. These converts, chiefly Jews, preferred the Christianity that had been brought to them from Jerusalem. They practiced circumcision and were hardly distinguished by Rome from the orthodox Jews. They welcomed Peter, but were cold to Paul.
"He made some converts among the gentiles, even in high places but a bitter sense of frustration darkened the loneliness of his imprisonment."
"You can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar?"
Robby
Scrawler
June 21, 2004 - 02:00 pm
I think Paul was talking like a true politician trying to appease everyone and yes, I think he did believe what he said. However, how much he believed is the question I have to ask. There are some religions and philosophies in which it is hard to swallow the whole thing, but I can believe in parts. Perhaps this is what Paul did.
robert b. iadeluca
June 21, 2004 - 04:56 pm
"Paul found some solace in sending long and tender letters to his distant flocks. These epistles were preserved, and often publicly read, by the congregations to which they were addressed. By the end of the first century many of them were widely known. "Clement of Rome refers to them in 97. Ignatius and Polycarp soon afterwards. Gradually they entered into the subtlest theology of the Church.
"Moved by his own somber spirit and remorse -- and his transforming vision of Christ -- influenced perhaps by Platonist and Stoic denumciations of matter and body as evil -- recalling, it may be, Jewish and pagan customs of sacrificing a 'scapegoat' for the sins of the people -- Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ -- that every man born of woman inherits the guilt of Adam -- and can be saved from eternal damnation only by the atoning death of the Son of God.
"The ancient Jews shared with the Canaanites, Moabites, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, and other peoples the custom of sacrificing a child, even a beloved son, to appease the wrath of Heaven. In the course of time a condemned criminal might be substituted. In Babylonia he was dressed in royal robes to represent the son of the king, and was then scourged and hanged.
"A similar sacrifice took place in Rhodes at the feast of Cronus. The offering of a lamb or kid at the Passover was probbly a civilized mitigation of ancient human sacrifice.
"Says Frazer;-'On the day of atonement the Jewish high priest laid both his hands on the head of a live goat, confessed over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and having thereby transferred the sins of the people to the beast, sent it away into the wilderness.
"Such a conception was more agreeable to the pagans than to the Jews. Egypt, Asia Minor, and Hellas had long since believed in gods -- Osiris, Attis, Dionyusus -- who had died to redeem mankind. Such titles as Soter (Savior) and Eleutherios (Deliverer) had been applied to these deities. The word Kyrios (Lord), used by Paul of Christ, was the term given in Syrian-Greek cults to the dying and redeeming Dionuysus.
"The gentiles of Antioch and other Greek cities, never having known Jesus in the flesh, could only accept him after the manner of their savior gods.
"Said Paul-'Behold, I show you a mystery.'"
Robby
Justin
June 21, 2004 - 07:53 pm
Durant sums up his examination of Peter's influence by telling us that in Christ and Peter Christianity was Jewish, in Paul it became half Greek; in Catholicism, it became half Roman; and in Protestantism, the Judaic element and emphasis were restored. One must wonder how these influences came about. They were not invented out of whole cloth for the purpose of creating a new religion but were forced into existance by the marketing process. Peter and Paul ran up against a problem while selling the new concept.One part of the product was unacceptable to gentiles- circumcision. So they dropped it and substituted baptism. From that moment on the idea sold well until Paul met the Greeks. The Greeks had a religion of their own-a mystery religion. Once again the product concept is changed. Paul says,"Behold I show you a Mystery", and so he did. He sold them on the death of a god for the inherited sins of Adam to save one from eternal damnation-an idea that had it's roots in the Greek belief in Dionysus, Attis, and Osirus who died to redeem mankind.
winsum
June 21, 2004 - 09:22 pm
but in each of these versions there was a SCAPEGOAT, even if only a symbolic one. I remember a long time ago when my dad was working with a writer on a book about the german bundt in Los Angeles who were tring to sell their brand of naziism and felt that they needed a scapegoat . in order to bring others together there must be someone for them all to be AGAINST. In that case it was the jews. There's a family story about my fathers activities (amrican jewish committee) almost resulting in the kidnaping of my sister and me. It helps to have a victim to bring people together. . . trouble is it works both ways. "where thre's smoke the'r fire" it also convinces others that there must be "something in it" accusations and lies.
Justin
June 21, 2004 - 10:03 pm
Shasta: Did Fifi's response on the Proclamation cover the issue of the Noahyde Laws sufficiently? I certainly accept that explanation.
Justin
June 21, 2004 - 10:31 pm
Claire; I think there are many scapegoats in the Christian story. The crucified Jesus is one scapegoat that runs through all versions. He appears as a voluntary scapegoat. However,that concept is one developed to make the soter palatable to the Greeks by resembling the Dionysian, Attisian, and Osirian themes.
Judas is another scapegoat who appears as a betrayer for money and repents in suicide. He takes the rap for the death of Jesus.
All Pharisees take the rap as hypocrits which is nonsense. The High Priest and Jews in general are the scapegoats for the death of Jesus. The Romans who did the deed seem to get off scot free.
This Jewish idea of pouring the sins of a people into the body of a goat that,then, is allowed to wander off is ok symbolically but when such ideas are allowed to become real they can cause some very real damage.
Justin
June 21, 2004 - 10:51 pm
Not only was Paul anti women but Peter, as well as many Jews then,and perhaps even today some sects, cast women in a submissive role. A good many Christians, I'm afraid, also agree.
Today, however, in many areas of the world,women are fighting back and religious clerics, reading the admonitions of Paul and Peter are seeking alternative translations. It's called copping out.
The modern effect of these admonitions is very damaging to women. It's not just that Mrs. B walks three feet behind the Man but he and many members of Congress think they know better than women the right reproductive role for them to play. These ideas are not unconnected. Indeed, they are fused in the minds of many church going people. Just ask the Pope.
robert b. iadeluca
June 22, 2004 - 03:04 am
"Paul added to the popular and consoling theology certain mystic conceptions already made current by the Book of Wisdom and the philosophy of Philo. Said Paul:-'Christ is the wisdom of God,' the fist-born Son of God. 'He is before all things, in him all things exist. Through him all things have been created.'"He is not the Jewish Messiah who will deliver Israel from bondage. He is the Logos whose death will deliver all men. Through these interpretations Paul could neglect the actual life and sayings of Jesus, which he had not directly known, and could stand on an equality with the immediate apostles, who were no match for him in metaphysical speculation. He could give to the life of Christ, and to the life of man, high roles in a magnificnet drama that embraced all souls and all eternity.
"Moreover, he could answer the troublesome qustions of those who asked why Christ, if very god, had allowed himself to be put to death. Christ had died to redeem a world lost to Satan by Adam's sin.
"He had to die to break the bonds of death and open the gates of heaven to all who should be touched by the grace of God.
"Two factors, said Paul, determine who shall be saved by Christ's death:-divine election and humble faith. God chooses from all eternity those whom he will bless with his grace and those whom he will damn. Nevertheless, Paul bestirred himself to awaken faith as a rod to catch God's grace. Only through such 'assurance of things longed for,' such 'confidence in things unseen,' can the soul experience that profound change which makes a new man -- unites the believer with Christ -- and allows him to share in the fruits of Christ's death.
"Good works and the performance of all the 613 precepts of the Jewish Law will not suffice, said Paul. They cannot remake the inner man or wash the soul of sin. The death of Christ had ended the epoch of the Law. Now there should no more be Jew and Greek, slaves and freeman, male and female, for 'in union with Christ Jesus you are all one.'
"As to good works combned with faith, Paul never tired of inculcating them. The most famous words ever spoken about love are his own:--
'Though I speak with the tongues of men and angels, and have not love, I am become a sounding brass or tinkling cymbal.
'And though I have the gift of preaching and understand all mysteries, and have all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I can move mountains, if I have not love I am nothing.
'And though I give away everything that I am, and give myself, but do it in pride, not love, it profits me nothing.
"Love is patient and kind.
'It is not envious or boastful.
"It does not insist on its rights.
"It never fails.
"So faith, hope and love endure. These three, and the greatest of these is love.'
"To sexual love and marrige, Paul gives the most discouraging toleration. One passsage suggests, but does not prove, that he was married. 'Have we not a right to take a Christian wife about with us, like the rest of the apostles, and the Lord's brothers, and Peter?' But in another he calls himself single.
"Like Jesus, he had no sympathy for physical desire. He was horrified when he heard of promiscuity and pervasions. He asked the Corinthinas:-'Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit that is within you? Honor God with your bodies.'
"Virginity is better than marriage, but marriage is better than concupiscence. The marriage of divorced persons is forbidden, except after mixed unions. Women are to be obedient to their husbands -- slaves to their masters.
"Freedom and slavery meant little if the world was soon coming to an end. By the same token national liberty was unimportant. Let 'every soul be in subjection to the higher powers, for there is no power but God, and the powers that be are ordained by God.'
"It was ungracious of Rome to destroy so accommodating a philosopher."
robert b. iadeluca
June 22, 2004 - 04:11 am
Here are MANY DEFINITIONS OF LOVE. Take your choice.Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 22, 2004 - 06:46 am
What sexist intolerance! Christian love is qualified? Sexual love and marriage are barely tolerated?
Is this what Jesus intended? If it's true he was as averse to physical desire as Paul appears to have been, then it probably was.
What about propagation of the human race? Is that supposed to be done "immaculately"?
Paul's words about love -- which I feel as if I've known all my life -- ring very hollow to me.
Mal
Éloïse De Pelteau
June 22, 2004 - 10:49 am
EINSTEIN QUOTES among other great ones:
Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. Note that the source can't vouch for its authenticity, but some are good just the same.
Eloïse
winsum
June 22, 2004 - 12:17 pm
the other night brought up an interesting point about the christian view of women. since they can produce life they are on a par with god and therefore must be put in a lower position within the beliefs and laws of the lands. Hey ladies haven't you met men who are afraid of powerful, smart, talented women. . . first attracted and then AFRAID. I have. I think any woman is a threat to a competative man. after all she can CREATE LIFE and he can't.and she can prove parenthood and he can't.
Justin
June 22, 2004 - 12:53 pm
Jesus and Paul differ on most things. While there is no indication that Jesus was married his obvious preference for the Magdalene, a local whore, over the Apostles and their evident jealousy demonstrates his love for women. Far from forcing them to submit, he honors women by first appearing to the Magdalene after the resurection. In todays terms we would say he had the "hots" for her. That makes him human and heterosexual. In a recent play on the life of Christ the character visits the Magdalene in her crib but wrestles with himself and defeats the urge to have intercourse with her as though that were a sin he is not capable of. We are such prigs about such things.
Paul, on the other hand exhibits pride in his unmarried state while disdaining women and relegating them to a subservient role in life. He very easily could have been homosexual. It would not surprise me. He recomends that men follow his example. If they had followed his example, Christianity would have ceased to exist centuries ago.
Scrawler
June 22, 2004 - 01:39 pm
I was thinking that Paul might have been a homosexual because the ancient Greeks accepted homosexuality as part of their lives, but does that concept fit with Paul being a Christian?
I also believe that Christ accepted women as being equal as men. In many ways he showed them respect and consideration. He may have questioned their motives but he enjoyed their company.
Malryn (Mal)
June 22, 2004 - 01:53 pm
Einstein said a lot of things. His concept of religion was not an ordinary or usual one. From his autobiographical notes:
"When I was a fairly precocious young man I became thoroughly impressed with the futility of the hopes and strivings that chase most men restlessly through life.
"As the first way out there was religion, which is implanted into every child by way of the traditional education-machine. Thus I came - though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents - to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve.
"Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression.
"Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social environment-an attitude that has never again left me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal connections.
"It is quite clear to me that the religious paradise of youth, which was thus lost, was a first attempt to free myself from the chains of the 'merely personal,' from an existence dominated by wishes, hopes, and primitive feelings.
"Out yonder there was this huge world, which exists independently of us human beings and which stands before us like a great, eternal riddle, at least partially accessible to our inspection and thinking. The contemplation of this world beckoned as a liberation, and I soon noticed that many a man whom I had learned to esteem and to admire had found inner freedom and security in its pursuit.
"The mental grasp of this extra-personal world within the frame of our capabilities presented itself to my mind, half consciously, half unconsciously, as a supreme goal. Similarly motivated men of the present and of the past, as well as the insights they had achieved, were the friends who could not be lost.
"The road to this paradise was not as comfortable and alluring as the road to the religious paradise; but it has shown itself reliable, and I have never regretted having chosen it."
Source:
Einstein: Becoming a Scientist and a Freethinker
Éloïse De Pelteau
June 22, 2004 - 02:05 pm
Ah! well, there you go Mal, still I like to be the way I am, it has been a good life all in all and yet, I don't know who was responsible for that, me or Him, I guess we both are.
winsum
June 22, 2004 - 02:47 pm
seems to be twelve. I kowit was for me and I"m in great company here with einstein and several others. that's probably when we begin to question. It's sad that some folks never ever reach that age....of reason . . . . not necessarily twelve.
Shasta Sills
June 22, 2004 - 02:52 pm
Yes, Justin, Fifi's explanation was perfectly clear.
Here is a statement from Durant that amazes me:
"Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ." I always knew Paul was the church-
builder, and that Jesus would have been astounded if he could have
seen what Paul built. But I didn't realize that Paul had deviated
so far from Jesus' teachings.
Justin
June 22, 2004 - 04:14 pm
Shasta, The distance between Paul and Jesus is the distance between divinity and humanity. It is also the distance between a need for salvation and acceptance of responsibility. I agree, Paul was the builder but he was also the myth maker. He changed the legacy of Jesus from a Messiah to a Redeemer. He understood that the big lie succeeds better than the truth, so he gave us the big lie, and we believe it. Millions believe in Jesus but the Jesus they believe in is one created whole cloth by Paul. It is not the Jesus who may well have lived in the early part of the first century. It is not the one who said," You said it," when Pilate asked if he was King of the Jews.
robert b. iadeluca
June 22, 2004 - 05:11 pm
"Paul's doubtful second letter to Timothy said:-'Do your best to come to me soon for Demas has deserted me for love of the present world. Crescens has gone, and Titus. No one but Luke is with me. At my first appearance in court no one came to help me. Everybody deserted me. But the Lord stood by me, and gave me strength so that I might make a full presentation of the message and let all the heathen hear it. So I was saved from the jaws of the lion. My life is already being poured out and the time has come for my departure. I have had a part in the great contest. I have run my race. I have preserved the faith.'
"He spoke bravely but he was desolate. One ancient tradition said that he was freed, went to Asia and Spain, preached again, and once more found himself a pirsoner in Rome. Probably he was never freed.
"Without wife or children to comfort him, with all friends gone but one, only his faith could support him. Perhaps that too was shaken. Like the other Christians of his age, he had lived in the hope of seeing Christ return. He had written to the Philippians:-'We are eagerly awaiting the coming of a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord is coming soon.' And to the Corinthians:-'The appointed time has grown very short. From now on, those who have wives should live as though they had none and those who buy anything as if they did not own it. For the present shape of the world is passing away.--Marantha! Lord, come quickly!
"But in his second epistle to the Thessalonians he reproved them for neglecting the affairs of this world in expectation of Christ's early advent. The coming will be delayed until the 'Adversary' -- Satan --'makes his appearance and proclaims himself to be God.
"We surmise from his last letters that he had struggled, during his imprisonment, to reconcile his early faith with the long delay in the Parousia or Second Appearance. More and more he put his hope beyond the grave, and made for his own solace the great adjustment that saved Christianity -- the transformation of the belief in Christ's earthly return into the hope of union with him in heaven after death.
"Apparently he was tried again, and convicted. Caesar and Christ came face to face, and Caesar won for a day.
"We do not know the precise charge. Probably now, as at Thessalonica, Paul was accused of 'disobeying the emperor's decrees, and claiming that someone else called Jesus is king.' This was a crime of maiestas, punishable with death. We have no ancient record of the trial but Tertullian, writing about 200, reports that Paul was beheaded at Rome. And Origen, about 220, writes that 'Paul suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero.' Probably, as a Roman citizen, he had the honor of a distinct execution, and was not mingled with the Christians crucified after the fire of 64.
"Tradition united him with Peter in a simultaneous, though separate, martyrdom. And a touching legend pictured the great rivals meeting in friendship on the road to death.
"Over the place on the Via Ostia, where the Church believed that Paul had found peace, a shrine was raised in the third century.
"Remade in ever fairer form, it stands today as the basilica of San Paolo fuori le Mura -- St. Paul beyond the Walls."
Justin
June 22, 2004 - 06:36 pm
It is easy to think of Paul as a Christian in the finished sense but he was not. At first he was a Sadducean Jew or a Shamaite Pharisee who persecuted Judaic- Christians. Then he was a Jew who created a Greek form of Christianity-a form so different from the Jesus message that Jesus was no longer Jesus the Christ. Now, in Paul's hands, Jesus became Jesus the Redeemer. The religion of Paul was not the religion of Jesus, nor was it the religion of James and Peter who knew Jesus. It was something new and different. Over time,the message of Jesus, James and Peter disappeared and the new message of Paul took over. Eventually,it became known as Christianity but just as easily, it could have been named Paulism.
Fifi le Beau
June 22, 2004 - 08:34 pm
While browsing through my favorite used book store in Chattanooga, I came across a book by Will Durant titled "Heroes of History". I put it on my stack and since it was in pristine condition, I was not surprised that it was published in 2001.
Durant had done a series of audio tapes, and had wanted them turned into one book "A brief history of civilization from Ancient times to the dawn of the modern age." The tapes were made during the last four years of his life, and his family has only now released them to form this book.
I turned to the time period we are now discussing to see what he wrote, and if there was anything new or different. He covered it so well in the SOC that this condensed version adds nothing new to the discussion.
The book will however be a great gift for my grandchildren. It will take them from Confucius to Shakespeare and Bacon. The chapters are short, but full of information. I will ask them to discuss what they have read, and they always surprise me by what they find interesting.
It is a wonderful way to introduce teenagers to history, and there is no better teacher than Durant, in my opinion.
......
Bubble
June 23, 2004 - 12:41 am
Winsum,
12? I think I was still very childish at 12, but around 14 I definitely reached- no consciously- that stage and stopped accepting all to analyze more.
I follow about the same line of thought as in Mal's Einstein quote.
Justin, is it that surprising to see that many chosing to go the easier path of religion? Maybe we will all meet at the same point anyway, by different roads.
Bubble
robert b. iadeluca
June 23, 2004 - 02:41 am
Fifi:-I agree with your description of Durant as a wonderful teacher. In the Heading above I said at the outset of this forum that "we are not examining Durant. We are examining Civilization but in the process constantly referring to Durant's appraisals." Combining his appraisals (and I constantly remind myself that this is what he gives) with the marvelous links available to us plus the sharp comments given by all our participants here, I find I now look at life from a more solid vantage point.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 23, 2004 - 03:04 am
"The shrine, San Paolo fuori le Mura, is a fit symbol of Paul's victory. The emperor who condemned him died a coward's death, and soon nothing survived of his inordinate works. "From the defeated Paul came the theological structure of Christianity.
"From Paul and Peter the astonishing organization of the Church.
"Paul had found a dream of Jewish eschatology, confined in Judaic Law. He had freed and broadened it into a faith that could move the world. With the patience of a stateman he had interwoven the ethics of the Jews with the mataphysics of the Greeks, and had transformed the Jesus of the Gospels into the Christ of theology.
"He had created a new mystery, a new form of the resurrection drama which would absorb and survive all the rest. He had replaced conduct with creed as the test of virtue and in that sense had begun the Middle Ages.
"It was a tragic change but perhaps humanity had willed it so. Only a few saints could achieve the imitation of Christ but many souls could rise to faith and courage in the hope of eternal life.
"The influence of Paul was not immediately felt. The communities that he had established were tiny isles in a pagan sea. The church at Rome was Peter's, and remained faithful to his memory. For a century after Paul's death he was almost forgotten. But when the first generations of Christianity had passed away, and the oral tradition of the apostles began to fade, and a hundred heresies disordered the Christian mind, the epistles of Paul provided the framework for a stabilizing system of belief that united the scattered congregations into a powerful Church.
"Even so, the man who had detached Christianity from Judaism was still so essentially Jewish in intensity of charcter and sternness of morality that the Middle Ages, adopting paganism into a colorful Catholicism, saw no kindred spirit in him, built few churches to him, seldom sculptured his figure or used his name.
"Fifteen centuries went by before Luther made Paul the Apostle of the Reformation, and Calvin found in him the somber texts of the predestinarian creed.
"Protestantism was the triumph of Paul over Peter.
"Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ."
"The epistles of Paul provided the framework for a stabilizing system of belief that united the scattered congregations into a powerful Church." As a younger student of Christianity, I saw the epistles only as chapters in the Bible. I now see them as letters (forms of promotion and encouragement if you will) sent from the "headquarters" to "branches" keeping them in line with the mission of the "organization." Do others here see them that way?
Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 23, 2004 - 03:42 am
Éloïse De Pelteau
June 23, 2004 - 08:26 am
Hundreds of streets were names after saints in Montreal as this
ANIMATED+ SOUND LINK will show and St Paul street is a favorite among those for tourists from everywhere. You hear more English spoken there than any other language.
Thank you Mal for your wonderful links.
Eloïse
Scrawler
June 23, 2004 - 01:14 pm
I'd have to agree with you Robby. Like you said, I also saw what Paul and the others wrote as chapters in the Bible, but they make better sense the way you have described them - "ancient e-mails" to bolster the troops - so to speak - and keep everybody in line and towards the GOAL!
winsum
June 23, 2004 - 02:55 pm
so the epistles are essentially political in their intention. . . . mixing religion with politics isn't new is it. our fundamentalist christions have a history of being olitical, seeking power and spreading the FAITH to do so. . . . goodneess me I never knew any of this. an education for sure thanks to durant and robby and others. Now that new durant book seems to be a shortcut to the story f civilisation with all it's volumes. price? availability as in Amazon? I think I"ll look for it.
JoanK
June 23, 2004 - 03:42 pm
WINSOM, SEA BUBBLE: I was still too childish at 14. My parents had raised me to choose my own religeon, and at 14 I did a religeon search, and joined the church of my best friend, because she said it was fun. It was a few years later, 16 or 17 that I began to think for myself, quit that church, and started to develop my own philosophy. I'm still working on it (I'd better hurry -- I'm running out of time).
Justin
June 23, 2004 - 03:58 pm
I look upon Durant as a fellow discussant in this conversation.
His contributions in 661 are very challenging.
1.the early church dumped Paul
2.Luther brought Paul back
3.Modern fundementalism restored the Jewish element.
These are powerful observations that give me cause for thought.
Justin
June 23, 2004 - 04:28 pm
I went to war in early 1942 an unquestioning Catholic. I returned four years later an agnostic. The transition was achieved mentally. There were very few library materials available to me at that time though I always carried a pocket edition of something in my knapsack. My early concerns were with the organization of the Church and it's authority to speak for God. Then one day, out of the blue, I realized that the Church, as well as the idea of God, had been created by man and that man created God in his image, not the reverse. The only thing missing was motivation. Durant has helped me find some of the motivation. I am currently examining economic and political motivators. They have both been very prominent in the history we have been discussing.
robert b. iadeluca
June 23, 2004 - 05:40 pm
"The accidents of history have transmitted Paul to us in comparative clarity and have left the apostle John in obscurity and mystery. Besides three epistles, two major works have come down to us under his name."Criticism tentatively assigns the Book of Revelation to the year 69-70, and to another John, 'the Presbyter' mentioned by Papias (135). Justin Martyr (135) attributes this powerful Apocalypse to the 'beloved' apostle but as early as the fourth century Eusebius noted that some scholars doubted its authenticity. The author must have been a man of considerable prominence for he addresses the churches of Asia in a tone of menacing authority.
"If the apostle wrote it (and we may provisionally continue to think so), we can understand why, like his brother James, he was called Boanerges, Son of Thunder. In Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Sardis, and other cities of Asia Minor, John, rather than Peter or Paul, was looked upon as the highest head of the Church. Tradition as reported by Eusebius held that John had been banished to Patmos by Domitian and had on that Aegean isle written both the fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse.
"He lived to so great an age that people said he would never die.
"In form Revelation resembles the books of Daniel and Enoch. Such prophetic-symbolic visions were a literary device frequently used by the Jews of the age. There were several other apocalypses ('hidden things revealed'), but this one surpassed all the rest in lurid eloquence.
"Starting from the common belief that the coming of the Kingdom of God would be preceded by the reign of Satan and the heyday of evil, the author describes the principate of Nero as precisely this Satanic age. Satan and his followers, having revolted against God, are defeatd by Michael's angelic hosts, are cast down upon the earth, and there lead the pagan world in the attack upon Christianity.
"Nero is the Beast and Antichrist of the book, a Messiah from Satan as Jesus was from God. Rome is described as 'the harlot who sits on the great waters, with whom the kings of the earth have comitted fornication.' She is the 'whore of Babylon,' the source and center and summit of all iniquity, immorality, perversion, idolatry.
"There the blaspehmous and bloodstained Caesars demand the worship that Christians must reserve for Christ."
In this discussion group we have often commented upon the constant violence by the Romans. Apparently the Jews of that age were as upset by it as we are.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 23, 2004 - 05:44 pm
Joan you said:- "I started to develop my own philosophy. I'm still working on it (I'd better hurry -- I'm running out of time).Hold on, Joan. We have eight more volumes to discuss.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 23, 2004 - 05:58 pm
Here are FOUR INTERPRETATIONS OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION each version fascinating in itself.Robby
Justin
June 23, 2004 - 06:00 pm
Does the apocalypse of the fourth Gospel not remind us of the adventures of the Greek Gods playing in the affairs of men? Satan is defeated by Michael and his host of angels and cast down upon the earth. God,Satan, Michael and the angels are all in a tussel, rolling about on heavens floor. Michael wins and throws the unruly Satan overboard, down to earth, where he can mess with us common folk.
robert b. iadeluca
June 23, 2004 - 06:00 pm
Here are FOUR INTERPRETATIONS OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION each version fascinating in itself.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 23, 2004 - 07:36 pm
Here is the FOURTH GOSPEL. Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 23, 2004 - 07:41 pm
Whatever your personal belief, I challenge anyone here to read OUT LOUD the First Chapter of the Fourth Gospel and not see it as pure poetry.Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 23, 2004 - 09:03 pm
As with many other works, I am unable to separate the poetry from the content. In what language was the original written, and what did it say?
Mal
winsum
June 23, 2004 - 11:14 pm
of the foourth gospel. is it available on line anywhere?
Justin
June 23, 2004 - 11:28 pm
The Fourth Gospel was written somewhere between 100 CE and 120. Scholars have not been able to place it earlier but many think it may have been later. The hymn to the Logos is well done. Some think it was recomposed from an earlier pagan hymn.
So much of the Fourth Gospel is a reflection of its time. By 100CE the Jewish influence in Christianity is diminished. John was talking primarily to converted gentiles. Jesus has lost his humanity and has become the Logos or the Word. Logos, I recall, meant Wisdom or divine wisdom. It was the force the Greeks thought created the world. It was used by Philo to refer to God. This Gospel is, in so many ways, different. The synoptics all seem to flow out of Mark but the Fourth, well, it's different. Here is an example. The synoptics talk about Jesus coming to Jerusalem only once and that visit comes in the weak before his death but John brings him to Jerusalem numerous times and for several Passovers.
A thought just occurred to me. Jesus and his brethren come together to celebrate the Passover. The food they eat comes from their communist sharing practices. Two thousand years later Catholics at the end of every mass, which is a reenactment of that earlier passover supper, pray for the elimination of Communism in the world. How easy it is to convince one that the practices of Jesus were not the practices of Jesus. It would be interesting to list the contributions of Jesus to Christianity and to assess their present applicability. He and his advice may have completely disappeared from the current canon.
robert b. iadeluca
June 24, 2004 - 03:13 am
Claire:-All the chapters of the Fourth Gospel were in the link I gave in Post 674.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 24, 2004 - 03:33 am
"In a succession of visions the author of Revelation sees the punishments that will fall upon Rome and its empire. A plague of locusts will for five months torture all inhabitants except the 144,000 Jews who have on their foreheads the sign of Christianity. Other angels will empty 'the seven vials of God's wrath' upon the earth, afflicting men with terrible sores, and turning the sea 'into blood like a dead man's,' so that 'every living thing in the sea' will die. "Another angel will let loose the full heat of the sun upon all unrepentant men. Another will cover the earth with darkness. Four angels will lead 'twice 10,000 times 10,000' knights to slaughter a third of mankind. Four horsemen will ride forth to 'kill the people with sword, famine, death, and the wild animals of the earth.'
"A great earthquake will tumble the planet into ruins. Huge hailstones will fall upon the surviving infidels, and Rome will be utterly destroyed.
"The kings of the earth will come together on the plains of Armageddon to make their last stand against God but they will be overwhelmed in death. Satan and his cohorts, everywhere defeatd, will be plunged into Hell.
"Only true Christians will be saved from these calamities. Those who have suffered for Christ's sake, who hve been 'washed in the blood of the Lamb,' will receive abounding reward.
"After a thousand years Satan will be released to prey again upon mankind. Sin will mount again in an unbelieving world. The forces of evil will make a last effort to undo the work of God. But they will once more be overcome, and this time Satan and his followers will be cast into Hell forever.
"Then will come ther Last Judgment when all the dead will be raised from their graves and the drowned will be drawn up out of the seas. On that dread day all 'whose names are not found in the Book of Life' will be 'flung into a burning lake of fire and brimstone.'
"The faithful will 'gather for God's great banquet, and will eat the bodies of kings, commanders, mighty men -- the bodies of all men, slaves or freemen, high or low, who have not heeded the call of Christ.
"A new heaven and earth will be formed, and a New Jerusalem will come down from the hand of God to be a paradise on earth. It will have a foundation of precious stones, buildings of translucent silver or gold, walls of jasper, and each gate a single pearl. Through it will run a 'river of living water' on whose bank will grow the 'tree of life.'
The reign of evil will be ended for all time. The faithful of Christ will inherit the earth. 'There will be no death any longer, nor night, nor any grief or pain.'"
robert b. iadeluca
June 24, 2004 - 04:02 am
For those intrigued by the symbols used in the Book of Revelation and wanting to examine them a bit more in detail, this LINK might be helpful. Once again, consider the source of this article.Robby
winsum
June 24, 2004 - 01:21 pm
imagined all of that and in the last paragraph I can hear echoes of Saddam trying to make it happen on the banks of the Eurphates. thanks Robby I think I've had all I can stomach. . . . Claire
Justin
June 24, 2004 - 02:00 pm
Claire: Where in paradise do you live? I am in La Selva Beach.That is in Central CA.
Justin
June 24, 2004 - 03:53 pm
Some say John lived to be 91. He retired or was exiled to Patmos, an island in the Cyclades, where he chewed peyote. It is difficult to accept that the author of the Fourth Gospel is also the author of Revelations.
winsum
June 24, 2004 - 04:34 pm
I'll have to agree that it is poetic. . . full of images, rhymic and scarey, meant to touch peoples emotions. yep that's poetry.. .. . claire
robert b. iadeluca
June 24, 2004 - 06:06 pm
Claire:-I was referring to the Fourth Gospel not the Revelations.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 24, 2004 - 06:26 pm
"The influence of the Book of Revelation was immediate, enduring, and profound. Its prophecies of salvation for loyal believers and of punishment for their enemies, became the sustenance of a persecuted Church. Its theory of the millennium solaced those who mourned the long delay in the second coming of Christ. Its vivid images and brilliant phrases entered into both the popular and the literary speech of Christendom."For nineteen centuries men have interpreted the events of history as fulfillments of its visions, and in some recesses of the white man's world it still gives its dark colors and bitter flavor to the creed of Christ.
"It seems incredible that the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel should have come from the same hand.
"The Apocalypse is Jewish poetry.
"The Fourth Gospel is Greek philosophy.
"Perhaps the apostle wrote Revelation in justifiable wrath after Nero's persecution and the Gospel in the mellow metaphysics of his old age (A.D. 90?). His memories of the Master may by this time have faded a bit, so far as one could ever forget Jesus. Doubtless in the isles and cities of Ionia he had heard many an echo of Greek mysticism and philosophy.
"Plato had set a theme by picturing the Ideas of God as the patterns on which all things were formed. The Stoics had combined these ideas into the Logos Spermatikos or fertilizing wisdom of God. The Neo-Pythagoreans had made the Ideas a divine person. Philo had turned them into the Logos or Reason of God, a second divine principle, through which God created, and communicated with, the world.
"If we reread the famous exordium of the Fourth Gospel with all this in mind, and retain the Logos of the Greek original in place of the translation Word, we perceive at once that John had joined the philosophers:-
'In the beginning was the Logos, the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. All things were made by the Logos. Without him nothing was made that was made. It was by him that all things came into existence. So the Logos became flesh and blood, and dwelt amongst us.'
"Just as Philo, learned in Greek speculation, had felt a need to rephrase Judaism in forms acceptable to the logic-loving Greeks, so John, having lived for two generations in a Hellenistic environment, sought to give a Greek philosophical tinge to the mystic Jewish doctrine that the Wisdom of God was a living being, and to the Christian doctrine that Jesus was the Messiah.
"Consciously or not, he continued Paul's work of detaching Christianity from Judaism.
"Christ was no longer presented as a Jew, living more or less under the Jewish Law. He was made to address the Jews as 'you,' and to speak of their Law as 'yours.' He was not a Messiah sent 'to save the lost sheep of Israel,' he was the coeternal Son of God. Not merly the future judge of mankind, but the primeval creator of the universe. In this perspective the Jewish life of the man Jesus could be put into the background, faded almost as in Gnostic heresy. The god Christ was assimilated to the religious and philosophical traditions of the Hellenistic mind.
"Now the pagan world -- even the anti-semitic world--could accept him as its own."
robert b. iadeluca
June 24, 2004 - 06:29 pm
My son, Roland, in Florida is very ill. I am leaving early tomorrow morning for the airport, will be there for the weekend, and will return Monday. My next posting will be Monday evening.Keep the faith, whatever it may be.
Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 24, 2004 - 06:47 pm
ROBBY, I'm so sorry to hear this news about your son. Don't worry about this discussion. It will continue just as if you were here.
Isn't that right, everybody?
Mal
Justin
June 24, 2004 - 09:51 pm
Yes,Mal, Good luck, Robby.
Bubble
June 25, 2004 - 03:20 am
The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshipped anything but himself.
-Richard Francis Burton, explorer and writer (1821-1890)
Bubble
June 25, 2004 - 03:21 am
Good luck Robby. I hope you'll come back with good news.
Bubble
Malryn (Mal)
June 25, 2004 - 03:58 am
You said a mouthful, Mr. Burton. ( Post #691 )
Malryn (Mal)
June 25, 2004 - 04:00 am
Christianity did not destroy paganism, it adopted it. The Greek mind, dying, came to a transmigrated life in theology and liturgy of the Church; the Greek language, having reigned for centuries over philosophy, became the vehicle of Christian literature and ritual, the Greek mysteries passed down into the impressive mystery of the Mass. Other pagan cultures contributed to the syncretist result.
From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity, the Last Judgment, and a personal immortality of reward and punishment; from Egypt the adoration of the Mother and Child, and the mystic theosophy that made Neoplatonism and Gnosticism, and obscurbed the Christian creed; there, too, Christian monasticism would find its exemplars and its source.
From Phrygia came the worship of the Great Mother; from Syria the resurrection drama of Adonis; from Thrace, perhaps, the cult of Dionysus, the dying and saving god.
From Persia came millennarianism, the "ages of the world," the "final conflagration," the dualism of Satan and God, of Darkness and Light, already in the Fourth Gospel Christ is the "Light shining in the darkness, and the darkness has never put it out."
The Mithraic ritual so closely resembled the eucharistic sacrifice of the Mass that Christian fathers charged the Devil with inventing these similarities to mislead frail minds.
Christianity was the last great creation of the ancient pagan world.
Do all these influences surprise you? Do you agree that "Christianity was the last great creation of the ancient pagan world"? Is there absolutely nothing new under the sun? Why should this religion sweep over and take the western world at this time, do you suppose?
winsum
June 25, 2004 - 12:02 pm
thanks for carrying on as to
Why should this religion
sweep over and take the western world at this time, do you suppose?
the're still doing it...tring to take ver the world. . . xianity that is.
Shasta Sills
June 25, 2004 - 12:37 pm
Some Christians find it disturbing if you tell them Christianity has
antecedents in earlier religions. They think that undermines its
authenticity. But I'm just the opposite. I love finding out where
ideas came from, how they evolved and changed. And I don't think,
just because an idea existed before in an earlier form, that this
disqualifies it as authentic. I think certain ideas are basic to
human thought, and humans will continue to revise and improve on
these ideas, constantly striving for a purer form of truth. If the
same ideas keep surfacing in different societies and religions, it is
because these are valid efforts to understand life.
Justin
June 25, 2004 - 12:38 pm
We have been seeing the sources of Christianity appear in history over and over again. Many of these sources were alive and well in the first two centuries after Jesus so it was a natural thing, an evolutionary thing, to combine elements in order to make the new compatible with the currently acceptable. If a new thing is very different from what is currently acceptable it will not take hold and grow. Change brought on gradually is easily assimilated. Initially Jesus is human, a political revolutionary,and a rabbi. In the Fourth Gospel, written almost a century later, the idea of Divinity is introduced and Messiah no longer means a king who will dispel the Romans from the ME. Messiah now means a godly messenger from God the Father and the Jews are made a separate people. Christ is no longer Jewish but some entity apart. He is now made to use words such as "you and your" when referring to Jews rather than "our". They are no longer "my" people. Now they are a people apart from me. Clearly the Fourth Gospel, is one of the sources of later pogroms.
Malryn (Mal)
June 25, 2004 - 01:56 pm
The Growth of the Church
A.D. 96-305
Malryn (Mal)
June 25, 2004 - 01:59 pm
The Christians
They met in private rooms or small chapels, and organized themselves on the model of the synagogue. Each congregation was called ekklesia --- the Greek term for the popular assembly in municipal governments. Slaves were welcomed, as in the Isiac and Mithraic cults; no attempt was made to liberate them, but they were comforted by the promise of a Kingdom in which all could be free.
The early converts were predominantly proletarian, with a sprinkling of the lower middle classes and an occasional conquest among the rich. Nevertheless, they were far from being the 'dregs of the people', as Celsus would claim; they lived for the most part orderly and industrious lives, financed missions, and raised funds for impoverished Christian communities.
Little effort was made as yet to win over the rural population; these came in last, and it was in this strange way that their name pagani (villagers, peasants) came to be applied to the pre-Christian inhabitants of the Mediterranean states.
Women were admitted to the congregations, and rose to some prominence in minor roles; but the Church required them to shame the heathen by lives of modest submission and retirement. They were bidden to come to worship veiled, for their hair was considered especially seductive, and even angels might be distracted by it during the service. Saint Jerome thought it should be entirely cut off.
Christian women were also to avoid cosmetics and jewelry, and particularly false hair; for the blessing of the priest, falling upon dead hair from another head, would hardly know which head to bless.
Paul had instructed his communities sternly:
"Women should keep quiet in church. They must take a subordinate place. If they want to find out anything they should ask their husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church . . . . A man ought not to wear anything on his head in church, for he is the image of God and reflects God's glory, while woman is a reflection of man's glory. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man, and man was not created for woman, but woman for man. That is why she ought to wear upon her head something to symbolize her subjection."
This was the Judaic and Greek view of woman, not the Roman, perhaps it represented a reaction against the license into which some woman had debased their growing liberty. We may believe, from these very fulminations, that despite the lack of jewels and scents, and with the help of veils, Christian woman succeeded in being attractive, and exercised their ancient powers in subtle ways.
For unmarried or widowed women the Church found many useful tasks. They were organized as 'sisters', performed works of administration or charity, and created in time the divers orders of those nuns whose cheerful kindliness is the noblest embodiment of Christianity.
Different religion; same prejudice and discrimination against women. It looks as if Christian charity will not be extended to cover the liberation and rights of the female sex.
Shasta Sills
June 25, 2004 - 03:10 pm
With reference to Justin's last post, I am reading Darwin's "Origin
of Species" and he keeps repeating the phrase, "Natura non facit saltum" which I understand to mean "Nature does not leap". In other
words, nature evolves slowly and gradually. I remember a while back,
Durant used the phrase, "Historica non facit saltum," which I suppose
means "History does not leap." History also evolves slowly and
gradually, and religion is part of human history, probably going
almost back to the origins of civilization. So it has developed
by gradual stages into the religions we have today.
Shasta Sills
June 25, 2004 - 03:19 pm
Wow!! Those Jewish women must have had really beautiful hair. They
had to keep it covered so as not to distract the angels!
Justin
June 25, 2004 - 10:58 pm
I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I go for hair- blonde, brunette,red or black, doesn't matter, just as long as its hair. Some guys are leg men but I'm a hair man. If you gals have hair, I'm your man. I find women with mustaches particularly appealing. No depilated gals for me.
Many Jewish women, US immigrants from east Mediteranean countries, wore wigs in the early part of the last century. The flashy women with bobbed hair who were popular in the twenties, forced these gals to shed their wigs.
When I was young and attending Mass, all the gals wore hats to Church. The practice was probably a carry over from the early days when Jerome wanted women to remove their coifs. I wonder why the practice ended.
Is the practice of covering one's hair in a Roman Catholic Church not the same as the requirement to wear a burqua in Islam or a wig in Judaica?
Bubble
June 26, 2004 - 01:13 am
From what I know, Jewish MARRIED women have to keep their head covered everywhere in public. The wear of wigs is a Eshkhenazi practice; the Sephardi women wear a kerchief usually and would not make a fuss if a few tendrils of hair escape. The cutting of hair after the wedding is also an Eshkhenazi custom.
If man should go bare head to church because made in the image of God, then why do priests, the Pope, etc wear a skullcap?
Malryn (Mal)
June 26, 2004 - 05:14 am
Why should I listen to a religious zealot, who lived a couple of thousand years ago and traveled all around spreading his own ideas, which he tells me are the words of Jesus, when he tells me how to wear my hair or anything else? What was he, the first century's Madison Avenue?
There are people who believe in every word in the Bible. As far as I can see, there is no way to tell what Jesus really said in Gospels which were written many years after his death. People say belief takes faith. Faith in what? The idea that what men said --- men who never knew Jesus --- is truth?
Durant says, " . . . they (slaves) were comforted by the promise of a Kingdom in which all could be free." I would imagine that the poor and hungry (the majority) found the promise of a Kingdom, where the streets were paved with gold and milk and honey flowed, appealing, too. The Kingdom on Earth evolved into the Kingdom of Heaven. Oh, my goodness, what a price to pay to get there!
Was all of this what Jesus wanted and preached? How can anyone know?
Mal
Malryn (Mal)
June 26, 2004 - 07:14 am
Lucian, about 160, described "those imbeciles", the Christians, as "disdaining things terrestrial, and holding these as belonging to all in common."
A generation later Tertullian declared that "we" (Christians) "have all things in common except our wives," and added, with his characteristic bite: "at that point we dissolve our partnership, precisely where the rest of men make it effective."
We should not take these statements literally; as another passage in Tertullian suggests, this communism meant merely that each Christian would contribute according to his means to the congregation's common fund.
The expectation of an early end to the existing order of things doubtless facilitated giving; the richer members may have been persuaded that they must not let the Last Judgment surprise them in the arms of Mammon. Some early Christians agreed with the Essenes that the prosperous man who does not share his surplus is a thief.
James, "brother of the Lord," attacked wealth with words of revolutionary bitterness:
"Come, now, you rich people, weep aloud and howl over the miseries that shall overtake you! Your wealth has rotted, your clothes are moth-eaten, your gold and silver are rusted . . . and their rust will eat into your very flesh, for you have stored up fire for the last days. The wages you have withheld from the laborers who have reaped your harvests cry aloud, and their cries have reached the ears of the Lord of Hosts . . . . Has not God chosen the world's poor to possess the Kingdom?"
In that Kingdom, he adds, the rich will wither like flowers under a scorching sun.
An element of communism entered into the custom of the common meal. As the Greek and Roman associations had met on occasion to dine together, so the early Christians gathered frequently in the agapé or love feast, usually on a Sabbath evening.
The dinner began and ended with prayer and scriptural readings, and the bread and wine were blessed by the priest. The faithful appear to have believed that the bread and wine were, or represented, the body and blood of Christ.
The worshipers of Dionysus, Attis and Mithras had entertained like beliefs at the banquets where they ate the magic embodiments or symbols of their gods.
The final ritual of the agapé was the "kiss of love." In some congregations this was given only by men to men, and by women to women; in others this hard restriction was not enforced.
Many participants discovered an untheological delight in the pleasant ceremony, and Tertullian and others denounced it as having led to sexual indulgences. The Church recommended that the lips should not be opened in kissing, and that the kiss should not be repeated if it gave pleasure. In the third century the agapé gradually disappeared.
Despite such episodes, and the diatribes of preachers calling their congregations to perfections, we may accept the old belief that the morals of the early Christians were a reproving example to the pagan world. After the weakening of the ancient faiths had removed their frail support from the moral life, and the attempt of Stoicism at an almost natural ethic had failed with all but the best of men, a new supernatural ethic accomplished, at whatever cost to the free and dissolvent intellect, the task of regulating the jungle instincts of man into a viable morality.
The hope of the coming Kingdom carried with it belief in a Judge who saw every act, knew man's every thought, and could not be eluded or deceived.
To this divine surveillance was added mutual scrutiny; in these little groups sin could with difficulty find a hiding place; and the community publicly reprimanded those members who had violated the new moral code with insufficient secrecy.
It sounds more Puritanical than Puritanism. What do you think about this new religion with its attitude about material possessions and its strict, unrelenting rules about morals and behavior?
Justin
June 26, 2004 - 11:55 am
I think it's a sin to deny one the benefits of French kissing while in the throes of a good religious repast.
I think someone should tell the Vatican about the Pope's communist forebears. He is directly descended from Peter who was fully engaged in these communistic activities. Perhaps a message should be passed to Joe Mc Carthy through Papal channels.
Bubble
June 27, 2004 - 12:08 am
Those "unrelenting rules about morals and behavior" are certainly in the Bible and the very detailed rules of behavior in every single accurence of life are still respected here in religious household. Giving alms and helping the poor and less fortunate is certainly one of the rules, to the point of mentionning that edges of fields should not be harvested but left to the needy and that an exact percentage of the earnings should also be given.
As for kissing, Justin, it should never be done in public! lol
Remember, Holding hands in public was anathema in China and Japan some decades ago.
Bubble
P.S. if I disappear it is caused by server lost connection: It crashed for 15H yesterday and is very unstable today.
winsum
June 27, 2004 - 12:31 pm
heals or destroys all things. I don't think bible belt folks kiss with their mouths closed anymore.
Malryn (Mal)
June 27, 2004 - 12:41 pm
Abortion and infanticide, which were decimating pagan society, were forbidden to Christians as the equivalent of murder; in many instances Christians rescued exposed infants, baptized them, and brought them up wtih the aid of the community fund.
The Church forbade with less success the attendance of Christians at the theater or the public games, and their participation in the festivities of pagan holidays.
In general, Christianity continued and exaggerated the moral sternness of the embattled Jews. Celibacy and virginity were recommended as ideal; marraige was tolerated only as a check on promiscuity and as a ridiculous means of continuing the race, but husband and wife were encouraged to refrain from sexual relations.
Divorce was allowed only when a pagan wished to annul a marriage with a convert. The remarriage of widows or widowers was discountenanced, and homosexual practices were condemned with an earnestness rare in iniquity. "So far as sex is concerned," said Tertullian, "the Christian is content with the woman."
Much of this difficult code was predicated on the early return of Christ. As that hope faded, the voice of the flesh rose again, and Christian morals were relaxed; an anonymous pamphlet, The Shepherd of Hermas (ca. 110), inveighed against the reappearance, among Christians, of avarice,
dishonesty, rouge, dyed hair, painted eyeids, drunkenness, and adultery. Neverthless, the general picture of Christian morals in this period is one of piety, mutual loyalty, marital fidelity, and a quiet happiness in the possession of a confident faith.
The younger Pliny was compelled to report to Trajan that the Christians led peaceful and exemplary lives. Galen described them as "so far advanced in self-discipline and . . . . intense desire to attain moral excellence that they are in no way inferior to true philosophers."
The sense of sin took on a new intensity with the belief that all mankind had been tained by Adam's fall, and that soon the world would end in a judgment of eternal punishment or reward. Many Christians were absorbed in the effort to come clean to the dread assize; they saw a lure of Satan in every pleasure of the senses, denounced the "world and the flesh", and sought to subdue desire with fasts and varied chastisements.
They looked with suspicion upon music, white bread, foreign wines, warm baths, or shaving the beard ---- which seemed to flout the evident will of God. Even for the ordinary Christian, life took on a more somber tint than paganism had ever given it except in the occasional "apotropaic" appeasement of subterranean deities. The serious temper of the Jewish Sabbath was transferred to the Christian Sunday that replaced it in the second century.
On that dies Domini, or Lord's Day, the Christians assembled for their weekly ritual. Their clergy read from the Scriptures, led them in prayer, and preached sermons of doctrinal instruction, moral exhortation, and sectarian controversy.
In the early days members of the congregation, especially women, were allowed to "prophesy" -- i.e., to "speak forth," in trance or ecstasy, words to which meaning could be given only by pious interpretation. When these performances conduced to ritual fever and theological chaos, the Chruch discouraged and finally suppressed them. At every step the clergy found itself obliged not to generate superstition, but to control it.
Well, these early Christians certainly did their best to be pristine, pure and sterile, didn't they? I suppose with Jesus expected to show up any minute and everybody going to the Kingdom of Heaven or Unholy Hell, it didn't matter if the human race died off or not. Interesting, isn't it, that Adam's Fall ( which, of course, was Eve's fault ) was the basis for all these ideas of Sin? Every single human being on earth was tainted by that Original Sin. You'd better watch out. Satan's just around the corner, and God is watching YOU. Don't fall under the influence of Satan's Evil or ever have any fun. OR ELSE. All of this, especially the attitude about music, white bread and warm baths certainly doesn't appeal to this pagan, I'll tell you.
Durant had the most incredible vocabulary. I find myself looking up word definitions all the time as I read his writing. Today's words are "assize" -- "a session of court" and "apotropaic" -- "intended to ward off evil". Stay with us, folks. If nothing else, you'll increase the size of your vocabulary.
winsum
June 27, 2004 - 12:54 pm
and moving along without a dictionary 'cause you're doing all the dirty work. thanyou Mal.. . . .
Shasta Sills
June 27, 2004 - 01:56 pm
I suppose the idea of original sin came about as an explanation of
why there is so much misery in the world. Whatever God created
would have been perfect, so who messed everything up? Well, if
it wasn't God, it would have to be us. Right back at the beginning,
we must have screwed up so bad that we've been paying for it ever
since. And if the world started with just one man and one woman,
which one brought all the misery into the world? Well, it would
have to be the woman, wouldn't it?
Scrawler
June 27, 2004 - 02:57 pm
"Celibacy and virginity were recommended as ideal; marriage was tolerated only as a check on promiscuity and as a ridiculous means of continuing the race, but husband and wife were encouraged to refrain from sexual relations."
What is interesting to me is that God not only created man and woman, but he also created other animals, birds and fish. But to them the only law is the law of nature.
I wonder what the "church" was so afraid of that we too were not allowed to follow the law of nature. Can you imagine what a world would be like if other species were forced to follow a "moral" code?
Justin
June 27, 2004 - 07:22 pm
If the Jews who formed the little communistic cult around Jesus had followed his instructions completely they would have remained small, Jewish, celibate, and powerless. The command to avoid proselytizing among the gentiles as well as the requirement for adult circumcision would have constrained their numbers. Celibacy would have caused them to die out just as the US Shaker society died out. The Essenes also died out for the same reason. I think John the Baptist was an Essene. Even though Essene means bather, I still imagine John as a dirty, hairy, unkempt sort of fellow who ate bugs for food. He was not much of a ladies man, so celibacy may have been a face saving tactic.
Justin
June 27, 2004 - 07:40 pm
Women participating in the original weekly meetings were allowed to prophesy by making unintelligible vocal sounds. When this practice became popular the leaders put an end to it for they saw it as ritual superstition. The practice is today called "tongues". It has been renewed in some fundementalist churches. I attended a service recently at a church called Four Square ( for the four evangelists, I think) where women are encouaged to speak in tongues. The practice sounds a little like yodeling and the ladies have an emotional experience while so engaged. American native (Indian) women engage in a chant for the dead which sounds similar.
3kings
June 27, 2004 - 09:37 pm
JUSTIN In the matter of early Christianity, it is surprising how often your thoughts echo my own ( or vice-versa ). It excuses me from posting, as anything I wrote would be a repetition of your own posts. Can we claim it is great minds which think alike ? LOL. ++ Trevor
Malryn (Mal)
June 27, 2004 - 10:08 pm
By the close of the second century these weekly ceremonies had taken the form of the Christian Mass. Based partly on the Judaic Temple service, partly on Greek mystery rituals of purification, vicarious sacrifice, and participation, through communion, in the death-overcoming powers of the deity, the Mass grew slowly into a rich congeries of prayers, psalms, readings, sermon, antiphonal recitations, and, above all, that symbolic atoning sacrifice of the "Lamb of God", which replaced, in Christianity, the offerings of older faiths.
The bread and wine which these cults had considered as gifts placed upon the altar before the god were now conceived as changed by the priestly act of consecration into the body and blood of Christ, and were presented to God as a repetition of the self-immolation of Jesus on the cross. Then, in an intense and moving ceremony, the worshipers partook of the very life and substance of their Saviour.
It was a conception long sanctified by time; the pagan mind needed no schooling to receive it; by embodying it in the "mystery of the Mass", Christianity became the last and greatest of the mystery religions.
It was a custom lowly in origin with which the Church adjusted itself to the symbols of the age and the needs of her people; no other ceremony could have so heartened the essentially solitary soul, or so strengthened it to face a hostile world.
The eucharist, or "blessing" of the bread and wine, was one of the seven Christian "sacraments" --- sacred rituals believed to convey divine grace. Here, too, the Church used the poetry of symbols to console and dignify the life of man, to renew at each step in the human odyssey the fortifying touch of deity.
In the first century we find only three ceremonies conceived of as sacraments --- baptism, communion, and holy orders; but already, in the customs of the congregations, the germs of the rest were present. It was apparently the practice of the early Christians to add to baptism an "imposition of hands" whereby the apostle or priest introduced the Holy Spirit into the believer; in the course of time this action was separated from baptism and became the sacrament of confirmation.
As the baptism of adults was gradually replaced by
the baptism of infants, men felt the need of some later spiritual cleansing; public acknowledgment of sin passed into private confession to the priest, who claimed to have received from the apostles or their episcopal successors the right to "bind and loose" -- to impose penances and pardon sins.
The sacrament of penance was an institution capable of abuse through the ease of forgiveness, but it gave the sinner strength to reform, and spared anxious souls the neuroses of remorse.
In these centuries marriage was still a civil ceremony; but by adding and requiring her sanction the Church lifted it from the level of a passing contract to the sanctity of an inviolable vow.
By the year 200 the layng on of hands took the added form of "holy orders" by which the bishops assumed the exclusive right to ordain priests capable of administering the sacraments validly. Finally the Church derived from the Epistle of Janes ( v, 14 ) the sacrament of "extreme unction", or last blessing, by which the priest anointed the sense organs and extremites of a dying Christian, cleansed him again of sin, and prepared him to meet his God. It would be the shallowest folly to judge these ceremonies in terms of their literal claims, in terms of human encouragement and inspiration they were the wisest medicaments of the soul.
Christian burial was the culminating honor of the Christian life. Since the new faith proclaimed the resurrection of the body as well as the soul, every care was taken of the dead; a priest officiated at the interment, and each corpse received an individual tomb.
About the year 100 the Christians of Rome, following Syrian and Etruscan traditions, began to bury their dead in catacombs --- probably not for concealment but for the economy of space and expense. Workmen dug long subterranean passages at various levels, and the dead were laid in superimposed crypts along the sides of these galleries.
Pagans and Jews practiced the same method, perhaps as a convenience for burial societies. Some of the passages seem purposely devious, and suggest their use of hiding places in persecutions.
After the triumph of Christianity the custom of catacomb burial died out; the crypts became objects of veneration and pilgrimage, by the ninth century they had been blocked up and forgotten, and only accident discovered them in 1578.
Comments?
Justin
June 27, 2004 - 10:39 pm
Trevor, I am flattered. I am also pleased to have someone in here from the opposite side of the date line who can tell me what is going to happen tomorrow. I wonder what Caesar's troops did about the shifting time line. Perhaps he did not realize it was morning in Rome when he was going to bed in Egypt.
Malryn (Mal)
June 28, 2004 - 02:48 am
I'm crackin' up. I just came in to see if ROBBY had posted yet.
Good morning, everyone!
Mal
Shasta Sills
June 28, 2004 - 05:48 am
I never realized Christianity was a mystery religion. When Catholicism branched off into Protestantism, is that when the
mystery stopped?
Shasta Sills
June 28, 2004 - 12:54 pm
Is this why Durant said Judaism and Protestantism have things in common? Is Judaism not considered a mystery religion?
Malryn (Mal)
June 28, 2004 - 01:23 pm
What remains of early Christian art is for the most part preserved in the frescoes and reliefs of the catacombs. Here, about 180, apppear the symbols that were to be so prominent in Christianity: the dove, representing the soul freed from the prison of this lfe; the phoenix, rising out of the ashes of death; the palm branch, announcing victory; the olive branch, offering peace; and the fish, chosen because the Greek word for it i-ch-th-u-s, formed the initials of the phrase Iesous Christos theou uios soter -- "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour."
Here also is the famous theme of the Good Shepherd, frankly modeled on a Tanagra statue of Mercury carrying a goat. Occasionally these designs catch a certain Pompeian grace, as in the flowers, vines, and birds that decorated the ceilng of St. Domitilla's tomb; usually they are the undistinguished work of minor craftsmen corrrupting with Oriental obscurity the clearness of classic line.
Christianity was in these centuries so absorbed in the other world that it had confused imagery with idolatry, and condemned sculpture and painting as too often glorying in the nude; consequently, as Christianity grew, plastic art declined. Mosaic was more popular; the walls and floors of basilicas and baptistries were inlaid with tesselated foliage and flowers, the Paschal lamb, and pictures from the testaments. Similar scnes were carved in rough relief on sarcophagi.
Meanwhile architects were adapting the Greco-Roman basilica to the needs of Christian worship. The small temples that had housed the pagan gods could offer no models for churches designed to enclose whole congregations; the spacious nave and aisles of the basilica lent themselves to this purpose, and its apse seemed naturally destined to become the sanctuary.
In these new shrines Christian music inherited diffidently the Greek notation, modes, and scales. Many theologians frowned upon the singing of women in church, or, indeed, in any public place; for a woman's voice might arouse some profane interest in the ever excitable male. Nevertheless, the congregations often expressed in hymns their hope, thanksgiving, and joy, and music began to be one of the fairest adornments and subtlest servants of the Christian faith.
All in all, no more attractive religion has ever been presented to mankind. It offered itself without restriction to all individuals, classes, and nations; it was not limited to one people, like Judaism, nor to the freemen of one state, like the official cults of Greece and Rome. By making all men heirs of Christ's victory over death, Christianity announced the basic equality of men, and made transiently trivial all differences of earthly degree.
To the miserable, maimed, bereaved, disheartened, and humiliated it brought the new virtue of compassion, and an ennobling dignity; it gave them the inspiring figure, story, and ethic of Christ; it brightened their lives with the hope of the coming Kingdom, and of endless happiness beyond the grave. To even the greatest sinners it promised forgiveness, and their full acceptance into the community of the saved. To minds harassed with the insoluble problems of origin and destiny, evil and suffering, it brought a system of divinely revealed doctrine in which the simplest soul could find mental rest.
To men and women imprisoned in the prose of poverty and toil it brought the poetry of the sacraments and the Mass, a ritual that made every major event of life a vital scene in the moving drama of God and man.
Into the moral vacuum of a dying paganism, into the coldness of Stoicism and the corruption of Epicureanism, into a world sick of brutality, cruelty, oppression, and sexual chaos, into a pacified empire that seemed no longer to need the masculine virtues or the gods of war; it brought a new morality of brotherhood, kindliness, decency, and peace.
So what happened to bring about things like all the various different sects in this religion, the Crusades and the Inquisition?
Malryn (Mal)
June 28, 2004 - 01:26 pm
Malryn (Mal)
June 28, 2004 - 01:58 pm
Shasta Sills
June 28, 2004 - 04:28 pm
Mal, what happened, I think, is that Christianity collided with human
nature. And human nature corrupted it.
That paper by Dr. King is very interesting. It's unusual for a
Christian to acknowledge all those pagan influences. At the end,
though, he tries to minimize them as best he can.
Malryn (Mal)
June 28, 2004 - 07:15 pm
So molded to man's wants, the new faith spread with fluid readiness. Nearly every convert, with the ardor of a revolutionary, made himself an office of propaganda. The roads, rivers, and coasts, the trade routes and facilities of the Empire largely determined the ines of the Church's growth eastward from Jerusalem to Damascus, Edessa, Dura, Slencia, and Cresiphon; southward through Bostra and Petra into Arabia; westward through Syria into Egypt; northward through Antioch into asia Minor and Armenia; across the Aegean from Ephesus and Troas to Corinth and Thessalonica; over the Egnation Way to Dyrrhachium; across the Adriatic to Brundisium, or through Scylla and Charybdis to Puteoli and Rome; through Sicily and Egypt to north Africa; over the Mediterranean or the Alps to Spain and Gaul, and thence to Britain: slowly the cross followed the fasces, and the Roman eagles made straight the way for Christ.
Asia Minor was in these centuries the stronghold of Christianity; by 300 the majority of the population in Ephesus and Smyrna were Christians. The new faith fared well in north Africa: Carthage and Hippo became leading centers of Christian learning and dispute; here rose the great Fathers of the Latin Church -- Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, here the Latin text of the Mass, and the first Latin translation of the New Testament, took form.
In Rome the Christian community numbered some 100,000 by the end of the third century; it was able to send financial aid to other congregations; long since it had claimed for its bishop the supreme authority in the Church. Altogether we may count a fourth of the population in the East as Christian by 300, and a twentieth in the West.
"Men proclaim," said Tertullian ( ca. 200), "that the state is beset with us. Every age, condition and rank is coming over to us. We are only of yesterday, but already we fill the world."
All I could think, as I was typing this, was it was like troops following a commander like Alexander the Great.
"Onward Christian Soldiers!"
winsum
June 28, 2004 - 08:24 pm
I like the new format. more space between lines of type. ny eyes are suffering greatly from trying to read on screen I guess I should print it out but for that? why not get the book and (horror upon horrer) UNDERLINE.. That's all for tonight folks. othing to add because I couldn't keep reading. maybe later. . . . Claire
robert b. iadeluca
June 28, 2004 - 09:12 pm
It is 11:30p.m. or so and I have just returned home from Florida. Thank you for all your good wishes.My son, who is 52 years old, had a seizure in September and it was diagnosed as the result of a brain tumor. The seizures are of a muscular type -- i.e. that he does not lose consciousness but it causes a paralysis on his right side and tremors from time to time. His neurologist in September did a 5-hour biopsy and decided that to operate might make it worse. My son, Roland, had 25 radiation treatments and then they were stopped. He never wanted chemotherapy.
It has been his wish to let nature take its course. Blessedly, he is not in any pain at all. But the neurologist predicted that the paralysis in his right arm and leg would gradually increase, that his fatigue would gradually increase, that he would sleep more and that this is the way the end would arrive. He and I have been in regular phone contact throughout these months. Last week he found he could not get out of bed. Paralysis on his right side was complete. He was taken to the hospital but was senthome again. Following his physician's advice, he went from his home to a Hospice House.
I was with him all day Saturday. We hugged and cried. His thinking is clear but his memory is failing. He could reach life's end next week or two years from now. No one can predict. He let me know that he wants to be cremated and have his ashes strewn on the Potomac River. He chose that river because he calls it "Americana" - he is very patriotic and because he has all his life been close to the water.
He is divorced and will leave me three grandchildren and six (and one more on the way) great-grandchildren. There is something very wrong about this. In the natural course of events, a son is supposed to be at the death bed of his father. He still has his sense of humor and is taking it better than I am.
Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 28, 2004 - 09:24 pm
Dear, dear ROBBY:
We are here with you, and sending strong loving thoughts and prayers to your son.
Mal
JoanK
June 28, 2004 - 09:25 pm
All our thoughts and prayers are with you and your son.
Justin
June 28, 2004 - 11:20 pm
My thoughts are with you ,Robby and if I could share your pain, I would do so. Be strong because your son's family will need you now more than ever before. Justin
Justin
June 28, 2004 - 11:37 pm
We have been moving through the beginning and the development of Christianity looking at each early contributor and seeing what each gave to the evolving shape of the new religion but we have not yet looked at motivations. Why did Jesus do and say what he did? Why did James and Peter and the others leave their families and their businesses to follow Jesus? Why did Paul take up the banner if it did not appeal to him? Why did Paul change the message from that of Jesus to something more akin to contemporary religious practice? Why did a substantial proportion of the ME population convert when they heard Paul? What is needed in this conversation is a little motivational research.
Malryn (Mal)
June 29, 2004 - 02:50 am
Okay, JUSTIN, you're the historian in the group, I propose that you do just that. As for me, I'll say these people seemed to want a little more Lauranauda than they'd seen before. (That's a Massachusetts pronunciation of Law and Order.)
It occurs to me that the decadence of falling Rome had something to do with Jesus's rebellion. Paul the Puritan tightened up Jesus's God is Love idea with more than a dash of an older, more traditional, God is Wrath and Punishment if you don't behave.
It seems as if a lot of this movement was a big push by human beings toward a more advanced kind of civilization. Now, in the 21st century, I'd like to see a push for even more advancement. We've been in this same groove, with only slight variations, for a long, long time.
Mal
robert b. iadeluca
June 29, 2004 - 04:08 am
Thank you all for your good wishes and thanks to Mal for moving the discussion along. Durant continues with what he calls:The Conflict of Creeds.
"It would have been surprising if, in the multitude of relatively independent centers of Christianity, subject to different traditions and environments, there had failed to developa a diversity of customs and creeds. Greek Christianity in particular was destined to a flood of heresies by the metaphysical and argumentative habits of the Greek mind.
"Christianity can be understood only in the perspective of these heresies, for even in defeating them it took something of their color and form.
"One faith united the scattered congregations:-that Christ was the son of God -- that he would return to establish his Kingdom on earth -- and that all who believed in him would at the Last Judgment be rewarded with eternal bliss. But Christians differed as to the date of the second advent. When Nero died and Titus demolished the Temple, and again when Hadrian destroyed Jerusalem, many Christians hailed these calamities as signs of the second coming
"When chaos threatened the Empire at the close of the second century, Tertullian and others thought that the end of the world was at hand. A Syrian bishop led his flock into the desert to meet Christ halfway and a bishop in Pontius disorgnaized the life of his community by announcing that Christ would return with a year.
"As all signs failed, and Christ did not come, wiser Christians sought to soften the disappointment by reinterpreting the date of his his return. He would come in a thousand years, said an epistle ascribed to Barnabas. He would come, said the most cautious, when the 'generation' or race of the Jews was quite extinct, or when the Gospel had been preached to all gentiles. Or, said the Gospel of John, he would send in his stead the Holy Spirit of Paraclete. Finally the Kingdom was transferred from the earth to heaven, from the years of our life to a paradise beyond the grave. Even the belief in the millennium -- in the return of Jesus after a thousand years -- was discouraged by the Church, and was ultimately condemned.
"The faith in the second advent had established Christianity.
"The hope of Heaven preserved it."
Tertullian (ca. 200) said:-"We are only of yesterday. But already we fill the world." Any thoughts as to why this rapid growth?
Robby
Malryn (Mal)
June 29, 2004 - 05:53 am
Malryn (Mal)
June 29, 2004 - 05:55 am
Malryn (Mal)
June 29, 2004 - 06:07 am
Shasta Sills
June 29, 2004 - 06:56 am
I wish I knew where to find Jefferson's comments on the life of Jesus. Jefferson was one of my heros, until I found out my hero
had clay feet. But I would still like to see exactly what he extracted from the Bible and how he interpreted it.
Bubble
June 29, 2004 - 09:04 am
Warmest thoughts of fortitude sent your way Robby.
You remind me of Moliere: " The show must go on".
Bubble
Ann Alden
June 29, 2004 - 09:42 am
Just a note to let you know that I am keeping you and Roland in my prayers and good thoughts. Having lost two children, I know from where you speak. You will make, my friend, and I am in hopes that it goes as easily as the drs have predicted. Love to you both!!
winsum
June 29, 2004 - 10:42 am
srill empathizing with the present and robbies tragedy.. . everything else is "ancient history" and I don't seem to care about them folks.
Malryn (Mal)
June 29, 2004 - 11:17 am
"Them folks", as you call them, CLAIRE, experienced the same kinds of joys, frustrations, pain and grief that we do in the 21st century. By reading and talking about them, we are better able to understand our own. I feel sure that ROBBY would be the first to say, as BUBBLE put it, "The show must (and does and will) go on."
A Christianity Timeline
Malryn (Mal)
June 29, 2004 - 11:31 am
"The first flame was thus spread with great rapidity. The men, the most
celebrated of the apostolic century, were almost all gained over to the cause
in two or three years, by a sort of simultaneous attraction.
"It was a second
Christian generation, similar to that which had been formed five or six years
previously, upon the shores of Lake Tiberias. This second generation had not
seen Jesus, and could not equal the first in authority. But it was destined
to surpass it in activity and in its love for distant missions.
"One of the
best known among the new converts was Stephen, who, before his conversion,
appears to have been only a simple proselyte. He was a man full of ardor and
of passion. His faith was of the most fervent, and he was considered to be
favored with all the gifts of the Spirit. Philip, who, like Stephen, was a
zealous deacon and evangelist, attached himself to the community about the
same time. He was often confounded with his namesake, the apostle.
"Finally,
there were converted at this epoch, Andronicus and Junia, probably husband and
wife, who, like Aquila and Priscilla, later on, were the model of an apostolic
couple, devoted to all the duties of missionary work. They were of the blood
of Israel, and were in the closest relations with the apostles."
Source:
The Rise and Spread of Christianity
moxiect
June 29, 2004 - 03:08 pm
Robby, It is not easy to cope but we all do, you and your family are in my thoughts. Just remember YOU and Your Family are not ALONE!
Scrawler
June 29, 2004 - 03:28 pm
My thoughts are with you in your hour of need. I lost my son at 21 years old from cancer about 5 years ago.
robert b. iadeluca
June 29, 2004 - 04:38 pm
My "show must go on" approach is not so much for the benefit of the "audience" as it is to help keep my own thoughts in perspective.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 29, 2004 - 05:40 pm
Durant continues:-"The followers of Christ, in the first three centuries, divided into a hundred creeds. We should misjudge the function of history -- which is to illuminate the present through the past -- were we to detail the varieties of religious belief that sought and failed to capture the growing Church, and which the Church had to brand, one after another, as disintegrating heresies.
"Gnosticism -- the quest of godlike knowledge (gnosis) through mystic means -- was not a heresy so much as a rival. It antedated Christianity, and had proclaimed the theories of a Soter, or Savior, before Christ was born.
"That same Simon Magus of Samaria, whom Peter rebuked for 'simony,' was probably the author of a Great Exposition which gathered together a maze of Oriental notions about the complicated steps that could lead the human mind to a divine comprehension of all things.
"In Alexandria the Orphic, Neo-Pythagorean, and Neoplatonist traditions, fusing with the Logos philosophy of Philo, stirred Basilides (117), Valentinus (160), and others to form weird systems of divine emanations and personified 'aeons' of the world. In Edessa Bardesanes (200) created literary Syriac by describing these aeons in prose and verse.
"In Gaul the Gnostic Marcus offered to reveal to women the secrets of their guardian angels. His revelations were flattering, and he accepted their persons as his reward.
"The greatest of the early heretics was not quite a Gnostic, but was influenced by their mythology. About 140 Marcion, a rich youth of Sinope, came to Rome vowing to complete Paul's work of divorcing Christianity from Judaism. The Christ of the Gospels, said Marcion, had described as his father a God of tenderness, forgiveness, and love. The Yahveh of the Old Testament was a harsh god of unrelenting justice, tyranny, and war. This Yahveh could not be the father of the gentle Christ.
"What good god, asked Marcion, would have condemned all mankind to misery for eating an apple, or desiring knowledge, or loving woman? Yahveh exists, and is the creator of the world, but he made the flesh and bones of man from matter, and therefore left man's soul imprisoned in an evil frame. To release the soul of man a greater god sent his son to earth. Christ appeared, already thirty years of age, in a phantasmal, unreal body, and by his death won for good men the privilege of a purely spiritual resurrection.
"The good, said Marcion, are those who, following Paul, renounce Yahveh and the Jewish Law, reject the Hebrew Scriptures, shun marriage and all sensual enjoyment, and overcome the flesh by a stern asceticism.
"To propagate these ideas Marcion issued a New Testament composed of Luke's Gospel and the letters of Paul. The Church excommunicated him and returned to him the substantial sum that he had presented to it on coming to rome."
If I'm understanding this correctly, the Church of that time excommunicated Marcion for including in his New Testament the same Chapters of Luke and Paul that are in the New Testament that we know today and are accepted by the Church.
Robby
Justin
June 29, 2004 - 07:09 pm
Why was Marcion's view rejected when he accepted the views of Paul and Luke? The reason seems clear. The Church was formulating its doctrines apart from the Gospels, Letters of Paul and Acts of the Apostles. They were not prepared to reject Yahwey. I think they wanted him to be the Father God and to gain that connection they built linkages to the Hebrew scriptures. The Church developed a genealogy to Jesse for Mary and a genealogy to Abraham for Joseph. Rejection of Jewish Law was caused by a circumcision requirement, and a prohibition against eating with gentiles. One could not solicit gentiles successfully if one might not break bread and adult gentiles were not willing to be circumcised. Frankly, I don't blame them.So those elements of the Law had to be dispensed with. These dispensations are the chief cause of Paul's altercation with some Law abiding Jews which led to his death at Roman hands.
An interesting question here concerns Paul's request to be tried by the Emperor. Did every Roman citizen have the right to be tried by an Emperor? Was that right so firm that one had to be transported from the provinces, along with witnesses, to Rome, if the request was made?That is a very powerful right if the story is accurate.
Fifi le Beau
June 29, 2004 - 07:32 pm
Robby, my thoughts are with you and Roland.
......
Justin
June 29, 2004 - 10:33 pm
Motivation among these religious types is difficult to identify. Jesus is human so we must look for rational motivations in his actions. Paul's motives might involve money and power. Peter's motives are really elusive because he initially gives up family and job to travel with Jesus and the only thing Jesus was selling at this time was repentance. That message must have been very commonplace at that time.
Yet, Jesus attracted 12 loyal and steadfast associates and 70 odd deciples. OK, so he was charismatic. We see that today. Pat Robertson appeals. So did that chap with the club who went to jail and then we had the crying fellow- Swazee or Sweeney- who was caught with his hand in the cookie jar. These fellows are charismatic and attract followers but most of their followers are motivated by a desire to get something in return for loyalty-either heaven or money.
That does not seem to be the case with Peter. James is easier. He is taking over a going organization as top man. Monetary support from that orgaization can take care of him. So he is motivated by the customary, priestly benefit.
I think the same may apply to Paul although not entirely. He may be motivated by the urge to be creative- to be successful- to make something where there was nothing. That can be a strong motivation.
But what about Jesus? When John the Baptist is beheaded he takes over from John. John is beheaded as a danger to the throne- a revolutionary. Jesus is a Rabbi who later is seen as a revolutionary. I suspect traveling Rabbis were fed by women in the villages he visited. They may have slept in barns, stables and in the open. So he travels.
Now he has a message-"judgement day is coming, so behave." But he is not an Essene or an ascetic as John. This fellow likes women. Enjoys being the center of attention. When people he talks to have faith in him he can heal their pain-their troubles. He has no luck in Galilee because people know him too well. Robby is a healer. He must know that when people have faith in his abilities they stand a good chance of being healed. That might have been Jesus' motivation-the ego payback that comes from helping people.
I think, with much labor, we might work out a motivational scheme for these people. Certainly it would shed light on the reasons for the creation of the religion. Historians of the past have focused mostly on the converts and their motivations, not on the message carriers. The converts all believe there will be a judgement day and that they may be spared for their sins if they adhere to the rules of Christianity. That's easy. Pegging the creators is something else.
robert b. iadeluca
June 30, 2004 - 03:23 am
I am eclectic in my psychological approaches but I am primarily a cognitive-behavioral psychologist. I help people to look at other points of view and other behaviors. One of my approaches is to have them build up a set of written tools. One of the tools says:-"If you believe that it will work, it will." I find this especially helpful in recovering from nicotine addiction.And, as Justin implies, a strong rapport between my patient and myself is exceedingly important.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 30, 2004 - 03:46 am
"While the Gnostic and Marcionite sects were spreading rapidly in both East and West, a new heresiarch appeared in Mysia. About 156 Montanus denounced the increasing worldliness of Christians and the growing autocracy of bishops in the Church. He demanded a return to primitive Christian simplicity and austerity, and a restored right of prophecy, or inspired speech, to the members of the congregations."Two women, Priscilla and Maximilla, took him at his word and fell into religious trances. Their utterances became the living oracles of the sect. Montanus himself prophesied with such eloquent ecstasy that his Phrygian followers -- with the same religious enthusiasm that had once begotten Dionysus -- hailed him as the Paraclete promised by Christ.
"He announced that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand and that the New Jerusalem of the Apocalypse would soon descend from heaven upon a neighboring plain. To the predestined spot he led so large a host that some towns were depopulated.
"As in early Christian days, marriage and parentage were neglected, goods were communistically shared, and an absorbed asceticism anxiously prepared the soul for Christ.
"When, about 190, the Roman proconsul Antonius persecuted Chrisanity in Asia Minor, hundreds of Montanists, eager for paradise, crowded before his tribunal and asked for martyrdom. He could not accommodate them all. Some he executed. Most of them he dismissed with the words:-'Miserable creatures! If you wish to die are there not ropes and precipices?'
"The Church banned Montanism as a heresy and in the sixth century Justinian ordered the extinction of the sect. Some Montanists gathered in their churches, set fire to them, and let themselves be burned alive.
"Of minor heresies there was no end.
"The Encratites abstained from meat, wine, and sex.
"The Abstinents practiced self-mortification and condemned marriage as a sin.
"The Docetists taught that Christ's body was merely a phantom, not human flesh.
"The Theodotians considered him only a man.
"The Adoptionists and the followers of Paul of Samosata thought that he had been born a man, but had achieved divinity through moral perfection.
"The Modalists, Sabellians, and Monarchians recognized in the Father and the Son only one person, the Monophysites only one nature, the Monothelites only one will.
"The Church overcame them by its superior organization, its doctrinal tenacity, and its better understanding of the ways and needs of men."
Two thousand years have passed and we can still read of similar sects in our daily newspapers.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
June 30, 2004 - 07:04 am
Just what is "organization?" Here are some DEFINITIONS. Robby
JoanK
June 30, 2004 - 11:04 am
JUSTEN: in attributing motives to the founders of religeon, you seem to assume the classic trio: money, power, or fame. Can we assume that there are also other, more selfless, motivations at work. Although selfless motives can (and usually are) corrupted or intermixed with more selfish ones, I believe they really exist.
Shasta Sills
June 30, 2004 - 01:53 pm
I think Justin is selling these early Christian leaders short. I am
no longer a Christian myself, but I think their dedication and sacrifices indicate much higher motives than money, power, or fame.
I think they were very sincere in their religious beliefs.
winsum
June 30, 2004 - 02:27 pm
were intitutionalized into structures so that everyone would conform and that is called RELIGION.
addiction. I"ve taken tylonal with codeine since 1980 for arthritis pain relief as needed and it finally became such a heavy and constant use that I began to suffer real addiction problems with it soooooo I looked it up on the internet and it was scarey enough for me to decide I'd rather have the pain then the side effects of codeine, sso I stopped. not cold turkey took about five months but I KNEW THAT I WOULD do it. Now "as needed" means it's four i the morning and nothing else works and I'm sleep deprived as well so it's a backup but I've only used it five times in five months. I should mention night times are mostly nightmares for me in the pain department and I've tried everything else. Only codeine works. Kicking it was a decision based upon the lesser of two evels and simply deciding to DO IT.
Justin
June 30, 2004 - 04:58 pm
You folks raise a good issue. I don't know if there are selfless motivations. It sounds like an oxymoron. Some actions may appear to be selfless. I'm thinking of Schindler, for example, and the people who housed the Frank family. Parents and children sometimes engage in selfless acts although those are often corrupted because of a mutuality of interest.
Is there such a thing as a pure selfless motivation. Let's take Paul, for example. He hears about a Rabbi who was crucified as a rebel. The Rabbi had spoken of the coming of a day of judgement in which the wicked will get their just rewards and the evils we now see will be no longer.He talked about Hillel's golden rule message. He was gone now, but people still speak about the wonderful things he did.
Now enter Paul. He is a Sadducean Temple employee engaged in persecuting Jesus' old pals. One day on the road to Damascus to capture members of this new cult, he is sun struck and awakens blinded. He is taken to Damascus by his subordinates.
Something happened at Damascus to make him switch sides. Did members of the cult care for him while he healed? Did he think he would never see again and therefore might need the help of the cult members for life? When he is eventually healed, he realizes he was a screw-up, and that he can actually help these people who helped him. For a time, he must be both-a convert and a policeman. In the end he must be smuggled out of Damascus a basket. What are his motives? Are they selfless?
When the Jerusalem church is in financial straits, it is Paul who supports them with money raised at other churches. Here is some evidence of the monetary advantages inherent in religious activity. He buys their support for his position on circumcision and eating with gentiles.
Is economic well being a motive for Paul? I don't know. I'm just trying to provide some rationale for his actions. I know these guys are religious icons but they are human organizers during their active lives and they need motives to do things. When one looks back in hind sight at these fellows we look at them in terms of their accomplishments. We don't see them in the progress stage. We see them only in terms of the fait accompli.
robert b. iadeluca
June 30, 2004 - 05:07 pm
"In the third century a new danger rose in the East. At the coronation of Shapur I (242) a young Persian mystic, Mani of Cresiphon, proclaimed himself a Messiah sent upon earth by the True God to reform the religious and moral life of mankind. Borrowing from Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, Judaism, and Gnosticism, Mani divided the world into rival realms of Darkness and Light. The earth belonged to the kingdom of Darkness and Satan had created man."Nevertheless, the angels of the God of Light had surreptitiously introduced some elements of light into humanity -- mind, intelligence, reason. Even woman, said Mani, has in her some sparks of light.
"But woman is Satan's masterpiece, his chief agent in tempting man to sin. If a man will refrain from sex, idolatry, and sorcery, and lead an ascetic life of vegetarianism and fasting, the elements of light in him can overcome his Satanic impulses, and lead him, like a kindly light, to salvation.
"After thirty years of successful preaching, Mani was crucified at the suggestion of the Magian clergy, and his skin, stuffed with straw, was hung from one of Susa's gates.
"Martyrdoms enflamed the faith to wild enthusiasm. Manicheism spread into western Asia and north Africa, won Augustine for ten years, survived the persecutions of Diocletian and the conquests of Islam, and maintained a declining life for a thousand years until the coming of Genghis Khan.
"The old religions still claimed a majority of the Empire's population. Judaism gathered its impoverished exiles into scattered synagogues and poured its piety into its Talmuds.
"The Syrians continued to worship their Baals under Hellenistic names, and the Egyptian priets tended faithfully their zoological panatheon. Cybele, Isis, and Mithras retained their addicts until the close of the fourth century. Under Aurelian, a modified Mithraism captured the Roman state.
"Votive offerings to the classical divinities still came to the temples, initiates and candidates journeyed to Eleusis, and throughout the Empire aspiring citizens performed the motions of the imperial cult.
"But life had gone out of the classic creeds. They no longer aroused, except here and there, the warm devotion that makes a religion live. It was not that the Greeks and the Romans abandoned these faiths, once so lovely or austere. They abandoned rather the will to live, and by excessive family limitation, or physiological exhaustion, or devastating wars, so reduced their own number that the temples lost their cultivators step by step with the farms."
Well, at least I am a vegetarian.
Robby
winsum
June 30, 2004 - 06:42 pm
they happen all the time . . . it's called motherhood or nurtchuring. (sp) . . .even men have been known to be generous with their time and knowledge called teaching. .. how did you get so cynical.
Justin
June 30, 2004 - 10:30 pm
Claire; I think we are ducking the issue. No question, motherhood is full of selfless acts. That's not the issue. In the first century CE, one must eat to live just as we now must eat. We don't eat by engaging in selfless acts. We eat because we have earned our daily bread. Eating is a primary motivator. These religious icons also had to eat. Not all were beggars.Paul was certainly not a beggar. He was an aggressive enterprising man. Such people do things because they are motivated for one reason or another. Recognizing that characteristic does not make one cynical any more than the opposite makes one gullible. What we are trying to deal with here is reality not myth. Durant is looking at the historical aspects of Judaism and Christianity. If we are to share his interest in the historical we must be willing to look at human religious icons and try to understand their motivations for their actions.
In some things motives are easy to recognize. When Paul was proselytizing among the Jews he needed little more than the message of Jesus to be successful but when he went after the Greeks he had to completely change the message in order to make the ideas attractive to them.He added divinity,resurection, salvation, heavenly rewards and other ingredients to make the message palatable. He dropped circumcision and never hesitated to break bread with the gentile Greeks. What were his motives? Was he motivated by a desire to sell the gospel-to save souls etc. Not at all. His aim was to convert the Greeks. He knew divinity, resurection, salvation etc were not part of Jesus' make-up. He invented those ideas because the Greeks thought they were the signs of god like people like Dionysus. How could Jesus compete with ideas like divinity, and resurection running about?
robert b. iadeluca
July 1, 2004 - 03:43 am
"Celsus was alarmed by the spread of Christianity, by its scornful hostility to paganism, military service, and the state. How was the Empire to protect itself from the barbarians prowling on every frontier if its inhabitants succumbed to so pacifistic a philosophy? A good citizen, he thought, would conform to the religion of his country and his time without public criticism of its absurdities. These did not much matter. What counted was a unifying faith supporting moral character and civic loyalty."Then, forgetting the results he had heaped upon them, he appealed to the Christians to come back to the old gods, to worship the guardian genius of the emperor, and to join in the defense of the imperiled state. No one paid much attention to him. Pagan literature does not mention him. He would have been forgotten had not Origen undertaken to refute him.
"Constantine was wiser than Celsus and knew that a dead faith could not salvage Rome.
"Celsus was out of step with his time. He asked men to behave like gentlemen skeptics when they were withdrawing from a society that enslaved so many of them into a mystic world that made every man a god. That consciousness of supersensible powers which is the foundation of religion was prevailing universally over the materialism and determinism of a prouder age.
"Philosophy was abandoning the interpretation of that sense experience which is the realm of science and was devoting itself to a study of the unseen world. Neo-Pythagoreans and Neoplatonists developed Pythatoras' theory of transmigration and Plato's contemplation of the Divine Ideas, into an asceticism that sought to sharpen spiritual perception by starving the physical senses, and to reclimb by self-purification the steps by which the soul had been degraded from heaven into man."
Let's see if I have this straight. True Christianity ignores the state and the military needed to defend it. Celsus tried to contradict this by saying that it is better that a state should have a unifying faith which promotes loyalty to the state and the military necessary to defend it.However, materialism and science were out. Belief and confidence in a higher power was in. The soul took precedence over the body. The state had enslaved the people and the natives were restless.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 1, 2004 - 04:25 am
Here is a brief outline on the relationship between PACIFISM AND RELIGION. Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 1, 2004 - 04:32 am
Here are some comments on the relationship between PACIFISM AND CHRISTIANITY.Robby
DrPaSan
July 1, 2004 - 08:51 am
Robby,
I heard you are a psychologist.
I like this topic and the threads I read. I join.
We have something in common: I am a "Robbie" too.
Robert M. Santry, MD(H), PhD
Darmstadt, Germany
DrPaSan
July 1, 2004 - 08:53 am
Robby:
I just registered with SeniorNet.
I send you a message; I do not know if you received it.
I like the topic and the threads. So, I join.
We have something in common: I am a "Robbie" too.
I understand you are a psychologist. I am a physician with training in psychology and psychiatry.
Robert M. Santry, MD (H), PhD
Darmstadt, Germany
JoanK
July 1, 2004 - 09:42 am
WELCOME, WELCOME!! You don't need to read all the past posts, just jump right in.
Malryn (Mal)
July 1, 2004 - 11:58 am
Welcome to the Story of Civilization discussion, Dr. SANTRY.
Mal
Malryn (Mal)
July 1, 2004 - 01:28 pm
"Augustine was born to a pagan father and a Christian mother in the North African city of Tagaste; he was probably of the ethnic stock that modern-day Berbers are derived from. In his early adulthood, Augustine struggled with his ambitions, his sexuality, and with competing philosophies and mystical religions, not even accepting baptism until he was thirty-three. He began his career as a profoundly successful orator, but soon fell into Manicheism, a mystical relgion that combined Christianity and Mithraism, a Zoroastrian religion older and very similar to Christianity in its basic outlines. He soon tired of the contradictions within the religion and began to explore Platonic philosophy; it was in the midst of that project that he was converted to Christianity. He was brilliant man and never really left off the ambitiousness of his youth; within a short period of time he soon became Bishop of Hippo, a position he occupied for the rest of his life
"Augustine soon took on the role of fighting erroneous ideas; it's clear that his long flirtation with philosophy and Manicheism had bred an individual intolerant of competing viewpoints. He took on Greek and Roman philosophy, Manicheism, and Christian heretical viewpoints as his primary project and generated thousands of pages of writings trying to establish the correct views on every issue from the nature of God right down to some of the most trivial ethical issues. In all of this, he was concerned with the proliferation of thinking and viewpoints on the matter; in the process of correcting error, however, he filled out much that was undefined in early Christianity and created a new and consistent structure—sociological, ethical, political, and theological—that would usher in a new form of Christianity and Christian society in the Middle Ages."
Source:
Early Christianity
robert b. iadeluca
July 1, 2004 - 03:58 pm
Dr. Santry:- You have already been welcomed. I take it from your email address that you are a physician with the Army. We are glad to have you join us. As Joan said, jump right in. If you do not have this volume of Durant's, the comments of others will give you an idea of what we are discussing. I suggest that you read the Heading above carefully. It will give you an idea of our general theme. Be sure to click onto the "Subscribe" button so you can find your way back to us.By what name would you like to be addressed?
Robby
moxiect
July 1, 2004 - 06:30 pm
Welcome Dr Robbie S.
Robby, if I am understanding what has been posted, mystism plus paganism equal Christianity in some way or another going along with man's interpretation. Can that be said?
Justin
July 1, 2004 - 10:41 pm
A state coupled with a unifying religion and protected by a military is not a new idea.Celsus was simply recognizing a governmental form that had succeeded in the past, not only in Rome but also in Sumeria, Akadia, Babylon, Persia,Egypt and Greece. Every successful society we have examined has contained these three elements in the structure of government. The priests, in every case, have managed the people for the sovereign who, in turn, has promoted their clerical well being and used the military to protect the relationship. Celsus'just picked a decaying religion rather than a growing one to tout. Constantine saw the wisdom of Celsus ideas and picked a growth religion to promote.
Modern examples are numerous in spite of constitutional prohibitions. The link between the current US administration and religion is undeniable and the usefulness of the linkage in controlling voters is evident. The combination, in spite of evidence of incompetence, will be hard to overcome in the coming election in the US.
robert b. iadeluca
July 2, 2004 - 04:01 am
"Plotinus was the culmination of the mystic theosophy. He was a Coptic Egyptian with a Roman name and a Greek education. He joined a Persia-bound army in the hope of learning the wisdom of the Magi and the Brahmans at first hand. He reached Mesopotamia, turned back to Antioch, went to Rome (244) and remained there until his death. His school of philosophy became so fashionable that the Emperor Gallienus made him a court favorite."He restored the repute of philosophy by living like a saint amid the luxuries of Rome. He had no care for his body. Said Porphyry:-'he was ashamed that his soul had a body.' He refused to sit for his portrait on the ground that his body was the least imortant part of him. He ate no meat and little bread, was simple in his habits, kindly in his ways. He avoided all sexual relations, but did not condemn them. His modesty befitted a man who saw the part in the perspective of the whole.
"He was an idealist who graciously recognized the existence of matter. But matter by itself, he argued, is only the formless possibility of form. Every form that matter takes is given it by its inward energy or soul (psyche). Nature is the total of energy or soul, producting the totality of forms in the world. The lower reality does not produce the higher. The higher being, soul, produces the lower -- embodied form.
"The growth of the individual man from his beginnings in the womb, through the slow formation of organ after organ to full maturity is the work of the psyche or vital principle with him. The body is gradually molded by the longings and directives of the soul. Everything has soul -- an inward energy creating outward form. Matter is evil only insofar as it has not received mature form. It is an arrested development. Evil is the possibility of good.
"We know matter only through idea -- through sensation, perception, thought. What we call matter is (as Hume would say) only a bundle of ideas. At most it is an elusive hypothetical something pressing against our nerve ends (Mill's 'permanent possibility of sensation'). Ideas are not material. The notion of extension in space is obviously inapplicble to them. The capacity to have and use ideas is reason (nous). This is the peak of the human triad of body, soul, and mind.
"Reason is determined insofar as it depends upon sensation. It is free insofar as it is the highest form of the creative, molding soul."
These are the eternal questions -- 2000 years after Plotinus. What is mind? What is body? What is soul? Psychology classes discuss the difference between mind and the brain. Religion classes "examine" the soul. Physicians learn more about the body day by day. And, of course, what is the relationship among this "triad."
Robby
winsum
July 2, 2004 - 01:18 pm
has a discussion here.....go see
Justin
July 2, 2004 - 01:24 pm
Plotinus conducted his life as an ascetic not as a Greek. The sound mind in a sound body was a concept foreign to him. He shunned sexual experience and considered the body the least important part of his being.He thought his mind and his body were subservient to something he called a soul after Plato. He was more like John the Baptist and the Essenes than like a Greek. His acceptance in Rome is an anomaly. He certainly did not fit the Roman mold.
Christianity was taking shape at this time in Rome and in the Roman world. The ideas of Plotinus contributed to the development of that religion. He fostered their distaste for things sexual, a policy already well recomended by Paul and in addition he gave prominence to something he called a soul. The idea of soul probably came out of his Greek experience-from Plato or neoplatonics. It did not come from Paul.
An undefined soul,I suppose, is an acceptable idea for priests and other religious officials to entertain but it is not an idea I would expect to be entertained, seriously, by the scientific community, since the concept can neither be measured nor tied to reality.
Malryn (Mal)
July 2, 2004 - 01:57 pm
"When I lie on the beach there naked, which I do sometimes, and I feel the wind coming over me and I see the stars up above, and I am looking into this very deep, indescribable night, it is something that escapes my vocabulary to describe. Then I think, God, I have no importance, whatever I do or don't do, or what anybody does, is not more important than the grains of sand that I am lying on, or the coconut that I am using for my pillow."
~Marlon Brando 1924-2004
JoanK
July 2, 2004 - 03:03 pm
WINSOM: where is "mind brain". I searched on it, and couldn't find it.
Justin
July 2, 2004 - 04:06 pm
If you will not think me insulting or overly simplistic I will offer the obvious. Brain is a physical substance. Mind is the operation-the functioning of that physical substance.
Justin
July 2, 2004 - 04:58 pm
I don't think Marlon related well to people. Do you, Mal?
Shasta Sills
July 2, 2004 - 05:03 pm
Justin, that's what I think brain and mind are too. But there are a
lot of people who don't agree.
JoanK, the discussion Winsum is talking about is under "Philosophy
and Psychology" in the SeniorNet menu.
Justin
July 2, 2004 - 05:06 pm
We are now entering that period in history which resembles our own so greatly. What we know today as Christianity is a thousand points of darkness-splinter groups all over the planet. Each one different from the others and each one emphasizing its peculiar difference. I don't know that this characteristic is a bad thing. One has only to recall that when Christianity was singular and unified,it was a holy terror.
robert b. iadeluca
July 2, 2004 - 05:11 pm
"According to Plotinus, the body is both the organ and the prison of the soul. The soul knows that it is a higher kind of reality than the body. It feels its kinship with some vaster soul, some cosmic creative life and power. In the perfection of thought it aspires to join again that supreme spiritual reality from which it appears to have fallen in some primeval catastrophe and disgrace."Plotinus here surrenders discursively to the Gnosticism that he professes to reject, and describes the descent of the soul through various levels from heaven to corporeal man. Generally he prefers the Hindu notion that the soul transmigrates from lower to higher, or from higher to lowers, forms of life according to its virtues and vices in each incarnation.
"Sometimes he is playfully Pythagorean:-those who have loved music too much will becme songbirds in their next avator, and overspeculative philosophers will be transformed into eagles. The more developed the soul is the more persistently it seeks its divine source, like a child strayed from its parent, or a wanderer longing for home.
"If it is capable of virtue, or true love, or devotion to the Muses, or patient philosophy, it will find the ladder down which it came, and will climb it to its God. Let the soul, then, purify itself, let it desire the unseen essence passionately, let it lose the world in meditation. Suddenly, perhaps in some moment when all the noise of the senses is stilled, and matter ceases to pound on the gates of mind, the soul will feel itself absorbed in the ocean of being, the spiritual and final reality.
Wrote Thoreau, idly drifting on Walden Pond:-'Sometimes I ceased to live, and began to be.'
"When this takes place, says Plotinus,-'The soul will see divinity as far as it is lawful. And she will see herself illuminated, full of intellectual light, or, rather, she will perceive herself to be a pure light,unburdened, agile, and becoming god.'"
Your thoughts, please?
Robby
JoanK
July 2, 2004 - 05:11 pm
JUSTEN: Brain is a physical substance. Mind is the operation-the functioning of that physical substance.
Maybe I'm the simplistic one, but I don't know what that means. Clearly, mind cannot function w/o the physical brain, but does that tell us what mind is?
robert b. iadeluca
July 2, 2004 - 05:26 pm
The GREEN quotes in the Heading indicate the direction in which we are going.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 2, 2004 - 06:53 pm
The Soul
However intense my experience, I am conscious of the presence and criticism of a part of me, which, as it were, is not a part of me, but a spectator, sharing no experience, but taking note of it, and that is no more I than it is you. When the play, it may be the tragedy, of life is over, the spectator goes his way. It was a kind of fiction, a work of the imagination only, so far as he was concerned.
- - - Henry David Thoreau
winsum
July 2, 2004 - 07:19 pm
floating on my back looking upwrd at stars in the privacy of my own pool, so no clothes required. Marlon and I have had somewhat similar experiences. It's lovely but I never thought to call it soul and now I've moved and the pool is public and somehow I feel a loss because I can't do it anymore. have I lost my soul?
Justin
July 2, 2004 - 10:00 pm
Joan: Let me try again: The brain is the gooey part of the head and the mind is the gooey part having synapses. I don't know. I'm obviously just joking. Robby is supposed to know these things. How does one define mind in a serious way?
Justin
July 2, 2004 - 10:07 pm
Plotinus gives soul a feminine persona.He says' it will see divinity as far as it is lawful and she will see herself full of intellectual light-she will perceive herself to be pure light and becoming God. I always knew God was a she and now that I know Plotinus agrees with me I can rest easy about that.
3kings
July 3, 2004 - 02:32 am
To me, it seems Christ created a personal philosophy for living, a religion, if you like. Paul created a Church, an organisation, which he imposed upon Christ's creation.
The reason Paul's church expanded and grew, is because he saw, and used, the attraction of Christ's "communism" for the teeming masses of poor people. "It is easier for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven "
If the above has any truth, then it seems that one explanation for the Church's growth, is to be found in economics. == Trevor
Malryn (Mal)
July 3, 2004 - 02:51 am
What a beautiful, rational explanation, TREVOR!
Mal
robert b. iadeluca
July 3, 2004 - 04:41 am
I think I know what Justin is trying to say regarding brain/mind. Think of hardware/software. The computer in front of you is the hardware which can be seen (the wires, the discs, etc.) -- the brain. The information which is being invisibly communicated (the emails, the postings, etc.) -- the mind. Without the computer, no transmittal of information. Without the brain, no mind.But there is a philosophy which speaks of the "universal mind" which requires no brain. That is way beyond me.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 3, 2004 - 04:57 am
Durant continues to speak of Plotinus and his thoughts."But what is God? 'He" too is a triad -- of unity (ben), reason (nous), and soul (psyche.) 'Beyond Being there is the One.'
"Through the seeming chaos of mundane multiplicity runs a unifying life. We know almost nothing of it except its existence. Any positive adjective or prejudiced pronoun applied to it would be an unwarrantable limitation. We may only call it One and First, and Good as the object of our supreme desire.
"Emanating from this Unity is the World Reason, corresponding to Plato's Ideas, the formative models and ruling laws of things. They are, so to speak, the thoughts of God, the Reason in the One, the order and rationality of the world. Since these Ideas persist while matter is a kaleidoscope of massing shapes, they are the only true or enduring reality.
"But Unity and Reason, though they hold the universe together, do not create it. This function is performed by the third aspect of the godhead -- the vitalizing principle that fills all things and gives them their power and predestined form.
"Everything from atoms to planets, has an activating soul, which is itself a part of the World-Soul. Every Atman is Brahman. The individual soul is eternal only as vitality or energy, not as a distinct character.
"Immortality is not the survival of personality. It is the absorption of the soul in deathless things."
Deep thoughts here, folks. And as for God being a "she" or "he," according to Plotinus, "Any positive pronoun applied to it would be an unwarrantable limitation."
Robby
JoanK
July 3, 2004 - 05:51 am
JUSTIN: I think my synapses must have been too gooey yesterday, Thanks for the clarification.
Every Atman is Brahman
Is this Plotinus saying this or Durant? Was there an influence from Eastern thought?
robert b. iadeluca
July 3, 2004 - 05:55 am
Joan:-Much of this is Durant interpreting Plotinus. If the phrase is in quotes, then that is directly from Plotinus. I think Durant is saying that.Robby
Malryn (Mal)
July 3, 2004 - 05:57 am
"Immortality is not the survival of personality. It is the absorption of the soul in deathless things."
What is deathless? I can't think of a thing that is everlasting.
Mal
robert b. iadeluca
July 3, 2004 - 05:57 am
Over the centuries what was the attitude of Christianity toward the human body? This ARTICLE from today's NY times speaks to that.Robby
Malryn (Mal)
July 3, 2004 - 06:19 am
The body is the machine. The brain is what makes it work. The mind is what tells it to fill up the tank and keep moving so all the parts will work the way they're supposed to. One day I'll figure out what the central nervous system has to do with all this. My central nervous system was damaged, so some things don't work right. I think I just figured it out. The brain gives the signal to the central nervous system, which acts as the spark plugs that fire the engine.
All that's been done with these cadavers could have been done accurately in plastic. I suppose it's something to think these were once living, breathing human beings.
Mal
Justin
July 3, 2004 - 01:15 pm
Kudos to Trevor and Robby this morning.
Robby; Good analogy for Brain-Mind definition. I don't know from univeral mind either.
Trevor: Good explanation. I agree with you. I"d like to build on your expression a little but I don't want to desecrate good stuff.
I think Christ created a way of living, Paul created a religion, Peter created a Church, Jerome created the Vulgate, the Nicene Council created a creed, and the Papacy created organization.
I also think you are right about the cause of growth. Christianity gave the poor HOPE for a good life after death but it also gave them communism in the idea of share and share alike regardless of earning capacity.
Justin
July 3, 2004 - 01:37 pm
Plotinus says, "everything from atoms to planets has an activating soul and all is part of the world soul". That's not the current Christian view of things. Only humans have souls. The rest are out of luck.
Plotinus has the right idea here. If were going to have souls let's not discriminate among objects. Give the soul to atoms and let them decide what they want to be when they form clusters. Much later, we will come to a school of philosophy known as scholasticism. Here we will watch as men try to dance on the head of a pin.
Justin
July 3, 2004 - 01:52 pm
Plotinus is full of interesting thoughts. I hate to interfere with his creations. He seems to be having so much fun inventing things for his soul. "Immortality is not the survival of personality.It is the absorption of the soul in deathless things." I think he is saying humans are not immortal but the soul is immortal. I wonder if he intends the soul to be recycled at the end of human life. Mal, I think Plotinus could be expressed in the manner of James Thurber and a fantastic novel achieved.
robert b. iadeluca
July 3, 2004 - 01:54 pm
Durant continues with thoughts of Plotinus:-"Virtue is the movement of the soul toward God. Beauty is not mere harmony and proportion, as Plato and Aristotle thought, but the living soul or unseen divinity in things. It is the predominance of soul over body -- of form over matter -- of reason over things. Art is the translation of the rational or spiritual beauty into another medium.
"The soul can be trained to rise from the pursuit of beauty in material or huiman forms to seeking it in the hidden soul in Nature and her laws -- in science and the subtle order that it reveals -- finally in the divine Unity that gathers all things, even striving and conflicting things, into a sublime and marvelous harmony.
"In the end beauty and virtue are one -- the unity and co-operation of the part with the whole:--
'Withdraw into yourself and look. And if you do not find yourself beautiful, yet act as does the creator of a statue. He cuts away here -- he smooths there -- he makes this line lighter, the other purer -- until a lovely face has grown upon his work. So do you also cut away all that is excessive, straighten all that is crooked and never cease chiseling your statue until you see the perfect goodness established in the stainless shrine.'
"We feel in this philosophy the same spiritual atmosphere as in contemporary Christianity -- the withdrawal of tender minds from civic interest to religion, a flight from the state to God.
"It was no accident that Plotinus and Origen were fellow pupils and friends, and that Clement developed a Christian Platonism at Alexandria. Plotinus is the last of the great pagan philosphers. Like Epictetus and Aurelius, he is a Christian without Christ.
"Christianity accepted nearly every line of him and many a page of Augustine echoed the ecstasy of the supreme mystic. Through Philo, John, Plotinus, and Augustine, Plato conquered Aristotle, and entered into the profoundest theology of the Church.
"The gap between philosophy and religion was closing. Reason for a thousand years consented to be the handmaiden of theology."
Christianity without Christ? Reason and theology?
Robby
Scrawler
July 3, 2004 - 02:10 pm
Post #779: I agree with you on your thoughts.
Mind/body/soul: We all have some idea what the mind and body look like, but what about the soul? Do any of us really know what the soul is? Or what we would be like if we didn't have a soul? Would we act like the popular show "Angel" - vampire without a soul and become evil? Throeau had some intereting thoughts about "soul" but are there any other thoughts?
Have a very happy and safe 4th of July.
robert b. iadeluca
July 3, 2004 - 02:10 pm
Comparisons between Plotinus and Aristotle on the subject of BEAUTY. Robby
Shasta Sills
July 3, 2004 - 02:21 pm
Why is it that men usually think the soul is feminine, and women
usually think it is masculine? Isn't it because we don't know what
it is, and we just assume it is something different from what we are?
I was always quite convinced that my soul was masculine, when I used
to think I had a soul. I used to lay traps for him to try to catch
him doing something so I could figure out what he was like. But I
never could catch any glimpse of him whatsoever, so I finally decided
I didn't have a soul. It's like the capacity for mathematics, which
I also don't have. Just one more area where I was short-changed.
robert b. iadeluca
July 3, 2004 - 02:34 pm
Comparisons between Plotinus and Aristotle on the subject of BEAUTY. Robby
Malryn (Mal)
July 3, 2004 - 02:37 pm
I can't jump so fast from Soul to Beauty, thank you.
Who thought up Soul? It's not something that came to us from Nature, or naturally, and it's a fairly recent concept.
I have no idea what Soul is. To me, when somebody dies, his or her soul dies with them. To me, Soul is Life. When Life is gone, Soul is gone also.
Alive, I am the essence of me, the Body outwardly, and the Soul ( or representation of my thought or the living process which is I ) is only as I present it to you.
Dead, I am what's called the Body, only with no life in it. The representation of Me as as a living person is over, just as it is for the cadavers in the museum mentioned in the NY Times article.
Is Soul only a dream of immortality for some human beings?
Mal
robert b. iadeluca
July 3, 2004 - 02:38 pm
"Virtue is beauty, but the beauteous evil
Are empty trunks o'erflourished by the devil."- - William Shakespeare in Twelfth Night.
winsum
July 3, 2004 - 03:35 pm
Jung found there to be one in the use of symbols as in the circle, thruout the art of all known culturees. .. art history 101
Justin
July 3, 2004 - 04:08 pm
Plotinus is one mixed up guy.He says,"Beauty is not mere harmony and proportion as Plato and Aristotle thought." Oh No. Beauty is ..."finally in the divine unity that gathers all things into a sublime and marvelous harmony." I am amazed that Durant would say that Origen and Augustine adopted so many of his ideas. Plotinus talks in circles, negates himself in redundancy, and expresses flights of fancy. I know Origen and Plotinus had the same teacher but Origen had the decency to be excommunicated by his bishop.
Justin
July 3, 2004 - 04:16 pm
Plotinus defines art as "the translation of the rational or spiritual beauty into another medium." Is there any system of thought in which "rational" can be equated with "spiritual"?
Malryn (Mal)
July 3, 2004 - 05:36 pm
"Virtue is beauty, but the beauteous evil
Are empty trunks o'erflourished by the devil."
Out of context these words are sounding brass and tinking cymbal. They don't mean anything.
Mal
Justin
July 3, 2004 - 06:35 pm
Mal; Don't you think this material is presented in the style of Revelations-lots of bombast, plenty of hyperbole,and a big spoonful of the ungraspable.
Malryn (Mal)
July 3, 2004 - 07:07 pm
JUSTIN, I was arguing these questions with my very smart boyfriend in high school. I argued them later with the bright, bright women I knew in college. Then I argued them again with the very smart boyfriend I married and all of his super-smart-humanities-academic-intellectual and scientific colleagues. I don't really know if the material is ungraspable because long ago I started calling it after-dinner-talk-at-the-table B. S. More than half my mind says that assessment is right today.
I'm much older now with a pack of experience under my belt, and I've about decided that it doesn't matter if any of these questions are answered. I've read enough and heard enough arguments that I figure these issues will never be resolved.
It all boils down to the fact that when there's nothing left but the pot and you and me. You'll think one thing, and I'll think another. If we happen to think the same thing, we'll either start a corporation or get married.
Mal
Justin
July 3, 2004 - 08:00 pm
Mal; You are so right. It is BS. But it's fun to read the twists and turns the message takes knowing how it all came together and knowing how all those smart cookies you know never really took the time to figure it all out.
winsum
July 3, 2004 - 09:59 pm
I've often wondered how SMARTT people that I know and some I've met here at seniornet can accept ANY RELIGION . . . that's why this discussion is interesting to me. I can see the machinations and the play. It's all a great game and the players are all athletes trying to win just to win . . . .an ego trip for everyone. Personally I believe that mystery is marvelous and I don't care about knowing everything. . . still wondering why they -- people -- do.
Justin
July 3, 2004 - 11:52 pm
Dan Barham writing an academic piece, linked from Robby's 803, comparing Plotinus with Aristotle and Plato on beauty, treats Aristotle and Plato with fairness but understates the case for Plotinus. Plotinus expands the definition of beauty beyond the order, symmetry, pattern, and balance of good art. He also recognizes beauty in untouched nature and in virtue emanating from a higher source.
Dan, careful writer that he is, emphasizes the Platonic and Aristotelian criteria as well as the accidental value of beauty in nature. He describes but generally ignores in his conclusion the value of beauty in virtue which proved to be so useful to later Christian writers.
Malryn (Mal)
July 4, 2004 - 05:43 am
I understand Forrest Gump died and went to heaven. Peter told him in order to enter he had to answer three questions. Was he up to it? "Shoot." Forrest said. "All right. How many days of the week start with the letter 'T', and what are they?"
Forrest thought for a moment, then said. "Two. Today and Tomorrow."
"Well, that isn't quite the answer I was expecting, but I'll let it pass. How many seconds are there in a year?"
Again Forrest thought. Then said, "Twelve. January second, February second..."
Peter nodded, closed his eyes and sort of tilted his head to one side, sighed and said. "All right, I'll let that one pass also. What is God's first name?"
Now this was a bit of a stumper, but Forrest finally said, "Andy."
Peter blinked and his forehead wrinkled. "Why do you say that?" he asked.
Forrest smiled and said, "Andy walks with me, Andy talks with me."
"Pass on in." Peter said as he stepped to one side. "You're too many for me."
JoanK
July 4, 2004 - 06:01 am
MAL: you're too many for me.
robert b. iadeluca
July 4, 2004 - 06:12 am
Slow day notwithstanding, Durant pauses to laugh and then moves on:-"The Church now won to its support some of the finest minds in the Empire. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, began the powerful dynasty of the post-apostolic 'Fathers' who gave a philosophy to Christianity, and overwhelmed its enemies with argument.
"Condemned to be thrown to the beasts for refusing to abjure his faith (108), Justin composed on his way to Rome several letters whose hot devotion reveals the spirit in which Christians could go to their death:--
'I give injunctions to all men that I am dying willingly for God's sake, if you do not hinder it. I beseech you, be not an unseasonable kindness to me. Suffer me to be eaten by the beasts, through whom I can attain to God. Rather entice the wild beasts that they may become my tomb, and leave no trace of my body that when I fall asleep I be not burdensome to any. I long for the beasts that re prepared for me. Let there come upon me fire and cross (crucifixion), struggles with beasts, cutting and tearing asunder, rackings of bones, mangling of limbs, crushing of my whole body, and cruel tortures of the devil, if so I may attain to Jesus Christ!'
"Quadratus, Atenagoras, and many others wrote 'apologies' for Christianity, usually addressed to the emperor. Minucius Felix, in an almost Ciceroian dialogue, allowed his Caecilius to defend paganism ably, but made his Octavius answer him so courteously that Caedilius was almost persuaded to be a Christian.
"Justin of Samaria, coming to Rome in the reign of Antonius, opened there a school of Christian philosophy, and, in two eloquent 'apologies,' sought to convince the Emperor, and 'Verissimus the Philosopher,' that Christians were loyal citizens, paid their taxes promptly, and might, under friendly treatment, become a valuable support to the state.
"For some years he taught unmolested. But the sharpness of his tongue made him enemies, and in 166 a rival philosopher prodded the authorities to arrest him and six of his followers, and put them all to death. Twenty years later Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, struck a powerful blow for the unity of the Church in his Adversus Haereses, a blast at all heretics.
"The only way of preventing Christianity from disintegrating into a thousand seers, said Irenaeus, was for all Christians to accept humbly one doctrinal authority -- the decrees of the episcopal councils of the Church."
Apparently an organizer was necessary -- someone to guide everyone into "one doctrinal authority." Someone who could "overwhelm enemies with argument?" Forming a Church by employing reason over faith?
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 4, 2004 - 06:27 am
Here are some competing views of CHURCH ORGANIZATION. Robby
Malryn (Mal)
July 4, 2004 - 06:37 am
Virtue
1.) Moral excellence and righteousness; goodness. An example or kind of moral excellence: the virtue of patience.
2.} Chastity, especially in a girl or woman.
3.} A particularly efficacious, good, or beneficial quality; advantage: a plan with the virtue of being practical.
4.} Effective force or power: believed in the virtue of prayer.
5.} Theology: The fifth of the nine orders of angels.
6.} Obsolete. Manly courage; valor.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation. All rights reserved.
Virtue Ethics from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Virtue and Ethics
Justice as a Virtue
Malryn (Mal)
July 4, 2004 - 06:47 am
I did a search on "Early Christianity organization", and came up with this page of links to interesting websites.
Wabash Center Early Christianity
robert b. iadeluca
July 4, 2004 - 06:49 am
Here are some competing views of CHURCH ORGANIZATION. Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 4, 2004 - 06:53 am
See various definitions of ORTHODOXY. Robby
JoanK
July 4, 2004 - 10:43 am
Under Mal's link to early Christianity, I found an interesting summary of
Theories of The Historical Jesus
robert b. iadeluca
July 4, 2004 - 04:52 pm
Do these BASICS OF ORGANIZING relate to the building of a Church?Robby
moxiect
July 4, 2004 - 08:03 pm
Robby
Basically, with the mergence of myth and reality being Organized, religion did evolve. That is if I am understanding all previous posts!
Justin
July 4, 2004 - 10:39 pm
Well folks, the fire works are over for another year. The children, their children, and their children's children have all left.There are some dishes left in the sink, and the Webber is still hot but the holiday is over and we survived. Tomorrow, I will be back on the road to Rome.
winsum
July 4, 2004 - 10:41 pm
"The Church now won to its support some of the finest minds in the Empire. came up with THIS STUFF. I'm out of here. bye all. Claire
robert b. iadeluca
July 5, 2004 - 04:40 am
"The doughtiest fighter for Christianity in this period was Quintus Septimus Tertullianus of Carthage. Midway in life he was converted to Christianity, married a Christian, renounced all pagan pleasures, and (says Jerome) was ordained a priest."All the arts and tricks that he had learned from rhetoric and law were now put at the service of Christian apologetics, enhanced by a convert's ardor. Greek Christianity was theological, metaphysical, mystical. Tertullian made Latin Christianity ethical, juristic, practical.
"As Tertullian aged, the same energy that in his youth had courted pleasure now turned into a fierce denunciation of every consolation but those of faith and hope. He addressed woman in the coarsest terms as 'the gate by which the demon enters' and told her that 'it is on your account that Jesus Christ died.' Once he loved philosophy. Now he renounced all reasoning independent of revelation and rejoiced in the incredibility of his creed.
"Sinking into a morose puritanism, Tertullian in his fifty-eighth year rejected the orthodox church as too sullied with worldly ways and embraced Montanism as a more outright application of the teachings of Christ. He condemned all Christians who became soldiers, artists, or state officials -- all parents who did not veil their daughters -- all bishops who restored repentant sinners to communion -- finally he called the pope pastor moechorum -- 'shepherd of adulterers.'
"In Egypt the growth of the Church was slower, and its early stages are lost to history. Suddenly, late in the second century, we hear of a 'Catechetical School' in Alexandria, which wedded Christianity to Greek philosophy and produced two major fathers of the Church. Both Clement and Origen were well versed in pagan literature and loved it after their own fashion. If their spirit had prevailed, there would hve been a less destructive break between classical culture and Christianity.
"Origen questioned the truth of Genesis as literally understood. He explained away as symbols the unpleasant aspects of Yahveh's dealings with Israel. He dismissed as legends such stories as that of Satan taking Jesus up to a high mountain and offering him the kingdoms of the world. Sometimes, he suggested, scriptural narratives were invented in order to convey some spiritual truth. He asked:--'What man of sense will suppose that the fist and the second and the third day, and the evening and morning, existed without a sun or moon or stars? Who is so foolish as to believe that God, like a husbandman, planted a garden in Eden, and placed in it a tree of life so that one who tasted of the fruit obtained life?'
"In 250 Decian persecution reached Caesarea. Origen, now sixty-five, was arrestd, stretched on the rack, loaded with chains and an iron collar, and kept in prison for many days. But death caught up with Decius first and Origen was released. he lived only three years more. Torture had fatally injured a body already weakened by unremnitting asceticism. He died as poor as when he had begun to teach and the most famous Christian of his time.
"As his heresies ceased to be the secret of a few scholars, the Church found it necessary to disown him. Pope Anastasius condemned his 'blasphemous opinions' in 400, and in 553 the Council of Constantinople pronounced him anathema. Nevertheless, nearly every later Christian savant for centuries learned from him, and depended upon his work. His defense of Christianity impressed pagan thinkers as no 'apology' had done before him.
"With him Christianity ceased to be only a comforting faith. It became a full-fledged philosophy, butressed with Scripture but proudly resting on reason."
And so the various thinkers and organizers battled back and forth so as to come up with the "truth."
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 5, 2004 - 05:55 am
A very interesting outline on BELIEF SYSTEMS. Robby
Malryn (Mal)
July 5, 2004 - 07:34 am
The sun dies every night, and is resurrected the next morning. Trees and plants die every fall and winter, only to be resurrected the following spring.
I was reminded of this by this paragraph in Pompeii by Robert Harris.
"Osiris, the sun god, husband to Isis, is slain each evening at sundown by his treacherous brother, Set, the bringer of darkness. All men when they die, are judged by the Ruler of the Kingdom of the Dead, and if found worthy are granted eternal life, to rise again in the morning. Horus, heir of Osiris, the avenging sun, bringer of light."
JoanK
July 5, 2004 - 10:27 am
Interesting on belief systems. Many points could be made. A couple:
When a belief system is elevated to the status of official doctrine of a polity, it will become more intolerant of other systems.
This is what I was trying to say when we discussed separation of church and state.
JoanK
July 5, 2004 - 10:35 am
43. Altruism plays little part in the process. Altruism is fed by a desire for immortality
Here you are, JUSTIN. Do the rest of us agree?
The description of the spread of belief systems certainly matches what we have read. On the other hand, it was probably based on what we have read.
Boy, the piece left me with a cold, miserable feeling. Am I just being sentimental in feeling something has been left out?
I hope this discussion doesn't scare a lot of people away.
JoanK
July 5, 2004 - 10:57 am
Those of you who were here when you studied Greece might be interested in a review of the current Troy movie by an archeologist.
AN ARCHEOLOGIST LOOKS AT BRAD PITT
Rich7
July 5, 2004 - 12:20 pm
You all may have have covered this topic earlier in the discussion, but there was an interesting religion that preceeded Christianity in Rome.
The worship of Mithras (Mithranism) was brought to Rome around the first century by soldiers who were involved in campaigns near present day India.
The worship of Mithras involved having Sunday services, a "sacrifice" involving bread and wine at those services, belief in Mithras'birth near the end of December (Winter solstace), a "last supper" before his death, and his subsequent resurrection at a time of the year near what is now called Easter.
Does this stuff sound familiar?
Some Christian churches were later built upon the sites of old Mithran temples in Rome.
Rich
And, oh yes, I forgot. There were prophesies that his birth would be watched by shepherds.
Malryn (Mal)
July 5, 2004 - 12:28 pm
"Happiness for Aristotle is not a fleeting feeling or an ephemeral passion. It is, rather, the product of a life well lived, the summation of a full, flourishing existence, sustained to the end of one’s days, 'a complete life.' ”
"This Christian conception was tremendously powerful. For the happiness promised in the Beatitudes, and subsequently elaborated in Christian tradition, was at once specific in its suggestions of rich reward and extremely, luxuriantly vague. Here the imagination could be set free to revel in the delights of the kingdom of God, to fantasize the total fulfillment that would justify one’s earthly pains. All the milk and honey of Jewish deliverance was joined to a new prospect of ecstatic, erotic communion with God, of gazing lovingly into his eyes, “face to face,” as the Apostle Paul had promised. The words themselves– release, rapture, passion, bliss–are revealing. Whether in heaven or the New Jerusalem, the happiness of paradise would be entire and eternal, endless and complete.
"Even better, the beatific vision offered a seductive rejoinder to Solon’s saying “Call no man happy until he is dead.” In the Christian account, happiness was death–a proposition that dealt a powerful blow to the vagaries of earthly fortune, while at the same time transforming the end of human life from a boundary into a gateway. Whereas in the classical account, happiness encompassed the span of a lifetime, Christian beatitude was infinite. And whereas classical happiness remained a comparatively cerebral affair–cool, deliberative, rational, balanced–Christian happiness was unabashedly sensual in its imagined ecstasies. Feeling, intense feeling, was what flowed forth with Christ’s blood, transformed in the miracle of the Eucharist from the fruit of intense pain to the sweet nectar of rapture."
An interesting article from Daedalus called
From the Happiness of Virtue to the Virtue of Happiness
Justin
July 5, 2004 - 02:06 pm
JoanK; 43 is on the issue but it is expressed as black and white observation rather than one mixed with gray. In the essential parts of a belief system altruism plays no part. That is not to say however, that altruistic folks do not appear in support roles.They are however, I think, mainly dupes of the clever initiators who make the rules. A desire for immortality may well be the main motivator but there is also a tendency to get as close to the boss' butt as one can for safety.
The priesthood is clearly a self-beneficent undertaking with altruistic appearances. The priest or minister produces nothing yet he is housed and fed for life by an ecumene that is happy to provide. Can one think of a more secure job?
robert b. iadeluca
July 5, 2004 - 05:09 pm
"The Church might be excused for condemning Origen. His principle of allegorical interpretation not only made it possible to prove anything, but at one blow it did away with the narratives of Scripture and the earthly life of Christ. It restored individual judgment precisely while proposing to defend the faith."Faced with the hostility of a powerful government, the Church felt the need of unity. It could not safely allow itself to be divided into a hundred feeble parts by every wind of intellect, by disloyal heresies, ecstatic prophets, or brilliant sons. Celsus himself had sarcastically observed that Christians were 'split up into ever so many factions, each individual desiring to have his own party.
"About 187 Irenacus listed twenty varieties of Christianity. About 384 Epiphanius counted eighty. At every point foreign ideas were creeping into Christian belief, and Christian believers were deserting to novel sects. The Church felt that its experimental youth was ending, its maturity was near. It must now define its terms and proclaim the conditions of its membership.l.
"Three difficult steps were necessary.
1 - The formation of a scriptural canon.
2 - The determination of doctrine, and
3 - The organization of authority.
"The literature of Christianity in the second century abounded in gospels, epistles, apocalypses, and 'acts.' Christians differed widely in accepting or rejecting these as authoritative expressions of the Christian creed.
"The Western churches accepted the Book of Revelation.
"The Eastern churches generally rejected it. These accepted the Gospel according to the Hebrews and the Epistles of James.
"The Western churches discaded them.
"Clement of Alexandria quotes as sacred scripture a late first-century treatise:-The teaching of the Twelve Apostles.
"Marcion's publication of a New Testament forced the hand of the Church. We do not know when the books of our present New Testament were determined as canonical -- i.e. as authentic and inspired. We can only say that a Latin fragment discovered by Muratori in 1740, named after him, and generally assigned to ca. 180 assumes that the canon had by that time been fixed.
"Ecclesiastical councils or synods met with increasing frequency in the second century. In the third they were limited to bishops. By the close of the century they were recognized as the final arbiters of 'Catholic' -- i.e. universal -- Christian belief.
"Orthodoxy survived heresy because it satisfied the need for a definite creed that could moderate dispute and quiet doubt, and because it was supported by the power of the Church."
Might is right?
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 5, 2004 - 05:19 pm
While most of us who participate regularly in this discussion have a great deal of respect for Durant, his knowledge and his ability to communicate, at the same time, each of us have commented from time to time on the fact that every human being has his prejudices, including historians, and that these show up occasionally. Click HERE to read an interesting article from today's NY Times on the prejudices of various history books.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 5, 2004 - 05:25 pm
Rich:--Welcome to our discussion group! Yes, we have already covered Mithranism. However, we would like to know your points of view on the various topics as we discuss them. If you do not have Durant's volume, "Caesar and Christ," you will be able to tell the sub-topic we are currently discussing by looking at the GREEN quotes in the Heading above and by reading the various posts.Please share your thoughts with us.
Robby
Justin
July 5, 2004 - 05:58 pm
Lots of dumping going on in this period. Paul dumps Jesus and his ideas. Jesus is a human Rabbi who preaches the golden rule and the message of John the Baptist- the coming of judgement day. Paul substitutes the Christ, a divinity, and downgrades women. Origin dumps the scriptures and the universal church dumps him. The councils make an end of diversity and the unity they formed lasted till Martin Luther, when fragmentation began and dumping came back in fashion.
moxiect
July 5, 2004 - 06:05 pm
And the circle repeats and repeats!
robert b. iadeluca
July 5, 2004 - 06:12 pm
Heads up!! There will be a QUIZ on Unit 1 and the first part of Unit 2.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 5, 2004 - 06:15 pm
Sorry, Rich -- just kidding!!!Robby
Rich7
July 6, 2004 - 05:26 am
I'm ready for the Quiz.
I have all the Durants' work written in pencil on the back of my hand.
Rich
robert b. iadeluca
July 6, 2004 - 05:27 am
"The problem of organization lay in determining the center of that power. After the weakening of the mother church at Jerusalem, the individual congregations, unless established or protected by other communities, appear to have exercised an independent authority."The church of Rome, however, claimed to have been founded by Peter, and quoted Jesus as saying:--'Thou art Peter' (Heb. Cephas, Gk. Petros), 'and upon this rock' (Heb. cephas, Gk. petra) 'I will buld my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'
"The passage has been challenged as an interpolation, and as a pun to which only Shakespeare would stoop. But the likelihood remains tht Peter, if he did not establish the Christian colony in Rome, preached to it, and appointed its bishop.
"Irenaeus (187) wrote that Peter 'committed to the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.' Tertullian (200) confirmed this tradition. Cyprian (252), bishop of Rome's great rival, Carthage, urged all Christians to accept the primacy of the Roman see.
"The earliest occupants of 'Peter's throne' left no mark upon history. (The term papa, 'father,' which became in English pope, was applied in the first three centuries to any Christian bishop.) The third, Pope clement, stands out as the author of an extant letter written about 96 to the church of Corinth, appealing to its members to maintain harmony and order. Here, only a generation after Peter's death, the bishop of Rome speaks with authority to the Christians of a distant congregation.
"The other bishops, while acknowledging the 'primacy' of the Roman bishop as the lineal successor of Peter, repeatedly challenged his power to overrule their own decisions.
"The Eastern churches celebrated Easter on the fourteenth day of the Jewish month of Nisan, whatever day of the week this might be. The Western churches postponed the feast to the following Sunday.
"Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, visting Rome about 156, tried and failed to persuade Anicetus, Bishop of Rome, to have the Eastern date observed in the West. On his return he rejected the Pope's suggestion that the Eastern churches should accept the Western date.
"Pope Victor (190) rephrased Anicetus' request as a command. The bishops of Palestine obeyed. Those of Asia Minor refused.
"Victor sent out letters to the Christian congregations, excommunicating the recalcitrant churches. Many bishops, even in the West, protested against so severe a measure, and apparently Victor did not insist."
The need to determine who has the authority moves in.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 6, 2004 - 05:28 am
I think that Rich (Post 844) is going to fit in very nicely here!Robby
Justin
July 6, 2004 - 05:18 pm
He'll be fine, so long as he doesn't wash his hands.
Justin
July 6, 2004 - 05:35 pm
The Eastern See and the western See have come down through the centuries together sometimes holding hands but most often at arm's length. A year or so ago, my daughter and I attended an eastern orthodox Mass and a Roman Mass for comparison. While the Masses of both are rooted in the same source, the outward appearance is very different from one another. There is more pomp and circumstance in the eastern celebration. Costuming is much more elaborate and incense fills the church in the eastern Mass. The Roman Mass struck me as more modernized, less Medieval in character. The eastern congregation related almost exclusively to the priests and the message of the Mass while the Roman congregants related to each other as well as to the priest and the message of the Mass.
robert b. iadeluca
July 6, 2004 - 06:07 pm
Various definitions of AUTHORITY. Robby
winsum
July 6, 2004 - 08:22 pm
the right to be taken seriously confered by position (political or religious or educational ), or leadership as in "host" (kidding)
Justin
July 6, 2004 - 11:31 pm
Durant tells us the Rome centered Christian amalgam of the third century absorbs a dozen rival faiths. Judea had contributed ethics,Greece gave it theology, and Rome contributed organization. In addition,the Church took over many pagan customs. Among these were the vestments of pagan priests, holy water, candles, a perpetual light on the altar, incense, worship of saints, basilican architecture, Roman law in Canon law, the Pontifex Maximus title,and the Latin language. Jesus emphasized the words of John the Baptist and the golden rule. Paul took the human god idea with divinity from the emperors.
There doesn't seem to be any Christian article of faith or custom that did not originate somewhere else. This was how the faith began and it's evolution to the current fragmentation is simply a continuation of a constant effort to improve the religion by rearranging its tenets.
robert b. iadeluca
July 7, 2004 - 01:51 am
"Despite overreaching and setbacks, the Roman see increased its power with almost every decade. Its wealth and ecumenical charities exalted its prestige. It was consulted by the Christian world on every issue of gravity. It took the initiative in repudiating and combating heresies, and in defining the canon of the Scriptures."It was deficient in scholars, and could not boast a Tertullian, an Origen, or a Cyprian. It gave its attention to organization rather than to theory. It built and governed and let others write and talk.
"Cyprian rebelled, but it was he who, in his DeCatholicae Ecclesiae Unitate, acclaimed the see or seat of Peter (cathedra Petri) as the center and summit of Christendom, and proclaimed to the world those principles of solidarity, unanimity, and persistency by which have been the essence and mainstay of the Catholic church. By the middle of the third century the position and resources of the papacy were so strong that Decius vowed he would rather have a rival emperor at Rome than a pope.
"The capital of the Empire naturally became the capital of the Church.
"As Judea had given Christianity ethics, and Greece had given it theology, so now Rome gave it organization. All these, with a dozen absorbed and rival faiths, entered into the Christian systhesis. It was not merely that the Church took over some religious customs and forms common in pre-Christian Rome -- the stole and other vestments of pagan priests -- the use of incense and holy water in purification -- the burning of candles and an everlasting light before the altar -- the worship of the saints -- the architecture of the basilica -- the law of Rome as a basis for canon law -- the title of pontifex Maximus for the Supreme Pontiff -- and, in the fouth century, the Latin language as the noble and enduring vehicle of Catholic ritual.
"The Roman gift was above all a vast framework of government, which, as secular authority failed, became the structure of ecclesiastical rule.
"Soon the bishops, rather than the Roman prefects, would be the source of order and the seat of power in the cities. The metropolitans, or archbishops, would support, if not supplant, the provincial governors, and the synod of bishops wold succeed the provincial assembly. The Roman Church followed in the footsteps of the Roman state. It conquered the provinces, beautified the capital, and established discipline and unity from frontier to frontier.
"Rome died in giving birth to the Church.
"The Church matured by inheriting and accepting the responsibilitis of Rome."
Why do I bring to mind those movies where the alien takes over the body of the human?
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 7, 2004 - 05:54 am
Here is one person's COMPARISON of the decline of Ancient Rome with our culture today.Robby
Malryn (Mal)
July 7, 2004 - 06:43 am
That's one person's biased opinion. Ask 40 other people, and you'd hear 40 other different opinions.
Mal
Ginny
July 7, 2004 - 06:59 am
You know, comparisons between America and Ancient Rome really irritate me. If you're going to compare civilizations, you need to be in the same ball park or on the same playing field.
How long was Rome a Republic? How old is America? How old was the Roman Civilization when it began its decline? Let's compare apples to apples and not oranges, and not fall in the knee jerk mantra of America is Going the Way of the Ancient Romans, jeepers. (That's one of the 40 opinions, I guess) hahahaha
Malryn (Mal)
July 7, 2004 - 07:08 am
A pretty darned valid one, I'd say, GINNY.
Mal
Rich7
July 7, 2004 - 09:30 am
It's probably healthy to continue looking for a prior model with which to compare your civilization. The comparison may not be exact, but it's better than the alternative, i.e. not learning from the past.
Remember the perhaps too often quoted statement by George Santayana: "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
Rich
Malryn (Mal)
July 7, 2004 - 12:01 pm
That's all very well, RICH, but why, when we compare America with a sophisticated, developed, advanced civilization like Rome, do we only talk about how it fell? I can name you numerous other civilizations that have fallen. Like Greece, for example.
Why don't we compare our water system with the remarkable feats of engineering the Romans displayed with their aqueducts, for example? Not only did they provide a huge empire with water, they made possible the Roman baths, which could easily match or outdo any spa in America today, and were built thousands of years before America was some explorer's dream. And that's only one example of Rome's creative brains, progress and ingenuity.
Mal
Sunknow
July 7, 2004 - 01:35 pm
Mal -- Thanks for the smiles....Re: Gump.
We ("I") needed that, to offset one of the few sour notes I've read in this discussion. I have not posted here, and not likely to start now, but I almost responded and then thought better of it. A change of subject is best. Who could do that better than Forrest Gump? (Change the subject, I mean....)
Robby -- thank you for picking up the page and moving on. I must tell you, that I looked in on this discussion a while back and was blown away. I decided immediately that I must go back to the beginning (Vol 111, Part 1) and come forward. THAT didn't last long. This is a VERY wordy discussion with a lot of side trips, and absolutely delightful. I could not wait to read forward, so just came back to keep up with the daily postings that are current. Hopefully, the previous Parts will be archived for a while.
To all of you that join in here....thanks for a discussion that is not just educational, but totally wonderful to read. Some of you butt heads, now and then, but a little "re-buttal" takes care of that. The side roads (links) also lead to exciting, informative places. Back to my reading.....and enlightenment.
Sun
Scrawler
July 7, 2004 - 01:37 pm
What I find interesting about organized religion is that there is a "blood sacrifice" at the center of the religion. From the pagan religions were they demanded human and animal sacrifices to the Christian where the "blood sacrifice" takes on the transposition of the body and blood of Christ. Why do you suppose there is this sacrifice that must be made in order to gain some atonement for our sins or in the case of the pagan religions the sacrifice would assure "good crops" etc. for the coming year?
Justin: Did you attend a Russian or Greek orthodox service? The Greek service is longer and more complex than the Catholic service because the people are only required to go to church twice a year. Once at Christmas (January 6th) and once at Easter. I think the priests of the Greek church are closer to the people than are other priests because the are allowed to marry and have children. They also work outside the church. Many of the priests in my family have done the job of day labors. On the other hand the higher you go, for example becoming a bishop you don't work as much outside the church, but you still work.
Rich7
July 7, 2004 - 02:33 pm
Let's compare both the good and the bad. The aqueducts were good, the fall of the Roman Empire was bad. The obsession with analyzing the fall is like hearing of a friend dying from eating bad food in a restaurant. Somewhere in your discussion with the messenger (which may include noting what a noble life your friend led) you are going to want to know what he ate and where he ate it, partly out of curiosity, and partly to make sure that you or a loved one doesn't make that same mistake.
Rich
JoanK
July 7, 2004 - 03:21 pm
RICH: good analogy.
I notice that it seems to be part of old age to feel that things are not as good as they used to be. I have read writers from many periods and times sound that theme. I do it myself at times, and have decided that, at base, it is ME who is not as good as I used to be.
I think it is right to look at trends in the past and see if they tell us anything about our present. But we have to be careful. When we make modern comparisons, we are looking back maybe 50 years at most, while the trends they mentioned in Rome had been there at least as long as I've been in this discussion -- hundreds of years. There was not a steady pattern of disintegration: remember the chaos before Augustus, followed by the golden age. I think we are right to worry about the increased violence in our society without necessarily seeing it as an irreversable trend.
On another note, since I love classical music, I too am saddened by its loss of popularity (although I don't see it as a sign of irreverable decline). When I was in college, it was "the thing" with my friends to listen to classical music. This must have been general, because when I go to concerts now 90% of the audience looks about my age. On the other hand, fifty years ago, the program usually included two classical-classical pieces and one "modern" piece put in the middle so the audience wouldn't walk out on them. Today, the program contains the same two classical pieces and the same "modern" pieces in the middle, some of them older than I am, but still not accepted by many of the audience. Maybe the decline isn't all the audience's fault.
Justin
July 7, 2004 - 04:45 pm
I think ancient and modern comparison is generally worthwhile. If one recognizes the relationship between the collapse of the Roman Republic and citizen complacency one may then observe with justification that American citizen complacency is an unhealthy symptom of a republican disease. Take warning, Americans. Use your franchise. The checks and balances we are normally able to rely upon are no longer in place. We are now a one party government and we are gradually losing our freedoms. We will awake one morning and find the Republic is no more. Take warning, citizens.
robert b. iadeluca
July 7, 2004 - 05:17 pm
Welcome, Sunknow, to our discussion and thank you for your kind compliments. It is constant participation by people like you that make this discussion group such a success. Most participants here post at least once daily.My suggestion to you is that you temporarily forget reading past sections of The Story of Civilization. Concentrate on what we are discussing right now.
Our discussion of this volume will probably come to an end some time this month. We usually take a breather between volumes and will probably begin the fourth volume, "The Age of Faith," the first week of September.
You need not worry about finding previous discussions. Every single word has been saved since we began over two years ago with Volume I (Our Oriental Heritage.) If you want to peruse comments we made in this volume, just go to the Heading above where this volume is archived in four parts. It will probably say six parts by the time we end.
Take your time. Browse around. You will find it easy to do. If you want to browse through our postings in Our Oriental Heritage or The Life of Greece, these also have been archived and we can help you find them.
Even after we finish discussing "Caesar and Christ", this forum remains open throughout the month long hiatus. Your discussion leader takes a sort of sabbatical and participants here drop in now and then to make a comment. Throughout these two years plus everyone has been very good during the hiatus at staying with the grand theme of "Story of Civilization." The space is not used for sharing recipes, talking about the weather, etc. For example, discussion of the Olympics this summer might be apropos.
Again, welcome!
robert b. iadeluca
July 7, 2004 - 05:22 pm
The Collapse of the EmpireA.D. 193-305
robert b. iadeluca
July 7, 2004 - 05:41 pm
"On January 1, 193, a few hours after the assassination of Commodius, the Senate met in a transport of happiness, and chose as emperor one of its most respected members, whose just administration as prefect of the city had continued the finest traditions of the Antonines."Pertinax accepted with reluctance a dignity so exalted that any fall from it must be fatal. He 'demeaned himself as an ordinary man,' says Herodian, attended the lectures of the philosophers -- encourged literature -- replenished the treasury -- reduced taxes -- and autioned off the gold and silver, the embroideries and silks and beautiful slaves. wherewith Commodus had filled the imperial palace. Says Dio Cassius:-'In fact, he did everything that a good emperor should do.'
"The freemen who had lost their perquisities through his economy conspired with the Praetorian Guard, which disliked his restoration of discipline On March 28, 300 soldiers forced their way into the palace, struck him down, and carried his head upon a spear to their camp.
The people and the Senate mourned and hid.
"The leaders of the Guard announced that they would bestow the crown upon that Roman who should offer them the largest donative. Didius Julianus was persuaded by his wife and daughter to interrupt his meal and enter his bid. Proceeding to the camp, he found a rival offering 5000 drachmas ($3000) to each soldier in return for the throne. The agents of the Guard passed from one millionaire to the other, encouraging higher bids. When Julianus promisd each man 6250 drachmas the Guard declared him emperor.
"Aroused by this crowning indignity, the people of Rome appealed to the legions in Britain, Syria, and Pannonia to come and depose Julianus. The legions, angered by exclusion from the donative, hailed their respective generals with the imperial title, and marched toward Rome.
"The Pannonian commander, Lucius Septimus Severus Gera, gained the Principate by boldness, expedition, and bribery. He pledged himself to give each soldier 12,000 drachmas upon his accession. He led them from the Danube to within seventy miles of Rome in a month. He won over to himself the troops sent to halt him, and subdued the Praetorians by offering them pardon in return for the surrender of their leaders. He violated precedent by entering the capital with all his troops in full armor, but he himself appeased tradition by wearing civilian dress.
"A tribune found Julianus in tears and terror in the palace, led him into a bathroom, and beheaded him (June 2, 193)."
How much is that Emperor in the Palace? Ta-de-da!
Robby
Éloïse De Pelteau
July 7, 2004 - 06:25 pm
"Four elements constitute Civilization -- economic provision......."
Of the four elements that constitute civilization, it seems to me that the first element accounts for 95% of human's reason for living and the other three only provide the trappings that go with it.
Eloïse
Traude S
July 7, 2004 - 07:12 pm
Every once in a while I stop by here, but I lack the time to become committed and pursue the sidetracks that sometimes develop (and to which SUN referred).
I am glad we were able to read that one man's opinion thanks to the link made available in # 853. At least he wasn't stifled, then (in 2002). But a look back and a comparison isn't all that unusual for me. I remember the war years in Europe when we high school students would sadly nod and say "Zustände wie im alten Rom ..." = Happenings reminiscent of ancient Rome.
The fact is that history does repeat itself because man does NOT learn from past mistakes. Decadence and decline happened time and again. If there is a lesson, we have yet to learn it.
As for those imaginary 40 other people who might be asked for an opinion, I wonder whether they have one, whether they are informed or even interested. I am not optimistic in that regard.
For that reason I agree wholeheartedly with JUSTIN and his #863.
Please forgive me for jumping in.
Malryn (Mal)
July 7, 2004 - 10:07 pm
Yeah, but ---- what about the mistakes of ancient Babylonia? Why must it always be Rome?
Mal
Justin
July 7, 2004 - 11:57 pm
We know less about Babylonia than we know about Rome. Egypt, as we know, also failed as a result of complacency but not the complacency of its citizenry. The Egyptian failure occurred in leadership. Sure why not use other nations to understand our own. Rome is not the only role model around however, it's useful to us I think because its history includes a republic.
robert b. iadeluca
July 8, 2004 - 03:38 am
Please note the change in the GREEN quotes above signaling the era we are discussing."Africa, which was at this time providing Christianity with its ablest defenders, gave birth (146) and early schooling to Septimius. Brought up in a family of Punic-speaking Phoenicians, he studied literature and philosophy in Athens and practiced law in Rome. Despite the Semitic accent of his Latin, he was among the best-educated Romans of his time and liked to surround himself with poets and philosophers.
"But he did not allow philosophy to impede his wars, or poetry to soften his character. He was a man of handsome features, strong physique, and simple dress, hardy in hardship, clever in strategy, fearless in battle, ruthless in victory. He conversed with wit, judged with penetration, lied without scruple, loved money more than honor, and governed with cruelty and competence.
"The Senate had made the mistake of ceclaring for his rival Albinus. Septimius, surrounded with 600 guards, persuaded it to confirm his own accession. Then he put scores of senators to death, and confiscated so many aristocratic estates that he became landlord to half the peninsula. The decimated Senate was replenished by imperial nomination with new members chiefly from the monarchical East.
"The great lawyers of the age -- Papinian, Paulus, Ulpian -- accumulated arguments in defense of absolute power. Septimius ignored the Senate except when he sent it commands. He assumed full control of the various treasuries, based his rule frankly upon the army, and made the Principate an hereditary military monarchy. The army was increased in size. The pay of the soldiers was raised and became an exhausting drain upon the public purse. Military service was made compulsory but was forbidden to the inhabitants of Italy.
"Henceforth provincial legions would choose emperors for a Rome that had lost the fortitude to rule."
A "do-nothing" Senate, a powerful military, and lawyers who knew what side their bread was buttered on.
Robby
moxiect
July 8, 2004 - 10:28 am
Robby!
If we are looking at history and corralating to present times, would it possible to say that Hussien and Bin Laden are following the "absolute power" syndrome and because of our diverse nation we are the prod that will and has deposed those who rule by "fear" factor?
robert b. iadeluca
July 8, 2004 - 05:05 pm
"Septimius believed in astrology and exelled in the interpretation of portents and dreams. Wen, six years before his acccession, his first wife died, he offered his hand to a rich Syrian whose horoscope had pledged her a throne. Julia Domna was the daughter of a rich priest of the god Elagabal at Emese. There, long since, a meterorite had fallen, had been enshrined in a gaudy temple, and was worshiped as the symbol, if not the embodiment, of the deity."Julia came, bore Septimius two sons, Caracalla and Geta, and rose to her promised throne. She was too beautiful to be monogamous, but Septimius was too busy to be jealous. She gathered around her a salon of literary men, patronized the arts, and persuaded Philostratus to write and adorn the life of Apollonius of Tyana.
"Her strong character and influence accelerated that orientation of the monarchy toward Eastern ways which culminated morally under Elagabalus, and politically under Diocletian.
"Of his eighteen years as emperor Septimius gave twelve to war. He destroyed his rivals in swift and savage campaigns. He razed Byzantium after a four years' siege, thereby lowering a barrier to the spreading Goths. He invaded Parthia, took Cresiphon, annexed Mesopotamia, and hastened the fall of the Arsacid kings. In his old age, suffering from gout but fretful lest his army deteriorate through five years of peace, he led an expedition into Britain, and retired to York to die (211).
"He was the last emperor, for eighty years, who died in bed."
Robby
Justin
July 8, 2004 - 05:47 pm
Two elements of the decline are in this section. The first is the decimation of the Senate and its replacement by eastern aristocracy. The second element may be seen in the substitution of provincials for Italian Romans in the army. Since the army selects the emperor it is the provincials who choose the emperor. Given these two elements of decline coupled with trouble on the frontier, we have the makings of a lost empire.
Rich7
July 9, 2004 - 02:24 am
Robby, One of the phrases in your last quote caught my attention, and I had to read it twice: "She was too beautiful to be monogamous." As if being good looking excused one from marital fidelity. Could this be Will's opinion, or do you think he is quoting something written at the time of Septimius?
Justin, "Since the army selects the emperor..." Was that written in Roman law, or is it just a case of the group with the most raw physical power calling the shots since there is no other force strong enough to oppose them?
Rich
robert b. iadeluca
July 9, 2004 - 03:53 am
Rich:--I believe we can attribute the comment about beauty not going with monogamy to Durant. However, as I look back over these two years plus through the various cultures, I don't recall marital fidelity as being particularly common or important. Perhaps others here may disagree.Robby
Malryn (Mal)
July 9, 2004 - 04:13 am
robert b. iadeluca
July 9, 2004 - 04:17 am
"Caracalla, like Commodus, seemed made to prove that a man's quota of energy seldom allows him to be great in both his life and his seed. Attractive and obedient in boyhood, he became in manhood a barbarian infatuated with hunting and war. Unwilling to share the imperial power with his brother, he had Geta assassinated in 212. The youth was slaughtered in his mother's arms, and covered her garments with his blood. When the army murmured at the killing of Geta, he silenced it with a donative equal to all the sums that Septimius had gathered into all the treasuries."The founder of Alexandria was his model and envy. He organized 16,000 troops into what he called 'Alexander's phalanx,' equipped them with ancient Macedonia arms, and dreamed of subduing Parthia as Alexandrer had conquered Persia. But his men were not as eager for the Parthian campaign as he was. They loved spoils more ardently than battle. At Carrhae, where Crassus had been defeated, they stabbed him to death (217).
"Julia Domna, banished to Antioch, and bereft, within six years, of empire, husband, and sons, refused food until she died. She had a sister, Julia Maesa, as capable as he3rself. Returning to Emesa, this second Julia found there two promising grandsons. One was a young priest of Baal. His name was Varias Avitus and would be Elagabalus -- 'the creative god.' The other was a boy of ten called Alexianus, and would be Alexander Severus.
"The Roman soldiers in Syria were alrady half won to Syrian cults and felt a pious respect for the fourteen-year old priest. Maesa suggested that if they would make Elagablus emperor she would distribute a substantial donative among them. The soldiers were convinced, and complied.
"In the spring of 219 Elagabalus entered Rome dressed in robes of purple silk embroidered with gold, his cheeks stained with vermilion, his eyes artfically brightened, costly bracelets on his arms, a string of pearls around his neck, a jeweled crown on his pretty head. Beside him his grandmother and his mother rode in state.
"On his first appearance in the Senate he demanded that his mother should be allowed to sit beside him and attend the deliberations. Soaemias had the sense to withdraw and contented herslf with presiding over that Senaculum, or little Senate, of women, which Haddrian's Sabina had founded, and which dealt with questions of feminine dress, jewelry, precedence, and etiquette.
"Grandmother Maesa was left to govern the state."
robert b. iadeluca
July 9, 2004 - 04:23 am
Mal, the info given in your link about Julia Domna is fascinating.Robby
Malryn (Mal)
July 9, 2004 - 04:28 am
Ginny
July 9, 2004 - 07:40 am
AH Malryn has put up some wonderful photos of the Forum and especially the arch of Septimius Severus, isn’t the internet wonderful? You don’t HAVE to go anywhere you can get better photos right on the internet.
Since I just took a few home snaps that I thought might interest you, for that purpose, while I was in Rome in June, forgive these home movies here and (since you move so fast you left Trajan in the dust and I did bring a nice bust of him) hahahaha
Let me get these down before you move on!
I always think of the arch of Septimius Severus as the “melting arch” because up close it appears to be melting, to have acid thrown on it, the figures, which are stronger as you face the Forum (not this view) seem to be melting and this IS cleaned, they have completed (this was taken around June 10 2004) their mammoth cleaning job, the thing is melting, or so it seems to me, it seems to have the most damage of the three. But you can see how big it is? The senate house is (and I’m told it IS the original one but I don’t think so) is sort of to the right behind this.
Here’s a recent photo of the Arch of Titus and it also was cleaned for the Jubilee and is in pretty good shape, you can see the interior scenes of them carrying off the relics from the temple in Jerusalem very clearly, and they used to look like black blobs of soot.
Everything old is new again: here’s news from the ancient Forum, they’re excavating it!
My Italian is not good enough to ask them what they’re doing but they are VERY carefully using fine brushes, who knows what they’re looking for? You don't see this too much right smack IN the Forum.
Ginny
July 9, 2004 - 07:44 am
You would not believe how careful they are being.
In contrast to the Arch of Septimius Severus, here the Arch of Constantine, taken from the top of the Colosseum and showing the Palatine Emperor’s residences behind it, is gigantic in scale, you can see how huge it is, dwarfs everything, including the busses behind it.
I love this photo, this is one of the things I find amazing about the Forum at Rome: the tons of pieces? Just ancient pieces of columns and relics lying around. Kind of reminds you of Shelly’s Oxymandias, doesn’t it? Even tho Shelly was writing about a different civilization.
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings,
Look on my Works ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."
Rich7
July 9, 2004 - 08:34 am
Great photos.
I like the Ozymandias touch. It's always been one of my favorites. It comes to mind whenever I see a ruin, especially one built with hubris. "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone stand in the desert."
Rich
Éloïse De Pelteau
July 9, 2004 - 10:08 am
GINNY - Many thanks for posting these photos here and to think that they were taken less than a month ago. Looking at them I feel transported back in time especially while we are reading from that time in history. To think that when I was there in the 70's because I didn't know about Roman history then I could not appreciate its value as much as if I were visiting them now.
Still, walking in downtown Roma a sense of history envelops you like if it you were in familiar surroundings. Walking past the Coliseum gives you goose bumps. No wonder you like to travel often Ginny.
Eloïse
Scrawler
July 9, 2004 - 01:45 pm
Many thanks for your photos. The arches seem so large. I wonder how they were built and how long it took to do it.
robert b. iadeluca
July 9, 2004 - 05:03 pm
"The young emperor, Elagabalus, had some elements of charm. He made no reprisals against the supporters of Macrinus. He loved music, sang well, played the pipes, the organ, and the horn. "Being too young to rule the Empire, he only asked permission to enjoy it. Pleasure, not Baal, was his god and he was resolved to worship it in all its genders and forms. He invited every class of the free population to visit his palace. At times he would eat and drink and make merry with them.
"Often he would distribute among them lottery prizes ranging from a furnished home to a handful of flies. He loved to play jokes upon his guests:-to seat them on inflated cushions that would suddenly burst -- to stupefy them with wine and let them wake up amid harmless leopards, bears, and lions.
"Lampridius assures us that Elagabalus never spent less than 100,000 sesterces ($10,000) -- and sometimes 3,000,000 on a banquet to his friends. He would mix gold pieces with peas, onyx with lentils, pearls with rice, amber with beans. He would present horses, or chariots or eunuchs, as favors. Often he bade each guest take home the silver plate and goblets in which the dinner had been served.
"As for himself, he would have nothing but the best. The water in his swimming pools was perfumed with essence of roses. The fixtures in his bathrooms were of onyx or gold. His food had to be of costly rarities. His dress was studded with jewelry from crown to shoes. Gossip said that he never wore the same rings twice.
"When he traveled, 600 chariots were needed to carry his baggage and his bawds. Told by a soothsayer that he would die a violent death, he prepared worthy means of suicide if occasion required:-cords of purple silk, swords of gold, poisons enclosed in sapphires or emeralds.
"He was slain in a latrine."
Justin
July 9, 2004 - 05:35 pm
Rich: The power to make emperors resided in the Praetorian Guard, not by law but by custom and force of arms. Armored armies were forbidden to enter Rome. You will recall how Caesar's troops camped on the Rubicon not daring to enter Rome. That prohibition left the Guard the strongest military force in the capitol. Many emperors were appointed by the Guard and many were removed from office for malfeasance also by the Guard.
Justin
July 9, 2004 - 10:03 pm
Ginny: I am pleased to hear that the Arch of Constantine has been cleaned. The reliefs on the Arch are a strange mixture of old and new. The emperor appears in stark frontality while the images around him appear in processional motion. Many of the reliefs are copies from Trajan, Hadrian etc. There are many who think it is an example of Roman decline. In my view, the Roman artists of this period were on the verge of a great shift, into Byzantine forms. Great shifts do not happen over night and for some time there is a little of the new and a little of the old in most works. However, I have to agree with the critics. There is a large measure of left over stuff on the face of the Arch of Constantine and not much that is new. But what ever there is of Roman relief on the Arch it makes a much better appearance cleaned. I am particularly happy with your photos because your point of view is different from the view we commonly see.
robert b. iadeluca
July 10, 2004 - 03:51 am
"The Alemanni and the Marcomanni, noting that the Rhine and Danube garrisons had been depleted to reinforce the legions in Syria, broke through the Roman limes and ravaged eastern Gaul. After celebrating his Persian triumph, Alexander, again with Mamaea at his side, rejoined his army, and led it to Mainz."On his mother's advice he negotiated with the enemy, offering them an annual sum to keep the peace. His troops condemned his weakness and mutinied. They had never forgiven his economy, his discipline, and his subordination of them to the Senate and a woman's rule. They acclaimed as emperor C. Julius Maximinus, commander of the Pannonian legions.
"The soldiers of Maximinus forced their way into Alexander's tent and slew him, his mother, and his friends (235).
"It was no whim of history that made the army supreme in the third century. Internal causes had weakened the state and left it exposed on every front. The cessation of expansion after Trajan, and again after Septimius Severus, was the signal for attack. As Rome had conquered nations by dividing them, so now the barbarians began to conquer her by uniting in simultaneous assaults. The necessity of defense exalted the power of arms and the prestige of soldiery.
"Generals replaced philosophers on the throne and the last reign of the aristocracy yielded to the revived rule of force."
Comments, anyone?
Robby
Ginny
July 10, 2004 - 04:09 am
Thank you, Rich, (love Ozymandias, too) Eloise, Scrawler (I think there's a 4 story staircase in the left column of the Arch of Septimius Severus, but may have that mixed up, they ARE huge) and Justin.
You are SO right, Justin on the different parts of the Arch of Constantine, originally built in 315 AD, perhaps augmenting an existing structure. Here's a good illustration of them, the
The darker color is from Trajan's period (98-117)The pink is from Hadrian's time: (117-138) The sort of grey is from the age of Marcus Aurelius (161-180) and The lighter gold is from Constantine's era (312-337)
Robby, what a fascinating quote, ""Generals replaced philosophers on the throne and the last reign of the aristocracy yielded to the revived rule of force." Looks like they are repeating their own history over and over, and I’m sure your readers know each instance, what a worthy Labor this has been, for all of us here in the Books.
JoanK
July 10, 2004 - 11:43 am
The Roman economy was always based on the army. As Durant has explained, Rome did not produce anything, but depended on conquering people and using their wealth. As farmers became displaced, their only options were the "dole" and an army. This was part of the motivation for the massive building projects. I suppose it is a tribute to the strength of earlier leadership and government that the army didn't take over before. We should have seen this coming for a long time. Earlier, leaders who wanted to take over recruited an army. Now the army recruits the leader.
robert b. iadeluca
July 10, 2004 - 03:26 pm
"Political anarchy accelerated economic disintegration. Economic decline promoted political decay. Each was the cause and effect of the other. Roman statesmanship had never found a healthy economic life for Italy. Perhaps the narrow plains of the peninsula have never provided an adequate base for the soaring aims of the Italian state."The lack of slaves strengthened for a time the position of free labor in industry as well as in agriculture. But while the resources of the rich were consumed by war and government, the poverty of the poor did not decrease.
"The class struggle was becoming more violent, for the army, recruited from the provincial poor, often joined in the attack upon wealth, and felt that its services to the state justified confiscatory taxation for donatives, or more direct pillaging of the well to do.
"Industry suffered as commerce declined. The export trade of Italy fell as the provinces graduated from customers to competitors. Barbarian raids and piracy made trade routes as unsafe as before Pompey. Depreciated currencies and uncertain prices discouraged long-term enterprise.
"Internal commerce was hampered by brigands, rising taxes, and the deterioration of roads through lack of slaves. Large-scale production gave way year by year to small shops supplying chiefly a local demand.
"Financial difficulties entered. The precious metals were running low. The government mints issued unprecedented quanities of cheap coin. In many instances the state compelled the acceptance of these at their face value insted of their ctual worth, while it insisted that taxes should be paid in goods or gold.
"The Empire suffered only less than Italy. Carthage and north Africa, farthest from the invaders, flourished. But Egypt decayed under destructive factionalism, Caracalla's massacre, Zenobia's conquest, high taxes, listless forced labor, and Rome's annual exaction of grain.
"Asia Minor and Syria had borne invasion and pillaging, but their ancient and patient industries had survived all tribulations. Greece, Macedonia, and Thrace had been devastated by the barbarians, and Byzantium had not recovered from Septimius' siege.
"As war brought Roman garrison and supplies to the German frontier, new cities rose along the rivers -- Vienna, Karlsburg, Strasbourg, Mainz. Gaul had been disordered and discouraged by German attacks. Sixty of our cities had been sacked. Most of her towns and cities were shrinking within new walls, and wee abandoning the broad straight streets of Roman design for the more easily defended irregular alleys of early antiquity and the Middle Ages. In Britain, too, the cities were becoming smaller, the villas larger. Class war and high taxation had destroyed wealth or driven it into rural concealment.
"The Empire had begun with urbanization and civilization. It was ending in reruralization and barbarism."
We are watching the disintegration of the Roman Empire before our very eyes.
Robby
Malryn (Mal)
July 10, 2004 - 03:39 pm
And what a sad story it is.
Mal
Justin
July 10, 2004 - 05:30 pm
Rome was rapidly approaching economic collapse at the beginning of the fourth century. She was no longer an aggressive conquerer sending home spoils and slaves. Many of the ingredients in the decline are similar in the modern world and comparison is irresistable. Exports fell as foreign customers, once protected by Rome, became competitors. Exports in the US have fallen as manufacturing has moved to countries who were once our customers. Now they manufacture and we are their customers.
Political decay set in and accellerated the economic decline in Rome. In the US a one party system has accellerated our decline by rewarding businesses who move offshore with tax breaks. We are bleeding our productive base and soon the hemorrhage will leave us defenseless. Foreigners make our bullets. It is becomming more and more difficult to find American made goods in our stores while we elect people to govern who have no understanding of economic problems.
Roman resources were consumed by border wars and high living emperors. In the US unjustified preemptive war consumes our resources making us a debtor nation. Budget surplusses have disappeared and our debts have risen substantially.
Roman governmental discipline and participation in army life dissipated the Army causing resentment and destruction of the government. In the US, the President,Vice President, and defense Secretary, micromanage the military leaving commanders with little power. The lay participants cause prisoner abuse and blame the troops.
Rome did not turn around to recover but unless the US realizes it's mistakes in time we too will overcome ourselves.
robert b. iadeluca
July 10, 2004 - 05:44 pm
"The cultural graph of the third century follows loosely the curve of declining wealth and power. Nevertheless, in these tragic years we have the rise of notational algebra -- the highest names in Roman jurisprudence -- the finest example of ancient literaary criticism -- some of Rome's most majestic architecture -- the oldest romantic novels -- the greatest of mystic philosophers."The third century continued the art of painting on Pompeian and Alexandrian lines. Its meager remains are Oriental and crude, and almost effaced by time.
"Sculpture flourished, for many emperors had to be carved. It stiffened into a primitive frontality, but no later age has surpassed this one in portraits of startling veracity.
"Architecture at Rome now carried to completion the Roman flair for sublimity through size. Septimius raised on the Palatine the last of its imperial palaces, with an eastern wing seven stories high -- the 'Septizonium.'
"Literature prospered less, for it could seldom tap the wealth that gathered in imperial hands. Libraries grew in number and size. A third-century physician had a collection of 62,000 volumes, and the Bibliotheca Ulpiana was renowned for its historical archives.
"More significant than these honorable men for the historian of the mind is the appearance, in this century, of the romantic novel. These stories of adventuare and love pleased an Ionian populace so classic in tradition, but so Oriental in mood, perhaps now Oriental in blood."
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 10, 2004 - 07:16 pm
"Nevertheless, in these tragic years we have the rise of notational algebra -- the highest names in Roman jurisprudence -- the finest example of ancient literary criticism -- some of Rome's most majestic architecture -- the oldest romantic novels -- the greatest of mystic philosophers."The images in my mind are the wild flicker of a candle before its extinction -- the glorious burst of a skyrocket before utter darkness -- the final luminosity of a white star before it collapses into oblivion.
Robby
3kings
July 10, 2004 - 09:49 pm
"Sculpture flourished, for many emperors had to be carved. It stiffened into a primitive frontality, but no later age has surpassed this one in portraits of startling veracity."
With this statement, is Durant saying that the portraits were/are of accurate likenesses ? Maybe they are, but how could he possibly know ?
Also the remark " no later age has surpassed this [ Roman ] one ..." is also suspect. I'm sure today, our technicians, if not our artists, can produce statues with photographic accuracy of features.
Some may say, "Yes, true. But it is not art ". And on that, I beg to differ.... BG Of course, Durant was writing that in 1930's-40's, so must cut him a little slack.
JUSTIN Re your analysis of present day Washington vis-a-vis ancient Rome... Spot On. ++ Trevor
winsum
July 10, 2004 - 11:11 pm
echoing your concerns about the present here in the good old usa. . . especially the off shore labor market . Isn't there some kind of tax to be meted out against companies who do this. free trade sounds good in theory but it's not working for us in practice.a
winsum
July 10, 2004 - 11:14 pm
My history of art professor considered the greek style to ber classical and the roman style bad copy. He was quite insenced about this. Dr. Carl Wite pronounced veet.
robert b. iadeluca
July 11, 2004 - 04:16 am
"When Claudius II died of a pestilence that was decimating Romans alike (270), the army chose as his successor the son of an Illyrian peasant. Domitius Aurelianus had risen from the lowest ranks by strength of body and will. His nickname was Manu ad Ferrum -- 'hand on sword.' It was a sign of reawakened good sense in the army that it chose a man who exacted as hard a discipline from others as from himself."Under his lead the enemies of Rome were repulsed at every point except the Danube. There Aurelian ceded Dacia to the Goths, hopeing that they would stand as a barrier between the Empire and ulterior hordes. Perhaps encouraged by this surrender, the Alemanni and the Vandals invaded Italy but Aurelian in three battles overcame and dispersed them.
"Meditating distant campaigns, and fearing an assault upon Rome during his absence, he persuaded the Senate to finance, and the guilds to erect, new walls around the capital. Everywhere in the Empire city walls were being built, signifying the weakening of the imperial power and the end of the Roman peace.
"Preferring offense to defense, Aurelian determined to restore the Empire by attacking Zenobia in the East, and then Tetricus, who had succeeded Postumus as the usurper of sovereignty in Gaul.
"While his general Probius recovered Egypt from Zenobia's son, Aurelian marched through the Balkans, crossed the Hellespont, defeated the Queen's army at Emesa, and besieged her capital. She tried to escape and enlist Persia's aid, but was captured. The city surrendered and was spared, but Longinus was put to death (272).
"While the Emperor was leading his army back to the Hellespont, Palmyra revolted and slew the garrison he had left there. He turned about with the speed of Caesar, again besieged and soon took the city. Now he abandoned it to pillage by his troops, razed its walls, rerouted its trade, and let it lapse into the desert village that it had been before and is today.
"Zenobia graced in golden chains Aurelian's triumph in Rome, and was allowed to spend her remaining years in comparative freedom at Tibur. In 274 Aurelian defeated Tetricus at Chalons, and returned Gaul, Spain, and Britain to the Empire.
"Happy at the resumption of its mastery, Rome hailed the victor as restitutor orbis, restorer of the world. Turning to the tasks of peace, he re-established some economic order by reforming the Roman coinage. He reorganized the government by applying to it the same severe discipline that had regenerated the army.
"Ascribing Rome's moral and political chaos in some degree to religious disunity, and impressed by the political services of religion in the East, he sought to unite old faiths and new in a monotheistic worship of the sun-god, and of the Emperor as the vicar of that deity on earth. He informed a skeptical army and Senate that it was the god, and not their choice or confirmation, that had made him Emperor. He built at Rome a resplendent Temple of the Sun in which, he hoped, the Baal of Emesa and the god of Mithraism would merge.
"Monarchy and monotheism were advancing side by side, each seeking to make the other its aide. Aurelian's religious policy suggested that the power of the state was falling, that of religion rising.
"Kings were now kings by the grace of God. This was the Oriental conception of government, old in Egypt, Persia and Syria.
"In accepting it Aurelian advanced that Orientalization of the monarchy which had begun with Elagabalus and would complete itself in Diocletian and Constantine."
The power of the state falling -- the power of religion rising. The "Oriental Heritage" making itself apparent again.
Robby
Éloïse De Pelteau
July 11, 2004 - 04:37 am
ROBBY - "The images in my mind are the wild flicker of a candle before its extinction -- the glorious burst of a skyrocket before utter darkness -- the final luminosity of a white star before it collapses into oblivion." A poetic statement describing the Roman Empire.
The rise and fall of civilizations follow the same pattern and people can't stop its decline. It is like a fruit that grows on a tree, when it is ripe it falls down. The elements are there since their inception that everything born grows to maturity becomes old and dies. The survival of the fittest is not only programmed for the animal kingdom, but for everything that moves on the surface of the earth including civilizations.
The Greek and Roman empires left us a rich legacy we are enjoying and we are going to leave the following civilization our best elements on which to build the next one.
Nothing dies, nothing is wasted.
Eloïse
robert b. iadeluca
July 11, 2004 - 05:20 am
Here are some THOUGHTS about Architecture in general discussed in this morning's NY Times.Robby
Éloïse De Pelteau
July 11, 2004 - 07:59 am
...and if we are able we will leave behind the best elements of our own passage on earth to our descendents in order for them to build something worthwhile with what we have transmitted genetically, orally and by our actions.
robert b. iadeluca
July 11, 2004 - 08:54 am
The topic of class warfare has come up in practically every culture we have discussed in SofC. This ARTICLE refers to this under the phrase "Rankism."Robby
Justin
July 11, 2004 - 03:51 pm
Claire: The problem is worse than you think. Companies that off-shore work get a substantial tax break as well. The saving occurs not only on Federal taxes but also on State and Local taxes.
Unfortunately you were not with us during the Greek and Republican Roman periods when comparisons were made in some depth on the topic of Roman art and it's debt to Greek artists. We were able to watch the gradual shift away from the Greek idealistic forms. We saw the early signs, then the expansion into the reality of Hellenism and finally the development of portraiture in the Roman Imperial period.
Some important art concepts came to fruition during the Imperial period. Portraiture was advanced considerably as were narrative formats. The narrative-portrait form reached a high point in the Ara Pacis in Rome. However, it is well to point out that most of the art work that is said to be Roman was actually accomplished by Greek slaves. Roman Emperors contributed the ego needed to promote portraiture.
robert b. iadeluca
July 11, 2004 - 04:38 pm
"In 275, as Aurelian was leading an army across Thrace to settle matters with Persia, a group of officers, misled into thinking that he planned to execute them, assassinatd him. Shocked by its own accumulated crimes, the army asked the Senate to appoint a successor. None wanted an honor that so regularly heralded death. Finally Tacitus, being seventy-five years old, consented to serve. He claimed descent from the historian, and illustrated all the virtues preached by that laconic pessimist, but he died of exhaustion six months after taking the crown. The soldiers, repenting their repentance, resumed the prerogative of force, and saluted Probus as emperor (276)."It was an excellent choice and a merited name, for Probus stood out in courage and integrity. He expelled the Germans from Gaul, cleared the Vandals from Illyricum, built a wall between the Rhine and the Danube, frightened the Persians with a word, and gave peace to the whole Roman realm. Soon, he pledged his people, there wold be no arms, no armies, and no wars, and the reign of law would cover the earth.
"As a prelude to this utopia he compelled his troops to clear wastelands, drain marshes, plant vines, and perform other public works. The army resented this sublimation, murdered him (282), mourned him, and built a monument to his memory.
"It now hailed as imperator one Diocles, the son of a Dalmatian freedman. Diocletian, as he henceforth called himself, had risen by brilliant talents and flexible scruples to the consulate, a proconsulate, and command of the palace guards. He was a man of genius, less skilled in war than in statesmanship.
His first vital decision revealed the state of the realm and the waning of Rome. He abandoned the city as a capital, and made his emperial headquarters at Nicomedia in Asia Minor, a few miles south of Byzantium. The Senate still met in Rome, the consuls went through their ritual, the games roared on, the streets still bore the noisome pullulation of humanity. But power and leadership had gone from this center of economic and moral decay.
"Diocletian based his move on military necessity. Europe and Asia must be defended, and could not be defended from a city so far south of the Alps.
"He appointed a capable general, Maximian, as his coruler (286), charging him with defense of the West. Maximian made not Rome but Milan his capital. Six years later, to further facilitate administration and defense, each of the two Augusti chose a 'Caesar' as his aide and successor.
"Diocletian selected Galerius, who made his capital at Sirmium (Mitrovica on the Save), and was responsible for the Danube provinces.
"Maximian appointed Constantius Chlorus (the Pale), who made his capital at Augusta Trevirorum (Treves).
"Each Augustus pledged himself to retire after twenty years in favor of his Caesar, who would then appoint a 'Caesar' to aid and succeed him in turn. The Empire would stand on guard at four strategic points against internal rebellion and external attack.
"It was a brilliant arrangement, which had every virtue but unity and freedom.
"The monarchy was divided, but it was absolute. Each law of each ruler was issed in the name of all four, and was valid for the realm. The edict of the rulers became law at once, without the sanction of the Senate at Rome. All governmental officials were appointed by the rulers, and a gigantic bureaucrcy spead its coils around the state.
"To further fortify the system Diocletian developed the cult of the Emperor's genius into a personal worship of himself as the earthly embodiment of Jupiter. Maximian modestly consented to be Hercules. Diocletian was a man of the world and doubtless smiled in private at these myths and forms. But his throne lacked the legitimacy of time and he hoped to buttress it, to check the turbulence of the populace and the revolts of the army by enduing himself with divinity and awe.
"This adoption of Oriental despotism by the son of a slave, this identifiction of god and king, meant the final failure of republican institutions in antiquity, the surrender of the fruits of Marathon. It was a reversion, like Alexander's, to the forms and theories of Achaemenid and Egyptian courts, of Ptolemaic, Parthian, and Sassanid kings. From this Orientalized monarch came the structure of Byzantine and European kingdoms until the French revolution.
"All that was needed now was to ally the Orienal monarch in an Oriental capital with an Oriental faith.
"Byzantinism began with Diocletian."
And so Rome, whose method had always been to "divide and conquer," decided to divide itself. And then, if I understand this correctly, simultaneously decided to unify the Empire under a "god" -- an Oriental one, that is.Two "Caesars" but one god. Power, as I see it, moving from government to religion.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 11, 2004 - 05:01 pm
Click HERE for a map of Yugoslavia. Allow time for downloading. Note the town of Sremska Mitrovica (formerly Sirmium) where Galerius made his capital so he could protect the Danube provinces.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 12, 2004 - 03:32 am
The Triumph of ChristianityA.D. 306-325
robert b. iadeluca
July 12, 2004 - 03:59 am
"In pre-Christian days the Roman government had for the most part allowed to the rivals of orthodox paganism a tolerance which they in turn had shown to the official and imperial cults. Nothing was demanded from the adherents of new faiths except an occasional gesture of adoration to the gods and head of the state."The emperors were piqued to find that of all the heretics under their rule only the Christians and the Jews refused to join in honoring their genius. The burning of incense before a statue of the emperor had become a sign and affirmation of loyalty to the Emperor like the oath of allegiance required for citizenship today. On its side the Church resented the Roman idea that religion was subordinate to the state. It saw in emperor worship an act of polytheism and idolatry, and instructed its followers to refuse it any any cost.
"The Roman government concluded that Christianity was a radical -- perhaps a communist -- movement, subtly deisgned to overthrow the established order.
"Before Nero the two forces had found it possible to live together without blows. The law had exempted the Jews from emperor-worship, and the Christians, at first confused with the Jews, were granted the same privilege. But the execution of Peter and Paul, and the burning of Christians to light up Nero's games, turned this mutual and contemptuous tolerance into increasing hostility and intermittent war. We cannot wonder that after such provocation the Christians turned their full armory against Rome -- denounced its immorality and idolatry -- ridiculed its gods -- rejoiced in its calamities -- and predicted its early fall.
"In the ardor of a faith made intolerant by intolerance, Christians declared that all who had had a chance to accept Christ and had refused would be condemned to eternal torments. Many of them foretold the same fate for all the pre-Christian or non-Christian world. Some excepted Socrates.
"In reply, pagans called the Christians 'dregs of the people' and 'insolent barbarians,' accused them of 'hatred of the human race,' and ascribed the misfortunes of the Empire to the anger of pagan deities whose Christian revilers had been allowed to live.
A thousand slanderous legends arose on either side. Christians were charged with demonic magic, secret immorality, drinking human blood at the Pachal feast, and worshiping an ass.
"But the conflict was profounder than mere pugnacity. Pagan civilization was founded upon the state. Christian civilization upon religion.
"To a Roman his religion was a part of the structure and ceremony of government, and his morality culminated in patriotism. To a Christian his religion was something apart from and superior to political society. His higher allegiance belonged not to Caesar but to Christ. Terrulian laid down the revolutionary principle that no man need obey a law that he deemed unjust. The Chrisian revered his biship, even his priest, far above the Roman magistrate. He submited his legal troubles with fellow Christians to his church authorities rather than to the officials of the state.
"The detachment of the Christian from earthly affairs seemed to the pagan a flight from civic duty, a weakening of the national fiber and will. Tertullian advised Christians to refuse military service. That a substantial number of them followed his counsel is indicaed by Celsus' appeal to end this refusal, and Origen's reply that though Christians will not fight for the Empire they will pray for it.
"Christians were exhorted by their leaders to avoid non-Christians, to shun their festival games as barbarous, and their theates as stews of obscenity. Marriage with a non-Christian was forbidden. Christian slaves were accused of introducing discord into the family by converting their masters' children or wives.
"Christianity was charged with breaking up the home."
Some current events may come to mind here. Please do not refer to any current person by name.
Robby
Malryn (Mal)
July 12, 2004 - 04:59 am
"Christianity was charged with breaking up the home."
That does make me laugh in the light of today.
Mal
winsum
July 12, 2004 - 08:59 am
thankyou for the art info. I'm in and out of here since much of the information concerns areas that aren't my interest and I ffind it hard on my eyes to read the screen. Anything to do with art thouogh is eat and potatoes. again thankyou
Shasta Sills
July 12, 2004 - 02:14 pm
Probus was a Roman who didn't understand Rome. When he pledged an
end to arms, armies, and wars, he ended his career right there. But
what difference did it make? All the emperors were murdered sooner
or later.
We were discussing earlier the local customs that Christianity absorbed rather than rejected outright. But there were customs they
refused to absorb. When they decided where to draw the line, they
stood firm.
Rich7
July 12, 2004 - 03:23 pm
Between then and now.
"The Christian revered his bishop, even his priest far above the Roman magistrate."
It appears to me that the Christian hierarchy sensed that their power over the flock was more that spiritual, and it may be time to flex some political muscles.
In countries, today, where Islam is predominant the imam's and mullahs have more control over the masses than whatever temporal government rules. If you want to stay in power, make a deal with the Muslem religious leaders, or kiss your throne goodbye.
Rich
robert b. iadeluca
July 12, 2004 - 04:20 pm
"The opposition to the new religion came rather from the people than from the state. The magistrates were often men of culture and tolereance. The mass of the pagan population resented the aloofness, superiority, and certainty of the Christians and called upon the authorities to punish these 'atheists' for insulting the gods. Tertullian notes 'the general hatred felt for us.'"From the time of Nero Roman law seems to have branded the profession of Christianity as a capital offense. Under most of the emperors this ordinance was enforced with deliberate negligence. If accused, a Christian could usually free himself by offering incense to a statue of the emperor. Thereafter he was apparently allowed to resume the quiet practice of his faith. Christians who refused this obeisance might be imprisoned, or flogged, or exiled, or condemned to the mines, or, rarely put to death.
"Domitian seems to have banished some Christians from Rome. But says Tertullian:-'Being in some degree human, he soon stopped what he had begun and restored the exiles.'
"Hadrian, a skeptic open to all ideas, instructed his appointees to give the Christians the benefit of every doubt. Being more religious, Antoninus allowed more persecution.
"At Smyrna the populace demanded of the 'Asiarch' Philip that he enforce the law. He complied by having eleven Christians executed in the amphitheater (155). The bloodthirst of the crowd was aroused rather than assuaged. It clamored for the death of Bishop Polycarp, a saintly patriarch of eight-six years, who was said in his youth to have known Saint John. Roman soldiers found the old man in a suburban retreat, and brought him unresisting before the Asiarch at the games.
"Philip pressed him:-'Take the oath, revile Christ, and I will let you go.' Polycarp, says the most ancient of the Acts of the Martyrs, replied:-'For eighty-six years have I been his servant, and he has done me no wrong. How then can I blaspheme my King who saved me?' The crowd cried out that he should be burned alive. The flames, says the pious document, refused to burn him 'but he was within them as bread that is being baked. And we perceived such a fragrant smell as might come from incense or other costly spices. At length the lawless men commanded an executioner to stab him. When he did this, there came out a dove, and so much blood that the fire was quenced, and all the crowd marveled.'
"The persecutions were renewed under the saintly Aurelius. When famine, flood, pestilence, and war overwhelmed a once happy reign, the conviction spread that these evils were due to neglect and denial of the Roman gods.
"Aurelius shared the public terror, or yielded to it. In 177 he issued a rescript ordering the punishment of sects that caused disturbances by 'exciting the ill-balanced minds of men' with new winds of doctrine. In that same year, at Vienne and Lyons, the pagan populace arose in fury against the Christians, and stoned them whenever they dared to stir from their homes.
"The imperial legate ordered the arrest of the leading Christians of Lyons. Bishop Pothinus, ninety yars old, died in jail from the effects of torture. A messenger was sent to Rome to ask the advice of the Emperor as to the treatment of the remaining prisoners.
"Marcus replied that those who denied Christianity should be freed, but those who professed it should be put to death according to the law."
Isn't there a phrase something to the effect of "the wisdom of the masses?"
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 12, 2004 - 05:14 pm
robert b. iadeluca
July 12, 2004 - 05:19 pm
A FOLLOW-UP of the link regarding Nero implying that the persecution of the Christians was not that bad.Robby
Justin
July 12, 2004 - 10:43 pm
The Romans who punished Polycarp and the Bishop of Lyons as well as Christians in general were protecting their gods and their families from the danger of exposure to heretical atheistic ideas. The Christians must have seemed to the citizens of Lyon in 290 CE as Muslim fundementalists seem to Christians today or as Jews appeared to German Christians of the 1930's or as Jews today in France.
robert b. iadeluca
July 13, 2004 - 03:13 am
"Said Tertillian:-'The blood of martyrs is seed.' "There is no greater drama in human record than the sight of a few Christians, scorned or oppressed by a succession of emperors -- bearing all trials with a fierce tenacity -- multiplying quietly -- building order while their enemies generated chaos -- fighting the sword with the word -- brutality with hope -- and at last defeating the strongest state that history has known.
"Caesar and Christ had met in the arena, and Christ had won.
"Diocletian, peaceful in his Dalmatian palace, saw the failure of both the persecution and the tetrachy. Seldom had the Empire witnessed such confusion as followed his abdication. Galerius prevaliled upon Constantius to let him appoint Severus and Maximinus Daza as 'Caesar' (305). At once the principle of heredity asserted its claims. Maxentius, son of Maximian, wished to succeed his father's authority and a like resolution fired Constantine.
"Flavius Valerius Constantinus had begun life at Naissus in Moesia (172?) as the illegitimate son of Constantius by his legal concubine Helena, a barmaid from Bithynia. On becoming a 'Caesar,' Constantius was required by Diocletian to put away Helena and to take Maximian's stepdaughter Theodora as his wife.
"Constantine received only a meager education. He rook up soldiering early, and proved his valor in the wars against Egypt and Persia. Galerius, on succeeding Diocletian, kept the young officer near him as a hostage for the good behavior of Constantius. When the latter asked Galerius to send the youth to him Galerius procrastinated craftily, but Constantine escaped from his watchers, and rode night and day across Europe to join his father at Boulogne and share in a British campaign. The Gallic army, deeply loyal to the humane Constantine, came to love his handsome, grave, and energetic son. When the father died at York (306), the troops acclaimed Constantine not merely as 'Caesar' but as Augustus -- emperor. He accepted the lesser title, excusing hmself on the ground that his life would be unsafe without an army at his back.
"Galerius, too distant to intervene, reluctantly recognized him as a 'Caesar.'
"The death of Galerius (311) removed the last barrier between intrigue and war. Maximinus plotted with Maxentius to overthrow Licinius and Constantine who conspired to overthrow them. Taking the initiative, Constantine crossed the Alps, defeated an army near Turin, and advanced upon Rome with a celerity of movement and restraining discipline of his troops that recalled the march of Caesar from the Rubicon.
"On October 17, 312, he met the forces of Maxenius at Saxa Rubra (Red Rocks) nine miles north of Rome, and by superior strategy compelled Maxentius to fight with his back to the Tiber, and no retreat possible ecept over the Mulviarn Bridge.
"On the afternoon before the battle, says Eusebius, Constantine saw a flaming cross in the sky, with the Greek words en toutoi nika -- 'in this sign conquer.' Early the next morning according to Eusebius and Lactantius, Constantine dreamed that a voice commanded him to have his soldiers mark upon their shields the letter X with a line drawn through it and curled around the top -- the symbol of Christ. On arising he obeyed, and then advanced into the forefront of battle behind a standard (known henceforth as the labarum) carrying the initials of Christ interwoven with a cross.
"Constantine cast in his lot with the Christians, who were numerous in his army, and made the engagement a turning point in the history of religion. "Constantine watched for an opportunity not only to succor the Christians of the East, but to add the East to his realm. When barbarians invaded Thrace, and Licinius failed to move against them, Constantine led his army from Thessalonica to the rescue of Licinius' province. After the barbarians were driven back, Licinius protested Constantine's entry into Thrace. As neither rule desired peace, war was renewed.
"The defender of Christianity, with 130,000 men, met the defender of paganism, with 160,000 men, first at Adrianople and then at Chrysopolis (Scutari), won, and became sole emperor (323). Licinius surrendered on a promise of pardon. But in the following year he was executed on the charge that he had resumed his intrigues. Constantine recalled the Christian exiles, and restored to all 'confessors' their lost privileges and property.
"While still proclaiming liberty of worship for all, he now definitely declared himself a Christian, and invited his subjects to join him in embracing the new faith."
A big turning point in history!
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 13, 2004 - 03:49 am
Here is the story of CONSTANTINE from the Russian Orthodox point of view. Also included here is some information indicating why, in his youth, he might have been inclined toward becoming a Christian.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 13, 2004 - 04:05 am
Here are some ANECDOTES regarding Helen, mother of Constantine. As usual, consider the source.Robby
Malryn (Mal)
July 13, 2004 - 05:40 am
Malryn (Mal)
July 13, 2004 - 06:36 am
"There's a beautiful mosaic in Ravenna, a city in northern Italy, which I routinely show my classes. It's of a beautiful, very handsome, well muscled, beardless man. He's dressed in a Roman officer's uniform. And he's stepping on the head of a lion, and he's holding a standard. And the standard says in Latin, 'I am the way. The truth. And the life.' And usually my students can't read Latin and I say, 'Who's this a picture of?' And they guess, 'The Roman Emperor.' But it's not. It's a picture of Jesus."
This quote is from one of a series of articles by various scholars on
"Why did Christianity succeed?" Click this link to read them.
Mal
Rich7
July 13, 2004 - 06:41 am
"While still proclaming liberty of worship for all, he now definately declared himself a Christian, and invited his subjects to join him in embracing the new faith."
One of the landmark events in history. What would the world be like, now, if the Emperor had not declared for Christianity? Interesting subject for a speculative novel.
Another subject for speculation is what would our world be like, now, if Carthage had prevailed over Rome?
Rich
Malryn (Mal)
July 13, 2004 - 06:46 am
Malryn (Mal)
July 13, 2004 - 07:58 am
robert b. iadeluca
July 13, 2004 - 09:54 am
"Was Constantine's conversion sincere -- or was it an act of religious belief, or a consummate stroke of political wisdom? Probably the latter."His mother Helen had turned to Christianity when Constantius divorced her. Presumably she had acquainted her son with the excellences of the Christian way. Doubtless he had been impressed by the invariable victory that had crowned his arms under the banner and cross of Christ. But only a skeptic would have made so subtle a use of the religious feelings of humanity.
"The Historia Augusta quotes him as saying:-'it is Fortuna that makes a man emperor' -- although this was a bow to modesty rather than to chance. In his Gallic court he had surrounded himself with pagan scholars and philosophers. After his conversion he seldom conformed to the ceremonial requirements of Christian worship.
"His letters to Christian bishops make clear tht he cared little for the theological differences that agitated Christendom -- although he was willing to suppress dissent in the interests of imperial unity. Throughout his reign he treated the bishops as his political aides. He summoned them, presided over their councils, and agreed to enforce whatever opinion their majority should formulate. A real believer would have been a Christian first and a statesman afterward. With Constantine it was the reverse.
"Christianity was to him a means, not an end.
"He had seen in his lifetime the failure of three persecutions. It was not lost upon him that Christianity had grown despite them. Its adherents were still very much in the minority. But they were relatively united, brave, and strong. While the pagan majority was divided among many creeds, and included a dead weight of simple souls without conviction or influence, Christians were especially numerous in Rome under Maxentius, and in the East under Licinius. Constantine's support of Christianity was worth a dozen legions to him in his wars against these men.
"He was impressed by the comparative order and morality of Christian conduct -- the bloodless beauty of Christian ritual -- the obedience of Christians to their clergy -- their humble acceptance of life's inequalities in the hope of a happiness beyond the grave. Perhaps this new religion would purify Roman morals, regenerate marriage and the family, and allay the fever of class war.
"The Christians, despite bitter oppression, had rarely revolted against the state. Their teachers had inculcated submission to the civil powers, and had taught the divine right of kings. Constantine aspired to an absolute monarchy. Such a government would profit from religious support. The hierarchical discipline and ecumenical authority fo the Church seemed to offer a spiritual correlate for monarchy.
"Perhaps that marvelous organization of bishops and priests could become an instrument of pacification, unification, and rule?"
I keep wondering here -- in this symbiotic relationship, which wielded the greatest power -- the state or the religion?
Robby
JoanK
July 13, 2004 - 11:24 am
Thanks, MAL, for that site on the development of Christianity. It is extremely interesting.
Was Constantine's conversion sincere? The consensus seems to be not. In one of Mal's articles they point out he still payed attention to pagan gods.
I think we have to remember the nature of the pagan religeon he grew up with. It was one where there were many gods and gods were added at the whim of the emporor. I don't think it would be fair to assume that "being a Christian" would have the same meaning for him that it would for us. It may have been quite consistant for him to be a Christian and worship other gods, to kill off sects that were inconvenient etc. That's what all his pagan relatives had done. There is no reason to think he was an especially philosophic or deep-thinking man.
We all know plenty of "Christians" today who never go to church and do lots of things incompatible with Christianity, yet affirm and believe they are Christians.
I don't know why I spent so much time on this. It's an unanswerable and not very important question.
moxiect
July 13, 2004 - 12:27 pm
I have often and still do wonder "How on earth can anyone fight an IDEA." without force?
Shasta Sills
July 13, 2004 - 12:44 pm
I have always assumed that Paul's conversion to Christianity was sincere, and Constantine's was not. I thought Constantine's conversion was due to political expediency--a means of unifying
the empire. But between the two of them--Paul and Constantine--
they founded a world religion.
winsum
July 13, 2004 - 01:24 pm
a quote from your first link to the mozaic . . . . "Paul says, a new map of the
world. Our teachings have within them the secret to
understanding the new cosmic order"<P<
What would he have said if he'd had access to space. . . . . he's right in a way isn't he, understanding our place in the universe gives us more realistic view of our importaance in it . . . . not much.
Rich7
July 13, 2004 - 02:27 pm
This site shows a good representation of the chi-rho symbol that Constantine saw in his Christian vision, and which he had affixed to each of his men's shields at the battle of the Milvian Bridge/
http://www.request.org.uk/main/history/romans/constantine.htm I remember as a kid, being raised Catholic, seeing that symbol on priest's vestments during services and not having a clue about its origin.
Rich
winsum
July 13, 2004 - 03:25 pm
Constantine and our california govenor look like they hatched out of the same egg. what a hunk. . . .
robert b. iadeluca
July 13, 2004 - 04:46 pm
Very interesting link, Rich. Thank you.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 13, 2004 - 05:08 pm
I printed out Mal's link in Post 922 -- "Why did Christianity Succeed? From Jesus to Christ" -- I read the entire article and found it fascinating. There are those who may not believe some of what they read but it is written in down-to-earth readable text and gives one version of the birth of Christianity to the time of Constantine.You may find it worth your time to read it.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 13, 2004 - 05:38 pm
"In a world still preponderantly pagan, Constantine had to feel his way by cautious steps. He continued to use vague monotheistic language that any pagan could accept. "During the earlier years of his supremacy he carried out patiently the ceremonial required of him as pontifix maximus of the traditional cult. He restored pagan temples and ordered the taking of the auspices. He used pagan as well as Christian rites in dedicating Constantinople. He used pagan magic formulas to protect crops and heal disease.
"Gradually, as his power grew more secure, he favored Christianity more openly. He gave his sons an orthodox Christian education, and financed his mother's Christian philanthropies. The Church rejoiced in blessings beyond any expectation.
"All over the Empire Christians gathered in festal thanksgiving for the triumph of their God.
"Within a year after Constantine's conversion the Church was torn by a schism that might have ruined it in the very hour of victory. Donatus, Bishop of Carthage, supported by a priest of like name and temper, insisted that Christian bishops who had surrendered the Scriptures to the pagan police during the persecutions had forfeited their office and powers. That baptisms or ordinations performed by such bishops were null and void. That the validity of sacraments depended in part upon the spiritual state of the ministrant.
"When the Church refused to adopt this stringent creed, the Donatists set up rival bishops wherever the existing prelate failed to meet their tests. Constantine, who had thought of Christianity as a unifying force, was dismayed by the chaos and violence that ensued, and was presumably not unmoved by the occasional alliance of Donatists with radical movements among the African peasantry.
"He called a council of bishops at Arles (314), confirmed its denunciation of the Donatists, ordered the schismatics to return to the Church, and decreed that recalcitrant congregations should lose their property and their civil rights (316). Five years later, in a momentary reminiscnce of the Milan edict, he withdrew these measures, and gave the Donatists a scornful toleration.
"The schism continued until the Saracens overwhelmed orthodox and heretic alike in the conquest of Africa.
"In those same years Alexandria saw the rise of the most challenging heresy in the history of the Church. About 318 a priest from the Egyptian town of Baucalis startled his biship with strange opinions about the nature of Christ. Christ, said Arius, was not one with the Creator. He was rather the Logos, the first and highest of all created beings. Bishiop Alexander protested. Arius persisted. If, he argued, the Son had been begotten of the Father, it must have been in time. The Son therefore could not be co-eternal with the Father.
"Furthermore, if Christ was created, it must have been from nothing, not from the Father's substance. Christ was not 'consubstantial' with the Father. The Holy Spirit was begotten by the Logos, and was still less God than the Logos.
"We see in these doctrines the continuity of ideas from Plato through the Stoics, Philo, Plotinus, and Origen to Arius. Platonism, which had so deeply influenced Christian theology, was now in conflict with the Church."
A Roman emperor, wanting peace, not war, finds himself caught up in the violence of a peace movement.
Robby
Justin
July 13, 2004 - 05:40 pm
The Christian symbol showing on a Justinian-Roman shield in a mosaic in San Vitale, Ravenna is variously described as the Greek letters chi-rho, and iota chi. Iota and Chi are the first two letters of the Greek word for fish. Some forms of the symbol are considered Mithraic rather than Christian. Another form of the same symbol is iota, eta, sigma. When the Greek was translated to Latin the symbol became IHS, mistaking eta for aitch. Iota sigma are the first and last letters of the Greek name for Jesus. IHS was later translated as Jesus Hominum Salvator. In Latin the form became "In Hoc Signo (Vinces)" which translates in English as "In This Sign you will Conquer." Today one may find these symbols spread across the tops of Catholic crucifixes and on the ceremonial vestments of Catholic priests.
robert b. iadeluca
July 13, 2004 - 06:23 pm
Who were the DONATISTS?Robby
moxiect
July 13, 2004 - 06:59 pm
In post 928 I asked "How does one fight an IDEA without force?"
In all this discussion, ideaology has come to the forefront, there seems to always be a power struggle, economic struggle and what or whose beliefs are better than others. Darn if that isn't a circle what is.
robert b. iadeluca
July 14, 2004 - 03:44 am
"To the Church the question of the 'consubstantiality' (homoousia) as against the mere similarity (homoiousia) of the Son and Father was vital both theologically and politically. If Christ was not God, the whole structure of Christian doctrine would begin to crack. "If division were permitted on this question, chaos of belief might destroy the unity and authority of the Church and therefore its value as an aide to the state.
As the controversy spread, setting the Greek East aflame, Constantine resolved to end it by calling the first ecumenical -- universal -- council of the Church. He summoned all bishops to meet in 325 at Bithynian Nicaea, near his capital Nicomedia, and provided funds for all their expenses. Not less than 318 bishops came attended by a vast concourse of the lower clergy. This statement reveals the immense growth of the Church.
"Most of the bishops were from the Eastern provinces. Many Western dioceses ignored the controversy.
"The Council met in the hall of an imperial palace. Constantine presided and opened the proceedings by a brief appeal to the bishops to restore the unity of the Church. He 'listened patiently to the debates' reports Eusebius, 'moderated the violence of the contending parties,' and himself joined in the argument.
"Arius reaffirmed his view that Christ was a created being, not equal to the Father, but 'divine only by participation.' Clever questioners forced him to admit that if Christ was a creature, and had had a beginning, he could change. That if he could change he might pass from virtue to vice. The answers were logical, honest, and suicidal. Asthanasius, the eloquent and pugnacious archdeacon whom Alexander had brought with him as a theological sword, made it clear that if Christ and the Holy Spirit were not of one substance with the Father, polytheism would triumph.
"He conceded the difficulty of picturing three distinct persons in one God, but argued that reason must bow to the mystery of the Trinity. All but seventeen of the bishops agreed with him, and signed a statement expressing his view. The supporters of Arius agreed to sign if they might add one iota, changing homoousion to homoiousion. The Council refused, and issued with the Emperor's approval the following creed:--
'We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible or invisible and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten not made, being of one essence (homoousion) with the Father, who for us men and our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and comes to judge the quick and the dead.'
"An imperial edict odered that all books by Arius should be burned, and made the concealment of such a book punishable with death.
"Constantine celebrated the conclusion of the Council with a royal dinner to all the asembled bishops and then dismissed them with the request that they should not tear one another to pieces. He was mistaken in thinking that the controversy was ended, or that he himself would not change his view of it, but he was right in believing that he had struck a great blow for the unity of the Church.
"The Council signalized the conviction of the ecclesiastical majority that the organization and survival of the Church required a certain fixity of doctrine. In final effect it achieved that practical unanimity of basic belief which gave the medieval Church its Catholic name.
"At the same time it marked the replacement of paganism with Christianity as the religious expression and support of the Roman Empire, and committed Constantine to a more definite alliance with Christianity than ever before. A new civilization, based on a new religion, would now rise over the ruins of an exhausted culture and a a dying creed.
"The Middle Ages had begun."
The Church was now "unified" under the concept that "reason must bow to a mystery."
Robby
Malryn (Mal)
July 14, 2004 - 05:09 am
It sounds as if Justin was right in his comments about the evolution of Christianity. Constantine was a shrewd politician and businessman.
Jesus was named divine by edict? He became Christ by law? I wonder what Jesus the man would have thought about this, and whether he'd have recognized the movement he started 300 odd years later?
I wonder how many Christians know the history of their religion? There's plenty Durant has written about Christianity, which is substantiated by religious scholars, that I didn't know.
Mal
Rich7
July 14, 2004 - 05:14 am
Mal, He was not only made devine by edict, it was voted upon at Nicea and the vote was close!
Rich
Malryn (Mal)
July 14, 2004 - 05:15 am
Malryn (Mal)
July 14, 2004 - 05:52 am
winsum
July 14, 2004 - 09:28 am
to make a current political observation? I think our current president's election is by edict . . . the supreme courts interference in his election. and sometimes he acts like he thinks he's a god.
robert b. iadeluca
July 14, 2004 - 11:58 am
Winsum:-I know the temptation is great but we try our best not to turn this historical discussion group into a political forum.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 14, 2004 - 12:25 pm
Those of us who have been together here since we began to discuss Durant's first volume, "Our Oriental Heritage," can feel the Eastern cultures creeping in on us again. Durant continues:-"A year after the Council Constantine dedicated, amid the desolation of Byzantium, a new city which he termed Nova Roma, and which posterity called by his name. In 330 he turned his back upon both Rome and Nicomedia, and made Constantinople his capital. There he surrounded himself with the impressive pomp of an Oriental court, feeling that its psychological influence upon army and people would make its expensive pageantry a subtle economy in government.
"He protected the army with able diplomacy and arms, tempered despotism with humane decrees, and lent his aid to letters and the arts. He encouraged the schools at Athens, and founded at Constantinople a new university where state-paid professors taught Greek and Latin, literature and philosophy, rhetoric and law, and trained officials for the Empire.
"He confirmed and extended the privileges of physicians and teachers in all provinces. Provincial governors were instructed to establish schools of architecture, and to draw students to them with divers privileges and rewards. Artists were exempted from civic obligations, so that they might have time to learn their art thoroughly and transmit it to their sons.
"The art treasures of the Empire were drawn upon to make Constantinople an elegant capital.
"In Rome the architectural works of this period were inaugurated by Maxentius. He began (306), and Constantine finished, an immense basilica that marked the climax of classical architecture in the West.
"Adapting the structure of the great baths, this edifice covered an area 330 by 250 feet. Its central hall, 114 by 82 feet, was roofed by three cross vaults of concrete 120 feet high, partly supported by eight broad piers faced with fluted Corinthian columns sixty feet tall. Its pavement was of colored marble. Its bays were peopled with statuary. The walls of these bays were prolonged above their roofs to serve as elevated buttresses for the central vaults.
"Gothic and Renaissance architects found much instruction in these vaults and buttresses. Bramante, designing St. Peter's, planned to 'raise the Pantheon over the Basilica of Constantine' -- i.e. to crown a spacious nave with a massive dome.
"The first Christian emperor built many churches in Rome, probably including the original form of San Lorenzo outside the Walls. To celebrate his victory at the Mulvian Bridge he raised in 315 the arch that still towers over the Via del Trionfi. It is one of the best preserved of Rome's remains, and its majesty is not visibly injured by the diverse pilferage of its parts. Four finely proportioned shafts, rising from sculptured bases, divide the three arches, and support an ornate entablature.
"The attic story bears reliefs and statues taken from monuments of Trajan and Aurelius. The medallions between the columns are from some building of Hadrian's reign.
"Two of the reliefs appear to be the work of Constantine's artists. The crude squat figures, the awkward quarrel of profile faces with frontal legs, the rude piling of heads upon heads as a substitute for perpective, betray a coarsening of technique and taste. But the deep drilling produces, in the play of light and shade, an impressive effect of depth and space. The episodes are presented with a rough vitality as if Italian art had resolved to return to its source.
"The colossal figure of Constantine in the Palazzo dei Conservatori carries this primitiveness to a repellent extreme. It seems incredible that the man who presided so graciously over the Council of Nicaea shold have resembled this dour barbarian -- unless the artist had a mind to illustrate in advance the cynical summary of Gibbon:-'I have described the triumph of barbarism and religion.'"
robert b. iadeluca
July 14, 2004 - 12:53 pm
Here is a sketch and some info about NOVA ROMA. Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 14, 2004 - 01:06 pm
robert b. iadeluca
July 14, 2004 - 05:33 pm
It was pointed out earlier that an increasing number of Romans were becoming Christian. After a period of time, Constantine, himself, professed Christianity. Which reminds me of that old maxim, I believe Chinese, which says:-"A leader is a person who watches which way the people are going, and then gets out in front."
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 15, 2004 - 03:25 am
"Constantine had been twice married, first to Minervina, who had borne him a son Crispus, then to Maximian's daughter, Fausta, by whom he had three daughters and three sons. Crispus became an excellent soldier and renderd vital aid to his father in the campaigns against Licinius."In 326 Crispus was put to death by Constantine's order. About the same time the Emperor decreed the execution of Licinianus, son of Licinius by Constantine's sister Constantia. Shortly thereafter Fausta was slain by her husband's command.
"We do not know the reasons for this triple execution. Zosimus assures us that Crispus had made love to Fausta, who accused him to the Emperor and that Helena, who loved Crispus dearly, had avenged him by persuading Constantine that his wife had yielded to his son. Possibly Fausta had schemed to remove Crispus from the path of her sons' rise to imperial power, and Lecinianus may have been killed for planning to claim his father's share of the realm.
"Fausta achieved her aim after her death, for in 335 Constantine bequeathed the Empire to his surviving sons and nephews.
"Two years later, at Easter, he celebrated with festival ceremonies the thirtieth year of his reign. Then, feeling the nearness of death, he went to take the warm baths at near-by Aquytion. As his illness increased, he called for a priest to administer to him the sacrament of baptism which he had purposely deferred to this moment, hoping to be cleansed by it from all the sins of his crowded life.
"Then the tired ruler, aged sixty-four, laid aside the purple robes of royalty, put on the white garb of a Christian neophyte, and passed away.
"He was a masterly general, a remarkable administrator, a superlative statesman. He inherited and completed the restorative work of Diocletian. Through them the Empire lived 1150 years more. He continued the monarchical forms of Aurelian and Diocletian, partly out of ambition and vanity, partly no doubt, because he believed that absolute rule was demanded by the chaos of the times.
"His greatest error lay in dividing the Empire among his sons. Presumably he foresaw that they would fight even more certanly if he chose another heir. This, too, is a price of monarchy.
"His executions we cannot judge, not knowing their provocation. Burdened with the problems of rule, he may have allowed fear and jealousy to dethrone his reason for a while. There are signs that remorse weighed heavily upon his declining years.
"His Christianity, beginning as policy, appears to have graduated into sincere conviction. He became the most persistent preacher in his realm, persecuted heretics faithfully, and took God into partnership at every step. Wiser than Diocletian, he gave new life to an aging Empire by associating it with a young religion, a vigorous organizaton, a fresh morality.
"By his aid Christianity became a state as well as a church, and the mold, for fourteen centuries, of European life and thought.
"Perhaps, if we except Augustus, the grateful Church was right in naming him the greatest of the emperors."
Inject a young religion in an aging state and the state lives on with greater vitality.Any comments about this concept as we move toward the end of "Caesar and Christ?"
Robby
Rich7
July 15, 2004 - 07:19 am
Robby, On the issue of injecting religion in an aging state: In more modern times Thomas Jefferson advocated periodic revolutions to keep a government vital and healthy.
In a letter to James Madison, Jefferson wrote, "I hold that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."
The nice thing for an emperor about changing the state religion is that he effects one of Jefferson's "little rebellions" thereby invigorating the state (If Jefferson's theory is correct.), without bringing about his own end as ruler.
You can only pull this off when the new religion has some popular support. (Finding out where everyone is headed, then getting out in front to lead. -From your post #949)
Rich
ALF
July 15, 2004 - 08:53 am
Jefferson and all of his conflicts so intrigues me I believe I'm going to have to break down and buy the new book about him.
In a recentTime issue there was an article that began
"Jefferson's spiritual beliefs were vague, but one thing is clear; he wanted to keep religion and politics seperate."
We could all use a good dose of "self evident truths" in todays politics.
winsum
July 15, 2004 - 11:26 am
Legalizing GAY MARRIAGE? Cheine flip flops or he could have gained stature by supporting his family in this regard. I wonder what the new liberal line will be. . . if anything. I haven't heard. . anyone? it would be a religious revolution for sure re the bible.
robert b. iadeluca
July 15, 2004 - 03:48 pm
Claire (Winsum):-Please refrain from political statements in this forum which is historical in nature.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 15, 2004 - 03:50 pm
Epilogue
robert b. iadeluca
July 15, 2004 - 04:05 pm
"Says a brilliant scholar of our time:-'The two greatest problems in history are how to account for the rise of Rome, and how to account for her fall.'"We may come nearer to understanding them if we remember that the fall of Rome, like her rise, had not one cause but many, and was not an event but a process spread over 300 years.
"Some nations have not lasted as long as Rome fell."
The United States of America is only 228 years old -- a brief experiment in the span of approximately 5000 years we have been examining in this discussion group. How can we compare this drop of culture with the sea of civilization found in Ancient Egypt or Ancient China? Is this a ridiculous comparison or is the effort worth it?What are your thoughts? Is America on the rise? on a decline? How about East vs West?
Or are the gods laughing at what is merely a second in their time?
Robby
Justin
July 15, 2004 - 04:49 pm
I am well pleased that we were able to work our way through the beginnings of the Christian era without being invaded by the radical right in all its forms. I think we owe a debt of gratitude to Robby for keeping our discussion in this sensitive period free from celestial intrusion.
The death of Constantine marks the beginning of a split in the empire between east and west-between Constantinople and Ravenna and the beginning of the Medieval period. It marks the entrance of Roman Catholicism as a dominant force in the politics of the empire and with that a shift from the old religions of Rome to the mysticism of the east.
The ecumenical council at Nicea has given the Christians who are now exclusively Roman Catholics a creed and a divinity they can follow. I think the heresies lasted for some time but Roman Catholicism quickly became dominant. A large measure of the blame for the downfall of the empire belongs to Christianity but there were so many other elements that entered in the decline that the process is complex. There were economic reasons and political reasons as well as religious reasons for the downfall.
JoanK
July 15, 2004 - 11:11 pm
"A large measure of the blame for the downfall of the empire belongs to Christianity "
Really JUSTIN? I don't see that in anything we've read so far. Would you explain.
Kudos to Robby as usual for keeping us to the spirit of this discussion.
3kings
July 16, 2004 - 02:51 am
In the time of Classical Rome, the Army was the source of political power. Those who would be political leaders, mostly began their careers either in the Army, or closely allied to it.
By Constantine's time, the Army had become fragmented. It was encamped on the distant frontiers, and it consisted largely of 'foreign' ie non-Roman troops.
At the same time, in Rome, and Constantinople, the way to leadership, was seen to lie, not through warriors, but churchmen. Constantine showed the way, that henceforth political power could, and often would, be wielded by theologians.
In short, a weakened Army was supplanted by a strengthening Church, and people began talking, not of the Roman Empire, but rather the HOLY Roman Empire.
As Durant put it in an earlier page, "Christ and Caesar had met, and Caesar had won for a day." Now in a second meeting, starting in the mind of Constantine, Christ had won, for perhaps a thousand years. ++ Trevor
robert b. iadeluca
July 16, 2004 - 02:59 am
A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within.- - - Will Durant
robert b. iadeluca
July 16, 2004 - 03:13 am
"The essential causes of Rome's decline lay in her people -- her morals -- her class struggle -- her failing trade -- her bureaucratic despotism -- her stifling taxes -- her consuming wars."Christian writers were keenly appreciative of this decay. Tertullian about 200 heralded with pleasure the ipsa clausula saeculi -- literally the fin de siecle or end of an era -- as probably a prelude to the destruction of the pagan world. Cyprian, towards 250, answering the charge that Christians were the source of the Empire's misfortunes, attributed these to natural causes:--
'You must know that the world has grown old, and does not remain in its former vigor. It bears witnesss to its own decline. The rainfall and the sun's warmth are both diminishing. The metals are nearly exhausted. The husbandman is failing in the fields.'
"Barbarian inroads, and centuries of mining the richer veins, had doubtless lowered Rome's supply of the previous smetals. In central and southern Italy deforestation, erosion, and the neglect of irrigation canals by a diminishing peasantry and a disordered government had left Italy poorer than before.
"The cause, however, was no inherent exhaustion of the soil, no change in climate, but the negligence and sterility of harassed and discouraged men."
What are your thoughts regarding the cause of the decline of the Roman Empire? What are your reactions to the "causes" listed above?
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 16, 2004 - 03:47 am
"Civilization begins where chaos and insecurity ends."This quote by Durant from the Heading above gives us pause for thought. Did the Roman Empire begin to decline at the time when chaos and insecurity began?
Robby
Éloïse De Pelteau
July 16, 2004 - 07:37 am
It is so easy to blame Christianity Justin, but the Greeks didn't have that, so why did it fall? The Romans had become fat lazy and rich. The timing was right for its decline as Durant has driven this into our brains since "Our Oriental Heritage". I don't know how near we are to our decline or if we have started it with 9/11, but it seems to me that we have become fat, lazy and rich.
"The cause, however, was no inherent exhaustion of the soil, no change in climate, but the negligence and sterility of harassed and discouraged men."
Since that was written, the soil is almost exhausted, polluted, depleted, the warming of the planet is beyond repair and we go on our way still hopeful that we will keep our lifestyle for centuries to come unconcerned and unable to stop the down-slide.
We can blame other people or blame God for that, but are we blaming ourselves?
Eloïse
Scrawler
July 16, 2004 - 02:06 pm
"The essential causes of Rome's decline lay in her people -- her morals -- her class struggle -- her failing trade -- her bureaucratic despotism -- her stifling taxes -- her consuming wars."
I would have to agree with this statement. The average Roman probably never saw their decline coming. It happened over a very long period. I also think that the people were trying to survive and they didn't notice the changes in their lives the way we've seen it looking from afar. I think America too has some of the same things going on today as Rome did, but again as we slowly loose some of our freedom litle by little, we hardly notice.
I do believe that out of chaos the focus is downward at first and than once all the old ideals and concepts have been thrown off, than an upward motion begins. I do believe that without chaos, nothing would ever change. And I do think change is important for any country or individual - otherwise how would we grow?
Malryn (Mal)
July 16, 2004 - 03:34 pm
I'd like to see a comparison of the Fall of the British Empire with the Fall of Rome. I think it would be much more pertinent than a comparison of Rome with the United States.
Mal
robert b. iadeluca
July 16, 2004 - 05:52 pm
"A serious decline of population appears in the West after Hadrian. It has been questioned, but the mass importation of barbarians into the Empire by Aurelius, Valentinian, Aurelian, Probus, and Constantine leaves little room for doubt."Aurelius, to replenish his army, enrolled slaves, gladiators, policemen, criminals. Either the crisis was greater, or the free population less than before, The slave population had certainly fallen.
"So many farms had been abandoned, above all in Italy, that Pertinax offered them gratis to anyone who would till them.
"A law of Septimius Severus speaks of a penuria hominum -- a shortage of men. In Greece the depopulation had been going on for centuries. In Alexandria, which had boasted of its numbers, Bishop Dionysius calculated that the population had in his time (250) been halved. He mourned to 'see the human race diminishing and constantly wasting away.'
"Only the barbarians and the Orientals were increasing, outside the Empire and within.
"What had caused this fall in population? Above all, family limitation. Practiced first by the educated classes, it had not seeped down to a proletariat named for its fertility. By A.D. 100 it had reached the agricultural classes, as shown by the use of imperial alimenta to encourge rural parentage. By the third century it had overrun the western provinces, and was lowering man power in Gaul.
"Though branded as a crime, infanticide flourished as poverty grew. Sexual excesses may have reduced human fertility. The avoidance or deferrment of marriage had a like effect, and the making of eunuchs increased as Oriental customs flowed into the West.
"Plantianus, Praetorian Prefect, had one hundred boys emasculated, and then gave them to his daughter as a wedding gift."
More population in the East? Less in the West?
Robby
Justin
July 16, 2004 - 11:34 pm
Joan, Eloise: Your sharp eyes have caught me up. What I said was "a large measure of the cause for the decline of the empire could be traced to Christianity." I also said, "a great deal more cause lay in economic, political, and military problems and that the causes were complex." You must be thinking,that after all those persecutions, how could anyone blame the Christians for the decline? Doesn't seem right does it?
Edward Gibbon does that very thing. He holds that Christianity was the chief cause of Rome's fall. He says," this religion destroyed the old faith that had given moral character to the Roman soul and stability to the Roman state. It had declared war upon the classic culture, upon science, philosophy, literature and art. It had brought an enfeebling Priental mysticism into the realistic Stoicism of Roman life. It had turned men's thoughts from the tasks of this world to an enervating preparation for some cosmic catastrophy, and had lured them into seeking individual salvation. It disrupted unity of the state and discouraged members from participating in the government of the state or rendering military service. etc.
Durant quotes all the above and subsequently says,"There is some truth in it". However, Rome was not destroyed by Christianity."
Bubble
July 17, 2004 - 02:03 am
Not exactly our topic just now, but... interesting. For example I never knew the torch would make an international journey on all five continents, through 26 countries and 34 cities.
This children's version of the official site of the 2004 Olympic and Paralympic Games includes history, Athens tourist information, torch relay news, information about Olympic sports, and a library of educational materials. Also includes an interactive tour of ancient Olympia and games and puzzles.
http://www.athens2004.com/athens2004/page/youth?cid=f9187ae4be659f00VgnVCMServer28130b0aRCRD&lang=en
robert b. iadeluca
July 17, 2004 - 03:59 am
Those in this discussion group who participated in discussing "The Life of Greece" will enjoy the link by Bubble about the Olympics and this LINK which tells of the preparation for the Olympics.It has been customary since this discussion group began to use the hiatus between volumes to discuss anything related to any of the volumes which have appeared here. The Olympics takes place Aug 13-29 and our August hiatus will furnish a timely opportunity to speak more about Greece.
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 17, 2004 - 04:22 am
Durant speaks more about what caused Rome's decline."Second only to family limitation as a cause of lessened population were the slaughters of pestilence, revolution, and war.
"Epidemics of major proportions decimated the population under Aurelius, Gallienus, and Constantine. In the plague of 260-65 almost every family in the Empire was attacked. In Rome, we are told, there were 5000 deaths every day for many weeks. The mosquitoes of the Campagna were winning their war agains the human invaders of the Pontine marshes and malaria was sapping the strength of rich and poor in Latium and Tuscany.
"The holocausts of war and revolution, and perhaps the operation of contraception, abortion, and infanticide, had a dysgenic as well as a numerical effect. The ablest men married latest, bred least, and died sooner.
"The dole weakened the poor, luxury weakened the rich, and a long peace deprived all classes in the peninsula of the martial qualities and arts. The Germans who were now peopling north Italy and filling the army were physically and morally superior to the surviving native stock. If time had allowed a leisurely assimilation they might have absorbed the classic culture and reinvigorated the Italian blood. But time was not so generous.
"Moreover, the population of Italy had long since been mingled with Oriental strains physically inferior, though perhaps mentally superior, to the Roman type. The rapidly breeding Germans could not understand the classic culture, did not accept it, did not transmit it. The rapidly breeding Orientals were mostly of a mind to destroy that culture. The Romans, possessing it, sacrificed it to the comforts of sterility.
"Rome was conquered not by barbarian invasion from without, but by barbaian multiplication within.
"Moral decay contributed to the dissolution. The virile character that had been formed by arduous simplicities and a supporting faith relaxed in the sunshine of wealth and the freedom of unbelief. Men had now, in the middle and upper classes, the means to yield to temptation, and only expediency to restrain them.
"Urban congestion multiplied contacts and frustrated surveillance. Immigration brought together a hundred cultures whose differences rubbed themselvs out into indifference.
"Moral and esthetic standards were lowered by the magnetism of the mass. Sex ran riot in freedom while political liberty decayed."
So what have we learned here? What are the dangers to the life of a civilization? Disease? Contraception? Abortion? Welfare? Luxury? War? A long peace? Rapidly breeding immigrants of an "inferior" stock? Urban congestion? Sexual temptations? Immorality? Decay of political liberty?As the Heading above asks:-"Where are we headed?
Robby
Justin
July 17, 2004 - 12:09 pm
The anopholes mosquito reduced the basic Roman stock not sexual temptation. All the rest of that stuff may be relevant to the decline of civilizations but sexual temptation makes us breed faster while protecting the basic stock against barbarian infiltration. There isn't anyway you can convince me that rampant sex is injurious to the well being of civilizations. Unless the whole of the civilization is gay.
winsum
July 17, 2004 - 12:42 pm
lurking, my opinions are apt to be all over the place. It's hard to stay on the thread for me since I"m a horizontal thinker, but I'll listen up and try to stay with all of you. . . . claire
winsum
July 17, 2004 - 12:45 pm
and they didn't even have the aids virus to help them do it. . . . fall.
Shasta Sills
July 17, 2004 - 12:50 pm
Somebody is always saying we should learn lessons from the fall of Rome. I don't know what lessons we are supposed to learn. It seems
to me you can blame the fall of Rome on anything you choose. There
were so many problems, who can say what the real cause was?
winsum
July 17, 2004 - 01:08 pm
part of any society, especially one with power to expand and take up others. Our diversity here is part of our strengtha nd part of our weakness and certainly a problem. did the expansion of rome into other cultures have anything to do with it's unweldyness and chaos.
Scrawler
July 17, 2004 - 01:24 pm
"Moreover, the population of Italy had long since been mingled with Oriental strains physically inferior, though perhaps mentally superior, to the Roman type. The rapidly breeding Germans could not understand the classic culture, did not accept it, did not transmit it. The rapidly breeding Orientals were mostly of a mind to destroy that culture. The Romans, possessing it, scrificed it to the comforts of sterility."
1) When we speak of Orientals are we speaking of the same Orientals of today?
2)Where the Orientals considered babarians?
I found the statement: "...Oriental strains physically inferior, though perhaps mentally superior" interesting. Does it mean that because the Orientals used their minds rather than their physical bodies that they were more successful than the Romans at this period of time?
robert b. iadeluca
July 17, 2004 - 01:33 pm
"The growth of Christianity was more an effect than a cause of Rome's decay. The breakup of the old religion had begun long before Christ. There were more vigorous attacks upon it in Ennius and Lueretius than in any pagan author after them."Moral disintegration had begun with the Roman conquest of Greece, and had culminated under Nero. Thereafter Roman morals improved and the ethical influence of Christianity upon Roman life was largely a wholesome one.
"It was because Rome was already dying that Christianity grew so rapidly.
"Men lost faith in the state not because Christianity held them aloof, but because the state defended wealth against poverty -- fought to capture slaves -- taxed toil to support luxury -- and failed to protect its people from famine, pestilence, invasion, and destitution. Forgiveably they turned from Caesar preaching war to Christ preaching peace -- from incredible brutality to unprecedented charity -- from a life without hope or dignitty to a faith that consoled their poverty and honored their humnanity.
"Rome was not destroyed by Christianity any more than by barbarian invasion. It was an empty shell when Christianity rose to influence and invasion came.
"The political causes of decay were rooted in one fact -- that increasing despotism destroyed the citizen's civic sense and dried up statesmanship at its source. Powerless to express his political will except by violence, the Roman lost interest in government and became absorbed in his business, his amusements, his legion, or his individual salvation. Patriotism and the pagan religion had been bound together, and now together decayed.
"The Senate, losing every more of its power and prestige after Pertinax, relapsed into indolence, subservience, or venality. The last barrier fell that might have saved the state from militarism and anarchy.
"Local governments, overrun by imperial correctores and exactores, no longer attracted first-rate men. Men deliberately made themselves ineligible by debasing their social category. Some fled to other towns, some became farmers. some monks.
"Gallienus, fearing a revolt of the Senate, excluded senators from the army. As martial material no longer grew in Italy, this decree completed the military decline of the peninsula. The armies of Rome were no longer Roman armies. They were composed chiefly of provincials, largely of barbarians. They fought not for their altars and their homes, but for their wages, their donatives, and their loot. They attacked and plundered the cities of the Empire with more relish than they showed in facing the enemy. Most of them were the sons of peasants who hated the rich and the cities as exploiters of the poor and the counryside.
"The Empire, grown too vast for its statesmen to rule or its armies to defend, began to disintegrate. Left to protect themselves unaided against the Germans and the Scots, Gaul and Britain chose their own imperatores, and made them sovereign. Soon Spain and Africa would yield almost unresisting to barbarian conquest.
"In this awful drama of a great state breaking into pieces, the internal causes were the unseen protagonists. The invading barbarians merely entered where weakness had opened the door."
An internal disease that weakened the entire body, making it vulnerable to outer infection.
Robby
JoanK
July 17, 2004 - 05:07 pm
SHASTA says "Somebody is always saying we should learn lessons from the fall of Rome. I don't know what lessons we are supposed to learn. It seems to me you can blame the fall of Rome on anything you choose"
I agree. This is like those inkblot tests where each person sees something different. Gibbon says it was Christianity; Weber says it was the economy; Durant is all over the place: sexual immorality and abortion, plague, moral decay. Anything but the Barbarians. This probably tells us more about Gibbon, Weber, and Durant than it does about Rome.
robert b. iadeluca
July 17, 2004 - 05:13 pm
Could we then say that there is nothing we can learn from either the rise or the fall of Rome?Robby
Justin
July 17, 2004 - 06:00 pm
The lessons in the fall of Rome are many.
Rome from the very beginning supported itself by conquest. It's people were soldiers. They conquered and brought back slaves who tended immediate needs. They brought back gold and silver which was used to buy things on the open market. The Romans made nothing useful. They bought what they needed. When peace came the booty stopped flowing. The Romans who knew how to make war did not know how to make peace. The only artisans were slaves and when the peace came the slaves stayed home unconquered. As artisan slaves diminished in the Roman population the immediate needs of Romans went unsatisfied and due to scarcity, the price of slaves and commodities rose.
The poor became hungry. The grain dole disappeared with peace because foreign taxes dried up as Rome gave up it's border garrison's.
Lesson for the US. Do not ship our skills out of the country. They will disappear. Manufacturing will dry up and with it will go exports. Imports will soar for a time but eventually they to will dry up when the power to buy dries up due to a lack of jobs and an absence of skills.
We are watching that happen in the US and our government is doing everything it can to encourage the process in the name of peace. Our leaders reason that if a country has a manufacturing base and we act as buyers that country will not be aggressive. The trouble is that we can not buy from the entire world without destroying ourselves from within.
Lesson is: Be makers and sellers rather than users and buyers as the Romans were. We can not be conquerers. We don't know how to do that. Look how we screwed up Irag.
robert b. iadeluca
July 17, 2004 - 06:30 pm
"Externally the fall of the Western Roman Empire was hastened by the expansion and migration of the Hsiung-nu, or Huns, in northwestern Asia. Defeated in their eastward advance by Chinese armies and the Chinese Wall, they turned westward, and about A.D. 355 reached the Volga and the Oxus."Their pressure forced the Sarmatians of Russia to move into the Balkans. The Goths, so harassed, moved again upon the Roman frontiers. They were admitted across the Danube to settle in Moesia (376). Maltreated there by Roman officials, they revolted, defeatd a large Roman army at Adrianople (378), and for a time threatened Constantinople.
"In 400 Alaric led the Visigoths over the Alps into Italy, and in 410 they took and sacked Rome.
"In 429 Gaiseric led the Vandals to the conquest of Spain and Africa, and in 455 they took and sacked Rome.
"In 451 Attila led the Huns in an attack upon Gaul and Italy. He was defeated at Chalons, but overran Lombardy.
"In 472 a Pannonian general, Orestes, made his son emperor under the name of Romulus Augustulus. Four years later the barbarian mercenaries who dominated the Roman army deposed this 'little Augustus,' and named their leader Odoacer king of Italy. Odoacer recognized the supremacy of the Roman emperor at Constantinople, and was accepted by him as a vassal king.
"The Roman Empire in the East would go on until 1453.
"In the West it had come to an end."
Robby
3kings
July 17, 2004 - 07:41 pm
"The dole weakened the poor, luxury weakened the rich"
The latter part may have some validity, but the former is clearly wrong. The dole was all that allowed the poor to survive. Durant showing his high profit, low tax bias ? (BG) == Trevor
JoanK
July 17, 2004 - 07:49 pm
TREVOR: you're right. The dole was so important because there was no work in between wars. As JUSTIN said, the Romans didn't make anything and what they did make was done by slaves, so there was no work except the army. Thus, the latest pretender could always raise an army, but inbetwwen there was the dole. The gigantic building projects helped, but not enough.
Malryn (Mal)
July 17, 2004 - 09:25 pm
I'm still here. I've been extremely busy editing my book and reformatting it. It's a very big job.
The end of Rome reminds me a little of the Great Depression here in the United States, which followed strong prosperity, a decline in morals, epidemics of polio, typhoid frever and tuberculosis, wars with the law vs gangsters like Capone and their mobs. With the collapse of Wall Street, we were very, very vulnerable. It took a strong leader to pull us out of that hole. Vulnerable still in 1941, we were attacked by a force from the Orient that put us in a world war. We survived all of this, though. Isn't that interesting?
Mal
Justin
July 17, 2004 - 11:50 pm
Typhus, plague and Malaria wiped out large segments of the Roman population. We in the modern world learned to control these diseases and others. The lesson from the Roman catastrophes is to get on a new disease as quickly as it rears its ugly head. Have we learned that lesson? Not at all.
Aids came upon us and our President ignored it because it appeared to be confined to gay people for whom he has no sympathy. He could have had the jump on the problem before it became world wide. But he didn't like the idea of talking about condoms publicly. Children might get ideas from a recomendation to use condoms.
Another example: We have practically eliminated small pox. Now mothers ruminate over whether or not to vacinate their children. Some parents decide not to vacinate. Those who do not vacinate must "home school" their children because the public schools will not admit unvacinated children to class rooms.
Small pox is not completely eradicated in the world but it is under control in most countries. We could very easily import the disease again from a country with poor control. If that happens, the unvacinated are vulnerable.
Will we never learn some lessons that seem so obvious?
robert b. iadeluca
July 18, 2004 - 04:32 am
The essential accomplishment of Rome -- having won the Mediterranean world, she adopted its culture -- gave it order, prosperity, and peace for 200 years -- held back the tide of barbarism for two centuries more -- and transmitted the class heritage to the West before she died.
- - - Will Durant
robert b. iadeluca
July 18, 2004 - 04:47 am
"It is easier to explain Rome's fall than to account for her long survival."Rome has had no rival in the art of government. The Roman state committed a thousand political crimes. It built its edifice upon a selfish oligarchy and an obsurantist priesthood. It achieved a democracy of freemen, and then destroyed it with corruption and violence. It exploited its conquests to support a parasitic Italy, which, when it could no longer ex;loit, collapsed.
"Here and there, in East and West, it created a desert and called it peace. But amid all this evil it formed a majestic system of law which through nearly all Europe gave security to life and property, incentive and continuity to industry, from the Decemvirs to Napoleon.
"It molded a government of separated legislative and executive powers, whose checks and balances inspired the makers of constitutions as late as revolutionary America and France. For a time it united monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy so successfully as to win the applause of philosophers, historians, subjects, and enemies.
"It gave municipal institutions, and for a long period municipal freedom, to half a thousand cities. It administered its Empire at first with greed and cruelty, then with such toleraance and essential justice that the great realm has never again known a like content. It made the desert blossom with civilization, and atoned for its sins with the miracle of a lsting peace.
"Today our highest labors week to revive the Pax Romana for a disordered world."
Present-day law affected by Roman law. Your comments, please?
Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 18, 2004 - 04:54 am
Here are some thoughts regarding the ROOTS OF AMERICAN LAW.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 18, 2004 - 05:12 am
This ARTICLE explains how detailed was the creation of the Justinian Code.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 18, 2004 - 05:24 am
In this thought-provoking article entitled "PERMISSIVENESS" OR LIBERTY, the author refers to the ancient Roman Law called Parens Patriae in which the government is seen to the citizen as a parent is to his child.Robby
Rich7
July 18, 2004 - 05:52 am
Robbie, Sorry for not being exactly on subject, but I am still hung up on why Rome fell.
To me it's obvious. They got fat and happy in a dangerous world where they were surrounded by lean and hungry barbarians, who would sieze the opportunity to take advantage of any sign of weakness.
They were enjoying all the fruits of empire but no longer willing to make the sacrifices necessary to defend it. For example, at the end, their army was basically made up of foreign "mercenaries."
I wonder what Darwin would have said about Rome's decline and fall.
I think he might have agreed with me.
At the edges of the Roman empire empire, hungry and fleet wolves were circling, looking for signs that the prey had slowed down a step or two. And the signs were there.
Survival of the fittest.
Rich
robert b. iadeluca
July 18, 2004 - 06:09 am
Rich:-What types of sacrifices do you believe a nation or its individuals should make in order to keep it strong?Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 18, 2004 - 06:22 am
Rich, you might find this ARTICLE about History and Darwin (and others) of interest.Robby
Malryn (Mal)
July 18, 2004 - 06:26 am
It was British social philosopher, Herbert Spencer, who coined the phrase "Survival of the Fittest", not Darwin, who talked about natural selection.
Spencer used the survival of the fittest phrase "to describe the competition among human individuals and groups. He argued that human progress resulted from the triumph of more advanced individuals and cultures over their inferior competitors. Wealth and power were seen as signs of inherent 'fitness', while poverty was taken as evidence of natural inferiority."
I don't agree that "fat and lazy" was the principal reason for the fall of Rome. The majority of Romans was not well-to-do, fat and lazy, just as the majority of Americans is not well-to-do, fat and lazy. This may have been part of the reason for the fall of Rome, but it is not the reason or the only reason. From what I've read I'd say there were multiple reasons why that civilization fell, exactly as there were multiple reasons why other civilizations fell before it did.
Mal
robert b. iadeluca
July 18, 2004 - 06:28 am
Rich, you might find this ARTICLE about History and Darwin (and others) of interest.Robby
robert b. iadeluca
July 18, 2004 - 06:30 am
Speaking of change, we are about to conclude another 1000 postings! Just continue on as you are doing and be sure to hit the SUBSCRIBE button when you get to the new page.Robby
jane
July 18, 2004 - 07:35 am