|
|
Post by rakovsky on Dec 28, 2019 12:43:53 GMT -8
What Fieldman, Cyril, and the OxLex all have in common is they are saying what I was thinking while reading about Q7: pagans (which includes Hellenized Jews) believe in fate. Believers in the God of Israel believe in grace, forgiveness, redemption. God may know ahead of time whether a man will repent, and may tell His prophets. But He never takes that man's free will. Never. There is no fate, only choices and consequences. Therefore speaking about the power of fate is a non sequitur.
I feel like we have given enough information to answer Question 7, but this is an interesting topic for me to discuss with someone who has a Jewish focus, because of its ancient, Biblical roots, compared to Calvinist thinking, with which you might also be familiar. So I made a new separate thread for the discussion in te "Thoughts" section: Destiny/Fate vs. Free Willtheloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/4800/destiny-fate-freeBasically for that thread, I am looking for you commentary on the concepts and issues there. Shalom. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Dec 28, 2019 12:59:46 GMT -8
In the pagan world of the time, one did not disrespect the gods of a land. Claudius would have had no problem with the Jews worshiping their God, as this was just another in the pantheon of gods to him. But there being Jews scattered throughout much of his empire he would have had a real problem with this God of a people interfering with the gods of the lands where they resided. When men converted then, it was not like we think of them just going to another church. They abandoned their gods, their people, their families- everything they were was changed as they followed this new God (or gods). ... Remember Naomi’s speech to Ruth? “I will go where you go, your people shall be my people, and your God shall be my God.” This is what she was saying: "I’m leaving everything I was behind me to live in your land, become a Jew and worship your God alone.”Your answer above is basically correct for Number 9. Setting at nought the other gods would mean that the Jews would be openly proclaiming to the pagans and the Roman world that the other gods were nothing. It couldn't mean that the emperor was prohibiting the Jews from teaching themselves that their God was the only real God, since this was a known key feature of Judaism, and the emperor was clearly allowing Judaism. So the prohibition against setting at nought the other gods must be a ban against them doing this in a practical sense, not just teaching themselves that only their God was true. That is, the emperor was banning them from practically annulling the other gods via preaching this to the other gods' followers. The biggest problem was that the Romans had decided their own emperors were gods, and they demanded everyone in the Roman world bow before a statue of Caesar and acknowledge his deity. Jews, including Nazarenes could not do this. The just forming church varied. There was no church, per se. There were many competing theologies, most if not all deeply infused with paganism. 1,2,3, or even more Gods/gods? Incorporate Jewish ideas or absolutely remove (as some called it) the taint of Judaism from their new religion? I will give you my opinion of what now happened, just know the following is my take on it and not some other authority.
This was the first culling of the Nazarene sect. Their numbers started shrinking. But also any of the new gentile church groups that agreed with them were targeted. So by 325 CE when the council of Nicaea met the more Jewish leaning groups had no representation. It was all the more pagan assemblies who were there to decide how the church would believe. Add Constantine, an unrepentant pagan himself overseeing this council and the newly "unified" (sic) church was firmly on the road to being anti-Semitic, pagan, and at odds with the hated "Law."
In Paul the Missionary: Realities, Strategies and Methods
, Eckhard J. Schnabel writes:In Divine Honours for the Caesars: The First Christians' Responses, Bruce W. Winter writes: |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Dec 28, 2019 13:02:00 GMT -8
What Fieldman, Cyril, and the OxLex all have in common is they are saying what I was thinking while reading about Q7: pagans (which includes Hellenized Jews) believe in fate. Believers in the God of Israel believe in grace, forgiveness, redemption. God may know ahead of time whether a man will repent, and may tell His prophets. But He never takes that man's free will. Never. There is no fate, only choices and consequences. Therefore speaking about the power of fate is a non sequitur.
I feel like we have given enough information to answer Question 7, but this is an interesting topic for me to discuss with someone who has a Jewish focus, because of its ancient, Biblical roots, compared to Calvinist thinking, with which you might also be familiar. So I made a new separate thread for the discussion in te "Thoughts" section: Destiny/Fate vs. Free Willtheloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/4800/destiny-fate-freeBasically for that thread, I am looking for you commentary on the concepts and issues there. Shalom.
Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Dec 28, 2019 15:40:03 GMT -8
Regarding Question 8, you seem to be giving extra-biblical accounts the same gravity as the biblical ones. While there is much we can learn from some of these writings, we must be very careful when reading them. And when the attempt to fill in or add to the biblical account, ask first if it contradicts in any way. Then what is their basis in knowing what they wrote. Is there corroboration anywhere else for their account? And remember, people lie for their own reasons; often just to look wise in other men's eyes. There are also cultural differences that must be accounted for. For instance, in Judaism it was acceptable to give credit for authorship to a sage or important person from antiquity to your own work if done to honor them. But everyone knew. On the other hand, there are books which apparently were written much, much later but authorship was said to be an ancient i order to fool people and give unwarranted weight to your own work. A lot to think about and that's not even everything needing consideration. So be careful.
Regarding what any of the emperors wanted from the Jews, or anyone else of the time: stability. These were very unstable times for Rome, with pressures all around the empire. They could ill afford all the instability within. But the people of the Mediterranean region were very superstitious, and anniversary dates held special power. So the leadership was quick to capitalize on any such "synchronous" events. Giving the emperors god-status also helped stabilize the empire, but only as long as there were no dissenters. Most depended on idols to summon gods they could not see. But here they had a god that could stand on the balcony and wave at them. He was a god that was here with them. Sounds like a counterfeit of Yeshua (so they couldn't have anyone running 'round worshiping Him as being greater than Caesar), as well as a type of the Anti-Christ. In other words, kill the Notsarim.
Regarding heir attempt to reestablish the Republic after Calligul: I'm sure they took advantage of the anniversary of its demise to use. This system of one man in absolute control hadn't worked too well, an Bootikens (Calligula, or "Little Boots") had been one of the cruelest, most degenerate and destructive leaders they'd had. So the time was right ... more or less.
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Dec 28, 2019 15:52:16 GMT -8
There is a lot of confusion among churches and even scholars between a person from Nazareth, a person who is of the Sect of the Nazarenes, and a person under a Nazarite (natziyr) Vow. However it is really simple. The vow was from antiquity even in the 1st cen., and is spoken of several places in scripture. We have the instructions of  which you referenced, and stories of Nazarites in other books. Shimshon (Samson) was a life-long Nazarite. The people from the city of Natzrat (Nazareth) and the region around it. In the time of Yeshua (Jesus) Natzrat and Beit Lechem (Bethlehem) were in the Galil (Galilee) province of Yahudah (Judea). This was where much of Yeshua’s ministry occurred. So it is not surprising to find the sect He established (those who believed in Him as HaMoshiach (the Messiah) would come to be known as Notsarim (Nazarenes). Thus 3 different terms from the same root, which when translated to Greek then English tends to get confused. Which is why Christians and even many Meshiachim (Messianics) are so confused about so many things. Well, that and we use a lot of Hebrew terms just to further confuse you'all.  Your own summary of the "root" of the problem was pretty good as well!  Thanks. It sounds like you are saying that the three terms Nazirite, Nazarene, and Nazareth are all from the same root. |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Dec 28, 2019 16:04:27 GMT -8
There were many competing theologies, most if not all deeply infused with paganism. 1,2,3, or even more Gods/gods? Incorporate Jewish ideas or absolutely remove (as some called it) the taint of Judaism from their new religion? As I recall, Tertullian's idea was that the Law was still followed, but that it was followed in terms of its theology, not in terms of its ritual forms of worship. So the idea in this principle was that the Church would follow the same theology as in the , with beliefs in one God, angels, etc., but they would not have to perform the rituals like the cleanliness immersions of Tevilah (other than Christian baptism). But Tertullian's statement was actually a simplification because Christian worship and ritual does base itself on Jewish worship. An example of this incorporation is how the Bible is read at each liturgy, the Eucharist is based on the Passover meal, Baptism is based on Tevilah (or in your view it is Tevilah), etc. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Dec 28, 2019 20:36:20 GMT -8
There is a lot of confusion among churches and even scholars between a person from Nazareth, a person who is of the Sect of the Nazarenes, and a person under a Nazarite (natziyr) Vow. However it is really simple. The vow was from antiquity even in the 1st cen., and is spoken of several places in scripture. We have the instructions of which you referenced, and stories of Nazarites in other books. Shimshon (Samson) was a life-long Nazarite. The people from the city of Natzrat (Nazareth) and the region around it. In the time of Yeshua (Jesus) Natzrat and Beit Lechem (Bethlehem) were in the Galil (Galilee) province of Yahudah (Judea). This was where much of Yeshua’s ministry occurred. So it is not surprising to find the sect He established (those who believed in Him as HaMoshiach (the Messiah) would come to be known as Notsarim (Nazarenes). Thus 3 different terms from the same root, which when translated to Greek then English tends to get confused. Which is why Christians and even many Meshiachim (Messianics) are so confused about so many things. Well, that and we use a lot of Hebrew terms just to further confuse you'all. Your own summary of the "root" of the problem was pretty good as well! Thanks. It sounds like you are saying that the three terms Nazirite, Nazarene, and Nazareth are all from the same root.
There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse,
and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.נֵצֶר nêtser, nay'-tser; from H5341 in the sense of greenness as a striking color; a shoot; figuratively, a descendant:—branch.
They do sound the same to our ears, but a Hebrew would probably have known the difference. 2 different roots.
I assume you knew this is why you asked. Good catch.
Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Dec 28, 2019 20:58:36 GMT -8
As I recall, Tertullian's idea was that the Law was still followed, but that it was followed in terms of its theology, not in terms of its ritual forms of worship. So the idea in this principle was that the Church would follow the same theology as in the , with beliefs in one God, angels, etc., but they would not have to perform the rituals like the cleanliness immersions of Tevilah (other than Christian baptism). But Tertullian's statement was actually a simplification because Christian worship and ritual does base itself on Jewish worship. An example of this incorporation is how the Bible is read at each liturgy, the Eucharist is based on the Passover meal, Baptism is based on Tevilah (or in your view it is Tevilah), etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Dec 29, 2019 10:47:14 GMT -8
Regarding Question 8, you seem to be giving extra-biblical accounts the same gravity as the biblical ones. While there is much we can learn from some of these writings, we must be very careful when reading them. And when the attempt to fill in or add to the biblical account, ask first if it contradicts in any way. Then what is their basis in knowing what they wrote. Is there corroboration anywhere else for their account? I think that you are referring to the story in the Lives of the Prophets where Nathan realized that David had sinned that night based on a sign. I wrote: When I wrote this, I wasn't giving it credence in the sense that it was factually reliable as an account of objective history. Rather, I gave the story as one that serves as an example or illustration of paranormal synchronicity. If it did not happen historically, then I am using it as a hypothetical to help show how the synchronicity works. I don't have much opinion on whether this event actually occurred, but I am skeptical, because the Lives of the Prophets was written about 20 centuries after the time of Nathan and David. |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Dec 29, 2019 11:55:12 GMT -8
Thanks. It sounds like you are saying that the three terms Nazirite, Nazarene, and Nazareth are all from the same root.
There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse,
and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.נֵצֶר nêtser, nay'-tser; from H5341 in the sense of greenness as a striking color; a shoot; figuratively, a descendant:—branch.
They do sound the same to our ears, but a Hebrew would probably have known the difference. 2 different roots.
I assume you knew this is why you asked. Good catch.
Dan CIn the sources that I found and quoted, the writers were speculating whether Nazir and Naytser were related root words. They tended to think that they weren't, but they seemed to relate them too. So I don't think that it was a problem of your mind when you answered to Question 10. I don't have much opinion, because the root words are precisely different, but they could also have been created from one or the other or some common root word, because they sound similar. Often, new words are created based on other words that they sound similar to and have some common meaning with, and I expect that this could be true with some root words too. For instance, one writer whom I cited said that Nazir could refer to something pruned, and that Naytser could be used to refer to an unpruned grapevine. So I feel like this question deserves more thought, but on the other hand, I did not find more about it when I searched online. What did you mean when you said, "I assume you knew this is why you asked"? What did you assume that I knew, and what was I asking? You mean that you assume that I knew that there are two different roots when I asked Question 10? |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Dec 29, 2019 11:58:30 GMT -8
I know this to be true first hand, having been a PK and having seen class notes and training materials from different denominations seminaries.
What is a PK? A Preacher's Kid? Promise Keeper? |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Dec 29, 2019 14:34:59 GMT -8
LOL, sorry. Yes, a preachers kid.
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Dec 29, 2019 20:26:29 GMT -8
He was real, however it was Joshua ben Damnai. Joshua in Hebrew is “Yehoshua,” and even many Messianics get this wrong and translate it as Jesus. Jesus is “Yeshua,” which can be a shortened form of Yehoshua. I don’t know what “Damnai” means in Hebrew, but the Greek sounds like some similar sounding term was used, its meaning obviously different. Either that, or the appellation was given him at the time he was deposed. How do you know that Yehoshua was this priest's name and not Yeshua? Weren't some 1st century Jews named Yehoshua and others Yeshua? AFAIK, in Greek, both names were translated into Greek as Iisus. At least, that's the way that it's done in Slavonic/Russian. In Russian, Joshua the ancient commander is called "Iisus Navin" (Navin being a Russian translation for Nun) in order to distinguish him from Jesus the Messiah, who is called Iisus in Russian. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Dec 29, 2019 21:46:54 GMT -8
He was real, however it was Joshua ben Damnai. Joshua in Hebrew is “Yehoshua,” and even many Messianics get this wrong and translate it as Jesus. Jesus is “Yeshua,” which can be a shortened form of Yehoshua. I don’t know what “Damnai” means in Hebrew, but the Greek sounds like some similar sounding term was used, its meaning obviously different. Either that, or the appellation was given him at the time he was deposed. How do you know that Yehoshua was this priest's name and not Yeshua? I don't for sure. However it was (and is) such a common mistake to confuse the two names it is highly more likely to have been Yehoshua. After that post I did some digging, and apparently "Damnai" means demon. Yeshua means salvation, so "Salvation son of a Demon?" Doesn't have a good ring to it ... Weren't some 1st century Jews named Yehoshua and others Yeshua? Yes. And both were shortened to Yeshu. Doesn't mean he was named that either. AFAIK, in Greek, both names were translated into Greek as Iisus. At least, that's the way that it's done in Slavonic/Russian. In Russian, Joshua the ancient commander is called "Iisus Navin" (Navin being a Russian translation for Nun) in order to distinguish him from Jesus the Messiah, who is called Iisus in Russian. Well, there you have it. As with most problems in names (and everything else it seems) we can trace the source of all confusion back to the pagan Greek.
Some scholars say it was Yehoshua. The ones who say it was Yeshua mostly rely on Josephus as their source. Guess which view I believe?
Dan (only a little opinionated, but smart enough not to trust Josephus) C
edit: sorry to sound so flippant. But really, I do distrust Josephus that much. And I will admit, that view fits my own template better. But I'd believe Yehoshua just to take the Mickey out of those giving Jo historian status, if nothing else. So there it is. I AM human after all, despite what my wife may have told you!  |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Dec 31, 2019 13:41:35 GMT -8
The answer to Question 11 (Does it make sense that the people of Caesarea and Sebaste celebrated Agrippa's death with "ointments and libations to Charon", since Charon was a pagan deity?) Is that the cities' inhabitants celebrating were pagans.
In Book 19, Josephus says that the people of Caesarea and Sebaste celebrated Agrippa's death by pouring drinks ("libations") to Charon, a spirit of the dead in Greek mythology, despite the fact that Agrippa had renovated not Jerusalem's temple, as I took him to mean, but the pagan temples:
When first reading this, I thought of temples in the nation in general, both the Jewish one in Jerusalem and pagan and Samaritan ones.
But actually Josephus is comparing the good that Herod had done for the residents in building pagan temples with their unmindfulness for his grandson.
The Wikipedia entry on Caesarea Maritima, which had previously been called Straton's Tower, says:
Caesarea became the administrative center for the Roman province of Judea.
D. Miller, in his article "The Case of the Disappearing Hasmoneans", writes that the celebrants were non-Jews, and he cites the writing of Daniel Schwartz:
|
|
- there are 70 faces to 
