|
|
Post by rakovsky on Jan 7, 2020 20:45:39 GMT -8
If you later on you read the texts that I made threads on and don't understand something, I can tell you how I would interpret it - like you have been helping me yourself in understanding the texts, since now I feel that I have a good handle on them.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Jan 7, 2020 21:18:34 GMT -8
If you later on you read the texts that I made threads on and don't understand something, I can tell you how I would interpret it - like you have been helping me yourself in understanding the texts, since now I feel that I have a good handle on them.
I doubt I'll study much about Josephus himself. But you never know: others think he is an authority, so I may have occasion to need to understand something.
So does this mean you are done with your Josephus studies now? If so you are still welcome to stick around and talk about other things. I know it can be like being in a wrestling match with one hand tied behind you when you aren't MJ. But hopefully we can still add to each others understanding. If nothing else, the kinds of questions we might get asked out in the real world are like, well, something an EO guy might ask. And if I can't clearly state what I believe and why here on an MJ forum, I'd probably be in deep kimshi out there!
Good talks!
Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Jan 7, 2020 22:15:21 GMT -8
I'm still picking through the questions on this thread. What was something that you found that it helped you with?
My longterm goal has been to write an article introducing these 1st century writings and then submit it to some magazine like the one on Supersessionism that I shared with you. I found it worthwhile because they come up occasionally in theological writings.
Then later on I want to study Hegessippus, a major mid-second century Nazarene or Jewish-Christian writer, most of whose writing is lost. I'd like to visit a MJ synagogue too.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Jan 7, 2020 23:53:42 GMT -8
I'm still picking through the questions on this thread. What was something that you found that it helped you with? My longterm goal has been to write an article introducing these 1st century writings and then submit it to some magazine like the one on Supersessionism that I shared with you. I found it worthwhile because they come up occasionally in theological writings. Then later on I want to study Hegessippus, a major mid-second century Nazarene or Jewish-Christian writer, most of whose writing is lost. I'd like to visit a MJ synagogue too.
I'd start writing that article quickly, because my experience has always been the mind leaks! Stuff lies in a muddy puddle somewhere underneath the idea that "Hey, I should know that!"
Remember there are MJ synagogues and then there are MJ synagogues. Then there are Baptists with tallits calling themselves MJ, then every kind of crazy or even evil trash calling themselves MJ. I can recommend the parent synagogue here on this forum if you are ever in Spokane, WA.
Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Jan 11, 2020 15:16:38 GMT -8
For Question 7 (How can fortune have "power"? Isn't fortune or destiny in effect the path of history and events from the past into the future?) If destiny is the state of affairs or the path of events into the future, then they could have power in the sense that they resist efforts to change them. The force that pushes back and resists in Physics is called Reaction Force.  So for instance, if currently most people in society regularly smoke, and the way things are going, they are going to smoke for the next 100 years, then the pushback that people, society, and their smoking habits provide against efforts to change their habits are a kind of "Reaction Force." |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Jan 11, 2020 15:49:20 GMT -8
For Question 7 (How can fortune have "power"? Isn't fortune or destiny in effect the path of history and events from the past into the future?) If destiny is the state of affairs or the path of events into the future, then they could have power in the sense that they resist efforts to change them. The force that pushes back and resists in Physics is called Reaction Force. So for instance, if currently most people in society regularly smoke, and the way things are going, they are going to smoke for the next 100 years, then the pushback that people, society, and their smoking habits provide against efforts to change their habits are a kind of "Reaction Force."
1. something that is to happen or has happened to a particular person or thing; lot or fortune.
2. the predetermined, usu. inevitable, course of events.
3. the power or agency that determines the course of events.
for•tune (ˈfɔr tʃən) n., v. -tuned, -tun•ing. n.
1. position in life as determined by wealth: to make one's fortune.
2. wealth; riches: lost a fortune.
3. an ample stock of material possessions: inherited a fortune.
4. chance; luck: had the bad fortune to go bankrupt.
5. fortunes, varied occurrences that happen or are to happen to a person in life.
6. fate; destiny: to tell someone's fortune.
7. (cap.) chance personified, commonly regarded as a mythical being distributing arbitrarily or capriciously the lots of life.
8. Archaic. to endow with a fortune.
9. Archaic. to chance; happen.So we can see destiny and fortune do share some similarities, even being interchangeable in some cases. And past history and the circumstances one may find themselves in certainly will influence our lives: the way we think, act, the choices presented to us and pressures to make certain choices. So yes, they do have "power" in that sense. However projecting that power into the future, say we were destined to act in any way takes the responsibility off the person and places it either on God or fate.
In WWII every indication was that Germany would take Great Britain and solidify his hold on Europe, thus beginning his "Thousand Year Reich." What if Churchill had siad "It's our destiny. We might as well avoid further bloodshed?" What if the hundreds of Christians had said "Leave the Jews to their fate" instead of risking their lives to hide them?" And what if hundreds of Jewish survivors of Nazi Germany had said "We were fated to this miserable existence" instead of going to HaEretz and fighting a war the entire world said they were fated to lose, all being wiped out by hundreds of thousands of hate filled but better armed and trained Muslim armies? All these actions flew in the face of fate and reason. But all were dependent not on what fate said, or destiny dictated, but on a sovereign God who can and does make a miraculous difference through the choices we as believers make. Isolated acts, the ends of which we cannot see. But acts that HaShem uses together to make the future fly in the face of the past, of reason, fate, and apparent destiny! We all have a choice. Often those choices are difficult. But we either believe on the word of the Eternal One or we do not. And that more than anything is what guides our choices. That is what determines our fate and our eternal destiny!
Dan C
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Jan 11, 2020 20:31:17 GMT -8
What if Churchill had siad "It's our destiny. We might as well avoid further bloodshed?" What if the hundreds of Christians had said "Leave the Jews to their fate" instead of risking their lives to hide them?" And what if hundreds of Jewish survivors of Nazi Germany had said "We were fated to this miserable existence" instead of going to HaEretz and fighting a war the entire world said they were fated to lose, all being wiped out by hundreds of thousands of hate filled but better armed and trained Muslim armies? Nice response. I think that you are being rhetorical in your questions above. Sure, had Churchill ascribed German conquest to destiny and given in, the Germans would have conquered the UK. Actually, the UK's destiny was not to be conquered. For one, Germany wanted to focus efforts on attacking the USSR instead. The UK had a strong fleet and attacking the UK by sea would have been tough. Attacking the UK and the USSR at once would have also been tough. My guess is that there was also an informal understanding between the UK and Germany that the Germans weren't going to invade the UK, at least until the had conquered the USSR. I read a theory to that effect. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Jan 11, 2020 21:54:34 GMT -8
Nice response. I think that you are being rhetorical in your questions above. Sure, had Churchill ascribed German conquest to destiny and given in, the Germans would have conquered the UK. Actually, the UK's destiny was not to be conquered. For one, Germany wanted to focus efforts on attacking the USSR instead. The UK had a strong fleet and attacking the UK by sea would have been tough. Attacking the UK and the USSR at once would have also been tough. My guess is that there was also an informal understanding between the UK and Germany that the Germans weren't going to invade the UK, at least until the had conquered the USSR. I read a theory to that effect.
Had Germany not wanted Britain until Russia was settled, all they had to do was keep her isolated for a time and then take the British Isles at his leisure. Wasting his air force in the Battle of Britain would, in that case have to be the most idiotic mistake he'd ever made. But he had the invasion troops staged.
Attacking Britain by sea would not have been that tough. In fact, it would have been one of his greatest opportunities. Attacking across the English channel, all he'd have to do is blockade both ends. The Royal Navy would have had to attack, and the Germans would have known exactly where. They had more than an adequate navy to do this. Then just turn those famous wolf packs loose on the English fleet! After the fall of the home isles, the English Pacific fleet would likely have joined with Australia. But the Atlantic and Baltic fleets would have had no one with which to join. Either they would scuttle what was left, or make a trip around either the Horn of Africa or Tierra del Fuego to join with the Aussies. Now with the fleet gone and the home isles as well, resistance in Europe and North Africa would cease. So he was always going to attack Britain, and Churchill knew it. And the attack would come sooner rather than later. An agreement would ave meant their pulling forces back from Africa, and possibly a cease fire in the Pacific as well. A cease fire which would be broken as soon as he axis powers had consolidated their positions.
This is why Hitler needed the RAF destroyed. His own fleet would also be in position in a relatively small area either end of the Channel. Britain would have thrown the RAF at them with a righteous indignation and a rage that crossed the lines of sanity! Hitler feared fighting Britain at home, as well he should. But mostly he feared the RAF hitting his fleet from behind as the Royal Navy came on with everything they had from the other. So the Battle of Britain stands as the greatest evidence there was no such agreement. And that started very soon after German forces reached the east side of the Channel.
Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Jan 13, 2020 14:58:14 GMT -8
You wrote on PM,
Josephus is not a saint in the Catholic, Protestant, or EO Churches, and a believer can have any opinion that they want about him.
I believe that he was a believer in Yeshua because of reasons that I gave in the forum, but this also does not mean that his actions were right.
My opinion, which you don't have to agree with, is that he was like other conflicted figures in history, and it's true like you feel, that one should not automatically strongly trust everything that he writes.
Initially, he helped lead the revolt and gave reasons for it, like Roman policies or actions. But then he surrendered and openly advocated surrender because of the Old Testament prophecies and because the rebel groups committed war crimes, including against each other and the Jewish populace. So this part is understandable. When it comes to the suicides of his fellow soldiers when he was captured and the story of Masada's suicide, it's pretty murky and it's suspicious for me that there could have been something else bad that happened that he is covering up. Like maybe his fellow soldiers surrendered and were killed by the Romans. Or maybe the Romans killed his fellow soldiers in a fight but left him. Or maybe some of his fellow soldiers mutinied when he decided to surrender and the mutineers and his loyal soldiers killed each other.
As far as his religious Hellenism, it looks like he was personally loyal to Judaism as his Against Apion apologetic shows, and that he wrote sometimes in a way that made Judaic teachings understandable to a Greek audience. So he was expressing Judaic ideas in a Hellenistic way sometimes, but he did not actually believe in Greek mythology. So for instance he shared the pharisees' ideas on the interaction of fate and free will, and he counted himself a pharisee. But when he went to express his ideas, he discussed "fate", destiny, and fortune in an open direct way, whereas a review of the verses in the Tanakh suggests that the Tanakh uses more metaphorical expressions for fate/future events, like "lots", "lot", "portion", "visitation", and "day".
|
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Jan 13, 2020 17:40:02 GMT -8
As for Question 15, Who was the High Priest Jesus son of Damnaeus who replaced Ananus?, Josephus' Book 20 of the Antiquities is the only surviving record that we have on this figure. He did not serve long, less than a year, as the High Priest. Wikipedia has a brief entry on him.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Jan 13, 2020 21:13:45 GMT -8
You wrote on PM, Josephus is not a saint in the Catholic, Protestant, or EO Churches, and a believer can have any opinion that they want about him. I formed my opinion of him when I read his autobiography. His own words convicted him!I believe that he was a believer in Yeshua because of reasons that I gave in the forum, but this also does not mean that his actions were right. My opinion, which you don't have to agree with, is that he was like other conflicted figures in history, and it's true like you feel, that one should not automatically strongly trust everything that he writes.
Initially, he helped lead the revolt and gave reasons for it, like Roman policies or actions. But then he surrendered and openly advocated surrender because of the Old Testament prophecies and because the rebel groups committed war crimes, including against each other and the Jewish populace. He changed his mind because he made a deal with the devil. He gets captured, and suddenly he finds all these scriptures, gets upset at war crimes (which the Romans and Sadducees did far more of when they worked together). I'm not buying it. He was a political opportunist with an oversized ego and undersized moral development. So this part is understandable. When it comes to the suicides of his fellow soldiers when he was captured and the story of Masada's suicide, it's pretty murky and it's suspicious for me that there could have been something else bad that happened that he is covering up. Like maybe his fellow soldiers surrendered and were killed by the Romans. Or maybe the Romans killed his fellow soldiers in a fight but left him. Or maybe some of his fellow soldiers mutinied when he decided to surrender and the mutineers and his loyal soldiers killed each other. I don't remember all the details, ut I do remember he wrote how he made a suicide pact and as the last one was supposed to kill himself. But he had a change of heart. As far as his religious Hellenism, it looks like he was personally loyal to Judaism as his Against Apion apologetic shows, and that he wrote sometimes in a way that made Judaic teachings understandable to a Greek audience. So he was expressing Judaic ideas in a Hellenistic way sometimes, but he did not actually believe in Greek mythology. He bowed to their gods, especially the emperor, else he'd have been dead. So for instance he shared the pharisees' ideas No, it was pride. He was very proud of his Sacerdotal heritage, and did not want to give up bragging rights on that count. But his beliefs, like his people were for sale. on the interaction of fate and free will, and he counted himself a pharisee. But when he went to express his ideas, he discussed "fate", destiny, and fortune in an open direct way, whereas a review of the verses in the Tanakh suggests that the Tanakh uses more metaphorical expressions for fate/future events, like "lots", "lot", "portion", "visitation", and "day". |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Jan 14, 2020 12:18:50 GMT -8
He gets captured, and suddenly he finds all these scriptures, Sure, like you are saying, his fortress's defeat was a major turning point in his going over to the Romans. It is hard to tell how exactly his changeover to the Romans occurred, because we are just relying on his account, and the suicide pact deal sounds shady. Maybe he already would have preferred to be at peace with the Romans, ie. maybe he had a change of heart some time between his joining the revolt and his defeat, but there was no opportune time for him to surrender. He was a regional commander and so it would have been hard for him to just give up against his unit's wishes. But turning to the issue of the scriptures, it wasn't a matter of him not knowing the scriptures ahead of time and then making up a wrong interpretation of them. Certainly, coming from the priestly line and knowing the story of Daniel that he wrote about in the Antiquities, he would have known the scriptures' passage in Daniel 9 about the Temple's destruction. The Book of Daniel and the Temple's destruction is referenced in the New Testament. One part is when Yeshua warns about the Abomination of Desolation being a sign for believers to flee to the mountains, the implication being that it was a sign that the city would be devastated. Desmond Ford in "Daniel Eight in the New Testament" sees Yeshua as referring to Daniel 9 and to other references to the Abomination of Desolation: Daniel 9 has: So the ideas that Josephus was referring to about the Temple's destruction in the Book of Daniel really are in that scripture. And Josephus was already familiar with the scripture. And this Biblical interpretation already existed in 69-70 AD, when Josephus surrendered and said that there was a prophecy about the Temple's destruction to occur a war 483 years after the Word to rebuild Jerusalem and after the cutting off of the Messiah, whom Josephus identified as Yeshua. So Josephus probably already knew Daniel 9's prophecy about the Temple's 1st century destruction in war before he surrendered, and his knowledge of the prophecy would naturally have been a factor in influencing his surrender like he says that it was, even though it was not the only factor. Certainly you would be right that the fact that he was defeated militarily was another factor in his surrender. Another factor was the infighting between the rebels and their war crimes, even though Josephus also ascribes war crimes to the Romans. It's not like Josephus comes out as a clairvoyant all wise hero. If he were clairvoyant and all-wise, then he wouldn't have joined the revolt in the first place, since he came to believe that it was doomed. But anyway, my point is that he probably did already know the scripture on this issue and that it probably was one thing that influenced his decision, since he was dedicated to Judaism and was either a  Observant believer or a sympathizer of Yeshua. If Yeshua and Daniel's Book had clearly said to fight Rome and that the revolt would bring victory and not any defeat, then certainly Josephus would have been pushed in the opposite direction. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Jan 14, 2020 13:22:57 GMT -8
Sure, like you are saying, his fortress's defeat was a major turning point in his going over to the Romans. It is hard to tell how exactly his changeover to the Romans occurred, because we are just relying on his account, and the suicide pact deal sounds shady. Well one thing I can guarantee, since it was Josephus writing the account, is whatever happened was worse than what he said happened! Maybe he already would have preferred to be at peace with the Romans, ie. maybe he had a change of heart some time between his joining the revolt and his defeat, but there was no opportune time for him to surrender. He was a regional commander and so it would have been hard for him to just give up against his unit's wishes. If he'd had a change of heart, the honorable thing would have been to resign his post. Instead he led those men to defeat. So there are only 3 options here: a.) he had a change of heart and half-heartedly led the men, leading to their defeat, b.) he intentionally led those men to defeat, or c.) he was defeated, then in an act of cowardice and treason he changed sides in order to save himself. The last is the most likely, but none of them are good, nor do they recommend his character. But turning to the issue of the scriptures, it wasn't a matter of him not knowing the scriptures ahead of time and then making up a wrong interpretation of them. That was my point. He knew them beforehand, so why didn't they inform his opinion then? The fact is Josephus never really believed in HaShem in the first place. It was all about Josephus: his position, his legacy, his seat at the table, his self importance, and his survival. He was like many Jews today, Jewish by birth but not practicing any form of belief. A secular, and in his case Hellenist Jew.
Certainly, coming from the priestly line and knowing the story of Daniel that he wrote about in the Antiquities, he would have known the scriptures' passage in Daniel 9 about the Temple's destruction. The Book of Daniel and the Temple's destruction is referenced in the New Testament. One part is when Yeshua warns about the Abomination of Desolation being a sign for believers to flee to the mountains, the implication being that it was a sign that the city would be devastated. Desmond Ford in "Daniel Eight in the New Testament" sees Yeshua as referring to Daniel 9 and to other references to the Abomination of Desolation: Daniel 9 has:So the ideas that Josephus was referring to about the Temple's destruction in the Book of Daniel really are in that scripture. And Josephus was already familiar with the scripture. And this Biblical interpretation already existed in 69-70 AD, when Josephus surrendered and said that there was a prophecy about the Temple's destruction to occur a war 483 years after the Word to rebuild Jerusalem and after the cutting off of the Messiah, whom Josephus identified as Yeshua. So Josephus probably already knew Daniel 9's prophecy about the Temple's 1st century destruction in war before he surrendered, and his knowledge of the prophecy would naturally have been a factor in influencing his surrender like he says that it was, even though it was not the only factor. Certainly you would be right that the fact that he was defeated militarily was another factor in his surrender. Another factor was the infighting between the rebels and their war crimes, even though Josephus also ascribes war crimes to the Romans. Josephus may have talked about war crimes, but he didn't care about them- just as long as they weren't happening to him! nd he'd have known about Daniel's prophecies, but he didn't care about them either. Daniel served his God, so Josephus didn't care about Daniel until he could use Daniel to support Josephus.It's not like Josephus comes out as a clairvoyant all wise hero. It's exactly like that! In all his writings, Josephus writes himself as a heroic figure, explaining away all his crimes and character flaws and placing the blame on men far better than himself. But in all those twisted excuses and in all the placing of blame, his own words show him to be the kind of sniveling, petty, bureaucratic, butt-licking filth that he was. If he were clairvoyant and all-wise, then he wouldn't have joined the revolt in the first place, since he came to believe that it was doomed. He believed it was doomed because if he was defeated and if he switched sides, then for the Jews to have won would have made him look bad. In his mind that could never be.But anyway, my point is that he probably did already know the scripture on this issue and that it probably was one thing that influenced his decision, My point is he knew the scripture, but it only mattered when he could use it as an excuse. since he was dedicated to Judaism He was dedicated only to himself. and was either a Observant believer or a sympathizer of Yeshua. He was a Jew converted to paganism. If Yeshua and Daniel's Book had clearly said to fight Rome and that the revolt would bring victory and not any defeat, then certainly Josephus would have been pushed in the opposite direction. If God Himself thundered to Josephus from the heavens "The Jews can win this, but only if they do it without you" it wouldn't have mattered one whit to Josephus. He was his own god, and his Jewish heritage was just another way to elevate his status in his own mind. So no God of the Jews was going to get in his way! They'd either do it with him, or not at all. Who did they think they were, losing and leaving him to look bad. He'd show them- "where's my quill and ink!?" |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Jan 14, 2020 20:44:37 GMT -8
But turning to the issue of the scriptures, it wasn't a matter of him not knowing the scriptures ahead of time and then making up a wrong interpretation of them. That was my point. He knew them beforehand, so why didn't they inform his opinion then? One explanation could be that there was a certain amount of ambivalence in the scripture when taken by itself: Daniel 9 says that the Temple would be destroyed in war, but it didn't specify when exactly. But as Galilee and Judea were conquered, Josephus could better foresee that the prophecy was coming true in his time. This could be like the prophecy of the Messiah's death and resurrection. Yeshua had told His disciples about this ahead of time, but the Gospels say that they didn't understand what this meant. Apparently, they knew that Yeshua was predicting His death and resurrection, but they were not very sure what exactly this meant, ie what form the death and resurrection would take, like a physical vs spiritual one. But after the resurrection, the risen Yeshua explained the meaning to them. So in Josephus' case, he might not have been sure what exactly Daniel 9 was referring to, but as the defeats were occurring, he got a better sense that this was what the passage on the Temple's destruction in war in Daniel 9 was talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Jan 14, 2020 21:34:56 GMT -8
One explanation could be that there was a certain amount of ambivalence in the scripture when taken by itself: Daniel 9 says that the Temple would be destroyed in war, but it didn't specify when exactly. But as Galilee and Judea were conquered, Josephus could better foresee that the prophecy was coming true in his time. This could be like the prophecy of the Messiah's death and resurrection. Yeshua had told His disciples about this ahead of time, but the Gospels say that they didn't understand what this meant. Apparently, they knew that Yeshua was predicting His death and resurrection, but they were not very sure what exactly this meant, ie what form the death and resurrection would take, like a physical vs spiritual one. But after the resurrection, the risen Yeshua explained the meaning to them. So in Josephus' case, he might not have been sure what exactly Daniel 9 was referring to, but as the defeats were occurring, he got a better sense that this was what the passage on the Temple's destruction in war in Daniel 9 was talking about.
Jews saw prophecy and time not as linear, but as graphed on a spiral, all things recurring many times through human history. Yeshua was not at that time the only one to be resurrected, nor will He be. The Temple is destroyed more than once, and wars have recurred throughout history. So there was nothing clairvoyant about Josephus change of mind. No great revelation. He was in trouble, and the only way out was to grovel to Rome. Do that well enough and they'd even make you a god! This fit well in his vision of himself.
Next, Jews of this time thought in very physical terms. Daniel 9 speaks of the blessings and curses given in . Keep it and there were blessings promised. Break it, and the blessings became curses. Both were very physical, and not spiritual. You will posses the land, I will protect you from your enemies, your harvests will be good, your children will increase. The Hebrew language and the people who spoke it were very oriented to the physical. It was the Greeks who separated the physical and spiritual, creating a duality in thought. The physical body is evil, and our purpose in life is to attain a higher spiritual existence. The object of salvation is not to walk with God, but to get to heaven. News flash- we never make it to an eternal heavenly dwelling. We were created to serve God in the physical realm. This is where our blessings lie.
So if Jo was spiritualizing things, as modern Christianity tends to do, this was purely Hellenized thinking and not part of Judaism. And he may have been, because spiritualization is rationalization. It allows us to apply any interpretation to any event and so do as we please. Which is exactly what Jo-boy did. He was one happy Hellenist, that kid. |
|
- there are 70 faces to 
