Just a reminder -- Jesus and Paul were both reacting to 2nd Temple Judaism. Don't confuse it with today's Rabbinic Judaism. At the time of J and P the Temple in Jerusalem was operational and the focal point for prayer and sacrifice. Jews lived throughout the Roman Empire and outside it too, in the east, and they had synagogues -- places to study and gather together (not quite like today's synagogues). But the grain and livestock offerings were all at the Temple in Jerusalem, which was God's point of contact on earth in the Holy of Holies.
The gospels were most likely (the academic theory states) written after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. So those writers were about the previous form of 2nd Temple Judaism but living with the beginning of Rabbinic Judaism. One reason that Jesus is debating the Pharisees so often is that they are the root of Rabbinic Judaism, the ones survived the destruction of the Temple (the Sadducees and Essenes disappeared). The Pharisees are the main competitors for the early Jewish Christians, and so it's important in the gospels that Jesus respond to their views of following God (YHWH).
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Saturday, June 20, 2009
from "Cultural and historical background of Jesus" at Wiki
in the section: The Emergence of Christianity (section 4.3)
"According to Daniel Boyarin, in A Radical Jew, Paul of Tarsus combined the life of Jesus with Greek philosophy to reinterpret the Hebrew Bible in terms of the Platonic opposition between the ideal (which is real) and the material (which is false), see also Paul of Tarsus and Judaism. Judaism is a corporeal religion, in which membership is based not on belief but rather descent from Abraham, physically marked by circumcision, and focussing on how to live this life properly. Paul saw in the symbol of a resurrected Jesus the possibility of a spiritual rather than corporeal messiah. He used this notion of messiah to argue for a religion through which all people — not just descendants of Abraham — could worship the God of Abraham. Unlike Judaism, which holds that it is the proper religion only of the Jews (except see Noahide Laws), Pauline Christianity claimed to be the proper religion for all people. In other words, by appealing to the Platonic distinction between the material and the ideal, Paul showed how the spirit of Christ could provide all people a way to worship God — the God who had previsously been worshipped only by Jews, and Jewish Proselytes, although Jews claimed that He was the one and only God of all (see, for example, Romans 8: 1-4; II Corinthians 3:3; Galatians 3: 14; Philippians 3:3). Although Boyarin roots Paul's work in Hellenistic Judaism, he sees this Platonic reworking of both Jesus's teachings and Pharisaic Judaism as essential to the emergence of Christianity as a distinct religion."
This theory makes sense to me. I had been thinking that Paul was, before he found Jesus as the solution, was looking for something to "break out" Judaism and bring it to the world. He might have been struck by the idea of a God who demands so much from one tiny group of people and virtually ignores 99% of humanity. It just doesn't make much sense. A Jew like Paul would have wondered that if it is true that there is only one god and it is yahweh -- and also if it's true that not everyone is to become a Jew -- then how to reconcile that the one god of all humanity has only spoken to the Jews -- and not inclined them to spread their faith to others. How to make yahweh more than a tribal god, competing with others in the roman empire? How to "universalize" Judaism?
His answer was Jesus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus
"According to Daniel Boyarin, in A Radical Jew, Paul of Tarsus combined the life of Jesus with Greek philosophy to reinterpret the Hebrew Bible in terms of the Platonic opposition between the ideal (which is real) and the material (which is false), see also Paul of Tarsus and Judaism. Judaism is a corporeal religion, in which membership is based not on belief but rather descent from Abraham, physically marked by circumcision, and focussing on how to live this life properly. Paul saw in the symbol of a resurrected Jesus the possibility of a spiritual rather than corporeal messiah. He used this notion of messiah to argue for a religion through which all people — not just descendants of Abraham — could worship the God of Abraham. Unlike Judaism, which holds that it is the proper religion only of the Jews (except see Noahide Laws), Pauline Christianity claimed to be the proper religion for all people. In other words, by appealing to the Platonic distinction between the material and the ideal, Paul showed how the spirit of Christ could provide all people a way to worship God — the God who had previsously been worshipped only by Jews, and Jewish Proselytes, although Jews claimed that He was the one and only God of all (see, for example, Romans 8: 1-4; II Corinthians 3:3; Galatians 3: 14; Philippians 3:3). Although Boyarin roots Paul's work in Hellenistic Judaism, he sees this Platonic reworking of both Jesus's teachings and Pharisaic Judaism as essential to the emergence of Christianity as a distinct religion."
This theory makes sense to me. I had been thinking that Paul was, before he found Jesus as the solution, was looking for something to "break out" Judaism and bring it to the world. He might have been struck by the idea of a God who demands so much from one tiny group of people and virtually ignores 99% of humanity. It just doesn't make much sense. A Jew like Paul would have wondered that if it is true that there is only one god and it is yahweh -- and also if it's true that not everyone is to become a Jew -- then how to reconcile that the one god of all humanity has only spoken to the Jews -- and not inclined them to spread their faith to others. How to make yahweh more than a tribal god, competing with others in the roman empire? How to "universalize" Judaism?
His answer was Jesus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Last week's trip to DC
Saturday: fly to Dulles. We stay in Mansassas, VA at Chen and Ivy's apt.
Sunday: Luray cavern in VA. Pretty cool cave system!
Monday: I stay home with Skye while the others do something or other.
Tuesday: Visit DC: Chen or Ivy drives us to Viennna Fairfax metro station, and we take the train to L'Enfant station to national mall. see capital building, white house, and old Smithsonian museum. Skye rides a carrousel Very hot and humid. Take lots of outdoor pictures.
Wednesday: Back to DC. visit American history museum and air and space museum.
Thursday: visit First Manassas National Battlefield (First Bull Run). A very good tour -- the docent told a great story.
Friday: see Mount Vernon, G. Washington's house. Actually fairly interesting.
Saturday: Help Chen and Ivy move to Germantown, MD -- to their new condo. Got the truck at 10 am and didn't finish until 1:30 am.
Sunday. Unload the last bits from the truck in the morning. We stay home at the new place -- Skye is a little sick and needs some rest.
Monday. fly back to O'Hare. Taxi back home. It's good to be home!
Sunday: Luray cavern in VA. Pretty cool cave system!
Monday: I stay home with Skye while the others do something or other.
Tuesday: Visit DC: Chen or Ivy drives us to Viennna Fairfax metro station, and we take the train to L'Enfant station to national mall. see capital building, white house, and old Smithsonian museum. Skye rides a carrousel Very hot and humid. Take lots of outdoor pictures.
Wednesday: Back to DC. visit American history museum and air and space museum.
Thursday: visit First Manassas National Battlefield (First Bull Run). A very good tour -- the docent told a great story.
Friday: see Mount Vernon, G. Washington's house. Actually fairly interesting.
Saturday: Help Chen and Ivy move to Germantown, MD -- to their new condo. Got the truck at 10 am and didn't finish until 1:30 am.
Sunday. Unload the last bits from the truck in the morning. We stay home at the new place -- Skye is a little sick and needs some rest.
Monday. fly back to O'Hare. Taxi back home. It's good to be home!
Thursday, June 4, 2009
back to atheism
back to atheism.
perhaps the "god zone" in our brain accounts for what Freud termed the "oceanic feeling" that is the emotional basis for spirituality. Certainly it's interesting to consider what evolutionary function this area of the brain has -- why should we sometimes, some of us, get this feeling? does it support communal living and cooperation?
maybe i should study transcendental numbers like pi and e -- that's mysterious enough. or something in math. it will get over my head pretty quickly, but i can start with some laymen's books.
math. what can't it do for us?
perhaps the "god zone" in our brain accounts for what Freud termed the "oceanic feeling" that is the emotional basis for spirituality. Certainly it's interesting to consider what evolutionary function this area of the brain has -- why should we sometimes, some of us, get this feeling? does it support communal living and cooperation?
maybe i should study transcendental numbers like pi and e -- that's mysterious enough. or something in math. it will get over my head pretty quickly, but i can start with some laymen's books.
math. what can't it do for us?
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
non-deistic solutions to creation
let's look at some non-deistic ideas for the creation of the universe.
1. the universe has always existed; it extends infinitely back in time and infinitely forward into the future -- in some form or another, and not necessarily in its current form. Seems to be contradicted by the big bang theory. although, the big bang might have started within some field or construct that existed forever. But then where did that come from?
2. big bang theory sets time to start at zero and proceed forward. there is no "before" the big bang. But, is that some sort of "self-creation" or spontaneous creation or ex nihilo (creation from nothing)? And why don't we continue to observe spontaneous creation, if that's a property of reality? Again, is the context a "larger" context or field where this takes place. and where did that come from?
3. I will accept a non-deistic theory of creation if it's in the language of science. But is this possible? How do physical laws account for creation of the universe? Where do physical laws come from? It seems to be a russian doll situation -- our doll is inside another doll, et cetera -- but that never ends.
4. The benefit of a deistic theory is that it doesn't need to follow the constraints or logic of science -- and so the explanation stops there. It flows from the idea that a scientifically describable universe cannot create itself ex nihilo, and has to exist within a context of a non-scientific construct, like a deity.
5. but is that just an "easy out" solution? a clever trick?
6. is a physical universe with infinite duration a reasonable scientific idea? But how to reconile it with the big bang theory? And even if it could be reconciled -- is that acceptable? to just posit space-time as the ultimate background that was never created, that always existed?
7. Am I hesitant because I have trouble contemplating infinity? I understand it mathematically, from a layman's point of view -- real numbers and so forth. Heck, even pi is infinite. Accept that, so why not an infinite universe?
1. the universe has always existed; it extends infinitely back in time and infinitely forward into the future -- in some form or another, and not necessarily in its current form. Seems to be contradicted by the big bang theory. although, the big bang might have started within some field or construct that existed forever. But then where did that come from?
2. big bang theory sets time to start at zero and proceed forward. there is no "before" the big bang. But, is that some sort of "self-creation" or spontaneous creation or ex nihilo (creation from nothing)? And why don't we continue to observe spontaneous creation, if that's a property of reality? Again, is the context a "larger" context or field where this takes place. and where did that come from?
3. I will accept a non-deistic theory of creation if it's in the language of science. But is this possible? How do physical laws account for creation of the universe? Where do physical laws come from? It seems to be a russian doll situation -- our doll is inside another doll, et cetera -- but that never ends.
4. The benefit of a deistic theory is that it doesn't need to follow the constraints or logic of science -- and so the explanation stops there. It flows from the idea that a scientifically describable universe cannot create itself ex nihilo, and has to exist within a context of a non-scientific construct, like a deity.
5. but is that just an "easy out" solution? a clever trick?
6. is a physical universe with infinite duration a reasonable scientific idea? But how to reconile it with the big bang theory? And even if it could be reconciled -- is that acceptable? to just posit space-time as the ultimate background that was never created, that always existed?
7. Am I hesitant because I have trouble contemplating infinity? I understand it mathematically, from a layman's point of view -- real numbers and so forth. Heck, even pi is infinite. Accept that, so why not an infinite universe?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)