See neil this is what you do. I try and exit from this conversation out of politeness and then you say stupid things like this:
Stephan -- you appear to fear that I am failing to acknowledge your and your cultural group's view
You make it seem as if the only reason why I have come to my conclusions is because I consider myself Jewish. This is preposterous and so you reopen the discussion I was trying to exit in order to hear you engage in a smaller discussion which I am not as interested in participating. So what choice do you leave me? Do you really want to continue this discussion about whether or not the religion of the Torah allows for the possibility of any aspect of the lives of Jews or Samaritans to go unregulated? This is the fucking point you continue not to get because IMO you are too busy promoting your own agenda.
I don't care one way or the other whether or not there was or is a messiah. The point is that since every aspect of the lives of ancient Jews was regulated by the fucking Torah and its interpretation by the priestly class. I don't know why this is controversial or why any idea that gets in the way of you patching together some new wrinkle to deny the existence of Jesus (again something I don't care about either way).
If you want to keep arguing about this I will be more than happy to oblige. But let it be stated for the record that I was not trying to derail this discussion.
We all know that there were a wide variety of interpretations of them (not just one as you seem to think) in the Second Temple era. We know Judaism was very diverse (much more so, it seems, to what you appear to be implying).
But I ask again for specifics - how much variation could be expected from Judaism when the Torah regulates every aspect of a man's existence? I am not stating that rhetorically. I am all for 'Judaisms.' I bought Neusners 'other Judaisms' book. But he wasn't thinking in the terms you are. Jews are so used to thinking about their religion in monolithic terms that any discovered 'variation' is accompanied with the excitement that is usually reserved for winning the lottery. The ancients sects argued over what we would considered to be trivial matters. Remember Celsus's observations that the debates between Jews and Christians was like the fight over the shadow of an ass. Like that.
I understand that you think I am failing to recognize the historical claims of your cultural group
So again you assume that my defense of reason is really a disguised defense of Jewish supremacy. Where do you get this stuff? The Protocols of Zion? I am simply asking for the twentieth time - what aspect of Jewish life do you imagine wasn't regulated by the Torah so that your claims of a Jewish insurrection which wasn't rooted in religion can be sustained? If Jews can't even fuck without have the Torah come to bed with them, how do you expect them to engage in rebellion without see God directing revolt?
And/or you fear I am failing to recognize that your personal experience confirms for you that certain historical truths about your cultural group, and your belief that this experience is unchallengeable and that anyone who shares it genuinely must, if honest with themselves, share the same beliefs about its historical past
And then you do it again. The fact that you don't like Jews and avoid getting intimate with them is turned around into a virtue and the fact that I have spent time with religious Jews, Samaritans and Falashas is now a vice. I've become 'contaminated' with affection for these foul beasts and lost my objectivity whereas you who refuse to see things from their perspective have the right perspective when you don't know anything nor have the slightest desire to find out what it is like to be a Jew or a Samaritan.
The bottom line is that you don't know what you are talking about and you disguise it with a patchwork of references to books you misrepresent to make a desired point. Nevertheless you are occasionally interesting. As I said I like exploring the limits of our knowledge and this is an interesting subject.
And again I want those reading this to see neil is essentially arguing that Jews in antiquity were secular enough to instigate a rebellion without appeal to the messianic concept (or perhaps that it was unknown, I never can quite tell what exactly he is arguing here). I don't see how my arguing against this claim means that I should be accused of being a 'Jew-lover.' This is juvenile and many would argue something much worse. All I am asking for is one argument from Neil demonstrating that the lives of Jews weren't absolutely regulated by the Torah. As of yet he hasn't been able to put forward any sort of argument. He just hopes there are enough people here at the forum who share his belief that friendly intercourse with religious people is proof of being 'like-minded' with them. Silly.
Stephan Huller wrote:The fact that you don't like Jews and avoid getting intimate with them is turned around into a virtue and the fact that I have spent time with religious Jews, Samaritans and Falashas is now a vice. I've become 'contaminated' with affection for these foul beasts and lost my objectivity whereas you who refuse to see things from their perspective have the right perspective when you don't know anything nor have the slightest desire to find out what it is like to be a Jew or a Samaritan.
I see. At least here you have not tried to hide what it is you are really accusing me of. To disagree with your views and to make the points I do is regarded by you as anti-semitism.
vridar.orgMusings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Stephan Huller wrote:And again I want those reading this to see neil is essentially arguing that Jews in antiquity were secular enough to instigate a rebellion without appeal to the messianic concept (or perhaps that it was unknown, I never can quite tell what exactly he is arguing here). I don't see how my arguing against this claim means that I should be accused of being a 'Jew-lover.' This is juvenile and many would argue something much worse. All I am asking for is one argument from Neil demonstrating that the lives of Jews weren't absolutely regulated by the Torah. As of yet he hasn't been able to put forward any sort of argument. He just hopes there are enough people here at the forum who share his belief that friendly intercourse with religious people is proof of being 'like-minded' with them. Silly.
Yes, Stephan, You are accusing me of being anti-semitic and my argument is believed by you to be rooted in anti-semitism. You have made yourself very clear.
You should back track, meanwhile, to your point about "never can quite tell what exactly he is arguing here" -- because it sure is not what you are saying in any of your comments. I can quite well imagine myself returning here to say messianic expectations were extant at the time and place in question. What I'm interested in is the best account of historical reconstruction that accords with the evidence.
Doherty and Carrier (whom others say I am apologist for) certainly argue for such a popular expectation. So you can't say it's "mythicism" that's motivating me. And many of my sources are by Jewish scholars. So I guess they are all self-hating Jews, yes? And others who apply scholarly historical methods are also anti-semitic, yes?
vridar.orgMusings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Numerous scholars of religion have represented the study of religion as the study of something unique and ineffable. For them it requires special rules and methods for study because religious people and texts claim that their religion and experiences are unique, transcendent, and ineffable. In this approach religion is something that cannot be studied by normal human tools and methods; it resides beyond such study. Such scholars thus claim that in order to study religion and religious experience “on its own terms” and to respect their informants, we must presume the uniqueness of religion and the necessity of special methods for studying it. After all, “insiders” are the experts on their religion, while scholars remain “outsiders.” Accordingly, scholars must privilege insider religious claims in their scholarship on such people and their religious practices. Others, however, disagree and point out the inherently unacademic character of such approaches: An approach that privileges informants’ and texts’ claims collapses the distinction between description and explanation, engaging in what have been termed “protective strategies.”
Stephen Young, p. 18.
vridar.orgMusings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Stephan Huller wrote:But I ask again for specifics - how much variation could be expected from Judaism when the Torah regulates every aspect of a man's existence? I am not stating that rhetorically. I am all for 'Judaisms.' I bought Neusners 'other Judaisms' book. But he wasn't thinking in the terms you are. Jews are so used to thinking about their religion in monolithic terms that any discovered 'variation' is accompanied with the excitement that is usually reserved for winning the lottery. The ancients sects argued over what we would considered to be trivial matters. Remember Celsus's observations that the debates between Jews and Christians was like the fight over the shadow of an ass. Like that.
You know better than I, but this is in alignment of my views--the Torah was so important and the NEED for a 'savior' so great that it seems to defy common sense to think that there was not a high expectation for the long-predicted/hoped for Messiah to appear during the early 1st century. Probably every century prior to that too. But, I'm not a scholar or historian.
Jewish desire for a delivering Messiah King waxed and waned over the ages in proportion to their economic situation, and amount of oppression and persecution they were being subjected to.
When abiding safe and comfortable, content with their lives and available opportunities its; 'What Messiah?' Who the heck needs a Jewish messiah or a king? We've got, or can get everything that we want here by ourselves, no messiah needed or wanted, todah rabah.'
But when the shoe is on the other foot, when they are being heavily oppressed and persecuted, starved and hunted down like animals, the cry is 'Where is the Messiah? Come quickly Promised One! and deliver us from these our enemies.'
Today is as the former, perhaps tomorrow the latter.
Messianism arises in response to a perceived need. Few Jews of today, relatively wealthy and unmolested, feel any such need, and do not pray for nor seek the Messiah.
May that state long continue.
