GeorgeW Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Nor The whole notion of a literal heaven and hell come directly from Greek mythology - NOT Judaism. In fact, belief in an afterlife is a relatively modern notion in Jewish religion. And the apocalyptic message of modern Christianity is about as far from Judaism as you can philosophically get. NORM This is not a modern concept in Judaism. Only the Sadducees in the late second-temple period did not believe in life after death. George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 In the OT, the afterlife is Sheol, which literally means the grave, and was a place of darkness everybody went to when they died regardless of their moral actions or religious beliefs. Contrary to their portrayal in the gospels, the Sadducees were actually regarded as being very literalistic and strident in their interpretation of the law and it was the Pharisees who were considered more liberal in their practices and beliefs, according to the writings of Josephus. The later Jewish belief in the afterlife came from exposure to the dualistic beliefs of Zoroastrianism which also heavily influenced Christianity. Even in the gospels when Jesus has his famous confrontation with the Sadducees, Jesus at best gives a vague non-answer response to their questions about the afterlife, implying the debate wasn't settled at that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 A couple of points need to be made. First, dualism was very much alive in Judaism in the second-temple period. The Essenes were extremely dualistic. Perhaps one could speculate that they got this from the Greeks, but of all the Jewish parties, they would be the one least likely to have foreign influence. In fact, they were extremely anti-Hellenistic. The Pharisees did believe in life after death. This is attested by Josephus and in the New Testament Acts 23:8, "For the Sad'ducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge them all." Regarding the Essenes, according to Murphy in Early Judaism: The Exile to the Time of Jesus, "The sect's beliefs concerning the afterlife are unclear. There are no unambiguous references to resurrection; some passages seem to imply it . . . Josephus says that the Essenes did not believe in the resurrection of the body but in the immortality of the soul." George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vridar Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share Posted January 7, 2013 Norm, Neon and George, The title of my topic should have been 2nd Temple Judaism as that was what I wanted to discuss. Thinking it was too broad I thought I could direct it that way. You have done that for me, thanks. My current readings lead me to believe our religious dogmas, whichever one believes in, were, and are currently being, developed around political and economic needs. The Essenes withdrew from the Sadducees because they were too liberal. The Pharisees let the Sadducees and the High Priest direct the Temple as long the Pharisees interpreted the law. The Jesus Movement questioned the law required such a narrow interpretation. The Zealots thought every other sect was too pacific. The Jesus Movement knew things were bad and a New World Kingdom had to come. The Jesus movement split to the Christians, Ebionites and who knows how many other sects. We could go on, but my point is that out of this came a couple general religions and many sects within each depending on ones needs, and sometimes only their current needs. Such as Rabbinical Judaism only because the Temple was no longer available. , Protestantism because the Pope's Basilica was costing too much. I know I'm generalizing, but hope most get my points, right or wrong. I enjoy discussing how this all developed. Ron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Ron, Since you are interested in second-temple Judaism and early Christianity and I know you are a reader, I think you would really like Murphy's book that I referenced a couple of posts back. It is a little pricey, but you could probably get a used one for around a day's wages (mine, not Warren Buffet or Mitt Romney). George Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vridar Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share Posted January 7, 2013 Ron, Since you are interested in second-temple Judaism and early Christianity and I know you are a reader, I think you would really like Murphy's book that I referenced a couple of posts back. It is a little pricey, but you could probably get a used one for around a day's wages (mine, not Warren Buffet or Mitt Romney). George George, Thanks for the Murphy recommendation. Found it for less than 10.00+. Until you mentioned The Early Christian Reader I had not heard of it. Ordered it that day. Should be in the mail today. Ron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NORM Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Nor This is not a modern concept in Judaism. Only the Sadducees in the late second-temple period did not believe in life after death. George Right. Modern. You're forgetting that Judaism is over 5,000 years old! NORM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyseeker Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Jesus was considered a Rabbi by most of the jews, and Rabbis always tried to fulfill the law. In Judaism, fulfilling the law means finding the right interpretation. So basically, Jesus said he's not gonna dissolve the law, instead He would show the right interpretation. That meant things like Jesus putting faith in God before any law-doing, giving a sacrifice that would be valid once and for all and for everyone, and showing how forgiveness is easily found in God. Moreover I think that Jesus many times uses irony, sarcasm and hyperbole in his sermons. For example, the words about cutting off hand and feet and plucking out the eye. Basically Jesus was speaking about the phariseic notions that were the understanding of the law back then, and He ridiculed them and instead made visible a kind of hierarchy between the commandments in the law, ie the law to love your neighbor was seen as greater than "stone the adulterer". Just perceive how the law was really supposed to work in Israel if you place "love your neighbor" above "stone the offender". There would have to be a culture of love that is stronger than crime and than the wrath of the righteous as well. A truly superhumane ethics that with Jesus help erects a wholy different idea of righteousness that delights in saving everyone from death, including bad criminals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NORM Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 Jesus said he's not gonna dissolve the law, instead He would show the right interpretation... if you place "love your neighbor" above "stone the offender"...There would have to be a culture of love that is stronger than crime and than the wrath of the righteous as well. A truly superhumane ethics that with Jesus help erects a wholy different idea of righteousness that delights in saving everyone from death, including bad criminals. I normally cringe every time I hear a Christian describing how Jesus "fulfilled" the Law as though that means it is no longer valid. I like what you've posted here, and is how I've come to understand what the story of Jesus was all about. NORM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted January 12, 2013 Share Posted January 12, 2013 I'm pretty much with Karen on this, the view that Jesus was trying to reform or distill Judaism down to what really mattered. For him, it all came down to loving God and loving others, to the Golden Rule. The apostle Paul reflects this in Romans 13:10 when he writes that love doesn't harm its neighbor, so love is the fulfillment of the law. As has been mentioned, some see this passage as Jesus reinforcing the Levitical code with its 613 laws, perhaps making it even tougher for someone to think they are justified before God. Others in the Christian tradition think that Jesus' death somehow ended the Mosaic law and gave the Jews (and humanity) a New Covenant. I personally have my doubts that Jesus, being a Jew, would have seen his death in this way, even though some early Christians obviously did. For me, what Jesus was saying is that what the Law was really meant to do was to admonish the Jews to be in a faithful, loving relationship with God and with each other, but that it is easy for legalistic rules to supplant relationship. So Jesus was getting to the "heart" of Judaism in saying that his "Way" of living with personal and social compassion was what the Law was trying to point to all along. And Jesus takes it a step further (as does Paul) and says that we inherently know truth in our hearts as God's children, Jewish or not. It all comes down to the Golden Rule. All the major religions know this. So it's not so much that Jesus was teachings something "new" as that he was reminding his hearers of what they had known all along, but their religion had clouded. My 2c. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.