The Minor, Trivial Stuff Thread 2 (?)

  • Thread starter Thread starter patrick457
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting. I think the Essenes were awesome. They fled away from Jerusalem to avoid the high political and economic corruption in both religious and government sectors. They built a sort of “monastery” so to speak. Thety awaited the return of the Messiah and they thought his return was imminent. AND they did not persecute Christians. When Jesus came, they were FAITHFUL to God and ACCEPTED this New Covenant. They became Christian, just as God had intended for all Jews.
Speaking of the ‘Essenes’, there’s really Josephus’ Essenes and the Community who lived at Qumran. Many scholars think that the Qumran Community are (or belong to) the Essenes Josephus described, but others are not so sure. But they do have a number of similarities.

I’m gonna describe the Qumran Community. You can make clues about their origins from the stories (in cryptic language) in some of their documents. One interpretation is, that that the founding members of that Community (particularly the so-called ‘Teacher of Righteousness’, who is really the central figure of the Community mythos) were originally priests from the high priestly Zadokite line. When the Maccabees/Hasmoneans came into power and began to appoint themselves as high priests in addition to being kings - something that they traditionally could not do, as only Zadokite priests could become high priests - these priests, who felt they were being persecuted and discriminated against by the Hasmoneans (the documents describe a figure known only as the ‘Wicked Priest’, who was probably a Hasmonean high priest - a popular candidate is Jonathan Maccabee), began to be fed up and left to establish their own community. The Community viewed themselves as the faithful remnant, the ‘Sons of Light’ who will fight against the ‘Sons of Darkness’ (i.e. gentiles and other Jews who did not join them) in an eschatological battle.

BTW, I’m interested as to where you get the claim that the Essenes became Christian from.

Oh yeah, and the whole issue of the messianic expectation (or rather, ‘messianic expectations’ - since people had different ideas) during the time of Jesus is a whole other interesting topic.
 
Speaking of the ‘Essenes’, there’s really Josephus’ Essenes and the Community who lived at Qumran. Many scholars think that the Qumran Community are (or belong to) the Essenes Josephus described, but others are not so sure. But they do have a number of similarities.

I’m gonna describe the Qumran Community. You can make clues about their origins from the stories (in cryptic language) in some of their documents. One interpretation is, that that the founding members of that Community (particularly the so-called ‘Teacher of Righteousness’, who is really the central figure of the Community mythos) were originally priests from the high priestly Zadokite line. When the Maccabees/Hasmoneans came into power and began to appoint themselves as high priests in addition to being kings - something that they traditionally could not do, as only Zadokite priests could become high priests - these priests, who felt they were being persecuted and discriminated against by the Hasmoneans (the documents describe a figure known only as the ‘Wicked Priest’, who was probably a Hasmonean high priest - a popular candidate is Jonathan Maccabee), began to be fed up and left to establish their own community. The Community viewed themselves as the faithful remnant, the ‘Sons of Light’ who will fight against the ‘Sons of Darkness’ (i.e. gentiles and other Jews who did not join them) in an eschatological battle.

BTW, I’m interested as to where you get the claim that the Essenes became Christian from.

Oh yeah, and the whole issue of the messianic expectation (or rather, ‘messianic expectations’ - since people had different ideas) during the time of Jesus is a whole other interesting topic.
Interesting. And I got the info of their supposed conversion from two sources-a lighthouse catholic media cd about the dead sea scrolls, and an old documentary, which I forget the name of but we watched in theology class, about the Dead Sea scrolls.
 
Interesting. And I got the info of their supposed conversion from two sources-a lighthouse catholic media cd about the dead sea scrolls, and an old documentary, which I forget the name of but we watched in theology class, about the Dead Sea scrolls.
We don’t really know what happened to the Essenes / the Qumran Community. Qumran was destroyed around AD 73 (around the same time the Romans stormed the nearby mountain fortress of Masada); the site then served for a very short period of time a Roman army encampment after that, before it was finally abandoned until it was excavated in the 1950s. In fact, out of all Jewish groups during the time of Jesus, only the Pharisees - through the later sages known as the Tannaim and the Amoraim onwards - survived. Others like the Sadducees and even the Essenes apparently died out with the Jewish defeat at the end of the First Jewish-Roman War of AD 66-73.

It’s really a popular idea to link the Essenes (and by extension, the Qumran Community) and Christianity together based on some supposed ‘similarities’ - to be honest though, some of these supposed similarities are really superficial. Part of this goes back during the days of the 18th-19th century. Some people would read the description of the Essenes by Josephus (who does engage in a bit of shrouding the group with an aura of mystery himself) and imagine them to be this secret society that controlled everything behind the scenes a la the Freemasons. A few of them even imagined that maybe Jesus was - to put it bluntly - a pawn of the Essenes. Because, you know, the Essenes were like this good version of the Freemasons who behind the scenes orchestrated this master plan to shake those backward Jews (yes, there was a tinge of anti-Judaism/anti-Semitism in this line of thinking) away from their primitive superstitions about a vengeful God and ol’ fire and brimstone eschatology and wake them up to the higher truths of Greco-Roman philosophy / good ol’ Rationalism. :rolleyes:
 
This should be avoided (naming one’s guardian angel).

The Church teaches that only the names of three angels are known: Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael.
In Second Temple period Jewish literature you had this idea of four principal ‘angels of the presence’ that surround God’s throne and do the important jobs - acting as intercessors for humans and waging war against fallen angels. Only the names of three angels are consistent across different works: Michael, Gabriel, Raphael. On the other hand there was less consistency about the fourth angel: he is either named Uriel or Sariel or Phanuel. Sometimes instead of four you had six or seven principal angels, which is where we get the idea of the seven archangels from. Even when they are named though, the only constant names are Michael and Gabriel (Raphael is also more constant than the other names though sometimes he is omitted as well).
 
In Second Temple period Jewish literature you had this idea of four principal ‘angels of the presence’ that surround God’s throne and do the important jobs - acting as intercessors for humans and waging war against fallen angels. Only the names of three angels are consistent across different works: Michael, Gabriel, Raphael. On the other hand there was less consistency about the fourth angel: he is either named Uriel or Sariel or Phanuel. Sometimes instead of four you had six or seven principal angels, which is where we get the idea of the seven archangels from. Even when they are named though, the only constant names are Michael and Gabriel (Raphael is also more constant than the other names though sometimes he is omitted as well).
What about other names we know, that ARE biblical?

Beelzebub(not sure if spelled right), Lucifer, Leviathan(not sure if spelled right), Baal(who i believe was a demon)…all fallen angels. Does the church teach they were actual names? I know they acknowledge Lucifer, but the others?
 
What about other names we know, that ARE biblical?

Beelzebub(not sure if spelled right), Lucifer, Leviathan(not sure if spelled right), Baal(who i believe was a demon)…all fallen angels. Does the church teach they were actual names? I know they acknowledge Lucifer, but the others?
Baal was a Cannanite god. Leviathan, I believe was a sea monster. I am not sure about this but I believe that Beelzebub was a middle-eastern demon.
 
Baal was a Cannanite god. Leviathan, I believe was a sea monster. I am not sure about this but I believe that Beelzebub was a middle-eastern demon.
True, but it is my personal belief that all these creatures(OK, maybe not the sea monster) were actual entities, manifestations of demonic power.
 
True, but it is my personal belief that all these creatures(OK, maybe not the sea monster) were actual entities, manifestations of demonic power.
I am sure that Satan was involved as he always is when the weakened human will submits to evil. It would be very interesting to research the nemes of the false gods listed in the Bible. I know the English word devil has the root syllable evil
As for the “sea monster god” , he is not alone in the pantheon of false gods. In Judges there is the Phoenician god Dagan half man and half fish.
Maybe we should throw this back at Patrick. There could be an entire thread on the false gods in the Bible.
 
What about other names we know, that ARE biblical?

Beelzebub(not sure if spelled right), Lucifer, Leviathan(not sure if spelled right), Baal(who i believe was a demon)…all fallen angels. Does the church teach they were actual names? I know they acknowledge Lucifer, but the others?
First, two things.
  • Ba’al was originally a title meaning ‘owner’, ‘master’ or ‘lord’. It can be applied as a generic honorific to humans (for example, to officials and persons of rank excluding royalty, and by wives to husbands), but very often it was applied to gods. The god the title is commonly associated with is Hadad, god of thunderstorms, fertility and agriculture, but he’s hardly the only god called ‘Ba’al’. Basically, every locality back then considered their local god to be their ba’al. Actually, even the Israelite God was called ba’al before such practice was frowned upon because of its heavy association with other deities. (Hosea 2:16-17: “It will come about at that day,” says the LORD," that you will call me ‘my husband ('ishi),’ and no longer will you call me ‘my master/Baal (ba’ali).’ For I will remove the names of the Baals from her mouth, and they shall no longer be remembered by their name.")
  • Beelzebub (or Beelzebul - either way is acceptable) first appears in 2 Kings 1:2-6. There it is supposed to be the name or title of the Philistine god of Ekron. The thing is that the Hebrew name ba’al zebûb means ‘lord of the flies’; it’s possible that the original title - ba’al zebul “lord of the dwelling,” the dwelling being either the temple or heaven - was changed to make it offensive. (You can see this in some instances where the word ba’al is changed into bosheth ‘shame’, for example in Ishbaal’s/Ishbosheth’s names.)
This is where I digress into a bit of a history lesson. (I’ll try not to make it boring.) Our idea of the Devil actually went through a series of stages.

In certain parts of the Bible, you have this story of Yhwh slaying this primordial sea monster called Leviathan (“coiled”). This is similar to mythologies of neighboring peoples, which feature a god or a culture hero fighting against - and defeating - primordial sea serpents, which are the personification of Chaos. This is a common mythological motif called the Chaoskampf (German for “struggle against chaos”); the defeat of the sea serpent is a symbol of order triumphing against and subduing primordial chaos.

Israelite religion before the Exile is really you might say, not too-developed. Yhwh/'El/'Elohim is already envisioned as being surrounded by “the sons of God (El)” like a king in a royal court, and He often speaks to people using a messenger (the “angel/messenger of the LORD”), but they don’t really have developed personalities - you might notice that in a number of passages, the distinction between “the angel of the LORD” and the Lord Himself is very thin. There’s really no ‘Devil’ in the true sense either: there is a satan, an ‘accuser’, a kind of prosecuting lawyer whose main job is apparently to take note of what humans are doing and report anything that could incriminate them to the heavenly court. Anything, good or ill, is attributed to the action of God; that’s why you have some (admittedly rather confusing, for us) passages in the older parts of the Bible which speak of Yhwh sending evil spirits to torment people.

As for the afterlife, there’s not yet any clear division between ‘Heaven’ and ‘Hell’ yet: everyone, no matter what they did in life, will go to Sheol (the Pit) where their depersonalized and powerless shades lie in perpetual slumber. The ‘inhabitants’ of Sheol - i.e. everyone who had died - are literally, just a shadow of their former selves, forever “cut off from God’s hand,” never really able to do anything in their weakened state (except to appear as a ghost occasionally). Kind of like the Greek Hades, really.

All that will change with the Exile to Babylon.

(I’ll just take a break. I’ll post the sequel later)
 
To give many people a break from the oft-heated (fiery!) debates of this subforum, I’d like to open this thread. Now by “minor stuff” I mean the small, ‘trivial’ things related to the Bible that never make it in serious high discussion …]
When Jesus was a young boy (and not in the temple answering all those complicated questions) what did He do for fun? What games did He and his cousins play? How did they spend their “off” time.
 
When Jesus was a young boy (and not in the temple answering all those complicated questions) what did He do for fun? What games did He and his cousins play? How did they spend their “off” time.
Running and jumping.
 
When Jesus was a young boy (and not in the temple answering all those complicated questions) what did He do for fun? What games did He and his cousins play? How did they spend their “off” time.
Well, they probably did whatever kids did before Gameboys and PSPs came along. You know how kids could play with balls or even stones or sticks? Jesus and His buddies could have also played with that. The thing is, we don’t usually think about this, but quite a number of kids’ games actually have a very long history - they’re so old, we don’t even know who first played them. They’ve just been there for as long as one could remember. Marbles and knucklebones, for example.
 
Running and jumping.
The Gospel of Thomas is amusing(and fake).

It tells of Child Jesus killing any child who insulted him with lightning from heaven, and then raising them up again. And a lot of other amusing little miracle stories.
 
The Gospel of Thomas is amusing(and fake).

It tells of Child Jesus killing any child who insulted him with lightning from heaven, and then raising them up again. And a lot of other amusing little miracle stories.
I know that, by and large, gnostic texts aren’t considered ‘valid’. However, I don’t know of any other writings that address Jesus’ early years, and that was the OP’s interest.

Many of us have been drawn to gnostic texts at one time or other (from whatever angle) and, personally, I felt enriched by them. Those writings were my first big ‘mind stretch’ after years of very sheltered spiritual thinking (or none at all). Perhaps my enjoyment of science fiction may have had something to do with the fondness developed for gnostic writings.

I do think the Gospel of Thomas would have fit rather nicely after John’s Gospel. 😉
 
I know that, by and large, gnostic texts aren’t considered ‘valid’. However, I don’t know of any other writings that address Jesus’ early years, and that was the OP’s interest.

Many of us have been drawn to gnostic texts at one time or other (from whatever angle) and, personally, I felt enriched by them. Those writings were my first big ‘mind stretch’ after years of very sheltered spiritual thinking (or none at all). Perhaps my enjoyment of science fiction may have had something to do with the fondness developed for gnostic writings.

I do think the Gospel of Thomas would have fit rather nicely after John’s Gospel. 😉

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is not ‘gnostic’. That’s the other Gospel of Thomas - and even then, even that text is not ‘gnostic’ enough compared to stuff like the Gospel of Judas or the Pistis Sophia or the Books of Ieou.

I think the confusion lies in this fact: when the early Christians wanted to guess/imagine what happened to those people from the Scriptures, they wrote gospels. When gnostic groups wanted to transmit their teachings, they wrote gospels. In both cases, nobody really took these gospels seriously. The gnostic gospels were originally not meant to be distributed and read in public anyways (it was ‘members-only’ - kind of like that secret Scientology material), and the apocryphal works like the Infancy Gospel of Thomas or the Protoevangelium of James were just read for their entertainment value - they’re very much like religious fanfiction. In other words, they’re pretty much the ancient equivalent of stuff like Quo Vadis? or Ben-Hur.
 
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is not ‘gnostic’. That’s the other Gospel of Thomas - and even then, even that text is not ‘gnostic’ enough compared to stuff like the Gospel of Judas or the Pistis Sophia or the Books of Ieou.

I think the confusion lies in this fact: when the early Christians wanted to guess/imagine what happened to those people from the Scriptures, they wrote gospels. When gnostic groups wanted to transmit their teachings, they wrote gospels. In both cases, nobody really took these gospels seriously. The gnostic gospels were originally not meant to be distributed and read in public anyways (it was ‘members-only’ - kind of like that secret Scientology material), and the apocryphal works like the Infancy Gospel of Thomas or the Protoevangelium of James were just read for their entertainment value - they’re very much like religious fanfiction. In other words, they’re pretty much the ancient equivalent of stuff like Quo Vadis? or Ben-Hur.
Sorry…I didn’t make it clear that the Gospel I think would have been interesting to have been included in the Bible was the “Gospel of Thomas” - the 114 verses. (Like we don’t have enough trouble discerning the meanings of concepts in the Bible now. )

Some parts of the gnostic writings have the ‘ring of Truth’ but often there are too many missing places …]. People can’t resist changing the words that are currently available - I can’t imagine what we’d end up with as the impulse to ‘fill in the blanks’ took hold. 😃

“Religious fanfiction”…makes me :).

I can ‘suspend belief’ as well as I can ‘suspend disbelief’ … I don’t rule out someone had ‘Inspiration’, but neither do I assume that they did. Wishing things were otherwise is not useful, so I’ll just say that I’m glad I found this ‘stream’ of writings, even so late in life. 🙂
 
All that will change with the Exile to Babylon.

(I’ll just take a break. I’ll post the sequel later)
About time I continue this. 😃

There is a Jewish tradition that the names of the angels were brought back by the Jews from Babylon. Apparently the Exile had an effect on Jewish religious beliefs to an extent; many scholars think that the Jews could probably have learned a thing or two from Zoroastrianism, which they would have encountered in Babylon.

Zoroastrianism teaches the existence of a god whom they call Ahura Mazda (aka Ohrmazd), who created the universe by means of six spirits, the Amesha Spentas (‘holy immortals’), who are themselves emanations or attributes of Ahura Mazda. Zoroastrians ascribe worship to Ahura Mazda, but they also extend reverence to the Amesha Spentas, their assistants (the hamkars) and other lesser ahuras; that is why Ahura Mazda and all the good spirits under him are also collectively known as yazata, ‘worthy of worship’.

Now the order of creation is continually threatened by a hostile entity named ‘The Lie’ or Angra Mainyu (aka Ahriman). Good spirits under Ahura Mazda (ahura) and evil spirits under ‘The Lie’ (daeva) are continually fighting with each other, with the earth as their battleground. Humans are caught in the middle of this cosmic struggle. Zoroastrians believe that Ahura Mazda will eventually win against ‘The Lie’ and its minions in the end of days, but it is also the responsibility of humans - who even then have the free will to choose whether they would ally themselves with Ahura Mazda or ‘The Lie’ - to support the good spirits in order to speed up this inevitable victory; humans can contribute to Ahura Mazda’s cause by avoiding evil and living good lives and performing religious observances.

(The thing about Zoroastrianism is that traditionally, the relationship between Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu/Ahriman were understood more or less in dualistic terms: both Ahura Mazda and Ahriman were thought to be more-or-less two coeval entities, though Ahura Mazda is the more powerful of the two; Angra Mainyu can never foresee what Ahura Mazda invents, which is why he can never win. The question of their origin is not raised at all in the texts; it is inferred is that the divide between good and evil had existed since the beginning. The text themselves are unclear: in some verses, both principles are said to have created the world, but in others, Ahura Mazda is the sole creator while Ahriman is responsible for marring said world.

Now the two primal Spirits, who reveal themselves in vision as Twins, are the Better and the Bad, in thought and word and action. And between these two the wise ones chose aright, the foolish not so. (Yasna 30.3)

I will speak of the Spirits twain at the first beginning of the world, of whom the holier spoke thus to the enemy: “Neither thought, nor teachings, nor wills, nor beliefs, nor words, nor deeds, nor selfs, nor souls of us twain agree.” (Yasna 45.2)

This dualistic idea - as well as their perceived ‘polytheism’ due to their veneration of the yazatas - made Parsis, Zoroastrians who migrated to India, the target of condemnation by Christian missionaries. Then in 1862, a German scholar named Martin Haug proposed that Zoroastrians had actually corrupted Zoroaster’s original teachings; in his idea, Zoroaster originally preached a form of monotheism. Haug argued that Angra Mainyu was itself a mere product of Ahura Mazda, who alone is the supreme god. The ‘good’ twin of Angra Mainyu spoken of in the scriptures is not Ahura Mazda himself according to Haug, but another spirit of his, Spenta Mainyu - who represents Ahura Mazda’s ‘creative’ aspect just as Angra Mainyu represents the ‘destructive’ aspect. The Parsis liked Haug’s interpretation and took it up, and interestingly enough, it became the standard belief among modern-day Zoroastrians.)​

It is thought that the Jewish concept of angels developed by being in contact with the Zoroastrian beliefs about the Amesha Spentas and the yazatas, although unlike the Amesha Spentas - which stayed more or less as sometimes-personified abstract concepts such as Vohu Manah “Good Mind” or Ameretat “Immortality” - the Jewish angels, while at first, it seems that they were thought of as personified attributes of God as well, eventually developed concrete personalities.

It is the concept of Angra Mainyu/Ahriman, and the clear distinction between ‘good’ and ‘evil’ that probably influenced the idea of an evil entity who is opposed to God. Obviously the Jews could not accept any idea of this evil power being coeval with the one God, so the logical inference is that it was subordinate and inferior to God while still being a powerful entity - hence, a sort of angel. This is where the concept of the Chaoskampf, already known to the Jews (in the form of stories of Yhwh slaying primeval monsters), came into play. What if this evil entity was one that God struck down when He subdued chaos long ago, in the beginning of time? This is where the idea of fallen angels was revealed to the Jews.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top