ROYAL SCAM: The Law of Moses _becomes_the Messianic Hope (thanks to Plato)

by Terry 43 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Terry
    Terry


    The Roman world was a shadowy copy of the much revered Greek ethos.



    The civilization of Ancient Greece stood as a superlative to be emulated.



    Any survey of Roman religion will quickly reveal they used Greek religion as a template while merely changing the names of the



    Greek gods.



    The Greek vocabulary was vastly superior to any other tongue. The Greeks, it was said, had a word for everything. The Greeks had considered anybody who did not speek Greek to be Barbarian. (The word "barbarian" is making fun of how foreign language sounded to the Greek ear: ...bar bar bar...) In other words: gibberish.



    The man on the street all across the empire would need to speek Greek to be considered nominally educated.


    Alexander the Great had been so idolized as a military genius and Alexander's passion to spread Greek civilization so rabid that the success of his campaigns was enough to earn the envy and admiration of even his conquered foes. Rome was not an innovative entity but learned from copying the best of everything else. They ultimately mirrored Greece as far as it made them successful.

    Tarsus was conquered by Alexander in 333 BCE, who then almost died there after bathing in the Seyhan. The area is decidedly unhealthy for those accustomed to the cool mountains of Macedonia. Tarsus was becoming Hellenized before the arrival of Alexander, and proceeded at an accelerated pace after. When Alexander quit the town, he first met Darius, the Persian king, on the plains of Issus, just east of Tarsus. Alexander of course defeated Darius soundly, going on to conquer the ‘world’.

    After the Seleucids came to power in Syria, Tarsus fell under their control. Losing out to Antioch as the capital of the Seleucid empire, Tarsus was relegated to the shadows as a frontier town. While this allowed them considerable self-government, they still smarted. Tarsus boasted literary schools which were ‘world class’, rivaling those in Athens and Alexandria.

    In c.171 BCE, Antiochus IV gave the control of Tarsus to his mistress, the height of ignominy to it’s inhabitants. The residents, for whatever reason, revolted and Antiochus IV granted them independence while remaining their ‘ruler’. Under the Seleucids, Tarsus was called "Antiochia on the Cydnus".

    Tarsus was visited by Caesar, was the meeting place of Antony and Cleopatra, and is the burial place of Julian. Pompey subjected it to Rome. The next two centuries saw it at it’s height, prosperous, cultured, proud of its Greekness, and containing a group of philosophers and an important university as well. The city's main source of income was the linen industry. Even in the flourishing period of Greek history it was a city of some considerable consequence. In the civil wars of Rome it took Caesar's side, and on the occasion of a visit from him had its name changed to Juliopolis. http://www.ancientroute.com/cities/Tarsus.htm

    Greek philosophy was permeated by the foundational mysticism of Plato--but---contrasted by the rationality of Aristotle.

    Greek philosophy split into two distinct schools of thought which ultimately became SCIENCE: ARISTOTLE and MYSTICISM: PLATO.

    But I can't see where Paul got his belief from Plato

    PAUL WAS A MYSTIC!

    Had Paul been rational he would have been influenced more by Aristotle.

  • TopHat
    TopHat
    Had Paul been rational he would have been influenced more by Aristotle.

    Who is to say that Paul was influenced by any teaching other than that of the disciples of Jesus?

  • Terry
    Terry


    Who is to say that Paul was influenced by any teaching other than that of the disciples of Jesus?

    Read this; you might find it at least interesting (and perhaps enlightening).

    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=283&letter=S&search=Saul%20of%20tarsus

    Exerpt: JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA

    Saul (whose Roman cognomen was Paul; see Acts xiii. 9) was born of Jewish parents in the first decade of the common era at Tarsus in Cilicia (Acts ix. 11, xxi. 39, xxii. 3). The claim in Rom. xi. 1 and Phil. iii. 5 that he was of the tribe of Benjamin, suggested by the similarity of his name with that of the first Israelitish king, is, if the passages are genuine, a false one, no tribal lists or pedigrees of this kind having been in existence at that time (see Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." i. 7, 5; Pes. 62b; M. Sachs, "Beiträge zur Sprach- und Alterthumsforschung," 1852, ii. 157). Nor is there any indication in Paul's writings or arguments that he had received the rabbinical training ascribed to him by Christian writers, ancient and modern; least of all could he have acted or written as he did had he been, as is alleged (Acts xxii. 3), the disciple of Gamaliel I., the mild Hillelite. His quotations from Scripture, which are all taken, directly or from memory, from the Greek version, betray no familiarity with the original Hebrew text. The Hellenistic literature, such as the Book of Wisdom and other Apocrypha, as well as Philo (see Hausrath, "Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte," ii. 18-27; Siegfried, "Philo von Alexandria," 1875, pp. 304-310; Jowett, "Commentary on the Thessalonians and Galatians," i. 363-417), was the sole source for his eschatological and theological system. Notwithstanding the emphatic statement, in Phil. iii. 5, that he was "a Hebrew of the Hebrews"—a rather unusual term, which seems to refer to his nationalistic training and conduct (comp. Acts xxi. 40, xxii. 2), since his Jewish birth is stated in the preceding words "of the stock of Israel"—he was, if any of the Epistles that bear his name are really his, entirely a Hellenist in thought and sentiment.

  • TopHat
    TopHat

    Sorry I didn't make myself clear.......I meant to say AFTER Paul (Saul) became a Christian his influence would be Jesus Apostles. I don't doubt Paul or the Apostles might have had other influences, but they now follow Jesus teachings in the first century.

  • TopHat
    TopHat


    In reply to your reflictions on the Hebrews dying and the resurrection: Martha seemed to think the Hebrew teaching, was of a resurrection.

    20 When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went and met him, while Mary sat in the house. 21 Martha said to Jesus, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 And even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you." 23 Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." 24 Martha said to him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day."

  • Terry
    Terry
    Martha seemed to think the Hebrew teaching, was of a resurrection.

    The time frame is all important to the understanding of WHEN people believed something.

    Alexander the Great died 322 B.C.

    Three hundred years of Greek thinking had time to sink in to the Hebrew milieu and dilute it.

    By the time Martha comes along she thinks Greek (Hebrew) and not HEBREW (Hebrew).

    The concept of a god-man (demi-god) was everywhere by then. Hercules becomes the prototype for Jesus.

    T.

  • TopHat
    TopHat

    Have a nice Day Terry

    See you Later Gator

    Gota make up some work time.

  • Terry
    Terry

    Tally ho, old bean.

    T.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    There have been some comments made on this forum that expose the WT view of Jewish beliefs about the afterlife. The ancient Hebrew perception was tyical of the region in believing that Sheol was an underworld where all, the rich and poor,good, bad, spent eternity in a feeble shadowy existance. They were weak and helpless but alive. Later many Jews welcomed new developements including the idea of an eternity in a blissful state or in tortures. Others openly welcomed the notion of reincarnation. All these ideas found a place in the writings that became the OT and NT.

    feeding the dead

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/63386/973216/post.ashx#973216

  • Terry
    Terry

    I'll bet the main reason Jews took a dim view of Gentiles was because the Gentiles were very tolerant of religious beliefs.

    Jews were among the first religious fanatics in mankind who were highly intolerant of other people's religion.

    After the deportation of the mercantile Jews the coherent ethnic folk tales and mythos of that people dramatically changed and the dynamic of belief became unworkable.

    The invention of a "written" Book(s) to settle controversy became necessary. Imagine the arguments that must have been taking place when the exiled Jews returned with all their fancy (contaminated) learning and ideas and philosophy!

    The belief system was infiltrated for certain.

    Fifth century Judaism became a fragmented melange of opinions.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit