Letters: Interrogations addressing Rabbis and Scholars concerning Judaism
Letters: Interrogations addressing Rabbis and Scholars concerning Judaism
Question 1: On the subject of the Jewish schism
Dear Rabbi…, Can you tell me if before the Jewish schism the temple was originally located on the Mount Gerizim and David then decided to move it to Jerusalem? It would seem that Samaritans are in fact the original Jews and that it is the actual Jews who are the Protestants?
Dear Student…, in the first five books of the torah, Mount Gerizim is mentioned as the place of the Bless, the place of the God. (You can search at the knowledge center articles in this issue).
There is no mention to Jerusalem as a holy place. Jerusalem was built by King David 400 years after the entering to the holy land. Nobody command him to do so.
It started from political reasons; he wanted to unite all the people of Israel under his kingdom. And then it became the holy place.
When did God choose this place?
And did he wait 440 years after Israel entered Canaan.
Sincerely Rabbi…,
Question 2: On the event of the Gospels
What literary position should be placed the four evangels (gospels)?
It seems evident that the four pseudepigrahae were written by a unique individual and this during a 30 year span (ie.70 ad – 100ad).
The first of the gospels arrive almost immediately after the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem. It would seem as well that this compendium was written by a laureate of Judaic doctrine or at least Judaic literature and is thus using this source to inspire his work.
The said literature is messianic pseudepigraphae which makes reference to biblical themes however the ambiguity and inconsistency in essence manifest a mythological substructure.
The author intentionally expresses with his literature a messianic desire that is to say; he is interested in creating the messiah or to mechanically bring into life and history the messianic event.
Or is this simply a surreptitious, even subconscious refusal of the mosaic commandment; that is not to bring into existence any image of the divine?
Through his writing the author seems to wish to create even project into existence and history his messiah.
These satiric and ironically nostalgic genera, around personages of Jesus and Mary imprecated with the messianic flavour. Ironic since the messiah is still in the waiting.
The nostalgic aspect is efficacious in adding prophetic spice to the scenario.
The satiric literary construction elaborates a complete reversal of history, since the candidate of the multiple Jesus of history as described by Flavius Josephus in his Conflicts of the Jews was in fact either a thief or brutal murderer and the Mary of history as described by Josephus literally eats half of her son keeping the other half for a later meal.
Satiric literature one must add is vogue at the event of writing the gospels. Starting in Greece and spreading to Rome with Horace etc… it was the preferred vehicle to express ones chagrin. Historical writers; Herodotus, Flavius Josephus, Titus Livius or Plutarch for instance depict history in the same way and such historical writing in no way expresses satire.
It is explicit that Josephus alludes to just where he got the principal personage in his “The Life of Flavius Josephus”.
Here Flavius Josephus introduces his reader to his historical Jesus who was to become his Jesus of the gospels.
Question 3: On female nature with Mary mother of the hierophant
It might appear that mother of the Christ would improve public view as to the female adventives?
Subsequently when all is considered it is the symbolic aspect that is the vector of significance.
The miraculous birth would be a symbolic expression of female ontology, which is all it needs to be.
So the question being might be has the author achieved this?
The gospel story reveals the subject Mary but only in motherhood is the female intentionally considered, not the female in general and not beyond this maternal possibility.
However one can only observe with scepticism this having a beneficial outcome on female suffrage to any general state other than that of being a regent.
One must admit that this greatly enhanced the status of a queen but would prove adverse; an ironic weapon against the same Jews Josephus was akin, this in the guise of various protestant Regents.
So the evidence thus points to a stereo-typification rather than an improvement in social perception of female.
The gospels of Josephus would prove to be more a hindrance and betrayal: the fact of trying to motivate public opinion; dangerous, jeopardous and imprudent.
In improvising a mother of the messiah, the queen idea had thus been facilitated manifold and historically this has not been catalytically efficacious.
Question 4: On the authorisation of the Gospels
On might ask; if the four gospels were written by the same individual why is it that they are so different?
The answer might be that they were each written with a ten year span between the next writing. In a ten year interval the individual has ample time to progress the text each with a different perspective. It is necessary that four conditions must be accounted for in justifying having written the gospels;
1. Interest; the author would have to have a vested interest in the literary creation, knowing of the impending dispersion of his community, he might furnish certain cohesive contextualisation.
2. Free time; the author would have needed sufficient spare time and subvention to concentrate and write the given literature.
3. Education; the author would have to have needed an ample knowledge of the subject matter that is; the history and writings of the Hebrews.
4. Authority; the author would have to have needed adequate authority to write his work.
Not just any one would or could be authorised to write controversial literature that might disrupt a tightly knit community.
The authorisation points to a Sadducee priest whose duty being the daily and occasional sacrificial rite which was now permanently retired since the destruction of the Jerusalem temple.
Question 5: On the intention of the gospels
What are the motivating intentions behind the conception of the gospel writings?
Two intentionalities can be commented one individual and the other collective.
1. The first being pure cathartic escapism, indeed the notion of a Messiah proves to be undoubtedly escapist: the author is face to face with a situation which is clearly beyond his perceptible capacities.
In observing the historical nature, on can sympathize with the author constantly enduring never ending war and hatred.
The intensity of such historical context may justify nominal escapism.
Whereas in another context escapism spirals into vice and pretention.
The escapist motive might be a counterintuitive quest for normality and humanity; aspect proposing a rendering of the escapist motive as vehicle for a return to the human and virtuous amidst the chaos.
Indeed if one were to compare the actual history to the gospels the contrast is extreme.
The historical setting reveals an unedited war zone where exclusively hysteria ruled, where as the gospels depict an idyllic dreamland fantasy, with exception of a rapid torture and crucifixion.
2. The second intention is collective and strategic, that of the priest as guardian and supposed responsible of the community.
Hence, the vital interest of creating a sort of portable temple and sacrifice.
The dispersed community might gradually disappear without his constant presence.
Thus the community might take with them the messiah on their pending dispersion.
This idea was revisited with the Jesuit mass of Paul III, who elaborated a portable rite that might be celebrated beyond the confines of a church and that the missionaries could take along with them into exotic lands.
Evidently the gospels would never have existed if the temple had never been destroyed. The writing of the gospels may exhibit a multiplicity of intention.
Ranging from a personal chagrin with the disappearance of the temple and where it is to observe an individual trying to deal with the promise of a messiah with immanent and impending failure.
Question 6: On the originality of the evangelical Jesus
What does classical or doctrinal Judaism think of the following genealogy? Question worthy of answering since a genuine genealogy would exhibit certain probity and hence manifest certain persuasive value?
The Gospel According to Saint Matthew —————————————–
1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 1:2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; 1:3 And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; 1:4 And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; 1:5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; 1:6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; 1:7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; 1:8 And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; 1:9 And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; 1:10 And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; 1:11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: 1:12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; 1:13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; 1:14 And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; 1:15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. —————————————————–
1. That the gospels are theological and not historical.
2. One could write theology with a genealogy that states that a Jesus came from David even if it is fictional.
3. There is historical ambiguity for instance; Joseph having a son, Judas etc.
4. It is possible that none of the genealogy is accurate, however genealogy being only the secondary motive.
One could say that the author had no other intention but in writing prose.
Question 7: On the authorship of the gospels
So who wrote the gospels?
We believe that the unique author of the four gospels was Flavius Josephus.
He wrote these opuscules ten years apart around the years; 70, 80, 90 and right up till the end of his life in 100 AD.
1. The author had free time to write the gospels.
2. The author had rare ability and expertise to write his various works.
3. The author had ample knowledge of Jewish custom.
4. The author uses the literal name Joseph as the messianic father and Mathew as the author of the first gospel.
5. The author is completely sympathetic to the roman cause.
6. The author had detachment and protection from the Jewish authority.
7. The author openly criticizes the temple and Jewish authority.
8. Josephus was continually in search of valorising Judaism vis-à-vis the ancient world.
9. Josephus takes care to not contaminate certain historical works with fictive works this is the case in the Conflicts of the Jews. Written originally in Aramaic and destined to Jews sojourning in Mesopotamia after the Diaspora. Conflicts of the Jews, compared to the Antiquities of the Jews, where the historical exactitude is more interpretive.
10. The writing of the gospels covers precisely the life of Josephus that is; 36 to 100 AD.
11. The methodology and technique of the gospels is explicative in Josephus work “Against Apion” and especially his “Life of Flavius Josephus”.
12. It seems that the gospels are a sort of counter-point to the real history of the Jews and in this it is Flavius Josephus (Joseph ben Mattathias) the author of the gospels.
13. The gospels reveal a kind of vanishing point in the religious life of the author, a certain recourse to the irrelevant, impertinence as to cause and effect. Clearly such parallelism shows that the author found himself in extrusion of his element in quest for sense.
14. Flavius Josephus was within ten years of Plutarch both living in Rome we can easily posit that one read the other. Easily one can read direct parallels between certain events in the life of Josephus and his gospels; The apostle Peter would refer to the said episode of betrayal of Josephus at Jotapata. The Jesus of the gospels draws attention to the incident in Sepphoris.
Likewise the said apostle Paul likely refers to Josephus himself;
a. Pharisee.
b. Sequestration by the Romans.
c. Life in Rome.
d. A grudge against the Jewish population since the collective suicide.
15. Josephus personage of the Messiah is not Jewish i.e. the name Jesus is of Roman origin rather than him choosing a Jew of a Jewish exemplar.
Question 8: On the event of a qua novel religion
So why would Josephus want to invent a new religion? Or did he simply want to complete the old religion?
Antithetically it was the new religion that invented the gospels.
The destruction of the Jerusalem temple and the total dispersion of the Jewish community left a certain vacuity which had to be filled.
This would prove to be the hylemorphic origin of the gospels. It must be added that originally Josephus expressed interest in Jewish sects and perhaps this with an unconvincing character gave birth to the four gospels.
Ironically these writings would in turn prove the end of the Roman Empire and a critical philosophy of religion.
Moreover it is imaginable that Josephus alone living in Rome amongst Romans and imbibed in Roman culture, reminiscent of his Judaic heritage was interested in more intimately portraying this heritage to associates.
Thus to explain the artificially inserted paragraph in the middle of his historical text “Antiquities of the Jews” and where the interpolation introduces a certain messianic personage, two verisimilar scenarios are possible;
1. That some Christian authorship took the responsibility to textually deliberate on an historical messiah so as to perpetuate and reinforce his own conviction or enigma therefore by the projecting into society and amongst any inquisitive lecturer such indoctrination.
2. Or it is equally conceivable that it was Josephus himself, who was in possession of the rare text to reopen his own writing to include an historical compossibility thus to unimpaire and advance his quazi satirical gospels.
Question 9: Why wish to impose a fanciful notion on the public and is it a search for power?
There exists an analysis which describes a more fundamental or rudimental motivation.
1. Suspicion (universalisation): The hero of the story appears vulnerable which expresses axiological hesitation as with the universal.
This suggests the Creation to be incomprehensible.
2. Jealousy (generalisation): The writer weaves his text with a precocious generalisation, modulating imagery and symbolism contemporary with the ancient world. This evidently suggests not only an awareness of the world but certain relevance.
3. Scorn (individualisation): The hero employs miracles and suffering as technique to achieve his manifestation, which reveals an ontological defiance.
4. Shame (specialisation): The temple reflecting a certain world view and containing therein his regard for society, the author focuses on a personal defeat. The fact of loosing this omnificent structure may be the operator of the satiric genre.
Question 10: On the four victims of the gospels.
It doesn’t at all appear that the gospel stories helped the non Jews better appreciate Judaism?
The gospels would have a devastating effect when it fell into the hands of those from outside the community; that is amongst other incidents, the Spanish inquisition and with this later the non Jewish interrogation into the order of the authentic.
The first victim is personal responsibility and culpability since God perpetuates the criminal having the capacity to justify the wrong thus neglecting human potentiality.
The second victim is the Creator, since God is no longer in the horizon.
The world cannot be equated with the Creators personal universal manifestation and development. The Creator understood as teleological efficacy and destination of the world.
The third victim is a true semiotic, the notion of the afterlife eradicates the radical, essentiality of the significant and existentiality of the meaningful.
The fourth victim is the Creation since consistency is relegated to fantasy and coherency to a doctrine of exploitation, since the world has henceforth no absolute value.
Question 11: On philosophy of religion
Did the gospels advance an authentic philosophy of religion?
The major effect would be to completely abolish and intimidate philosophy of religion to such extent that those who dare speculate on the nature of the divine did so on an individual basis.
The absolutism of the revealed religion would impede to the point of extinction any speculation as to the nature and potentiality in God.
As with the literature, he student must look for a human explanation and not expect more from the author than the author has to offer with all the historical contingencies.
1. An original philosophy of religion excludes the defining of God.
None other than the genuine theologian possesses the natural vocation to consistently establish such definitive. The male is by nature not theologian but philosopher ergo philosophy of religion.
It is evidently presumptuous to invent God.
2. Philosophy of religion is essentially phenomenological.
An original philosophy of religion excludes categorically any arbitrary hermeneutic of God.
Therefore any definitive is by causal modality that is by observation, after having established the parameters of Gods necessary productivity.
Such that what is volitional productivity to the Creator, vocational productivity is to the Creation.
3. Proscript is the refusal to an admission of God, that is, where logic is exigent; thus one must admit it.
The contrary is equally true with an improvisation of the God idea in accordance to ones collective or selective interest.
4. The intrinsic difference between theology and philosophy of religion is that of perception. Theology treats the world in function of the divine, the real from the interior, thus an auditable approach.
Whereas philosophy of religion treats the divine in function of the world, the real from the exterior, thus a visual approach.
Question 12: On four unanswered enigmas problematic with a literal lecture of the gospels.
1. The evil being hypothesis of whom God is the mastermind.
Such a notion irrefutably suggests a lecture of an irresponsible God, without saying so.
Hypocrisy is intrinsically relative to volition and not disposition, hypocrisy comes in two exemplars, those are:
a) Intrinsic; to not do, what one wants to do and
b) Extrinsic; to do, what one does not want.
2. The pardon mechanism of the gospels implies inconsistency in God.
The notion of the grace of God inevitably results in criminal deculpabilization and deradicalization of human potentiality ad ergo human responsibility therein.
Denial of intrinsic accomplishment reduced to divine efficacy.
To pardon is to literally partake in the said vice. God would have to become the criminal making the crime his own this is a logical necessity.
Where as a metaphysics of rectitude engages an etiological and teleological analysis.
3. The idea of heaven undoubtedly has for effect the subtraction of the Creator from the mondaine. World development is not necessarily equated with the realisation of the divine as it should.
4. The stumbling over the fact of an impotent messiah where even if true would introduce ambiguity and contradiction between the Creation and Creator with the obvious need of the miracle to bridge the gap and sustain the perfectly logical world.
Question 13: On the first principals concerning Philosophy of religion.
What are the immutable first principals when it comes to the foundations as with Philosophy of religion?
There appears to be a logical quaternary as to the first principals.
1. That of essence; the notion of God is first and foremost a philosophical necessity.
The simple idea of a God is a philosophical and moral dynamic; this being the only exit strategy to the personal vice of presumption.
2. That of existence; God is efficacious.
Since hypocrisy is of two natures that is;
a) To do what one does not want to do and
b) To not do what one does want to do.
The student must recognise this and avoid implying that the world is not what God wants.
3. That of insistence;
The world is in fact and indeed God’s life work.
a) So all what can be perceived is an eminent expression of Gods realisation.
b) A major factor is the necessary symmetry between the Creation and the Creator, a partial comprehension of one yields an irrevocable partial notion of the other, and this is a great lacuna with the advent of the Jewish sects where theism, as a conceptual perfection is held in doubt.
The doctrine of these sects wishes to present a world at odds with the Creator, ergo the futuristic vision that drives the cult.
4. That of presents; God can speak for himself.
The student of philosophy of religion must allow in all things the sovereign expression of God to manifest without trying to make it happen.
The Creator is responsible for himself, as is the nature of responsibility.
Question 14: Concerning protestant sects.
Dear Rabbi, It seems to me that the original theism was and is Judaism.
There have since cropped up two major protestant sects; first Christianity and then Mohammedanism each with all their subsequent sects. It seems to accept one eventuates in an acceptance of the other and maybe any other religious system.
The world looses the fact that the original was and is Judaism.
So why not ask that all these systems convert to the original which would mean treating these systems as what they are that is protestant?
Ontologically it may be too much to think of these sects as being in possession of dynamic autonomy much like the individual at the bottom of a well, one must at least recognise them as being nothing more than a Jewish sect.
Dear Student; because even though Christianity and Islam are both founded on the tenets of Judaism they believe absolutely that they have superseded Judaism. Their belief system is so entrenched that they are not even prepared to investigate their roots today in an intellectually honest fashion.
Dear Rabbi; So just the same I believe that we must refine our comprehension in such a way that what you have pointed becomes evident and that the solution must be to recognize these systems as retrograde to an eventual philosophy of religion since they do not contribute to the genuine. Dear Student; According to the Sages the only way that we can succeed in doing that is by drawing all the Jews who are so far from their heritage. If we manage to do that the other religions of the world will cease questioning the validity of Judaism. Dear Rabbi; I see religion as an intrinsic aspect of human potentiality and so if this is the case all those who question the validity of Judaism question as well theism and philosophy of religion therein. In so by doing they compromise their own potential as a religious conscious being. Moreover they radically jeopardise themselves as one who actually valorises religion as remedy and method to eventually escape from inherent human presumption. Dear Student; I agree with you.
Question 15: Concerning protestant sects and especially essential Judaism.
Dear Rabbi, What if I said?
What is Judaism?
a) An attitude or a persuasion.
b) A culture or a society.
c) A history or a politic.
d) A country or a location.
e) An army or a vogue.
f) A science or a methodology.
g) None of the above.
Judaism is pure eternal theism and since Judaism is the initial theism Judaism is the only theism. Protestantism has for necessity to introduce some secondary dependency, as though there is some opprobrious error in the facture.
Orthodox Judaism admits intrinsic contingency reliant on the proportionality between the Creator and the Creation without one there cannot be a complete notion of the other, that is to say your idea of the Creation will be limited according to your presumption of the Creator.
Question 16: Concerning Moshiach sects.
Dear Rabbi, Tell me please if messianism is essential to Judaism, for it seems a way of simply discharging ones responsibility and a tool used by many protestant systems?
Dear Student,
The belief in the coming of the Moshiach (a man of flesh and blood) and the ultimate redemption is indeed a fundamental belief in Judaism. In Judaism, it is only through our personal Mitzvotcommandment and good deeds now that we are able to bring about the ultimate redemption.
Modern scholars suggest that the messianic concept was introduced later in the history of Judaism, during the age of the prophets.
They note that the messianic concept is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the Torah (the first five books of the Bible)…
The Torah contains several references to “the End of Days” (acharit ha-yamim), which is the time of the mashiach; thus, the concept of mashiach was known in the most ancient times.
Dear Rabbi, So what can be understood with this is that the idea of the Moshiach is an existential description of human potentiality (Mitzvot) ergo finality (acharit ha-yamim), that is to say human achievement and the fact that authentic potentiality is inevitable.
Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/religion-articles/letters-interrogations-addressing-rabbis-and-scholars-concerning-judaism-1339609.html
About the Author
RRK Ph.S
