He's one of the few that never died but was 'taken up alive' to heaven. Elijah is a major figure in folklore and story. Elijah attends every single circumcision and every single seder (famously - to me at least - portrayed in the seder episode of Northern Exposure). At Passover, everyone drinks four cups of wine as part of the lengthy ceremony, and then a single fifth cup is poured 'for Elijah' and children are sent to answer the doorbell (usually rung by a cooperative and fast running adult) while the cup is emptied hastily. Oops! they just missed Elijah! He has a lot of seders to visit!
He will herald the arrival of the messiah.
He is required to attend all those events because he once moaned that the Jewish people were disappearing, so God makes him go to all the seders and all the circumcisions, so he can see that they are still around. The chair the godparent sits on (holding the baby) at the circumcision is 'the chair of Elijah'.
He's a big deal.
So, some Jehovah's witness knocked on my door...
Re: So, some Jehovah's witness knocked on my door...
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Re: So, some Jehovah's witness knocked on my door...
Seems we go any which way but to consider the simple probability that those Jews thought there was some sort of life after death...be it those who were "translated", be it Abraham going in peace to his ancestors, but David expecting to be with the child someday and to also be with the Lord forever, to Saul wanting to contact the dead for advice after God was not responding...and on and on. It seems clear to me that at least some Jews had a concept of some sort of life after death. Yes, we can suggest all sorts of crazy possible ideas they might have had, but the simple was is that they knew there was a spirit life that was separate from the physical life. Why Sadducees were so nay-sayers is anyone's guess...but Jesus showed they did not know what they were talking about. So why go for such complicated explanations to suggest it is possible that Jews never thought about an afterlife? Seems much more obvious they did.
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.
Re: So, some Jehovah's witness knocked on my door...
It can be read that way, or it can be read as 'mostly not'. There are many cultures with beliefs about an afterlife which have nothing to do with gods or devils or anything but 'things that go bump in the night'. The Navajo believe that ghosts exist, and they are invariably inimical (even from nice people) and must be dealt with if necessary - you don't want them in your home so most Navajos make an effort to die outdoors. Nothing cosmic or 'to the light' or anything. Just an afterlife belief.
It seems to me a lot more reasonable to think that people then believed stuff about an afterlife much like people do NOW - that is, they had all sorts of different kinds of ideas by different people. Some believed, some didn't, some had a nebulous sort of undefined belief, some went into elaborate systems....like now.
It seems to me a lot more reasonable to think that people then believed stuff about an afterlife much like people do NOW - that is, they had all sorts of different kinds of ideas by different people. Some believed, some didn't, some had a nebulous sort of undefined belief, some went into elaborate systems....like now.
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Re: So, some Jehovah's witness knocked on my door...
Klp I don't think anybody is suggesting that 'the Jews never thought about an afterlife'. But I do think it quite reasonable that they didn't think MUCH about an afterlife. I have that example quite readily before me, because - really - most Jews DON'T think much about an afterlife - to the extent that a whole lot of Jews don't think that JUDAISM believes there is an afterlife, even though Judaism quite firmly DOES teach that there is one.
It just isn't terribly important. It is rarely talked about because - really - few people CARE. It is a 'so what, that's vaguely interesting' kind of topic to most Jews. Even quite observant, thoughtful Jews - to them (who mostly DO know that Judaism teachers that there is an afterlife) - it is simply a given, not especially important really, and nothing to be too worried about. (I think this is a reaction against Christian belief in the afterlife, which is super important, and fairly detailed. I think Second Temple Pharisaic Judaism was more concerned with an afterlife than modern Judaism is).
I realize that Christianity teaches that one's eternal destination is supremely important, therefore it is vital to get certain things 'right' here and now. But Judaism just doesn't do that - not nearly so intensively. But Christianity broke away from PHARISAIC Judaism, which DID have an afterlife idea, and felt it was important enough to define their philosophy as apart from the Sadducees at least. And Christianity grew, almost exclusively, in the Greek and Roman world, which also had detailed ideas about the afterlife.
So I have no problem with the idea that some Jews - over the course of nearly TWO THOUSAND YEARS (think about that) from Abraham to Jesus, might possibly have had notions about 'an afterlife'. I have no problem whatsoever thinking that during that time, a lot of people had a lot of DIFFERENT ideas about it. The Sadducees read the Torah and the prophets and did not see an afterlife as an important or even 'real' idea. They in fact seemed to have actively opposed the idea altogether. I can make guesses as to why, but they would only be guesses.
The Pharisees thought 'the afterlife' was important enough to make that idea a significant marker of the difference between Sadducees and Pharisees. Again, I can make (reasonable) guesses as to why.
But even the Pharisees didn't go into huge detail about it (we can tell that from the Talmud and from modern Judaism, which still doesn't bother with the afterlife all that much - it exists, it is God's province, not to worry).
It just isn't terribly important. It is rarely talked about because - really - few people CARE. It is a 'so what, that's vaguely interesting' kind of topic to most Jews. Even quite observant, thoughtful Jews - to them (who mostly DO know that Judaism teachers that there is an afterlife) - it is simply a given, not especially important really, and nothing to be too worried about. (I think this is a reaction against Christian belief in the afterlife, which is super important, and fairly detailed. I think Second Temple Pharisaic Judaism was more concerned with an afterlife than modern Judaism is).
I realize that Christianity teaches that one's eternal destination is supremely important, therefore it is vital to get certain things 'right' here and now. But Judaism just doesn't do that - not nearly so intensively. But Christianity broke away from PHARISAIC Judaism, which DID have an afterlife idea, and felt it was important enough to define their philosophy as apart from the Sadducees at least. And Christianity grew, almost exclusively, in the Greek and Roman world, which also had detailed ideas about the afterlife.
So I have no problem with the idea that some Jews - over the course of nearly TWO THOUSAND YEARS (think about that) from Abraham to Jesus, might possibly have had notions about 'an afterlife'. I have no problem whatsoever thinking that during that time, a lot of people had a lot of DIFFERENT ideas about it. The Sadducees read the Torah and the prophets and did not see an afterlife as an important or even 'real' idea. They in fact seemed to have actively opposed the idea altogether. I can make guesses as to why, but they would only be guesses.
The Pharisees thought 'the afterlife' was important enough to make that idea a significant marker of the difference between Sadducees and Pharisees. Again, I can make (reasonable) guesses as to why.
But even the Pharisees didn't go into huge detail about it (we can tell that from the Talmud and from modern Judaism, which still doesn't bother with the afterlife all that much - it exists, it is God's province, not to worry).
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
Re: So, some Jehovah's witness knocked on my door...
That is one way to look at it. Another is that the Jews, in order to remain Jews, maintain a certain heritage and to not break with their identifying culture have a built in mindset to think or ignore certain things. I get the bunker mindset, it is a sort of "protestant" where there is an overwhelming need to keep denying there is ever any thought about this or that, particularly in regards to certain aspects of Christianity. On top of that there is no temple, no priesthood, no sacrifice, no atonement, no holy of holies, no word from God, no nothing for thousands of years in a system that was based on a lot of direct clergy interaction. So it is all derivative now in these extra writings and teachings to maintain some notion of a group thought.
So just as much as you want to describe Christianity as somewhat reactive and developed just from some subset/branch of Judaism...it is just as valid to describe what passes as Judaism today is just the remnants of a subset that has a vested interest in a given position of rejecting Jesus as the Messiah. And that has driven so much of the mentality and thinking. at some level it is the group identity, that the messiah did not come. And there is even a lot of thinking about denying that such a thing would happen or was prophesied. And so maybe instead of always having to be in a negative mode of denying the overwhelming numbers, it is just easier to say "well, we don't think about it much" or "it is not important" as if that makes it all go away or become a non-issue.
I think the same sort of thinking has also had to develop in any culture/religion and Christianity where there has been a long absence in any direct supernatural intervention and guidance. A certain defensive mindset has to develop to maintain the identity. But no wanting to seem or be defensive, certain techniques develop to make it seem more positive.
So just as much as you want to describe Christianity as somewhat reactive and developed just from some subset/branch of Judaism...it is just as valid to describe what passes as Judaism today is just the remnants of a subset that has a vested interest in a given position of rejecting Jesus as the Messiah. And that has driven so much of the mentality and thinking. at some level it is the group identity, that the messiah did not come. And there is even a lot of thinking about denying that such a thing would happen or was prophesied. And so maybe instead of always having to be in a negative mode of denying the overwhelming numbers, it is just easier to say "well, we don't think about it much" or "it is not important" as if that makes it all go away or become a non-issue.
I think the same sort of thinking has also had to develop in any culture/religion and Christianity where there has been a long absence in any direct supernatural intervention and guidance. A certain defensive mindset has to develop to maintain the identity. But no wanting to seem or be defensive, certain techniques develop to make it seem more positive.
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.
Re: So, some Jehovah's witness knocked on my door...
Yes, what a lot of people fail to recognize is that modern Judaism is ALSO a descendant of a subset of Second Temple Judaism, not some monolithic 'standard orthodox' single 'thing'. The modern (ultra)orthodox do much the same thing, claiming that THEIR variety of modern (reactionary, 'fundie') Judaism is THE correct standard 'always there' original version. Which it is not - despite its obvious and deliberate anachronisms, it is as modern as the most liberal of Reform.
I guess the point is, there never WAS a time when everything was all 'one' except fleetingly, in all history. The coc attempt to claim similar identical 'oneness' with a mythical single 'first century church' is just as wrongheaded. There never was such a thing in the first place.
Plus - when you ask about 'what did Jews think' in the 'OT' - that was a period stretching clear from the Bronze Age to Roman sophistication - two thousand years of time or more! Even the written material in the Hebrew Bible itself range (at the low end of estimates) over at least 400 years! That would take us now back as far as Shakespeare, and we can't read him without footnotes to explain the changes in meaning which 400 years time can make to vocabulary.
It would be far, far simpler to ask a much more limited questions - and infinitely easier to ask about concrete items - what were clothes like in the 10th century BCE? (David's era, more or less) or what were the weapons being used by Sennacherib's army? Those hard (physical data) questions are EASY. Asking what people THINK - now that's very hard, or even impossible.
(although - judging from Proverbs - they did think that henpecked husbands were a source of humor)
I guess the point is, there never WAS a time when everything was all 'one' except fleetingly, in all history. The coc attempt to claim similar identical 'oneness' with a mythical single 'first century church' is just as wrongheaded. There never was such a thing in the first place.
Plus - when you ask about 'what did Jews think' in the 'OT' - that was a period stretching clear from the Bronze Age to Roman sophistication - two thousand years of time or more! Even the written material in the Hebrew Bible itself range (at the low end of estimates) over at least 400 years! That would take us now back as far as Shakespeare, and we can't read him without footnotes to explain the changes in meaning which 400 years time can make to vocabulary.
It would be far, far simpler to ask a much more limited questions - and infinitely easier to ask about concrete items - what were clothes like in the 10th century BCE? (David's era, more or less) or what were the weapons being used by Sennacherib's army? Those hard (physical data) questions are EASY. Asking what people THINK - now that's very hard, or even impossible.
(although - judging from Proverbs - they did think that henpecked husbands were a source of humor)
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.
-
margin overa
- Posts: 272
- Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 12:17 pm
Re: So, some Jehovah's witness knocked on my door...
Even the OT scriptures clearly indicate that there wasn't an internal perception of a monolithic Jewish culture - no absolute agreement over where sacrifices were to be done (there were regional holy places, local holy men, soothsayers, and so on). The Jews were no more in agreement in Jesus's time over plenty of issues than they were in the 1,000 years prior to his life.agricola wrote:Yes, what a lot of people fail to recognize is that modern Judaism is ALSO a descendant of a subset of Second Temple Judaism, not some monolithic 'standard orthodox' single 'thing'. The modern (ultra)orthodox do much the same thing, claiming that THEIR variety of modern (reactionary, 'fundie') Judaism is THE correct standard 'always there' original version. Which it is not - despite its obvious and deliberate anachronisms, it is as modern as the most liberal of Reform.
I guess the point is, there never WAS a time when everything was all 'one' except fleetingly, in all history. The coc attempt to claim similar identical 'oneness' with a mythical single 'first century church' is just as wrongheaded. There never was such a thing in the first place.
I don't honestly know that there was even a "fleeting" time was everything was all one in Judaism, any more than any other religious movement, the primitive church that the CofC is obsessed about either, as you say. It was a movement riven from the beginning, and that time is no more worthy of emulation than any other.
Re: So, some Jehovah's witness knocked on my door...
Yes the Jews seemed to be particularly given to various corruptions and false thinking for which they are punished and taken to task for on numerous occasions. But that does not establish that there was not a particular truth and message from God and that there were actual faithful and approved followers and teachers of that divine will. So sure there were people who wanted to get rid of Moses. Does that mean Moses did not know what he was talking about just because a bunch of Jews became convinced he was not worthy? Not in my way of thinking.
So for me the issue isn't what did polling data say about Jewish thinking on this or that date or occasion as that would be of no use IMO. The polling data of average Jewish thinking never drove the reality of God's revelation or truth or will. People may or may not have been aligned. The times when Jewish thinking was uniform tended to be right after one of the severe punishments or setbacks. So after a defeat, plague/illness, or the remnant from captivity...they were able to all get on the same page, but then soon began to wander off into various schools of thought. So what? So all these extra commentary writings about what some rabbi or group of rabbis thought about the actual writings are just that...what they thought about it. More polling data.
So for me the issue isn't what did polling data say about Jewish thinking on this or that date or occasion as that would be of no use IMO. The polling data of average Jewish thinking never drove the reality of God's revelation or truth or will. People may or may not have been aligned. The times when Jewish thinking was uniform tended to be right after one of the severe punishments or setbacks. So after a defeat, plague/illness, or the remnant from captivity...they were able to all get on the same page, but then soon began to wander off into various schools of thought. So what? So all these extra commentary writings about what some rabbi or group of rabbis thought about the actual writings are just that...what they thought about it. More polling data.
Isn't the world wonderful...I am all for rational optimism and I am staying positive.
Re: So, some Jehovah's witness knocked on my door...
Interesting question. Elijah, Enoch, (others?) who didn't die but otherwise went away are seen as having been given some kind of reward for good behavior. In the absence of belief of an afterlife, this wouldn't be a good thing at all. If this life is all there is, the best reward would be to keep on living. The story of Elijah, and specifically the connotation of his being "caught up" as a good thing, is strong evidence that there was at least a common belief that this life isn't all there is. Of course, it doesn't necessarily follow that what happened to Elijah or Enoch will happen to everyone else when they die. It could be that their reward was getting to go be with God whereas all (or most of) the rest of us just die and are gone.B.H. wrote:What do you Jews think of Elijah the Prophet? Did he go to heaven to stay or did he die somehow in the chariot of fire?
Lev
Re: So, some Jehovah's witness knocked on my door...
Ah - but according to the Jewish understanding of 'scripture', the rabbis/scholars absolutely have the 'Biblical authority' to determine what the law 'means' in their day. So all that commentary -and 'what they thought about it' are as important as 'what the Bible says' because what the rabbis think about it, IS 'what the Bible says'.klp wrote:Yes the Jews seemed to be particularly given to various corruptions and false thinking for which they are punished and taken to task for on numerous occasions. But that does not establish that there was not a particular truth and message from God and that there were actual faithful and approved followers and teachers of that divine will. So sure there were people who wanted to get rid of Moses. Does that mean Moses did not know what he was talking about just because a bunch of Jews became convinced he was not worthy? Not in my way of thinking.
So for me the issue isn't what did polling data say about Jewish thinking on this or that date or occasion as that would be of no use IMO. The polling data of average Jewish thinking never drove the reality of God's revelation or truth or will. People may or may not have been aligned. The times when Jewish thinking was uniform tended to be right after one of the severe punishments or setbacks. So after a defeat, plague/illness, or the remnant from captivity...they were able to all get on the same page, but then soon began to wander off into various schools of thought. So what? So all these extra commentary writings about what some rabbi or group of rabbis thought about the actual writings are just that...what they thought about it. More polling data.
(the one time when everybody was supposedly on exactly the same page was Sinai - when the people were reported to be of 'one heart').
History is the fiction we invent to persuade ourselves that events are knowable and that life has order and direction. That's why events are always reinterpreted when values change. We need new versions of history to allow for our current prejudices.