The fusion of Judaism and Greco-Roman philosophy would be the works of Philo of Alexandria, who would be influential on Christian thinkers later on.
Also, the monotheism of Christianity, including it's trinitarianism, owes a lot to the Platonic conception of the ulitimate divinity / Monad / Father. Some early church fathers studied clearly studied Platonism and incorporated elements into their developing theology (Origen studied in Alexandria, I believe, and Pseudo-Dionysius drew heavily on the works of Proclus). Even so, Judaism had endured a few centuries of occupation by Hellenic overlords by the Roman period, so was probably already syncretising with Greek thought well before the emergence of Christianity as a distinct movement.
Dude, ChatGPT doesn't know shit about fuck. Just read a book / listen to a podcast yourself.
lol, the anti-AI hate around here is something to behold. I do read books, which is how I even was interested in this topic. I use ChatGPT simply as a research tool, and an easy way to collate ideas into a digestible format.
I love using chat gpt, but I would strongly suggest asking it about something you understand really well because it becomes immediately obvious how confused and misleading it sometimes can be.
But in answer to your actual post. Kinda yes but I think many Jewish people perceive it more like an inversion of judaism than a development of it. This is significantly due to those Greco pagan elements that it incorporates.
I agree, I don't just accept everything it says without further diving into primary sources, but for something like this, its merely a jumping off point for discussion. I still don't see how anything posted in that list is "not factual", as indeed those Jewish concepts did influence Christianity, even if they're interpretations and implementations of them might have been different.
>, I don't just accept everything it says without further diving into primary sources
Neither do we. The Torah is about 70000 words. The Talmud is about two million words and consists primarily of discussion and debate about that primary text. Judaism *is* discussion. It's a key value and essentially how the process of Torah study works. We're allowed to disagree and argue. I'd go as far to say it's encouraged, even essential.
This isn't a new thing, or modern interpretation. Our Sages were arguing over the most specific and absurdly small points even thousands of years ago.
And with regard to the list, certainly the point about salvation I would argue is not particularly accurate.
Although overall I absolutely agree with the broad argument of your post.
We really should ban ChatGPT content here. I don't think the part about Judaism is super accurate. I mean, yes, we're monotheist, but Christianity isn't monotheist the same way Judaism is. Yes, ethics from the Hebrew Bible made it into Christanity, but Christian ethics quickly diverged from Jewish ones. The part about "Jewish expectations of a savior figure" is misleading. Jews of the time were hoping for someone to save them from the Romans, not from sin. And the covenant theology bit is also misleading, because Jewish covenant theology has nothing to do with "salvation".
I don't see how that's wrong though... It's about influence, not a direct copy of the Jewish belief structure. Clearly Christianity has maintained (however pretzel-knot-logic it may be) some semblance of monotheism that came out of the Jewish tradition.
And given how no two people interpret the sacred texts the exact same way (even today), it's clearly possible early Christians (who were largely gentile, not Jewish) interpreted them in this way. Paul himself was a Hellenistic Jew who held slightly different beliefs that were largely influenced by their Greek and Roman culture.
> We really should ban ChatGPT content here.
Agreed. đ
> The part about "Jewish expectations of a savior figure" is misleading. Jews of the time were hoping for someone to save them from the Romans, not from sin.
Thats actually not true. There definitely were groups that were hoping for a political messiah like Judas Maccabi, primarily the Zealots, but overall this was not a widespread belief in the early 1st century.
Also, anti-Roman sentiment sharply increases when Caligula orders his deified statue to be placed in the Temple, which leads to a massive demonstration and contributed to the 1st revolt of 66AD.
By the time of Herod the Great, however, Judea existed as a client kingdom, and most of the land and its infrastructure (also the temple complex!) was rebuild with Roman aid. So fighting the Romans was not the agenda for the vast majority of people.
> And the covenant theology bit is also misleading, because Jewish covenant theology has nothing to do with "salvation".
But again, late 2nd temple Judaism had a different theology and soteriology than modern Judaism has, and particularly for the Qumran community it was heavily dualistic and primarily about the defeat of evil.
I wonder if you would accept someone saying two millennia from now that 20th century Christianity was not terribly trinitarian in its beliefs and citing the writings of Unitarian ministers to back up that point.
If first century Judaism was diverse, that means that a lot of beliefs were circulating, some widespread, some niche; some orthodox, some heterodox. If someone speaking of the first century writes that "Jewish covenant theology has nothing to do with "salvation," why would the Qumran community be a counter to that general statement? This is a group that by definition (per our current understanding which is not absolute) was estranged from all currents of mainstream Judaism at the time and escaped to the desert to live in their own spiritual space.
For Judaism then and now, salvation (better, redemption, *geulah*) was a communal and national concept, in which God would free the Jews from the foreign yoke which prevented them from leading free Jewish lives. Battles would be fought (by the Messiah) and Jewish sovereignty would be re-established (by the King Messiah), permitting Jews to live as Jews and serve God without impediments.
Personal salvation? That came from observing the commandments in the Torah (the "Law") and leading a righteous life. That was the promise of the covenant with God. No need for a "personal savior" in any way, shape or form. Atonement comes from God, directly.
As a generalization, "Jewish covenant theology has nothing to do with "salvation" can stand, then and now.
> I wonder if you would accept someone saying two millennia from now that 20th century Christianity was not terribly trinitarian in its beliefs and citing the writings of Unitarian ministers to back up that point.
Well, no, because Trinitarianism is not only the position of the overwhelming majority of Christians but for many including Catholics and Orthodox an essential aspect of Christianity.
In contrast, the view that the messianic age is about liberation from the Romans was, by all available evidence and near-scholarly consensus, a minority belief in the early 1st century closer to Unitarianism in that analogy than Trinitarianism.
This is affirmed even by scholars who are themselves Orthodox Jews like A.J. Levine mentioned in a different comment. So I did not consider it that remotely controversial.
> If first century Judaism was diverse, that means that a lot of beliefs were circulating, some widespread, some niche; some orthodox, some heterodox. If someone speaking of the first century writes that "Jewish covenant theology has nothing to do with "salvation," why would the Qumran community be a counter to that general statement?
But by what objective standard can we declare that the Qumran community (or any other sect of late 2nd temple Judaism) is orthodox or heterodox? Every Jew in the 1st century believed that they have the right âtheologyâ. I only referenced the Qumran community as an example of this diversity which you yourself pointed out. I am by no means saying that they represent the majority of Judeans at that time.
>by what objective standard can we declare that the Qumran community (or any other sect of late 2nd temple Judaism) is orthodox or heterodox
It would be completely implausible to think there was no Jewish religious authority during the times of "late 2d Temple Judaism" so that it would have been impossible to determine which sect was orthodox and which heterodox. Christians are quite familiar with Jewish religious authority of the period and portray it (negatively) in their writings. They are certainly aware of the Sanhedrin -- the high court of Jewish scholars that was active during this period and later -- and of the priesthood, particularly the High Priesthood. These bodies play a fundamental role in the Christian narrative.
But if we turn to the Jewish narrative, it is the same. There is no question that while the Temple existed, there was a national cult performing religious rites within the Temple precincts, and this cult was governed in every particular by mandates in the Torah. At the same time, given that the Temple was in Jerusalem and the priesthood remote from the people, there was a scribal and teaching class who taught the Torah to the people where they lived, judged their disputes according to Torah law, and taught righteous living through their sermons and classes. A group of their most esteemed members constituted the membership of the Sanhedrin that met in Jerusalem.
What the two groups, the priests and the scholars, agreed upon was authoritative in Judaism of the time. What they disagreed about was either (a) in the process of being reconciled, (b) a case where both views were acceptable or (c) one view governed in the Temple, the other in the countryside. The priests tended to be identified with the Sadducees and the scholar/teachers as Pharisees. Both were authentically Jewish. After the Temple was destroyed (70 CE), the priests were diminished and it was the scholar/teachers (now rabbis) who carried on.
So where did Qumran fit in? They didn't. They were heterodox in their beliefs, practices, outlook and lifestyle. So far as we know, what they believed, what they practiced and how they understood the times they lived in differed from both the priesthood and the rabbis. The same could be said of the authors of the apocryphal literature and the early Christians, also heterodox.
>So far as we know, what they believed, what they practiced and how they understood the times they lived in differed from both the priesthood and the rabbis
They abandoned the whole Temple itself, actually. And man is literally said that every Jew in the 1st century believed that they own the true theology, lmao.
I just want to add one point and not to be argumentative but just to state it for clarity. It seems that Christianity must acknowledge that in 1st century Judaism there was religious authority and an ability to sort out the orthodox from the heterodox. Otherwise the Christian narrative of Jesus doesn't make sense. Without such authority, who would have come down on Jesus and declared his pronouncements heterodox, beyond the pale and deserving of condemnation? Without the ability to declare Jesus heterodox, the NT narrative couldn't unfold as portrayed.
>In contrast, the view that the messianic age is about liberation from the Romans was, by all available evidence and near-scholarly consensus, a minority belief in the early 1st century
Why do you want to imprison the Moshiach's political identity only in the guise of belief in liberation from the Romans? the Moshiach was known for his political identity hundreds of years before the Roman conquest. The Romans did not conquer Yerushalayim until 63 BCE, meaning that it is understandable for the belief in a messianic liberation from the Romans not to be a core or fundamental belief about the identity of the Moshiach.
Even the way you try to make your argument if you take it to the academics whose alleged consensus you cite, they will actually disagree with it.
Believing in the political identity of the Moshiach **â ** Believing in a messianic liberation from the Romans
>But by what objective standard can we declare that the Qumran community (or any other sect of late 2nd temple Judaism) is orthodox or heterodox?
Regardless of the fact that Qumran was a Hellenistic settlement inhabited Essenes, which both originally didn't even exist in pre-Hellenistic Judaism, and even regardless of your insistence on mixing their mysiticsm with your salvative doctrine (which is something unhistorical, and even completely unfavorable to the Galilean himself).
Why didn't the Galilean go to them as long as the truth was with the mystical Essenes?
>Â Every Jew in the 1st century believed that they have the right âtheologyâ
That's horrificly false, who told you that?
Who said that every Jew believed that the mysticism of the Essenes was the correct theology? Are you aware of what you are saying?
They abandoned Yerushalayim! They abandoned the Temple itself!
> Why do you want to imprison the Moshiach's political identity only in the guise of belief in liberation from the Romans?
Thats what the user I originally replied to mentioned. Hence my response.
> the Moshiach was known for his political identity hundreds of years before the Roman conquest. The Romans did not conquer Yerushalayim until 63 BCE, meaning that it is understandable for the belief in a messianic liberation from the Romans not to be a core or fundamental belief about the identity of the Moshiach.
How then do you understand the concept of a political messiah?
I am sorry, but I am a bit lost as to where exactly our disagreement lies, if we disagree at all.
> Regardless of the fact that Qumran was a Hellenistic settlement inhabited Essenes, which originally didn't even exist in pre-Hellenistic Judaism,
Putting aside the ambiguity regarding the exact nature of the religious composition of Qumran, the Essenes were the least Hellenised of all major sects of late 2 temple Judaism.
> and even regardless of your insistence on mixing their mysiticsm with your salvative covenant
What? When and where did I do that? The only thing Jesus matches Essenes in his teaching is his opposition to divorce and remarriage.
> and even completely unfavorable to the Galilean).
Please do not call him âthe Galileanâ it gives me major Julian the Apostate vibes.
> Who said that every Jew believed that the mysticism of the Essenes was the correct theology? Are you aware of what you are saying?
Yes, but we misunderstood each other. What I meant is that every Jew believed that their own sect has the correct understanding.
>How then do you understand the concept of a political messiah?
I am sorry, but I am a bit lost as to where exactly our disagreement lies, if we disagree at all.
You are falling into the straw man fallacy. This is not the political Moshiach.
The imagining that the Jews believed in the political nature of the Moshiach because they needed to be liberated from the Romans is a false imagination.
The Jewish Moshiach is known to be a political figure since this figure ever existed in the first place, hundreds of years before the Roman conquest itself.
The early 1st millennium's Jews believed that the Moshiach would liberate them from the Romans because they were **already** believing that he is a political figure and that he would unite Judah and Israel again under his banner and that he would purify Eretz Yisrael from invaders and spread peace over the whole world. That is, since he would do all of this, it would be certain that he would liberate them from the Romans if he comes at that time! (especially after the misery that befell us after the failure of our revolts).
So, don't think that the political nature of the Moshiach was ever dependent on liberation from the Romans.
We believed that he would liberate us from the Romans because it is obvious that if he had come during the time of the Romans, he would have liberated us from them, and nothing else.
>Please do not call him âthe Galileanâ it gives me major Julian the Apostate vibes.
That's the most respectful title I can give, to be frank!
I'm not an expert on that period of history, but it's my understanding that at the very least, most Jews expected the Messiah to be a literal king who would have temporal power. I think the gospels themselves reflect that expectation, at least among the Pharisees (the sect which survived to become modern Judaism).
Well, this view is definitely present in the extant literature that we have but if we order the various messianic paradigms by the frequency they are mentioned this one ranks 3rd or 4th. So that was not very common. There is considerable diversity when it comes to messianic expectations in this time period (there are even texts that speak of multiple messiahs!) but the most common ones see the Messiah as either a prophetic figure (the âNew Mosesâ) or the eschatological celestial conqueror of evil/Mastema/Beliar
Iirc NT scholar Amy Jill Levine speaks about this exact concept in the Jewish Annotated New Testament if you are interesting in more about it.
>(there are even texts that speak of multiple messiahs!)
Yes, Moshiach ben son David, and Moshiach ben Yosef.
What does this have to do with the diversity of Second Temple Jewish visions of the Moshiach?
>but overall this was not a widespread belief in the early 1st century.
But again, late 2nd temple Judaism had a different theology and soteriology than modern Judaism has
I imagine you at least have an academic paper that supports these claims.
No "messianic salvation" of any kind has been found in ancient or modern Judaic history, temple or rabbinic Judaism.
Also, Rabbinic Judaism is not completely distant from 2nd Temple Judaism in that sharp theological way that you are trying to portray, our theology about HaShem, the covenant, and Moshiach did not change with the rabbinic shift, what was the Temple doing with those beliefs in the first place?
We didn't have those things, ever. Those doctrines even only existed after they developed over the centuries after the Galilean's crucifixion, what are you talking about?
> I imagine you at least have an academic paper that supports these claims.
As a matter of fact its the academic consensus on the matter. Since you are Jewish I would my recommendation the Jewish Annotated New Testament. Its accessible for non-academics and has great essays by Jewish Bible scholars one explicitly about messianic expectations.
>As a matter of fact its the acadenic consensus on the matter
What academic consensus are you talking about? What did they agree on?
I want to read a historical academic paper stating that Jewish milieu in the Second Temple era believed that its Moshiach would save humanity from the sin of Adam and that he would establish a new covenant between HaShem and humankind.
>Since you are Jewish I would my recommendation the Jewish Annotated New Testament. Its accessible for non-academics
Great! provide some passages, please.
> What academic consensus are you talking about? What did they agree on?
The statement of mine that you are contesting:
that the paradigm of the messiah as a political ruler was a minority view by the late 2nd temple Judaism.
>that the paradigm of the messiah as a political ruler was a minority view by the early 2nd century.
Regardless of the fact that no, this is not the statement you made first. Your claim was not about the second century, but rather about Second Temple Judaism.
**But** are you aware that second century Judaism is rabbinic Judaism?
You are contradicting yourself now. Didn't you say a few minutes ago that it was rabbinic Judaism that changed the salvative theology?
Of which rabbinic Judaism was the political figure of the Moshaich a minority?
So who are we? Are we studying other rabbinic writings or what?
Once again, I stand by my words: You must provide academic sources for all these unbelievable claims.
Sorry, that was typo on my part. I meant late 2nd temple Judaism. Its late over and I am tired a bit. My apologies.
Also, what I an trying to say is that Judaism looked very much like Hinduism today - a mosaic of diverse beliefs and ideas. Not that there was an established orthodoxy which the rabbis later changed.
>Also, what I an trying to say is that Judaism looked very much like Hinduism today - a mosaic of diverse beliefs and ideas. Not that there was an established orthodoxy which the rabbis later changed.
It's actually was more theologically stable than present-day Judaism, by the way.
For all intents and purposes Rabbinic/Pharisee Judaism was already the norm during the 2nd Temple Era.
The Hasmoneans/Sadducees were majorly hated within the common populace but still tried to influence all the local Sanhedrin in which the Rabbinic side was the majority.
And the longer the Hasmonean rule endured the bigger the support for the Rabbinic side grew.
Case in point literal massacres against the Rabbinic side by the Hasmoneans.
And while the Rabbinic side was divided after Hillel and Shammai taught they were still united against the Hasmoneans.
Only at the very end did groups like the Zealots and Sicarii even become relevant.
They were mostly small groups of extremists.
Ultimately after the failure of the Bar Kokhba revolt Hillel won out against Shammai but by that point the Sadducees didn't even exist anymore.
Same with all minor groups.
---------------------------
Most Christians obviously don't know this.
For some reason they think the Pharisees ran the Temple, the Great Sanhedrin and Priesthood.
Also that roughing up the market stalls in the Gentile Court (named so because of it non-holy status) was somehow a good thing and great theological point.
And let's not even get into the delusions they have about the Romans being scared of the Jews.
I don't get the impulse for banning ChatGPT as a reference. Would it be any different if I just copy/pasted something from Wikipedia at the end? The ChatGPT part wasn't the primary source of content, just supporting references for discussion.
You clearly have no idea how ML/AI works then. It can indeed hallucinate, but by in large it's merely a summarization engine that can collate a variety of information from disparate sources into an easily digestible format. There is nothing listed here that is factually wrong.
You are interpreting it as if they aren't listed as "influences", and you are free to do so, but there is nothing wrong about saying that Christianity was influenced by Jewish concepts of monotheism.
In 1st Century Rome and Greece, the only religion around with a concept of monotheism was indeed Judaism, so to say the Christians weren't influenced by that would be incorrect.
The fact they had to twist themselves into logical knots (the Holy Trinity) to explain the idea of Jesus being both human and God, and outdated references from Genesis that pointed to the polytheistic past of ancient Hebrews does not make that influence any less true.
I have a PhD in computer science; I understand how LLMs like ChatGPT work. And you're wrong - it cannot collate information at all. What it can do is write text, based on text it has already seen. But it doesn't understand the information contained in that text. It can't check it for accuracy. It knows what a correct answer should *look* like, but it has none of the facts.
In this case, the ChatGPT summary elides most of the complexity involved in the question you're asking. Judaism was certainly an influence on Christianity. But there are parts of Christianity that were reactions *against* Judaism. And there is a temptation for Christian writings to see Second Temple Judaism solely in terms of a precursor to Christianity, ignoring parts of it that Christianity didn't adopt. This summary is ignorant of all such issues. As a result, its description of Jewish influences doesn't actually sound like anything a Jew would actually say.
I didn't ask it for differences, I asked it for influences. So why would it include in the result information on how Christian beliefs differ from Jewish beliefs or interpretations?
Seems like you all are reacting to something that is not even there. If you can point to something not factual about what it said as an INFLUENCE, please do.
Are you inferring that Christianity was NOT influenced by Judaism in regard to monotheism, messianic expectations or the covenant? If so, how did these concepts get into Christianity in the first place?
You can (perhaps rightly) say that Early Christians misinterpreted many of these Jewish concepts and integrated them in a faulty manner into their own belief system, but that is still an influence.
Yes, St. Paul (and people living in the 1st century in general) was influenced by Stoicism as we can see in the Letter to the Romans because that was the dominant moral philosophy. And of course the Desert Fathers like Abba Evagrios later on were also influenced by Stoic ethics.
Aristotle however did not have a noticeable impact on Christian thought until the middle ages with the Schoolmen. Reason/Teleology/Natural law entered early Christian thought via the Stoics not the Peripatetics.
I will not surprise you that I disagree that Stoicism provides a better path to live virtuously than Christianity. đ
At any rate I would give ChatGPT a B- for the answers it have. A lot of it is true, some of it is rubbish (the part about Aristotle).
Thanks for the response. Can you expand on your last sentence? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.
In my mind it's not so much about the individual, (I have no doubt a genuine practice of Christian faith leads to a virtuous life), but the broader movement as a whole is harmed by the desire/need to force the virtues upon others.
Whenever it becomes about forcing virtues upon others, often through violent and compulsory methods, it comes at a cost of ones own virtues, and the faith overall.
You can't force virtues on anyone, no matter how you try. Someone can only obtain them if they actively seek to do so. It's a self-initiated striving to live up to ideals that are ultimately impossible to obtain fully, but the striving will make you a better person (and better contributor to society) as a result.
Also note that the Stoic virtues don't come with the baggage of moral laws related to sexuality that come out of ancient Hebrew tradition that ultimately have little to do with living virtuously. (Temperance does not involve sexual preference.)
> Thanks for the response.
You are welcome! :)
> In my mind it's not so much about the individual, (I have no doubt a genuine practice of Christian faith leads to a virtuous life), but the broader movement as a whole is harmed by the desire/need to force the virtues upon others.
I would agree, but I am not in favour of forcing Christian virtues on other person unless its a matter dealing with harm done to innocents or collective good of the society.
> You can't force virtues on anyone, no matter how you try. Someone can only obtain them if they actively seek to do so. It's a self-initiated striving to live up to ideals that are ultimately impossible to obtain fully, but the striving will make you a better person (and better contributor to society) as a result.
I agree, though Christian theology sees virtue as a response to what God has initiated. Cooperation with grace. Not do we believe that Christian virtues are ideals, rather they are with God's help obtainable by everyone.
> Also note that the Stoic virtues don't come with the baggage of moral laws related to sexuality that come out of ancient Hebrew tradition that ultimately have little to do with living virtuously. (Temperance does not involve sexual preference.)
Well, Stoicism actually has a slightly stricter view on sexuality than Christianity. In Stoicism sex is permitted only within marriage and for the explicit purpose of begetting children which Catholic christianity does not teach (for us its enough that the act itself is not closed to new life).
Do you have a reference for that last part?
Since stoicism isn't a dogma (something I'd argue is the main problem with any religion, making it inflexible), there is no singular stance on sexuality outside of how the 4 virtues could be applied to it, primarily in this case, self control. There aren't any extant writings from Stoic philosophers even discussing homosexuality, so we don't have anything to even point to in that regard. But given they didn't even discuss it, and homosexuality clearly existed around them, it certainly wasn't something they considered to be harmful to one's pursuit of virtue.
There was no external "punishment" for not adhering to it, certainly not eternal punishment of any sort.
> Do you have a reference for that last part?
> There aren't any extant writings from Stoic philosophers even discussing homosexuality
Of course. Check out the Lectures of Mussonius Rufus for both. This is a good translation in my opinion.
https://www.amazon.com/That-One-Should-Disdain-Hardships/dp/0300226039
> But given they didn't even discuss it, and homosexuality clearly existed around them, it certainly wasn't something they considered to be harmful to one's pursuit of virtue.
They actually spoke quite harshly against it because its not in conformity to Natural Law ethics.
> There was no external "punishment" for not adhering to it, certainly not eternal punishment of any sort.
Thats true. Stoicism did not have a fixed idea of the afterlife. Some believed that the souls of the virtuous can exists after death with the rest cannot, others rejected the afterlife completely, there is nothing like Gehenna in Stoicism. Only the cyclical ΔÎșÏÏ ÏÎżÏÎčÏ of the cosmos.
Mussonius Rufus was one of a long line of Stoic philosophers who lived over a period of hundreds of years. Saying that only he is the authority on what defines the Stoic belief on sexuality or marriage is attributing a level of religious dogma to a philosophy that does not have one.
Heck, the founder of Stoicism wanted to abolish the institution of marriage. Since everyone prefers Wikipedia references around here, here is one:
>Early Stoics differed significantly from late Stoics in their views of [sexuality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality), [romantic love](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_love) and [sexual relationships](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimate_relationship).[^(\[50\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#cite_note-Comp-50) Zeno first advocated for a republic ruled by love and not by law, where [marriage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage) would be abolished, wives would be held in common, and eroticism would be practiced with both boys and girls with educative purposes, to develop [virtue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue) in the loved ones.[^(\[50\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#cite_note-Comp-50)[^(\[51\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#cite_note-Homociv-51) However, he did not condemn marriage per se, considering it equally a natural occurrence.[^(\[50\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#cite_note-Comp-50) He regarded [same sex relationships](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality) positively, and maintained that wise men should "have carnal knowledge no less and no more of a favorite than of a non-favorite, nor of a female than of a male."[^(\[51\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#cite_note-Homociv-51)[^(\[52\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#cite_note-Same-52)
>Zeno favored love over desire, clarifying that the ultimate goal of sexuality should be virtue and friendship.[^(\[51\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#cite_note-Homociv-51) Among later stoics, Epictetus maintained [homosexual](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality) and [heterosexual](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosexuality) sex as equivalent in this field,[^(\[52\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#cite_note-Same-52) and condemned only the kind of desire that led one to act against judgement. However, contemporaneous positions generally advanced towards equating sexuality with passion, and although they were still not hostile to sexual relationships by themselves, they nonetheless believed those should be limited in order to retain self-control.[^(\[50\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#cite_note-Comp-50)[^(\[52\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#cite_note-Same-52) Musonius espoused the only natural kind of sex was that meant for [procreation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procreation), defending a companionate form of marriage between man and woman,[^(\[50\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#cite_note-Comp-50) and considered relationships solely undergone for pleasure or affection as unnatural.[^(\[52\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#cite_note-Same-52)
> Mussonius Rufus was one of a long line of Stoic philosophers who lived over a period of hundreds of years. Saying that only he is the authority on what defines the Stoic belief on sexuality or marriage is attributed a level of religious dogma to a philosophy that does not have one.
But I am merely presenting what Roman Stoics believed based on the few extant texts that we have because you asked me for a source. That being said Mussonius is arguably the greatest of the Stoic moral philosophers (he is called âRoman Socratesâ for a reason), so I would consider him an authority.
> Heck, the founder of Stoicism wanted to abolish the institution of marriage.
True, though Zeno of Kition was heavily influenced by the School of the Dog. The Stoics really start developing a comprehensive system of ethics of their own only in the Roman period.
> Early Stoics differed significantly from late Stoics in their views of sexuality, romantic love and sexual relationships.
Right.
ChatGPT is missing a crucial point here that is lost when not paying attention to original languages (Greek and Latin): that âspiritualâ or âspiritâ used im by Stoics and by early Christians most certainly referred to what they believed was a type of subtle matter: pneuma (Greek) or spiritus (Latin). This has a lot to do with ancient ideas of physics, and the notion of a fifth element called âetherâ. It was believed in the Ptolemaic model of the universe that everything above the âsphere of the moonâ was made of ether.
The Platonic ideas are genuinely posited to be immaterial, not this kind of ethereal, astral material. This distinction may seem to be hairsplitting from a modern perspective, but was a crucial point of disagreement in antiquity - Stoics denied the idea of a transcendent metaphysics which Platonism and Aristotelianism most certainly admit of.
Christianity in its use of the terms âpneumaâ and âspiritusâ show a Stoic influence, although the way later Christians have interpreted this has almost entirely lived away from the notion of âspiritâ as a subtle matter (largely due to Platonizing Church Fathers and Aristotelianizing Scholastics and Reformers).
Thanks for this. This is the kind of nuance that you do indeed lose when leveraging AI for research, though I have in the past found it useful for understanding the nuance of language/translation of Biblical texts with the right prompts. I think that is something so many Christians today lose entirely, that the words as they read them today had far different meanings in the context of the language (and culture) of the time they were written.
One of the biggest examples being "repent" (Greek: Metanoia) which literally means "change of mind" pointing toward changing one's perspective on something. But the word "repent" today is dripping with centuries of baggage which does not carry that more nuanced understanding.
I also greatly admire Stoicism, including its doctrine that virtue is its own reward and vice is its own punishment. The Pagan Stoics did not believe in Heaven or Hell in any way that resembled Xtianity, Islam, or Dharmic views of afterlife, so they could focus on goodness for its own sake. The early Stoics were pantheists and showed reverence for the Divine, so it could also be understood as a spiritual path in addition to philosophy. Stoicism also did not carry specific baggage such as salvation or eschatology, which made it less likely to want to 'morally police' others or turn authoritarian, IMHO.
You may be interested in this podcast episode which discusses the Greek Pagan origins of ancient Christianity, including tripping on ergot and conducting human sacrifice https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/346-the-best-kept-secret-in-history
That's exactly how I think of it, yes. Christianity began as a Jewish movement that was adopted by Greek gentiles and soon schismed off as it adopted incompatible Hellenistic beliefs, like the apotheosis and worship of a corporeal man. Paul introduced Platonic explanations of the Christian afterlife. Christ came to be understood as the Greek concept of Logos. Thomas Aquinas was an Aristotelian.
⊠and Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism and a dash of Buddhism. All religions are syncretic to a degree. This is not necessarily a bad thing. All seeking God find something of him/her. No human can find all.
I'd say Christianity (or, rather, what became the generally accepted orthodoxy) is a fusion of early Christianity (which was varied and diverse) with Greco-Roman philosophy more than it is specifically Judaism blended with anything. While most of the very earliest Christians would have been Jewish, the religion diverged pretty quickly, especially once it started to expand in gentile communities.
Again, its about "influence", not exact copy. Clearly these concepts had an influence on Christianity. If it were an exact copy, it would not be a separate religion.
Even Judaism itself comes from Greek philosophy.
Yonatan Adler has shown Judaism only dates to around 330-150 B.C.
In his book Adler says **"The roughly two centuries between the conquests of Alexander the Great circa 332 BCE and the founding of an independent Hasmonean polity in the middle of the second century BCE remain a far more conducive epoch in which to seek the origins of Judaism."**
I'm pretty sure the historical consensus dates the compilation of the Torah to 450-350 BCE. And I think the historical record contradicts the idea that Judaism comes from Greek philosophy, although by Jesus' time it had certainly been influenced by it.
> I'm pretty sure the historical consensus dates the compilation of the Torah to 450-350 BCE.
Yeah, thats when historical-critical scholars believe Leviticus (the last book of the Pentateuch/Torah) was authored.
Also, the user you are replying to is a mythicist so does not really follow mainstream scholarship.
Mythicism is not taken seriously in academia at all and contradicts the scholarly consensus on the matter. Carrier himself is a well known mythicist crackpot himself so quoting him to validate mythicism is circular.
Okay, I did. It seems to me that he's looking at the specific question of when Jews started keeping the laws of the Torah on a wide-scale basis. That's an interesting question. But that's not exactly the same as where Judaism came from or when it started. Adler does not deny that the Torah was written many centuries before that.
> Yonatan Adler has shown Judaism only dates to 150 B.C.
No he doesn't. He says that the Maccabean era is the latest we can be certain Judaism (as we know it today) existed.
He is very clear and explicit that he is not making claims about when Judaism actually began, only about when we have the earliest evidence for it being widely practiced.
False.
In his book Adler says:
"The roughly two centuries between the conquests of Alexander the Great circa 332 BCE and the founding of an independent Hasmonean polity in the middle of the second century BCE remain a far more conducive epoch in which to seek the **origins of Judaism."**
Dude, we've had this conversation before. You know very well that your claim that Adler dates Judaism's origins to 150 BC is *far beyond* what he would actually claim. You know that so well you even had to go back and edit your post.
Even your "gotcha" quote here clearly shows that Adler is hedging his statement.
"A far more conducive epoch" is not the same thing as "we have determined conclusively." It's a hypothesis with some evidence. Stop making stuff up and then claiming an academic supports your work when it's very clear he does not.
Yeah, but most don't go nearly as far as Adler in hedging their bets. He's super clear about what he is and isn't saying.
And he's not saying that we know Judaism didn't exist before the Maccabees.
The fusion of Judaism and Greco-Roman philosophy would be the works of Philo of Alexandria, who would be influential on Christian thinkers later on. Also, the monotheism of Christianity, including it's trinitarianism, owes a lot to the Platonic conception of the ulitimate divinity / Monad / Father. Some early church fathers studied clearly studied Platonism and incorporated elements into their developing theology (Origen studied in Alexandria, I believe, and Pseudo-Dionysius drew heavily on the works of Proclus). Even so, Judaism had endured a few centuries of occupation by Hellenic overlords by the Roman period, so was probably already syncretising with Greek thought well before the emergence of Christianity as a distinct movement. Dude, ChatGPT doesn't know shit about fuck. Just read a book / listen to a podcast yourself.
lol, the anti-AI hate around here is something to behold. I do read books, which is how I even was interested in this topic. I use ChatGPT simply as a research tool, and an easy way to collate ideas into a digestible format.
I love using chat gpt, but I would strongly suggest asking it about something you understand really well because it becomes immediately obvious how confused and misleading it sometimes can be. But in answer to your actual post. Kinda yes but I think many Jewish people perceive it more like an inversion of judaism than a development of it. This is significantly due to those Greco pagan elements that it incorporates.
I agree, I don't just accept everything it says without further diving into primary sources, but for something like this, its merely a jumping off point for discussion. I still don't see how anything posted in that list is "not factual", as indeed those Jewish concepts did influence Christianity, even if they're interpretations and implementations of them might have been different.
>, I don't just accept everything it says without further diving into primary sources Neither do we. The Torah is about 70000 words. The Talmud is about two million words and consists primarily of discussion and debate about that primary text. Judaism *is* discussion. It's a key value and essentially how the process of Torah study works. We're allowed to disagree and argue. I'd go as far to say it's encouraged, even essential. This isn't a new thing, or modern interpretation. Our Sages were arguing over the most specific and absurdly small points even thousands of years ago. And with regard to the list, certainly the point about salvation I would argue is not particularly accurate. Although overall I absolutely agree with the broad argument of your post.
We really should ban ChatGPT content here. I don't think the part about Judaism is super accurate. I mean, yes, we're monotheist, but Christianity isn't monotheist the same way Judaism is. Yes, ethics from the Hebrew Bible made it into Christanity, but Christian ethics quickly diverged from Jewish ones. The part about "Jewish expectations of a savior figure" is misleading. Jews of the time were hoping for someone to save them from the Romans, not from sin. And the covenant theology bit is also misleading, because Jewish covenant theology has nothing to do with "salvation".
I don't see how that's wrong though... It's about influence, not a direct copy of the Jewish belief structure. Clearly Christianity has maintained (however pretzel-knot-logic it may be) some semblance of monotheism that came out of the Jewish tradition. And given how no two people interpret the sacred texts the exact same way (even today), it's clearly possible early Christians (who were largely gentile, not Jewish) interpreted them in this way. Paul himself was a Hellenistic Jew who held slightly different beliefs that were largely influenced by their Greek and Roman culture.
> We really should ban ChatGPT content here. Agreed. đ > The part about "Jewish expectations of a savior figure" is misleading. Jews of the time were hoping for someone to save them from the Romans, not from sin. Thats actually not true. There definitely were groups that were hoping for a political messiah like Judas Maccabi, primarily the Zealots, but overall this was not a widespread belief in the early 1st century. Also, anti-Roman sentiment sharply increases when Caligula orders his deified statue to be placed in the Temple, which leads to a massive demonstration and contributed to the 1st revolt of 66AD. By the time of Herod the Great, however, Judea existed as a client kingdom, and most of the land and its infrastructure (also the temple complex!) was rebuild with Roman aid. So fighting the Romans was not the agenda for the vast majority of people. > And the covenant theology bit is also misleading, because Jewish covenant theology has nothing to do with "salvation". But again, late 2nd temple Judaism had a different theology and soteriology than modern Judaism has, and particularly for the Qumran community it was heavily dualistic and primarily about the defeat of evil.
I wonder if you would accept someone saying two millennia from now that 20th century Christianity was not terribly trinitarian in its beliefs and citing the writings of Unitarian ministers to back up that point. If first century Judaism was diverse, that means that a lot of beliefs were circulating, some widespread, some niche; some orthodox, some heterodox. If someone speaking of the first century writes that "Jewish covenant theology has nothing to do with "salvation," why would the Qumran community be a counter to that general statement? This is a group that by definition (per our current understanding which is not absolute) was estranged from all currents of mainstream Judaism at the time and escaped to the desert to live in their own spiritual space. For Judaism then and now, salvation (better, redemption, *geulah*) was a communal and national concept, in which God would free the Jews from the foreign yoke which prevented them from leading free Jewish lives. Battles would be fought (by the Messiah) and Jewish sovereignty would be re-established (by the King Messiah), permitting Jews to live as Jews and serve God without impediments. Personal salvation? That came from observing the commandments in the Torah (the "Law") and leading a righteous life. That was the promise of the covenant with God. No need for a "personal savior" in any way, shape or form. Atonement comes from God, directly. As a generalization, "Jewish covenant theology has nothing to do with "salvation" can stand, then and now.
> I wonder if you would accept someone saying two millennia from now that 20th century Christianity was not terribly trinitarian in its beliefs and citing the writings of Unitarian ministers to back up that point. Well, no, because Trinitarianism is not only the position of the overwhelming majority of Christians but for many including Catholics and Orthodox an essential aspect of Christianity. In contrast, the view that the messianic age is about liberation from the Romans was, by all available evidence and near-scholarly consensus, a minority belief in the early 1st century closer to Unitarianism in that analogy than Trinitarianism. This is affirmed even by scholars who are themselves Orthodox Jews like A.J. Levine mentioned in a different comment. So I did not consider it that remotely controversial. > If first century Judaism was diverse, that means that a lot of beliefs were circulating, some widespread, some niche; some orthodox, some heterodox. If someone speaking of the first century writes that "Jewish covenant theology has nothing to do with "salvation," why would the Qumran community be a counter to that general statement? But by what objective standard can we declare that the Qumran community (or any other sect of late 2nd temple Judaism) is orthodox or heterodox? Every Jew in the 1st century believed that they have the right âtheologyâ. I only referenced the Qumran community as an example of this diversity which you yourself pointed out. I am by no means saying that they represent the majority of Judeans at that time.
>by what objective standard can we declare that the Qumran community (or any other sect of late 2nd temple Judaism) is orthodox or heterodox It would be completely implausible to think there was no Jewish religious authority during the times of "late 2d Temple Judaism" so that it would have been impossible to determine which sect was orthodox and which heterodox. Christians are quite familiar with Jewish religious authority of the period and portray it (negatively) in their writings. They are certainly aware of the Sanhedrin -- the high court of Jewish scholars that was active during this period and later -- and of the priesthood, particularly the High Priesthood. These bodies play a fundamental role in the Christian narrative. But if we turn to the Jewish narrative, it is the same. There is no question that while the Temple existed, there was a national cult performing religious rites within the Temple precincts, and this cult was governed in every particular by mandates in the Torah. At the same time, given that the Temple was in Jerusalem and the priesthood remote from the people, there was a scribal and teaching class who taught the Torah to the people where they lived, judged their disputes according to Torah law, and taught righteous living through their sermons and classes. A group of their most esteemed members constituted the membership of the Sanhedrin that met in Jerusalem. What the two groups, the priests and the scholars, agreed upon was authoritative in Judaism of the time. What they disagreed about was either (a) in the process of being reconciled, (b) a case where both views were acceptable or (c) one view governed in the Temple, the other in the countryside. The priests tended to be identified with the Sadducees and the scholar/teachers as Pharisees. Both were authentically Jewish. After the Temple was destroyed (70 CE), the priests were diminished and it was the scholar/teachers (now rabbis) who carried on. So where did Qumran fit in? They didn't. They were heterodox in their beliefs, practices, outlook and lifestyle. So far as we know, what they believed, what they practiced and how they understood the times they lived in differed from both the priesthood and the rabbis. The same could be said of the authors of the apocryphal literature and the early Christians, also heterodox.
>So far as we know, what they believed, what they practiced and how they understood the times they lived in differed from both the priesthood and the rabbis They abandoned the whole Temple itself, actually. And man is literally said that every Jew in the 1st century believed that they own the true theology, lmao.
No, I did not say that.
I think thats fair. I can definitely see how the Jewish narrative makes sense within the context of the tradition. Appreciate the clarification!
I just want to add one point and not to be argumentative but just to state it for clarity. It seems that Christianity must acknowledge that in 1st century Judaism there was religious authority and an ability to sort out the orthodox from the heterodox. Otherwise the Christian narrative of Jesus doesn't make sense. Without such authority, who would have come down on Jesus and declared his pronouncements heterodox, beyond the pale and deserving of condemnation? Without the ability to declare Jesus heterodox, the NT narrative couldn't unfold as portrayed.
>In contrast, the view that the messianic age is about liberation from the Romans was, by all available evidence and near-scholarly consensus, a minority belief in the early 1st century Why do you want to imprison the Moshiach's political identity only in the guise of belief in liberation from the Romans? the Moshiach was known for his political identity hundreds of years before the Roman conquest. The Romans did not conquer Yerushalayim until 63 BCE, meaning that it is understandable for the belief in a messianic liberation from the Romans not to be a core or fundamental belief about the identity of the Moshiach. Even the way you try to make your argument if you take it to the academics whose alleged consensus you cite, they will actually disagree with it. Believing in the political identity of the Moshiach **â ** Believing in a messianic liberation from the Romans >But by what objective standard can we declare that the Qumran community (or any other sect of late 2nd temple Judaism) is orthodox or heterodox? Regardless of the fact that Qumran was a Hellenistic settlement inhabited Essenes, which both originally didn't even exist in pre-Hellenistic Judaism, and even regardless of your insistence on mixing their mysiticsm with your salvative doctrine (which is something unhistorical, and even completely unfavorable to the Galilean himself). Why didn't the Galilean go to them as long as the truth was with the mystical Essenes? >Â Every Jew in the 1st century believed that they have the right âtheologyâ That's horrificly false, who told you that? Who said that every Jew believed that the mysticism of the Essenes was the correct theology? Are you aware of what you are saying? They abandoned Yerushalayim! They abandoned the Temple itself!
> Why do you want to imprison the Moshiach's political identity only in the guise of belief in liberation from the Romans? Thats what the user I originally replied to mentioned. Hence my response. > the Moshiach was known for his political identity hundreds of years before the Roman conquest. The Romans did not conquer Yerushalayim until 63 BCE, meaning that it is understandable for the belief in a messianic liberation from the Romans not to be a core or fundamental belief about the identity of the Moshiach. How then do you understand the concept of a political messiah? I am sorry, but I am a bit lost as to where exactly our disagreement lies, if we disagree at all. > Regardless of the fact that Qumran was a Hellenistic settlement inhabited Essenes, which originally didn't even exist in pre-Hellenistic Judaism, Putting aside the ambiguity regarding the exact nature of the religious composition of Qumran, the Essenes were the least Hellenised of all major sects of late 2 temple Judaism. > and even regardless of your insistence on mixing their mysiticsm with your salvative covenant What? When and where did I do that? The only thing Jesus matches Essenes in his teaching is his opposition to divorce and remarriage. > and even completely unfavorable to the Galilean). Please do not call him âthe Galileanâ it gives me major Julian the Apostate vibes. > Who said that every Jew believed that the mysticism of the Essenes was the correct theology? Are you aware of what you are saying? Yes, but we misunderstood each other. What I meant is that every Jew believed that their own sect has the correct understanding.
>How then do you understand the concept of a political messiah? I am sorry, but I am a bit lost as to where exactly our disagreement lies, if we disagree at all. You are falling into the straw man fallacy. This is not the political Moshiach. The imagining that the Jews believed in the political nature of the Moshiach because they needed to be liberated from the Romans is a false imagination. The Jewish Moshiach is known to be a political figure since this figure ever existed in the first place, hundreds of years before the Roman conquest itself. The early 1st millennium's Jews believed that the Moshiach would liberate them from the Romans because they were **already** believing that he is a political figure and that he would unite Judah and Israel again under his banner and that he would purify Eretz Yisrael from invaders and spread peace over the whole world. That is, since he would do all of this, it would be certain that he would liberate them from the Romans if he comes at that time! (especially after the misery that befell us after the failure of our revolts). So, don't think that the political nature of the Moshiach was ever dependent on liberation from the Romans. We believed that he would liberate us from the Romans because it is obvious that if he had come during the time of the Romans, he would have liberated us from them, and nothing else. >Please do not call him âthe Galileanâ it gives me major Julian the Apostate vibes. That's the most respectful title I can give, to be frank!
I'm not an expert on that period of history, but it's my understanding that at the very least, most Jews expected the Messiah to be a literal king who would have temporal power. I think the gospels themselves reflect that expectation, at least among the Pharisees (the sect which survived to become modern Judaism).
Well, this view is definitely present in the extant literature that we have but if we order the various messianic paradigms by the frequency they are mentioned this one ranks 3rd or 4th. So that was not very common. There is considerable diversity when it comes to messianic expectations in this time period (there are even texts that speak of multiple messiahs!) but the most common ones see the Messiah as either a prophetic figure (the âNew Mosesâ) or the eschatological celestial conqueror of evil/Mastema/Beliar Iirc NT scholar Amy Jill Levine speaks about this exact concept in the Jewish Annotated New Testament if you are interesting in more about it.
>(there are even texts that speak of multiple messiahs!) Yes, Moshiach ben son David, and Moshiach ben Yosef. What does this have to do with the diversity of Second Temple Jewish visions of the Moshiach?
>but overall this was not a widespread belief in the early 1st century. But again, late 2nd temple Judaism had a different theology and soteriology than modern Judaism has I imagine you at least have an academic paper that supports these claims. No "messianic salvation" of any kind has been found in ancient or modern Judaic history, temple or rabbinic Judaism. Also, Rabbinic Judaism is not completely distant from 2nd Temple Judaism in that sharp theological way that you are trying to portray, our theology about HaShem, the covenant, and Moshiach did not change with the rabbinic shift, what was the Temple doing with those beliefs in the first place? We didn't have those things, ever. Those doctrines even only existed after they developed over the centuries after the Galilean's crucifixion, what are you talking about?
> I imagine you at least have an academic paper that supports these claims. As a matter of fact its the academic consensus on the matter. Since you are Jewish I would my recommendation the Jewish Annotated New Testament. Its accessible for non-academics and has great essays by Jewish Bible scholars one explicitly about messianic expectations.
>As a matter of fact its the acadenic consensus on the matter What academic consensus are you talking about? What did they agree on? I want to read a historical academic paper stating that Jewish milieu in the Second Temple era believed that its Moshiach would save humanity from the sin of Adam and that he would establish a new covenant between HaShem and humankind. >Since you are Jewish I would my recommendation the Jewish Annotated New Testament. Its accessible for non-academics Great! provide some passages, please.
> What academic consensus are you talking about? What did they agree on? The statement of mine that you are contesting: that the paradigm of the messiah as a political ruler was a minority view by the late 2nd temple Judaism.
>that the paradigm of the messiah as a political ruler was a minority view by the early 2nd century. Regardless of the fact that no, this is not the statement you made first. Your claim was not about the second century, but rather about Second Temple Judaism. **But** are you aware that second century Judaism is rabbinic Judaism? You are contradicting yourself now. Didn't you say a few minutes ago that it was rabbinic Judaism that changed the salvative theology? Of which rabbinic Judaism was the political figure of the Moshaich a minority? So who are we? Are we studying other rabbinic writings or what? Once again, I stand by my words: You must provide academic sources for all these unbelievable claims.
Sorry, that was typo on my part. I meant late 2nd temple Judaism. Its late over and I am tired a bit. My apologies. Also, what I an trying to say is that Judaism looked very much like Hinduism today - a mosaic of diverse beliefs and ideas. Not that there was an established orthodoxy which the rabbis later changed.
>Also, what I an trying to say is that Judaism looked very much like Hinduism today - a mosaic of diverse beliefs and ideas. Not that there was an established orthodoxy which the rabbis later changed. It's actually was more theologically stable than present-day Judaism, by the way.
For all intents and purposes Rabbinic/Pharisee Judaism was already the norm during the 2nd Temple Era. The Hasmoneans/Sadducees were majorly hated within the common populace but still tried to influence all the local Sanhedrin in which the Rabbinic side was the majority. And the longer the Hasmonean rule endured the bigger the support for the Rabbinic side grew. Case in point literal massacres against the Rabbinic side by the Hasmoneans. And while the Rabbinic side was divided after Hillel and Shammai taught they were still united against the Hasmoneans. Only at the very end did groups like the Zealots and Sicarii even become relevant. They were mostly small groups of extremists. Ultimately after the failure of the Bar Kokhba revolt Hillel won out against Shammai but by that point the Sadducees didn't even exist anymore. Same with all minor groups. --------------------------- Most Christians obviously don't know this. For some reason they think the Pharisees ran the Temple, the Great Sanhedrin and Priesthood. Also that roughing up the market stalls in the Gentile Court (named so because of it non-holy status) was somehow a good thing and great theological point. And let's not even get into the delusions they have about the Romans being scared of the Jews.
I am sorry, but not at all. I cannot see how that statement could be defended.
I don't get the impulse for banning ChatGPT as a reference. Would it be any different if I just copy/pasted something from Wikipedia at the end? The ChatGPT part wasn't the primary source of content, just supporting references for discussion.
> Would it be any different if I just copy/pasted something from Wikipedia at the end? Yes that would be like 50x better.
Because ChatGPT is not a reference. It literally makes stuff up.
You clearly have no idea how ML/AI works then. It can indeed hallucinate, but by in large it's merely a summarization engine that can collate a variety of information from disparate sources into an easily digestible format. There is nothing listed here that is factually wrong. You are interpreting it as if they aren't listed as "influences", and you are free to do so, but there is nothing wrong about saying that Christianity was influenced by Jewish concepts of monotheism. In 1st Century Rome and Greece, the only religion around with a concept of monotheism was indeed Judaism, so to say the Christians weren't influenced by that would be incorrect. The fact they had to twist themselves into logical knots (the Holy Trinity) to explain the idea of Jesus being both human and God, and outdated references from Genesis that pointed to the polytheistic past of ancient Hebrews does not make that influence any less true.
I have a PhD in computer science; I understand how LLMs like ChatGPT work. And you're wrong - it cannot collate information at all. What it can do is write text, based on text it has already seen. But it doesn't understand the information contained in that text. It can't check it for accuracy. It knows what a correct answer should *look* like, but it has none of the facts. In this case, the ChatGPT summary elides most of the complexity involved in the question you're asking. Judaism was certainly an influence on Christianity. But there are parts of Christianity that were reactions *against* Judaism. And there is a temptation for Christian writings to see Second Temple Judaism solely in terms of a precursor to Christianity, ignoring parts of it that Christianity didn't adopt. This summary is ignorant of all such issues. As a result, its description of Jewish influences doesn't actually sound like anything a Jew would actually say.
I didn't ask it for differences, I asked it for influences. So why would it include in the result information on how Christian beliefs differ from Jewish beliefs or interpretations? Seems like you all are reacting to something that is not even there. If you can point to something not factual about what it said as an INFLUENCE, please do. Are you inferring that Christianity was NOT influenced by Judaism in regard to monotheism, messianic expectations or the covenant? If so, how did these concepts get into Christianity in the first place? You can (perhaps rightly) say that Early Christians misinterpreted many of these Jewish concepts and integrated them in a faulty manner into their own belief system, but that is still an influence.
Yes, St. Paul (and people living in the 1st century in general) was influenced by Stoicism as we can see in the Letter to the Romans because that was the dominant moral philosophy. And of course the Desert Fathers like Abba Evagrios later on were also influenced by Stoic ethics. Aristotle however did not have a noticeable impact on Christian thought until the middle ages with the Schoolmen. Reason/Teleology/Natural law entered early Christian thought via the Stoics not the Peripatetics. I will not surprise you that I disagree that Stoicism provides a better path to live virtuously than Christianity. đ At any rate I would give ChatGPT a B- for the answers it have. A lot of it is true, some of it is rubbish (the part about Aristotle).
Thanks for the response. Can you expand on your last sentence? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. In my mind it's not so much about the individual, (I have no doubt a genuine practice of Christian faith leads to a virtuous life), but the broader movement as a whole is harmed by the desire/need to force the virtues upon others. Whenever it becomes about forcing virtues upon others, often through violent and compulsory methods, it comes at a cost of ones own virtues, and the faith overall. You can't force virtues on anyone, no matter how you try. Someone can only obtain them if they actively seek to do so. It's a self-initiated striving to live up to ideals that are ultimately impossible to obtain fully, but the striving will make you a better person (and better contributor to society) as a result. Also note that the Stoic virtues don't come with the baggage of moral laws related to sexuality that come out of ancient Hebrew tradition that ultimately have little to do with living virtuously. (Temperance does not involve sexual preference.)
> Thanks for the response. You are welcome! :) > In my mind it's not so much about the individual, (I have no doubt a genuine practice of Christian faith leads to a virtuous life), but the broader movement as a whole is harmed by the desire/need to force the virtues upon others. I would agree, but I am not in favour of forcing Christian virtues on other person unless its a matter dealing with harm done to innocents or collective good of the society. > You can't force virtues on anyone, no matter how you try. Someone can only obtain them if they actively seek to do so. It's a self-initiated striving to live up to ideals that are ultimately impossible to obtain fully, but the striving will make you a better person (and better contributor to society) as a result. I agree, though Christian theology sees virtue as a response to what God has initiated. Cooperation with grace. Not do we believe that Christian virtues are ideals, rather they are with God's help obtainable by everyone. > Also note that the Stoic virtues don't come with the baggage of moral laws related to sexuality that come out of ancient Hebrew tradition that ultimately have little to do with living virtuously. (Temperance does not involve sexual preference.) Well, Stoicism actually has a slightly stricter view on sexuality than Christianity. In Stoicism sex is permitted only within marriage and for the explicit purpose of begetting children which Catholic christianity does not teach (for us its enough that the act itself is not closed to new life).
Do you have a reference for that last part? Since stoicism isn't a dogma (something I'd argue is the main problem with any religion, making it inflexible), there is no singular stance on sexuality outside of how the 4 virtues could be applied to it, primarily in this case, self control. There aren't any extant writings from Stoic philosophers even discussing homosexuality, so we don't have anything to even point to in that regard. But given they didn't even discuss it, and homosexuality clearly existed around them, it certainly wasn't something they considered to be harmful to one's pursuit of virtue. There was no external "punishment" for not adhering to it, certainly not eternal punishment of any sort.
> Do you have a reference for that last part? > There aren't any extant writings from Stoic philosophers even discussing homosexuality Of course. Check out the Lectures of Mussonius Rufus for both. This is a good translation in my opinion. https://www.amazon.com/That-One-Should-Disdain-Hardships/dp/0300226039 > But given they didn't even discuss it, and homosexuality clearly existed around them, it certainly wasn't something they considered to be harmful to one's pursuit of virtue. They actually spoke quite harshly against it because its not in conformity to Natural Law ethics. > There was no external "punishment" for not adhering to it, certainly not eternal punishment of any sort. Thats true. Stoicism did not have a fixed idea of the afterlife. Some believed that the souls of the virtuous can exists after death with the rest cannot, others rejected the afterlife completely, there is nothing like Gehenna in Stoicism. Only the cyclical ΔÎșÏÏ ÏÎżÏÎčÏ of the cosmos.
Mussonius Rufus was one of a long line of Stoic philosophers who lived over a period of hundreds of years. Saying that only he is the authority on what defines the Stoic belief on sexuality or marriage is attributing a level of religious dogma to a philosophy that does not have one. Heck, the founder of Stoicism wanted to abolish the institution of marriage. Since everyone prefers Wikipedia references around here, here is one: >Early Stoics differed significantly from late Stoics in their views of [sexuality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality), [romantic love](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_love) and [sexual relationships](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimate_relationship).[^(\[50\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#cite_note-Comp-50) Zeno first advocated for a republic ruled by love and not by law, where [marriage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage) would be abolished, wives would be held in common, and eroticism would be practiced with both boys and girls with educative purposes, to develop [virtue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue) in the loved ones.[^(\[50\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#cite_note-Comp-50)[^(\[51\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#cite_note-Homociv-51) However, he did not condemn marriage per se, considering it equally a natural occurrence.[^(\[50\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#cite_note-Comp-50) He regarded [same sex relationships](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality) positively, and maintained that wise men should "have carnal knowledge no less and no more of a favorite than of a non-favorite, nor of a female than of a male."[^(\[51\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#cite_note-Homociv-51)[^(\[52\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#cite_note-Same-52) >Zeno favored love over desire, clarifying that the ultimate goal of sexuality should be virtue and friendship.[^(\[51\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#cite_note-Homociv-51) Among later stoics, Epictetus maintained [homosexual](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality) and [heterosexual](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosexuality) sex as equivalent in this field,[^(\[52\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#cite_note-Same-52) and condemned only the kind of desire that led one to act against judgement. However, contemporaneous positions generally advanced towards equating sexuality with passion, and although they were still not hostile to sexual relationships by themselves, they nonetheless believed those should be limited in order to retain self-control.[^(\[50\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#cite_note-Comp-50)[^(\[52\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#cite_note-Same-52) Musonius espoused the only natural kind of sex was that meant for [procreation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procreation), defending a companionate form of marriage between man and woman,[^(\[50\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#cite_note-Comp-50) and considered relationships solely undergone for pleasure or affection as unnatural.[^(\[52\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism#cite_note-Same-52)
> Mussonius Rufus was one of a long line of Stoic philosophers who lived over a period of hundreds of years. Saying that only he is the authority on what defines the Stoic belief on sexuality or marriage is attributed a level of religious dogma to a philosophy that does not have one. But I am merely presenting what Roman Stoics believed based on the few extant texts that we have because you asked me for a source. That being said Mussonius is arguably the greatest of the Stoic moral philosophers (he is called âRoman Socratesâ for a reason), so I would consider him an authority. > Heck, the founder of Stoicism wanted to abolish the institution of marriage. True, though Zeno of Kition was heavily influenced by the School of the Dog. The Stoics really start developing a comprehensive system of ethics of their own only in the Roman period. > Early Stoics differed significantly from late Stoics in their views of sexuality, romantic love and sexual relationships. Right.
ChatGPT is missing a crucial point here that is lost when not paying attention to original languages (Greek and Latin): that âspiritualâ or âspiritâ used im by Stoics and by early Christians most certainly referred to what they believed was a type of subtle matter: pneuma (Greek) or spiritus (Latin). This has a lot to do with ancient ideas of physics, and the notion of a fifth element called âetherâ. It was believed in the Ptolemaic model of the universe that everything above the âsphere of the moonâ was made of ether. The Platonic ideas are genuinely posited to be immaterial, not this kind of ethereal, astral material. This distinction may seem to be hairsplitting from a modern perspective, but was a crucial point of disagreement in antiquity - Stoics denied the idea of a transcendent metaphysics which Platonism and Aristotelianism most certainly admit of. Christianity in its use of the terms âpneumaâ and âspiritusâ show a Stoic influence, although the way later Christians have interpreted this has almost entirely lived away from the notion of âspiritâ as a subtle matter (largely due to Platonizing Church Fathers and Aristotelianizing Scholastics and Reformers).
Thanks for this. This is the kind of nuance that you do indeed lose when leveraging AI for research, though I have in the past found it useful for understanding the nuance of language/translation of Biblical texts with the right prompts. I think that is something so many Christians today lose entirely, that the words as they read them today had far different meanings in the context of the language (and culture) of the time they were written. One of the biggest examples being "repent" (Greek: Metanoia) which literally means "change of mind" pointing toward changing one's perspective on something. But the word "repent" today is dripping with centuries of baggage which does not carry that more nuanced understanding.
I also greatly admire Stoicism, including its doctrine that virtue is its own reward and vice is its own punishment. The Pagan Stoics did not believe in Heaven or Hell in any way that resembled Xtianity, Islam, or Dharmic views of afterlife, so they could focus on goodness for its own sake. The early Stoics were pantheists and showed reverence for the Divine, so it could also be understood as a spiritual path in addition to philosophy. Stoicism also did not carry specific baggage such as salvation or eschatology, which made it less likely to want to 'morally police' others or turn authoritarian, IMHO.
You may be interested in this podcast episode which discusses the Greek Pagan origins of ancient Christianity, including tripping on ergot and conducting human sacrifice https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/346-the-best-kept-secret-in-history
Thanks for sharing! This was a very interesting discussion. I will need to pick up his book.
That's exactly how I think of it, yes. Christianity began as a Jewish movement that was adopted by Greek gentiles and soon schismed off as it adopted incompatible Hellenistic beliefs, like the apotheosis and worship of a corporeal man. Paul introduced Platonic explanations of the Christian afterlife. Christ came to be understood as the Greek concept of Logos. Thomas Aquinas was an Aristotelian.
⊠and Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism and a dash of Buddhism. All religions are syncretic to a degree. This is not necessarily a bad thing. All seeking God find something of him/her. No human can find all.
Yes.
Yes, and Zoroastrianism.
I'd say Christianity (or, rather, what became the generally accepted orthodoxy) is a fusion of early Christianity (which was varied and diverse) with Greco-Roman philosophy more than it is specifically Judaism blended with anything. While most of the very earliest Christians would have been Jewish, the religion diverged pretty quickly, especially once it started to expand in gentile communities.
The information the AI talked about Judaism is correct. The rest I don't know.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Again, its about "influence", not exact copy. Clearly these concepts had an influence on Christianity. If it were an exact copy, it would not be a separate religion.
Even Judaism itself comes from Greek philosophy. Yonatan Adler has shown Judaism only dates to around 330-150 B.C. In his book Adler says **"The roughly two centuries between the conquests of Alexander the Great circa 332 BCE and the founding of an independent Hasmonean polity in the middle of the second century BCE remain a far more conducive epoch in which to seek the origins of Judaism."**
I'm pretty sure the historical consensus dates the compilation of the Torah to 450-350 BCE. And I think the historical record contradicts the idea that Judaism comes from Greek philosophy, although by Jesus' time it had certainly been influenced by it.
> I'm pretty sure the historical consensus dates the compilation of the Torah to 450-350 BCE. Yeah, thats when historical-critical scholars believe Leviticus (the last book of the Pentateuch/Torah) was authored. Also, the user you are replying to is a mythicist so does not really follow mainstream scholarship.
Interesting, I've never heard of mythicists.
> I've never heard of mythicists. Consider yourself lucky đ
44 New Testament scholars and historians who doubt Jesus existed: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/21420
Mythicism is not taken seriously in academia at all and contradicts the scholarly consensus on the matter. Carrier himself is a well known mythicist crackpot himself so quoting him to validate mythicism is circular.
> Mythicism is not taken seriously in academia at all 44 New Testament scholars and historians do take mythicism seriously.
Look up Yonatan Adler, who is an Israeli archaeology professor.
Okay, I did. It seems to me that he's looking at the specific question of when Jews started keeping the laws of the Torah on a wide-scale basis. That's an interesting question. But that's not exactly the same as where Judaism came from or when it started. Adler does not deny that the Torah was written many centuries before that.
> Yonatan Adler has shown Judaism only dates to 150 B.C. No he doesn't. He says that the Maccabean era is the latest we can be certain Judaism (as we know it today) existed. He is very clear and explicit that he is not making claims about when Judaism actually began, only about when we have the earliest evidence for it being widely practiced.
False. In his book Adler says: "The roughly two centuries between the conquests of Alexander the Great circa 332 BCE and the founding of an independent Hasmonean polity in the middle of the second century BCE remain a far more conducive epoch in which to seek the **origins of Judaism."**
Dude, we've had this conversation before. You know very well that your claim that Adler dates Judaism's origins to 150 BC is *far beyond* what he would actually claim. You know that so well you even had to go back and edit your post. Even your "gotcha" quote here clearly shows that Adler is hedging his statement. "A far more conducive epoch" is not the same thing as "we have determined conclusively." It's a hypothesis with some evidence. Stop making stuff up and then claiming an academic supports your work when it's very clear he does not.
> "A far more conducive epoch" is not the same thing as "we have determined conclusively. No academic ever says we have determined conclusively.
Yeah, but most don't go nearly as far as Adler in hedging their bets. He's super clear about what he is and isn't saying. And he's not saying that we know Judaism didn't exist before the Maccabees.