Religous debates and questions

On reflection, you have to cut out nearly everything except the "every sperm is sacred" segment. The opening segment is not bad either.

No, I'm saying Life of Brian is the far better movie, and the more incisive commetary on 'religion'. It is excellent in that it does not really knock 'measured' belief - at least, I don't think so. That's why they make it clear Brian is NOT Jesus. Even the better parts of Meaning are a bit ham-fisted.

I agree. MP themselves didn't think much of the Meaning of Life.

I remember the Protestant segment as being funnier. I guess it was the element of surprise that worked rather than the execution.

halfwise wrote:Oh Chris, you are so totally going straight to the bad place!

Sounds better then the other place. Besides, i can't play the harp.

I hear all the Naughty people go to the 'bad' place, Chris... See you there one day, if all goes well...

And the music will be good- can you imagine Heaven full of Christian Rock Bands! The horror!!

Some things I refuse to even imagine, Petty. You know, they've got Rappers too!

Against better judgment, littered with typos, and honestly not trying to make anybody feel bad or targeted: [Rant]

But there is a difference there Halfwise- atheism is not demanding the law make exceptions for them or that people have to believe in anything, or that the way some people choose to live is somehow wrong and immoral. The oppression here is being done by religion not atheists.

Of course they do, they insist the laws must be made according to their values. What it the difference? Who's ethics are correct? Who gets to decide?

To me, the only thing that makes sense is to see Atheism as a belief and a form of religion along side Christianty and all that. You seem so damn sure YOU have the correct answer, well face it, so does the rest of the world. And not that long ago I saw several posts in a row where everybody congratulated each other for thinking that believing in God was like believing in Santa Claus and for recognizing that the Ark couldn't possibly hold two of every animals. Brought together by shared believes. Felt good, didn't it?

Petty, I get the impression you feel your belives are best because you look at it from a sienctific point of view. Every scientist knows that there is always a chanse they can be proven wrong. Even the most well known and accepted theories are still only theories. It is not a fact untill it can be proven with 100% certainty. Perhaps the future will bring us solid evidence that God lives in the third gene sequence to the right. Perhaps evolution created God. We don't know what "black swans" are out there waiting to be discovered. Closed minds are dull minds. (Generally speaking. Not aimed at anyone here.)

And blabla when you point a finger at someone, three fingers point back at you blabla he who has both feet on the ground stands still blablabla Oh look! Shiny! blablabla

I am a member of the Church of Norway in lack of a better option, as my Finrod so accurately put it. I like to attend service but hardly ever do cause I am lazy. And I was thrilled when our church got a pro-Gay priest, he is also a wonderful humanitarian and I feel he believes in the same God as me.

I choose to believe that there is something to believe in. I think being a bit naive makes me a better person, so I choose to hold on to my inner child. And I believe the meaning of life is to bring meaning to your life. If people think, when I die, that the world or they are better because I was around, then I believe I have done what I came here to do. Regardless if it was evolution or God who put me here.

[/Rant]

Of course they do, they insist the laws must be made according to their values.- Amarie

I could not disagree more with you on this Amarie- the whole point of Athiesm is that no one groups beliefs should be influencing society or getting allowances in the law- especially on unprovable grounds.
Look at it ths way if any other group, a charity or otherwise said they wanted a say on the creation of laws, tax exemptions, their major conferences televised by the national broadcaster and their opinions covered by the news networks people would rightly ask why they should get all these privileges. And the answer- because we believe in a divine being who created everything and is therefore above your petty human laws is not acceptable in the modern world I dont believe unless they can prove their claim beyond reasonable doubt.
Athiest are not demanding any of these things, merely that the Church not be granted them.

"Petty, I get the impression you feel your belives are best because you look at it from a sienctific point of view."

You have me completely wrong here- I am not an aethist for a start. I happen to believe there is an awful more going on and that human perception is far to narrow in its current form- but that is a whole other argument.* Nor do I think my views are best and certainly not definitive- I think many of the views of the Church and the the stories they claim as fact are ludicrous however and unfeasable, impossible, ridiculous and lots of other suitable adjectives. Religion has nothing to do with personnal belief.
Even a cursary study of biblical scholarship will quickly show that we know quite alot about how the New Testement was composed, and soon you will stumble upon such things as the Gospel books not being given names till long after they were written, the Council of Nicea deciding which version of the Jesus story was going to be the 'right one' and which bits would be considered aprochyful. To the simple fact the Bible writers made things up (not that they would see it that way)- a good example of this is the nativity- it is always represented with animals in the stable- but there weren't any in the Bible so why do we always put animals in there? Because many centuries after the events someone noticed a reference in the OT that they took to be about Jesus and which said even the animals would recognise him at birth. Naturally therefore there must have been animals there as clearly this must be Jesus the Prophet must be talking about and God cant be wrong- so they put animals in. Its not a falsification in the modern sense but this happens a lot in the Bible, one of the Gospel wrietrs (Mark I think) is overly keen to present Jesus as a new Moses- so his version gives us forty days and nights in the desert, Herod slaughtering all the children- anything to parrell Moses- did these things happen? Not likely no, especially the slaughter one. John the Baptist is closely associated with the long dead prohpet Elijah, he lives like him, dresses like him, even sounds like him on occasion, but was he really or this another example of maintaining a narrative? Did Jesus really enter Jerusalaem on a donkey, or is that bit only there because the OT says thats how the Messiah enters and logicaly if Jesus is the Messiah then he must have done it. All this clearly shows that the NT is not a record of actual events in any modern sense- if the Church were honest they would teach all this; how it was composed, the influencng factors, the mindset, politics and social and historical influences on its development etc but they dont- they teach the story they know is untrue as if it were fact. And then they try to impose that view on society through pressure.
My point here is that I seperate belief from religion- one is perfectly plausable and possible even, the other a bad joke.



* I had always hoped my user name would give a more deeper clue to my beliefs (although I can't claim credit for it as a username as did steal it many years ago from someone else I knew who used it before changing there user name), but sadly it is not a well enough known label it seems (although ole GB got it right away I remember) if you google 'petty tyrant castaneda' you will get more of an idea. But it comes from the books of Carlos Castaneda. I offer here a few quotes on the matter to perhaps offer an insight into where I am coming from on this.

'A petty tyrant is a tormentor.......Someone who either holds the power of life and death over warriors or simply annoys them to distraction.
Nothing can temper the spirit of a warrior as much as the challenge of dealing with impossible people in positions of power. Only under those conditions can warriors acquire the sobriety and serenity to stand the pressure of the unknowable.
The perfect ingredient for the making of a superb seer is a petty tyrant with unlimited prerogatives. Seers have to go to extremes to find a worthy one. Most of the time they have to be satisfied with very small fry. Then warriors develop a strategy using the four attributes of warriorship: control, discipline, forbearance, and timing.
Control and discipline refer to an inner state. A warrior is self-oriented, not in a selfish way but in the sense of a total examination of the self.
The mistake average men make in confronting petty tyrants is that average men take themselves too seriously; their actions and feelings, as well as those of the petty tyrants, are all-important. Warriors, on the other hand, are free from self-importance. What restrains their self-importance is that they have understood that reality is an interpretation we make.
Petty tyrants take themselves with deadly seriousness while warriors do not. What usually exhausts us is the wear and tear on our self-importance. Any man who has an iota of pride is ripped apart by being made to feel worthless.
To tune the spirit when someone is trampling on you is called control. Instead of feeling sorry for himself a warrior immediately goes to work mapping the petty tyrant's strong points, his weaknesses, his quirks of behaviour.
To gather all this information while they are beating you up is called discipline.
Forbearance is to wait patiently--no rush, no anxiety--a simple, joyful holding back of what is due.
A warrior knows that he is waiting and what he is waiting for. Right there is the great joy of warriorship.
Timing is the quality that governs the release of all that is held back. Control, discipline, and forbearance are like a dam behind which everything is pooled. Timing is the gate in the dam.

To be defeated by a small-fry petty tyrant is not deadly, but devastating. Warriors who succumb to a small-fry petty tyrant are obliterated by their own sense of failure and unworthiness.
Anyone who joins the petty tyrant is defeated. To act in anger, without control and discipline, to have no forbearance, is to be defeated.
After warriors are defeated they either regroup themselves or they abandon the quest for knowledge and join the ranks of the petty tyrants for life.' -Don Juan

See, my beliefs are a little more complicated than aethism, not that i believe in Castenda (partly because I am certain he made at least 90% of it up) but it forms a basis, or an intrduction to what my beliefs have come to encompass. Scienctific thought is also a large part of that, but again nothing like the whole. (And the more in a post I am likely to insist something is absolutely right the more likely I am to be self mocking my own self importance by exaggerating it till its an obvious joke- in that light you might view many of my posts)

Sorry that was so long, but I felt I had best correct any erroneous impression that I either think I am right or that I am aethiest or that I think belief in and of itself is inherently stupid- its religion which is inherently stupid and I've got the arguments to prove it till the cows come home!

Now that I see what you mean when you say religion... I think we once again have found, via roundabout ways, that we actually agree.* (That happens disturbingly often, the few times I can decipher your drunken ramblings that is.)

Ahhhh! The Council of Nicea! Now things are getting to a level I like! I am far more interested in the history behind the Bible than just simply over analyzing the stories IN the Bible without any context. What they meant to the people who wrote them, and what they are based upon. And such.

*you are far more crabbit than me though, as you should be. But yeah, I think we're on the same page. At least on the same chapter. Or book. Or library. And now I am thinking about dr Who.

That happens disturbingly often, the few times I can decipher your drunken ramblings that is.- Amarie

There is many a peril of wisdom Amarie to be found at the bottom of a buckie bottle. But nobody said expressing it when you get there was easy!

So Biblical history. Where would you like to start? The tetrearchs that actually ruled when Jesus was alive? (Antipas being the main one of concern) the nature of Roman control and influence? The influence of Hillel (possibly Jesus grandfather or great uncle) who preached much of what is in the Sermon on the Mount?
The gospels that got kicked out like the Gospel of Thomas or Enoch? Or perhaps a discussionon on the possibelle influence of Essene thought on Jesus' life? Or something of your own suggesting. I'm always up for a good bible debate when its about the history.

-its suprising how often a stray thought leads one to Doctor Who!

Ooooo! Me like! I have nothing to contribute with other than a thirst for knowledge, so bring it on if you feel like it. I just know that I know too little.

Now I have to take the kids to church, so they can sing and hear stories about God and Jesus with a bunch of other small kids. I'm not even kidding!

I shall cook up some knowledge for your return Amarie. And kids in Church- good place for them, like santa's grotto or the Tooth fairy's castle- its taking religion into adulthood that troubles me!

Ok I strongly supect this will be a sit down with a cuppa length post.

Been trying to think how best to disuss such a huge subject Amarie.
So thought it best to start with context- what was the wold Jesus lived in like?- that way its possible to judge the likeliness of certain events. For example did Herod really slaughter all the children- are there precedents for such behaviour, did similar things happen in the surrounding decades? How would the population be likely to react based on other similar events etc? As well how Rome ruled, how they maintianed control etc. And finally was Jesus unusual in his day- would he have stood out for what he was saying or was it part of a growing trend of the time?


So context.



1. Historical context:

I will start at the end of the Hasmoneon period of Jewish rule and the last time before Jesus's birth that it was an independent nation. It all ended with family strife with two Hasmoneon brothers gearing up for war with each other- both appealed to the Roman General Pompey for assistance- he responded by conquering the country.
Pompey appointed a High Priest (Hyrcanus II) and also made him ethnarch (ruler of the nation'- a title just below King) and he installed a miltary governor (Antipater- who then appointed two of his own sons, Phasael and Herod as governors of Judea and Galilee respectively).
The Jewish nation was now no longer fully independent, but paid taxes and tribute to Rome- but it was independent in most other respects.
There then folowed a complex bit of history between Rome and Pompey I wont go into to but the end result of which was Herod ended up in charge. In short the Jewish nation changed hands again, Herod fled to Rome to appeal for aid and was declared King of Judaea by the Senate and given enough military aid to go back and retake the land. Which he successfully did.
Rome however governed remotely, there were not Roman soldiers patrolling the streets like in Life of Brian ('bloody Romans!') it collected tribute and demanded the maintaining of stable borders but beyond that it was largely left to rule itself.
This is a crucial point. Although there were ocasional flash points and uprising for the most part things were fairly stable for long periods. This implies that for most Jews, day to day life was not oppressed by Rome in any direct way to such a degree people took to the streets over it.

Herod is such a prominant figure in the NT it is worth giving a bit more detail on him.
He was an Idumaenian, from just south of Judea. This region was conquered by the Jews during the Hasmoneon period and so hard line Jews considered Herod to be only half-jewish.
Not long after first taking power he ran into opposition from the supporters of the old Hasmoneon regime, he first tried to get in with them by marrying a Hasmoneon princess, Mariamme, and he had two sons with her. But it did not help matters so he changed tact in dealing with the opposition by having them all killed, including his Hasmonean wife and his two sons.
During his 33year reign he engaged in massive building works, including the rebuilding of the Temple, this employed tens of thousands of workers, he also greatly boosted trade and put Judea on the international map of the day.
He also was ruthless in dealing with opposition, by his own death he had executed three of his sons.
However this has to be seen in the context of the rulers of his day, compared to others he was positively lenient (the next four Roman Emperors for example were Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero-all soaked in blood by the end).
But he did much well, besides the trade and building he continued his fathers policy of speaking up for the Jews in the Roman world, he prevented further outbreaks of civil war. He also kept the Jews seperate from the Romans troops in the country.
When Herod died in 4bc the Roman Emperor Augustus considered his will and divided the kingdom among his three remaining sons, Archelaus, Antipas and Philip;
Archelaus was called 'ethnarch' and got Judea, Samaria and Idumnae. Antipas and Philip were made 'tetrarchs' (rulers of a fourth)- Antipas got Galilee and Peraea, Phiplip seems to have got shafted and got a few outlining regions no one cared about.
Out of them Antipas is the one most important to the bible- as he is the 'Herod' who is in power over Gallilee for Jesus lifetime.
Out of the others Archelaus' tale provides some handy insights. He did not fare so well. His subjects were not keen on some of what he was doing, they appealed to their leaders who in turn appealed to the Roman Governor who took their grievences to Rome. Rome heard the grievences, agreed and deposed and exiled Archelaus. Replacing him with a Roman Governor.
This importantly tells us that not only were a rulers actions limited by what the people would put up with, but further that there was in place a mechanism for those complaints to be heard at the highest levels- and that Rome would find in the favor of the people if they thought it merited, as in this case.
This is a far cry from the popular image of Romans oppressing the Jews and forcing Roman law on them. Nothing could be further from the truth. And it must cast serious doubt that any of the Herods could have slaughtered all the first born on a whim without repurcussions on a massive scale which no records record (including the Bible).

On a more local level in Jesus' day the towns and villages were completely Jewish. They had synagoues, Jewish schools and Jewish magistrates judging according to Jewish law.
Antipas ruled Galilee for 43 years- he was therefore presumably not bad at it. There were no uprisings of any note during his reign which is generally a good indicator that even if the people were not over the moon nor were they upset enough to feel the need to try to change anything.

Jesus Immediate Setting

Jesus ministry seems to have worked out of the small Galilean town of Capenaum. He may even have had a house there (Mark 2.1 'jesus was 'at home' in Capernaum).
Jesus also taught in synagoues- there is some dispute over whether these even existed or not but most scholars seem to think they did, and even if they did not it is highly likely some proto-version of them did- they were not Temples, Jews have only one of them in Jerusalem, nor was it a Church- it was multi purpose, part a church used for services and prayers and religous debate and partly is was the town hall. They were however recently new in Jewish life and for that reason there were no OT rules to go on, so its likely the form of them varied from town to town according to need- with those nearer the Temple having less to do and those furthest away the most.
The people of the towns and villages of Galilee generally worked either the land or the sea of Galilee as well as all the usual village and town trades. Trading was mostly by boat on the Sea of Galilee with other villages and the cities of the Decapolis (the 10 cities of Macedonian and Greek foundation which were politically independent) to the east of the sea. As these were non Galilan cities this meant there were also customs officers stationed at the harbours.
It was a very fertile land to and produced a lot of agriculture.
Nazareth, Jesus hometown was a tiny place, so small it doesnt turn up in any records but was located only a few miles south east of Sepphoris- a large city.
Sepphoris was for a long time the principle city of Galilee, but it was partially destroyed in 4bc in uprisings following Herod the Greats death. Antipas rebuilt it and resettled it and it was known as 'the ornament of Galilee'. It had some Gentiles in the population but was mainly Jewish, and included Jewish aristocracy. Many people are quite suprised to learn Jesus grew up within only a few miles of such a major urban centre.


Roman Presence During Jesus Lifetime

So where were the Romas amidst all these Jewish Kings and villages and cities? Well mainly they were in Caesarea, on the Mediterranean coast. There was a Prefect with 3,000 troops staioned in a palace Herod had built there. There was a further much smaller garrison at Antonia Fortress in Jerusalem and even smaller forces in Fortresses dotted around Judaea. Not enough in fact to handle serious trouble. But that was ok as that was not their job.
Disputes were generally handled as they always had been in Jewish Law: village elders, appointed Magistrates, heard the case and tried them. If they felt it was beyond their control they could appeal to the Prefect. In the case of severe disruption the Prefect could not handle he in turn could call on the legate of Syria who had four legions (20,000 infantry and 500 cavalry) at his disposal.
This was the general set up of the Roman military presence. The only exception to this was major festivals, particularly passover when the huge crowds meant extra policing was required. During Festivals the Roman prefect and additonal troops were drafted into Jerusalem.
Only the prefect had the power to sentence to death however. If the Jewish authorities thought someone deserving of that punishment they had to be sent to the Prefect for judgement. There was one telling exception to this however and it pertained to the Temple. The Jewish priests were allowed to put up warning notices to Gentiles not to enter the Temple on pain of death- if this was transgresed the Priests could sentence the person to death, even a Roma citizen, without having to refer them to the Prefect.



Ok I need a break! Thats part 1- historic context. Feel free to add further knowledge to it I have missed or don't know, if there is anything anyone thinks I have got wrong do say so. Any questions I will try to answer.

Ahhh... first dr. who and now context!! You sure know how to make a nerdy girl happy!

wow this is cool please continue its interesting stuff.

Get the kettle on its part 2!

2. Jewish Religion at the time of Jesus.

Jesus was a Jew. He was born a Jew into a Jewish family in a Jewish land. The village he grew up in was Jewish, the schools he attended Jewish (excepting the one gospel account where he was taken to Egypt for a part of his childhood- that gospel however is the afore mentioned one which is keen to compare Jesus to Moses, who also of course came out of Egypt-it is more likely he grew up in Nazareth as the other gospels seem to agree). To even begin to understand where Jesus was coming from we have to know what the general thinking around him in society was when he lived. And that predominantly means Jewish society.
So what did the people around him believe?

Well they believed in one God of course but they also believed in a variety of evil spirits, they also thought everyone’s else Gods were demons.
They also believed they were Gods Chosen People and had made a deal or pact with him they called The Law.
They also had a whole set of beliefs for transgression the Law. In basic form this amounted to having to repent and make a sacrifice for minor transgressions, like working on the Sabbath. If it was a bit more serious and had harmed other people they had to do the above plus make reparations to the injured party.
Any crime was dealt with by the village Elders from whom Magistrates were elected.
If you sinned and did not repent or make the proper sacrifice (and the Temple had a roaring business in sacrificial animals) you were punished by God directly- this could manifest itself in sickness, or misfortune.
However this was not just a belief on a personnel level. It applied to the Jewish Nation as a whole. If the Nation failed God, if it transgressed and did not make proper reparations God would punish the whole nation.
The years of infighting which had originally weakened their country and led to successive invaders finally ending up in the Romans was viewed in light of this thinking. It was Gods punishment for their transgressions -and the middle period of their history is one of almost consistent bloodshed and treachery so they had plenty things they could point to as being the source of Gods displeasure. It followed therefore that if a time came when the Jewish nation was worthy again God would intervene and raise them back up. Which is partly where the idea of a Messiah, a Champion of God to lead the Nation comes into it. Although different Jewish sects emphasised these aspects less or more than others. Exactly how God's interference for the raising of Israel would take place depends a lot on which group of Jewish belief you followed at the time. The Essenes for example (responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls) were pretty keen on the Messiah and Apocalyptic themes.


So how did they go about practising their religion? Well without going into a complete discourse on everything Jewish I will highlight some points which seem relevant to me about normal Jewish worship in Jesus day.
All Jewish males were supposed to attend the Temple 3 times a year, but this was not actually possible and for those living in far flung countries impossible. Most Jews outside Judea but still within the region would probably have managed an average of 1 a year, those in other countries maybe a few times in their lives. However everyone, whether you attended or not, paid the Temple Tax, which paid for the sacrifices made on behalf of the whole Community (which incidentally were theirs, so they used the money to pay themselves for their own sacrifices-genius really).
Jews were also required to to recall the Commandments twice a day- when you got up and just before bed. And most village Jews would also have attended their local synagogue at least once a week.
Jews also circumcised their infant sons as part of the Covenant Abraham had made with God.
There were also a variety of ways a Jew could become impure- contact with a corpse, menstrual fluids, or semen for example- therefore before the Temple could be entered their were purity rituals to observe, usually involving washing. In everyday life some Jews extended this idea to beyond the Temple and would wash their hands or even immerse themselves in water before prayers or a meal. It also the same idea that underpins baptism.

What did the Gentile world think of the Jews?
A lot of the practices, purification at Temples for example were common across the Ancient religions, but others such as animal sacrifices had fallen out of vogue in many of the Gentile cities of the Greek and Roman world, mainly for practical reasons- a lot of people now lived in cities where they could not easily keep the live sacrifices, and there was inding the space for it and dealing with remains and just disturbing the neighbours.
The Gentile world also thought it odd to have a Temple without anything in it, no representation of the God: and circumcision was considered odd too and a bit disturbing- the Greeks in particular thought the body itself sacred- to deliberately mar it seemed a bit crazy to them.
However the religion, the devotion to it, the way it had something to say and guidance for every aspect of life not just religious ones also had quite an allure for a lot of Gentiles. It is worth remembering that then as now there were more Jews outside the Holy Land living in Gentile cities than there were in it- and they were all observing their own festivals and rituals amongst the Gentiles and sending their money to the Temple every year .
This attracted them attention and not all was bad, many Gentiles were drawn towards the religion but they were put off by the more extreme elements of it, mainly the sacrifices, the food laws and circumcision. But getting a big surge in Gentile membership would be exceptionally good for the Temples coffers and there were, among what could be called the more liberal leaning cosmopolitan Jews, people who saw this and saw also that there was a genuine appetite for their religion (as well as a pressing need to not keep disturbing the neighbours with animal sacrifices).
I always think looking at an end result can tell you a lot about motivation. These Jews wanted to take God to the Gentiles, this was a long held belief but it was expected the Gentiles would become Jews- this was a different approach, this was a watered down Judaism presumably with the belief that if Gentiles turned to worship of the One True God then the end justified the means. What we ended up with was John provided baptism as a replacement covenant over circumcision and Jesus removed the need for further sacrifices- in other words- they knocked off the two trickiest corners the Gentiles could not swallow.
Jesus and John seem to have been a part of a movement which sought to achieve this- or they were at least used by that movement to justify it. Exactly how much Jesus actually had to do with it is very debatable however as the NT, as we have it, is largely the editorial work of Paul who by his own admission in one of his letters is a bit free with the truth when he thinks he has to be (he says he will tell one group one thing, and another something else about Jesus so long as it will get them on-board- the end justifying the means again) its at least possible Paul deliberetly emphaised, or even divised the idea of Jesus replacing the need for sacrifices as a way of removing that obstacle from the new religion being acceptable to Gentiles.
But whether Jesus was an active member, on the fringes, or out on his own this idea of incorporating Gentiles (and so also gaining power and wealth of course) was already in the air before Jesus was born and it should be borne in mind as being there in the background of the social/political climate as there were at least as many of those who utterly opposed any changes to their practice just to let Gentiles in. These sort of debates would have been ongoing among all the other debates about Antipas' rule, or taxes, or the harvest, or fishing rights or what constituted work.

How were the Jews organised? Who ran things?

In the NT the main players representing the main Jewish groups are the Pharisees and the Sadducee (who enter stage left, have a pop at Jesus every so often, and exit stage right without any explanation of who they are, why they object or anything informative at all really).
There were in fact several main groups or parties of Jews (they were all Jews and there were no major differences over the concepts, just the details) but the ones I will deal with are the ones the NT mentions. Those are the two mentioned above plus the Priesthood.
The first two, the Sadducee and the Pharisee were essentially political parties, what they differed on was interpretation of the Law. The Priesthood however was not a party as such.
It is a good idea to understand what a Jewish Priest was. They were families, appointed by Moses originally- But because the Mosaic Law covers all aspects of life you cannot avoid following it even if you are not a priest.
For example the Bible says you can do no work on the Sabbath, but it fails anywhere to clearly define what counts as work. This is where experts in the Law arise, these experts who can be lay-men, can become equal to the Priests in their ability and right to intepret the Law. Their main job was to debate and argue and make decisions about what God meant when he said things like work- they defined what the Law meant in minutiae. And of course as with any room full of experts everyone often disagrees- the difference with the Priesthood was that they were a class not a party.
They were hereditary and made up the aristocracy. They were the only ones allowed to make the sacrifices in the Temples, they had a whole sub class, the Levites, to assist them.
At the time of Jesus there was approx 20,000 priests and Levites in the service of the Temple.
Priests were banned from marrying prostitutes or divorced women and they were forbidden from coming into contact with a corpse.
The Priests as a collective seem to have had no particular affiliation to either of the political wings, the Sadducee or the Pharisee, some Priests were Sadducee some Pharisee and the majority seem to have had no public affiliation at all.
Traditionally these Priestly families were the legal authorities as authorised by Moses himself. Although in practise by Jesus day the priesthood served just the Temple and in the role as interpretors and advisor’s on the Law the actual government, the bureaucracy of the thing was in the lowr ranks of the priesthood (and aristocracy) where you could find scribes and the like and beneath them the active arms of beurocracy like tax collectors and customs officers, and eventually at a local level its was in the province of individual village and town elder councils and the Magistrates. Overall policies like taxation and foreign policy were in the hands of the client ruler, Antipas in Galilee's case, who was ultimaly answerable to Rome. But the Priesthood still held a lot of power in the Jewsih sphere and the High Priest was still regarded by most as the top legal authority on any matter pertaining solely to the Jews. In Jesus day people still regarded the High Priest as the Leader of the Jewish Nation, regardless of who was actually in charge in practice.
In the time of Jesus the High Priests were appointed by the Prefect of Palestine, but sometimes it was offered to the Herod's to make the choice. The choice was always from one of four Priestly families in the aristocracy. This meant the appointment was a political one and that tarnished the office in most Jews eyes but not enough as the majority still had a deep-seated natural reverence to the position which was useful to Rome and in helping maintain the peace- it seems to have worked as the High Priests were in effective rule of the Jewish side to everyday life for 60 years.


The Pharisees originated during the Hasmonean period- it is a feature of the Mosaic law that all Jews can have access to it as it covers all of life, so it was quite possible for lay people to become experts in the law and then for others to seek them out for advice- this is was in essence the origins of the Pharisees and they were nearly all non-priests- famed for their skill and attention to detail in interpreting the law and in their strictness to then adhering to it. They offered advice but they never tried to impose their interpretations of the law on anyone else. They were well regarded by most Jews and respected. They grew during the Hasmonean period to be a powerful political force thanks to their knowledge of the Law and the influence that could have. But with the coming of Herod their political power was over. In Jesus time they were respected interpretors still but they had no official function in society beyond that.

The Saducee we know very little about. We do know they were mainly made up of priests and aristocracy and most scholars think the majority of High Priests during the Roman period were Sadducee, but the only one confirmed in other sources is Annas, who was High Priest in 62 CE (when he illegally had James the brother of Jesus executed). They also did not believe in any form of life after death and so refused to believe the resurrection when it was claimed to have happened.

Most everyday Jews however did not belong to any parties and just got on with life and tried to obey the Laws and interpret them as best they could manage. Priest were seen as the natural leaders chosen by Moses but the system allowed that every individual, priest or not could claim to know the will of God through interpretation of His Laws. And that is where prophets and people like Jesus come into it.

Up next- what did people of think of miracles and miracle workers? What makes a Prophet and how common where they?

very impressive capsule summaries, Petty. What are you using for sources?

Oddly enough, Asimov's Guide to the Bible provides some good background, but it's often incomplete and of course many decades out of date. I don't think the metropolitan mileau right outside Jesus' door was understood back then. It would be nice to know of any more modern comprehensive sources that are readable.

Sources are pretty varied and sadly some I dont know where they were from anymore- about 10-15 years ago was the peak of my rooting about the past of the Bilbe and I am working mainly of my notes from then- unfortuntely I rarely bothered putting the sources down as I was only note taking for my own benefit at the time.
Some of the info, and certainly the layout and presentation (albeit in truncated form) is based on EP Sanders Historical Figure of Jesus- one of the first books about Jesus I found not just interesting but very straightforward to read and understand- he lays out the context as I have been doing before going onto dsiscuss Jesus hismelf- an approach I think is best which is why I adopted (stole it) for here.
But I took info from a wide range of stuff- from the really old like Gibbons Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire to the controversial like Barbara Thiering's Jesus the Man (whose premise and conclusion I dont agree with but whose assessment of Herod, his relationship to the leading Jewish parties and to the Temple Tax system I think highly probable- and her description of the complex riutalistic lives of the Essenes is also worthy of note).
But the bulk of the sources were acredited Biblical Scholars rather than the slew of rather hysterical blockbusters about Jesus that have come out. (Although even for the respected shcholars they are still all relying on the same limited sources) But I find the real history more fascinating than either the religous or the populist versions.

You paint a picture of the land of israel in jesus's time as relatively free from Roman tyranny as if the Romans let them pretty much get on with it, so why is it that there were apparently lots of Messiah before Jesus who would come and deliver the Jewish people from a terrible yoke? I dont know why iI have the idea that there were many 'rebels' who set themselves up as deliverers and were types of guerrilla fighters, please correct me if I am barking up the wrong palm tree. its a long time since I studied the bible.

It depends on what you mean by Roman Tyranny and free Mrs Figgs- life was hard, justice swift and not to concerned often with small details like evidence or even facts. If you were looking for corruption, abuses of power they were rife- there would have been plenty to complain about besides the usual stuff like taxes. Plus, a bit like the complaints by Scottish politicians today- they had no control over what became of their produce, the taxes went to a foreign power and they had no say in foreign policy.
For example not long after Antipas took over Galilee he decorated his palace with paintings of animals- this offended Jewish sensibiltites and there was a bit of, what today, would be a media stir about it- it was the hot topic for a short while. But no uprisings came about because of it. However in the Jewish revolt in the late 70's AD the palace and its decorations were targeted and destroyed- so whilst pepole were not happy about infringments on what they saw as their religous rights they did not act on it until al ot of other larger matters were added into the mix- but it shows they were offended all along.
There were also nationalist groups that no matter how much good the Romans did would never except foreign rule- the Zealot parties and factions of the Essenes (who were the old disposed Zadokite priesthood from when Rome took over and kicked them out) fell into these groups- they did partake in gueralla style campaigns hitting Roman interests by ambushing their caravans and the like. But it is a mistake to overstate these groups- then as today the more extreme viewpoints tended to be held by a loud minority, they made the headlines but the average everyday Jew of the time just tried to get on with their lives according to the Mosiac Law.

I will leave addressing the bit about prophets and messiahs delivering the people as it is fully covered in the next bit.

But what did the Romans ever do for the Jews? (And don't go on about the aqueducts, Petty!)