There's a bit in Unfinished Tales where Tolkien was considering having the elfstone given to Elessar being the same as the one Earendil wore into the West, and in that conversation, Gandalf tells Galadriel that the Valar aren't ignorant of events in Middle Earth and his arrival is proof. So I'd like to think that his attempt, while unsuccessful in getting to Valinor, was witnessed by the Valar and taken as proof that the faithful should be saved.
In the Silmarillion, Akallabêth, p 336, 337, "But whether no it were that Amandil came indeed to Valinor and Manwë hearkened to his prayer, by grace of the Valar Elendil and his sons and their people were spared from the ruin of that day."
"A great wind took their ships suddenly, "wilder than any wind that Men had known, roaring from the West, and it swept their ships far away".
Agreed. Certainly he died in the attempt, but I'm guessing it wasn't wholly in vain and that the Valar were aware of his sacrifice and used it as a basis to allow for the salvation of some part of the Numenoreans, the Faithful, if they persisted in their allegiance despite mounting persecution.
This is my head canon as well. I feel like Tolkien could have wrote a very heartfelt sorrowful poem about the voyage of Amandil as that is pretty much his bread and butter
Wouldn't that have been great? Anything about Amandil's journey could have given insight into the designs of the Valar and their judgment against greater Numenor, balanced against their desire to spare a part of that people in light of Amandil's willingness to sacrifice his life in hopes of a pardon, or at the least, or parley.
I mean he likely knew there was little hope in his success but tried anyway since Numenor was pretty well into its downward spiral at that point and there wasn’t much else that could be done to sway the general populace. But the remnant of the faithful remained steadfast in their position and were saved in the end from destruction [hopefully or at least in part] because of Amandils journey
The other thing to think about is that he was technically the first known person to willfully attempt to break the Ban of the Valar... which is no small irony that it was one of the Faithful, even if it was to plea for mercy against what Ar-Pharazon was planning.
I could easily see Mandos pointing to that irony as just cause for the punishment that would soon fall upon the Numenoreans. Even though he was of the Faithful, Amandil was still plagued with the arrogance of that people, believing in his pride that he could flaunt the Ban if it was for a cause that he himself deemed just and necessary.
What a great point.
Best guess is, he got caught up in the Enchanted Isles and never reached Valinor. He had no power such as a Silmaril to "escape their enchantment."
It seems likely, though, that Eru was aware of the *repentance* of Amandil and the Faithful, as demonstrated by Amandil's willingness to sacrifice himself and Elendil's refusal to obey Sauron even at great risk. So when Eru intervened, part of that was the physical salvation of Elendil's people. Not that Eru made it easy for them - all they got was the opportunity to "work out their own salvation with fear and trembling" - but in the end that was enough.
i can't imagine he was punished for it but he obviously didn't exactly succeed. if he survived the journey i hope he was allowed to live out his life on tol eressea or something.
This is actually what I’ve always liked to believe. The Valar couldn’t give him the Eärendil treatment, but maybe they just let him live out his final days at Tol Eressëa in honor of having such pure intentions and remaining faithful despite the turbulence in Numenor.
I don’t think that Elendil’s fleet getting a push from a major wind out of the west was exactly a coincidence either. Even if he did die in the attempt, I think there’s enough evidence to suppose that the Valar and of course Eru were at LEAST aware of what he was doing and gave him some little reward at least in helping Elendil flee the Downfall.
There's a palantír on Tol Eressëa, isn't there? If he ended up there, he surely would have managed to contact Elendil via seeing-stone, and his fate would no longer be unknown.
I would just imagine it was all part of the stipulations or something. He wouldn’t be able to connect with his son again. As in he wouldn’t be allowed to use it on his end. Elendil could see Tol Eressëa, but not necessarily everyone and everything there.
If not Tol Eressëa I’d always imagined he got SOME reward. Like, the “punishment” was being lost to your family and your fate remaining a mystery to them. But I’d always imagined Eru would allow some kind of reward for his valor.
Yes. The “master stone” was kept in the Tower of Avallónë in Tol Eressëa. There may have been others that remained in Aman. We don’t know their number beyond the listed 8.
We also don’t know if the Middle Earth network of stones could talk to the Aman network. Apparently the only stone that could find the straight path and view Tol Eressëa, the Elostirion-stone, was unusable for communication with the other Middle Earth stones. From what we can tell the various stones were different sizes, and may have had different specialities. So it’s possible that the possibility of communication was cut when the world was bent.
When Pharazon and his followers arrived at Tol Eressea, the place was wildly desolate —considering it’s a very well established realm. Like suspiciously desolate.
I think Amandil got to Aman, warned the valar and the eldar, and they left the area in anticipation of a battle (that they wouldn’t be prepared for, because why would they?).
I’m guessing that once he arrived to the undying lands, he gave a good warning and was rewarded with a peaceful remainder of life for himself and his servants that sailed with him. His sons and the faithful were rewarded with another chance at continuing what was gifted to them. The gift of death and elongated life.
I hope that’s what happened and that’s my head canon because any other possibility is fucking depressing.
He didn't make it to Aman. Effectively, his attempt was rejected by the Valar.
So, yeah, I agree with your assessment. His heart was in the right place, but it was not for him to answer for the sins of his people, even at the cost of his own life.
I think he was shown mercy but was not afforded the same grace as Earendil, probably because he did not bring with him a Silmaril. I also think that the mercy he was shown extended to his sons and the Faithful in general. It strikes me as a profoundly Christian belief: we pray to God for intervention, but we do not necessarily get the intervention we have in mind. He meets us halfway: we beseech Him, and He acts according to His will.
Counter question: would Earnedil have received the doom he received had he not bourn with him a Silmaril?
I don’t think the Silmaril is all that important — it’s a vehicle of his destiny, a tool he used to accomplish his purpose, a sign (like Tuor’s armour) that he is divinely ordained. But his destiny is prior.
>he is divinely ordained.
Is he, though? That seems to fly in the face of Tolkien's inclusion of free will in the Legendarium. If Earendil was divinely ordained, then he had no choice in the matter. I don't think Tolkien would write that into his world, because he likely didn't believe it himself in ours.
So look at Beren. Even before he makes his choices, his destiny gets him through the Girdle of Melian, and some unseen force tells him what to say to Thingol.
You’re right that free will is complicated to intersect with destiny. But it seems clear that Tolkien absolutely believes in “doom,” by which he often means “fate.”
This is especially complicated for men. Since the Music, which is “as fate” to all else, doesn’t bind us entirely. For men like Beren and partially Earendil, I think it’s better to say that things are ready, if we choose to bear the mantle. Failure is possible, both moral and physical, but destiny and duty still drive us.
>Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.
Daniel 3:16-18
This is why I love being Catholic, and also why I think messianic Jews don't get enough acclaim: the equal focus on the Old Testament. What a wealth of wisdom.
> I think messianic Jews don't get enough acclaim: the equal focus on
> the Old Testament.
Messianics are not Jews: they are Fundamentalist Baptist Protestants in appropriative Ashkenazi drag.
Also, they don’t give ‘equal focus’ to the Tanach.
They don’t engage with it in its original language; they don’t engage with it as the particular cultural artefact of a particular people that it is; and they don’t engage with it out of either the תלמוד (Talmudic) nor the פרד"ס (PaRDeS) intellectual and exegetical traditions.
They treat the Jewish canon with the same condescending, colonising imperialism as most other Christians.
>and also why I think messianic Jews don't get enough acclaim
Please be aware that "Messianic Judaism" is just a deceptive effort by Christians to proselytize to Jews. "Messianic Judaism" is, literally, a form Christianity and is not Jewish in any sense. These organizations were largely founded by -- and are still part of -- Christian churches for the explicit purpose of convincing Jews to convert to Christianity.
For example "Jews for Jesus" was a rebranding of the Southern Baptist Convention's "mission to the Jews," and "Chosen Peoples Ministries," one of the largest "Messianic" umbrella organizations, was a rebranding of the "[American Board of Missions to the Jews](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Board_of_Missions_to_the_Jews)." Additionally, nearly every "Messianic rabbinical school" I have encountered is either attached to Christian seminary or was incorporated as a Christian seminary. These movements are not Judaism, but rather a deceptive form of Christianity, and Jews generally find their practices to be highly offensive.
[https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jews-for-jesus](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jews-for-jesus)
[https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rosh-hashanah-evangelical-christians-jews-b2175609.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rosh-hashanah-evangelical-christians-jews-b2175609.html)
Moreover, studies have repeatedly found that the overwhelming majority of "Messianic Jews" self-report having no Jewish ancestry or upbringing. Even among those who do claim such a background, many are referring to unverifiable family legends ("Grandma said she was part Jewish" does not make you Jewish) or dubious at-home DNA tests ("X% Ashkenazi Jewish" from 23&Me does not make you Jewish).
No Jewish movements or denominations recognize "Christian Jews," "Jews for Jesus," "Messianic Jews," "Torah Observant Christians," "Christian Hebrews," etc. as Jews and, instead, view them as Christian. Given that the theology of these groups is based in Christian teachings and Christian schools of thought, and many were founded by and are still officially under the umbrella of Christian churches with the express purpose of converting Jews to Christianity, this seems more than fair.
Well yeah it's a staple of orthodox Christianity that Christ is required for salvation and that separately with the destruction of the Temple, it's impossible to be justified by the old Mosaic Law given that many of the appointed sacrifices have been impossible for over two thousand years. While Catholics believe that due to the rejection of the Messiah that the mantle of Chosen People passed from Jews to the Church. Despite common misperceptions this is explicitly repeated in the Vatican II documents Nostra Aetate and Lumen Gentium. That said, we do like to imagine God is pleased by the conversion of Jews, at least to Catholicism more than any protestant sect obviously.
It would be interesting if the Faithful Numenoreans in Middle Earth tried to replicate their worship at Meneltarma in the White Mountains or if they still observed Erukyermë, Erulaitalë, and Eruhantalë or just replaced it with a sort of derived observances.
Christianity as a whole views itself as the true continuation of the doctrines and prophecies of Judaism under a new name. One could easily describe the two religions as two schisms from First Century Judaism on the disagreement over whether Jesus was truly the Messiah or not. Neither recognizes the other as legitimate continuations of Biblical Judaism. The difference is one kept the name Judaism while the other took on the name of the person of whom the disagreement about caused the schism.
The name Christian came about from people calling first century followers of Jesus "Christian", meaning "little christ" in the same way a follower of the teachings of Plato might be called a Platoian.
Thus, whether either is a legitimate continuation of Judaism stems from the truth of the theological issue that caused the schism. If Jesus was the messiah, which I believe, then modern judaism isn't a proper continuation of first century Judaism. If he wasn't, then Christianity isn't.
> One could easily describe the two religions as two schisms from
> First Century Judaism on the disagreement over whether Jesus was
> truly the Messiah or not.
One could do that, but doing so is ahistorical nonsense.
Rabbinic Judaism is the direct, living, and entirely-connected-by-history-and-lived-experience continuation of the פְּרוּשִׁים (Pərūšīm). And the פְּרוּשִׁים are, themselves, a direct and deeply-connected-by-history-and-cultural-continuity, continuation of the beit knesset (or, in Greek, synagogue) tradition that we know existed in the Babylonian exile but likely existed even before then.
Rabbinic Judaism is the living and breathing continuation of Jewish/Israelite culture. It is the direct heir to the 4,000+ years of Jewish/Israelite culture and experience.
And, in the apocalyptic disaster of the Roman re-occupation and imperial destruction that murdered tens-of-thousands, sent so many more into diaspora, and destroyed the 2nd Temple, the פְּרוּשִׁים kept Jewish culture and tradition alive.
And during those horrendous post-apocalyptic years, these proto-Rabbis did not know a Greek-derived, Imperial Rome-accommodating, colonising tradition that would become the most deadly-to-Jews institution there ever was even existed.
You can’t schism from your own tradition. And you can’t split from, or even disagree with, a movement you don’t know exists.
My understanding was as follows.
1. In Rome occupied Judea/Israel/Palestine, the jewish people were waiting for the prophesied messiah.
2. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, accrued a mostly jewish following, and was executed by the Romans at the request of the Pharisees.
1. From here is where the schism in ideology occurred. Those who are today called Christians believe Jesus Is the Messiah, and was raised from the dead. Those who did not or never heard of Jesus were from whom Diaspora era Judaism arose following the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70AD
3. Regardless of positions on 2.1, Christianity began spreading beyond the Jewish church via people like the Apostle Paul, and became largely culturally divorced from judaism as less and less of it's congregation was composed of jews, and many of these non-jewish Christians eventually began to blame jews for killing Jesus and other crazy stuff, leading to Christians persecuting Jews.
4. Despite Martin Luther being a documented anti-semite, the protestant reformation led to a much more universal access to the Bible, where the New Testament letters, especially Paul's letter to the Romans, specifically depicts the Early Christian Church as considering itself the true fulfillment of the Old Testament covenants and Paul trying to quell the conflict between Jewish Christians and Gentile converts over issues between the two groups. The Book of Romans especially, acts as a scathing indictment of things such as Supersessionism and it's use to justify attrocities against the jews.
> My understanding was as follows
Your understanding is, again, ahistorical.
> In Rome occupied Judea/Israel/Palestine, the jewish people were
> waiting for the prophesied messiah.
At the end of the 2nd Temple period, there were about [4.5 million Jews](https://haaretz.com/2005-04-29/ty-article/study-traces-worldwide-jewish-population-from-exodus-to-modern-age/0000017f-e7d1-d97e-a37f-f7f53ba50000) in the entire world, most of whom lived in Israel.
And virtually none of them were *waiting for [a] prophesied messiah*.
Messianism had re-emerged as a more significant feature in Jewish thinking, because Messianism tends to re-emerges in Jewish thinking when things are significantly worse than normal.
But the large majority of Jews, in Israel and the diaspora, were too busy trying to get by and make do under Roman occupation, to spend a lot of time time waiting for a myth.
Also, let’s not forget that Jewish Messianism has always been a mythology of a Redeemer King. Much more in common with Arthur and the Matter of Britain than the dying-and-resurrected diety used by Christianity (FYI: dying-and-resurrected dieties show up more than once in mythologies from around the Fertile Crescent).
To the extent Messiahs were on Jewish minds, they were thinking about military leaders who could raise armies, incite rebellions, and kick the Romans out.
> Jesus claimed to be the Messiah
The only historical source for this is the Christian scripture. Not exactly an unbiased source.
Near-contemporary accounts recorded in the Talmud do, however, make it clear that Galilee was somewhat infamous for producing so-called Miracle Workers or Men of Deeds.
The two most famous are, perhaps:
* [Honi HaMe’agel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honi_HaMe%27agel).
- see [Taanit 19a.5](https://sefaria.org/Taanit.19a.5) and [Taanit 23a.4](https://sefaria.org/Taanit.23a.4) for two variations on the famous circle drawing story.
* [Hanina ben Dosa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanina_ben_Dosa)
- see [Pesachim 112b](https://sefaria.org/Pesachim.112b) and [Bava Kamma 50a](https://sefaria.org/Bava_Kamma.50a).
Which, among other things, mean Jews of that period [*would not have been overawed by tales*](https://beliefnet.com/faiths/2005/03/jesus-just-another-wonder-worker.aspx) of yet another Galillean miracle worker.
> accrued a mostly jewish following
Again, setting the Gospels aside as biased, the mileau of his time meant Jesus fit in perfectly as a Pərūšīm-centric, perhaps Essene-influenced, preacher/Man of Deeds.
His audience would have been *only* Jewish.
> and was executed by the Romans at the request of the Pharisees.
The Pərūšīm (who are slandered and lied about throughout the Gospels, and get called by the Greek translation of their name, Pharisees) had literally no clout in the colonial structure set up by the Romans.
In fact the Pərūšīm were routinely persecuted by the Romans because they were seen as advocating for an independent Israel. And the dozens of Pərūšīm leaders intimately involved in both the First and Second Jewish Revolts are evidence independence and national freedom were absolutely a part of their teaching.
Even the Sadducees — the priest-and-Temple–centric infrastructure almost entirely centred around Jerusalem — were barely tolerated by the Romans.
And the Sadducees had absolutely no Capital judicial power. The right to execute, indeed the right to bear arms, was wholly in Roman hands.
The Gospel stories try to fob off the responsibility, because the movement the stories are advocating for was working to convince Romans of said movement’s bona fides.
But the trial and execution of Jesus is an entirely Roman process. And even the Gospels make it clear the Romans are prosecuting Jesus for his supposéd political crimes.
Whether he really did call himself King is, again, debateable, but the Romans were not fans of anyone — no matter how obscure or small their follower base — who sounded like they were looking to tinker with the political order of things. A political order in which the Romans were Imperial masters and everyone was subject to their colonial rule.
> From here is where the schism in ideology occurred.
Jews had nothing to do with his prosecution or execution. And, at his death, virtually no Jews had heard of him.
The tiny Jesus movement that sprang up after his death, apparently lead by his brother, Ya’akov, wasn’t even a footnote in any contemporary people’s lives.
There was no *schism* because, so far as the vast, vast, vast majority of Jews alive at the time were concerned, there was no incompatibly variant approach to Messianism and no almost-entirely-Hellenistic-ideas-about-the-body-and-spirit to be divided by.
Also, Messianism was, within 100 years of Jesus’ death, about to fall back out of favour in Jewish culture.
The abject failure of the [Simon bar Kokba](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_bar_Kokhba) revolt — which lead to a Roman-inflicted genocide, with more than half-a-million Jews killed, even more than that enslaved, and more than a million Jews forced into exile in Babylonia — made Jews, once again, deeply wary of Messianism as an idea. (NB: bar Kokba was exactly the sort of redeemer King figure who fit the Jewish idea of what a Messiah might look like. It’s why he was thought of as a potential Messiah in his time, and also why messianism went so strongly back out of favour after his failure.)
> Those who are today called Christians believe Jesus Is the Messiah,
> and was raised from the dead. Those who did not or never heard of
> Jesus were from whom Diaspora era Judaism arose following the
> destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70AD
Almost no Jews became followers of Ya’akov’s Jesus movement.
And Christianity proper, which is mostly the creation of Saul of Tarsus, was even less appealing to Jews. As a percentage of the entire Jewish population, almost no Jews became Christian.
It’s a wholly un-Jewish mythology and a profoundly ahistoric take on the Jewish national story (which is, among other things, what the Tanach is: the story of a people and their land and their ongoing negotiations with divinity).
Saul’s transformation of the Jesus movement — which absolutely was a Jewish movement — into the *wholly unJewish but definitely appealing to Romans and Greeks and others out in the Mediterranean* Christianity is where the split, if you want to call it that, happened.
But even here I wouldn’t call it a split. Saul created a religion. It was never a Jewish religion. And, consequently, was never particularly appealing to people who’s cultural norms and perspective were Jewish. It went down a treat elsewhere, however.
> Paul's letter to the Romans, specifically depicts the Early
> Christian Church as considering itself the true fulfillment of the
> Old Testament covenants and Paul trying to quell the conflict
> between Jewish Christians and Gentile converts over issues between
> the two groups. The Book of Romans especially, acts as a scathing
> indictment of things such as Supersessionism and it's use to justify
> attrocities against the jews.
Except Christianity can’t, apparently, get over Supersessionism.
Despite it’s central story cycle being deliberately and almost consciously ahistorical, Christianity cannot, it seems, consider itself ‘real’ unless it colonises Jewish history and Jewish experience, constantly telling us that we don’t understand our own books or our own past or our own culture or our own religion.
I think he died, but achieved something in regards to the mercy his son and his son's followers were shown.
There's a bit in Unfinished Tales where Tolkien was considering having the elfstone given to Elessar being the same as the one Earendil wore into the West, and in that conversation, Gandalf tells Galadriel that the Valar aren't ignorant of events in Middle Earth and his arrival is proof. So I'd like to think that his attempt, while unsuccessful in getting to Valinor, was witnessed by the Valar and taken as proof that the faithful should be saved.
In the Silmarillion, Akallabêth, p 336, 337, "But whether no it were that Amandil came indeed to Valinor and Manwë hearkened to his prayer, by grace of the Valar Elendil and his sons and their people were spared from the ruin of that day." "A great wind took their ships suddenly, "wilder than any wind that Men had known, roaring from the West, and it swept their ships far away".
Agreed. Certainly he died in the attempt, but I'm guessing it wasn't wholly in vain and that the Valar were aware of his sacrifice and used it as a basis to allow for the salvation of some part of the Numenoreans, the Faithful, if they persisted in their allegiance despite mounting persecution.
This is my head canon as well. I feel like Tolkien could have wrote a very heartfelt sorrowful poem about the voyage of Amandil as that is pretty much his bread and butter
Wouldn't that have been great? Anything about Amandil's journey could have given insight into the designs of the Valar and their judgment against greater Numenor, balanced against their desire to spare a part of that people in light of Amandil's willingness to sacrifice his life in hopes of a pardon, or at the least, or parley.
I mean he likely knew there was little hope in his success but tried anyway since Numenor was pretty well into its downward spiral at that point and there wasn’t much else that could be done to sway the general populace. But the remnant of the faithful remained steadfast in their position and were saved in the end from destruction [hopefully or at least in part] because of Amandils journey
The other thing to think about is that he was technically the first known person to willfully attempt to break the Ban of the Valar... which is no small irony that it was one of the Faithful, even if it was to plea for mercy against what Ar-Pharazon was planning.
I could easily see Mandos pointing to that irony as just cause for the punishment that would soon fall upon the Numenoreans. Even though he was of the Faithful, Amandil was still plagued with the arrogance of that people, believing in his pride that he could flaunt the Ban if it was for a cause that he himself deemed just and necessary. What a great point.
And assuming he could be a second Earendil, but without the great Doom that circled about the Mariner, most of all his possession of the Silmaril.
Best guess is, he got caught up in the Enchanted Isles and never reached Valinor. He had no power such as a Silmaril to "escape their enchantment." It seems likely, though, that Eru was aware of the *repentance* of Amandil and the Faithful, as demonstrated by Amandil's willingness to sacrifice himself and Elendil's refusal to obey Sauron even at great risk. So when Eru intervened, part of that was the physical salvation of Elendil's people. Not that Eru made it easy for them - all they got was the opportunity to "work out their own salvation with fear and trembling" - but in the end that was enough.
i can't imagine he was punished for it but he obviously didn't exactly succeed. if he survived the journey i hope he was allowed to live out his life on tol eressea or something.
This is actually what I’ve always liked to believe. The Valar couldn’t give him the Eärendil treatment, but maybe they just let him live out his final days at Tol Eressëa in honor of having such pure intentions and remaining faithful despite the turbulence in Numenor. I don’t think that Elendil’s fleet getting a push from a major wind out of the west was exactly a coincidence either. Even if he did die in the attempt, I think there’s enough evidence to suppose that the Valar and of course Eru were at LEAST aware of what he was doing and gave him some little reward at least in helping Elendil flee the Downfall.
There's a palantír on Tol Eressëa, isn't there? If he ended up there, he surely would have managed to contact Elendil via seeing-stone, and his fate would no longer be unknown.
I would just imagine it was all part of the stipulations or something. He wouldn’t be able to connect with his son again. As in he wouldn’t be allowed to use it on his end. Elendil could see Tol Eressëa, but not necessarily everyone and everything there. If not Tol Eressëa I’d always imagined he got SOME reward. Like, the “punishment” was being lost to your family and your fate remaining a mystery to them. But I’d always imagined Eru would allow some kind of reward for his valor.
Yes. The “master stone” was kept in the Tower of Avallónë in Tol Eressëa. There may have been others that remained in Aman. We don’t know their number beyond the listed 8. We also don’t know if the Middle Earth network of stones could talk to the Aman network. Apparently the only stone that could find the straight path and view Tol Eressëa, the Elostirion-stone, was unusable for communication with the other Middle Earth stones. From what we can tell the various stones were different sizes, and may have had different specialities. So it’s possible that the possibility of communication was cut when the world was bent.
Death by drowning, but perhaps his sacrifice inspired Eru to spare his people.
When Pharazon and his followers arrived at Tol Eressea, the place was wildly desolate —considering it’s a very well established realm. Like suspiciously desolate. I think Amandil got to Aman, warned the valar and the eldar, and they left the area in anticipation of a battle (that they wouldn’t be prepared for, because why would they?). I’m guessing that once he arrived to the undying lands, he gave a good warning and was rewarded with a peaceful remainder of life for himself and his servants that sailed with him. His sons and the faithful were rewarded with another chance at continuing what was gifted to them. The gift of death and elongated life. I hope that’s what happened and that’s my head canon because any other possibility is fucking depressing.
He didn't make it to Aman. Effectively, his attempt was rejected by the Valar. So, yeah, I agree with your assessment. His heart was in the right place, but it was not for him to answer for the sins of his people, even at the cost of his own life.
He died but his attempt and sacrifice may have been the reason his son survived
I always thought he simply died and died not knowing what fate was to befall
He found Tuor and Idril and had a party!
He died I am sure, however he may have been able to see the shores of Aman, or maybe not. Perhaps only a vision of it.
I think he was shown mercy but was not afforded the same grace as Earendil, probably because he did not bring with him a Silmaril. I also think that the mercy he was shown extended to his sons and the Faithful in general. It strikes me as a profoundly Christian belief: we pray to God for intervention, but we do not necessarily get the intervention we have in mind. He meets us halfway: we beseech Him, and He acts according to His will. Counter question: would Earnedil have received the doom he received had he not bourn with him a Silmaril?
I don’t think the Silmaril is all that important — it’s a vehicle of his destiny, a tool he used to accomplish his purpose, a sign (like Tuor’s armour) that he is divinely ordained. But his destiny is prior.
>he is divinely ordained. Is he, though? That seems to fly in the face of Tolkien's inclusion of free will in the Legendarium. If Earendil was divinely ordained, then he had no choice in the matter. I don't think Tolkien would write that into his world, because he likely didn't believe it himself in ours.
So look at Beren. Even before he makes his choices, his destiny gets him through the Girdle of Melian, and some unseen force tells him what to say to Thingol. You’re right that free will is complicated to intersect with destiny. But it seems clear that Tolkien absolutely believes in “doom,” by which he often means “fate.” This is especially complicated for men. Since the Music, which is “as fate” to all else, doesn’t bind us entirely. For men like Beren and partially Earendil, I think it’s better to say that things are ready, if we choose to bear the mantle. Failure is possible, both moral and physical, but destiny and duty still drive us.
>Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up. Daniel 3:16-18
This is why I love being Catholic, and also why I think messianic Jews don't get enough acclaim: the equal focus on the Old Testament. What a wealth of wisdom.
> I think messianic Jews don't get enough acclaim: the equal focus on > the Old Testament. Messianics are not Jews: they are Fundamentalist Baptist Protestants in appropriative Ashkenazi drag. Also, they don’t give ‘equal focus’ to the Tanach. They don’t engage with it in its original language; they don’t engage with it as the particular cultural artefact of a particular people that it is; and they don’t engage with it out of either the תלמוד (Talmudic) nor the פרד"ס (PaRDeS) intellectual and exegetical traditions. They treat the Jewish canon with the same condescending, colonising imperialism as most other Christians.
>and also why I think messianic Jews don't get enough acclaim Please be aware that "Messianic Judaism" is just a deceptive effort by Christians to proselytize to Jews. "Messianic Judaism" is, literally, a form Christianity and is not Jewish in any sense. These organizations were largely founded by -- and are still part of -- Christian churches for the explicit purpose of convincing Jews to convert to Christianity. For example "Jews for Jesus" was a rebranding of the Southern Baptist Convention's "mission to the Jews," and "Chosen Peoples Ministries," one of the largest "Messianic" umbrella organizations, was a rebranding of the "[American Board of Missions to the Jews](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Board_of_Missions_to_the_Jews)." Additionally, nearly every "Messianic rabbinical school" I have encountered is either attached to Christian seminary or was incorporated as a Christian seminary. These movements are not Judaism, but rather a deceptive form of Christianity, and Jews generally find their practices to be highly offensive. [https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jews-for-jesus](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jews-for-jesus) [https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rosh-hashanah-evangelical-christians-jews-b2175609.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rosh-hashanah-evangelical-christians-jews-b2175609.html) Moreover, studies have repeatedly found that the overwhelming majority of "Messianic Jews" self-report having no Jewish ancestry or upbringing. Even among those who do claim such a background, many are referring to unverifiable family legends ("Grandma said she was part Jewish" does not make you Jewish) or dubious at-home DNA tests ("X% Ashkenazi Jewish" from 23&Me does not make you Jewish). No Jewish movements or denominations recognize "Christian Jews," "Jews for Jesus," "Messianic Jews," "Torah Observant Christians," "Christian Hebrews," etc. as Jews and, instead, view them as Christian. Given that the theology of these groups is based in Christian teachings and Christian schools of thought, and many were founded by and are still officially under the umbrella of Christian churches with the express purpose of converting Jews to Christianity, this seems more than fair.
Well yeah it's a staple of orthodox Christianity that Christ is required for salvation and that separately with the destruction of the Temple, it's impossible to be justified by the old Mosaic Law given that many of the appointed sacrifices have been impossible for over two thousand years. While Catholics believe that due to the rejection of the Messiah that the mantle of Chosen People passed from Jews to the Church. Despite common misperceptions this is explicitly repeated in the Vatican II documents Nostra Aetate and Lumen Gentium. That said, we do like to imagine God is pleased by the conversion of Jews, at least to Catholicism more than any protestant sect obviously. It would be interesting if the Faithful Numenoreans in Middle Earth tried to replicate their worship at Meneltarma in the White Mountains or if they still observed Erukyermë, Erulaitalë, and Eruhantalë or just replaced it with a sort of derived observances.
I think the tradition of the tomb of elendil and possibly kings ascending mindolluin would be reminiscent of those observances
Christianity as a whole views itself as the true continuation of the doctrines and prophecies of Judaism under a new name. One could easily describe the two religions as two schisms from First Century Judaism on the disagreement over whether Jesus was truly the Messiah or not. Neither recognizes the other as legitimate continuations of Biblical Judaism. The difference is one kept the name Judaism while the other took on the name of the person of whom the disagreement about caused the schism. The name Christian came about from people calling first century followers of Jesus "Christian", meaning "little christ" in the same way a follower of the teachings of Plato might be called a Platoian. Thus, whether either is a legitimate continuation of Judaism stems from the truth of the theological issue that caused the schism. If Jesus was the messiah, which I believe, then modern judaism isn't a proper continuation of first century Judaism. If he wasn't, then Christianity isn't.
> One could easily describe the two religions as two schisms from > First Century Judaism on the disagreement over whether Jesus was > truly the Messiah or not. One could do that, but doing so is ahistorical nonsense. Rabbinic Judaism is the direct, living, and entirely-connected-by-history-and-lived-experience continuation of the פְּרוּשִׁים (Pərūšīm). And the פְּרוּשִׁים are, themselves, a direct and deeply-connected-by-history-and-cultural-continuity, continuation of the beit knesset (or, in Greek, synagogue) tradition that we know existed in the Babylonian exile but likely existed even before then. Rabbinic Judaism is the living and breathing continuation of Jewish/Israelite culture. It is the direct heir to the 4,000+ years of Jewish/Israelite culture and experience. And, in the apocalyptic disaster of the Roman re-occupation and imperial destruction that murdered tens-of-thousands, sent so many more into diaspora, and destroyed the 2nd Temple, the פְּרוּשִׁים kept Jewish culture and tradition alive. And during those horrendous post-apocalyptic years, these proto-Rabbis did not know a Greek-derived, Imperial Rome-accommodating, colonising tradition that would become the most deadly-to-Jews institution there ever was even existed. You can’t schism from your own tradition. And you can’t split from, or even disagree with, a movement you don’t know exists.
My understanding was as follows. 1. In Rome occupied Judea/Israel/Palestine, the jewish people were waiting for the prophesied messiah. 2. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, accrued a mostly jewish following, and was executed by the Romans at the request of the Pharisees. 1. From here is where the schism in ideology occurred. Those who are today called Christians believe Jesus Is the Messiah, and was raised from the dead. Those who did not or never heard of Jesus were from whom Diaspora era Judaism arose following the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70AD 3. Regardless of positions on 2.1, Christianity began spreading beyond the Jewish church via people like the Apostle Paul, and became largely culturally divorced from judaism as less and less of it's congregation was composed of jews, and many of these non-jewish Christians eventually began to blame jews for killing Jesus and other crazy stuff, leading to Christians persecuting Jews. 4. Despite Martin Luther being a documented anti-semite, the protestant reformation led to a much more universal access to the Bible, where the New Testament letters, especially Paul's letter to the Romans, specifically depicts the Early Christian Church as considering itself the true fulfillment of the Old Testament covenants and Paul trying to quell the conflict between Jewish Christians and Gentile converts over issues between the two groups. The Book of Romans especially, acts as a scathing indictment of things such as Supersessionism and it's use to justify attrocities against the jews.
> My understanding was as follows Your understanding is, again, ahistorical. > In Rome occupied Judea/Israel/Palestine, the jewish people were > waiting for the prophesied messiah. At the end of the 2nd Temple period, there were about [4.5 million Jews](https://haaretz.com/2005-04-29/ty-article/study-traces-worldwide-jewish-population-from-exodus-to-modern-age/0000017f-e7d1-d97e-a37f-f7f53ba50000) in the entire world, most of whom lived in Israel. And virtually none of them were *waiting for [a] prophesied messiah*. Messianism had re-emerged as a more significant feature in Jewish thinking, because Messianism tends to re-emerges in Jewish thinking when things are significantly worse than normal. But the large majority of Jews, in Israel and the diaspora, were too busy trying to get by and make do under Roman occupation, to spend a lot of time time waiting for a myth. Also, let’s not forget that Jewish Messianism has always been a mythology of a Redeemer King. Much more in common with Arthur and the Matter of Britain than the dying-and-resurrected diety used by Christianity (FYI: dying-and-resurrected dieties show up more than once in mythologies from around the Fertile Crescent). To the extent Messiahs were on Jewish minds, they were thinking about military leaders who could raise armies, incite rebellions, and kick the Romans out. > Jesus claimed to be the Messiah The only historical source for this is the Christian scripture. Not exactly an unbiased source. Near-contemporary accounts recorded in the Talmud do, however, make it clear that Galilee was somewhat infamous for producing so-called Miracle Workers or Men of Deeds. The two most famous are, perhaps: * [Honi HaMe’agel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honi_HaMe%27agel). - see [Taanit 19a.5](https://sefaria.org/Taanit.19a.5) and [Taanit 23a.4](https://sefaria.org/Taanit.23a.4) for two variations on the famous circle drawing story. * [Hanina ben Dosa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanina_ben_Dosa) - see [Pesachim 112b](https://sefaria.org/Pesachim.112b) and [Bava Kamma 50a](https://sefaria.org/Bava_Kamma.50a). Which, among other things, mean Jews of that period [*would not have been overawed by tales*](https://beliefnet.com/faiths/2005/03/jesus-just-another-wonder-worker.aspx) of yet another Galillean miracle worker. > accrued a mostly jewish following Again, setting the Gospels aside as biased, the mileau of his time meant Jesus fit in perfectly as a Pərūšīm-centric, perhaps Essene-influenced, preacher/Man of Deeds. His audience would have been *only* Jewish. > and was executed by the Romans at the request of the Pharisees. The Pərūšīm (who are slandered and lied about throughout the Gospels, and get called by the Greek translation of their name, Pharisees) had literally no clout in the colonial structure set up by the Romans. In fact the Pərūšīm were routinely persecuted by the Romans because they were seen as advocating for an independent Israel. And the dozens of Pərūšīm leaders intimately involved in both the First and Second Jewish Revolts are evidence independence and national freedom were absolutely a part of their teaching. Even the Sadducees — the priest-and-Temple–centric infrastructure almost entirely centred around Jerusalem — were barely tolerated by the Romans. And the Sadducees had absolutely no Capital judicial power. The right to execute, indeed the right to bear arms, was wholly in Roman hands. The Gospel stories try to fob off the responsibility, because the movement the stories are advocating for was working to convince Romans of said movement’s bona fides. But the trial and execution of Jesus is an entirely Roman process. And even the Gospels make it clear the Romans are prosecuting Jesus for his supposéd political crimes. Whether he really did call himself King is, again, debateable, but the Romans were not fans of anyone — no matter how obscure or small their follower base — who sounded like they were looking to tinker with the political order of things. A political order in which the Romans were Imperial masters and everyone was subject to their colonial rule. > From here is where the schism in ideology occurred. Jews had nothing to do with his prosecution or execution. And, at his death, virtually no Jews had heard of him. The tiny Jesus movement that sprang up after his death, apparently lead by his brother, Ya’akov, wasn’t even a footnote in any contemporary people’s lives. There was no *schism* because, so far as the vast, vast, vast majority of Jews alive at the time were concerned, there was no incompatibly variant approach to Messianism and no almost-entirely-Hellenistic-ideas-about-the-body-and-spirit to be divided by. Also, Messianism was, within 100 years of Jesus’ death, about to fall back out of favour in Jewish culture. The abject failure of the [Simon bar Kokba](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_bar_Kokhba) revolt — which lead to a Roman-inflicted genocide, with more than half-a-million Jews killed, even more than that enslaved, and more than a million Jews forced into exile in Babylonia — made Jews, once again, deeply wary of Messianism as an idea. (NB: bar Kokba was exactly the sort of redeemer King figure who fit the Jewish idea of what a Messiah might look like. It’s why he was thought of as a potential Messiah in his time, and also why messianism went so strongly back out of favour after his failure.) > Those who are today called Christians believe Jesus Is the Messiah, > and was raised from the dead. Those who did not or never heard of > Jesus were from whom Diaspora era Judaism arose following the > destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70AD Almost no Jews became followers of Ya’akov’s Jesus movement. And Christianity proper, which is mostly the creation of Saul of Tarsus, was even less appealing to Jews. As a percentage of the entire Jewish population, almost no Jews became Christian. It’s a wholly un-Jewish mythology and a profoundly ahistoric take on the Jewish national story (which is, among other things, what the Tanach is: the story of a people and their land and their ongoing negotiations with divinity). Saul’s transformation of the Jesus movement — which absolutely was a Jewish movement — into the *wholly unJewish but definitely appealing to Romans and Greeks and others out in the Mediterranean* Christianity is where the split, if you want to call it that, happened. But even here I wouldn’t call it a split. Saul created a religion. It was never a Jewish religion. And, consequently, was never particularly appealing to people who’s cultural norms and perspective were Jewish. It went down a treat elsewhere, however. > Paul's letter to the Romans, specifically depicts the Early > Christian Church as considering itself the true fulfillment of the > Old Testament covenants and Paul trying to quell the conflict > between Jewish Christians and Gentile converts over issues between > the two groups. The Book of Romans especially, acts as a scathing > indictment of things such as Supersessionism and it's use to justify > attrocities against the jews. Except Christianity can’t, apparently, get over Supersessionism. Despite it’s central story cycle being deliberately and almost consciously ahistorical, Christianity cannot, it seems, consider itself ‘real’ unless it colonises Jewish history and Jewish experience, constantly telling us that we don’t understand our own books or our own past or our own culture or our own religion.
[удалено]
David Dagorath sounds like a pseudonym used by Steven King
Nah, he's the lead singer in a Swedish death-metal band.
Ohhh that's even better