But Really, Why Was Jesus Crucified?

Discussion in 'Christianity' started by Ben Masada, Jan 4, 2012.

  1. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    2
    You do know that the true crucifixion wasnt what you see in movies but rather a union thing death of the sin not the sinner. Its the union of body with spirit and spirit soul. The ultimate union is marriage with ones own opposite which is infinite life and completeness which is prophecy fulfiillment not only for human beings but angelic ones as well.
     
  2. Dream

    Dream New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1
    Marriage is a dark and troublesome path full of stones jagged edges and mud. You see your way only because of the lightning strikes, and you can hear very little above the thunder and howling winds. There are countless stories about its terrors and pains. The only part that people seem to enjoy is the beginning of it right up until its too late for them to turn back. Everywhere you see couples pretending to be happy, but when you know them better you find out its not true. Marriage isn't about becoming complete but about having babies, and having babies is excruciating no matter what anybody tells you. And what if your spouse dies or becomes ill? Then its like a living death. You're so unhappy its like your life exists only to hurt you, and you question why you were born. In the midst of it people will come up to you and talk about how wonderful marriage is, and that of course is the final straw to break your back. I can tell you many stories of marriage, its difficulties and the failures of individuals to cope.
     
  3. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    2
    Originally human beings were two halves literally that looked like a whole , an exact mirror image but one male and one female of each other. The fall caused a split. Each individuals other half because of the fall will no longer look exactly like it but will be different but also contain the characteristics of that exact mirror image. This marriage is perfect and there will be no arguements ect in it. Just because someone is of opposite gender doesnt mean its ones own opposite . The bible talks against marrying anyone you wish because each of us has only one. Make sense?
     
  4. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    4
    to be precise: you dismiss nothing but what contradicts your interpretation of the Tanakh without reference to how the sages interpreted it. to me, that's quite different.

    i do not think you understand how the tradition is *derived from* the "scriptures" and, moreover, you are trying to interpret directly out of Tanakh without the benefit of the Oral Torah. this is the approach that was used by the karaites in the C10th-C11th, by protestants during the reformation and by certain elements in the haskalah. i am *not* saying there is no room for personal interpretation, quite the opposite. however, i think that ignoring the views (that's *plural*) informed by the sages, as experts in Oral Torah, you are putting yourself in much the same position as someone who prefers to trust his own intuition about his medical symptoms over the professional opinion of his doctor. he may very well be right and his doctor may very well be wrong - but he'd be a fool to ignore the doctor as a point of principle.

    there is no point in our tradition when it does not, but you do not seem to recognise it!

    er... it's not like the "scriptures" are entirely reason-based. i think you might be missing the point of faith here. if reason is your criteria, then you might have to chuck out rather a lot of "scripture"; i can't see how you can maintain an entirely rationalist view of judaism - certainly i do not consider rambam to be *entirely* rationalist, despite his strong attachment to it.

    i agree - but nobody is saying we need to do without reason, only that we should avoid making reason into an idol.

    you said this before and, frankly, there is a case to be made that "scripture" itself is one of these "old dilapidated houses" and i think you're on a hiding to nothing going down that road; all someone has to do is show you a non-rational position held in "scripture" and where does your common sense get you?

    a case in point, i'd have thought.

    you're being all-or-nothing again. just because i don't idolise my own sense and rationality does not mean i don't exercise it! in fact, it is impossible to work within the tradition without doing so. i am simply saying that reason is not the only thing going on here, not undermining its importance.

    there is a terrible circularity in your reasoning. what good is it to say that the "last word" is the Tanakh if that "last word" is itself ambiguous or open to numerous different interpretations? it doesn't bother the sages and the tradition, but it paints you into a corner.

    i refer you to my comment above: there is no point in our tradition when that tradition "goes against" the "scriptures", but you do not seem to recognise this!

    i wasn't referring to paul, but to the rabbi that so violated your sense of pure reason by speaking of angels in non-maimonidean terms.

    umph - i thought his pre-damascus job was as an anti-christian enforcer? doesn't sound very hellenistic to me.

    what nonsense. the talmudic discussion about the resurrection takes place in a context in which christian, samaritan, sadducean, pagan and zoroastrian influences are all visible and discussed as they occur. the discussion ends up being about what those passages actually meant; now you may not consider many of the talmudic sages in those discussions "jews of common sense", but it is hard to argue that you are still arguing from a jewish point of view if it requires you to disown our tradition!

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  5. Servetus

    Servetus New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hi (patient) Bananabrain,


    It’s been so long since we’ve talked that, when need be, I will quote the two of us.






    With a difference being, in this case, that, unlike the Mayans, it can be established that the Jews had direct contact with the Egyptians: ergo, the Exodus from Egypt.






    I don’t think that’s horribly controversial either. Please recall that I was responding to Ben Masada’s polemical broadsides against Christianity and Islam. Against his “Jesus as Greek demi-god” doppelganger, for instance, I conjured, perhaps rather more in the manner of the sorcerer’s apprentice than the sorcerer himself, the specter of “Moses as Egyptian Magician.” In answer to his allegations of “ignorance” concerning Jewish history, I brought Sigmund Freud, Heinrich Graetz, Otto Rank and Maimonides into the discussion. Concerning the latter part of your statement (covered by the ellipses), I could not agree with you more.





    This is an excellent belief. I hold the same, or similar, beliefs concerning the study of Christianity and, to a lesser extent (because it is not my tradition), Islam.





    Thank you for your consistent desire to politely both educate and inform. Relatedly, I’ve had a go at Gershom Gorenberg’s End of Days. I think the Temple Mount is the dilated cervix of the planet and that, to use Yeats’s imagery, some rough beast is, as we speak, slouching toward Bethlehem to be born.






    I don’t have it to hand, but, as I recall, Heinrich Graetz, granted a seriously flawed historian by many modern standards, corroborated Maimonides’ position that the rabbinic sages -or Sanhedrin- both tried and punished Jesus in his multi-volumed History of the Jews, but he also went on to bewail the cost, in innocent Jewish blood down through the centuries, for such a trial and conviction (and I agreed with his sentiment on that one, too).

    Furthermore, and this, too, is a potentially flawed recollection on my part, Arnold J. Toynbee, sitting at Chatham House and writing England’s answer to Oswald Spengler (and the French-influenced Edward Gibbon), referred to the Talmud when stating the same thing. I do understand that he didn’t win any points with Jews by calling their religion a fossil, but that is a side issue.





    Bananabrain, were you a beatnik? But seriously, Hegel doesn’t matter. Maimonides is not an historian as such, but, when he wrote his Epistle to Yemen, the fact is he included an historical background to both Christianity and Islam. In other words, he wrote history and reflected upon some of its implications.





    I understand. As I see it, he was doing that as well.







    It seems to me that, if Hegel’s paraphrase be trusted, Spinoza considered it unpleasant. He called the yoke a “punishment.” And that is said with keeping the historical context, to the extent possible, fully in mind.


    Best regards,


    Serv
     
  6. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    2
    I dont believe in circumscision. I think its male mutilation.
     
  7. Dream

    Dream New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1
    Let me think, Donnann. Ok so if we are saying that in Genesis people were half male & half female but then were deconstructed into other percentages after the fall: why were there only two judgments? I also have a problem with it, because going by it singles are no longer considered to be people. As they lack wholeness within themselves, they are less than human. I know that is not true -- that singles are people without adding an extra, so I cannot accept it.
     
  8. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    1

    Those in Judaism who appear to you to belive in bodily resurrection and reincarnation, it is either perhaps because they are superstitious - oh, we have of that kind too - or because it is only in the eyes of the beholder. And, as you say above, it is indeed easy to believe anything. No one has to pay to believe. I mean... you can scratch that too. The faithfuls of Jim Jones did pay with their lives for believing.
    Ben
     
  9. Bhaktajan II

    Bhaktajan II Hare Krishna Yogi

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,268
    Likes Received:
    110
    Let us all live to the letter of our true values.

    nOTHING PERSONAL TO donnann.
    Just a reality check in semantics that crosses my mind.
     

    Attached Files:

  10. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    1
     
  11. Dream

    Dream New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1
    Believing in the future is also superstition, because it doesn't exist yet. That is something to think about, not that I'm trying to make you superstitious. Consider that in many inland areas in the USA (and other parts of the world) you can go to farmland with fertile unsalted soil, but if you start digging you find the fossils from salt sea creatures less than ten feet down. Conch shells and shark teeth are found beneath standing wheat and soy beans and even in the highlands. When I think about how I feel seeing those shells underneath of soy beans, it is like how I feel about Torah, like finding something unusual beneath the mundane. It is the feeling that anything may happen.
     
  12. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    4
    hmmm. have a think about the anthropology of the typical synagogue layout and in particular the relation between the Torah scroll, the ark and the taking of one out of the other!

    sounds to me like you've described precisely how a seriously flawed historian might treat these statements.

    i'm with cartman - no beatniks, no hippies, no new-age tree-hugging crap! respect my authoritaah. oh, hang on, he doesn't like jews either....

    umph, i see what you mean but i think it's problematic to call it history.

    oh, yes, spinoza would have done. as a community we were almost completely unprepared for re-integrating the iberian crypto-jews that gravitated to the intellectual freedom of holland, with tragic consequences.

    what. ever.

    hmm. that would still depend on how you define and interpret "hand-in-hand"; anyway, i think you are starting to understand how i explain and understand this stuff.

    gee whiz, you're starting to sound like a j-witness again. no, you don't "need" anyone to teach you, but one certainly needs to teach oneself to learn.

    i'm really not sure what point this is trying to make, because it is surely not as clear as you appear to think it is.

    i think you're doing it to yourself. reason should surely contain the seeds of its own flexibility. sa'adia ga'on once said "G!D Forbid there should be anything in the Torah that contradicts reason" - but i cannot agree with him and, frankly, reason in his day - and in maimonides' - was a lot more trammelled than it is nowadays, when nobody serious seriously contemplates "proofs of faith".

    are you seriously maintaining that your position is maimonidean? maimonides, the author of the "13 principles of FAITH" - the creator of the formulation "ANI Ma'AMiN Be-EMUNaH ShLeIMa" (i believe with perfect faith [trust] that)..? seriously?

    oh, get off your high horse. anything that is makes it into the thinking of the sages must necessarily have a scriptural source, as i have said several times. until you accept the first principles, you're simply demanding that everyone re-invent the wheel by reasoning from them for every single argument, which is both tedious, ahistorical and frankly karaite.

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  13. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    2
    You do know the body like the foreskin is like a skin for the whole aspect of your resurrected body. Dont you think circumscision shouldnt be done knowing that?
     
  14. Servetus

    Servetus New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hi bananabrain,

    To say nothing, in this case, of his (Graetz's) flawed editors and publisher, George Dobsavage and the Jewish Publication Society.

    Serv
     
  15. Saltmeister

    Saltmeister The Dangerous Dinner

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,130
    Likes Received:
    2
  16. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    4
    salty - yes. south park rules.

    servetus - i dare say, but i'm no historian / philosopher either!

    donnann - you really don't have the least idea what you're talking about and quoting entire posts is almost as unhelpful as bhaktajan's stupid graphic.

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  17. Servetus

    Servetus New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hi Bananabrain,

    Nor am I, but, on my days off, I do enjoy scrounging through the odd dust-bin (or, if in search of a good Bordeaux, the dusty Oddbins) of history now and then.

    Best regards,

    Serv
     
  18. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    2
    The fall caused a split of that oneness. They went outside the pairs sexually. Before the fall the pairs literally looked like mirror images of each other. Now your other half will look different but still retain characteristics of that mirror image. Sex is sacred , the serpent represented it. They were too young to realize that you couldnt have SEX outside that paired oneness and were virgins prior to that . Knowledge of sex and why its so sacred is the key to infinite life and finding your true other half.
     
  19. Dream

    Dream New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1
    It seems you have greatly overestimated me, Donnann; though I appreciate your attempt at communication. It is the trick and miracle that no one ever really can estimate me properly, and that is because I cannot estimate myself. As long as I don't think you're a bot I'll respect you as a fellow poster, but don't assume that I'm of the same mind. Maybe there is some way that you could dumb the information down a little bit more. Maybe then I could understand what you are trying to impart.
     
  20. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    4
    hah!

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     

Share This Page