But Really, Why Was Jesus Crucified?

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

  1. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    4
    don't be so absurd.

    it's not *paranoia*. it is simply a matter of what judaism considers normative and what it does not. and my loyalty to G!D is none of your affair and i can't see why you feel the need to make such a statement, although you seem to have a habit of turning unpleasant and patronising when someone contradicts you.

    and that's supposed to be an argument, is it? i can prove to you that 'olam ha-ba is a folk dancing holiday on jupiter - one has never returned from there. now can you disprove it? look, i cannot see how you can possibly think that your position represents how judaism thinks; certainly the sages of the talmud do not agree with you:

    "Shabbat is 1/60 of 'olam ha-ba" (BT berakhoth 57b) - are you arguing shabbat is like the grave?
    "The world to come is unlike this world. In this world, [G!D's Name] is written one way, yet it is pronounced another way, but in the World to Come, the Name will be pronounced the way that it is written." (BT pessahim 50a) - so is there pronunciation in the grave?
    "Praised is one who arrives in The World to Come with his learning at hand" (BT pessahim 50a) - so you *can* take it with you?
    "The first question posed to a person in the world to come will be: 'Were you trustworthy in business?'" (BT shabbat 31a) - so there's a quiz in the grave?
    "Light will be plentiful in the World to Come" (BT pessahim 50a) - so there's light in the grave?
    "we will have understanding of [difficult sections of Torah such as] metzora and tumat ohalim" (BT pessahim 50a) - so we carry on studying in the grave?
    BT bava metzia 62b-63 contains a discussion about those in the next world being aware of the Torah study of those in this world. does that sound like the grave to you?
    BT gittin 56b-57a contains a discussion about who is considered "great" in 'olam ha-ba, according to reports by the roman emperor titus, the midianite prophet bil'am and various jews who sinned in 'olam ha-zeh. does that sound like the grave to you?
    and that's before i even get into the discussions of the "yeshivah shel ma'alah", or the messianic age - but none of these appear to be about the grave from the point of view of the sages. which brings us to your next point:

    i presume you're looking for a more complicated answer than "you haven't actually understood the 'scriptures' you think you've learned it from". or, alternatively, you are taking the scriptures out of their jewish and rabbinic context; now *that* would be reasoning as a christian.

    the quote from job suggests death, i agree, but it certainly doesn't mention 'olam ha-ba. and wrt koheleth, look at berakhot 18a-b for a discussion of how the righteous are considered "alive" even in death whilst the wicked are considered "dead" even while alive.

    if that is your position it is hard to see how it is a jewish one.

    yes - neither of them mention 'olam ha-ba.

    i could go with "out of existence in the form it has taken up till now", but you have provided no support whatsoever to your position - you're simply substituting a new assertion and suggesting that the source that you cite is open to only one interpretation and, frankly, i can tell you that it's a lot more complicated than that.

    well, if he was a wise sort of chap, then perhaps he meant something more complicated than you do. solomon doesn't get a very easy ride in the rabbinic sources, either.

    so are assertions not backed up with reasoned argument from the sources concerned.

    i have. i just don't interpret it the way you do, nor do i consider it to be a) normative or b) the last jewish word on the subject. rambam is not authoritative in every respect, unless you're yemeni.

    yes, but there are other interpretations of the sources you cite, other bits of the "scriptures" (funny word for someone jewish to use) disagree and, moreover, the normative rabbinic understanding is entirely different. you're being a bit odd about this, i have to say. does the opinion of haza"l not count for anything?

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  2. Saltmeister

    Saltmeister The Dangerous Dinner

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,130
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yes, Judaism was Jesus' religion, but I wasn't talking about "Jesus' religion," but the "religion about Jesus." That was what I meant by "religion of Jesus" and "Christianity" is a "religion about Jesus."

    I think Paul gets a bit too much credit for "founding Christianity." The NT wasn't written just by Paul. Paul was definitely a major contributor, but to call him a founder is to overstate his contribution. To say that Paul founded Christianity is to suggest that there wasn't a pre-existing movement revolving around Jesus that made similar mythical and/or mystical statements about him.

    Take the Gospel of John and the three Epistles of John as an example. The Gospel and Epistles of John depict the world as being dualistic struggle between two groups of people: those who believe in Jesus and those who do not. Those who believe in Jesus are saved and those who do not belong to Satan. Are there not Christians who think this way? Have you not encountered people like that during your life in Israel?

    Paul isn't the only person who contributed to "Christianity." For example, the opening Gospel of John equates Jesus with the Logos, the Logos being the emanation of God in this world. It was Philo Judaeus who proposed the idea that the Logos was an emanation of God. By the time Paul started talking about his "Christ," there would have been at least one group of people who were already embracing similar ideas: the Johanine community, the group most influenced by the Essenes and Hellenists.

    It's not odd at all. In the same Gospel, Jesus tells them to "make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19). Jesus had different instructions for them before and after his death/resurrection. His mission began with a recruitment process. When he had gained enough followers, he then sent them out into the rest of the world.
     
  3. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    2
    They tried to prevent him from union with his own spirit and soul. You can have all the knowledge in the world but if you try to steal immortality from someone else and gain it for yourself it doesnt work. Hate isnt life and that is an act of hate. JESUS is love. Pilate was a seriously misguided ill man.
     
  4. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

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

    Great! Now, we are of the same mind. I mean, the NT, likewise, is not my book but it is of my interest in the fight against Replacement Theology.
    Ben
     
  5. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    1
     
  6. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    1
     
  7. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

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

    One cannot steal what does not exist. Immortality belongs with Adonai only. That's an attribute that was not granted to man. Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden in order not to eat of the tree of life and live forever. It means that the attribute of immortality could never be granted to man. Read Genesis 3:22.
    Ben
     
  8. donnann

    donnann Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,294
    Likes Received:
    2
    Sorry but your mistaken. Everyone who exists in the heavenly kingdom are immortals and there have been human beings that have attained immortality through those sent from there into the human egg.However infinite life is a whole different matter. You need you opposite for that.
     
  9. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    4
    er.... yes it does. all the time. because the Torah itself tells us to do so - haven't you heard of the oven of akhnai? the source in Torah is devarim / deuteronomy 30, lo ba-shamayim hi; the Torah is not in heaven, but right here among us to be interpreted by humans, by majority decision as per shemoth/exodus 23:2. sola scriptura is *not* a jewish position. the test case is "lex talionis" - what happens if a blind man pokes your eye out, so you can't poke his out in revenge? Torah itself doesn't help you any more than it tells you how to get married, thus we are forced to conclude that monetary compensation is payable in lieu. honestly, this is pretty basic stuff, i can't believe you're arguing with it.

    the process of establishing whether something is in accordance with Torah *is* the process by which something *becomes* considered normative in judaism, you ought to know that - for halakhah, you establish what is in the shulhan 'arukh, which is then traced to the beit yosef and so on then traced back through the authorities of the aharonim and rishonim (like tosefot, rashi, rambam, etc) back to a discussion in the gemara / talmud, which may be conclusive or inconclusive, which will be based on a statement in the mishnah, which describes what was the normative position or practice at the time the oral Torah was codified by the sages, but the halakhah for this decision will then be decided for the case in point with all of this in mind and considering the precedents and specifics. at *any* point in this (as you will have noted when you studied it) someone may underline their reasoning by appeal to something in Torah or Nakh. for aggadah or any speculative area (such as soul-structure or what happens after death), based on the authority of the talmud, which is based on an appeal to something in Torah or Nakh, you may take any reasonable position where you have an accepted authority to back you up.

    you do not simply "check the scriptures if things are so and thus" - for example, what's the correct way to get married? it doesn't *say* in the "scriptures". it says how you get divorced (although not in much detail) yet it is obvious that there is a normative procedure by which people get married, which is discussed in the mishnah. the discussion then follows in the gemara as to how you know x or y procedure is correct, with case by case appeal to "scriptural" authority. you also ought to know that, as it's pretty basic stuff.

    i already gave you the main two Torah sources for the authoritativeness of human interpretation. once that is established, you don't have to constantly refer back to it. of course every area has its sources, but i have shown you on numerous occasions (based, if i may say, on what i hope is sound analysis of the hebrew source text) how your interpretations are either flawed or ambiguous. now every secondary source i have quoted will also base its authority on either a Torah source or logical argument based on the right to human interpretation which itself is based on a Torah source. either way, it's based on the Torah. therefore, the "scriptures" are already refuting me. you cannot use isaiah, part of Nakh, to argue that human interpretation, in Torah, is invalid.

    but not only that.

    exactly what i just referred you to in the talmudic sources! the other 59/60 of 'olam ha-ba includes, depending on who you listen to, Torah study, or watching over the living, or simply contemplating the Divine Presence and so on, at least that's as much as i know.

    so you're saying that shabbat is 1/60 of the grave? do me a favour.

    what an uncalled-for remark. you are the one demanding that you be the only one to determine the correct meaning of "scripture", defines it in the narrowest of senses; *i* am saying that human interpretation (which, i think you'll find, involves more than "the letter") has the support of Torah and that we have in the past argued this successfully with G!D!

    to G!D, perhaps? to each other, to angels? dead bodies in graves do not pronounce anything, which is my point.

    sheesh, so G!D Isn't G!D to moses when they're having conversations in 'olam ha-ba?

    in which case he isn't dead either - and as 'olam ha-ba isn't mentioned, this doesn't even support your point.

    myths? if that's your position, then isn't the whole of Torah "myth"? i fail to see how this actually helps.

    so why it said to occur in 'olam ha-ba?

    i'll take being "glued to the letter" over "making it up as i go along and totally ignoring what the letter says" any time.

    i'll try it once again. the "scriptures" say (in the two sources i mentioned earlier) that human interpretation is valid and establishes that the consensus of the learned is authoritative. therefore, secondary rabbinic sources are a) valid and b) authoritatively accepted by all jewish communities as normative. furthermore, these secondary rabbinic sources contain numerous statements about 'olam ha-ba, but NONE OF THESE agree that a) 'olam ha-ba is the grave, or that b) there is nothing after death. indeed, the consensus of scholars (including, notably, the author of the "guide") is that whoever denies the *resurrection* of the dead (whatever that means) has no "portion in 'olam ha-ba" (whatever that means). and as we have already discussed, if you can "inherit" or "not inherit" one of these "portions" in 'olam ha-ba, then it must be optional - which death, as i think we agree, is not.

    i think your approach is far more christian than mine is, as you seem keen to ignore the entire normative jewish tradition - could it be that i am actually talking with a bona fide karaite, one who denies the legitimacy of the rabbinic tradition? i know there are a few thousand still in jerusalem.

    impress you? i'm not in that business. i might however impress *upon* you that the "scriptures", as you call them, contain much that might be categorised as "midrashic" - you've read the song of songs, presumably? what's that for, if not symbolic purposes? and do you consider that the first chapter of ezekiel or the section of isaiah when he has a vision of the angelic host to be literal?

    i already have. you are taking them out of context by ignoring and denying the Oral Torah.

    it does if you are to sustain your assertion that 'olam ha-ba" is identical with "she'ol".

    if you mean that it is not the case that only Torah sages have the right to interpret, then we agree. however, if you think we are free to entirely ignore precedent, logic and tradition as developed over thousands of years of Oral Torah, then i cannot consider this a normative jewish position. even karaites have a version of Oral Torah, because they found that without it they couldn't work out how to get married.

    no, you have simply ignored the rabbinic interpretations of scripture which are different from your interpretations, as well as several demonstrations by myself of the possible alternatives to your narrow interpretations.

    it didn't! you know, i assume, that he's considered the author of the song of songs, right? well, that nearly didn't make it in. similarly, the argument over the inclusion of ecclesiastes (is it Divinely inspired or not) is discussed in BT megillah 7a and commentaries ad loc.

    dude - it was the rabbis that *established* the canon.

    are you seriously suggesting that the talmud is a "fallacious extra-biblical authority"? because, without it, judaism stops at the destruction of the Temple.

    but HOW IS IT TO BE ESTABLISHED whether something is "in tune"? are *you* the only one qualified? are you suggestion that our sages are not? and then you have the brass neck to accuse my approach of being christian? sheesh.

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  10. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

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

    As I can see, you did not bother checking Genesis 3:22. You have got to document what you say in the Hebrew Scriptures. I think I have told you more than several times that I find very hard to take people's word for it.

    If you don't like to quote the Scriptures, show me the proper evidence of these human beings you claim above, who have attained immortality.
    Ben
     
  11. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

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



    Bananabrain, I do not discard the decisions of the "sages" that have led to normative Judaism among the People, but because I have a mind of my own, I spew what does not make sense to me and stick to what I understand in the Tanach. Hence, the test in Isaiah 8:20 that if I sense that they do not speak according to the Law and the Prophets, I can't get rid of the idea that there is no truth in them. This can heppen among Jews too.

    Once I quit attending services in a synagogue when the Rabbi was speaking about angels as if they were real beings. Completely ignoring the understanding of Moses Maimonides about such emanations that angels are.

    Then, about resurrection as if a Jew needs a reward in the afterlife in order to be loyal to God. He reminded me of the saying that goes thus: "If my belly you feed, I'll adopt your creed." No different at all from Paul's saying that if the dead won't resurrect, let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die. (I Cor. 15:32) I find this disgusting attitude no different from the futile attempt to bribe Adonai as if He were a pagan god.
    Ben
     
  12. bananabrain

    bananabrain awkward squadnik

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,749
    Likes Received:
    4
    there is absolutely no need to quote entire replies, it just means more scrolling!

    why the scare quotes? you seem perfectly happy to idealise the rambam. the problem, it seems to me, is that you are being somewhat arrogant about having a "mind of your own" - are you suggesting that i don't? that [le-havdil] the sages didn't? sorry, but all that shows is that you aren't that familiar with what you are dismissing. secondly, a lot of things don't make sense to me. i am not arrogant enough to assume that because something doesn't make sense to me, it can safely be ignored or dismissed. i think you should consider the possibility that you might not be understanding quite as much as you think you are; it certainly seems to me that you are missing quite a lot of the subtlety of the tradition and it is entirely possible you're idolising your own reason somewhat. the point of the tradition is so you don't have to go back and reason everything out from first principles every single time; this stuff has evolved over thousands of years and i myself would not so be so quick to throw it all out and start all over again, trusting only in my own powers of reasoning. more to the point - a proper consideration for the developed system is by no means incompatible with sharp and pointed reason and insight.

    and you don't think that lays an undue burden on your "sense"?


    but, like i say, rambam is not the last word on everything. there are many other opinions and some may agree with you, or disagree with both you and him and so on and so forth. if you restrict your criteria of what is right to what you think rambam says, you're going to come up with some very, very odd positions indeed.

    and this, precisely, is where the tradition will help you. see pirkei 'aboth 1:3 -
    well, just because one rabbi says this about an aggadic matter does not mean you are obliged to follow his view - that is the position of the tradition, that there are many options in this particular area!

    b'shalom

    bananabrain
     
  13. Dream

    Dream New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1
    If you feel the need to take up that fight I don't have any problem with it. I don't want to put an oar in as to whether I'm convinced by either your or Bananabrain's opinion, although I'm glad that I got to hear both. (I think I would have paid to read the above conversations between yourself and bananabrain.) Your zeal against Replacement may explain, however, why you tend to overlook any thoughts about literal resurrection in Jewish sources. Either way it may be helpful for you to know that Matthew 28:19 could indeed have been pronounced by Jesus, since the 'Nations' are the Jewish tribes -- not the nations of the world. The Greek word being used there probably should have been translated as 'Tribe', and the speech Jesus makes called the 'Great Commission' is a commission that was completed while the apostles were alive according to Mark -- while Acts highlights that this commission was to the Jewish tribes. (Mark 16:20, Acts 2:39) Paul's ministry is either an extension of the great commission or a separate commission altogether. His commission was never completed, so there is a distinct difference between it and the one mentioned in Matthew.
     
  14. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    Messages:
    999
    Likes Received:
    1
     
  15. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

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


    Dream, there is no such a thing as bodily resurrection in Judaism. It would be tantamount to confusion to admit it, and at the same time, to explain gilgool neshamot, which is reincarnation. These two pagan concepts can never go together in Judaism. Jews who believe in bodily resurrection, usually, believe also in reincarnation. Resurrection is, par excellence, metaphorical.

    The portrayal of resurrection in Judaism depicts a return to the Land of Israel when the Jews are in exile. According to Isaiah 56:8,9, when Jews are uprooted from their land, the Land of Israel, it is as if they have been cut off from the Land of the living, which is the Land of Israel, and graves among the Gentiles are assigned to them.

    At the end of the exile, if you now read Ezekiel 37:12, the Lord opens those graves and brings them back to the Land of Israel. That's what resurrection means in Judaism. But perhaps because of the Christian influence on the unlearnt among the Jews, the literal idea of bodily resurrection has thrown roots in their minds. A Jew of common sense cannot adopt such foreign ideas.
    Ben
     
  16. Saltmeister

    Saltmeister The Dangerous Dinner

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,130
    Likes Received:
    2
    What's the point of opening up those graves if the people don't come back to life? They might as well remain underground. To say that God can open up graves but not bring people back to life is quite bizarre. Why wouldn't God go the whole way and resurrect them? I would have thought these dead people would be quite helpful in setting up the messianic realm. After all, some of them would be those renowned rabbis and sages of times past. Moses, Abraham, David, Elijah, Hillel, Shammai, Maimonides -- I'm sure you'd want their advice. You may not trust your contemporaries because they're corrupted by secularism, modernism and liberalism.

    I very much doubt it's due to Christian influences. It's more likely we got it from Judaism. The Pharisees certainly believed in it. Jesus got it from the Pharisees and we got it from Jesus.

    Saying it's due to Christian influences doesn't make sense. My impression is, Jews are pretty good at resisting Christian influences. Why would Jews start believing in resurrection because Christians do? Where would they get the motivation to adopt a Christian idea?

    I've seen bananabrain say on at least two occasions that Judaism isn't so fussed with the afterlife as Christianity. Resurrection is a big part of Christianity, but not Judaism. In Judaism it's more theoretical. It's like quantum theory and how the universe began. We don't all need to know about quarks and mesons, but people are just interested. I can imagine a time when rabbis were interested in the "what if." Maybe there's a soul? Maybe we can come back to life? If so, what is the Jewish way of coming back to life? When is it not pagan? How do we make it legal?

    As far as my reading of the history of the idea is concerned, Jews didn't become interested in such concepts until after the Babylonian Exile. It was more likely the influence of the Persians, Babylonians and Greeks that led to ideas about resurrection. Some rabbi/Pharisee/sage must have decided it was an okay idea.
     
  17. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

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

    Dream New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1
    I hear you. Reincarnation and physical resurrection physically are not part of Judaism. The story of Elisha's bones causing another man to come back to life is a figure. There is no Santa Claus, and Paul invented Christianity.

    I gather that Judaism, technically, doesn't explain weird things like the origin of the earth except in myth, and that myth is a read about good and evil designed to twist a child's curiosity of the world into a lesson about virtue. Herman Wouk in This Is My God chapter thirteen says "It is part of the religion that there is a beyond -- that God keeps faith with those who sleep in the dust. I can tell the reader little more, without wandering into my own opinions."

    That makes a lot of sense, but for some reason Jeremiah is written poetically and in figures instead of in prose. That coincides with a belief in progressive (limited) revelation. Maybe one day God decided to interfere in the doings of a tiny animal called humanity. We might not be able to instantly comprehend the amazing gift given, so having Moses set up a system to attempt to digest and disseminate the information over centuries is a reasonable conclusion. I can see why Jewish people might be reserved about ultimate questions about an afterlife.
     
  19. Ben Masada

    Ben Masada New Member

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

    Wow! What happened that you have decided to agree with me on almost everything? What a jump of improvement in this last post of yours! But I said "almost" and not entirely. Almost, because you say that "one day God decided to interfere in the doings of humanity." Now, if you try to compare the God of before this decision and the One of after the decision, what are you doing? Take a look at Numbers 23:19. "Adonai is not like a man that He should change His mind." Unless you are talking about the Christian god and not the Only One.
    Ben
     
  20. Dream

    Dream New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'm easily persuaded, but rather than confirming what you've said I was only repeating what you said, but I don't like Replacement theology either. Despite your not believing in physical resurrection or in reincarnation, Judaism doesn't appear to 'Not believe' in them. It seems more pensive about it. That is why its so easy to have a belief in it.

    Scratch the words "One day God decided." Emphasis upon the progressive revelation. It still seems to me that Judaism entertains the idea of some kind of beyond experience (even if it stops short of suggesting it). That is why I quoted to you from This Is My God.
     

Share This Page