Gomene I have offended you and I appologise for this.bananabrain said:there are a whole bunch of laws and tests to recognise the Moshiach which derive from various authorities. jesus doesn't pass them. simple as that. incidentally, he's not the only person who a lot of people thought was the Moshiach over the last two millennia.
Chalice said:The Sanhedron had made a political "promise" to Rome to never elect a King, and if they did, Rome would consider it treason, and send troops in to basically ahnilate the general population, and take away the nation of Israel from the Jewish leadership.
I said:This would seem an odd statement to myself - for a start, I'm not under the impression that the Sanhedrin was actually in a position to elect a king, and even if they had some authority over succession rights, I thought there was already a well-established dynasty on the Herodian line which held the general area through the Herod Agrippas until well after the siege of Jerusalem.
I said:This may or may not be an "odd" statement - but it is the explanation that I received when I attended a Messianic Jewish Synagog in my area. According to the Gospel stories of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Jesus was wanted as a king by a huge part of the population, otherwise it would not have been a problem that only a couple of people suggested it. The week before his crucifixion, or so, he entered Jerusalem on a white colt, which we were told is a symbol of kingship in Israel, and that this is how Solomon (or was that another King) entered Israel..., and that the population threw down their robes and palm branches, which the Messianic Jewish Synagog explained was the festival that included the "Lulav" and the "Etrog" and the "Myrtle" - a festival of some sort in Judaism, and that it was a big deal and a very public statement. Between the Gospel stories and the Messianic Jewish Synagog, this is what I thought had happened, and I dont really have any other resources that I know of to check the story against. Any input would be helpfull. The Messianic Jewish Synagog seemed very authoritative, and therefore I believed what they told me. They bring up alot of scripture, explain ancient Judaism very authoritatively, and what they say makes sense when they explain it. This is why I thought this...
It would also be great to see the source of the claim of 80% of Palestinian Jews being followers of Jesus - we simply don't get that mentioned in the surviving texts, and Josephus certainly doesn't list them as a major influence, though he has great respect for the austerity of the Essenes.
OK - point one: where's their reference for this assertion?We learned that apparently, according to the New Testament, about 80% of the Jewish population at the time of Christ DID accept Christ as their Messiah, which is why the Sanhedron was so upset.
to be precise - the romans had already appointed a family of client kings, the herods. the choice of a king would, therefore, constitute a threat to the roman hegemony.The Sanhedron had made a political "promise" to Rome to never elect a King, and if they did, Rome would consider it treason, and send troops in to basically ahnilate the general population, and take away the nation of Israel from the Jewish leadership.
again, this has been twisted to make jesus more significant than he was at the time - there is no evidence that "the population" wanted jesus elected as king (and, in fact, the sanhedrin would have a large say in this) in other sources. in fact, without significant military backing, it is hard to see how anyone could be considered king material, let alone messiah material. add to this the fact that about 3 messiahs a week used to pop up and suddenly this all looks inflated and spun after the fact.So the Leadership had to make a tough choice - kill Jesus, whom the population wanted elected as King, or allow Rome to kill everyone and wipe the nation off the map.
we only have the NT's word for it that these guys were actually bigwigs - all this is is post-hoc propaganda.I really doubt it was just a few families, or 20% of the population or some small number, because his populariety with the people apparently offended the Jewish Leadership enough that they spoke with him privately (Nicodemus and Joseph of Aramathea, for example),
if that was the case, there'd be some record of it. what you are basically saying is that the equivalent of OJ simpson's diary, or david koresh's followers' website, is a reliable indicator of how significant these people are in the wider scheme of things.On the other hand, look at someone who really "did" something that caused national attention: OJ Simpson, David Koresh, 9-11 Bombings - you have to do something pretty large scale to get noticed by the government, and for one large Government to take your case to a higher power...it must have been a pretty big deal, even in those days.
which groups are these? i'm not aware of any jewish group that actually demonises jesus, whilst considering his actions and motivations (insofar as we can work out what these are) misguided and heretical. but if you take, say, the sermon on the mount as an example of what he thought, there's nothing in there that would even raise eyebrows in mainstream rabbinic judaism.At any case, IF you get brave enough to read the New Testament, you will find that Jesus was not the monster that some groups think
not if he publicly desecrated the sabbath and objected to the Temple sacrificial system, as well as not accepting the authority of the Sanhedrin.he was "a good jew"
if you believe the NT, but if you don't...? our sources say that jesus was known for being a "wonder-worker", but this was not the same thing as a bona fide miracle as understood in jewish law. furthermore, the comment is made that he more or less performed magic tricks to lead the faithful astray, which would also not make him terribly popular with anybody other than the uneducated.he did work miracles
the highest jewish authority was the sanhedrin. if he did indeed testify in front of them (and there's no jewish record that he did, which is exceedingly surprising if it had been that significant) and they told him he was wrong, then that's like having your appeal turned down by the supreme court.he did offer his opinion to the religious leaders of his time, disagreed with them
judaism is not taught according to internal intuitive criteria, but largely relies upon exactly these other authoritative opinions. so what you've just described there is someone who was teaching something which was not supported by religious authority - in other words, something which was heretical.and took authority to say what he thought his religion taught instead of relying on the opinions of other authorities.
not true. there were samaritans, greeks, syrians, romans, idumaeans, persians, etc, etc.By the way, the New TEstament referrs to the religious leaders as "the jews", since the entire population was jewish.
all of this is nothing more than to say the sanhedrin, pharisees etc were in fact unrepresentative, hypocritical, wicked etc and that the vast majority of ordinary jews actually followed jesus, instead of their evil leaders. which is, of course, exactly what i'd expect them to be telling you at a "messianic synagogue" - and, it is, of course, total bollocks.The "Bad" jews in the text are really the hippocrites in the homogenous jewish society, and not jews generally.
and there's a reason for that....As far as my own personal knowledge and ability to back stuff up, I really can't...