Question about Jews

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
ThatGirlAgain
Prodigy
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:09 pm
Location: New York City

Re: The reason why

Post #21

Post by ThatGirlAgain »

Goat wrote:
ThatGirlAgain wrote:
Goat wrote:
Holyspirit213 wrote: I think Judaism Judaism consists of obiedience and faithfulness. I think they were disobedient to god in a sense that murder was committed. If the Jews believed in the Torah do much at the time, how can they castrate a man so badly? What happens to the laws of the Torah when they commit murder? Isn't that like the number one rule for all faiths except Muslims of course. ?
Well, I will point out that crucifixion is a Roman style of execution, and is not legal in Jewish law. There are 4 forms of execution legal for the Jewish people of that time frame would be, and crucifixion is not one of them.
The story told in the Gospels (true or not) is that the Jewish authorities tried to convict Jesus on grounds of blasphemy. When that failed they turned him over to the Romans, apparently telling them that Jesus was representing himself as King of the Jews, definitely a quick path to crucifixion. Pilate would have been more than ready to carry out a few executions after the recent uprising.

The reasons that the several Jewish authorities wanted Jesus out of the picture is also found in the Gospels. Jesus spared no pains in criticizing the Pharisees for over emphasis on the letter of the law and neglecting the spirit, and for general hypocrisy. The Sadducees were upset over that business at the Temple, interfering in the lucrative (as well as religiously motivated) money changing business during its peak season. That Jesus had huge crowds following him around and believing what he said did not help, especially that dramatic entrance into Jerusalem during the Passover preparation cycle no less when attention should have been on the Temple.

No surprise that Jesus ended up dead. True, this is how the story got told several decades after the putative event. Yet it does hold together neatly.
Well, there are tons of reasons not to believe to story about the trial. It breaks all the Jewish laws when it comes to how it was conducted, and when it was done. Who ever wrote the story did not know the Jewish law when it came to how trials was conducted, and they had the Sanhedrin violating the Passover... as well as the process for conducting a trial.

The story was written well after the Christians were no longer welcome in the Jewish places of worship. It appears to me to be 'let's blame the Jews, and make nice to the Romans'.
The details of the Sanhedrin trial are clearly fictitious. One possibility is that the trial did not take place when stated but at another time. The Gospels inherited the Passover Seder trope from Paul, IMO part of his strategy to make an execution into a sin atonement sacrifice to have it make some kind of sense even though the Korban Pesach is not a sin atonement sacrifice. This suggests to me that the Passover link already existed in the story prior to Paul and he was twisting it for his own ends.

It is the loose ends that make me suspect that the story is based on something that actually may have happened. The mysterious betrayal of Judas for one. What did he actually do, identify someone already well known by sight, who could easily have been followed, and was ‘hiding’ out in the open at a place they had obviously had been before since Judas knew to go there? Or did he maybe ‘pick Jesus out of a lineup’ as the one who had previously said in private that Jesus and the Apostles would rule the 12 tribes of Israel while sitting on thrones? Pilate starts off asking Jesus if he was the King of the Jews and later puts a sign on the cross repeating that accusation. Where did this come from? Maybe from Judas.

And then there is that mysterious uprising referred to so nonchalantly with no further details. What was that all about? Did some of the Jesus crowd go overboard?

Could be a real original story that got developed to suit later agendas.
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
- Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Autodidact
Prodigy
Posts: 3014
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 1:18 pm

Post #22

Post by Autodidact »

Holyspirit213 wrote: How come Jews didn't see him as messiah when the Torah says the messiah is both wolf and a sheep. It is somewhat appealing to me to see the "wolf" who is the crucified one on the left cursing Christ and gets pecked and the one on the right who asks him for his protection on the right and the middle being Christ of course.
Jews do not see Yeshua as the messiah because He did not meet the definition of the messiah, and did not fulfill the prophecies of the messiah.

Would you please take your transparent proselytizing somewhere else? Having been the victims of proselytizing at the point of Christian swords for centuries, Jews tend to object to it.

99percentatheism
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3083
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:49 am

Re: Prodigy

Post #23

Post by 99percentatheism »

cnorman18 wrote:
99percentatheism wrote: No one knows what the Hebrews/Israelites believed in before the Babylonian exile. Judaism, "Rabbi's and Synagouges" came from that environment. Great men of "Judaism" like the RAMBAM (from Moses to Moses) far more than likely have shaped what "Jews" of today practice and believe in.
Largely true, but misleading. There was obviously a Jewish religion long before the Exile, and the Torah was redacted from documents that existed before that time; and the Pharisaic movement -- rabbis and synagogues -- developed a good deal later (and it's worth noting that Jesus was associated with that movement; his disciples called him "rabbi" and he spoke in synagogues).

It seems that my position statd is just true and not misleading at all.
Do you not accept what the Bible itself says, that the Torah was given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai?
Abraham seems to have been a very Torah observant man. But yes, I believe that God gave Moses the Ten Commandments and the rest of the 613 at Sinai. I believe Shavuot also happened at Sinai.
You seem to read the Bible pretty literally otherwise.
It is as true as a Jewish person walking the earth today.
I am also puzzled by the disparaging tone here.

I sincerely apologize if anything I write about the history of the Israeltes is thought of as condescending. I basically was trying to convey that what we haer from "Jews" of today is far more than lilkely been altered by Babylonian worldviews and other dispora experiences. One of the greatest joys in my life is watching Hasidic children live freely in our culture.
Is there something wrong or objectionable about Maimonides?
Yes. His views about the physical (anthropomorphic) visitations of the Lord in the Tanakh are seriously flawed. His views were formed by his Islamic environment. You do know he was a physician for Muslims right?
Why do you put "Judaism" and "Jews" in quotes?
Because that is appropraite to the nature of Biblical history. "Jews" can only be from the tribe of Judah. Isn't that just being accurate to the history? What we have today representing ALL of Hebrew/Israelite history is quite convoluted. BUT, I don't think the incredibly rendered asunder people groups that identify as "Jews" or "Jewish" can do anything about that. I just marvel at the gift the world has been given in any Jew that can trace there roots back to Sinai. Shavuot in revered remembrance.
1 Kings

19 So Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day.

20 When all the Israelites heard that Jeroboam had returned, they sent and called him to the assembly and made him king over all Israel.

Only the tribe of Judah remained loyal to the house of David.
There are "Jews" (Judeans) and then there are others that trace their lineage back to the Tribes at Sinai. Are Israelites "Jews"? Well they are now. But historically/biblically? Looks not.

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9133
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #24

Post by bluethread »

Autodidact wrote:
Holyspirit213 wrote: How come Jews didn't see him as messiah when the Torah says the messiah is both wolf and a sheep. It is somewhat appealing to me to see the "wolf" who is the crucified one on the left cursing Christ and gets pecked and the one on the right who asks him for his protection on the right and the middle being Christ of course.
Jews do not see Yeshua as the messiah because He did not meet the definition of the messiah, and did not fulfill the prophecies of the messiah.

Would you please take your transparent proselytizing somewhere else? Having been the victims of proselytizing at the point of Christian swords for centuries, Jews tend to object to it.
I do nto see how this is "transparent proselytizing". It is simply presenting imagery the poster sees and a comment on it. If someone is converted based on such minimal information, that one is hardly being "proselytized". It might have been better to ask for the source of the "wolf" and "sheep" imagery, so that it could be examined for it's validity.

By the way, had you not said anything, that post would probably gone unnoticed. As it is, it has now been repeated three times. So, much for countering proselytization. Also, what is wrong with proselytizing? It appears that you have taken great pains to encourage me to change my views on other threads. Is that not proselytizing?

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24704
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times

Post #25

Post by Goat »

bluethread wrote:
Autodidact wrote:
Holyspirit213 wrote: How come Jews didn't see him as messiah when the Torah says the messiah is both wolf and a sheep. It is somewhat appealing to me to see the "wolf" who is the crucified one on the left cursing Christ and gets pecked and the one on the right who asks him for his protection on the right and the middle being Christ of course.
Jews do not see Yeshua as the messiah because He did not meet the definition of the messiah, and did not fulfill the prophecies of the messiah.

Would you please take your transparent proselytizing somewhere else? Having been the victims of proselytizing at the point of Christian swords for centuries, Jews tend to object to it.
I do nto see how this is "transparent proselytizing". It is simply presenting imagery the poster sees and a comment on it. If someone is converted based on such minimal information, that one is hardly being "proselytized". It might have been better to ask for the source of the "wolf" and "sheep" imagery, so that it could be examined for it's validity.

By the way, had you not said anything, that post would probably gone unnoticed. As it is, it has now been repeated three times. So, much for countering proselytization. Also, what is wrong with proselytizing? It appears that you have taken great pains to encourage me to change my views on other threads. Is that not proselytizing?
On the contrary, it is rather transparent proselyting. And, proselytizing is disrespectful of someone elses beliefs, culture and heritage. .. AND , in this particular subforum, against the rules.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9133
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #26

Post by bluethread »

Goat wrote:
bluethread wrote: By the way, had you not said anything, that post would probably gone unnoticed. As it is, it has now been repeated three times. So, much for countering proselytization. Also, what is wrong with proselytizing? It appears that you have taken great pains to encourage me to change my views on other threads. Is that not proselytizing?
On the contrary, it is rather transparent proselyting. And, proselytizing is disrespectful of someone elses beliefs, culture and heritage. .. AND , in this particular subforum, against the rules.
I don't know whether you noticed or not, but this thread was moved to the christianity and apologetics forum before the accusation of prosolytizing was made. What is apologetics but a justification for a particular belief system? However, so I can understand the rules, what is it about the post in question that makes it transparent proselyting?

cnorman18

Re: Prodigy

Post #27

Post by cnorman18 »

99percentatheism wrote:
cnorman18 wrote:
99percentatheism wrote: No one knows what the Hebrews/Israelites believed in before the Babylonian exile. Judaism, "Rabbi's and Synagouges" came from that environment. Great men of "Judaism" like the RAMBAM (from Moses to Moses) far more than likely have shaped what "Jews" of today practice and believe in.
Largely true, but misleading. There was obviously a Jewish religion long before the Exile, and the Torah was redacted from documents that existed before that time; and the Pharisaic movement -- rabbis and synagogues -- developed a good deal later (and it's worth noting that Jesus was associated with that movement; his disciples called him "rabbi" and he spoke in synagogues).
It seems that my position statd is just true and not misleading at all.
But what you said about "rabbis and synagogues" dating from the Exile was NOT wholly true and NOT wholly accurate. Therefore, it was misleading.
Do you not accept what the Bible itself says, that the Torah was given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai?
Abraham seems to have been a very Torah observant man. But yes, I believe that God gave Moses the Ten Commandments and the rest of the 613 at Sinai. I believe Shavuot also happened at Sinai.

You seem to read the Bible pretty literally otherwise.
It is as true as a Jewish person walking the earth today.
I am also puzzled by the disparaging tone here.
I sincerely apologize if anything I write about the history of the Israeltes is thought of as condescending. I basically was trying to convey that what we haer from "Jews" of today is far more than lilkely been altered by Babylonian worldviews and other dispora experiences.
And I apologize too; I made more of the quotation marks than was warranted. That said, the Jewish religion has indeed changed and developed over time; according to our beliefs, it was supposed to. We can no longer worship at a Temple, e.g., and so our religious practices have adapted to that fact. Many of our practices, and of course much of our liturgy, did not exist in Mosaic, or even Exile, times; but they are ours, and they are authentically Jewish, whatever non-Jews may think. Whether or not pre-Exile Judaism was different from that of later times, it no longer exists, and was gone long before the time of Jesus. The Jewish religion as it exists today is all there is.
One of the greatest joys in my life is watching Hasidic children live freely in our culture.
That's fine; me too. No one prizes religious freedom more than Jews. But there are other kinds of Jews besides Hasids.

Is there something wrong or objectionable about Maimonides?
Yes. His views about t the physical (anthropomorphic) visitations of the Lord in the Tanakh are seriously flawed. His views were formed by his Islamic environment. You do know he was a physician for Muslims right?
He also wrote all of his books in Arabic. What of it? Though Maimonides is revered as one of the great rabbis of our history, his ideas have never been universally accepted, not even today.

Why do you put "Judaism" and "Jews" in quotes?
Because that is appropraite to the nature of Biblical history. "Jews" can only be from the tribe of Judah. Isn't that just being accurate to the history?
No. That was never the case. A Jew is anyone who was born to a Jewish mother or has been converted by a properly constituted bet din, or rabbinical court. A religious Jew is one who fulfills those requirements and practices the Jewish religion. Neither has anything to do with membership in the tribe of Judah, and never did.

Jews have accepted converts since the time of Moses, and by Jewish law (which is the only one applicable to the issue), converts are as Jewish as any Cohen. I am a Jew even though my ancestry is Scottish on both sides. I converted under the auspices of a rabbi and a properly constituted bet din, and am therefore now a Jew. Descent from the tribe of Judah was never a requirement.

The name of the tribe of Judah is merely the source of the word; and the actual word "Jew" may in fact have more to do with the name of the Roman province of Judea. Whatever the truth of the origin of the word, there is no text anywhere were "Jew" was unambiguously used to mean "member of the tribe of Judah." When the NT refers to "Jews," it is often speaking of Levites and priests, who were not Judahites either.

I'm not trying to be contentious here, just accurate.
What we have today representing ALL of Hebrew/Israelite history is quite convoluted. BUT, I don't think the incredibly rendered asunder people groups that identify as "Jews" or "Jewish" can do anything about that. I just marvel at the gift the world has been given in any Jew that can trace there roots back to Sinai. Shavuot in revered remembrance.
1 Kings

19 So Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day.

20 When all the Israelites heard that Jeroboam had returned, they sent and called him to the assembly and made him king over all Israel.

Only the tribe of Judah remained loyal to the house of David.
There are "Jews" (Judeans) and then there are others that trace their lineage back to the Tribes at Sinai. Are Israelites "Jews"? Well they are now. But historically/biblically? Looks not.
That is a very idiosyncratic use of the term "Jew," and I know of no rabbi or Jewish scholar or other Jewish authority who would endorse it -- and of course other authorities don't get a vote. "Jew" simply means Jew, as is commonly understood.

According to Jewish tradition, all Jews throughout history, past and future, including those who would convert to Judaism in later times, were present at the foot of Sinai when the Law was given. Obviously a metaphor, but the lesson ought to be taken seriously. I was there, too.
In any case: My apologies. I had thought that perhaps you had fallen for the old "Khazar Jews" claptrap that occasionally surfaces around here. Misunderstandings of the term "Jew" and its proper use are rather common, but benign.

User avatar
Hubert Humphrey
Apprentice
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: Prodigy

Post #28

Post by Hubert Humphrey »

The name of the tribe of Judah is merely the source of the word; and the actual word "Jew" may in fact have more to do with the name of the Roman province of Judea. Whatever the truth of the origin of the word, there is no text anywhere were "Jew" was unambiguously used to mean "member of the tribe of Judah." When the NT refers to "Jews," it is often speaking of Levites and priests, who were not Judahites either.

If I may interject, a lot of this confusion is resolved if one remembers that the Davidic Kingdom split into two kingdoms after the reign of Solomon. The two rival kingdoms were often referred to in the bible as "houses."
There was the house of David largely comprised of the tribes of Judah, Levi, and Benjamin; the same later comprised the region of Judea. The rest of the tribes comprised the house of Israel, the same whom Jesus referred to as "the lost sheep of Israel" who tended to reside in the outlying regions to the north of Judea.
The bible typically distinguishes between Jews, i.e. the tribes within Judea, and Israelites, i.e. those tribes who tended to reside outside of Judea
“Inter urinas et faeces nascimur�
St. Augustine

User avatar
Tex
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1944
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:25 am
Location: canada

Post #29

Post by Tex »

ThatGirlAgain:
The details of the Sanhedrin trial are clearly fictitious. One possibility is that the trial did not take place when stated but at another time. The Gospels inherited the Passover Seder trope from Paul, IMO part of his strategy to make an execution into a sin


Tex: And how do you know this? Where you there?
We have all four gospel witnessing to a trial. But 2000 years later you guys know the truth.
Give me a break!!

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24704
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times

Post #30

Post by Goat »

Tex wrote: ThatGirlAgain:
The details of the Sanhedrin trial are clearly fictitious. One possibility is that the trial did not take place when stated but at another time. The Gospels inherited the Passover Seder trope from Paul, IMO part of his strategy to make an execution into a sin


Tex: And how do you know this? Where you there?
We have all four gospel witnessing to a trial. But 2000 years later you guys know the truth.
Give me a break!!

Because we have what the laws concerning the Jewish trials were during that time frame.. and the account of the trial violates quite a number of them. Not only that, but it violates the High Holy days.. .. and the 'give me a break' is quite a valid response to saying that you could get a bunch of priests (who made up a lot of the Sanhedrin) to violate a high holy day to run a trial of someone.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

Post Reply