But Really, Why Was Jesus Crucified?

[Servetus]

And I am here to serve as light unto the Gentiles, according to Isaiah 42:6.

Good one, Ben!

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben Masada wrote:

This has everything to do with Spritural Things and Theology.

You are conflating "Spritural Things and Theology" with mundane temporal; designations. You are better off reading my last post as a mantra is chanted repeatedly --rather than conjuring-up the path out of the prison-house of the material World.

Bhaktajan, I think we have been debating from two different poles of a magnetic field. I am discussing Judaism, and you, perhaps, Hinduism. I don't even have an issue with Hinduism. My contention is against the vandalism of Judaism by Christianity through its Pauline policy of Replacement Theology.

The Body and it's designations pass back to dust but the life force-carries on. If you confess that this is a Subject matter beyond your preview --- then just leave it to those that do have the information that is highly valuable and highly sought out.

My vauable information is from the Jewish Scriptures. I might come up with some answers to your questions if they cross the border into my realm of research.

Yes, We are a SOUL in a material body.

Our true identity is a Eternal Soul.

Not according to Judaism. Soul is the combination of body with the breath of life. We are that combination. Once, in death, the body goes back to the dust and the breath of life returns to God Who gave it. (Gen. 2:7; Eccl. 12:7)

You are saying that the soul desolves into nothing-ness . . . yet all the junk in the junk yard looks forward to re-newed life in the hands of another person's destiny?

That's not my saying but that of the Hebrew Scriptures.

So all the prophets are Gone for good? They were mirages?

No unseen rewards? No punishment for the wicket? No paradise for the faithful? No Supreme Personality of Godhead?

Right, there is no afterlife. This is a myth for people who are afraid of death. I know that you are wrong in what you have said, according to the Scriptures. And yes, not only all the prophets but every one else is gone for good. They were no mirages but real; but only while they lived. We don't show our loyalty to God with an eye on rewards or fear of punishment. And punishment for the wicked or paradise for the faithful is all here, as a result of the law of cause and effect. And last but not leat, God is no personal. We might strike a personal relationship with God but not the other way around.

FYI: The world is composed of Cheaters and the Cheated!

That is the status quo of the Material world of duality we exist in.

The best way to make of this chaotic world a better place for all to live is to start with each one of us. To just look and complain won't help.

Ben

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Ben Masada wrote:



Bhaktajan, I think we have been debating from two different poles of a magnetic field. I am discussing Judaism, and you, perhaps, Hinduism.


My vauable information is from the Jewish Scriptures.

. . . according to Judaism. Soul is . . .


That's not my saying but that of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Right, there is no afterlife.

This is a myth for people who are afraid of death . . .

God is no[t] persona(l).

We might strike a personal relationship with God but not the other way around.

The best way to make of this chaotic world a better place for all to live is to start with each one of us.

As per the Vedas ---the cow is Mother Earth Incarnate.

so, "The best way to make of this chaotic world a better place for all to live is to stop eating fleash especially the flesh of our mothers"

Besides this . . . read on:

I do not for a moment believe nor conceed that I have ever known nor ever expected nor found where the definition of the "Soul" was defined or even addressed in the OT and the NT.

The "soul" is a very specific talking point ---either there is a direct reference or direct series of chapters and long disertations on the topic or not. I do not think anyone goes to the Judeo-Christain or Mohamedian or Buddhist texts to find "Soul".

"We" find that the Judeo-Christain and Mohamedian scriptures are concerned with daily bread and all other trappings of materail wealth and material confort and that is all that is concerned with.

The "Soul" can be the only topic of individual autonomy.

"afterlife" -- is a myth for people who are afraid of death . . .

The fearless people are famous for what deeds? And you presume that the nobel fearless get no rewards and the fearful captains at the helm recieve goverment sanctioned subsidies to retire on.

The living Governing Powers that be have us by the bullocks while we are alive ---and there is no savings balance to ward off the ruling elite?

You propound that the brave volunteers that selflessly sacrifice their comfort and safety along with life's enjoyment never remark, "I don't fear death because ---I'll be your steward next time around".

And instead, a cop killer get subsidised with free solicitors?

That kind of Ironic sardonic bizarro scenarios are a by-product of living in the material world of Duality.

Ironic sardonic bizarro scenarios of existential existence is commonplace for all those living in the Material World's confines.

There is also something called "Afterdeath" ---it's called life.

To trust me all you have to remember is that their is only one thing you are in control of ---your own will. All other affairs and activities and bodily functions and events of nature are done by the mechanical laws of the Material World's physics. Those laws of physics DO NOT apply to spirit-soul.

That subject matter is discussed from beginning to end in the Vedas.

 

[radarmark]

I believe you are onto something, my friend! to my knowledge there is no direct refernce to soul in the Sutras, OT or NT. There may be uses that are mistranslated, IDNK, but will check this out.

 

[Ben Masada]

I think the verse before that is a clue.

He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. Matthew 12:39

Indeed Jesus does say that the Son of Man will be in the earth for "three days and three nights," but in verse 39 he says that "no miraculous sign" will be given that will satisfy them.

The story of the prophet Jonah was more than just a guy being trapped in a fish because he ran away from God. He was told to preach to a city of Gentiles. Jonah was a Jew. I think he would have hated the idea of God showing mercy to a people who didn't make an effort to follow his commandments. How could God be so hard on the Jews and yet so easy on the people of Nineveh?

Just like Jonah preached to the people of Nineveh, the message of Jesus is being preached to the Gentiles. We are the people of Nineveh, and God will show mercy toward us even if we don't follow all the 613 commandments.

The sign of Jonah was not the three days and three nights in the tomb, but the last 2,000 years. The people who asked Jesus for that miraculous sign never got it.

Saltmeister, I hope you are aware that you have not answered my question. Let me bring it to you in some more details.

The Hoax of the Three Days and Three Nights

On the third day or in three days, simply means after a short period of time. (Hosea 6:2)

Night or day for three days, as we have in the request of Esther to fast for her, means three days or three nights whether one follows the tradition to fast by day or by night. Those terms were used here because it was in the Diaspora where most Persians followed the tradition to fast by night. So, Esther's maids who were not Jewish, would share Esther's pain by showing their solidarity with their night fast. (Esther 4:16)

The case of Jonah dispenses all explanation because it happened during a vision. Therefore metaphorical language. That could be the entire three days and three nights, since everything is possible in a vision or dream. (Jonah 2:1)

Now, for the three days and three nights we are talking about, for Jesus to spend in the tomb, according to Matthew 12:40, the writer must have had a very poor insight about parables or metaphorical language to draw his prophecy in the terms of Jonah's allegory. If he had used the language of Esther or Hosea, he could have saved his prophecy from being a hoax, but now he must account for the whole three days and three nights or parts thereof.

We don't even need another gospel writer to contradict the one of Matthew. This contradicts himself as he declares that the next day, the one following the Day of Preparation, the chief Priests asked Pilate for a guard of soldiers to watch the tomb area for three days. (Mat. 27:62-64) The Jewish Preparation Day is always Friday, and the following day is the Sabbath.

Then, after that Sabbath, as the first day was dawning, the women went to see the sepulcher, there was an earthquake, an "angel" came down from Heaven, removed the stone, and the tomb was empty. Someone had cheated the angel by raising Jesus from there long before the "angel" could at least be an eyewitness to the resurrection.

Based on the Jewish method that a whole day or night can be accounted for any part of the day or night, we can consider the first day for those minutes that took Joseph of Arimathea to get Jesus into the tomb before sunset. The first night from sunset to sundawn of Saturday, the second day from sundawn Saturday to sunset that Saturday, and the second night from sunset that Saturday to the sundawn of the first day. It was still dark when the women arrived at the tomb to find it empty. Therefore we are missing a whole day and a whole night to save Matthew 12:40 from becoming a prophetical hoax and a classical contradiction in the NT.

Any volunteers to solve this puzzle?

Ben

 

[radarmark]

Ben, if any can do it, it will be a really, really good trick. I have yet to see any reference that says anything but "gosh, it was not three days".

 

[Ben Masada]

Good one, Ben!

Thanks, but not in the sense to convert Gentiles to Judaism. We believe that they do not need to convert. They are just fine where they are and how they behave, as long as they observe the seven Noahide laws.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben, if any can do it, it will be a really, really good trick. I have yet to see any reference that says anything but "gosh, it was not three days".

My point was to show the blunder of the irresponsible Hellenist who wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew. The anxiety to add one more prophecy to enhance the hoax of the resurrection, the author failed to document it with precision.
Ben

 

[Servetus]

Thanks, but not in the sense to convert Gentiles to Judaism. We believe that they do not need to convert. They are just fine where they are and how they behave, as long as they observe the seven Noahide laws.

We are only expected to observe seven laws? Before giving my final consent, I would have my solicitor, or lawyer, read and approve the contract, naturally, but I might be able to agree to that. By way of contrast, and though I haven’t read Spinoza enough to see it myself, Hegel, who had read him, wrote that:

“Spinoza regards the code of Moses as having been given by God to the Jews for punishment – a rod of correction.”

If Hegel accurately reports Spinoza and if Spinoza is correct, I don’t understand why any Gentile would want to convert to Judaism.

 

[Ben Masada]

We are only expected to observe seven laws? Before giving my final consent, I would have my solicitor, or lawyer, read and approve the contract, naturally, but I might be able to agree to that. By way of contrast, and though I haven’t read Spinoza enough to see it myself, Hegel, who had read him, wrote that:

“Spinoza regards the code of Moses as having been given by God to the Jews for punishment – a rod of correction.”

If Hegel accurately reports Spinoza and if Spinoza is correct, I don’t understand why any Gentile would want to convert to Judaism.

I am an avid reader of Spinoza and I do not remember to have ever read that God's Law was given to the Jewish People for punishment. The opposite is true, according to Psalm 119, that it was given to rather promote life and wisdom. If I have missed that in Spinoza, I do disagree with him. And yes, Gentiles are expected to observe only seven laws. The Seven Noahide laws. Therefore, no need to convert to Judaism.
Ben

 

[Saltmeister]

“Spinoza regards the code of Moses as having been given by God to the Jews for punishment – a rod of correction.”

I think it is more likely to be debt than punishment. God rescued the Jews from slavery in Egypt. In the ancient world, when someone saved your life or rescued you from an oppressor, you owed them your life back. The fate of the Jewish people would be different if God had not intervened.

It's both a "blessing" and a "burden." God has done much for the Jewish people so they always have a debt to pay back. Nobody else has to adhere to those 613 commandments because nobody else has such a big debt to pay back.

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben Masada wrote:

This has everything to do with Spritural Things and Theology.

You are conflating "Spritural Things and Theology" with mundane temporal; designations.

I do not understand what you are trying to say. I said that vegeterianism has nothing to do with spiritual things and Theology. You say that it has everything to do with spiritual things and Theology. Then, you add that I am conflating spritual things and Theology with mundane temporal designations. That is, vegeterianism. No offense meant, but it sounds to me as mere verbal juggling which only makes me more and more confused.

Hmm, "K" is nowhere near the "C" Note on the keyboard ---Know what I mean? You Know what I mean?

I have no idea. I thought you were trying to confuse me.

Do you know what a Mitzva-Tank is? They probably only exist where they are protected by the rules-of-law enforced by secular folks.

I continue in the dark.

The Body and it's designations pass back to dust ---but the life force-carries on.

Life force carrying on after death! That's a paradox.

If you confess that this is a Subject matter beyond your preview ---then just leave it to those that do have the information.

What about if those who have the information don't have the skill to pass it on?

Yes, We are a SOUL in a material body.

No, we are souls, period. When man was formed from the dust of the earth, God, metaphorically, breathed in his nostrils the breath of life and we BECAME living souls. To become is to be. Therefore, a soul is what we are according to Genesis 2:7.

Our true identity is a Eternal Soul.

Not according to the Scriptures. There is nothing eternal about man. That's why, metaphorically, Adam and Eve were banned from the Garden of Eden in order to prevent them from eating of the tree of life and live forever. (Gen. 3:22) Eternity belongs with God only.

You are saying that the soul desolves into nothing-ness.

That's not my saying so. It is in Ecclesiastes 9:5,6 and 12:7.

Know what I mean? There is no after-life? I have said that "Re-incarnate" means to re-appear as one was previously.

Right, there is no afterlife. Not according to Judaism, I mean. This idea is too Hellenistic.

So all the prophets are Gone for good? They were mirages?

No, the prophets were not mirages, but they are indeed gone for good.

The message of Scriptures is just a human operator's manual for getting the most mileage and enjoyment out of the Model-Body the was acquired at birth;

I could say the same about the mantras of the Vedas.

and no transcendence? No unseen rewards?

No punishment for the wicket? No paradise for the faithful? No Supreme Personality of Godhead?

Right, none of the above. Punishments and rewards are all applied in this life according to the law of cause and effect.

But there are despots and dictators and used-furniture dealers for eternity along side all the other oldest professions?

As I have told you above, there is nothing eternal about man.

Isn't that how Democracy overcomes dictatorships? Because all are equally due the best life has to offer ---yet, goverments & big-business & the well educated make the citisens pay taxes and then make the citisens work harder to make more taxes.

FYI: The world is composed of Cheaters and the Cheated! That is the status quo of the Material world of duality we exist in.

And it is all up to us to fix what we have broken.

Ben

 

[Saltmeister]

Saltmeister, I hope you are aware that you have not answered my question. Let me bring it to you in some more details.

I thought I did answer your question. Recall in my post on your question that I said that the story of Jonah is more than just a guy being trapped inside a fish because he ran away from God. Perhaps I should add that likewise the story of Jesus is about more than him being dead between Friday and Sunday. You're not seeing the big picture here. Are you sure you're not missing the point?

Jesus rebuked those questioning him for missing the point. They ask for a miracle and he is rebuking them for trusting in someone who performs miracles rather than taking note of other things he says and does. It is as if the miracle is more important than anything else.

The so-called "Sign of Jonah" could mean anything in the story of Jonah -- his run away from God, the storm, Jonah being thrown out into the sea, Jonah being swallowed by the fish, Jonah being trapped in there for three days and three nights, preaching to the people of Nineveh and getting angry that God spared them.

Think of the story of Jesus as being a "re-imagining" of the story of Jonah. Not all the details have to be the same. Only the most important aspects of the journey remain. Jesus didn't run away from God, but he did experience rejection (Jonah being tossed into the sea). Jesus didn't get swallowed by a fish, but he was trapped somewhere for a significant amount of time. Jesus didn't preach repentance to the people of Nineveh, but something similar has happened in the last 2,000 years: stories about him have been told all around the world for 2,000 years (to Gentiles).

It really doesn't matter how long Jesus was in the tomb, whether it was one, 5, 15, 20 or 100 days. I don't see any theological significance in the number. Jesus still took a journey that was comparable to that of Jonah. His mission was to preach to a particular group of people, even if that mission had to be completed "posthumously" or after his resurrection.

It doesn't even matter how long Jonah was there either. What mattered was their mission. Jonah's mission was to get Nineveh to repent. Jesus' mission was to recruit people who would "make disciples among the nations/goyim." (Matthew 28:19) The mission was more important than literal conformity to the story of Jonah. Jesus' mission was to let the world know about the Jewish God and make Gentiles flock toward monotheism, just like Jonah told the others on the ship in the storm about the "God who made everything." This was the real "sign of Jonah."

The case of Jonah dispenses all explanation because it happened during a vision. Therefore metaphorical language. That could be the entire three days and three nights, since everything is possible in a vision or dream. (Jonah 2:1)

Now, for the three days and three nights we are talking about, for Jesus to spend in the tomb, according to Matthew 12:40, the writer must have had a very poor insight about parables or metaphorical language to draw his prophecy in the terms of Jonah's allegory. If he had used the language of Esther or Hosea, he could have saved his prophecy from being a hoax, but now he must account for the whole three days and three nights or parts thereof.
.........

Yes, it was a "hoax," but it probably wasn't the author of the gospel getting it wrong. Jesus probably did say what the gospel records him saying. The hoax was on those asking Jesus for a miracle which he refused to give -- it was not for the rest of us.

The real problem is the way people interpret it. Christians commonly interpret his "three days" in the tomb as fulfilment of sign of Jonah, without realising that the story of Jonah and Jesus are much more than about being trapped somewhere for three days and that the exact "three days" are largely immaterial to the plot of the story. The common view of Christians is that Jesus' mission was to die on the cross so we could all be forgiven. But they neglect everything else Jesus said and did. This is what leads to the idea that the "three days" are so important. They think Jesus' "prophecy" must be literally fulfilled.

Non-Christians pick on the most common Christian interpretation, thinking that this is what Jesus meant by the "sign of Jonah." They allow the most common Christian interpretation to influence their opinion of a section of the written tradition!! It would be great if non-Christians formed their own interpretations.

The "hoax" isn't the problem. It's our interpretation that is the problem.

 

[bananabrain]

We cannot fully understand Jesus' importance in the first century without having a look at others who were important at the time, like Hillel, Shammai and Philo Judaeus.

philo's not important as a religious source in judaism, as he represents a hellenizing stream, but obviously he is of interest to historians and of course christians seeking a context.

In the secular world and in Judaism, leniency, mercy and compassion don't come from ritual sacrifices, but from someone willing to argue your case on your behalf (as a lawyer would). In the secular world, if you commit a crime or break the law, you are entitled to have a lawyer defend you in a court of law.

up to a point - judaism expects you to make good anything you have done and seek forgiveness before you start to argue.

The situation in "Judaism" in Jesus' lifetime was two factions of Pharisees arguing in favour of either a compassionate and/or liberal/humanistic approach (Hillel) to Jewish Law or a cold and heartless and/or legalistic one (Shammai) to Jewish Law.

that's not really true, salty - shammai is still revered, but he is a bit more, shall we say impatient and strict; he didn't suffer fools gladly and there is, of course, a time when that is appropriate. generally speaking, although not always, the halakhah follows hillel, but no disrespect to shammai is intended.

This is actually quite profound, because it may suggest that the rabbis and sages have the power to decide what happens to you in your afterlife.

i don't think this is right, as it arrogates power to them that is properly the province of G!D; only G!D Judges.

Jesus, who preached "love" was obviously on the Hillelite side. But the Shammaites were the ones who dominated the Sanhedrin during his lifetime. Shammai's cold and heartless approach to Jewish Law dominated the Jewish world during this time.

no, this is really a false dichotomy you're setting up here. shammai was anything but corrupt, as the court described in the NT obviously is.

He stood up for compassion in Jewish Law. He died for love and compassion.

as did many of the sages.

That's why Jesus was so popular.

if that were the case, you'd expect to find more mention of him; as far as we can see, he simply wasn't that big of a deal. if you watch the scene in "life of brian" where brian is hiding amongst all the other messiahs in the market, that is far closer to how we see things.

Jewish tradition records someone saying, "He who observes the teachings of Beit Shammai deserves death."

ok, but this is typical rabbinic hyperbole and is not meant as overarching criticism of shammai.

Now I wonder what a Jew thinks when he's reading the NT.

he thinks "gosh, they're really not too familiar with the contemporary jewish sources, are they?"

The "system" Jews follow today is different to the "system" that was in place in the late Second Temple period. After the destruction of the Temple, what happened was a general backlash against whatever "system" existed there.

i think you've misunderstood. if that were the case, why would the Temple cult have been documented in such loving detail in order to restore it one day? the change was a matter of pragmatism in the face of force majeure - after the Temple was destroyed, the factions that couldn't cope with the lack died out; those that survived were those who were able to find a way to do without it - for the time being.

I understand. I read Maimonides’ Epistle as being in the nature of what St. Paul, another notorious writer of epistles, called “edifying.” It was largely an instructive letter of support addressed to a beleaguered community; it was not necessarily a legal ruling on any particular matter.

that sounds about right to me.

The anti-Maimunists, who understandably considered his rationalism threatening, rather ill-advisedly called in the Inquisition, according to Friedrich Heer, himself a Catholic historian, which Inquisition was pleased to oblige by consigning not only Maimonides’ books but probably a percentage of his readers to the flames as well.

quite - we never learn.

I would point out that Freud made the point that male circumcision was an Egyptian rite, or practice. He had read Herodotus on the subject and I should think that, even now, no Egyptologist worth his or her salt could be an Egyptologist without a working knowledge of Herodotus, one of Egypt’s eye-witnesses and a so called ‘father of history.’ I also notice that this point of circumcision as having been practiced by some Egyptians was, before Freud, made by Hegel in his Philosophy of History. Whatever else might be said of them, those Prussians and Germans were an inordinately erudite lot.

i'm not saying that the egyptians didn't circumcise, actually - but just because the egyptians did doesn't mean that we got it from them.

He may not have been dispassionate, but self-conscious, articulate and even passionate apostates from any given religion are sometimes well worth reading.

agreed - but ignorant ones are not.

Some anti-Semites considered Psychoanalysis a Jewish plot to prove all Gentiles insane.

hah - well that one has backfired. now it seems clear that it has, instead, proven all jews that indulge in it to be neurotic. thanks a feckin' lot, siggi.

With his reference to Esau, I think it is safe to conclude that Maimonides is relying upon Jewish rather than Christian historians for his information. Do you think that a safe conclusion?

not especially. the use of "esau" to denote the romans and, consequently, the succeeding christian roman empire is another generalised phrase. the first ever jewish "historian" per se was josephus, but he was not generally read by jewish religious sources; history would not have been of much interest.

Soul is the combination of body with the breath of life. We are that combination. Once, in death, the body goes back to the dust and the breath of life returns to God Who gave it. (Gen. 2:7; Eccl. 12:7)

again, you're being awfully categorical for an area which is notoriously unclear.

Right, there is no afterlife. This is a myth for people who are afraid of death. I know that you are wrong in what you have said, according to the Scriptures.

ben, you presumably are familiar with the talmudic phrase "the world to come" - why would it be used, if not in reference to this?

We are only expected to observe seven laws? Before giving my final consent, I would have my solicitor, or lawyer, read and approve the contract, naturally, but I might be able to agree to that.

the "noahide laws" are invariably reducible to the "natural laws" that are common to all human societies - law courts, property rights, disapproval of murder etc. i've rarely come across anyone that didn't keep them by default.

“Spinoza regards the code of Moses as having been given by God to the Jews for punishment – a rod of correction.”

If Hegel accurately reports Spinoza and if Spinoza is correct, I don’t understand why any Gentile would want to convert to Judaism.

spinoza is incorrect. you might want to consider his context as a recently-reconverted marrano discovering the "small print" for the first time.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Ben Masada]

I thought I did answer your question. Recall in my post on your question that I said that the story of Jonah is more than just a guy being trapped inside a fish because he ran away from God. Perhaps I should add that likewise the story of Jesus is about more than him being dead between Friday and Sunday. You're not seeing the big picture here. Are you sure you're not missing the point?

Jesus rebuked those questioning him for missing the point. They ask for a miracle and he is rebuking them for trusting in someone who performs miracles rather than taking note of other things he says and does. It is as if the miracle is more important than anything else.

The so-called "Sign of Jonah" could mean anything in the story of Jonah -- his run away from God, the storm, Jonah being thrown out into the sea, Jonah being swallowed by the fish, Jonah being trapped in there for three days and three nights, preaching to the people of Nineveh and getting angry that God spared them.

Think of the story of Jesus as being a "re-imagining" of the story of Jonah. Not all the details have to be the same. Only the most important aspects of the journey remain. Jesus didn't run away from God, but he did experience rejection (Jonah being tossed into the sea). Jesus didn't get swallowed by a fish, but he was trapped somewhere for a significant amount of time. Jesus didn't preach repentance to the people of Nineveh, but something similar has happened in the last 2,000 years: stories about him have been told all around the world for 2,000 years (to Gentiles).

It really doesn't matter how long Jesus was in the tomb, whether it was one, 5, 15, 20 or 100 days. I don't see any theological significance in the number. Jesus still took a journey that was comparable to that of Jonah. His mission was to preach to a particular group of people, even if that mission had to be completed "posthumously" or after his resurrection.

It doesn't even matter how long Jonah was there either. What mattered was their mission. Jonah's mission was to get Nineveh to repent. Jesus' mission was to recruit people who would "make disciples among the nations/goyim." (Matthew 28:19) The mission was more important than literal conformity to the story of Jonah. Jesus' mission was to let the world know about the Jewish God and make Gentiles flock toward monotheism, just like Jonah told the others on the ship in the storm about the "God who made everything." This was the real "sign of Jonah."



Yes, it was a "hoax," but it probably wasn't the author of the gospel getting it wrong. Jesus probably did say what the gospel records him saying. The hoax was on those asking Jesus for a miracle which he refused to give -- it was not for the rest of us.

The real problem is the way people interpret it. Christians commonly interpret his "three days" in the tomb as fulfilment of sign of Jonah, without realising that the story of Jonah and Jesus are much more than about being trapped somewhere for three days and that the exact "three days" are largely immaterial to the plot of the story. The common view of Christians is that Jesus' mission was to die on the cross so we could all be forgiven. But they neglect everything else Jesus said and did. This is what leads to the idea that the "three days" are so important. They think Jesus' "prophecy" must be literally fulfilled.

Non-Christians pick on the most common Christian interpretation, thinking that this is what Jesus meant by the "sign of Jonah." They allow the most common Christian interpretation to influence their opinion of a section of the written tradition!! It would be great if non-Christians formed their own interpretations.

The "hoax" isn't the problem. It's our interpretation that is the problem.

Okay, I am sorry. I won't bother you with this anymore. As I see, you don't want to answer my question of the three days and three nights. All your verbal juggling gives me the impression of someone being badgered by the torments of another.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

again, you're being awfully categorical for an area which is notoriously unclear.

ben, you presumably are familiar with the talmudic phrase "the world to come" - why would it be used, if not in reference to this?

It is clear enough to me. I gave the quotes: Genesis 2:7 and Ecclesiastes 12:7. And with regards to the phrase "the world to come," it is symbolic for the grave. That's the reason why it says in the Talmud that there is a place for ALL in the world to come. Jews and Gentiles. That's where we ALL are supposed to go to without distinction.
Ben

 

[Servetus]

Hi bananabrain,

I plan to get back to you in more detail, but, for now:

spinoza is incorrect. you might want to consider his context as a recently-reconverted marrano discovering the "small print" for the first time.

Please think of this as the off season at Wimbledon. At times, and it is usually when I am acting in response to some provocative statement, I volley tennis balls back across the net with (and, in this case, to) Ben Masada in what I hope is perceived as good-natured sport.

I thought Spinoza's statement (as paraphrased by Hegel) was sort of funny. But, then again, I am easily amused.

Best regards,

Serv (or should I say, in the language of tennis, "serve")

 

[Saltmeister]

Okay, I am sorry. I won't bother you with this anymore. As I see, you don't want to answer my question of the three days and three nights.

As far as I'm concerned, I did answer your question. When Jesus speaks of the "sign of Jonah" and "three days and three nights," he is talking about two different things. It may appear as if Jesus means "three days and three nights" when he mentions "sign of Jonah" because that is part of the story of Jonah, but he is really talking about his mission and legacy. He is talking about what he came into this world to do.

That is the main theme here -- what Jesus' mission is and the biggest mistake people can make is confusing that mission with something else.

The "three days" is relatively trivial and unimportant compared to how other aspects of Jesus' journey match Jonah's journey and mission to Nineveh. That is the sign of Jonah, not the "three days and three nights" that seems to be so important to you.

All your verbal juggling gives me the impression of someone being badgered by the torments of another.
Ben

I'm not being badgered or tormented at all. The issue here is what you're trying to prove. You seem to be overly fixated on proving that this three-days-and-nights thing debunks the idea that Jesus fulfilled the so-called "sign of Jonah." The point you're missing is that the sign of Jonah doesn't have to be about those three days and nights. It's much more open to interpretation than you think. Yet others have fallen for this trap (both Christians and non-Christians).

Think about it. If Jesus is rebuking those who questioned him for demanding and being fixated on receiving a miracle, then this "sign of Jonah" thing is meant to show their narrow-mindedness -- that once again they can't think outside the box. The "sign of Jonah" could have referred to anything in the story of Jonah. It doesn't have a definition. Jesus simply mentioned the "three days and nights" to show people's narrow-mindedness. The three days and nights is not the "sign of Jonah" Jesus was talking about. He simply appears to mean that.

Because this is my "explanation" for what Jesus meant, I have effectively answered your question. Whether or not the answer satisfies you is another matter. I have played my part in this discussion regarding "the sign of Jonah." If the answer isn't good enough for you, then I don't know what is. Perhaps you have unrealistic requirements for what makes a reasonable answer.

If you set this question in an examination paper, what kinds of responses do you expect to get? Do you expect them all to fall inside your fishing net?

 

[bananabrain]

It is clear enough to me. I gave the quotes: Genesis 2:7 and Ecclesiastes 12:7. And with regards to the phrase "the world to come," it is symbolic for the grave. That's the reason why it says in the Talmud that there is a place for ALL in the world to come. Jews and Gentiles. That's where we ALL are supposed to go to without distinction.
Ben

sorry, ben, but that quite simply doesn't make sense; if the "world to come" is the grave (normally, the word used for that would be "sheol") then why the fuss about the righteous of all nations inheriting a portion in it - if we all go "without distinction", why are the sages obviously making a distinction about something that is described as a desirable attainment? we have a number of statements about people who are "denied a portion in the world to come" - are you suggesting that the unrighteous don't die? that seems manifestly nonsensical to me.

I thought Spinoza's statement (as paraphrased by Hegel) was sort of funny.

well, perhaps, but i don't think what happened to the guy was remotely funny. i mean, i can understand why it did, but in many ways his outlook was premature; it would be unexceptional post-enlightenment and would perhaps have enabled him to remain within the non-orthodox but of the community, which of course wasn't possible back then.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Ben Masada]

As far as I'm concerned, I did answer your question. When Jesus speaks of the "sign of Jonah" and "three days and three nights," he is talking about two different things. It may appear as if Jesus means "three days and three nights" when he mentions "sign of Jonah" because that is part of the story of Jonah, but he is really talking about his mission and legacy. He is talking about what he came into this world to do.

So, in Matthew 12:40 Jesus is rather talking about what he had come into this world to do? What did Jesus come into this world to do, would you enlighten me with?
Ben