But Really, Why Was Jesus Crucified?

[bananabrain]

Please BB you are reasoning as a Christian.

don't be so absurd.

What is all this paranoia about an afterlife? Is it what induces you to exercise your loyalty to God?

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.

Do you know something? I can prove to you that the olam ha-ba is the grave. One has never returned from there. Now, can you disprove it?

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:

How is it that the Scriptures do not support my point of view if it is from the Scriptures that I have learned it?

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.

Read Job 10:21 and Ecclesiastes 9:5,6.

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.

The sages cannot disagree with it. If they are not speaking metaphorically they were not sages but fools.

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

Have you checked Job 10:21 and Ecclesiastes 9:5,6 above?

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

Not everything about soul is mere speculation. The Torah truth about soul is that we ARE souls, when, according to Genesis 2:7 we BECAME living souls when we were created. Therefore, soul is not something we have but what we are and that it is gone with death. Not gone somewhere but just out of existence.

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.

Could it be that Solomon was rather a fool and not the wisest of all men to write Ecclesiastes 9:5,6? I doubt it.

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.

Theories and religious doctrines are like old delapidated houses that still stand but no one with common sense lives in them anymore.

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

From your reaction to my views I don't believe you have ever read the whole of the "Guide for the Perplexed."

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.

Every thing is possible, even the things that one imagines. But I have the Scriptures to support those I adopt.

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

 

[Saltmeister]

I beg to disagree with you Saltmeister, the religion of Jesus was not Christianity. Jesus was a Jewish man whose Faith was Judaism.

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."

He really never had anything to do with Christianity which arose about 35 years after he had been gone. The founder of it was Paul in the city of Antioch, where, after a whole year preaching about Jesus as Christ, his followers started being called Christians for the first time. (Acts 11:26)

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.

And if Jesus' mission was to recruit followers to preach his gospel to the Gentiles, why would he forbid them not to take the gospel to the Gentiles and not even enter a Samaritan town? That's odd to say the least. (Mat. 10:5,6)

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.

 

[donnann]

But Really, Why Was Jesus Crucified?

There is no secret about it; and the NT can't be more clear. On the day Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a white donkey, some among the crowd of his followers would proclaim him king of the Jews. (John 12:13) And Jerusalem of all cities! The abode of Pilate, a man whose day was not made till he crucified a Jew!

Josephus reports in his "War of the Jews" that Pilate took so much pleasure from crucifying Jews that he exceeded into thousands of them. In the case of Jesus, he nailed the reason on the top of his cross: For being proclaimed king of the Jews in a Roman province, which was the Land of Israel at the time.

On the year 312 ACE, Christianity was being considered for the choice to become the official religion of the Empire by Emperor Constantine, and the charge that Rome had crucified Jesus was a liability bordering on disqualifying the Church for that promotion. Therefore, some pious forgery was in order. For instance, that Pilate had been forced by the Jewish authorities to crucify Jesus, hence the washing of Pilate's hands, by which, guilt would be transferred from Rome unto the Jews. For another, they even set Peter charging the Jews with having crucified Jesus in a speech written by Luke but never delivered in Jerusalem. (Acts 2:14,36) Though it made no sense, as they were well aware, it didn't matter; the Church needed that promotion, and any thing else would be justified. Anyways, the Jews needed to pay for rejecting the new religion.

Ben

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.

 

[Ben Masada]

Esau. I mean Esau not Ishmael; and though it is not my book its a central book to my culture. The story in Genesis is incomplete; but it is what people read. Discussing the missing bits happens naturally. Sorry about mixing up those names, but a book that is so central to my culture is game for discussion even if it didn't come from my culture.

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

 

[Ben Masada]

it's not paranoia it is simply a matter of what judaism considers normative and what it does not.

Judaism does not judge against the Scriptures. One ought first to check the Scriptures if things are so and thus. Then, check what Judaism, in your opinion, considers normative. According to the Law and the testimony, if they don't speak thus, it is because they lack the truth. (Isa. 8:20)

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:

If they do not agree with me, they do not agree with the Scriptures. Use the Scriptures to refute me and we are in busines.

"Shabbat is 1/60 of 'olam ha-ba" (BT berakhoth 57b) - are you arguing shabbat is like the grave?

No, Shabbat means rest. Rest is 1/60 of olam ha-ba but not only. There is much more to be found in the olam ha-ba as no pain, no worries, no needs, no recollections, no tears, no crimes, no sins, no dissensions, no diseases, etc, etc. Now, do you understand why Shabbat is only 1/60 of the olam ha-ba? I hope so. Please, unglue yourself from the letter. There is much more to learn in the metaphorical world of reality.

"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?

Whom will God's real name be pronounced to, the dead? Adonai is not the God of the dead but of the living.

"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?

Praised is the one who does not even need to go to the olam ha-ba because he hasn't been born. Read Ecclesiastes 4:3.

"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?

For heaven's sake, I can't believe my eyes as I read your words. Too glued to the letter. No wonder you come up with these myths. This kind of test is done prior to death so that our memory not be marred.

"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?

Show me these things in the Scriptures because, what I have is that the dead no longer know anything. That there is no further recompense for them; because all memory of them is lost. They will never again have part in anything that's done under the sun. (Eccl. 9:5,6)

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?

Taken literally, it sounds like a Christian paradise.

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?

Taken literally, it sounds anti-Biblical to me. Midrashim are not supposed to be taken literally. They are like parables, which only Christians take them as such. You embarrass me. I mean, if you are really Jewish. You sound like "Jew-for-Jesus" or a "Messianic Jew." No offense meant.

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:

Spare me and don't waste your time. I can't be moved by midrashim taken literally. Use rather the Scriptures if you mean to impress me.

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.

Please, go right ahead and demostrate to me that I am taking the Scriptures out of context. That's how you will reach and touch me.

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.

Does it have to mention "olam ha-ba?" That the righteous "are considered" alive even in death! "Considered alive" as it were, but still dead. Think! And the wicked are considered dead even still in life. Think!

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

Why not? Judaism is not like the Catholic Church to which the right to interpret the Scriptures has been entrusted to. We are free to think. If you want to prove me wrong use the Scriptures and not midrashim.

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.

And you have proved unable to use the Scriptures to prove me wrong.

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.

Really! I wonder why his book got an easy ride into the canon of Judaism and none of the rabbinic sources did.

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.

That's all right if you interpret the Scriptures different from the way I do. Nothing wrong with that. But that's what we are here for: To even out the discrepancies between us. But you must stick to the Jewish canon and stop relying too much on the fallacy of extra-Biblical authorities. I mean, if you are to take them according to the letter.

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?

The opinion of every one counts, as far as I am concerned, I mean, if it is in tune with the Law and the Testimony. Otherwise, there is no truth in it. (Isa. 8:20)

Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

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."

Any thing can be something about somebody. Who made Christianity to be something about Jesus? Paul, right? Right. Read 2 Timothy 2:8. If Paul had not been around, Christianity would not have been something 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.

All the credit goes for the one who authored the idea. According to 2 Tim. 2:8, Paul confessed to his disciple Timothy that God was the Messiah and had resurrected, according to his gospel. So, he was the man with the idea.

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?

All those sources besides Paul, came about 50+ years after Jesus had been gone. They could not have written different from Paul. They had been his former Hellenistic disciples.

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

The same as above. BTW, Philo Judaeus was a famous Hellenistic Jew. Therefore, he was not interested in a Jesus different from the one Paul had made him to be.

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.

Matthew 28:19 could have never been pronounced by Jesus. Who said so, the Hellenistic Gentile who wrote the gospel attributed to Matthew? Thank
you but no, thanks. If not because Jesus would be contradicting himself, according to Matthew 10:5,6, because he would not speak of himself in the third person. Last but not least, he was a Jewish man of a monotheistic God and not a god composed of three persons as the text implies.

Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

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.

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

 

[donnann]

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

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.

 

[bananabrain]

Judaism does not judge against the Scriptures.

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.

One ought first to check the Scriptures if things are so and thus. Then, check what Judaism, in your opinion, considers normative. According to the Law and the testimony, if they don't speak thus, it is because they lack the truth. (Isa. 8:20)

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.

If they do not agree with me, they do not agree with the Scriptures. Use the Scriptures to refute me and we are in business.

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.

No, Shabbat means rest.

but not only that.

Rest is 1/60 of olam ha-ba but not only.

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.

Now, do you understand why Shabbat is only 1/60 of the olam ha-ba? I hope so.

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

Please, unglue yourself from the letter.

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!

Whom will God's real name be pronounced to, the dead?

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

Adonai is not the God of the dead but of the living.

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

Praised is the one who does not even need to go to the olam ha-ba because he hasn't been born.

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

No wonder you come up with these myths.

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

This kind of test is done prior to death so that our memory not be marred.

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

Too glued to the letter.

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.

Show me these things in the Scriptures because, what I have is that the dead no longer know anything.

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.

Taken literally, it sounds like a Christian paradise.

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.

I can't be moved by midrashim taken literally. Use rather the Scriptures if you mean to impress me.

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?

Please, go right ahead and demostrate to me that I am taking the Scriptures out of context.

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

Does it have to mention "olam ha-ba?"

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

Judaism is not like the Catholic Church to which the right to interpret the Scriptures has been entrusted to. We are free to think.

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.

And you have proved unable to use the Scriptures to prove me wrong.

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.

Really! I wonder why his book got an easy ride into the canon of Judaism

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.

and none of the rabbinic sources did.

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

But you must stick to the Jewish canon and stop relying too much on the fallacy of extra-Biblical authorities.

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

The opinion of every one counts, as far as I am concerned, I mean, if it is in tune with the Law and the Testimony.

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

 

[Ben Masada]

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.

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

 

[Ben Masada]

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

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

 

[bananabrain]

there is absolutely no need to quote entire replies, it just means more scrolling!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Then, about resurrection as if a Jew needs a reward in the afterlife in order to be loyal to God.

and this, precisely, is where the tradition will help you. see pirkei 'aboth 1:3 -

"[antigonos of sokho] used to say: don't be like servants who minister to their master for the sake of receiving a reward, but be like servants who serve their master not upon the condition of receiving a reward."

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.

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

 

[Dream]

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

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.

 

[Ben Masada]

you aren't that familiar with what you are dismissing.

I dismiss nothing but what contradicts the Tanach.

i think you should consider the possibility that you might not be understanding quite as much as you think you are;

Be my guest and enlighten me with what you think I do not understand. I require only that you use the Scriptures.

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.

I am perfectly okay with our tradition only as long as it goes hand-in-hand with the Scriptures.

the point of the tradition is so you don't have to go back and reason everything out from first principles every single time;

If tradition dispenses with reason, I spew it. This idea is not Jewish at all.
We are too rational a People to do without reason.

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.

In our day and age, traditions not in tune with the Scriptures are like old delapidated houses. They still stand but people of common sense no longer dwell in them.

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

Absolutely not. The opposite would rather be true as lack of exercise would cause atrophy.

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.

I agree with you but, the last word on everything is the Tanach.

and this, precisely, is where the tradition will help you. see pirkei 'aboth 1:3 -

As I said above, I am ready to take all the help tradition can offer, as long as it does not go against the Scriptures.

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!

Paul was not a Rabbi. Only a Christian would admit that much. Paul was a former Hellenistic Jew. Hellenistic Jews could never be admitted into the Rabbanute; or into the Pharisaic line for that matter.

Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

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.

|


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

 

[Saltmeister]

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[Ben Masada]

What's the point of opening up those graves if the people don't come back to life? They might as well remain underground.

I can't believe my eyes as I read your words. You either did not understand a word I said about metaphorical resurrection or you are simply trying to be funny.

To say that God can open up graves but not bring people back to life is quite bizarre.

For heaven's sake! I did not say anything about being literally dead or buried. Exile for Israel is akin to death away from the land of the living, which is considered the Land of Israel. (Isa. 53:8,9) Then, the return of the Jews from exile is figurative of being taken from the graves of the Diaspora.

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.

I am not talking about literal dead people. That's what happens to people who do not understand metaphorical language. No woder atheists laugh at theists who believe in talking serpents. I don't blame them.

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.

Well, at least, they do not put their faith in talking serpents.

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.

Who said that the Pharisees believed in bodily resurrection, Paul? But of course! Who could have been? His word wasn't worth the paper he wrote it on.

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?

Do you think all Jews are learnt people? We too have our fools.

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.

See what I mean? If those are Bananabrain's views it only shows that he is not a fool.

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?

You can't. We can't change the Torah. According to Genesis 3:22, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden, to prevent them from eating of the tree of life and live forever. It means that the attribute of eternal life was not granted to man. It belongs with God only. Nobody can come back to life again. Read Job 10:21.

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.

Now, open the Scriptures and quote the evidence for your assertion. You can't because it is not there. If Rabbis cannot change the Torah, now, pagans do it and the Rabbis adopt their change. Sure!

Ben

 

[Dream]

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

 

[Ben Masada]

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.

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

 

[Dream]

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!
Ben

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.

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.

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.