But Really, Why Was Jesus Crucified?

[Servetus]

What of Moses Maimonides? "Letter to Yemen" does not measure the size of the Rambam. Read "The Guide for the Perplexed" and "Mishneh Torah."

Um, Ben, in case you haven't noticed, I just quoted his Mishneh Torah (above). You are the one who presumes to correct Maimonides, despite his having said, in two instances (which I have quoted), that his blessed sages meted out fitting punishment to Jesus. I have no reason to dispute the man.

 

[Ben Masada]

Um, Ben, in case you haven't noticed, I just quoted his Mishneh Torah (above). You are the one who presumes to correct Maimonides, despite his having said, in two instances (which I have quoted), that his blessed sages meted out fitting punishment to Jesus. I have no reason to dispute the man.

Neither do I. I do not intend to dispute Maimonides. It must be a misunderstanding there somewhere. If he indeed referred to Jesus, it must have been to discard some mention of him in the attempt to justify the claim of the fake Messiah of Yemen, who, possibly must have used Jesus as a justification to his claims.
Ben

 

[taijasi]

Ben Masada, let me ask you a question.

Do you not believe that Jesus, this same man who died 2000+ years ago, lives TODAY?
Note that I'm not asking you what form or condition that existence takes.
I'm asking you, "DOES Jesus live TODAY?"

In short, What do you believe becomes of the dead ... and in particular, is or was Jesus of Nazareth any different in this regard?

Whether so or not, is it possible that the CHRIST (Christos, having been Chrestos) or Messiah is alive, NOW? Again, I do NOT specify a form here. I'm not asking, Is He/the Messiah incarnate(d)?

Just a few simple questions, because honestly, I can't follow at all what you were saying a couple pages back.

 

[Etu Malku]

Khristós (Greek) means "annointed one"
Whether there ever actually was a Yeshua the Nazarene is debatable
But, today for certain, the Jesus archetype exists and is still powerful.
Jesus if nothing more, exists as an egregore, a thought-form, an archetypal image that symbolizes many many things to different people.
This is one of the greatest forms of immortality we experience on earth

 

[bananabrain]

my first reaction on reading this thread is: ben masada, why do you insist on getting everyone all riled up in this confrontational way?

If you have ever read a book about the History of Rome, especially of the Republic period, there was never a people during the many years of the Roman Empire so hard to govern than the Jews, whom the Romans lost most of their legions to.

i'm hardly a roman historian, but i'm pretty sure that they were more worried about the germans, the parthians, the dacians and the britons than us in purely military terms; in terms of food supplies, they were most interested in egypt.

That explains why they could never get along with each other.

perhaps, but that's a rather simplistic picture which fails to acknowledge that many inhabitants of the roman empire became "noahides"; some historians reckon that at least 10% of the empire was "jew-ish", which was one of the reasons that christianity caught on so fast: it was basically offering a reputable ethical monotheism without the extra 606 commandments.

the jewish sources offer a rather more complex interpretation of the facts, with some grudgingly according the romans respect and others treating them as little more than a dangerous bunch of bloodthirsty nouveau-riche perverts. it's not that straightforward from what i can see.

this statement from Maimonides might relate to the subject of this thread

i don't think you're entirely clear on the context of the epistle to yemen - it was designed to buck the yemenite jews up from the despondency they were suffering under a spate of false messiahs and superstition; you seem to be under the impression that this is some sort of admission of historical accuracy of the gospels and blood guilt. maimonides is basically saying "these false messiahs will get what's coming to them, don't worry guys". it's not a considered assessment of the halakhah in this case but an exhortation. his halakhic texts also have greater authority for the yemenite community then they do elsewhere, although he is universally revered; however, about the next century after he published was largely spent disputing and contradicting his decisions. if you are looking for an authoritative view on this subject, it is hard to come by, as the shulhan 'arukh deals with practical matters rather than messianic contingencies, whereas maimonides was trying to legislate for everything. his view on christianity, however, are unforgiving, but, again, a more authoritative view is that of the me'iri (C12, provence) who rules that christianity, although prohibited for jews, is not idolatrous and this view prevails.

So would you correct Maimonides when, in his section on the Sanhedrin, he says: Even Jesus of Nazareth, who imagined that he was the Messiah, but was put to death by the court ... (p. 226)

the most relevant objection to maimonides' statement in the mishneh torah as being no more than a supportive piece of polemic is that for his position to have legal authority, it would have to be judged in the light of a *valid* sanhedrin with authority to rule in a capital case involving blasphemy. this is very, very hard to come by, if you know anything about the standards for capital punishment in halakhah. even if you accept the description of jesus' trial in the gospels as being accurate (extremely unlikely) the procedure described is totally invalid, in that it fails to observe any of the strictures or follow any of the procedures laid down for the conduct of a beit din or religious court, let alone a "court of 71" which would be required for such a case to be legally conducted. our own documents state that such a court was not in existence at that time, having been disbanded in 28 CE, several years before the execution of jesus (which, incidentally, also was carried out in the roman fashion - there is no halakhic penalty of crucifixion). it is possible that the court referred to is a "minor" sanhedrin that effectively operated as a sort of political liaison committee between the roman military governor and the Temple, in which case any decision or action it took would not have the sanction of halakhah in any case. this leaves us with two options: either the new testament accounts are false or confused about where the trial took place, or, if they are accurate, they do not describe a trial in accordance with halakhah - or some combination of the two, which seems quite likely to me. either way, we are abundantly familiar with sanhedrin procedure, structure, jurisprudence and precedent, as this forms an entire tractate of the talmud. however, all that he says in the mishneh torah is "the court" - it is not a review of the case in all details, nor would a court following even maimonidean procedure have produced the same result.

"Israel" disappears from the map in 722bce

the *kingdom* of israel does. the *people* of israel do not.

till an angry Hadrian wipes the Jewish "homeland" from the Imperial map in 135ce

i don't see why you put "homeland" in scare quotes. whatever hadrian or anyone else may have done, our homeland is still in that area, whatever it may be called.

Let us NOT do as the Sanhedrin and the Jewish people did. Let us NOT reject the Savior, simply in order to hold to the status quo, leaving the religion of our fathers, and of our father's fathers (etc.) - UNQUESTIONED.

you fail to understand the basic principle of judaism that *mandates* questioning absolutely *everything* about "the religion of our fathers*. we understand the criteria by which the messiah may be recognised and by any reasonable interpretation, these absolutely rule out jesus' candidacy (and the lubavitcher rebbe's!) sorry, but that's how it is. for instance, the messiah is not meant to *fail* in his mission.

So, he is NOT an Israelite and Moses was born an Egyptian. (Mesopotamian & Egyptian) These are the origins of Judaism.

you seem to be going out of your way to associate jews with anywhere but the land of israel; we don't dispute where our people originated and became what they are today, but i don't see anyone disputing the mexicanness of mexicanness on the grounds that they originate partly on the iberian peninsula, or disputing the iraqiness of the iraqis on the ground that they mostly originate on the arabian peninsula. why the double standard? fair enough, later, that you concede that we "grew out of canaanite culture"... add all this together and you get... well, us.

I don’t mean to interrupt, but Sigmund Freud, who can hardly be considered ignorant of Israelite history

er... i'm afraid he can. freud was in no way knowledgeable about judaism (nor am i aware of any credentials he had as an egyptologist) being about as assimilated as they come and contemptuous of it to boot. karl marx was equally as assimilated and even more ignorant. how he understands judaism doesn't bear repeating, although it does explain a lot about the hard left.

Would you also correct the great-grandfather of modern Jewish historians, Heinrich Graetz?

as far as i am aware, he is not the only major jewish historian, let alone the last word on matters of religious procedure. jewish law is far more complicated than this.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[taijasi]

I believe it has been made clear why the Son of God could not complete His Work 2100 years ago. That is the matter in dispute!

He was obstructed, opposed and finally overcome by the son of man. This is esoteric, allegorical and also quite literal. I believe this is what history, as well as Scripture, records.

Here we have something which was enacted via Jesus, born a Jew, through him to and for the Jewish People, his own by blood (so important to the Jews, it seems) ... and playing out, in the last analysis, in his betrayal BY the Jewish ruling body (religious in their staunch conservatism, yet hypocritical, cynical, fearful and greedy, power-hungry and corrupt in their `leadership') ... and finally come to CRUX by whom, exactly? By a JEW, Judas Iscariot, whose very name preserves in symbolism the name of the DRAMA that was playing out on the world stage.

Rome finally executed Jesus as a CRIMINAL for crimes against the State. But were it not for the Jews, who even had a chance to FREE this man from the trumped up charges drawn up against him, Jesus of Nazareth might well have LIVED, succeeded in his Mission (WHAT was that Mission again, or is there so much disagreement now on what the man actually SAID that we cannot recall?) ... and Goodness Knows [God only, some prefer] what that might have resulted in. A world farther ahead in Spiritual maturity, whatever its current technological or material condition, I would readily venture - bold with confidence that Christ KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING ... for well he was aware what Judas, the Sanhedrin and lo, his confused and misguided People had in mind. He wept, not because he knew he would fail in His Mission, but because he saw that Humanity INSISTED on taking a longer, slower path ... back to the Father's House. And this, because the added pain and suffering, GLOBAL-wide, affecting more that just Humanity, also, was UNNECESSARY. Christ, knowing this, yielded no less to the Will of the LORD, which decrees that man is not coerced into finding and choosing Harmonious ways, vs. discordant.

Yes, someone failed someone all those years ago. But I think some of us are a bit mixed up about WHO failed WHO.

When Jesus has finally been identified as the Teacher of Righteousness, we can move a bit closer to understanding things. Until then, it's still grasping at straws ... and the same old Scapegoating as I recall from last go-round. The idea that the Jew is responsible for Christ's death is actual immaterial, if technically true. What transpired was symbolic, as much as it was literal or directly the expression of particular tribal prophecies being fulfilled, or otherwise. But those who cannot see beyond times and places, individual circumstances and names and dates ... will not grasp this.

As some say, nothing's new under the Sun/Son ~ but at least Christ had the Foresight and Clear-Vision to tell his Faithful what to do as they once again saw the Son of God approaching. Visit Luke 22:10, and join the Crowd!

He will not come this time as the Jewish Messiah, for there is a WORLD Stage now, and all of Humanity see what is transpiring. Some of us judge, too hastily it seems, or else we misjudge and completely misunderstand.

Krishnamurti had a tremendous impact upon those who were ready, sometimes too ready, to let go of things that no more resonated with the future. The World Savior will either be hastened, or delayed, but His Work in Aquarius will not be held up as it was in Pisces ... and I would think it should matter to the Jewish People whether they are ready, en masse, to accept their much-awaited Salvation ~ or to reject it yet again, for a THIRD, subsequent occasion.

I know, unfortunately, more about this subject than I would prefer ... but that is because I am right in the middle of it by birth, by karma, or by what some just call coincidence. And I care not in the least what some cannot see, or what does not interest them. I am as Jewish, by lineage, as I am Christian, Buddhist or otherwise. And I'm proud of that, as far as it goes. As far as it goes ...

Lunitik displays such patience at times, and such determination. There are those who could learn from that. Being thick-necked, and thick-headed, on the other hand ... behooves no one.

 

[Servetus]

Hello Bananabrain,

You quoted Etu Malku but meant me when you said this:

i don't think you're entirely clear on the context of the epistle to yemen ...

I may not be entirely clear, but I do own a copy of Jacob Minkin's book and he wrote an adequate introduction to the Epistle. That is one reason why I alluded to Maimonides having written under duress.

if you are looking for an authoritative view on this subject, it is hard to come by, as the shulhan 'arukh deals with practical matters rather than messianic contingencies, whereas maimonides was trying to legislate for everything. his view on christianity, however, are unforgiving, but, again, a more authoritative view is that of the me'iri (C12, provence) who rules that christianity, although prohibited for jews, is not idolatrous and this view prevails.

Thank you.

the most relevant objection to maimonides' statement in the mishneh torah as being no more than a supportive piece of polemic is that for his position to have legal authority, it would have to be judged in the light of a *valid* sanhedrin with authority to rule in a capital case involving blasphemy. this is very, very hard to come by, if you know anything about the standards for capital punishment in halakhah. even if you accept the description of jesus' trial in the gospels as being accurate (extremely unlikely) the procedure described is totally invalid, in that it fails to observe any of the strictures or follow any of the procedures laid down for the conduct of a beit din or religious court, let alone a "court of 71" which would be required for such a case to be legally conducted. our own documents state that such a court was not in existence at that time, having been disbanded in 28 CE, several years before the execution of jesus (which, incidentally, also was carried out in the roman fashion - there is no halakhic penalty of crucifixion). it is possible that the court referred to is a "minor" sanhedrin that effectively operated as a sort of political liaison committee between the roman military governor and the Temple, in which case any decision or action it took would not have the sanction of halakhah in any case. this leaves us with two options: either the new testament accounts are false or confused about where the trial took place, or, if they are accurate, they do not describe a trial in accordance with halakhah - or some combination of the two, which seems quite likely to me. either way, we are abundantly familiar with sanhedrin procedure, structure, jurisprudence and precedent, as this forms an entire tractate of the talmud. however, all that he says in the mishneh torah is "the court" - it is not a review of the case in all details, nor would a court following even maimonidean procedure have produced the same result.

That is informative, thank you. I have, moreover, ordered Peter Schafer's Jesus in the Talmud and, by the sounds of things, Maimonides is not the only one to claim that Jesus was tried by Maimonides's sages of blessed memory. I hope to be better informed once the book arrives and I have read it. Thus far, please note, I haven't cited the New Testament as a source for anything. I am interested to hear what Jews themselves say on the subject of the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth. Once that is done, I will turn my attention to the Romans (and their infamy, crucifixion).

er... i'm afraid he can. freud was in no way knowledgeable about judaism ...

Yes, of course, you may consider him ignorant. However, I was made to read the bloke at university. I don't think he had to be an Egyptologist to read Herodotus and draw his own conclusions and his distaste for religion is also expressed in his Future of an Illusion. I can understand why you would reject his findings. So, too, for that matter, have I (for the most part). Still, 'ignorant' is not a word I generally associate with the man, though others clearly may.

as far as i am aware, he [Heinrich Graetz] is not the only major jewish historian, let alone the last word on matters of religious procedure. jewish law is far more complicated than this.

I wasn't meaning to suggest that Graetz is the only major Jewish historian. To be more accurate, I perhaps ought to have called him "a" rather than "the" great-grandfather of modern Jewish historians. At any rate, I cited him as supporting Maimonides concerning the trial of Jesus. I am sure that Jewish law is complicated, but, at this point, I am more interested in history than law, hence I cite Jewish historians on the subject at issue: the death of Jesus of Nazareth.

Thank you for responding.

Best regards,

Serv

 

[bananabrain]

@servetus:

I may not be entirely clear, but I do own a copy of Jacob Minkin's book and he wrote an adequate introduction to the Epistle. That is one reason why I alluded to Maimonides having written under duress.

i probably haven't been very clear about what i meant by that (i also have the minkin, it's a jolly good book, i also recommend the work of fred rosner and especially menachem kellner and david hartman or, if you fancy a really controversial take, david bakan) but it was not about what was going on in the context of maimonides and the yemenite jews, rather it's the religious context of a communication like that from a rabbi of the rambam's standing. in contrast to today (where the pernicious conceit of "da'at Torah" has taken hold) such a message would have the standing of a letter of support, rather like taking out an ad in a newspaper. people would be intended to take heart from it but not to draw religious conclusions from it. as we do not have a systematic theology, theological statements (such as suggesting that jesus "got what he deserved") cannot be compared to halakhic statements. indeed, our position on this is that one is entitled to take one's own view on such matters; it is not the same as a halakhic matter on which clarity and specificity is required.

this is a very important issue whenever you have someone like that making that kind of *broadcast*, as opposed to what he might say in a teshuvah or "responsum", which is far more specific and can be taken as precedent or support for a particular view. this can be very, very confusing to people not familiar with the system - if you are familiar with the excellent book by hyman maccoby on the disputations of mediaeval spain, you will see that the midrashic literature was the subject of much of it - the demolition of the inquisition's arguments by nahmanides being a case in point. just because something is said, it is not to be taken necessarily as literal, or hyperbolic, or anything else. the hyperbolic statement is a typical feature of such literature.

I have, moreover, ordered Peter Schafer's Jesus in the Talmud and, by the sounds of things, Maimonides is not the only one to claim that Jesus was tried by Maimonides's sages of blessed memory.

i'm not familiar with the book concerned, but i can recommend the work of geza vermes in this respect, which brings out the idiomatic context of the sort of language reportedly used by jesus, which, like much of his behaviour, is so systematically misunderstood by christians (see my analysis of the "good samaritan" episode elsewhere on this site). you also have to understand the particular significance of the phrase "sages of blessed memory", which can mean very different things depending on who is saying it and what they are talking about at the time. the hebrew phrase is hakhamim, zichronam librakhah, usually abbreviated to hz"l, usually spelt "chazal" in english. the abbreviation can be used when speaking of the talmudic sages, or is used in the talmud itself to refer to the previous sages, the "zugot" or the "men of the great assembly" (ezra's mob) or it can be used to cover every single religious authority prior to the statement cited, as in "everyone knows that". it isn't entirely clear how rambam is using it here and this would inevitably be the subject of a good old handbag fight amongst the commentators on the text.

one also has to take into account rambam's own idiosyncrasies, such as his tendency to make categorical rulings without making his reasoning clear - in many cases, these are accepted by later authorities, but in just as many, they are kicked right out of court. sometimes his ruling is accepted but his reasoning inferred, disputed or rejected, or contrariwise - the exception tends to be the yemeni tradition where, due to the "epistle", he is revered and holds far more authority. paradoxically, it sometimes appears he is held in greater respect by the sephardic sages, who reject more of his rulings, than by the ashkenazic sages, who accept more of them. in short, he's a bit of a case on his own; this leads to odd outcomes such as the widespread acceptance of his "13 principles" by moderns without their really understanding their theological underpinning, which is rejected! the same thing happens when you consider the "guide", which i'm not convinced anyone really understands. even the academic scholars are confused by this, some considering him to be an aristotelian who hides these tendencies in order to conform (i find this unbelievable) and contrariwise. in the modern ultra-orthodox communities, the idea that he ever valued aristotelian ideas over those of hazal (as they understand it) is incomprehensible and, indeed, some of them therefore consider the "guide" to be written by someone else. it's quite the conundrum.

I don't think [freud] had to be an Egyptologist to read Herodotus and draw his own conclusions

perhaps not, but he'd have to be one for those conclusions to have any standing beyond that of personal opinion, no matter what his expertise in his own area (*cough cough chomsky cough*)

his distaste for religion is also expressed in his Future of an Illusion.

which would, in my opinion, preclude him from a dispassionate assessment. anthropologists have moved on from charles frazer as well. in fact, generally speaking, the self-importance of the late C19th and early C20th is as outmoded as the dismissal of non-industrialised societies as "primitive".

Still, 'ignorant' is not a word I generally associate with the man, though others clearly may.

he was certainly well-informed about some things, but his tendency to extrapolate about judaism, based on his familiarity with, basically, neurotic, assimilated suburban housewives from vienna has not won him much respect. i am reminded rather of terry eagleton's dismissal of richard dawkins:

Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.

i might say the same of dear old siggi.

I am sure that Jewish law is complicated, but, at this point, I am more interested in history than law, hence I cite Jewish historians on the subject at issue: the death of Jesus of Nazareth.

yes, but rambam was not a historian, but both a religious authority and of unprecedented celebrity during his life. if the hazal he refers to are those of the talmud, i can refer you to this site: Jesus In The Talmud which dissects this issue in an impressively scholarly way, with the result that i'm not terribly convinced that we knew anything much about jesus before our divorce from christianity went bad.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[bananabrain]

blood (so important to the Jews, it seems)

this really is a weird remark. what on earth do you mean by it?

The idea that the Jew is responsible for Christ's death is actual immaterial, if technically true.

it's not immaterial to *me*. i don't care for your tone: "the jew", forsooth. for me, it is his death that is immaterial, sad and tragic though it was. you seem to be reverting back to the "christ-killer" trope that right-thinking people have deservedly abandoned.

What transpired was symbolic, as much as it was literal or directly the expression of particular tribal prophecies being fulfilled, or otherwise.

so you keep saying, but there is no evidence of any "particular tribal prophecies", as you put it, being fulfilled. as i keep saying, by any of our standards of messiahship, jesus isn't in the running. the shot simply isn't on the board.

I would think it should matter to the Jewish People whether they are ready, en masse, to accept their much-awaited Salvation ~ or to reject it yet again, for a THIRD, subsequent occasion.

well, if it's bollocks the first couple of times, it's probably going to be bollocks the third. honestly, the pomposity, the pretentiousness of this approach: fwah fwah fwah fwahfwah fwah fwah fwah fwah fwahfwah fwah fwah fwahfwahfwahfwahfwah fwah fwahfwahfwah fwah. "me gavte la nata", as the piedmontese put it. spare us your lectures.

There are those who could learn from that. Being thick-necked, and thick-headed, on the other hand ... behooves no one.

being stiff-necked behooves me just fine. it may not behoove me in your view, but that's behoovage for you.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Hermes]

The Romans crucified a hell of a lot of people back then. I'd imagine Jesus was not the only innocent person either. Why is this important? Let bygones be bygones.....we should all try to live a little more like Jesus and stop asking too many questions that really nobody can answer. But if you really want to know. All events are karmic so Jesus had to have a certain karmic past to deserve such a fate.

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

 

[Ben Masada]

Ben Masada, let me ask you a question.

Do you not believe that Jesus, this same man who died 2000+ years ago, lives TODAY? Note that I'm not asking you what form or condition that existence takes. I'm asking you, "DOES Jesus live TODAY?"

And let me make this cristal clear to you once and for all: No, Jesus does not live. According to the only Scriptures that he used to refer to as the Word of God, the dead will never again have part in anything that is done under the sun. (Eccles. 9:6)

In short, What do you believe becomes of the dead, and in particular, is or was Jesus of Nazareth any different in this regard.

According to that same scripture, the dust returns to the earth as it once was, and the life breath returns to God Who gave it. (Eccles. 12:7) And Jesus of Nazareth was no different from anyone other Jew who dies. And mind you something else: The Romans crucified thousands of Jews just like Jesus. Why would Jesus be different? Didn't the blood of the others have the same color? Didn't they bleed when the nails got through their hands and feet? Didn't they likewise have pain-sensitive nerves? You, definitely, do not advocate that Jesus was the only Jew crucified by the Romans. I hope.

Whether so or not, is it possible that the CHRIST (Christos, having been Chrestos) or Messiah is alive, NOW? Again, I do NOT specify a form here. I'm not asking, Is He/the Messiah incarnate(d)?

Jesus could by no means have been the Messiah for two reasons: The first is that the Messiah could not be an inidividual. The individual is born, lives his span of life and eventually dies. Are we to expect a new Messiah in every generation? Obviously not. The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain forever as a People before the Lord, according to Jeremiah 31:35-37. Besides, there is a consensus that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah. I subscribe myself to that consensus. Well, Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name. (Isa. 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21) And for the second reason, Paul confessed to his disciple Timothy that Jesus was the Messiah, according to his gospel. (2 Tim. 2:8) It means that it must have existed another gospel at the time in which Jesus was not preached as the Messiah.

Just a few simple questions, because honestly, I can't follow at all what you were saying a couple pages back.

I hope I could be of some help.

Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

Khristós (Greek) means "annointed one"
Whether there ever actually was a Yeshua the Nazarene is debatable
But, today for certain, the Jesus archetype exists and is still powerful.
Jesus if nothing more, exists as an egregore, a thought-form, an archetypal image that symbolizes many many things to different people.
This is one of the greatest forms of immortality we experience on earth

Faith is the word. That's how Jesus still exists in the hearts of people who cannot think straight.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

my first reaction on reading this thread is: ben masada, why do you insist on getting everyone all riled up in this confrontational way?

i'm hardly a roman historian, but i'm pretty sure that they were more worried about the germans, the parthians, the dacians and the britons than us in purely military terms; in terms of food supplies, they were most interested in egypt.

perhaps, but that's a rather simplistic picture which fails to acknowledge that many inhabitants of the roman empire became "noahides"; some historians reckon that at least 10% of the empire was "jew-ish", which was one of the reasons that christianity caught on so fast: it was basically offering a reputable ethical monotheism without the extra 606 commandments.

bananabrain

Hi BB, the answer to your question above is Replacement Theology. The NT accuses the Jews as the ones who crucified Jesus, and this is definitely not true. (Acts 2:36) Then, by picking up a Jew to promote the myth of a demigod, which is the son of God with an earthly woman, as if Greek Mythology is possible in Judaism, which was the Faith of Jesus, I consider this a distortion of Judaism in the sight of the nations. That's why I have riled them up in this confrontation. But, as I can see so far, they can't justify their vandalism of Judaism.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

The Romans crucified a hell of a lot of people back then. I'd imagine Jesus was not the only innocent person either. Why is this important? Let bygones be bygones.....we should all try to live a little more like Jesus and stop asking too many questions that really nobody can answer. But if you really want to know. All events are karmic so Jesus had to have a certain karmic past to deserve such a fate.

We are discussing the Scriptures, both, the NT and the Tanach. And according to the Tanach, one does not return from death to suffer for some past life karma. (Job 10:21)
Ben

 

[Gatekeeper]

And let me make this cristal clear to you once and for all: No, Jesus does not live. According to the only Scriptures that he used to refer to as the
Word of God, the dead will never again have part in anything that is done under the sun. (Eccles. 9:6)

Sure he does, Ben. He lives in us! “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.


Our bodies die and return to mother earth. The spirit that gave life to our bodies returns to God who gave it. We return to God both physically and spiritually. Our bodies no longer have the spirit of life in them, so the grave has no sting, yet our spirit lives on. Before the silver cord is snapped, or the golden bowl is broken, or the pitcher is shattered at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern, and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

According to that same scripture, the dust returns to the earth as it once was, and the life breath returns to God Who gave it. (Eccles. 12:7) And Jesus of Nazareth was no different from anyone other Jew who dies. And mind you something else: The Romans crucified thousands of Jews just like Jesus. Why would Jesus be different? Didn't the blood of the others have the same color? Didn't they bleed when the nails got through their hands and feet? Didn't they likewise have pain-sensitive nerves? There!

Yes, we return to God. What that entails is anybodies guess. Perhaps a rebirth of sorts, perhaps we are reconnected to another body to start life anew? Either way, there is no thought, nor knowledge, nor anything in the grave. There is only the death of the vessel we occupied for so many years.

Jesus could by no means have been the Messiah for two reasons: The first is that the Messiah could not be an inidividual. The individual is born, lives his span of life and eventually dies. Are we to expect a new Messiah in every generation? Obviously not. The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain forever as a People, according to Jeremiah 31:35-37. Besides, there is a consensus that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah. I subscribe myself to that consensus. Well, Isaiah identifies that Servant with Israel by name. (Isa. 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21)

How else would the messiah come? Jesus left an imprint on mankind. We have effectively become his body on earth. We are to present our own bodies (lives) as a living sacrifice to God (as Jesus did). God made a promise, and it will be through his people that this promise is achieved.


Through Christ will all nations be blessed because of Abraham's faith. Even as Abraham was promised and saw the day of the Lord, so shall God's chosen bless all nations by following the Lord. We are Christ's body and as the lightning comes from the east and spreads to the west, so shall we fill the earth, and help lead the captives to liberty. If you're not careful, you will miss it.


It has already begun, but people fail to see it because they are looking to save only themselves or they are looking for a furious king to save them. But Jesus tells us: “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?"


We are becoming a united people slowly as we trudge the trenches of religious fundamentalism and disbelief. The Lord God made a promise to Abraham, and this promise is being fulfilled by God's people. We have become his saints, reborn, renewed, and remade in his likeness. Take our testimony as you may, but unless you too are brought under God's amazing grace, your faith and your desire will remain unanswered. Our messiah has come and lives is us, those who have been reborn of his Spirit. We are his chosen one's now, and it will be through us that peace on earth and good will towards men will be achieved.


Until you present your body (life) as a living (active) sacrifice to God, and seek peace on earth, good will towards men, you will remain blind and spiritually dead. Until you ask with a heart of hearts for God to give you of his Holy Spirit, you will never truly know your proper place as one chosen of God. This is my belief - The Lord lives in his people, but many have rejected him because:


For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’ But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.

 

[Servetus]

I appreciate your thorough, informative and considerate reply, bananabrain. Until now, my inquiries into some of these subjects, especially the more recondite aspects of Maimonides and Spinoza, have been largely solo affairs, done in libraries and with dead though accomplished authors.

Until I have time to respond more fully to your points, I am interested in this:

(see my analysis of the "good samaritan" episode elsewhere on this site)

I would like to see this. Could you (or anyone else?) assist with a link? I am sure I will enjoy reading it.

Best regards,

Serv

 

[Dream]

Servetus, it is post 29 in the thread Debunking "the devil" ... from back in 2003. Here is the link.
Incidentally the above post full of words like 'Leetle' which cannot be found in a dictionary. Entertaining.

Here is the part of the text that is tangential to your conversation.

for a start, the story of the 'good samaritan' is, from our PoV, an attack on the human consequences of the system of ritual purity - at least at first glance. as we know, kohanim and levi'im are prohibited from coming in contact with a corpse (the injured guy could have died) apart from that of a close relative by leviticus 21:1-3. however, a small amount of research - if you know how jewish law works - reveals that the Oral Law that goes with the Written Law of the Torah states that quite apart from the fact that a kohen can become tamei (usually mistranslated as 'ritually impure', but properly understood as making him ineligible for Temple service for a period of time) for *anyone who has no relatives or friends to help* (tractate Sukkah 25b) - such a corpse is known as a "met mitzvah" and it is incumbent on anyone - even a kohen or levi if there is noone else - to help to bury it. from this we can understand that the kohen and levi mentioned in the parable did not observe this law of "met mitzvah" so they were in fact wrong to behave as they did - which jesus points out. alternatively, it is also possible that jesus is making a point about the great disputes between those referred to in the NT as 'sadducees and pharisees', where the Temple "establishment" (ie kohanim and levi'im) rejected the more complex rulings of the rabbis and making the point that the Oral Law is required for the Written Law to function as an integrated, complete human system. in the long run, of course, the "sadducee" tendency lost out. similarly, there are plenty of accounts contemporary with jesus that make the point that the jews are behaving improperly and will be punished for it by G!D. but i digress..

 

[Servetus]

Servetus, it is post 29 in the thread Debunking "the devil" ... from back in 2003. Here is the link.
Incidentally the above post full of words like 'Leetle' which cannot be found in a dictionary. Entertaining.

Thank you, Dream. Your search engines are evidently more finely tuned than mine.

 

[Ben Masada]

Sure he does, Ben. He lives in us! “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.

No, he doesn't. And all you have to prove your assertion with, is faith. Where faith begins, knowledge ends; and for lack of knowledge, people perish. (Hosea 4:6)
Ben

 

[taijasi]

No, he doesn't. And all you have to prove your assertion with, is faith. Where faith begins, knowledge ends; and for lack of knowledge, people perish. (Hosea 4:6)
Ben

Jesus lives, and you may speak with Him today, if you like. I do not mean the Christ, although the same - thus far - is the case.

The Great One, however, called Jesus 2100 years ago, has returned to incarnation at least 3 times since His death and crucifixion, as far as I can tell. Two of these are almost certain: Apollonius of Tyana, and an Indian Saint, Ramanuja Acharya [Ramanujacharya]. Whether or not Jesus still lives in a physical body at this point, I am not certain. If so, it is quite possibly several hundred years old, as are the vehicles of several of the Great Ones.

But getting in touch with this Spirit [designate him as you like] ... difficult as it may be for some, would surely be easier to accomplish than a direct line on the Christ, Whom and which is a much more evolved Soul altogether. You, however, Ben Masada, will make no effort along either direction. You haven't the slightest interest in speaking with, or meeting, Jesus of Nazareth [today, or then, as best I can tell] ... and you have made it plain that you reject the Christ [again, perhaps now as then].

So, that fact, combined with your obvious atheism, makes me wonder, WHY ARE YOU HERE? WHAT is it that you are out to prove, or to try and convince others of, since I can't see the slightest bit that you have to offer.

You believe in NO survival of death, or the existence of a SPIRIT while we are incarnate. Am I wrong?

If not, then you are an ATHEIST and a MATERIALIST. Whether or not you reject the Christ, the Jewish Messiah OR the man upon Whom [and Whose actions, Whose example] Christendom has sought to model itself ... it seems you are beating a dead horse. You will find few here, except perhaps bananabrain [whom I might ask most of these same questions], who really have much interest in defending themselves - especially on the Christian threads - when told that Jesus died ... and that's it.

Few will be interested if you claim that Jesus CANNOT any longer interact with the physical world, when need be, or even the psychological or spiritual ones. And of course, what is ANY of this to you, if you are so blind [for whatever reason, or set of causes] that YOU cannot or will not SEE?

You may ASSERT to some of us what YOU believe or do not, but the moment you make such a stupid statement ... that Jesus, the Christ or other Great Ones cannot be REAL, or interacted with TODAY, you bring only a smile ... then a bit of dismay, if we begin to think you really believe that nonsense.

WHY ARE YOU HERE?

Again, can't you see that yours is an uphill battle? I think you mean to be on the Judaism threads, or perhaps the more secularly oriented ones. While you walk amidst those with FAITH sweeping beneath their feet, and WINGS, I think you forever be looked down upon ... until or unless you can find the HUMILITY within to ASK - whether or not perhaps you have been mistaken.

For in the meantime, we KNOW you are, and we accept that ... but we - or at least I - wonder, WHAT, Ben Masada, are you hoping to accomplish?

Ask ME, someone who is not a mainstream Christian, ALL the same questions if you like.

But I think you will find, that even while I believe differently, in plenty of regards, about Jesus, Christ and Christianity, one thing I DO maintain and affirm ... is that EACH of these lives today, and is MIGHTY.

You, with all your poo-pooing and nay-saying ... you are not mighty. And as best I can tell, you are scarcely alive at all. A human, with thoughts and beliefs, sure. But your Faith, however much you apparently want to fire upon others for demonstrating such [and clearly you understand all but NOTHING about such a matter] ... your FAITH, clearly, is DEAD.

Might we somehow kindle that for you? Or, as I worry, are you just here to make waves ... never realizing WHOSE SHORES you walk beside, or what Good Work came before when such metaphors were used, emphasized and brought to the very heart, of Christian Teaching?

Jesus was crucified because there were those who would not let Him LIVE. Clearly, that time is not passed, for I think we behold the SAME SPIRIT, even [part of] whose name is doubt and disparagement ... and I ask, again, WHY do you find it useful or necessary to suggest EITHER of these, to plenty of us who are already well beyond such attacks, such doom & gloom, such FAITHlessness?

Have you QUITE elevated yourself, your ego, by the challenge? Or have I missed something, some ulterior motive, which clearly validates your actions, and demonstrates what GOOD WORK you too, are up to?

Oh do, pray tell, explain the latter - if you care to ... or don't bother, if you would rather not, to justify your faithlessness, and actions. Means nothing to me, really, but it still disgusts me to think that here you are, materialistic and atheistic, beating your drum ... in the wrong place.

Well, we know what some say about opinions. And surely, if nothing else, you have the right to display yours, boldly, around here. What a bad smell and a poor sight, however.

Perhaps I am the only one to think so. But the smell seems to be accumulating, and the more I look in that direction, the more I have to wonder:

What's your game, man?