But Really, Why Was Jesus Crucified?

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


I'm afraid it's not faith but rather knowledge, Ben. We slowly grow distant from God as we grow older, we die spiritually because we are ignorant. See: Hos 4:6 Jesus came to help us reclaim our inherent goodness through the knowledge of God. Jesus leads us back to God's will for us as children of the most high. Being "reborn" of the Spirit (that which I alluded to in my previous post) is about reclaiming our status as God's children (Just as Jesus was a child of God). It's about renewal and becoming knowledgeable enough through life experience, and through the Spirit to discern God's perfect will for us as God's chosen people. Jesus lives in us and it is through us that God's promise to Abraham will be fulfilled. We have become the body of Christ on earth. Of course, you will have nothing to do with such nonsense, right? :rolleyes:


Dedication vs. Belief:


The bible points to our messiah (Jesus the Christ) who's "food" was to do God's will (John 4:34). The bible is milk for babies who still need instruction and correction (Hebrews 5:11-12). A mature child of God's food, however, is to do the will of him who sent us (Hebrews 5:13-14). This is how we find our lives (life purpose) also. Jesus shows us what it takes, which is complete submission to God (Luke 22:42). We are required to yield to God's will as Jesus did. Jesus was yoked by God, and the yoke by which Jesus was yoked was love (Spirit). We are required to love as Jesus loved us (Matthew 11:28-30 - John 13:34-35).


The crux of Jesus' ministry is simple: Love all people (Matt 5:44) do not judge, and forgive others of their trespasses (Luke 6:37). Honor God in Spirit and truth (John 4:23) and mirror Jesus' life through our own. We are to take no thought of our own lives (Matt 16:24-25), but rather we are to live our lives for our descendants, knowing that they will reap our labors, just as we are reaping the labors of those who came before us (John 4:36-38). It's about love and self sacrifice so we might fulfill God's will for humanity. It is NOT about SELF, but about every child that will ever be born into this world from this day until the promise is fulfilled (Gen 26:3-5).


Christ is our savior and our redeemer, but he came for humanity that we might follow his ways. The bible is profitable but it is not infallible, nor is it worthy of the credence it has been afforded (imo). Inspired? Yes! Profitable? Yes! Even so, the Spirit leads us into all truth and believe it or not, there are truth's to be found outside of scripture.


Some people use Jesus as a scapegoat to avoid punishment, in hope that they can save their lives through him, whereas others follow Jesus to the grave, not thinking about themselves, but what they can do to make the world better for their descendants. You mention faith, well my faith is in the promise God made to Abraham: God will bless all the nations through his offspring and because of Abraham's faith (Genesis 26:3-5). Peace on earth & good will toward men will be achieved through those who have been reborn, renewed, and transformed by the Spirit that Jesus embodied. Like Jesus, we are to present our bodies (our very lives) as living sacrifices, which is our reasonable service.


What you reject is Christ in you, Ben. You are not rejecting a man, but the very power of God living in us. Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory
 
AndrewX said:
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.
perhaps you might ask yourself why i would bother to think that defending myself was necessary unless there was an assumption by people such as yourself that judaism had some sort of case to answer in respect of the obvious truth of christianity. how very *dare* we be so stupid and perverse as to reject it, yet again!?! a more reasonable individual might well ask himself if it was really so obvious as all that, rather than muttering darkly about the conjectured sins of our previous transmigrations and our collective guilt as a people.

Or have I missed something, some ulterior motive, which clearly validates your actions, and demonstrates what GOOD WORK you too, are up to?
i would have thought that was obvious, as i have made it clear a number of times. 'am yisrael hai, dude. think about that. are you really so self-centred as to think that we are still here simply for your benefit so you can have people to look down on, or are we perhaps just going about our own collective business, without the need for your validation? i would have thought it was self-evident - by the fact of our stubbornly continued existence - that we actually could manage to sustain our civilisation without need of the self-evidently deficient claims to messiahship (as far as *we* are concerned, but don't let that stop the rest of you) of jesus, or the hidden imam, or shabbetai tzevi, or the lubavitcher rebbe, or uncle tom cobleigh. but no, you feel quite superior, don'tcha?

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.
as i said before, ma gavte la nata.

Gatekeeper said:
I'm afraid it's not faith but rather knowledge, Ben.
oh, hogwash. we might think or believe that we "know" it, but i don't think that sort of assertion would stand up to even the most basic arguments put forward by philosophers such as bertrand russell, for a start. read "why i am not a christian". these simple, pat answers simply won't do. "the christ in you"? as far as i am aware, this is the only reality that "the bible points to": do justice, love compassion and thus you walk with G!D. the theological "word salad" simply isn't necessary. the only reality that we can all agree on is that of *action*. a lot of my co-religionists ask why i "waste" my time (i don't think it's a waste at all) dialoguing with christians and i tell them this: there are many roads up the mountain. those of us who spend time criticising each other's roads must look to themselves first and ask whether they are really making the world a better place or not, in any tangible way. did you give to charity? did you deal honestly? did you study to make yourself a better, more knowledgeable person? if not, this is all so much twaddle and guffoonery.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
Jesus lives, and you may speak with Him today, if you like.

It is against the Scriptures to consult with the dead.

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.

The doctrine of reincarnation is also against the Scriptures.

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].

Christ means anointed; and the anointed one of the Lord, according to Habakkuk 3:13 is Israel, the Jewish People.

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.

A Jew cannot be an atheist. It is against his or her own nature. And I am here to serve as light unto the Gentiles, according to Isaiah 42:6.

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

Wrong. Survival is the opposite of death; and a spirit, which is the breath of life does not incarnate. (Gen. 2:7)

If not, then you are an ATHEIST and a MATERIALIST. Whether or not you reject the Christ, the Jewish Messiah.


The Messiah cannot be an individual but the collective in Israel, the Jewish People. An individual is born, lives his span of life and dies. Are we to expect a new Messiah in every generation? Obviously not. The Messiah is not supposed to die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever. Read Jeremiah 31:35-37.

Few will be interested if you claim that Jesus CANNOT any longer interact with the physical world.

That's not me but the Scriptures. The dead will never have any part in anything that's done under the sun. Read Ecclesiastes 9:6.

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.

I don't believe that nonsense; you are the one who does.

WHY ARE YOU HERE?

For the same reason you are.

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.

There is no learning in the tit-tattering of common beliefs. All learning is found in controversy. No wonder we have such a rich literature from the controversial discussions between Hillel and Shamai.

WHAT, Ben Masada, are you hoping to accomplish?

I hope to accomplish a worldly undistorted understanding about Judaism, which has been vandalized with the things of Christianity.

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

Good! Let us see if you can come up with a decent answer to this mystery: If Jesus died Friday and was buried that evening, and, at the end of that Saturday the tomb was empty, how can you figure the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40?

Your FAITH, clearly, is DEAD.

Faith is not my way to seek God. Knowledge through research is. Faith only brings death, if not physically, in the case of the faithfuls of Jim Jones, intellectually in does in the lack of knowledge.

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.


I know, the Romans did not want Jesus to live. And I know also that time has not passed. The cruelties continued with pogroms, blood libels, Crusades, Inquisition, and last but not least, the Holocast. All perpetrated by Christianity. Only that the Holocaust was enhanced by the murderous silence of Christianity through the Concordat signed by Pope Pius XI.

What's your game, man?

My game is to set you free with the Truth, which being the Word of God, was given to Israel only and to no other people on earth. Read John 8:32; 17:17; and Psalm 147:19,20.

Ben
 
What you reject is Christ in you, Ben. You are not rejecting a man, but the very power of God living in us. Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory


IMHO, the mystery which had been hidden from ages and generation was prophesied in the 3rd. day of creation when the Lord declared, "Let there be light, and there was light." Here are some more details:

Let There Be Light and There Was Light

It has been an a "tohu vavohu" among many questioners, especially Christians, even many Jews, to come up with an explanation for that kind of light in Genesis 1:3 wen the sun, which gives light by day was created only on the 4th day of creation. The embarrassment is that at both, Atheists laugh. And not because they know any better in terms of an adequate answer, but for two other reasons: First, because they look for answer only in Science; and of course it is not there but in Theology. And in Theology, they laugh at us for they think that we are all speaking about an anthropomorphic god, which, as I don't blame them: It indeed never existed.

But what light is indeed the Torah writer referring to when he reports of God as declaring, "Let there be light?"

Since before the creation of the universe it was already in the designs of God to provide for salvation of Mankind, a People whom salvation would come from, in the words of Jesus himself in John 4:22.

When for good, the Assyrians removed Israel from existence by replacing the Northern population of the Galilee with Gentiles, and after the Jews or Southern pupulation was taken for an temporary exile of 70 years in Babylon, and the time had arrived for their return to the Land of Israel, Prophet Isaiah said that the people who walked in darkness, he meant the Gentiles in Galilee, had seen a great light as the Jewish People was returning to the Land of Israel. (Isa. 9:2)

Then, later, he confirms that light of Genesis 1:3 when he explained that Israel had been assigned as light to the nations. (Isa. 42:6) But the light was to remain divided from the darkness, so that both should exist in the same world; although, in the language of the Essenes, there would always be a conflict between the children of Light and the children of darkness. Between Jews and Gentiles.

Jesus was aware of this Light as he delivered his famous Sermon of the Mount to a crowd of Jews, when he said to them: "You are the Light of the world." (Mat. 5:14) The reason why he said "you are" and not "you have" is that what one has, it can be taken away, but what one is he is no matter what. Individually, we have the light the world needs to know God. But as a People, we are the light of Genesis 1:3, which the world needs for salvation.

Ben
 
I hope to accomplish a worldly undistorted understanding about Judaism, which has been vandalized with the things of Christianity.

So you will turn Irael into a non-flesh-eating, vegitarian nation?

Or are you satisfied with just prosylitising to Christians about your good fortune and learned experience during this karmic-duration of your present birth?

All bodily designations are temporal and fleeting ---only the indivisable individual soul of an indivisable individual person remains after death ---only another material body will allow future acts/works to be preformed by the same unique indivisable individual person/soul.

Depending on your works do you cultivate a next stratum of life in a future birth.
Spiritual existence is transcendent to the material Universe ---that is the nature of a soul's constitutional position.

The indivisable individual Soul is a part and parcel servant of the Supreme Personality of God's Being ---God is the Supreme-Soul ---we are enjoying are senses wontonly here in the material world of duality and birth-death-old age & diseases. Are sence perception and intellect and length of life are all wontonly managed by overlords that are even more wontonly distracted by their access to sense-gratification . . . that by the history passes us by . . . Kali-yuga will make the standard of living for all concerned even lower and lower and more barbaric.

So the good news of the Gosples is, "How to get out of the prison house of the Material world ---where we are spirit-energy beings ---whereas, all forms and acquisitions are temporal"

"WE" are looking for the Supreme Personality of Godhead's ---or else we are stupid petty Captains at the helm of the ship of our lives ---repeatedly running ashore chewing the chew rather than selflessly attending to our ultimate best interests and obligations.

There are many fish in the sea to associate with birth after birth in universes and crevices where ever we surjorn ---or, OTOH, there is only one Supreme Personality of Godhead ---and we spirits in the Material World ain't Godheads.
 
So you will turn Irael into a non-flesh-eating, vegitarian nation?

Many are vegeterians and many eat meat. This has nothing to do with spiritual things neither with Theology. BTW, our Torah gives instructions on what and how to eat meat in a cosher manner.

Or are you satisfied with just prosylitising to Christians about your good fortune and learned experience during this karmic-duration of your present birth?

Jews do not proselytize. And according to Judaism, birth happens once only.

All bodily designations are temporal and fleeting ---only the indivisable individual soul of an indivisable individual person remains after death ---only another material body will allow future acts/works to be preformed by the same unique indivisable individual person/soul.

Nothing remains after death but the memories of the one who has passed away; and not forever. Even his or her memory is eventually lost. (Eccl. 9:5) And soul is not something we have but what we are. (Gen. 2:7)

Depending on your works do you cultivate a next stratum of life in a future birth.

There is no such a thing as reincarnation, according to Judaism. (Job 10:21)

There are many fish in the sea to associate with birth after birth in universes and crevices where ever we surjorn ---or, OTOH, there is only one Supreme Personality of Godhead ---and we spirits in the Material World ain't Godheads.

There is just one life to live, and we better make the best of it and live it to the full of our potential.

Ben
 
Ben Masada wrote:

Many are vegeterians and many eat meat. This has nothing to do with spiritual things neither with Theology. BTW, our Torah gives instructions on what and how to eat meat in a cosher manner.

This has everything to do with Spritural Things and Theology.
You are conflating "Spritural Things and Theology" with mundane temporal; designations.

You are better off reading my last post as a mantra is chanted repeatedly --rather than conjuring-up the path out of the prison-house of the material World.

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

Jews do not proselytize. And according to Judaism, birth happens once only.

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

Nothing remains after death but the memories of the one who has passed away; and not forever. Even his or her memory is eventually lost. (Eccl. 9:5) And soul is not something we have but what we are. (Gen. 2:7)

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

Yes, We are a SOUL in a material body.
Our true identity is a Eternal Soul.
You are saying that the soul desolves into nothing-ness . . . yet all the junk in the junk yard looks forward to re-newed life in the hands of another person's destiny?

The soul dies-off . . . but, my old blue-jeans & tennis shoes carry-on??!!

There is no such a thing as reincarnation, according to Judaism. (Job 10:21)

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

So all the prophets are Gone for good? They were mirages?
The message of Scriptures is just a human operator's manual for getting the most mileage and enjoyment out of the Model-Body the was acquired at birth; and no transcendence? No unseen rewards?
No punishment for the wicket? No paradise for the faithful?
No Supreme Personality of Godhead?

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

There is just one life to live, and we better make the best of it and live it to the full of our potential.

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

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

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

Ben
 
A common human Re-incarnates in a future birth with all the same material identity and attributes and personality and physical features? No!

A spirit-soul of common human Re-incarnates in a future birth with all the same indivisable-individual-spirit-soul without any of the past material identity and attributes and personality and physical features? Yes!

Can it not be plainly seen that the commonplace person of the ancient western-world had not concept of an "after-life" ---except if a King were to inform them of such!
 
Ben Masada said:
It is against the Scriptures to consult with the dead.
dude, i really can't figure you out. on one hand you give no impression whatsoever of being traditionally-minded or observant, then on the other you come out with this.

The doctrine of reincarnation is also against the Scriptures.
then why is it an entirely respectable position for numerous great sages? haven't you heard the phrase gilgul nefashot?

And according to Judaism, birth happens once only.
i'm afraid not.

Nothing remains after death but the memories of the one who has passed away; and not forever.
that is not a traditional view of judaism, although in matters of speculative theology, in which there is no possiblity of a halakhic ruling, you are entitled to hold any reasonable view you see fit.

There is no such a thing as reincarnation, according to Judaism.
i'm afraid there is.

A Jew cannot be an atheist. It is against his or her own nature.
i'm afraid now you're coming on like a hasid - clearly there are jewish atheists, so clearly nothing of the sort.

And I am here to serve as light unto the Gentiles, according to Isaiah 42:6.
ok, but that's not the purpose of this website. in fact, generally speaking, people don't start in here with inaccurate or insulting assertions about judaism - when they do, of course, they get a frosty reception, but here, you're the one firing the first shot. i also think you could benefit from taking a less arrogant tone.

Wrong. Survival is the opposite of death; and a spirit, which is the breath of life does not incarnate.
i suggest you actually go and argue this with someone with some knowledge of the field of gilgulim. if you prefer a more scientific perspective, i can perhaps point out that if there is such a thing as a soul, constituted of some kind of "spiritual energy", or equivalent thereof, it is not unreasonable to expect this energy to be recycled upon the dissolution of the link between soul and body at the time of death, by extrapolation of the laws of conservation of energy. everything has to go somewhere; by the same logic, personality traits and aspects of the deceased continue in the genetic inheritance of their descendants; this could be understood in some way as a form of reincarnation - indeed, it is extremely common for one to hear one's long-lost auntie's laugh coming from the mouth of a younger relative more than a generation later.

There is no learning in the tit-tattering of common beliefs. All learning is found in controversy. No wonder we have such a rich literature from the controversial discussions between Hillel and Shamai.
i disagree. controversy is not the only way we learn. we also learn from people who we have grown to trust as people, respecting their own learning and integrity, *whether or not we happen to agree with their particular positions* - this is true for a number of people in this debate. nor can you claim that this is not a jewish position; rabbi meir, studying with r. elisha ben abuya, "ate the kernel and discarded the husk".

Many are vegeterians and many eat meat. This has nothing to do with spiritual things neither with Theology.
i feel i should point out that your interlocutor has only one answer for every problem: karma and vegetarianism.

I hope to accomplish a worldly undistorted understanding about Judaism, which has been vandalized with the things of Christianity.
well, you're not going to get very far with that attitude. i suggest you read our code of conduct and think again about how you're coming across. generally speaking, i enjoy your threads, but you're crossing a line.

Faith is not my way to seek God. Knowledge through research is.
and you're entitled to do so, but appealing to the authority of the Torah, as you have done several times in this thread alone, hardly qualifies as such.

Faith only brings death, if not physically, in the case of the faithfuls of Jim Jones, intellectually in does in the lack of knowledge.
codswallop. you seem to have plenty of faith in "the scriptures", as you call them, as you cite them as authority, so clearly this is not a serious assertion.

The cruelties continued with pogroms, blood libels, Crusades, Inquisition, and last but not least, the Holocast. All perpetrated by Christianity. Only that the Holocaust was enhanced by the murderous silence of Christianity through the Concordat signed by Pope Pius XI.
look, if you are here to exact revenge on christianity for everything you seem to blame it for, you are really in the wrong place, talking to the wrong people. interfaith dialogue is not, repeat NOT, about one group lecturing everyone else about what bastards they've been to the group in question. if you really want to be "a light to the gentiles", i suggest you think about how best that can be achieved.

My game is to set you free with the Truth, which being the Word of God, was given to Israel only and to no other people on earth. Read John 8:32; 17:17; and Psalm 147:19,20.
oh, for feck's sake, now you're sounding like a j-witness. do yourself a favour and calm down. you're not going to convince anyone of anything the way you're going.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
bhaktajan said:
Do you know what a Mitzva-Tank is? They probably only exist where they are protected by the rules-of-law enforced by secular folks.
I should mention that multiple times I've encountered Jewish folks (USA) over the years, and none of them ever tried to move me towards joining their religion. I've encountered some orthodox, some reform, young old, boys and girls. They were unusual, but they weren't forceful; and generally they were always involved in some kind of service to other people. In general this is what I hear about them from other people as well; so I think its true that they aren't seeking converts. There are one or two groups of Jewish folks that do; but its generally not seen as a good idea.
 
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.

Misrepresentation of Jesus and his religion is one of the most tragic things that has happened with Christianity: for us to not understand what Christianity is really about and what really happened 2,000 years ago. There are so many details that are missing from the NT that it makes me cringe, knowing that what most Christians know about their religion isn't all they need to know.

Until a Christian bumps into a Jew, everything the NT says about Jesus is "all there is" about Jesus. So all we "need to know" about Jesus is this saviour mythology. But is this really why Jesus was crucified? Is that all there was to that tragic drama that took place 2,000 years ago? No, the Bible, the NT doesn't tell you everything you needed to know about Jesus, and nor about Judaism. Most of us assume that Judaism is nothing more than the "Old Testament" or "Tanakh."

So what's missing? What story does the NT not tell? It doesn't tell us Jewish history or Jewish politics.

We cannot fully understand Jesus' importance in the first century without having a look at others who were important at the time, like Hillel, Shammai and Philo Judaeus. Because his death was of a moral significance, we can kick Philo Judaeus out the second-storey window because what happened to Jesus concerned Jewish Law, not Hellenistic Jewish philosophy.

The mainstream version of Christianity depicts a God that is so angry at humans that he requires someone to die as a ritual sacrifice to be a recipient of God's wrath and anger. Christians see this as the only way leniency could come from God. In the secular world and in Judaism, leniency, mercy and compassion don't come from ritual sacrifices, but from someone willing to argue your case on your behalf (as a lawyer would). In the secular world, if you commit a crime or break the law, you are entitled to have a lawyer defend you in a court of law.

The situation in "Judaism" in Jesus' lifetime was two factions of Pharisees arguing in favour of either a compassionate and/or liberal/humanistic approach (Hillel) to Jewish Law or a cold and heartless and/or legalistic one (Shammai) to Jewish Law. Instead of an angry God who is impatient and itching to wipe us all out unless He gets a sacrifice and instead of a "Judaism" that is cold and heartless, it's a matter of which approach to Jewish Law people are following. Are they following the compassionate one or the cold and heartless one? The problem was not in heaven (not with God), but on earth (with people). The saying "the Torah is on earth, not in heaven" comes to mind.

As is the case in a secular justice system, the judge (God) isn't the one advocating any particular action or ideology, but simply serves as mediator between them. When God did intervene, He communicated through the heavenly voice (Bat Kol), since He could not send prophets at the time. The disciples of Hillel and Shammai were like the "lawyers" in the court system and until there was intervention by the judge (God), their word was law. I think this is what was meant in Matthew 18:18 where it says that whatever is bound or set loose on earth will also be bound/set loose in heaven. This is actually quite profound, because it may suggest that the rabbis and sages have the power to decide what happens to you in your afterlife.:eek:

In this political drama between the "left wing" (Hillelite) and "right wing" (Shammaite) factions, justice and morality were not set in stone, but defined by whoever dominated the Sanhedrin. (Let me know if I got "left" and "right" confused there.:))

Jesus, who preached "love" was obviously on the Hillelite side. But the Shammaites were the ones who dominated the Sanhedrin during his lifetime. Shammai's cold and heartless approach to Jewish Law dominated the Jewish world during this time. It makes sense if Jesus was killed for being a follower of Hillel because otherwise Jesus' own followers wouldn't be crazy about him "dying for their sins," because in a way, he did die for their sins. He stood up against the Shammaites who dominated the Sanhedrin and became a martyr. He stood up for compassion in Jewish Law. He died for love and compassion.

That's why Jesus was so popular. He went against the dominant ideology in Judaism at the time. Who wouldn't want to believe in Jesus? Who wouldn't want to be set free from the cold and heartless Law of Shammai? It took some forty years after the death of Jesus for the cold and heartless Shammaite faction to finally lose their dominance (after the destruction of the Temple). Finally, the Hillelites get back on their feet and what follows seems to be a backlash against the "right-wing Shammaites." Jewish tradition records someone saying, "He who observes the teachings of Beit Shammai deserves death." It's good to see Jewish Law correcting itself. At least sometimes the system works. But for a lot of people, it took too long to restore "compassion" to Judaism. For lots of people, the Pharisaic system of justice failed.

People lost faith in the Pharisees and Jewish Law and looked for something else. When Jesus came along, it was easy. If you could have compassion today, why would you wait? Would you wait forty years, get old and become a grandfather until the Pharisees started preaching compassion again? The tragedy is that we now have a negative impression of Pharisees, Jewish Law and Judaism. I used to not think much of the "anti-Jewish" statements in the Gospels, about Jews and the harshness of "Jewish Law." Now I wonder what a Jew thinks when he's reading the NT.

The "system" Jews follow today is different to the "system" that was in place in the late Second Temple period. After the destruction of the Temple, what happened was a general backlash against whatever "system" existed there. Jews turned against Shammaite ideology. According to Jews, the Shammaites were on the wrong path. The newly converted Christians who started to piggyback off "Judaism" turned against "Judaism" in general, into thinking Judaism as a whole was going down the wrong path.

Rabbinical Judaism and Christianity were both founded on the ideology of "compassion." Relative to late Second Temple Judaism, they are both "left wing" ideologies. They just have different ways of expressing it.

In both there is a shift from a cold and heartless theology to a more compassionate one, brought about by a "miracle." In Judaism, it is the heavenly voice (Bat Kol) that mediates between Hillel and Shammai, saying "these and these are the words of the living God, but halakha follows the rulings of Beit Hillel." In Christianity, the death and resurrection of Jesus serves as a sign that God honours and approves of Jesus' life and teachings and therefore that whoever follows Jesus should be honoured in the same way. Either way, we say goodbye to the coldness and heartlessness of the teachings of Shammai.

If I was to rationalise Christianity's purpose, I believe it is to express the idea of a compassionate God in simpler terms. Jewish Law is too complicated for the average mortal to understand and if you're not a Jew, you wouldn't care. Instead of having to figure out why God chose one faction over another by reading the archive of an ancient court-room drama (the Talmud), it's easier to skip over all that. Let's just say the hard work was done 2,000 years ago.
 
Good! Let us see if you can come up with a decent answer to this mystery: If Jesus died Friday and was buried that evening, and, at the end of that Saturday the tomb was empty, how can you figure the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40?

I think the verse before that is a clue.

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

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

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

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

The sign of Jonah was not the three days and three nights in the tomb, but the last 2,000 years. The people who asked Jesus for that miraculous sign never got it.
 
Saltmeister said:
The mainstream version of Christianity depicts a God that is so angry at humans that he requires someone to die as a ritual sacrifice to be a recipient of God's wrath and anger. Christians see this as the only way leniency could come from God.
Saltmeister, I think that the mainstream has become broader, thinner and more meandering. I don't know about Australia but in the US the emphasis upon hellfire seems like a fad that caught on for a century or so and now appears to be on the decline again. There are books out there opposing its decline, such as the book Whatever Happened to Hell? Its not making sense to people and is just not as popular.
 
Ah, in all fairness, I have been as adversarial as ever (!) ... of late. Something maladjusted, I'm sure.

Which brings me to a snappy answer to the thread title, but one I do believe in. Jesus was crucified because the powers that represent evil recognized what great Progress the world was about to make - especially *Humanity*, within the World Entity [Acts 17:28]. This brought about a backlash, and I think the result was the obstruction of the aims of the Galilean Therapeute.

Such a notion still suggests that evil might be something outside of ourselves, whether we anthropomorphize this, and see it in the Satan of theology ... or imagine orders and hosts of less than savory expressions of the Sephiroth: an Inverse hierarchy, which the Gnostics symbolized, but which was also interpreted far too rigidly in the past 20 or so centuries.

My own belief is that Jesus was crucified owing to a negative karma, if we want to frame it this way, which *all men* carry within their own heart and soul, equally as they/we hold within us the true Seed of Awakening, [Spiritual, not bodily] Resurrection and Eternal Life.

In this, I do believe in what a Christian calls `Original Sin,' yet as a student of Theosophy I must defer to a fairly concise explanation which Nick {the Pilot} gives ... in which Humanity descended from a more Spiritual state, both bodily and otherwise [psychologically and morally], into the current world, "trammeled by matter." Again, Gnosticism helps, but not any more than anything else if we miss the symbolism.

A duality had to be recognized and appreciated, but now, even 2000 years after the scapegoating and murder of Jesus of Nazareth ... people still cling to matter. Rather than gamble {a la Blaise Pascal} that there is indeed an Eternal `something' behind all outward manifestation, people would rather grab as many toys, fancy cars, fast/loose women and cheap thrills as they can. `Live fast, die young!' might as well be our [collective] motto of recent decades, or centuries. The pace of life seems to quicken, and where is the Wisdom and prudence to accompany our technological & scientific breakthroughs?

The Christ I believe in, must begin with something so ABSTRACT ... that its Foundational Aspect substand the rising and falling of the Cosmic Drama, or Interplay between the Seven Logoi, this mathematically NECESSARY expression of a more Primary THREE [again, a mathematical NECESSITY, for ONE cannot manifest as Two ... without also becoming THREE!]. One may fathom that Cosmos, with its hundred of billions of galaxies, each with its hundred of billions of Suns, and these with their combined Myriad of inevitably-inhabited planets ... all sprang into Existence [however so] for the Pure Poetic PLAY of some amazingly-Sublime, PERFECTLY Divine ~Being~.

I buy that ... whether or not we accept that God, too, reincarnates. The implication is a slightly better COSMOS, built upon Seven, built upon Three, built by and upon the ONE, yet varying in an upwardly moving fashion - as, after all, Deity is ~ DEITY!

But if it's a one-time deal, and if this Divine Interplay is simply a cascading unfolding of the Sublime to the hidden, to the mundane to the ... lost and forgotten, I can still find amazement that we are, and that we are even able to *contemplate* it (All, or `Him' ... or `The Gods,' expressions of The One, the Three, the Seven, the 49 Fires, etc.). Yeah, the Ancients have been Teaching us all about it for a few million years, and as is pointed out elsewhere, generations of Sages have devoted their lives to verifying what has been handed down, sometimes written, more often via oral Tradition.

It has also been pointed out that if we do not already LIVE our philosophy, our morality, our Code and our Conscience, we really don't have much room for throwing stones, or sharp & biting criticism, or even much besides putting our proverbial nose to the grindstone ...

... and as long as we have not utterly forsaken our Ideals, however high & Mighty, lofty and unlikely [in any ONE, given lifetime, at any rate], I am sure - from my own, ever-present experience - that we are *not forsaken, or abandoned, or hopeless*. Some people feel this way, on whatever level and to varying degree, individually and psychologically ... and this, too, I understand. But when HUMANITY, in whatever segment, to whatever degree or however prematurely - *loses FAITH* - we have a serious challenge on our hands.

And some will push and shove, mostly because their days of vainglory and worldly power are coming to an end, and they know it ... but also just because of the same old human greed, selfishness and nescience which as yet characterize our little planet.

I think we have a glorious future, and NOTHING UNDER HEAVEN [to quote the Upanishads, and their Commentators] will arrest our collective - AND individual - progress as we move forward. But this does not mean that a backlash, and sometimes a harsh blow, will not be felt. So if the STARS of the Heavens *did* somehow find a way to SHINE brightly before Men, revealing the same FAITHFUL and Trustworthy PATH(s) BACK TO GOD as have always been available [however seldom and feebly answered, until recently in Humanity's history] ... why should it be so mysterious or unusual that Jesus of Nazareth might have demonstrated `what it takes' {if only the U.S. Army could touch the Hem of THAT Garment}, and done his best to share that Divine Example with the rest of us?

We will hear the theologians try and justify what they themselves certainly cannot understand, for at least it is accurate to say that these are subjects - if ANY Truth exists in them at all - which as yet, NO ONE among us fully understands, or has plain insight into. Jesus could not finish what was started, but for this, we cannot fault him, nor God, nor one select group any more so than any other ... for if there was ANYTHING special and worth observing about Christ's example it was surely that a message was being delivered for ALL PEOPLE, and so that in time, we might ALL RESPOND appropriately. A shame, that this got filtered, watered down and all but totally candy-coated for the *Masses*, but then, at least the EXAMPLE itself has not been lost ... no matter what else HAS been suppressed, or discouraged. No need in speculating that ~ we, too, might so attain ... since that removes SO much of the unnecessary middle-men ... and we can see how this upsets the established ORDER(s), just as last time around.

Jesus, and a bunch of the other Beards, are as close as our own Family, but we know how delicate that can be sometimes ... so it helps to remember and appreciate that these blokes don't take shit personal. They don't wait around for evening vespers, and smile when we get our last Hail Mary or repetition of the Gayatri sung or spoken. And I'm pretty sure they really don't give a shit, God, Christ or any of 'em, whether you believe in them or not, or whether you occasionally feel a need to yap about it a little. I might be at the extreme, but I have NEVER forgotten what I have learned. Rather, I knew 20 years ago that the best my Life would and could EVER be, would be if I learned to live it in a TESTAMENT to what Christ Jesus sought to Teach, Inspire and share.

So it's clear enough to see why things may have failed back then. My question is, if we think we've learned at least a little about *what matters most* ... are we going to let the same crap happen all over again? And if not, what can we DO to help steer Humanity [in ANY capacity, large or small] from the present unrest toward calmer waters, wherein the future Vision CAN be reflected {what, God doesn't have a PLAN, a VISION, for how things should be? that WE can't access, or assist with? Really, then put me in a rocket capsule and blast me outta here man ... that really WOULD suck!}?

You really wanna know why Christ was crucified? What does it matter, if we're about to do it all over again? I know that, in part, this is unavoidable. That's just what I believe about matter, Spirit, the nature of the Cosmos ... and the `Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World' [which was a HORSE, we are told, in former cycles]. But either we CAN, and must try HARD, to steer this little rowboat, galley, ARK ... into the future. Or else, I guess we should keep a sharp lookout for the icebergs.

Namaskar,
~Taijasi
 
Taijasi, good post! Let me add a little. From a historical-scientific point-of-view it is hard to believe (the odds are against say 10:1) that the Roman Pilate would have wasted for perfectly good nails on someone he did not see as a threat to the Roman hegemony. That being said, the Gospel stories of Christ's entry into Jerusalem would have probably been enough proof for him--after all here was someone the native population (or maybe just the Samaritans and Gallileans, not that that distinction meant a lot to Pilate) hailed as a king. In his place I probably would have done the same.

As for the esoteric-gnostic-mystic-mythic meaning. Well, that is kinda for each of us to discover. IMHO the closer a belief system (theology or philosophy or Religion or sprituality) gets to being able to reach at-one-ment with all other belief systems, the closer it is to "the truth" of religion.
 
Hi Radarmark —
From a historical-scientific point-of-view it is hard to believe (the odds are against say 10:1) that the Roman Pilate would have wasted for perfectly good nails on someone he did not see as a threat to the Roman hegemony.
For a long time it was assumed Luke's Gospel was riddled with errors because he gave people the wrong titles, he located towns in the wrong place ... then archaeologists found coins they could identify by the portrait, and guess what, the Lucan title was on the coin. Then they found remains of a town, and identified it as the one named in Luke, just as he said.

So now secular historians of the era are using Luke as a 'ground eye view' of events, the only other records of which are in the 'high historical' accounts.

What emerges as evident is how much of a powder-keg the place was.

One telling piece of evidence is Acts 23. Apparently up to 40 hardliners informed the Sanhedrin they were going to kill Paul, and no-one, not even the Sanhedrin, was going to stop them.

Word gets to the Roman administration, who orders a force of 200 soldiers, 200 spears (presumably local levies) and 70 horse to escort Paul, by night, to safety at Caesarea.

Historians treat the numbers seriously, and say it shows how volatile the situation was. It's a massive escort for one man, but it's the kind of show of force you put on to disway anyone from doing anything stupid. Remembering that Paul was a Roman citizen, who had placed himself under the care of the Roman authorities, it would be a huge loss of face and a PR victory is the Jews could get in and kill him whilst under Roman protection.

In the gospel accounts, it's appears the Sanhedrin feared that Jesus would spark a popular revolt, which would only end one way (as it was to do, later, when the Romans finally said, enough's enough). So better that one even innocent man die to preserve the life of the population ...

So yes, there were very good political reasons to kill Him off, and Pilate would want to be bloody certain that he didn't end up creating a martyr for the Judean People's Front, or the People's Front of Judea, or the etc., etc.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the people baying for His head were the same ones who welcomed Him as king on His entry into Jerusalem, for not giving them independence.

We can reliably assume that this was at least His third visit to the city, but by this time His reputation went before Him ... and to arrive on the eve of Israel's Paschal celebrations ... the timing's just a little too perfect, isn't it? If I were going to organise a putsch, that's the kind of timing I'd work to.

In recent years the Russians and the Chinese brought in the country boys to kick some butt and quell the city population. I also think the reverse of the coin, a country lad who has the wild men of the hills on His side, and the Samaritans, it would appear ... I'd love to read the intelligence reports that went across the desk of the local secret service station chief. I mean Judas's reports must have had their eyes popping out of their heads ... or maybe they just missed Him altogether?)

God bless,

Thomas
 
Thomas, very likely is was the very Sicarii (sp?) who greeted H!m went to Pilate with the tale. It was still Pilate's call, and justified within his and Rome's frame-of-reference.

I tend to also believe some of the more extreme anti-Semetic content of the NT is a function of (1) the role of the Galileans in second temple time (not as excluded as the Samaritans, but further away and more Greek influenced and (2) a way to get Roman backing (Marcion did pretty well in his heresy in Rome).
 
bananabrain said:
i probably haven't been very clear about what i meant by that …
Thank you for clarifying. I see your point.

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

bananabrain said:
… 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).
I plan to ask you more about this, as both time and opportunity allow. It deserves a thread of its own.

bananabrain said:
… it isn't entirely clear how rambam is using it [“sages of blessed memory”] here and this would inevitably be the subject of a good old handbag fight amongst the commentators on the text.
That last image was amusing. Speaking of handbag fights and, now, of how they can escalate, it might be worth noting that, soon after Maimonides’ death, it is said that some of his co-religionists continued to split into separate, feuding factions. The anti-Maimunists, who understandably considered his rationalism threatening, rather ill-advisedly called in the Inquisition, according to Friedrich Heer, himself a Catholic historian, which Inquisition was pleased to oblige by consigning not only Maimonides’ books but probably a percentage of his readers to the flames as well.

bananabrain said:
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.
Again, allow me to thank you for your attention to detail.

bananabrain said:
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!
That is strangely paradoxical. It is no wonder one sometimes needs a “guide” for the perplexed.

bananabrain said:
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.
In my opinion, parts of the Guide are eludicating. For instance, I have never read a more satisfying exegesis of Jeremiah 7:22-23 than he wrote in Chapter 32 of Part Three. His viewpoint on the subject of ritual sacrifice is in this case radical.

bananabrain said:
perhaps not, but he'd [Sigmund Freud] 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*)
That was one fine imitation of old Noam, I must say! Anyway, now that you have finished coughing, I would point out that Freud made the point that male circumcision was an Egyptian rite, or practice. He had read Herodotus on the subject and I should think that, even now, no Egyptologist worth his or her salt could be an Egyptologist without a working knowledge of Herodotus, one of Egypt’s eye-witnesses and a so called ‘father of history.’ I also notice that this point of circumcision as having been practiced by some Egyptians was, before Freud, made by Hegel in his Philosophy of History. Whatever else might be said of them, those Prussians and Germans were an inordinately erudite lot.

bananabrain said:
which would, in my opinion, preclude him [Freud] from a dispassionate assessment.
He may not have been dispassionate, but self-conscious, articulate and even passionate apostates from any given religion are sometimes well worth reading. As you know, we have a list of them in Christianity, from Voltaire to Nietzsche to Bertrand Russell. I often have intense though for the most part inaudible arguments with them in my head, whilst sitting on park benches, feeding pigeons ... :)

bananabrain said:
anthropologists have moved on from charles frazer as well.
If you mean Sir James, I can only tell you that I, being invariably retrograde and not an anthropologist, am still stuck up to my armpits in parts of his brilliant “The Golden Bough.”

bananabrain said:
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".
Good riddance to the presumptuousness and other flaws of the 19th Century Rationalists, to be sure. But still, for that matter, I am not overly smitten with modernity and post-modernity. For instance, one can hardly find a Classicist at Harvard University these days, what with courses being offered in transgendered transnationalism and how to sell one’s soul to the highest bidders first in the District of Columbia and then beyond.

bananabrain said:
he [Freud] 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.
Well said. It’s astounding to me that he had as much influence upon the 20th Century as he did. As if what you said weren’t enough, he read Oedipus at Rex and drew a universal conclusion that we all want to kill our fathers and hump our mothers. Some anti-Semites considered Psychoanalysis a Jewish plot to prove all Gentiles insane.

bananabrain said:
yes, but rambam was not a historian, but both a religious authority and of unprecedented celebrity during his life.
Maimonides, as I see it, was a polymath. Hegel, the Prussian court historian, said there were three types of historians: original, reflective and philosophical. It seems Maimonides, according to this view, was a reflective historian, because, in his Epistle, he provides his readers with an historical, i.e., reflective, background to both Christianity and Islam. In that Epistle he says this:
Quite some time after [the Sanhedrin had meted out fitting punishment to Jesus], a religion [Christianity] appeared the origin of which is traced to him [Jesus] by the descendants of Esau, albeit it was not the intention of this person to establish a new faith. For he was innocuous to Israel as neither individuals nor groups were unsettled in their beliefs because of him, since his inconsistencies were so transparent to every one. Finally he was overpowered and put a stop to by us when he fell into our hands, and his fate is well known. {Maimonides}
With his reference to Esau, I think it is safe to conclude that Maimonides is relying upon Jewish rather than Christian historians for his information. Do you think that a safe conclusion?

bananabrain said:
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 …
Thank you. I might visit the site, but would first like to read Schafer’s book. I don’t want to spoil the plot after all.

bananabrain said:
with the result that i'm not terribly convinced that we knew anything much about jesus before our divorce from christianity went bad.
That is an apt and touching metaphor.

Best regards,

Serv
 
I skimmed thru this thread, not sure if this was brought up?

The official crime would have been. Yeshua the Nazarene was sentenced to death for sedition against the Roman occupants. Found guilty of crimes against Jewish law, and in particular of blasphemy or falsely claiming to be the Messiah.
 
Back
Top