Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
Ben Masada

But Really, Why Was Jesus Crucified?

641 posts in this topic

Circumstances. God does not force any one to die for another. The opposite is rather true. When Moses asked God to erase his name from the book of

life to save the life of the People, the answer was that, "only the one who has sinned is striked out of the book of life." To be striked out of life

means death. Therefore, one cannot die for another. (Exo. 33:32) Also in Jeremiah 31:30 we have that "one shall die only through his own fault." And not the fault of another. The bottom line is that Jesus was forced to walk the via dolorosa for his own fault somehow.

Ben

Nope, it was to obey the Law, as God himself intended, for Jesus to do.

Matthew 5:18

For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

What he was referring to in this is quite evident, Isaiah 53. No matter how you justify it, Isaiah 53 demonstrates that you are in fact wrong. It clearly shows that the suffering servant, who is a human being, not an animal, was killed as a guilt offering. It is there in black and white. The imagery does not lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, let me explain to you something about resurrection, once and for all, especially what Moses Maimonides means here in his 13th Principle of faith. He does not at all refer to bodily resurrection, which would be an insult to his intelligence. He was the greatest of Theologians, and a Philosopher par excellence.

According to Isaiah 53:8,9, when the Jews are forced into exile, it is as if they have been cut off from the Land of the Living, and graves are assigned to them in the Diaspora among the Gentiles. Then, at the end of the exile, according to Ezekiel 37:12, the Lord opens their graves and have them rise from those graves and brings them back to the Land of Israel. This is a metaphor for resurrection and not literal bodily resurrection. There is no such a thing in Judaism. That's what Maimonides referred to in his 13th principle of faith. I know you deeply believe in resurrection. Now, think. Why would you be brought to the Land of Israel after resurrection if you have never had any connection with the Land of Israel? It doesn't make sence at all, does it? I didn't think so.

Ben

I would have a serious talk with your Rabbi on this issue...

"I firmly believe that there will take place a revival of the dead at a time which will please the Creator, blessed be His name."

Saadia also, in his "Emunot we-De'ot" (following Sanh. x. 1), declared the belief in resurrection to be fundamental.

Ḥasdai Crescas, on the other hand, declared it to be a specific doctrine of Judaism, but not one of the fundamental teachings, which view is taken also by Joseph Albo in his "'Iḳḳarim" (i., iv. 35-41, xxiii.).

The chief difficulty, as pointed out by the latter author, is to find out what the resurrection belief actually implied or comprised, since the ancient rabbis themselves differed as to whether resurrection was to be universal, or the privilege of the Jewish people only, or of the righteous only.

This again depends on the question whether it was to form part of the Messianic redemption of Israel, or whether it was to usher in the last judgment.

Saadia sees in the belief in resurrection a national hope, and endeavors to reconcile it with reason by comparing it with other miraculous events in nature and history recorded in the Bible. Maimonides and Albo in their commentary on Sanh. x. 1, Ḳimḥi in his commentary on Ps. i. 5, Isaac Aboab in his "Menorat ha-Ma'or" (iii. 4, 1), and Baḥya ben Asher in his commentary on Gen. xxiii. extend resurrection to the righteous only.

On the other hand, Isaac Abravanel in his "Ma'yene Yeshu'ah" (ii. 9) concedes it to all Israel; Manasseh ben Israel, in his "Nishmat Ḥayyim" (i. 2, 8), and others, to all men.

Maimonides, however (see his commentary, l.c., and "Yad," Teshubah, viii.), took the resurrection figuratively, and substituted for it immortality of the soul, as he stated at length in his "Ma'amar Teḥiyyat ha-Metim"; Judah ha-Levi also, in his "Cuzari," took resurrection figuratively (i. 115, iii. 20-21).

See: The Jewish Encyclopedia

What I see above is the classical, Sadducee vs Pharisee argument..., jeez I thought that was over and done with 2000 years ago. It seems not. Either way The site clearly defined what it meant by bodily resurrection, there was no error. It was a Jewish site. So what we have here my friend is a difference of opinion, you saying one thing, other Jews saying another.

Jesus demonstrated on which side of the argument he was on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm that would make the entire Old testament a cheap knock off of the Hellenistic mythos, my friend. It is simple.

A. Either the Jews (as per the actual examples I gave from Genesis) got their mythology from the Hellenist influences at that time as well, or

B. The Old Testament demonstrates that God did indeed appear in human form. Want me to give you a few more examples?

I can quote Genesis a little more, I can quote Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Jeremiah, Daniel, Psalms and another half dozen more. They all demonstrate the very same thing. God appearing to men, speaking to them and physically touching them. Are they all now liars too?

Make your choice... A or B.

That's the big problem with those who can't understand metaphorical language. There are indeed instances in the Tanach of God appearing to men and talking to men as a man talks with another, but how? If you read Numbers 12:6, you will have the answer. "Should there be a prophet among you, in vision will I reveal Myself to him; in dreams will I speak to him." That's how. Every thing is possible to happen during dreams, even for a cow to fly. You are welcome to show me a quote in the Tanach where God conversed with men on a face-to-face situation. This happens only during dreams and visions. There is an quote (Num. 12:7) where it says that with Moses, God would speak face-to-face, but not literally. That expression was only to distinguish Moses from the other prophets as the most important prophet in the History of Israel, but not to be taken literally.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Adam and Eve did eat the fruit of life. Doesn't that mean that they were immortal like God when they were banished? :w00t::o

Show me, would you please? Where is it written that they ate of the tree of life? Read again Genesis 3:22,23. BTW, I'll reproduce here for you: "The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and bad." (This is after he ate of the tree of knowledge) "Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever." It means that they had never eaten of the tree of life before. The whole idea of this allegory is to convey the granting of attributes and those that man could not be entitled with. Knowledge and intellect yes, but not eternal life.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me ask you a simple question...

What did a Jewish family do, when all they had were daughters?

What people seem not to realize is that Levirate marriages apply to childless marriages, but they also apply to other circumstances as well, as in the case of son-less marriages.

The Tanakh, makes it clear that the tribal lineage follows the father's line, but the child's Jewish heritage, or place in the Jewish family, is matrilineal. Thus if a family only had daughters, that family would also cease to exist, within the tribal lineage.

According to ancient customs, a son could be adopted, but to make it binding, he would marry a daughter of the family, thereby, becoming a "son in law" as we know the term today. In ancient Israel, and the surrounding nations of which they were part, this was a common custom, which is now forgotten for the most part. In so doing, he would then carry the family heritage, even though he was not a biological son. The only hurdle, would be that he would alraedy have to be part of the same tribe and thus be related already in some way to the family in question.

The Talmud states emphatically that there is no difference between an adopted child and a child who was born into the household, and the genealogical tables in the Bible do not attempt to identify anyone as an "adopted son". Instead they are just called "sons".

Here is a biblical example...

1 Chronicles 4:17-18

17 The sons of Ezrah:

Jether, Mered, Epher and Jalon. One of Mered’s wives gave birth to Miriam, Shammai and Ishbah the father of Eshtemoa. 18 (His wife from the tribe of Judah gave birth to Jered the father of Gedor, Heber the father of Soko, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah.) These were the children of Pharaoh’s daughter Bithiah, whom Mered had married.

According to the Talmud, Jehudijah and Bithiah were one and the same person. She was the daughter of Pharaoh who took Moses out of the bulrushes and looked after him. She was a Jewish Proselyte, and the purpose of her trip to the river was to cleanse herself from the idolatry of Pharaoh's house. Jered is considered to be Moses, and it says she "bare" him, even though she only looked after him.

The quotes from the Talmud are as follows:

R. Simon b. Pazzi once introduced an exposition of the Book of Chronicles as follows: 'All thy words are one, and we know how to find their inner meaning'. [it is written], And his wife the Jewess bore Jered the father of Gedor, and Heber the father of Socho, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah, and these are the sons of Bithya the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took. Why was she [the daughter of Pharaoh] called a Jewess? Because she repudiated idolatry, as it is written, And the daughter of Pharaoh went down to bathe in the river, and R. Johanan, [commenting on this,] said that she went down to cleanse herself from the idols of her father's house. 'Bore': But she only brought him [Moses] up? - This tells us that if anyone brings up an orphan boy or girl in his house, the Scripture accounts it as if he had begotten him. 'Jered': this is Moses. Why was he called Jered? Because manna came down [yarad] for Israel in his days.

Talmud Mas. Megilah 13a (pg 47, pdf)

And his wife Ha-Jehudiah bore Yered the father of Gedor [and Heber the father of Soco, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah] and these are the sons of Bithia the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took. Now, 'Mered' was Caleb; and why was he called Mered? . - Because he opposed the counsel of the other spies. But was he [Moses] indeed born of Bithia and not rather of Jochebed? - But Jochebed bore and Bithia reared him; therefore he was called after her.

Talmud, Sanhedrin 19b

This is merely used as an example to demonstrate clearly that adoption, when it took place, was as binding as birth by blood and recognized universally to be so.

The point is this. Joseph was not the father of Jesus, but he was of the tribe of Judah. Mary was Jesus mother and she too was of the tribe of Judah. Thus Jesus could only be of the tribe of Judah, More than that, he inherited Josephs lineage automatically, whether or not Joseph was or was not his biological son. History shows this to be true of the customs of that time. The Talmud demonstrates it to be true. It is also the reason why Jesus has TWO geneologies in the New Testament.

geneology.gif

Jesus inherited the lineage by blood, on his mothers side, and lo and behold, he inherited his legal standing as a son of David from his fathers side. He satisfies all prerequisites of the Messiah, whether they are dynastic, legal or through the bloodline.

So sorry, but you didn't rescue anyone, but you did learn one or two things from your own heritage in all this.

Hey Knight, IMHO, you are confusing Jewish identity with Tribal indentity. To be born Jewish, yes, the mother must be Jewish. But to be born of this or that Tribe, the father must be of that Tribe, otherwise, the child will be Jewish but without Tribal affiliation. In the case of Jesus, if the thing has to be according to Christianity, he was Jewish but a Jew without a Tribe. BTW, the attempt at interpreting the genealogy of Jesus in Luke by aligning him with Mary as if she was from the line of Judah, goes wrong on a double. First, because the mother cannot define the child's Tribal affiliation. And second, because Mary was not of the Tribe of Judah. The closest thing to identifying Mary with, as Tribe was concerned is that she was of the Tribe of Levi. Take a look at Luke 1:5,36. The text says in verse 36 that Mary was of the family of Elizabeth. Then, in verse 5 you will see that Elizabeth was a descendant of Aaron, the Levite. Therefore, Mary was a Levite.

And for your question what would Jewish law do with a family that has only daughters, what's the problem? The daughters belong to the Tribe of the father of the family; and they will remain of that Tribe "till death do us part." If they get married, they will produce Jewish children, who will inherit the Tribe of their fathers.

Now, as the Talmud is concerned, it never goes against the Tanach. Some midrashim can give the impression that it does, but it is only in the "eye of the beholder."

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goodness, I see your confusion...

The tombstone was rolled away on the morning of the 4th day. He speant 3 complete days and nights in the tomb, fullstop.

14th Nisan, Day 0 - sundown Tuesday to sundown Wednesday - Erev Pesach (the day before the Sabbath), Preperation day, The night of the Last Supper. The day Jesus was crucified.

15th Nisan, Day 1 - sundown Wednesday to sundown Thursday - Pesach I (Passover), 1st day of Unleavened Bread.

16th Nisan, Day 2 - sundown Thursday to sundown Friday - Pesach II, 2nd day of Unleavened Bread

17th Nisan, Day 3 - sundown Friday to sundown Saturday - Pesach III, Sixth day Sabbath, 3rd day of Unleavened Bread

18th Nisan, Day 4 - Pesach IV, The day of Firstfruits, Resurrection in the early Morning. In rising from the dead, Jesus became the first-fruits of all those who die and yet will be resurrected to live forever.

People generally don't realize that Easter tradition has nothing to do with the biblical account of the Paschal week.

Yes, but Jesus was not a Christian. He was Jewish and prone to live according to his Faith, which was Judaism. Besides, he was crucified on Friday, which is among us, officially called "the day of preparation." So, according to Matthew 27:62, next day after the day of preparation is the Sabbath. Okay, I'll give you a day for those minutes that took Joseph of Arimathea to take Jesus off the cross and lay him in the tomb. This is one day. The night from Friday to Saturday is one night. All the day of that Sabbath, is the second day. And the time after that Sabbath was over till the women went to see the sepulcher, I'll give as the second night. Two days and two nights. When the tombstone was removed, it was empty. Where are the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40? Sorry, but that was another blunder committed by the guy who wrote the gospel of Matthew. I call it contradictions of the NT.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the big problem with those who can't understand metaphorical language. There are indeed instances in the Tanach of God appearing to men and talking to men as a man talks with another, but how? If you read Numbers 12:6, you will have the answer. "Should there be a prophet among you, in vision will I reveal Myself to him; in dreams will I speak to him." That's how. Every thing is possible to happen during dreams, even for a cow to fly. You are welcome to show me a quote in the Tanach where God conversed with men on a face-to-face situation. This happens only during dreams and visions. There is an quote (Num. 12:7) where it says that with Moses, God would speak face-to-face, but not literally. That expression was only to distinguish Moses from the other prophets as the most important prophet in the History of Israel, but not to be taken literally.

Ben

Who makes that determination, the actual bible or men who find it convenient to relegate God to mere visions?

And do visons actually touch you physically, do they eat food you prepared??

I will give you 3 clear examples...

1. God and Abraham, Genesis 18 and 19

Let me paint the big picture people seem to miss in this entire episode.

We have Abraham near the trees of Mamre when God appears to him. Then immediately we cut to three "human" figures approaching him.

No mention of God at this point but then why the 1st verse? Unless it was to contextualize the account that followed it.

We have the 3 men, one of which Abraham addresses as Adonai (Lord), which can be used of humans, but is indicative in this case that Abraham, no small figure himself, sees this persons stature as higher than his. No questions like, "Who are you?" or "What are you doing in my camp?"... that in itself is strange don't you think? No, he asks for their blessing... and then invites them to dine with him.

He then calls for food to be prepared, a feast actually, which again demonstrates the honour Abraham is giving these "men".

One of them asks for Sarah, without ever having been told by Abraham of her existence. Maybe they are telepathic?

He then proceeds without any invitation to tell Abraham that he will have a son by Sarah, at this same time next year.

Sarah scoffs at this and then suddenly we have Yahweh speaking to her and then to Abraham, yet we have these 3 men there. Are we to think that this was a mere disembodied voice Abraham and Sarah heard?, then why include the 3 men at all?

If they are angels, then why was it necessary for God to Speak at all, since his representatives were there?

It only makes sense if one of those 3 men was God himself in human form, exactly as he was in human form when he appeared to Jacob and fought with him.

This is the exact sense we get fom the following verses, where we have a conversation between God an God....

16 When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way.

17 Then the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? 18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. 19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him."

20 Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

Notice Yahwehs question and then Yahweh answering the question asked by HIMSELF?

Unless we want to accuse Yahweh of not being altogether there, we must accept that the textual context refers to two entities called Yahweh (one visible, the other invisible).

Then the men leave, but how many left?

It doesn't say but it does say that Abraham remained with the Lord. So if we are to assume that God was one of the 3 men then we would only have two men leaving and one staying behind...

What is extremely interesting is that in the next chapter we have exactly 2 angels arriving at Sodom.

The text doesn't say, Now 2 angels arrived at Sodom it states:

1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening,

Which two angels?

THE two angels, which we would recognize due to the context of chapter 18. The two that left the presence of God and Abraham. It is referred to purposefully and is demonstrated categorically by context, otherwise we have a story that doesn't make sense.

We can further see this situation when God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah, where we have again 2 Yahwehs present, one visible, one invisible.

Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens.

Please note something else:

23 Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked?

Who was it exactly that Abraham approached?

God?

Then Abraham could literally see God.... wow it only makes sense if the above interpretation is taken into account. God was not only seen by Abraham, he was seen by sarah as well, they all ate and drank. This was no vision.

2. The Call of Jeremiah, Jeremiah 1

1 The words of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, one of the priests at Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin. 2The word of the Lord came to him in the thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah son of Amon king of Judah, 3and through the reign of Jehoiakim son of Josiah king of Judah, down to the fifth month of the eleventh year of Zedekiah son of Josiah king of Judah, when the people of Jerusalem went into exile.

The Call of Jeremiah

4 The Word of the Lord came to me, saying,

5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knewa you,

before you were born I set you apart;

I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

6 “Ah, Sovereign Lord,” [Adonai-Yahweh] I said, “I do not know how to speak; I am only a child.”

7 But the Lord [Yahweh] said to me, “Do not say, ‘I am only a child.’ You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you. 8 Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you,” declares the Lord.

9 Then the Lord [Yahweh] reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, “Now, I have put my words in your mouth. 10 See, today I appoint you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and tear down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to plant.”

It is quite clear from the 1st 8 verses in this chapter that the prophet is conversing with Yahweh, who in verse 4 is referred to as "the Word". We could easily take this as Jeremiah speaking to the air or responding to something only in his ear. But then comes verse 9, where the Word reaches out and touches Jeremiah. Sounds don’t physically touch people. Physical persons touch people. In Jeremiah 1 the Word (pardon my borrowing from John 1:14) is made flesh and does something only a physical entity can do.

"The Word" appears physically to men, interacts with them, touches them, eats with them. It is quite a distinct entity from Yahweh, the invisible Spirit, yet... both are God.

3. Jacob Wrestles With God, Genesis 32:22-27

22 That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two maidservants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23 After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. 24 So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. 25 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. 26 Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.”

But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”

27 The man asked him, “What is your name?”

“Jacob,” he answered.

28 Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome.”

29 Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.”

But he replied, “Why do you ask my name?” Then he blessed him there.

30 So Jacob called the place Peniel,f saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”

31 The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel,g and he was limping because of his hip. 32 Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob’s hip was touched near the tendon.

Unless you want to accuse Jacob of lying to us all, or justifying it as a dream of some kind, neither of which can be supported in any way, then we have again, God in physical form, wrestling with Jacob. It is so clear that Jacob categorically states... I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.

This no metaphor, it is not poetic language. It either is, or you call them liars.

Do you want more examples, I have quite a few more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whereas, I tend to remain skeptical of any story that involves the casting out of Demon's and the wholesale raising of the Dead.

Unless you have evidence that shows a tradition of Roman Governors in Jerusalem at the Passover during the time of Jesus doing so - then there is no record of any such tradition outside of the New Testament.

You might wish to start by working out whether it's a Jewish or Roman tradition that you're trying to provide evidence for.

To get you started, I've included a link to Pesachim 8, so you can see the full context of the sentence that I assume you've copy-pasted from, say, here (along with the rest of your response). You might find that it's actually quite clear, after all.

Just as there is no contemporary evidence that Jesus existed - there is also none for his (variously named) disciples.

I have evidence in my heart and it is 100%. This being said lets just call it a difference in beliefs and let it go at that. Like I have said about previous post like this " No use in kicking a dead horse". Have a good day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Knight, IMHO, you are confusing Jewish identity with Tribal indentity. To be born Jewish, yes, the mother must be Jewish. But to be born of this or that Tribe, the father must be of that Tribe, otherwise, the child will be Jewish but without Tribal affiliation. In the case of Jesus, if the thing has to be according to Christianity, he was Jewish but a Jew without a Tribe. BTW, the attempt at interpreting the genealogy of Jesus in Luke by aligning him with Mary as if she was from the line of Judah, goes wrong on a double. First, because the mother cannot define the child's Tribal affiliation. And second, because Mary was not of the Tribe of Judah. The closest thing to identifying Mary with, as Tribe was concerned is that she was of the Tribe of Levi. Take a look at Luke 1:5,36. The text says in verse 36 that Mary was of the family of Elizabeth. Then, in verse 5 you will see that Elizabeth was a descendant of Aaron, the Levite. Therefore, Mary was a Levite.

I see, so her cousin married a Levite, and suddenly she is one as well? Come on... :no: (oh I get it, they couldn't intermarry, that must be it... please show me the law against intermarriage between tribes...)

I clearly stated and can prove it (I actually did in my post) that adoption tranfers ALL legal rights to the child. Joseph, by adopting Jesus as his own gave him every right to be legally recognized as of the tribe of Judah. The fact that BOTH parents belonged to the Tribe of Judah just makes it ironclad by blood as well, whether you agree with it or not.

And for your question what would Jewish law do with a family that has only daughters, what's the problem? The daughters belong to the Tribe of the father of the family; and they will remain of that Tribe "till death do us part." If they get married, they will produce Jewish children, who will inherit the Tribe of their fathers.

and thus lose their connection to their own Tribe.. or didn't you get that part?

Now, as the Talmud is concerned, it never goes against the Tanach. Some midrashim can give the impression that it does, but it is only in the "eye of the beholder."

Ben

Of course not, even when they (the Rabbis in the Talmud) consistently conflict in their opinions with the bible and with each other... What the Talmud clearly states and you cannot refute it, is that adopted children are not called "adopted children", they are called "sons" and "daughters", with no qualifier telling us they were seen any differently from blood "sons" and blood "daughters".

It is there in balck and white, do you want more proof that you are incorrect?

I think the problem here is that you are so wrapped up on what judaism teaches today, that you have forgotten that 2,000 years ago, they saw things quite differently, not only culturally, but theologically as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but Jesus was not a Christian. He was Jewish and prone to live according to his Faith, which was Judaism. Besides, he was crucified on Friday, which is among us, officially called "the day of preparation." So, according to Matthew 27:62, next day after the day of preparation is the Sabbath. Okay, I'll give you a day for those minutes that took Joseph of Arimathea to take Jesus off the cross and lay him in the tomb. This is one day. The night from Friday to Saturday is one night. All the day of that Sabbath, is the second day. And the time after that Sabbath was over till the women went to see the sepulcher, I'll give as the second night. Two days and two nights. When the tombstone was removed, it was empty. Where are the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40? Sorry, but that was another blunder committed by the guy who wrote the gospel of Matthew. I call it contradictions of the NT.

Ben

Man... I go no further... please go back to the drawing board and study a little more on this... preperation day is the 14th of Nisan, it has always been so... man check a jewish calendar, if you don't believe me...

Nowhere does it state it was a friday... the Sabbath referred to here is the "Passover" itself, which everybody knows is on 15th Nisan.

John 19:31

Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down.

What is this special Sabbath?

It was Passover. Jesus did not die on Passover, he was taken down from the cross on the eve of Passover, which started at sundown on the day he died... It was NOT a normal sabbath, which is why people think he died on a Friday...

Jewish Calendar April 2012

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
name='Ben Masada' timestamp='1334085215' post='4261081']

The answer to your question about Jesus' loyalty to Jewish laws is found in Matthew 5:17-19. His mission was to cause a revival in Judaism as he

would try to raise the Jewish conscience to the observance of the laws down to the letter, even to the dot of the letter. He did not distinguish a law from another.

In which case he was not loyal to the principles and ethos of traditionall judaism at tha time. The scribes pharisees law and custom had, in jesus mind, been corrupted. Even the temples wwre being defiled.

Jesus explained that the laws of god were so important that they must be obeyed in the heart and mind, as well as in practice. BUT, that the laws were there out of love and should be obeyed from love of god, not fear or legalism. Its no wonder the jewish priests and lawmakers were afraid of his teachings. Id agree that jesus original mission was to connect his own people, the jews, to god and to revive their old spiritual selves, but they rejected this. Eventually paul adopted/adapted christ's teachings and took them to non jews. Otherwise we would have had an entirely divergent history on earth, where the jewish faith changed and became more as christ preached it. It probably would never have become as powerful or as widespread as christianity did, but it would have been revitalised.

As it turns out we gained two wonderful religous beliefs, an old and a new, rather than one ongoing one.

And for your statement that "any man can die for another if he chooses to," it is but verbal juggling that explains nothing. Any man can even kill his own mother, if he chooses to. It says only of our free will.

Precisely.

Jesus did not die as a sacrifice to save humanity because humanity has become worse after Jesus was gone than before he was born. What did he do, if

according to you views he died to save humanity? Salvation from one's sins comes only as we decide to set things right with God through repentance and obedience to God's Law. Read Isaiah 1:18,19. That's when our sins, from scarlet red become as white as snow.

And there we have one critical difference between christian and jewish theology. Christians believe the latter also. I believe it very strongly to be a core principle of a christian's life. They believe however. IN ADDITION, that christ redeemed us from the original sin of adam and eve, and so each individual CAN be judged on their own heart and mind and is NOT eternally condemned by our original separation from god.

The worldly state of mankind has no connection to christ's sacrifice or redemption. It just illustrates that many humans are not prepared to be obedient to gods laws (or to any other laws either) Christ made it possible for those who "live right with god" to be saved. And anyone can CHOOSE to live right with god. But as christ pointed out, there are many, and increasing, distractions, to separate humans from god .

Ben
Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not say that Constantine engaged in pious forgery. The Church did it in the 4th Century ACE. And my reference to the writing of the gospels 50+

years after Jesus had been gone was not for the forgeries, which were performed in the 4th Century when Christianity was adopted as the official

religion of the Empire. This is for the gospels. Now, for the letters of Paul, they started appearing about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. About

year 60 to 65 ACE. And he never consulted with any of the Apostles of Jesus, whose gospel he would, pejoratively, refer to as the "other gospel" which

he was ready to curse it even if an angels had brought it down from heaven. (Gal. 1:6-9, 17)

Ben

So the Church engaged in pious forgery in the 4th Century. Which brings us back to 1st Century texts. How can the church forge something that existed 3 centuries earlier?

Oh, as for the dating of Pauls' writings, 30 years is a very VERY late date. The two texts I mentioned are suggested to be circa 50-60 AD (that's possibly less than 20 years, and less than 30 if you take an upper dating). Some sources even suggest some of the texts were written and passed prior to 50 AD which means possibly as few as 15 years after Jesus' death. Though some of the other letters are much later than this, the point is that these earliest ones are pretty early and point out the clear points about Jesus' death and alleged resurrection for our salvation.

Jews who convert to another faith or religion cease to be Jewish. To be Jewish is not an identity akin to ethnicity but a way of life. Therefore, there is more than one way to lose it; and one of them is by adopting the tenets of another religion. It means that "Jews-for-Jesus" and "Messianic

Jews" are not Jewish.

Ben

That wasn't my point. I understand that a Jew converting to another faith means they cease to be Jewish. My point was that the earliest followers of Jesus - those who wrote about Jesus' death and resurrection, were originally Jews. If your argument is correct, and Jews would never say things like "Look, the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world", then how do you explain the early Jewish converts who comprised the majority of the early Jesus-movement and wrote texts such as 1 Thessalonians which I mentioned earlier?

~ PA

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there we have one critical difference between christian and jewish theology. Christians believe the latter also. I believe it very strongly to be a core principle of a christian's life. They believe however. IN ADDITION, that christ redeemed us from the original sin of adam and eve, and so each individual CAN be judged on their own heart and mind and is NOT eternally condemned by our original separation from god.

The worldly state of mankind has no connection to christ's sacrifice or redemption. It just illustrates that many humans are not prepared to be obedient to gods laws (or to any other laws either) Christ made it possible for those who "live right with god" to be saved. And anyone can CHOOSE to live right with god. But as christ pointed out, there are many, and increasing, distractions, to separate humans from god .

That is a very Roman Catholic understanding of Adam/Eve/Original Sin. There are two interpretations of Romans 5 which refers to Original Sin. One of those interpretations is as you say. The other is that through Adam and Eve's action, their descendants were thus born with the capability to sin, and that they would sin. We are not born with a "stain" on our souls, the only sins I need to worry about are my own, and God knows I have enough of those to worry about without adding Adam and Eve's. Christ redeemed us from our own sin, not someone else's. That is what I as a Christian believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a very Roman Catholic understanding of Adam/Eve/Original Sin. There are two interpretations of Romans 5 which refers to Original Sin. One of those interpretations is as you say. The other is that through Adam and Eve's action, their descendants were thus born with the capability to sin, and that they would sin. We are not born with a "stain" on our souls, the only sins I need to worry about are my own, and God knows I have enough of those to worry about without adding Adam and Eve's. Christ redeemed us from our own sin, not someone else's. That is what I as a Christian believe.

My "belief/interpretation" is that individuals dont necessarily need a past blanket redemption from sin. We chose a life of sin or we chose our best not to sin.

We couldnt help the sin of adam and eve, which indeed has filled; and remade the earth fromm what it was mean to be like. We are no differnt to adam and eve in that they obviously were born with the capacity to sin (disconnect themselves form god) And so it makes sense for god to redeem us from that total disconnection with god.

I cant remake that lost connection without gods "permission". Only christ/god can, but i can chose my life and how I live it. Either we chose god, or we do not, as individuals.

Jesus does not need to die to save a person who choses god, and jesus's sacrifice cant save a person who refuses to chose god. This, at least is my belief, because it makes logical sense. It may be also a catholic belief although i have not found it so. They believe that priests are required to give forgiveness. They believe that when people die they go to heaven or hell. I have no belief on this but the bible clearly says the dead are in their graves fast asleep, and wont be woken until the judgement day.

To me the bible says that I (and all humanity) am already saved, and only have to ask god for forgiveness of my individual sins.

The concept of christs blood washing us clean and thus putting on the raiment of christ can't apply to our individaul lives unless we chose to accept this. But it can automatically cover the lives of all humans past present and future, even those who lived and died before christ and those who never had a chance to ask for gods forgiveness for individual sins.

I appreciate there are many variations of christian belief. Heck I am not even exclusively christian. I believe that any human can be reconnect to god in many ways. Atheist jew or any religion. Only a refusal to accept that reconnection makes it impossible . God came to me as an atheist, and invited me back to him. (well really insisted) :innocent: Only after that reconnection with god, did i think about what religious form i would like to observe. That probably colours my viewpoint just a tad. :devil:

To put it simply. In my view, the bibe says that without christs sacrifice neither I, nor anyone, can reconnect to god, no matter how much we want to, or how well we behave, because humanity's sins stand in the way. Christs blood washed us clean as a species, and gave us the oportunity to come to god clothed in his own righteousness. But each one of us as individuals has to chose to grasp the opportunity christ's sacrifice gives Us.

However, those who never knew christ are also washed clean by his blood, allowing god to save any of those he judges worthy, by judging what was in their hearts and minds..

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who makes that determination, the actual bible or men who find it convenient to relegate God to mere visions?

And do visons actually touch you physically, do they eat food you prepared??

I will give you 3 clear examples...

1. God and Abraham, Genesis 18 and 19

Let me paint the big picture people seem to miss in this entire episode.

We have Abraham near the trees of Mamre when God appears to him. Then immediately we cut to three "human" figures approaching him.

No mention of God at this point but then why the 1st verse? Unless it was to contextualize the account that followed it.

We have the 3 men, one of which Abraham addresses as Adonai (Lord), which can be used of humans, but is indicative in this case that Abraham, no small figure himself, sees this persons stature as higher than his. No questions like, "Who are you?" or "What are you doing in my camp?"... that in itself is strange don't you think? No, he asks for their blessing... and then invites them to dine with him.

He then calls for food to be prepared, a feast actually, which again demonstrates the honour Abraham is giving these "men".

One of them asks for Sarah, without ever having been told by Abraham of her existence. Maybe they are telepathic?

He then proceeds without any invitation to tell Abraham that he will have a son by Sarah, at this same time next year.

Sarah scoffs at this and then suddenly we have Yahweh speaking to her and then to Abraham, yet we have these 3 men there. Are we to think that this was a mere disembodied voice Abraham and Sarah heard?, then why include the 3 men at all?

If they are angels, then why was it necessary for God to Speak at all, since his representatives were there?

It only makes sense if one of those 3 men was God himself in human form, exactly as he was in human form when he appeared to Jacob and fought with him.

This is the exact sense we get fom the following verses, where we have a conversation between God an God....

16 When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way.

17 Then the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? 18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. 19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him."

20 Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

Notice Yahwehs question and then Yahweh answering the question asked by HIMSELF?

Unless we want to accuse Yahweh of not being altogether there, we must accept that the textual context refers to two entities called Yahweh (one visible, the other invisible).

Then the men leave, but how many left?

It doesn't say but it does say that Abraham remained with the Lord. So if we are to assume that God was one of the 3 men then we would only have two men leaving and one staying behind...

What is extremely interesting is that in the next chapter we have exactly 2 angels arriving at Sodom.

The text doesn't say, Now 2 angels arrived at Sodom it states:

1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening,

Which two angels?

THE two angels, which we would recognize due to the context of chapter 18. The two that left the presence of God and Abraham. It is referred to purposefully and is demonstrated categorically by context, otherwise we have a story that doesn't make sense.

We can further see this situation when God destroys Sodom and Gomorrah, where we have again 2 Yahwehs present, one visible, one invisible.

Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens.

Please note something else:

23 Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked?

Who was it exactly that Abraham approached?

God?

Then Abraham could literally see God.... wow it only makes sense if the above interpretation is taken into account. God was not only seen by Abraham, he was seen by sarah as well, they all ate and drank. This was no vision.

Regarding your question about who makes the determination, if the Bible or man, the Bible. I believe I gave you the quote as a proof of evidence. You seem to be one of those who are too anxious to reply without even checking if the quote is right or not. Here's again: Numbers 12:6. God Himself speaking, according to the text, that any communication from God to a man is done by way of dreams and visions.

Now, with regards to the experience of Abraham, it was all through a dream/vision. Here are the details:

Here is the case of Abraham and the three messengers, aka, angels appeared to him. Soon after his circumcision, Abraham tried to rest at the entrance of his tent in the shade under a large tree as he was taking advantage of the fresh breeze in the heat of the day. He could not stop worrying about the barren condition of Sarah vis-a-vis God's promise of a son. Then, he would worry about his nephew Lot living in Sodom in the middle of corruption. Thus,he slumbered and had a lucid dream or vision, which he, almost involuntarily, would control it into his understanding through his imaginations as how things would take a turn either this or that way. Then, he saw in his lucid dream/vision the Divine confirmation of the promise, and even Sarah laughing from her tent at the idea of giving birth to a child as the old woman that she was.

Then, in the same lucid dream/vision he would change scenery as his imagination went from Sarah to Lot in Sodom. Then, he would find himself dialoguing with Divine emanations in the form of human messengers who spoke with him on behalf of God, or even with God Himself about His promissed heir and about Sodom.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see, so her cousin married a Levite, and suddenly she is one as well? Come on... :no: (oh I get it, they couldn't intermarry, that must be it... please show me the law against intermarriage between tribes...)

I clearly stated and can prove it (I actually did in my post) that adoption tranfers ALL legal rights to the child. Joseph, by adopting Jesus as his own gave him every right to be legally recognized as of the tribe of Judah. The fact that BOTH parents belonged to the Tribe of Judah just makes it ironclad by blood as well, whether you agree with it or not.

and thus lose their connection to their own Tribe.. or didn't you get that part?

Of course not, even when they (the Rabbis in the Talmud) consistently conflict in their opinions with the bible and with each other... What the Talmud clearly states and you cannot refute it, is that adopted children are not called "adopted children", they are called "sons" and "daughters", with no qualifier telling us they were seen any differently from blood "sons" and blood "daughters".

It is there in balck and white, do you want more proof that you are incorrect?

I think the problem here is that you are so wrapped up on what judaism teaches today, that you have forgotten that 2,000 years ago, they saw things quite differently, not only culturally, but theologically as well.

There you go again, posting replies without checking the quotes. The text in Luke 1:5,36 says that Mary was a relative of Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron, the Levite. I said nothing about Zechariah. It just happened that both Zechariah and Elizabeth were from the Tribe of Levi; and so was Mary. And for the fact that Tribal genealogy was passed on only through the father, you have all the right in the world not to believe me. Just go out and visit a synagogue. While you are there, ask a Rabbi if I am right or bluffing. Then, and only then, you can come to me and say that I am incorrect in my assertion.

Ah! BTW, don't forget to ask if adoption makes of the child of a different tribe a legal member of the tribe of the adopting father. Besides, just in case you have forgotten, if Jesus was not a biological son of Joseph's, he was neither a Levite because Mary would not make him so. Therefore, according to you, he was a Jew without a tribe to be identified after. I am sorry if that makes you feel bad. The truth is that one has no choice but to lay in the bed he

has made for himself.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding your question about who makes the determination, if the Bible or man, the Bible. I believe I gave you the quote as a proof of evidence. You seem to be one of those who are too anxious to reply without even checking if the quote is right or not. Here's again: Numbers 12:6. God Himself speaking, according to the text, that any communication from God to a man is done by way of dreams and visions.

Numbers 12:6

4 At once the Lord said to Moses, Aaron and Miriam, Come out to the Tent of Meeting, all three of you. So the three of them came out. 5 Then the Lord came down in a pillar of cloud; he stood at the entrance to the Tent and summoned Aaron and Miriam. When both of them stepped forward, 6 he said, Listen to my words:

When a prophet of the Lord is among you, I reveal myself to him in visions, I speak to him in dreams.

7 But this is not true of my servant Moses; he is faithful in all my house.

8 With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the Lord.

Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

How interesting, you only quoted part of it, forgetting what God himself says of Moses, which when we add it to the 3 other examples I gave earlier, you don't have you a leg to stand on. It is quite clear that among the people of Israel at that time, when Moses led them it was true, God only showed himself face to face to Moses (and it isn't metaphorical), what you neglect to state is that He did so to others many times as well. God uses dreams and visions to talk to his prophets, but God is not limited to dreams and visions, after all, he IS God.

For example, after Moses died, He appeared to Joshua...

Now, with regards to the experience of Abraham, it was all through a dream/vision. Here are the details:

Here is the case of Abraham and the three messengers, aka, angels appeared to him. Soon after his circumcision, Abraham tried to rest at the entrance of his tent in the shade under a large tree as he was taking advantage of the fresh breeze in the heat of the day. He could not stop worrying about the barren condition of Sarah vis-a-vis God's promise of a son. Then, he would worry about his nephew Lot living in Sodom in the middle of corruption. Thus,he slumbered and had a lucid dream or vision, which he, almost involuntarily, would control it into his understanding through his imaginations as how things would take a turn either this or that way. Then, he saw in his lucid dream/vision the Divine confirmation of the promise, and even Sarah laughing from her tent at the idea of giving birth to a child as the old woman that she was.

Then, in the same lucid dream/vision he would change scenery as his imagination went from Sarah to Lot in Sodom. Then, he would find himself dialoguing with Divine emanations in the form of human messengers who spoke with him on behalf of God, or even with God Himself about His promissed heir and about Sodom.

Ben

Ok... :innocent: , now all you have to do is back that up with evidence from the text... I doubt I'll get it.

We can throw suppositions into the air, hoping that they land right side up, unfortunately this one doesn't, no matter how many times you try. The text is clear and plain that this was happening, it was not a dream , much less a vision.

We have counless passages in the bible where dreams are evident. This is because it clearly states that this was a dream... the same thing also happens with visions as well, it clearly states that there is an altered state of reality present and on the actual individual. Do you want me to give you clear examples of both?

How about Isaiah 1?

Isaiah 1:1-3

1 The vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah son of Amoz saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

2 Hear, O heavens! Listen, O earth!

For the Lord has spoken:

I reared children and brought them up,

but they have rebelled against me.

3 The ox knows his master,

the donkey his owners manger,

but Israel does not know,

my people do not understand.

1 Kings 3:5

At Gibeon the LORD appeared to Solomon during the night in a dream, and God said, "Ask for whatever you want me to give you."

God speaks to us in visions and dreams, but to those who are critically important to Gods plans for mankind, he goes much further. He appears to them , he interacts with them, he directs them and he makes covenants with them.

The bible is plain and direct, we don't have to invent to anything to justify what is written there, and what is written there is that God in the form of his "Word", literally appeared to men.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man... I go no further... please go back to the drawing board and study a little more on this... preperation day is the 14th of Nisan, it has always been so... man check a jewish calendar, if you don't believe me...

Nowhere does it state it was a friday... the Sabbath referred to here is the "Passover" itself, which everybody knows is on 15th Nisan.

John 19:31

Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down.

What is this special Sabbath?

It was Passover. Jesus did not die on Passover, he was taken down from the cross on the eve of Passover, which started at sundown on the day he died... It was NOT a normal sabbath, which is why people think he died on a Friday...

Jewish Calendar April 2012

Listen Jorel, you are not Jewish. You are debating with a Jew and pretending to teach Judaism to the Jews. According to our tradition, that day before Passover is a day to prepare for the Passover; but, Friday is THE preparation day. It is the day one gets ready for the Shabbat, whether it is a Shabbaton or not. I am not asking you to believe in our traditions. Believe your won NT. It says in Matthew 27:62 that the next, following the day of preparation was the Shabbat. That was the day after what? After the death and burial of Jesus. (Mat. 27:57-61) Now, read Matthew 28:1. "After that Sabbath, as the FIRST day of the week was dawning..." I think that issue is solved by your own NT.

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In which case he was not loyal to the principles and ethos of traditionall judaism at tha time. The scribes pharisees law and custom had, in jesus mind, been corrupted. Even the temples wwre being defiled.

Jesus explained that the laws of god were so important that they must be obeyed in the heart and mind, as well as in practice. BUT, that the laws were there out of love and should be obeyed from love of god, not fear or legalism. Its no wonder the jewish priests and lawmakers were afraid of his teachings. Id agree that jesus original mission was to connect his own people, the jews, to god and to revive their old spiritual selves, but they rejected this. Eventually paul adopted/adapted christ's teachings and took them to non jews. Otherwise we would have had an entirely divergent history on earth, where the jewish faith changed and became more as christ preached it. It probably would never have become as powerful or as widespread as christianity did, but it would have been revitalised.

As it turns out we gained two wonderful religous beliefs, an old and a new, rather than one ongoing one.

Not in Jesus' mind but in Paul's mind. Jesus never had any problem with the Pharisees, as Jesus was of the line of the Pharisees himself. Paul was the one who had a bitter grudge against the Pharisees, for having been chased away from Israel and forbidden to return under penalty of being arrested. He escaped back to Tarsus where he belonged and did not return for the next 14 years. (Acts 9:30; Gal. 2:1) To insist that Jesus was the one against the Pharisees is to admit that Jesus broke the Golden Rule of not doint unto others what we would not like they did unto us. I mean, if you read Matthew 23:13-33 about those curses addressed to the Pharisees of hypocrites and many other bad names.

Regarding Paul's taking Jesus' teachings to the non-Jews, would you please tell me when he did that? Because since his first station in Damascus and until his last one in Rome, he was concerned only to work in the synagogues of the Jews. As any one knows, synagogues were places for Jews and not Gentiles. (Acts 9:20; 28:17)

Ben

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That wasn't my point. I understand that a Jew converting to another faith means they cease to be Jewish. My point was that the earliest followers of Jesus - those who wrote about Jesus' death and resurrection, were originally Jews. If your argument is correct, and Jews would never say things like "Look, the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world", then how do you explain the early Jewish converts who comprised the majority of the early Jesus-movement and wrote texts such as 1 Thessalonians which I mentioned earlier?

~ PA

The earlier followers of Jesus were the Nazarenes, members of the most recent Jewish sect organized by the Apostles. ALL the writers of the NT were

Hellenistic Gentiles, including Paul who ceased being Jewish when he founded Christianity in the city of Antioch. (Acts 11:26) Perhaps you are not aware that Paul was a Hellenistic Jew from birth. The son of well-to-do Hellenistic parents from Tarsus in the Cilicia. A Jew would never vandalize Judaism, his own Faith, with the Greek doctrine of a demigod, who is the son of a god with an earthly woman. You ought to read the Iliad of Homer to

understand what I am talking about.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen Jorel, you are not Jewish. You are debating with a Jew and pretending to teach Judaism to the Jews. According to our tradition, that day before Passover is a day to prepare for the Passover; but, Friday is THE preparation day. It is the day one gets ready for the Shabbat, whether it is a Shabbaton or not. I am not asking you to believe in our traditions. Believe your won NT. It says in Matthew 27:62 that the next, following the day of preparation was the Shabbat. That was the day after what? After the death and burial of Jesus. (Mat. 27:57-61) Now, read Matthew 28:1. "After that Sabbath, as the FIRST day of the week was dawning..." I think that issue is solved by your own NT.

Ben

My parents are not Jewish, but they do follow the Old Testament customs and festivals (I'm a protestant and don't follow the same Jewish festivals that they do). And correct me if I'm wrong but Passover was just celebrated this year on Wednesday. Currently we're in the Feast of Unleavened Bread and they are eating their Matzos (well, they don't have any Matzos this year, but they aren't eating anything with leaven in it). In the year Jesus died, if the Passover was on Thursday, then Thursday would have been a High Sabbath. If Jesus was crucified on Wednesday and put into the tomb before sundown on Wednesday night, then three days and three nights later is Saturday night. Then on Sunday morning Mary and such go down to the tomb but it's empty - because he resurrected the night before.

There is no textual evidence in the Bible to corroborate that Jesus was crucified on Friday. This is a pagan tradition adopted by the church.

Sorry to butt into your discussion with Jor-el, I just thought I'd add my thoughts on this as someone who grew up observing Jewish festivals and therefore have some kind of idea as to what Judaism entails. Just because you are a Jew does not mean you are the be-all-end-all of Jewish knowledge. As I said, I'm a protestant Christian, and I have been for the past 12 of my 32 years on earth, but I am not an expert in all things Christian, and though I do think I have a significant knowledge of Christianity I am not perfect and even non-Christians teach me a thing or two from time to time. Just because you are a Jew does not mean you know all there is to know about Judaism. Consider it ironic that even though you aren't a Christian you feel justified in telling Christians they don't know their own scriptures and then quote the gospels to back your position (if I were vindictive, I'd quote your exact words with minor modification and say "You are debating with a Christian and pretending to teach Christianity to the Christians").

Just an observation, all the best, Ben :tu:

~ Regards, PA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The earlier followers of Jesus were the Nazarenes, members of the most recent Jewish sect organized by the Apostles. ALL the writers of the NT were

Hellenistic Gentiles, including Paul who ceased being Jewish when he founded Christianity in the city of Antioch. (Acts 11:26) Perhaps you are not aware that Paul was a Hellenistic Jew from birth. The son of well-to-do Hellenistic parents from Tarsus in the Cilicia. A Jew would never vandalize Judaism, his own Faith, with the Greek doctrine of a demigod, who is the son of a god with an earthly woman. You ought to read the Iliad of Homer to

understand what I am talking about.

Ben

Sorry to sound blunt here, but that sounds like a giant rationalisation. Paul, who was both a Jew and a Pharisee (despite your attempt to discredit Paul's Pharisaic status), believed Jesus to be the son of God. Therefore according to you he cannot have been a real Jew. Hence anything he says can now be ignored because he would not *by your own words* "vandalise" Judaism by bringing in a Greek view of a demigod (you do realise that in Christian belief, Jesus is not a demigod, but fully and 100% God).

In other words, any Jew who followed Jesus and acknowledges him as God, well they don't know what they are talking about because they stopped being Jewish. You know, Christians look at groups like Westboro Baptist Church, and they say "well they aren't real Christians, no Christian would ever act like that". Perhaps we Christians have the same biases towards those who claim Christianity as your Jewish view holds bias against Jews who act in ways that you would describe as "un-Jewish".

Just a thought,

~ PA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There you go again, posting replies without checking the quotes. The text in Luke 1:5,36 says that Mary was a relative of Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron, the Levite. I said nothing about Zechariah. It just happened that both Zechariah and Elizabeth were from the Tribe of Levi; and so was Mary. And for the fact that Tribal genealogy was passed on only through the father, you have all the right in the world not to believe me. Just go out and visit a synagogue. While you are there, ask a Rabbi if I am right or bluffing. Then, and only then, you can come to me and say that I am incorrect in my assertion.

So you are basically saying that cousins CANNOT belong to different tribes...

I must thank you for claryfying that issue... but that brings me to the actual word used which is translated cousin. The actual Greek word is συγγενής "syggenēs", it merely means kin as in kinsman or kinswoman, or we can use the word relative, a family relation. It is not "cousin". I didn't know this but I thank you for helping me find out. I was so used to hearing that they were cousins, I never figured to check...

After enquiring I found that only a minority of translations use "cousin", most use "relative. Here

Ah! BTW, don't forget to ask if adoption makes of the child of a different tribe a legal member of the tribe of the adopting father. Besides, just in case you have forgotten, if Jesus was not a biological son of Joseph's, he was neither a Levite because Mary would not make him so. Therefore, according to you, he was a Jew without a tribe to be identified after. I am sorry if that makes you feel bad. The truth is that one has no choice but to lay in the bed he

has made for himself.

Ben

Oops, you spoke too soon...

Again for the record...

Joseph, Tribe of Judah

Mary, Tribe of Judah

Jesus Tribe of Judah

Mary had a relative by the name of Elizabeth, of the tribe of Levi, they were not cousins, but were related, which means that someone of either family married into the other family. And after doing some research, I found that this actually was not rare at all.

Want to contradict me, show me the research that demonstrates that this is not so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen Jorel, you are not Jewish. You are debating with a Jew and pretending to teach Judaism to the Jews. According to our tradition, that day before Passover is a day to prepare for the Passover; but, Friday is THE preparation day. It is the day one gets ready for the Shabbat, whether it is a Shabbaton or not. I am not asking you to believe in our traditions. Believe your won NT. It says in Matthew 27:62 that the next, following the day of preparation was the Shabbat. That was the day after what? After the death and burial of Jesus. (Mat. 27:57-61) Now, read Matthew 28:1. "After that Sabbath, as the FIRST day of the week was dawning..." I think that issue is solved by your own NT.

Ben

No I'm not Jewish, but I do have a number of Jewish friends, I have also studied Judaism intensely for many years. I'm even friends with one or two Rabbis... one of them was even a school mate of mine...

So, while I am not Jewish, I also would not say I am ignorant.

So I 'll simply quote John...

John 19:14

Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. He said to the Jews, “Behold your King!”

But if you don't believe me... please feel free to follow the link, you will find 29 verses, most of whom refer to the events of the crucifixion, and all of whom refer directly, not to a sabbath, but the Passover, especially the night before, which is ALSO called the day of preperation as you surely should know, since it was on that day the the paschal lamb was prepared.

Blue Letter bible.

Today, the paschal lamb is not served anymore, that ended with the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. Only a few minority groups still practice this tradition. You should recognize it by its traditional Jewish name... Korban Pesach.

As you should know, this was traditionally served on the eve of the Passover, or Erev Pesach.

Korban Pesach:

Becoming a People

Each year, Jews make feverish and intensive preparations for the Passover holiday with the Seder as its centerpiece. However, we are still missing the true centerpiece of the Passover table: namely the Paschal Offering, or Korban Pesach.

Korban Pesach is a Biblical commandment of the highest order, with the command repeated and amplified to us in three different places: Exodus 12, 3-12, Numbers 9, 1-13 and Deuteronomy 16.

Just as circumcision, the first commandment imposed on an individual Jew, our forefather Abraham brought us into the covenant as individuals, the commandment of Korban Pesach, the first commandment imposed on the Jewish People as a collective--obligating men, women and even children--brings us into the covenant as a People.

Korban Pesach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to butt into your discussion with Jor-el, I just thought I'd add my thoughts on this as someone who grew up observing Jewish festivals and therefore have some kind of idea as to what Judaism entails.

Feel free PA, this is a public discussion, not a private conversation after all... and thanks for confirming this. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.