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

He was talking of the moral law, and to exemplify his point, the rest of the chapter deals with such examples of moral law. The moral law trumps the ceremonial laws and are superior. As such Jesus demonstrates the superiority of the moral law by going beyond what the ceremonioal law asks of us.

21“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder,a and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brotherb will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Now you tell me why you refuse to touch on what I stated regarding Isaiah 53 demonstrating beyond doubt that a human figure, becomes a guilt offering?

Wow. "[A]nyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell."

I guess that explains why Jesus went to hell... He called people fools all the time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any case, it's clear that Jesus wasn't dead for a full three days: despite the text claiming it. Even working with the Jewish calendar, as I think everyone here is, Jesus could only have been dead about two days, maximum; based on the descriptions in the text.

Actually no, that is the whole point...

I posted this earlier, for Ben Masada.

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 - sundown Saturday to sundown Sunday - Pesach IV, The day of Firstfruits, Resurrection on Sunday, 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually no, that is the whole point...

I posted this earlier, for Ben Masada.

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 - sundown Saturday to sundown Sunday - Pesach IV, The day of Firstfruits, Resurrection on Sunday, 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.

I was under the impression that Jesus was crucified on a Friday, not a Wednesday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can quote any thing in the Tanach about bodily resurrection, you have won me as a Christian. About Maimonides, you must read his "The Guide

for the Perplexed." He did not believe even in the eternity of the universe, let alone in the immortality of man. And about the other Jewish wisemen, none believed in bodily resurrection.

Ben

If you don't read what I post I won't bother to answer you...

"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).

The various examples above demonstrate beyond doubt that Jewish Wisemen differed in their opinions, of which Rambam, was only one such.

As for the Tanach...

Job 19:25-27

25 I know that my Redeemer lives,

and that in the end he will stand upon the earth.

26 And after my skin has been destroyed,

yet in my flesh I will see God;

27 I myself will see him

with my own eyes—I, and not another.

How my heart yeans within me!

You do know that Job is traditionally the oldest book of the bible? Yet it is evident even there.

Isaiah 26:19

But your dead will live; their bodies will rise. You who dwell in the dust, wake up and shout for joy. Your dew is like the dew of the morning; the earth will give birth to her dead.

Daniel 12:2

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

You asked for one, I gave you three.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that Jesus was crucified on a Friday, not a Wednesday.

Ah tradition is a b.... isn't it?

That's what happens when people assume that because we celebrate it that way today, that that is what happened. The New Testament in its entirety points to a Wednseday crucifixion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't read what I post I won't bother to answer you...

"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).

The various examples above demonstrate beyond doubt that Jewish Wisemen differed in their opinions, of which Rambam, was only one such.

As for the Tanach...

Job 19:25-27

25 I know that my Redeemer lives,

and that in the end he will stand upon the earth.

26 And after my skin has been destroyed,

yet in my flesh I will see God;

27 I myself will see him

with my own eyes—I, and not another.

How my heart yeans within me!

You do know that Job is traditionally the oldest book of the bible? Yet it is evident even there.

Isaiah 26:19

But your dead will live; their bodies will rise. You who dwell in the dust, wake up and shout for joy. Your dew is like the dew of the morning; the earth will give birth to her dead.

Daniel 12:2

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

You asked for one, I gave you three.

Get back to me when that actually happens. Then we'll talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God never showed Himself face-to-face to Moses. That expression was used by the writer to distinguish Moses from any other prophet for the fact that he was the most important prophet in the History of Israel. God is not like a man to have a face to show. God has no form at all. (Deut. 4:15-20) God is Spirit as Jesus himself said so. (John 4:24) At least, believe what he said. A spirit is incorporeal. (

Ben

Ah so Moses isn't the writer?

To me he was, I'm sorry you don't believe that he wrote the Torah... I take it as truth, not a metaphorical or a literary invention. To me these things happened. As such you can believe what you want, you are the one who has to live with that belief. My source of belief is there written in black and white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get back to me when that actually happens. Then we'll talk.

By that time, what is done is done and what has been decided has been... a little late in the game for talking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah tradition is a b.... isn't it?

That's what happens when people assume that because we celebrate it that way today, that that is what happened. The New Testament in its entirety points to a Wednseday crucifixion.

Could you cite references that support this claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By that time, what is done is done and what has been decided has been... a little late in the game for talking.

So, in other words... There's no reason whatsoever that I should believe you. Okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing goes into the record without a contextual evidence; and you don't show any to justify your assertion. Joseph yes, was of the Tribe of Judah. Mary was of the Tribe of Levi. (Luke 1:5,36) Therefore, Jesus was without tribe in Israel. According to Jewish Halachah, a child cannot inherit the tribe of the mother; only of the father. Of the mother, only his Jewish identity is inherited.

Ben

Why do you say contextual evidence is needed, you've been throwing out the context from the beginning, including that passage you used, yet again.

They were not cousins, no matter how much you want to ignore that now.

She could have been an aunt, twice removed and you still wouldn't be right.

Mary was NOT of the tribe of Levi, there is nothing in those verses that confirms your view. If the actual greek word was cousin, I would give you reason... it ain't get over it.

If Elizabeth, had a sister, and she had married Marys' father, Heli, that would have made Mary, the daughter of a levite woman and a man of Judah, whose tribe would she belong to?

Don't ignore the fact that we have the geneologies of Jesus, one from each side of the family. We have Josephs, and we have Marys, and she is descended from david, putting her in the tribe of Judah without a doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot compare what you have studied of Judaism to what a Jew who has not only studied a lot of his Faith, he has been born as such. If you indeed

have Rabbis as friends of yours, you should check with them about our debate and start believing what I am saying.

Ben

Now that is the problem here... authenticity...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you say contextual evidence is needed, you've been throwing out the context from the beginning, including that passage you used, yet again.

They were not cousins, no matter how much you want to ignore that now.

She could have been an aunt, twice removed and you still wouldn't be right.

Mary was NOT of the tribe of Levi, there is nothing in those verses that confirms your view. If the actual greek word was cousin, I would give you reason... it ain't get over it.

If Elizabeth, had a sister, and she had married Marys' father, Heli, that would have made Mary, the daughter of a levite woman and a man of Judah, whose tribe would she belong to?

Don't ignore the fact that we have the geneologies of Jesus, one from each side of the family. We have Josephs, and we have Marys, and she is descended from david, putting her in the tribe of Judah without a doubt.

Actually, both genealogies are of Joseph--they just happen to contradict each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, I agree with you on something. Indeed, any one was allowed to marry anybody else within or without his or her original Tribe. In the case of a woman, she would never inherit the tribal affiliation of her husband. She would remain of the tribe of her father till death. Even married to Joseph, Mary never became of the tribe of Judah. She remained a Levite till death. Jesus could not become a Levite. A Judahite yes, if he was a biological son of Joseph's.

Ben

Even with the evidence staring you in the face you don't give up, do you?

Show me please, how you can prove, that they were cousins and I will give you this victory.

The problem is that you are relying on a word that does not mean cousin, in any form whatsoever... my nephew or niece 5 times removed, would still be a kinsman or kinswoman. So would my great aunt twice removed...

Kin does not mean cousin, translation are touchy things, go to the origianl Greek text... I gave you the links...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, both genealogies are of Joseph--they just happen to contradict each other.

No, One is of Mary, but Mary could not be added to the geneology, thus Joseph was put in her place., he was a son of Heli, but it was a "son in law".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, One is of Mary, but Mary could not be added to the geneology, thus Joseph was put in her place., he was a son of Heli, but it was a "son in law".

Care to prove this somehow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange, I was always under the impression that "No man hath seen God at any time"...

Which god would that be? :innocent: Biblically, god appeared to a number of people. However it is a belief that no one has seen, and perhaps cannot see, the "true" or natural form of god. But god can appear as anything from a burnibg bush to a human being .And those manifestations of god, man can see.

Woops. tiggs beat me to it. That should teach me to respond to posts in order, without reading the intervening ones, but it probably wont. :innocent:

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Care to prove this somehow?

Quite simple what we have here is what is called "an authors interjection"...

The ESV translation gives it this way, notice the commas and brackets...

Luke 3:23

23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat...

The part in blue is the interjection, it is not an actual part of the geneology. The geneolgy itself moves from Jesus directly to Heli. The only possible reason for this would be if Mary could not be included (since females were not included in geneologies).

Now commas and brackets are not part of the original text, thus when read through, it gives the impression that Joseph is part of the geneology.

We could also read it as I stated, that Joseph, was a son, but, as a "son in law", thus taking Marys' place within the geneology. Both work quite well.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite simple what we have here is what is called "an authors interjection"...

The ESV translation gives it this way, notice the commas and brackets...

Luke 3:23

23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat...

The part in blue is the interjection, it is not an actual part of the geneology. The geneolgy itself moves from Jesus directly to Heli. The only possible reason for this would be if Mary could not be included (since females were not included in geneologies).

Your point? All I've seen here is that it seems quite evident that the genealogies still contradict each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your point? All I've seen here is that it seems quite evident that the genealogies still contradict each other.

Naturally, given that people are reading the text as if the interjection is part of the geneology...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naturally, given that people are reading the text as if the interjection is part of the geneology...

Given that the interjection is there, how is it unreasonable to think that the author here was noting something of importance? Namely, it seems clear that this was intended to be Joseph's genealogy--it just happens to contradict the other one. This is not surprising, as the authors of the gospels wouldn't have known each other or collaborated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that the interjection is there, how is it unreasonable to think that the author here was noting something of importance? Namely, it seems clear that this was intended to be Joseph's genealogy--it just happens to contradict the other one. This is not surprising, as the authors of the gospels wouldn't have known each other or collaborated.

I would disagree with you since the interjection plainly is referring to peoples supposition that Joseph was Jesus father. Jesus being the central subject of the geneology after all.

At most, the mention of Joseph is an addendum, that the author wanted people to be aware of, it was never meant to be interpreted the weay it has been, that this is a second geneology of Joseph. Biblically it is demonstrated that the use of the term "son", does not have to mean a literal biological son, it can even mean grandson or even great grandson and it can mean "son in law" if the author didn't want to add Mary.

We have another example of just such an occurence again in the geneology of Luke. Shealtiel, is the son of Neri or Jeconiah?

1 Chronicles 3:17 says Jeconiah, so who was Neri?

Shealtiel was also the "son in law" of Neri, but again it was necessary to put his name as a "son" because they could not add a womans name. This is self evident since the geneologies converge twice.

We know for a fact that the geneologies are not complete, one is twice as long as the other, but there are reasons for that, which depended on the purpose of the specific geneolgy and its intended audience.

Matthew divides Jesus' genealogy into three blocks of 14 names each for a total of 42 names.

  • There are 14 generations from Abraham to David.
  • There are 14 generations from David until the exile to Babylon.
  • There are 14 generations from the exile to Babylon until the birth of Christ.

He presents Jesus' genealogy in accordance with the sacred number seven.

The list is a selective "pedigree" of Jesus. He leaves out whole generations.

The number "14" equals the numerical value of David's name in Hebrew (4+6+4, dwd).

This is similar to the number 666 for Nero, which appears in Revelation.

Luke also presents the genealogy in multiples of seven, but not so obviously as Matthew. Luke's genealogy totals 77 names.

  • There are 21 generations from Adam to Abraham.
  • There are 14 generations from Abraham to David.
  • There are 21 names from David until the exile.
  • There are 21 names from the exile to Joseph.

The geneologies are manipulated artifacts, even though they contain the historical ancestors of Jesus. Each was presented with a purpose, one to trace his actual bloodline, the other to trace his Davidic and therefore messianic bloodline.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would disagree with you since the interjection plainly is referring to peoples supposition that Joseph was Jesus father. Jesus being the central subject of the geneology after all.

At most, the mention of Joseph is an addendum, that the author wanted people to be aware of, it was never meant to be interpreted the weay it has been, that this is a second geneology of Joseph. Biblically it is demonstrated that the use of the term "son", does not have to mean a literal biological son, it can even mean grandson or even great grandson and it can mean "son in law" if the author didn't want to add Mary.

We have another example of just such an occurence again in the geneology of Luke. Shealtiel, is the son of Neri or Jeconiah?

1 Chronicles 3:17 says Jeconiah, so who was Neri?

Shealtiel was also the "son in law" of Neri, but again it was necessary to put his name as a "son" because they could not add a womans name. This is self evident since the geneologies converge twice.

We know for a fact that the geneologies are not complete, one is twice as long as the other, but there are reasons for that, which depended on the purpose of the specific geneolgy and its intended audience.

Matthew divides Jesus' genealogy into three blocks of 14 names each for a total of 42 names.

  • There are 14 generations from Abraham to David.
  • There are 14 generations from David until the exile to Babylon.
  • There are 14 generations from the exile to Babylon until the birth of Christ.

He presents Jesus' genealogy in accordance with the sacred number seven.

The list is a selective "pedigree" of Jesus. He leaves out whole generations.

The number "14" equals the numerical value of David's name in Hebrew (4+6+4, dwd).

This is similar to the number 666 for Nero, which appears in Revelation.

Luke also presents the genealogy in multiples of seven, but not so obviously as Matthew. Luke's genealogy totals 77 names.

  • There are 21 generations from Adam to Abraham.
  • There are 14 generations from Abraham to David.
  • There are 21 names from David until the exile.
  • There are 21 names from the exile to Joseph.

The geneologies are manipulated artifacts, even though they contain the historical ancestors of Jesus. Each was presented with a purpose, one to trace his actual bloodline, the other to trace his Davidic and therefore messianic bloodline.

Again, this all seems a bit unnecessary. You haven't proved anything. You haven't even succeeded in demonstrating that one genealogy was Joseph's, and the other Mary's. There is no evidence whatsoever that Mary was ever intended to play a part in either genealogy. It is, on the other hand, quite clear that both were intended to show a genealogy from Joseph--there is not a "first" and "second" genealogy: neither author knew of the other. Both author was likely under the impression that they were the first to write out the genealogy of Jesus: the simply disagree, because they are both incorrect. There is no historical evidence to indicate that either genealogy is even remotely valid: we have no way of knowing whether or not Joseph, and thus Jesus, was actually related to any of the people listed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You state above: "THERE IS NO CONTEXTUAL EVIDENCE IN THE BIBLE TO CORROBORATE THAT JESUS WAS CRUCIFIED ON FRIDAY." Well, I'll take you on that one. Let me ask you a question. What do you call the first day of the week? Did I hear SUNDAY? I didn't hear you! Louder, please! S U N D A Y!!! Good. Sunday is the first day of the week. Now, would you please read with me what is written in Matthew 28:1? "After that Shabbat, as the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, (Sunday) was dawning..." If you believe in the gospel of Matthew, can you deny that this is a contextual evidence that Jesus was crucified on that Friday and laid in the tomb just before that shabbat? I believe there is no other option.

Ben

First, no need to be so condescending in your tone. You're only making yourself look bad.

That said, I am not disagreeing that Jesus rose on Sunday, the first day of the week. Nor am I disagreeing that this was the day after the Sabbath. Saturday is the Sabbath. Now, my point - At this time of year, there is another Sabbath. Passover is considered a high Sabbath by the Jews, unless you care to correct me on that. Hence Jesus could easily have been crucified the day before Passover (Sabbath) on the Wednesday afternoon, and then rose again the day after a totally different Sabbath (regular Saturday), on the first day of the week.

~ PA

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul was a Hellenistic Jew by birth; the son of well-to-do Hellenistic parents. A Hellenistic Jew would never be accepted as a Pharisee. Therefore, he lied when he said he was a Pharisee. Jesus yes, he was of the line of the Pharises. He was even acknowledged as a Rabbi by the Pharisees. (John 3:1,2) When he, Paul, decided to found his Hellenistic religion, which became known as Christianity, he ceased being Jewish. (Acts 11:26) This is not being bias but commonsense.

Ben

You may continue to maintain this belief in the face of evidence, but Saul of Tarsus was a Pharisee, originally a persecutor of the early Christian movement, and eventually converted to Christianity and changed his name to Paul. That's the way it is, but I understand why you would think he was a Hellenistic Jew instead :yes:

~ PA

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.