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 4
Ben Masada

The Wedding of Jesus

209 posts in this topic

I checked the link and I found absolutely nothing about Jewish belief in bodily resurrection. I don't even know what else to say about yours and Jorel's claim that the Professor teaches about bodily resurrection. Therefore, I stand on my position that such a doctrine is not taught neither in the Tanach nor in the Talmud. And last but not least, neither in Maimonides whom some people claim as implying bodily resurrection.

Man, let then quote the relevant parts...

The components of the idea of resurrection were present in biblical thought from early times. That God can revive the dead is one of His praises: "I slay and revive; I wounded and I will heal" (Deut. 32:39; cf. Pes. 68a for the argument that death and life of the same person is meant); "YHWH slays and revives; He brings down to Sheol and raises up" (I Sam. 2:6; cf. II Kings 5:7). His power to do so was exhibited through the acts of Elijah and Elisha (I Kings 17:17ff.; II Kings 4:18ff.).

In the rabbinic period the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is considered one of the central doctrines of Judaism. The tenth chapter of Mishnah Sanhedrin begins, "All of Israel has a portion in the world to come, as it is said (Isa. 60:21) 'And Thy people are all righteous, at the End they shall inherit the land…' and the following have no portion in the world to come: one who says, 'There is no resurrection of the dead….'"

The idea of resurrection, then, for the rabbis was clearly and literally corporeal.

Among the medieval Jewish philosophers there were many differences of opinion with regard to the resurrection. These controversies depend for the most part on the fact that it was not clear, or certainly not explicit, that there had been controversy in the talmudic period. Consequently some thinkers accepted one of the talmudic opinions, and others contested their views, without realizing that they were simply following different sides of an old argument.

In the modernistic versions of Judaism, the belief in resurrection was denied in favor of the seemingly more acceptable doctrine of immortality.

There has been some sentiment in more traditional circles to retain the belief in resurrection, but rather than taking it literally, to understand it as a symbol affirming that the ultimate salvation of the individual is dependent on God and that what is fulfilled is the entire person – both body and soul – not just the spiritual essence.

All these quotes from the text are clear that the resurrection of the body has always been central to Jewish belief. The last though is clear that it is your generation Ben that has rejected these beliefs in favour of Immortality (eternal spirit), but it is clear that this is not jewish... not by tradition and not by the bible and not by the Talmud and not by the ancient rabbis.

As Daniel Boyarin states God fulfills the entire person – both body and soul – not just the spiritual essence. Hmmm as far I know we term this bodily resurrection, the reuniting of BODY and SOUL.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Man, let then quote the relevant parts...

The components of the idea of resurrection were present in biblical thought from early times. That God can revive the dead is one of His praises: "I slay and revive; I wounded and I will heal" (Deut. 32:39; cf. Pes. 68a for the argument that death and life of the same person is meant); "YHWH slays and revives; He brings down to Sheol and raises up" (I Sam. 2:6; cf. II Kings 5:7). His power to do so was exhibited through the acts of Elijah and Elisha (I Kings 17:17ff.; II Kings 4:18ff.).

In the rabbinic period the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is considered one of the central doctrines of Judaism. The tenth chapter of Mishnah Sanhedrin begins, "All of Israel has a portion in the world to come, as it is said (Isa. 60:21) 'And Thy people are all righteous, at the End they shall inherit the land…' and the following have no portion in the world to come: one who says, 'There is no resurrection of the dead….'"

The idea of resurrection, then, for the rabbis was clearly and literally corporeal.

Among the medieval Jewish philosophers there were many differences of opinion with regard to the resurrection. These controversies depend for the most part on the fact that it was not clear, or certainly not explicit, that there had been controversy in the talmudic period. Consequently some thinkers accepted one of the talmudic opinions, and others contested their views, without realizing that they were simply following different sides of an old argument.

In the modernistic versions of Judaism, the belief in resurrection was denied in favor of the seemingly more acceptable doctrine of immortality.

There has been some sentiment in more traditional circles to retain the belief in resurrection, but rather than taking it literally, to understand it as a symbol affirming that the ultimate salvation of the individual is dependent on God and that what is fulfilled is the entire person – both body and soul – not just the spiritual essence.

All these quotes from the text are clear that the resurrection of the body has always been central to Jewish belief. The last though is clear that it is your generation Ben that has rejected these beliefs in favour of Immortality (eternal spirit), but it is clear that this is not jewish... not by tradition and not by the bible and not by the Talmud and not by the ancient rabbis.

As Daniel Boyarin states God fulfills the entire person – both body and soul – not just the spiritual essence. Hmmm as far I know we term this bodily resurrection, the reuniting of BODY and SOUL.

Jorel, you can go right ahead and ad hominem me as a stupid jerk because I read the whole post above and found nothing at all to justify bodily resurrection. All the references point to the metaphorical resurrection according to Ezekiel 37:12. The return of the Jews in exile from the graves of the nations and back to the Land of the Living which is the Land of Israel according to Isaiah 53:8,9. I am sorry pal but even immortality as a replacement of bodily resurrection is not Jewish considering that we believe that only HaShem is immortal. And Torah is pretty clear according to Genesis 3:22 that man is not supposed to live forever. BTW, Isaiah is just clear enough that nothing and no one can be compared with God Who is immortal and no one else can be. (Isa.46:5)

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jorel, you can go right ahead and ad hominem me as a stupid jerk because I read the whole post above and found nothing at all to justify bodily resurrection. All the references point to the metaphorical resurrection according to Ezekiel 37:12. The return of the Jews in exile from the graves of the nations and back to the Land of the Living which is the Land of Israel according to Isaiah 53:8,9. I am sorry pal but even immortality as a replacement of bodily resurrection is not Jewish considering that we believe that only HaShem is immortal. And Torah is pretty clear according to Genesis 3:22 that man is not supposed to live forever. BTW, Isaiah is just clear enough that nothing and no one can be compared with God Who is immortal and no one else can be. (Isa.46:5)

So basically you read it... and ignored it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jorel, you can go right ahead and ad hominem me as a stupid jerk because I read the whole post above and found nothing at all to justify bodily resurrection. All the references point to the metaphorical resurrection according to Ezekiel 37:12. The return of the Jews in exile from the graves of the nations and back to the Land of the Living which is the Land of Israel according to Isaiah 53:8,9. I am sorry pal but even immortality as a replacement of bodily resurrection is not Jewish considering that we believe that only HaShem is immortal. And Torah is pretty clear according to Genesis 3:22 that man is not supposed to live forever. BTW, Isaiah is just clear enough that nothing and no one can be compared with God Who is immortal and no one else can be. (Isa.46:5)

The idea of resurrection, then, for the rabbis was clearly and literally corporeal.

Quote from the link. Are you serious that you found NOTHING in the entire article? Please note we're not talking about what the Bible says. You are free to whatever opinion you like. We're talking about Rabbinical belief during certain periods of Jewish history. If you disagree, remember that you aren't disagreeing with me or Jor-el, but you are disagreeing with a Professor of Talmudic Culture at the University of California, quoted in the Jewish Virtual Library. Is the Jewish Virtual Library untrustworthy? Is a university professor of Talmudic studies untrustworthy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically you read it... and ignored it.

I cannot agree with you because you are my friend. The Truth is impartial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of resurrection, then, for the rabbis was clearly and literally corporeal.

Quote from the link. Are you serious that you found NOTHING in the entire article? Please note we're not talking about what the Bible says. You are free to whatever opinion you like. We're talking about Rabbinical belief during certain periods of Jewish history. If you disagree, remember that you aren't disagreeing with me or Jor-el, but you are disagreeing with a Professor of Talmudic Culture at the University of California, quoted in the Jewish Virtual Library. Is the Jewish Virtual Library untrustworthy? Is a university professor of Talmudic studies untrustworthy?

To accept the opinion of another just because he is a Rabbi or Professor in a university is a fallacious appeal to authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot agree with you because you are my friend. The Truth is impartial.

Friends can disagree, sure, but truth is only impartial if you allow it to be so...

While you can believe what you feel is the truth, the truth also states that others who are Jewish believers do not have to agree with your views either, since the truth as they see it leads them in another direction. As such you can speak for your view but Judaism does not follow your position as a whole.

They do believe in a literal bodily resurrection seperate from what we call the Olam Ha-Bah, or the world to come, or rather that when one happens the other will follow. you choose to believe differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

To accept the opinion of another just because he is a Rabbi or Professor in a university is a fallacious appeal to authority.

If it's a choice between a university professor who has devoted his life to the study of a topic, and a random anonymous dude on the internet, then 99 times out of 100 I'll listen to the professor. And if that is a "fallacious appeal to authority" then so be it. I can live with that. Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I always find these discussion interesting but only for Historical Context and which cult was popular, and when.

The over-ridiing weak point in all of these arguments is that there is not one scrap of verifiable evidence that a Person called Jesus ever existed which makes all debate about "him" rather moot. IMO

The Romans were rather fastidious book-keepers but yet no mention of a person called "Jesus" King of the Jews exists in any of their records. No record of imprisonment and subsequent Crucifixion. nada, Zip, Nothing whatsoever.

i also note that what people keep banging on about the "Bible" is nothing but a construct of the Council of Nycaea with the following not making the cut along with the Gospel according to Mary

Book of the Wars of the Lord referenced in: Numbers 21:14

Book of Jasher referenced in: Joshua 10:13

Book of Nathan & Book of Gad referenced in 1 Chronicles 29:29

Book of Nathan, Prophecy of Ahijah, and Visions of Iddo referenced in 2 Chronicles 9:29

Acts of Solomon referenced in 1 Kings 11:41

Book of Shemaiah & Book of Iddo referenced in 2 Chronicles 12:15

Annals of Iddo referenced in 2 Chronicles 13:22

Book of Jehu 2 Chronicles 20:34

Book of Enoch referenced in Jude 1:14

Acts of Pilate

Prior Epistle to Corinth referenced in Corinthians 5:9

Prior Epistle to the Ephesians referenced in Ephesians 3:3, 4

Apocalypse of Peter

Epistle from Laodicea referenced in Colossians 4:16

The Source of the Nazarene Prophecy referenced in Matthew 2:23 as a quote from another source but he does not tell us the source.

Life of Adam and Eve

Of course this does not include the 12 books of the Apocrypha which is in Roman Cathoilc Bibles but not Protestant.

Edited by keithisco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so very many anachronisms and simple errors in the new testament that it is silly to discuss anything about the figmentary Jesus of Nazareth. Even the term "Rabbi" was not in common use as a proper Title until the founding of the first Yeshivah, at Yahvneh, after the fall of Jerusalem. The Romans burned the Temple, so the Priesthood faded away, and the Jews had to rely on teachers instead. Jesus would have been dead by then, if he were real!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so very many anachronisms and simple errors in the new testament that it is silly to discuss anything about the figmentary Jesus of Nazareth. Even the term "Rabbi" was not in common use as a proper Title until the founding of the first Yeshivah, at Yahvneh, after the fall of Jerusalem. The Romans burned the Temple, so the Priesthood faded away, and the Jews had to rely on teachers instead. Jesus would have been dead by then, if he were real!

What does Rabbi mean Gideon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wedding of Jesus?

Wine cordial, that's what I say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What does Rabbi mean Gideon?

Does NOT mean "Teacher", that would be "moreh" and wasn't there only 1 Rabbi, Rabbi Yeshua Natzraya?

Edited by keithisco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does NOT mean "Teacher", that would be "moreh" and wasn't there only 1 Rabbi, Rabbi Yeshua Natzraya?

So again... what does Rabbi mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Rav" literally means "great man". "Rabbi" adds a possessive ending, "my great man". The root RV, in Hebrew, means "great" or "many", as in "Todah Rabbah", "much thanks". The earlier version of the term was "Rabban", for example "Raban Gamaliel". The usage came from "Men of the Great assembly". After the fall of Jerusalem in 79 C.E., the learned men fled to Yavneh and joined Jochanan ben Zakkai, the founder of Rabbinic Judiasm, at the Yeshivah. They were called "Rabbi", to indicate that they were not priests. The compilers of the New Testament, 400 years later, did not know this, thus the incredibly anachronistic use of Rabbi. The modern equivalent would be to refer to a U.S. secretary under Lincoln as Chief of Homeland Security", a dept that did not exist at the time. Feel free to google Yohanan ben Zachai of the Yavneh Yeshivah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Rav" literally means "great man". "Rabbi" adds a possessive ending, "my great man". The root RV, in Hebrew, means "great" or "many", as in "Todah Rabbah", "much thanks". The earlier version of the term was "Rabban", for example "Raban Gamaliel". The usage came from "Men of the Great assembly". After the fall of Jerusalem in 79 C.E., the learned men fled to Yavneh and joined Jochanan ben Zakkai, the founder of Rabbinic Judiasm, at the Yeshivah. They were called "Rabbi", to indicate that they were not priests. The compilers of the New Testament, 400 years later, did not know this, thus the incredibly anachronistic use of Rabbi. The modern equivalent would be to refer to a U.S. secretary under Lincoln as Chief of Homeland Security", a dept that did not exist at the time. Feel free to google Yohanan ben Zachai of the Yavneh Yeshivah.

So it does not mean "My Master"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it does not mean "My Master"?

what part of my detailed explanation did you not get?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

what part of my detailed explanation did you not get?

The part I don't get is how the same word can be translated into so many different meanings by the same group of people.

For example, you state that it means "My Great man", but the Jewsih Encyclopedia gives it as " My Master".

http://www.jewishenc...les/12494-rabbi

Now Both may be similar but they are not the same thing.

We know it wasn't a title during the 2nd temple period, everyone admits that much, but it was a term of great respect employed as the equivilant english term would be used, of a disciple speaking to his master and teacher for example.

I have read a few books written by Jewish learned men, and while their masters and teachers were hardly ever referred to as Rabbi, they did refer to their teachers as their "Masters". I'm using the term in the same way that an apprentice in any trade would refer to his teacher or "Master", not so much as a master slave relationship, but rather as an apprentice teacher relatationship. The teacher would and was effectively known as "My Master".

So I wonder why would you call it an anachronism when clearly it did not have the meaning that would make it anachronistic in the 1st place.

It would be an anachronism if it were a title, which everyone admits that it was not.

It is interesting that the term "Mister", derives froom the term "Master" and is today used as an honorific that applies to all men. And again it is interesting that the derivative "Rab", is used in much the same way.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Friends can disagree, sure, but truth is only impartial if you allow it to be so...

While you can believe what you feel is the truth, the truth also states that others who are Jewish believers do not have to agree with your views either, since the truth as they see it leads them in another direction. As such you can speak for your view but Judaism does not follow your position as a whole.

They do believe in a literal bodily resurrection seperate from what we call the Olam Ha-Bah, or the world to come, or rather that when one happens the other will follow. you choose to believe differently.

However, you haven't been able to prove or show evidences that the Jewish People as a whole believe in bodily resurrection. If there is any one who does is for lack of Scriptural learning.

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's a choice between a university professor who has devoted his life to the study of a topic, and a random anonymous dude on the internet, then 99 times out of 100 I'll listen to the professor. And if that is a "fallacious appeal to authority" then so be it. I can live with that.

And as far as I am concerned, I live with the fallacious appeal to the authority of the Scriptures. That's what I prefer. Any extra-Biblical interpretation is a private opinion subject to analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, you haven't been able to prove or show evidences that the Jewish People as a whole believe in bodily resurrection. If there is any one who does is for lack of Scriptural learning.

I never said as a whole... I always stated that opinions on the matter were always divided into two camps, those who believe in resurrection and those who do not. This is historical and cannot be debated as opinion. The history books show those outlooks as clearly as a bright sunny day without a cloud in sight.

The fact that the 13th principle is clear and unambiguous demonstrates this without a doubt... you have to explain your side of it to get your point across it is not immediately apparent from the text itself. Rather the opposite is true, I dare you to say otherwise.

13. I believe with perfect faith that the dead will be brought back to life when G-d wills it to happen.

If the Jewish people as a whole did not believe in bodily resurrection, then there is no way the 13th principle would be written in this way, never ever....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said as a whole... I always stated that opinions on the matter were always divided into two camps, those who believe in resurrection and those who do not. This is historical and cannot be debated as opinion. The history books show those outlooks as clearly as a bright sunny day without a cloud in sight.

The fact that the 13th principle is clear and unambiguous demonstrates this without a doubt... you have to explain your side of it to get your point across it is not immediately apparent from the text itself. Rather the opposite is true, I dare you to say otherwise.

13. I believe with perfect faith that the dead will be brought back to life when G-d wills it to happen.

If the Jewish people as a whole did not believe in bodily resurrection, then there is no way the 13th principle would be written in this way, never ever....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said as a whole... I always stated that opinions on the matter were always divided into two camps, those who believe in resurrection and those who do not. This is historical and cannot be debated as opinion. The history books show those outlooks as clearly as a bright sunny day without a cloud in sight.

The fact that the 13th principle is clear and unambiguous demonstrates this without a doubt... you have to explain your side of it to get your point across it is not immediately apparent from the text itself. Rather the opposite is true, I dare you to say otherwise.

13. I believe with perfect faith that the dead will be brought back to life when G-d wills it to happen.

If the Jewish people as a whole did not believe in bodily resurrection, then there is no way the 13th principle would be written in this way, never ever....

You are right that the 13th principle of the Rambam is quite clear and unambiguous at demonstrating that he is not talking about bodily resurrection for several reasons. First, he was a Jewish man and Jews do not believe in bodily resurrection. He would be contradicting himself. Second, if you read the 12th principle, it talks about the coming or return of the Messiah. Isaiah explains how the Messiah goes into exile and Ezekiel explains how the Messiah returns. If you read Isaiah 53:8,9, when Israel, the Jewish People is forced into exile it is as if they have been cut off from the Land of the Living which is the Land of Israel and graves are assigned to them among the nations. When the exile is over, HaShem opens up those graves and brings them back to the Land of Israel. That's in Ezekiel 37:12. That's the kind of resurrection the Rambam had in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right that the 13th principle of the Rambam is quite clear and unambiguous at demonstrating that he is not talking about bodily resurrection for several reasons. First, he was a Jewish man and Jews do not believe in bodily resurrection. He would be contradicting himself. Second, if you read the 12th principle, it talks about the coming or return of the Messiah. Isaiah explains how the Messiah goes into exile and Ezekiel explains how the Messiah returns. If you read Isaiah 53:8,9, when Israel, the Jewish People is forced into exile it is as if they have been cut off from the Land of the Living which is the Land of Israel and graves are assigned to them among the nations. When the exile is over, HaShem opens up those graves and brings them back to the Land of Israel. That's in Ezekiel 37:12. That's the kind of resurrection the Rambam had in mind.

Explain that to the many fellow Jews who don't accept your views.... call them heretics or ignorants, but I make my case simple.... look at your explanation and how many lines it took you to describe your position...If what you said were fact instead of merely your position, then the 13th principle would have not been written like it was, it would demonstrate something of your position, instead it blatantly contradicts it.

Live with it. You say a Jew CANNOT believe in resurrection I say, you are incorrect and half of the worlds Jews prove it, since that is exactly what they believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most Jews believe in reincarnation (gilgul).

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 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.