K
Kaninchen
Guest
Err, no, but I’ve found that Christian fora are not the place for internecine wrangling, Christians are quite adept enough at that themselves.
- Status
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Thank you Moses613.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
You need to bear in mind the nature of the NT in the eyes of the people involved, to Christians it is scripture and reportage, to us it is neither, it’s literature. In that case, what we know of him lies in the area of ‘literary criticism’.
So, the character of Jesus becomes one of a peripatetic teacher discussing traditional themes and the question is whether the character portrayed is a ‘holy man’.
I expect most of us aren’t really that bothered but tend to be diplomatic.
So, the character of Jesus becomes one of a peripatetic teacher discussing traditional themes and the question is whether the character portrayed is a ‘holy man’.
I expect most of us aren’t really that bothered but tend to be diplomatic.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Anybody read Bernard Wasserstein’s ‘On The Eve’ about the European Jewish world just prior to the War?
C
ConstantLearner
Guest
My ancestors were German Jews who immigrated from the Caucasus Mountain region. Their descendants then went to England, and finally to Brazil. Study has always been very important in my family, but my grandmother and mother were first rate cooks and bakers, too. I inherited the “study gene.” I have several bookcases filled with books of commentaries, history, the Hebrew language, etc.
C
ConstantLearner
Guest
I haven’t read that @Kaninchen, but I loved A History of Judaism by Goodman, and I’m always reading Commentary on the Torah by Richard Elliott. I find that book so thought-provoking.
Last edited:
K
Kaninchen
Guest
I found it interesting because it changed my understanding of a civilisation already in decline for its own reasons (which included reaction to hostile environments, obviously, but that wasn’t the whole picture).
I mentioned it because of the discussion of Eastern Europe.
I mentioned it because of the discussion of Eastern Europe.
M
mythbuster1
Guest
Which I think is profoundly ignorant on the part of Jews. To respect a man who claimed to be the Messiah as a good Rabbi is tantamount to affirming his claim to be the Messiah. I would think such claims demand a thorough investigation, leading to a conclusion that either wholly embraces or wholly rejects the man’s claims.
E
Evenshlomo
Guest
I smiled. A guten chodesh!
P
Psalms62
Guest
I looked up the area on your ancestry - Caucasus Mountain region, Mountain Jews or Caucasus Jews. You have a very interesting background! How long did it take you to trace it? I can imagine the stories that you heard from your grandparents considering the routes? And is your background Sephardi? Are you in the States? I hope you’ll share a little more of the background, if its not asking to much?
Some of the traditions of my grandfather carried over to my grandmother. Many of the traditions (cultural traditions - a mixture) that became embedded but you would never suspect it unless you asked questions. I remember how both me and my cousin talked and listened at length to both my great grandfather and grandmother about the background. With Sephardi culture there’s a dual background across the board from traditions, cultural background…and to foods.
When we think of the Jewish culture and religion, you think of Israel which isn’t necessarily true, anymore. We know of the European Jewry but also, there is the Jewry from North and South American to North and South Africa but all listing there authenticity, yet still holding toward Judaism and the Torah.
Last edited:
U
UltimateChikorita
Guest
St. Simon of Trent was still canonized though
C
ConstantLearner
Guest
One can wholly reject his claims and still respect him a misled child or G-d. Are we not to respect ALL of G-d’s creation, even if we don’t approve of it? I may be wrong, but I think we are. I respect an autistic child even if that child is screaming in a movie theater and causing me to enjoy the movie less than if the child were not present. He or she is a child of G-d, a part of G-d’s creation.
I think Yeshua was misled. How, I don’t know, and I really don’t concern myself with how. He didn’t seem to have an uncharitable bone in his body, and for that, I do admire him. But does that mean I believe he’s the messiah? No, I don’t.
C
ConstantLearner
Guest
I know my family originally came from Azerbaijan. Some immigrated to an ancient town near the German-Swiss border called Waldshut, and changed their name to Herzog. Later, when they immigrated to England, they anglicized Herzog to Hartsough, though once they reached Brazil, they went back to Herzog. They have always considered themselves Ashkenazi. I was actually born in Los Angeles.
I really don’t know much at all about my family before they got to Germany, but I would like to learn more some day soon. Sad how our origins can so often be shrouded in mystery. We lose a part of our identity when that happens.
Last edited:
C
ConstantLearner
Guest
Richard Carrier has written a book showing why the marginalized Jews of the first century were primed and ready to accept and believe in a crucified and risen messiah, even though Jewish teaching, as you know, has always been that the messiah will not be divine, and he certainly won’t be crucified!
I found Carrier’s book thought-provoking, though of course, the Catholics I know found it scandalous. How could they not, really when Christianity is founded on a resurrected messiah?
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
So what needs to be explained, then, is why Jesus was crucified at the instigation of the Sanhedrin? What precisely did he do that merited execution in the eyes of the Jewish Council? The charge was blasphemy. If he didn’t claim to be G-d then how did the Council settle on blasphemy as the charge that merited his execution?meltzerboy2:
I accept all you wrote, except that the only apostles I accept as historical figures are Peter, James, and John. And Paul, but he was not one of the original twelve. Paul mentions Peter, James, and John in his letters, but none of the others. I believe Jesus and his followers were more akin to one of the mystery cults that were around during that time. There were other crucified men who claimed to be the messiah or the Son or G-d. I believe Jesus’s cult flourished for several reasons when the others did not, but I certainly don’t believe it was because he was G-d.
Can you name the other men who were crucified merely for claiming to be the Messiah? Certainly, that would have been an issue for the Romans who would have viewed a claim to kingship by a Jew as sedition since kings were selected only by the Romans in the Empire. But if these other men merely claimed Messiahship, that wouldn’t be sufficient for the Sanhedrin to recommend crucifixion, would it? I mean why would the Jews want their own promised Messiah to be killed by the Romans?
No, it seems that Jesus raised the ire of the Jews alone by claiming to be G-d. Pilate “found no charge” was ready to release him because Jesus made no seditious claim – he said his kingdom was not of this world, so it wasn’t in direct competition with the Roman Empire.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
For people who do not see the NT as either scripture or reportage, this is a ‘literary criticism’ question, like asking about a sequence of events in Shakespeare’s Hamlet.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
I suppose people are free to imagine whatever they wish to imagine, but that doesn’t change the evidence from history. That Jesus existed and was crucified by Rome at the instigation of the Sanhedrin is about as verifiable as anything in history, so to simply assert an unfounded historical sentiment as a premise in a reply is an option, although one not deserving of much serious consideration.HarryStotle:
For people who do not see the NT as either scripture or reportage, this is a ‘literary criticism’ question, like asking about a sequence of events in Shakespeare’s Hamlet.
Your opinion is hereby noted, but it wasn’t your opinion that was sought, so we won’t regard it as “either scripture or reportage” nor of any historical merit.
C
ConstantLearner
Guest
Yes, you can find their names here:
I realize you are only defending your faith, but we are in the non-Catholic area of the forum, and the thread was started to discuss Judaism without arguing. I don’t think any of us are attacking the Catholic faith or trying to convert you to our beliefs.
I apologize if the link offends anyone, but we’re in the “Non-Catholic Religions” sub-forum. I would never put the link in any other sub-forum here.
Last edited:
C
ConstantLearner
Guest
From the book:
> Here I desire to impress upon the minds of my clerical brethren the important fact, that the gospel histories of Christ were written by men who had formerly been Jews (see Acts xxi. 20), and probably possessing the strong proclivity to imitate and borrow which their bible shows was characteristic of that nation ; and being written many years after Christ’s death, according to that standard Christian author, Dr. Lardner, it was impossible, under such circumstances, for them to separate (if they had desired to) the real facts and events of his life from the innumerable fictions and fables then afloat everywhere relative to the heathen Gods who had pre-enacted a similar history. Two reasons are thus furnished for their constructing a history of Christ almost identical with that of other Gods, as shown in chapters XXX., XXXI. and XXXII. of this work.
We really have no one’s word, but the word of his followers, and that is problematic. At least for non-Christians.
> Here I desire to impress upon the minds of my clerical brethren the important fact, that the gospel histories of Christ were written by men who had formerly been Jews (see Acts xxi. 20), and probably possessing the strong proclivity to imitate and borrow which their bible shows was characteristic of that nation ; and being written many years after Christ’s death, according to that standard Christian author, Dr. Lardner, it was impossible, under such circumstances, for them to separate (if they had desired to) the real facts and events of his life from the innumerable fictions and fables then afloat everywhere relative to the heathen Gods who had pre-enacted a similar history. Two reasons are thus furnished for their constructing a history of Christ almost identical with that of other Gods, as shown in chapters XXX., XXXI. and XXXII. of this work.
We really have no one’s word, but the word of his followers, and that is problematic. At least for non-Christians.
Last edited:
K
Kaninchen
Guest
You know quite well that the only evidence for any of this lies in a the text itself, rather like the evidence of Hamlet’s actions lies in the text of the play.
Perhaps a more considered, less bombastic approach might work better?
Last edited:
- Status