Can we discuss Judaism without the politics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rabbi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is a possibility since God is the One who originally made the message and He knew what was going to happen.
 
Start said:
The name Emmanuel and Jesus’s claims to divinity also provide an indication.
Click to expand...
Anyone can claim divinity. There were other crucified messianic pretenders before Jesus. And he was never called Emmanuel in the bible. Only Yeshua, which was a very common name.
 
Last edited:
Like who? Jesus also performed miracles that mirrored those of the saints of the Old Testament and that lends credibility to that claim.
 
Last edited:
Start said:
Like who? Jesus also performed miracles that mirrored those of the saints of the Old Testament and lend credibility to that claim.
Click to expand...
We have only the word of his followers on that. This is a Jewish thread, you won’t find belief in Jesus’ divinity here or a belief in Catholic saints.
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
I’ve read only bits and pieces of this discussion. What is your main argument: that Jesus was convicted of blasphemy for claiming to be G-d? If this is indeed the reason, then what are you trying to show? Or is there some other point you are making? For the most part, Jews accept the existence of Jesus and that He was crucified. They do not accept His resurrection, nor that He is the Messiah or G-d. Given you are not proselytizing, what are you trying to prove here?
Click to expand...
If we begin with one very simple historical fact:

Jesus was a good and decent Jewish man who was crucified under the Roman procurator of Judea Pontius Pilate. Both Tacitus and Josephus attest to this.

What needs to be explained is why he was crucified.

The typical response is that he was tried for sedition against Rome for claiming to be the Messiah, the Son of David and heir to the throne of the Jewish people.

One of several problems with that claim is that the Romans wouldn’t merely execute the one claiming to be the king, but they would execute all of his followers with him. They didn’t do that with Jesus, however.

Why not? The reason is spelled out clearly in the trial narratives in the Gospels. Jesus wasn’t executed for claiming to be the Messiah, Pilate dismissed that charge. He was crucified at the instigation of the Sanhedrin for blasphemy. The Sanhedrin would not have set him up merely for claiming to be the Messiah.

The reason is because of the ongoing dispute between Jesus and the Jewish leaders. They viewed the Messiah as a merely human, son of David. Jesus in all four Gospels made claims about himself being more than just a “son of man,” several times directly confronting the “merely human” Messiah claims of the scribes and Pharisees.

At the trial, Jesus claimed that they would see him “coming on the clouds of heaven” and “sitting at the right hand of Power.” This was the blasphemy he was charged with – claiming to have the authority of the Most High. They tore their garments at this. They would not have torn their garments if Jesus had merely falsely claimed to represent God or to speak on behalf of God. This was a far more as insidious claim.

What it boils down to is that without any historical question, Jesus was crucified. The question is why?

It is no good merely to dismiss every plausible explanation merely on the guise that we can’t know. If a very good explanation consistent with all the facts can be constructed, that has to be taken seriously, and not just dismissed outright because we don’t care to know.

In fact, I was looking for other explanations as to why Jesus could have been crucified.
 
The title doesn’t matter, they are the same people.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
What it boils down to is that without any historical question, Jesus was crucified. The question is why?
Click to expand...
If you truly seek an answer to that question, ask those who study Catholic theology. The question is not relevant for Jews.
 
I mean that the figures from the Old Testament are the same people regardless of what title you use to talk about them.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
For the most part, Jews accept the existence of Jesus and that He was crucified. They do not accept His resurrection, nor that He is the Messiah or G-d.
Click to expand...
To be clear, here: whether or not Jews accept that Jesus was the Messiah or G-d isn’t the salient question. It isn’t even required to be given consideration. The important question is: What did Jesus do, say or claim about himself that would plausibly have gotten him crucified?

If that explanation can be constructed from the Gospel narrative in a manner that is consistent with everything we know about the historical situation at the time, then that explanation needs to be given serious consideration, whether or not you believe Jesus was or was not the Messiah or G-d.

Again the question is what happened that was sufficient to get him crucified, but is consistent with what can be known about Jesus and the historical situation.

The argument cannot begin with, “We don’t believe he was the Messiah or G-d and therefore we will just dismiss everything that doesn’t jibe with our lack of belief.”
 
ConstantLearner said:
If you truly seek an answer to that question, ask those who study Catholic theology. The question is not relevant for Jews.
Click to expand...
You are the spokesperson for all Jews, then?

I wasn’t asking for the Catholic theological take on the crucifixion of Jesus, I was asking if some of the Jewish people reading this thread have any thoughts on the matter.

I have heard your thoughts and @Kaninchen’s. Clearly, it isn’t “relevant” for either of you, so why not let it go, then. You have no thoughts on the subject. Got it!

Perhaps others might have. Why not let them speak for themselves?
 
ConstantLearner said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
To be clear, here: whether or not Jews accept that Jesus was the Messiah or G-d isn’t the salient question. It isn’t even required to be given consideration. The important question is: What did Jesus do, say or claim about himself that would plausibly have gotten him crucified?
Click to expand...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/whokilledjesus_1.shtml
Click to expand...
The article makes the point but, at the same time, misses it.
He asked Jesus, point blank, “Are you the Son of God, the Son of the Blessed? Are you The Messiah?”

The Gospels vary a little, and only in Mark’s account does Jesus answer that he is.

It’s enough. Caiaphas announces that Jesus has spoken blasphemy. The rest of the Court agree. Jesus deserves the death sentence.

Just one problem; the court didn’t have the power to execute people. And that’s where the Romans come into the story.

Actually, there are two problems: blasphemy against the God of Jews was not a crime under Roman Law, and unless Caiaphas could think of something better, it might not be enough to persuade the Romans to execute Jesus.
Click to expand...
So according to the article – and you apparently agree with the article – Jesus was condemned for blasphemy. What did he do that was blasphemous for the entire council to find him guilty and tear their garments?

It was what he said about himself, then? Not that he claimed to speak for G-d, but that he claimed for himself the authority reserved for G-d alone. That accords well with everything Jesus does claim about himself in the Gospels…

You have heard it said, but I say to you…
The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath…
Before Abraham ever was I am.
Something greater than the Temple is here.
To have seen me is to have seen the Father.
The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.

You don’t need to believe any of this. The question is whether these claims Jesus made about himself better explain why he was crucified than any alternatives. They seem to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top