Can we discuss Judaism without the politics?

[ConstantLearner]

Perhaps others might have. Why not let them speak for themselves?

Evident;y, they have fewer thoughts on the subject than even @Kaninchen an I do since they are, for the most part, ignoring the question. @Meltzerboy2 did ask you a question, which you did not answer.

 

[ConstantLearner]

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?

Caiaphas ordered his arrest on charges of blasphemy, but he was really afraid of sedition.

 

[HarryStotle]

@Meltzerboy2 did ask you a question, which you did not answer.

In fact, I devoted two posts to the answer. This was one…

Can we discuss Judaism without the politics? Non-Catholic Religions

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 execu…

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

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?

Caiaphas ordered his arrest on charges of sedition.

That isn’t what he was condemned for.

Sedition was not blasphemy as far as first century Jews were concerned.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Sedition was not blasphemy as far as first century Jews were concerned.

You’re right, the official charge was blasphemy, but it was sedition, Caiaphas feared. Jesus could be somewhat of a rabble-rouser, and Caiaphas couldn’t have that at Passover. He was afraid of losing power and control over the many Jews flooding into the city. If he lost control, he would no doubt lose his place as High Priest. He didn’t want to lose that because it gave him, not just power, but also wealth and luxury. Jesus threatened Temple life as those in Jerusalem knew it. Therefore, in the mind of Caiaphas, Jesus had to be eliminated.

 

[Kaninchen]

The Romans would have crucified anybody who appeared to be a threat, it was business as usual.

What evidence is there for the rest of the story?

 

[Rabbi]

Pilate was so ruthless that he nearly started a Jewish revolt and was called back to Rome.

 

[ConstantLearner]

Like who? Jesus also performed miracles that mirrored those of the saints of the Old Testament and that lends credibility to that claim.

Josephus writes of many messianic pretenders in the first century alone:

From Josephus it appears that in the first century before the destruction of the Temple a number of Messiahs arose promising relief from the Roman yoke, and finding ready followers. Josephus speaks of them thus: “Another body of wicked men also sprung up, cleaner in their hands, but more wicked in their intentions, who destroyedthe peace of the city no less than did these murderers [the Sicarii]. For they were deceivers and deluders of the people, and, under pretense of divine illumination, were for innovations and changes, and prevailed on the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them in the wilderness, pretending that God would there show them signs of liberty” (Josephus, “B. J.” ii. 13, §; 4; idem , “Ant.” xx. 8, §; 6). Matt. xxiv. 24, warning against “false Christs and false prophets,” gives testimony to the same effect. Thus about 44, Josephus reports, a certain impostor, Theudas, who claimed to be a prophet, appeared and urged the people to follow him with their belongings to the Jordan, which he would divide for them. According to Acts v. 36 (which seems to refer to a different date), he secured about 400 followers. Cuspius Fadus sent a troop of horsemen after him and his band, slew many of them, and took captive others, together with their leader, beheading the latter (“Ant.” xx. 5, § 1).

 

[master_mahan]

Since there is a discussion about why the Sanhedrin
crucifixion I thought it would interesting to see what biblical Unitarian has to say.
they are a Christians sect who don’t believe jesus is God

 

[meltzerboy2]

So your point is that Jesus was crucified by the Romans at the instigation of the Sanhedrin for committing blasphemy for claiming to be G-d rather than claiming to be the Messiah? Let’s say that is true, then what? If Jesus claimed to be G-d (as well as the Messiah) as the Gospels claim, then He committed a blasphemous act according to Jewish law and was crucified for that. I don’t see what the problem is here, except perhaps that you are suggesting the Jews were responsible for Jesus’ death more than or just as much as the Romans. Where do you wish to take the discussion from there?

 

[HarryStotle]

So your point is that Jesus was crucified by the Romans at the instigation of the Sanhedrin for committing blasphemy for claiming to be G-d rather than claiming to be the Messiah? Let’s say that is true, then what?

As @ConstantLearner has pointed out, Caiaphas was looking to have Jesus executed on a pretext of sedition against Rome because he felt Jesus was a threat to his own authority in Judea. That charge didn’t stick because Jewish Law required consistent testimony from at least two witnesses. When Jesus answered the two questions – are you 1) the Son of the Most High and 2) the Messiah – by quoting the mystical language from the prophet Daniel about the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven and seated on the throne of Power Caiaphas had the evidence for blasphemy and no longer needed witnesses because Jesus claimed the same authority as G-d in front of the entire Sanhedrin as witnesses.

The point here is that Jesus did claim to be G-d and that is what got him executed. The charge of sedition didn’t work because even Pilate saw there was no case. Ergo, if Pilate wasn’t concerned about Jesus’ activity and teachings being a threat to Rome – although he was concerned that Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin could stir things up to make his life miserable – that meant what Caiaphas had against Jesus was entirely theological. The most plausible explanation is that Jesus “taught with authority” in that he claimed to have authority from God that the people found much more convincing than the Jerusalem hierarchy so they needed a pretext for getting rid of him.

Minimally, this points to the Gospel accounts being reliable historically because they do spell out teachings and activity that would have run Jesus afoul of the Council.

If Jesus claimed to be G-d (as well as the Messiah) as the Gospels claim, then He committed a blasphemous act according to Jewish law and was crucified for that. I don’t see what the problem is here, except perhaps that you are suggesting the Jews were responsible for Jesus’ death more than or just as much as the Romans. Where do you wish to take the discussion from there?

Actually, I am not claiming anything about “the Jews” because the Jews also included Jews, like Jesus and the Apostles, who were Jews. At best, this is an internecine dispute where one party of Jews acted against another party of Jews based on political and religious differences.

The “where to go from here question” is to look at the quote of Jesus from Daniel and its significance as to why Jesus’ claim would have been legitimately regarded as blasphemy meriting death, instead of merely being a messianic claim which could not have been regarded as blasphemy since the Jews were waiting for the Messiah, son of David. It would seem counterproductive to view as blasphemous and execute anyone who made the claim to be the long awaited Messiah.

So I would suggest that Daniel is key to deciphering what the issue with Jesus was and why it was such an issue for Caiaphas.

 

[HarryStotle]

Start:

Like who? Jesus also performed miracles that mirrored those of the saints of the Old Testament and that lends credibility to that claim.

Josephus writes of many messianic pretenders in the first century alone:

From Josephus it appears that in the first century before the destruction of the Temple a number of Messiahs arose promising relief from the Roman yoke, and finding ready followers. Josephus speaks of them thus: “Another body of wicked men also sprung up, cleaner in their hands, but more wicked in their intentions, who destroyedthe peace of the city no less than did these murderers [the Sicarii]. For they were deceivers and deluders of the people, and, under pretense of divine illumination, were for innovations and changes, and prevailed on the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them in the wilderness, pretending that God would there show them signs of liberty” (Josephus, “B. J.” ii. 13, §; 4; idem , “Ant.” xx. 8, §; 6). Matt. xxiv. 24, warning against “false Christs and false prophets,” gives testimony to the same effect. Thus about 44, Josephus reports, a certain impostor, Theudas, who claimed to be a prophet, appeared and urged the people to follow him with their belongings to the Jordan, which he would divide for them. According to Acts v. 36 (which seems to refer to a different date), he secured about 400 followers. Cuspius Fadus sent a troop of horsemen after him and his band, slew many of them, and took captive others, together with their leader, beheading the latter (“Ant.” xx. 5, § 1).

And notice that in all of those instances the Romans acted on their own behalf and didn’t get any prompting from the Sanhedrin to execute those Messiahs. Also note that the Romans arrested and executed the claimant and his followers. That didn’t happen in the case of Jesus, which means Pilate and the Romans didn’t see him or his followers as a threat to Rome.

 

[meltzerboy2]

This sounds like the “dark night of the soul” for you. I think we all experience this to one degree or another; but, for many, it passes. Either way, however, just be a good person toward others, and, in my view, you are fine with G-d.

 

[meltzerboy2]

OK then, case solved! Next case…

 

[Moses613]

Our faith is not based on the creed, but on the deed. If you live a good life, you’ll deserve Gan Eden (heaven)

No, God does not reward those who do not even believe in reward and punishment. It’s “mida k’neged mida - measure against measure.” They do not believe in reward, so they will not receive it. The Rambam, the rabbi in your avatar picture, has written much on this topic.

 

[Rabbi]

@Moses613,

I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. It’s one of the 13 Middot. HaShem has no purpose in punishing a non-Jew who lived in the 5th century BCE and ever heard of him. Anyone who says the opposite is ignorant. Judaism is the religion of the deed, not the creed. Rambam also said that a Jew who falls and isn’t ritgheous but nevertheless tries to be is a tzaddik more so than a rabbi who studies Torah all day. the Shaar Bitachon says that Iyov suffered for different reasons, so it’s not always “measure for measure.” This is because suffering doesn’t always qualify as punishment, per se. while it is true regarding the matter of Shimshon (his eyes were removed), HaShem does NOT punish a person for what they didn’t know, and that includes atheists. After all, would HaShem dare send a Hindu (who doesn’t believe I guess what one could term “our version of the afterlife” to eternal hell simply because G-d couldn’t bother to show Himself)? Such a G-d is a monster who didn’t deserve our worship. No, I stand by my initial answer: G-d will not punish an atheist, regardless of what they believe. You should really know better. And besides, even if you could cite a source that an atheist would fall into Gehinnom, he’s be there, max, 12 months, and the whole time he’d be learning Torah. This is because mostly everyone, except for the extreme wicked, will merit a place in עולם הבא. Or else, they’re reincarnated. That’s the great thing about being Jewish, there’s no hell!

A source?

Nedarim 27a and athe Chovos Halevavos explain in Gate 5 ch.5, “And even if his appearance is bad, it is possible that the reason is because he is ignorant of his obligations to the Creator. Therefore he is more pardonable than me, because my knowledge is greater than his. For the Creator claims from a man only according to the extent of his knowledge. Therefore, I am more deserving to be considered reprehensible for my shortcomings in the Creator’s service, despite my knowledge compared, to this man whose shortcoming is due to his ignorance. He rebels against G-d due to ignorance and error, while I rebel against Him knowingly and deliberately.”

 

[Rabbi]

Okay, regarding your atheism, do you hope you’re right or wrong?

 

[Start]

I meant crucified messiahs.

 

[Rabbi]

I hope so too. After all, there must be a G-d, for who else could have created all us?

 

[Start]

That’s not a Dark Night of the Soul.