Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Juststeve · 01-06-2011, 12:19 PM

Bacht:

Actually we have a modern example of Jews coming to think that a historical figure was the messiah and continuing to believe that even after the figure was dead. I refer to Menachem Mendel Schneerson the Lubavitch Rebbe: During his life members of his movement began to believe and write that he was the Messiah about to be revealed as such. These beliefs continue for a while after his death and there were some from the movement who believed in his immanent return from the dead. I don’t know how many if any still believe that.

Most Jews rejected the claims. Like Jesus the Rebbe didn’t meet any of the criteria most Jews expect the Messiah to meet. Most importantly the vast majority of Jews reject the idea of a Messiah who dies without fulfilling his work and then returns to complete it. I suspect that up until the moment the Rebbe died most in the Lubavitch movement would have rejected that idea as well. Their association with the charismatic figure of the Rebbe seems to have opened them up to wishful thinking of an un-Jewish nature. I see no reason why first century Jews could not have followed a similar path.

Steve.

semiopen · 01-06-2011, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Bacht:

Actually we have a modern example of Jews coming to think that a historical figure was the messiah and continuing to believe that even after the figure was dead. I refer to Menachem Mendel Schneerson the Lubavitch Rebbe: During his life members of his movement began to believe and write that he was the Messiah about to be revealed as such. These beliefs continue for a while after his death and there were some from the movement who believed in his immanent return from the dead. I don’t know how many if any still believe that.

Most Jews rejected the claims. Like Jesus the Rebbe didn’t meet any of the criteria most Jews expect the Messiah to meet. Most importantly the vast majority of Jews reject the idea of a Messiah who dies without fulfilling his work and then returns to complete it. I suspect that up until the moment the Rebbe died most in the Lubavitch movement would have rejected that idea as well. Their association with the charismatic figure of the Rebbe seems to have opened them up to wishful thinking of an un-Jewish nature. I see no reason why first century Jews could not have followed a similar path.

Steve.

The Jewish criterion for a messiah seems mainly polemics against Yoshke. It's not like there is an official checklist.

The whole messianic concept is idiotic and the Jewish concept is (if possible) more idiotic than Yoshke worship. Schneerson was unique among Jewish false messiahs only in the absence of significant known sexual kinkiness.

Some Jewish theologians have suggested that the messiah prophecy makes no sense if the messiah actually appears.

aa5874 · 01-06-2011, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Bacht:

Actually we have a modern example of Jews coming to think that a historical figure was the messiah and continuing to believe that even after the figure was dead. I refer to Menachem Mendel Schneerson the Lubavitch Rebbe: During his life members of his movement began to believe and write that he was the Messiah about to be revealed as such. These beliefs continue for a while after his death and there were some from the movement who believed in his immanent return from the dead. I don’t know how many if any still believe that.

Jesus the Messiah was NOT described as a MAN and was WORSHIPED as a God who was claimed to be the "END of the LAW" by "PAUL" and able to REMIT the Sins of the JEWS by his resurrection.

Certainly, Menachem Mendel Schneerson the Lubavitch Rebbe was NOT worshiped as a God and was NOT expected to REMIT the Sins of Jews by a resurrection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

......... Like Jesus the Rebbe didn’t meet any of the criteria most Jews expect the Messiah to meet. Most importantly the vast majority of Jews reject the idea of a Messiah who dies without fulfilling his work and then returns to complete it. I suspect that up until the moment the Rebbe died most in the Lubavitch movement would have rejected that idea as well. Their association with the charismatic figure of the Rebbe seems to have opened them up to wishful thinking of an un-Jewish nature. I see no reason why first century Jews could not have followed a similar path.

Steve.

Well, there is REASON TO THINK the Jews did NOT follow a similar path.

UP to about 133 CE, the Jews were still looking for a Jewish Messiah and quite unlike the MYTH MESSIAH in the NT who came to ABOLISH the LAWS of the JEWS.

Jesus of the NT ORIGINATED as a HOAX.

There is SIMPLY no historical records of a JEWISH MESSIAH who was the END of the LAW.

Ro 10:4 -

Quote:

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth...

We have a HOAX on our hands.

Jesus ORIGINATED as THEOLOGICAL PROPAGANDA against the Jews.

bacht · 01-06-2011, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Bacht:

Actually we have a modern example of Jews coming to think that a historical figure was the messiah and continuing to believe that even after the figure was dead. I refer to Menachem Mendel Schneerson the Lubavitch Rebbe: During his life members of his movement began to believe and write that he was the Messiah about to be revealed as such. These beliefs continue for a while after his death and there were some from the movement who believed in his immanent return from the dead. I don’t know how many if any still believe that.

Most Jews rejected the claims. Like Jesus the Rebbe didn’t meet any of the criteria most Jews expect the Messiah to meet. Most importantly the vast majority of Jews reject the idea of a Messiah who dies without fulfilling his work and then returns to complete it. I suspect that up until the moment the Rebbe died most in the Lubavitch movement would have rejected that idea as well. Their association with the charismatic figure of the Rebbe seems to have opened them up to wishful thinking of an un-Jewish nature. I see no reason why first century Jews could not have followed a similar path.

Steve.

Certainly it's possible Jesus died before completing his mission, whatever he believed it to be. I don't think anyone can state flat out that the elevation of a 1st C Jew to messiah status after his death would have been impossible. The whole messiah thing is a bit fuzzy at this distance.

In your scenario, some Jews would have believed that Jesus was a messiah either during his life or after. If the pattern was similar to Schneerson, the excitement died down, and Judaism mostly ignored this eccentric.

The big difference is that gentile synagogue attendees latched onto this new teaching and ran with it, whereas with Schneerson I assume there was little if any interest outside Jewish circles.

Weren't there other messiahs from the Karaite groups? These would be closer to the cultural climate of Jesus' time ie. pre-modern.

OLDMAN · 01-06-2011, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meatros

First: I'm not a scholar and in fact, I don't know much about this topic, so please be gentle.

I was just thinking about it this morning and I seem to recall that Josephus (among others) indicates that during the first century AD (and before) there was a plethora of Messiahs floating about - the end times were upon the people of the period.

That said, what are the chances that the basis for the New Testament - or rather the Q was written basically whole cloth out of the Old Testament (with other influences perhaps) AND then various messiah's attempting to 'recreate' key elements of the story.

That might be a bit sloppy, but what I mean is that the Jews of the time had written up a Messiah blue print (man is born of a virgin, gets baptized, goes into Jerusalem on two donkeys, etc). Various Messiahs attempt to fulfill this and one, Jesus, does manage to fulfill most of the prophecies, but gets executed. This would cause unimaginable headaches for the believers at the time and they had to create a resolution (ie, Mark, the passion narrative).

So, again, I'm not an expert (AT ALL), so I'm just curious about this thought I'd been having (which is probably cobbled together out of various bits that I've read).

You have to look at how the NT was written to see the real story.

Eg. Jesus climbs a mountain, Satan appears and they have a conversation, later Jesus returns and gives a sermon.

But Jesus does not (in his sermon) tell the story of Satan appearing or their conversation.

So who was this third person who tagged along for all of Jesus's adventures?

This happens throughout the bible, even when Jesus is taken for his trials with Herod and Pialate. It is clear the desciples weren't there, so who is this intrepid reporter?

Juststeve · 01-06-2011, 01:23 PM

Bacht:

I'm really not sure how well the Jesus movement did within Judaism. It seems that it was the case that evangelizing went much better among the pagans than the Jews. This isn't surprising since a dying and rising son of God is a theme that fits some pagan religions much better than it does Judaism.

I'm not sure we can ever know but it may be that very few Jews bought the whole enchilada, you know, Jesus is God, Jesus' death brings salvation to believers, the law is superseded. Much more palatable to pagans than Jews. Nevertheless the Schneerson example shows that even devout Jews can come to believe un-Jewish things under the influence of the right man.

Steve

bacht · 01-06-2011, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Bacht:

I'm really not sure how well the Jesus movement did within Judaism. It seems that it was the case that evangelizing went much better among the pagans than the Jews. This isn't surprising since a dying and rising son of God is a theme that fits some pagan religions much better than it does Judaism.

I'm not sure we can ever know but it may be that very few Jews bought the whole enchilada, you know, Jesus is God, Jesus' death brings salvation to believers, the law is superseded. Much more palatable to pagans than Jews. Nevertheless the Schneerson example shows that even devout Jews can come to believe un-Jewish things under the influence of the right man.

Steve

The epistle of James, the Revelation to John, and the gospel of Matthew seem to have been written for Jewish Christians, plus some of the apocryphal books.

The Jesus movement might be the last step in the process of cultural dialogue that began with Alexander the Great. Most Jews couldn't go that far.

Toto · 01-06-2011, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

... Menachem Mendel Schneerson the Lubavitch Rebbe: ....

Scheerson was never influential outside of his own group, and you have to wonder how much of his story was influenced by Christianity.

A closer example might be Sabbatai Zvi (various ways of spelling his name.)

aa5874 · 01-06-2011, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Bacht:

I'm really not sure how well the Jesus movement did within Judaism. It seems that it was the case that evangelizing went much better among the pagans than the Jews. This isn't surprising since a dying and rising son of God is a theme that fits some pagan religions much better than it does Judaism....

There is really NO credible evidence of how well the Jesus movement fared outside Judea when the Jesus movement began.

In the NT, the Jesus movement did very well in Judea. In Acts thousands were converted in a single day.

Quote:

Ac 2:41 -
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Ac 4:4 -
Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.

All we have are UNRELIABLE historical accounts of the Jesus movement in the NT and virtually nothing about the EARLY Jesus movement OUTSIDE Judea.

Please state the credible historical source that SHOW that a single pagan was in the Jesus movement and that the Jesus movement started BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

Regardless of your BELIEFS, you cannot support your SPECULATION about the Jesus movement with respect to pagans with any credible historical sources.

Even "Paul" claimed he was a Hebrew of Hebrews.

Juststeve · 01-06-2011, 03:45 PM

Toto:

Your are correct in suggesting that the Rebbe was not very influential outside his own community. So what? I have suggested that the historical Jesus was also not very influential outside his own circle. The point is that neither the Rebbe nor Jesus needs to be universally influential for their followers to build a myth around them after they died. In the case of Jesus that myth took hold and lots of people became believers. Perhaps had the Rebbe died in a superstitious pre-scientific world the belief in his impending return would have caught on like it did in the case of Jesus. Perhaps what was needed was plenty of pagans as potential customers. In any case the Jesus myth took hold and the Schneerson myth did not. Go figure.

Before anyone other than Toto says it I'm aware of the fact that the gospels, written a generation or two later, describe Jesus as much more influential that I think he was. Don't bother to repeat that and please, if you do, no caps.

Steve

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-06-2011, 12:19 PM	#11
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Bacht: Actually we have a modern example of Jews coming to think that a historical figure was the messiah and continuing to believe that even after the figure was dead. I refer to Menachem Mendel Schneerson the Lubavitch Rebbe: During his life members of his movement began to believe and write that he was the Messiah about to be revealed as such. These beliefs continue for a while after his death and there were some from the movement who believed in his immanent return from the dead. I don’t know how many if any still believe that. Most Jews rejected the claims. Like Jesus the Rebbe didn’t meet any of the criteria most Jews expect the Messiah to meet. Most importantly the vast majority of Jews reject the idea of a Messiah who dies without fulfilling his work and then returns to complete it. I suspect that up until the moment the Rebbe died most in the Lubavitch movement would have rejected that idea as well. Their association with the charismatic figure of the Rebbe seems to have opened them up to wishful thinking of an un-Jewish nature. I see no reason why first century Jews could not have followed a similar path. Steve.

01-06-2011, 01:23 PM	#16
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Bacht: I'm really not sure how well the Jesus movement did within Judaism. It seems that it was the case that evangelizing went much better among the pagans than the Jews. This isn't surprising since a dying and rising son of God is a theme that fits some pagan religions much better than it does Judaism. I'm not sure we can ever know but it may be that very few Jews bought the whole enchilada, you know, Jesus is God, Jesus' death brings salvation to believers, the law is superseded. Much more palatable to pagans than Jews. Nevertheless the Schneerson example shows that even devout Jews can come to believe un-Jewish things under the influence of the right man. Steve

01-06-2011, 03:45 PM	#20
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Toto: Your are correct in suggesting that the Rebbe was not very influential outside his own community. So what? I have suggested that the historical Jesus was also not very influential outside his own circle. The point is that neither the Rebbe nor Jesus needs to be universally influential for their followers to build a myth around them after they died. In the case of Jesus that myth took hold and lots of people became believers. Perhaps had the Rebbe died in a superstitious pre-scientific world the belief in his impending return would have caught on like it did in the case of Jesus. Perhaps what was needed was plenty of pagans as potential customers. In any case the Jesus myth took hold and the Schneerson myth did not. Go figure. Before anyone other than Toto says it I'm aware of the fact that the gospels, written a generation or two later, describe Jesus as much more influential that I think he was. Don't bother to repeat that and please, if you do, no caps. Steve

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.