Freethought & Rationalism Archive

HaRaAYaH · 08-31-2008, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by HaRaAYaH

1) The book of Macabees is such an obscure book to base your arguments on.

Why? All textual evidence should be considered as far as I'm concerned.

I don't dispute this at all. It's just very obscure. If this is the only place you can site, your evidence is weak.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

...both Jesus and Paul were depicted as Jews. Is there a reason to claim they were not?

The ceased to be Jewish when they attributed divinity to Jesus of Nazareth. They started a new religion. This attribution of divinity to a human being is the antithesis of Judaism from Abraham to 2008.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

...it's a scholarly work. That's what matters.

Not a Jewish scholarly work..... There are plenty of Jewish sources for biblical criticism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

I have made no such tie here.

You are correct, it's storytime that makes the link, my bad...

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by HaRaAYaH

Judaism is a this worldly religion.

...this world, with or without bodily resurrection?

Do you actually know any Jews (never mind what Jews in the first century believed)? I know several, and none of them believe that death is the permanent and final end of life, and if Crossan/Reed are correct, neither did first century Jews.

There are Jews who believe in the Easter Bunny. What Jews individually choose to believe and what Judaism holds and teaches are not always one in the same. I have never disputed the idea that Judaism believes in the resurrection of the dead. But that has nothing to do with living in this world. The Rabbis and sages and Jews throughout the centuries have realized the Messiah might not actually come. The first century sage Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai once said: "If you should happen to be holding a sapling in your hand when they tell you that the Messiah has arrived, first plant the sapling and then go out and greet the Messiah."
and on this I'll conclude with a story:

Quote:

An old Jewish story tells of a Russian Jew who was paid a ruble a month by the community council to stand at the outskirts of town so that he could be the first person to greet the Messiah upon his arrival. When a friend said to him, "But the pay is so low," the man replied: "True, but the job is permanent."

spamandham · 08-31-2008, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HaRaAYaH

I don't dispute this at all. It's just very obscure. If this is the only place you can site, your evidence is weak.

What would you deem the best evidence of what 1st century Jews believed, if it is not the texts most contemporary to that time period?

Quote:

Originally Posted by HaRaAYaH

The ceased to be Jewish when they attributed divinity to Jesus of Nazareth.

Why? Who defines what is and isn't Jewish, if it is not those who call themselves Jews? For what it's worth, neither Mark nor Paul equate Jesus with god. The trinity is a later innovation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HaRaAYaH

Not a Jewish scholarly work..... There are plenty of Jewish sources for biblical criticism.

Scholarly work is neither Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, nor Scientological. It is scholarly (aka objective and methodical). If you mean that "Excavating Jesus" is not a work of Jewish apologetics, I agree.

storytime · 08-31-2008, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

In the context of Jewish redemption, remission for sins, this is the salvation being spoken of.

The salvation being spoken of is not remission of sin, but resurrection. The focus of the gospel story is Jesus' resurrection as the first fruits - proof that the Kingdom of God had already arrived, that the general resurrection was already happening, and that divine justice was imminent. Since divine justice was imminent, martyrdom could be seen as wisdom rather than foolishness. This is why Paul focuses on Jesus resurrection and has very little to say about Jesus beyond that.

Near the end of the book "Excavating Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk)", Crossan/Reed argue persuasively that the idea of bodily resurrection combined with divine justice ushering in the kingdom of god, were indeed Jewish ideas in the centuries leading up to the common era.

The idea that Jesus was an atoning sacrifice developed later, when it was clear that death had not been conquered afterall and a new theology was spun from a prior apocalyptic one.

Sounds to me like "teshuvah" and "resurrection" go hand 'n hand as both present a "new" or "newness". Of course this goes along with being "born again" and therefore "salvation" must need apply. Redemption and turning to God or turning back to God. All these things were taught and believed by the Jews (as in the story).

Here's the way I understand the Firstfruits. Those disciples whom Jesus had chosen. These were the blessed and holy in the first resurrection on which the second death had no power, because they were the first born again. Afterwards is seen those "others" who follow in discipleship. (Revelation)

Agree. Jesus said "the kingdom of God is within you", thus declaring the Kingdom had arrived or that his point was defining "within" as their position as priests in the nation of Israel.

General resurrection? Do you see another? I read the description being the first resurrection as the only resurrection and all followers of Christ being brought into that resurrection. A second death is portrayed as turning from Christ after hearing the gospel about him. No salvation there, no extended hope. Paul was speaking to the Jews in this regard.

spamandham · 08-31-2008, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

General resurrection? Do you see another? I read the description being the first resurrection as the only resurrection and all followers of Christ being brought into that resurrection.

I agree. The belief was that *the* resurrection had commenced. Jesus was the first fruit in the same sense that the first fruit of the harvest was the *best* part of the harvest, not the earliest part. The harvest happened all at once in ancient times, just as it does today. This is why there is the story of the mass resurrection in the Gospel tradition at the time of Jesus' death.

The story of such resurrections in ancient times when the fantastic was accepted with little question, is enough to show that the kingdom of god had already arrived.

storytime · 08-31-2008, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Yes, sin was said to be a condition of the heart but of that condition it was in context and secularized to the people of God, the Israelites. God has nor claims any other people. For example, the Edomites[Esau] were hated by God while God loved the Israelites[Jacob].

The prophets wrote in a biased purpose, prejudiced and hatefilled toward other people, and this hatred as they spoke and wrote it was credited to their god. By His command the Israelites were to kill and slaughter other people in the land of Canaan. God had nor held no pity or mercy for the Canaanites. His command was to kill all that had breath within them, even the animals and tear down all symbols of other gods. Keep in mind that the Hebrew god was created as a tribal god and his only people Israelites in sons of Jacob. In the NT, it was said that God did not change. By this evidence we know that God of the OT still hates those who do not conform to the tradition of Hebrew/Israelite/Jewish ideology. The condition of the heart of Israelites was to be in obedience to the commands of their God. And the basic tenet of command was killing other for Him. "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin". In the eyes of God, it was a sin for the sons of Jacob to leave other non-Israelite people alive.

The killing of other people was not counted as an offense to the Hebrew God. Only killing their own brethren was considered "sin", a transgression. "Thou shalt not kill" is a commandment aimed to enforce life in Israel, not outside that tribal nation. And this because killing their own brethren decreased their population and therein decreased the power of their God.

"Salvation is of the Jews", and no others. Convert to Judaism or die. In Old and New Testaments conversion is still required. Jesus nor apostles taught Gentile(non-Jewish) doctrine, as non-Jewish doctrine was considered "idol worship", and other competing gods. So did God have concern of people beyond his own Jewish people? No, that wasn't to be part of the purpose for Israel dominance and power.

"Sin" is a Hebrew construct within Israelite laws. Those in the world who did not receive those laws were not accountable to those laws, and not accountable to transgression of those laws. "Where there is no law there is no sin". Your example of Jonah shows Jonah conforming to the Israelite god. His conversion, so to speak.

I think it a huge mistake for people to believe themselves as "sinners", because they have not recognized that the term is specifically applied to serve a purpose in law for Israelites pertaining to transgression, "offense". This taking on a religion that relates to only one people in their tribal identity does not benefit the world and trying to fit oneself into that tradition of Israel and trying to please that particular god only causes more death and ill will among people in the world.

Offensive behavior is universal. "Sin" belongs to the transgressions in law established for Israelites at Sinai. It's their ballpark.

I do not see that in the OT at all,

God's 'hatred' of Esau has nothing to do with him personally. It was about selection. Jacob was selected for a purpose and Esau was not. The God of Isreal is painted from the very beginning, not as a national God but as the God of all creation. The Jews were intended to be an instrument of God's care, not just the recipients.

* God's covenant with Abraham (Gen 12) is that through God, he would bless all nations thru Abraham.

* the Jews were intended to be a light to the gentiles. (and were in many ways)

(Isa 42:5) This is what the true God, the LORD, says -
the one who created the sky and stretched it out,
the one who fashioned the earth and everything that lives on it,
the one who gives breath to the people on it,
and life to those who live on it:
(Isa 42:6) "I, the LORD, officially commission you;
I take hold of your hand.
I protect you and make you a covenant mediator for people,
and a light to the nations,

* and sin existed long before Judaism and long before the law. Cain was not jewish, yet God had requirements of him.

(Gen 4:7) Is it not true that if you do what is right, you will be fine? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at the door. It desires to dominate you, but you must subdue it."

* Jonah is a prefect example of this. The God of Isreal was also the God of the Assyrians (regardless of whether they knew it.) not just a national God. Jonah's reaction is a key to the discomfort that they would have had with this notion. (their God's traitorous concern for their enemies)

(Jon 1:2) "Go immediately to Nineveh, that large capital city, and announce judgment against its people because their wickedness has come to my attention."

(Jon 3:10) When God saw their actions - they turned from their evil way of living! - God relented concerning the judgment he had threatened them with and he did not destroy them.

* Paul sums it up this way. (Rom 3:23) for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

~Steve

Why did God hate Esau?

Why did God love Jacob?

Predistination of the one seed in Isaac. The writers may have started the Genesis story that imagined a universal God but that idea soon gave way to a tribal God in sons of Jacob-Israel. Discrimination was made between peoples. For example, God told Moses that He made a difference between the Israelites and the Egyptians. And the Canaanites were not a people of God, and the list goes on.

Behavior modification is seen from Cain to the law of Moses, whereupon the law for Israel took presidence.

"Nations" has identity in the twelve tribes and these the namesake of God. Blessing and cursing is attributed to the tribes of Israel in their obedience or transgressions.

Paul(or Peter?) referred to OT scripture in his "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God". Law was at the forefront of this tribal condemnation.

Doug Shaver · 09-01-2008, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

yes, what does Paul say in Romans 1-3 in your interpreatation.

That's going to take me a while. I'll get back to you on it as soon as I can.

sschlichter · 09-01-2008, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

yes, what does Paul say in Romans 1-3 in your interpreatation.

That's going to take me a while. I'll get back to you on it as soon as I can.

I guess it is kind of a large passage. Maybe we could discuss in smaller segments.

sschlichter · 09-01-2008, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I do not see that in the OT at all,

God's 'hatred' of Esau has nothing to do with him personally. It was about selection. Jacob was selected for a purpose and Esau was not. The God of Isreal is painted from the very beginning, not as a national God but as the God of all creation. The Jews were intended to be an instrument of God's care, not just the recipients.

* God's covenant with Abraham (Gen 12) is that through God, he would bless all nations thru Abraham.

* the Jews were intended to be a light to the gentiles. (and were in many ways)

(Isa 42:5) This is what the true God, the LORD, says -
the one who created the sky and stretched it out,
the one who fashioned the earth and everything that lives on it,
the one who gives breath to the people on it,
and life to those who live on it:
(Isa 42:6) "I, the LORD, officially commission you;
I take hold of your hand.
I protect you and make you a covenant mediator for people,
and a light to the nations,

* and sin existed long before Judaism and long before the law. Cain was not jewish, yet God had requirements of him.

(Gen 4:7) Is it not true that if you do what is right, you will be fine? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at the door. It desires to dominate you, but you must subdue it."

* Jonah is a prefect example of this. The God of Isreal was also the God of the Assyrians (regardless of whether they knew it.) not just a national God. Jonah's reaction is a key to the discomfort that they would have had with this notion. (their God's traitorous concern for their enemies)

(Jon 1:2) "Go immediately to Nineveh, that large capital city, and announce judgment against its people because their wickedness has come to my attention."

(Jon 3:10) When God saw their actions - they turned from their evil way of living! - God relented concerning the judgment he had threatened them with and he did not destroy them.

* Paul sums it up this way. (Rom 3:23) for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

~Steve

Why did God hate Esau?

Why did God love Jacob?

Predistination of the one seed in Isaac. The writers may have started the Genesis story that imagined a universal God but that idea soon gave way to a tribal God in sons of Jacob-Israel. Discrimination was made between peoples. For example, God told Moses that He made a difference between the Israelites and the Egyptians. And the Canaanites were not a people of God, and the list goes on.

Behavior modification is seen from Cain to the law of Moses, whereupon the law for Israel took presidence.

"Nations" has identity in the twelve tribes and these the namesake of God. Blessing and cursing is attributed to the tribes of Israel in their obedience or transgressions.

Paul(or Peter?) referred to OT scripture in his "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God". Law was at the forefront of this tribal condemnation.

I am sorry my friend, that is not true. You will see evidence in the entire Old Testament, before and after the law that God's concern for man is universal. Those that are not his people are not so of their own doing. Amos 1 and Jer 46 are examples of God's holding other nations (named by name) accountable.

The book of Habakkuk is about God empowering another nation to destroy Isreal temporarily because of their unfaithfulness.

Nations are given names in all of these cases and they are definitely not any of the 12 tribes of isreal.

As far as Paul, his condemnation was universal, for those with and without the law. Your argument of it being at the forefront does not lend itself to exclusivity.

~Steve

Anat · 09-01-2008, 09:59 AM

1st century Jews were a diverse bunch, split into multiple sects. For an idea of what some 1st century Jews who did not become founders of Christianity thought, see for example Ethics of the Fathers.

While the in the Hebrew Bible YHWH holds both Israel and Gentiles responsible for their actions, they are held to different standards. Gentiles were believed to be held to the covenant of Noah, only Israel were considered to answer to the covenant of Sinai. The same Amos who prophesied doom for various nations because of what was perceived as their cruel conduct towards conquered nations says in (3:2) "You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will visit upon you all your iniquities. " Meaning Israel, because they are the only ones who experienced the Sinai revelation, are held to a stricter standard.

sschlichter · 09-01-2008, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

1st century Jews were a diverse bunch, split into multiple sects. For an idea of what some 1st century Jews who did not become founders of Christianity thought, see for example Ethics of the Fathers.

While the in the Hebrew Bible YHWH holds both Israel and Gentiles responsible for their actions, they are held to different standards. Gentiles were believed to be held to the covenant of Noah, only Israel were considered to answer to the covenant of Sinai. The same Amos who prophesied doom for various nations because of what was perceived as their cruel conduct towards conquered nations says in (3:2) "You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will visit upon you all your iniquities. " Meaning Israel, because they are the only ones who experienced the Sinai revelation, are held to a stricter standard.

I totally agree on both the diversity and the special covenant relationship.

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

09-01-2008, 09:59 AM	#129
Anat Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: home Posts: 3,715	1st century Jews were a diverse bunch, split into multiple sects. For an idea of what some 1st century Jews who did not become founders of Christianity thought, see for example Ethics of the Fathers. While the in the Hebrew Bible YHWH holds both Israel and Gentiles responsible for their actions, they are held to different standards. Gentiles were believed to be held to the covenant of Noah, only Israel were considered to answer to the covenant of Sinai. The same Amos who prophesied doom for various nations because of what was perceived as their cruel conduct towards conquered nations says in (3:2) "You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will visit upon you all your iniquities. " Meaning Israel, because they are the only ones who experienced the Sinai revelation, are held to a stricter standard.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.