Gregg

Even if they didn't, do you think that this provides some of kind of evidence against the JM thesis? Orthodox Christianity bends and twists and mangles mainstream Jewish theology all out of shape too. It doesn't matter whether you're talking mythicist or historicist Christianity, if you expect either one to somehow proceed logically from Judaism you will be disappointed. Jews have written volumes on why Christianity even with a historical Jesus makes no sense from a Jewish theological perspective.

jgibson000

They have? About early Christianity? Could you please provide the names of some of these "volumes" and their authors? Is this a position that, say, Jacob Neusner or Samuel Sandmel or Israel Abrahams or C.G. Montifiore or E. Bammel or David Daube or Joseph Klausner have taken?

Jeffrey Gibson

jgibson000

Which "Christian" view? And is it a view that is expressed at the place where the designation of Jesus as "the pascal lamb" is actually made?

You didn't? What then is "that they, like the Islraelites in Egypt, will not have to face death, but have eternal life."

Leaving aside the question of what "spiritual death" means, is a claim that Jesus saves us from "spiritual death" what is being emphasized in the one place in the NT where the designation of Jesus as the "pascal lamb" is specifically made?

Jeffrey Gibson

Clivedurdle

Umm Christ was sacrificed at Yom Kippur!

http://www.truthnet.org/Christianity/Hebrews/Hebrews4/

Jayrok

It may not be your christian view, but when I was a christian I was taught that Jesus paid the price for sin. I won't speak to how each and every christian views the meaning of Jesus' sacrifice. I gave my view as I was taught growing up.


No, I didn't. They won't face death, much like the Israelites in Egypt. But they go a step further with the crucifixion and obtain eternal life through belief in Jesus. I didn't mean for my statement to imply the Israelites had eternal life at passover. Perhaps I should have written "like the Israelites, will not have to face death... but [unlike the Israelites], they (christians) will have eternal life".


Spiritual death, second death (Revelation 2; 20; 21). Physical death then after judgment a second death.

Does the claim that Jesus saves those from the second death have to be emphasized in the actual sentence where Jesus is called the passover lamb? Or is it permissable to gather passages related to Jesus' sacrifice and other passages calling him the lamb of God and associate them together?

Do you think Jesus was not considered the passover lamb according to the NT?

Gregg

Not a book here, but a Jewish site that pretty comprehensively covers the Jewish position on Christianity:

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/jewsandjesus.htm

Please explain why Jews would have found "early Christianity" more compatible with their religion (as opposed to, I guess, Nicean Christianity)? If so why didn't more Jews accept it?

jgibson000

But you said volumes, not websites. Are you not able to back up your claim?

Because "early Christianity" was a Judaism.

How many is more? And why didn't the Essenes accept Pharisaism? Or Phraisees Sadduceism? Why did many post Jamnia Pharisees Jews reject the apocalypticism of the Zealots which they had once embraced?

Jeffrey Gibson

Clivedurdle

From catholic encyclopedia. Not everything xian - ie holy spirit - is based on the Bible. But there do seem to be clear references to two sacrifices - one at passover and one at the day of atonement - in the new testament.

Koyaanisqatsi

There's a far more logical explanation, of course.

Jesus was the leader of a seditionist "underground" movement (aka, "freedom fighters" aka "terrorists" depending on one's perspective) and was either captured or betrayed by one of his own and the Romans tried him, convicted him and sentenced him to death by crucifixion (the two main uses of crucifixion being for murderers and seditionists) some time in the early decades of the common era. Consensus seems to be around 30 C.E.

It either inadvertantly coincided with the passover festival, or, more likely, the Romans kept Jesus imprisoned until the upcoming festival to give his death even more of an impact; even more of a statement, when so many Jews would be converging on the city to celebrate, they'd all see his rotting corpse up on the hill with all the other anti-Roman criminals.

IOW, precisely what the very public, gruesome death by crucifixion was meant to convey to all who would either go against or think about going against Rome's authority over the region.

That's the real history.

Since Jesus was a leader of a "fanatical" movement against the Roman occupation, his death at the hands of the Romans has the opposite effect they'd hoped for by nailing him up for all to see; it martyrs him and the "movement" he leaves behind eventually resumes to attack "in Jesus' name," growing in numbers as a result of the mythological stories that naturally arise out of this martyrdom.

This too has real historical precedent, of course, within all such martyrd leaders; they take on, gradually, from story to story to recruit more freedom fighters god-like status. They could walk on water and feed the hungry masses and heal the sick just by touching them, etc. Jesus was a great man (some say, not even a man) and the hated Romans killed him because they knew his power. Fill in the blanks from nomad to nomad under occupation.

This fanatical Jewish underground becomes more and more of a problem for the local Roman occupiers over the next few decades; the myth of Jesus the martyrd "leader" growing exponentially as a Jewish Messiah of some sort at the same time that more seditionist attacks against the occupiers "in Jesus' name" cause enough of a problem that Rome begins to see something has to be done to not only to quell the "movement" militarily, but also to some how destroy this Jesus martyr myth the "terrorists" are using both as recruitment and to fuel their seditionist zeal.

Sound familiar?

What the Romans didn't reallize at the time and are having to deal with later is that they didn't just kill yet another Jewish seditionist in Jesus, they killed what his followers now believe (say circa 60 C.E., or thirty years later) and are indoctrinated to believe to be a Jewish Messiah. It's bad enough, so the recruitment would go, that the Romans occupy our land and subjugate us, but they murdered one of Jehovah's messengers sent to save us all. Etc.

The Romans are "Christkillers." Again as history proves, that's a very powerful recruitment slogan (just switch out Romans for "Jews" and you'll get the picture I'm after). Again, this is circa 60 C.E. let's say and the prevailing belief of the now significant anti-Roman seditionist movement all acting "in Jesus' name."

So what are the occupiers (the Romans) going to do about this problem? By killing their leader, they poured gas on the fire and it's getting out of control.

In steps Mark, clearly not a Jewish scholar, who poorly cobbles together a Roman's understanding of what a Jewish Messiah is, culled no doubt from "intelligence" reports on the actual movement and what they believe along with pouring through Jewish theology to try and turn the movement's own beliefs on their head, at least enough to shift the blame away from the Roman occupiers for Jesus' death.

Mark says it was "the Jews" (their Sanhedrin) who are actually the ones to blame for the beloved martyr's crucifixion, not the Romans. Everybody's got it all wrong. Here's how the trial of Jesus "actually" went; with Pilate trying desperately (and uncharacteristicly) to exonerate Jesus. Why, he even publicly declared him innocent, foiling the evil Sanhedrin's plot to have Rome do their dirty work. No one should blame the Romans. Jesus taught that you should love your enemies and turn the other cheek to earthly authority and render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's, etc.

The only problem, of course, is that, how do you get from Pilate doing the opposite of what actually happened? Why, the "crowd" at passover was so riled up by the evil Sanhedrin, for they recognized Jesus' power (a very Roman notion) and were inexplicably jealous, so when given an opportunity to free their own (already freed) Messiah, "the Jews" of the day (your parents and grandparents, no less) threatened the hapless, terrified Roman occupier into killing Jesus.

It is "the Jews" you should all blame and hate and attack; it is each other you should turn your fanatical beliefs against.

No pun intended, but classic military propaganda attempts in a form that mimics the local traditions. It quotes their holy words and turns them one against the other. Or so it was hoped.

But it doesn't work, of course; "the Jews" aren't buying into any of this transparent nonsense (also historically accurate) and that's why the "final solution" comes in the genocide attempt of 70 C.E.

When all the smoke clears and the Jewish temple has been destroyed and Roman authority over the region more or less restored, another use for this new anti-Jewish mythology is found. It didn't work on "the Jews" it was intended to work on, but it does work rather well with non-Jews (gentiles) in the region as well as "fringe" Jews, though they don't buy the bodily resurrection myth Paul was peddling.

And no, I didn't forget Paul, but that's another story.

IOW, a perfectly logical evolution of how the Jesus myth as we know it today was created and used and forced on the Roman empire and through them, the Western world.

What began as a propaganda attempt to shift blame away and scuttle a local insurrection gets used as a perfect anti-Jewish slave theology; complete with a Jewish Christ being killed by the very people he was sent to deliver. So, hate the Jews for being "Christkillers" and "follow" Jesus (who taught that you should be meek and rejoice in your suffering and let earthly authority do whatever it was they wanted to do to you) and you will all be rewarded for being good little "Christian" Romans once you're all dead and we no longer give a shit about you and your beliefs because you're not our problem any more.

You literally could not get a more pro-Roman, anti-Jewish message if you had, say, concocted it all out of whole cloth, which, considering it is supposed to be the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy is yet another reason why it was clearly manufactured by non-Jews.

:huh:

Ben C Smith

You may simply have miswritten this, but if so you are inadvertently making it sound as if, in the Ascension of Isaiah, the son takes on the likeness of flesh and is killed in the firmament. This is simply not true. Here is 10.29-30 (the bracketed portions are found only in the Slavic or Ethiopic, or both, but not in the Latin):

And then he descended into the firmament, [where the ruler of this world lives], and he gave the password [to those on the left], and his form was like theirs, and they did not glorify him there, [but they were envying one another and fighting, for here there is a power of evil and envying about trifles]. And I saw when he descended [and made himself like] unto the angels of the air, and he was like one of them.

As you can see, the son descends safely through the firmament, since he takes on the form of the angels around him.

Ben.