The biggest problem facing monotheism.

ZenMode said:
The books that were written about Jesus portrays him in a certain way. For a variety of reasons, more than likely Jesus didn't view himself as the son of God.
Click to expand...

It kind of sounds like in Mark 14:61-62 he does:

61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? But Jesus said nothing. Then the high priest asked him, Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
 
Daylight63 said:
Where did I say that?
Click to expand...
This is what is written in my book "Introduction to Judaism" by Jewish scholar Shai Cherry at UCLA. The money quote is that concepts of an afterlife and a "world to come" (olam haba) are pervasive in Rabbinic Judaism.



"Concepts of the afterlife are central and pervasive in Rabbinic Judaism, although the Hebrew Bible says surprisingly little about the world to come.

The Pharisees are the earliest Jews known to support the ideas of resurrection and immortality of the soul. There is irony in the Pharisees accepting the Hellenistic notion of the immortality of the soul and the Sadducees rejecting it, because the Pharisees are usually perceived to be less Hellenistic than the Sadducees. As the Rabbis adopted the position of the Pharisees both resurrection and the immortality of the soul become central in Rabbinic thought.

In the aftermath of the destruction of the Second Temple and the failure of the Bar Kochva Revolt, the idea of the "world to come" (olam haba) served as a theodicy without undermining the importance of the halachic commitment to life in this world. There is a wide variety of comments on life in olam haba in Rabbinic literature. It is clear that one’s experience in the coming world depends on one’s actions in this world."


- source credit: "Introduction to Judaism" by Shai Cherry, assistant professor of Jewish Studies, UCLA.
 
Daylight63 said:
It kind of sounds like in Mark 14:61-62 he does:

61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? But Jesus said nothing. Then the high priest asked him, Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Click to expand...
That was written decades after Jesus died, by someone who never met him.
 
Cypress said:
As far as I know the Talmud is the principal text for Jewish theology, practice, and law in the three major sects of Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism.
Click to expand...

The majority of Jews, even in Israel, are secular and not religious. The Talmud is not the center of Jewish life, and in any event it has been abrogated frequently, same as the Koran has in Islam. Isaiah 42:9
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
This is what is written in my book "Introduction to Judaism" by Jewish scholar Shai Cherry at UCLA. The money quote is that concepts of an afterlife and a "world to come" (olam haba) are pervasive in Rabbinic Judaism.



"Concepts of the afterlife are central and pervasive in Rabbinic Judaism, although the Hebrew Bible says surprisingly little about the world to come.

The Pharisees are the earliest Jews known to support the ideas of resurrection and immortality of the soul. There is irony in the Pharisees accepting the Hellenistic notion of the immortality of the soul and the Sadducees rejecting it, because the Pharisees are usually perceived to be less Hellenistic than the Sadducees. As the Rabbis adopted the position of the Pharisees both resurrection and the immortality of the soul become central in Rabbinic thought.

In the aftermath of the destruction of the Second Temple and the failure of the Bar Kochva Revolt, the idea of the "world to come" (olam haba) served as a theodicy without undermining the importance of the halachic commitment to life in this world. There is a wide variety of comments on life in olam haba in Rabbinic literature. It is clear that one’s experience in the coming world depends on one’s actions in this world."


- source credit: "Introduction to Judaism" by Shai Cherry, assistant professor of Jewish Studies, UCLA.
Click to expand...

So, in other words, I never claimed to be a Jewish Scholar nor did I make any claims about the Talmud. Thanks for the confirmation.
 
Cypress said:
You started out claiming 'The Old Testament' was the basis of all Jewish theology and eschatology. What you are really talking about is the TaNaKh and its Torah. Your motivation was to claim Jewish people had no hope of ultimate justice, nor had any beliefs about an immortal soul or resurrection of the righteous.

It's been two thousand years since the preistly Sadducces claimed the written Torah was the only canonical Jewish text needed for the sacrificial religion of the second temple period.

The Sadducces are lost to the dustbin of history.

The Pharrises believed there was an oral Torah in addition to the written one, that ultimately blossomed in the Talmud, and this is what radically changed Judaism from an ancient sacrificial cult into the modern Rabbinic Judaism originating in the third century AD.

I can't claim to know what all Jews believe. But I am certain the Orthodox and conservative sects adopted a belief in some kind of ultimate resurrection of the righteous, although it seems to be more ambiguous than the Christian variety
Click to expand...
yes. the pharisees place the Talmud as more authoritative.
 
Daylight63 said:
So, in other words, I never claimed to be a Jewish Scholar nor did I make any claims about the Talmud. Thanks for the confirmation.
Click to expand...

I was referencing this authoritative statement you made about Judaism - which you made confidently and without caveat - which I have shown to be wrong based on the Talmudic tradition of Rabbinic Judaism -->
Daylight63 said:
Given that there is no real "afterlife" in Judaism, where is the justice per Judaism for the Holocaust?
Click to expand...
 
Cypress said:
I was referencing this authoritative statement you made about Judaism - which you made confidently and without caveat - which I have shown to be wrong based on the Talmudic tradition of Rabbinic Judaism -->
Click to expand...

I never made any authoritative statements about Judaism since I am not a Jew.
 
ZenMode said:
That was written decades after Jesus died, by someone who never met him.
Click to expand...
There is pretty decent circumstantial evidence that Gospel of Mark are the attestations of Peter, as recorded by his companion Mark.

There are creeds and hymns in the New Testament epistles attesting Jesus' divine nature, probably dating to the 30s or 40s when the eyewitnesses were alive and in a position to challenge any writings they felt were misrepresentations or fabrications.

Instead of doing a lot of fancy dancing trying to deny what is written in the earliest Christian literature, I think the onus is on taking these claims of divinity at face value and explain them.

Why did the disciples begin to believe Jesus was divine, as far back as the earliest writings? Were they mentally ill? Did they all conspire to fabricate these stories? Did they have mass hallucinations concerning the resurrection?
 
Cypress said:
There is pretty decent circumstantial evidence that Gospel of Mark are the attestations of Peter, as recorded by his companion Mark.

There are creeds and hymns in the New Testament epistles attesting Jesus' divine nature, probably dating to the 30s or 40s when the eyewitnesses were alive and in a position to challenge any writings they felt were misrepresentations or fabrications.

Instead of doing a lot of fancy dancing trying to deny what is written in the earliest Christian literature, I think the onus is on taking these claims of divinity at face value and explain them.

Why did the disciples begin to believe Jesus was divine, as far back as the earliest writings? Were they mentally ill? Did they all conspire to fabricate these stories? Did they have mass hallucinations concerning the resurrection?
Click to expand...

So what do you think happened when Jesus walked on water? How did he appear to raise a dead man up from the grave? How did he cure leprosy millennia before a vaccine?

You want to explain what is written, so these should be first on the list. Because if ANY of these are "made up" or "not real" then I am curious why you think the bits YOU prefer are all 100% real.
 
Truck Fump / h1b said:
right.

so all Christians who think everything is based off the "Torah" are just ignorant.
Click to expand...
No, ignorance of the Talmudic tradition is not evidence of stupidity. I didn't really appreciate the importance or history of Talmudic literature and Rabbinic Judaism until I started really reading about it ten years ago.
 
Daylight63 said:
So what do you think happened when Jesus walked on water? How did he appear to raise a dead man up from the grave? How did he cure leprosy millennia before a vaccine?

You want to explain what is written, so these should be first on the list. Because if ANY of these are "made up" or "not real" then I am curious why you think the bits YOU prefer are all 100% real.
Click to expand...
I didn't mention anything about water, and obviously there are embellishments peppered in the NT for theological reasons. Many theologians think stories about walking on water is metaphorical. Any person who has seriously studied religion knows that ancient literature is full of myth, allegory, poetry, hyperbole, mixed in with nuggets of historical data. The scholar uses the tools of literary criticism to distinguish between them.

What I did write about above is the disciples' belief in the divinity of Jesus

Even the respected atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman considers it a reliable historical fact that the Disciples believed they saw Jesus after the crucifixion, and came to believe he had some kind of divine nature.

The serious armchair historian will come up with reasons to explain those facts - why the disciples believed that - rather than tap dancing around trying to deny these particular written attestations.
 
Cypress said:
I didn't mention anything about water, and obviously there are embellishments peppered in the NT for theological reasons.
Click to expand...

As I noted before. But you seem to be playing an interesting game of "cherry picking". You wish to take the stories of the resurrection as something that people actually saw and needs to be explained by more mundane explanations. So why do you deny the OTHER miracles as being worthy of discussion?

Many theologians think stories about walking on water is metaphorical.
Click to expand...

Are you saying people might have written parts of the Gospels to fulfill religious concept needs? That they might have....made something up from time to time to serve the narrative?

Wow. I've heard that somewhere before. Oh yeah... I said it too. Many times now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top