Understanding the Historical Yeshua

I should have started this thread a long time ago instead of responding in other threads. For that ... I apologize!

What I will attempt to do here is to set forth a working model for a reconstruction of the religio-sociological and geo-political atmosphere that influenced and motivated the historical man, Yeshua ben Yosef (aka Jesus), to advance the Repentance Movement initiated by Yochanan the Causer of Ritual Immersion (aka John the Baptist) through his own Repentance Movement that sought to establish the Kingdom of Heaven (i.e., the Rulership of G-d) in the hearts and minds of his countrymen in the hopes that doing so would work to usher in the Messianic Era as it was understood by the proto-Rabbinic Separatist (Pharisaic) sages of his time.

I respectfully request that the readership limit their responses to questions and/or comments that directly relate to the quest for the historical Yeshua, because we have threads aplenty on this forum that address the Christology and Theology of the Church - not to mention the Gnostic Jesus, the Alien Jesus, the Mythical Jesus, etc., etc., etc.

What I would like to offer the readership in this thread is a view of the Yeshua ben Yosef as gleaned from the writings of numerous Jewish scholars and authors who have sought to understand the "Jesus" of the Gospels in light of the historical, linguistic and cultural context of the Holy Land of the Common Era.

I don't wish to be dinged again for re-posting material, so as a start to this thread I'd like to ask the readership to go here, scroll down to my post dated 12-6-2005 at 23:45 (Post Number: 1453898) and read it as background information regarding my next post in this thread. Thank you very much!

Originally posted by smadewellWhat I will attempt to do here is to set forth a working model for a reconstruction of the religio-sociological and geo-political atmosphere that influenced and motivated the historical man, Yeshua ben Yosef (aka Jesus), to advance the Repentance Movement initiated by Yochanan the Causer of Ritual Immersion (aka John the Baptist) through his own Repentance Movement that sought to establish the Kingdom of Heaven (i.e., the Rulership of G-d) in the hearts and minds of his countrymen in the hopes that doing so would work to usher in the Messianic Era as it was understood by the proto-Rabbinic Separatist (Pharisaic) sages of his time.

That may be fine, and after a cursory glance at your initial post on the other thread, I put to you that you approach the life of Jesus from a decidedly biased point of view, which represents the man as being some sort of scriptural and possibly divine character.

John the Baptist obviously failed to recall his baptizing of this man.
John the Baptist was his cousin which makes the above snub even worse.
Jesus supposedly launced his ship(s) on hearing of JtB's death, and for what purpose?

The scriptures present a rather obscure and therefore interpretive characterization Jesus which is heavily influenced by countless others over decades telling us what those scriptures mean. Yet, when placed in context of the times, his story presents itself as a tale of one who led an armed force in rebellion against state and other Jewish factions.

Before I expound on the pivotal event (see the link in my post above) in Separatist (Pharisaic) history that served to initiate a sort of "Cold War" between the two schools of Pharisaic thought - the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai - and what impact this had on the historical Yeshua and the formation of his Repentance-Kingdom Movement ... I think it wise to touch upon the topic of mysticism for a moment.

Gershom Scholem wrote a book entitled, "On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism". IMO, the first chapter, "Religious Authority and Mysticism", is a MUST READ for anyone questing after the historical Yeshua. Why?

I have no doubt that Yeshua was a mystic, that is to say, he had a real experience with and an intimate revelation of the Divine. As Scholem points out, ... there is a revolutionary and a conservative aspect to mysticism, at least for those mystics who seek to share their revelation with others.

The mystic tends to work within his/her own culture's religious system and tends to communicate his/her experience using the imagery and phraseology of that belief system. In so doing, the mystic attempts to preserve and will even appeal to the SOURCES of traditional authority. Yet, he/she may also substitute his/her own opinion for that espoused by the established religious authority. Typically, the mystic will view the genesis of his/her belief system and grasp its essence and then seek to breathe new life into it.

I believe that Yeshua (Jesus) and Yochanan (John the Baptist) and a number of the proto-Rabbinic Separatists (Pharisees) and their associates among the Chasidim (Pious Ones) were such mystics.

In part due to state of affairs with the RULING religious authorities - not to mention the politics of the time - and in part due to their own “seeking after G-d” - they looked back into the historical origins of their faith and upon seeing the Sinaic ideal outlined by G-d in the Sacred Text … they sought to actualize the Kingdom of Heaven (i.e., the Rulership fo G-d), so that they might truly become a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, which is what G-d had called them to be at Mt. Sinai.

These Jewish mystics felt that via repentance, ritual immersion, and Torah observance one could pave the way for an immersion in the Divine Presence (i.e., the Holy Spirit).

It didn't take a rocket scientist or a political commentator to read the hand writing on the wall.... These Jewish mystics only had to step back and look at the goings-on in their time to realize that the "wrath of G-d" was just around the corner. So, ... the pressing question for them became, "How can the elect escape this wrath?" and "What's going to happen after the dust settles?"

The answer to the former question is obvious! Flee into the mountains when the stuff hits the fan and don't join some foolhardy Messianic want-to-be or false prophet into an open conflict with Rome, etc.

The answer to the latter question was equally simple! After the dust settles ... have a kingdom intact and present and ready to replace the former "social order" and enthrone a benevolent, Divinely chosen king, who would, in turn, govern the Theocratic Nation of Israel. Further, it would be essential to have a foundation prepared so that this Messianic Kingdom could be a blessing to the Nations - per the original Sinaic idea - and thereby avoid any further international unpleasantness!

These Jewish mystics felt that the only way to avoid punishment come the Day of Judgment and/or the "wrath to come" was to manifest the Kingdom of Heaven (i.e., the Rulership of G-d) in one’s daily life through repentance and charitable deeds and acts of loving kindness. In so doing, the elect would also work to hasten and thereby usher in the Messianic Era.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by smadewellWhat I will attempt to do here is to set forth a working model for a reconstruction of the religio-sociological and geo-political atmosphere that influenced and motivated the historical man, Yeshua ben Yosef (aka Jesus), to advance the Repentance Movement initiated by Yochanan the Causer of Ritual Immersion (aka John the Baptist) through his own Repentance Movement that sought to establish the Kingdom of Heaven (i.e., the Rulership of G-d) in the hearts and minds of his countrymen in the hopes that doing so would work to usher in the Messianic Era as it was understood by the proto-Rabbinic Separatist (Pharisaic) sages of his time.

I put to you that you approach the life of Jesus from a decidedly biased point of view, which represents the man as being some sort of scriptural and possibly divine character.

First, according the Judaism of that period, all were called to be the "Children of the Divine" and all partake in the "Divine Image". I don't wish to debt that point. Let's just accept that THEY were of this opinion and move on. No, I am not saying that "Jesus" was a divine character in the "Christian" sense.

Secondly, ... although I might make use of the gospels - which I personally don't hold to be on a par with the Sacred Text of the Jews (i.e., the so-called "Old Testament") - the inescapable fact of the matter is that the gospels are really the only source we have at hand for understanding the historical man. Nevertheless, the gospels must be examined critically and placed back into their proper historical, linguistic and cultural context.

Don't freak out! I'm not here to present a "Christian Jesus". I'm simply trying to express what JEWISH AUTHORS have come to realize about the historical man, Yeshua ben Yosef, which isn't as negative as one might think, but which will certainly fall short of the mythos espoused by the Church.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
John the Baptist obviously failed to recall his baptizing of this man.
John the Baptist was his cousin which makes the above snub even worse.
Jesus supposedly launced his ship(s) on hearing of JtB's death, and for what purpose?

I don't know of any writing wherein "John the Baptist" is questioned about “baptizing” Yeshua – let alone one in which he can’t recall having "baptizing" him -- as you put it.

Besides, ritual immersion in Judaism isn't accomplished by one person dunking or sprinkling another. In Judaism, all ritual immersion is self-immersion. Yochanan never dunked or sprinkled anyone! Yochanan (John) was simply CAUSING others to immersion themselves by virtue of what he was saying, which was - "REPENT!" This "causative verb tense" doesn't come through very well in Greek, which again, is why one must put things back into their proper linguistic and cultural context.

[edit on 13-6-2005 by smadewell]

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetweenThe scriptures present a rather obscure and therefore interpretive characterization Jesus which is heavily influenced by countless others over decades telling us what those scriptures mean. Yet, when placed in context of the times, his story presents itself as a tale of one who led an armed force in rebellion against state and other Jewish factions.

As for Yeshua's desire to lead an armed rebellion against the Jewish authorities or the State or the Romans.... That's simply absurd! Where do you get that he was out to rebel against other Jewish factions by force of arms!?

What Yeshua was doing was laying the ground work for a movement that would replace the standing "social order" after the Almighty wiped the slant clean by letting things explode in their own good time, which, from the perspective of Yeshua and others of his ilk, was just around the corner.

If that meant fleeing into the mountains, while the stuff hit the fan, and having a sword ready to defend one’s self, then so be it. That’s all he meant by his statement, “… he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one” (Luke 22:36). That’s a far cry from seeking to overthrow other Jewish factions or the Romans by force of arms!

Further, it should be noted that self-protection – even if one must violate the Sabbath to do so – is allowed in Jewish Law. Why? Because the sages took the verse, “you shall live (by these Commandments)" to infer that one was to LIVE and therefore not DIE by them. In fact, a Jew may break ALL the Commandments, save the three “cardinal sins”, in order to save himself (and others) from being killed or martyred.

As for Yeshua’s statement, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34). The “lack of peace” he speaks about and the “sword of division” has to do with the nature of his Repentance-Kingdom Movement.

Yeshua was seeking to “rescue” the Secular Jews and the not-so-Torah observant Jews of his day and age from the immediate and ultimate consequences of their short comings and/or their having turned aside from G-d. How? By preaching repentance to them and by calling them to actualize the Kingdom of Heaven (i.e., the Rulership of G-d) in their daily life.

In short, he was calling them to return to the orthodoxy and the orthopraxy of the proto-Rabbinic Separatist (Phairsees) in general and the teachings of the School of Hillel (with only one notable exception) and to exemplify the piety and ethics (musar) of the Pharisaic Chasidim (Pious Ones) in particular.

Read the following link about the DIVISION and STRIFE that visits a Jewish house when one of its family members decides to become a Baal Teshuvah (Master of Repentance) and becomes completely Orthodox and you will understand what Yeshua meant about his having come to bring a sword of division between father and son and mother and daughter, etc.

An Overview of the Baalei Teshuvah (Masters of Repentance) Movement

[edit on 13-6-2005 by smadewell]

www.rickross.com...

In particular I find the following excerpt regarding Baalei Teshuvah (Masters of Repentance) to be most illuminating:

"Relationships with families can become strained as relatives may not eat on the same family dinnerware (due to dietary rules) or be together with families on the Sabbath and holidays. Old friends may be cut off as the BT [Baalei Teshuvah] increasingly only associates with others who observe Orthodox at a similar level. New converts are often the worst, or most zealous on these points."

Therein is the sword of division and the lack of peace Yeshua spoke of bringing. The danger in seeking to restore a Secular Jew or a not-so-Torah-observant Jew to orhtodoxy is that you might end up creating a worse person. Hence, Yeshua's approach to "sinners" was the baby-steps apporach espoused by the Hillelites, rather than the ALL OR NOTHING approach to repenant souls and Gentile converts that the Shammaites demanded.

[edit on 13-6-2005 by smadewell]

Originally posted by smadewellAs for Yeshua's desire to lead an armed rebellion against the Jewish authorities or the State or the Romans.... That's simply absurd! Where do you get that he was out to rebel against other Jewish factions by force of arms!?

I can detail it in here, but then I would rather you either educate yourself or wait to have that education presented to you in the near future. For now, I will state this: If you or anyone else were to be diligent and overlay the 4 gospels then match same with known history, you would find his whereabouts are in sync with those whom you might term today as terrorists. But I don't want to leave you wanting until that day comes, so I give to you a few tid-bits to ponder: 1) the request to set the Samaritan village on fire. 2) Jesus' quick trans-Galilee venture on hearing of the death of JtB and the remarkable number of intransigents who happen to be in the desert starving at the time of his arrival; 3) This was a man of peace, why then was Peter, the man who is named the first pontiff, the heir prince of peace, carrying a sword? 4) The Romans did not crucify criminals unless they were enemies of Rome, while the Jews were allowed the explicit right to mete out justice to all Jews who did not uphold Torah law.

Now you figure it out, that is all the help I am willing to provide to you at present.

What Yeshua was doing was laying the ground work for a movement that would replace the standing "social order" after the Almighty wiped the slant clean by letting things explode in their own good time, which, from the perspective of Yeshua and others of his ilk, was just around the corner.

Whatever that is supposed to mean.

(Luke 22:36). That’s a far cry from seeking to overthrow other Jewish factions or the Romans by force of arms!

Do you not know yet that I have no regard for any of the OT scriveners much less some joker who never even met the man you call Jesus?

Further, it should be noted that self-protection – even if one must violate the Sabbath to do so – is allowed in Jewish Law.

Wrong! No arms were allowed to be taken up on the sabbath.

As for Yeshua’s statement, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword"

You mean he was actually willing to kill? Which is it, that he was here to bring peace, comfort and love or death? Can you people make up your minds? As for the NT quotes, I do not care if you quote all of them 50 times each, since I give none of them, even the first time any credence.

Yeshua was seeking to “rescue” the Secular Jews and the not-so-Torah observant Jews of his day and age from the immediate and ultimate consequences of their short comings and/or their having turned aside from G-d.

He was seeking to kill those who disagreed with his teachings, whether they were Jew or Roman, he really was not prejudiced.

Read the following link about the DIVISION and STRIFE that visits a Jewish house

I don't read the biased thoughts of others, especially when they are offered as proof by those with whom I engage. You have a mind of your own, use it!

Jesus the Terrorist...? That's a new twist on the old Militant Messiah model, which simply doesn't fit the facts. BTW, you obviously do not know Jewish Law or the Hebrew Scriptures. There is an axiom in Jewish Law that goes, "If one comes to kill you, rise and kill him". "If a thief be found breaking in, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him" (Exd 22:2).

If a theif, then how much more a Roman soldier who happens to be hunting you? If a theif, then how much more foreign governments who send their military to attack you on the Sabbath? Shades of the "Six Day War". Enough said.... Can't use a sword for self-defense on the Sabbath? WHATEVER! :shk:

SomewhereinBetween? I think you're anything but "in between". Your mind is obviously made up. Responding to your responses would be as pointless as responding to a Christian's dogmatic diatribe. Let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that. :shk:

I dont feel inclinded to speak about everything you have addressed here, but I do have a question about
"Children of the Divine"

Is that your rephrase of this verse, or is it something different?

Deu 14:1 Ye are the children of the LORD your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead.

Just curious

Originally posted by jake1997I dont feel inclinded to speak about everything you have addressed here, but I do have a question about "Children of the Divine". Is that your rephrase of this verse, or is it something different? Deu 14:1 Ye are the children of the LORD your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead. Just curious

Just my rephrase, Jake. You say, "Sons of G-d" and the women folk might feel left out; you say, "Sons/Daughters of G-d" and it gets wordy; you say, "Sons of Light" and people think you're talking about the Dead Sea Scrolls; you say, "Sons of the Commandments" and the antinomian Christians start lecturing you about the Torah being null and void, etc. "Children of the Divine" seemed like a safe phrase to use.

Fact is ... it's a real pill trying to pick words and phrases that won't step on toes or incite a flame. Were I to use standard Church-speak ... others might get totally turned off and ignore what I'm attempting to say before they even read it, because they've got me pegged as a Christian nutter or worse - some whacky cult leader! LOL!

I think we all fall into that trap of labelling and dismissing others - from time to time, no? Everybody seems to have some bugaboo here and there about "proper" terminology, etc. So, please overlook any odd wording or verbiage I might use ... or as you just did ... ask me to explain myself. Nothing wrong with that! I know this thread conflicts with your belief system, but ... keep reading. You might glean some interesting information along the way. You never know....

Originally posted by smadewell
Jesus the Terrorist...? That's a new twist on the old Militant Messiah model, which simply doesn't fit the facts.

No, not a new trust, just a a more modern word meaning the very same thing except with a connotation used today by political leaders to grab the attention of the violence saturated, desensitised crowd of 2 millemia later.

BTW, you obviously do not know Jewish Law or the Hebrew Scriptures....

And I say that you confuse today's Jewish philosophy with those "Shades of the "Six Day War". of decades ago, versus those of 2,000 years ago," which shows that it is you who are not versed in the laws, and neither are you versed in their supposed history.

1Macc. 32:38 32: Many pursued them, and overtook them; they encamped opposite them and prepared for battle against them on the sabbath day.
33: And they said to them, "Enough of this! Come out and do what the king commands, and you will live."
34: But they said, "We will not come out, nor will we do what the king commands and so profane the sabbath day."
35: Then the enemy hastened to attack them.
36: But they did not answer them or hurl a stone at them or block up their hiding places,
37: for they said, "Let us all die in our innocence; heaven and earth testify for us that you are killing us unjustly."
38: So they attacked them on the sabbath, and they died, with their wives and children and cattle, to the number of a thousand persons.

This is but only one such incident, file it away for the future so that you do not show your ignorance again.

The Maccabees, terrorists themselves by their own actions, then decided to break that rule, while 2 Maccabees takes them to task for such activity: 1 Macc.27-2.Macc.1:12. Therefore, this little apology of yours

There is an axiom in Jewish Law that goes, "If one comes to kill you, rise and kill him". "If a thief be found breaking in, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him" (Exd 22:2).

is worth diddly.

SomewhereinBetween? I think you're anything but "in between". Your mind is obviously made up. Responding to your responses would be as pointless as responding to a Christian's dogmatic diatribe. Let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that. :shk:

Let us just agree that you come unarmed, and ill-equipped, where I prefer a challenge, try to come bearing one the next time, or at least one that has the appearance of challenge.

What was that phrase? Ah yes, Nuf said!

Originally posted by smadewellI don't know of any writing wherein "John the Baptist" is questioned about “baptizing” Yeshua – let alone one in which he can’t recall having "baptizing" him -- as you put it.

Of course you don't because you have already established your lack of knowledge with this subject. Surely if you were to be preaching a new type of philosophy and someone were to cross your path where you proclaim he is better than you, and a thundering voice from the sky blushes: "this is my son in whom I am well pleased," you would not forget the event. Would you? well that is exactly what is portrayed of JtB:

Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or should we look for another?

And this was his cousin at that. How forgetful and umimportant was Jesus really?

Besides, ritual immersion in Judaism isn't accomplished by one person dunking or sprinkling another. In Judaism, all ritual immersion is self-immersion.

Who cares about Judaistic ritual imersion, when we are talking about a man Jews today do not believe was in fact their messiah, and from whom comes customs they do not adhere to? The fact is, the right of baptism was a fairly young practice at the time of Jesus, and practiced by only one of the 4 Jewish factions.

Yochanan never dunked or sprinkled anyone!

Well at least we are in agreement with one thing. Matthew's and Mark's gospel establish very early that truth was no their forte. But then again, maybe you expect the words t state that John forced the head of Jesus under water

Yochanan (John) was simply CAUSING others to immersion themselves by virtue of what he was saying, which was - "REPENT!"

[edit on 6/14/05 by SomewhereinBetween]

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
1Macc. 32:38: So they attacked them on the sabbath, and they died, with their wives and children and cattle, to the number of a thousand persons

This is but only one such incident, file it away for the future so that you do not show your ignorance again. The Maccabees, terrorists themselves by their own actions, then decided to break that rule, while 2 Maccabees takes them to task for such activity: 1 Macc.27-2.Macc.1:12. Therefore, this little apology of yours

There is an axiom in Jewish Law that goes, "If one comes to kill you, rise and kill him". "If a thief be found breaking in, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him" (Exd 22:2).

is worth diddly.

LOL! You're pulling an example from Maccabees thinking it represents Jewish thought "across the board" and down through the centuries.

Yes, there have been Jews (throughout history) who took Sabbath observance to ridiculous extremes - like not using force and thereby allowing themselves to be killed - in their attempt to honour and observe their sacred Day of Rest and/or in order to serve a pacifistic ideal.

What I'm saying is that in light of such examples, the proto-Rabbinic Separatist (Pharisees) sages OF YESHUA'S DAY AND AGE modified Jewish Law to accommodate situations in which one might "break the Sabbath" in order to serve a higher purpose - like protecting oneself, protecting others, rendering first-aid to self and others, etc., etc., etc.

It's precisely BECAUSE OF such examples of Jewish deaths that halakhot (religio-legal rulings) were argued for and adopted and established and later codified to provide a justifiable "Torah-based" reason for defense against unscrupulous attackers seeking to kill Jews on their sacred Day of Rest, etc.

It's simply untenable to claim that as a matter of theoretical ethical duty Jewish law perceives pacifism as the ideal response to evil in all circumstances!

1) Jewish law compels one to save the life of one who is being murdered even if it is necessary to do so at the expense of the life of the murderer. (Sanhedrin 72a)

2) Jewish Law mandates the use of force on the Sabbath in response to the threat of invasion of the Jewish community. (Shulchan Aruch - Orach Chaim 329:6)

Which is why, during the Six Day War, the Jews didn't just sit on their collective arse and allow the Muslims to invade Israel and wipe them out - like the Maccabean example you use in support of your argument!

The axiom "If one comes to kill you, rise and kill him" in Jewish Law stands and is worth far more than "diddly" - as you put it! :shk:

[edit on 15-6-2005 by smadewell]

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Originally posted by smadewellI don't know of any writing wherein "John the Baptist" is questioned about “baptizing” Yeshua – let alone one in which he can’t recall having "baptizing" him -- as you put it.

Of course you don't because you have already established your lack of knowledge with this subject. Surely if you were to be preaching a new type of philosophy and someone were to cross your path where you proclaim he is better than you, and a thundering voice from the sky blushes: "this is my son in whom I am well pleased," you would not forget the event. Would you? well that is exactly what is portrayed of JtB:

Oh.... I see.... You're taking that gospel passage as being literal. Okay.... Well, ... even if it did actually happen that way, then it was simply a manifestation of a Bat Kol (lit. "Daughter of a Voice"), which one reads about in the rabbinic literature as having "marked" various events - be they pivotal or more mundane and/or personal.

What's the big deal about having the clouds part, the Holy Spirit descend and hearing a Bat Kol make such a comment?

Do you think Yeshua was the only sage of the Common Era to be graced with a shout out from a Bat Kol? Do you think Yeshua was the only sage of the Common Era upon whom the Holy Spirit descended - be it with or without a physical manifestation? The rabbinic literature contains examples of other proto-Rabbinic sage and prophets upon whom the Holy Spirit rested and/or evidenced the Divine Presence by a physical manifestation!

It might be a little out of the ordinary, but it's certainly no without precedent among those proto-Rabbinic sages and prophets (especially where those of the House of Hillel were involved) who were seeking to advance the Kingdom of Heaven during the Common Era.

Was it not pleasing to the Divine to see the Children of G-d ritually immerse themselves after being called to repentance?

Why do you assume that anything this Bat Kol said was in any way validating Yeshua as being THE MESSIAH? How can you assume that even if Yochanan heard this Bat Kol he took it to mean that the Divine was - by this Heavenly Voice - selecting Yeshua to be THE MESSIAH? How can you assume the author of this gospel passage specifically meant to use it to support his belief that Yeshua was THE MESSIAH?

Mind reader much? Time travel much? What are you? A Remote Viewer? Put the passage back into its proper historical and cultural context and stop reading it through the eyes of Christendom!!!

I'm not talking about the Jesus of Christianity here! I'm trying to demonstrate a historical Yeshua who was part and parcel of the proto-Rabbinic world of his day and age.

Typically, when giving an official "Thumbs Up" to something a Bat Kol was a little more specific about what was being sanctioned, if anything at all – and even then … those who heard it were free to accept or reject it!!!

What we see here is nothing more than a Bat Kol commenting that the Divine was pleased that Yeshua took his being a Son of the Commandments (i.e., a Son of G-d, a Son of Light, etc.) seriously enough to ritually immerse himself at the behest (and in support) of Yochanan's call to repentance. That's all! Nothing more! Stop reading Christian dogma into the text already!!!

Even if Yochanan initially believed Yeshua was a messianic figure and later had doubts ... and sent disciples to question him on that point ... who can say either man shared the same Messianic Ideal? Other Jews - even those from the same school of thought! - during this and later periods certainly had different takes about the advent, nature, person and work of the various messianic figures who will make their way onto the stage of Jewish history.

Keep on writing! You're giving me the opportunity to address all those hackneyed arguments that people keep forth. :shk:

[edit on 15-6-2005 by smadewell]

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetweenWho cares about Judaistic ritual imersion, when we are talking about a man Jews today do not believe was in fact their messiah, and from whom comes customs they do not adhere to? The fact is, the right of baptism was a fairly young practice at the time of Jesus, and practiced by only one of the 4 Jewish factions.

Once again ... your ignorance is showing. Everyone going into the inner courts of the Temple compound had to ritually immerse themselves - regardless of their sectarian affiliations. So, more than one "Jewish faction" practised ritual immersion.

Further, you're showing how hopelessly uniformed you are about the Common Era, because - setting aside ritual immersion at the Temple - the Pharisees (Separatists), the Essenes, and even a sect - about whom much isn't written - called the Morning Bathers observed ritual immersion (Tosefta Yadaim 2,20).

Further, ... stop appealing to the Catholic Bible, the writings of Josephus and the Encyclopaedia Britannica as your sole source for knowledge about the Judaisms of the Common Era.

There were a whole slew of sects - not just "four Jewish factions" - that comprised the Judaisms of the Common Era (Talmud Berakot 22a). Heck fire! Even Eusebius lists seven in his work "Church History" (22:7). Try reading the rabbinic literature for a change! :shk: Or is that too "Judaistic" for you to bother with? :shk:

Originally posted by smadewell a bunch of nonsense

Once more, who cares about ritualistic immersion? The issue of same I challenged was of John the Baptist obviously forgetting about his being present at the baptism of Christ, not what other Jews did. Focus! Such that this was my first response specifically in that regard

John the Baptist obviously failed to recall his baptizing of this man.
John the Baptist was his cousin which makes the above snub even worse.

Note, I make mention of only two men here, John and Jesus. The very fact that the Jewish ritual of cleansing at attending temple each and every time, should at least give you a clue that it is not the same as baptism, nor does it have anything to do with JtB forgetting Jesus. Furthermore, the baptismal ritual as practiced by John came about no earlier than the 4th century bce. So why are you trying to confuse the two, especially when you present this weak excuse of an argument?

Besides, ritual immersion in Judaism isn't accomplished by one person dunking or sprinkling another. In Judaism, all ritual immersion is self-immersion. Yochanan never dunked or sprinkled anyone!

Any ignorance here is solely owned by you, as it is obvious that I must bring your lack of credentials and knowledge to the forefront once again;

I don't know of any writing wherein "John the Baptist" is questioned about “baptizing” Yeshua – let alone one in which he can’t recall having "baptizing" him -- as you put it,

To which you have yet to acquaint yourself with Matthew 11:1,3 specifically: And [John]said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?, when John specifically is quoted represented in Matt. 3:13,14: Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

Your ignorance did not stop there, you wrote this decided equivocation, not I

There is an axiom in Jewish Law that goes, "If one comes to kill you, rise and kill him". "If a thief be found breaking in, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him" (Exd 22:2).

And when met by quotes from Maccabees countering same, you now attempt to subversively offer that Maccabees, the Maccabees whom Jews hold in very high esteem, did not represent the portrayal of practiced Hebraic law prior to their breaking that code accurately:

You're pulling an example from Maccabees thinking it represents Jewish thought "across the board" and down through the centuries.

You are in essence doing what every apologist does; parse the writings for only the portions which suit your purpose.

If you think you have or can conjure some creditable works which show that the breaking of the Sabbath to kill can support your case that resting on the Sabbath was “taken to extremes,” then do so, lolling all day and all night lolling while you deny it is so, just does not cut it with me.

What I'm saying is that in light of such examples, the proto-Rabbinic Separatist (Pharisees) sages OF YESHUA'S DAY AND AGE modified Jewish Law to accommodate situations in which one might "break the Sabbath"

Of course they did, which is why the man called Jesus is not acknowledged as the messiah.

It's simply untenable to claim that as a matter of theoretical ethical duty Jewish law perceives pacifism as the ideal response to evil in all circumstances!

I do not argue this, nor was this your initial point. For I can cite hundreds of OT textual passages which show just how rapacious was their history. This has nothing to do with your now debunked claim they would fight on the Sabbath. Stay focused!

Oh.... I see.... You're taking that gospel passage as being literal.

Understand this, I take none of The Bible at face value, but when you wish to argue same with me, I will use the very verses within same to show just how full of holes it is, as is your argument. Utilizing the latter, the only Bible believers who would glean anything non-literal from this

And lo a voice from heaven saying, This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased.

Are those who twist such verses in their deluded heads. And why should I not take it literally, when all of Genesis chapters one through eleven is taken literally?

Okay.... Well, ... even if it did actually happen that way, then it was simply a manifestation of a Bat Kol (lit. "Daughter of a Voice"), which one reads about in the rabbinic literature as having "marked" various events - be they pivotal or more mundane and/or personal.

How about it never happened to begin with, it just some old codger living in fantasyland, and if the OT is false, so too is the NT.

What's the big deal about having the clouds part, the Holy Spirit descend and hearing a Bat Kol make such a comment?

None as far as I am concerned, maybe those who wrote the account of Jesus’ baptism and their initiates can muster an argument for you, I personally do not care. But on a side note, you should take note that if it is no big deal then your very first post which speaks to JtB is also no big deal.

Do you think Yeshua was the only sage of the Common Era…

Focus man! I think nothing of Jesus in sage-like terms. Decide which principle you are going to back and stay with it, right now you are all over the place like a drifting ship looking to find jmoorings.

It might be a little out of the ordinary, but it's certainly no without precedent among those proto-Rabbinic sages and prophets (especially where those of the House of Hillel were involved) who were seeking to advance the Kingdom of Heaven during the Common Era.

Whatever that means.

Was it not pleasing to the Divine to see the Children of G-d ritually immerse themselves after being called to repentance?

I don’t know, did you interview “the divine?”

Mind reader much?

Yes.

Time travel much?

You ask that as though 1) you are one yourself and 2) I believe in that nonsense.

What are you? A Remote Viewer?

I am what I am, how is that?

Put the passage back into its proper historical and cultural context and stop reading it through the eyes of Christendom!!!

Which passage, and who is reading the story of John the Baptist as being real here?

I'm not talking about the Jesus of Christianity here! I'm trying to demonstrate a historical Yeshua who was part and parcel of the proto-Rabbinic world of his day and age.

Then start demonstrating same! Do not present a myopic pseudo-thesis based on fatuous, irreconcilable, and unsubstantiated remarks by unknown authors as the basis for your demonstration, especially when such demonstration is backed by ignorance.

Keep on writing! You're giving me the opportunity to address all those hackneyed arguments that people keep forth.

Amazing is it not, since that this is exactly how I rate your posts.Did I mentione you come unarmed? Why yes, I did.

This is truly a fascinating exchange! Thank you! I truly admire your scholarship.

It could do with a little less heat but, that's between y'all.

I'm just reading and jotting down references to check out for myself. I think you both know a lot about what you're talking about and I don't know enough to take a side, here. I am beginning to wonder if you are both absolutely correct but in different contexts.

OK, I'll just keep taking notes.

Originally posted by Al Davison
This is truly a fascinating exchange! Thank you! I truly admire your scholarship. It could do with a little less heat but, that's between y'all. I'm just reading and jotting down references to check out for myself. I think you both know a lot about what you're talking about and I don't know enough to take a side, here. I am beginning to wonder if you are both absolutely correct but in different contexts. OK, I'll just keep taking notes.

Well, there will be no more heat from me. It's pointless to respond to someone who claims I have a "lack of knowledge on this subject" and come "unarmed" and yet rejects the source material I've either presented, quoted and/or given references for from the rabbinic literature, which is obviously too "Judaistic" for him/her to stomach and which, in any case, "is worth diddly" in his/her opinion.

It's also pointless to respond to someone who demands that I not present "a myopic pseudo-thesis based on fatuous, irreconcilable, and unsubstantiated remarks by unknown authors" and yet states that he doesn't read "the biased thoughts of others". Well, which is it? Do I quote and reference all authors or not? If so, why? He/she isn't going to accept their biased thoughts anyway.

Nevertheless, henceforth I'll provide names of authors and references to source material for Al, who, unlike SomewhereinBetween, seems willing to look things up.

Getting back to SomewhereinBetween.... What can one expect from a person who thinks “Jesus was seeking to kill those who disagreed with his teachings, whether they were Jew or Roman, he really was not prejudiced" ... ?

Yes, Yeshua tells others to buy a sword. And why does he do this? Because he and the other prophets from the School of Hillel KNOW the Temple is going to be destroyed by the Romans in due course and because they've warned others to flee from the "wrath to come". Since, these proto-Rabbinic sages have rejected "Jewish pacifism" and enacted halakhot (religio-legal rulings) regarding the use of deadly force and self-defense -- buying a sword is only prudent given what's about to come down the pike. This falls far, FAR short of Yeshua forming a Zealot army or a gang of religio-political assassins like the Sacarii (Dagger Men).

In short, SomewhereinBetween isn't debating, let alone dialoguing. He/she appears to be trolling and I don't respond to trolls. So, there will be no more heat from me. You gotta love that IGNORE option.

[edit on 16-6-2005 by smadewell]

I can understand your frustration. However, I don't wish to be seen taking sides - I don't think you are making any claim to that, either. I just want to be clear.

I have read a bit about the ideas that Jesus and his men were armed and may have participated in some armed insurrections that fall outside the realm of self-defense. I've been trying to find the title/author of a book I read several years ago - it was loaned to me by someone with whom I've lost touch. That author made some very interesting points about the whole "throwing out the money-changers from the Temple" incident. His POV was that it would have been impossible without having a fairly good-sized band of armed men with him at the time.

All of this to say that I have not been able to make up my mind on many important aspects of these stories - even to the point of not being clear on whether there actually was a single man named Jesus or if the Jesus of the bible is really a compilation/combination of real people and stories co-opted and embellished. I'm clear that I do not accept the divinity of Jesus but, still reading, studying, and thinking about pretty much all of the rest.

That's why I am so very interested in scholars whom have researched and can cite references and present findings and conclusions. I simply accept none of it as the whole truth or the only possibility at this point.

I have long admired SomewhereInBetween's work and scholarship. I have come to admire yours (smadewell), also. There are quite a few other subject matter experts here that I like to read and appreciate, as well.

So, here I am - mostly a spectator since I'm just not in the same league with you all though, I do aspire to being there someday...maybe in another 10 years.