Seems kind of odd to me (Judaism v. Christianity)

This seems kind of odd to me, but knowing the community here I am probably overseeing something that will undoubtedly be shown to me by someone. Well anyways, here I go.

I think it is rather strange that the Jews wanted Jesus dead, and in fact go their wish. They wanted him dead because he was a, "false prophet," as they claimed. Once he was dead they were all about see I told you so. Then Jesus was resurrected, according to Christianity. Here is where it gets strange. After his resurrection and ascension into heaven Jesus no longer is a false prophet according to the Jews. He actually becomes a Jewish prophet, the christian messiah/son of God/God, and a prophet in Islam which also believes he was the messiah. What this says to me is that Jesus was indeed the Messiah and Son of God. It says this because the Jews went back on their word. It is almost as if they had to appease the rest of the Jews because the evidence was too strong. So, they changed their story, they called Jesus a prophet. Now, maybe I am wrong, but I dont believe they call him a Jewish prophet now because he taught in Judaism, otherwise putting him to death was fruitless. If he was just a prophet, he wouldn't have been put to death, and he wouldn't have been called a false prophet. The man threatened the Jewish pharisees power, and they killed him for it. I say this because you don't hear of any other Jewish prophets who were put to death for being a false prophet.

Am I wrong, am I missing something here?

Wow! Where to start?

if I give you just one piece, it won't be any more informative than if I give you a hundred pieces...there is so much to discuss in your one paragraph.

How about if I try to make a start by using a modern Christian argument?
I can say "you are confusing the leadership of the Temple with The Jews". Given that all your other assumptions are correct (which I do not believe at all) then, it is a fair statement to say that Jesus threatened the power structure of the Temple and posed a dangerous threat to the peace (and the graft) that they had brokered with their Roman occupiers/oppressors. So, it was certainly a good political and business decision to give Jesus up for execution. But, let's keep in mind that this is roughly the same as if the Pope and College of Cardinals (not Catholic bashing - just using an example) made a big decision - would that be representative of all Christians? including Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Mormons, etc.?

So, just barely getting started here; not even scratching the surface, really...you just can't say "the Jews" did this.

Another modern example: Bush invades Iraq - does that mean that all citizens of the USA wanted the US Army to invade Iraq?

See what I mean?

I hope somebody else will pick this up...

Actually the problem with the historical Jesus of the bible is that even when he was given a link to the Davidic ancestry he was a shadow figure that no accounts of his life are to be found in historical records but the ones in the bible AD. The bible also gives the bad responsibility to the Jews for no believing in him as the messiah.

If we look at the accounts by Jewish records is ridden with struggle for power between kings and priest, priest and rabbis this was the political make up of the Jewish nation at the time.

We have to understand that the Talmud and the bible when it share an origin are not the same thing the bible old testament was molded from the Talmud and the direct link to Jesus was made after the birth of Christianity and with the New testament.

The Jewish messiah had certain requirement that Jesus never fulfilled as by the Jewish believes, but in the new testament in the bible he did.

Actually the only ones claiming Jesus divinity and that he was the prophesied Messiah were the disciples that wrote about him from birth to death, occurs the only accounts to be found are like everything about The Christ only to be in the Bible.

Al,

I get what you are saying. What a regular Jewish person may believe is quite different from the head of the Jewish nation. However, it was the head of the Jewish nation that eventually decreed that Jesus was a prophet. So, the head had to have it's head turn at something and say, "hey, wait, perhaps we need to explain this so our religion doesn't collapse." Again, I am probably missing something, and hopefully it will be explained to me.


Marg,

I read what you said last night, and I probably forgot the majority of what it said, but I don't want to argue the issue of Jesus' existence. I hope you too can fill me in on something I didn't know before.

help me out a little, please. where do you find information that Judaism has declared Jesus to be a prophet? I've heard that before but never seen the actual reference.

Check out:
www.hanefesh.com...

I can't find any other references to Jesus being "declared" a prophet other than those that are overtly Christian and even those contain only the statements and opinions of modern Rabbis - some of them affilliated with some kind of "Jews for Jesus" movement.

from wikipedia:
Prophets

Judaism teaches that it is heretical for any man to claim to be a part of God; Jews view Jesus as just one in a long list of failed Jewish claimants to be the messiah. The article on the concept of the messiah contains a list of many other people who claimed to be the messiah, son of God, or both.

I think your argument may come unravelled at the first thread...

[edit on 4-8-2005 by Al Davison]

Originally posted by Al Davison
help me out a little, please. where do you find information that Judaism has declared Jesus to be a prophet? I've heard that before but never seen the actual reference.

To be honest with you I got the information from a few Jewish friends, and also I have read it on this board. I haven't obtained the information from any concrete source, however, I will try to find something on it now. My apologies if he isn't a prophet in their religion.

oops! I was researching and editing while you were responding.

Alrighty, I learned something new. Thanks for sharing that information with me. WATS go to you.

Originally posted by Ryanp5555

To be honest with you I got the information from a few Jewish friends, and also I have read it on this board. I haven't obtained the information from any concrete source, however, I will try to find something on it now. My apologies if he isn't a prophet in their religion.

You are right on the assumption that is Jewish groups that leaning to the bible and find it more appealing that their own documents.

Some scholars credit this to the fact that the bible idenfitfy with the a part of the Jewish history that talks about their struggles.

In other words is groups of Jewish that feel more linked to the cultural background of the Jewish roots found in the bible.

Sherwin T. Wine is a rabbi and honorary doctorate, he talks about Humanistic Judaism and the history of the Jewish people and their beleives includind the link to the bible.

Jesus was already Jewish, the matter is only if he was a prophet or not.

---Pineapple

Thanks!

It was a worthy hyphothesis based on what you knew and I have to admit to be more than a little embarrassed about not knowing immediately about the prophetic status since I had heard that spoken more than a few times...just could not remember whether the sources were reliable.

It's all good when we're learning!

While I really don't know how Jewish people consider Christ (those who don't see Him as Messiah) other than not at all--after all, most of those who are known Jews these days are still orthodox, which means basically still in the OT, so to speak--and the remainder are those who do recognize Him as Messiah, most often called Messianics--I do agree with what you are saying about them executing Christ due to the threat they perceived (and rightly so, regardless) to their material kingdom based on their own convoluted and heavy laws. The same laws given to them by the Spirit giving life to the man they would execute.

But the evidences/theories/whatever, that I have found leading to that is that although they had put away their idols of stone and wood, there was still a huge problem with idolatry, only by the time Christ came they worshipped their temple and their complicated versions of God's simple and perfect law. They were so caught up in these things they didn't even know who Christ was! And even if they had a clue now and again, they denied it in favor of their earthly kingdom and temporary riches.

It seems to me that the parable of the wheat and tares provides understanding for why such an inexplicable thing as this would happen. The idolatry is tested by God's visitation--those that recognized Him were truly His and true Israelites (not Jews--there is a difference) and those that didn't, no matter what name they went by, were 'gentiles' (in the true meaning of heathen or one that didn't worship the true Living God.)

The Sanhedrin are recorded as plotting Christ's death at the time He raised Lazarus from the dead. They wanted to kill Lazarus, too--because his resurrection was a proof whose fact could not co-exist with the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem. They made their living off the temple and who would come to Temple when a man, who had restored life in someone 4 days dead, was giving a sermon out on the Mt Olives--and providing all-you-can-eat afterwards, to boot!?!

Too bad they didn't believe in 'if you can't beat'em, join'em.'

I forget I also wanted to mention that the fact that more Jews are still waiting on Messiah than know He was here already is some sort of support of the idea that even though it was at the hand of the Sanhedrin this was done, the prevailing belief they had (although likely not at all the same reason, at all) remains in effect to this day, throughout the population.

Even then, it still behooved the leaders of the community to please the members of the community, and so the Sanhedrin were not an isolated group rejecting their LORD.

I will like to add that for the Jewish the Torah is their representation of their first religious experiences.

Most of them actually regard the God and Torah as human creations is still the base that motives their believes.

The problem with this is that if the Torah just like the NT of the bible if this do not exist, the Jewish people will lose their identification with their God, and their identity, just like Christian will lose their link to their Saviour.

Jewish people just like Christians take the words found in the Torah and Bible as true not because is any reason to believe it but because they are told and persuaded from childhood that is trustworthy and essential to the preservation of the Jewish identity and Christan identity.

At the end everything in the Bible and Talmud from laws, stories, scriptures, prayer referenes are all human creations.

Is the human insight, desire, and interest, of a time and places of long ago.

It was after all the struggle for human survival specialy for a group of people without a nation or identity as with the Jewish nation of long ago.

Religion gave them the drive to become the nation of today.

OK, well there is a bit of a Christian bias to the idea that "the Jews" or even the Temple leaders / Sanheidran spent a lot of time thinking about this Jesus guy - they didn't. He was really just one more in a long line of folks trying to portray themselves as the Messiah - it was a pretty popular gig back in those days. So, Jesus was just one more nuisance that they had to deal with in the course of their day-to-day business.

It is perfectly understandable that Christian Sunday Schools don't usually mention that there were lots of people in that day claiming to be the Messiah and several of them were named (or called themselves) "Jesus". History is pretty vague on what happened to most of the others - unless you believe, as many do, that the "Jesus" of Christian legend is actually a composite of all of them sorta rolled into one.

There is a lot of evidence to indicate that there was considerable corruption, mostly involving money, inside The Temple. But, as with most corrupt leaders of most every organization, the corruption was pretty much confined to a handful of folks at the very top - they did not "share" with the others. Some of this, to be fair, was nothing more than trying to stay alive and keep peace with an occupying and overwhelming force (that would be the Romans). At least, it started off that way. Once a comfort level of simple survival had been established, the money started to flow and...well, the same thing happened that always happens when money starts flowing.

So, dispatching nuisances and trouble-makers was just all in a day's work for the Sanheidran and they had the cooperation of the local Roman authorities for whenever they needed it.

Anyway, I'm not trying to trivialize Jesus just to put down Christians. All I'm trying to do is point out that Christians seem to misunderstand how Jesus was perceived by both The Temple authorities and the regular ol' "Joe Jew" just trying to scratch out a living in an occupied land. The Temple viewed this string of Messiah-wanna-be's as trouble-makers to be dispatched and the regular-guy Jews generally paid them no attention at all - curiosities to some; heretics to others. Of course, Jesus and all his other "I am the True Messiah" contemporaries of the day, managed to pick up some believers along the way just like any other charismatic can do today.

My intention here is not to offend anyone - just trying to present history without all the overloading of a normal and perfectly understandable Christian slant.

[edit on 5-8-2005 by Al Davison]

Well it was a lot of struggle for power during the formations of the Jewish nation, just like any other nation their have their politics, social economical problems and their theology.

They didn't bother themselves with a messiah that didn't fit the requirements as by Jewish prophecy.

That is why Jesus is so hard to find in time and history in the Jewish historical accounts.

We have to understand that the "prophecy messiah" became an issue after he die and the Christian sect was becoming a movement.

The only references of Jesus existence and deeds are again only in the Bible accounts and the NT. Is only fair to said that the Jewish people don't have the same believes in sharing the Christian messiah or to even acknowledge him.

Until Christianity raised as a powerful force, by then the bible was already compiled and the church well establish.

Taking in consideration that the bible shared the same roots in the OT with the Torah and Talmud they had not choice but to give some credit to the Christan Saviour after all he was presented as Jewish born and also he was presented as a descendant of the Davinic blood line.

Something that to this day has also been unable to prove do to the lack of records.

But the Bible said he is, so he most be.

[edit on 5-8-2005 by marg6043]

Originally posted by Al Davison
OK, well there is a bit of a Christian bias to the idea that "the Jews" or even the Temple leaders / Sanheidran spent a lot of time thinking about this Jesus guy - they didn't. He was really just one more in a long line of folks trying to portray themselves as the Messiah - it was a pretty popular gig back in those days. So, Jesus was just one more nuisance that they had to deal with in the course of their day-to-day business.

True--there were a lot of so-called Messiahs who emerged at the time. However, most turned tail and/or changed their story after a good beating at the order of the Sanhedrin. And of course, lost the fervency of their respective followings after that.
But to crucify a Jew, even for blasphemy, was not common practice at all. It was a Roman type execution and the Jews did not usually let the Romans have much to do with their punishments. They resented the Roman rule, above all, and rebelled more than once while under it.
There are also mentions of Jesus, it seems, in other Jewish writings, such as the Babylonian Talmud and the Mishna which show there was a certain obsession with this particular Messiah, that lasted for some time after His death.
And the records of various places show that His disciples did meet with martyr's deaths, often at the hands of the Jews, as well. Men do not die for something that isn't true, and there would be no need to kill any followers who had given up on their leader because He had died.

So, dispatching nuisances and trouble-makers was just all in a day's work for the Sanheidran and they had the cooperation of the local Roman authorities for whenever they needed it.

But, like I said, the Roman presence was seen as a thorn to their independence, and the Jews were fiercely independent. They did not fall back on the Romans if at all possible.

My intention here is not to offend anyone - just trying to present history without all the overloading of a normal and perfectly understandable Christian slant.

Well, don't worry about offending me---I am not a 'christian' in any way, shape, or form, and I have also studied the Jewish/Israel history extensively from then until even now.

You're right that most christians don't understand Jewish ideas, so they also don't understand the Messiah thing as well, either. Neither does modern society understand Jewish culture of those times, either, whether they be called christians or not.

I will summarize with this while Jewish obsession is their history and relationship with God putting emphasis on mosses exile and the building of the Jewish nation and to keep their nation whole even with the struggles of today’s challenges. . .

The obsession of Christianity is to place Jesus in history as the savior and prophesied messiah and to keep domination as the main worshiped religion in the world..

As you see the two groups priorities has always been different.

And they're missing the whole point which is God--and His plan.

It's about 'Israel' not Jews and not Christians.

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by Al Davison
OK, well there is a bit of a Christian bias to the idea that "the Jews" or even the Temple leaders / Sanheidran spent a lot of time thinking about this Jesus guy - they didn't. He was really just one more in a long line of folks trying to portray themselves as the Messiah - it was a pretty popular gig back in those days. So, Jesus was just one more nuisance that they had to deal with in the course of their day-to-day business.

True--there were a lot of so-called Messiahs who emerged at the time. However, most turned tail and/or changed their story after a good beating at the order of the Sanhedrin. And of course, lost the fervency of their respective followings after that.
But to crucify a Jew, even for blasphemy, was not common practice at all. It was a Roman type execution and the Jews did not usually let the Romans have much to do with their punishments. They resented the Roman rule, above all, and rebelled more than once while under it.
There are also mentions of Jesus, it seems, in other Jewish writings, such as the Babylonian Talmud and the Mishna which show there was a certain obsession with this particular Messiah, that lasted for some time after His death.
And the records of various places show that His disciples did meet with martyr's deaths, often at the hands of the Jews, as well. Men do not die for something that isn't true, and there would be no need to kill any followers who had given up on their leader because He had died.

So, dispatching nuisances and trouble-makers was just all in a day's work for the Sanheidran and they had the cooperation of the local Roman authorities for whenever they needed it.

But, like I said, the Roman presence was seen as a thorn to their independence, and the Jews were fiercely independent. They did not fall back on the Romans if at all possible.

queenannie38, thanks!

You and I agree on quite a lot but not completely on this section that I quoted. Of course, I think we were both giving the "Reader's Digest" version and I suspect that we both know a great deal more of the details than either of us presented. This issue, with all the details, conjectures, probablies, etc. has been discussed extensively in other threads so I don't want to hijack this one but, the one item that you said that troubles me and to which I think is worth responding here is the idea that Jesus was important to the Jews after his death. OK, the "fact" of that is not really wrong (just too big to go into here) but, my point (yes, I'm finally getting to one!) is that I think what the Jewish leadership was reacting to AFTER the death of this particular Jesus was the fledgling and competing religion that was beginning to surface.

None of that negates what I said previously because all that I said referred to events leading up to the death of Jesus. (I must sidebar here that I do not actually believe most of this NT story to begin with but, for the sake of this discussion...) I must also take exception to the assertion that people do not willingly die for things that are not true - history is chock-full of examples of such. There are even more examples of people being killed for a "false cause" so, there's been a ton of blood shed over falsehoods all throughout history so, I cannot credit "people died for this so, it must be true".

Overall, though, I don't want to start any serious argument with you because you have shown your knowledge to be worthy even though our conclusions differ. In other words, I'm afraid you would kick my butt in a debate.