Are Jews still God's Chosen People?

[roger1440]

Especially during Passover because of the crowds, I have not much doubt that Jewish leaders would have been concerned about Jesus, especially because of the incident at the Temple whereas he made a whip and overturned tables. They may have well sent up red flags for the Roman authorities that Jesus was not to be trusted, and maybe the Jewish leaders may have given the Romans a heads-up.

The Romans couldn't care less about Jewish Law, but they certainly cared about keeping the order and collecting taxes, so with the Temple incident on their minds and Jesus' procession into Jerusalem, they may have had enough and, if nothing else, may have wanted to send a loud and clear message about what can be expected if we screw around with them.

All this is hard to say because it relies on what is recorded, and what is recorded often is very subjective.

I have heard that before. I don’t think it was the cleansing of the Temple that signed his death sentence. All four gospels have that story. You would think the gospels would have gone into more detail or at least mention it at his trial. It would have been easy to create a story around it. They had all of Jewish scripture to work with.

 

[Levite]

There is no way to know for certain if the Jewish authorities had a hand in Jesus’s crucifixion. If Jesus did pose a potential threat to peace in Jerusalem during Passover then the Jewish authorities would have had motive. Granted, the Jewish authorities did not have the authority to do this, that and the other thing, but we do not live in a perfect world. I am from New Jersey. New Jersey is not known for only Bruce Springsteen, Frank Sinatra and The Sopranos. It is also known for corrupt politics. Point is, corrupt politics happen all the time, not only in my neck of the woods. As you know, it doesn’t take much to start a fire. It’s best to extinguish it before it gets out of hand. Just ask Mrs. O'Leary’s cow.

“You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish." (John 11:50)

Josephus did write about a riot that broke out on or near the Temple grounds. Some Roman soldier exposes his rear end and the Jews didn’t think kindly of that gesture. After the riot, thousands of Jews were dead. This riot happened around 20 or 30 years after Jesus’s death.

The O'Leary Legend | The Great Chicago Fire & The Web of Memory

Leaving aside the fact that of the already unreliable Christian scriptural accounts, John is by far the least reliable, being the latest and the most devoid of Jewish thought (or the most pointedly anti-Semitic, depending on how one wishes to read it), my point remains the same. If some Jewish leaders were involved, they would have been servants of the Roman puppet kings, or members of the corrupted portions of the priesthood-- which were appointed by the Roman puppet kings. Their actions would still have been illegitimate in genuine Jewish law, and still have been essentially acts guided by Rome.

Also, had Jesus in fact been perceived as a threat to public peace during Passover, there would have been any number of ways to restrain him or expel him from Jerusalem for the duration of the holiday that did not involve gross and heinous violations of Jewish law, which makes the account of "the Jews" conspiring to kill him no more likely.

If Jesus's dead body was on the cross for the entire night, would that have been permissible under Jewish Law?

No, but that also kind of misses the point. The greater transgressions by far are the torture and death by crucifixion, the handing over of a fellow Jew to die at the hands of non-Jewish authorities, and the doing so with the employment of false witnesses at an illegitimate court. Compared to those, the Romans leaving Jesus' body out too long is of negligible import.

It's kind of like saying, "What a scofflaw! On the way from holding up the bank where he shot a bunch of people, that guy totally threw his cigarette out the car window! Really, who litters like that anymore?!"

 

[roger1440]

Thank you for posting this reality.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Josephus was Jewish not Christian. On another note, judging from NASA’s track record, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to be a rocket scientist, LOL

 

[metis]

I have heard that before. I don’t think it was the cleansing of the Temple that signed his death sentence. All four gospels have that story. You would think the gospels would have gone into more detail or at least mention it at his trial. It would have been easy to create a story around it. They had all of Jewish scripture to work with.

Whether it did at that time or was carried over and cited by the Sanhedrin leaders to the Romans is too hard to say as you're saying here, but we can pretty much be rest assured that something got the Roman's attention, and we know that violations of Jewish Law by itself was of no concern to the Romans. And historians well know that Pilate didn't need much of an excuse to crucify someone. Sorta sends a message.

 

[metis]

If some Jewish leaders were involved, they would have been servants of the Roman puppet kings, or members of the corrupted portions of the priesthood-- which were appointed by the Roman puppet kings. Their actions would still have been illegitimate in genuine Jewish law, and still have been essentially acts guided by Rome.

Also, had Jesus in fact been perceived as a threat to public peace during Passover, there would have been any number of ways to restrain him or expel him from Jerusalem for the duration of the holiday that did not involve gross and heinous violations of Jewish law, which makes the account of "the Jews" conspiring to kill him no more likely.

Even though I certainly cannot prove you wrong, I have a different take on what I think was most likely to have happened, and I expressed this in a post several minutes ago. I'm not stating nor implying that our leaders want Jesus executed, but they may have been very concerned about Jesus' and his followers causing agitation that could encourage the Romans to crack down, and when the Romans did that, many heads often rolled as we saw in spades several decades later.

Wow, two Jews with differing opinions-- how unique!

Shabbat shalom

 

[Levite]

Even though I certainly cannot prove you wrong, I have a different take on what I think was most likely to have happened, and I expressed this in a post several minutes ago. I'm not stating nor implying that our leaders want Jesus executed, but they may have been very concerned about Jesus' and his followers causing agitation that could encourage the Romans to crack down, and when the Romans did that, many heads often rolled as we saw in spades several decades later.

Wow, two Jews with differing opinions-- how unique!

Shabbat shalom

Sure, but again, there were tons of rabble-rousing itinerant preachers. They didn't kill them all. And there are a lot of ways to deal with a potential problem like this short of mesirah-- especially when mesirah will certainly lead to a horrific and unjust death.

But yeah, two Jews two opinions is still better than usual....

Sh"sh

 

[metis]

Sure, but again, there were tons of rabble-rousing itinerant preachers. They didn't kill them all. And there are a lot of ways to deal with a potential problem like this short of mesirah-- especially when mesirah will certainly lead to a horrific and unjust death.

But yeah, two Jews two opinions is still better than usual....

Sh"sh

The gospels, if they are accurate on this at all, have Jesus entering Jerusalem to a cheering crowd ("Palm Sunday"), and even if that crowd only had 10 people in it, it would have attracted attention from the Romans, I would suggest.

And for some reasons monarchs don't like others talking about a "kingdom" other than their own, and only in a positive way, I might add. I have read some Christian theologians who believe that Jesus talking about his "kingdom" may well have been been the last straw for the Romans.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Josephus was Jewish not Christian..

..and so? Weren't the disciples Jewish?
How do you know what Josephus believed to be the truth? He didn't say that Jesus, peace be with him, was God, in any case!

 

[Levite]

The gospels, if they are accurate on this at all, have Jesus entering Jerusalem to a cheering crowd ("Palm Sunday"), and even if that crowd only had 10 people in it, it would have attracted attention from the Romans, I would suggest.

And for some reasons monarchs don't like others talking about a "kingdom" other than their own, and only in a positive way, I might add. I have read some Christian theologians who believe that Jesus talking about his "kingdom" may well have been been the last straw for the Romans.

Right, except that the entry into Jerusalem narrative is clearly the result of conflating a separate ur-text narrative incident into the Last Supper/Crucifixion narrative.

Think about it: Jesus enters into Jerusalem, and everyone is waving palm branches and singing "hosannas." Hosanna = hosha na. Do we wave palm branches (lulavim) and sing hosha na at Pesach?! No, of course not: that narrative is clearly depicting Jesus coming to Jerusalem for Sukkot, not Pesach! So unless he came at Sukkot, had no problems, stayed there for the next half a year, and only then became an imminent threat right before Pesach-- which seems like a fairly unlikely reading-- you have to conclude that the entry to the city story originally had nothing to do with the Last Supper/Crucifixion story, but the two were redacted together long after for one reason or another.

As for the "kingdom" angle-- again, there were hundreds of guys running around claiming to be the moshiach, and thus technically were claiming rightful kingship of Israel. The Romans mostly didn't bother with them, unless they actually tried to lead armed insurrections. The only reason anyone seems to be able to give for why Jesus would have been treated differently is the Christian presumption that Jesus was so special that everything revolved around him.

 

[metis]

Right, except that the entry into Jerusalem narrative is clearly the result of conflating a separate ur-text narrative incident into the Last Supper/Crucifixion narrative... you have to conclude that the entry to the city story originally had nothing to do with the Last Supper/Crucifixion story, but the two were redacted together long after for one reason or another.

I certainly do not read the accounts as some sort of "gimme", but we honestly do not know with any certainty of the timing or exactly what happened when Jesus entered Jerusalem. Nor is there any information that puts it on another date, so we can't assume that either. It might not have happened at all for all we know-- er, I mean don't know.

As for the "kingdom" angle-- again, there were hundreds of guys running around claiming to be the moshiach, and thus technically were claiming rightful kingship of Israel. The Romans mostly didn't bother with them, unless they actually tried to lead armed insurrections. The only reason anyone seems to be able to give for why Jesus would have been treated differently is the Christian presumption that Jesus was so special that everything revolved around him.

Declaring one to the messiah in and of itself would not put up red flags nor indicate any eminent threat. And we have to remember that Pilate reportedly was recalled to Rome to account for his brutality, even though the gospels picture him to be even mellower than I.

Hey, it's all academic, and my "official" position, which I've held to the end her for dramatic effect, is "Whatever happened, happened".

 

[Kolibri]

I understand what the point was. However, it is still not permitted. It would cause too much needless pain, and not hasten death enough to make it permissible.

Furthermore, the passage from Deuteronomy you quoted is not relevant. It refers to the practice of displaying the bodies of the executed as a deterrent to further crime. The displayed body was already dead when hung for display. It could not refer to a still-living person, because killing someone in such a fashion is not permitted under Jewish law. The idea in the verses is not that the man whose body is hung is accursed (bad translation), but that the man is humiliated. And while it is permitted to execute the guilty, it is not permitted to do so with undue public humiliation-- yet another reason that crucifixion is not permitted to us.

I was going to mention about this account in Deuteronomy. You beat me to it.

The one thing that seems missing is this was the Greek stau·ros′. This word does not translate into a something that has a cross beam - but an upright pole. This would have made the breaking of the legs more relevant to quickening the death too, because the hands would have been fastened above instead of to the right and left.

The book The Non-Christian Cross, by John Denham Parsons, states: “There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross. . . . it is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as ‘cross’ when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting ‘cross’ in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape.”—London, 1896, pp. 23, 24.

 

[roger1440]

..and so? Weren't the disciples Jewish?
How do you know what Josephus believed to be the truth? He didn't say that Jesus, peace be with him, was God, in any case!

Spend a few hours looking it up. There is a lot on that passage from Josephus.

 

[roger1440]

Whether it did at that time or was carried over and cited by the Sanhedrin leaders to the Romans is too hard to say as you're saying here, but we can pretty much be rest assured that something got the Roman's attention, and we know that violations of Jewish Law by itself was of no concern to the Romans. And historians well know that Pilate didn't need much of an excuse to crucify someone. Sorta sends a message.

When we read the canonical gospels accounts, Jesus doesn’t seem to be convicted of anything. If my memory doesn’t fail me, the non-canonical gospels say very little or nothing also. I don’t think he was convicted of claiming to be king of the Jews. He probably would have been written off as a nut case. What ever happen ended up turning Jesus into a martyr. Only his buddies would have done this.

 

[BilliardsBall]

All, you are gilding the lily. Jesus had massive crowds "pressing in upon Him..." as He "...healed multitudes, until He was exhausted." Indeed the NT mentions that Yochanan changed rivers for baptizing to get to one with a larger flow of water! You may have seen two many British films about Jesus where He preaches to 10 other people who respond with British accents. Jesus had probably 50,000 people listening to His debates with the leaders on that last Passover.

 

[metis]

When we read the canonical gospels accounts, Jesus doesn’t seem to be convicted of anything. If my memory doesn’t fail me, the non-canonical gospels say very little or nothing also. I don’t think he was convicted of claiming to be king of the Jews. He probably would have been written off as a nut case. What ever happen ended up turning Jesus into a martyr. Only his buddies would have done this.

Yep, the one thing we can be certain about is the uncertainty of what actually happened.

 

[metis]

All, you are gilding the lily. Jesus had massive crowds "pressing in upon Him..." as He "...healed multitudes, until He was exhausted." Indeed the NT mentions that Yochanan changed rivers for baptizing to get to one with a larger flow of water! You may have seen two many British films about Jesus where He preaches to 10 other people who respond with British accents. Jesus had probably 50,000 people listening to His debates with the leaders on that last Passover.

Based on the Christian theologians that I've read, they would be very hard pressed to agree with you. One example is Martin Marty, who has stated that Jesus' following was actually quite small, so the numbers we see in the gospels were likely exaggerations for the possible sake of impact on the reader. He went on to say that at three different times in the first couple of centuries that the church was in danger of being wiped out.

 

[roger1440]

Jesus had probably 50,000 people listening to His debates with the leaders on that last Passover.

We are talking about Jesus right? I don't think even the Rolling Stones could have drawn 50,000 people at a moments notice.

 

[roger1440]

The gospels, if they are accurate on this at all, have Jesus entering Jerusalem to a cheering crowd ("Palm Sunday"), and even if that crowd only had 10 people in it, it would have attracted attention from the Romans, I would suggest.

And for some reasons monarchs don't like others talking about a "kingdom" other than their own, and only in a positive way, I might add. I have read some Christian theologians who believe that Jesus talking about his "kingdom" may well have been been the last straw for the Romans.

If someone told you, "My kingdom is not of this world" what would you make of that person?

 

[bretzter]

Yes it´s true that 1st commandment may seem the same,they´re actually not though imo.
Who was it that God said he was,but the God of whom,"Abraham,Isaac,and Jacob",and
that is contrary to that what those of the Islamic faith believe,in their belief that he also is
the God of Ishmael.
Which no proof of that justification is nowhere to be found in the OT.
None whatsoever,

So if God himself says otherwise,Then who is it we should believe,God or man?.
And many of the early descendants of the Israelites who practiced what today is more
commonly known as the Jewish faith knew of this precious name,as I´m sure that it was
actually handed down to them throughout the generations.

But because of their later not being allowed to pronounce it out of fear it would/could be
blasphemed etc.,over time,the actual translation,or meaning of the letters YHWH were
simply lost and replaced by words like Elohim,Adonai,Zebaoth,etc.
Titles of respect,but not God´s actual name.
And if were it to be so,then Islam is guilty of worshipping and serving an entirely different
God other than the Israelites were to worship and serve by name.

As for a few other commandments that come to my immediate attention that contradict the
ones given to Moses by God himself,or written by the finger of God himself,yet are in deep
contrast to Islam´s teachings are for example.
When God says "thou shalt not commit adultery",how is then that the Islamic faith only says
it applies to women?.
And why I think that is because if the Koran says that a man is allowed to have as many as 3
wives,where in the case of adultery,is an actual case against him to be made?.
In other words,it doesn´t prohibit it,but actually goes against what God said and not only does it
condone it,but approves of it.
Or another one that grabs my attention is the one where it says "thou shalt not bear false witness
against another fellow man".
Yet in Islam you´re,if the circumstances were to deem it necessary to do so,permitted to.

Imo,people really need to know their scriptures.
And as for the NT,which is nothing more than books relating to Christ as being the actual Messiah,is
not only continuation of the OT,but also the promise and fulfillment of what was written in the OT.
For example,does the OT say that God has a Son?.
It sure does say that if you want to believe Proverbs 30:4.
It even speaks of God´s personal name in 83:18.
As in the OT,it speaks of the actual sufferings of this promised seed,or Messiah.
And in the NT,we are all warned in advance of false prophets rising up in the last days.
Maybe not by name,as the name of the Messiah also wasn´t known by his actual name,just Immanuel
etc.
Or the signs of the time of the end:
And if we can see them all happening in our day,who really is it that can argue against them?.
That is in fact arguing against God himself,and as any faith are aware of,that neither fares well,nor does
it end well.

 

[rosends]

For example,does the OT say that God has a Son?.
It sure does say that if you want to believe Proverbs 30:4.

Proverbs doesn't say that. The speaker says he doesn't understand God and asks series of rhetorical questions related to his lack of understanding. Solomon has realized the errors of his judgment and questions his own knowledge base.

It even speaks of God´s personal name in 83:18.

I assume you mean Psalms 83:19 here which reads
"Let them know that You-Your name alone is the Lord, Most High over all the earth."

You get a "personal name" from that?

As in the OT,it speaks of the actual sufferings of this promised seed,or Messiah.

Only according to your interpretation. Muslims say that it names Mohammed explicitly. Would you accept their reading of text?

And in the NT,we are all warned in advance of false prophets rising up in the last days.
Maybe not by name,as the name of the Messiah also wasn´t known by his actual name,just Immanuel

Which is a name.