Judaism and Eden and Eve

[shunyadragon]

You don’t find it a bit strange that God only cares about Jews and none of the other 8 billion people in the world?

The same problem persists in Christianity concerning the cares for the billions of others in history.

He threaten their power which is why they had Him killed.

True, the reason he was judged and crucified under Roman Law for claiming to be the King of the Jews threatening the sovereignty of Rome over Palestine.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Well if humans do them naturally then it makes me wonder what people need God for?

What you are saying is that just by doing what we do by instinct pleases God.

You may have missed it but I stated that most of them are common sense. I.e. built into the system of being human.

I didn't say that all of them were. If you look at the list I gave in my previous post obviously not all human societies do them on their own w/o some reason to identify all of them as a must in their social structures.

For example, most human socities of course build systems of justice. They may not always be just, but often it is normal for human cultures to have rules of law in some form w/o a religious reason for doing so. So no, not everything humans do is based on instinct and instinct doesn't mean one is doing teh 7 mitzvoth. If that is the case then one could say that certain animals do them, but no one says that.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

You may have missed it but I stated that most of them are common sense. I.e. built into the system of being human.

I didn't say that all of them were. If you look at the list I gave in my previous post obviously not all human societies do them on their own w/o some reason to identify all of them as a must in their social structures.

For example, most human socities of course build systems of justice. They may not always be just, but often it is normal for human cultures to have rules of law in some form w/o a religious reason for doing so. So no, not everything humans do is based on instinct and instinct doesn't mean one is doing teh 7 mitzvoth. If that is the case then one could say that certain animals do them, but no one says that.

Do you believe in an afterlife?

 

[ppp]

Since none of those four words is used in Genesis 3, you are left with deciding this for yourself.

I'm not. I am thinking that instead of simply define the word as you're using it, you provided four irrelevant definitions for no good reason.

There is no commandment to believe in God. Disbelief is not a sin either from the point of view of violating the commandments, nor is it a sin in terms of being an unethical violation of any principles.

I think you are interpreting what I said incorrectly. I didn't say anything about there being a commandment to believe in God. Nor about dis belief itself being a sin. What I said is that the concepts of sin are laden with god beliefs.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Do you believe in an afterlife?

We Jews have a concept called the Olam Haba, which translate into the "world to come." It is different tha the heaven and hell concept found in various religions. In this concept there is no such thing, for example, as a place of eternal punishment. The video I did below gives some metaphors that are given in Jewish sources for the concept.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I'm not. I am thinking that instead of simply define the word as you're using it, you provided four irrelevant definitions for no good reason.

Sounds like you are ticked because you didn't get what you wanted. Like I said, the story is a myth. I see absolutely no reason to be asking the sorts of questions you are asking, so I'm not willing to put in the effort to answer your question. You yourself have all the available information to figure it out for yourself. If you don't want to do that, it's fine. But then don't get snarky with me just because I didn't jump when you said jump.

What I said is that the concepts of sin are laden with god beliefs.

Do you mean that some of the laws concern god? Sure, like, "Have no other gods before me." However, there are people who don't use the Torah, who get their concept of morality from other places. Atheists in particular derive their morality from things like empathy, fairness, not harming others, etc. Their list of sins would not include anything about God or gods. Remember that sin doesn't have to be a violation of religious law. It can be a violation of moral law. This means that Atheists can sin too.

 

[ppp]

Sounds like you are ticked because you didn't get what you wanted.

Sounds like you are focused on what you infer about my emotional state, rather than what I said.

Do you mean that some of the laws concern god?

[sign] I have no idea how you made the jump from concept of one thing to laws about something else. I am not asking for any further effort from you.

 

[Colt]

Also, just because it bugs me, it never mentions the fruit by name, so we have no idea whether or not it was an apple.

Hint, Eve had sex with Cains real father. She reasoned, influenced by the "crafty beast", that it would help speed up the rehabilitation of our rebellion-retarded world that had long since fallen before they arrived from another planet. Direct mating (forbidden fruit) was a BIG no-no! Its also a love story, when Adam realized what had happened, he went right out and did the same thing so as to share the fate of his mate Eve. Having lost immortality status, which was specific to them, they repented and salvaged what they could of their mission, eventually dying of old age.

The Genesis story is a concoction of the Israelite priest class who appropriated Mesopotamian religious lore and made it their own. No, God didn't Genesis!

 

[Dimi95]

True, the reason he was judged and crucified under Roman Law for claiming to be the King of the Jews threatening the sovereignty of Rome over Palestine.

This is just interpretation and it is false.
You have no evidence to support this claim.

Tacitus says nothing more except the existence of Christ.

On the other hand Josephus says more about it:
"For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him."

So we see that the Jews contributed to his crucifixion.
As far as History tells , there is no other laws in Judaism except religious(in that particular timeline).
They could have cared less if he was not a Jew.
But he was..

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What a lovely thread ... sort of a cacophony of diatribe.

 

[shunyadragon]

This is just interpretation and it is false.
You have no evidence to support this claim.

Tacitus says nothing more except the existence of Christ.

On the other hand Josephus says more about it:
"For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him."

So we see that the Jews contributed to his crucifixion.
As far as History tells , there is no other laws in Judaism except religious(in that particular timeline).
They could have cared less if he was not a Jew.
But he was..

The facts are clear and specific. Jesus was tried and Crucified under Roman authority, Crucifixion was the Penalty got treason against Rome. Jesus did in reality claim to be the King of the Jews. Rebellion against Rome historically is the main issue here historically,

Considering the authority of Rome the role of Jews would have little or no influence here.

 

[Dimi95]

The facts are clear and specific.

Yes , but it seems that you get them wrong

Jesus was tried and Crucified under Roman authority, Crucifixion was the Penalty got treason against Rome.

Ofc , but the Jews were the reason why Jesus was arrested in the first place.
If he claimed any territorial authority the Romans would have not bothered with the Jews in the first place.There was no such rebelion and there is no evidence that suggest that theory.
He claimed spiritual authority.
It seems that 'King of The Jews' is being misunderstood.

Jesus did in reality claim to be the King of the Jews.

Yes , but not in the way you describe it.
He never claimed authority on any territory.That is why the Romans found him not to be guilty acording to the Gospels.

Rebellion against Rome historically is the main issue here historically,

Rebellion against Rome?
From where do you get these ideas?
He was crucified for religious reasons , since he claimed 'divinity' before he was sentenced to death.
There is no evidence that suggest otherwise.Nothing from the NT , nothing from Roman sources,nothing from third sources.

You seem to ignore , at the 'suggestion of the Jews' in the account of Josephus.

The NT confirms what Josephus wrote.

Read Matthew 26 and 27
(Matthew 27:24,25 can help you a little bit to understand it)
Read Mark 15
Read Luke 23
Read John 18,19

It seems that the evidence suggest a different theory then what is stated in your answers.

Considering the authority of Rome the role of Jews would have little or no influence here.

Exactly , so why did Jews had anything to do with Jesus in the first place?

 

[metis]

but the Jews were the reason why Jesus was arrested in the first place.

It was most likely due to Jesus' actions at the Temple and his claim about the Roman kingdom being replaced by God's kingdom. The Romans did not allow any of that, and the persistent fear of the Sanhedrin was that if they allowed one of their own to cause any ruckus, the Romans would come in with their notorious heavy-handed approach, which they eventually did in 70 c.e.

 

[Dimi95]

It was most likely due to Jesus' actions at the Temple and his claim about the Roman kingdom being replaced by God's kingdom.

Yes , but he answered that when he was questioned by Roman Authority.

John 18:
Jesus said, 'My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.'

'You are a king, then!' said Pilate.

Jesus answered, 'You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.'

'What is truth?' retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, 'I find no basis for a charge against him.'

The Romans did not allow any of that, and the persistent fear of the Sanhedrin was that if they allowed one of their own to cause any ruckus, the Romans would come in with their notorious heavy-handed approach, which they eventually did in 70 c.e.

The Romans saw that Jesus was not a problem, that is why Pilate probably considered Jesus not to be guilty.
Remember that he was charged for being the King of the Jews.
Who brought up these charges , Romans?

 

[Dimi95]

It was most likely due to Jesus' actions at the Temple and his claim about the Roman kingdom being replaced by God's kingdom. The Romans did not allow any of that, and the persistent fear of the Sanhedrin was that if they allowed one of their own to cause any ruckus, the Romans would come in with their notorious heavy-handed approach, which they eventually did in 70 c.e.

However i think there is some truth in what you said.
They were afraid of his claims , it may be that they were afraid of what Romans would do , but Jesus was not,for certain.
However , he was 'punished' , and not mass of Jewish people.
So why were they afraid in the first place is what bothers me?

 

[metis]

Yes , but he answered that when he was questioned by Roman Authority.

John 18:
Jesus said, 'My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.'

'You are a king, then!' said Pilate.

Jesus answered, 'You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.'

'What is truth?' retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, 'I find no basis for a charge against him.'


The Romans saw that Jesus was not a problem, that is why Pilate probably considered Jesus not to be guilty.
Remember that he was charged for being the King of the Jews.
Who brought up these charges , Romans?

I think one would be hard-pressed to sell this to learned theologians because it defies logic based on how the Romans reacted to any threat of insurgency, plus you're forgetting Jesus' actions at the Temple. Pilate was notoriously brutal to the point whereas he was recalled to Rome to account for his actions, and taking the Barabbas story at face value gets the Roman historians laughing.

You're feeding into the "Jews are the Christ killers" myth, btw. Jesus was crucified, and that was not a form of Jewish execution.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

This is just interpretation and it is false.
You have no evidence to support this claim.

Not that I consider the gospels to be all that accurate, but FWIW, they do agree that Jesus was executed by Pontius Pilate, the Roman prelate. The story is that Pilate had "King of the Jews" written and nailed above Jesus' head, indicating that this was the crime for which he was executed.

 

[Dimi95]

I think one would be hard-pressed to sell this to learned theologians because it defies logic based on how the Romans reacted to any threat of insurgency, plus you're forgetting Jesus' actions at the Temple.

I am not really selling anything.

I am just interested in what is Historically accurate.

It is not recorded in the Bible , but Roman records show that Pilate was recalled back to Rome by emperor Tiberius , presumably to answer questions about the brutality of his administration around Judea, as a year before Jesus' crucifixion he had put down a rebellion and crucified several hunders Jews.He presumably also had to answer as to why he had crucified someone called Jesus who had broken no Roman Law that would have called for his death.

Jesus did not broke any Roman law.
The Roman law tesrifies to that.

Pilate was notoriously brutal to the point whereas he was recalled to Rome to account for his actions, and taking the Barabbas story at face value gets the Roman historians laughing.

Yes , but Barabbas is a different topic.
Barabbas did brake the Roman law , don't forget that.

Also this is similar to a type of informal logical fallacy known as an argument from silence.Although there are no sources outside the New Testament specifically involving Pilate taking part in this practice, there are however sources that record examples of other Roman governors releasing prisoners, even at Passover. If other Roman governors had practised something similar at various times then such scepticism in the case of Pontius Pilate doing such is unwarranted.

-Josephus records that when the Roman governor Albinus was preparing to leave office he released prisoners who had been incarcerated for crimes other than murder. 'he was desirous to appear to do somewhat that might be grateful to the people of Jerusalem; so he brought out all those prisoners who seemed to him to be most plainly worthy of death, and ordered them to be put to death accordingly. But as to those who had been put into prison on some trifling occasions, he took money of them, and dismissed them; by which means the prisons were indeed emptied, but the country was filled with robbers.' (Antiquities 20.9.3).

-In the Mishnah (Jewish oral tradition, written in around AD 300) it records that 'they may slaughter the passover lamb for one….whom they have promised to bring out of prison'.
Now its not exactly clear but this certainly records a prisoner being released specifically at Passover.

-A piece of papyrus also records a Roman governor of Egypt saying: “You were worthy of scourging but I gave you to the crowds.” (P.Flor 61, c. AD 85).

-Pliny the younger from one of his early second century letters also has something important to note on such practices and who had responsibility to do so, 'It was asserted, however, that these people were released upon their petition to the proconsuls, or their lieutenants; which seems likely enough, as it is improbable any person should have dared to set them at liberty without authority' (Epistles 10.31).

-There is also a parallel in Roman law which indicates that an imperial magistrate could pardon and acquit individual prisoners in response to the shouts of the populace(i can look up in the bookshell if one asks for it)

Now although none of these examples are identical to the one in question, they do demonstrate that it is indeed plausible that Pontius Pilate took part in a custom that stipulated the release of a prisoner at Passover

You're feeding into the "Jews are the Christ killers" myth, btw. Jesus was crucified, and that was not a form of Jewish execution.

Ofc , but the Jews contributed to the arresting of Jesus,not the Romans.
They made the religious reasons to be political , but it seems that Pilate did not found Jesus guilty.

I found that to be very strange since Pilate is described as one violent man according to Josephus and Philo of Alexandria.

 

[Dimi95]

Not that I consider the gospels to be all that accurate, but FWIW, they do agree that Jesus was executed by Pontius Pilate, the Roman prelate. The story is that Pilate had "King of the Jews" written and nailed above Jesus' head, indicating that this was the crime for which he was executed.

Ok , this is a good point.
Then we should define what does 'King of the Jews' mean in that timeline , since Jesus spoke to Jewish audience , not to Roman.

But we can do it on another place , since this topic is about something else.

 

[Dimi95]

I think one would be hard-pressed to sell this to learned theologians because it defies logic based on how the Romans reacted to any threat of insurgency, plus you're forgetting Jesus' actions at the Temple.

Also the Jews were not allowed to execute capital punishment for anything but desecration of the temple.
So if we take into account what was done in the Tample , why was Jesus not punished by the Jews, but by the Romans?