What happened to the Sadducees?

[Levite]

Whose baseless hatred?

The baseless hatred of Jews for one another. Rather than standing together with one another against the oppression of Rome, or tolerating the differences between the sects and communities with reason and compassion so long as actual corruption was not taking place, the Jews of that era factionalized, radicalized, and were tolerant of what they should have refused to tolerate, but intolerant of what they should have learned to be tolerant about, even to the point of endangering one another, turning other Jews over to the Romans, and spilling the blood of other Jews.

Unfortunately, what should have been a fundamental element of Jewish society proved to be too elusive a lesson for the Jews of that time to learn. Even more unfortunately, it still often proves an elusive lesson.

 

[Tumah]

Whose baseless hatred?

Ours of course. Why would we get punished for someone else's hatred?

There is a story in the Talmud about Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. A man told his slave to invite Kamtza to his party, but instead the slave accidentally invited Bar Kamtza who this host actually hated. When Bar Kamtza shows up, the host kicks him out. Trying to appease the host and save himself from embarrassment, Bar Kamtza offers to pay for his plate, half the part then the whole party. But the host refuses each time. Bar Kamtza ends up going to the Romans and one thing lead to another until the Temple is destroyed.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Ours of course. Why would we get punished for someone else's hatred?

There is a story in the Talmud about Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. A man told his slave to invite Kamtza to his party, but instead the slave accidentally invited Bar Kamtza who this host actually hated. When Bar Kamtza shows up, the host kicks him out. Trying to appease the host and save himself from embarrassment, Bar Kamtza offers to pay for his plate, half the part then the whole party. But the host refuses each time. Bar Kamtza ends up going to the Romans and one thing lead to another until the Temple is destroyed.

What if it wasn't a punishment? And the sin was Rome's?

 

[Tumah]

What if it wasn't a punishment? And the sin was Rome's?

From my perspective, that wouldn't work, because I believe suffering isn't random. The Rabbis teach:

He also saw a skull floating in the on the water.
He said to it:
Because you drowned [someone], you were drowned.
And the end of [he who] drowned you, is to be drowned.

So the Romans can't cause us harm, unless we already deserved it.

 

[roger1440]

What if it wasn't a punishment? And the sin was Rome's?

When ever the Jews trust in the power and authority of God, the Jews are on the winning side. The key word has always been for the Jews “trust” in God. That is where they gain there strength to defeat there enemies.

"10 So Joshua fought the Amalekites as Moses had ordered, and Moses, Aaron and Hur went to the top of the hill. 11 As long as Moses held up his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning. 12 When Moses’ hands grew tired, they took a stone and put it under him and he sat on it. Aaron and Hur held his hands up—one on one side, one on the other—so that his hands remained steady till sunset." (Exodus 17:10-12)
​

Some read those verses literately, Moses held up a magic stick. I see them as a metaphor. Either way it means the same. Trust in God and you will prevail.

 

[roger1440]

The baseless hatred of Jews for one another. Rather than standing together with one another against the oppression of Rome, or tolerating the differences between the sects and communities with reason and compassion so long as actual corruption was not taking place, the Jews of that era factionalized, radicalized, and were tolerant of what they should have refused to tolerate, but intolerant of what they should have learned to be tolerant about, even to the point of endangering one another, turning other Jews over to the Romans, and spilling the blood of other Jews.

Unfortunately, what should have been a fundamental element of Jewish society proved to be too elusive a lesson for the Jews of that time to learn. Even more unfortunately, it still often proves an elusive lesson.

It reminds me of the motto, "United we stand, divided we fall."

 

[roger1440]

I find it interesting, after the smoke clears; the Sadducees are gone and shortly after some of the Gospels appear. Christianity did exist before the destruction of the Temple but I don’t think any of the Gospels existed yet. I’m not saying the Sadducees wrote the Gospels, I’m just saying I’m open to the idea that some of them may have played a role in it.

 

[metis]

I find it interesting, after the smoke clears; the Sadducees are gone and shortly after some of the Gospels appear. Christianity did exist before the destruction of the Temple but I don’t think any of the Gospels existed yet. I’m not saying the Sadducees wrote the Gospels, I’m just saying I’m open to the idea that some of them may have played a role in it.

Unless they have a massive conversion of believe and thought, I doubt it. Especially their emphasis on ritual, versus the Pharisee approach of mainly using Torah, it appears that those of a very liberal Pharisee approach would be more enticed by Jesus.

 

[metis]

From my perspective, that wouldn't work, because I believe suffering isn't random. The Rabbis teach:

He also saw a skull floating in the on the water.
He said to it:
Because you drowned [someone], you were drowned.
And the end of [he who] drowned you, is to be drowned.

So the Romans can't cause us harm, unless we already deserved it.

I simply cannot see this. To me, this turns God into a genocidal maniac that's more evil than any secular power has ever been. I know what you're saying is traditional with so many, so I won't argue that, but it just doesn't make one iota of sense to me.

Shabbat shalom

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I simply cannot see this. To me, this turns God into a genocidal maniac that's more evil than any secular power has ever been. I know what you're saying is traditional with so many, so I won't argue that, but it just doesn't make one iota of sense to me.

Shabbat shalom

When would it stop?

 

[metis]

When would it stop?

I'm not sure what you're asking, so could you please clarify?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I'm not sure what you're asking, so could you please clarify?

If it was like he said: A person got drown because they drown someone and then the person who drown them is to be drown too. It seems like a vicious circle. Like when would that stop?

 

[metis]

If it was like he said: A person got drown because they drown someone and then the person who drown them is to be drown too. It seems like a vicious circle. Like when would that stop?

Good point-- I hadn't thought of it in those terms.

 

[roger1440]

I simply cannot see this. To me, this turns God into a genocidal maniac that's more evil than any secular power has ever been. I know what you're saying is traditional with so many, so I won't argue that, but it just doesn't make one iota of sense to me.

Shabbat shalom

I suspect there is a very strong likelihood there is a connection between the canonical Gospels and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Most but not all scholars believe the canonical Gospels were written after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. I have come to the same conclusion independently of them. The canonical Gospels I believe are a fusion between a story about a Jewish martyr from decades earlier and a reaction to the destruction of the Temple. No single person could have written any of the Gospels. The purpose of these Gospels was to point the Jews to the Torah. That is all they had left. Their country was gone. Their Temple was gone. The Jews who wrote these Gospels knew the Torah inside out. They had to been very educated. Their intent was to preserve Judaism in a world without a Temple. The author’s intent failed. Gentiles got a hold of these Gospels and unknowingly twisted there meaning. These Gospels are not about some dead Jew. In the synoptic Gospels, (Matthew, Mark and Luke), a sinless Israel is portrayed as Jesus. In the Gospel of John, God is portrayed as Jesus. These Gospels read as a metaphor are in agreement with the Torah, at least that was the intent of the authors.

 

[Tumah]

I simply cannot see this. To me, this turns God into a genocidal maniac that's more evil than any secular power has ever been. I know what you're saying is traditional with so many, so I won't argue that, but it just doesn't make one iota of sense to me.

Shabbat shalom

When would it stop?

I'm not sure how you see this.
The way I understand it, what it is saying is that the first guy chose to drown someone. Now the attribute of "measure for measure" comes into play. He drowned someone, so unless he repents, G-d will cause him to drown. So assuming he doesn't, G-d arranges that the next person who decides to give in to his murderous impulse to drown someone, ends up being in the vicinity of the first drowner, so that he will be the victim. And so on.

Until someone in the line decides to repent for having drowned someone.
Or I guess, unless he drowns on his own.

The point of the passage is that a person is punished in the exact measure for the sin he committed.

 

[Sleeppy]

I'm not sure how you see this.
The way I understand it, what it is saying is that the first guy chose to drown someone. Now the attribute of "measure for measure" comes into play. He drowned someone, so unless he repents, G-d will cause him to drown. So assuming he doesn't, G-d arranges that the next person who decides to give in to his murderous impulse to drown someone, ends up being in the vicinity of the first drowner, so that he will be the victim. And so on.

Until someone in the line decides to repent for having drowned someone.
Or I guess, unless he drowns on his own.

The point of the passage is that a person is punished in the exact measure for the sin he committed.

Is this observable?

 

[Tumah]

Is this observable?

Sometimes.

 

[metis]

I suspect there is a very strong likelihood there is a connection between the canonical Gospels and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Most but not all scholars believe the canonical Gospels were written after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. I have come to the same conclusion independently of them. The canonical Gospels I believe are a fusion between a story about a Jewish martyr from decades earlier and a reaction to the destruction of the Temple. No single person could have written any of the Gospels. The purpose of these Gospels was to point the Jews to the Torah. That is all they had left. Their country was gone. Their Temple was gone. The Jews who wrote these Gospels knew the Torah inside out. They had to been very educated. Their intent was to preserve Judaism in a world without a Temple. The author’s intent failed. Gentiles got a hold of these Gospels and unknowingly twisted there meaning. These Gospels are not about some dead Jew. In the synoptic Gospels, (Matthew, Mark and Luke), a sinless Israel is portrayed as Jesus. In the Gospel of John, God is portrayed as Jesus. These Gospels read as a metaphor are in agreement with the Torah, at least that was the intent of the authors.

I tend to lean in your direction above, so what we read in the gospels includes myth, which of course does not mean falsehood. After Gandhi was assassinated, a similar process began to take place with him, but he had written so much about his just being a man with God inside of him and with all.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From my perspective, that wouldn't work, because I believe suffering isn't random.

The problem with this is that it leads to blaming the victim and, in its most extreme manifestation, a truly repugnant holocaust theology.

 

[metis]

I'm not sure how you see this.
The way I understand it, what it is saying is that the first guy chose to drown someone. Now the attribute of "measure for measure" comes into play. He drowned someone, so unless he repents, G-d will cause him to drown. So assuming he doesn't, G-d arranges that the next person who decides to give in to his murderous impulse to drown someone, ends up being in the vicinity of the first drowner, so that he will be the victim. And so on.

Until someone in the line decides to repent for having drowned someone.
Or I guess, unless he drowns on his own.

The point of the passage is that a person is punished in the exact measure for the sin he committed.

Thanks for the clarification dealing with repentance. As far as the rest, I cannot accept it, especially when it comes to innocent people being supposedly killed or allowed to die by God because someone else sinned. To me, that puts God on the "evil" side of the ledger, and even if gilgul is applied, it at least posits God as leaving a terrible example for us.

I simply don't see God interfering with every thing that happens, whether that be good or bad, and I tend to think having God pulling all the strings defies the concept of free will. After all, with what you say above, if someone repents, is this action really ordained by God so what we have is God repenting to God?

To me, an approach whereas God made all, and then let it be ours to make or to break, seems to resonate better with me. However, I'll be ther first to admit that I don't have "the answers", so I certainly cannot claim that you're wrong.