This will be my last response to you in this thread. As others have pointed out, we have hijacked this thread well beyond it’s intended meaning. If you wish to discuss my religious beliefs, open up another thread.
**
I never claimed to have any mystical ability to look at people and determine their Jewishness. I’m willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that every single person who read my post understood that when I said “I do know about who is a Jew and who isn’t” knew I meant it in the context of knowing how to determine if a person is Jewish based on their lineage and history. If you chose to misconstrue it to determine that I could determine whether or not you were Jewish based on a screen name, well, then there’s nothing I can do for you.
**
Calling me delusional is an insult. Calling me a liar is an insult. Again, take it to the Pit if you wish to insult.
**
No, I didn’t. I clarified what was meant by “subjugation of the nations.” A clarification is not a contradiction.
**
You still have not presented to me one group that does not accept any converts.
**
This has been answered before.
You never asked. God wrote them. If you don’t like the answer, take it to another thread and let’s stop hijacking ice1000’s thread.
“Encouraging conversion” is a matter of degree. Sure there are sites out there providing information for those wanting to convert to Judaism. Sure there are those so enamored with the religion that they look to clarify and spread its message. But unlike Christianity with its “good news of Christ” or Islam, there is no religious mandate for conversion. You won’t see Jews going door-to-door passing out information of Judaism. I think most people can tell the difference between mandated witnessing and WWW sites giving information to those interested. Active versus passive.
Ancestry trumps belief. Of course belief alone constitutes Judaism. For most of World Jewry, proof of belief consists of halachic conversion. Round and round we go, Willy. Ancestry over belief? I don’t know where it comes from, I am not that studied as a Jew. I assume it has some basis in the more recent traditions of European Jews or some basis in the Torah or Talmud.
My ancestry does mean something to me. We’ve been through it before. I wouldn’t expect to be able to explain this to you, but the Jews form a group which has been the recipient of much discrimination. It is important for me to remember that as much as I don’t believe in God, the Nazis (or the Cossacks, or the Spanish, or more recently Islamic fundamentalists like the guys who got Daniel Pearl) would have still come after me. That defines me as being Jewish. For this reason, I believe that the state of Israel is a good idea. Go ahead and accuse me of being racist for this. It is not the Jews who must change their racist ways first, it is the rest of the world. Only 60 years ago, I would have been gassed just for being a Jew by descent. If you don’t think that gives Jews an excuse to protect other Jews, then I don’t know what I can say to you.
This is patently opposite of what I wrote.
This is my last post on this in this thread as well. I addressed the OP, and I have been sucked into a giant hijack. If you choose to start another thread on this, I may be there Willy. But this post, and your last few posts, have had nothing to do with “Proof of Jesus.”
Let me just ask one question of Abe and JThunder about the OP. I’ve been to Rome, I’ve been in the Roman catacombs, I’ve been in St. Peter’s Basilica and seen where he is buried. Is there more documentary evidence of St. Peter in Rome? It seems from these things that there was. He was a direct student of Jesus. Unless we assume that he was lying, we then have to assume that a historical Jesus existed. I what incarnation is difficult to say, but I have no problem believing in the historicity of Jesus.
Christians have various interpretation of the Bible and I think that’s OK since those scriptures were written in a time that is only remotely related to these.
From what I gather, the Jews do not have any type of interprations allowed. They go by the set scriptures as they were written. If this is the case, then the messianic tasks were written in an age that couldn’t comprehend this one.
I still think that if the messiah has free will, as we have ascertained that he does, he may choose to do some other tasks that are more relevant. Maybe he doesn’t fight a war, maybe he just talks his way out of it.
So the messiah could arrive, tell you it is he and you still won’t believe him. Seems to me that by only allowing the messiah to perform a certain strict set of tasks as proof of his identity you are trying to remove his free will.
And he’s going to force all the Jews to be observant? To what degree? What about free will? Will he, by extension, also remove free will from the Jews?
I think you have it backwards. It’s not like “Ed Messiah” is born, and then fufills all the requirements of messiahhood. The messiah is defined by his accomplishments. Except for the stuff the messiah does, he’s no different than anyone else. It’s like saying (and no jokes here), “George Bush is President.” Why do we say that? Because Bush accomplished the things you need to accomplish to become president…he got a majority of the electoral college votes and got sworn in as president. Other than that, Bush isn’t different from any other native born American 35 or older. Any of them could have been president in 2000.
It’s the same way about the messiah. When someone does the things that the messiah will do, he is the messiah. If he doesn’t do them, he’s not.
As for all Jews being observant, the idea is that all Jews will want to be observant, all at once. Nobody’s forced to be.
As a side note, Jews interpret the TaNaKh like crazy. Largely, that’s what the Talmud is…a collection of interpretations. Then, you can find books that interpret the Talmud, and books that interpret those books, etc.
One of the prophetic statements about the Messiah is Isaiah 11, verse 9 of which says “The Earth will be filled with knowledge of G-d as water covers the sea.” With the Messiah’s bringing about a more complete understanding of the nature of G-d, this understanding is expected to lead people toward concluding that observance of G-d’s commandments is the way to go.
And just to expand on cmkeller’s statement (before someone like SW brings it up):
The above does not mean that everyone will become Jewish in the messianic age. One can worship God and not be Jewish. So, don’t worry, SW, no one’s going to make you Jewish. Oh, wait… you already said that you are Jewish! Never mind…
Ahh I get it. He’s just a normal guy who does the right things. But that brings up another question, suppose he’s helped? What if a group of people band together (maybe led by one, maybe not) and accomplish all these tasks?
As Zev mentioned, tradition holds that one person accomplishes these things but that doesn’t have to be that way. He does have free will. He may delegate, he may let others do it their way, he may do it all himself.
So then we have the situation I posed earlier. Everything gets done but not in the way it was written, not in the way you expected.
You see where I’m getting at? He’ll be the messiah if he does the things you want him to do, either because it was written or because it is your faith or because it’s tradition. Regardless, it is us who determines who the messiah is, not he. Doesn’t it work the other way around? Don’t we determine our identity? If he’s different, and others determine his identity, then, if we decide, there’s nothing he can do to assume that role.
A war with God? How big? How long? Is a punch a war? How observant do all Jews have to be? Can they all be observant just for a day? Is that good enough? Is a desire to be observant enough or do you have to follow with actions?
Yes, those questions are splitting hairs but I bet that should everything get done, a faction is going to claim he is not who he says he is because of the method of fulfillment, length of time, magnitude of conflict, results of said conflict, etc.
I’ve been to the same places! I’ve also seen the shroud of Turin (in Turin, years ago when they accepted visitors for a period), and believe me when I say that that thing looks like the real article, and the Church still considers it a very important relic (the Vatican acknowledges it is a fake, but they claim it is still a work able to inspire). But I don’t consider either enough evidence for THE Jesus. St. Peter’s basilica is rumoured to be on the burial site of St. Peter, but this is not a known fact, and it’s not an historically or archaeologically precise reconstruction either. Here’s a little bit more on whether the apostle could be buried there:
The story goes that Peter was martyred on a cross and buried in a small grave. Almost 300 years later Constantine declared that a church would be built on Peter’s putative burial site, by which time the site was host to a small shrine. Then, about a thousand years later, the Church was demolished and the new basilica erected.
Although the Vatican claims this is the site of the tomb of Peter, as far as I know the claim is not well supported. Digs on the site have revealed an ancient Roman cemetery, but no information about Peter, no inscriptions, no evidence other than some bones–not uncommon for a cemetery’s site–and the legend of Peter itself corroborate the story.
That’s not to say that absolutely isn’t where Peter is buried, of course. I’m just saying it is not a known fact and assuming otherwise given the information we have is an article of faith, not knowledge.
At any rate, the historicity of Peter could well be more solid than that of Jesus, but the existence of THE Peter does not necessarily imply the existence of THE Jesus. As you say, who knows in what incarnation (if any) Jesus really lived? It’s possible that a man named Jesus lived and worked to improve the lot of Jews two millennia ago, and was hailed (or used) as one of the many prophets of the time. It’s possible he was just a popular mythical hero of the poor folk, and was therefore a fictional inspiration. It’s even possible, at a very long stretch, that he was the miracle-working Son of God exactly as told in the Bible, etc. Or perhaps the very idea of Jesus could be a composite of different persons and their work. Unfortunately the proof the OP is asking for is lacking.
I think Cecil himself nailed the most compelling argument that Jesus of Nazareth walked the earth, and it has to do with the sum of the evidence weighed against the creation of such a complex character as a myth out of whole cloth within just a couple of decades at a time when there was no Internet.
You would expect there to be more extrabiblical references to Him other than mere mentions by Tacitus (“Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius.”) and Josephus (“James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.”), and the Talmud (as being the bastard son of Panther, a Roman soldier) if His followers had made all this up.
Where is the denial by Roman authorities that He slipped by their guards as they slept at their post? I quite imagine that Pontius Pilate left no stone unturned in his investigation of what happened. I would think that Rome might issue a prominent public proclamation that rumors circulating about lazy Roman guards, missing bodies, and ghosts roaming the empire are mistaken.
I would expect Caiaphas (and other Pharisees and Saducees) to write extensively for the official record that the rabble is lying and misguided, that the Romans were inept and slipshod in their duties to guard the tomb. And I would expect controversy to arise from it, notable enough to be recorded as history.
But all we have is the gushing testimony of the Gospels and letters from people who witnessed or believed that He rose from the dead, and the dispassionate off-hand mentions of Him by people who did not.
As Cecil mentioned, such doubts about His earthly existence never even arose until 1700 years later. I think if you are going to pooh-pooh what was written (implying prior oral expositions) a mere 40 years after His exit, you ought to howl with skepticism at reports that didn’t surface until many centuries after that. “In short”, as Cecil says, “whether or not JC was truly the Son of God, he was probably the son of somebody.”
I’m no dogmatic proclaimer of the “Jesus is entirely mythical” argument myself…but Libertarian, you’re arguing that the lack of mention in historical sources is evidence for the existence of Jesus as a historical character?
I’m also not sure the picture you paint of the relationship between the Imperial Roman authorities and Rome’s provincial subjects is quite accurate. Yes, a modern democracy might be expected to hold press conferences and issue statements and denials and try to “spin” the media about rumors of guards sleeping on duty and executed political prisoners rising from the dead and so on. Even a modern non-democracy might be expected to mount a public propaganda campaign. But, I’m not really sure that the government of the Roman Empire worked that way. I suspect that the oral traditions of members of an oppressed minority religion out in the provinces of the Empire, and later the letters, written narratives (“Gospels”), and apocalyptic writings of such people might be rather “under the radar” of Roman governors and the like.
There are quite many sources of information about Jesus. What I specifically referenced was the sheer dearth of any contradicting those that exist.
I can’t seriously entertain your assertions that Rome was casual about insurrection. I’m not saying that I expected Caesar himself to run throughout Judea, beating his chest and begging people not to believe the apostles. But Pilate and the Sanhedrin had a mutually dependent symbiotic relationship that seems likely to me to have shown zero tolerance toward local heresy. After all, insurrection and heresy were exactly what they executed Jesus for.
So, where are the official records where Pontius Pilate and the Sanhedrin denounced Jesus as a false Messiah, a blasphemer, and a dangerous rebel and disturber of the peace, and proclaimed his arrest and execution?
Hey, this wasn’t a discussion of the existence of Jesus. It was a discussion of what Jesus (or another messiah) would have to do to prove he is who he says he is.
Matthew
John
Mark
Luke
Epistle To the Romans
The First Epistle to the Corinthians
The Second Epistle to the Corinthians
Epistle To the Galatians
Epistle To the Ephesians
The First Epistle to Timothy
The Second Epistle to Timothy
Epistle To Titus
Epistle To the Colossian
Epistle To Philemon
The First Epistle to Peter
The Second Epistle to Peter
Epistle Of James
The First Epistle of John
The Second Epistle of John
The Third Epistle of John
The Epistle of Jude
Epistle of Barnabas
The Revelation of John
The Acts of the Apostles
The Shepherd
The Acts of Paul
The Apocalypse of Peter
Tacitus made record of Pilate. It makes sense to me that the Sanhedrin would have wanted to forget about it, what with no body to show.