Jesus wasn't resurrected

[JennyMominRI]

I'm going to let the Christian -Jewish differences go now,because I feel like I'm hijacking the thread

 

[jimmiej]

Because your history book has all sorts of documents to back up what it is saying. Your history book, for the most part, is based on documents generated by the people who lived the events and reported them. I have yet to see any proof to back up anything said in the Bible. Where are the primary, heck, show me some secondary sources, even?

In order to be a history book, it would have to be able to be proven. We know when the Piilgrims came here, because we have proof. We know what happened at the Battle of the Bulge, because we have proof. We have original documentation.

Were your history book written in a vaccuum and there were no primary sources that could be checked, then it would no longer be a history book and it would fall into the questionable status, just like the Bible does. It *could be* true, but there is no sources, no documentation, nothing to support what is said.

If there were some disaster on our planet and all documents save one history book were destroyed, I doubt the people 2000 years from now would say "AHA! This is 100% true." They would read it and perhaps believe it to be true, but they would not hold it as unerring fact, simply due to the fact that no one could verify what was said.

What, you think the words just appeared 2000 years ago? Here's what it says at the beginning of my NIV translation:

"The NIV is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over 100 scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek texts."

At the end of Mark's gospel, it says:

"The earliest manuscripts & some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20."

To say there's no back-up sources is ludicrous.

 

[RoyalCanadian]

I am aware that the bible claims that he was a Pharasee. That does not change that fact that most of his ideas about Judaism are not based in past or present understandings of Jewish theology. There is a reason why Judaism distanced itself from Christians when Paul came into the picture... The stuff he was teaching was simply not Jewish

That Paul was Jewish is without question. That he was a Pharisee is also without question. Jenny does raise a valid point -- and the Apostle Peter also had some troubles with what Paul was teaching and the fact that he was teaching it to non-Jews. In the end, after the Jerusalem Council (I believe) they simply agreed to disagree and Paul went on teaching the Gospel to Gentiles and Peter went on teaching it to Jews. Peter would later have his own revelation about the propriety of teaching the Gospel to the Gentiles, but that's another story.

However, Judaism simply didn't separate itself from Christianity when Paul appeared on the scene. The early Christians (even in Paul's time) were mostly Jewish -- just "with a different perspective." (to quote the book Templar Legacy by Steve Berry) In the first century Christianity was just another sect of Judaism along with the Pharisees, the Saduceees, the Essenes, etc., etc. There were many, many Christians in the first centuries who would attend synagogue on Saturday and church on Sunday. The complete break would not come until around the time of Constantine with the "acceptance" of Christianity as the "official" religion of Rome.

 

[RoyalCanadian]

I'm going to let the Christian -Jewish differences go now,because I feel like I'm hijacking the thread

I, for one, think "the Christian-Jewish differences" are an enjoyable discussion. It makes me try to remember my "History of the New Testament" class from 1990-91 at Waterloo Lutheran Seminary. It was not an entirely enjoyable class.

 

[JennyMominRI]

That Paul was Jewish is without question. That he was a Pharisee is also without question. Jenny does raise a valid point -- and the Apostle Peter also had some troubles with what Paul was teaching and the fact that he was teaching it to non-Jews. In the end, after the Jerusalem Council (I believe) they simply agreed to disagree and Paul went on teaching the Gospel to Gentiles and Peter went on teaching it to Jews. Peter would later have his own revelation about the propriety of teaching the Gospel to the Gentiles, but that's another story.

.

Interresting..I didn't know the stuff in your first paragraph..I. Paul teaching non-Jews and Peter teaching Jews..

 

[JennyMominRI]

I, for one, think "the Christian-Jewish differences" are an enjoyable discussion. It makes me try to remember my "History of the New Testament" class from 1990-91 at Waterloo Lutheran Seminary. It was not an entirely enjoyable class.

I just hate it when I feel like I'm getting into I'm right and your wrong territory.. It makes me uncomfortable. And it also comes off like I feel Jews and Christians have nothing in common,when I believe we do..I thin it's just easier to focus on the differences because those are the things that stand out.

 

[mickeyfan2]

Interresting..I didn't know the stuff in your first paragraph..I. Paul teaching non-Jews and Peter teaching Jews..

There was a big theological rift in the early "Church". One side believe to become a Christian you had to first become a Jew with the accompaning circumcision. The other side said you could just become a Christian and not get the circumcision. These type of disagreements went on for hundreds of years.

 

[JennyMominRI]

There was a big theological rift in the early "Church". One side believe to become a Christian you had to first become a Jew with the accompaning circumcision. The other side said you could just become a Christian and not get the circumcision. These type of disagreements went on for hundreds of years.

I knew about the whole circ debate,I just didn't remember the Peter-Paul issue... FTR,,I agree with Paul that Christians don't need to be circumsized.

 

[RoyalCanadian]

Interresting..I didn't know the stuff in your first paragraph..I. Paul teaching non-Jews and Peter teaching Jews..

The story of the Jerusalem Council is found in both Galatians 2:1-10 and Acts 15:1-22 -- two completely different authors, however we're not sure if Luke was even at the Council. By the time the Council is convened Peter has already had his experience with the centurion Cornelius and is not so set in his ways that the Mosaic and Abrahamic Laws must be followed in order to follow Christ. (i.e. the requirement of circumcision) -- however Peter still ends up with the Jews and Paul goes off to spread the Word to the Gentiles.

I just hate it when I feel like I'm getting into I'm right and your wrong territory.. It makes me uncomfortable. And it also comes off like I feel Jews and Christians have nothing in common,when I believe we do..I thin it's just easier to focus on the differences because those are the things that stand out.

However you -- more than most anyone on this list -- are in a unique position to comment on the differences because, as I have come to understand who you are, you are a convert from Christianity to Judaism. Me -- on the other hand -- I'm a "pipeliner" Lutheran, destined from the crib in the nursery room at church to be a pastor. My own perspective of Judaism largely comes from what other Lutherans have told me. Admittedly, those Lutherans are university educated professors with some impressive credentials but Lutherans don't exactly have a stellar historical record when it comes to our relationships with the Jews.

 

[magicmato]

What, you think the words just appeared 2000 years ago? Here's what it says at the beginning of my NIV translation:

"The NIV is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over 100 scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek texts."

At the end of Mark's gospel, it says:

"The earliest manuscripts & some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20."

To say there's no back-up sources is ludicrous.

So? There are a lot of texts from thousands of years ago. Do we now claim that everything that Plato wrote is historically accurate? I guess we should go back to looking for Atlantis, then!

Yes, there are many writings. But you cannot claim they are fact. You cannot claim to know that the version we have now is the version that was originally written. You cannot know or claim as fact that anyone who is in the Bible or even who supposedly wrote the Bible actually existed. That is just fact. That is why faith is required to believe in the Bible. If it were fact and provable, you would not need faith any more.

 

[JennyMominRI]

However you -- more than most anyone on this list -- are in a unique position to comment on the differences because, as I have come to understand who you are, you are a convert from Christianity to Judaism. Me -- on the other hand -- I'm a "pipeliner" Lutheran, destined from the crib in the nursery room at church to be a pastor. My own perspective of Judaism largely comes from what other Lutherans have told me. Admittedly, those Lutherans are university educated professors with some impressive credentials but Lutherans don't exactly have a stellar historical record when it comes to our relationships with the Jews.

Actually ,I have a lot of respect for Lutherans...Yes,Luthor said some pretty bad things about Jew, but he was a product of his time.. I also have to give the Lutheran church a lot of credit as it has never hidden it's past and has been at the forefront of tying to heal a rifts with Jews... That's a big thing.
As for me..I was raised Catholic..I was one of the frst Altar Girls in the Archdiocese of Boston.. I studdied for a year with Jehovah's Witnesses and a year or so with Baptists.. I've also attended Episcoplian and Lutheran Churches.. I get around

 

[Alicnwondrln]

Actually ,I have a lot of respect for Lutherans...Yes,Luthor said some pretty bad things about Jew, but he was a product of his time.. I also have to give the Lutheran church a lot of credit as it has never hidden it's past and has been at the forefront of tying to heal a rifts with Jews... That's a big thing.
As for me..I was raised Catholic..I was one of the frst Altar Girls in the Archdiocese of Boston.. I studdied for a year with Jehovah's Witnesses and a year or so with Baptists.. I've also attended Episcoplian and Lutheran Churches.. I get around

you do LOL not to get off topic but i hope you are doing well

 

[RoyalCanadian]

There was a big theological rift in the early "Church". One side believe to become a Christian you had to first become a Jew with the accompaning circumcision. The other side said you could just become a Christian and not get the circumcision. These type of disagreements went on for hundreds of years.

Wasn't there a Bill Cosby comedy sketch regarding a discussion between Moses and God that had this punch line, "you want us to cut off what?"

There is a simply gory incident in the Old Testament in which the brothers of Diana manage to convert an entire tribe of non-Jews to Judaism in their plans to carry out revenge for Diana's rape. As a part of the conversion the men must, of course, be circumcised. The New Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible describes the following attack on the tribe "while the men were still in their pain" or lines to that effect.

I have heard -- but not from any truly credible source -- that circumcision of male converts to Judaism is still required as a sign of the covenant established between G-d and Abraham. Male converts who are already circumcised are required to undergo a ceremonial procedure which mirrors the circumcision but is not circumcision. It is all a symbol of the covenant between G-d and the Jews.

There are many kinds of covenants -- but a blood covenant is the biggest covenant between G-d and humanity. The blood covenant is the reason for the Temple sacrifices and, for Christians, it is the reason for the death of Jesus on the cross.

 

[Fitswimmer]

So Joy, and Jimmie, and Fitz, and the rest of the Christians on this thread, a rhetorical question:

What will happen, what would you do, if you are presented with absolute, undeniable, irrefutable PROOF that Jesus was not resurrected? Yes, he existed, he preached, he taught. Maybe he even died on the cross. But his mortal remains are found.

I'm late to the party, but my answer is similar. There's no scientific, historical proof that would stand up to objective criticism that He lived in the first place. The historical records cited by some scholars are rejected by others. I can only take it on faith. The records we have from that time period don't meet modern standards of objectivity.

IF there was some way to be positive that He lived, died and his bones were found, I think I would still believe what I do now. Just because bones are found, it doesn't take away from the miracle of His life and the influence He had on humanity. It wouldn't destroy His teachings and His example. It wouldn't take away from the fact that He willingly allowed himself to be crucified, even though He had committed no sin-other than to be a threat to those in power at the time. If the Resurrection were to be proven to be no more than an awakening from a coma, I'd still be at Mass every Sunday.

 

[magicmato]

I'm late to the party, but my answer is similar. There's no scientific, historical proof that would stand up to objective criticism that He lived in the first place. The historical records cited by some scholars are rejected by others. I can only take it on faith. The records we have from that time period don't meet modern standards of objectivity.

Great answer and this is my point re: the Bible. It is only what it is because of human faith, not because of any fact. Faith is a very powerful thing and is what drives religion of all sorts.

 

[JennyMominRI]

There is a simply gory incident in the Old Testament in which the brothers of Diana manage to convert an entire tribe of non-Jews to Judaism in their plans to carry out revenge for Diana's rape. As a part of the conversion the men must, of course, be circumcised. The New Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible describes the following attack on the tribe "while the men were still in their pain" or lines to that effect.

I have heard -- but not from any truly credible source -- that circumcision of male converts to Judaism is still required as a sign of the covenant established between G-d and Abraham. Male converts who are already circumcised are required to undergo a ceremonial procedure which mirrors the circumcision but is not circumcision. It is all a symbol of the covenant between G-d and the Jews.

.

Dinah... There is a book called the Red Tent that talks about that whole situation..
As to the conversion ceremony for already circumsized men it involves a little prick(shut up) with a needle to draw blood.

 

[agnes!]

The story of the Jerusalem Council is found in both Galatians 2:1-10 and Acts 15:1-22 -- two completely different authors, however we're not sure if Luke was even at the Council. By the time the Council is convened Peter has already had his experience with the centurion Cornelius and is not so set in his ways that the Mosaic and Abrahamic Laws must be followed in order to follow Christ. (i.e. the requirement of circumcision) -- however Peter still ends up with the Jews and Paul goes off to spread the Word to the Gentiles.

Trying to remember...I *think* that at the Jerusalem Council the disagreement was whether male believers had to be circumcised or not, in essence whether this small sect would reach beyond the Hebrew culture of the day to outsiders and to 'aliens'. The final decision of the elders (which included James the brother of Jesus/Y'shua) was that you had to refrain from eating meat sacrificed to idols and to claim Jesus as Lord.

agnes!

 

[RoyalCanadian]

Actually ,I have a lot of respect for Lutherans...Yes,Luthor said some pretty bad things about Jew, but he was a product of his time.. I also have to give the Lutheran church a lot of credit as it has never hidden it's past and has been at the forefront of tying to heal a rifts with Jews... That's a big thing.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada (the Church in which I am a pastor) expressed its profound regret to the Canadian Jewish Congress at our national convention in the summer of 1995 for the historical record of Lutheran actions against Jews. We officially distanced ourselves from Luther's anti-Jewish tirades and while affirming they are a part of our history we also affirmed that they form no part of our theological stance.

There was a great deal of discussion around this issue on the convention floor. It was not a simple motion to pass.

On a somewhat humourous note -- we passed this motion on a Saturday and the news was immediately faxed to the offices of the Canadian Jewish Congress. There were questions from the convention floor as to why there was no immediate response from the CJC. Many at the convention had to be reminded that the CJC offices were probably closed for the weekend and, after all, it was Saturday -- the Sabbath Day for Jews.

Two local Lutheran clergy -- coincidentally, both of them are professors at my seminary -- are among the hard working organizers of local efforts towards education on the Holocaust. I have met some amazing Holocaust survivors due to the efforts of these two men and I am a richer person for having heard their stories.

 

[RoyalCanadian]

Dinah... There is a book called the Red Tent that talks about that whole situation..
As to the conversion ceremony for already circumsized men it involves a little prick(shut up) with a needle to draw blood.

Yes -- Dinah. My mistake. It come from being a Canadian named Neil and the song "Diana" just courses through my brain.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Actually ,I have a lot of respect for Lutherans...Yes,Luthor said some pretty bad things about Jew, but he was a product of his time.. I also have to give the Lutheran church a lot of credit as it has never hidden it's past and has been at the forefront of tying to heal a rifts with Jews... That's a big thing.
As for me..I was raised Catholic..I was one of the frst Altar Girls in the Archdiocese of Boston.. I studdied for a year with Jehovah's Witnesses and a year or so with Baptists.. I've also attended Episcoplian and Lutheran Churches.. I get around

You're probably not old enough to remember the old Good Friday prayers in the Catholic church and the way they referred to Jews. Even as a small child that just didn't feel right.
There are those in the Church that have made some strong efforts towards denouncing those old time prejudices. There's a documentary about one Sister that was at the forefront of the movement to change the way Catholics were taught about Judaism-I keep seeing at Blockbuster, one of these days I'll bring it home. I had a theology professor in college that brought an entire Holocaust awareness program to the school. There are some small steps being taken, but it can't take away from the years of institutionalized anti-Semitism.