Resurrection of the dead

[sandy whitelinger]

----------------------------

Maybe the story of Lazarus is a metaphorical meaning, exampled as a parable.

Then again, maybe it is true just as it is told and the death that Lazarus first experienced was not the death that is to judgement. Being able to pick and choose which stories might be parables (it seems to me that the stories that are meant to be parables are called parables) or symbolic or whatever according to one's own limited understanding of the stories meaning is exactly how real meanings get perverted. If the Bible meant for a stories to be allogorized I think some guidelines for this process would be offered within the context, ie., the Bible itself.

Maybe we do have that guideline already. Parables are called parables. Visions are called visions. Perhaps everything else is exactly what it says it is. Jesus when interpreting the Old Testament took everything literally. That is a good enough example for me.

 

[energize]

New covenant? In the Jewish tradition there is 1 covenant between G-d and the Jewish people.

as far as Jesus as a priest judging...he was not a levite or a kohen therefore he was not a priest....secondly he was not a member of the Sanhedrin which meant in the context of Judaism he had no right to judge.

---------------
Maybe this will help: Jer.31:31-34 "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which, my covenant they broke, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord; But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord. I will put my law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts and will be their God and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity and I will remember their sin no more."

So there is your "new" covenant with Israel and Judah. This covenant was given after the covenant made with Levi at Sinai at the beginning of Israel as a nation. Or maybe you understand it as one whole covenant? Have you been taught the covenant made with Levi was cancelled out and not recognized by the tribe of Judah(Jews) as there was a divided "Israel" ?

Wasn't there many covenants made with the citizens of Israel?

From what I understand, Jesus had the right to judge via laws established. The Pharisees jduged by laws, as did the elders. The people also judged by the laws, else they could not have acknowledged transgression, or justification.

Ok, so you don't think Jesus was a priest. What do you think his role was as "Lord"? As teacher with disciple students? Maybe he was as Paul, a Pharisee priest? Or in relative kinsmen of John the Baptist, a Levite who was a citizen of Judah and therein accounted as a Jewish citizen? Paul was a Benjamite and counted as a Jewish citizen.

Maybe the Pharisee teaching from the Babylonian Talmud is just what Jesus objected to.

 

[energize]

Sandy

I agree with you, the parables are noted as parables in Jesus speaking. He then explains them also.

 

[jewscout]

Maybe this will help: Jer.31:31-34 "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which, my covenant they broke, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord; But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord. I will put my law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts and will be their God and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity and I will remember their sin no more."

So there is your "new" covenant with Israel and Judah. This covenant was given after the covenant made with Levi at Sinai at the beginning of Israel as a nation. Or maybe you understand it as one whole covenant? Have you been taught the covenant made with Levi was cancelled out and not recognized by the tribe of Judah(Jews) as there was a divided "Israel" ?

There is ONE Torah, the covenant between G-d and the Jewish people. It was given to Moses and the Nation of Israel by G-d at Sinai. This is the teaching of traditional judaism. And as far as your quote from the prophet here is the words of the Torah, traditionaly taught to be Divine revelation

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of HaShem your G-d which I command you.

There would be no re-creation or adding or taking away from the Torah, the covenant between G-d and the Nation of Israel. The "new" covenant refered to by the prophet is not a new one but the same covenant renewed, meaning that the jews who were not Torah observant would return to the Torah. This is what is meant by that verse, not that somehow a new one would be established. There would be no redefining, it is the same as the last. This, at least, is what i understand from the traditional jewish perspective and what i've read.

Wasn't there many covenants made with the citizens of Israel?

no

From what I understand, Jesus had the right to judge via laws established. The Pharisees jduged by laws, as did the elders. The people also judged by the laws, else they could not have acknowledged transgression, or justification.

to judge under Torah law you must be part of the Sanhedrin, which jesus was not.
Num. 11:16-17
And HaShem said unto Moses: 'Gather unto Me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tent of meeting, that they may stand there with thee. And I will come down and speak with thee there; and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.

Ok, so you don't think Jesus was a priest. What do you think his role was as "Lord"? As teacher with disciple students? Maybe he was as Paul, a Pharisee priest? Or in relative kinsmen of John the Baptist, a Levite who was a citizen of Judah and therein accounted as a Jewish citizen? Paul was a Benjamite and counted as a Jewish citizen

i think jesus, at best, was a leader of a small band of jews who were causing the Romans some headache's and so he was executed as an enemy of the empire.

Maybe the Pharisee teaching from the Babylonian Talmud is just what Jesus objected to.

then, without the use of the Talmud, describe to me what "Frontlets" or Teffilin look like as refered to in Duet. 6:8...a commandment of the Written Torah.

 

[energize]

JS

Oh I totally agree that the Torah story was between the Jewish people and their god. I also agree to your point that the covenant spoken in Jermiah was a renewed covenant, the term being simplified to "new" in the KJV and meaning the same. However, it became misinterpreted and bounced into another people.

How do you know that Jesus was not a member of the Sanhedrin?

There is no mention of Jesus wearing "frontlets" in the KJV. Nor the Pharisees or elders or scribes.

You did not clarify the Jewish position on covenant God made with Levi. Do the Jews recognize it as valid or do the Jews deny that covenant?

 

[jewscout]

How do you know that Jesus was not a member of the Sanhedrin?

do you have any evidence to prove that he was part of the Sanhedrin? You claim he was a judge, to be a judge in the society he lived in you were part of the Sanhedrin, can you show me where he sat w/ 70 other jews in judgement over others.

You did not clarify the Jewish position on covenant God made with Levi. Do the Jews recognize it as valid or do the Jews deny that covenant?

there was no covenant established w/ the Levi's. Aaron's family was established as the Kohanim, the Priests of the Temple, but this is part of the covenant made with the entire nation of Israel. Also Jesus was not a kohen or a levi, he is, supposedly, of the house of Judah. Thus he can not be a priest in the Jewish sense of the word.

There is no mention of Jesus wearing "frontlets" in the KJV. Nor the Pharisees or elders or scribes.

ah but you said:

In this, Jesus was eliminating heresy in its error, and re-inforcing established law given at Sinai "as it is written" in the law and prophet sayings.

so again, i ask you based on the Law given at Sinai, the Written Torah of which the verse regarding "frontlets" or teffilin was a part of said law, describe to me what they look like w/o the use of the Talmud.
i do not need to prove that jesus or anyone else wore them they are part of the Law given at Sinai which you claim Jesus came to "re-inforce".
so what do they look like?:sarcastic

 

[Scuba Pete]

Do I believe I understand ALL scripture? Yes, of course.

Then my earlier statement does indeed apply to you.

John 9:39 Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind."


40 Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, "What? Are we blind too?" 41 Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains. NIV

YOU are the one proclaiming your ignorance of it.

Of course I do. Only the truly deluded or the truly arrogant believe that they understand all scripture. Maybe you should study humility?

As to the rule for judgment, you say it works for legalists

I didn't say that: the Apostle's did. If you have a beef with the scriptures take it up with God.

 

[energize]

JS

So, if Jesus was not a member of the Sanhedrin then this could be the reason for his debating with the Pharisees. As you can't possibly know what Priesthood order Jesus was sent through, and the bible only stating he was through the order of Melchizedek, and that order ran through to Levite election as covenanted in the anointed priests,"by Aarons rod that bloomed", where does that leave us in concluding the authority of Jesus to judge via the law? It looks to me like the Levite heritage is the only source for Jesus authority in judging by laws established and "the way" he was sent to the lost sheep. So therein we see Jesus debating law with the Pharisees, and his being called "Lord" of his disciple students, and they calling him "rabbi".

Why would Jesus have sat with 70 other Jews when Jews were not anointed to anything? However, I can speculate that the elders Jesus sat with may have been 70+ Jews discussing whatever they discussed in those days. I would wager they even discussed the weather. It is mentioned that Jesus taught in the temple at Jerusalem and was a learned fellow. So where do you think Jesus might have picked up his education other than his own teachers who were priests? Maybe Elizabeth's husband Zackeriah taught Jesus just as he probably taught his own son John the Baptist. Or maybe even Jesus was taught while exiled in Egypt by priests who possibly were of the House of Joseph (those "other" children hidden from the pages of the bible). There are so many possibilities other than Sanhedrin.

I see no extraordinary thing about Jesus reproving and correcting error in laws. This is the way I see him as "saving" the people from untentional transgressions(sin). Even the Pharisee hypocrits did the same in admonishing their fellow men, the exception is seen however, in how the Pharisees did not follow their own advice.

Why don't you tell me the scripture about "frontlets" between the eyes so I can then give you the reason why that invention was one of the most bazaar practices incorporated into the tradition of the elders. If Jesus wore frontlets it is not mentioned, and if it was law for priests or everyone concerned, he did not change those things.

Yes, the bible states God made a covenant with Levi. Malachi 2:1-10 paying attention to verse 4. and verse 7..."for the priests lips should keep knowledge and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. And Jesus of course was a priestly messenger sent to save the lost sheep.

Also, I read the story as telling how the Levites were separated in a covenant from the other tribes to be priests, and all Israel was not included in that particular covenant. The other tribes were given their own individual inheritances of land (the earth beneath) and the Levites were set "above" the other tribes in the kingdom of heaven. They were to be a "Light" unto the "nations", (cities-children of Israel).



I have never read the Babylonian or Jerusalem Talmuds. I also have never read the book of Mormoms, or all of Martin Luther's ravings, but I have read the ingredients on a can of spitgetti & meatballs. Does that count? Seriously, lets stick to what I know best, the KJV of which my past Christianity came out of and my present atheism began. (I'm also NOT interested in Hebrew)

thank you

 

[opensoul7]

No obviously the information about Paul would not come from the new testament.Yea I do read some stuff that would be thought of as strange to others . Like I said I will bring this up again when I can give you something more factual to work with , sorry to make you wait. And if you would like , so far the best book I have read about the mystery connection is called The Jesus Mysteries.It delves into the evolution and "direct"connection you are interested in .yes let's keep in touch! Hope all is well with you , LUX , opensoul7

 

[jewscout]

your OP ended by asking:

How then did things become so confusing and taken out of Judaism?

i feel i have answered your question fully.

Seriously, lets stick to what I know best, the KJV of which my past Christianity came out of and my present atheism began. (I'm also NOT interested in Hebrew)

you ask a question in regards to how things changed between christianity and judaism in regards to resurrection and now you chose to ignore the holy text of the jewish faith in the traditional form it is in.

i will consider this the end of our discussion

JS

 

[greatcalgarian]

Netdoc


"Here's a quarter, call someone who cares."

Ok, let's hear YOUR interpretation of the thing. (Jn.9:40-41)

You misperceive. For I do not claim the tradition of Judaism, nor its Christ, nor its God.
These were given only to Israel in sons of Jacob.

Why do you wish to "humble" me? Is it because of your arrogant and hateful nature? The bible itself tells you that you have been given all understanding of those things. Maybe its just your stubbornness that prevents you using your brain to interpret those scriptures. Other than that, I am at a loss as to your ignorant ramblings.

To be fair, you should realize that some of those posters on this thread started by you are very humble, very knowledgeable, very tolerant, may be a bit sturbborn, but very kind persons. The way you responded to the posting by going personal is not very wise. Please try to keep personal remarks out of the posting, and just present your case.

I see you have presented several good points as a Christian turn atheist, but if you continue in this way of debate will not get you anywhere. If Netdoc can be upset by your remarks, that is an indication that you have gone a bit too far into personal attack instead of concentrating on facts of the debate.

You have collected very little frubals, as your way of presenting your debate may not be very palletable by others. Hope you can change your debating style. :shout

I am going to give you frubals for starting this thread, but I really hope to see a change in your approach.

 

[energize]

JS

You said, "I feel I have answered your question fully."

Good enough. I don't want you to feel uncomfortable discussing further into the topic.

Thanks for your input.

 

[energize]

"Please try to keep personal remarks out of the posting and present your case."
"You have collected very little frubals"

I wasn't interested in "frubals".

Would you like to contribute to the discussion in "Resurrection of the dead"?

 

[greatcalgarian]

"Please try to keep personal remarks out of the posting and present your case."
"You have collected very little frubals"

I wasn't interested in "frubals".

Would you like to contribute to the discussion in "Resurrection of the dead"?

Frubals is an indication that your post made a good impression on the readers, and they felt you have made a strong case in your arguement or presented some useful thoughts or information to enrich the discussion. It is also an indication of how many readers concur with your view.

I have no particular interest in a specific topic. I browse through most topics and just present my view when I see an error or a strong disagreement on my part, or when I feel the poster did not have the right information or knowledge to make a statement, then only I post a reply. You are welcome to post anything you like and see what is the response of the RF members on this topic 'resurrection of the dead'. As a scientist myself, I have not seen any convincing evidence on resurrection, the topic belong to mythology and serve only to reinforce the faith of certain religious group.