The savior according to Judaism

[Aliza]

I have never been taught anything other than the Jews expect a resurrection of the dead as a sign that the Messianic era is here. There are multiple ways that are imagined in Jewish texts detailing how that resurrection might take place, but no one definitieve view is taken. It seems reasonable to me that the Jesus-era Jews understood from previous cultural expectations that a resurrection (of the dead) was a prerequisite of the Messianic era. I think that's the only reason the NT discusses a resurrection at all; it needed to be there.

[Minimalist]

The problem with all of this "judaism evolved" shit is that we really do not know what it evolved from.  Tradition ( which in religion is merely a synonym for "Bullshit") makes claims about its antiquity which archaeology cannot substantiate.  What archaeology does show is that the polities which grew into the later northern and southern kingdoms arose in the eastern hill region c 1200 BC at the start of the Iron Age.  They were formed from local, indigenous, peoples not some conquering army escaping Egypt!  Similar sites grew up in areas which came to be known as Moab and Edom.  As a result of the Sea People invasion the entire area of the Levant was in turmoil and most of the Late Bronze Age kingdoms collapsed with Egypt barely surviving to begin a millennium long slide to oblivion that concluded at Actium in 31 BC. 

These eventually-to-be Israelites and Judahites were standard run of the mill Canaanites.  They observed the Canaanite pantheon as an occasional inscription indicates and which is backed up by thousands of figurines found ( See:  William Dever "Did God Have A Wife).  There was a tendency to henotheism where one god gets promoted to the status of Boss Hooter ( Marduk in Babylon, Ashur in Assyria ) and apparently Yahweh won the toss in Jerusalem.  We can't be sure because we have no writings of any significance until long after and by then the story had been massaged to fit current needs.  What does seem to have been the case is that Canaanites who were quite similar to Babylonians in outlook were taken to Babylon where they were not slaves.  Some time later Cyrus sent back a group of people to run the region armed with a bullshit story about how they were the rightful rulers being returned by the wonderful Cyrus to resume their position as priests and judges and, oh, by-the-way, here's Yahweh now all spruced out like the Zoroastrian Ahura Mazda into some sort of Creator God.

Again, we have no written records of any of this until the Septuagint, written in Greek in the 3d century BC.  And there are a lot of "traditions" ( see above ) that go along with even the writing of this.

[Bucky Ball]

I have never been taught anything other than the Jews expect a resurrection of the dead as a sign that the Messianic era is here. There are multiple ways that are imagined in Jewish texts detailing how that resurrection might take place,  but no one definitieve view is taken. It seems reasonable to me that the Jesus-era Jews understood from previous cultural expectations that a resurrection (of the dead) was a prerequisite of the Messianic era. I think that's the only reason the NT discusses a resurrection at all; it needed to be there.

So, it's not surprising you were never taught anything different than what has become modern Jewish orthodoxy. It is largely influenced by a few Medieval personalities and what they thought was correct, and just like any other religion, the present day only recounts the present day's opinions.

The traditional Hebrew concept, until it changed after the Exile, was that "immortality" consisted in continuation of the male line, (the family). All dead shades went to Sheol. Sheol was neither where Yahweh lived, nor was it a 'resurrected" state. There was no re-animation or resurrection. With the development of individualism post-Exile, either because they were ready for it and got it from cultural exchange ... the Greeks had it already, or it developed independently, there was a huge cultural shift. The prophets started to insist on monotheism, (an "individual" god, which was the major change). In the 1st Century, there were sects that bought into individual immortality, and some that didn't. For example, the Sadducees did not. They held on to the traditional view of Sheol and shades. Paul, being an apocalyptic Jew, told his followers to "put on immortality", (which was ONLY for the "saved")
1 Corinthians 15:53-55 "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? "

The description of the apparitions of Jesus are done in the language of Jewish "shades" and Jewish culture. One could not recognize a shade, the disciples did not recognize and were afraid of what they saw. At the end of Matthew it talks about a large group who were seeing (something) but whatever it was, it says many believed, but some still doubted ... whatever they saw was not a physical body, if they can't recognize him.  

Dying and rising gods was quite the fad in the 1st Century. How many other cult figures die and rise in 3 days ?

[Aliza]

I have never been taught anything other than the Jews expect a resurrection of the dead as a sign that the Messianic era is here. There are multiple ways that are imagined in Jewish texts detailing how that resurrection might take place,  but no one definitieve view is taken. It seems reasonable to me that the Jesus-era Jews understood from previous cultural expectations that a resurrection (of the dead) was a prerequisite of the Messianic era. I think that's the only reason the NT discusses a resurrection at all; it needed to be there.

I had a long response to this written out, and got an error message from this site, and at least an hour of work is wasted.
When I get over being pissed, I'll write a response, ... maybe. And yes we do know a lot about Hebrew culture and it's long development.

I'm really sorry that happened.

I'll look forward to reading your reply when you can post it.

[airportkid]

... I had a long response to this written out, and got an error message from this site, and at least an hour of work is wasted.  When I get over being pissed, I'll write a response ...

I've been clobbered by that hammer.  Worse than smacking your thumb.  When my posts start to become essays I cut and paste over to Word and finish there.  Then start a fresh reply and paste back.

But it's more fun to stay pithy, (or at least attempt it), not to mention a lot less work. 

[Bucky Ball]

So there are really two (maybe three or more) issues going on here.
The development of Jewish concepts of the messiah, and how and why they changed,
the Christian take-over of those, the early change in Christianity from the Jewish concept to "salvation from sin" and why that happened.

But as Min said, it is also important to keep in mind the real history of the kingdom(s). Ancient Israel actually existed as one kingdom for a very short historical period, (like about 150 years).

[Minimalist]

Actually there is no evidence that they were ever one kingdom.  That was a bible claim which, like so many other bible claims, exists only within the rather useless pages of that shitty book.   

This chart shows the relative location of settlements in the northern and southern extremes of Palestine ( Edom and Moab would have been to the East).  The population density is based on the superior agricultural potential of the north as opposed to the south which well into the historical period remained primarily the domain of herders with only a few minuscule villages scattered about.



Finkelstein notes that this only began to change with the Assyrian conquest of the Omride kingdom ("Israel") in the late 8th century BC and the population of Judah began to expand because of refugees. Again, we have no texts by Judahite sources.  Assyrian, Damascene and Moabite yes, but the Judahites seem to have been illiterate fucks!

[Phaedrus]

@Aliza

Saw this on another forum, a name was not provided, and I am uncertain how to respond:
The true Jewish Messiah came 35 years ago and saved the world from global nuclear destruction.

I'm assuming the individual meant the Rebbe, of whom you mentioned already, and I am inquiring.

[grympy]

I understand that Jesus was not considered the Christ for whom the Jewish were waiting.

My question, rather, is do the Jewish ever expect their savior to make an appearance?

Or is it that at this point, the savior of the Jews is as likely as the second coming of Christ for christians?

The Jewish name for the messiah  is 'moshiach' .  'The word 'christ; AND ' Moshiach' simply mean 'anointed', as in 'anointed king'. NOT 'saviour'    As  far as I'm aware ,  orthodox  Jews  still expect the moshiach  to appear at some point.

 Even a brief glimpse at actual Jewish  prophecy about the Moshiach  rather than  Christian cherry picking  shows clearly why Jesus could not possibly be the messiah : 

The messiah  is to be a warrior priest, in the tradition of David 

He is most certainly NOT DIVINE

He will not die young, or violently  

The messiah will usher in an era of world peace, IE  for all people, Jews  and gentile 

That's about all I can remember.  Perhaps have a bit of a look yourself. 

The term 'end of days' is from The Torah, Book of Numbers:  24:14 "And now, I am going to my people. Come, I will advise you...what this people will do to your people at the end of days."

[Aliza]

@Aliza

Saw this on another forum, a name was not provided, and I am uncertain how to respond:
The true Jewish Messiah came 35 years ago and saved the world from global nuclear destruction.

I'm assuming the individual meant the Rebbe, of whom you mentioned already, and I am inquiring.

I can't imagine they're talking about anyone other than the Rebbe. There is one other extremist, cultist movement that may feel like their own Rebbe is "the one," though they're far less likely to be on the internet making posts or promoting their views. 

What's the nature of the site you're on? That might help me narrow it down.

[Phaedrus]

What's the nature of the site you're on? That might help me narrow it down.

Here's the link of the post where the person mentioned what I quoted above.