TedM

Spin, maybe I've missed the point here. Jesus according to the NT writers and Paul was the Jewish Messiah. The contexts and references to Messiac passages make that clear. It is most reasonable therefore to conclude that when they called Jesus the Christ they were saying he was the Messiah the Jews had been waiting for, since that is what "Christ" likely meant.

If someone wishes to argue that Christ "really" meant something else, I don't see why that is relevant to anything.

ted

spin

Really something else from what? What Jewish source can you possibly use to show that Jesus was the Messiah of the Jews, as the Jews understood the Messiah? You really let everything else I responded to you go over your head untouched. You wisely left the word change argument. You claimed the gospels presented Jesus as the messiah, a point dropped. You mentioned Paul, but, when challenged, you said nothing. When I looked at a little of the evidence for what the messiah meant to the Jews of the period, you said nothing.

In what way was Jesus, the substance of god, god's messiah, ie how was this figure (theoretically) qualified as the messiah of the Jews?

(And while you're at it, in what way can an entity of god be a mediator between himself and humanity?)


spin

TedM

I didn't see that your points were relevant. , Spin. That's why I didn't respond to them. I don't care whether Jesus "qualified" as the Jewish messiah in your mind or not. All I was saying was that to the gospel writers and Paul, he did. He was their Messiah. Therefore Christ to them meant Messiah. It doesn't matter if some other people thought of the word "Christ" differently, or if Jesus wasn't their "kind" of Messiah.

Christ, to the Christians meant Messiah--the one long expected.

ted

spin

Well, why did you bother to say the apparently loose comments in your first place? You have tried to change horse in midstream and were caught. Now it seems you are merely performing extricating manoeuvres.

What you should care about is what the term meant, not about what's in my mind.

You may as well say he was their fluxropod for all the meaning your statement conveys.

By saying that "Christ... meant messiah", you merely avoid saying what either of them meant in the 1st century. By saying that "Christ... meant messiah" to christians doesn't help you understand what the term meant. When you say "the one long expected", what exactly was this "one", if you had to describe it rather than simply put some gobbledigook word to it?

If you understood what the Jewish messiah was, you'd know that Jesus wasn't the "long expected" messiah.


spin

judge

What jewish source can you possibly use to show there was one jewish understanding of messiah?

How can you deal with the passages in the hebrew bible itself, which indicate the jews themselves might miss the messiah?

You can find some of these verses in Romans chapter 9 through 15.

Added in edit:

Here is the hebrew bible itself, quoted by paul.

There is much more there of course, but I am interested, how do you or your sources deal with this kind of stuff? Is it dealt with at all?

Why were early christians wrong in grasping these portions of the hebrew bible itself to show that jews themselves migh misunderstand?

TedM

I made my comments in the first place in order to address points being made here that were irrelvant to the original post. I have no idea what "change" you think I engaged in. Here is the original post:


One answer (that I gave) is obvious that the writers of the gospels and Paul considered Jesus to have been the Messiah foretold by the prophets. In such a context, "Christ", used by them, was done so because they considered him to have been the Messiah.


You don't get my intent here. The question I'm focuesed on isn't whether Jesus was the "long expected" messiah or not. It is whether the writers that referred to Jesus as "Christ" did so because they believed he was the "long expected" Messiah. You are hung up on the meaning of Christ so much that you are missing my main point: Jesus was not just some heavenly god to them inspired by Plato's writings. He was the Messiah to them. That's why they called him "the Christ".

Messiah was the Savior foretold by the prophets. Now if you want to argue about what the Jewish conception of the Messiah was in the 1st century, go ahead, but I would consider that to be a tangential point to why Jesus was called "Christ".

ted

judge

You sound very confident here that you actually do know. That there was one idea , one interpretation and you actually know what it is.

I don't think you case here will stand any scrutiny though.

No Robots

Spin is correct.

Even the merely outward story of Christ can seem extremely strange, by no means to be explained by reference to Messianic scriptures. The idea that Christ's destiny can even be seen to conform to these Messianic texts is nothing but a hidebound lack of thought! (And how the New Testament is disparaged if its entire originality is already to be found in the Old!) If we were really to construct the destiny of the Messiah from the Messianic passages, it would look quite different from that of our Christ; for the latter involves the crucifixion, for instance, which cannot genuinely be found in them [If we were to take this seriously, we would have to make Plato a prophet of Christ. For Plato actually speaks of one who, without having done any wrong himself, gives the appearance of most manifest unrighteousness, in order to prove himself totally righteous. He is then put in chains, scourged, tortured, blinded, and, having endured all sufferings, is finally crucified (spitted): τελευαων παντα κακα παθον ανασχινδυλευθησεται Gorg. 58,13ff.; De Rep. 11, 65,66.]—for the Jews were expecting a triumphant Messiah, the very opposite of a suffering Messiah. You only need to peep into the Gospels to see that Christ's destiny is quite different from the Messianic expectations which are linked to him in these same Gospels, and by his own disciples! The entire Gospel of Matthew has the one and only purpose of showing how Christ's life conforms to the prophecies of Scripture; how different, therefore, how magnificent and wondrous is the life of Christ as presented to us by Matthew's Gospel! The evangelists believe in Christ the Messiah; no more than the critics do they notice that their Messiah Christ speaks about his Messiaship and his divine Sonship in a way totally unlike their Jewish national Messiah—which he never became. But what do the evangelists and the critics notice! The whole Jewish people observed that Jesus was not their Messiah, as do all Jews right up to the present day; the only ones who still fail to observe it are the critics. The critics will even find it foretold in the Messianic passages that the Messiah was predestined to have the kind of disciples who notice nothing; in the end, because of the amazing reliance they place on these texts, they will even find themselves there, clearly portrayed and predicted: after two thousand years these critics were predestined to come with their particular understanding, their particular inability to notice anything.—Brunner, Our Christ.

judge

Well this is possible. However I tend to be a bit more sceptical (I hope that is ok around here :devil1: )

It is not too difficult to find iterpretations of the jewish messiah that seem different to christ, I dont argue with that.

When we look at all the material, and not just selective portions, the case becomes a lot less certain.

Does you source deal with the questions I have put to Spin?
If so in what way?

Thanks...

No Robots

You asked:

I'm not sure why you limit the discussion to Jewish sources. Brunner cites Tacitus and Suetonius:

In most [Jews] there was a firm persuasion, that in the ancient records of their priests was contained a prediction of how at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers, coming from Judaea, were to acquire universal empire.—Tacitus, Hist. 5,13.

There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated at that time for men coming from Judaea to rule the world.—Suetonius, Vesp., 4.