Extrapolation

Hi, I'm rather new to some of these ideas, but I was hoping some members here could explain a few claims in more detail.

1) The Judaic prophecies which Jesus of Nazareth apparently failed to fulfill. Having attended a number of Biblical Studies courses, there are a few such prophecies with which I am familiar (i.e., the infamously misinterpreted Old Testament reference to a "virgin birth"), but is there anything more blatant than these? I'm open-minded...convince me.

2) The level of integration of Gnosticism and the Gnostic Gospels (i.e., Peter's Apocalypse, The Gospel of Thomas) into early Orthodoxy, and their banishing from it. Is it historically verifiable that this integration was maintained up until the early Canon councils, or were Gnostics always ostracised, as most conservatives claim? Also, I read that Paul originally taught a variant of Gnosticism. Is this recorded? Were any other apostles teaching these ideas?

I don't mean to sound impudent (or like an infiltrating fundie time-bomb, which I most certainly am not); I really am hoping for explanations, and I'm not approaching this with any foregone conclusions. Please help me out.

Chili

Hello Extrapolation and welcome.

My first reaction is that you should try to get at least some of your tuition back because the virgin birth more than adequatly fulfills the OT promise since it could also have been a non-virgin birth in which case we would have an enriched imposter as an example to follow.

Gnostics were always ostracized because they don't fit very well in a mystery religion where the mind of Christ (gnostic mind) is obtained in the unfolding of the indoctrinated mystery of faith.

Extrapolation

No dice. My alma mater, like most others, hangs onto your change, and goes after even more once you graduate.
Please expound on what you mean by this. The verse I was referencing, just to clarify, was Isaiah 7:14 - "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (KJV) All but the most maniacal fundies (in my experience) now understand that this is a reference not to Jesus, but to the Nation of Israel, and its eventual restoration from Babylonian captivity. The reference to Immanuel (God is with us) is understood to be a prophecy regarding the return of God's Glory to Israel in some vaguely defined way, since the Shekinah Glory had departed the temple, and God wasn't too fond of the pillar of fire anymore. The Hebrew word usually translated as "virgin" here is actually, in various passages, translated as "maiden," "young woman," "virgin," etc. etc.

To make sure I understand your assertion correctly, are you saying that whether Jesus was human or dual in nature, he would still be worthy of our worship? Or just that we should still follow his teachings?

This is what I consistently hear from the Christian side of things, and I've heard most of the arguments, but I was also interested in hearing some from the other side back up their view.

Shameless Hussy

I'm not interested in "convincing" anyone one way or the other, but... Offhand, so far as the Jews are concerned, their Messiah has to:
1) Build the final, permanent Temple
2) Usher in an era of world peace
3) Be descended from King David (descended in the genetic sense, no virgins, no supernatural stuff)
4) Be a Jewish prophet
5) Bring all the Jews to Israel
6) Cause all the Jews to observe the Torah "properly".

There are lots more, but seeing as according to the Jewish teachings EVERY ONE of the criteria must be fulfilled by the messiah UPON HIS COMING (a second-coming is Xtian invention and has nothing to do with the Jewish prophecy, so far as I know), those items above are enough to start with. So... Do any of those items appear to you to have been fulfilled by J.C.? Of course, I am talking about fulfillment of the actual prophesies as they were written, not the specious interpretations and extrapolations the Xtians later used to try and fit their square saviour into a round, Jewish hole. (If the Messiah don't fit, you must a-quit.)

Amaleq13

Welcome to IIDB!

I think the biggest failure was not actually freeing Israel from Roman rule as the Messiah was supposed to do. Creative reinterpretations aside, the Christian appeal to a "second coming" is an entirely ad hoc attempt to avoid this obvious failure.

On this subject, you would probably find Elaine Pagels' book Beyond Belief of some interest. Specifically, the portions where she discusses Irenaeus' responses to specific "heresies" that are typically associated with gnosticism. I think the Amazon summary has enough information for you to decide whether it might be sufficiently relevant.

Chili

But would peace on earth not make Judaism redundant?

Shameless Hussy

How so?

Derec

A funny thing is when some apologist reads from OT for messianic "prophesy" and then says something like "the prophet X now jumps from first coming to second coming of Christ without mentioning a gap." Well duh!

UMoC

Derec

(dupe)

Chili

Yes I am familiar with those "maniacal fundies" who not that long ago had prepared for what they called "Exodus II" that was to lead all the Jews home from the Soviet Union.

The "virgin birth" as distinct from "young woman" excludes the possibility that the messiah was born from a sinful earthly maiden. The virginity of Mary makes reference to her sinless nature to say that Mary was not human but fully woman and therefore without sin and worthy to be the God-bearer.

Had Jesus been born from a non-virgin (or sin stained maiden) the resurrection could not have followed for the obvious reason that Jesus would not have been able to die to his sin nature in which case he would have become the "final imposter" from Matt. 27:64. In other words, he would have been a child of God much like the children of Israel who also failed to mature in Isreal because they did not have victory over sin and therefore remained "children of God" with no maturity in sight for them. Hence they died nonetheless.

The implication here is that Jesus was already imposter to be crucified and die to his own sin nature instead of having to live in the saved-sinner paradox like those who went before him and those who came after him alike. These, of course, are those fanatics who want to reform the world from the outside instead of in their own mind.