Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rick Sumner · 07-06-2004, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

Of course, by the time of Jesus it had taken on intense eschatological meanings among many groups within Judaism - the Essenes, the Enochines, etc.

Are you sure that these are different groups?

Quote:

This seems to be closer to the earlier idea of "messiah". It also offers a new framework for Jewish-Christian dialogue in which Jewish people could consider the possibility that Jesus was a "messiah" without necessarily accepting the whole Christological framework that has been built up and Christian people could more fully locate Jesus with Jewish Messianic history rather than as the man who renders the entire Jewish tradition obsolete (i.e. it stands against supercessionist theologies).

And as warm and fuzzy as that sounds, I must question any approach to an ancient text that "offers new frameworks" to contemporary issues.

None of the early Christian authors seem to have any doubt what they meant by "Messiah." I don't think they would be terribly ready to acquiesce to "a 'messiah,'" regardless of what it did for Jewish/Christian relationships. Since they wrote the texts, shouldn't they get to define what they mean?

Quote:

I would argue that Christianity was primarily and should begin again a movement of people who on theological grounds continue to call the government to account for its failures to respect human life (note that I did not say "hold them accountable for their moral choices" - the religious right in the US has completely missed the point by focussing upon presidential indiscreations and the restriction of human rights rather than upon the state's inhumanity to other human beings, whether it be in economic policy, foreign policy, etc.).

If Jesus was so opposed to the state, why has Paul apparently never heard of this message?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

GakuseiDon · 07-06-2004, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by worldling

Thanks, Toto. This is exactly what I'm looking for. It seems JtB had "disciples" long after his death. What is more, they had never even heard of Jesus, thus falsifying my Xian friend's claim.

The source of this information? Acts 19:
And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
Act 19:2
He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
Act 19:3
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

Not sure how it affects your friend's claim, but the Mandeans did believe that John the Baptist knew Jesus. From The Mandaean Book of John the Baptizer

Quote:

(John the Baptist speaking to Jesus at His baptism):

"Thou hast lied to the Jews and deceived the priests. Thou hast cut off their seed from the men and from the women bearing and being pregnant. The Sabbath, which Moses made binding, hast thou relaxed in Jerusalem. Thou hast lied unto them with horns and spread abroad disgrace with the shofar."

ichabod crane · 07-06-2004, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

Either way, I am not convinced that the messianic claims about Jesus are that important theologically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GD

None of the early Christian authors seem to have any doubt what they meant by "Messiah." I don't think they would be terribly ready to acquiesce to "a 'messiah,'" regardless of what it did for Jewish/Christian relationships. Since they wrote the texts, shouldn't they get to define what they mean?

I tend to agree with GD here. The Greek equivalent of Messiah is, of course, Christ, and the earliest Christian writings use the term "Christ" of Jesus hundreds of times. In fact, he is standardly referred to as "Jesus Christ", or in Paul, "Christ Jesus". They insist that he is "the" Christ, not "a" Christ (there's no indefinite article in Greek, but the definite article is used of Jesus' Christhood on many occasions). Matthew presents Peter's confession, a central element of that gospel, as "su ei ho Christos ho huios tou theou tou zontos", "you are the Christ, the son of the living God". So the writers of the New Testament clearly did see Jesus' unique Christhood as of central theological significance.

I also agree with GD regarding the issue of Jewish-Christian relations. You have to read the New Testament texts in their historical context as they stand, not read in to them current interfaith ecumenical ideas (or anything else for that matter, including later Church creeds for instance). Furthermore, I'm not sure that we should allow such considerations to dominate Christian theology anyway. Would we expect Jews to modify their theology in order to make it more compatible with ours? I wouldn't. I think they have every right to develop their theology in their own way without bowing to Christian demands. So Christians have a similar right. I don't see much point in an interfaith ecumenism unless it includes the right to disagree (respectfully) with each other on significant issues.

Rick Sumner · 07-06-2004, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ichabod crane

I tend to agree with GD here.

Delighted to have your endorsement. Except my name's Rick Sumner

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vorkosigan · 07-06-2004, 04:59 AM

Cyrus was hailed as messiah for allowing the Jews to return from exile in Babylon.

Vorkosigan

ichabod crane · 07-06-2004, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Summer

Delighted to have your endorsement. Except my name's Rick Sumner

Ooops ... my mistake!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-06-2004, 04:59 AM	#15
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Cyrus was hailed as messiah for allowing the Jews to return from exile in Babylon. Vorkosigan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.