IamJoseph

One can equally say, the criteria for a Messiah became better clarified! Some 10,000 Roman soldiers converted to Judaism - in the face of no hope of Jews winning this war. And Rome lost. :wave:

storytime

I have found no "criteria" for a messiah in the OT. What I did find is the denial of such as God is shown to be the only savior, mediator and all powerful entity. No one sits on his right hand or his left. He alone decides who is to be saved or cast away in his predistined family. Seems the Jewish prophets, sages, priests, invented their "messiah" from their own desire to have one. Much like they invented their idol "God" they created to serve them.

Rome lost? That's really putting a twist on history in your wild imagination. But if it makes you feel good...dream on.

Solo

As always, you are welcome to your opinion, spin. In cognitive terms, it makes however a big difference to proclaim, 1) Jesus was murdered (e.g. as per 1 Th 2:15, Acts 2:23) or 2) Jesus was executed legally, but nothwistanding that, it was an act lacking in humanity and compassion, showing that God's law itself is no guarantee of peace between man and God.

At minimum, one should be able to see that these were two conflicting views of Jesus' demise among the early Jesus-professing communities. Whether any of that happened on earth or in mid-heaven is not yet material.

Again, you are misreading Paul's intent. The legality of the act allowed Paul to argue the insufficiency of the Mosaic law. IMO, it's a crucial point, one which I doubt the opposition had an intelligent counter-argument (if Jesus really was crucified after being condemned under the law).

As for Jesus' power during incarnation: Jesus divested himself of divine power before leaping out of a womb dressed in flesh, by agreeing in heaven to take on the salvation job as an apparently sinful man. Once born as a man he had no frigging clue as to who he really was. He was sent to proclaim something (the coming of messiah and the kingdom of God on earth) that God told Paul was not going to happen. He was made to appear foolish and blasphemous. But God made Jesus look like an idiot and a rebel for a reason....to show through Paul that no-one (except Paul of course) sees the designs of God, in which the apparent idiot actually was what Paul and his saints (and every paranoiac under the sun, Jewish or not !) hoped they were : God's elect.

Jiri

Rick Sumner

The Messiah is not a warrior in Ps.Sol 17. He shall not rely on conventional means of winning--"horse and rider and bow." He's not there to win a war, at least not in the sense traditionally thought of.

Is the Messiah of Ps.Sol the same as the Messiah of Daniel? I don't think the concept is static between them.

Even in what I know to be more your bailwick, the War Scroll, the war isn't won by the Messiah, it's won by God himself. His involvement is necessary in a sense that it doesn't seem to have been before.

Is that war, and the role of the Messiah and the role of God the same as, for example, what we can seem to glean from Josephus? It seems to me we're looking at two different ideas of what role the Messiah will play.

If memory serves, you're the one who recommended "The Scepter and the Star" to me. Somewhat ironic that I'm about to encourage you to revisit it then.

I'm not suggesting that the "suffering servant" was representative of any Jewish conception of Messiahship, other than in what came to be known as Christianity. I'm suggesting that we shouldn't be too rash to suggest that we know what the Messiah was to all Jews. We probably have a majority view, since the majority is more likely to survive, but that doesn't mean that other conceptions are inherently "unJewish," for wont of a better term.

I think we have more than a hint that there was at least a little diversity.

I'll resist the urge to elaborate on the rather obvious hint that some Jews apparently thought Jesus fit the bill just fine.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

spin

Do me a favor, Rick, stop pissing into the wind: cite the text and make your comments based on it.

Of course not. Daniel's term messiah merely refers to two anointed (high) priests (Jeshua ben Jehozedek and Onias III) -- totally misunderstood by early christianity. At the time of Daniel there was probably no notion of "the messiah".

I think you need to expand your reading of early Jewish thought.

But then you can insinuate anything onto anyone with such an approach. We need to start with evidence from early Jews. Got any? No, of course not. (Let's see what christian apologetic you can dredge up.)

OK, I'll bite. Which early Jewish hint are you alluding to??

Bad move. You're just delaying the inevitable.


spin

IamJoseph

It is alluded to, as with the emergence of Moses was also alluded to. The premise for a messiah [redeemer] is based on the interpretation and evaluation of a text's meaning by later prophetic writings. It is not explicitely stated as with the assurence Israel will be returned.
It is fully vested in historical veracity: Mighty Rome is dead, and so it's heresy decree and its depraved divine emperors. The war for the freedom of belief was won - thanks to the lone position of one small nation. Rome lost. :wave:

premjan

Isn't the EU the new Rome?

Rick Sumner

I believe I just did. "He will not rely on horse and rider and bow, nor will he collect gold and silver for war. Nor will he build up hope in a multitude for a day of war."

The Messiah of Ps.Sol is not a military leader. Contrary to you, he is not going to "lead a war." I don't know how the text can make that any clearer. I must confess I'm mystified by how you're missing the obvious. . .it spells it out explicitly.

Once again, he is not a military leader. The author of Ps.Sol goes out of his way to make that abundantly clear, apparently contesting the same conviction you have today.

You're kidding me, right? You genuinely don't realize that I am referring to later, Messianic interpretations of Daniel rather than the authorship of Daniel itself?

Alas, my reading seems to incorporate texts and thought you're not familiar with. Perhaps it is you who would benefit from such expansion?

No apologetics at all. Ps.Sol isn't depicting a Messiah like Jesus either. You can't seem to get your head around the fact that it's not "Military leader or Jesus."

I think I just gave it to you. Twice, in fact. You ignore the fact that Ps.Sol is *not* going to lead a war, and the fact that 1QM is a different kind of leader than we would expect without having that text.

The simple reality is that there was more diversity than you allow.

Simply repeating yourself isn't going to do any good spin. I cited my texts. It's time for you to offer some alternate exegesis. Put up or shut up as they say.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

spin

It would be nice when you mention a text that you are clear and provide EXACT REFERENCES. This is one thing that shits me off no end... just how many people expect you to be a mindreader by not citing the reference. I don't have every verse of every text at easy call in my head.

Perhaps your version of the text doesn't have vv.22-25. That's where it all "happens". After that is the millennium.

Once he's done the shattering of their substance with an iron rod, he doesn't need to continue to be a military leader.

More mindreading expected. You asked a simple question; I gave a simple answer.

(Now can you show me one Jewish interpretation of Daniel where the messianism is developed??)

All you need to do is cite the specific primary sources and stop the bs.

Half-assed rubbish.

Well, you're plain wrong. I'm sorry about that.

I can now see that you won't reconsider your errors if the issue is repeated to you. Perhaps, if I may be so bold as to suggest you read your source text?


spin

Rick Sumner

I believe I cited the entirety of the Psalm. Ps.Sol.17. It's not terribly long. You should be able to get the gist of it from that.

Or not. Enemy rulers are smited by his word, not by war. He is a holy sage, speaking with the voice of God. Not a military leader. Maybe re-read the verses you just cited. Apparently your copy is missing portions.

I think you missed the point of the metaphor. No worries, it's spelled out explicitly later on. Nations tremble at his rebuke at the power of his word.

He's not fighting a war. He's speaking with the voice of God.

4Q246. For a fuller discussion, see Colins The Sceptre and the Star, p.163-170. Collins makes a powerful linguistic case that the text is quite flagrantly relying on Daniel.

I heard that if you repeat something, but cite not a single text in support, three times it magically becomes true. I think it's Kabbalah.

I still eagerly await your exegesis to counter my claim. While we're at it, I'd also delight in seeing a sampling of texts you would consider in support of your claim. To date you've cited absolutely nothing in the entirety of this thread.

Regards,
Rick Sumner