Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-23-2012, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

And one observation, let's assume that there was a historical Jesus:

Why isn't it more likely that he got his "messiah" title, because they saw a connection beteen his sufferings and death on the one hand, and these passages that talk about a/the messiah suffering and dying?

Frankly because there aren't any passages that talk about the Messiah suffering and dying.

Quote:

Why think that they first thought of him as "the returning king who was going to overthrow the Romans" (do we see any hint of that in Paul?), and only later added the connections to his sufferings?

Basically because Jerusalem got destroyed. Also because Jesus didn't come back and they had to start tap dancing.

Paul's views are his own, and by his own admission are not in accord with the Jerusalem sect, did not come from them, and were, in fact, products of his own visionary experiences. The exact views of the original apostles is lost, but if, hypothetically, their views were pretty close to those of the Ebionites (which is what I believe), then they still had a very Jewish view and expectation of the Messiah. They were essentially a doomsday cult, and Paul was an endtimer too. Paul DID believe in a Christ that was going to kick ass, but unshackled it from Judaism and made it more universal. the people who began to make the crucifixion, in itself a salvic event rather than a preliminary one (most primitive Christology appears to be that Jesus became the Messiah after being raised to Heaven...moment of adoption kept getting pushed further back, to baptism by John, to birth, to eternal pre-existence) were not the same people who originally saw Jesus as an imminent, conquering king.

Bernard Muller · 03-23-2012, 09:30 PM

to Vorkosigan,

Quote:

Bernard, that's very interesting information & argument. I've noticed how this history appears in Mark in distorted ways. How do you see the sixty-two/69 sevens relating to Jason/Jesus?

It's a long story but try to read my two webpages on 'Daniel', starting here:
http://historical-jesus.info/daniel.html
'Daniel' was written in two parts, one soon after Alexander the Great's death, the other one after the massacres of Jews in caves during the Sabbath, right after Antiochus IV's last foray in Jerusalem. The seventy sevens, the way I calculated it, starts (rightfully so!) during the first year of Cyrus' reign over Babylon and finishes, well you guessed it, the year of the aforementioned massacres, in 167BC. Then, there were "updates", all the way to the year of Antiochus' death.
Jason coming to Jerusalem is at 69 (7+62) sevens. The massacres at 70 sevens.
Most interesting! Everything fits exactly!

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-23-2012, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Carrier’s argument becomes more interesting when he appeals to a passage in chapter 9 of the book of Daniel...Verse 26 then indicates that sixty-two weeks of years later an “anointed one” shall be “cut off and shall have nothing.” Carrier argues strenuously that this shows that the author of Daniel expected that the messiah (the “anointed one”) had to be killed (“cut off”). It is an interesting interpretation but highly idiosyncratic. You won’t find it in commentaries on Daniel written by critical Hebrew Bible scholars (those who are not fundamentalists or conservative evangelicals), and for some good reasons. To begin with, the anointed prince of verse 26 is obviously not the same as the anointed one mentioned in verse 25. Are they both princes, that is, traditional messianic figures? It is important to recall that the term anointed one was sometimes used as a technical term to refer to the future ruler of Israel. But it was not always used that way. Sometimes it simply referred to a king (Solomon) or a high priest or anyone who went through an anointing ceremony. That is, it was not only a technical term but also a common term. It is striking in this passage that the figure in verse 26 is not called a prince or “the” anointed one—that is, the messiah. And so, in one of the definitive commentaries written on Daniel, by Louis Hartman, a leading scholar of the Hebrew Bible (Carrier does not claim to be one; I don’t know offhand if he knows Hebrew and Aramaic, the languages in which the book was written), we read about verse 25: Although in the preexilic period [the period in Israel before the Babylonian exile of 586 BCE—four hundred or more years before Daniel was written] the Hebrew term masiah, the “anointed one,” was used almost exclusively of kings, at least in the postexilic period [after the people returned to the land years later] the high priest received a solemn anointing with sacred oil on entering his office…. It seems much more likely, therefore, that the “anointed leader” of 9:25 refers to the high priest, Joshua ben Josadak.15 In other words, 9:25 not only is not talking about a future messiah, it is talking about a figure from the history of Israel whom we already know about: the priest Joshua described elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (see, for example, Zechariah 6:11). Verse 26 is referring to someone who lived centuries later, but it too is not referring to a future messiah. As Hartman has argued—along with many, many other Hebrew Bible scholars—the reference to “an” (not “the”) anointed one in 9:26 “almost certainly” refers to another figure known from Jewish history, the high priest Onias III, who was deposed from being the high priest and murdered in 171 BCE, several years before the famous Maccabean revolt broke out, an event recounted in 2 Maccabees 4:1–38.16 The two who are called “anointed” are not future messiahs. They are both high priests who, in that role, were anointed. And they both lived in the past. Most important of all, this passage was never, so far as we know, interpreted messianically by Jews prior to the advent of Christianity. In other words, there were no Jews in the early 30s who would have resonated with the idea of a suffering messiah based on Daniel 9:26. No one thought that this is what the passage was about.

It's remarkable how bad this is.

It is an interesting interpretation but highly idiosyncratic. You won’t find it in commentaries on Daniel written by critical Hebrew Bible scholars (those who are not fundamentalists or conservative evangelicals), and for some good reasons.

There are some scholars who think that but they are not "critical." In fact, Ehrman misses a crucial sociological point -- that the biased scholars are much closer to the way early Christians thought than the "critical" scholars.

As for Onias III -- who protected the vessels from the temple and appeared to his followers after death -- Maccabees is a living presence in GMark.

Finally, it is extremely clever rhetorically to argue that "No one thought that this is what the passage was about." It simply makes the possibility that early Christians did disappear without actual exploration of early Christian belief. But the idiosyncratic use of Isaiah by early Christians should set off alarm bells that those folks did not read the scriptures the way everyone else did.

Vorkosigan

The Christians who first started using Isaiah that way were Gentile converts, not Jews, and not members of the original movement.

Solo · 03-23-2012, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Further, the "nobody would invent a crucified messiah" argument is essentially an argument from incredulity, and we know how much those are worth.

Well, yeah, and furthermore : nobody would invent a crucified messiah who promised to return and instead of restoring Israel, evacuate believers wholesale to heavens in a class of bodies yet to be determined.

Best,
Jiri

Vorkosigan · 03-23-2012, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The Christians who first started using Isaiah that way were Gentile converts, not Jews, and not members of the original movement.

It's really irrelevant -- though I believe Xtianity originated in the Diaspora and among gentile converts. The point is that idiosyncratic readings of scripture were normal among certain groups (and still are).

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-23-2012, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Further, the "nobody would invent a crucified messiah" argument is essentially an argument from incredulity, and we know how much those are worth.

Well, yeah, and furthermore : nobody would invent a crucified messiah who promised to return and instead of restoring Israel, evacuate believers wholesale to heavens in a class of bodies yet to be determined.

Best,
Jiri

Who says they thought Jesus promised to return? I'm not convinced he made such a promise.

mountainman · 03-23-2012, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Further, the "nobody would invent a crucified messiah" argument is essentially an argument from incredulity, and we know how much those are worth.

Well, yeah, and furthermore : nobody would invent a crucified messiah who promised to return and instead of restoring Israel, evacuate believers wholesale to heavens in a class of bodies yet to be determined.

Best,
Jiri

Who says they thought Jesus promised to return? I'm not convinced he made such a promise.

They were brought up on Homer.

Of course the hero returns.

They called it a "2nd coming". ("Then would my [Nicaean] servants fight")

The question is whether there was a 1st.

Doug Shaver · 03-23-2012, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

I would have him crucified by his own free will, not forced into it.

That is exactly how the gospels have it, if you read them at face value. That is especially so of John's gospel, but the synoptics clearly imply the same thing.

aa5874 · 03-23-2012, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

..... the people who began to make the crucifixion, in itself a salvic event rather than a preliminary one (most primitive Christology appears to be that Jesus became the Messiah after being raised to Heaven...moment of adoption kept getting pushed further back, to baptism by John, to birth, to eternal pre-existence) were not the same people who originally saw Jesus as an imminent, conquering king.

Again, you INVENT your own stories and refuse to accept the written statements found in the Gospels.

Open your Bible and turn to gMark 8

Quote:

27 And Jesus went out , and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am ? 28 And they answered , John the Baptist: but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets.

29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am ? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.

30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him...

The EARLIEST Jesus stories do NOT claim Jesus became a Messiah after being raised to heaven.

Now, keep your Bible open and go to Mark 14.

Quote:

Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62 And Jesus said , I am...

Why do you persist in INVENTING your own story???

Your inventions are useless because they will STILL be UNCORROBORATED.

You MUST try to understand the story AS IT IS FOUND.

Jesus did NOT become a Messiah in the EARLIEST Gospels because he was raised to heaven.

Steven Carr · 03-23-2012, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Plus there is no evidence that the "Anointed" referenced in Daniel 9:26 was ever taken to refer to a future Messiah prior to Christianity.

That is a big argument from silence. And a whopping statement that until something is invented, there is no evidence that anybody had invented it. Wow. That's profound.

Ehrman claims Christians invented the concept of a crucified Messiah.

Ehrman claims the concept of a crucified Messiah could not occur to 1st century Jews.

Ehrman then goes on to claim that passages with the word Messiah in them could never be taken by anybody to refer to the Messiah.

This is all bad logic, as bad as claiming that Matthew ,Mark and Luke are independent sources...

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.