FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-22-2011, 12:06 PM   #11
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,619
Default

Rome won which war? And then they started offering the world a better civilization?
Iskander is offline  
Old 09-22-2011, 01:21 PM   #12
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

If you like theocracy so much I'd suggest moving to Tehran or Cairo soon.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 09-22-2011, 01:21 PM   #13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
His people were annoying. You can understand the sentiment. Jews were typically accused in those days of 'hatred of the human race' which is a roundabout way of saying they thought they were better than everyone else. The small matter being of course that they were a subjugated people. This must have puzzled and annoyed the Romans and Agrippa for that matter too (as their unbridled hubris affected his status as their ruler).

Agrippa was superior to his subjects. Anyone who argues with this is a hypocrite. He was the perfect embodiment of the messiah and was recognized as such by Jews until the modern era. He is recognized for his authority in Jewish religious matters as well as Greek philosophy. He was the embodiment of the philosopher king. IMO he felt himself called to the role of improving his subjects because they were for the most part a bunch of idiots. As you know I think that we have Christianity today as the fruits of his labors to improve his subjects. Let's not forget this used to be the core doctrine of Christianity (i.e. the repentance of Jews and still is the Orthodox tradition).

Placed in its original context - i.e. the superiority of Alexandrian Judaism (and Samaritanism for that matter cf. Broadie's work) over its Palestinian Jewish cousin - such a doctrine makes sense. I do think Philo is superior to every Jewish authority. I don't think anyone, save for rabid Jewish believers, could think otherwise.

Plato improved Judaism. This is the original formula for Christianity and Agrippa was its architect
I have no problem with that - I would just go a step further and link 'Paul' to Agrippa II. ie a late 'Paul'.

But that leave us with the little/big 'problem' of Agrippa I...

Agrippa II is way outside the gospel time frame - and it is that specific time frame that has to be address in any attempt at a reconstruction of early chrisitian history. Agrippa II, like 'Paul', is late to the party.

Early 'Paul' is, to my thinking Philo - and that time slot links Philo to the time Agrippa I.

Yes, Josephus has created a great storyline re Agrippa I - which does not have to be read as literal history. What does have to be taken as history is the Herodian coins that testify to the existence of Agrippa I and Agrippa II.

The Josephan story re Agrippa I is full of messianic symbolism - indicating that it is this figure that he viewed in this light. However, the Josephan messianic symbolism is lumbered with Josephan storytelling....the illogical story of this ne'er-do-well figure that is proclaimed King - proclaimed King by a Roman ruler who, by all accounts was a bit mad himself....

Interestingly, Slavonic Josephus relates that when Herod (Antipas) wanted a royal title that he went to Tiberius - who denied the request - and banished him - and gave his kingdom to Agrippa. ie Agrippa was made King under Tiberius - not as in the Antiquities story under Caligula/Gaius.

Quote:
A short while afterwards
Herod went to Tiberius
so that he might honour his domain
with a royal title.
And Caesar was furious with him
because of his insatiability.
He took away his domain and added it to
Agrippa’s
and banished him to Spain.
together with Herodias.
Josephus has, in Antiquities, Claudius/Gaius making Agrippa into a King - but along with that he has the whole Joseph in Egypt messianic story. Indicating that more is at foot here than a recording of historical fact.

Josephus says, in our present editions, that Philip the Tetrarch died in the 20th year of Tiberius. Earlier editions say the 22nd year of Tiberius. It is my theory that Philip did not die at that time - instead he became Agrippa I, under Tiberius. A new name, a new identity - and Josephus is free to create the Agrippa I messianic scenario that is now in Antiquities - and a whole new pseudo-historical biography.

Why? A messianic interest seems to have been the motive. Philip, as Agrippa I, eventually becoming King of Judea. Why the Agrippa I pseudo-historical story? Josephus, as a prophetic historian, was on his own mission here...

Josephus has used the Joseph story with his account of Agrippa I.

Quote:
Genesis 41: 41-46

So Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” Then pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck……Joseph was 30 years old when he entered the service of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
Quote:

Ant book 18 ch.6 (re Agrippa I)

“I think it fit to declare to thee the prediction of the gods. It cannot be that thou shouldst long continue in these bonds; but thou wilt soon be delivered from them, and wilt be promoted to the highest dignity and power, and thou wilt be envied by all……”

“However, there did not many days pass ere he sent for him to his house, and had him shaved, and made him change his raiment; after which he put a diadem upon his head, and appointed him to be king of the tetrarchy of Philip. He also gave him the tetrarchy of Lysanias, and changed his iron chain for a golden one of equal weight.”
Quote:
Daniel 9: 25

..to restore and rebuild Jerusalem….
Quote:
Ant book 19 ch.7 (re Agrippa I)

“As for the walls of Jerusalem, that were adjoining to the new city [Bezetha], he repaired them at the expense of the public, and built them wider in breadth, and higher in altitude; and he had made them too strong for all human power to demolish, “…….
Quote:
Numbers 24:17

I behold him, but not near;
A star shall come forth from Jacob,
A sceptre shall rise from Israel,
Quote:
Ant.book 19 ch.8 (re Agrippa I)

…”he put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a contexture truly wonderful, and came into the theatre early in the morning; at which time the silver of his garment being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun’s rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him; and presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place, and another from another, (though not for his good,) that he was a god; and they added, “Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature”.
And the burial place and monument for a messianic figure?

Quote:
Page 23 of Wilson's book - link in earlier post.

Josephus says that his body was ‘carried to that monument which he had already erected for himself beforehand’ and that he was ‘buried with great pomp’. It is usually presumed that this monument was located in Bethsaida-Julias, but excavations there show the place to be very modest at best, and besides, Philip’s capital and home were at Banias. It seems more reasonable to understand Josephus to mean that a sad procession carried the remains of this successful ruler, respected by both the Romans and his own subjects, northward along the banks of the nascent Jordan’s cool waters to the springs of Banias. There, somewhere, he was laid to rest.
Stephan, the mystery is not over whether there was only one Agrippa or two - the 'mystery' is over Agrippa I and the Josephan tall story over this historical figure. And as such, that 'mystery' leads to Philip the Tetrarch - in whose territory the gospel JC asked his disciples who do they say he is....

footnote: As to Philip having no son when he 'died' , ie prior to becoming Agrippa I - Slavonic Josephus says he had four children. The possibility is then that he had a son after he became Agrippa I.
maryhelena is offline  
Old 09-22-2011, 01:32 PM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Quote:
Agrippa II is way outside the gospel time frame
- why? when was Agrippa born? I've never seen any compelling evidence to establish that. The feeling is that it must have been c. 29 CE but that's based on Josephus. Who knows who or what any of these people were.

Quote:
Early 'Paul' is, to my thinking Philo - and that time slot links Philo to the time Agrippa I -
see Broadie on the parallels with Mark (Marqe) http://books.google.com/books?id=zqF...page&q&f=false

Mary Helena I've heard most of this before and you don't seem to understand the concept of messiah. The connection in the rabbinic tradition and 'Agrippa' as the messiah of Daniel necessarily assumes that 'Agrippa' was alive in the period immediately leading up to 70 CE. It just doesn't work with a figure 'Agrippa I. Also Agrippa I doesn't fit with Genesis 49:10. He wasn't the last and if he had legitimacy then his son had legitimacy and if his son doesn't have legitimacy it doesn't make sense equating him with the anointed one in Daniel. Also Agrippa I was a friend of the Pharisees (if the stories are to be believed) and hostile to early Christianity. It just doesn't work.

What could possibly have been the basis to Agrippa I being likened to Moses or David for that matter? In Agrippa II's (= Marcus Julius Agrippa) case it is obvious - the destruction of Jerusalem = Ex. 32:27.

We don't even know what Agrippa I's given name was. He couldn't have been the founder of Christianity. Then where is his legacy as the messiah? The Jewish tradition identifies 'Agrippa' as a dualist heretic like Marcion. This can't be Agrippa I. Agrippa I was also married and had children. This conflicts with the portrait of 'Agrippa' in the rabbinic literature and with Mark. It's futile to develop any meaningful insight into Agrippa I.

I have a hard time even believing that there was an Agrippa I - a supposed 'Pharisaic Herodian' (recognizing that Christian authorities like certain Pharisees = Gamailiel). All there is Josephus and the numismatic evidence seen through a Josephan lens. But in any event this Agrippa has nothing messianic about him and certainly can't be the founder of Christianity and can't even be named Mark.

Agrippa I also can't be Marqe of the Samaritan tradition. The Samaritans were very favorable to the Herodians and don't mention a single ruler with hostility. They also have no knowledge of a Pharisaic Herodian named 'Agrippa.'
stephan huller is offline  
Old 09-22-2011, 03:51 PM   #15
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
Quote:
Agrippa II is way outside the gospel time frame
- why? when was Agrippa born? I've never seen any compelling evidence to establish that. The feeling is that it must have been c. 29 CE but that's based on Josephus. Who knows who or what any of these people were.
Cassius Dio stating that the domain of Agrippa of Palestine was extended by Claudius, around 41 c.e. If you are assuming that this is a reference to Agrippa II - then his birth must have been long before 29 c.e....
Quote:

Quote:
Early 'Paul' is, to my thinking Philo - and that time slot links Philo to the time Agrippa I -
see Broadie on the parallels with Mark (Marqe) http://books.google.com/books?id=zqF...page&q&f=false

Mary Helena I've heard most of this before and you don't seem to understand the concept of messiah. The connection in the rabbinic tradition and 'Agrippa' as the messiah of Daniel necessarily assumes that 'Agrippa' was alive in the period immediately leading up to 70 CE. It just doesn't work with a figure 'Agrippa I. Also Agrippa I doesn't fit with Genesis 49:10. He wasn't the last and if he had legitimacy then his son had legitimacy and if his son doesn't have legitimacy it doesn't make sense equating him with the anointed one in Daniel. Also Agrippa I was a friend of the Pharisees (if the stories are to be believed) and hostile to early Christianity. It just doesn't work.
Stephan that is all interpretation - and other interpretations are possible. I don't think I misunderstand the concept of messiah. I am using that concept in relationship to rulership - not to carpenters from wherever.
Quote:


What could possibly have been the basis to Agrippa I being likened to Moses or David for that matter? In Agrippa II's (= Marcus Julius Agrippa) case it is obvious - the destruction of Jerusalem = Ex. 32:27.
Josephus has used the Joseph model - a ruler under a ruler, client kings. A man of peace instead of a man of war...

Quote:

We don't even know what Agrippa I's given name was. He couldn't have been the founder of Christianity. Then where is his legacy as the messiah? The Jewish tradition identifies 'Agrippa' as a dualist heretic like Marcion. This can't be Agrippa I. Agrippa I was also married and had children. This conflicts with the portrait of 'Agrippa' in the rabbinic literature and with Mark. It's futile to develop any meaningful insight into Agrippa I.
And the gospel JC was not the founder of christianity either - that role went to "Paul', ie to someone who 'read' the historical realities through a prophetic lens. Yes, fine - Agrippa II as a dualist heretic - great...no children, great...The Agrippa I scenario is different. Traditions get mixed up. Schwartz says:

Quote:
Or do some traditions refer to one and some to the other? If so, which should be assigned to whom?
Quote:

I have a hard time even believing that there was an Agrippa I - a supposed 'Pharisaic Herodian' (recognizing that Christian authorities like certain Pharisees = Gamailiel). All there is Josephus and the numismatic evidence seen through a Josephan lens. But in any event this Agrippa has nothing messianic about him and certainly can't be the founder of Christianity and can't even be named Mark.
Josephus thought differently......

Quote:
Agrippa I also can't be Marqe of the Samaritan tradition. The Samaritans were very favorable to the Herodians and don't mention a single ruler with hostility. They also have no knowledge of a Pharisaic Herodian named 'Agrippa.'
Bottom line, Stephan, is that we have the reality of the Herodian coins which testify to the historical existence of Agrippa I and Agrippa II.

Yes, the man who developed christian ideas was most probably Agrippa II - but like 'Paul' it was not all in his imagination. The history prior to 'Paul' was relevant - likewise, the history prior to Agrippa II is relevant. And that history includes the history of Agrippa I. The last King of Judea.
maryhelena is offline  
Old 09-22-2011, 05:02 PM   #16
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Southern United States
Posts: 149
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
Quote:
So, Stephan, you have no support for your published theory re there being only one King Agrippa.
Let's get this straight one last time. Even Schwartz acknowledges that for the rabbinic tradition there is only one Agrippa. It isn't my theory. There are those who accept Josephus against the rabbinic tradition and there are a few who accept the rabbinic tradition against Josephus. That is all there is. There is one against the other and in this case you have the even more curious situation that TWO of the last kings of Israel have no known burial sites. Very, very puzzling. Josephus mentions Herod the Great's burial place. There is no such reference for Agrippa I. What did they do with his body? Just throw the corpse in the gutter?
Quote:
and in this case you have the even more curious situation that TWO of the last kings of Israel have no known burial sites.
Did they end up on trash heaps or in the graveyard of the condemned?

Jews of the period practiced what was known as "Secondary Burial" often times depending on how many people you pissed off or your wealth there are a number of scenarios that could explain the lack of a corpse or corpse's. Popularity was A #1 back then.

The burial practice was where the body would be placed in a tomb (such as the mythical jesus was) and left to rot until the flesh came off the bones then they would bury the bones. If the individual was a crook or a no good scoundrel he could end up in a so called "graveyards of the condemned" or be thrown on a trash heap for the animals to eat.

Quote:
Temporary Holding vs. Secondary Burial

A cautionary note is needed to prevent confusing temporary storage of a body with secondary burial. It is well known that the Jews practiced secondary burial: a corpse would receive a funeral and burial, then when the flesh rotted away (typically some months to a year later) the bones would be gathered, cleaned, and placed in an ossuary, a small box or chest for holding the bones of the reburied. Hence the Mishnah states "When the flesh has rotted, they collect the bones and bury them in their appropriate place" (Sanhedrin 6.6a; also, Talmud Mo'ed Katan 8a, Tractate Semahot 12.6-9; Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 9.8c, etc.). Numerous ossuaries have been found attesting to the practice, including one case of a clearly crucified man.[21] Whereas temporary storage is not burial at all, but the use of a holding place until burial can be performed, much like we store bodies at a morgue today, secondary burial is an actual second act of burial, where it is permitted to enter a tomb and "disturb" the dead with proper reverence, so that the bones can be reconsecrated in a new grave. As the Mishnah states, the corpses of condemned men, which have to be buried in the criminal graveyards, can be reburied where they belong, e.g. in their ancestral tombs, where they would have been buried in the first place if not for their disgraceful manner of death.
http://www.facts4u.com/OffSite_Store...JewBuryLaw.htm

The Jews have or had an aversion for the dead which is why no graves or cemeteries would be located near human habitation. Not saying this is what happened to them but it could be considered possible.
Stringbean is offline  
Old 09-22-2011, 06:49 PM   #17
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Quote:
Cassius Dio stating that the domain of Agrippa of Palestine was extended by Claudius, around 41 c.e. If you are assuming that this is a reference to Agrippa II - then his birth must have been long before 29 c.e.
The longer it is before 29 CE the better it is for the theory.

Quote:
Stephan that is all interpretation - and other interpretations are possible. I don't think I misunderstand the concept of messiah. I am using that concept in relationship to rulership
But it is not just being a king, the concept of the anointed one is rooted in Deuteronomy. The one to come is ultimately one like Moses. This is demonstrated over and over again by Meeks. He gets this quite right and it is essential to understand the whole concept. The messiah is only like David because David was like Moses. Moses is what is essential. Moses is at the core of the doctrine just like the Pentateuch is all that matters in the Writings. The rest are superfluous. In order to be the messiah you have to be like Moses.

Quote:
Josephus has used the Joseph model - a ruler under a ruler, client kings. A man of peace instead of a man of war
Irrelevant see above. The Joseph thing isn't essential. Joseph presaged Moses. Moses is all that matters. Even Joshua the son of Nun is inferior to Moses.

Quote:
Traditions get mixed up. Schwartz says:
But Agrippa I wasn't messianic. He's just a footnote in history. If he existed he goes unmentioned by historical writers from outside of Christianity. Agrippa II, his sister Berenice and their rule over the most important period in Jewish history EVER is fundamentally different. Learn Hebrew. Read the Yosippon. You will know that the rabbinic Agrippa the messiah is Agrippa II. There's no other way. Agrippa I goes unmentioned by everyone because he never existed and/or he was utterly insignificant. Agrippa II - the real Agrippa - is enigmatic. At worst he lived off the avails of the women in his family, used them to philosophize/speculate/engage in religious 'gnosticism.' At best he was the messiah, a thoroughly modern or 'urban' Moses
stephan huller is offline  
Old 09-22-2011, 06:54 PM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Quote:
Did they end up on trash heaps or in the graveyard of the condemned?
But Agrippa had piles and piles of money. Rich people don't end up buried in garbage dumps. The thought which coming in my mind is the Jewish saying 'may his bones be ground into dust.' Was his tomb demolished and his corpse ground up posthumously?

And here's the point. If you go to an old world mausoleum you see all these rich families and family members competing with one another in death for who has the most spectacular house. How could Agrippa have allowed himself to be out-classed by Herod the Great? How could Herod have had the biggest mausoleum in Judea and Agrippa gets buried next to a beggar?
stephan huller is offline  
Old 09-23-2011, 01:02 AM   #19
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
Quote:
Cassius Dio stating that the domain of Agrippa of Palestine was extended by Claudius, around 41 c.e. If you are assuming that this is a reference to Agrippa II - then his birth must have been long before 29 c.e.
The longer it is before 29 CE the better it is for the theory.

Quote:
Stephan that is all interpretation - and other interpretations are possible. I don't think I misunderstand the concept of messiah. I am using that concept in relationship to rulership
But it is not just being a king, the concept of the anointed one is rooted in Deuteronomy. The one to come is ultimately one like Moses. This is demonstrated over and over again by Meeks. He gets this quite right and it is essential to understand the whole concept. The messiah is only like David because David was like Moses. Moses is what is essential. Moses is at the core of the doctrine just like the Pentateuch is all that matters in the Writings. The rest are superfluous. In order to be the messiah you have to be like Moses.

Quote:
Josephus has used the Joseph model - a ruler under a ruler, client kings. A man of peace instead of a man of war
Irrelevant see above. The Joseph thing isn't essential. Joseph presaged Moses. Moses is all that matters. Even Joshua the son of Nun is inferior to Moses.
Stephan, methinks your limiting the messianic concept here. Yes, Moses is important as a model etc. So too is David and so too is Joseph. The messianic concept should not be so narrowly defined to restrict it to just one model. Indeed, no one man is going to reflect all three concepts - but is that not what we have in the gospel JC; a composite figure.

History, which is where we should be at before we start with our interpretations - is important.

Three messiah figures?

1) Antigonus - the warrior King like David.
2) Philip the Tetrarch/Agrippa I - the wise Joseph like King
3) Agrippa II - the Moses like figure. For the Christians.........the prophet of the new covenant.

And the link between them all? Hasmonean blood.

(and for that link - it's back to my old thread:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=289319)

Quote:

Quote:
Traditions get mixed up. Schwartz says:
But Agrippa I wasn't messianic. He's just a footnote in history. If he existed he goes unmentioned by historical writers from outside of Christianity. Agrippa II, his sister Berenice and their rule over the most important period in Jewish history EVER is fundamentally different. Learn Hebrew. Read the Yosippon. You will know that the rabbinic Agrippa the messiah is Agrippa II. There's no other way. Agrippa I goes unmentioned by everyone because he never existed and/or he was utterly insignificant. Agrippa II - the real Agrippa - is enigmatic. At worst he lived off the avails of the women in his family, used them to philosophize/speculate/engage in religious 'gnosticism.' At best he was the messiah, a thoroughly modern or 'urban' Moses
Agrippa I - Agrippa the Great who ruled over more territory than even Herod the Great - a footnote in history - no way, no way.
maryhelena is offline  
Old 09-23-2011, 08:53 AM   #20
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Quote:
Stephan, methinks your limiting the messianic concept here. Yes, Moses is important as a model etc. So too is David and so too is Joseph.
This is the central problem with many 'mythicists.' They don't understand Judaism. Moses is the end all and be all of Judaism and Samaritanism. If you can't grasp the significance of the person of Moses - both as a mythical and historical concept - all three monotheistic religions will never make sense to you.

The problem is that you haven't read enough of the literature associated with Judaism, Samaritanism, early Christianity and Islam. If you are unwilling or unable to do so, all I can do is recommend to you the classic works of Wayne Meeks on the subject. Even though there are many points of disagreement between myself and Professor Meeks he 'hits it from the front and the back' - to quote the modern American expression - when it comes to the messianic concept.

I don't want this to digress into one of our typical engagements. Just there is nothing more fundamental that the person of Moses to the messianic conception. We can disagree about whether or not Agrippa was the messiah or was really held to be the messiah but the significance of Moses to the messianic question is beyond question to Samaritanism, Judaism, Christianity and early Islam.

Yes there are COMPLIMENTARY theories and traditions. This or that debe will say the messiah will be named this or that. But these are extraneous. Moses is THE MAN as the Samaritans say. He is the man of God, the friend of God, God as man, the apostle, the prophet - indeed all the titles of Mohammed come from literature and tradition associated with Moses for good reason. Moses is God. All the myths about Enoch and Jacob mystically ending up becoming God are mythical presages for the historical appearance of Moses and the establishment of the nation of Israel. The same applies for Joseph.

If we want to establish the 'mythical' basis to Christianity all talk about Dionysus and pagan god is secondary and ultimately inconsequential. Look instead to the symbolism associated with Moses. The letters of Moses name are re-scrambled as 'the name of God.' Moses is king, high priest and prophet to Philo. He lived to the mystical number 120 (which equals the 12 tribes of Israel). Joshua is accorded 110 because he is 'one short' of Moses's glory. I could go on and on but I am afraid it would fall on deaf ears because I happen to be Jewish (you know the argument 'because I am Jewish' I am supposedly 'limited' to the 'myths' of my tradition).

So I will instead cite the critical passage from the Acts of Archelaus to give some historical context but there are countless others in the Patristic, rabbinic literature and the early hadiths. This is only the most explicit. Some historical context. When Mani the Paraclete comes to the (Marcionite) communities of Osroene the argument that is ultimately used to defeat him is that he cannot be the expected Paraclete/messiah WITHIN CHRISTIANITY because he isn't enough like Moses. Notice there is no reference to Davidic lineage, Joseph etc. because it simply doesn't matter. It isn't essential. What is essential is that the Christ is to be 'like Moses' (Deuteronomy 18:18)

In any event there are no less than seventy five references to this conception in the Acts of Archelaus. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0616.htm. Here is only the most explicit exchange:

Quote:
what precise force all these things, however, may possess, I leave to the apprehension of those who have sound intelligence. Let us come now again to that word of Moses, in which he says: The Lord your God shall raise up a Prophet unto you, of your brethren, like me. In this saying I perceive a great prophecy delivered by the servant Moses, as by one cognizant that He who is to come is indeed to be possessed of greater authority than himself, and nevertheless is to suffer like things with him, and to show like signs and wonders. For there, Moses after his birth was placed by his mother in an ark, and exposed beside the banks of the river; here, our Lord Jesus Christ, after His birth by Mary His mother, was sent off in flight into Egypt through the instrumentality of an angel. There, Moses led forth his people from the midst of the Egyptians, and saved them; and here, Jesus, leading forth His people from the midst of the Pharisees, transferred them to an eternal salvation. There, Moses sought bread by prayer, and received it from heaven, in order that he might feed the people with it in the wilderness; here, my Lord Jesus by His own power satisfied with five loaves five thousand men in the wilderness. There, Moses when he was tried was set upon the mountain and fasted forty days; and here, my Lord Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness when He was tempted of the devil, and fasted in like manner forty days. There, before the sight of Moses, all the first-born of the Egyptians perished on account of the treachery of Pharaoh; and here, at the time of the birth of Jesus, every male among the Jews suddenly perished by reason of the treachery of Herod. There, Moses prayed that Pharaoh and his people might be spared the plagues; and here, our Lord Jesus prayed that the Pharisees might be pardoned, when He said, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. There, the countenance of Moses shone with the glory of the Lord, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look upon his face, on account of the glory of his countenance; and here, the Lord Jesus Christ shone like the sun, and His disciples were not able to look upon His face by reason of the glory of His countenance and the intense splendour of the light. There, Moses smote down with the sword those who had set up the calf; and here, the Lord Jesus said, I came to send a sword upon the earth, and to set a man at variance with his neighbour, and so on. There, Moses went without fear into the darkness of the clouds that carry water; and here, the Lord Jesus walked with all power upon the waters. There, Moses gave his commands to the sea; and here, the Lord Jesus, when he was on the sea, rose and gave His commands to the winds and the sea. There, Moses, when he was assailed, stretched forth his hands and fought against Amalek; and here, the Lord Jesus, when we were assailed and were perishing by the violence of that erring spirit who works now hi the just, stretched forth His hands upon the cross, and gave us salvation. But there are indeed many other matters of this kind which I must pass by, my dearly beloved Diodorus, as I am in haste to send veil this little book with all convenient speed; and these omissions of mine you will be able yourself to supply very easily by your own intelligence. Write me, however, an account of all that this servant of the adversary's cause may do hereafter. May the Omnipotent God preserve you whole insoul and in spirit!
stephan huller is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:56 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.