aa5874

But, Jesus of Nazareth had no known effect on the political, social or theological lanscape of Judaea in the first century. The crucified son of a God of Moses concept is not mentioned by any Jewish writer as a Messianic figure.

The Jesus of the NT even if he lived would not qualify to be the Messiah, he never delivered the Jews, not even a single day. This Jesus was fighting spiritual wars with death and the devil, which the authors claimed he won after he was resurrected.

The concept of a Messiah as the son of the God of Moses who was crucified as a blasphemer and who had never redeemed the Jewish people appears to be totally foreign to Jews. And it would appear that Jews were only aware of this crucified Messiah up to 100 years later, as no known Jewish writer made mention of this bizarre concept, the crucified Messiah, the son of God of Moses convicted of blasphemy during the 1st century.

Jesus Christians, the followers of the crucified Messiah and Son of God of Moses, probably developed outside Judaea and sometime very late 1st century or in the 2nd century.

neilgodfrey

Yet the concept is not as completely foreign as often assumed. 4 Maccabees contains the idea of Isaac giving himself up for sacrifice and Jewish martyrs dying on behalf of the rest of Israel:

"Remember whence you came, and the father by whose hand Isaac would have submitted to being slain for the sake of religion." (13:12)

"They vindicated their nation, looking to God and enduring torture even to death. Truly the contest in which they were engaged was divine, for on that day virtue gave the awards and tested them for their endurance. The prize was immortality in endless life. Eleazar was the first contestant, the mother of the seven sons entered the competition, and the brothers contended. The tyrant was the antagonist, and the world and the human race were the spectators. Reverence for God was victor and gave the crown to its own athletes. Who did not admire the athletes of the divine legislation? Who were not amazed? The tyrant himself and all his council marveled at their endurance, because of which they now stand before the divine throne and live through blessed eternity. For Moses says, "All who are consecrated are under your hands." These, then, who have been consecrated for the sake of God, are honored, not only with this honor, but also by the fact that because of them our enemies did not rule over our nation, the tyrant was punished, and the homeland purified -- they having become, as it were, a ransom for the sin of our nation. And through the blood of those devout ones and their death as an expiation, divine Providence preserved Israel that previously had been afflicted. (17:10-22)

Wikipedia summarizes: "The suffering and martyrdom of the Maccabees is seen by the author to be vicarious for the Jewish nation, and the author portrays martyrdom in general as bringing atonement for the past sins of the Jews."

It's surely not a huge step for a Jew, especially in time of persecution, to conceive of a messiah filling in for Isaac and other martyrs, giving himself up as a sacrifice, blasphemed and falsely accused, for the salvation of his people and others. (See Levenson: The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son ) I would add also that it is even more readily conceivable if the same Jew identifies himself with that messiah as he follows in his footsteps. This could surely be bound up with a sense of a separate identity, being part of a "new Israel" being purified as the dross of the old is being destroyed. Not the sort of process one would expect in the 30's or 40's c.e. But around 66-73 , , , ,??



Neil

aa5874

There is a major difference between a sacrifice or a martyr and a crucifixion orchestrated by your own people.The Jesus of the NT was not a sacrifice, or a martyr, he was crucified as a blasphemer, according to authors, by the Jews, his own people.

The Jesus of the NT came to develop a new order and was always in opposiion to the chief priest, Pharisees,and Saducees they never regarded him as a Messiah but of the Devil, Beelzebub, a sorcerer, and were always planning to have him destroyed. In effect, he could not be used as sacrifice, he must be disposed of and removed from society as a criminal.

The concept of this Jesus as a Messiah, breaker of the Sabbath, opposing the chief leaders and calling them devils, practising sorcery, leading people astray and claiming to be the son of God appears to be foreign to Jews. These are the characteristics of a criminal, worthy of death, not a Messiah.

neilgodfrey

Yet the Passion story is told with allusions to the Psalms and Prophets such that it is clear their authors viewed the crucifixion as the fate of the righteous suffering 'man of God' -- or martyr, and John goes further by directly depicting his crucifixion as a sacrifice, too.

aa5874

The Passion story is an external concept and is not at all related to a Messianic figure. The Psalms was misconstrued to project this suffering of a Messiah, but a Messiah is a deliverer, he delivers the people from suffering.

But the NT authors produced a strange Messiah, this Messiah delivers himself by raising himself from the dead, and then claimed he is coming back a second time to deliver both the dead and living.

Now we don't know who wrote gJohn, we don't if know he was a Jew and when he actually wrote, but he could be Greek, a Roman or anybodyWRITING IN THE 2ND CENTURY, but this concept of a Messiah is unknown to Jewish writers like Philo or Josephus.

Solitary Man

As far as I know, none ever made up the character whole.

spamandham

Where do you get the idea it had to be a conspiracy in origin? I'm not following that. Second, isn't it universally agreed among scholars that Josephus is at least partially forged (iow, direct evidence of the conspiracy you allude to)? Thirdly, Tacitus can be genuine with Toto's option "A".

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthr...32#post5136032

neilgodfrey

As far as I'm aware the only studies done on attempting to explain the origin and spread of Christianity have taken the gospels (or parts of them, including Q) and Paul as their starting points.

We have socio-economic etc studies of early first century Galilee by Crossan and Crossley, and studies of bandits and messiahs by Horsely etc. Yet the earliest documents and archaeological remains come from anywhere except Galilee -- Asia Minor and Greece, Syria, Egypt, Rome, North Africa. Ditto Paul -- not attested till second century.

Should not the question be then how to account for this new literature that emerges in the second century, some possibly late first, and why some of it in its narrative pointed back to Galilee/Jerusalem?

Solitary Man

Yes, and the answer is that the movement started there.

spamandham

THE answer? You seem awfully certain.