Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 07-22-2011, 06:12 AM

Once it is claimed that Jesus of Nazareth in the NT was an ordinary man and was NOT born in Bethlehem then the claimant have DISCREDITED the NT authors.

This is gMatthew version.

Mt 2:1 -

Quote:

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem..

If anyone claims that the author of gMatthew is wrong about the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem then they have DISCREDITED the author and MUST provide a CREDIBLE source of antiquity to support their claim that Jesus in gMatthew was born in Nazareth.

No such source can be found.

The author of gLuke, AFTER he did some kind of investigation, also claimed Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem.

Lu 2:15 -

Quote:

And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us....

So, we see that Both authors made the very same claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Now, if anyone claims Jesus was BORN in Nazareth then ALL I am asking for is the SOURCE of antiquity that made such a claim.

I can't find any.

TedM · 07-22-2011, 09:02 AM

Getting back to the OP, can we all agree now that at the time Jesus was to have been born the expectation among the Jewish religious leaders existed, and most likely was widespread among the general population, that the Messiah would be born on earth in Bethlehem?

Toto · 07-22-2011, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Getting back to the OP, can we all agree now that at the time Jesus was to have been born the expectation among the Jewish religious leaders existed, and most likely was widespread among the general population, that the Messiah would be born on earth in Bethlehem?

No, I don't think we can. Please see the links above to the Vridar blog.

In case you missed them:

Did the Jews Before Christ Expect A National Messiah?

“Son of David” as an anachronism (or metaphor?) in the Gospels, Paul and Acts?

TedM · 07-22-2011, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Getting back to the OP, can we all agree now that at the time Jesus was to have been born the expectation among the Jewish religious leaders existed, and most likely was widespread among the general population, that the Messiah would be born on earth in Bethlehem?

No, I don't think we can. Please see the links above to the Vridar blog.

In case you missed them:

Did the Jews Before Christ Expect A National Messiah?

“Son of David” as an anachronism (or metaphor?) in the Gospels, Paul and Acts?

Maybe I'm not quite getting it but I see no reason to conclude that Christian representations of a Messiah who was born in Bethlehem did not reflect expectations, and widely-held expectations, given those links. OT representations of the Messiah varied-and did not always present him as a king, but generally the David-branch link is very strong in OT Messiac passages.

The 'teacher' aspect isn't all that new or creative, since passages in Isaiah call him 'counselor'. While there may have been some groups that downplayed the kingly role and even the Davidic direct descent, I see no reason to conclude that the 'Bethlehem' expectation didn't exist, and widely. Seems a major stretch to me.

I also see no reason to conclude that these concepts came later than earlier. This all seems quite speculative and unsupported.

Toto · 07-22-2011, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

No, I don't think we can. Please see the links above to the Vridar blog.

In case you missed them:

Did the Jews Before Christ Expect A National Messiah?

“Son of David” as an anachronism (or metaphor?) in the Gospels, Paul and Acts?

Maybe I'm not quite getting it...

I guess you missed this, from the first link:

Quote:

Horsley notes that common views today about ancient Jewish beliefs about the messiah have been “heavily influenced by western christological doctrine.” (p. 89) That’s never a good sign. Religious bias getting in the way again?

He writes bluntly:

[R]ecent studies have made clear that in pre-Christian times there was no general expectation of “The Messiah.” Far from being uniform, Jewish messianic expectations in the early Roman period were diverse and fluid. It is not even certain that the term messiah was used as a title in any literature of the time. There was no uniform expectation of “the messiah” until well after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., when it became standardized as a result of scholarly rabbinic reflection. In fact, the term is relatively rare in literature prior to, or contemporary with, Jesus. Moreover, the designation messiah is not an essential element in Jewish eschatological expectation. Indeed, a royal figure does not even occur in much of Jewish apocalyptic literature. Thus it is an oversimplification and a historical misconception to say that the Jews expected a “national” or “political” messiah, whereas early Christianity centered around a “spiritual” messiah — statements frequently found in New Testament interpretation. It would thus appear that the supposedly standard Jewish ideas or expectations of the messiah are a flimsy foundation indeed from which to explain early Christian understanding of Jesus.

quoting Richard Horsley, Bandits, Prophets & Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk).

TedM · 07-22-2011, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

No, I don't think we can. Please see the links above to the Vridar blog.

In case you missed them:

Did the Jews Before Christ Expect A National Messiah?

“Son of David” as an anachronism (or metaphor?) in the Gospels, Paul and Acts?

Maybe I'm not quite getting it...

I guess you missed this, from the first link:

Quote:

Horsley notes that common views today about ancient Jewish beliefs about the messiah have been “heavily influenced by western christological doctrine.” (p. 89) That’s never a good sign. Religious bias getting in the way again?

He writes bluntly:

[R]ecent studies have made clear that in pre-Christian times there was no general expectation of “The Messiah.” Far from being uniform, Jewish messianic expectations in the early Roman period were diverse and fluid. It is not even certain that the term messiah was used as a title in any literature of the time. There was no uniform expectation of “the messiah” until well after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., when it became standardized as a result of scholarly rabbinic reflection. In fact, the term is relatively rare in literature prior to, or contemporary with, Jesus. Moreover, the designation messiah is not an essential element in Jewish eschatological expectation. Indeed, a royal figure does not even occur in much of Jewish apocalyptic literature. Thus it is an oversimplification and a historical misconception to say that the Jews expected a “national” or “political” messiah, whereas early Christianity centered around a “spiritual” messiah — statements frequently found in New Testament interpretation. It would thus appear that the supposedly standard Jewish ideas or expectations of the messiah are a flimsy foundation indeed from which to explain early Christian understanding of Jesus.

quoting Richard Horsley, Bandits, Prophets & Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk).

No, I didn't miss that. It's just that it didn't really say much. He simply states his interpretation of 'recent studies'. I thought we are all believers in using 'evidence' here. I think we need to read this carefully also: There is little reason to throw away the many references to Davidic descent for the messiah--even if he is no longer seen as a 'king'. You can be descended from David without being a king. So that part is irrelevant to the Bethlehem issue.

Over 500 Messiac references don't simply get ignored: It makes more sense that there WAS a general consensus on a number of ideas, and that there was a FRINGE of free-thinkers who had some other theories. If the evidence shows this to be in error, then show me the evidence.

Toto · 07-22-2011, 01:53 PM

Where are these 500 Messianic references and where is the evidence that they were interpreted that way during the first part of the 1st century? You linked above to a 19th century work that refers to Rabbinical interpretations, which would be much later than the time of Jesus.

DCHindley · 07-22-2011, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Did the Jews before Christ expect a national Messiah?

Richard Horsley ...

His books contain interesting stuff, but I can't shake the feeling he goes out of his way to force-fit Jesus into a "prophetic" tradition.

The simple fact is that in the time of the 1st revolt (66-mid 70's CE), Josephus tells us exactly what "many" Jews expected, and this report was confirmed by Tacitus, who at very least agreed with Josephus.

Ca. 75 CE. Josephus, Jewish War, 6.5.4

But now, what did the most elevate them [i.e., the Jewish revolutionaries] in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, "about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination.

Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea. However, it is not possible for men to avoid fate, although they see it beforehand. But these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own pleasure, and some of them they utterly despised, until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking of their city and their own destruction.

Ca. 105-108 CE. Tacitus, Histories, 5.6.13. [alluding to and expanding upon Josephus War 6.5.4?]

Few people [in Judaea] placed a sinister interpretation upon this [portent of the door of the Temple swinging open on its own with a rushing sound accompanying the event]. The majority [of the Jews] were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the present as the very time when the orient would triumph and from Judaea would go forth men destined to rule the world.

This mysterious prophesy really referred to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, true to the selfish ambitions of mankind, thought that this mighty destiny was reserved for them, and not even their calamities opened their eyes to the truth.

Whether these Jews called the expected person or persons "Christ" or "Christs" or had some other pet name(s) for them, is irrelevant. The DSS reflect belief in multiple "messiahs" (the anointed of Aaron and Israel). We call our world leaders "President" or "Prime Minister" or "Chancellor" but if in reading about them in the news we don't see our pet name(s) for our leader(s) it does not mean that folks don't believe that someone heads their national affairs.

DCH

TedM · 07-22-2011, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Where are these 500 Messianic references and where is the evidence that they were interpreted that way during the first part of the 1st century? You linked above to a 19th century work that refers to Rabbinical interpretations, which would be much later than the time of Jesus.

Do you have a problem with 19th century work?
How can you accurately assume that the Rabbinical interpretations did not reflect earlier thinking?

Toto · 07-22-2011, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Where are these 500 Messianic references and where is the evidence that they were interpreted that way during the first part of the 1st century? You linked above to a 19th century work that refers to Rabbinical interpretations, which would be much later than the time of Jesus.

Do you have a problem with 19th century work?

Yes, if more recent studies give a different view.

Quote:

How can you accurately assume that the Rabbinical interpretations did not reflect earlier thinking?

Is it not reasonable to assume that there was some change in thinking on the part of the Jews after the failure of the Jewish War?

You are aware that the term "Rabbi" was not in use in Jesus' time?

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

07-22-2011, 09:02 AM	#72
TedM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: USA, Missouri Posts: 3,070	Getting back to the OP, can we all agree now that at the time Jesus was to have been born the expectation among the Jewish religious leaders existed, and most likely was widespread among the general population, that the Messiah would be born on earth in Bethlehem?

07-22-2011, 01:53 PM	#77
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Where are these 500 Messianic references and where is the evidence that they were interpreted that way during the first part of the 1st century? You linked above to a 19th century work that refers to Rabbinical interpretations, which would be much later than the time of Jesus.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.