aa5874

Now, who would demand a genealogy for the offspring of the Holy Ghost?

And who would provide one?

The Roman Church.

And no-one, except perhaps Julian, could even dare demand proof or try to investigate the Roman Church.

andrewcriddle

Actually no. There is a list of several generations of named descendants of Zerubbabel at the end of 1 Chronicles chapter 3.

Andrew Criddle

semiopen

There is a list, but whether it is accurate is another question, as this conflicts with other sources.

Zerubbabel

In addition, of course, there is doubt that he was related to David at all.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...d=115&letter=Z

There is certainly not an abundance of biblical stories which don't "lack historicity."

Finally, and this is probably just my own ignorance, but I don't see how Jesus could be descended from the line of David unless he had a human father.

The objection to Jesus over his ancestry, in any case, is overly technical. This has never been a benchmark for any of the Jewish messianic candidates that have emerged throughout history.

bacht

Thanks Andrew. Looks like this list carries into the 5th C:

The time of the composition of the Chronicles is believed to have been subsequent to the Babylonian captivity, possibly between 450 and 435 B.C., though Martin Noth was of the opinion that it dated from the 3rd century B.C.; and Gary Knoppers, while acknowledging that Chronicles theoretically could be written anywhere between 500 - 250 B.C., tends to see it as probably dating between 325 and 275 B.C. The contents of Chronicles, both as to matter and form, correspond closely with this idea. The close of the book records the proclamation of Cyrus the Great permitting the Jews to return to their own land, and this forms the opening passage of the Book of Ezra, which is viewed as a continuation of the Chronicles, together with the Book of Nehemiah. The peculiar form of the language, being Hebrew in vocabulary but Aramaean in its general character, harmonizes also with that of the other books which were written after the Exile...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_o...les#Authorship

jakejonesiv

Hi Steven,

I will attempt to give an answer to the question you asked in the OP.

Presumably the Jews, would regard anyone guilty of a capital offense ((Mark 14:64, Matthew 26:66) and hung on a tree as accursed by God, Deuteronomy 21:22-23.

But we should not limit this view to Jews, but Jewish (or Judaized) Christians also. The opponents of Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:3 do the same thing. That these persons are Christians is apparent because they are "speaking in the Spirit." What kind of Christians were these that declare "Jesus be damned!" This is gnostic dualistic rejection of the earthly Jesus, the complete separation of the man Jesus from the heavenly Christ. (Similarly to the Cainite Gnostics who, according to Origen, cursed the human Jesus as the unclean vessel of the Christ Spirit).

The second part of your question centers on why did Jesus die. Toto as already observed that the PE do not blame the Jews for the death of Jesus except in one spurious passge. According to the Pauline epistles, Jesus died as a ransom.

Steven, you are probably aware that my position is that the urMarcionites were the original Paulinists. (BTW, the Pauline/Marcionite Christians would have no part of cursing Pesus, since they did no separation of Jesus and Christ; Jesus Christ was 100% divine and their Christology was Docetic. Philippians 2:6ff, cf. Tertullian AM 5.20.3.

Jesus came to pay a ransom for the souls of those who believed in him. In Romans 3:24, the word “redemption” (apolytrosis) means release, or deliverance on the payment of a price. (cf Eph. 1:7-8). The proto-orthodox have a very hard time explaining to whom the ransom was paid. Clearly it was to the "god of this world" whether he be called the Demiurge or Satan. In Galatians 3:13, the law is an unmitigated curse from which Christ ransoms the believer. The Ten Commandments given on Mt. Sinai were "...the ministration of death, written and engraved in stones." 2 Corinthians 3:7. This is the most extreme form of Pauline antinominism.


The Ramson theory doesn't work out too well for proto-orthodox Christianity. One doesn't have to pay a ransom to another being over which you have complete power. Indeed, an all powerful God could simply forgive sins by divine fiat without anyone having to die. So the orthodox end up with extensive philosphizing that God, by killing his own Son, was paying a ransom to himself to satisfy his requirements for justice or some such nonsense. That the very God who casts souls into hell (blaming the victim for something over which they have no control) would then kill himself, or his divine Son, or an innocent man, or some combination of all of these is incomprehensible.

But Marcion had no such problem. According to the later Marcionite myth (Eznik), the Demiurge created human beings and in a sense owned them. So Jesus fooled the Demiurge. According to the Pauline myth, Jesus came incognito and was put to death unjustly by the Demiurge and his minions. "which none of the Archons of this Aeon knew; for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." 1 Cor. 2:8.

According to Tertullian, Marcion interpreted the archons (princes) as evil spiritual powers, agents of the Demiurge.

"But because (the apostle) subjoins, on the subject of our glory, that "none of the princes of this world knew it for had they known it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory," the heretic [Marcion] argues that the princes of this world crucified the Lord (that is, the Christ of the rival god) in order that this blow might even recoil on the Creator ... it properly enough was unknown to all the princes and powers of the Creator, on the principle that servants are not permitted to know their masters' plans, much less the fallen angels and the leader of transgression himself, the devil Himself." Tertullian Against Marcion Book V

The Creator, according to Marcionite myth, had the right to kill human beings, he had created them and they had fallen short of his law. That the law cannot save but only condemn is the staple of Pauline doctrine (Romans 3:19-20, etc). But the Creator had no right to kill Jesus. Jesus, not even his apparent body, was from the realm of the Creator, and by killing Jesus, the Creator was guilty of violating his own law against shedding innocent blood. Jesus according to Eznik now had the right to kill the Creator. But the Creator pled a "mitigating" circumstance, that he had killed Jesus unknowingly. The Creator proposed a bargin (think of it as a plea bargin). In return for his crime, the Creator would allow the souls of those who believed in Jesus to be whisked up to heaven. Thus the deal was reached; the death of Jesus was the Ransom for the souls of those who will believe.

Then Jesus appeared by revelation to Paul made known to him alone the truth, and thereafter, Paul preached that Jesus "redeemed us for a price."

Best,
Jake Jones IV

aa5874

Now, why would Paul use Hebrew Scripture to fish for Gentiles when Gentiles were pagans and had their own Pagan Scriptures or doctrines?

The Pauline writer was fishing for Jews when he used Hebrew Scriptures. Even in Acts, in the post-conversion history of Saul/Paul, provided by the Church, Saul/Paul was preaching in the synagogues of the Jews on the Sabbath days.

Acts 13:14 - The Pauline writer showed no familiarity with any Pagan doctrine and did not make any reference to any Pagan system of beliefs.

It makes no sense for the Pauline writer to have tried to explain to pagans that circumcision was not needed for salvation when pagans did not practise circumcision in the first place.

spin

Umm, the obvious sign that a messiah was false was if he were dead. The messiah had the role of bringing the millennium into this world by leading a war of freedom and domination. If he died before that happened he obviously wasn't the messiah. Jews meeting christian proselytes selling a dead messiah would have laughed at such folly.


spin

IamJoseph

Not when one considers the terrible history of christianity, and that nothing it says is verifiable. IMHO< making terrible accusations via 'belief' and nothing else, constitutes both crimes against humanity and God. Today's radical Islam is emulating medevial Europe.

Agreed. But 3.2 Billion humans, half the world pop., is obsessed in believing they cannot believe in their Gods unless that belief is also attached to Jews are evil. The other part of the world is blackmailed via commercial means to also bash Jews. Every day I wonder how Jews survive between Christianity [Jews are born of the devil] and Islam [a blessing to kill jews]. Thus far, the Jews have somehow survived three Holocausts - and its all their fault too. You think?

It would be great to have such stuff confirmed by some means - which is not the case. These premises appear as Christian based scholar's assessents hellbent on negating anything Hebrew for 2000 years, but there are no Phoenecian books as with the Hebrew, nor does this writing possess many alphabets seen in the Hebrew. This is compounded by the fact the Pheonecians were around for 800 years AFTER Israel emerged and wrote a host of books, and they were never exiled as with the Hebrews. Explain it?

CE or BCE?


Rather than postulating this way [because there is no counter proof], the focus must be on which writings appear valid, contemporary descriptions of history, and displayed in an equivalent and continious thread of that history. This is where the Hebrew transcends, even while being in contradiction of the held status quo.


You raise a reasonably valid point, but it is very flawed when correctly examined. The Canaanites gave us no alphabetical writings, despite being older than the Hebrews. In Egypt, the Hebrews remained hebrew, speaking this language, while the Egyptians never spoke this language - which means there is no chance the canaanites - closest pals of Egypt for 800 years before the Hebrews emerged - could have spoken or written anything similar to Hebrew, while the Egyptians would not also know this language. And Egypt did NOT have any so-called pre-dating canaante writings. Do you see my point? These factors give credence only to the Hebrew texts, which says the Israelites entered Canaan with their five alphabetical books already completed and in hand, and went on to write a host of continuing alphabetical hebrew books with a display of a continuous historical record. That is what your premise is up against, which is not addressed, and then you point the finger at me!

The reverse is the fact. There is not a shred of real, disputing evidence - and this must be on the table to have any credence. Where is it? - show me your pheonecian or cannanite alphabetical books for a period of a 1000 years - or explain why this is not available? :wave:

IamJoseph

Who would not? A: Europeans.

I remind you that the greatest and most believed human, dispaying real power and impact, was relentlessly pounded for proof, and his name was Moses - and Moses delivered - the Pharoahs were confronted - and liberty and inalieanble human rights emerged. What did your ghost deliver - other than the mass murder of millions?

storytime

I seriously doubt that there was ever a "Moses". I think there was a hatefilled scribe who thought to demonize the Egyptians. We read about a group of so-called Hebrews (who may have been a mixed breed of sooners) who traveled into Egypt and were given a portion of land to live on. When the country could no longer support them economically the "sooners" were told to leave, which greatly upset the sooners. There was a change in government and a new Pharoah came to power. This new Pharoah told the sooners that they could no longer sponge off the charity of Egyptians and were given a choice to become workers for Pharoah or get the hell out of Egypt. A spy called "Moses" who had been planted as an infant and which the Pharoah's daughter took pity on, grew into adulthood learning all the magic of the Egyptian priests and military expertise of the Egyptian army. Later this spy for the Hebrew 'Sooners" would make himself the leader of an Israelite terror force. This "Moses" would inform the band of Israelites as to the name of their "God", (because they evidently didn't know it) and attempt to teach civil order among the Sooners with laws that he had adapted from existing codes of conduct practiced by other peoples. This "Moses" character went on to teach his army of Israelites how to exterminate other peoples, spy on them by planting individuals into their societies in pretense of "friendly" neighbor, much in the way he had been "planted" as a "seed" to grow and cause the most violent acts imaginable.

And you think to seat yourself and your version of so-called "Jewish" history as a pious superior and innocent group of ancient and "near" history? What did YOUR "Ghost" writer deliver other than a death-cult in mass murder in extermination of billions?