Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 10-14-2007, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Regardless, I don't buy the claim that there is no basis for resurrection in the Jewish scriptures.

Bock's claim is no basis for resurrection in the past of the Messiah in the Jewish scriptures: "Had a Jewish idea been midrashed, then Jesus could simply be a raised judge at the end of history such as the idea appears in a text like 1 Enoch."

Jesus is not a raised judge, according to Acts? And Christians did not claim they were 'at the end of history' and that Jesus would return 'soon'?

Is Bock contradicting his Lord and Saviour and claiming there are no prophecies of the Messiah being resurrected?

Steven Carr · 10-14-2007, 01:10 AM

It is interesting how apologetics works.

Could Paul have believed in a resurrection, but not of flesh?

No , because no Jew would have believed that.

Could Paul have believed in a Messiah being resurrected before the end of history?

As no Jew would have believed that, we know that it must be true.

Apologetics is the art of talking out of both corners of your mouth.

spamandham · 10-24-2007, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Regardless, I don't buy the claim that there is no basis for resurrection in the Jewish scriptures.

Bock's claim is no basis for resurrection in the past of the Messiah in the Jewish scriptures: "Had a Jewish idea been midrashed, then Jesus could simply be a raised judge at the end of history such as the idea appears in a text like 1 Enoch."

Epistle to the Galations, chapter 3, vs. 1 (Price' translation):

"O senseless Galatians! Who is it who has cast a spell on you? The crucifixion of Jesus-Christ was plainly demonstrated from scripture before your eyes."

Now, this passage is obviously referring to the crucifixion, and not the resurrection, but in light of the fact that even Paul/Marcion believes the crucifixion to have been foretold by scripture (Isaiah 53 I'm guessing is the reference), is it really such a stretch that the resurrection was also foretold by scripture in his eyes?

As I understand midrash, it is basicaly the process of quote mining to support some preconception. If so, then all midrash has some basis outside what the books actually say. That doesn't imply that said basis is historical facts by any means. Influence from other myths/legends/religions could play just as large a role as any history.

Malachi151 · 10-24-2007, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I've often seen the comment that "the Gospels are midrash!", with the implication that they were thought to be fiction. Yet are the Gospels really thought to be midrash? And was midrash thought to be fiction? If Mark was writing midrash, does that mean he was a Jewish Christian writing in a Jewish tradition?

According to this Wikipedia article on midrash:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash

The "classical" Midrash starts off with a seemingly unrelated sentence from the Biblical books of Psalms, Proverbs or the Prophets. This sentence later turns out to metaphorically reflect the content of the rabbinical interpretation offered....

An example of a Midrashic interpretation:

"And God saw all that He had made, and found it very good. And there was evening, and there was morning, the sixth day." (Genesis 1:31) - Midrash: Rabbi Nahman said in Rabbi Samuel's name: "Behold, it was very good" refers to the Good Desire; "And behold, it was very good" refers to the Evil Desire. Can then the Evil Desire be very good? That would be extraordinary! But without the Evil Desire, however, no man would build a house, take a wife and beget children; and thus said Solomon: "Again, I considered all labour and all excelling in work, that it is a man's rivalry with his neighbour." (Kohelet IV, 4) (Genesis Rabbah 9:7, translation from Soncino Publications).

So, are the Gospels currently thought to be "midrash"? And does that then mean that they were considered fiction?

I wouldn't call it a midrash, and I don't think that there is a need to. The style is different than a typical midrash, but why is that any surprise, I mean its a work that was written in Greek, probably in Rome. This wasn't a story written by Rabbi Weissman, it was a story probably written by a "Gentile" sympathetic or integrated Jew, who, like Philo, had both a Roman/Greek and Jewish education.

I've posted my analysis of THE Gospel, as well as given my explanation of how the others came to be, based on it.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm

As far as I'm concerned, the whole issue is solved.

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

10-14-2007, 01:10 AM	#72
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	It is interesting how apologetics works. Could Paul have believed in a resurrection, but not of flesh? No , because no Jew would have believed that. Could Paul have believed in a Messiah being resurrected before the end of history? As no Jew would have believed that, we know that it must be true. Apologetics is the art of talking out of both corners of your mouth.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.