Freethought & Rationalism Archive

neilgodfrey · 07-20-2011, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Did the Jews before Christ expect a national Messiah?

I see Toto has beat me to it, but this thread here set me thinking and I have added another post related to the one above:

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

They are not directly in sync with a discussion of Bethlehem, but I think the implications of Horsley's work is worth throwing into the mix.

Horatio Parker · 07-20-2011, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

I get it, thanks.

An alternative is fulfilling scripture. So if there are predictions of a Galilean messiah after the Maccabees, that's even better:

From "Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, The Sons of Jacob the Patriarch"

Draw near to Levi in humility of your hearts
11 in order that you may receive blessing from his mouth. For he will bless Israel and Judah , since it is through him that the Lord has chosen to reign in the presence
12 of all the people.

The Hasmoneans were from the tribe of Levi, a northern tribe. If Mark was pursuing a gentile agenda, he might prefer a messiah from Galilee, the point being was there was also Jewish scripture to justify it.

It is disputed whether the "Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs" is a basically Jewish work with Christian additions, or an originally Christian work.

Andrew Criddle

Ok, not Jewish scripture, just scripture. But it could not represent a tradition of a Galilean messiah?

aa5874 · 07-21-2011, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You mean an unknown lie is the truth?

It is as if you cannot stop BELIEVING even when you ADMIT that the ALL of history is AMBIGUOUS.

This is absolutely basic.

Once a source is known to be UNRELIABLE then there MUST external corroboration by some other source.

Do you EVER reverse your condemnation on a source? What if you find out he didn't realize he told a falsehood? My question again is very simple: IF someone tells you a lie, do you never believe anything they ever said again? What if you find out he didn't even realize it was a lie?

Do you require sources to prove their reliability before you trust anything they write?

Once you are claiming that Jesus of Nazareth in the NT was an ordinary man and was NOT born in Bethlehem then you have DISCREDITED the NT authors who made such a claim.

Why do you want to BELIEVE the same sources you have DISCREDITED and still maintain that History is AMBIGUOUS and SPECULATIVE?

And further, why do you BELIEVE the Jesus of Nazareth story is history in the first place?

You are in a most illogical position.

aa5874 · 07-21-2011, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Did the Jews before Christ expect a national Messiah?

It amazes me that people here seem to be totally UNAWARE of one of the FUNDAMENTAL reason for the Jewish War in the 1st century.

It was BECAUSE the JEWS expected MESSIANIC rulers based on SCRIPTURE.

It is MULTIPLE ATTESTED by Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

Josephus himself fought WITH the JEWS against the Romans.

Wars of the Jews" 6.5.4

Quote:

But now, what did the most elevate them 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....

The very same thing is said in Tacitus "Histories" 5.

Quote:

.....in most there was a firm persuasion, that in the ancient records of their priests was contained a prediction of how at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers, coming from Judaea, were to acquire universal empire.....

These mysterious prophecies....... the common people...... had interpreted these mighty destinies of themselves,

Again in the "Life of Vespasian" 4.5[/b]

Quote:

...5 There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief, that [u]it was fated at that time for men coming from Judaea to rule the world.

This prediction.......... the people of Judaea took to themselves......

The Gospel story has been destroyed that the Jews expected a Messianic ruler at around 33 CE.

But, examine the gospels of gMatthew and gMark.

A most astonishing fact is found and it is that the Matthean and Markan Jesus the MESSIAH was COMPLETELY UNKNOWN to the JEWS as a Messiah and Jesus himself did NOT want the JEWS to KNOW he was the supposed PROPHECIED Messiah of the Jews.

Matthew 16:20 -

Quote:

Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Incredibly, gMatthew and gMark are showing that the JEWS had NO expectation of a Messiah BEFORE the "JEWISH WAR" as MULTIPLE ATTESTED by Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus.

TedM · 07-21-2011, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Once you are claiming that Jesus of Nazareth in the NT was an ordinary man and was NOT born in Bethlehem then you have DISCREDITED the NT authors who made such a claim.

Why do you want to BELIEVE the same sources you have DISCREDITED and still maintain that History is AMBIGUOUS and SPECULATIVE?

And further, why do you BELIEVE the Jesus of Nazareth story is history in the first place?

I see no reason to discredit an entire work that likely was added to over time simply because there are aspects that possibly reflected the evolution of oral tradition over that time that are considered questionable. You have chosen to disbelieve. You aren't even open to possibilities. It is black or white for you.

I'm not saying that you should believe, but you appear to be saying that I should disbelieve. Big difference.

I may disbelieve parts but not the whole. You disbelieve the whole without external corroboration. With history, that leaves you with little.

TedM · 07-21-2011, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

verse:

Quote:

Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Incredibly, gMatthew and gMark are showing that the JEWS had NO expectation of a Messiah BEFORE the "JEWISH WAR" as MULTIPLE ATTESTED by Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus.

You have misread the gospels. gMatthew and gMark are not showing the the Jews had NO expectation. Rather, that Jesus himself was trying to downplay his role (presumably so he could be crucified). One could also conclude that the Jews certainly did NOT recognize Jesus to be the Messiah. However, these accounts are NOT saying anything about expectations. When you see it in this light I think you'll have to agree that there is nothing incredible: the gospels are not in contradiction with anybody on this point. In fact there are plenty of verses that clearly attest to a very real expectation for a Messiah, so I am quite baffled by what you have written..

A Jewish Messiah most certainly was widely sought after and expected at the time of Christ, and he was to come to earth.

aa5874 · 07-21-2011, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Once you are claiming that Jesus of Nazareth in the NT was an ordinary man and was NOT born in Bethlehem then you have DISCREDITED the NT authors who made such a claim.

Why do you want to BELIEVE the same sources you have DISCREDITED and still maintain that History is AMBIGUOUS and SPECULATIVE?

And further, why do you BELIEVE the Jesus of Nazareth story is history in the first place?

I see no reason to discredit an entire work that likely was added to over time simply because there are aspects that possibly reflected the evolution of oral tradition over that time that are considered questionable. You have chosen to disbelieve. You aren't even open to possibilities. It is black or white for you.

I'm not saying that you should believe, but you appear to be saying that I should disbelieve. Big difference.

I may disbelieve parts but not the whole. You disbelieve the whole without external corroboration. With history, that leaves you with little.

Again, you are not logical.

You are the one who has claimed History is AMBIGUOUS and SPECULATIVE and still want to BELIEVE the Jesus story is History while simultaneously claiming it is AMBIGUOUS.

You are engaged in false dichotomies, logical fallacies and contradictions.

Once you BELIEVE history is ambiguous and speculative then you have NOTHING to offer but AMBIGUITY and Speculation.

I have SOURCES to support my theory about the Jesus story.

Both gMatthew and gLuke claimed Jesus of Nazareth, the Child of the Holy Ghost, was born in Bethlehem so if you are claiming that Jesus was just an ordinary man who was born in Nazareth then you SIMPLY need to supply the non-ambiguous source of antiquity for your claims.

aa5874 · 07-21-2011, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

verse:

Incredibly, gMatthew and gMark are showing that the JEWS had NO expectation of a Messiah BEFORE the "JEWISH WAR" as MULTIPLE ATTESTED by Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus.

You have misread the gospels. gMatthew and gMark are not showing the the Jews had NO expectation. Rather, that Jesus himself was trying to downplay his role (presumably so he could be crucified). One could also conclude that the Jews certainly did NOT recognize Jesus to be the Messiah. However, these accounts are NOT saying anything about expectations. When you see it in this light I think you'll have to agree that there is nothing incredible: the gospels are not in contradiction with anybody on this point. In fact there are plenty of verses that clearly attest to a very real expectation for a Messiah, so I am quite baffled by what you have written...

You don't know what you are talking about. You are SPECULATING about AMBIGUITIES.

TedM · 07-21-2011, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

verse:

Incredibly, gMatthew and gMark are showing that the JEWS had NO expectation of a Messiah BEFORE the "JEWISH WAR" as MULTIPLE ATTESTED by Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus.

You have misread the gospels. gMatthew and gMark are not showing the the Jews had NO expectation. Rather, that Jesus himself was trying to downplay his role (presumably so he could be crucified). One could also conclude that the Jews certainly did NOT recognize Jesus to be the Messiah. However, these accounts are NOT saying anything about expectations. When you see it in this light I think you'll have to agree that there is nothing incredible: the gospels are not in contradiction with anybody on this point. In fact there are plenty of verses that clearly attest to a very real expectation for a Messiah, so I am quite baffled by what you have written...

You don't know what you are talking about. You are SPECULATING about AMBIGUITIES.

And you sir, have NO CREDIBILITY with a reply like that, as it displays either an inability to understand simple language or a willful stubbornness of ridiculous proportions. You are so anti-gospels that you can't even recognize a statement of fact about what is contained in the gospels. There is no need for speculation, aa. It's right there in the text! You are so anti-gospels that you don't realize that containing a credible concept doesn't mean EVERYTHING in them is credible. IF you don't admit your error, I will have to again put you on ignore.

Toto · 07-21-2011, 01:26 PM

The interchange between aa5874 and Ted M is disruptive. We all know your positions. Any more repetition and/or name calling and it will be split off.

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

07-21-2011, 01:26 PM	#70
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The interchange between aa5874 and Ted M is disruptive. We all know your positions. Any more repetition and/or name calling and it will be split off.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.