aChristian

Well, at least you agree with me here. I was responding to the idea that the apostles (and the other 500 disciples) could have imagined everything. The disciples had to be lying if the story is not true.

Acts 1:1-3

Diogenes the Cynic

The apostles left no statements whatever that can be evaluated for truth value. When you say "they would have to be lying," you're assuming they said anything at all. We have no evidence that a single apostle ever claimed to see a literally resurrected Jesus. You don't seem to be getting that. There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus. If there were actually any apostles (not a given), we have no idea how they perceived Jesus and we have no record of any of them claiming to have witnessed any miracles.

Vivisector

aC, has it never struck you before just how entirely ad hoc this business of prophecy is? Anyone who's halfway clever can find prophecies applicable to Jesus, Joan of Arc, or Captain Ahab if they simply want to take the time. How? Just the way Christians have for so long. "This prophecy has a double fulfillment," "This prophecy is fulfilled literally only in the first half, metaphorically in the second," "This prophecy hasn't yet been fulfilled, but it will," "This prophecy contains an arcane Hebrew word that could have meant thus and such, therefore you can't say it wasn't fulfilled," "This is an entirely metaphorical prophecy," etc., etc. What I think Spin is saying is, if you take the plain reading of the passage, there is absolutely no reason to assume a need for a double fulfillment and no need to assume that there's anything "tremendous" involved. The passage is sufficient without further exegetical and retrojectional gymnastics.

"Matthew's" eagerness to apply "prophecy" to the life of Jesus is well known. Why don't we see more made of his application (Mt 21:7) of Zech 9:9 when he has Jesus riding not one, but *two* animals (Yeehaw, Jesus!).

Astrologers figured out this business long ago, and the mindset of the believers is identical - "It must be true; I just have to find the right way to look at it."

Out of curiosity, was Jesus ever called "Immanuel" in his lifetime? Did he ever eat milk and honey? And please stay within the scriptures on your answer.

Mr. Aardvark

"Double fulfillment?" This sounds like someone's hermeneutical contrivance to force a square peg into a round hole.

Don't such ad hoc inventions seem intellectually dishonest to you?

Amaleq13

Since we have no good reason to assume the Gospel depictions are historically accurate and Paul provides no details for his claim, there is nothing of subtance to argue against the notion of hallucination. If we rely upon the depictions of Paul's experience given in Acts, they certainly seem to describe a subjective experience that was not perceived the same by others present at the time. This is entirely consistent with hallucinations of the individual and mass variety.

On the contrary, if the stories cannot be established as historically reliable, we have no details describing what the disciples experienced.

Thanks.

That is not apparent from simply reading the text. Where do you see an indication this passage was intended to also refer to the Messiah?

spin

Are you saying then that the Hebrew doesn't contain the second part of this supposed double prophecy? That it came about through the translation into Greek using the slightly questionable term parQenos for (lmh of the Hebrew? Are you saying that a bad translation equals prophecy?

Actually parQenos, as I indicated, isn't really wrong, for it can simply mean "young woman", which is the content of (lmh. I doubt that it would indicate more in the Greek phrase supplied in the LXX version of Isa 7:14, attached as it is with the notion of already being with child.

Which word for "young woman", being of the "conceivable" age, could they have used?? And what makes you think that the "rabbis" were particularly versed in both the languages?

What makes you think that the second part of the "double fulfillment" was not vaticinium ex eventu or at least after the time reputed for the event?


spin

Chili

Parthenos may be the conceivability of 'this' age to make Almah the mother of parthenos. Both must conceive and bear a child with Jesus being of 'this' age and John being the exposure of the 'previous age' to which the present age can be added in the New World. Both Mary and Christ are agents needed to redeem the old world but only at the will of the Supreme ruler.

This would make Elizabeth = Almah, Mary = Parthenos with Jesus being the parthenocarpic fruit of Elizabeth's womb via Mary poised to return to John of Elizabeth's womb and become the new Messiah.

SLD

OK, after lurking a while on this one, I finally voted yes. Not that any post changed my mind on the issue mind you. I've always felt that there was a grain of historical accuracy in the gospels. I think that there are a few facts which point towards an actual figure behind the legend: one is the disagreement between Paul and the Jerusalem church. Why have that in there if there was no historical Jesus? It makes no sense. However, if we postulate that there was a historical Jesus, and that Paul had contact with his followers after his death, than it makes more sense that Paul, a Greek, made up most of the mythology around a kernel of an historical character and then the original followers got pissed at him for turning Jesus into some Greek mystery cult type God.

As to who the actual historical Jesus was, I would venture to guess that he was just another in a long line of Judeans who revolted against Roman rule, only to be crushed by them. I really can't stand to see people turn him into some sort of modern day social liberal. I doubt he would approve of the United States, but insist it become a Judean Theocracy - which is what he was trying to install in place of Roman Rule.

Just my 2 cents! Back to real work!
SLD

norma98026

Hello Diogenes,

When I said that Isaiah wrote about the divinity of the promised ruler who was to come, I was referring to the 9th chapter of Isaiah, where it says:

For a child has been born to us,
A son has been given us.
And authority has settled on his shoulders.
He has been named
"The Mighty God is planning grace;
The Eternal Father, a peacable ruler"*

(* from verse 5 of Isaiah 9 in The Jewish Bible, JPS 1985)

Who do you think that scripture refers to?

Norma






"

Mageth

That would depend on who you talked to, wouldn't it?

Christians would say Jesus the Christ, no doubt.

At least some Jews, however, would say something else, something quite different, about who those verses are referring to. See here:

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq070.html

It seems they would say it refers to Hezekiah. And, like you say, the verse is found in the Jewish Bible.