GakuseiDon

Doug Shaver asked an interesting question on another thread, one that I've wondered about also:
Using information from the earliest letters in the NT only (so excluding the Gospels and Acts), do we know why Jesus was regarded as the Messiah? What did he say and do?

Paul, from Phil 2:3, writes:

"3 Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself.
4 Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.
5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him...

So, for Paul at least, Jesus was exalted because he humbled himself. But why would that make him a Messiah? What explanation can be found in the NT epistles for Jesus being the Messiah? (Note: I'd like to concentrate on what the texts say, rather than in speculation supporting apologetic or mythicist opinions)

In Hebrews, the theme seems to be that Jesus has purged us of our sins. (Heb 1:3), after offering up "prayers and supplications" (Heb 5:7), to become "perfected" (Heb 5:9), and offered as a perfect sacrifice to usher in a new covenant. But why would that make Jesus the Messiah for the Hebrew author?

Peter 1 says that we are redeemed by "precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1:19), but why would that make Jesus the Messiah for that author?

I understand that it comes down to what the expectations for what the Messiah was supposed to be in those times, and IIRC there were thought to be two types: a warrior-type and a priestly type. But even if Jesus was of the priestly type, what did Jesus say or do that made him a Messiah in those authors' eyes? I'll take it for granted that aa will weigh in with his usual "Son of a Ghost" shtick, but for everyone else, I'd be interested if they know of any passages that helps to understand exactly why "obedience until death" and "unblemished blood", etc, equaled "Messiah".

mountainman

Hey GD,

You ask "I'd be interested if they know of any passages that helps to understand exactly why "obedience until death" and "unblemished blood", etc, equaled "Messiah"."?

You describe the documents you are willing to consider in this manner: "Using information from the earliest letters in the NT only (so excluding the Gospels and Acts), do we know why Jesus was regarded as the Messiah?"

Are you including or excluding passages from the new testament non canonical literature? If so, why was Jesus Thomas' slave master? Or is this a "let's talk the letters of Paul" thread?


Best wishes


Pete

aa5874

But isn't there some irony here? The author of the epistle claim Jesus humbled himself, but look at the sixth verse, " [Jesus] who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to EQUAL with God...

If Jesus is in the form of God and is equal to God, can he then be humble to himself?

The passage makes very little sense.

And then, look at verse 8-9, "He humbled himself....even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted him."

But back to verse 6,"[Jesus]who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God."

How God can exalt an entity in the form of God who considers himself equal to God?

The passage makes very little sense.



It should be clear that the author has no idea or clue what he is talking about.

The author appears to want his/her readers to think he/she understands the spiritual or supernatural world, but it can clearly be seen he is confused.

Humans actually know nothing about the unknown, [ the supernatural].

There is really nothing in the passages you quoted that can lead anyone to understand why the God/man Jesus could be regarded as the Messiah as written in Daniel.

And further the author of 1 Peter is unknown, written after Eusebius claimed Peter was already dead, it is therefore virtually useless to consider 1 Peter as a credible source for making any determination about Jesus, whose body cannot be accounted for unless it is accepted that he ROSE from the dead.

TedM

I'm a big fan of the theory that he was some kind of religous figure--perhaps originally a devotee of John the Baptist, that was crucified in Jerusalem during passover. Paul calls him a "paschal lamb", which was sacrificed for the sins of the people. If his name was "Jesus" meaning "God will save" and he was in the line of David, there are IMO enough elements to cause some to believe he had been the Messiah. With such belief, it is easy to see how a resurrection belief would have followed.

It is possible that Jesus orchestrated his own death during Passover also.

ted

the_cave

You're reading Paul in an overly logical sense. Equality here is not logical equivalence, but just equivalence of power. For Paul, Jesus was (for whatever reason) equal in power to the Jewish God.

The sense I get is that Paul thought Jesus became God's equal after his resurrection, but not before.

On the contrary, I think this is all a gloss on the messianic passages in the OT, particulary Psalms and Isaiah. That's where Paul is getting his concept of Christ from.

storytime

What explanation would make Jesus the Messiah for the author?

"Ye say that I am", was the response that Jesus gave the high priests when questioned, "are you the Christ?" Maybe Jesus saw the gullability of some in believing himself to be Messiah, the one to come. How they read the scriptures and interpreted meaning to them, I would guess to be the same as evangelicals interpret the scriptures to fit their own desires today. The Jews wanted a hero to fight for them, kill fo them, give them self esteem, dominance. In their thoughts, a glorified kingdom. This is the same as evangelicals think today.

So more than a few Jews set Jesus on a pedestal and gave him notoriety as "without spot or blemish", "obedient unto death." As a priest he probably would have followed all the guidelines for his position as a priest. And he taught his disciples things he understood from his learning, and those things different than what the Pharisees taught their disciples.

However, the author's thinking to include the part about Jesus not thinking it robbery to make himself equal to God should have been a warning signal that a false notion had been incorporated into the theme, as no man could be equal to God.

"Ye say that I am" seems to conclude the matter in what people believed/believe even though their belief was incorrect.

What do you think?

Clivedurdle

Because he was a perfect messiah - a god pretending to be human?:devil1:

aa5874

You mean that there were two equally powerful Gods, that is, they both can do the same things both spiritually and phsysically, the Son is equal but seperate to the Father, and yet they are one.

You must admit that this is confusion, there is no way to confirm your view of the author of the Epistle.


Well, how are we know if what you think is true?

Now, I think the author of the Epistle knew he was writing about events that he knew nothing of. I don't think he/she knew of the resurrection.

I don't know what the author actually BELIEVED.

Elijah

From a non ideologically driven POV (going by the narrative) I think Paul believed that Jesus was the Messiah because of the way Stephen died. Just like I think the immediate followers believed in Jesus because of the way he sacrificed himself.

Paul was a serious religious person and I think that Stephen was the first to one-up him in conviction by his imitation of Jesus’ willingness to die. Killing heretics is one thing but killing someone who is a true believer is another.

Going peacefully to death for an idea gives an idea validity now and especially then because they weren’t familiar with the concept of martyrdom. They didn’t believe that a simple willing sacrifice could be the cause of the conviction so they thought the appearance after his death is what solidified the first Christians’ conviction, when in reality people are sheep and just imitate what they see.

GakuseiDon

I think it might be as simple as that: Jesus claimed he was the Messiah, and people started to find reasons for believing it. Yet the early epistles, for all their quotes from the OT, don't appear to try to prove Jesus is the Messiah. They are trying to back it up, certainly, but no-one makes a case that it is so. At least, that's how it seems to me. Given the occasional nature of the early epistles, it probably isn't so surprising, but I was wondering if I'd missed something.