Steven Carr

So 21st century Christian beliefs can only be studied by reading 21st century texts?

Which scriptures? The ones which Jesus in Luke 24 said prophesied that the Messiah would rise after 3 days?

Why would second Temple Jews not have thought that scriptures about a Messiah, were actually scriptures about a Messiah?


I think so too, so why did Jesus in Luke 24 say that there were such scriptures.

Did Jesus himself have to rely on hindsight?


Why? Jesus told the disciples time and time again that he would rise from the dead in the clearest possible fashion.

Why would the disciples not have that concept of a Messiah - the concept that Jesus explained to them , many, many times?

It is not beside the point. Jesus said they existed. Where are they? Surely Jesus , of all people, should know what God meant by the scriptures. If the reports of Jesus saying there are such scriptures are false (becuse Jesus would not make such a mistake) , then is Luke reporting the resurrection account accurately?

And if nobody in second-temple Judaism understood them in such a light, then perhaps Christians are wrong to understand them in such a light.

As for page references, I gave links to extracts from Wright's books.

Steven Carr

Jesus says something is written somewhere. Judge says there is corroboration. I ask where it is written. Judge complains..........

judge

What I am saying is this. You thinking like a religious fundamentalist looking for "proof texts".
You are ssuming Jesus was a fundamentalist and he pulled a verse from here and a verse from there, went through the meaning of the root in hebrew or aramaic, compared the samaritan tradition with the hebrew version used by the jerusalem jews.


You are on the wrong track here IMHO.

Layman

To understand how Christians understand their texts in the 21st century it is best to look at what they had to say about their beliefs and texts around that time period.

You've already referred to the most likely one. Some scholars think though, that the 3-day period was not meant to be specifically supported by scripture.

That's pretty irrelevant to Wright's point. The fact is that they did not. Unless you can actually do some research and find second-temple literature that shows otherwise.

Jesus is God. So he could have used foreseeing hindsight.

I don't know how many times Jesus tried to explain it to them. Deep rooted paradigms and preconceptions can be hard to displace.

It is beside the point as expressed in your initial attack on Wright. First you attack him for denying they exist. Then you attack him for saying they exist. Whether they existed is irrelevant so long as the second-temple Jews did not believe they existed. Christians obviously beleive they did exist.

Where have we strayed to? Have we moved beyond your ill-informed argument that all of the Jewish scriptures are second-temple texts to whether or not Jewish scripture really predicted Jesus as the Christ? Because the former has been resolved and I have little interest in debating you in the latter. Especially in such an ill-defined context.

Sure. But since the second temple was left in ashes around 2000 years ago, I'm not inclined to accept that their messianic expectations as the authoritative word on the subject.

That's right. I keep forgetting you refuse to read the books you are so critical of.

Steven Carr

Have you told Jesus in Luke 24 that?

Note that Layman has changed the subject from Wrights 'Would the Messiah rise from the dead?', to specifically the '3-day period'.

Do scholars think that when Jesus said it was written that the Messiah would rise from the dead, then there was a text implying that the Messiah would rise from the dead?

I forgot the old 'forseeing hindsight' powers of Jesus.

Let me see. The disciples dropped everything and followed Jesus. They were given the secret of the kingdom of God, given the power to work miracles, and had 3 years of Jesus explaining everything to them.

Yet they were baffled by Jesus telling them that the Messiah would rise again, even though their own Scriptures said so.


Correct. He says they exist, but refuses to say where. Just where is this scripture that Jesus in Luke 24 referred to.

He also says the disciples would not have believed the Messiah would rise from the dead, because second-Temple Jews did not do so. This rather overloooks the fact that the disciples had a source of information that most other Jews did not.

And where are they? And how come Wright , and other Christians, thinks Jews cannot read correctly the scriptures that they themselves wrote?


The former was a figment of your imagination, made up so you could have something to post......

And the second is impossible for you (or Judge) to defend, as can be seen by the thread.

'Ill-defined context'?? I gave the exact Bible reference where Jesus blew smoke.

Clearly the resurrection narratives are false, as Jesus would have known that there are no such passages.

judge

Not at all. I think it can be explained. I think you are just spoiling for a fight. I do not believe you are sincerely interested. I may be wrong, but to me you give the impression of (as I said ) spoiling for a fight.
If this is true then what is the point of me getting involved in a long winded time consuming argument.
How important is it?

Steven Carr

Do Jews or Christians know better what Jewis scriptures mean?

Are the resurrection accounts believable if they record the Son of God not knowing what his own Father is supposed to have inspired?

Luke 24 '45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day.....'


Where is this written? Where does it say the Messiah will rise from the dead?


What long winded time consuming argument is needed to give the Biblical reference where it says that the Messiah will rise from the dead?

judge

Um.... which jews. Sharon? Jews who lived in 500 B.C.? Jews who lived in 1000 B.C? Jews who converted to judaism this year.
Jewish people are ordinary people like you and me.

Quote:

Are the resurrection accounts believable if they record the Son of God not knowing what his own Father is supposed to have inspired? Luke 24 '45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day.....' Where is this written? Where does it say the Messiah will rise from the dead? What long winded time consuming argument is needed to give the Biblical reference where it says that the Messiah will rise from the dead?

Again , you are looking at this as if you are a 20th century fundamentalist Christian looking for "proof texts".

Are you a former fundamentalist?

Far more likely IMO is that Jesus would have explained to them why a man had to die, not point to predictive prophesies.

He "opened their minds". Do you see? He explained it to them.

Steven Carr

No.

Explained WHAT scriptures to them? Which book? Where was this written?

judge

Sorry missed this first time around.
Yes Paul is quite clear on several occaisions about the "mystery hid from other generations (or was it the foundation of the world)"
Peter says much the same thing, the gospels as well etc......

It seems quite possible that these scriptures would have been mentioned but the journey would have taken quite some time I imagine.

I expect that as they journeyed Christ vwould have explained what the heck it was all about. Why did a man have to die? Why did he have to rise again?

What did it mean for mankind? What was the mystery all about?

How was all this related to those strange writings that scholars argued about?