spin

You think that you answered the first, by ye olde internet link trick, but you certainly didn't answer the second.

I'm a book person. I tend to trust them more than the internet because, for example, there is a certain known scholarship behind them, a scholarship which is up for questioning of course, but with internet there is a leveling of the playing field: anyone can put up crud and others can happily quote it as meaningful.

If you want me to interact with the notion of "sage messiah", you'll need to introduce it here coherently with suitable examples and rationale, not by the surreptitious use of internet link to do the work for you. Livius is not here to respond to criticism, but you are, so make your case.

But you are not going to retract it either, are you?

Tear what apart? You've presented nothing on the issue. I doubt that you've read the material closely enough to see how flimsy it is. Look for the sage in the citations from the Psalms of Solomon or from 4Q521, both cited in your internet link.

If you tried to answer my second question, you wouldn't need to ask, but you didn't try.

Wot?

Cheese, yourself. I'd like a little full-baked for once.


spin

TedM

Close enough. 16 (per the link I gave) within 40 years of Jesus' alleged ministry says all...

TedM

They both talked about one who led by words/teachings/wisdom. Is that not a sage?
From that article:

Which of these claims do you dispute?

You dispute that?

Sorry, can't oblige. Your expectations are too high.

spin

It's too bad you didn't look at the source text, as you were asked..

Apollonius would be considered a sage. But that has nothing to do with the ideal king presented in the psalm. Mentioning Apollonius of Tyana here seems to be gratuitous.


All I wanted from you was the made your own sense by arguing your own case for your claim. I don't think your authority has much of an idea about the subject.

This king will purge Jerusalem; the nations will bear his yoke; and he will judge the peoples. -- But that wasn't included in the passage used by Livius, so one doesn't get what the passage is really about. Go and read the psalm. It talks about the unrighteous kings this figure will destroy.

You must look at how someone gets to their conclusions before you use them. The position you depend on seems wholly unjustified and lacking in appreciation of the text being cited.

Here's the preceding section in Ps. of Sol. 17 (note, two differing number systems):

23 (21) Behold, O Lord, and raise up unto them their king, the son of David, At the time in the which Thou seest, O God, that he may reign over Israel Thy servant 24 (22) And gird him with strength, that he may shatter unrighteous rulers, 25 And that he may purge Jerusalem from nations that trample (her) down to destruction. (23) Wisely, righteously 26 he shall thrust out sinners from (the) inheritance, He shall destroy the pride of the sinner as a potter's vessel. (24) With a rod of iron he shall break in pieces all their substance, 21 He shall destroy the godless nations with the word of his mouth; (25) At his rebuke nations shall flee before him, And he shall reprove sinners for the thoughts of their heart.

28 (26) And he shall gather together a holy people, whom he shall lead in righteousness, And he shall judge the tribes of the people that has been sanctified by the Lord his God. 29 (21) And he shall not suffer unrighteousness to lodge any more in their midst, Nor shall there dwell with them any man that knoweth wickedness, 30 For he shall know them, that they are all sons of their God. (28) And he shaIl divide them according to their tribes upon the land, 31 And neither sojourner nor alien shall sojourn with them any more. (29) He shall judge peoples and nations in the wisdom of his righteousness. Selah. 32 (30) And he shall have the heathen nations to serve him under his yoke; And he shall glorify the Lord in a place to be seen of (?) all the earth; 33 And he shall purge Jerusalem, making it holy as of old: 34 (31) So that nations shall come from the ends of the earth to see his glory, Bringing as gifts her sons who had fainted, 35 And to see the glory of the Lord, wherewith God hath glorified her.

(32) And he (shall be) a righteous king, taught of God, over them, 36 And there shall be no unrighteousness in his days in their midst, For all shall be holy and their king the anointed of the Lord.

spin

aa5874

What?? You must mean 40 years AFTER the time of Jesus. Something that supposedly happen 40 years after the reign of Tiberius is not considered to have occurred in the time of Tiberius or Pilate the governor.

You seem to be in denial. You simply cannot re-write gMark because you don't like the story.

Doug Shaver

No, but it requires a state of mind receptive to the notion that the person in question was no longer dead.

OK, but I suspect that tells us more about your thinking than about any early Christian's thinking.

Even assuming all of that, it don't see why it would have predisposed anyone to believe that he had returned to life. A belief that his death was a sacrifice for others does not entail a belief that the death was only temporary.

You're supposed to be explaining how the disciples acquired that belief, not presupposing that they had it from the get-go.

We have no good reason to suppose that he actually said anything of the sort. If you're going to appeal to the gospels, then you can't just ignore how those same gospels make it obvious that the disciples seem not to have believed him when he said it. According to the stories in which he predicted his resurrection, nobody believed those predictions.

Neither can they account for his almost immediate deification.

TedM

TOPIC: Doug wrote: Since this was in response to Paul's mention of resurrection which does not require a vision, my response is in response to the question "what would have set them up, psychologically, to believe in his resurrection, if not his having been an extremely charismatic person during his lifetime?"


All that is required for that is the desire for the person to not be dead.

Might your requirement that the person be 'extremely charismatic' tell us more about YOUR thinking than any early Christian's thinking? Again: All that is required is that a desire for the person to not be dead.

You are missing a critical idea in the Jewish theology: Death is the result of sins. If Jesus' sacrifice is for the forgiveness of sins, then one possible consequence is that death is OVERCOME by the sacrifice. Of course, it would only make sense for Jesus to be the first one to be raised. In fact, no vision is even required--just a belief. No missing body required, no empty tomb required, no vision required. Just a belief. So, hope and/or belief.


Why are you now requiring something more than a 'charismatic personality'? I don't have to deal with the gospels here. I'm giving you answers to your rather narrow restriction of Jesus having to have had a charismatic personality.

IF they already wondered if he was the Messiah, it is enough. You seem to greatly underestimate the imaginations of people who are desperate to believe what they want to believe even on the flimsiest of evidence. Kind of ironic, isn't it?

TedM

Spin, you may have some good points. I don't feel like looking into it further. The fact that Jews DID embrace a sage-like Messiah (Jesus) is evidence enough for what I was trying to get across to Doug. The references to the expected Messiah that do exist provide enough evidence for more than JUST a king-type Messiah (ie Wonderful, Counselor, ransom for many, etc..) that this is not an unrealistic expectation as you seem to be suggesting.

You never did answer my question about whether you think the Jews of the time were desperate at the time of Christ for a Messiah or not.

show_no_mercy

I'm not sure that "Jews" accepted Jesus as a sage-like Messiah.

The earliest Christian writings (earlier than Mark in the traditional dating scheme) don't depict any sort of sage character when describing Jesus. Jesus, according to Paul at least, was not an Interpreter of the Law-type messiah as one found at Qumran. Paul's Jesus actually abolished the law.

Mark seems to be the first time that we're presented with a "sage" like messiah. But even in Mark we have Jesus abolishing some parts of the Law (like kosher foods and the right to divorce). Now whether Mark was Jewish or not is another question, but I have my doubts - especially since he gets a few things regarding Jewish customs wrong.

spin

Jesus is neither a king messiah nor a so-called "sage messiah". And you have no evidence--that anyone here would call evidence--for the claim that "Jews DID embrace a sage-like Messiah". You are assuming your conclusion once again.

I didn't say that the Jewish messiah was unrealistic. I did point out that the messiah was a king (and Jesus certainly wasn't a king in any sense).

Now let me say the Jewish messiah was unrealistic in the world in which they lived, a Jewish king that would arise who would conquer all the nations and judge them. Judea simply didn't have the material resources to support such conquest.

The question as you ask it is nonsensical. Were the Jews of the time any different from any of the suppressed populations of the Roman empire? What are the requirements for being "desperate .. for a Messiah"?


spin