Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-15-2012, 09:01 PM

None of those other figures are Messianic, though, and the Jewish Messiah was never (and still is not) a redeemer of sins, but a conquering King. How do you believe they decided the Messiah was a redeemer of sins?

EarlDoherty · 04-15-2012, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

None of those other figures are Messianic, though, and the Jewish Messiah was never (and still is not) a redeemer of sins, but a conquering King. How do you believe they decided the Messiah was a redeemer of sins?

Do you think no one, no group, in the history of ideas was ever an innovator? Whether scripture led some thinkers to first get the idea of a sacrificed redeemer for sins, or whether the influence of the Hellenistic savior god cults led some to search for scriptural indicators of a Jewish dying and rising savior god, can hardly be determined now.

Stop thinking inside the box.

Earl Doherty

aa5874 · 04-15-2012, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

I would say you've got it the wrong way around. They weren't looking in scripture for a crucifixion (your assumption being that they were prompted to do so by an historical crucifixion). Rather, the earliest cultic Christians imagined that they had discovered a sacrificed divine Messiah in scripture, one who was cursed in order to redeem, and the motif of 'hanging on a tree' which was a prominent element in that scripture was seen as fitting and adopted by some as the (revealed) method of execution. (We find the image of hanging on a tree in, for example, 1 Peter and the Ascension of Isaiah.) Others may have interpreted different elements of scripture (phrases in Isaiah 53 and Zechariah 12, for example) as indicating that this heavenly redeemer underwent crucifixion, and thus Paul used the image of a cross, as did the epistle to the Hebrews.

Early Christian terminology was fluid because it was all based on scripture, not on an historical event on earth. No sectarian movement is monolithic in its thinking and expression, especially in the initial stages.

Earl Doherty

Please, you have no early christian source that make any claim that Jesus of the NT was NOT crucified on earth.

The Pauline writer is NOT even named as a witness of the crucifixion of NT Jesus so what you say is not really logical.

In the Gospels it is claimed Joseph ASKED for the crucified body of Jesus which he buried and it is also claimed women went to the burial site.

Now, if you want to claim Jesus was NOT crucified on earth YOU must supply the source for such a claim.

Invisible and hypothetical sources are NOT evidence. They are mere speculation.

The crucifixion story of Jesus was believed to have been caused by the Jews on earth--not in outer space.

This is an apologetic source attributed to Tertullian

An Answer to the Jews

Quote:

Since, therefore, the Jews were predicted as destined to suffer these calamities on Christ's account, and we find that they have suffered them, and see them sent into dispersion and abiding in it, manifest it is that it is on Christ's account that these things have befallen the Jews, the sense of the Scriptures harmonizing with the issue of events and of the order of the times....

It does not make much sense that Jesus was NOT believed to have been crucified on earth and yet the Jewish Temple was destroyed, Jerusalem was made desolate and thousands of Jews were massacred.

A Sub-lunar crucifixion explains and resolves Nothing.

Steve Weiss · 04-15-2012, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmmaZunz

What do you think was the significance of Jesus/Christ being described as hanged/crucified/killed/suffering on a tree?

Did it just mean the cross? Or was there originally a hanging-on-the-tree story that was replaced with the cross? What do you think?

Personally I am tempted to think it was just a poetical way of describing the cross, maybe linked to the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden.

Here are some examples of Jesus on the tree from early Xian texts:

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”" (Gal. 3:13 - referencing Deut. 21:23)

"He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness." (1 Peter 2:24; underlined text also in Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians)

"But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree...”" (Acts 5:29-30)

"through him the going forth of the Beloved from the seventh heaven had been made known, and His transformation and His descent and the likeness into which He should be transformed (that is) the likeness of man, and the persecution wherewith he should be persecuted, and the torturers wherewith the children of Israel should torture Him, and the coming of His twelve disciples, and the teaching, and that He should before the sabbath be crucified upon the tree, and should be crucified together with wicked men, and that He should be buried in the sepulchre" (Ascension of Isaiah 3:13 - definite interpolation 3:13-4:22)

"And the god of that world will stretch forth his hand against the Son, and he/they will crucify Him on a tree, and will slay Him not knowing who He is." (Ibid. 9:14 - probably original, not interpolation)

"In Jerusalem indeed I saw Him being crucified on a tree" (Ibid. 11:20 - most probably interpolation)

"He himself willed thus to suffer, for it was necessary that He should suffer on the tree." (Epistle of Barnabas chap. V)

"men can be saved in no other way from the old wound of the serpent than by believing in Him who, in the likeness of sinful flesh, is lifted up from the earth upon the tree of martyrdom, and draws all things to Himself, and vivifies the dead." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:II)

"For it was all the more shameful if he, who brought on himself the Creator's curse by hanging on a tree, only pretended the assumption of a bodily substance." (Tertullian, Five Books Against Marcion I:XI)

Of course, Christians know about the tree story, but they are dishonest about it and prefer a cross. Otherwise they should be wearing tree trinkets around their necks, and how does one know that one is choosing the right kind of tree? People of the tree doesn't have the same marketing ring as people of the cross, does it? Getting nailed to a cross is much more dramatic than getting nailed to some kind of tree. Didn't the Roman Emperor Nero burn people on trees?

la70119 · 04-16-2012, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

The other unambiguous word used for a growing tree is "ilan ".
In any case, the JPS translator would have to demonstrate WHY the use of the term TALA in this case as "impale" is not used elsewhere in the Tanakh. It makes absolutely no sense to read into a straightforward word something that is not there.

What makes you think an 'etz is strictly a growing tree? I've already shown you with Strong's, an 'etz could mean anything wooden. Jastrow's Dictionary of the Targumin defines it variously as tree, pole; wood. And the examples show it anything made out of wood. Much like the Greek xulon and the Latin lignum.

Jastrow's Dictionary, page 1101, entry עֵץ ('etz)

Duvduv · 04-16-2012, 02:44 AM

I never said that it was only a growing tree as an ilan. It can also mean a piece of wood. All traditional commentaries explain it as I described. In fact the device constructed to hang mordechai by Haman in the Book of Esther was the same.

semiopen · 04-16-2012, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Of course, Christians know about the tree story, but they are dishonest about it and prefer a cross. Otherwise they should be wearing tree trinkets around their necks, and how does one know that one is choosing the right kind of tree? People of the tree doesn't have the same marketing ring as people of the cross, does it? Getting nailed to a cross is much more dramatic than getting nailed to some kind of tree. Didn't the Roman Emperor Nero burn people on trees?

Amusing that there is a faction that persists with their misreading of eytz and call it tree when it has been pretty convincingly demonstrated here that the clear meaning is that it is some kind of wood structure.

This is consistent with cross.

Maybe this is like female contraceptives, aren't we past this?

The only reason to think that the bible says tree is because we are afraid that the simple minded gentiles will somehow think that Jews killed Yoshke; which, who knows, might even be true.

la70119 · 04-16-2012, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I never said that it was only a growing tree as an ilan. It can also mean a piece of wood. All traditional commentaries explain it as I described. In fact the device constructed to hang mordechai by Haman in the Book of Esther was the same.

The traditional commentaries from the medieval times right up to the 20th Century can be flat-out wrong.

Jastrow's has "hang, suspend" for talah. Impaling qualifies. If you read Chapman's book, you'll find that tzlb was frequently substituted in later commentaries (Targumin, Mishnah, Talmud) and tzlb is shown in Jastrow's dictionary as "hang, impale."

Again, the 1985 JPS tanakh translates hang upon a tree as impale upon a stake in most, almost all, instances of human bodily suspension. http://www.taggedtanakh.org/

Quote:

Esther 7.

8 When the king returned from the palace garden to the banquet room, Haman was lying prostrate on the couch on which Esther reclined. “Does he mean,” cried the king, “to ravish the queen in my own palace?” No sooner did these words leave the king’s lips than Haman’s face was covered. 9 Then Harbonah, one of the eunuchs in attendance on the king, said, “What is more, a stake is standing at Haman’s house, fifty cubits high, which Haman made for Mordecai—the man whose words saved the king.” “Impale him on it!” the king ordered. 10 So they impaled Haman on the stake which he had put up for Mordecai, and the king’s fury abated.

http://www.taggedtanakh.org/Chapter/...glish-Esther-7

Quote:

Esther 9.

6 In the fortress Shushan the Jews killed a total of five hundred men. 7They also killed Parshandatha, Dalphon, Aspatha, 8Poratha, Adalia, Aridatha, 9Parmashta, Arisai, Aridai, and Vaizatha, 10 the ten sons of Haman son of Hammedatha, the foe of the Jews. But they did not lay hands on the spoil. 11 When the number of those slain in the fortress Shushan was reported on that same day to the king, 12 the king said to Queen Esther, “In the fortress Shushan alone the Jews have killed a total of five hundred men, as well as the ten sons of Haman. What then must they have done in the provinces of the realm! What is your wish now? It shall be granted you. And what else is your request? It shall be fulfilled.” 13 “If it please Your Majesty,” Esther replied, “let the Jews in Shushan be permitted to act tomorrow also as they did today; and let Haman’s ten sons be impaled on the stake.” 14 The king ordered that this should be done, and the decree was proclaimed in Shushan. Haman’s ten sons were impaled: 15 and the Jews in Shushan mustered again on the fourteenth day of Adar and slew three hundred men in Shushan. But they did not lay hands on the spoil.

http://www.taggedtanakh.org/Chapter/...glish-Esther-9

Steve Weiss · 04-16-2012, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by semiopen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Of course, Christians know about the tree story, but they are dishonest about it and prefer a cross. Otherwise they should be wearing tree trinkets around their necks, and how does one know that one is choosing the right kind of tree? People of the tree doesn't have the same marketing ring as people of the cross, does it? Getting nailed to a cross is much more dramatic than getting nailed to some kind of tree. Didn't the Roman Emperor Nero burn people on trees?

Amusing that there is a faction that persists with their misreading of eytz and call it tree when it has been pretty convincingly demonstrated here that the clear meaning is that it is some kind of wood structure.

This is consistent with cross.

Maybe this is like female contraceptives, aren't we past this?

The only reason to think that the bible says tree is because we are afraid that the simple minded gentiles will somehow think that Jews killed Yoshke; which, who knows, might even be true.

I've been in fundamentalist churches where a fundi from the UK on video admits that the words in the bible say tree, but he verbally says cross where the quote in the video on the screen clearly says tree. No one commented about this obvious ploy and deception, and I looked around and saw not one critical mind functioning.

The Jews would have had to kill a myth if they somehow obtained the power to kill the alleged miracle-worker Jesus. Christians will find proof of a Jesus when proof of Zeus, Hercules, and Neptune is discovered. Shame that many people are unable to distinguish fact from fiction.

la70119 · 04-16-2012, 08:32 AM

Now I don't know why the translation committee decided upon impale upon a stake for tlah 'al 'etz instead of hang upon a tree in the 1985 edition.

Either it has something to do with the definition of עַל ('al):

Jastrow's: m. height; (prepos.) upon, above; about.

Strong's: over, above, according to, after, as against, among, and, as, at,

NAS short definition: upon, above, over, etc.

Gesenius's: in, on, above, over, etc.

Or maybe it had something to do with the epigraphy.

But then again, they perhaps decided that they needed to translate it in a way that Jewish youth won't get the wrong idea -- crucify on a cross -- and convert to Christianity! :huh:

04-16-2012, 08:32 AM	#50
la70119 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: The only Carribean port not in the Tropics. Posts: 359	Now I don't know why the translation committee decided upon impale upon a stake for tlah 'al 'etz instead of hang upon a tree in the 1985 edition. Either it has something to do with the definition of עַל ('al): Jastrow's: m. height; (prepos.) upon, above; about. Strong's: over, above, according to, after, as against, among, and, as, at, NAS short definition: upon, above, over, etc. Gesenius's: in, on, above, over, etc. Or maybe it had something to do with the epigraphy. But then again, they perhaps decided that they needed to translate it in a way that Jewish youth won't get the wrong idea -- crucify on a cross -- and convert to Christianity! :huh:

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

04-15-2012, 09:01 PM	#41
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	None of those other figures are Messianic, though, and the Jewish Messiah was never (and still is not) a redeemer of sins, but a conquering King. How do you believe they decided the Messiah was a redeemer of sins?

04-16-2012, 02:44 AM	#46
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I never said that it was only a growing tree as an ilan. It can also mean a piece of wood. All traditional commentaries explain it as I described. In fact the device constructed to hang mordechai by Haman in the Book of Esther was the same.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.