FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-02-2007, 02:43 PM   #41
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bli Bli
Posts: 3,135
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Robots View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by judge View Post
Does you source deal with the questions I have put to Spin?
If so in what way?
You asked:

Quote:
What jewish source can you possibly use to show there was one jewish understanding of messiah?
I'm not sure why you limit the discussion to Jewish sources. Brunner cites Tacitus and Suetonius:
In most [Jews] there was a firm persuasion, that in the ancient records of their priests was contained a prediction of how at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers, coming from Judaea, were to acquire universal empire.—Tacitus, Hist. 5,13.

There had spread over all the Orient an old and established belief, that it was fated at that time for men coming from Judaea to rule the world.—Suetonius, Vesp., 4.
Thank you for that.

I still find the HB itself to contain a less certain message when taken in it's entirety. There does seem to be this message of universal rule.
However additionally there seems to be a message that the jews themselves would be "usurped" by the gentiles.
Paul uses these arguments and scriptures in Romans, as I linked to above.

How else might one see these verses?
And if there is no alternative, then how can one say that christians misinterpreted these things?
judge is offline  
Old 10-02-2007, 02:45 PM   #42
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,679
Default

As for Jewish sources on the kingly nature of the Messiah, Brunner cites the Talmud and the book of Maccabees:
Behold, thy king cometh unto thee … lowly, and riding upon an ass! — if they are meritorious, [he will come] with the clouds of heaven; if not, lowly and riding upon an ass. –Sanhedrin, folio 98a.

David for being merciful possessed the throne of an everlasting kingdom.—1Maccabees 2:57.
No Robots is offline  
Old 10-02-2007, 02:54 PM   #43
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Robots View Post
Spin is correct.
Even the merely outward story of Christ can seem extremely strange, by no means to be explained by reference to Messianic scriptures. The idea that Christ's destiny can even be seen to conform to these Messianic texts is nothing but a hidebound lack of thought! (And how the New Testament is disparaged if its entire originality is already to be found in the Old!) If we were really to construct the destiny of the Messiah from the Messianic passages, it would look quite different from that of our Christ; for the latter involves the crucifixion, for instance, which cannot genuinely be found in them [If we were to take this seriously, we would have to make Plato a prophet of Christ. For Plato actually speaks of one who, without having done any wrong himself, gives the appearance of most manifest unrighteousness, in order to prove himself totally righteous. He is then put in chains, scourged, tortured, blinded, and, having endured all sufferings, is finally crucified (spitted): τελευαων παντα κακα παθον ανασχινδυλευθησεται Gorg. 58,13ff.; De Rep. 11, 65,66.]—for the Jews were expecting a triumphant Messiah, the very opposite of a suffering Messiah. You only need to peep into the Gospels to see that Christ's destiny is quite different from the Messianic expectations which are linked to him in these same Gospels, and by his own disciples! The entire Gospel of Matthew has the one and only purpose of showing how Christ's life conforms to the prophecies of Scripture; how different, therefore, how magnificent and wondrous is the life of Christ as presented to us by Matthew's Gospel! The evangelists believe in Christ the Messiah; no more than the critics do they notice that their Messiah Christ speaks about his Messiaship and his divine Sonship in a way totally unlike their Jewish national Messiah—which he never became. But what do the evangelists and the critics notice! The whole Jewish people observed that Jesus was not their Messiah, as do all Jews right up to the present day; the only ones who still fail to observe it are the critics. The critics will even find it foretold in the Messianic passages that the Messiah was predestined to have the kind of disciples who notice nothing; in the end, because of the amazing reliance they place on these texts, they will even find themselves there, clearly portrayed and predicted: after two thousand years these critics were predestined to come with their particular understanding, their particular inability to notice anything.—Brunner, Our Christ.

But two of the questions of the OP are:

Can we clearly define the terms Christ and Messiah?
How are they used in the new testament and later writings?

I think someone already referred to gJohn 1.41, ".....We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ..........'
And gJohn 4.25, '..........I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ........"

Also, Eusebius, in The History of the Church book 1.6.11.. "For the Scripture in the book of Daniel having expressly mentioned a certain number of weeks until the coming of Christ........ And this, it has been clearly shown, was fulfilled at the time of the birth of our Saviour Jesus Christ...."

Daniel 9.25, "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks........"

Daniel 9.26, "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off...."

It would appear that 'Christ' and 'Messiah' are used in the same context in the NT and later writings of the Church fathers.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 10-02-2007, 03:07 PM   #44
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by judge View Post
How else might one see these verses?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
It would appear that 'Christ' and 'Messiah' are used in the same context in the NT and later writings of the Church fathers.
The Christian insight is that Christ's dominion is spiritual: It is over the spiritual Israel, i.e. over those who look to Christ as their spiritual master. This is an inversion of the Jewish messiah, a worldly king.

Of course, Christian religionists are constantly degrading this spiritual insight into a parody of the Jewish worldly messiah, making Christ into a legislator, judge and prison guard.
No Robots is offline  
Old 10-02-2007, 04:27 PM   #45
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Well, why did you bother to say the apparently loose comments in your first place? You have tried to change horse in midstream and were caught. Now it seems you are merely performing extricating manoeuvres.
I made my comments in the first place in order to address points being made here that were irrelvant to the original post. I have no idea what "change" you think I engaged in.
Why you made the comments doesn't change the fact that you did make them. A brief analysis I gave of them shows that their content was wanting. You went on to say that that analysis was irrelevant because "Christ, to the Christians meant Messiah--the one long expected." This in all its apparent contentlessness was aimed at nullifying your previous analysed comments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Quote:
By saying that "Christ... meant messiah", you merely avoid saying what either of them meant in the 1st century. By saying that "Christ... meant messiah" to christians doesn't help you understand what the term meant. When you say "the one long expected", what exactly was this "one", if you had to describe it rather than simply put some gobbledigook word to it?

If you understood what the Jewish messiah was, you'd know that Jesus wasn't the "long expected" messiah.
You don't get my intent here.
It's not for me to get your "intent". It's for you to be clear in your exposition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
The question I'm focuesed on isn't whether Jesus was the "long expected" messiah or not. It is whether the writers that referred to Jesus as "Christ" did so because they believed he was the "long expected" Messiah. You are hung up on the meaning of Christ so much that you are missing my main point: Jesus was not just some heavenly god to them inspired by Plato's writings. He was the Messiah to them. That's why they called him "the Christ".

Messiah was the Savior foretold by the prophets.
"Savior" is just an English version of a term originally from Latin which is used for the Greek soter. This is a different concept from "messiah".

The Hebrew texts which deal with the messiah indicate that he is a man, either priest or more frequently king. Jesus was presented neither as a priest nor as a king. A "savior" could be either man or god himself and is thus less specific than "messiah".

What you probably should do is to identify those prophecies which actually deal with the messiah, not prophecy or savior, but messiah. Then we can really see how much your claim represents the texts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Now if you want to argue about what the Jewish conception of the Messiah was in the 1st century, go ahead, but I would consider that to be a tangential point to why Jesus was called "Christ".
So calling something "christ" is sufficient to make the referent what one calls it. Interesting linguistic theory.

At the same time you certainly reticent in coming forward with the notion of what exactly "christ" meant to your christians, given that we can know what it meant to those people in whose community the term and its significance was generated.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 10-02-2007, 05:07 PM   #46
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Daniel 9.25, "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks........"

Daniel 9.26, "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off...."
  1. poor translation.
    In both cases the mentioned messiah is in the indefinite, no "the"
  2. two different people
    They are said to be 62 weeks (of years) apart. The first is the high priest Jeshua and the second is the high priest Onias III. Onias was high priest until Antiochus III removed him from office soon after which the "troops of the prince" (Antiochus) came to destroy the city and the sanctuary.
  3. nothing to do with Jesus, despite christianizing interpretation.
    Digging into the history in Daniel shows what was being referred to: there are four "visions" which mainly tell of the events concerning Antiochus and Onias, hence nothing at all to do with Jesus.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 10-02-2007, 05:56 PM   #47
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bli Bli
Posts: 3,135
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
[*]nothing to do with Jesus, despite christianizing interpretation.
Digging into the history in Daniel shows what was being referred to: there are four "visions" which mainly tell of the events concerning Antiochus and Onias, hence nothing at all to do with Jesus.[/LIST]

spin
But, you are not presenting the "christian" interpretation from what I can see.
1.The earliest christian interpretations are found in the NT.

2.The earliest christian interpretations of how prophecy "works" are different to the strawman you are presenting.

Here is an early christian interpretation of "prophecy".

Quote:
13When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him." 14So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son.
This verse in Hosea has nothing to do with Jesus being physically in Egypt.

Does the fact that this prophecy had nothing to do with Jesus matter?

It might matter to a fundamentalist who wants some kind of literal connection, but the author of Matthew didn't use it this way.
IOW you are not speaking to the "christian" interpretation, you are reacting against a later fundamentalist interpretation.

But, why, when we examine thise issues should we make a later fundamentalist conception the starting point?
judge is offline  
Old 10-02-2007, 07:10 PM   #48
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
The Hebrew texts which deal with the messiah indicate that he is a man, either priest or more frequently king. Jesus was presented neither as a priest nor as a king. A "savior" could be either man or god himself and is thus less specific than "messiah".

What you probably should do is to identify those prophecies which actually deal with the messiah, not prophecy or savior, but messiah. Then we can really see how much your claim represents the texts.
What claim?

Let's cut to the chase Spin.. All of the gospel writers and Paul clearly thought Jesus had been the Messiah foretold by the prophets. Do you agree or not? I don't care about any other issue of discussion on this thread.

ted
TedM is offline  
Old 10-02-2007, 10:09 PM   #49
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default

Odd, I specifically remember Jesus being represented as both a king and priest. What the hell was the whole "Son of David" about? Or "priest in the order of Melchizedek"?
Chris Weimer is offline  
Old 10-03-2007, 01:16 AM   #50
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
The Hebrew texts which deal with the messiah indicate that he is a man, either priest or more frequently king. Jesus was presented neither as a priest nor as a king. A "savior" could be either man or god himself and is thus less specific than "messiah".

What you probably should do is to identify those prophecies which actually deal with the messiah, not prophecy or savior, but messiah. Then we can really see how much your claim represents the texts.
What claim?
That christian biblical literature presents Jesus as the messiah.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
Let's cut to the chase Spin.. All of the gospel writers and Paul clearly thought Jesus had been the Messiah foretold by the prophets. Do you agree or not? I don't care about any other issue of discussion on this thread.
So you'll agree, given your reticence on the subject, that Jesus had nothing at all to do with the (Jewish) notion of the messiah. Yet another indicator that the Jesus story came from a non-Jewish background (and was shoehorned into "messiahship" with a few trappings like the triumphal entry story).

What the gospel writers really thought is hard to divine given the contradictory nature of the evidence, so I'm impressed that you can know what they thought in this respect. Perhaps you'd like to present the messianic traits that show that they had a clear idea of what a messiah was.

It is certainly clear that Jesus was presented not as a messiah or priest, but as a wise teacher in the gospels until we get to the passion narrative and then as an anti-messianic sacrificial victim.

As James T. Kirk was told so often, "He's dead, Jim."


spin
spin is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:47 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.