Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
10-02-2007, 02:43 PM | #41 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bli Bli
Posts: 3,135
|
Quote:
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? |
|||
10-02-2007, 02:45 PM | #42 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,679
|
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. |
10-02-2007, 02:54 PM | #43 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
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. |
|
10-02-2007, 03:07 PM | #44 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,679
|
Quote:
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. |
|
10-02-2007, 04:27 PM | #45 | |||||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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 |
|||||
10-02-2007, 05:07 PM | #46 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
Quote:
spin |
|
10-02-2007, 05:56 PM | #47 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bli Bli
Posts: 3,135
|
Quote:
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:
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? |
||
10-02-2007, 07:10 PM | #48 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
|
Quote:
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 |
|
10-02-2007, 10:09 PM | #49 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
|
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"?
|
10-03-2007, 01:16 AM | #50 | |||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
Quote:
Quote:
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 |
|||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|