jules?

Were the Gospels inevitable in the same way the neo-predictions of impeding Armageddon in 2012 have also thrown up plenty of fiction.

The end of the fifth sun in Mayan myth has been around in collective consciousness for decades yet is only as the clock ticks closer that vast quantities of material have been generated. Google 2012 and its either the Olympics or the end of the world.

The myth of 2012 is advocated by idiots and idiots who know how to exploit other idiots. 2012 has turned from a cottage industry where authors are re-releasing their doomsday books, writing new ones, with even Hollywood cashing in. December will come and go without incident[!] and these doom-mongers will need to update their predictions. The end of the world will really mean the end of .....[insert your excuse here].

A couple of thousand years ago the end of the world was anticipated and widely known outside of Jewish influence. It appears the date was calculated to occur in a rather large window of a century or more. The longer the end time was postponed the more likely it was going to happen in ones lifetime.

The Jewish war was awash with prophesy and come the final battle the angels would arrive to destroy the Romans. They didn't.

But prophesy can never be wrong so it seems no surprise that post the Jewish wars of 70 and 135 the desire for prophesy is fulfilled with a rework.

stephan huller

The gospel is developed around the prediction in the book of Deuteronomy that one like Moses would appear at the beginning of a new era of favor for Israel. All the rest is window dressing. One could argue that the further prediction of the book of Daniel and many other prophetic works factor into eschatology here, but the end of the world takes a backseat to the re-standing or reappearance of Moses. To use the circus analogy, Moses is in the center ring, the rest are just 'side shows.'

Horatio Parker

I don't see that way. Many things were written, but they didn't gain influence the same way. For reasons we're still trying to understand, those pariticular ideas and texts persisted and grew.

The 3rd century was a regressive and insecure time. Don't religious awakenings follow in the path of upheaval?

It seems that an attraction for Xtianity among common people was its relative equality. A poor person can have as much devotion in their heart as a rich one, even if the rich person can provide better sacrifices. That groundswell was then co-opted for political reasons.

Thinking out loud, but that's my guess.

tanya

But did not God issue covenants with Abraham, Noah, and David, as well as Moses?

Were then, the Jews of two thousand years ago, (who became Christians) wrong to have chosen David, erstwhile father of Jesus ("seed of David") as their most important prophet?

Sheshbazzar

Shit usually runs down hill. Is that inevitable?

stephan huller

Tanya,

Samaritan, Jewish and early Christian tradition all recognize that Moses was the greatest living man. In the Samaritan doxology the current ranking is God, Moses and then Marqe (= Mark). At one time the two were at least equal (the marginal note in the Leningrad MS has Moses as the prophet of favor and Marqe as the prophet of disfavor with both names being recognized to have a numerical value equal to 345 = God). The Jewish tradition similarly recognizes Moses as superior to all other prophets. Maimonides for instance (Principles of Jewish Faith) recognizes that the revelation given to Moses was superior to all other prophets. This is universally recognized throughout Jewish writers from Philo to the present day. Even the Marcionites said that Moses was superior to his God (Against Marcion 1.somewhere).

Some interesting points you might like to know. The rabbinic tradition remembers that the Sadducees held that only the ten utterances were from god (= the ten commandments), the rest of the 603 commandments were written on the authority of Moses. The tradition mentions that Christians (clearly heretical Christians) made a big deal about this understanding so this line of argument was eventually abandoned by Jews. You can see it at work in Jesus's arguments against divorce i.e. it was Moses not god who gave the commandment about divorce. Marqe (the Samaritan) has the exact same understanding (i.e. only the ten utterances were written with fire on the stone tablets by God's finger). The argument is undoubtedly at the heart of the Marcionite 'rejection' of the Law - in other words, they were only preserving an older tradition regarding the sanctity of only the ten utterances rather than the rest of the laws which were based only on human authority.

This is perhaps the most convincing argument from within the narrative that the original composition of the gospel must have been made in the first century CE. Otherwise it represents a second century 'resurrection' of arguments associated with the Sadducees and other Jewish groups which began to disappear after 70 CE. Indeed it makes no sense to expect that the idea of a figure like Jesus making an appeal to Jews, Samaritans and proselytes could have succeeded in the second century environment (i.e. once the groups had been pulled apart into very different sects). Already we see a sign of that ecumenical appeal in the first century with the example of Simon Magus where he gave out that it was he who appeared among the Jews as the Son, in Samaria as the Father and among other nations as the Holy Spirit. This sort of appeal could not have happened if the gospel was composed in the mid-second century as some suggest.

Interestingly also there is a rabbinic tradition which says that Deuteronomy was not of divine origin but written by Moses.

The point is that in order to understand Judaism or Christianity you have to accept that Moses was the greatest human being BEFORE the one to come. The Muslim's often use this line of reasoning to argue for the blessedness of Muhammad - i.e. he was the one like Moses of Deut 18:18. The early 'extremist' (or 'exaggerators) likely also held that Muhammad was divine in a similar manner to some of the apocryphal understandings of the surviving Ismali and the high estimation of Ali among the Alawites.

In short, Moses was the original monotheistic 'superhero' equipped with a super human nature and a unique status among mortals (i.e. being ranked a friend of God). This status made Moses unique and superior to all other human beings and an equal to immortal beings. Moses is often understood to be the high priest in heaven and ultimately God himself. The messiah would necessarily be his earthly equivalent = a king who was also prophet and high priest (cf. Philo of Alexandria De Vita Mosis)

For example consider its closing words "Such, as recorded in the Holy Scriptures, was the life and such the end of Moses, king, lawgiver, high priest, prophet" (De vit. M. II.292)

Sheshbazzar

Interesting that the words of Moses himself would dispute such a ranking.
The only Prophet whom Moses ever equated with himself was 'Joshua', his Second in Command, and his appointed successor to Deliver the children of Israel into the Promised Land.
If Moses had been superior to all other Prophets, it would have been Moses who brought them in.
It wasn't. It was 'Joshua' whom alone among all men, found such favor, power, and authority with his Elohim.
YHWH or MOSES never spoke in any such fashion to that quivering lump called 'Marqe', whom is no more than a minor piss-ant personality in the shadow of that 'Joshua' The Deliverer whom YHWH, Moses, and the Prophets named, exalted, and honored;
The man whose name is the BRANCH. (Isa 4:2, Jer 23:5, 33:15-16, Zech 3:8-10 & 6:12-13)

stephan huller

So the Samaritans, a two thousand five year old tradition are wrong and some guy on an internet forum is correct? Come on. We must always kneel before tradition (at least so long as to figure out where they are coming from). Moses does predict the coming of one like him (Deut 18:18). The Samaritans apparently said Marqe was that individual and not surprisingly he is credited with founding their reconstituted tradition. The dating for Marqe ranges from the time of Philo (Broadie), to the second century to the fourth century. For a variety of reasons I accept the former position. If you are interested in why I think this I can go into more detail, but again I am not alone.

The important thing is to see that Joshua was ultimately subordinate to Moses. Not only did he only live ten less years but the Samaritans expressly identify Marqe as now being second on the list after Moses. One can argue that at least some Samaritan groups did identify Joshua as the one like Moses (Eulogius of Alexandria). Others Dositheus. But certainly the dominant position which still survives to this day is that Marqe was the one like Moses.

Sheshbazzar

Ahhh! -tradition-!, And a Samaritan tradition yet.
Well then, don't let moi get in the way of your kneeling before any of your selected traditions.
I hear that it is also a tradition that the Pope is successor to your Marqe, do you also kneel to him and kiss his 'ring'?

The Hebrews also have their ancient traditions... and long standing shibboleths serving to 'put a difference between the sacred and between the profane'.
Time will tell. 'For by your words.....'

aa5874

A Guy on the internet is telling people on the internet not to accept what people may say on the internet say.

What is wrong with that internet guy?