TedM

This isn't true. I know that the Messiah was originally seen to be a king like David. But the salvation aspect went right along with it. No, it wasn't personal salvation. It was salvation of the Nation. But, that by itself makes Messiah = Savior. Secondly, the OT is full of passages indicating that Israel's problems -- the ones that required a king like David to solve -- came about because of Israel's sins. David was lauded as a great king in the OT not because of his military or cultural accomplishments, but because he was portrayed as a very godly King. So the 'Saving' the Nation needed wasn't just from captivity, but was from their sins. Thus, Messiah = Savior from sins. OF COURSE this isn't directly indicated. It IS mined from multiple passages, but I see no reason to conclude that it is a Christian invention. I thought this was fairly general knowledge but when you questioned it I gave you the link to show that there is overwhelming support for this wider ancient view/perspective regarding the Messiah.

I would surmise that nearly EVERY passage that the Christians indicated early on to be Messianic in nature, are shown to have also been considered Messianic in the ancient Jewish writings. You just said about them:

I don't understand this reply. Click on the link to see what the sources are for the Suffering Servant passage, and all of the commonly used ones by Christians and you'll have your answers. As to what my sources claim them to be, I again don't understand. It doesn't matter if the passages were 'really' Messianic spin. Why in the world would you think that matters? What matters is whether the Jewish people of the time of Jesus considered them to be Messianic or not. My 'sources' seem to be implying that they did. So what problem do you actually have with that?

To me it is simple. If an ancient Jewish source says that Isaiah 53 or Psalms 22 is Messianic, then for all practical purposes of this OP, it was. There is no need for analysis. Just click the link to see that it was. Why should it be any more complicated than that?



But it wouldn't be a theoretical minority if we have indications that the passages were seen to be Messianic. It would be confirmed that people could see Jesus in Isaiah 53, Psalms 16, Psalms 22, etc... That's the context my OP is talking about. It sure looks to me like Christians weren't 'inventing' Messianic passages. Go ahead, click on it.http://philologos.org/__eb-lat/appen09.htm


Really? I view Galatians 1:22-23 to completely demolish that idea:

If the Jewish Christians didn't believe in a resurrected Savior Paul would have said so. That's not speculation.


It's one and the same, and my link seems to prove it over and over.


From your way of thinking no Jewish person could even CONCEIVE of the idea that the death could have been the METHOD of freeing the Jews. Yet Isaiah 53 supports that very concept, clearly indicating a death and a 'prolonging of days', and 'bearing the iniquities's.

from the link:
So, what can you tell me about the sources: Pirqé de R. Eliez. c. 30., Pesiqta, ed. Buber, p. 149 a. that should make me think no Jew would ever have seen this as Messianic?


So you are saying my source and the Jewish Encyclopedia are simply wrong not about what YOU think, but about what the Jewish of the time thought? I haven't yet looked at your response..so it you answered that there, ok.

spin

Rubbish, TedM. If anything, it makes "messiah" a hyponym of "savior", as "scarlet" or "crimson" is to "red". They are not the same. "Messiah" has implications not contained in the idea of "savior". Your fudging here is you hiding from the reality of the differences. Jesus of the gospels was not a messiah, no matter how you try to cover that up with your word games.

(Yes, you'll continue to call the Hebrew bible a second-rate ("old") religious text that christianity has stolen from Judaism.)

True.

Because cough, cough, and cough, cough, so that's why "messiah" is the same as "savior".

You wouldn't be a christian, would you TedM? You're not blinded by the light?

Stop the bravado, TedM. Either you present specific examples that you will personally stick by and live with the consequences, or be seen as a terminal bullshit artist. (This is the sixth time I've asked you to put yourself on the line and provide the goods.)

Please make your case for the suffering servant being the messiah. Please, do thrill us by enunciating this blunder. I've already indicated to you that the suffering servant is stated by Isaiah to be Jacob. But do try to make your case that instead it was taken to be the messiah by people before 30 CE.

Here is the coup de grace: you need to demonstrate that in the period prior to the year 30 CE, the time attributed to Jesus, your christian eisegesis was in circulation. We are not interested in what people thought about texts after the reputed time of Jesus, when there are reasons for christians to find them, we need it before. And you cannot do that because the texts themselves--you have admitted--are not a guide to them being messianic. Good luck.

You are behaving in a highly unprofessional manner. You have the responsibility to present your specific evidence and not be underhanded saying the equivalent of "here, fuck off and read the link". You take no responsibility in that. It is just pure evasion.

It doesn't matter what you say until you resolve this issue. Present your specific examples that you personally will defend and stick by. I have asked you to do so too many times. I can only think that your unwillingness to defend your views in a transparent manner is that you cannot defend them.

Your persistent refusal to deal with my post #62 when you meanly supplied Isaiah 9 as one half-hearted example, seems endemic of your lack of resources.

---

"Pirke De-Rabbi Eliezer": Haggadic-midrashic work on Genesis, part of Exodus, and a few sentences of Numbers; ascribed to R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, and composed in Italy shortly after 833.

Neusner, "Neusner on Judaism: History, Volume 1", p.231, dates the Pesikta de-Rav Kahana to the end of the 5th century.

Jayrok

Humans are often easily influenced, especially a younger generation. The OT describes how even the Israelites, who had supposedly witnessed miracles of God, turned to worship idols of the families they married into. There are also descriptions of them even sacrificing children to foreign gods. So yeah, I think there is precedence that can be used to support the idea that some Jews could have accepted a flesh/blood human sacrifice.

Perhaps with the younger, Hellenized, Jews who were interested in new midrash of Hebrew scriptures. I could see that sub-culture being excited about the idea of their ancient religion being interpreted in such a way that would allow it to be brought into an age of philosophy (e.g. Platonism?). It meant the end of the ritual of sacrifice, along with some of their other antiquated ideas. What's not to like?

Well, animal sacrifice was used for sin atonement, but it wasn't necessary for making atonement for one's sins. That is, the shedding of blood was not, according to the Hebrew scriptures, required for sin atonement. That is a purely Christian idea... and necessary idea.

I would think that the crucifixion would have been more appropriate during Yom Kippur than during Passover. The Passover wasn't about atonement for sins. It was so the angel of death would pass over the Israelites.

But I think the Jews that accepted the idea of a human/god physical sacrifice were open to outside influence. If their ancestors could be assimilated into a society that sacrificed children to foreign gods, it shouldn't be that surprising to believe their generation could be influenced into believing the messiah was a one-time ultimate sacrifice.

I also think the LXX played a major role. Were first/second century Jews learning to read and write ancient Hebrew or were they more exposed to reading Greek? The majority of them couldn't read at all. Ripe for the picking by a charismatic philosopher?

Jayrok

I don't agree with the bolded. I don't see the messiah as being a savior for the nation's sins. The messiah was going to be anointed as their king. He was also going to be a priest (Ezekiel 45). The prophecy is that God will bring the Jews back to Jerusalem and the messiah will be the new king, shephard, and priest in the new temple. He will offer sacrifices at the new altar for the sins of himself and the sins of the nation.

One of the problems I have with Christianity is that with Jesus as the final sacrifice, the latter part of Ezekiel is essentially swept under the carpet. It is re-written in Revelation. The temple and altar disappear and the daily sacrifices, of course, disappear. The book of Ezekiel (except those places that are useful to them) is basically discarded by Christianity.

But the messiah wasn't divine. He was a sinner himself (Ezekiel 45:22).

maryhelena

Yep, Ted not only wants that gospel JC (in some variant) to have existed historically - but he also wants some Jews to be the guilty party re that monstrous christian idea about finding salvation value in a flesh and blood human crucifixion/sacrifice...

It's one thing for the gospel JC historicists to argue for an historical man underneath all the mythology. It's another thing entirely to argue that all the salvation value that was added to this assumed figure, after his resurrection, was because his death was a flesh and blood human sacrifice. And to top that abomination of an idea - the blame is put on the Jews. i.e. the Jewish Law and it's animal sacrifices supposedly led some Jews to believe that a human flesh and blood sacrifice was kosher!!!!

If one's attempt to support a historical gospel JC (of whatever variant) sinks to such a low - then, surely, the game is up for Christian theology!

Rather than assume some Jews turned their backs on their cultural and religious heritage - much better to check ones premises: The gospel JC story is set within a Jewish context. Once the illogical idea (that a human flesh and blood crucifixion/sacrifice can have salvation value) is rejected for the immoral premise it is - then the gospel JC story has to be re-evaluated. It is not, it cannot be, within a Jewish context, the story about a flesh and blood human sacrifice having salvation value.

A crucified Jewish messiah figure is a failed messiah figure. Such a figure cannot be the source of any salvation theories. Such a figure is a curse, a stumbling block for Jews. The NT writers, aware of this very Jewish position, develop their own, new, salvation figure - a heavenly, a spiritual JC figure. Such a figure allows for 'death', for spiritual death, for intellectual death, to have value, salvation value. In an intellectual context, life, death and rebirth of ideas are spiritual/intellectual 'forces’. The failed gospel messiah figure and the salvation figure of the Pauline writings are not the same figure (resurrection of dead physical bodies being nonsense)

Two JC stories in the NT. 1) A failed Jewish, gospel, messiah figure. 2) A heavenly, spiritual, intellectual, savior figure for the whole world. Jewish integrity to the physical Law of their heritage is upheld - while a new covenant allows a new context of intellectual freedom. No Jewish heretics, no Jewish apostasy here. It's intellectual freedom that is the focus of the new spiritual covenant - not the abolition and abhorrence of drinking blood.

A literal reading of the NT gospel crucifixion story, as a story of salvation value from a human flesh and blood sacrifice, takes one to the depths and horrors of the dark side of human nature. If anyone thinks that this is what the writers of the NT were doing - glorifying human depravity - then I suggest that they need not only to seriously check their premises...they need to dump the christian theology that has debased their humanity.

(And before anyone jumps on me over the symbolic drinking of blood re the Last Supper story - blood is symbolic of life. It is life, spiritual life, intellectual life, that one 'drinks', that one engages with, that joins one to the heavenly christ figure and the new intellectual covenant - in other words - it's all in the mind......)

TedM

Agree.

Can you think of a good reason why if the Passion Narrative was made up with the intention of crucifixion for Atonement, the Passover was chosen INSTEAD OF the Yom Kippur for the time of the crucifixion?


While I agree with your comments about Ezekiel, it seems to me that the concepts are so closely related -- Israel got into trouble because of the sins and a Messiah King is going to get them out of the trouble and bring about lasting peace, that it seems to me the idea of Messiah = Savior from sins would be awfully easy to arise. The Suffering Servant and other passages in Isaiah that talk about the future period of peace-- while I agree they seem to be referring to Israel (though not always very clearly since it sometimes seems to be referring to a ruler-King -- perhaps Cyrus in some places, and unknown King in others..), lend themselves to equating the Servant who bears Israel's iniquities with the Messiah quite easily. The early Christian works often quote from the Suffering Servant, so I can't help but think that this broader perception of a prophesied Messiah who ALSO saves from sins was in vogue during the time of Jesus.

Thanks for your input.

TedM

No. A DEAD Messiah figure is a failed messiah figure. Once people started having visions or 'insights' into his resurrection your argument disappears completely. Poof.

Whether this resurrection was physical or spiritual wouldn't matter: The Messiah lives!

I don't see the need for all of this drama. As Jayrok showed, the Israelites weren't above human sacrifice any more than other cultures were. Why the staunch refusal to think that SOME of the Jewish saw a parallel with animal atonement (even if partial) for sins through sacrifice, which was required only on the annual Passovers? Are you Jewish Mary?

maryhelena

Oh, silly me - I expected you to know the gospel JC crucified Jewish messiah story i.e. he died on that cross....

My argument disappears once people have visions or 'insights' into the resurrection of the dead crucified man - Ted, what cool-aid have you been drinking. Oh, never mind...


Oh, for crying out aloud - this is a forum for rational inquiry...igsfly:


Drama??

And you want to talk about a human flesh and blood sacrifice that has salvation value - and you want to put the blame for this abomination of a christian idea on to some Jews....

"staunch refusal" - you can bet your bottom dollar on that one....:angry:

TedM

Close enough for purposes of new interpretion.


R U offended? I don't mean offense, but I'm not going to change what I call it (since there is nothing offensive about the word 'old'. It doesn't mean second-rate.) no matter how sensitive you may be. Are you Jewish?


Close enough, since the OT makes clear that the sinful Kings were responsible for Israel's woes, and the godly kings were responsible for Israel's prosperity (read: salvation).


But the texts ARE a guide to them being interpreted as messianic. ANY passage in the OT that talked about a future time of peace for Israel was Messianic. If the text included a reference to a source for that period of peace, that source was a potential Messiah figure. That includes the Suffering Servant passage spin. Perhaps that's why it was chosen by Christians as support for a crucified Messiah claimant's resurrection -- he HAD to rise since the passage said the Messiah would rise!



Thanks.

TedM

To use a term Doherty likes, your lack of comprehension is breathtaking Mary. Do you really think I'm saying Jesus was resurrected? Really? How can you not understand that I'm not voicing MY opinion on the matter? I am telling you that it is not unreasonable to see that since nobody can be a Messiah if he is dead, the solution was to make him alive again.


What are you so angry about? If the Jews themselves could engage in human sacrifice, centuries prior, why not vicariously conceive it in the case of the crucifixion of Jesus -- especially if some were saying this Messiah claimant had resurrected? Especially if it was done during Passover? Especially since there were OT passages that talked about suffering unto death for the sins of others, but that death was overcome? Are Jews any better than non-Jews Mary? Are you Jewish? You sure are defending them to a ridiculous degree.