andrewcriddle

I would not rule out a-priori the claim that Jesus walked on water and the story has very strong multiple attestation.

However Meier in A Marginal Jew volume 2 presents a strong case that the account is based on OT theophanies rather than historical tradition.

Andrew Criddle

Dreadnought

In a scenario where the name Jesus has been chosen for it's theological significance that choice predates Matthew by several decades. Matthew must then work with what he's got (i.e the name Jesus) in his quest for prophecies to twist and fulfil. Paul, who presumably was the one to coin the name Jesus in this scenario, used scripture differently.

As for why Moses wasn't chosen all one can do is speculate. The bible indirectly gives a meaning of the name Moses in Exodus 2:10 "The child grew, and she brought him to Pharaoh's daughter and he became her son. And she named him Moses, and said, "Because I drew him out of the water." ". And so there is a much less obvious link between name and function than in the name of Jesus. Moses would then be a very confusing choice.

spin

When Fred Schmertz presents a strong case that the crucifixion account is based on "OT" expiations rather than historical tradition, what do you do?


spin

andrewcriddle

I haven't I'm afraid read Fred Schmertz. Although I have come across this argument in other writers.

In general I find claims that specific episodes in the life of Jesus can be based on the OT more convincing if they do not end up explaining the whole narrtive that way. IMO claims that the great majority of the life of Jesus can be derived from the OT are more a result of the eagerness and ingenuity of the claimant in finding OT parallels than likely to be true.

Although one can derive the idea of a crucified Messiah from the OT if one tries hard enough, (After all this is what the early church did) this is IMO one of the less likely accounts to have originated in such a way.

Andrew Criddle

Edited to Add

checking on google leads me to suspect that Fred Schmertz is the equivalent of Joe Bloggs. If so I don't think my answer is affected

spin

So it's a pick and choose affair, it seems.

My comment was about the arbitrary nature of the position your seemed to be espousing. How far were you prepared to go and what criteria were at play?

Oh, shite! Someone gave me a bum steer.


spin

aa5874

You claim that you haven't read Fred Schmertz's argument and that the early church did derive the crucifixion from the OT, and without giving any historical support, you still state that this crucifixion is not likely to be originated from the OT.

You appear to be basing your opinion on your imagination, not on any historical facts. I think it should occur to you that if the early church derived the crucifixion from the OT then this fact augments the likelyhood of such a situation since there is no historical support otherwise.

Amaleq13

How one reads the last few posts and still thinks there is an actual "Fred Schmertz argument" is a mystery.

It is the blatantly (Andrew might prefer "apparently" here) forced nature of the "derivation" that leads to the conclusion. You've had this pointed out to you before, of course, but you seem to prefer to retain your preferred conclusion rather than actually think.

It should occur to you that such an obviously forced derivation indicates they already believed Jesus had been crucified and felt compelled to force a prophecy to that effect onto the text.


Don't waste your time, Andrew, this one isn't interested in actually thinking. He just likes to repeat his favorite beliefs over and over and over and over...

aa5874

May I remind you that the crucifixion of the Jesus of the NT is not an established fact. Until someone can prove within reason that there was a Jesus of the NT who was actually crucified, then a forced "derivation" cannot be ascertained, only imagined.

The Jesus of the NT is cast in mythology by authors of the Bible and the Church fathers, that is, he is a God in the form of an offspring of ghost and woman. This Jesus must remain a myth until historical facts can break the mythical mold.

Amaleq13

On the contrary and as you've been told already, one need not assume the crucifixion actually took place to recognize that the alleged prophecy of messianic crucifixion is imposed upon the text.

aa5874

It is my position that the Jesus myth of the NT was derived from the OT, as the Church fathers and authors of the NT clearly indicate. There is a complete lack of historical support for this Jesus, son of a ghost and Mary.