Sheshbazzar

True, the explicit term "The Messiah" is only found in the Book of Daniel.
The Hebrew Prophetic texts however are brimming with references and allusions to a coming Messiah. The Jewish religion understood them to be of Messianic promise, and had been dealing with these verses and with their ramifications for hundreds of years prior to the emergence of Gentile Christianity, or even the composition of The Book of Daniel, which is of very late date in the Jewish canon, and its Messianic scenarios are founded upon the much earlier writings of The Prophets, and how they were interpreted and understood by Judaism.

I have read the entire Torah, every last single word, word upon word, line upon line, verse upon verse, precept upon precept, in Hebrew.
I have read all of the "messianic passages" that are in The Prophets, in Hebrew,
Have you?

I know for a fact both what I have read, and where I have read it.
I do not need to rely on the ill informed opinions of ignorant men who cannot even read the actual texts that they profess to be such experts on.

Bottom line on this post is, Are you ready to prove that the entire Jewish religion was wrong in interpreting those "messianic" passages in Isaiah, in Jeremiah, in Ezekiel, and in the other Prophets as pertaining to The Jewish King, and Messiah that was/is to come?

In spite of the abuses of Scripture by Christianity, most Jews still hold as a tenet of -their- faith, the hope and expectation of the Prophets, that The Messiah, the great King of Israel, will yet come, and subdue all the nations, and that the Day will come when men will yet beat their weapons of war into plowshares, and go to war no more; But today Israel fights.


I can tell you that the actual Hebrew texts reveal far more than what you can, or ever will, find in any translation, or any collection of translations.
The difference is like comparing a walk in a beautiful garden, where you can reach out and touch, feel, and smell the flowers, and run your fingers through the rich earth, feel the sun warming your face, and the hear the wind blowing through the pines and caressing your hair, in contrast to only 'looking at' or 'experiencing' the same scene as reflected upon dirty and distorted window panes.

figuer

My reasoning is quite apt: It is not that there are other letters, but that we don't know if the existing works are all that was written by the claimed author or can be taken to represent the limits of his interest/knowledge.


That doesn't conclude there not being some sort of inspirational figure, which is the limit of my position.


Yes, but Paul did mention what he considered important: The mechanism of salvation.


No my position is that such a person could have existed and inspired the Jesus myth (as for sources, isn't it well established that figures such as John the Baptist lived at that time?), and Paul's "silences" do not exclude that possibility, since the historical Jesus Paul could have known need not be the precise Jesus of the gospels, but a simpler figure.

aa5874

So, you should modify your first wave.

And explain what wave Simon Barchochebas was riding.


But, I can show what those authors of the NT who appeared to have read the Torah called the Messiah. They claimed he was the offspring of the Holy Ghost, born without sexual union, transfigured, resurrected and ascended to heaven.

After having read every last single word of the Torah, do you see any such Messiah? That NT messianic wave is not from the Torah, maybe from Homer.

It looks like the waves of Greek/Roman mythology.

Sheshbazzar

I have written at length about the intrusions of Hellenism upon the Jewish religion, culture, and values, in other threads on this Forum.
In this particular thread my focus was on tracing the development of the "CHRIST"-ian form of messianic beliefe, from its very first origins in the ancient Jewish/Gentile relationships as revealed in The Tanaka, up to the times of a historically verifiable CHRISTian Church of the 4th century AD.

As such Simon Barchochebas is a late player in the development of Judaism, not a principal participant of the successive "waves", or pivotal points that mark the development of that religion called Christianity.

But for your pleasure, I will "modify (my) first wave" with pertinent facts about Simon Barchocheba and what his relationship to the "CHRISTian" religion was.
Simon Barchocheba being a Jew, is included in that "First Wave" of Jewish/Gentile believers in a Jewish MESSIAH/CHRISTos which had been rising from the beginning. (even as far back as Genesis)

But around the 2nd century BC, The intrusions of Hellenism had began to become so dominant that traditional Jewish culture and religion was in danger of being completely overwhelmed, syncretised and submerged under the popular Greek culture.
Many "Jews" had became so Grecian in their dress, activities, and thoughts, that they were in danger of losing their own cultural pride and national identity.
This led to a grass-roots rebellion on the part of conservative, "country" Jews who felt it was their sacred duty to defend their culture, their country, and their religion from these foreign influences.
The Rabbis began to teach that it was worse for a Jew to speak Greek than to eat swines flesh, and many other legalistic things that would serve to further distance, and separate culturally conscious Jews from the subversive seductions of Hellenism.
The Maccabeean rebellion represented a split within that "first wave".
(You may read the details in The Books of Maccabees)

Traditional Judaism essentially returned strongly to its ancient Hebrew roots, Daily use of the Hebrew language, and daily participation in many distinctively Jewish peculiar customs and practices was strongly advocated, while any interaction with unconverted "goyim", GREEK culture in particular was discouraged.
The Tanaka was to be read and taught in the Synagogues in Hebrew, commentaries and midrashim were to be written, and be expounded in Hebrew, FIRST.
If the hearers could not understand the language, then it would be translated and explained to them latter. No longer would Jews use the Gentile Greek term "Christos" as found in The LXX, when speaking of their MESSIAH.
And this worked, after a fashion, within the borders of Judea and in Jerusalem to somewhat hinder and slow the tide of Hellenism.
Yet, by this time the Jewish communities in the Diaspora had been speaking Greek for generations, many had even forgotten how to read, or speak in Hebrew.
These Hellenist Jews ("Grecians") in the synagogues, along with the LXX reading gentiles, were easily subverted by the fables of those "CHRISTers" who employed faulty renderings of The LXX as their tool to further pervert and change the meanings of the Prophets sayings.
But I digress, Simon Barchocheba was a fiercely nationalistic Jew who fought to preserve his nation and his people from foreign domination, and for that is a real hero in my view, a far more of a genuine messsiah than "Christ"-ianities"[/I] wholly imaginary and wholly fabricated cartoon "christ" figure.
I hope this somewhat addresses your concerns.

Yes?
I DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF THAT CRAP THEY FABRICATED EITHER.

Certainly NOT the "christ jezoos" of christ-inanity.

Only NOT "messianic", but NT "christ-ian"; there WAS a difference, there IS a difference, and there always WILL BE a difference.

You are right however, that "Christianity"- is not from THE TORAH
It is from The LXX, and is even a perversion of that.
Well, if we consider who these NT "christ-ers" were, then that is only natural.

I read your posts in many threads and AGREE with most of your conclusions.
our differences are more of how we arrive at our conclusions, rather than any difference of conclusion.

aa5874

But is Jesus Christ really from the LXX if he is a perversion? He seems more accurately described as from paganism but heavily disguised or dressed up to appear to be from the LXX.

His message to the Jews is crude, even John the Baptist calls Jesus "the wrath to come."

Luke 3.7-9 John the Baptist seems not be talking about a messianic figure but someone who will bring wrath and destruction upon the Jews.

Toto

This is an obvious misreading. John is not calling Jesus the "wrath to come." The "wrath" is the wrath of God in the usual reading - some cataclysmic event that will happen.

aa5874

There is no misreading at all. John the Baptist is the fore-runner of Jesus.

Jesus represents the wrath to come. Jesus will be rejected and executed as a blasphemer and Jerusalem will be destroyed.

Matthew 24.15-21