Amlodhi

Hi judge,

I'm not adverse to some allowance for metaphor. However, I don't think that appeal to metaphorical expression can reconcile all the eschatological descriptions with preterit doctrine.

Do you accept all of the OT and NT documents as giving accurate descriptions of the 2nd advent (metaphorical or otherwise)?

Namaste'

Amlodhi

judge

Umm....HB or OT I think so.
NT as you are aware I am one of thoise lunatics who think the aramaic peshitta underlies our greek versions. No original aramaic versions of 2 Peter, Jude 2&3 John and Revelation exist although some argue that revelation at least exhibits signs of translation from aramaic(?).

So the short answer would be that I think so with regard to the rest of the NT but there might be doubts with regard to the "5 disputed books".

Amlodhi

Hi judge,

Thanks. While pondering, I thought it might be best to know what you considered relevant material.

I think, though, that a discussion of preterit doctrine would be a hijacking of this thread. If you would like to open a thread on that topic I will be glad to discuss it with you.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Baidarka

Amlodhi
Thank you for your thoughtful and interesting reply. My opinion about this strange horrific, yet pregnant period in Jewish and World history is in flux.
I am leaning toward's Hyam Maccoby's position that Jesus Barabas was invented to absorb and cover up the violent revolutionary aspects of Jesus Bar Joseph.
Quote ''Although I do think that Jesus and his followers more likely advocated a type of passive resistance (while awaiting the ultimate messianic coup de gras) as opposed to outright insurrection.''

Why would you think that the early Jesus movement was passive and nonviolent?
1- His followers didn't have nice nicknames like Peace or Dove, they had tough names like Rock, Sons of Thunder, Zealot and Sicari.
2– His followers carried swords and were ready and able to use them.
3- Jesus' attack against the money changers in the temple could only have been accomplished with the aid of a violent mob.

"I happen to think that a good general rule of thumb is that people will do what people have done, and that "the more things change, the more they stay the same". Using the history of the Jews as a guideline then, we observe that, in every case, the situation was virtually identical; i.e. every time that Judah was oppressed and/or occupied by a foreign power, prophets would arise predicting the advent of a messiah who would ultimately vanquish their enemies and elevate Judah to the exalted status of being God's central priesthood to the whole world.''

I am beginning to suspect that wide spread belief in King Jesus may have been very important to the Nation during the 67 CE revolt and that Jewish faith in the resurrected King faded for most Jews with the sack of Jerusalem and the defeat of the Nation.
Just as a small number of Jews followed their Messiah Sabbatai Sevi ( Gershom Scholem 1973) into apostasy after he put on the turban (became a Moslem) some Jews continued to believe in King Jesus even after the Roman Victory and created the myth that Jewish involvement in the crucifixion caused God to lift his protection from Israel as an explanation for the national disaster that had just occurred.

Baidarka

Pervy
“I take it from your questions that you are a Historicist.

To me as a Mythicist, your questions don't make that much sense...�

Saying that Jesus had followers is not the same as saying that he existed. After all one could believe in hobbit fanciers without believing in hobbits.
I tend to think that there was an HJ but sometimes I’m not so sure.
If there was an HJ the historical record as written in the NT has been so manipulated that I’m sure very little of him remains.
When do you think the myth started to become popular and who were its first believers?

Amlodhi

Hi Baidarka,

The points you have made are well taken, although the Iscariot/Sicari connection is not a certainty. And while I agree that they were likely insurrectionists at heart, I think it highly unlikely that they ever attempted any direct action against the Roman legions in Judah/Samaria.

I think they were awaiting an immanent messianic intervention, and hence, they were critically concerned with a sincere devotion to YHWH. This sincere devotion being in contrast to those who merely offered ritual and lip-service. The soon to come overturning of Rome and God's establishment of his kingdom in Jerusalem had to remain a secret (in consideration of the Roman guard), hence the parables. This was what "the meek shall inherit the earth", etc, was all about. Those that were sincerely devoted to YHWH would soon be exalted in his new earthly kingdom while insubordinate "goyim" and hypocritical Jews would experience his wrath.

Also, it is my understanding that the "money-changers" would not have been in the temple but only in the outer court (or maybe even just outside the outer court). These would be independent entrepreneurs doing their exchanging at their various booths and tables. My impression of Jesus' assault (assuming it is factual at all), is that it was a bit of a hit and run. IOW, I think he (and his cohorts) had the element of surprise and didn't hang around long. It might also be considered that this would have been a fairly crowded bazaar-like area. Thus, when your money table is overturned, you may be more immediately concerned with retrieving it than in chasing the perpetrators. Brazen act though it may have been, this was still a far cry from insurrection against Rome. It was, actually, well in accordance with the groups idealism that they would soon be vindicated in God's new earthly regime.

Anyway, that's my speculation.

Amlodhi

Amaleq13

It is my understanding that there were Roman guards stationed all around the area on a regular basis but even more are likely to have been in place during such the potentially volitile Passover. It is this that makes me question the historicity of the Temple disruption scene. I don't see how Jesus, alone or accompanied, could have made it out alive.