FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-19-2011, 06:38 AM   #41
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Hi neilgodfrey,

With respect to the OP .... "Why was Jesus' birth placed in Bethlehem? " I dont think that any other evidence needs to be considered once it is understood that the authors of the Greek new testament sought to flesh out the historical details of the historical jesus by data-mining the Greek LXX. The authors of the Greek New Testament found that Bethlehem was auspiciously appointed in terms of scriptural (i.e. Greek LXX) prophecies to be fullfilled. The classic instance is found in Jhn 7:42

Quote:
Originally Posted by John 7 42

Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey View Post
Diogenes and Mountainman -- the scriptural references you gave are not evidence for what was popularly believed among Jews at the time. Certainly those scriptures have become the focus of later beliefs among whom they are treasured and made a centre of their beliefs about messianic comings, but that's not the same thing.

So we have Jeffrey Staley reviewing Fitzmyer's study on messianic expectations -- a work that makes the same sort of conflation between scriptures and popular views -- and protesting:
Quote:
One might then ask of Fitzmyer what communities he thinks are reflected in his textual study. If, as many have suggested, only 5 percent of the ancient Mediterranean population could read and write, then what segment of the population is reflected in Fitzmyer’s analysis? Is his “history of an idea” representative of Jewish belief at large, or does it represent only a small segment of the population? Does Fitzmyer’s study of the “history of an idea” reflect only the elites’ mental peregrinations, which are largely unrelated to the general masses? -- http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/6079_6483.pdf
As for the New Testament as evidence, you will have to cite the passages you mean. The nativity story of Matthew portrays the masses, the general priesthood and the king all ignorant of any idea that a messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. The magi have to go to the top inner circle of advisors to the king to get that information. I know of no reason to think the story is true, or is evidence for real social or even Persian magi beliefs at the time.
mountainman is offline  
Old 07-19-2011, 07:46 AM   #42
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
ok, But you do realize it is subjective. A partial TF would be corroboration. A 'called Christ' in Josephus James passage, a Slavonic Josephus would be corroboration, Pliny, Tacitus, all of Paul's references to a flesh and blood crucified Jesus, and on and on..but the real issue is that your bar for credibility is high and you consider the credibility to be too low for the various sources of corroboration. And that's ok. I personally don't think it is reasonable, thus the frustration in communication.
Please, please, please. If according to you all of history is subjective why are you wasting your time arguing about "history" and "corroboration"?

Can't you see that you appear to be unreasonable?

Can't you see your OWN subjectivity?

Can't you see your OWN SUBJECTIVE corroboration?

All I need from your are CREDIBLE sources of antiquity that show an ordinary man was BORN in Nazareth, was BAPTIZED by John and was CRUCIFIED under Pilate.

The character who did those things in the NT was a Child of a Holy Ghost and was God, the Creator.

1. You should know that it is NOT subjective but found in the Pauline writings that "Paul" claimed he was NOT the apostle of a man in Galatians 1.1 and that he WITNESSES the resurrected Jesus in I Cor. 15 so why are you wasting your time telling me about "Paul".

2. You should know that it is NOT subjective but found in "Against Celsus" that Origen claimed Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost while claiming that "Antiquities of the Jews" was authentic.

3. You should know it is NOT subjective that the authenticity or non-authenticity of "Antiquities of the Jews" was IRRELEVANT to Christian writers. They simultaneously claimed Jesus was BORN in BETHLEHEM of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin and that "Antiquities of the Jews" was authentic.

4. This is NOT subjective:The authenticity or non-authenticity of "Antiquities of the Jews" cannot corroborate that an ordinary man or ordinary woman was BORN in Nazareth, was Baptized by John and CRUCIFIED under Pilate.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 07-19-2011, 10:09 AM   #43
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
Default

aa in order to stay on topic I have decided to not respond any more on this.

take care, Ted
TedM is offline  
Old 07-19-2011, 04:30 PM   #44
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
aa in order to stay on topic I have decided to not respond any more on this.

take care, Ted
The records will show that it was you who introduced the very OFF-topic post. See post #36
aa5874 is offline  
Old 07-19-2011, 06:02 PM   #45
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by TedM View Post
aa in order to stay on topic I have decided to not respond any more on this.

take care, Ted
The records will show that it was you who introduced the very OFF-topic post. See post #36
Yes, guilty as charged.

And the thread has yet to reply to my post regarding the Messiac expectations in the 1st century. That writer obviously did a tremendous amount of study and knows a lot more about the subject than 99% of us here..yet, not a peep from anyone here. For the record, it provides yet more support for the idea that Bethlehem was considered to be the birthplace of the coming Messiah. It also can be used to support many of Doherty's arguments about the Messiac expectations.
TedM is offline  
Old 07-19-2011, 06:35 PM   #46
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bronx, NY
Posts: 945
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
There was no clearly articulated, universal Messianic formula other than that an heir to the throne of David would one day restore the Kingdom, but Micah 5:2 is sufficient evidence that some expectation existed (universal or not) that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem - the interpretation that Micah cannot be referring to the town is tendentious and unsupportable. The association of the Bethlehem-Ephratha conjuction as a place is well established in the Tanakh.
I've read that there was another, more recent tradition dating from the Maccabees that there would be a messiah from Galilee. Mark 12:35:

"Later, as Jesus was teaching the people in the Temple, he asked, “Why do the teachers of religious law claim that the Messiah is the son of David? 36 For David himself, speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said,
‘The Lord said to my Lord,
Sit in the place of honor at my right hand
until I humble your enemies beneath your feet.’[i]

37 Since David himself called the Messiah ‘my Lord,’ how can the Messiah be his son?” The large crowd listened to him with great delight."

Apparently the gospel writers were split on this question.
Horatio Parker is offline  
Old 07-19-2011, 07:05 PM   #47
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Parker View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
There was no clearly articulated, universal Messianic formula other than that an heir to the throne of David would one day restore the Kingdom, but Micah 5:2 is sufficient evidence that some expectation existed (universal or not) that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem - the interpretation that Micah cannot be referring to the town is tendentious and unsupportable. The association of the Bethlehem-Ephratha conjuction as a place is well established in the Tanakh.
I've read that there was another, more recent tradition dating from the Maccabees that there would be a messiah from Galilee. Mark 12:35:

"Later, as Jesus was teaching the people in the Temple, he asked, “Why do the teachers of religious law claim that the Messiah is the son of David? 36 For David himself, speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said,
‘The Lord said to my Lord,
Sit in the place of honor at my right hand
until I humble your enemies beneath your feet.’[i]

37 Since David himself called the Messiah ‘my Lord,’ how can the Messiah be his son?” The large crowd listened to him with great delight."

Apparently the gospel writers were split on this question.
This just sounds like a Markan apologetic which actually can be argued shows Mark's knowledge that Jesus' Galilean heritage was a problem.
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 07-19-2011, 07:18 PM   #48
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bronx, NY
Posts: 945
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Parker View Post

I've read that there was another, more recent tradition dating from the Maccabees that there would be a messiah from Galilee. Mark 12:35:

"Later, as Jesus was teaching the people in the Temple, he asked, “Why do the teachers of religious law claim that the Messiah is the son of David? 36 For David himself, speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said,
‘The Lord said to my Lord,
Sit in the place of honor at my right hand
until I humble your enemies beneath your feet.’[i]

37 Since David himself called the Messiah ‘my Lord,’ how can the Messiah be his son?” The large crowd listened to him with great delight."

Apparently the gospel writers were split on this question.
This just sounds like a Markan apologetic which actually can be argued shows Mark's knowledge that Jesus' Galilean heritage was a problem.
I'm not sure I follow. Why didn't Mark subscribe to the David/Bethlehem descent if he thought a Galilean messiah was a problem?
Horatio Parker is offline  
Old 07-19-2011, 07:48 PM   #49
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

I find it quite astonishing that people here seem to completely ignore the writings of Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus when dealing with the expectations of the a Jewish Messiah.

Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus all wrote that the Jews expected Jewish Messianic rulers at around the time of the Jewish War c 70 CE and that the expectation was BASED on Scripture.

And further, this expectation was WELL-KNOWN by the Jews.

We have Multiple Attestation of the time the Jews expected the Christ or Messiah.

Wars of the Jews" 6.5.4
Quote:
But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how," about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth."

The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination....
Tacitus "Histories" 5
Quote:
....in most there was a firm persuasion, that in the ancient records of their priests was contained a prediction of how at this very time the East was to grow powerful, and rulers, coming from Judaea, were to acquire universal empire....
It is Most important to notice that it was the JEWS who used their Sacred Writings to Predict that a Jewish Messiah would come at around the time of the Jewish War.

Both Suetonius and Tacitus CORROBORATED Josephus. They do NOT corroborate the Jesus story in the Gospels.

But, not only was there NO sacred writings to support the Gospels but the very stories show that the Messiah in the NT was UNKNOWN to the Jews from BIRTH to Ascension.

They did NOT know that the NT Messiah was born in Bethlehem and lived in Nazareth and incredibly, even Jesus did not want the Jews to know he was the Messiah.

So, up to the day Jesus died in gMatthew and gMark the Jews did NOT know of a Messiah called Jesus and Jesus did NOT want his disciples to tell anyone of him.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 07-19-2011, 08:54 PM   #50
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Parker View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatio Parker View Post

I've read that there was another, more recent tradition dating from the Maccabees that there would be a messiah from Galilee. Mark 12:35:

"Later, as Jesus was teaching the people in the Temple, he asked, “Why do the teachers of religious law claim that the Messiah is the son of David? 36 For David himself, speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, said,
‘The Lord said to my Lord,
Sit in the place of honor at my right hand
until I humble your enemies beneath your feet.’[i]

37 Since David himself called the Messiah ‘my Lord,’ how can the Messiah be his son?” The large crowd listened to him with great delight."

Apparently the gospel writers were split on this question.
This just sounds like a Markan apologetic which actually can be argued shows Mark's knowledge that Jesus' Galilean heritage was a problem.
I'm not sure I follow. Why didn't Mark subscribe to the David/Bethlehem descent if he thought a Galilean messiah was a problem?
Presumably, because he thought he was stuck with a known Galilean, so had to find a work-around for the Bethlehem expectation. Basically, Mark worked out of it by trying to disavow the notion of necessary Davidic descent in its entirety. That's more radical than Matthew and Luke inventing (independent and contradictory) stories for how Jesus was really born in Bethlehem, but it still essentially serves as a work-around.
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:23 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.