TedM

You don't know what you are talking about. It is treated Messianically in the Targum:

http://philologos.org/__eb-lat/appen09.htm


Perhaps you'll take this a bit more seriously now. The bottom line is that you can't claim that Paul didn't rely on the OT for his claim that the rising of Jesus was according to the Scriptures. You will need to revise your theory with regard to that point.

Perhaps now you will be more willing to respond to my post 1001:

aa5874

Again, you have NOT done any research. You merely copied a sentence. You have no idea at all of what the Targum stated on Hosea 6.2. No idea.

The very same link you provided claims R. Abayi links Hosea 6.2 to a prophecy that "this state will last 2000 years".

Nothing at all in Hosea 6 claims that Jesus DIED for our sins and was resurrected on the third day.

Hosea 6 was NOT about the death of Jesus or that he Died for Our Sins and was Resurrected on the Third day.

Based on your very link Hosea 6.2 may have signified the end of 'this state ' after 2000 years.

Please, just go and do some research. The Pauline writers did NOT even use Hosea 6 to claim Jesus died for our sins.

Such a claim by the Pauline writer would be Blasphemy--No human being died for the sins of Jews in Hebrew Scripture.

Please, just go do some research. You don't know what you are talking about.

Sheshbazzar

I present a different and far more likely scenario;

1. There was a long running feud between Jewish factions regarding locating of The Beginning of The Year, and the timing of The Passover.

2. The Herodian dynasty controlled the Temple and set the 'official' dates of the Jewish calendar and the observances of Holy Days and High Sabbaths.
They changed the timing of the Passover observance from the evening that began the 14th day of the first month, to the evening of the 15th day.

3. The old traditional faction did not hold the political authority to override 'official' pronouncements' from The Temple.

4. Their hands thus tied, they resorted to a political/religious propaganda campaign intended to undermine, discredit, and overthrow the established Temple Priesthood.

5. Their weapon was the creation of a subversive and 'establishment' damning fictional text about the Messiah's Passover which followed that order and timing as presented in Moses (Exodus). This was the genesis of that text that eventually became to be identified as The Gospel of Mark.

6. Hellenistic Jews and Gentiles, envious of the privileged Jewish priesthood and chafing under orthodox Judaisms myriad rules and regulations greatly expanded upon that text.
The Jewish Temple and its priesthood fell.

7. A new and lawless form of the Jews old religion arose and was taken over and propagated among the Gentiles.


'Apostle 'Paul' is another subject.

Iskander

There is no such thing as a messianic prophecy, but many charlatans pretend to have found one.

Hosea is saying that the political problems facing the Northern Kingdom is caused by their bad behaviour, which has displeased god.

Hosea is functioning in the traditional role of intermediary between god and its people

This takes the form of a dialogue. At the beginning of the dialogue the prophet speaks the words of god who threatens to withdraw from the people. The people respond by a quotation from a penitential psalm stating their faith that when they return to god he will accept them, 6:1-3

However the attempt to appease god is not effective. Hosea speaks again the words of god, who expresses despair at Israel’s apostasy, 6:4-6


Robert R. Wilson
Prophecy and society in ancient Israel
Fortress press, Philadelphia, 1980
ISBN 0800618149
Page 228


Joseph Blenkinsopp
A history of prophecy in Israel
Westminster John Knox Press, London, 1983
ISBN 0664256392
Page 72

TedM

Yes. I copied a sentence --doing your research for you-- that shows that a highly respected expert in the area of Messianic prophecy research determined that this passage was considered Messianic back in the old days. You can't dispute that so you instead resort to your own interpretation once again.


Let me be clear: I am NOT saying that this passage was talking about Jesus. That is not relevant. What matters is whether PAUL saw this as a passage that was Messianic. It certainly is possible according to the link I gave you since Jewish writings considered it to be Messianic.

I prefer to go with the scholar's opinion that this was considered Messianic rather than yours because he clearly knows about 1000 times as much as you do on this subject.

No need to respond if you have nothing new to say.

TedM

Iskander, that is all irrelevant to the discussion aa and I are having. See my response to him if you don't understand why the point you are trying to make is irrelevant.

Iskander

There is no a Hosea 6:2 prophecy that Paul could have used.

No prophecy linking the resurrection of Jesus to Hosea 6:2.

TedM

Do you have evidence that this feud existed in the 1st or 2nd century or prior, or is this possibly a creation of anally-oriented numerologists of recent centuries?


No evidence of this, right? Does GMark even show any evidence of this as an important emphasis?


Why would Gentiles be envious of the Jewish priesthood? Any evidence of such envy? What evidence is there of Hellenistic Jewish influence on the falling of the Jewish Temple. Would not that have been the last thing they would have wanted, as Jews themselves?


Why equate envy and a disagreement with the day of Passover with the creation of a completely new form of the old religion --ie the rejection of it? Makes no sense to be anal about the day of Passover and then dramatically change the very religion that spawned the feast celebrating it.


You surely need a heck of a lot of evidence for such wild ideas in order to claim it is 'a far more likely scenario'. Do you have any? And what in the world is so UNLIKELY with the orthodox scenario?

tanya

Thanks for writing clearly, and thanks for your contributions here, to the forum. I do not share your ideas, but I acknowledge your input as definitely contributory.

I don't know how you can assert anything about what "PAUL" saw, or heard, or read, or understood.

No one knows when "Paul" lived. No one knows his parentage, birthplace, lingua materna, level of education, employment, friends, or even the purported dates of his deployment here to terra firma.

For all I know, he is an entirely fictional character.

But, all of this is irrelevant, for the theme of this thread is not Paul, or Paul's beliefs, or Paul's interpretations of Hebrew scripture, or Paul's understanding of the concept of the messiah.

The theme of this thread is analysis of the evidence purporting harmony between aa5874's theory of mythical character of Jesus of Nazareth (aka Kapernaum, or JC) and the ancient texts in our possession.

Paul, if he existed, is irrelevant to that discussion, in my opinion. Relevant, in my opinion, is the text of ancient authors who claim acquaintance with shadowy figures supposed to have had contact with Jesus. One seeks written evidence documenting something, or someone, that can be verified.

Philo writes about Hercules. His text reads as though he imagined that Hercules genuinely existed, as a living breathing demigod. We, of course, do not know whether or not Philo actually believed that the mythical figure genuinely existed, but we interpret his text as suggesting that he did in fact appreciate the mythical character to this figure of literature.

For some reason, though we can perceive, relatively clearly, Philo's ability to write to Emperor Gaius as though Hercules genuinely existed, in harmony with Gaius' belief, not his own, we lack the ability to perceive the same sense of incredulousness, found in Mark....

I don't know why we cannot imagine, that "Mark", whoever they may have been, had written of Jesus, just as Philo had written of Hercules.

Very curious distinction. Of course, this has nothing whatsoever to do with Judaism, hence, will be of little interest to most forum members. In my view, if it were not already transparent, I think early Christianity had little to do with Judaism, and lots to do with money.

TedM

I've already explained it. You clearly disagree although the linkage is not at all a stretch in comparison with many prophecies. I KNOW the context is different but that doesn't matter Iskander. The context is different in the Emmanuel passage, the Bethlehem passage, the 'no corruption' passage in Psalms, and on and on. The context is NOT relevant. What is relevant is that these passages all refer to a future time in which Israel is RESTORED to God's favor, saved from their sins that caused so much trouble for them. THAT is the context that the Jews used for re-interpreting so many passages as Messianic. The early Christians took it a step further by seeing fulfillment by Christ their King. Spiritual Salvation through his death as opposed to political freedom from other countries.

As such Hosea 6:2 was seen by Jews of the time as Messianic, and Christians therefore interpreted it to apply to their own salvation through Christ's resurrection on the 3rd day. It's a stretch for US, but was NOT for them. You and aa are not looking at it the way in which a Paul or any other Jesus prophecy-seeker of the day would have looked at it.