stephan huller

I don't think the early Christians did 'screw around' with the Jewish messianic formula. I think what appeared in the late second century was a deliberate aberration which - coupled with the systematic repression of the original Alexandrian tradition - ultimately triumphed. But once again, I do not think this 'alternative model' developed 'naturally' within Christianity.

maryhelena

Aberration, 'screw around', transformation - the jumping off point was the literal Jewish Messiah/Anointed concept. A rose by any other name...

The christians took the Jewish literal messiah idea - turned it upside down - or to be charitable to them, turned it right way up - and created a new concept of a spiritual messiah figure - the everlasting permanent messiah/anointed concept. A powerful intellectual meme that has the sort of staying power that no literal messiah figure could ever hope to have...

stephan huller

I posted this at another thread. I thought it might have relevance here:

Let's get one thing straight - Messiah means Christ and Christ means Messiah and the two words only mean Anointed and the usual referent is a secular king. The Queen was anointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Moderator of the Church of Scotland at her coronation. There is no Greek word Christos unambiguously meaning what Christian theology uses it to mean. The altar was “christos” when olive oil was poured on it. Flour is “christos” when olive oil is poured on it. Grass is “christos” when the sprinkler is turned on. If it means someone special, then it means any king of any country at any time.

Aside from this, there is no Hebrew or Aramaic word “Messiah”. This is an ARTIFICIAL word only existing in late modern English. There is the Hebrew word משיח Mashiach (approximate pronunciation) and the Aramaic Meshiach (approximate pronunciation) and definite Meshicha (approximate pronunciation) and the Greek phonetic transcription Messias (where the 's' is a Greek suffix). French correctly renders both Mashiach and Messias as “Messie”. German has “Messias” for both.

A source of confusion is that the Aramaic and Greek forms also render the Hebrew Kohen Mashuach, an anointed High Priest. Another source of confusion is that although the word Mashiach = Christos in the Psalms usually refers to any earthly temporal king, in some places it refers to a heavenly figure known from Canaanite mythology and from contemporary writings about Melchizedek, seen as manifestation of a heavenly figure. (King of Salem = King of Peace. Melchizedek means King of Righteousness, as in the Christmas carol “Hark the Heavenly Angels Sing”, which says “Hail the King of Righteousness”. The phrase in the carol is a conscious translation of Melchizedek [Malki-tsedek in modern transcription]). A further difficulty is that some occurrences of Mashiach = Christos have both the earthly and the heavenly meanings.

Jesus NEVER EVER ONCE used the term Mashiach = Christos = Anointed for himself. One could argue I suppose that he did this because the term had too many meanings, some badly misleading. One could also argue that he used “Son of Man”, which is deliberately ambiguous. In Aramaic of the time (as Bar Nasha) and in literary Hebrew (Ben Adam) it could just mean “the one under discussion” or “the person”. As an allusion to Daniel XI, it meant a heavenly figure who acts to bring the will of God to earth.

Finally, all the references to Isaiah at the start of Luke DON’T refer to a heavenly figure. In the context in Isaiah, it is a child already born or about to be born in 700 B.C. What was miraculous then 700 B.C. was the sign of divine intervention in history, symbolised by the birth and the change in political circumstances coinciding. The Prince of Peace etc. is in the first instance this child in 700 B.C. The angel says or Luke says the same power is to act again, more powerfully, in the birth of Jesus.

Let's make this clear. Jesus always rejected the term Mashiach (Hebrew) or Meshicha (Aramaic) or “Christos” (Greek). All these words mean exactly the same thing, someone or something anointed. He rejected the term was because the PRIMARY CONNOTATION is “legitimate TEMPORAL or SECULAR king”. This is its meaning in Daniel IX: 25 and 26.

ALL EARLY CHRISTIAN COMMENTATORS AGREE THAT THIS ANOINTED IN DANIEL IS ONLY A TEMPORAL KING. (All early Christian commentators agree with the mainstream Jewish interpretation, that it is meant to refer to Marcus Agrippa). In the contemporary Jewish context, Anointed = Mashiach = Christos meant a new secular king descended from David.

Jesus’s descent from David is of about one percent of importance in defining his status in traditional Christianity. American Evangelicalism is close to heresy in this respect. The traditional model is Moses.

AGAIN THERE IS NOT ONE BIT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHRISTOS AND MASHIACH. THEY ARE THE SAME WORD IN TWO DIFFERENT LANGUAGES. Daniel IX says Marcus Agrippa was Christos in one meaning, the usual meaning, a secular king. Jesus and Paul would have agreed. This is a rare meaning of the term in the Psalms, hardly found anywhere else in the O.T. (Yes, I mean this). Actually the verb is usually used to carry this meaning, not the noun. (“He has been anointed”, not “He is the Anointed”).

Jesus didn’t use the word Christos at all, because the first meaning was wrong in his case and the second meaning would not be relevant or applicable till after the Resurrection and Ascension.

Jesus never repudiated the title Mashiach: he just discouraged the use of it when applied to himself.

maryhelena

OK
Mark 8:27-30; Matthew 16:13-20. The gospel Jesus did not deny that he was the Christ - he warned his disciples not to tell anyone about their identifying him as such a figure.

Yes, another application of the messiah/anointed concept - history repeating itself within a new historical time-slot. And yes, as I've posted, christians transformed the Jewish messiah/anointed concept; transformed this concept that denotes a literal, physical, historical figure into a spiritual messiah/anointed concept. The gospel mythological, figurative or symbolic Jesus - an intellectual, spiritual, concept.

Step 1. in the process being a historical figure deemed to be the Jewish messiah/anointed figure. Step 2. in the process being Paul and his vision of the resurrected Jesus 'salvation' figure; a rebirth scenario from the literal messiah/anointed concept to the spiritual messiah/anointed concept. Step 3. in the process being the pseudo-historical Jesus gospel storyline.

And where exactly did the gospel Jesus reject an identification by his disciples that he was the messiah/anointed figure? Stephen, the gospel Jesus is not historical - so lets not get sidetracked re any historical Jesus and the absurdly of such a figure ever being considered by Jews as a messiah/anointed figure.

Agreed, Daniel' messiah/anointed figure is primarily a temporal king - a literal historical figure. All the christians have done is realize that a temporal king is not much of a 'salvation' figure - and sought to go for the jackpot - the everlasting 'salvation' figure in a purely spiritual/intellectual context.

The question is not that Marcus Julius Agrippa was viewed by the Jews as a messiah/anointed figure - the question resolves around the identity of Marcus Julius Agrippa. Was he half a Jew, Hasmoneon/Herodian - or was he the real deal - a full bloodied Hasmonean King/Priest.

Yes, Moses is a good model (though David and Solomon are also of interest...)Moses leads the Jews out of Egypt. King Agrippa leads them back to Egypt - to Alexandria ie to a time prior to the Jerusalem temple. However, like Moses, King Agrippa dies before the promised land is reached. It is Joshua who knocks down the walls of Jericho. It is after the death of King Agrippa that his son, also Marcus Julius Agrippa, opens up the road to the promised land, the new spiritual 'world'. A world of intellectual concepts that has been given 'birth' through an interpretation of the messiah/anointed concept as it was applied to King Agrippa the Great.

(Or the David and Solomon story: It is Solomon that is to build the Jerusalem temple, not David.)
Jesus only said and did what his story teller tells him to do...Jesus has no other choice as he is not historical but a figure in a symbolic storyline. Best to keep that in mind when talking to a mythicist...

stephan huller

The point still stands. Jesus never applies the term Christ to himself. Even your appeal to the original story in Mark/Matthew is even less convincing WHEN YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE EARLIEST INTERPRETATIONS OF THE MATERAL.

Origen's analysis undoubtedly reflects the original Marcionite interpretation of the material too:

For the expression here plainly indicates that now for the first time Peter confessed that Christ was the Son of the living God. Matthew then, according to some of the manuscripts, has written, Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no man that He was the Christ, but Mark says, He charged them that they should tell no man of Him; and Luke, He charged them and commanded them to tell this to no man. But what is the this? Was it that also according to him, Peter answered and said to the question, Who say ye that I am.— The Christ, the Son of the living God? [Matthew 16:15-16] You must know, however, that some manuscripts of the Gospel according to Matthew have, He charged. [Matthew 16:20 ] The difficulty thus started seems to me a very real difficulty; but let a solution which cannot be impugned be sought out, and let the finder of it bring it forward before all, if it be more credible than that which shall be advanced by us as a fairly temperate view. Consider, then, if you can say, that the belief that Jesus is the Christ is inferior to the knowledge of that which is believed (by us, i.e. the Alexandrian Church). [Origen Commentary Matthew 12.15]

Everyone should stop recycling the bull---t that gets recycled about 'what the belief of the Church Fathers' was. READ THE DAMN TEXTS and see that Origen here clearly, unmistakably (but nevertheless cryptically) puts forward that the Roman belief that Jesus was the Christ is an inferior gnosis.

Why don't people read this? Why don't they understand? It's the basis to his two advent system (which is just a Marcionite formulation recast to 'fit' the new standard of orthodoxy being IMPOSED on Alexandria).

The original formulation of Christianity is entirely compatible with Islam. Jesus came to hail someone else as the Christ.

maryhelena

Stephen - if your trying to get christians to buy your Jesus as historical forerunner to the Jewish messiah/anointed Agrippa - no deal. They will not buy it. On this forum, where there are people who are either skeptics re the historical Jesus or mythicists - you might fare better - with the skeptics. With the mythicists its no deal. The gospel Jesus figure is not historical.

I sense your frustration. But trying to argue for a historical Jesus on this forum means you have a huge task ahead of you.

And, Stephen, as regards interpretation of the gospel storyline - or any literature that requires interpretation - it's anyones game. And I, for one, have no real interest in what someone hundreds of years ago interpreted such and such a text as meaning. We live in different mental worlds. And yes, we have to have as 'true' a reconstruction of history as we can possibly have - but after that - and of course the accurate translations of the relevant documents - its anyones game. Interpretation is just that interpretation - and no one has the final say whether the interpretation is 'true' or not - only history can perhaps shed some light.

One can offer up interpretations - interesting scenarios - but one can only lead a horse to water - one cannot make the horse drink the water. That only happens when the horse is well and truly thirsty. Most people only change their opinion and ideas when they have need to do so. Necessity. Old ideas are like that pair of worn in shoes - comfortable as slippers. What will be the tipping point re the whole historical Jesus as Jewish messiah scenario - only time will tell...:huh:

stephan huller

I am not trying to get anyone to 'believe' anything. I am Jewish remember. I walk around thinking that everyone else is an idiot and have no real chance of being redeemed every day of my life (lol). Trying to convince other people to come over to my world view is αδιάφορα to me. I just like combat because it sharpens my arguments and my understanding.

stephan huller

Just for the record it bothers me that you won't even consider the significance of what Origen says. Reading an ancient book is like going fishing (or a 'box of chocolates' to use a worn out old cliche from a movie). It's amazing when you come up with something important.

maryhelena

Maybe I'm just being lazy - I have, to me, more interesting things to do - like trying to unravel the gospel storyline re Jesus and the Josephan re-write, in a symbolic drama, of Herodian history of the relevant time period.

So, if I miss out on something re what someone interpreted hundreds of years ago - then I'm open to be filled in on it - and will either find value in it or not. In other words - I beat my own drum....

maryhelena

Well then, we are on the same wavelength...:wave: