Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 05-16-2004, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrmoderate

As far as Herod and Pilate being noted historic figures but discounting the things they did that are documented in the bible that is a no brainer. History is written by the victors of any confrontation and the parts that don't show the victors in a positive light are omited.

You are correct that it is a "no brainer" discounting the Gospel depiction of Pilate and GMatthew's story about the slaughter of the innocents as fiction but your reason is off-target.

The depiction of Pilate can be dismissed because it is completely contrary to the depictions provided by both Josephus and Philo. Both describe an utterly ruthless jackass with little regard for the Jewish people or their beliefs. A crucified Jesus requires Roman culpability but the Romans were still in charge when the Gospels were written. The whitewashing of Roman responsibility is easily understood as an effort to avoid being readily identified as a political threat.

The story of Herod's mass murder of male children, as Llyricist has pointed out, can be dismissed for the total absence of extra-biblical support where such support would certainly be expected. This is especially true of Josephus who seems to have enjoyed listing Herod's most abhorrent behavior. The blatant similarity to stories from the HB suggests the author of Matthew was trying to deliberately elicit specific conceptions from Jewish tradition.

beastmaster · 05-16-2004, 10:17 AM

How about the name Jesus (Yeshua) itself? What wuld be the HB root for this name for the Messiah?

If you were inventing a Messiah based on the HB alone, wouldn't you call him Immanuel instead?

mrmoderate · 05-16-2004, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Llyricist

I'm not real sure what you mean by this... but if it relates to how much time between your post and my reply..... you can go.... errrrr actually if you must know, Saturday is my music day (note my nickname), I replied to your post within 10 minutes of reading it (I read the other posts as well before responding)

LMAO!!! this is really too funny, This doesn't help your argument at all. You are saying that the victors are changing the history to support the new leader and denigrate the previous right?...... THINK man THINK!!!

I'm afraid it is YOU that is misunderstanding the temporal issues here. My point is that what we have of the biblical writings has passed through the filter of the eventually victorious Christians..... YOU conveniently forget that fact and claim what we have is actually untouched writings by the defeated? Hello??

BTW the only problem the Romans seemed to have with the early Christians was that they (the Christians) refused to worship the Roman Gods as well as their own. They called Christians "Atheists" because of this.

Oh and no-one else would notice that Herod had all the kids under 2 slaughtered??? As if that ONLY relates to Jesus??? give me a break man..... ANYONE would notice such a thing, and report it in a list of all the lousy things that that he did (at the very least Josephus would have).

Well not entirely (in answer to your first statement), however the fact is that the Gospels have Pilate bending over backwards to SAVE Jesus from that punishment and finally relenting to the will of the Jewish crowd..... and washing his hands of the whole matter (refusing to accept responsibility)... if that isn't a positive portrayal.... well you have some sort of different calculus for determining such things I guess.

and they witnessed what?

It's actually you that is doing the bouncing, I recognize the fact that the Christians taking over the Roman Empire came between whatever happened in 1st Century Judea and now.... you seem to skip that fact.

edited for a couple of spelling errors and clarity

I realize that you do not have the ability to understand anything that I have posted nor do you at all understand any biblical writings. Therefore I will leave you to your fantasy world of misunderstanding and false thought. Sorry I wasted your time.

Llyricist · 05-16-2004, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrmoderate

I realize that you do not have the ability to understand anything that I have posted nor do you at all understand any biblical writings. Therefore I will leave you to your fantasy world of misunderstanding and false thought. Sorry I wasted your time.

Projection?

No answers to any points raised, just a blanket dismissal huh? that's pretty weak.

So yes it was a waste of my time to try to straighten out your misunderstandings, I'll know better in the future.

Llyricist · 05-16-2004, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beastmaster

How about the name Jesus (Yeshua) itself? What wuld be the HB root for this name for the Messiah?

If you were inventing a Messiah based on the HB alone, wouldn't you call him Immanuel instead?

Jesus means "The lord's salavation", which works perfectly for the earliest Christian teachings, it wasn't till the gospels were being written that "the lord with us" might have worked better.

mrmoderate · 05-16-2004, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

Actually this should be translated as follows:

Is 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself giveth to you a sign, Lo, the maid is conceiving, And is bringing forth a son, And hath called his name Immanuel,

Note the tense.

I know that Matthew has done it. What I am saying is that I don't buy it.

Actually, the case for the term "virgin" is a sticky one when it comes to biblical text. The Hebrew word almah, which is a feminine version of elem is used only four times in the bible. It is used in Gen 24:43, Is 7:14, and SOS 1:3 and 6:8. Since in all but Isaiah 7:14 it is quite clear that the usage is meant to be "maid" or "young woman" then it is most likely that this is the usage it was meant for in Isaiah 7:14.

I agree this is a flimsy rationale to claim a virgin birth prophecy for Jesus. Of course, this is based on the etymological information we currently know to be true.

Quote:

Even if I buy your "plural" argument (and I don't) it will not lead to the conclusion that the OT is speaking of Jesus. With this kind of argument I can prove that the HB is speaking about me.

The plurality of God in Genesis is far from being my argument. I am simply stating what is there. This factor is proof that the biblical verses have stayed intact over the centuries rather than having been interpreted. Let's face it, translators of the bible would have loved to get rid of some of these confusing passages.

Quote:

Actually what early Christians believed is that when Yahweh/Elohim spoke and said "let there be light" he engendered a Son, the Word. And through him he created the world. But we do not need to believe everything people say do we?

Unless God had a mouse in His pocket this certainly makes more sense than anything else I have heard

Quote:

But then Paul tells us that it was all secret from the begining of time until Paul's time when the key to interpreting sceiptures was given.

Romans 16:25-26

This passage is simply telling the Romans who were not familiar with Jewish writings that Jesus had been prophesied in the ancient Hebrew Texts but it was not known until Jesus's life, death and resurection what the prophecies actually meant. The "key" was Jesus Himself. Jesus was the fulfillment of the prophecies. There was no mysticism referred to in this passage.

I firmly believe that someday all biblical text will be made clear to everyone in a similar fashion. In the meantime believers should take the bible for what it clearly seems to be; a reference manual for a better mortal life.

Toto · 05-16-2004, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beastmaster

How about the name Jesus (Yeshua) itself? What wuld be the HB root for this name for the Messiah?

If you were inventing a Messiah based on the HB alone, wouldn't you call him Immanuel instead?

Jesus is the Greek version of Joshua. Jesus is seen as the new manifestation of Joshua, son of Nun, who was Moses lieutenant.

Many parallels on this page, although the author of that site is trying to make a different point.

rlogan · 05-16-2004, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Yep.

Thank you Amaleq13. You have good questions to help develop this line of thinking.

Quote:

I tend to view it as influenced by Mark's knowledge of the actual experiences of the prophets of the Kingdom of God (ie Q) but I wondered if you knew of any HB source.

Well, even today we take prophets outside the "mainstream" to be crazy. And, many of them are. Jim Jones comes to mind as an extreme example. The Hale-Bopp guy. Etc. So this is a good point.

Quote:

Run Forrest, run!

Several things going on in Mark 3. We have Prophesy fulfillment up to the plate first with casting out demons and healing the sick.

We have a question asked and answered in the general text area of concern. Since he can cast out demons, is he not one himself? Is he not crazy? What is with this wild man outside the sanction of the official church?

So junkyard Jesus answers back "no" with rhetorical questions.

But he also does something else very important. He demonstrates that he has rejected everything - and his family of particular note - to make the "flock" his family.

I think this is pretty important in establishing the puiblic relations imagery we want out of the savior.

rlogan · 05-16-2004, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Jesus is the Greek version of Joshua. Jesus is seen as the new manifestation of Joshua, son of Nun, who was Moses lieutenant.

Many parallels on this page, although the author of that site is trying to make a different point.

Thank you for bringing that to our attention Toto. I'll look through that.

Edited to add:

Toto - there was another very important element in that site. The similarity between the sayings of Buddah and Jesus.

That supports my contention that there is very little, if anything, unique about the "sayings" of Jesus. Turn the other cheek, do unto others, etc.

I think you've answered the question about why the name Jesus. It is a good question. Why not emmanuel.

The deduction is that the name "Jesus" was in use before the gospel perps started dumpster-diving for HJ parts in the books of the HB.

Magdlyn · 05-17-2004, 04:18 AM

Just to add to the fun, Yeshua ben Nun means, son of the fish. As we know, our 1st CE Yeshua was and is associated with the fish. You might think it was because he ushered in Pisces, but when you see the ancient Joshua with that in this title, hmm...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-16-2004, 10:17 AM	#32
beastmaster Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Madrid / I am a: Lifelong atheist Posts: 885	How about the name Jesus (Yeshua) itself? What wuld be the HB root for this name for the Messiah? If you were inventing a Messiah based on the HB alone, wouldn't you call him Immanuel instead?

05-17-2004, 04:18 AM	#40
Magdlyn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 2,230	Just to add to the fun, Yeshua ben Nun means, son of the fish. As we know, our 1st CE Yeshua was and is associated with the fish. You might think it was because he ushered in Pisces, but when you see the ancient Joshua with that in this title, hmm...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.