Metacrock

[quote]Originally posted by lpetrich:
[QB]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mturton:
Can you elaborate? Which aspects don't apply to mythical figures? How is the list wrong?


Meta =>(before)Very few virgin briths. Most of them ivolve a young woman having sex with a God, which is not virigity. Mary did not have sex with the almighty.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Meta =>No kidding! :eek But no, it's not hairsplitting, it's crucial. The distinction makes all the difference. For example, Osiris' mother was a godess, not a mortal, she married his father and they forced the beast with two backs and had a kid, like any other couple. Where's the virigin birth? That same pattern is repeated in almost all myth, in most cases a woman has sex with a partner and they have a kid, like any other time. that is not the birth of a chiild by a virign! That is totally different. In the Isaiah 7 passage the sign is suppossedly that an actual virgin will have a kid, that makes it a miracle! Just having sex and having a kid is not a miracle.

Moreover, why would they have to copy it from pagan's when have an example in the OT?

Furthermore, since everyone in every culture is born of a woman its an archetype and doesn't have to be consciously barrowed. At that rate all you are saying is that the Hebrews were human.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Metacrock:
Was Resurrection on there? I assume so, most of these guys were not resurrected. The Christ mythers tend to count any sort of after life as "resurrection." Almost none of them actually returened to earlthy life, most just went on to heaven or Olympus or whatever.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Meta=>NONONONONONONON! again you are obscurign the curcail differences!!! There is a total difference in dying and your spirit going on to the after life (which is what happens in most myths) and actually coming back from death to the fleshly life you had as a mortal, as Jesus did. These are not the same thing at all.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For other details I am going to hold you to proving your own argument. Show me three mythic heores who were killed on hills.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


MEta=>Sheeeeeeeeeash! Moses was not a mythic hero! the argument is that Jesus was a copy of Hellenic literary sources! It doesn't count if it's influenced after Hebrew sources, becasue that's to be expected! It could be a litereary allusion or a reference to some point in the Torah, but unless it's connected to Pagan sources it's not even part of the argument because it is to be exacted that they might make an allusion to some OT source. But even more importantly there's a big difference in dying on a moutin and being exicuted on a hill.

Look either you are on raised ground of flat land. So there's a 50-5o prob thing that he would be on some kind raised ground. You have to do better than that. Therefore, the addition of being exciuted on a hill has to come into it, otherwise it's like saying Jesus wore clothes and Moses wore clothes so Jesus is a copy of Moses.

Hercules dies on top of Mt. Oeta. - <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Herakles/bio.html" target="_blank">http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Herakles/bio.html</a>

Meta =&gt;That's just one version. There are several verisions of Hercules' death in some he died in a river and in some at home. In some he's shot with an arrow and in some he wore a poisoned robe. What is the date on the source? To what period does the moutin top death date? it might be post Christian.

Meta =&gt;When was he writting? Might as well base this on Bullfinch. Do you realize that this stuff was abandoned in the 19th century? When Freasure was discredited for the Golden Bough this kind of argument dropped out of real scholarship.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus didnt' have children that is one of the things, although its admitted but since its in the list it helps create the impression that there are 19 things when really one of them doesn't count.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How doesn't it count?


Meta =&gt;Are you kidding? He didn't have any. the thing says they have kids, he didn't have any. So obviously it doesn't apply to him!

Haran

I just wanted to point out that many of the prophecies relating Jesus seem to have been relatively well-known shortly before and after Jesus' time. Some of them are witnessed in the DSS. Also, at least one was applied by a Mishnaic?/Talmudic rabbi to claim that Bar Kochba (the leader of a jewish revolt against Roman forces in ~132 A.D.) was a Messiah. I believe it's hard to deny that these prophecies were believed by common Jewish people of the time to point toward the coming Messiah, whether we think they should today or not...

You are probably referring to the story in the Talmud. I suppose you could say it was what really happened, but you'd need to consider the Talmud's late date. It was compiled ~500A.D. I personally think it is more likely that the story in the Talmud was "altered" in polemical reaction to the challenge that Jesus and Christianity posed to the Jewish community.

More food for thought....

Haran

Metacrock

(1) The hero's mother is a royal virgin, while

meta =&gt; What hero mother's are Royal virigins? First that raises the question was Mary a "Royal virign?" She wasn't in the line to accept the throne, that was Jo's line. Her line goes through Nathan so she wasn't eleigable. Just being a decendent of David doesn't make her Royal.

Osiris mother was not a virigin. Hercules' mother had sex with a God. This whole virigin thing is dealt with on my webpage. Read this source.

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/other/Mythological_Jesus.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/other/Mythological_Jesus.htm</a>


(2) his father is a king, and

Jo wasn't a king. Just because he was in the line doesn't make him a king. You miss the whole point of having them be Royal. That makes them nobility. They weren't usualy just pesants decended form a King, they were actually living in a palace because that connected them to a nobel way of life.


(3) the father is related to the mother.

Examples please? That is just added to make it seem closer.


(4) The hero's conception is unusual or miraculous; hence
(5) he is reputed to be a son of a god.

But most of the actual mthical stories only have an unusual concetion in that the woman is with a god. Otherwise, it's normal sex, and not a vrigin birth. Moreover, since virignal conception was fortold in Isaiah its prophesied and so obviously that is the source of that element in the Gospels and not pagan myth.

(6) Evil forces attempt to kill the infant or boy hero, but
(7) he is spirited away to safety and
(8) reared by foster parents in a foreign land.


O yea name three! Who else did this happen to? Come on now it's your argument, it's your burden of proof to make good on this claim. Btw what was Raglan's data base on mythic heroes?

I would also add that the short segment in the Gospel about the flight into Egypt is not even a developed story, making it a mere metion. That is far cry form an actual story like the one about Horus or the one about Achellies. That means there is hardly enough there to even justify the concept of copying. It is proably an archetype. That's another point I'll be making in a bit.

Besides this,
(9) we learn no details of his childhood until
(10) he journeys to his future kingdom, where

The whole point of Chambell's book The Hero with a Thsousand Faces is that all hero stories are archetypical of the stuggle of the indiviudal in life. So at that rate the idea of a hero's journey is just par for the course. It's not conscious copy it's part of the power of myth to speak to the psyche. It's also not hard to figure why they usually don't have details of childhood, because it's not important. The ancient world was not into documentary, they didn't care about documenting every detail for posterity, they barely had a concept of history. So that doesn't impress me at all. That's like saying they all eat breakfast. That doesnt' make it a copy. To really argue that Jesus is patterned after other mythic heroes you have to show that he fits unqiue things that wouldn't be there just because it's a normal human thing to include or becasue it's an archetype that all cultures have.


(11) he triumphs over the reigning king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast, and


Jesus never did any of that.


(12) marries a princess, often his predecessor's daughter, and
(13) becomes king himself.

Jesus didn't do these three things, so that is three more we can take off the list.

(14) For a while he reigns uneventfully,
(15) promulgating laws. But
(16) he later loses favor with his subjects or with the gods and
(17) is driven from the throne and the city and
(18) meets with a mysterious death,


This didn't happen to Jesus either. you could try to say that the crowd demanding Barabbus was a copy of that, but it's not even close. He never had a period of reign, never passed laws, so there's really no fit for these points. Even if we keep the point about losing favor with the people that is three more points you lose.

(19) often atop a hill.

one example of a peaceful death on a moutin top and one of a violent one. That's not good enough (the peaceful one was Moses). So far all you have is one example and it was not an execution. So let's have some more examples. I would say you need at leat three to establish a pattern, and that's beng generous.

(20) If he has children, they do not succeed him.


Jesus didn't


(21) His body is not buried, yet
(22) he has one or more holy sepulchers.

That is the most absurd one of all. The mention of more than one seplechur is not in the Gospels. That was an accient of hitory and until the 19th century he only had one. So that doesn't even count. Besides that his body was burried so that's not even part of the deal.

Now let's look at the list again with all of this in mind, taking out the one's that obviously dont' fit (I'll leave in some of the ambiguous one's just to give you the best shot at the argument.

Metacrock

The List:


Now it's not such an impressive list is it? that is hardly enough to justify a good argument at all.

---------

[Edited only to convert long URL to a link. --Don--]

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Don Morgan ]</p>

-DM-

Are you omniscient? If not, you cannot possibly know what Jesus never did.

--Don--

Metacrock

This is from my website. I have several pages on this topic. The submenu can be found here:

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/metagetics/DoxaMessiah.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/metagetics/DoxaMessiah.html</a>

Rabbinical sources indicate that the prophesies of Jesus and the expectations of the Jews prior to Jesus' day and during his life time were basically in accord with what happens in the Gosples. The following is cut from my webstie, I researched it wrote it.

The general "qualifications" for Messiah were: decendant of Jesse, of David, through the line to Solomon, thorugh the kings of Judah and finally through Zerubbabel. This means of course that he would come from the tirbe of Judah. They expected him to free them from the Romans and bring in a great time of world peace and a holy nation. But they also had many other expectations which are in differing degrees, not necessarily those recognized by Jews today. Edersheim reveals most of these and they will be demonstrated within the context of arguments below. IT is not clear exactly how common or universal all of these expectations were, but they did exist and some were common within first century Judaism. Since it is absurd to think that Jews would just give up their faith and dash off to join another religion, we should expect that all of the claims Jesus made and that are made about him by his early followers were present in Jewish expectation, and so we do.
What we find when we examine these, and others below, is not a host of randum fulfillments but that they tell the whole Jesus story as presented in the Gospels. Suffering, rejection, dissaperance, death, return. These expectations will be demonstrated in the course of the following arguments.





A. Expectations

1) Root of Jesse and Branch of David.
The whole of chapter 11 (Isaiah) is designated by more than one ancient rabbinical source as pertaining to the Messiah.Targum v 1-6 as Messianic.(Jer. Berach 5a and Snah 93b) and number of passages in the Midrashim . v 1 says "a shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse." Jesus was decended from Jesse, father of King David.

Edersheim demonstrates thorugh many many passages of Rabbinical origin that "branch" and "branch of David" are terms specifically designating the Messiah, but Eisenman and Wise also document this fact specificially using the whole phrase "Branch of David." (24). Of course this phrase is used often in describing Jesus, and in fact is a pun on the word "Nazerath" since no prophesy of the OT predicts the Messiah coming form Nazerath.

Eisenman and Wises translation of "Genesis Florolegium" coloum 5.1 "The Government shall not pass from the tribe of Judah. During Isreal's dominian a Davic decendant on the Throne shall not cease...[elipseies mine] until the Branch of David comes because to him and to his seed was given the covenant of the Kingdom of his people in perpetuiy.." (89).(4q252)



2) Messiah to come from Galilee (and linked to God)


From Isaiah 9:1-3 "In the future he will honor Galilee of the gentiles, by the way of the Sea...The people who walked in Darkenss have seen a great light..." This whole chapter showed to be Messianich by Edersheim and leads into the declaration of Messiah's divinity (see below).


3) Star connected with his birth


"There is however testimony which seems to us not only reliable, but embodies most ancient Jewish tradition. It is contianed in one of the smaller Midrashim of which a collection has lattley been published. ...the so called Messiah Haggadda...'a star shall come out of Jacob' ...'the star shall shine out of the East and this is the Star of the Messiah.'" (Dr. Jellineck a work in six part Beth ha Midrash LIep and Venne 1853--in Edersheim 211-212). Edershiem also quotes three other midrashim. These are presented in the same book. Edershiem goes on to document (Ibid) from the works of Keppler that a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn did actually occurr two years before the birth of Chrsit, and the following year was joined by Mars making for an extremely bright sideriol event.



There is also the star prophecy from Numbers refurring to a star out of Jacob and linked to the world ruler at Qumran (see above reference). Eisenman and Wise document many times the importance of this prophecy at Qumran, int he revolt of 66 and the bar Kochba revolt of 135 (and indeed the name bar Kochba itself which means son of the star). Perhaps it could be that, though the star in Numbers is the Messiah himself, the notion of a Star as a herold and symbol of the birth of the 'ture Star' somehow was prophecied in an oral tradition, or at least traspossed. This thought must have crossed Edersheim's mind for he does mention the numbers prophecy here in passing.





4) Mystery concerning his seed


Edersheim states: "It is is not without hesitation that we make reference to the Jewish allusions to the miraculous birth of the Savior. Yet there are two expressions which convey the idea of, if not super human origin, yet of some great mystery attaching to his birth. The first occurrs in connection with the birth of Seth R. Tanocum said in the name of R. Samuel "Eve had respect [regard, looing to] the seed which is to come 'form another place' and who is this? This is King Messiah [Ber R. 23 ed. Warsh] The second appears in the narrative of the Crime of Lot's daughters 'it is not written that we may preserve a seed from our father," but 'seed form our father.' This is that seed which is coming form another place. And who is this? This is MEssiah the king.'" (Edersheim p178, in Ber R. 51= Bereshith Rabba on Genesis).









5) The Qumran sect expected him to be Son of God.


Neverhteless we find in the Dead Sea Scrolls "Sons of Light" already understood the Messiah as the Son of God before Jesus came onto the scene. "He will be called Son of God and they will call him son of the Most High.... His Kingdom will be an eternal kingdom and all his paths in truth and uprightness. The earth will be in truth and will make peace. The Sword will cease in the earth and all the cities will pay him homage." (F.G.Martinez: Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, 2nd ed. (New York:E.J. Brill Leiden)1992). The concept of Son of God existed at Qumran before Christianity, and thus was in Judaism, and was not made up by Jesus' followers.




6) Rabbis expected Messiah to be unrecognized by his people


Is. 8:14 "...he will be a sancuary but to both houses of Israel he will be a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall and to the people of Jerusalem he will be a snare" [not the application to Christ, the evengelists even refurr to the stumbling stone in the Gosple's] it makes perfect sense within the context of the story in Is. and no one would think it refurrs to something else, and yet the rabbinate says it does. This is more evidence of intersperssed Messianich prophecy; or "double meaning." It makes sense on one level and then is interpreted on another. Is. 10:27 says: "in that day their burden will be lifted from their shoulders; their yoke from their neck." Again, Edersheim quotes rabbinical sources which show that these verses speak of the Messiah.


7) Rabbis expected Messiah to suffer rejection and other trails


"Jewish writtings speak frequenly of the so called sorrows of the Messiah (Chebhley shel Mashiech ) [Sabb.118]. These were partly those of the MEssiah and partly those coming on Israel and the wrod previous to coming of the Messiah...peroid of internal corrupton..." Edersheim 433. ( note I am listing the abriviations of the Rabbinical authorities where these are found).


Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98bThe Rabbis said: His name is "the leper scholar," as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted. [Isaiah 53:4].

-- Soncino Talmud edition.



Ruth Rabbah 5:6The fifth interpretation [of Ruth 2:14] makes it refer to the Messiah. Come hither: approach to royal state. And eat of the BREAD refers to the bread of royalty; AND DIP THY MORSEL IN THE VINEGAR refers to his sufferings, as it is said, But he was wounded because of our transgressions.

(Isa. LIII, 5).-- Soncino Midrash Rabbah (vol. 8, p. 64).





The Karaite Yefeth ben Ali (10th c.)As to myself, I am inclined, with Benjamin of Nehawend, to regard it as alluding to the Messiah, and as opening with a description of his condition in exile, from the time of his birth to his accession to the throne: for the prophet begins by speaking of his being seated in a position of great honour, and then goes back to relate all that will happen to him during the captivity. He thus gives us to understand two things: In the first instance, that the Messiah will only reach his highest degree of honour after long and severe trials; and secondly, that these trials will be sent upon him as a kind of sign, so that, if he finds himself under the yoke of misfortunes whilst remaining pure in his actions, he may know that he is the desired one....



B.Fulfillment of prophecy



1) Rabbis identify Suffering Servant of Is. 53 as Messiah.


Allegro documents Isaiah suffering servant Messianic.
[John Allegro, The Dead Sea scrolls, Pelican, 1956] Allegro was the only member of the original translation team who was neither Christain nor Jew, but claimed "nutrality." However, he was criticized by other members of the team as being anti-Chrsitian and skeptical]



"In one of their hyms the sect pictures itself as a pregant woman suffering the pangs of parturition as she gives birth to her 'firstborn' who is described in terms reminiscent of the Child of Isaish 9:6, the 'Wonderful Counsellor.' Most scholars agree that the passage retains its biblical Messianic significance, in which case it appears that the Sect believed that out of its suffering of atonement for 'the land' would come the Anointed One or Christ."(161).



Is. 8:14 is applied to Messianic times by the Talmud(sanh 38a) and of 9:6 Edersheim says "is expressly applied to the Messiah in the Targumalso Haggada in Debarim and Bemidbar." (Edersheim, 723).



2) Suffering servant Divine.


Isaiah 9:1-3 quoted as Messianic in Edersheim's list and at Qumran, the Messiah to come from Seed of Jessy, from Galilee. "The people who walk in Darkness have seen a great light." Light related to Messiah (see above). This verse in particular is Mesianic at Qumran and on list. v6 "to us a child is born, to us a son is given, the government will be on his shoulders and he will be called 'wonderful conselor'Almighty God, Everlasting Father Prience of Peace." "Prince of David" was a Messianic title at Qumran. "Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end...with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever."



Now Rabbinical apologists today say that this merely refurs to the child born in capter 7 as a sign to the King that God will support them in battle. This is a verse often quoted by Chrsitians becasue it sepaks of a "Virigin Birth." Most Chrsitians take this as the expectation of the Messiah as born of a virgin, as was Jesus. Yet Modern day Jewish apologists disagree. They say that the child was not born of a vigin, but that the word is mistanslated in chp 7. But the passage in nine indicates that, while the interpritation fits with the ostincible story of the chapter, the birth of Mahar-Shalal-Hash-Baz" (the child), the passage in verse nine has doule meaning. For not only does it fit with the sotry in Isaiah, but it was also understood by Rabbis of Jesus' day to harold the Messiah. This can only be the case unless Mahar-Shala-Hash-Baz was to be called "every lasting father, almighty God."



"Isaiah 9:6 is expressly applied to Messiah in Targum" Debarim R1 (ed. Wash p4) The Child referred to in Chp. 9 is the Messiah, HE will be called "everlasting father, almighty God," Which the Jewish expositors would not call the Messiah, but Jesus Christ has been so called! As further proof that this passage is Messianic Edersheim also shows that the next verse, 7, "the government shall be on his shoulders," is attentested by Rabbinical authorities as Messianic. Whose shoulders shall the government be on? The child in v6, the "almighty God."



It is argued by the Jewish apologists of today that nowhere do the scritpures speak of a man being sacraficed for the sins of the people; nor does it speak of a resurrection of the Messiah form the dead. It is not very likely hat any Jews of Jesus' day understood what was about to befall him. But it is not true that the scriptures don't teach these things. When the first followers of Jesus turned to the Scriptueres to try and understand what had happaned they saw in them the cruciffiction and the Ressurection. They understood this as a fulfillment of Messianic prophesy, though understood expost facto. While this leaves us open to the charge of reading in a meaning that is not there, it can be argued that it is a sound interpriation of scripture.



3) Crucifiction and atonement


a) crucifiction in Psalm 22: 1,7, 14-18 and Isaiah 53:5


v1 "My God, my God, why have you forsken me?" Jesus last words on the corss. v7 "all who see me mock me, they hural insults..." v14 "I am poured out like water and all my bones are out of joint/my heart has turned to wax/...my touge sticks to the roof of my mouth..." v"they have peirced my hands and my feet ...they divide my garements among them." This is a picture of Chist on the corss. The mocking of the crowd, the physical effects of being crucified upon the heart and internal organs, and the peicing of hands and feet, and the acts of the soldiers at the cross. Of course one can argue that gambling for his clothing is a detail added latter to the Gospel account for veri simelitude, but what are the chances of the effects of crucifiction, a means of exicution totally unknown in Isaiah's time?


The Jewish apologists argue that the verse is wrongly rendered. They say it sepaks of animals tearing at the persona, and that the line about peircing hands and feet should really read "like lions my hands and feet," or "lions tear at my hands and feet." This is true if one only goes by the Hebrew text. But in the Septuagent (LXX) the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures made in Alexandria before the time of Christ, and used as the Bible of the early chruch, it says "peirced." Moreover, they cannot dispute the physical discription of crucifiction, its effects upon the heart and internal organs, nor the statment of bones being out of joint, through the beatting prioir to the resurrection, and the breaking of legs to hasten death.



Of Pslam 22 Yalkut views as Messianic and relates it to Is. 9. Edersheim writes "using almost the same words of the Evangelists to describe the crowd's mocking behavior at the cross." The verse says "all who see me mock me, they hurl insults shaking their heads." He also shows Yalkutlinks v.15 to the Messiah, and this is the exact verse put forword as a discription of crucifiction! "my strenth is dried up as a potshred my tounge sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death."



Eisenman and Wise cretaed a senation with a highly debated reading, which has been contested by many scholars but apprently is a plausible reading of the exicution of one of the messianic figures. More will be showen about this below. (24). Edersheim also documents the rabbincal sources as expecting the death of the Preistly Messiah, but this will be covered in more depth below.





b) Atonement


We need not expect that the corropsondence between the sin offering of the temple and the crucifiction be one to one. In other words, the tempel offering was to be without blimish, Christ was sinless, but why must he also corrospond one to one with all the requirements? If so, he would have to be less than a year old. Jewish Apologists often quote injunctions from the Deuteronimical code against human sacrafice and argue that to sacrafice a man for the sins of the people violates the law of Moses.Obviously this doesn't apply in the cas of the Messiah, because he was the perfect offering and because it was God's will and God himself as the offering.



That being said the OT clearly teaches that the Messiah will take upon himself the sins of the people. "Surely he took up our infirmaties and carried our sorrows and yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him and afflicted, but he was periced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities, the punishment that brought us peace was upon him and by his wounds we are healed...the Lord has laid upon him the iniquity of us all, the was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth, he was like a lamb to the salughter...for the transgression of my people he was stricken..." (727) Also see below on suffering servant where this same passage interpreted as bearing the sins of the people in suffering). v"yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer...the Lord make shis life to be a guilt offering..."



This remarkable passage clearly teaches that the Messiah would take upon himself the sins of the people, that he would be stricken for them. Moreover the Jews of Jesus day did expect that, though they did not necessarily think of it as curcifiction, they did expect that the messiah would be striken for them in his sufferings, which has already been point out. Edersheim shows that Rabbinical authorities views these passages as applicable to the Messiah.



-- S. R. Driver and A. Neubauer, editors, The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters (2 volumes; New York: Ktav, 1969), pp. 19-20. The English translations used here are taken from volume 2. The original texts are in volume 1. Cf. Soloff, pp. 107-09. Another statement from Yefeth ben Ali:By the words "surely he hath carried our sicknesses," they mean that the pains and sickness which he fell into were merited by them, but that he bore them instead. . . . And here I think it necessary to pause for a few moments, in order to explain why God caused these sicknesses to attach themselves to the Messiah for the sake of Israel. . . . The nation deserved from God greater punishment than that which actually came upon them, but not being strong enough to bear it. . . God appoints his servant to carry their sins, and by doing so lighten their punishment in order that Israel might not be completely exterminated."

-- Driver and Neubauer, pp. 23 ff.; Soloff pp. 108-109.



Another statement from Yefeth ben Ali"And the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all." The prophet does not by avon mean iniquity, but punishment for iniquity, as in the passage, "Be sure your sin will find you out" (Num. xxxii. 23).

-- Driver and Neubauer, p. 26; Soloff p. 109.



In his list of Messianich passages, drawn from the most ancient sources, Yalkut, Targrum, Talmuds, Midrashim, Edersheim deomonstates all the passages of the suffering servant are Missianic. "how beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of those that bring good news," Messianic. v 13 of Is. 53 the Targum applies to Messiah. "and he was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities, and the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and whith His stripes we are healed."is Messianich, R Huna says in the name of R Acha "all sufferings are divided into three parts, one part goes to David and the patriarchs, another to the generation of the rebellion and third to King Messiah, as it is written (ps 2:7) 'yet have I set my Kind upon my holy hill of Zion.'" Edersheim adds a quotation from the Midrash on Samuel, in which theMessiah indicates that his "dwelling is on Mount Zion and that guilt is connected to the destruction of it's walls."





4) Resurrection


The resurrection is clearly seen in the account of the "suffering servant" from Isaiah 53:8

"...he was cut off from the land of the living, for the transgression of my people he was stricken, he was assigned a grave with the wicked..." One thinks of the two theives on the their corsses crucified on either side of Christ. But in v 11 "after the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied. By his knolwdge my rightous servant will jutify many and he will bear their iniquities...for he bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors.."



There are some telling differences between the Mesoretic and the LXX and again the LXX agrees with the DSS on these points. MT does not have "light of life" on v11 but DSS and LXX do. And also on v11 rather than his knowlege "knowlege of him. (from Margin notes in New International Version).



Eisenman and Wise speaking of the firt colum of the Cairo recenssion of the Demascuss Document "the arising or 'standing up' predicted in the latter sections can be looked upon as well as something in the nature of a Messianic return--even, well, even a 'ressurrection' (see Daniel 12:13, Lam. r ii .6..." (18).



5) Why the Suffering Servant cannot be Israel as a nation.


The Jewish apologists cliam that this passage in Isaiah (53) speaks of Israel rather than of the Messiah. They argue that all the references to the servant are in the plural rather than the singular. But this is not the case in the LXX or DSS. Those references are singular. Furthermore, to read the passage as the nation of Israel would necessitate the absurdity of the nation of Israel taking upon itself its own sins in order to be a guilt offering for itself. Let's read it that way:
Surely [they] took up their infirmaties and carried [their] sorrows and yet [they] considered [themselves] stricken by God, smitten by him and afflicted, but [they] were periced for [their own] transgressions, [they] [were] crushed for [their own] iniquities, the punishment that brought [themselves] peace was upon [they themselves] and by [their own] wounds [they heal themselves]...the Lord has laid upon [them] the iniquity of [them] all, [they were] oppressed and afflicted, yet [they] did not open [their] mouth[s], [they] [were] like a lamb to the salughter...for the transgression of my people [my people were stricken]

In that sense it looses all meaning. What would be the point? Espeically in the line "the punishment that brought them peace was upon them." What sense does that make? It totally looses the meaning of soemone who was thought to be unworthy who suffers on behalf of the people, and makes the people themselves their own guilt offering. Moreover, the Jews have never been totally cut off from the land of the living. I also challenge anyone to find a Rabbi with that reading from before let's say the begiing of the third century. The actual verse does not have the plural but the singular! "Surely He took upon himself their infimaties and carried our sorrows and yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him and affliicted, byt he was periced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities..."



R. Elijah de Vidas (16th c.)Since the Messiah bears our iniquities which produce the effect of His being bruised, it follows that whoso will not admit that the Messiah thus suffers for our iniquities, must endure and suffer for them himself.

-- Driver and Neubauer, p. 331.





Rabbi Moshe Alshekh (El-Sheikh) of Sefad (16th c.)I may remark, then, that our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah, and we ourselves also adhere to the same view.

-- Driver and Neubauer, p. 258.

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Metacrock ]</p>

Asha'man

There is more than one reference. The one you are referring to is the Toldoth Jesu. While it may have been written ~500, there is a quote from Celsus that implies he has at least knew the story presented by the Toldoth Jesu, and Celsus was writting around 170.

There are also separate references to the death of Yeshu ben Stada in Lud, and another reference to Yeshu the Nazarine, both killed (stoned and hung on a tree) on the eve of Passover. One of these is tenatively dated around 110-95BCE, but I don't think that rules it out entirely. An earlier Jesus could still be a basis for mythmaking.

I will also remind you of this verse:
This quote was directed towards the Sanhedrin, the Jewish legal body, who would have carried out a death sentance according to Jewish law, not Roman.

Convincing? Maybe not. But the point is not that any of this is hard evidence, but part of a large collection. "Preponderance of the evidence"

Metacrock

O come on Don, you can think better than that! Obviously I can't know that Jesus never had children, but since it isn't recorded in the Gospels you can't use it for the list because it's not listed as anything that is part of the story. With that kind of thinking you can prove anything, no evidence for it, just assert we can't know it isn't true so it could be thus it is. You can only use things on the list that are clealry in the Gosples, that's the point! Come on man, that's just wasting our time to argue that way.

Metacrock

I forgot who said this, but about the old archetypical profile:



John F. Kennedy was the son of a rich and powerful man, his mother was the daughter of a rich and powerful family, he went off to war and had adventrues, retured, ruled and passed laws that were good, he was killed on a hill (well a grassy knole) and many myths and legonds have sprung up about his death. He wasn't exactly the product of a virigin birth, but hey we can assume his ma was a virgin until her wedding night, like 90% of the mothers in mythology, so does that mean he's a myth?

RyanS2

Yes, but crucifixtion was Roman, not Jewish. The story of Yeshua Ben Pandera has him paraded around for forty days, and then he is stoned to death at the end of that period. Both Jews and Romans had courts of law, and Josephus records quite a few Yeshua's who were running around at that time.

In the writings of Josephus, we find accounts of a number of Jesuses. One was Jesus, the son of Sapphias, the founder of a seditious band of mariners; another was Jesus, the captain of the robbers whose followers fled when they heard of his arrest; still another Jesus was a monomaniac who for seven years went about Jerusalem, crying, "Woe, woe, woe unto Jerusalem!" who was bruised and beaten many times, but offered no resistance; and who was finally killed with a stone at the siege of Jerusalem.

None of them were crucified, a death which was generally only done to political enemies of the Roman government. Why would a group of Jews, executing what was supposed to be an unknown Jew, preaching in a remote area of the World, for any reason?

Concerning the Virgin Birth Status of Jesus being associated with the Old Testament, Jewish authorities actually deny it:

<a href="http://www.outreachjudaism.com/alma.htm" target="_blank">http://www.outreachjudaism.com/alma.htm</a>

Of course, he also denies other important parts of the Bible as christians portray it.

<a href="http://www.outreachjudaism.com/isaiah2.html" target="_blank">http://www.outreachjudaism.com/isaiah2.html</a>