Photocrat

Melchizedek was important to the Essenes in the 1st century. He is mentioned in Genesis 14:14-24

IIRC, the book of Hebrews makes a big to-do about this, since even the patriarch Abraham tithed to this guy (and he was before the establishment of the Levitical priesthood). He's also mentioned in several other places (the Psalms or something? If you can read Hebrew as you say, you ought to be able to look this up yourself & not just rely on whatever I can remember offhand

Given that salem means "peace" the titles of Prince of Peace & such used of Jesus make a bit more sense, right? I also don't remember that you fit the Word ("Logos"--see John 1 & the LXX, c.f. the usage of the word "memra" ["word"])

But c'mon, why are you so impressed that you can take a large text & twist things around out of context to make it say whatever you want; or that you can reuse symbols in ways that don't make sense? While you may find that there are real disagreements over certain verses & their interpretations, if you go too far, it becomes silly. This is not dependent on how "Christian" the interpretation is, either. You could use silly means to conclude something Christians might agree with; but it would still be silly to interpret things that way.

Here's a section of what the New Oxford Annotated Bible says about "Finding What the Text Says" & "Finding What the Text Means" (sections II-III, pp. xvii-xviii), which I very much agree with which just might add more context to this discussion --

Vorkosigan

even one single possible prophecy (please note again the extremism of this position), then it must be one of the great miracles of human history that the ONLY Messianic claim in all of Jewish history that has had any kind of staying power failed so miserably on this crucial front.

Jesus has had no staying power vis-a-vis the messiah tradition. He was rejected by the Jews, who knew that the messiah hadn't come.

Michael

James Still

<strong>I don't think Apikorus believes the above statement [that Jesus is not explicitly or implicitly referred to in the Hebrew Scriptures], and in other posts he does qualify it and say that there is "precious little" about Jesus in Hebrew Scriptures, so I am going to assume that he is just funnin' us here.</strong>

Actually I don't believe he is having fun at our expense and I doubt he has ever said that there is "precious little" about Jesus in the Hebrew Scriptures. And he would be right about that point. Modern scholarship has indeed reached the consensus that prefigurement is an interpretive and highly-subjective process rather than anything based on sound exegesis.

<strong>Apikorus wrote: "Quite often, examination of the surrounding verses is sufficient to delegitimize any claim of Jesus' prefigurement in the Hebrew Bible."

Nomad wrote: "Here is our first interesting claim, because it is based upon a presupposition. Basically, the argument that will be made here is that there is only one legitimate meaning to what the Scripture says in a given passage, and what we can know with certainty is that it definitely did NOT point in any way, shape or form to what Christians think it means."</strong>

You have seriously misunderstood Apikorus' argument Nomad. He is not presupposing a priori that Jesus is not prefigured in the Hebrew Scriptures as you claim. He is arguing a posteriori based on the authority of scholars as well as his own expert reading of the texts that no such prefigurement exists. His point is that when such claims are made, one can often put it into the context of the surrounding passages to see why the claim is an incorrect reading.

<strong>Matthew was the first person we know of that connected the belief in Jesus' virgin conception to Isaiah 7:14. Luke either did not know about it, or rejected the connection. In any case, neither man created the story of the virgin conception, as each recorded the belief independently of one another, and the chances that they did so coincidentally is close to zero.</strong>

Your analysis ignores the entire Synoptic Problem and the issue of dependency upon prior written or oral sources.

<strong>...if two different 1st Century men, writing independently of one another could, and DID understand Isaiah 7:14 to be talking about a virgin conception for the future Messiah, then this is very big news. It means, very simply, that this Christian 1st Century understanding of the LXX's Isaiah 7:14 was not only reasonable, but could actually be assumed by one of them, namely Luke.</strong>

Smith writes that Luke was an educated Hellenist and as such was well aware of the practice of looking to the Hebrew Scriptures as proof texts of Jesus' ministry. I don't get it, what's the big news? It's common knowledge that ancient Christians pored over the Scriptures looking for any scrap or detail that might link Jesus to the Hebrew Scriptures. The author of Matthew specifically sought to do so and, reading from the Septuagint, he naturally (or apologetically) interpreted the parthenos of Isaiah 7:14 to mean virgin rather than young woman (alma). In any case, as I said above, while it's true that the junior Synoptists were wrote independent of one another this does not mean that they did not make use of shared sources. To assume so ignores the Synoptic Problem.

<strong>Snip most of the stuff Apikorus has “ripped off from other sources”</strong>

Are you implying that Apikorus has cited material without attribution? That is a very serious charge and I see no evidence of it. What I do see is a gifted writer who not only knows how to explain very difficult concepts plainly (and in so doing reveals his own intimate knowledge of the subject matter) but also knows to use citations from other scholars with economy and judgment. I won't name names but certain of his discussants do not possess this good judgment and insist on littering the forums with quote after quote even when they do not relate to the issue at hand or add anything to the discussion.

<strong>I do, however, expect them to respond to actual Christian arguments, and show why our specific hermeneutical approach is flawed, and with examples, hopefully better than an old saw like Isaiah 7:14.</strong>

So refuting the alleged prophecy given to Ahaz is now an old saw and no longer of significance? Or are you moving the goalpost and giving up on it as a witness to Jesus? In any case, it's not that the Christian habit of using the Scriptures as proof texts for Jesus is "flawed" since such creative interpretations find meaning within the faith and are therefore useful to its adherents. The flaw is rather in the practice of putting so much weight on these interpretations that you expect even impartial observers to see them as truth.

P.S. I must take strong exception to the tone of your post. As I read it, it seemed to me that you were belitting Apikorus in order somehow to deflate his arguments of their obvious strength. ("Whistling past the graveyard" I believe it's called.) Well his posts in this thread have sent me running back to some of my books and caused me to reflect about a few things. I wouldn't be so smug if I were you.

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: James Still ]</p>

Nomad

Ryan

"Q" does not have a birth narrative in it, nor does it have anything about Jesus' coming from a virgin conception. So what is your point here?

Actually, Matthew redacts a great deal of Mark, and takes almost none of it verbatum. Have you ever studied Q, or the Synoptic Problem?

Luke redacts Mark even more than does Matt. I still do not see your point here. Are you saying that Q contains a birth narrative?

I am unfamiliar with any current theory that gives Matthean priority over Mark. Some do posit that Luke used Matthew, but this is a distinctly minority view. In any case, I know of no one that suggests Matt and/or Luke used the other in the composition of his Birth Narrative.

I have no idea what this statement means. Could you please clarify?

Nomad

Nomad

Hmmm... arguing that the majority must be right Michael? How interesting.

In any event, you know that there are Jewish Christians up to the current day. As I said, Jesus is the ONLY Jewish Messiah with any staying power.

Nomad

Photocrat

Mmm, but the Sadducees were the majority party, IIRC & the Pharisees but a vocal minority.

Funny... last I knew, the evil king in Daniel was Antiochus IV Epiphanes & Daniel was written in the Maccabean period... Passover is still there, but with a new meaning (e.g. it became Easter).

Insofar as conversion is "hating" them...

Am I the only one underwhelmed by these 'sins'? They're commented on in the NT itself, BTW, as to the rationale behind them (e.g. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.") ...

Nomad

Hello James.

It's been awhile. Nice to see you again.

I think I will let Apikorus speak for himself here. For now I do think he was just having some fun.

Time to bring out the "modern scholarship believes" non-sequitor? This is about as bold an appeal to authority as I have seen in quite some time. It is, as with all such appeals, meaningless.

You have not understood my argument at all here James. Further, I see no citations of any scholarly authority in Apikorus' opening post. I see assertions and opinions based on various "rip offs" of numerous uncited web sites. That his arguments appeal to your own prejudices hardly makes them true.

The assumption in Apikorus' own exegesis is that the Scriptures can have only one meaning. This may be true, but it is an assumption, and conclusory in this case. The simple truth of the matter is that scholarly debates exist because there is considerable debate as to what texts mean, even those that some claim are very plain.

I'm sorry, my argument does what?. Please read what I said one more time, and perhaps take a look at what I wrote on XTalk. The claim that Matthew and Luke wrote their birth narratives independently of one another is hardly radical. Further, I happen to believe that they did write based on previous sources (though we cannot know if those sources were written or oral regarding the BN). Finally, I do not think that these sources cited Isaiah 7:14 as a proof text, and that this is a Matthean innovation. Please take a look at my arguments on the XTalk board if you wish to examine my arguments more closely.

Now, do you dispute anything I said in the above statement or not? If so, what do you disagree with, and on what basis?

The big news would be that Matthew was not the first person to make this connection. And if this is the case, then later Jewish apologetics that intended show that Isaiah 7:14 could NOT possibly be read in this fashion is merely special pleading. I am surprised that a self described sceptic would so willingly accept such an obviously apologetic polemic as what we see in the later Jewish treatment of their own Greek Scriptures, namely the LXX.

Since I have never argued otherwise, I do not know why you bring this up at all. The question is, did Luke know of Matthew's BN, or vice versa? I do not think it is reasonable to say that they did. Do you? And if so, on what basis?

No, I am quoting directly from his original post where he said "There's much more to be said on this topic! Most of the following I have ripped off from other sources:"

I did not see any sources being offered. Do you? I have made an educated guess that some, if not most of it came from Jews for Judaism, but will defer to evidence of some other quoted source.

By this I assume you mean he offers quotes without telling us where he got them. I did not know that you find this to be admirable.

I think this argument is too easy for the sceptic, as they fail to recognize the potential apologetic motive in the Jewish sources that provide them with this argument.

In any case, I have already conceded that Matthew's citation of Isaiah 7:14 was his own innovation, and may well have been wrong. In the more detailed discussion that followed on XTalk I said that I think the connection between Jesus' conception and this passage looks forced and arbitrary, and certainly contains apologetic. Note also that I have also said that Luke either did not know about it, or rejected it. On the other hand, if you take Luke's silence on this question as evidence that he did, in fact, know about it, then I would be happy to hear your reasoning for this belief.

Well, I haven't done this either, but your caution is noted. Thank you.

There is no smuggness James. I honestly do not believe that Apikorus is being completely serious in this thread, though I am willing to grant him his seriousness if he insists on it. I am also glad that you are learning something new, though I would hope that you would read my arguments more carefully in the future, and if you have questions about what I believe, that you will ask first, rather than rush to hastey conclusions. As for how you read my "tone", I had intended to keep it deliberately light, as that is how I read Apikorus' own tone and words. I have also said that if he is serious in his arguments, then I will treat them seriously.

Nomad

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: Nomad ]</p>

RyanS2

Ryan

"Q" does not have a birth narrative in it, nor does it have anything about Jesus' coming from a virgin conception. So what is your point here?

"Matthew borrows 90% of his writings, almost verbatum, from Mark"

"Actually, Matthew redacts a great deal of Mark, and takes almost none of it verbatum. Have you ever studied Q, or the Synoptic Problem?"

Actually yes, the amount of theories on it are rather diverse. "Matthew's account, in the material it shares with Mark, is abbreviated and Mark's 11,078 words are represented by 8,555; yet of these 4,230 are identical both in form and in sequence" (Wells, p95).

Nor can this correspondance be attributed to an exceptionally good memory by the gospel tellers, for "...more than half of such [parallel] phrases are in the narrative, not the words of Jesus."

"Luke redacts Mark even more than does Matt. I still do not see your point here. Are you saying that Q contains a birth narrative?"

No, but that the "writings" of the gospel were not independant of each other is something strange to assert.

"I am unfamiliar with any current theory that gives Matthean priority over Mark."

Burton Mack says, in The Lost Gospel of Q:

"Even today there are scholars who continue…to favor Matthew as the earliest gospel."

"Some do posit that Luke used Matthew, but this is a distinctly minority view. In any case, I know of no one that suggests Matt and/or Luke used the other in the composition of his Birth Narrative."

Wasn't the point. Your original idea made it seem that they were completely independant of each other, which isn't the case.

For the last portion, the St. Jerome quote, it's in de viris illus. 7:

"Luke (was) a physician from Antioch. As his writings indicate, he was not ignorant of the Greek speech. As a follower of the apostle Paul and his companion in all his traveling, he wrote a gospel. About him Paul said: "We have sent with him the brother whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches" (2 Cor. 8:18); and to the Colossians: "Luke the dearest physician greets you" (4:14), and to Timothy: "Luke alone is with me" (2 Tim. 4:11)... Some suspect that whenever Paul says "according to my gospel" in his letters (e.g., Rom 16:23), he means Luke's volume and that Luke was taught the gospel not only by Paul, who had not been with the Lord in the flesh, but also by the other apostles."

Jerome is using the standard, asserting there's a seperate apostolic source for the Gospel of Luke. What's more important is that he recognizes that Paul, the supposed source of Luke's information, was not an actual witness to any of the events. Therefore, Jerome supposes that this was done by other anonymous apostles.

Apikorus

Welcome, Nomad, to our cozy little discussion!

(1) Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear in stating my beliefs. Allow me to reiterate: Jesus of Nazareth is not mentioned anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. Not even just a teensy bit! The reason, of course, is that the Hebrew Bible was composed centuries before Jesus was born (again, in the case of Daniel 8-12, about 160 years before). By the same token, I reject Muslim claims that Mohammed is prefigured in the Hebrew Bible (or in the New Testament, for that matter). Other people not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible: Genghis Khan, Shakespeare, Napoleon, Davey Crockett, Richard Nixon.

(2) You seem to propose some sort of entropic argument, if I understand you properly. Namely, that there are so many "prophecies" regarding Jesus that surely at least one of them ought to be true. But this is patently ludicrous for several reasons. In the first place, it seems clear that the gospel authors used the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures as a template in fabricating their miracle stories of Jesus. So many "Old Testament prophecies" of Jesus were in reality exercises in what we scientists call "answer analysis", or, to be blunt, in data fabrication. Secondly, Chesterton's amusing quip is utterly baseless. There are many elements of Christian dogma which even rationalist skeptics like me find plausible: that Jesus lived during the first third of the first century CE, that he was a Jew from Galilee, that he was an itinerant preacher and had disciples, that he preached about the kingdom of heaven, that he was crucified under Pilate, that some of his followers insisted that he had been resurrected, etc. What I do not believe, of course, is that Jesus was the "begotten son of God" (Incidentally, how many chromosomes did Jesus have? The full complement of 46, or only 23, or perhaps some other number?), that he was resurrected, that in dying he "conquered death", that all who believe in him shall have "eternal life". All that stuff is just legend/mythology. Finally, it is quite possible to make many predictions, all of them very wrong.

(3) My intention in bringing up Isaiah 7:14 was not to get mired in yet another exchange over the meaning of almah. The point was that the following verses, Isa 7:15-16, explicitly state that the child Immanuel would for a time not recognize good from evil. I'd think this would prove slightly inconvenient for Orthodox Christians who hold that Jesus was God made flesh. But perhaps the notion of a little child-god behaving like a brat doesn't provoke the need for further apologetics. Incidentally, Matthew Henry, beloved biblical commentator of many an evangelical Christian, finds a novel way out of this dilemma. He claims that the child mentioned in Isa 7:16 is not Immanuel, but Shear-Yashuv! This approach must be admired for its sheer idiocy.

(4) Nomad makes the remarkable assertion, "What is certain, of course, is that there was no child named Immanuel who lived at the time of Isaiah or the Syro-Ephraimite war." How exactly does he know this? He asks whether a "later midrash" (later than what?) "might be applied" to Isaiah 7. What is Nomad insinuating here? That there might conceivably be some rabbinic source which happens to help rescue Immanuel from Isa 7:15-16? It is hard to say, since he is intentionally vague, offering only the content-free observation that "matters are rarely so cut and dried as it may appear." At any rate, Nomad's familiarity with the rabbinic literature is famously nonexistent, and I will not come to his rescue.

By the way, many religious Jews are of the opinion that Immanuel was Isaiah's son, and the almah Isaiah's wife. But ultimately the identity of the young woman remains a mystery. (And according to general christological principles, any such mystery must be solved by invoking Jesus.)

(5) Nomad and Metacrock alike insist that the christological hermeneutic cannot be sensibly regarded as corrupt since it derives from "authentic" Jewish exegesis. This is a bit like saying that contemporary new-agers who believe in the healing power of crystals and magnets are immune from criticism because their beliefs can be traced back to the medieval alchemists. Another mistake they share is in failing to recognize (or admit, more likely) that the modern christological reading of the Hebrew Bible goes far beyond what the NT authors themselves proposed. Indeed many evangelical Christians claim that Jesus is present in every single verse of the Hebrew Bible.

My criticism here is also somewhat aesthetically based and hence subjective. As I remarked, the christological program of insinuating Jesus throughout the Hebrew Bible is artless and boring. Rabbinic midrash, by contrast, is part of a far more expansive and fascinating program.

(6) Apparently Nomad thinks that there really was a "curse of Coniah" but that it was somehow lifted, as evidenced by the fact that the details of the curse as delineated in Jeremiah were not satisfied, according to 2 Kings and Haggai. Of course this is nonsense; curses in the Bible are as real as curses in Harry Potter novels. And of course the rabbis had their own agenda in acknowledging that the curse was lifted, to wit, the harmonization of contradictory data in the Hebrew Bible. But one place where Nomad clearly errs is in his statement that Zerubavel was a king. About the most one can say is that Haggai and proto-Zechariah hoped that he might become a bona fide king of Judah. But of course the Persians had other ideas.

(7) Absolutely none of the "evil Jesus" prophecies I cited came from Jews for Judaism or any other Jewish countermissionary source. Most came from some wacky apostate anti-Christian web pages - unfortunately I never saved the URL. And some material is original! I suppose it is natural to assume that, since I am Jewish, I might be quoting from "Jewish sources", but in this case such an assumption is dead wrong. I'd guess that no Jewish countermissionary organization would put inflammatory material like that on its website (then again, I could be wrong). It is one thing to defend Judaism against accusations of being obtusely ignorant of the identity of the Jewish messiah himself, and quite another to attack Christianity head on by identifying Jesus with the All Stars of Biblical Evil.

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

Nomad

Thanks, though I am still unclear as to whether or not you are actually serious in this thread. Your latest post certainly does not help clarify matters either.

Do you know what a conclusory statment happens to be? As gratuitous assertions can be gratuitously denied, talk like this from you is unlikely to produce any kind of debate.

Perhaps I can put the question this way: Do you believe that Jesus may have, at times, acted deliberately in such a way as to be seen as fulfilling some part of Biblical prophecy?

And as for ridiculous statements about Eddie Murphy, these simply tell me that you are not being very serious, and I am still struggling with the question as to whether you intend this to be a serious thread or not.

I am well aware of your rejection of the idea that the Hebrew Bible fortells of a future Messiah. Of course, religious Jews would beg to differ, and therefore would argue that some of the prophecies in their own Scriptures have yet to be fulfilled. On that basis, we can either discuss the possibility that there are actual prophecies that the Jews believe will be fulfilled by a future Messiah, or we can end the debate right now, and say that this is absurd.

Of course, if you wish to assert that some Jews (some of whom may even know something about Scripture) do not think that the Bible contains yet to be fulfilled prophecies, just say so. I would love to see you defend such a view.

This is one of several strawmen in this debate. I have not said this, so why bother knocking it down? I have noted that your position is that Jesus did not fulfill even one Messianic prophecy, and you appear to be admitting as much (at least from what I can tell of your writings). Such a position is quite radical, but certainly you are entitled to your opinions.

So here you deny that anyone except early Christians believe that Jesus was a miracle worker at all? This is interesting, but quite radical in the study of the historical Jesus. Many scholars accept that Jesus was, in fact, seen as a miracle worker (or magician at least), even by His enemies.

I am well aware that there are many rational sceptics that accept many Christian claims as being probably historical. On the other hand, if you think that there are not sceptics that believe every single Christian claim is pure bunk, you have not been keeping up with the current opinion of many of your fellow sceptics on these boards.

More straw men arguments? Please Apikorus, I know you can do better than this. I would ask that you please refrain from attacking arguments I do not make.

History tells us this. Do you have a candidate in mind that you personally think fits the bill?

I am insinuating nothing Apikorus. More than one scholar has offered that Matthew was offering an early example of midrash on Isaiah 7:14 in his BN. I had assumed that you knew this, so I apologize for my error.

That's the one.

Another argument without citation. Of course, I am sure you and I can agree that such a belief is ridiculous, as any plain reading of what Immanuel will do, based on Isaiah 7 tells us that Isaiah's hypothetical son did not, in fact, fulfill these prophecies.

Actually, for the sake of this argument, I am prepared to grant that Christian exegesis is mistaken. I will happily entertain any other claims others may wish to put forward as to who this Immanuel happened to be. Is your own view that we should go with Isaiah's unknown son, and anonymous wife?

Could Apikorus provide an example of exactly what the heck he is talking about here? I hope he has something actually in my post he wishes to criticize.

How much straw do you have? Attack my arguments please, not constructions of your own making.

Gad. I am beginning to dispair for you Apikorus. Perhaps it is just late. Stick to my arguments, and refute them. The crowd is already with you, so no need to play to them. Just stick to what I have said from now on please.

Apparently Nomad is prepared to quote from actual rabbis and to offer sources, rather than spout nonsense and claim to know something interesting. Did you even look at the thread I offered? If so, what criticism of the rabbis do you have?

I knew you would call it a contradiction, and I don't even have the gift of prophecy. Pretty cool eh?

On the other hand, is this the same Apikorus that earlier suggested the rabbis might know more than Christians do about their own Messianic prophecies?

In any event, your hand waving is noted. Don't be surprised when I tell you that the use of such fallacious argumentation is not very impressive.

Fair enough. Zerubavel did not become a king, but merely a ruler over Judah. Since this, to the rabbis meant that the curse was lifted, however, the point stands. This is not my argument alone, nor merely of Christians, but also of the rabbis as I quoted in my sources. You may not like what the rabbis had to say, but since you have attempted to use their arguments as a blunt instrument to beat down other Christian claims when it suited you, this does appear to be rather inconsistent on your part.

So, cut the polemic, address my actual arguments, and please let me know if this is a serious discussion, or if your purpuse was merely to see if you could rile up the Christians.

Thanks.

Nomad

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: Nomad ]</p>