Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Greg2003 · 06-11-2002, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by godfry n. glad:
Greetings, Greg-

Thanks for the leads. I don't know whether you've stumbled across it yet, but _Cosmos, Chaos, and the World to Come: The Ancient Roots of Apocalyptic Faith_, by Norman Cohn, is an excellent source to connect a lot of the Jewish parousia beliefs...

Remember, too, that Crassus got his ass whipped by the Parthians (the inheritors of the Persian empire and Zoroastrians/Mithraians) in Syria at Carrhae and the Parthians controlled Jerusalem for a couple of years thereafter (around 53 BCE). In geopolitical terms, Cyrus' inheritors still were one of the most menacing sources of possible destabilization for Roman control in the Levant...clear into the 2nd century CE.

I find it peculiar that the Farsi/Persian/Parthian influence in the Levant during the "Axial Age" is minimized to the point of near non-existance by historians of ancient Rome and both Jewish and Christian religions.

Best,

godfry n. glad

I was not even aware of this myself. That kind of information changes everything, doesn't it!

I am still plodding through the Magee website that RyanS recommended. I really think he's on to something. But I am disappointed in his rhetoric sometimes. He likes to accuse biblical historians and archaeologists of being "brain dead," "insane" and "idiots." While I agree that their scholarship is poisoned with religious bias, I think it does a disservice to Magee's cause to use such strong insults. But that's just my opinion. Mabey this style of writing is acceptable in some schools of archaeology and/or acient studies.

RyanS2 · 06-11-2002, 05:36 PM

My exact same complaint. The amount of information on it is enormous, but he is fond of overusing abusive rhetoric, (it actually is acceptable in some schools, some critics of Biblical 'nihilists' are just as rancorous as he is against them), but I think that if you present a debate in a well thought out manner as opposed to vigorous slander with a solid case, the former will work much better. Hence the reason most Christians would rather recommend Glen Miller than J.P. Holding, Holding's is filled with declamation and puerility, so that Miller automatically has the most integrity with his display.

He might also be intending with his work to also only reach the average Joe, so that he doesn't particularly care if his work is read by higher scholars. A few statements found throughout seem to confirm that train of thought.

Greg2003 · 06-16-2002, 05:51 PM

I am still slogging through Magee's website. While I have a big problem with his language, I realize that he is not a scholar in the field. Rather he is a retired professional scientist who is simply pulling together all of the latest archeaological, anthropological and historical info to support a compelling theory. So I plod on looking at how the Persian/Zoroastrian theory fits with the prevailing schools of thought.

That being said, I have a question I hope others may have thought about. Isaiah clearly refers to Cyrus, king of Persia, as the jewish messiah. If that is so, then why do Jews and christians think that there needed to be another messiah. Wasn't everything Isaiah wrote just elaborating a heroic/supernatural story about the divine origin and greatness of the messiah, king Cyrus? How many messiahs do the jewish people need? Am I missing something here?

CX · 06-17-2002, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greg2003:
Isaiah clearly refers to Cyrus, king of Persia, as the jewish messiah.

Where?

Jayhawker Soule · 06-17-2002, 06:53 AM

Isiah 45:1 Thus said Jehovah, To His anointed, to Cyrus, Whose right hand I have laid hold on, To subdue nations before him, Yea, loins of kings I loose, To open before him two-leaved doors, Yea, gates are not shut:

Greg2003 · 06-17-2002, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
Isiah 45:1 Thus said Jehovah, To His anointed, to Cyrus, Whose right hand I have laid hold on, To subdue nations before him, Yea, loins of kings I loose, To open before him two-leaved doors, Yea, gates are not shut:

Yeah. The translation of the word used there as anointed is messiah. There doesn't appear to be any big debate over the messiah translation, it is the correct translation, meaning Isaiah is calling Cyrus the messiah.

Greg2003 · 06-18-2002, 12:16 PM

So anyhow, back to my question, if Cyrus was the messiah 2700 years ago, then why do jews wait for a messiah?

CX · 06-18-2002, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greg2003:


Yeah. The translation of the word used there as anointed is messiah. There doesn't appear to be any big debate over the messiah translation, it is the correct translation, meaning Isaiah is calling Cyrus the messiah.

Incorrect. The Jewish word for "anointed" is mashiach (roughly transliterated) the Greek transliteration is MESSIAS. In ancient Israel all Kings were anointed as part of their accession. By acknowledging Cyrus, who was a foreign monarch, as "anointed" he is recognizing his authority over Israel and his role as an instrument of YHVH. This is not equivalent to THE Jewish messiah. On the other hand Jesus wasn't even close which is why hardly any Jews believed he was THE messiah. Cyrus could not possibly be acknowledged by a torah observant Jew as THE messiah because THE messiah is supposed to come from the house of David (which is why AMt concocts that elaborate genealogy at the beginning of his gospel to connect Jesus to David).

Jayhawker Soule · 06-18-2002, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greg2003:
So anyhow, back to my question, if Cyrus was the messiah 2700 years ago, then why do jews wait for a messiah?

Presumably to rebuild the Temple and fulfill the covenant. It's a mistake to equate Juadaic silliness with Christian silliness. Note, for example:

Quote:

The noun moshiach (translated as messiah) annotatively means "annointed one;" it does not, however, imply "savior." The notion of an innocent, semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought or scripture. In Judaic texts, the term messiah was used for all kings, high priests, certain warriors, but never eschatological figures. In the Tanach, moshiach is used 38 times: two patriarchs, six high priests, once for Cyrus, 29 Israelite kings such as Saul and David. Not once is the word moshiach used in reference to the awaited Messiah. Even in the apocalyptic book of Daniel, the only time moshiach is mentioned is in connection to a murdered high priest. The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Pseudepigrapha, and Apocrypha never mention the Messiah. [see <a href="http://www.messiahtruth.com/response.html" target="_blank">A Jewish Messiah</a>]

So, I guess the 'theologically correct' answer to the question "how many messiahs will it take?" is: "As many as it takes."

Greg2003 · 06-18-2002, 01:46 PM

Is there really any difference between the meaning of moshiach and the jewish messiah?

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

06-11-2002, 05:36 PM	#12
RyanS2 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Louisiana Posts: 216	My exact same complaint. The amount of information on it is enormous, but he is fond of overusing abusive rhetoric, (it actually is acceptable in some schools, some critics of Biblical 'nihilists' are just as rancorous as he is against them), but I think that if you present a debate in a well thought out manner as opposed to vigorous slander with a solid case, the former will work much better. Hence the reason most Christians would rather recommend Glen Miller than J.P. Holding, Holding's is filled with declamation and puerility, so that Miller automatically has the most integrity with his display. He might also be intending with his work to also only reach the average Joe, so that he doesn't particularly care if his work is read by higher scholars. A few statements found throughout seem to confirm that train of thought.

06-16-2002, 05:51 PM	#13
Greg2003 Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Lancaster, PA Posts: 167	I am still slogging through Magee's website. While I have a big problem with his language, I realize that he is not a scholar in the field. Rather he is a retired professional scientist who is simply pulling together all of the latest archeaological, anthropological and historical info to support a compelling theory. So I plod on looking at how the Persian/Zoroastrian theory fits with the prevailing schools of thought. That being said, I have a question I hope others may have thought about. Isaiah clearly refers to Cyrus, king of Persia, as the jewish messiah. If that is so, then why do Jews and christians think that there needed to be another messiah. Wasn't everything Isaiah wrote just elaborating a heroic/supernatural story about the divine origin and greatness of the messiah, king Cyrus? How many messiahs do the jewish people need? Am I missing something here?

06-17-2002, 06:53 AM	#15
Jayhawker Soule Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,777	Isiah 45:1 Thus said Jehovah, To His anointed, to Cyrus, Whose right hand I have laid hold on, To subdue nations before him, Yea, loins of kings I loose, To open before him two-leaved doors, Yea, gates are not shut:

06-18-2002, 12:16 PM	#17
Greg2003 Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Lancaster, PA Posts: 167	So anyhow, back to my question, if Cyrus was the messiah 2700 years ago, then why do jews wait for a messiah?

06-18-2002, 01:46 PM	#20
Greg2003 Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Lancaster, PA Posts: 167	Is there really any difference between the meaning of moshiach and the jewish messiah?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.