(March 20, 2019 at 11:59 pm)fredd bear Wrote: You might find the link below interesting: The page title is "Judaism 101"

http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm

That's very helpful, and it's refreshing to find that some of the rethinking I've had to do in recent years to see the essential Jewishness of Xianity seems to have a fairly accurate basis in Judaism as seen from a Jewish perspective.

As to the meat of the issue. As I see it, when the astonishing, life-changing Easter events were over, the disciples went back to the OT to fit it all together; they were later joined by the fanatical Jewish/Pharisee Paul. They would have approached things from an orthodox C1 Jewish perspective, and didn't find a problem in saying the prophets had got it spot on. In fact, the NT is stuffed with OT quotes, and Paul devotes a lot of his writing to this question.

They realised that the prophecies were not just about the military conquest of a bit of semi-fertile land, but that “all nations on earth will be blessed” was the victory, and that the promised Messianic Age was split into parts (e.g. the resurrection was Jesus as part 1, along with the inauguration of the Kingdom, other resurrections etc to be part 2). And many other new understandings.

Having looked at the link, where a lot of the references don't say what the author says they do, and others just need to have ranges of meaning carefully examined, I can't see any problem with saying Jesus was the Jewish mashiach.


Back in a couple of days to pick this up.

---

(March 21, 2019 at 1:50 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: Yeah, let's hear what 1 Cor. 15 has to say: "5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve."

I mean from the start you can see that Paul is lying because there were only eleven, Judas having died.

The Twelve was a technical name, widely used in the Early Church, for the inner circle of Jesus' followers. There is more than a nod to the 12 tribes of Israel. Judas was fairly quickly replaced. 

Hence the capital letter, and the appropriate continued use even when there were temporarily 11 of them.

"Pauls" jewish cred appears to have been utter fabrication. For a guy that fashioned himself as some sort of jewish inquisitor, guy didn't seem to know shit about judaism.

(March 21, 2019 at 6:37 pm)Vicki Q Wrote:

(March 20, 2019 at 11:59 pm)fredd bear Wrote: You might find the link below interesting: The page title is "Judaism 101"

http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm

That's very helpful, and it's refreshing to find that some of the rethinking I've had to do in recent years to see the essential Jewishness of Xianity seems to have a fairly accurate basis in Judaism as seen from a Jewish perspective.

As to the meat of the issue. As I see it, when the astonishing, life-changing Easter events were over, the disciples went back to the OT to fit it all together; they were later joined by the fanatical Jewish/Pharisee Paul. They would have approached things from an orthodox C1 Jewish perspective, and didn't find a problem in saying the prophets had got it spot on. In fact, the NT is stuffed with OT quotes, and Paul devotes a lot of his writing to this question.

They realised that the prophecies were not just about the military conquest of a bit of semi-fertile land, but that “all nations on earth will be blessed” was the victory, and that the promised Messianic Age was split into parts (e.g. the resurrection was Jesus as part 1, along with the inauguration of the Kingdom, other resurrections etc to be part 2). And many other new understandings.

Having looked at the link, where a lot of the references don't say what the author says they do, and others just need to have ranges of meaning carefully examined, I can't see any problem with saying Jesus was the Jewish mashiach.


Back in a couple of days to pick this up.

---

(March 21, 2019 at 1:50 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: Yeah, let's hear what 1 Cor. 15 has to say: "5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve."

I mean from the start you can see that Paul is lying because there were only eleven, Judas having died.

The Twelve was a technical name, widely used in the Early Church, for the inner circle of Jesus' followers. There is more than a nod to the 12 tribes of Israel. Judas was fairly quickly replaced. 

Hence the capital letter, and the appropriate continued use even when there were temporarily 11 of them.

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

@Vicki Q


 My fault; I didn't realise you were a  Christian apologist. I simply would not have bothered had I realised.

It's clear we have very different positions about Jesus as messiah. I except the Jewish position, which I think is unambiguous.

I don't believe for a second that Jesus was the Mashiach. I'm kinda stunned that you were unaware of the basic information I provided.  You come across as quite erudite.

I'm an atheist, and don't believe in prophecy .My interest is academic only.  I give credence  to the whole area of Messiah only for the sake of argument.

 My actual position: I have been satisfied for a very long time that most of the Gospels are myth .They have very little to do with a wondering rabbi, called something like Yeshua Bar Yusuf, who managed to get himself crucified for sedition. That includes what I see as the rather desperate, cherry picked claims of Jesus as Messiah.

Christians have had he chutzpah, over centuries,  to take Jewish prophecy, and to insist the Jews don't understand. My position is that the Jews understand their own prophecy very well indeed.

Jesus left a small Jewish millennial sect going by what is written in the Gospels.  Jesus' disciples expected him to return within their lifetimes. Oh, new members HAD TO BE practising  jews, gentiles  were not admitted. That all changed with Saul of Tarsus. 

Disregarding Jesus' claims about not changing the law, Saul immediately abolished  the mitzvah concerned with ritual . He admitted gentiles .In doing so, he invented the religion which became officially known as "Christianity' in the fourth century.(emperor Theodosius)

No wonder so many scholars refer to Christianity as "Paulism"

There is no doubt in my mind that either us will change our basic position.

I have nothing further to say to you on this matter.

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

I only have one reference at the, moment, you might find it interesting. "Paul: The Mind Of The Apostle" A N Wilson. 

Review:


": It begins on the road to Damascus, in a moment graven on the consciousness of Western civilization. "Saul, Saul," asks the crucified Jesus of Nazareth, "why persecutest thou me?"

From this experience, and from the response of the Jewish merchant later known as Paul, springs the Christian Church as we know it today. For as A. N. Wilson makes clear in this astonishing and gripping narrative, Christianity without Paul is quite literally nothing. Jesus, with the layers of scholarship and ceremony stripped away, is a fastidious and fervent Jew who will lead his followers into a stricter, purer observance of Judaism; it is Paul who will claim divinity for him, who will transform him into the Messiah, center of an entirely new religion.

In Wilson's astute narrative, we see Paul negotiating the dangerous political currents of the Roman Empire, making converts, and writing the great epistles that define our understanding of Christ and of the sublime paradoxes of his teaching. What drove Paul? What would he think of what his church has become? The answers lie in Wilson's extraordinary biography, which lays bare the psychological journey of Christianity's true inventor.

"Wilson . . . does a tremendous job here of not only examining all that is known about Paul's life but also putting it into context with what was happening throughout the Roman Empire. As always, Wilson's insights fascinate and provoke."

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/652947.Paul

 A N Wilson is one of my three favourite historians. The other Two are Marina Warner and Peter Ackroyd

(March 21, 2019 at 6:37 pm)Vicki Q Wrote:

(March 21, 2019 at 1:50 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: Yeah, let's hear what 1 Cor. 15 has to say: "5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve."

I mean from the start you can see that Paul is lying because there were only eleven, Judas having died.

The Twelve was a technical name, widely used in the Early Church, for the inner circle of Jesus' followers. There is more than a nod to the 12 tribes of Israel. Judas was fairly quickly replaced. 

Hence the capital letter, and the appropriate continued use even when there were temporarily 11 of them.

And yet Matthew 28:16, Mark 16:14, and Luke 24:33 have Jesus appear to the eleven.

I mean, listen, what you just gave was a purely ad-hoc argument and the fact is there is no reason that the Twelve that Paul mentions have anything to do with the Twelve apostles. For starters Paul never uses the word "Apostles" in his writings. Indeed, many scholars that take historical Jesus for granted don't consider that Jesus selected an elite corps of twelve already in his lifetime, rather that the Twelve were so constituted by a shared resurrection vision. One of the many reasons for thinking that is that Jesus himself almost never mentions the Apostles (quoted sayings of Jesus) but "the Twelve" rather occur in narrative sections of the Gospels. And even when in rare occasions when "the Twelve" are on Jesus' lips are doubtful, like Mark 14:20, Jesus says his betrayer is "one of the Twelve," but neither Matthew nor Luke, who follow Mark, have the phrase.

And, also, one other evidence that Jesus never had the Twelve was that the whole story of Jesus choosing the Twelve was clear rewriting of the Moses story when he chose the seventy elders: they both get a visit from their relatives who both have a suggestion that he was overworked and needed to share the burdens of leadership.

And also there is the problem with the names of the Apostles. The canonical lists of the Twelve do not agree in detail, nor do manuscripts of single gospels. If the Twelve were as important as church rhetoric would suggest, how is it possible that such uncertainty should exist even upon the point of who they were? Can we imagine early American histories in which the lists of presidents did not agree? And, of course Cephas of Paul's writings and Simon Peter are not the same character.

(March 21, 2019 at 6:37 pm)Vicki Q Wrote:

---

(March 21, 2019 at 1:50 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: Yeah, let's hear what 1 Cor. 15 has to say: "5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve."

I mean from the start you can see that Paul is lying because there were only eleven, Judas having died.

The Twelve was a technical name, widely used in the Early Church, for the inner circle of Jesus' followers. There is more than a nod to the 12 tribes of Israel. Judas was fairly quickly replaced. 

Hence the capital letter, and the appropriate continued use even when there were temporarily 11 of them.

Vicky,

You are taking your "cues" from a group of individuals who believed that the Earth was flat:

Flat Earth Doctrine

This is one reason (out of many) that the Greek & Roman intelligentsia did not take the early Christian writings seriously.

Dawn

(March 21, 2019 at 11:38 pm)fredd bear Wrote: @Vicki Q


 My fault; I didn't realise you were a  Christian apologist. I simply would not have bothered had I realised.

It's clear we have very different positions about Jesus as messiah. I except the Jewish position, which I think is unambiguous.

<snip>

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/652947.Paul

 A N Wilson is one of my three favourite historians. The other Two are Marina Warner and Peter Ackroyd

Not a Xian apologist, more of a Xian seeker. Where arguments are good, I change my views, but I will argue my current beliefs as that's the best way to get them tested. I have no intention of trying to change your position, but wanted to explore Messainic views from a Jewish perspective without getting dogpiled. But clearly that's not going to happen.

We agree that Xian views on Judaism have been too wide of the mark for too long. The Third Quest scholars are looking to put that right, and winning ground rapidly. I think you misinterpreted what I wrote. I was aware of the information you provided, but mostly from 3rd Quest scholars, and it was refreshing to see the same information presented in the same way as they were doing, but from a fully Judaic perspective.

I have read books by A.N.Wilson and I'd bet a fair bit of money I've read that one.

The extent to which Paul influenced Xianity is heavily debated, with this being an exhaustive read concluding that Paul was a follower of Christ, not a founder of Xianity. Certainly Xianity had been going for a while before Paul got to have any influence at all on it.

---

(March 22, 2019 at 4:45 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: And yet Matthew 28:16, Mark 16:14, and Luke 24:33 have Jesus appear to the eleven.

<snip>

And also there is the problem with the names of the Apostles. The canonical lists of the Twelve do not agree in detail, nor do manuscripts of single gospels. If the Twelve were as important as church rhetoric would suggest, how is it possible that such uncertainty should exist even upon the point of who they were? Can we imagine early American histories in which the lists of presidents did not agree? And, of course Cephas of Paul's writings and Simon Peter are not the same character.

The Twelve is a technical term. Here's Wikipedia and Brittanica and BBC with more detail. There is no debate as to whether it is a thing, you will notice.


The evidence is multiple attestation of sources and forms, embarrassment, and tradition flow. See J.P.Meier 'A Marginal Jew' vol 3 ch 26 for a tediously thorough examination of the evidence*. That there are occasions in which Twelve could have been used, but as it happens wasn't, is not significant as evidence.


I would agree that Jesus likes to do the New Moses thing, but

Quote:they both get a visit from their relatives who both have a suggestion that he was overworked and needed to share the burdens of leadership.

Where is the evidence for this event in Jesus' life?

Paul uses the term Twelve in 1 Cor 15:5. 

Peter and Cephas are the same Wiki again

*ibid p 139 referencing Cephas in 1 Cor 15:5 'practically no-one has ever denied that Cephas was a disciple of Jesus during the public ministry, and most critics would admit that he already had the name Cephas/Peter (“Rock”) during that time'.

As I said, Matthew is fully entitled to use that term in his writing, even if he and others choose to use eleven numerically at other times. Not a problem.

What if Jesus lied about the Jews?

That certainly seems to be the business that the people who crammed words into the demi-gods mouth were in. Not especially surprising considering the romanization of the authors. They'd had it up to here with a group they saw to be backwards terrorists in need of a little foreign intervention.

I would like to question the OP.

It would seem that the "lie" about Jesus allegedly promulgated by the Jews was, in fact, a lie.  The Jews, in the beginning, simply ignored Jesus, at least most of them.

You're right. It's time for the OPey dokey to finish this topic by giving the answer.

(March 24, 2019 at 8:35 pm)Jehanne Wrote: It would seem that the "lie" about Jesus allegedly promulgated by the Jews was, in fact, a lie.  The Jews, in the beginning, simply ignored Jesus, at least most of them.

I think the answer to my question is in fact in "Matthew". "Mathew" is actually a very anti Semitic book that describes how during Jesus' whole life and especially the ministry Jews were plotting to kill him. For instance there is even a line in Matthew 27:25 All the people answered, "His blood is on us and on our children!" Meaning that Jews were accepting Jesus blood as a curse on their future generations.

A line that Mel Gibson didn't fail to put in in his famous movie that is pandering to sadists and masochists who get their jollies drooling over blood.

But the thing is Gibson was forced by political pressure to remove the line from the various-language subtitles. - Imagine that! A line from Bible was forbidden in the movie because it was anti Semitic.

Of course, Gibson did not remove it from the Aramaic dialogue, so anti Semites can still enjoy it.





So according to "Matthew" Jews hated Jesus, they killed Jesus and they knew they would be cursed for that so they wanted to erase his resurrection from existence. Which is another reason to regard Christianity as a conspiracy, because one of the telltale signs something is a conspiracy is when they blame the Jews for everything, as do David Icke with reptilian aliens, Flat Earthers, Moon landings etc.

And that's why Koran is actually more peaceful book that New Testament because it doesn't blame Jews, it even says that Jesus didn't die on a cross but an imposter.