For People Who Think There Was No Historical Jesus

[EGross]

Funny how Alexander the Great never makes it into the OT. How did 'god' miss him?

He is explicitely named in the "external" texts (Midrash Rabbah, Vayikra, for one), which is why there is a tradition among Jews to carry on his name (Alexander, Sander, Sender, Alex, Al) especially among the Kohanic lines, which began in 333BCE (according to one source that cites a date). But when the Tanach (OT) was closed, he didn't make the final edition.

One name that comes to mind is King Alexander Yanni (A Hasmonean King of ill repute), and his nicer wife, Salome Alexandra, who ruled the Jewish Kingdom around 100BCE. I'm sure there were a lot others.

---

As far as "Solomon" goes one need not go so far. The Assyrian king, Shalmeneser V ( the Greek rendering of his name ) was called Šulmanu-ašarid in Akkadian. Sulmanu? Solomon? Gee. I wonder where they got their inspiration from?

Solomon is actually pronounced "Shlo-mo" as a smichut (contraction) of "Shalom Shelo" (His peace). Which is an irony since from the moment he was born, his father had no peace!

[Minimalist]

That stuff's a little late for Alex, isn't it?


For dear old Solly we have even less than we do for David... and even the Tel Dan reference to House of David is under fire. What we do know is there was no great city on the site in the 10th century and certainly no far-flung empire.

[EGross]

Like I said, some others like to apply dates. All we have is the old story of Alexander wanting his statue in the Jewish Temple, and getting convinced that having his name live on forever would be better than some old statue. He also seems to be one of the few Emperors in the Jewish texts who has positive things written about.

And yes, Solomon (Shlomo) is a problem. It is during the period when he was supposed to reign that some of the worst things happened, that the Jewish kingdoms split into two due to his excesses, and even the sages say about his ending that he "...left his kingdom to walk among them, and a demon (shayd) sat in his place." meaning, he was really bad news. Furthermore, unless he was shooting a heck of a lot of blanks, someone with 700 wives and 300 concubines should have had a heck of a lot of kids! As to the ending of his life and the turning over of his kingdom, it is one of the weirdest parts of his story, becuase he is one of the few that we really don't know. Schoars are divided as to if he died or didn't die before his son took over, and his death is also inconclusive in the stories.

Unlike David, where there is at least one item that says "House of David", albeit 100 years after David lived, Solomon is more of an enigma. For a supposed wise person, he did way too many stupid things, so much so that the Abarbanel considered him one of the vilest of men, unworthy of reverence.

I found this explanation from the Israeli Ministry of foreign affaris that provides even more details to dismiss any Biblical accounts whatsoever. (Let's see Saudi Arabia do that concerning Mohammed!)

[Confused Ape]

And yes, Solomon (Shlomo) is a problem.

Unlike David, where there is at least one item that says "House of David", albeit 100 years after David lived, Solomon is more of an enigma. For a supposed wise person, he did way too many stupid things, so much so that the Abarbanel considered him one of the vilest of men, unworthy of reverence.

I did a google search for the Abarbanel - were they the Spanish family who were supposed to be descended from King David?

I found this explanation from the Israeli Ministry of foreign affaris that provides even more details to dismiss any Biblical accounts whatsoever.

If this article about Jewish Messianism is right it could explain a lot.

In Jewish eschatology, the term came to refer to a future Jewish King from the Davidic line,

Traditional and current Orthodox thought have mainly held that ‘the Messiah’ will be the anointed one (messiah), descended from his father through the Davidic line of King David,[5] who will gather the Jews back into the Land of Israel, usher in an era of peace, build the Third Temple, have a male heir and re-institute the Sanhedrin, among other things. Jewish tradition alludes to two redeemers, both of whom are called Mashiach and are involved in ushering in the Messianic age: Mashiach ben David and Mashiach ben Joseph. In general, the term Messiah unqualified always refers to Mashiach ben David (Messiah the descendant of David and Salomon) of the tribe of Judah. He will be the final redeemer who shall rule in the Messianic age.[1][2]

If you're trying to promote the idea that the Messiah will be descended from David and Solomon you aren't going to say anything like "David established a small kingdom. His Jerusalem was very primitive with a few stone toilets being the height of luxury. His son, Solomon, was a stupid man and an awful king."

It seems, though, that not everyone was fooled by the fabricated account of Solomon being the wisest of men who ruled a glittering kingdom.

[EGross]

And yes, Solomon (Shlomo) is a problem.

Unlike David, where there is at least one item that says "House of David", albeit 100 years after David lived, Solomon is more of an enigma. For a supposed wise person, he did way too many stupid things, so much so that the Abarbanel considered him one of the vilest of men, unworthy of reverence.

I did a google search for the Abarbanel - were they the Spanish family who were supposed to be descended from King David?

Probably was, depending on how people maintain their lineages. But the most important bit was that he was the financial person for King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, who initiatated the Spanish Inquisition and the exile of the Jews, telling him he was a good Jew and could keep handling the cash (he also intiated the funding for Columbus). He despised any monarchy by that point, flipped them the finger, and left with the rest of the Jews.

Hence his statement that there was never a good Jewish king except Yotam ben Uzziyahu, of which the Tanach writes that he ruled in place of his father while he ailedm and after he died. Nothing else. Hence, he was the only good one! Modern commentators are critical of the Abarbanel, and misue the Talmudic quote "Anyone who thinks that David (or Solomon) sinned is mistaken" and ignoring the fact that such a statement is then undermined and reversed.

If this article about Jewish Messianism is right it could explain a lot.

In Jewish eschatology, the term came to refer to a future Jewish King from the Davidic line,

Traditional and current Orthodox thought have mainly held that ‘the Messiah’ will be the anointed one (messiah), descended from his father through the Davidic line of King David,[5] who will gather the Jews back into the Land of Israel, usher in an era of peace, build the Third Temple, have a male heir and re-institute the Sanhedrin, among other things. Jewish tradition alludes to two redeemers, both of whom are called Mashiach and are involved in ushering in the Messianic age: Mashiach ben David and Mashiach ben Joseph. In general, the term Messiah unqualified always refers to Mashiach ben David (Messiah the descendant of David and Salomon) of the tribe of Judah. He will be the final redeemer who shall rule in the Messianic age.[1][2]

The Moshiach ben Yosef thing is weird in that there is only 1 reference to that in all of early rabbinical work (Mesechta Sukkah, 52b), and it speaks of one who will mislead people and will die, and people will mourn his death for the realization of the deception will come upon them.

It was originally a metaphor for all false messiahs, and then the Kabbalists got hold of it and then it sort of got absorbed into jewish philosophy, and the Christians, who if they knew the real meaning, would stop trying to refer to the first coming of Jesus as the ben Yosef, and the second coming as ben David, which they got from LATER Jewish legend, since the ben Yosef metaphor would not be developed until the 3rd-4th century CE.

If you're trying to promote the idea that the Messiah will be descended from David and Solomon you aren't going to say anything like "David established a small kingdom. His Jerusalem was very primitive with a few stone toilets being the height of luxury. His son, Solomon, was a stupid man and an awful king."

You do have the literalists among the Jews that pray intently that the "King Moshiach should arrive speedily in our days", but you also have the true scolars who see it as a day of dread, since nearly every king has been a disaster, and a monarchy where you serve a King and he in turn will serve God (or himself), is anything but appealing to those who even pause for a moment to consider what they are asking for. Heck, if they paused to consider what a 3rd Temple really meant, they'd bolt!

It seems, though, that not everyone was fooled by the fabricated account of Solomon being the wisest of men who ruled a glittering kingdom.

because of these two guys, the sages had to change the wording of the Torah a bit. Where is speaks of not marrying an Ammonite (Solomon did) or a Moabite (David's paternal line, hence the Book of Ruth), so that "Well, it uses these terms in the Masculine form, so obviously this only means that the Jewish males cannot marry the women. But to be consistant, when the commandment is made by God, it is made in the masculine. Are you to say it only applies to the males (oopsies) or males and females (oopsies)?

But since Boaz slept with Ruth, obviously he meant to marry her, too bad he died right after the had sex, and since he was a Judge, a later generation (after Judges) cannot undo the rulings of the previous, then it must be ok.

Or, in reality, somehow David got to be King, God said so, and so retroactively there must be a reason why it was ok.

So whe you hear of Messianism (Chabad is probably the worst cult in that respect), yeah, it's about "son of David", or his genetic heir, a paternal link through blood. And since Jesus didn't have a Jewish father, this whole thimg makes you go...

WTF???

[/size]

[Confused Ape]

The Moshiach ben Yosef thing is weird in that there is only 1 reference to that in all of early rabbinical work (Mesechta Sukkah, 52b), and it speaks of one who will mislead people and will die, and people will mourn his death for the realization of the deception will come upon them.

It was originally a metaphor for all false messiahs, and then the Kabbalists got hold of it and then it sort of got absorbed into jewish philosophy, and the Christians, who if they knew the real meaning, would stop trying to refer to the first coming of Jesus as the ben Yosef,

But since Boaz slept with Ruth, obviously he meant to marry her, too bad he died right after the had sex, and since he was a Judge, a later generation (after Judges) cannot undo the rulings of the previous, then it must be ok.

Or, in reality, somehow David got to be King, God said so, and so retroactively there must be a reason why it was ok.

Ah, yes - Retroactive Continuity which is usually shortened to Retcon. It's still used today.

"Comic book fans will be familiar with the term 'retcon', which in layman's terms means that the writer waves his hand and tells you 'Remember when we said this? We screwed up, forget about that.'"

So whe you hear of Messianism (Chabad is probably the worst cult in that respect), yeah, it's about "son of David", or his genetic heir, a paternal link through blood. And since Jesus didn't have a Jewish father, this whole thimg makes you go...

If the original religious movement about Jesus was Jewish, the followers wouldn't have had this problem. We only know what was reported about Ebionite beliefs but this article from the Jewish Encyclopedia sums everything up.

Sect of Judæo-Christians of the second to the fourth century. They believed in the Messianic character of Jesus, but denied his divinity and supernatural origin;

I found a modern movement which appears to have had a go at reconstructing the Ebionite Movement.

[EGross]

From what we know of that period, before the council of Nicea, Christianity was pretty fragmented. Due to a lack of decent Internet access, one community believed in a Jesus that was different from the next. Some believed he was Divine, and some held him like Hercules, but a more tragic figure. It would be later that all of these would be brought together to accept a single story, weeding out the bad bits here and there.

This Ebionite movement today is one screwed up cult. They are trying to recreate something, like the Callifornia "Karites", who are non-Jews or Reform Jews who hate the term "reform", so they try to recreate something that have little knowledge about. They appear to sort of mixing up a few dogmas and making a bizarre stew. Trying to give Jesis a Jewish name, and calling his mother "Maria" is a tad weird. It appears to be a competing "Noahide" movement that the Chabad group tossed together. Although with the Ebionites, you don't get to be controlled by a seperate wacky cult, you get to be part of your own wacky cult!

[Confused Ape]

From what we know of that period, before the council of Nicea, Christianity was pretty fragmented. Due to a lack of decent Internet access, one community believed in a Jesus that was different from the next. Some believed he was Divine, and some held him like Hercules, but a more tragic figure. It would be later that all of these would be brought together to accept a single story, weeding out the bad bits here and there.

Would internet access have made any difference, though? After all, the internet hasn't resulted in a unified Christianity where everyone believes the same things.

Trying to give Jesis a Jewish name, and calling his mother "Maria" is a tad weird.

You mean Maria isn't a genuine name from the time of Jesus?

Although with the Ebionites, you don't get to be controlled by a seperate wacky cult, you get to be part of your own wacky cult!

Must be why it appeals to some people.

[EGross]

You mean Maria isn't a genuine name from the time of Jesus?

Jesus was a Puerto Rican?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpdB6CN7jww

[Confused Ape]

You mean Maria isn't a genuine name from the time of Jesus?

Jesus was a Puerto Rican?

He must have been. Didn't you hear the heavenly voices singing her name?

The thought of internet access in ancient times has given me a bizarre mental picture. Jesus had a blog and posted "Follow me on Twitter". hock: