Jesus was NOT the Messiah
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-10-2014, 04:51 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(28-10-2014 04:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-10-2014 10:54 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Paul believed in a historical Jesus, who he believed was the Christ, and devotes much of his time to developing a Christology, something Christian theologians have been doing for some time, from Moltmann, Bonhoeffer, Barth, etc... They like Paul are attempting to answer a question that is of serious importance to the community of believers, but not so for non-believers.

You make a very important point there. Their audience is the credulous.

Maybe.

At the end of day, their concerns may have been about deciding how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and Paul was merely wondering what does it mean to be a pin?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 05:38 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(25-10-2014 07:55 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Richard Carrier actually points the existence of such beliefs among a minority of jews at the time:

"A fragmentary pesher among the Dead Sea Scrolls explicitly identifies the servant of Isaiah 52-53 with the messiah of Daniel 9. This decisively confirms that this specific equation had already been made by pre-Christian Jews, as it exists not just in a pre-Christian text, but in this case a pre-Christian manuscript."

"The Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel, which was originally composed in the 1st century A.D., actually inserts "messiah" right in Isaiah 52:13 ("Behold, my servant, the messiah…"), thus confirming this "servant" was already being interpreted as the messiah by Jews decades before Christianity began. "

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2011/...ssiah.html

Wow, this thread completely exploded with posts since I was last on here! Sorry if this has already been discussed, but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this blogpost:

http://religionatthemargins.com/2012/04/...g-messiah/

The author argues from and presents the text of this targum to show that while it identifies Isaiah 52 and 53 as being about the Messiah, the targum shifts the "suffering" aspect to the Messiah's enemies. So it appears there's no suffering Messiah here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 05:46 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(28-10-2014 01:11 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  The Nazarenes were still a powerful force in the late first century. Memories of Jesus the Nazarene were (probably) still strong and had to be undermined.

I just wanted to go back to this early pre-gospel Nazarene sect.

During the time in which Mark was writing, the Nazarene belief were prevalent, enough that Mark couldn't just deny the Nazerene aspect, because people would have noticed, so to say?

If people at the time likely would have already known this particular aspect of the original Nazarene Jesus, than it follows that they likely knew other things about him as well, like the sort of things he said and did, etc... If so, these would also likely appear in Mark, even if modified, since he couldn't just down-right deny them

Quote:The similarities between the name Nazarene and the place Nazareth cannot be explained by sheer coincidence.

Both seem to derive from the root word branch, it can be coincidental in the same way that waterlily and waterbed, waterloo, watermelon are.

But I think what took place, is that Nazarene's derived their name from Jesus being from Nazareth, a point Tertullian made as well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 05:51 AM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2014 07:44 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(28-10-2014 04:47 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Surgery-CalTech

That's what I thought. Thanks for confirming it. So none then.

BTW : http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11395-nazarite
Since you are completely unfamiliar with that culture, the Nazarites were an ancient group of ascetics, as old as the Moses myths.
So if you're guessing, about a word that possibly references a group that everyone knew about, as opposed to a place no one knew about ... guess what ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-10-2014, 06:49 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(28-10-2014 05:38 AM)Learner Wrote:  
(25-10-2014 07:55 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Richard Carrier actually points the existence of such beliefs among a minority of jews at the time:

"A fragmentary pesher among the Dead Sea Scrolls explicitly identifies the servant of Isaiah 52-53 with the messiah of Daniel 9. This decisively confirms that this specific equation had already been made by pre-Christian Jews, as it exists not just in a pre-Christian text, but in this case a pre-Christian manuscript."

"The Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel, which was originally composed in the 1st century A.D., actually inserts "messiah" right in Isaiah 52:13 ("Behold, my servant, the messiah…"), thus confirming this "servant" was already being interpreted as the messiah by Jews decades before Christianity began. "

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2011/...ssiah.html

Wow, this thread completely exploded with posts since I was last on here! Sorry if this has already been discussed, but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this blogpost:

http://religionatthemargins.com/2012/04/...g-messiah/

The author argues from and presents the text of this targum to show that while it identifies Isaiah 52 and 53 as being about the Messiah, the targum shifts the "suffering" aspect to the Messiah's enemies. So it appears there's no suffering Messiah here.

So, some rabbi's interpretation. Not compelling.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 11:57 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
The so-called Priestly Courses Inscription.... actually 3 fragments of what is assumed to be a lengthier document one of which is lost...dates to the 3d/4th century. There is no doubt that a small town named Nazareth existed by then.

http://www.textexcavation.com/priestlyco...ption.html

Quote:Fragment 1 has the putative mention of Nazareth; it was dated by Professor N. Avigad to the 3rd or 4th century (presumably on paleographic grounds).

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 03:35 PM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2014 08:06 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(28-10-2014 04:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-10-2014 01:11 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  OH YES HE DID.

OH NO HE DIDN’T.

Quote: Instead, he wrote about things he thought were important: his own Christ, and his own ethics.

Paul was writing letters to various Christian communities regarding issues within those churches. And the primarily theological trouble for these infant communities, in fact it’s still an ongoing issues even in churches today, was in developing a Christology. Or in other words Paul, like many theologians past, and present, is exploring what it means for Jesus to be Christ. His audience is a community of believers, not those outside of it, and he’d likely have been surprised to find that we’re reading his letters today. His audience is a community, that already had some common beliefs.

Folks such as yourself, who are not believers, have a hard time understanding the theological concerns of believers. If you were to explore Christian theology, especially among theologians who devoted themselves to the meaning of Christ, like Bonhoeffer’s Christ the Center, or Moltmann’s The Crucified God, you’ll find that these writing sound remarkably like Paul. They are heavily spiritualized, rarely if ever mention any of the details found in the Gospels, or even quote much of anything Jesus had said. They devote themselves completely to the idea of Christ, the Cross, and the Resurrection.

Earlier another individual here asked me, why I am believer if I viewed certain aspects of the Jesus story as non-historical, and the answer to this would be, because I believe that there is some sort of truth in the person, life, and death of Jesus beyond his mere historical reality. And Paul, like many reflective theologians, are devoting their writings to explore this supposed underlying reality.

The communities Paul is addressing already knew the story of Jesus, they just didn’t know what it all meant, and this is the question Paul is exploring with them.

Quote:In fact Paul never expressed any genuine pleasure in associating with Yeshua’s family or followers

Yea, it sure didn’t seem like it. He probably found them to be too exclusive, too stubborn, too hesitant to start the fire of their founder’s vision. Without Paul, who knows if there would even be a Christianity today.


Quote: He casually downplays the fact he met James and Cephas, Yeshua’s brother and one of his important disciples.

What’s interesting is that you speak of Jesus’s family, and note that Paul met his brother James, and seem to argue that Paul didn’t believe in a Jesus who was a real person? I don’t really know how that works.

Quote:It is true that “Paul” mentions “Jesus” many times, yet “Jesus” may have been edited into Paul’s writings, where he had written only “Christ.” I can’t prove this happened, yet it’s a distinct possibility given that there was a culture that encouraged “pious fraud” amongst Christians in the second, third and fourth centuries.

Yes, we should just reject every aspect of Paul, where he speaks of Jesus as an actual human being, in fact wherever he uses the name Jesus, for no other reason than it doesn’t bode well for your position.

Quote:In addition to the gospel of the Nazarenes, there was Paul's Christ, Mithras and all the other saviour Gods of the first century Roman world such as Krishna, Buddha and Horus that were morphed into our Jeebus. [...]

Here’s another one. Paul's propaganda was the government's pre-war effort to undermine the Jews.

Just when I thought it couldn’t get any worse.

I have a bipolar cousin, who likes to give me a call whenever he has his latest episode. He likes to tell me of his latest crazy theory, of how the government is spying on him, and moving all the furniture around in his apartment, or how his mom is plotting to kill him, and how aliens were the cause of 9/11. He sort of strings little occurrences around, like when he can’t find his keys, and his mind just begins of spin these things into one convoluted narrative.

Sometimes when his episode has just begun, you can sort of reason with him a bit. I’d ask him, if realizes how unlikely any of these theories of his are, and sometimes he can acknowledge that they are very unlikely. And sometimes it appears that he can sense how ridiculous they are as well. But he always replies, “just because they are extremely unlikely, doesn’t mean they are not true”.

Compared to the shit being peddled here, my cousin made a lot more sense. At least sometimes he was aware of how big of a turd he was trying to peddle.

I can understand why the recent zeitgeist among non-historicist, is to slowly walk themselves away from mythicism. Bucky called me a “little bitch” for labeling him as a mythicist. You would think that I just slapped the shit out of his mother.

They are in essence worried that they’d be tarred with the same feathers as 9/11 truths, birthers, moon-landing conspiracy cuckoos, and that whatever legitimate criticism they have of religion, would be thrown out with the tainted bathwater.

I’m afraid that’s all a little too late.

RE "Paul was writing letters to various Christian communities regarding issues within those churches. And the primarily theological trouble for these infant communities, in fact it’s still an ongoing issues even in churches today, was in developing a Christology. Or in other words Paul, like many theologians past, and present, is exploring what it means for Jesus to be Christ. His audience is a community of believers, not those outside of it, and he’d likely have been surprised to find that we’re reading his letters today. His audience is a community, that already had some common beliefs."

You are making this up.

The gospels had yet to be written when Paul was doing his thing, so there was no basis of a new religion or a new church. Jesus, his family, and his original disciples were all Jews. Please read that again. What it means is that there was no Christology until Paul came along. There were no stories about the miracle working benign preacher spreading anecdotes about turning the other cheek being meek, paying your taxes etc etc. There were only Jews, and Gentiles some of whom may have been attracted to some of the aspects of Judaism, so there was no already existing community of believers. The only time he addressed already believing communities was when he writes to them again after he visited them earlier. The other possibility is that there were other wandering preachers sprouting the same sort of theology as Paul. I mention this because he does write to a community of believers in Rome who did have some knowledge of a Christ.

You seriously need to put your preconceptions in your back pocket and look at this in an open-minded way.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 03:43 PM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2014 08:07 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(28-10-2014 04:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-10-2014 01:11 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  OH YES HE DID.

OH NO HE DIDN’T.

Quote: Instead, he wrote about things he thought were important: his own Christ, and his own ethics.

Paul was writing letters to various Christian communities regarding issues within those churches. And the primarily theological trouble for these infant communities, in fact it’s still an ongoing issues even in churches today, was in developing a Christology. Or in other words Paul, like many theologians past, and present, is exploring what it means for Jesus to be Christ. His audience is a community of believers, not those outside of it, and he’d likely have been surprised to find that we’re reading his letters today. His audience is a community, that already had some common beliefs.

Folks such as yourself, who are not believers, have a hard time understanding the theological concerns of believers. If you were to explore Christian theology, especially among theologians who devoted themselves to the meaning of Christ, like Bonhoeffer’s Christ the Center, or Moltmann’s The Crucified God, you’ll find that these writing sound remarkably like Paul. They are heavily spiritualized, rarely if ever mention any of the details found in the Gospels, or even quote much of anything Jesus had said. They devote themselves completely to the idea of Christ, the Cross, and the Resurrection.

Earlier another individual here asked me, why I am believer if I viewed certain aspects of the Jesus story as non-historical, and the answer to this would be, because I believe that there is some sort of truth in the person, life, and death of Jesus beyond his mere historical reality. And Paul, like many reflective theologians, are devoting their writings to explore this supposed underlying reality.

The communities Paul is addressing already knew the story of Jesus, they just didn’t know what it all meant, and this is the question Paul is exploring with them.

Quote:In fact Paul never expressed any genuine pleasure in associating with Yeshua’s family or followers

Yea, it sure didn’t seem like it. He probably found them to be too exclusive, too stubborn, too hesitant to start the fire of their founder’s vision. Without Paul, who knows if there would even be a Christianity today.


Quote: He casually downplays the fact he met James and Cephas, Yeshua’s brother and one of his important disciples.

What’s interesting is that you speak of Jesus’s family, and note that Paul met his brother James, and seem to argue that Paul didn’t believe in a Jesus who was a real person? I don’t really know how that works.

Quote:It is true that “Paul” mentions “Jesus” many times, yet “Jesus” may have been edited into Paul’s writings, where he had written only “Christ.” I can’t prove this happened, yet it’s a distinct possibility given that there was a culture that encouraged “pious fraud” amongst Christians in the second, third and fourth centuries.

Yes, we should just reject every aspect of Paul, where he speaks of Jesus as an actual human being, in fact wherever he uses the name Jesus, for no other reason than it doesn’t bode well for your position.

Quote:In addition to the gospel of the Nazarenes, there was Paul's Christ, Mithras and all the other saviour Gods of the first century Roman world such as Krishna, Buddha and Horus that were morphed into our Jeebus. [...]

Here’s another one. Paul's propaganda was the government's pre-war effort to undermine the Jews.

Just when I thought it couldn’t get any worse.

I have a bipolar cousin, who likes to give me a call whenever he has his latest episode. He likes to tell me of his latest crazy theory, of how the government is spying on him, and moving all the furniture around in his apartment, or how his mom is plotting to kill him, and how aliens were the cause of 9/11. He sort of strings little occurrences around, like when he can’t find his keys, and his mind just begins of spin these things into one convoluted narrative.

Sometimes when his episode has just begun, you can sort of reason with him a bit. I’d ask him, if realizes how unlikely any of these theories of his are, and sometimes he can acknowledge that they are very unlikely. And sometimes it appears that he can sense how ridiculous they are as well. But he always replies, “just because they are extremely unlikely, doesn’t mean they are not true”.

Compared to the shit being peddled here, my cousin made a lot more sense. At least sometimes he was aware of how big of a turd he was trying to peddle.

I can understand why the recent zeitgeist among non-historicist, is to slowly walk themselves away from mythicism. Bucky called me a “little bitch” for labeling him as a mythicist. You would think that I just slapped the shit out of his mother.

They are in essence worried that they’d be tarred with the same feathers as 9/11 truths, birthers, moon-landing conspiracy cuckoos, and that whatever legitimate criticism they have of religion, would be thrown out with the tainted bathwater.

I’m afraid that’s all a little too late.

"Folks such as yourself, who are not believers, have a hard time understanding the theological concerns of believers. If you were to explore Christian theology, especially among theologians who devoted themselves to the meaning of Christ, like Bonhoeffer’s Christ the Center, or Moltmann’s The Crucified God, you’ll find that these writing sound remarkably like Paul. They are heavily spiritualized, rarely if ever mention any of the details found in the Gospels, or even quote much of anything Jesus had said. They devote themselves completely to the idea of Christ, the Cross, and the Resurrection."

You're implying that because I'm not a believer I fail to understand theological concerns. This is patronising nonsense. I've spent seven years studying the history of the early church. I'm not particularly interested in the ramblings of your theologians, as it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. I'm interested in who Paul was, why the religion was created in the first place, and how to help people who have been indoctrinated with all this nonsense (people like yourself, obviously).

Have a look at the title at the top of this page. It is called the thinking atheists forum. We think and we share ideas off each other. You have stopped thinking. It doesn't appear as though you are here to learn, as you're not open to new ideas.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 03:46 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(28-10-2014 04:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-10-2014 01:11 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  OH YES HE DID.

OH NO HE DIDN’T.

Quote: Instead, he wrote about things he thought were important: his own Christ, and his own ethics.

Paul was writing letters to various Christian communities regarding issues within those churches. And the primarily theological trouble for these infant communities, in fact it’s still an ongoing issues even in churches today, was in developing a Christology. Or in other words Paul, like many theologians past, and present, is exploring what it means for Jesus to be Christ. His audience is a community of believers, not those outside of it, and he’d likely have been surprised to find that we’re reading his letters today. His audience is a community, that already had some common beliefs.

Folks such as yourself, who are not believers, have a hard time understanding the theological concerns of believers. If you were to explore Christian theology, especially among theologians who devoted themselves to the meaning of Christ, like Bonhoeffer’s Christ the Center, or Moltmann’s The Crucified God, you’ll find that these writing sound remarkably like Paul. They are heavily spiritualized, rarely if ever mention any of the details found in the Gospels, or even quote much of anything Jesus had said. They devote themselves completely to the idea of Christ, the Cross, and the Resurrection.

Earlier another individual here asked me, why I am believer if I viewed certain aspects of the Jesus story as non-historical, and the answer to this would be, because I believe that there is some sort of truth in the person, life, and death of Jesus beyond his mere historical reality. And Paul, like many reflective theologians, are devoting their writings to explore this supposed underlying reality.

The communities Paul is addressing already knew the story of Jesus, they just didn’t know what it all meant, and this is the question Paul is exploring with them.

Quote:In fact Paul never expressed any genuine pleasure in associating with Yeshua’s family or followers

Yea, it sure didn’t seem like it. He probably found them to be too exclusive, too stubborn, too hesitant to start the fire of their founder’s vision. Without Paul, who knows if there would even be a Christianity today.


Quote: He casually downplays the fact he met James and Cephas, Yeshua’s brother and one of his important disciples.

What’s interesting is that you speak of Jesus’s family, and note that Paul met his brother James, and seem to argue that Paul didn’t believe in a Jesus who was a real person? I don’t really know how that works.

Quote:It is true that “Paul” mentions “Jesus” many times, yet “Jesus” may have been edited into Paul’s writings, where he had written only “Christ.” I can’t prove this happened, yet it’s a distinct possibility given that there was a culture that encouraged “pious fraud” amongst Christians in the second, third and fourth centuries.

Yes, we should just reject every aspect of Paul, where he speaks of Jesus as an actual human being, in fact wherever he uses the name Jesus, for no other reason than it doesn’t bode well for your position.

Quote:In addition to the gospel of the Nazarenes, there was Paul's Christ, Mithras and all the other saviour Gods of the first century Roman world such as Krishna, Buddha and Horus that were morphed into our Jeebus. [...]

Here’s another one. Paul's propaganda was the government's pre-war effort to undermine the Jews.

Just when I thought it couldn’t get any worse.

I have a bipolar cousin, who likes to give me a call whenever he has his latest episode. He likes to tell me of his latest crazy theory, of how the government is spying on him, and moving all the furniture around in his apartment, or how his mom is plotting to kill him, and how aliens were the cause of 9/11. He sort of strings little occurrences around, like when he can’t find his keys, and his mind just begins of spin these things into one convoluted narrative.

Sometimes when his episode has just begun, you can sort of reason with him a bit. I’d ask him, if realizes how unlikely any of these theories of his are, and sometimes he can acknowledge that they are very unlikely. And sometimes it appears that he can sense how ridiculous they are as well. But he always replies, “just because they are extremely unlikely, doesn’t mean they are not true”.

Compared to the shit being peddled here, my cousin made a lot more sense. At least sometimes he was aware of how big of a turd he was trying to peddle.

I can understand why the recent zeitgeist among non-historicist, is to slowly walk themselves away from mythicism. Bucky called me a “little bitch” for labeling him as a mythicist. You would think that I just slapped the shit out of his mother.

They are in essence worried that they’d be tarred with the same feathers as 9/11 truths, birthers, moon-landing conspiracy cuckoos, and that whatever legitimate criticism they have of religion, would be thrown out with the tainted bathwater.

I’m afraid that’s all a little too late.

"The communities Paul is addressing already knew the story of Jesus, they just didn’t know what it all meant, and this is the question Paul is exploring with them."

You have this backwards. There was no story of Jesus when Paul was around. Think about it. Read the book of James, he may well have been Jesus's brother. There is not one word about the story of Jesus in the book of James. Why not? Because James was written before the gospels and James was a Jew, not a Christian.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2014, 05:40 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
"Paul" is as much a literary creation as "jesus."

Look to Marcion for answers.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: