(9 votes, average: 4.44 out of 5)
Loading...Was Jesus’ birth meant to bring peace into the world?
One of my favorite Christmas carols is Hark! The Herald Angels Sing,[i] which includes among its memorable lines, “Hail the heaven-born Prince of Peace, Hail the Sun of Righteousness.” The carol is celebrating the announcement of Jesus’ birth to the shepherds “in the fields by night” in Luke 2:
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Did early Christians celebrate Hanukah? When did Christians stop celebrating Hanukah and the other key Jewish holidays/observances?
No.
And they’ll know we are Christians by our laws, by our laws, yes, they’ll know we are Christians by our laws.
Ha! A lot of readers won’t get the allusion, but I certainly do!!
Perhaps on a literary level the episode of the “Slaughter of the Innocents” by Matthew serves to leaven the triumphalist view of the Messiah in the Nativity account? The Nativity contains nary a hint of the Cross. Herod is afraid, not of a suffering Messiah, but of being replaced by a new King.
The hints are things like “he will save his people from their sins,” and, say, the “myrrh” offered him at birth. But yes, the herod story is all about the future king.
This might be not an appropriate question, but since it’s mentioned in the post i will ask: what was the reason/s why the nazi persecuted the Jews (among others)? I struggle to believe it was done purely for religious faction reasons
Were they a scapegoat or a threat for somebody?
Any read suggested about the nazi scholars/theologians? I never knew there were any, i thought the nazi ideology rejected Christianity and religions
It actually was not for principally religious reasons. It’s a very long story, but the Nazis were concerned to develop and promote a superior race of humans who would make the world a better and more noble place; based on race theories that had developed in the 19th century, and other social ideologies, they came to view non-Aryans as problematic, along with other outliers. These were to be eliminated. They included therefore those of the wrong bloodlines (Jews) and others who were seen as “aberrant” (homosexuals, gypsies, etc.). A Jew’s religion had no bearing on the quesito of their bloodline. Jews who were ardent Roman Catholics from Roman CAtholic families were sent to the camps along with everyone else.
A good book on the subject is Susannah Heschel, The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible In Nazi Germany.
In the context of Isaiah itself, this is not a prophecy of what will happen with the coming of the messiah some 700 years hence.
————————–
Professor, some of the Messiah prophecies in the Old Testament have a continuous context, such as Daniel 2 which uses a continuous context to narrate a prophecy. And some have discontinuous contexts, such as the Messiah prophecy in Isaiah being abruptly inserted.
So for the Messiah prophecy in Isaiah, you cannot understand it from the coherent meaning of the context or the tense of the author.
To summarize the Messiah prophecies I have discovered from the Old Testament, there are Genesis 3:15; Isaiah 9:6, 9: 7; Isaiah 11:2–11:6; Daniel 2. These are all with clear meanings, and can be consistent with the next step of historical development, while the rest with unclear meanings can only be seen as nonsense or false prophecies.
Refer to ‘Teach You to Recognize True Messiah’
35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. (Matthew 10:34-35).
————————————————————————-
Jesus’ words indicated that he clearly knew he was just a false Messiah, so his cult teachings would inevitably clash fiercely with the orthodox teachings of Judaism. His claim to be the Messiah would inevitably clash fiercely with the prophecies of the Messiah in the Old Testament.
So he must say these words to prepare his followers for intense conflict psychologically.
I just wanted to share how truly excited I am for the trip in May. After checking out the hotels where we’ll be staying, I must say they look absolutely fabulous! This will be my first time in Greece, and with my belief in Zeus, this journey holds a special place in my heart. I will cherish this experience for the rest of my life. With my Olympus tattoo proudly inked on my back, I’m sure every GOD in Olympus will be smiling down on me as I relax by the water. I eagerly anticipate a glass of wine, heartfelt conversations, and the opportunity to explore the ancient sites dedicated to my beliefs, all while embracing the magic of this trip.
Originally there were no resurrection appearances in Mark-only an empty tomb. Assume Mark nevertheless did believe Jesus was raised. Does this combination imply that Mark did not know of any resurrection appearances but had other reasons for belief in the resurrection? Or Mark believed because of the empty tomb? Or Mark is leaving it up to the reader to decide. Or something else?
Mark definitely believes Jesus was raised. He explicitly says he was. I’m afraid we don’t know what Mark actually knew, but he appears to presuppose that Jesus is to appear to the disciples in Galilee. Whether he knew that he did or did not appear is impossible to tell. The women “believe” not because of the empty tomb, though, but because of the messenger who has conveyed the good news to them.
Is it true that a theme in mark is that fear kills faith? If the women were believers why did they flee? It makes no sense to me for mark to end his gospel with “they fled and said nothing to anyone for they were afraid”
Earlier peter demonstrated his apostacy when he took an oath and said he didnt know marks dying messiah
This negative portray motivated the other writers to make changes to marks story.
I can’t think of anywhere in Mark where he indicates that “fear kills faith”
What effect if any did Rome’s destruction of the Jerusalem temple, in about 70 CE, have on Christianity in general and on the content of the gospels specifically. I don’t recall any of your trade books addressing this in detail. My impression is that you don’t think it had a major effect on the gospels.
But the gospels were written just before and after this event. It’s difficult to believe that this event did not have a significant impact on the gospels. If not why not?
I thought I answered this question already?
I don’t think you’ve answered my specific question though I may have asked similar questions in past years. I tried to find a past post about it but was not able to. Can you point me toward something that addresses this?
Since the early Christians we’re apocalypticists the burning of the temple and, if I’m not mistaken, general destruction in Jerusalem must have seemed like at least a potentially apocalyptic event, perhaps the beginning of the end of the world.
Ah, sorry. Maybe someone else asked it recently. My sense is that different Christians understood the destructoin of the temple in different ways. Some saw it as an indication that the kingdom of God was now arriving. (Alas, that view could not withstand the ravages of time) Others saw it as confirmation that God no longer required the sacrificial system of Judaism since the messiah had come. Others saw it as God’s judgment against Jews for rejecting their messiah (this became the standard view). I’d say that the destruction changed Judaism WAY more than it changed Christianity, especially since by 70 CE the vast majority of Christians were not anywhere near Jerusalem and were not Jews.
To Seeker1952:
Let me try to answer your question
Rome only physically destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem, while Christianity opposes Judaism in doctrine. In the year 70 AD, they were all enemies of Judaism. But at that time, Rome and Christianity had not yet united, and they had no relationship at that time. It was not until hundreds of years later that Rome adopted Christianity as its state religion that these two enemies of Judaism united.
Early Christianity was just a cult busy with preaching and making money, with no interest in resisting Rome, so it had no intersection with Rome.
So Bart, what do you think historically Jesus thought? That he had not come to bring peace, but a sword or he was a pacifist “prince of peace”? He can not be both… I historically leaned to Catholicism and you know, catholic do not pay too much attention to the Hebrew Bible (to the Bible by the way, but this is another story). But I started to read de Hebrew Bible last year. I am sick now of violence, blood, vengeance, etc. I am having hard times to find the “God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulnes” and sometimes I have to stop reading for the sickening violence in it. I started to wonder if the historical Jesus could insulate from this matrix. I am sure you said elsewhere but i cannot follow every post and every book. I’d appreciate your opinion on the topic. Thanks
I don’t think Jesus imagined there would be a religion/church coming in his wake that would either be peaceful or violent. My sense is that he was a pacifist, but he was not focused on what he would accomplish. He was proclaiming that God was soon to bring his kingdom so people needed to be ready for it. My sense is that he didn’t elevate his role beyond that of being the proclaimer who, once the kingdom came, would be its reuler.
I have often wondered about the contrast between the “Prince of Peace” idea and Jesus’s declaration that he has not come to bring peace but a sword. I put it into the category of Biblical contradictions. The family strife in Matthew also negates the idea that God is all pro family as Christians often preach. Here in Australia there is even a Christian political party called Family First.
I did not wanted to convey the idea that he thought that a religion or a church will be build at some point. I am more concerned in the “how” he expected the kingdom would come. There would be violence against the enemies of Yahweh? If I am not mistaken, most apocalyptic writings have violent scenarios. I wonder if Jesus could escape of the whole violence attributed to god in Hebrew Bible, more in an apocalyptic scenario that implied (at least) defeating the Roman Empire. More specifically “turning the other cheek” was or was not a probable saying of the historical Jesus?. His disciples seem did not “Turned the other cheek” when he was arrested…
Can be that once he was crucified his disciples started to build a “pacifist” reputation for Jesus as with the evolution of christology was aware that his violent death would bring “salvation and pardon of the sin” for the “whole humanity”! Then as post paschal elaboration a nonresistant and nonreaction Jesus fits better the new theology
Yes, he thought God’s enemies would be destoryed, and said so many times (in creative ways: “being cast into the fire,” etc.)
Sorry to insist… but i agree Jesus should have had the same violent idea about the coming of the Kingdom of God as other apocalyptic folks of those times. But more specifically if he expected God to be violent, “turning the other cheek” it seems an implausibly saying of the historical Jesus. *What do you think about his saying?*. As other “horror saying of Jesus” like Mahew 10:34, Luke 12:49, Luke 22:36 (buy swords) and then the probable fat tha disciples did not “Turned the other cheek” when he was arrested…
There is a big difference between saying God will destroy his enemies by a show of supernatural force and saying that his followers should also engage in violence. My view is that hte “sword” sayings were generatd by story tellers to emphasize that if you live by the sword you will die by it. And teh disciple who did not turn the other cheek fits perfectly in with the tradition that the 12 never did get it….
Thanks for the anwser