It has been Christianized. The biblical Jesus represented the Messiah who would free Israel. To free Israel politically would mean to free Israel from Roman governors who were abusive. To free Israel would mean to have a Jewish Revolt. In the first century, there was a Manu royal line which supported Jewish Messianism. Let God be with the Messiah and let God be with the Messiah movement. Let God be with Manu so we can win this thing. The biblical Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction. Jesus was Jesus of Gamala who fought the Battle of Galilee (and lost). Jesus’ disciple Simon Peter was Simon bar Giora who fought against Rome. Jesus’ disciple John was John of Gischala who fought against Rome. // Simon what is it to you what becomes of John? John did not get a death sentence from Rome. Peter, you will be taken where you do not want to go. Peter was taken and put in the Roman triumph parade and then executed.
Steve Campbell – author of Historical Accuracy
“It has been Christianized”
Was LXX Isaiah ever Christianized?
Isaiah 7 (Brenton Septuagint Translation), ** you do not have permission to see this link **
10 And the Lord again spoke to Achaz, saying, 11 Ask for thyself a sign of the Lord thy God, in the depth or in the height. 12 And Achaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord. 13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; is it a little thing for you to contend with men? and how do ye contend against the Lord? 14 Therefore *the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel.* 15 Butter and honey shall he eat, before he knows either to prefer evil or choose the good. 16 For before the child shall know good or evil, he refuses evil, to choose the good; and the land shall be forsaken which thou art afraid of because of the two kings.
_A New English Translation of the Septuagint_, PDF 33 Esaias, tr. Moisés Silva, ** you do not have permission to see this link **
10 And the Lord spoke further to Achaz, saying, 11 Ask for yourself a sign of the Lord your God, in depth or in height. 12 But Achaz said, I will not ask, nor will I put the Lord to the test. 13 Then hed said: “Hear now, O house of Dauid! Is it a small thing for you to provoke a fight with mortals? How then do you provoke a fight with the Lord? 14 Therefore *the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and you shall name him Emmanouel.* 15 He shall eat butter and honey; before he knows or prefers evil things, he shall choose what is good. 16 For before the child knows good or bad, he defies evil to choose what is good, and the land that you fear from before the two kings will be abandoned. 17 But God will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not yet come since the day that he took Ephraim away from Ioudas– the king of the Assyrians.”
Immanuel is the son of King Ahaz. King Hezekiah was the Immanuel. Immanuel is God during Solomon’s Temple Judaism. Immanuel is an Earthly physical manifestion of God. That the King was God was a worldwide concept not unique to any religion. The ancient Hebrews were not an exception. (Explanation below.)
I reason from both a non-traditional Christian and non-Rabbinic Judaism perspective. To be clear, during First Temple (Solomon’s Temple) Judaism, the Kings and Prophets were the physical manifestations of God here on Earth in the perspective of the First Temple and House of David religion. King Ahaz and the prophet Isaiah, both being God, have a feud. Immanuel is the Son of God, the same as Solomon was the Son of God, King David was God. This religion was then suppressed during the Babylonian captivity. During Second Temple Judaism, the First Temple religious perspective was suppressed by the Sanhedrin under orders to do so by the Roman Empire. First Temple Judaism was very dangerous to the existence of the Jews after the decrees of Cyrus King of Persia that released them from slavery because they would rewrite their perspective into what became Second Temple Judaism.
Jesus and the Apostles were an attempt to bring back the First Temple religion despite that the Sanhedrin was trying to stop them. Jesus being from the House of David, and a King, a Son of David, a Messiah, all according to them, meant he was God according to the First Temple perspective. The Sanhedrin and Priesthood of the Second Temple Judaism cannot allow for that to happen again because there’s no chance in declaring war against the Roman Empire and being victorious.
Peace out, man cannot be God.
You say
Kings were gods and the princes were sons of god.
The kings and prophets were manifestations of god on earth, first temple.
Steefen
in Judea. The Judean kings and prophets were manifestations of god on earth in Judea.
A divided god had a feud with himself.
You say, god let himself get brought to Babylon. God could not stop it.
Eventually, after the first temple was destroyed, there was a second temple that could not express its original concept because of the Romans.
You say, Jesus and his band tried to bring back first temple culture. One thing for sure was that first temple Judaism was more polytheistic than second temple Judaism because Jewish theology had evolved consolidating its notion of god under Yahweh, only, not just in scripture but in practice.
So you’re saying that kings were God and Jesus was God by First Temple standards.
Just as God and his people got captured by the Babylonians who destroyed their first temple,
the Jews would lose to the Romans and get their second temple destroyed.
You end by saying man of the first temple and man of the second temple cannot be God and cannot be manifestations of God; so, the claims of Judaism and Christianity are false.
Reply to @Steefen
Claims that there is a Creator called God is not very controversial from any viewpoint of the Bible or pagan religion. The Creator however is not the ancient meaning of God. God is the Creator manifested here on Earth in the form of a King or Prophet. Basically the same understanding that Christianity has used as their theology of the Old Testament but only applied to Jesus of Nazareth.
Yes, that is very much my overall summary of the αγαθος Βίβλος good book at this time. The region was a war zone where every King was fighting wars to defend their status as God. War was the final decision on which King, the God was. The United Kingdom of Israel under the House of David was by far no exception to these ways of the ancient ones.
The history of the time from King David (God) King Solomon (Son of God and God) to King Hezekiah (Immanue, Son of God and God) has been erased from the Old Testamnet (Jewish and Masoreic texts) which occurred during and after the Babylonian Captivity. Ezra was in charge of rewriting the books as condition of freedom from slavery offered by Cyrus King of Persia. After the texts are rewritten by Ezra some of the perspectives naturally change into a prophecy of a future messiah but it cannot fully escape whether or not the messiah is God or not God. The messiah and House of David religion was completely destroyed at this time because they had suffered a catastrophic military defeat by the Babylonians, which meant that whoever had possession of them was now their God. Ezra says no, Cyrus is the messiah, not God, because Cyrus allows them to choose their own God (as long as they don’t return back to the House of David religion where the Jewish King is their God).
Confusing, I know, it’s a different perspective of history contrary to how the LXX, Masoreic and KJV recount.
The Samaritans Bible only contains Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy. The possibly oldest text of the Samaritan Bible doesn’t contain Genesis 1 nor Deuteronomy 33-34. They don’t have a history of the Kings and Prophets. Because of that I suspect there’s a religious history before the Babylonian Captivity they don’t want to remember and it is not what is recorded in the LXX and Masoreic about the Kings and Prophets.
Conspiracy of the scribes stuff, I know, I’m going off on a limb.
Why does Psalm 110:1 cause so much theological debate still to this day almost 2000 years later between Judaism and Christianity? Because originally almost 3000 years ago it was that King David was God. The House of David was a religion once upon a time long ago, however that is not Judaism anymore. That all ended when Nebuchadnezzar defeated the
Why is there a division between the Samaritans and Jews? It goes much deeper than Mount Gerizim and Mount Zion and whether not God had chosen the location for the Temple in the present tense or future tense mentioned in Deuteronomy in like 21 verses, all which in the Samaritan Pentateuch are written in the past tense (has chosen) while the Masoreic text writes it in the future tense (will choose) The ancient Samaritans completely rejected the ancient Judean House of David religion.
The Samaritans are the descendants from Israelites, and Jews the descendants from Judea. However in modern language the distinction between Israelite and Jew is no longer the same as it was over 2000 years ago.
Exodus 20:4. There’s not even any archaeological evidence of their Kings in the forms of statues that are commonly found amongst everyone else. Why? Because the law forbids them to make any images of God.
@Robert
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Whoops: I forgot to include Numbers. The 5 books. Yes, the Samaritan Pentateuch does include Numbers too. The first five books.
(Copy and paste quotes from the hyperlink)
The Samaritan Pentateuch contains the text of the Torah, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, written in the consonantal Samaritan script, a development from the Paleo-Hebrew script. Add.1846 is believed to be the earliest extant manuscript of the Samaritan Pentateuch and dates from the early 12th century CE. Epigraphs and scholia in Samaritan Hebrew/Aramaic and Arabic follow the end of each biblical book. They are in various hands. The copying of the book itself is the product of five different hands.
Some small holes; margins cropped; occasional staining; a few leaves badly faded and/or rubbed; several leaves lost at the beginning and end, some being replaced by leaves in a different hand. The beginning of the book of Genesis (up to 1:28) and the end of Deuteronomy (after 33:1) are lost. Some erasures and corrections. Pricked in outer margins; ruled. Foliated, but some leaves have an alternative foliation.
The description “are lost” is my basis. It’s not lost. It was never part of the text. I don’t agree that the both the first and last pages of the text were lost, torn away from use and got lost, because nobody noticed until it was too late. The earliest copies of a text are the only thing that can be proved as original to the text. Whatever isn’t there in the oldest text is a 50-50 chance of it being original from a text that previously existed but no longer exists. So, it’s limited at being conjecture.
Both the Rabbinic Jews and the Samaritans accuse the other of falsifying their Pentateuch, so who do you trust? Neither.
To me anyways, it makes perfect sense if at the time of the historical Jesus it was a taboo to keep the ancient House of David religion out of the public conversations. That was the job of the Sanhedrin. The Jews fear the Sanhedrin because the Sanhedrin fears the Roman Empire. Jesus broke that taboo and that’s where the Christian faith of Jesus is the King, Lord and God came forth from; it was simply a reminiscence of the ancient House of David religion. An embarrassing situation that resulted in catastrophic defeat of the Jews once again during the Jewish Roman Wars.
That was the historical Jesus.
Somebody who wanted to be like the ancient King David who was worshipped as God, had a Temple built in his remembrance by his sons and slaves as a tomb like the ancient Pharaohs of Egypt.
The description “are lost” is my basis. It’s not lost. It was never part of the text. I don’t agree that the both the first and last pages of the text were lost
That makes perfect sense. It happens all the time. I’d trust the actual paleographers’ judgement on this since it is entirely plausible to lose the first and last pages of a codex. That you simply don’t buy it is not an argument.
Yeah the papyrus fragments are a doozy to see clearly on the digital photos. Much easier to just use the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus to match against a modern Greek translation of the New Testamnet. Such as Codex Vaticanus ends at Hebrews 9 and the rest through Revelations is written in an obviously different handwriting style of Greek that I can’t make sense of. The Koine Greek is way easier.
It’s also common for pages to rip loose from a book but then be stuffed back into the book between other pages like a bookmark. Perhaps Genesis 1 wasn’t goin to be considered part of the Torah because that specific chapter does not have the word YHWH. It uses the word Elohim. Genesis 1 and 5 only use Elohim. Genesis 2 and 3 use YHWH Elohim, and Genesis 4 only uses YHWH. That is evidence, at least to me, that YHWH was interpolated into the stories. Genesis 2-4 was a different era of authorship than Genesis 1 and 5. Moses did not author it all himself.
The differences in the Torah and oral traditions are not academic Bible trivia. These differences resulted in war. And the differences are part of my reason in forming a historical Jesus. The Jews and Christians don’t agree on their own history in the same way the North and South didn’t agree on the history and reasons for the Civil War. (USA history)
I mentioned the Samaritan Pentateuch because it is evidence of the differences between the LXX, Masoreic. These differences such as where the holy mountain is resulted in war. During the Maccabean Wars the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim was destroyed by the Maccabeans. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
One jot of the pen on a word in the Torah meaning past tense or future tense resulted in the schism between Samaritan and Jew. Was it the only reason? Who knows.
Samaritan oral traditions of history that contradict the Masoreic (1 Samuel 2) ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Abu l-Fath, who in the fourteenth century CE wrote a major work of Samaritan history, comments on Samaritan origins
Then he (Eli son of Yafni) assembled a large group around him in Shiloh, and built a Temple for himself there.
This is the source of the House of David religion. The House of Eli was a religion. 1 Samuel 2-3 is then written as a curse against the House of Eli. They will be forced to bow down before the prophet Samuel, (1 Samuel 2:36) who later anoints King Saul.
At this time the Children of Israel split into three factions.
A loyal faction on Mount Gerizim (Samaritans)
a heretical faction that followed false gods (? everyone)
and the faction that followed Eli son of Yafni on Shiloh (King is God religion)
The historical Jesus was trying to become the next King is God system of government. And that’s literally what the Christian tradition is except the King is God doesn’t exist as a man.
If it happened again today the Christians would call this person the Anti-Christ.
The fundamental truth is that man cannot be God, Nestorianism was a heresy since the 5th century but used today to explain the difference between the Son of Man and Son of God. (?) it’s all babble babble nonsense to me at the age of 42.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)