MikeyS said
I’ve been meaning to post on this so called ‘suffering servant’ and God came down in the man Jesus in order to know what its like to suffer as we humans do etc.So what did Jesus suffer in his 33 years on this earth? If the Gospels are true it was at most half to one day from his arrest to the crucifixion and as painful and horrible that death was which was no different than tens of thousands of others in a cruel regime of the Roman Empire?
Now compare that with a real suffering person or family.
Children born with cancer or those that develop cancer in their teens and a host of other well known diseases and ailments that curtail and reduce the quality of life for not just a day or even a year but for many years. Motor Neurone disease? TB? There are hundreds. Now what about Alzheimers or Parkinsons disease where you can have many years of a dreadful condition and they have to go into a care home or be looked after by family members? I am looking after my aged MIL now with Alzheimers. Its very debiliating for all concerned. It can go on for years and years as we know.
Did Jesus have to ‘suffer’ like any of these? Did God come down so he could experience such things for himself? So when I used to hear from the pulpit that Jesus ‘suffered’ like no man has ever suffered before and he came down from heaven in order to take our suffering and pain on his shoulders, I think of just two words. Bull shit!
It take real courage to live like so many unfortunate people do and maybe the good do die young but Isaaih 53 knows NOTHING about suffering, nothing! And yet it PLEASED God to see his/their suffering? Utter bull shit my friends. That is a God of evil, not one of love and goodness and charity.
People talk about the great prophieses in the bible don’t they. And yet the greatest ever disaster to befall the Jewish Nation for 6000 years was undoubtably the Holocaust when indeed real suffering and death too place and yet not ONE sentence in the whole bible that points to the time and place when this was to happen. Now would you not think any claim to prophecy from God would have left THAT event out? Even the bondage in Egypt wasn’t as bad as that.
Comedian Julia Sweeny said her brother suffered with cancer for 6 months before he died. She says she feels for Jesus if he was flooged and left to die on a cross but…. So, she says, let’s just say Jesus had a really bad weekend.
Dr. Marc Brettler says that “Midrash” as a genre of writing in the New Testament presents an interesting problem. There are two poles of interpretation, with a lot of room in between. On one end, we could argue that in a midrash narrative like Matthew’s Jesus infancy account the gospel writer started with information about the historical Jesus and then added some material to make it seem like the story about Moses from the Old Testament. On the other end, we could say that the gospel writer simply wanted to rewrite a story from the old Testament and apply it to his times, in which case there is no reason to think there is any reliable information about the historical Jesus at all in the midrash narrative. And there is a lot of room between these two poles. Dr. Brettler says that when we present the problem in this way, it becomes a hard and sophisticated problem to try to determine what part of the midrash narrative (if any) presents information about the historical Jesus. This is the problem that comes up when the issue of “Midrash” is introduced as a New Testament genre. The question is: What criteria or method do we use to determine which part of the “Midrash” narrative is giving us information about the historical Jesus? Can we assume that any part of the “Midrash” narrative is representing the historical Jesus? If the midrash narrative says that Jesus did “such and such,” does this mean the historical Jesus actually did it, or was this characterization of Jesus just the author’s way of rewriting the Old Testament story (and the historical Jesus never did it)? Even if a part of the narrative is actually representing the historical Jesus, how could we know that? This is why “Midrash” as a literary genre seems to make reconstructing the historical Jesus more problematic in my eyes. It looks like one big mess. Good luck in sorting this all out
Moose said, Anyone who thinks the bible is the word of God requires no criteria..
How so very true and yet millions have died doing just that and still are. Ditto, the Quran.
I thought we were post enlightenment when things need a little bit more thought and evidence for claims made and for extraordinary claims, even more so. But you are right, that makes it all the more depressing!
Just a question on the format of these replies?
Its confusing people pasting previous answers and replies and so why not just post your comments as anyone reading the thread should be able to make sense of it.
moose said
I think it is wrong to say that sacred texts are made up or that they are lies. I believe that the early Christians really believed they received revelations after studying the scriptures repeatedly. Perhaps repeated reading and recitation of scriptures combined with ascetic exercises and/or perhaps consumption of stimuli got someone to feel the “spirit”. Maybe this was what they called to receive the Holy Spirit?Anyway, I think that to ask about criteria in this context is a dead end.
Whoever believes the Bible is the word of God requires no criteria.
Whoever believes the Bible is fiction requires no criteria.But he who believes that the Bible contains a historic core with more or less legendary development – he relies on criteria to determine what is what!
Not sure what you intend to say here. Critical scholars don’t “believe” in a historical core, it is a conclusion gained from the application of scientific method. Your argument looks a bit like that of creationists , who dismiss “evolutionism”, which they claim has a basic belief-core, on which scientific methods falsely are applied.
a
moose said
MikeyS said
Its all nonsense I’m afraid. And to claim that Joseph planted trees so he could cut them down later is pure sophistry and even more so to say Jesus was nailed to the cross he made? Its about as unreal as it gets imo.Its like Christians using isaiah 53 as a prophecy for Jesus as the Messiah. They were clearly talking about a current event, not a future one. Take this verse.
This is a common misconception.
I agree. Most Jews will certainly say that this was a statement about Israel.
Nobody knows what Isaiah had in mind when this was written. Perhaps the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah is correct. But anyway, how the Jews interpreted Isaiah is insignificant in this context.
If we want to know how the first Christians interpreted Isaiah then we have to read the Christian texts from the New Testament.
In NT, we find many references to Isaiah 53 that identify Jesus as the suffering servant. Among other this:
Acts 8.30: Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
32 This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading:
“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33 In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth.”34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
It’s not a misconception. What Isaiah write is clear to anyone who doesn’t need justification in the Hebrew bible.
Isaiah was a little too preoccupied with a couple of Assyrian invasions and an exile to worry about a Messiah who wouldn’t be born in his lifetime. His people had an immediate need for a man of action to save them, not a King destined to be crucified by Israel’s oppressors hundreds of years later.
It’s amazingly convenient to go back to the writings of the prophets to find “prophecy”, especially when you wear blood-red tinted glasses when you search for that prophecy.
There’s a term that I learned in Psychology 101 that I think applies here: rationalization.
moose said
** you do not have permission to see this link **What do you think John the Baptist had in mind when he referred to Jesus as the Lamb of God?
At his baptism there was supposed to be a voice from heaven saying, “This is my beloved Son in whom, I am well pleased”
So why didn’t John hear that? And he should have as it was a public proclamation, immediately become a disciple and tell all his followers about that message? Why didn’t Jesus visit John in Prison and pray for him? He is on record telling people to visit those in Prison or else get lost. Even after John’s death, his followers stayed loyal to John and did not go over to Jesus? Why did John ask whether Jesus was the one they expected or should they look for another?
One conclusion which makes more sense is John never heard that voice and Jesus at THAT stage was just another man in the queue waiting to be baptized. And so quite likely, John didn’t use the words about Jesus being the ‘Lamb of God” at all.
If John didn’t hear it, then who recorded it? Indeed who did John tell to record it? Maybe Jesus told?….Well, same old problem as who recorded his meeting with the devil in the wilderness?
The Holy spirit inspiring the later writers is probably the only explanation for lots of things Jesus said and did, when he was the only person there. Its a big leap as one would then think there were no errors or contradictions and all the original text preserved perfectly for future generations. Its why we are here and Prof Erhman and a trillion words have still not sussed out what really happened back then?
Sounds like man made errors and imaginations, rather than the inerrant word of God! IMO of course.
Later writers could make up anything they wanted and most serious biblical scholars believed John’s Gospel was in that category as well.
Agree with MikeyS. Just look at what is read into Psalm 22–mainly that it is a prophecy. Aside from it not being in any kind of future tense, if you conclude that it was a prophecy just because Jesus said “My God, why have you forsaken me,” then the appearance of the Shema (“Hear O Israel….) in the Hebrew Scriptures must be a prophecy so many Jews say it today. If you’re a Jew familiar with Scripture or certain Jewish expressions, you very we;; might say them even under or even especially under the most stressful circumstances.
I want to draw the attention back to the main topic – The Passion story.
The first posts I wrote on this topic was written somewhat hasty – as you can easily see. I fully understand if someone has hard to follow what I have written. There are some cut and paste that should have been better elaborated and there are some typos.
The Passion story is taken from the Book of Samuel and The Book of Kings. The Jesus figure in this tradition is a Jesus in the flesh. This is important because there is also another important tradition taken from the Tanakh where Jesus is spiritually. In the four Gospels, these two traditions have been stitched together into one. Let’s stay to the first tradition at this stage.
As I have previously written, the scribes was curious about who the suffering servant of Isaiah could be. One tradition found this to be Adonijah.
Adonijah was the son of David, but became anointed king without consulting David. To celebrate his royal title Adonijah made a feast and invited all his brethren, except Nathan, and Solomon. When Nathan discovered this he went to Bathsheba, and Bathsheba went to David. David did not like what he heard and got instead Solomon anointed king.
While Adonijah was holding feast with his chosen brothers, they hear noise and fuss from the city. Jonathan brings the message of what has happened. At this, all Adonijah’s guests rose in alarm and dispersed. And Adonijah, in fear of Solomon, went and took hold of the horns of the altar.
Solomon then killed Adonijah as a sacrificial lamb clinging to the horns of the altar. This is the crucifixion.
Who then was Pontius Pilate? It is now I regret having been hasty the first time I wrote.
Pontius Pilate (Latin; Pontius Pilatus –Greek; Pontios Pīlātos).
2 Timoty2,17: Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus(Greek; philētos), who have departed from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.
As you can see Pilate and Philetus are the same person. And more – Philetus is the same as Philip and Philemon.
Philip and Pilatus are just two different spellings, and a synonym for David.
Now, Pilate wanted to set Jesus free, but the Jews wanted instead to free Jesus Barabbas, the robber. The meaning of Bar-abbas is – son of the father. Barabbas was also a son of David, Barabbas was Solomon.
The famous quote “His blood is on us and on our children!” comes from the murders of Adoijah and Joab.
moose said
(…)While Adonijah was holding feast with his chosen brothers, they hear noise and fuss from the city. Jonathan brings the message of what has happened. At this, all Adonijah’s guests rose in alarm and dispersed. And Adonijah, in fear of Solomon, went and took hold of the horns of the altar.
Solomon then killed Adonijah as a sacrificial lamb clinging to the horns of the altar. This is the crucifixion.
(…)
Not really. When found clinging to the horns, he was told by Solomon to go home. The killing appeared later.
moose said
** you do not have permission to see this link **What do you think John the Baptist had in mind when he referred to Jesus as the Lamb of God?
I don’t believe John said or thought any such thing. This was discussed in another thread a week or two ago. In Mark, the first gospel written, Jesus is baptized by John. In each of successive Gospel the writers change the story little by little to 1) remove any suggestion that John was greater than Jesus since he baptized him, and 2) increase the rhetoric that Jesus was divine.
moose said
(…)2 Timoty2,17: Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus(Greek; philētos), who have departed from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.
As you can see Pilate and Philetus are the same person. And more – Philetus is the same as Philip and Philemon.
Philip and Pilatus are just two different spellings, and a synonym for David.
(…)
Not very likely. Philetos is built on a greek root word “philos”, meaning “beloved” or similar, while “Pilate” most likely is derived from “pilum”, a Roman weapon name. The Greek phoneme “ph” is different from the latin phoneme “p”, and have a different origin within the indo-european language familiy. Drawing conclusions on similarity in sound value belongs to the class of basic blunders in linguistics.
gavriel said
moose said
(…)While Adonijah was holding feast with his chosen brothers, they hear noise and fuss from the city. Jonathan brings the message of what has happened. At this, all Adonijah’s guests rose in alarm and dispersed. And Adonijah, in fear of Solomon, went and took hold of the horns of the altar.
Solomon then killed Adonijah as a sacrificial lamb clinging to the horns of the altar. This is the crucifixion.
(…)
Not really. When found clinging to the horns, he was told by Solomon to go home. The killing appeared later.
Good question.
Did Adonijah die clinging to the horns of the altar in the tent of the Lord?
The conclusion was easy to draw for the first Christians, based on the way Joab died.
1Kings: When the news reached Joab, who had conspired with Adonijah though not with Absalom, he fled to the tent of the Lord and took hold of the horns of the altar(…)So Benaiah son of Jehoiada went up and struck down Joab and killed him(…)May the guilt of their blood rest on the head of Joab and his descendants forever.
When the fate of Joab was combined with the prophecy of Isaiah – the Lord’s suffering servant would be led like a lamb to the slaughter – the conclusion was easy to draw. And having found some verses from the Psalms, the case was even clearer.
moose said
gavriel said
moose said
(…)While Adonijah was holding feast with his chosen brothers, they hear noise and fuss from the city. Jonathan brings the message of what has happened. At this, all Adonijah’s guests rose in alarm and dispersed. And Adonijah, in fear of Solomon, went and took hold of the horns of the altar.
Solomon then killed Adonijah as a sacrificial lamb clinging to the horns of the altar. This is the crucifixion.
(…)
Not really. When found clinging to the horns, he was told by Solomon to go home. The killing appeared later.
Good question.
Did Adonijah die clinging to the horns of the altar in the tent of the Lord?
The conclusion was easy to draw for the first Christians, based on the way Joab died.
1Kings: When the news reached Joab, who had conspired with Adonijah though not with Absalom, he fled to the tent of the Lord and took hold of the horns of the altar(…)So Benaiah son of Jehoiada went up and struck down Joab and killed him(…)May the guilt of their blood rest on the head of Joab and his descendants forever.
When the fate of Joab was combined with the prophecy of Isaiah – the Lord’s suffering servant would be led like a lamb to the slaughter – the conclusion was easy to draw. And having found some verses from the Psalms, the case was even clearer.
The first Christians did not combine Joab, Adonijah and Isaiah. This is a sport exercised by modern adherents of parallelomania. There is however enough evidence to suggest that the ancient Christians eagerly searched Scripture for passages that could be interpreted as premonitions of things already happened. This is a rewarding task, once you know what to search for. You can do the following exercise: Write down a short resume of your life, and search through Shakespeare’s collected works. It is impossible not to find something with a striking similarity to elements in your resume.
An even more useful study is to do a walk-through of the modern urban legend on the assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy : ** you do not have permission to see this link ** . Here there is demonstrably no causal connection, but as the article shows, it is easy to find parallels, once intent on proving it. The parallels doesn’t prove anything at all. Listing parallels lifted from high volume data sets suffers from serious methodological weaknesses and is a favorite method of pseudo-scientists.
Have you heard about “The Left Behind” movement? Total sales for the series have surpassed 65 million copies. This just in the US, and we live in the 21st century. The Watchtower also produces interpretations of biblical prophecys, and the foretelling of the worlds apocalypse at regular intervals.
How can you so easily conclude that this was an unknown phenomenon 2,000 years ago?
moose said
I want to draw the attention back to the main topic – The Passion story.The first posts I wrote on this topic was written somewhat hasty – as you can easily see. I fully understand if someone has hard to follow what I have written. There are some cut and paste that should have been better elaborated and there are some typos.
The Passion story is taken from the Book of Samuel and The Book of Kings. The Jesus figure in this tradition is a Jesus in the flesh. This is important because there is also another important tradition taken from the Tanakh where Jesus is spiritually. In the four Gospels, these two traditions have been stitched together into one. Let’s stay to the first tradition at this stage.
As I have previously written, the scribes was curious about who the suffering servant of Isaiah could be. One tradition found this to be Adonijah.
Adonijah was the son of David, but became anointed king without consulting David. To celebrate his royal title Adonijah made a feast and invited all his brethren, except Nathan, and Solomon. When Nathan discovered this he went to Bathsheba, and Bathsheba went to David. David did not like what he heard and got instead Solomon anointed king.
While Adonijah was holding feast with his chosen brothers, they hear noise and fuss from the city. Jonathan brings the message of what has happened. At this, all Adonijah’s guests rose in alarm and dispersed. And Adonijah, in fear of Solomon, went and took hold of the horns of the altar.
Solomon then killed Adonijah as a sacrificial lamb clinging to the horns of the altar. This is the crucifixion.
Who then was Pontius Pilate? It is now I regret having been hasty the first time I wrote.
Pontius Pilate (Latin; Pontius Pilatus –Greek; Pontios Pīlātos).
2 Timoty2,17: Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus(Greek; philētos), who have departed from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.
As you can see Pilate and Philetus are the same person. And more – Philetus is the same as Philip and Philemon.
Philip and Pilatus are just two different spellings, and a synonym for David.
Now, Pilate wanted to set Jesus free, but the Jews wanted instead to free Jesus Barabbas, the robber. The meaning of Bar-abbas is – son of the father. Barabbas was also a son of David, Barabbas was Solomon.
The famous quote “His blood is on us and on our children!” comes from the murders of Adoijah and Joab.
I would add that the church in Philippi was led by Philip (David). Some may begin to suspect whom Paul (Saul) was?
Anyway, read this passage in light of this.
Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
It is possible that the passion and resurrection of Jesus are just made up historical fictions. In “On The Historicity of Jesus,” Carrier demonstrates the passion and resurrection narratives may be constructed by a haggadic midrash rewrite of Isaiah 52-3, the Wisdom of Solomon, Psalm 22, Daniel 9 and 12, and Zechariah 3 and 6.
But more than this, Jesus’ resurrection seems to be a further haggadic midrash of Psalm 16. Peter stressed the significance of the resurrection and cited the prophecy predicting it in Psalm 16: “God raised him up, losing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it … Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we are all witnesses” (Acts 2:24, 29-32). In this case, Psalm 16 was not making a prophesy about Jesus, but rather Psalm 16 was used in a haggadic midrash to invent the story of Christ’s resurrection.
The original Christian writers may have invented the passion and resurrection narratives out of whole cloth, or they may have used these Old Testament scriptures to lightly color actual historical events. We really have no way of knowing, so it is best to bracket the passion and resurrection narratives out of the discussion of the historical Jesus.
And as mythicists say, Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection may have been originally believed to have taken place in a mythical realm.
Can anyone shed any light on Peter’s reply to Jesus asking who do you say that I am?
Peter said “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” etc
Now is the word ‘Christ’ something taken from the OT somewhere? Its seems strange that a simple Fiisherman like Peter would use that word and even the follow up…’The Son of the living God’ etc.
You could understand him using Messiah there in both cases as the Messiah was like David, considered as the Son of God as in Psalm 2. But how come the Christ?
Was that the first time the term ‘Christ’ was used?
Just as an after thought. At his trial, its suggested that Jesus agreed he was the Son of God, not sure about the Messiah there unless they are considered as separate entities. But why did they think he spoke blasphemy by using a title that was already known to them from their scriptures? After all he was doing miracles, raising the dead, walking on water, surely they would have heard the stories, indeed they may have had an insider watching him. So why did they reject him as the Messiah or Son of God?
Trick question Bart asks his students..
What is Jesus, surname? 
MikeyS said
Can anyone shed any light on Peter’s reply to Jesus asking who do you say that I am?Peter said “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” etc
Now is the word ‘Christ’ something taken from the OT somewhere? Its seems strange that a simple Fiisherman like Peter would use that word and even the follow up…’The Son of the living God’ etc.
You could understand him using Messiah there in both cases as the Messiah was like David, considered as the Son of God as in Psalm 2. But how come the Christ?
Was that the first time the term ‘Christ’ was used?
Just as an after thought. At his trial, its suggested that Jesus agreed he was the Son of God, not sure about the Messiah there unless they are considered as separate entities. But why did they think he spoke blasphemy by using a title that was already known to them from their scriptures? After all he was doing miracles, raising the dead, walking on water, surely they would have heard the stories, indeed they may have had an insider watching him. So why did they reject him as the Messiah or Son of God?
Trick question Bart asks his students..
What is Jesus, surname?
“Christ” is Greek so it might be in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is the Greek word for “messiah” so it is what the Greek-speaking and -writing NT writer put into the mouth of the Aramaic-speaking fisherman’s mouth. Note also the capitalization of “son”–something a Christian or Christian-influenced translator would do as some even do in Isaiah 53 (translation by belief). The Jewish notion of the messiah did not imply divinity. The alleged words of Peter were composed decades after the alleged event and, all-importantly, after Paul, apparently influenced by his Christology. So that, yes, even though “Christ” means “messiah,” it meant much more than that after Paul or, rather, “messiah” meant much more than that after Paul (although not among Jews who had not been under Paul’s sway). The alleged trial is hugely problematic; read S.G.F. Brandon’s The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth. This “trial” may well have been constructed to give the impression that the Sanhedrin had religious reasons for condemning Jesus. But claiming messiahship and even calling oneself the son of God–IF meant in the sense that David was called “son of God”–would not have been considered blasphemous. The Sanhedrin and most Jews rejected Jesus as messiah because he did not carry out what virtually all Jews expected of a messiah.
Thanks for that response SB…Makes sense to me now.
So Peter evidently thought Jesus was the Messiah and added the ‘Son of the living God’ etc. And Jesus agreed.
I have had many discussions with Christians about the status of the Messiah and Psalm 2 and no Jew would have agreed with any Messiah being divine as you say. Bart has said, the Disciples made him God after he rose from the dead but I still can’t see how that could possibly be, given their montheistic viewpoint. What is a surprise is IF the disciples thought he was the Messiah after his death because by that time they knew he never fulfilled any of the requirements of the Messiah. I’m not even sure they thought Jesus was coming back a second time as he supposed to have said at the last supper, the next time they would drink the fruit of the vine would be in his Fathers Kingdom. ie not on earth. But in heaven. So yet another mystery or just writers making stuff up as they went along without knowing people woud be pouring over the text 2000 years later. The usual suspect is once again Paul who had far more influence on the Christian Doctrine and the emerging Church than Jesus did.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)