Messiah: What did it actually mean to be a Messiah?

Author: Stephen

Posts

Total: 38
#31
Utanity
Utanity's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 375
0
2
2
Utanity's avatar
Utanity
0
2
2
-->
@rosends
We have an oral text which is essential to understanding the bible. With out it, you can't really understand what the bible text says.
I think thats not right because you cannot have an oral text. If it is oral then it comes out of the mouth and is not a text otherwise it would be a text. Then if it was a text it is not an oral  because it is written down and you read it otherwise it would be oral. You cannot have a square apple can you.
#32
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Christians in the beginning of the church were Jewish people. They were not Gentiles.  It is understandable why the Christians continued in the Jewish traditions in the first place and why they consider the term Judeo-Christian appropriate.  It is not primarily a GENTILE religion. The Christian point of view is that the Christians are the continuation of the OT covenant people. We take the view that the OT Jew and the modern day Jew - and especially since the Temple was destroyed in or around AD 70 are quite distinct from each other. 

There was, early on, a Jerusalem church, and, according to some Jewish tradition, early Christian texts were fabricated by Jews to create a distinction between early Jesus-believing Jews and mainstream, Pharisaic Jews. 



#33
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Utanity
The oral text was passed down orally, but was eventually written down. I could call it an oral tradition if you would like, but in Hebrew it is referred to as the "Memorized Law". 
 or "Law that is by heart"
#34
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@rosends
Christians in the beginning of the church were Jewish people. They were not Gentiles.  It is understandable why the Christians continued in the Jewish traditions in the first place and why they consider the term Judeo-Christian appropriate.  It is not primarily a GENTILE religion. The Christian point of view is that the Christians are the continuation of the OT covenant people. We take the view that the OT Jew and the modern day Jew - and especially since the Temple was destroyed in or around AD 70 are quite distinct from each other. 

There was, early on, a Jerusalem church, and, according to some Jewish tradition, early Christian texts were fabricated by Jews to create a distinction between early Jesus-believing Jews and mainstream, Pharisaic Jews. 
HI rosends, I do find you comfortable to talk with.  Thanks for your response. 

I can't speak for "some Jewish tradition".  That is obviously in your domain.  Christian records are pretty easy to find. There is much of it that has survived since its inception. 

I am not sure what you mean by texts being fabricated by Jews.  Why would they want to do that? 
#35
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@rosends
this link might give a bit more detail


the other link was useful primarily as it showed that the order of texts (and which are included) are not exactly the same.

Yes again, helpful.  It again notes however that the protestant OT and the Jewish bible is the same.  All the same books. In a different Order. 

I actually prefer to think of the Jewish Bible as a 22 part book. Following the Hebrew alphabet.  

22 OT 27 NT - makes 49.  7 x 7.  A perfect number. 

I would also put the OT books in a different order as well.  
Topic's author
#36
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,617
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Christians in the beginning of the church were Jewish people. They were not Gentiles. 

   Does Jesus ever once, mention the words Christian? Or Christianity? Or call a single person a Christian? Not even a single one of his 70 close disciples? Not even the "dead Lazarus" who he loved?   Did John the baptist baptise Jesus a Christian -king - priest or prophet or MESSIAH!!!?  Many Jews may have converted in the decades that followed, especially after Titus laid siege to the city and let the Jewish zealots do his work for him: see Josephus Jewish Wars.


It is understandable why the Christians continued in the Jewish traditions in the first place and why they consider the term Judeo-Christian appropriate. 

Judeo-Christian is a nonsense term of phrase made up to  somehow tie back todays ' modern` Christianity to ancient Israel , it is a phrase no one probably had even heard of before the  WWII   And it has caused you Christians all a lot of problems through your own arrogant ignorance IMO

And  doesn't the  word - religion -  mean,  to tie back ?   I won't mind being corrected on that , Reverend. 


The Christian position is that Jesus is the Messiah prophesied about in the OT. 
Yes this will be the straw clutching that  Mathew had latched onto from  the Old Testament prophecy in Isaiah 7:14, “The virgin will conceive a child”.

Mathew ,  like you,  is showing his ignorance  and couldn't have read a single piece of background to this so called "prophecy". If he had he would have known that this prophecy was intended to be fulfilled in Isaiah’s own  life time and was never intended as prophecy for the coming future saviour of the time of Jesus.

If you have read this story Reverend, then tell me , what good would this prophecy have been to King Ahaz had it really been about the birth of Jesus, and what good would it have done him in his hour of need?


That this was recognized by some Jews at the time and that other Jews rejected him.


Which Jews of the time recognised Jesus as the one prophesised in Isaiah ? Keeping in mind that the OT tells us that this so called prophecy was fulfilled some 800years before Jesus. Try reading Kings , Reverend.


No matter how you  try to tie back these ambiguous half told stories of the New Testament  to the ancients, it stands out a mile that the two are incompatible.  It doesn't take minutes for anyone reading these scriptures as a history to notice there are two entirely different "gods" being referred to. 
 "Turn the other cheek" and "render unto Caesar"  would have been anathema to Jews  especially the zealots. 



#37
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
I am not sure what you mean by texts being fabricated by Jews.  Why would they want to do that? 
According to one way of thinking, in order to differentiate between the new sect that looked and sounded Jewish but had serious non-Jewish elements injected into the theology. The new group was confusing those still learning, so texts were created and foisted off on the new sect as authentic, and these texts taught to be distinct, so the actual Jews would be left alone.

Yes again, helpful.  It again notes however that the protestant OT and the Jewish bible is the same.  All the same books. In a different Order. 
The difference in language and order/organization are not trivial. The organization in the Jewish bible tells us something important about the source and function of the book. One place where this is evident is in the placement of the book of Daniel. It is not a prophetic book in the Jewish bible, but appears to be categorized as one in the Protestant list.
#38
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@rosends
I totally agree that the book order is important.