Post Reply
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The origin of Jesus as the Messiah
4 years ago  ::  Jan 15, 2011 - 8:30PM #1
Yoder777
Posts: 9

I read this book on the historical Jesus called Christ is the question that gives a really interesting theory as to how belief in Jesus as the Messiah originated. It says that Jesus was crucified because the authorities perceived him as a political threat after his cleansing of the temple, and that the inscription on the cross "King of the Jews" was a common inscription for Jewish rebels because of how many of them were claimed to be the Messiah. When Jesus rose from the dead, his apostles believed that the inscription of Jesus as "King of the Jews" had been vindicated and therefore proclaimed him as the Messiah.


I found the page that explains the origin of belief in Jesus as the Messiah being the inscription of "King of the Jews." It explains how Jesus' death also inspired the understanding of a suffering Messiah who dies for the sins of the world. 

books.google.com/books?id=GOaqiHlX_24C&p...


Whether or not Jesus directly claimed to be Messiah and Son of God, it was implicit in his life and teaching and demonstrated by his resurrection. Jesus' riding into Jerusalem on a donkey and cleansing of the temple were seen as a claim to messiahship. "King of the Jews" was a common inscription for accused insurrectionists. In his resurrection, that inscription was vindicated.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 16, 2011 - 7:31AM #2
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

The quote about the "triumphal entry" is an example where Mark used Zech 9:9. It "creates" history from history, common to the biblical literature. One will note that the Matthean version, from the Septuagint, has Jesus riding two animals simultaneously! It is a product of the literature, probably not of history. One can note that about one quarter of Mark is allusion to, quotation/misquotation from the Hebrew scriptures. It is not history, which is what "gospel" (good news) implies. 


Jan 15, 2011 -- 8:30PM, Yoder777 wrote:


I read this book on the historical Jesus called Christ is the question that gives a really interesting theory as to how belief in Jesus as the Messiah originated. It says that Jesus was crucified because the authorities perceived him as a political threat after his cleansing of the temple, and that the inscription on the cross "King of the Jews" was a common inscriptiofor Jewish rebels because of how many of them were claimed to be the Messiah. When Jesus rose from the dead, his apostles believed that the inscription of Jesus as "King of the Jews" had been vindicated and therefore proclaimed him as the Messiah.


I found the page that explains the origin of belief in Jesus as the Messiah being the inscription of "King of the Jews." It explains how Jesus' death also inspired the understanding of a suffering Messiah who dies for the sins of the world. 

books.google.com/books?id=GOaqiHlX_24C&p...


Whether or not Jesus directly claimed to be Messiah and Son of God, it was implicit in his life and teaching and demonstrated by his resurrection. Jesus' riding into Jerusalem on a donkey and cleansing of the temple were seen as a claim to messiahship. "King of the Jews" was a common inscription for accused insurrectionists. In his resurrection, that inscription was vindicated.




Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 16, 2011 - 5:22PM #3
Yoder777
Posts: 9

Meeks' book doesn't even mention the triumphal entry as a Messianic act but E.P. Sanders does. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 16, 2011 - 7:01PM #4
teilhard
Posts: 52,180

Or ... MAYBE The Historical Lord Jesus (The Christ-Prophet) of Nazareth DID intentionally perform certain particular Acts exactly in order to give a "Sign" ... ???


Jan 16, 2011 -- 7:31AM, Dennis wrote:


The quote about the "triumphal entry" is an example where Mark used Zech 9:9. It "creates" history from history, common to the biblical literature. 


Jan 15, 2011 -- 8:30PM, Yoder777 wrote:


I read this book on the historical Jesus called Christ is the question that gives a really interesting theory as to how belief in Jesus as the Messiah originated. It says that Jesus was crucified because the authorities perceived him as a political threat after his cleansing of the temple, and that the inscription on the cross "King of the Jews" was a common inscriptiofor Jewish rebels because of how many of them were claimed to be the Messiah. When Jesus rose from the dead, his apostles believed that the inscription of Jesus as "King of the Jews" had been vindicated and therefore proclaimed him as the Messiah.


I found the page that explains the origin of belief in Jesus as the Messiah being the inscription of "King of the Jews." It explains how Jesus' death also inspired the understanding of a suffering Messiah who dies for the sins of the world. 

books.google.com/books?id=GOaqiHlX_24C&p...


Whether or not Jesus directly claimed to be Messiah and Son of God, it was implicit in his life and teaching and demonstrated by his resurrection. Jesus' riding into Jerusalem on a donkey and cleansing of the temple were seen as a claim to messiahship. "King of the Jews" was a common inscription for accused insurrectionists. In his resurrection, that inscription was vindicated.








Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 17, 2011 - 7:46AM #5
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

Not likely. If he was attempting to fulfill prophecy, first he would have defeated the enemies of Israel to the point where "no oppressor shall ever overrun them again." The king would have been coming in victorious, not as a piece of meat going to slaughter. You need to read the whole of the oracle in context.


The author of Mark, writing probably in the seventies, but possibly later, was inserting around 160 verses/allusions into his writing to create a fanciful tale. There is no evidence that this story was ever "bought" by Jews, who overwhelmingly rejected the Jesus of the canonical literature.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 17, 2011 - 10:54AM #6
teilhard
Posts: 52,180

"Matthew's" relentlessly points-out, "Jesus said this / did this to fulfill what written by The Prophet, saying, '[ ......................... ]' ... "


I have a hunch that at least SOME -- perhaps a LOT -- of what The Historical Lord Jesus (The Christ) of Nazareth (reportedly) did and said WAS said-and-done with SOME of that entirely quite deliberate Intent ... It was a Series of "Signs" ...


Jan 16, 2011 -- 7:01PM, teilhard wrote:


Or ... MAYBE The Historical Lord Jesus (The Christ-Prophet) of Nazareth DID intentionally perform certain particular Acts exactly in order to give a "Sign" ... ???


Jan 16, 2011 -- 7:31AM, Dennis wrote:


The quote about the "triumphal entry" is an example where Mark used Zech 9:9. It "creates" history from history, common to the biblical literature. 


Jan 15, 2011 -- 8:30PM, Yoder777 wrote:


I read this book on the historical Jesus called Christ is the question that gives a really interesting theory as to how belief in Jesus as the Messiah originated. It says that Jesus was crucified because the authorities perceived him as a political threat after his cleansing of the temple, and that the inscription on the cross "King of the Jews" was a common inscriptiofor Jewish rebels because of how many of them were claimed to be the Messiah. When Jesus rose from the dead, his apostles believed that the inscription of Jesus as "King of the Jews" had been vindicated and therefore proclaimed him as the Messiah.


I found the page that explains the origin of belief in Jesus as the Messiah being the inscription of "King of the Jews." It explains how Jesus' death also inspired the understanding of a suffering Messiah who dies for the sins of the world. 

books.google.com/books?id=GOaqiHlX_24C&p...


Whether or not Jesus directly claimed to be Messiah and Son of God, it was implicit in his life and teaching and demonstrated by his resurrection. Jesus' riding into Jerusalem on a donkey and cleansing of the temple were seen as a claim to messiahship. "King of the Jews" was a common inscription for accused insurrectionists. In his resurrection, that inscription was vindicated.












Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 17, 2011 - 11:28AM #7
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

That is called "midrashim" or "pesher." It is interpretation. In Matt, it is generally out of context and irrelevant to the situation. For instance, in Matt 2:15, the interpretation comes from Hosea 11:1 and doesn't refer to the Anointed but to Israel. In 2:18, the Jeremiah 31:15 quote is not a prediction but refers to a past event, Rachel's mourning for the exile. 2:6 is a really screwing misquote from Micah 5:2. 1:23 (from Isaiah 7:14) renders "young woman" as "virgin," is totally a different context, and refers to someone who is given the name "Emmanuel," not Jesus.


I could continue, but that is enough to show the difficulties in the apologetic stance below. Matthew "relentlessly" misused scripture as "proof text."


Jan 17, 2011 -- 10:54AM, teilhard wrote:


"Matthew's" relentlessly points-out, "Jesus said this / did this to fulfill what written by The Prophet, saying, '[ ......................... ]' ... "


I have a hunch that at least SOME -- perhaps a LOT -- of what The Historical Lord Jesus (The Christ) of Nazareth (reportedly) did and said WAS said-and-done with SOME of that entirely quite deliberate Intent ... It was a Series of "Signs" ...


Jan 16, 2011 -- 7:01PM, teilhard wrote:


Or ... MAYBE The Historical Lord Jesus (The Christ-Prophet) of Nazareth DID intentionally perform certain particular Acts exactly in order to give a "Sign" ... ???


Jan 16, 2011 -- 7:31AM, Dennis wrote:


The quote about the "triumphal entry" is an example where Mark used Zech 9:9. It "creates" history from history, common to the biblical literature. 


Jan 15, 2011 -- 8:30PM, Yoder777 wrote:


I read this book on the historical Jesus called Christ is the question that gives a really interesting theory as to how belief in Jesus as the Messiah originated. It says that Jesus was crucified because the authorities perceived him as a political threat after his cleansing of the temple, and that the inscription on the cross "King of the Jews" was a common inscriptiofor Jewish rebels because of how many of them were claimed to be the Messiah. When Jesus rose from the dead, his apostles believed that the inscription of Jesus as "King of the Jews" had been vindicated and therefore proclaimed him as the Messiah.


I found the page that explains the origin of belief in Jesus as the Messiah being the inscription of "King of the Jews." It explains how Jesus' death also inspired the understanding of a suffering Messiah who dies for the sins of the world. 

books.google.com/books?id=GOaqiHlX_24C&p...


Whether or not Jesus directly claimed to be Messiah and Son of God, it was implicit in his life and teaching and demonstrated by his resurrection. Jesus' riding into Jerusalem on a donkey and cleansing of the temple were seen as a claim to messiahship. "King of the Jews" was a common inscription for accused insurrectionists. In his resurrection, that inscription was vindicated.
















Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 17, 2011 - 12:07PM #8
teilhard
Posts: 52,180

No ... "Interpretation" is NOT an "apologetic stance" ... It is an opportunity and attempt to UNDERSTAND The Text IN Its Context ...


Did "Matthew" here-and-there go slightly over-the-top in his attributions and quotes ... ??? Sure ... He wrote FROM Faith FOR Faith ...


Jan 17, 2011 -- 11:28AM, Dennis wrote:


That is called "midrashim" or "pesher." It is interpretation. In Matt, it is generally out of context and irrelevant to the situation. For instance, in Matt 2:15, the interpretation comes from Hosea 11:1 and doesn't refer to the Anointed but to Israel. In 2:18, the Jeremiah 31:15 quote is not a prediction but refers to a past event, Rachel's mourning for the exile. 2:6 is a really screwing misquote from Micah 5:2. 1:23 (from Isaiah 7:14) renders "young woman" as "virgin," is totally a different context, and refers to someone who is given the name "Emmanuel," not Jesus.


I could continue, but that is enough to show the difficulties in the apologetic stance below. Matthew "relentlessly" misused scripture as "proof text."


Jan 17, 2011 -- 10:54AM, teilhard wrote:


"Matthew's" relentlessly points-out, "Jesus said this / did this to fulfill what written by The Prophet, saying, '[ ......................... ]' ... "


I have a hunch that at least SOME -- perhaps a LOT -- of what The Historical Lord Jesus (The Christ) of Nazareth (reportedly) did and said WAS said-and-done with SOME of that entirely quite deliberate Intent ... It was a Series of "Signs" ...


Jan 16, 2011 -- 7:01PM, teilhard wrote:


Or ... MAYBE The Historical Lord Jesus (The Christ-Prophet) of Nazareth DID intentionally perform certain particular Acts exactly in order to give a "Sign" ... ???


Jan 16, 2011 -- 7:31AM, Dennis wrote:


The quote about the "triumphal entry" is an example where Mark used Zech 9:9. It "creates" history from history, common to the biblical literature. 


Jan 15, 2011 -- 8:30PM, Yoder777 wrote:


I read this book on the historical Jesus called Christ is the question that gives a really interesting theory as to how belief in Jesus as the Messiah originated. It says that Jesus was crucified because the authorities perceived him as a political threat after his cleansing of the temple, and that the inscription on the cross "King of the Jews" was a common inscriptiofor Jewish rebels because of how many of them were claimed to be the Messiah. When Jesus rose from the dead, his apostles believed that the inscription of Jesus as "King of the Jews" had been vindicated and therefore proclaimed him as the Messiah.


I found the page that explains the origin of belief in Jesus as the Messiah being the inscription of "King of the Jews." It explains how Jesus' death also inspired the understanding of a suffering Messiah who dies for the sins of the world. 

books.google.com/books?id=GOaqiHlX_24C&p...


Whether or not Jesus directly claimed to be Messiah and Son of God, it was implicit in his life and teaching and demonstrated by his resurrection. Jesus' riding into Jerusalem on a donkey and cleansing of the temple were seen as a claim to messiahship. "King of the Jews" was a common inscription for accused insurrectionists. In his resurrection, that inscription was vindicated.




















Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 17, 2011 - 3:10PM #9
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

Interpretation to defend the veracity of the scriptures IS apologetics. Look it up. Or even better, read some of the early "Apologies." What is in the previous posts doesn't vary from those. Terminology.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jan 17, 2011 - 6:03PM #10
teilhard
Posts: 52,180

I don't "apologize" re: the "Veracity" of The Scriptures ...


I ACCEPT Them as such ...


Again ... "Interpretation" =/= "Apologetics" ...


Jan 17, 2011 -- 3:10PM, Dennis wrote:


Interpretation to defend the veracity of the scriptures IS apologetics. Look it up. Or even better, read some of the early "Apologies." 





Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook