Posted on 08/07/2008 8:57:37 AM PDT by francke
The New York Times ran a feature story on July 6th, 2008 about the discovery of a stone tablet found near the Dead Sea in Jordan that apparently contains some reference to a “Prince of Princes” (ie. The Jewish Messiah) who would be slain and rise from the dead after three days. (Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection”, July 6, 2008)
The essence of the article and the opinion of the scholars quoted is that somehow, the credibility of Christianity is at stake, on the grounds that this pre-Christian inscription, also known in scholastic circles as “Gabriel’s Revelation”, robs Christianity of its “uniqueness” and novelty.
(Excerpt) Read more at letsaskgod.com ...
You sure about that?
I already posted that the earliest mention was 250 AD.
No reason to get snippy. I posted the wrong caesar. It doesn't change the facts.
Yes, but the important point that you seem to be missing is that the Greeks did not view Hercules or their other mythological stories to be within the realm of profane time, within experiential history. You really need to acquaint yourself with the works of Mircea Eliade, especially his Myth of the Eternal Return. Like most ancient pagan peoples, the Greeks viewed the myths about their gods to exist outside of the "profane" time which we experience daily. For them, the myths represented "sacred time", and the repetition of symbolic ritual activities was understood as actually recreating or re-participating in these primal events - humanity translating itself over into the otherworldly realm of "sacred time", so that what is represented in the sacred time myth could become relevant to people normally stuck in our "profane time". However, if you had asked an ancient Greek exactly what year in the past he thought that Hercules had cleaned out the Augean stables, he'd have laughed at you for being silly enough to think that you could actually name such a date.
THAT'S a significant difference, then, vis-a-vis the case of Jesus Christ. Jesus exists entirely within history. He was an historical person who did historical things that historical people witnessed and wrote about. We can look back in our "real" time and assign a pretty reasonably secure date for the events in His life. They do not exist in "sacred time". The rest of the ancient world thought of religion in terms of humanity intruding or interposing itself into "sacred time". Christianity (and Judaism before it, and Islam after it) taught that God intrudes Himself into "profane time". Big, big diametrical difference which you are totally failing to comprehend.
Well, no, actually you posted that "One of the earliest known mentions" of Messiah ben Joseph was in 250 AD, per the Wikipedia page from which you grabbed your verbiage.
"One of" suggests that, while early, it is not necessarily (and in fact probably isn't, and in fact, actually isn't) the earliest reference to this Messiah, as I showed from my source.
What's funny, though, is that you're trying to argue that the "dual Messianic role" argument is late, but you're doing so from Jewish sources which normally would be predisposed, in the highly-charged polemical atmosphere of the time, to suppressing any suggestion that the Christian interpretation of the Messiah was correct (which the dual-role theory explicitly does). The reason these rabbis wrote about it in the Sukkah was because it appeared to them to be completely reasonable per the Hebrew scriptures. Which is why the Targumists and the Christians before them also drew the same conclusion.
First, that makes no difference to the point we are discussing. Second, you also believe, do you not, that your God lived in a special time before time and later during a time when a day could be a thousand years? Don't you believe that Jesus existed before the universe existed? Besides, your point doesn't pertain to Hercules, and the Greeks thought their gods existed concurrent with their own existence, hence all of the sacrificing and praying.
Yes, you did post the wrong Caesar, which suggests that you're somewhat unsure of what "facts" are actually relevant in this discussion. This is all the more so because just a few posts previous, you had suggested to me that I "need to learn some history". I've learned enough history to at least not mistake Caesar Augustus for Julius Caesar.
I corrected my cut n paste error. You corrected your error when you said that there was no evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar. Fine.
You didn't post a link to your source and the passage you cited didn't mention Massiah ben Joseph or Massiah ben David. There was no date to the commentary. Whereas wikpedia may be wrong on occassion, this article was well sorced with sources cited.
Well, yes it does, because you are trying to draw a parallel between the myths about Hercules, and the Gospel accounts of Jesus, as if these were of the same charactre and class. They are not. Jesus is accessible to history, while Hercules is not.
Second, you also believe, do you not, that your God lived in a special time before time and later during a time when a day could be a thousand years? Don't you believe that Jesus existed before the universe existed?
That's irrelevant because God, in Judeo-Christian theology, deals with man in terms of "profane time". Yes, there is a point at which God/Jesus existed before time, since He existed "before" creation (if time-suggestive words can even apply to this case), but again, that has nothing to do with "sacred time". Per the very nature of the term, "sacred time" suggests TIME, suggesting that there is still some passage of time in the mythophorous "sacred time" (even if that passage is circular and repetitive, rather than linear as we understand it). Since the scenario you've asked me about believing would logically posited that no such thing as "time" yet existed, then there is no logical connexion of it with "sacred time".
Besides, your point doesn't pertain to Hercules, and the Greeks thought their gods existed concurrent with their own existence, hence all of the sacrificing and praying.
Of course they sacrificed and engaged in other rituals. That was how they were attempting to interact with "sacred time". That has nothing to do, however, with the difference between sacred time and profane time as it pertains to Christianity.
I never said that there was no evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar. I said that the actual, tangible evidences for Jesus Christ's existance were greater than those for Julius Caesar. The point being that, if we have no problem accepting that the Roman JC was fully and completely historical, then we should have no problem accepting that the Christian JC was also fully and completely historical.
Yes I did, and yes it did. Look at my post #60 again. I gave the full citation and reference. The reason I didn't post a link is because the reference is on dead tree. Also, Messiah ben Ephraim is the same as Messiah ben Joseph. Joseph was the father of Ephraim, and Ephraim was the favoured son. The two terms for this Messiah are used interchangeably to refer to the same individual. As for the date, the Targumim are generally pre-Christian from the intertestamental period or are concurrent with the first century of Christianity.
Another point common to the "Apocalypse of Zerubbabel" and the "Revelations of R. Simon b. Yoḥai" is, that on his advent the Israelites will not acknowledge Messiah b. David. The one point mentioned which only the "Apocalypse of Zerubbabel" contains is that besides the two Messiahs there is to be a woman, Hephzibah, the mother of Messiah b. David. According to the text in Jellinek's edition, she will come upon the scene five years before Messiah b. Joseph; and a great star will light up her path. She will slay two kings, and assist Messiah b. Joseph in his war against the king of Persia; and during the flight into the wilderness she will shelter Israel from the persecution of Armilus. This last feature of the description calls to mind the flight of the woman, as described in the Revelation of John, xii. 13-17, and the description of Tabitha in the Coptic "Apocalypse of Elijah." The picture of the future world in the Zerubbabel apocalypse is also distinctive; for in addition to the establishment of the heavenly Jerusalem upon five mountains (Lebanon, Moriah, Tabor, Carmel, and Hermon), nothing more is mentioned than the resurrection of the generation buried in the wilderness, and of the faithful who met death during the general persecution ("the ocean," which is spoken of in this connection, must be understood in its symbolical signification; as it is used as early as Dan. vii. 3 et seq.).
Aside from the fact these are all myths concocted well after Jesus' death, it clearly has nothing to do with the "historical" Jesus. Messiah ben Joseph is killed after restoring worship at the temple through force of arms. Messiah ben David will return during the lifetime of Joseph's killer and slay him and then resurrect Ben Joseph. Clearly this is not the second coming as described in the Bible.
Further, you now have a quadrinity if Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David are both Jesus.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1643&letter=A#4802
My source for the previous post
|
|
|||
Gods |
Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. |
||
|
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · · History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.