Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Free]

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
noun

1. 1.
   the promised deliverer of the Jewish nation prophesied in the Hebrew Bible.
   
   
2. 2.
   a leader regarded as the saviour of a particular country, group, or cause.
   
   

You made a false equivalence there. The term messiah has been lifted from its biblical meaning to describe people who are seen as savior hence the term ''messiah complex''. You can't use the second usage to describe what the biblical messiah is supposed to be.

No... in Judaism, a Messiah is to be a King.

"In Judaism, the expected king of the Davidic line who would deliver Israel from foreign bondage and restore the glories of its golden age."

Britannica.

[Dancefortwo]

  Stop!    Stop you right there.
The Jordan river is WEST of Bethsaida, and EAST of Capernaum.
You need to get this stuff right.  I looked at your map and it showed the Jordan to the WEST of Bethsaida, the township where Cephas and Andrew grew up.

It doesn't fucking matter where Bethsaida is. It's Capernaum from which Jesus is traveling.   The idiiot book says Jesus goes from Capernaum to Judea across the Jordan river.  The Jordan river is east of Capernaum.  He is going in the opposite direction of Judea.    Judea is not east of the Jordan river. It is west of the river.   There is no implication in the text that he goes back over the river twice to correct his direction.  




There are a few other directional passages Matthew had to change to correct Mark's text.

[Minimalist]

There is no implication in the text that he goes back over the river twice to correct his direction. 

Perhaps "jesus" couldn't make up his fucking mind?

[Minimalist]

You made a false equivalence there. The term messiah has been lifted from its biblical meaning to describe people who are seen as savior hence the term ''messiah complex''. You can't use the second usage to describe what the biblical messiah is supposed to be.

No... in Judaism, a Messiah is to be a King.

"In Judaism, the expected king of the Davidic line who would deliver Israel from foreign bondage and restore the glories of its golden age."

Britannica.

Wait!

Are you saying that jesus fucked that one up?

It's so nice when we can agree.

[Free]

No... in Judaism, a Messiah is to be a King.

"In Judaism, the expected king of the Davidic line who would deliver Israel from foreign bondage and restore the glories of its golden age."

Britannica.

Wait!

Are you saying that jesus fucked that one up?

It's so nice when we can agree.

There never was. nor will there ever be, a Messiah.

The road to the imaginary hell is paved with dead so-called Messiahs.

[Bucky Ball]

bla bla bla ...

I reckon his report is reasonable for truth.

You forgot to support that assertion with ANY references or facts.
HJ "research", .... which is NOT what you do, is not about "reckons", and unsupported assertions.
You are a 100 % fraud.

Evidence is weak, but claims from Cornwall, Kashmir and for Gaul are made.

LOL you forgot to post the evidence. LMAO

[Minimalist]

But don't you find it amusing that the guy who came closest was Cyrus the Great?

[epronovost]

But don't you find it amusing that the guy who came closest was Cyrus the Great?

Somehow, I feel like being the Messiah feels underwhelming for a figure like Cyrus the Great being the "savior" of small kingdom is sort of ridiculous compared to being one of the founding figure of one of humanity's greatest empire, a fantastic general and an exceptional stateman.

[Minimalist]

Would you like to discuss it with Isaiah?

Thus saith the LORD to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him, and to loose the loins of kings; to open the doors before him, and that the gates may not be shut:

— Isaiah 45:1

Hey, you know, if you're going to lie, LIE BIG!  What could be bigger than claiming the king as your boy?


So what is the moschiach supposed to do?

Before the time of the mashiach, there shall be war and suffering (Ezekiel 38:16)

The mashiach will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5).

He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1).

He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18).

He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15).

https://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach

So #1 is the claim in the bible.  The bible makes a lot of claims.  Most of them silly.  The OT claims that 50,000 Jews returned from Exile.  A few years ago there was a dispute between two noted Israeli archaeologists over the number of people who actually moved into Jerusalem at the beginning of the Persian Period.  These were Israel Finkelstein and Oded Lipschitz.  Both made their computations based on the amount of acreage occupied by the supposedly returning settlers.  There is actually a formula for that based on habitation patterns.  Finkelstein came up with the figure of about 400.  Lipschitz came up with around 1,000.  Both were considerably short of the bible bullshit story.  Nonetheless, give Cyrus half a point because a few people went back to carry out the king's wishes.

#2 - Well, jewish delusions of grandeur aside, the "government" that was set up by the returning "exiles" never did get anywhere close to what they claimed.  But Cyrus' minions do have to get half a point for setting up any kind of government ( you can see that I am in a generous mood, tonight!)

#3 - I don't know about "rebuilding" anything since the inhabitants before the Babylonian attack were probably garden variety Canaanites who worshiped in the Bamot (high place) that they accused the other Canaanites of doing.  By the time the Zoroastrian-impacted "exiles" came back the Bamot were decidedly old hat and they doubtlessly did build some sort of a temple.  So, as I said, I am in a generous mood and I will give Cyrus 3/4 of a point for building a temple but not rebuilding the thing that wasn't there.

#4 - Cyrus' boys get a full point for setting up their religious courts.  They must have been the Taliban of their day but the did manage to do this one thing.

So, I get 2.75 points out of 4 for Cyrus which is a hell of a lot better than that useless fucker "jesus" managed.

[eider]

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
noun

1. 1.
   the promised deliverer of the Jewish nation prophesied in the Hebrew Bible.
   
   
2. 2.
   a leader regarded as the saviour of a particular country, group, or cause.
   
   

You made a false equivalence there. The term messiah has been lifted from its biblical meaning to describe people who are seen as savior hence the term ''messiah complex''. You can't use the second usage to describe what the biblical messiah is supposed to be.

Well don't moan at me, write to the Oxford Languages dictionary and tell them all about it.  :Tongue

[eider]

You made a false equivalence there. The term messiah has been lifted from its biblical meaning to describe people who are seen as savior hence the term ''messiah complex''. You can't use the second usage to describe what the biblical messiah is supposed to be.

No... in Judaism, a Messiah is to be a King.

"In Judaism, the expected king of the Davidic line who would deliver Israel from foreign bondage and restore the glories of its golden age."

Britannica.

We're talking about Galilean Jews, particularly lake boatmen, and they were a bunch of trouble, and anybody who could have sorted out a corrupt, fat, hellenised, bunch of priests would have fitted their idea of a meshiah just fine.

[eider]

It doesn't fucking matter where Bethsaida is. It's Capernaum from which Jesus is traveling. 

Good....so you've figured that out and won't again be pretending that Capernaum and Bethsaida are on the same side of the Jordan.... 

The idiiot book says Jesus goes from Capernaum to Judea across the Jordan river. 

Just stick to what is written....your versions are junk:-
Mark {10:1} And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: 

That is smack-on accurate. So like most other Northern Jews he preferred to travel on the farther (the east) side of Jordan when going south. If they travelled through Samaria then they travelled in a strong group. 

And this is what you hold up to announce that G-Mark is rubbish?  If you do then you're a fool.
But....... Liked your map, have kept that. I notice that the publisher has moved Gadara yet closer to the lake.....   I like the insewrtion of the more northerly Cana as well, most maps prefer the southern one.

The Jordan river is east of Capernaum.

10/10

He is going in the opposite direction of Judea.    Judea is not east of the Jordan river. It is west of the river.   There is no implication in the text that he goes back over the river twice to correct his direction.  [/quote[]
I've explained the meaning of 'farther side' ........  
Your mates might think you're bright and clever but I think you're a shit-mouthed dunce.

[quote]There are a few other directional passages Matthew had to change to correct Mark's text.

Matthew copied G-Mark, in many places almost word for word. 
You don't want to look a bigger idiot than you already do....I'd just leave it if I was you.

[eider]

Here's a new HJ topic to bring you untold joy!

The claim that Josephus really really did write about Jesus. For so many years I'd heard about this and other mentions being a total fabrication and so I decided (a long time ago) to pay some attention to this piece.

Yep, it reads like total bulldust, and I don't think that Josephus would have written anything like that, so who put that there!

So Christians wrote that, but if you think that Christians retracted paragraphs 2 and 4 apart to pop that piece in then you need your bumps feeling, because no god glorifying ardent Christian would have chosen that place to write their stuff...... never! Let's see where that paragraph is:-

Antiquities
1. Pilate erects statue/s of Caesar in Jerusalem and has to remove them after a shit load of trouble.
2. Pilate puts down a massive demonstration with an overkill response.
3. Jesus! The bit under scrutiny!
4. The wooing of Paulina, deception and trouble there.
5. A wicked Jew and his wicked ways.

So there's your avid Christian, determined to pop a piece about God in the Antiquities of Josephus, and so he writes a paragraph of joy and places it amongst trouble, strife, deception and badness. They could have inserted a nice long piece about Jesus, say, after Josephus's entry about the Baptist, and at least as long if not longer! Anybody who believes that Christians chose this place to write about their God needs a lot of help.

And so I suggest that Josephus, clearly not a Christian, mentioned Jesus among the troubles and troublemakers that were.
And Christians edited that piece, destroying any original copies that they ever found.

Ergo...... Josephus did know about and write about Jesus.

Here's the piece:-
3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

[epronovost]

You made a false equivalence there. The term messiah has been lifted from its biblical meaning to describe people who are seen as savior hence the term ''messiah complex''. You can't use the second usage to describe what the biblical messiah is supposed to be.

Well don't moan at me, write to the Oxford Languages dictionary and tell them all about it.  :Tongue

They already told you. You just don't know how to use a dictionary apparently.

[Kim]

My opinion, is that magic book is just a tiny collection of what remains of second century apocalyptic fan fiction.

My opinion, as well.  All of it. Every spec of it is edited, re-edited, & has been for several centuries. It has always remained, through all it's many incarnations, new & improved additions to a series of fables, continually relocated to fit whatever places fall into or, out of popularity.

My point is ... this entire thread is an argument about how historically accurate a collection of fictitious works ... may or, may not be?

I do get it. Sartre's, The Reprieve; 1984; Brave New World; Animal Farm ... how about, Handmaid's Tale. A great deal of Attwood's story is gleaned from contemporary 1980s headlines. It certainly reflects a certain cultural & sub-cultural zeitgeist definitely in formation at that time. But, it is a work of fiction, made with just enough factual information to make the reader think, "Yikes! Where might this lead?".

I guess I just think that pedantically arguing over the historicity of ancient philosophical musings is at the very least futile, & at most, irrelevant.

It's as if someone's played a "cool" joke that everyone's known about for centuries so, now we all feel the need to add to it because we've made it incredibly important to do so.

Here ... I'll post a photo of the birthplace of Captain James Tiberius Kirk.
Because... Captain fucking Kirk!!

This does not mean it's even remotely historically accurate or, ever will be.
Then again, I suppose we'll know with absolute certainty in 2228. Right?

Go on.

I'll wait.

[Minimalist]

Antiquities

1. Pilate erects statue/s of Caesar in Jerusalem and has to remove them after a shit load of trouble.

No, he did not.  Josephus refers to them as "ensigns" (some sort of Roman standard) and Philo refers to them as "gilt shields" in Herod's palace not the temple, with inscriptions.  It was Caligula who demanded that a statue of himself be placed in the temple but it was never installed.

[eider]

My opinion, is that magic book is just a tiny collection of what remains of second century apocalyptic fan fiction.

My opinion, as well.  All of it.  Every spec of it is edited, re-edited, & has been for several centuries. It has always remained, through all it's many incarnations, new & improved additions to a series of fables, continually relocated to fit whatever places fall into or, out of popularity.

My point is ... this entire thread is an argument about how historically accurate a collection of fictitious works ... may or, may not be?    

I do get it.   Sartre's, The Reprieve; 1984; Brave New World; Animal Farm ... how about, Handmaid's Tale.  A great deal of Attwood's story is gleaned from contemporary 1980s headlines.  It certainly reflects a certain cultural & sub-cultural zeitgeist definitely in formation at that time.  But, it is a work of fiction, made with just enough factual information to make the reader think, "Yikes!  Where might this lead?".  

I guess I just think that pedantically arguing over the historicity of ancient philosophical musings is at the very least futile, & at most, irrelevant.

 It's as if someone's played a "cool" joke that everyone's known about for centuries so, now we all feel the need to add to it because we've made it incredibly important to do so.  

Here ... I'll post  a photo of the birthplace of Captain James Tiberius Kirk.
Because... Captain fucking Kirk!!

This does not mean it's even remotely historically accurate or, ever will be.  
Then again, I suppose we'll know with absolute certainty in 2228.  Right?

Go on.  

I'll wait.  

That technique, wandering away from the subject of Historical Jesus to waffle about nursery tales or fictional films is just so stale these days.  It's the cliche that suggests a real lack of initiative.

There's a reason why some people study the subject of historical jesus......  it doesn't support christianity but destroys it.  Most HJ students, scholars and professors did leave or had already left Christianity as they pursued their work, which must give you some idea about how effective hj research is in the promotion of secular communities and governments.  A few Xians remain but not many.

And so atheists, antitheists and nontheists who call hj researchers 'godboy lovers' etc and rant about Harry Potters fictions just show either uncontrollable extremism or daftness.

[eider]

Antiquities

1. Pilate erects statue/s of Caesar in Jerusalem and has to remove them after a shit load of trouble.

No, he did not.  Josephus refers to them as "ensigns" (some sort of Roman standard) and Philo refers to them as "gilt shields" in Herod's palace not the temple,  with inscriptions.  It was Caligula who demanded that a statue of himself be placed in the temple but it was never installed.

Perfect..... !  Excellent!
And so you have recognised that Josephus was writing about trouble, strife, fraud, deception and shit in the paragraphs which surrounded some mention about Jesus! 

So he probably did write about Jesus, and Christians pasted their own stuff in place of the original, which is so bloody daft! I don't know why they couldn't have placed a really sizeable 'write-up' somewhere else, maybe adjacent to Josephus' entry about the Baptist, but instead they inserted that in to that silly little space amongst 'trouble'......... which is what the real Jesus had been.

[airportkid]

... this is what you hold up to announce that G-Mark is rubbish?  If you do then you're a fool ...

... Your mates might think you're bright and clever but I think you're a shit-mouthed dunce ...

... You don't want to look a bigger idiot than you already do ...

I see many of your posts are being disregarded.  They must be missing something.  Try adding some of THIS to your posts - give 'em the zing of authenticity. 

Show ContentSpoiler:

This will elicit a fountain of whiny foam:  "Waaah!  They do it to me!!!" :   The excuses to behave boorishly never end.

[Bucky Ball]

bla bla bla ...

Here's the piece:-
3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Too bad for you,
Josephus WROTE the goddamn book in the first place, to demonstrate that Vespasian was the Messiah. He WORKED for Vespasian. He described the miracles that Vespasian had performed.
Why would he say that Jesus was the messiah when the entire PURPOSE of the book was to demonstrate that someone ELSE was the messiah ?
Yeah, ... no.

"Josephus (as well as Tacitus), reporting on the conclusion of the Jewish war, reported a prophecy that around the time when Jerusalem and the Second Temple would be taken, a man from their own nation, viz. the Messiah, would become governor "of the habitable earth". Josephus interpreted the prophecy to denote Vespasian and his appointment as emperor in Judea."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vespasian

How about you summarize the current scholarly thinking about the Josephus interpolation, names and dates and publications, .... and then in detail propose your own theory, and tell us what is wrong with the current scholar's interpretations.
IN DETAIL, not bullshit unsupported assertions.

You won't and you can't.
You're a 1000 % troll fraud.
LMAO

[Minimalist]

So he probably did write about Jesus,

"A" jesus.  Not "THE" jesus.  The book is filled with jesuses of all sorts and the only place where the HJ that christards are so adamant to find exists is in the Eusebian forgery from the 4th century.

Personally I have always found it compelling that christards felt the need to go back and write their boy into history.  It is evidence that he was never able to get there on his own.

However, you were wrong about Josephus and Pilate.  Josephus did not say that Pilate tried to put up a statue in the temple.  If you are going to quote historical sources you may as well take the time to get them right otherwise you look careless.  That is one of Atwill's problems with his Caesar's Messiah bullshit.

[Bucky Ball]

So he probably did write about Jesus,

"A" jesus.  Not "THE" jesus.  The book is filled with jesuses of all sorts and the only place where the HJ that christards are so adamant to find exists is in the Eusebian forgery from the 4th century.

Personally I have always found it compelling that christards felt the need to go back and write their boy into history.  It is evidence that he was never able to get there on his own.

However, you were wrong about Josephus and Pilate.  Josephus did not say that Pilate tried to put up a statue in the temple.  If you are going to quote historical sources you may as well take the time to get them right otherwise you look careless.  That is one of Atwill's problems with his Caesar's Messiah bullshit.

He "sieved" it ...

[Free]

bla bla bla ...

Here's the piece:-
3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Too bad for you,
Josephus WROTE the goddamn book in the first place, to demonstrate that Vespasian was the Messiah

Let me try to explain why i disagree clearly.

The oracle in question says this:

"a star shall come out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel; it shall crush the forehead of Moab, and break down all the sons of Sheth."

Virtually every Jew believed that this prophecy referred to the coming of the Messiah, which would be a Hebrew from the line of King David. Now Josephus' thinking, I believe, was along the lines of "but who said that the ruler who was to arise out of Israel was to be a Jew?" In other words, the oracle does not specifically mention a Messiah.

Josephus was literally reinterpreting the oracle so that it did not refer to a Jewish Messiah (and a Messiah cannot be anything but Jewish according to the Jews themselves) bur rather it referred to something other than a Messiah, such as Vespasian.

In his book Josephus says:

"But what more than all else incited them to the war was an ambiguous oracle, likewise found in their sacred scriptures, to the effect that at that time one from their country would become ruler of the world. This they understood to mean someone of their own race, and many of their wise men went astray in their interpretation of it. The oracle, however, in reality signified the sovereignty of Vespasian, who was proclaimed Emperor on Jewish soil."

He literally tells us that his fellow Jews understood that the oracle was in reference to a Messiah. They understood it to be someone from their own race (Jew), and many of them went astray in thinking a Messiah was on the horizon. But Josephus explains that the oracle had nothing to do with a Messiah, but rather it referred to the Roman, Vespasian.

To save his own ass, Josephus reinterpreted that oracle to apply to Vespasian as opposed to a Messiah, flattering Vespasian to the extent of sparing Josephus' life. However, Josephus' reinterpretation is bogus, as the oracle clearly refers to a Messiah.

[Minimalist]

Josephus excelled at saving his own ass, alright.  He wasn't even shy about admitting it.

A lot of that has the smell of later apologetical thinking, though, or at least rationalization.  By the time that Josephus allegedly decided that Vespasian (and we have only Josephus' claim that this was so, and he remained a prisoner of Vespasian's for two years thereafter ) was to be the new emperor and Vespasian had made moves in that direction there had been one Emperor who "came out of Spain," Sulpicius Galba.  Another, Salvius Otho, who also began as a governor in Spain and finally Aulus Vitellius, who came out of Germany.  These were all Italians who had been posted to provincial offices just like Vespasian.  In fact, after such upheavals it would almost have seemed strange if the Eastern legions had not gotten in on the fun, so to speak, and wanted their commander to succeed to the purple.  That could be lucrative for the soldiers.   The Eastern armies were intact while the Western armies had been fighting each other.  

Like many other ancient "prophecies" the gods' meaning only becomes clear after the events have taken  place.

[Free]

Josephus excelled at saving his own ass, alright.  He wasn't even shy about admitting it.

A lot of that has the smell of later apologetical thinking, though, or at least rationalization.  By the time that Josephus allegedly decided that Vespasian (and we have only Josephus' claim that this was so, and he remained a prisoner of Vespasian's for two years thereafter ) was to be the new emperor and Vespasian had made moves in that direction there had been one Emperor who "came out of Spain," Sulpicius Galba.  Another, Salvius Otho, who also began as a governor in Spain and finally Aulus Vitellius, who came out of Germany.  These were all Italians who had been posted to provincial offices just like Vespasian.  In fact, after such upheavals it would almost have seemed strange if the Eastern legions had not gotten in on the fun, so to speak, and wanted their commander to succeed to the purple.  That could be lucrative for the soldiers.   The Eastern armies were intact while the Western armies had been fighting each other.  

Like many other ancient "prophecies" the gods' meaning only becomes clear after the events have taken  place.

Well the thing is with this Vespasian/Messiah thing is it just doesn't make any sense. Josephus says that the oracle was "ambiguous" and that the other Jews understood it to mean the coming of a Jewish king, a Messiah to rule the world. He then says their interpretation was wrong and reinterprets it to apply to Vespasian. In the Jewish world at the time, a Messiah would come out of the lineage of King David, and would be Jewish. Josephus, being an orthodox Jew, would almost certainly understand what the qualifications for a Messiah were, therefore the most logical interpretation of that paragraph is him reinterpreting that oracle as NOT referring to a Jewish Messiah, but of a Roman Emperor.