Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Free]

The Balssm prophesy was thought to be about the messiah.
The "signs" Josephus wrote about taken from the Balaam prophesy Josephus said applied to Vespasian.
It's very simple. He did not have to say "Vespasian, you are the messiah". The implication is more than obvious.


Thank you.
Let me help you.

You just agreed with me. The Star of Balaam prophecy WAS thoiught to be about the messiah. It was from The Book of Numbers. There is no question about that.

And now you just said Josephus said it was about the Romans. There is no reason for Josephus to even invoke Balaam AT ALL, if he's not talking about a messiah. Balaam was about a messiah.
Josephus was implying that Vespasian was the messiah, ''' and in YOUR own words,

Thanks again.  

Bye bye.

It was "thought" to be about the coming of the Messiah by many Jews, but NOT by Josephus.

And I showed you the beliefs Josephus actually held, and every one of them was in relation to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans ... including the Balaam prophecy.

"I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near. A star shall come out of Jacob and a scepter will rise out of Israel. It shall crush the foreheads of Moab and break down all the sons of Sheth. Edom shall be dispossessed."

Many Jews understood the prophecy above to be about the coming of a Messiah. 

The Aramaic version of the Law of Moses called the Onqelos Targum translates the line in Numbers as:

"a king shall arise out of Jacob and be anointed the Messiah out of Israel."

Another Aramaic translation, the Fragment Targum, reads:

"A king is destined to arise from the house of Jacob, a redeemer and ruler from the house of Israel, who shall slay the mighty ones [...] who shall destroy all that remains of the guilty city, which is Rome."

https://www.livius.org/articles/religion...-prophecy/

Many of the Jews believed the prophecy was ONLY about a Jewish Messiah, and they may have interpreted correctly. But Josephus- using hindsight to save his own ass- literally tells you the Jews' interpretation of what the prophecy referred to was wrong, and instead gives his own interpretation to ascribe it to Vespasian, not as a Messiah, but as a conqueror of Jerusalem.

Josephus twisted the interpretation of that prophecy to not be about a Messiah, but to be about Vespasian and the Romans conquering Jerusalem, with Vespasian being declared emperor while in Judea. He had already used other prophecies to justify his beliefs, and therefore he had to twist the Balaam prophecy to force it to be compatible with what he already either believed ... or lied about to save his own ass.

And here is the the fatal shot to your position. Let's look at Tacitus:

"The majority [of the Jews] were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the present as the very time when the Orient would triumph and from Judaea would go forth men destined to rule the world. This mysterious prophecy really referred to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, true to the selfish ambitions of mankind, thought that this exalted destiny was reserved for them, and not even their calamities opened their eyes to the truth."

Wait a minute, Bucky Boy! What do you see there? Are you trying to tell me now that it referred to TWO Messiahs in Vespasian and Titus?

Or does it refer to TWO ROMANS, both who would become Roman emperors?

Tacitus- a contemporary- demonstrates to you what was believed about that prophecy during the time period, and he shows you that it was about the Romans Vespasian and Titus, and what did they do? They conquered Jerusalem, and both became emperors. So does that work with what Josephus said? Let's look:

"Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea."

Why ... yes ... it works perfectly.  Josephus was telling you the oracle was all about Vespasian becoming an emperor in Judea, not about being a Messiah. Josephus and Tacitus are in agreement.

See how that works?

But ... two Messiah's, Bucky? Really? You going to go for three now? Four?

Hmmm ...

Game over.

Thanks for playing.

I could possibly. Actually Free, if you had read my post about the various views of messianism, (above) yes ... exacly two messiahs. 
The Messiah of War, and the Messiah of Peace, as well as many other concepts. As you were schooled on above by me, the concept of messianism was not established in stone, and there were always various view of it. But you know nothing of Hebrew culture, so you don't know that. 

So now we have "game over", "period", "black.and.white". You can stop stomping your little feet. 

But thanks again for agreeing with me.

That's not even a good attempt.

Where does the Balaam prophecy mention TWO messiahs? Let's have a look, shall we? Yes we shall!

"I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near."

Opps! Does that say ..

""I see THEM, but not now; I behold THEM, but not near?"

Tell me, Bucky Boy.

Does that Balaam prophesy talk about two Messiahs?

Keep trying. Exhaust every avenue you have.