Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Heretics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    In hindsight it may be a given: that doesn't mean that it was so for 1st Century Jews. An example: for us Christians the idea of a 'suffering servant' Messiah is a given; did the Jews have such a concept?
    Not sure about the 1st century but early on there's been a belief that the Messiah of Joseph will precede the Messiah of David and he is supposed to be killed...
    Finally, there must be mentioned a Messianic figure peculiar to the rabbinical apocalyptic literature—that of Messiah ben Joseph. The earliest mention of him is in Suk. 52a, b, where three statements occur in regard to him, for the first of which R. Dosa (c. 250) is given as authority...According to these, Messiah b. Joseph will appear prior to the coming of Messiah b. David; he will gather the children of Israel around him, march to Jerusalem, and there, after overcoming the hostile powers, reestablish the Temple-worship and set up his own dominion. Thereupon Armilus, according to one group of sources, or Gog and Magog, according to the other, will appear with their hosts before Jerusalem, wage war against Messiah b. Joseph, and slay him. His corpse, according to one group, will lie unburied in the streets of Jerusalem... -JewishEncyclopedia

    as one mourns over an only son: As a man mourns over his only son. And our Sages expounded this in tractate Sukkah (52a) as referring to the Messiah, son of Joseph, who was slain. -Rashi's commentary on Zechariah 12:10

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Paprika View Post
      In hindsight it may be a given: that doesn't mean that it was so for 1st Century Jews. An example: for us Christians the idea of a 'suffering servant' Messiah is a given; did the Jews have such a concept?
      According to David deSilva in his Introduction to the New Testament (page 212), a suffering Messiah was "a new concept, completely at odds with the models of messiahship available to first-century Jews".
      "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
        According to David deSilva in his Introduction to the New Testament (page 212), a suffering Messiah was "a new concept, completely at odds with the models of messiahship available to first-century Jews".
        Precisely, hence one cannot assume that what we take for granted - the divine Messiah - would have been assumed knowledge in 1st century Judaism.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Paprika View Post
          John 8:24 does not make your case.
          Only if Christ is not God.
          . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

          Comment


          • #20
            John 8:24 does not state that Jesus is God, I don't think. In fact, if you are arguing that Jesus is the Father, that sounds a bit non-Trinitarian. Leading up to that point in the chapter, Jesus seemed to emphasize the need for two witnesses, and to distinguish himself from the Father/Holy Spirit.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Paprika View Post
              Precisely, hence one cannot assume that what we take for granted - the divine Messiah - would have been assumed knowledge in 1st century Judaism.
              Well you are shifting from the Messiah having the power of God, to being the Suffering Servant, and back to having the power of God, then making a conclusion about the Messiah having the power of God based on a cite about Messiah being the Suffering Servant. Clever.

              All indications are that Jews expected what I said about Zechariah 12:8, a Mega-David with the power of God to crush Romans, the Lion. Not the Lamb going to the cross as the Suffering Servant.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                According to David deSilva in his Introduction to the New Testament (page 212), a suffering Messiah was "a new concept, completely at odds with the models of messiahship available to first-century Jews".
                http://www.worthychristianlibrary.co...e-jews-expect/

                Actually the rejection of a suffering servant messiah came after Christ. Earlier in Jewish history there were expectations of two messiahs. One was a suffering servant, the other a ruling King.
                Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
                  All indications are that Jews expected what I said about Zechariah 12:8, a Mega-David with the power of God to crush Romans, the Lion. Not the Lamb going to the cross as the Suffering Servant.
                  But did they expect him the "the same as God"?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                    But did they expect him the "the same as God"?
                    From all I've read, some like various Sadducees expected no Messiah, some expected a human Messiah, and some expected a divine Messiah based on materials like the Book of Enoch:
                    The oldest apocalypse in which the conception of a preexistent heavenly Messiah is met with is the Messiological section of the Book of Enoch (xxxvii.-lxxi.) of the first century B.C. The Messiah is called "the Son of Man," and is described as an angelic being, his countenance resembling a man's, and as occupying a seat in heaven beside the Ancient of Days (xlvi. 1), or, as it is expressed in ch. xxxix. 7, "under the wings of the Lord of spirits." -Jewish Encyclopedia

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by JohnnyP View Post
                      From all I've read, some like various Sadducees expected no Messiah, some expected a human Messiah, and some expected a divine Messiah based on materials like the Book of Enoch:
                      They failed to see that the two would be in one person.
                      Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                        They failed to see that the two would be in one person.
                        What's interesting is the concept of the Four Craftsmen Messiahs from Zechariah 1:21, often identified in the Talmud and elsewhere as, in addition to Elijah: Messiah ben Joseph who is killed, Messiah ben David who conquers, and the Melchizedek Righteous Priest.

                        Comment

                        widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                        Working...
                        X