cjdb@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Charles Blair) (08/14/85)
> For instance, the Old Testament prophet Isaiah says: > For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government > shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, > Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of > Peace. Is. 9:6 (KJV). > If this child were not actually God, it would be Blasphemy to call Him > these names. There are numerous other places where similar things are > said about The Anointed One, though not quite so blatantly. (Ps. 2:7; > ICh17:11-14; IISa7:12-16; Micah 5:2; Ps 110:1) All these passages refer to the king of Judah. All the kings of Judah were descendants of king David. All kings were "messiahs." "Messiah" is, by devious routes, a transliteration of a Hebrew word meaning "the anointed one." ("Christos"--Christ--is a translation, rather than a transliteration, of this word into Greek.) Anointing was part of the ceremony of installing a king. To call a king a "messiah" was like calling Queen Elizabeth II "the crowned one." Now I am not going into the history of the development of "messianism" here. Suffice it to say that nowhere does the the Hebrew Bible refer to a hitherto unknown type of being by the term "messiah." All the passages that were cited, except Micah, express the belief, not uncommon in the ancient Near East (and pushed to extremes in Egypt) that the king was divine. Another examples of this belief may be found in Ps. 89.26-27 (verse numbering according to the English versions). The Samuel passage, with the parallel in Chronicles, expresses the promise that the Davidic line would be eternal. The reason why it was important for Matthew and Luke to establish Jesus' Davidic heritage should now be easy to understand. If Jesus was to be accepted as the messiah, he had to be of royal lineage. He had to be the rightful heir to the Davidic throne. This would then establish his claim to messiahship, which is another way of saying kingship (see the discussion above). Now if the king was the son of God (Ps. 2.7, and elsewhere in the passages cited at the beginning of this discussion), and if Jesus was king, then Jesus, too, would be the son of God. This is in fact what is claimed. Historically, I view it as the final statement of the ancient Near Eastern belief in the divinity of kings.
jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) (08/19/85)
> > For instance, the Old Testament prophet Isaiah says: > > > For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government > > shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, > > Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of > > Peace. Is. 9:6 (KJV). > > > If this child were not actually God, it would be Blasphemy to call Him > > these names. There are numerous other places where similar things are > > said about The Anointed One, though not quite so blatantly. (Ps. 2:7; > > ICh17:11-14; IISa7:12-16; Micah 5:2; Ps 110:1) > > All these passages refer to the king of Judah. All the kings of Judah > were descendants of king David. All kings were "messiahs." "Messiah" > is, by devious routes, a transliteration of a Hebrew word meaning "the > anointed one." ("Christos"--Christ--is a translation, rather than a > transliteration, of this word into Greek.) Anointing was part of the > ceremony of installing a king. To call a king a "messiah" was like > calling Queen Elizabeth II "the crowned one." > > Now I am not going into the history of the development of "messianism" > here. Suffice it to say that nowhere does the the Hebrew Bible refer to > a hitherto unknown type of being by the term "messiah." All the > passages that were cited, except Micah, express the belief, not > uncommon in the ancient Near East (and pushed to extremes in Egypt) > that the king was divine. Another examples of this belief may be found > in Ps. 89.26-27 (verse numbering according to the English versions). > The Samuel passage, with the parallel in Chronicles, expresses the > promise that the Davidic line would be eternal. Which is basically what Jesus, through the ressurection, achieved. An eternal line. I see your point about the annointing ceremonies, and I think there is certainly validity there, but many of the prophecies did not concern necessarily the next king, but a special king. Many had been called the son of God (maybe, I won't argue that) but none were ever called mighty God (which is entirely different in a monotheistic culture such as Israel's). That would be blasphemy. That's why I say that this king would have to be God Himself and not only (the loose term) son of God, rather the Son of God. > The reason why it was important for Matthew and Luke to establish Jesus' > Davidic heritage should now be easy to understand. If Jesus was to be > accepted as the messiah, he had to be of royal lineage. He had to be the > rightful heir to the Davidic throne. This would then establish his > claim to messiahship, which is another way of saying kingship (see the > discussion above). Now if the king was the son of God (Ps. 2.7, and > elsewhere in the passages cited at the beginning of this discussion), > and if Jesus was king, then Jesus, too, would be the son of God. So would all before him and after him. I wonder why they never claimed their heritage rights and came foward with such a statement. I know that the Roman Empire under Cesaerian rule also shows signs of this common belief in divinity of kings. However, I don't think that early believers were as impressed with Jesus' lineage as they were with his claims and his powers. Though you are right that his lineage is important in terms of prophetical messiahship. Without the heritage, prophecy would hold no validity. And to the ancient's, it was the one guidance that they could trust. > This > is in fact what is claimed. Historically, I view it as the final > statement of the ancient Near Eastern belief in the divinity of kings. Julie A. Harazduk
cosmos@druhi.UUCP (GuestRA) (08/26/85)
I disagree with the view expressed by Charles that the Isaiah prophecies
really just describe earthly kings. I would refer you to Isaiah 53 which
is widely interpreted as predicting the birth of Christ. Also keep in
mind that there are many passages in the bible which have both
straightforward contemporary (i.e. at the time of writing) meanings and
broader after-the-fact interpretations. If I mis-understood your statement,
Charles, I apologize.
Ron Guest
ihnp4!druxj!cosmosarig@cvl.UUCP (Ari Gross) (08/29/85)
> I disagree with the view expressed by Charles that the Isaiah prophecies > really just describe earthly kings. I would refer you to Isaiah 53 which > is widely interpreted as predicting the birth of Christ. Also keep in > mind that there are many passages in the bible which have both > straightforward contemporary (i.e. at the time of writing) meanings and > broader after-the-fact interpretations. If I mis-understood your statement, > Charles, I apologize. > Ron Guest > ihnp4!druxj!cosmos Isaiah is a book of great beauty and was very much influenced by the style of the prophet himself -- "nachamu, nachamu ami yomar elokeichem...". Therefore, it is more poetic and less lucid than the bible, and is subject to a broader realm of interpretation -- and misinterpretation. The verse that is suppose to be a reference to the 'virgin' (ha'alma) is almost certainly mistranslated according to modern Hebraic scholars. The Bible says that if one stands up and says that any of the commandments in the Old Testament are revoked then he is a false prophet, yet J.C. rescinded or otherwise invalidated ALL of the commandments of G-d as prescribed in the O.T., an Old Testament that J.C. himself must certainly have adhered to in his younger days as an observant Jew and a Rabbi. Does not his rejection of the Old Testament debase any claims one could have that J.C. was a prophet of G-d ???? Ari Gross
bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (08/30/85)
In article <cvl.784> arig@cvl.UUCP (Ari Gross) writes: >... The Bible says that if >one stands up and says that any of the commandments in the Old Testament >are revoked then he is a false prophet, yet J.C. rescinded or otherwise >invalidated ALL of the commandments of G-d as prescribed in the O.T., >an Old Testament that J.C. himself must certainly have adhered to in his >younger days as an observant Jew and a Rabbi. Does not his rejection of >the Old Testament debase any claims one could have that J.C. was a prophet >of G-d ???? > > Ari Gross > > Where in the NT does Jesus rescind or invalidate or abolish any of the OT laws? He said, "I didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." -- Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. ...{presby|psuvax1|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl Communism is to government what astrology is to science.
arig@cvl.UUCP (Ari Gross) (09/02/85)
> In article <cvl.784> arig@cvl.UUCP (Ari Gross) writes: > >... The Bible says that if > >one stands up and says that any of the commandments in the Old Testament > >are revoked then he is a false prophet, yet J.C. rescinded or otherwise > >invalidated ALL of the commandments of G-d as prescribed in the O.T., > >an Old Testament that J.C. himself must certainly have adhered to in his > >younger days as an observant Jew and a Rabbi. Does not his rejection of > >the Old Testament debase any claims one could have that J.C. was a prophet > >of G-d ???? > > > > Ari Gross > Where in the NT does Jesus rescind or invalidate or abolish any of the OT > laws? He said, "I didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." > -- > Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. How can one "fulfill" the law by negating all the precepts of the OT? Among the direct biblical injunctions in the OT that are not adhered to: "On the tenth day of the seventh month... a day of atonement(Yom Kippur)" "Upon giving birth she shall be unclean for one week........" "And these are animals that are unclean to you... the pig,the camel,..." "And if an entire city worships idolatry... it shall be sealed off.... " "On the eighth day circumcise every male child....." "And when one divorces his wife he shall give her a get ...." "If a childless brother dies then should his brother come and marry his wife to establish a name for his deceased brother ..." "This shall be the service of the High Priest on the Holy Days. A tunic of fine cloth shall he wear ..... " "And when a prophet from you comes up amongst you .. and seeks to revoke any of the commandments that I have given ... then shall you know that he is surely a false prophet....." Ari Gross
cjdb@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Charles Blair) (09/04/85)
> Isaiah is a book of great beauty and was very much influenced by the > style of the prophet himself . . . The part of the sentence following the conjunction "and" is wrong or meaningless. The book of Isaiah was not written by "the" prophet Isaiah. Modern scholarship recognizes three Isaiah's: (the first) Isaiah, the second or Deutero-Isaiah, and the third or Trito-Isaiah. So there cannot be "the" style of "the" prophet as applied to this book. This theory is not confined to modern Protestant scholarship. Many centuries ago the Jewish exegete Abraham ibn-Ezra posited two Isaiah's on historical grounds: he did not think that the author of the first portion of the book could be the same as the author of the succeeding portion, which speaks in part of the imminent end of the Exile through the agency of Cyrus acting as Yahweh's mashiach--messiah (see Is. 45.1). He did not, however (to my recollection), posit a third Isaiah as well.
bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (09/05/85)
In article <cvl.792> arig@cvl.UUCP (Ari Gross) writes: > > How can one "fulfill" the law by negating all the precepts of the OT? > >Among the direct biblical injunctions in the OT that are not adhered to: > >"On the tenth day of the seventh month... a day of atonement(Yom Kippur)" >"Upon giving birth she shall be unclean for one week........" >"And these are animals that are unclean to you... the pig,the camel,..." >"And if an entire city worships idolatry... it shall be sealed off.... " >"On the eighth day circumcise every male child....." >"And when one divorces his wife he shall give her a get ...." >"If a childless brother dies then should his brother come and marry > his wife to establish a name for his deceased brother ..." >"This shall be the service of the High Priest on the Holy Days. > A tunic of fine cloth shall he wear ..... " >"And when a prophet from you comes up amongst you .. and seeks to revoke > any of the commandments that I have given ... then shall you know that > he is surely a false prophet....." > > > > > Ari Gross These are all OT injunctions concerning the ceremonial and theocratic laws of the nation of Israel. Their purpose was to provide for the governing of the theocracy and to point the people to the coming Messiah. Israel, as a geopolitical entity, and the ceremonial law were no longer necessary once the Messiah had come. It that sense Christ was the fulfillment of the Law. God's salvation was no longer to be narrowly enjoyed by the Jews, but was to be taken into all the world. The work of Israel as the custodian of the Law and the nation through which the Messiah would come is fulfilled. -- Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. ...{presby|psuvax1|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl Communism is to government what astrology is to science.
cosmos@druhi.UUCP (GuestRA) (09/05/85)
Since Jesus explicitly states (repeatedly) in the NT that He is not overturning, invalidating, etc the Law, I would like to know why you say that He did.
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/06/85)
In article <15@druhi.UUCP> cosmos@druhi.UUCP (GuestRA) writes: > Since Jesus explicitly states (repeatedly) in the NT that He is not > overturning, invalidating, etc the Law, I would like to know why > you say that He did. I am not writing this note. I am not writing this note. I am not writing this note. Since I have explicitly stated (repeatedly) that I am not writing this note, why do you think I have written it? Actions speak louder than words. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh