Religion

daaron

(763 posts)

40. One thing all these Jewish messianic traditions had in common -->

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:16 AM

Jun 2012

was that the messiah would be Melchizadok - lit. "King-Priest". The debate was between Hellenized and Judean Jews over whether he had to be an actual King of The Land, for the most part. There are of course the finer points of what constitutes a Prophet, and prophecy fulfillment requirements, as well as blood-lineage, but the question of the messiah was as much political, at the time, as it was religious.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

54 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ (Daniel Boyarin | New Press 2012) [View all] struggle4progress Jun 2012 OP

The ascension was added centuries after the cruxifiction KurtNYC Jun 2012 #1

I would certainly question on what basis you make such a statement. I see humblebum Jun 2012 #2

The ascension is not in the oldest versions of Mark and Matthew KurtNYC Jun 2012 #4

The Ascension is only referred to in Luke and Acts, which were written about the same time. humblebum Jun 2012 #5

I don't have answer for why Matthew and Mark don't mention it but it KurtNYC Jun 2012 #6

Again, your opinion is mere speculation. Many reasons can be put forth as humblebum Jun 2012 #7

It is not opinion that the gospels contradict each other KurtNYC Jun 2012 #11

I never said it was and that is another issue. Also, I humblebum Jun 2012 #12

Perhaps it's derived from one of those other ways of knowing you're so fond of. laconicsax Jun 2012 #15

You mean one of those ways you cannot comprehend, therefore humblebum Jun 2012 #16

No, I understand them just fine. Now, would you like to address what I said? laconicsax Jun 2012 #17

Um? Pretty clear you don't comprehend? nt humblebum Jun 2012 #18

Well, then enlighten me. laconicsax Jun 2012 #19

Claims are never "evidence-free" as you suggest. You simply disregard subjective evidence. However, humblebum Jun 2012 #20

You assume that the crucifixion took place in the 1st century AD. laconicsax Jun 2012 #21

Pretty strong subjective evidence to suggest that, certainly stronger than anything humblebum Jun 2012 #22

I'm still waiting for that proof. n/t laconicsax Jun 2012 #23

You never asked for any proof. Only asked if I could prove it. Subjectively and with a humblebum Jun 2012 #24

I'll add specious arguments and circular logic to that list of "other ways of knowing." laconicsax Jun 2012 #27

Always the spin master. Unfortunately, you cannot quite grasp the meanings of humblebum Jun 2012 #28

Whatever you say, humblebum. laconicsax Jun 2012 #29

You also have a habit of "moving the goalposts" as you so often contend. humblebum Jun 2012 #30

Except you didn't provide evidence. laconicsax Jun 2012 #31

Like I intimated before, subjective evidence is something automatically disregarded humblebum Jun 2012 #32

Yes, it is often automatically discarded. Especially by courts. laconicsax Jun 2012 #33

You are confusing yourself. humblebum Jun 2012 #34

Talk about shifting goalposts. laconicsax Jun 2012 #35

You are still confusing yourself. And yes, humblebum Jun 2012 #36

*Yawn* laconicsax Jun 2012 #37

Um? I believe that the shifting the goal posts is out of YOUR playbook, humblebum Jun 2012 #38

I'm not convinced you understand what the words you use actually mean. laconicsax Jun 2012 #42

Always a dodge for diversion nt humblebum Jun 2012 #43

Is it a dodge or is it a diversion? laconicsax Jun 2012 #44

Where did I say or imply that they were the same? humblebum Jun 2012 #45

I never said that you did. laconicsax Jun 2012 #46

Perhaps you misread it. humblebum Jun 2012 #47

Nope, didn't misread it. laconicsax Jun 2012 #48

Yep. You definitely misread it, which is becoming increasingly common with you. humblebum Jun 2012 #49

You realize that you're contradicting yourself, right? laconicsax Jun 2012 #50

you realize you're still doing it, don't you? humblebum Jun 2012 #51

I'll take that as a "no." n/t laconicsax Jun 2012 #52

So, that's a "no." You don't realize it. Gotcha. humblebum Jun 2012 #53

Whatever you say, humblebum. laconicsax Jun 2012 #54

"I'm still waiting for that proof." - that is such a common line with you. Let's see your evidence humblebum Jun 2012 #25

Why should I provide evidence to support someone else's claim? laconicsax Jun 2012 #26

Well, that fell flat as documentary struggle4progress Jun 2012 #9

That one drags a little KurtNYC Jun 2012 #10

Peter Schäfer recently published a through critique in The New Republic. rug Jun 2012 #3

Thanks for that link! struggle4progress Jun 2012 #8

There actually is a Jewish gospel It's not very flattering. dimbear Jun 2012 #13

Fascinating! How is it I haven't come across this, before? Thx, dimbear! daaron Jun 2012 #39

It is an enlightening text, well worth a read, but nobody has heard of it because dimbear Jun 2012 #41

"...common (though not universal) Jewish notions in the pre-Christian and early Christian era." Adsos Letter Jun 2012 #14

One thing all these Jewish messianic traditions had in common --> daaron Jun 2012 #40