if Jesus was the messiah, the promise was broken. He died. — Fooloso4

He died miserably, thinking he had failed. But then, as he had himself theorized, a bizarre thing happened: his weakness became his strength. From his defeat came his fame. We only remember him today because he died on that cross.

That's the martyr script, which he stumbled upon. It is indeed different from the Messiah script(s). I see it as a realist variation, without the angels and the trumpets, a variation where the just loses to the unjust in the end, but where, by his or her struggle and sufferings, the just testifies loudly of the scandal that defeat of justice is, and in doing so helps spread a thirst for justice. Martyr means "testimony bearer".

This martyr script will be applied again and again by his followers during the persecutions, to great publicity effect. It was used by Gandhi (drawing from another tradition). One could argue it works better than the messiah script, which proved a recipe for disasters.

Messiah means anointed one. One who is a prophet of God and who proclaims the truth of God to a chosen people, in a particular place at a particular time. In this way Messiahs have appeared throughout history. Messiah is interchangeable with enlightened being. Buddha, Maharishi, Jesus, Maister Eckhart, Lao Tzu.. all realised and pointed towards the same ineffable source. Every religion has its non-dual insight at its core.

That's the martyr script, which he stumbled upon. — Olivier5

I suspect it was his followers who created this script. The death of their messiah created a crisis. Some probably saw this as evidence that they were wrong, that Jesus was not their messiah. But others came up with this story because they had to maintain hope. It was not the end but a new beginning.

It was used by Gandhi — Olivier5

Gandhi was not a martyr. Peaceful disobedience is not martyrdom.

That's the martyr script, which he stumbled upon. — Olivier5

Or that he helped theorize, if you consider the non-violent 'show the other cheeck'.

Coming back to the premises of 'separation of church and state' during the age of empires.

Of course there was no such thing yet, but the Jews had lived through a period where this principle applied to a degree, under the Persian emperor Cyrus who let let rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. This is seen as a blessed period and Cyrus is called 'messiah' in the Bible (ie indeed: anointed by God) for it.

After Alexander the Great, under the Seleucid, greek efforts to subjugate the Israelites cult led to much upheaval and ultimately the restoration of independence under the Hasmoneans for a century or so, until they argued with one another. The Saducees (priests) vying for one Hasmonean king, the Pharisees for his brother. After some bloodshed, one of them called on Pompey for help. Pompey was just finishing off Mithrades at the time in Asia Minor. He seized the occasion to grab the Levant for the Roman republic.

This was very fresh history back then (-63).

Since then, the Jews had tried to reestablish the Cyrus system: we pay you Romans taxes, and you leave our religion alone. It worked for a while, the Romans were prudent not to entice revolt.

So the question put to Jesus and his response to it has to do with the current deal, that is, we pay our taxes to Caesar SO THAT we can pray our God as we wish. The separation spoken of here between Caesar and God can be seen as a deal made by the conquered with the conquerer, to protect the religion of the weak against the religion of the strong.

A national religion like Judaism could only survive the age of empires by delinking itself from politics. Otherwise, if national gods intervene in politics and war, like it was thought during the bronze age, then the conclusion must be that Jupiter won, and Yahweh lost.

Jesus was part of this evolution towards a religion which accepts that temporal powers will be different from religious authorities. But historically it's an evolution that was forced on Israel by the bitter experience of imperialism. By 'what belongs to Caesar'.

Gandhi was not a martyr. Peaceful disobedience is not martyrdom. — T Clark

Gandhi spent a lot of time in jail, together with many other Congress leaders. The Brits were not Pontius Pilates, but the struggle for independence involved some massacres (eg the Amritsar massacre) and some cases where people voluntarily exposed themselves to violence from British cops for hours. It's not martyrdom indeed, but the idea is very similar: the weak testifies of a scandal by facing the strong in a totally asymmetric manner.

It's not martyrdom indeed, but the idea is very similar: the weak testifies of a scandal by facing the strong in a totally asymmetric manner. — Olivier5

I don't think Gandhi gave his life to be a symbol to his people. I think he risked his life as part of a tactic to gain freedom for his people. There's a big difference.

Yes, yes. I know I'm being a nitpicker. I shouldn't go off on a tangent.

But others came up with this story because they had to maintain hope. — Fooloso4

What does this mean? This is the kind of thing I'm talking about in this thread.

I don't think Gandhi gave his life to be a symbol to his people. I think he risked his life as part of a tactic to gain freedom for his people. — T Clark

Clearly, but I don't think Jesus intended to die on that cross either... My guess is he was expecting a miracle or divine intervention, hence the "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?"

I don't think Jesus intended to die on that cross either. — Olivier5

Agreed.

The Messiah was to bring about the Kingdom of God (Heaven) on Earth. Before the mission was completed he died. In order to maintain hope in the promise of the Kingdom his followers had to make sense of the fact that he died before the mission was completed. In order to do this they had to create a narrative in which his death was not the end, but the beginning as God had planned.

What do you think of the idea that Jesus was influenced by Greek philosophy? I mean Hillel must have been influenced by it. So perhaps Jesus was influenced by Greek thought through Hillel? I find a lot of his teachings similar to Stoicism and Cynicism. Buton Mack’s book The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins along with John Dominic Crossan’s book The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant both suggest that he was a Jewish Cynic.

they had to create a narrative — Fooloso4

This is the kind of modern projection I’m talking about.

delete

What do you think of the idea that Jesus was influenced by Greek philosophy? I mean Hillel must have been influenced by it. So perhaps Jesus was influenced by Greek thought through Hillel? — Dermot Griffin

I don't think so. There's a taboo on heathen books at the times, they were not considered worthy of study by a lawful Jew.

"Cursed is the person who raises pigs, and cursed is the person who teaches his son Greek wisdom." (Sota 49b, BQ 82b, Men. 64b)

So learning Greek was not necessarily for the religiously-inclined, more for businessmen, and also for girls of rich families. Greek was recognised by the rabbis as a beautiful language for poetry and hence would add to a young woman's attractiveness. But it was not okay for boys.

I seriously doubt Hillel (a fortiori Jesus) read Plato.

This said, Greek was the first language in which the Jewish Bible was translated. So they were some learned Jews who could speak Greek, notably in Egypt. E.g. Philo of Alexandria.

This is the kind of modern projection I’m talking about. — Noble Dust

The question is the extent to which these projection distort. The sayings attributed to him were all written after the fact of his death. To what extent were they projections? To what extent did the distort?

This might be regarded as impious, but piety is not the measure of the accuracy of historical truth.

The Messiah was to bring about the Kingdom of God (Heaven) on Earth — Fooloso4

Heaven on earth? Where are you getting that from?

I'm talking about the fact that "creating a narrative" is a post-modern concept, which you're projecting unto Jesus's disciples.

Note that Heaven is in parentheses. Matthew is the only one who who uses the term kingdom of heaven. More common is kingdom of God, which Matthew uses as well. There is no consensus as to what the difference may be.

I'm talking about the fact that "creating a narrative" is a post-modern concept — Noble Dust

A narrative is not a post-modern concept. Either man creates narratives or they are given to us. Are you claiming they come directly from God?

Note that Heaven is in parentheses. Matthew is the only one who who uses the term kingdom of heaven. More common is kingdom of God, which Matthew uses as well. There is no consensus as to what the difference may be. — Fooloso4

This is what I suspected. You're using the gospel account as a source for the expectations of Jesus' followers prior to his death, and then you argue that we can't rely on that same account because it's a post hoc narrative.

You probably just need to stick with religion scholars.

"Creating a narrative", not "narrative". No, I'm not claiming a narrative comes from God. I Think you're completely misunderstanding me.

You're using the gospel account as a source for the expectations of Jesus' followers prior to his death, and then you argue that we can't rely on that same account because it's a post hoc narrative. — frank

The expectation of the coming of the messiah does not originate with the followers of Jesus. His followers believed he was the messiah. What seems to have originated with them is the story of the death of Jesus being an essential part of a larger plan.

"Creating a narrative", not "narrative". — Noble Dust

A narrative must have a source. The idea that man invents narratives is not a new idea. Consider the problem of false prophets and false messiahs.

The expectation of the coming of the messiah does not originate with the followers of Jesus. — Fooloso4

Yea. It's really obvious that your knowledge of the Jesus cult doesn't come from religion scholarship. It comes from Matthew. :lol:

What does this mean? This is the kind of thing I'm talking about in this thread. — Noble Dust

There are different perspectives one can assume when interpreting these stories. I'm not as well versed in the NT as the OT, but take the Adam and Eve story. To the traditionalist (a believer in the holiness of the text), it tells us (if Christian) all sorts of hidden truths and even contains the need for Jesus, who will die for our original sin and find us a path to heaven. To the modern religious scholar, he likely sees a patchwork of texts sewn together from an ancient culture that says nothing about Jesus, The Fall of Man, or many of the other things we've read into the story. You then have this odd breed of fundamentalists, a modern group likely reacting to scientific progress, who insist that the story is about literal snakes and magic apples that existed at a certain spot on the planet and they go out looking for evidence of it. They refuse to yield the floor to science and double down on their literal claims.

I think the best interpretation of Genesis is that it was understood by the ancients as etiological folklore, offering an explanation for where the world came from, why men paired up with women, why snakes had no feet, why people have to work so damn hard and things like that.

I think the worst way to interpret it is as if to pretend it were written today and then impose our views on it. The written word back then and all the stories they told were doubtfully for the same reasons we use them today, which is to accurately document and archive information for the public record. These folks were trying to figure out how their world worked and they came up with all sorts of fantistical tales, none of which they really took literally. If they meant for them to be taken literally, they wouldn't have had multiple different stories describing the same events.

they came up with all sorts of fantistical tales, none of which they really took literally. — Hanover

This is the type of assumption I’m critiquing. It just doesn’t make sense.

Believe whatever you want frank if that gives you some kind of perverse satisfaction, but the truth is far from what you imagine.

You asked about the phrase Kingdom of Heaven. If comes from Matthew. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Reference to "the Jesus cult" suggests you have a particular theory of the early Jesus movement that you accept. Based on what?

I'll show you mine if you show me yours:

A few of the texts and scholars I have read that have informed my views include:

The anthology: The Historical Jesus in Context
Elaine Pagels
Bart Ehrman

There are others, but these come to mind at the moment.

Prior to the Church Fathers establishing the Catholic Church Christianity was pluralistic. The authority of personal inspiration was not questioned.

You asked about the phrase Kingdom of Heaven. If comes from Matthew. Do you have evidence to the contrary? — Fooloso4

This is what you said:

"The Messiah was to bring about the Kingdom of God (Heaven) on Earth."

What caught my attention was your reference to heaven, as if they expected the Messiah to bring heaven to earth.

That wouldn't have made sense to anyone in the 1st Century. That's your own misunderstanding of the gospel account.

What they actually expected was a warlord who would throw off Roman domination.

Reference to "the Jesus cult" suggests you have a particular theory of the early Jesus movement that you accept. Based on what? — Fooloso4

It's frequently referred to as the Jesus cult.

Sorry, I'm at work but, I'll try to go into more detail later.