Discussing the Messiah from an Historical Perspective

The link below takes us to an historical discussion of all the Messiahs and its an interesting read for those who like historical context.


The Hebrew word mâšîah means 'anointed one' and may indicate Jewish priests, prophets and kings. During the sixth century BCE, the exiled Jews in Babylonia started to hope for a special Anointed One who was to bring them home; several written prophecies were fulfilled when the Persian king Cyrus the Great did in fact allow them to return. In the second century BCE, the Jews were again suffering from repression, and the old prophecies became relevant again.

Some people were looking forward to a military leader who would defeat the Seleucid or Roman enemies and establish an independent Jewish kingdom; others, like the author of the Psalms of Solomon, stated that the Messiah was a charismatic teacher who gave the correct interpretation of Mosaic law, was to restore Israel and would judge mankind.

Jesus of Nazareth was considered a Messiah; a century later, Simon bar Kochba. The idea of an eschatological king has been present in Judaism ever since.

Later developments: from Messiah to Christ

As we have seen in the preceding chapters, until the end of the first century CE, there is no evidence that the Messiah was ever considered a superhuman being. This must be stressed, because it is often said that the Messiah was some sort of demi-god; those who say so, define Jewish messianism in terms of Christian theology.

It is likely that the idea that the Messiah was a superhuman being is a Christian innovation. The Gospel of Mark calls Jesus the 'son of God', a title that had probably not been used to describe the Messiah before, and John's Gospel opens with the famous hymn that

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. [...] And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

[John 1.1-14]
The incarnated Word is of course Jesus of Nazareth, who is, in other words, not only the son of God, but is God. How these conflicting statements -Jesus as God and as son of God, Jesus as divine and human- could be harmonized, was the subject of an intense christological debate that culminated in the discussion on the Creed of Nicaea (325).

For this development is not a single antecedent in the Jewish literature. However, two texts from Qumran suggest otherwise.

1. 4Q246 seems to describe a 'son of God'. However, as we have already seen, it is not likely that this was a messianic text at all. The title that Mark uses to describe the Messiah, is unique. It may, however be added that the way he used the title is not unique.

He describes Jesus seven times as 'son of God' (once in the title of the gospel and six times in other people's mouths) but never in the narrative. The indirect way of using this title can also be found in a romance called Joseph and Aseneth, where Joseph is indirectly called 'son of God'.

2. The two additional hymns on the Thanksgiving-scroll, written in the last quarter of the first century BCE, can be read as if the Messiah has suffered on earth, has died an is now in heaven, higher than the angels; the Messiah will one day come to judge mankind (go here for discussion). This antedates Christianity with at least half a century, and it is possible that these ideas about a superhuman Messiah have influenced christology.

However, contact between the Qumran sect and the disciples of Jesus can not be proven; moreover, the ideas in these two hymns are exceptional.


We may therefore assume that the idea that the Messiah was a superhuman being, is a Christian innovation, although there may be one or two antecedents.

Another innovation is the link between messianism and apocalypticism. In the fifties, this can be found in the epistles of Paul; in the last quarter of the first century in the gospels and in the nineties in the Book of Revelation.

It is possible that there was a parallel development in the Jewish world; the Book of similitudes (a part of the First book of Enoch) interprets the apocalyptic Book of Daniel in a messianic way, but we do not known when the Similitudes were composed.

Summarizing, we can say that christology was a revolutionary innovation within messianology.


It introduced the superhuman status of the Messiah and the idea that he was one of the actors in the apocalyptic drama. Both ideas may not have been completely new, but if they were already present in Judaism, they were extremely rare.

http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah_18.html

 

Roots of the concept
1. Roots of the concept: Anointment
2. Roots of the concept: The Messianic Psalms
3. Roots of the concept: Micah and Isaiah
4. Roots of the concept: From Josiah to Cyrus
5. Roots of the concept: Zerubbabel

From 'anointed one' to 'eschatological king'
6. Reinventing messianism: The Maccabaean revolt
7. Type #1: The Messiah as military leader
8. Type #2: The Messiah as sage
9. Type #3: The Messiah as high-priest
10. Type #4: The 'prophet like Moses'
11. Literary motifs: Balaam's prophecy
12. Literary motifs: The 'son of'-titles
12a. Son of man: Daniel 7
12b. Son of man: 1 Enoch 46 and 48
13. Literary motifs: Other titles
14. Combination: The two Messiahs of Qumran
15. Combination: Messianic expectations
15a. Dating the coming of the Messiah
15b. The seventy-seven generations
16. Development: Catastrophic messianism?
16a. The song of the suffering servant
17. Development: The eschatological king
18. Development: From Messiah to Christ

http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah00.html#overview

 

LOL. I found that article pretty entertaining. This person writes an article and does very little research on the topic he's writing. Then he goes on to state his confusion on topics he hasn't researched. He also uses a lot of incorrect information. It's a joke. At least *do* research before you write a report.

 

Here are two sources for Messianic claimants

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants

http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah00.html

Ancient claimants
1. Judas, son of Hezekiah (4 BCE)
2. Simon of Peraea (4 BCE)
3. Athronges, the shepherd (4 BCE)
4. Judas, the Galilean (6 CE)
5. John the Baptist (c.28 CE)
6. Jesus of Nazareth (c.30 CE)
7. The Samaritan prophet (36 CE)
8. King Herod Agrippa (44 CE)
9. Theudas (45 CE)
10. The Egyptian prophet (52-58 CE)
11. An anonymous prophet (59 CE)
12. Menahem, the son of Judas the Galilean (66 CE)
13. John of Gischala (67-70 CE)
14. Vespasian (67 CE)
15. Simon bar Giora (69-70 CE)
16. Jonathan, the weaver (73 CE)
17. Lukuas (115 CE)
18. Simon ben Kosiba (132-135)
19. Moses of Crete (44
Medieval claimants
1. Muhammad (570-c.632)
2. Abu Isa' al-Isfahani (c.700)
3. Moses al-Dar'i (c.1127)
4. David Alroy (c.1147)
5. A Yemenite Messiah (c.1172)
6. Abraham ben Samuel Abu'lafia (1230-1291)

Later claimants
1. Asher Lämmlin (c.1500)
2. Isaac Luria (1534-1573)
3. Hayyim Vital (after 1542)
4. Sabbathai Zwi (1626-1676)
5. Jacob Frank (1726-1786)
6. Moses Guibbory (1899-1985)
7. Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994)

 

You've missed the point. However, I'm not surprised.

 

No.. I haven't missed your point at all, however I think this is an interesting subject.

 

Yes, you *have* missed the point. You continue to miss it, and you will never find it, because you don't research anything on your own.

I dunno if you're agnostic, atheist or what. However, I've noticed that most atheists (and I've said this before) are extremely illogical. This is very surprising to me, because I've always thought that atheists were very logical people. It wasn't until recently that I've learned that atheists know a surprisingly and befuddling small amount of what they choose to argue about. It's baffling. It's totally baffling.

 

You mean because I don't read Greek or Aramaic?

I'm not an atheist...

 

No. It's much deeper than that.

 

You make a grave error when you think that all Christians must believe as you do...

 

That was never up for debate. I'm just saying you haven't done your research and it shows. That's why you have this article on here.

 

There have been many who claimed to be Messiahs or whom other people claimed were Messiahs..

Are you unfamiliar with Livius?

 

It seems very illogical to me that two koala bears could make the trek from Mt. Ararat, 7300 miles, across mountains, rivers and swim an ocean to get to Australia. That done, to not procreate until they reached their destination. The same goes for kangaroos, emus, platypus, etc. Does that seem logical to you?

That illogical stuff, of course, follows the equally illogical concept of a floating zoo with all the animals in the world, times two, gathered together for months on end, that would precede the trek to Australia. Does that big boat seem logical to you?

Another one associated with that illogical worldwide flood, would be the rainbow afterward. Logically, science tells us it's the result of refraction and reflection of light through water in the atmosphere. That's very logical to me. It seems pretty illogical that it's a signal from some god that there won't be any more worldwide floods.

Virgin births
Talking snakes
Burning bushes that don't burn
Walking on water
Raising the dead
Parting the sea

All those seem pretty illogical to me. Do those seem logical to you?

 

Finally! A down to earth post!!
Thank you for replying to me with a logical post. I was afraid that logic has ran away from this forum. I finally get a logical challenge by replying to your post. Once again, thank you!

1) No, Noah's Ark is not logical if you imagine that his conditions were the same as Earth's conditions today. Of course, Noah only brought 2 of every family of animal, not 2 of every species. How many animals could that have been? I honestly have no idea. If I were to imagine 1,000, that still wouldn't be realistic.

2) After the flood, there was no water above the atmosphere. Of course, rainbows normally appear during certain atmospheric conditions. So, I can't see why this would be impossible. However, this may also suggest that the atmosphere in Noah's day was much different than it is today.

3) a) By today's standards, we have "virgin births" all the time through surrogates. So, it isn't something totally unheard of through science. However, if we're to talk about Jesus' birth, it's impossible to explain it with science considering that the phenomenon was supernatural and totally outside the scope of science.

b) There were also talking Donkeys too! Now, talking animals aren't exactly out of the scope of reality. Today, we have animals capable of producing human speech. Parrots, for example, can imitate human speech. There are other animals that are capable of mimicking a variety of different animal calls as well.

c) Well, there are certain chemicals that allow fire to burn without burning its host. Who's to say those chemicals weren't on that bush? However, it certainly is possible to create fire that doesn't burn today.

d) For a human to walk on water would seem impossible (unless he was moving extremely fast). This event seems more super natural than anything.

e) Well... certain animals are capable of resurrection. A good example would be the North American Wood Frog (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fjr3A_kfspM) and the WooolyBear Caterpillar. Scientists have confirmed that the frozen North American Wood Frog does not breathe, their blood does not circulate and there's no heart beat. There's no bodily activity at all. Same thing happens to the WoolyBear Caterpillar. Of course, when it comes to humans, this has never been observed, and is, therefore, supernatural. However, New Testament historians say there's empirical evidence that Jesus was indeed alive after his death. Take that how you will.

f) This happens all the time to this day. The moon controls the tides and it pulls away the tide to many different bodies of water. Now, could one assume that Moses was indeed capable of controlling the tide at will? Who's to say. Perhaps him controlling the tide was more supernatural than anything. However, tides do exist.

 

If Moses could "control the tides", they still had to take those 2 million people and their herds down hill 700 feet, cross the Red Sea and then back uphill... Pretty amazing. Plus the northern end of the Red Sea only has 2 foot tides.

 

The Gulf of Aqaba is a very deep channel of water ranging from 800-1800 meters in the middle. However at the Straits of Tiran, there is a natural land bridge so the deepest point the Israelites would encounter is only 205 meters.
The crossing at the Straits of Tiran is 18 km long and a natural land bridge provides for an 800 meters wide pathway the full distance of the crossing. The Straits of Titan have a shallow coral reef in the middle with a one way shipping lane on either side. From modern nautical charts, we can see that the eastern "Enterprise Passage" is 205 meters deep and 800 meters wide and the western "Grafton Passage" is only 70 meters deep and 800 meters wide. A diver need go only 13 meters at deepest point on top of Jackson's Reef from the surface.
Coral growth over the last 3500 years since the miraculous crossing means that we cannot really know what the sea floor looked like exactly back then. For example, as the coral grew up and came to the surface, the tides flowing around the coral would dig a natural channel deeper on the north and south ends of the reef where all the water would flow around. Gradually, the coral reefs would act like a partial dam over the center 80% of the strait. This is a very realistic scenario and means that 3500 years ago, the coral was under water and therefore the tides would not dig the deep channel at either end of the reef where it is today.
But even with the depths we see today, it causes no problems for the exodus crossing. The slope of descent is far more important than the depth. The Straits of Tiran, as we see them today pose absolutely no problem for a crossing by a million people since the slope is shallow and the depth is no more than 600 feet. (205 meters).
So 3500 years ago the 18 km crossing point at the Straits of Tiran would likely have been deeper than it is now over the coral reef and shallower than it is now in the two shipping channels. In other words, 3500 years ago it may have been a uniform depth for the entire 18 km of between 100-200 meters. A very easy crossing indeed.
There is one other natural land bridge that provides the only other possible crossing site in the Gulf of Aqaba that is adjacent to Nuweiba. This is not likely the crossing point, since the depths there reach 765 meters (2300 Ft.) and with much steeper slopes. Neweiba is also in the middle of a mountain range making it difficult to access for the Israelites. It doesn't have easy continues access back to Goshen like the Straits of Tiran offer. It does too good a job at "shutting them up on the wilderness" since there is a very narrow and long canyon through the mountains they needed to cross to even get to the shore at Neweiba. Neweiba is therefore a distant second choice to the Straits of Tiran for the location of the Red Sea crossing.
The incline across the Enterprise Passage on the west side of Gordon Reef is easy even today to cross. Remember miracles were involved here so if it was too steep, perhaps God filled in some dirt ahead of time!

Source: http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-route-straits-of-tiran.htm

 

You mean here:



- - - Updated - - -

There is an eight mile long land bridge conveniently starting at the beach at Neviot and running eight miles across the Gulf to the Saudi shore.

According to US government nautical charts, the land bridge descends to approximately 3000 feet. On either side of this land bridge the depth is in excess of 5000 feet.

Of course that con man Ron Wyatt claims there are chariots at the bottom. LOL

 

Here, actually.
And it doesn't descend 3000 feet. It descends 700 feet. Your problem is that you're trying to convince me that the moon is incapable of pulling a tide 700 feet.

 

Not in the Red Sea.. Its like a big bathtub.. and it only has 2 foot tides. Haven't you been there? I have many times.

A couple of years ago it moved.. opening up 26 feet wider towards the south end because of underwater tectonic plate activity.

 

I'm obviously referring to the Strait of Tiran. You're saying the moon is incapable of moving 700 feet of water there. Clearly, you're mistaken.

 

Have you been to the Red Sea or the Straits of Tiran?? Why are you disputing the US government nautical charts? LOL

The company employed many divers and cartographers (former Navy Seals) over a period of 60 years, but no doubt YOU know better.

 

If you're so sure of yourself, then provide a source. I've given you my source which provided the history and the depth of that region.

 

In line with the Strait of Tiran, the Gulf of Aqaba reduces its width of approximately 19.3 kilometres to 3.9 kilometres. The depth of 1,270 metres goes up to only 71 metres in Grafton Passage (for ships going northwards) and 250 metres in Enterprise Passage (for ships going south).

http://search.conduit.com/Results.a...D7FD867A58B&q=dating+the+book+of+Daniel&SSPV=

The highest tides involving the Red Sea including the Gulf of Aqaba and the Straits is about 3 feet.. Jeddah is just about tideless.

 

The Gulf of Aqaba is not the Strait of Tiran. Try again.

Plus, that source points to "Dating the book of Daniel" on Bing.

 

Have you been anywhere on the Red Sea? Your opinions are so emphatic...

the dating of Daniel is really beyond me.. since I don't read Hebrew or Greek or Aramaic which I have to assume you do.

But it seems to me that Daniel contains so many words that are from Egypt or Assyria that it doesn't quite track if it was written by one man during one lifetime... unless you think Daniel lived several hundred years.