Christianity as History Theft

[firstfloor]

FF, as Bill said, this thread seems to belong in the comic sections of tWeb. Besides, this is coming from the same person that seriously tried to attack a translation because it was called the 'Good News Translation' as being some sort of evidence that the entire group can't be trusted. Your entire argument gets even sillier, when you start to understand that many early Christians (and Jews too) viewed prophecies as often having dual meanings. Applying to more then one situation. You're not interested though in hearing the truth, you're here to troll in sad attempts to make Christians look bad. Also, I read a whole lot more complex books and articles then what you type out here FF. Trust me, I understand it just fine.

As I said above, the double meanings may well get you out of the plot difficulty I was talking about. You are right to be suspicious but I really don’t want to paint Christians as a group in a bad light or anything like that. I myself am Christian but with all the spooky stuff excised. The post above was me pulling your leg. I still hope that you will lighten up one day and see that while I post infrequently, most are completely reasonable just like this one.

[NormATive]

The authors of the Christian Testament were well aware at the time that this Psalm (22) was considered as a prophecy about Esther.

Babylonian Talmud (ca; 500CE):

Megillah 15b:

And stood in the inner court of the king’s house (Esther 5:1). R. Levi said: When she reached the chamber of the idols,the Divine Presence left her. She said, My God, My God, why have You forsaken me? (Ps. 22:2). Is it possible that You punish the inadvertent sin like the presumptuous one, or one done under compulsion like one committed willingly? Or is it because I called [Ahasuerus] “dog,” as it says Save my soul from the sword, my only one from the power of the dog? (Ps. 22:21). She immediately retracted and called him “lion,” as it says, Save me from the lion’s mouth (Ps. 22:22).

Messianic interpretation of Psalm 22 do not appear until around 900 CE. But, in reference to a Jewish messianic figure around that time (I forget his name).

That's from a Jewish perspective, in case anyone wanted to know.

BTW, I do not have a problem with Christians trying to derive meaning from the Psalms and relate it to their God, Jesus. I often quote U2 lyrics for inspiration, but do not consider the fact that Bono is a Christian. All human wisdom is for the taking.

NORM

[lilpixieofterror]

As I said above, the double meanings may well get you out of the plot difficulty I was talking about.

Awww... how adorable. FF thinks he's a genius and everybody who disagrees with him, is an ignorant fool too stupid to follow his grand arguments.

You are right to be suspicious but I really don’t want to paint Christians as a group in a bad light or anything like that. I myself am Christian but with all the spooky stuff excised.

Sure you don't Mr tries to say that the Good News Translation must be a bad one merely for being called the 'Good News Translation'.

The post above was me pulling your leg. I still hope that you will lighten up one day and see that while I post infrequently, most are completely reasonable just like this one.

Sweety, I joke around all the time. I'm often known to pull pranks on people, at work all the time. Believe what you must though, I already know you will. Hey, look at that, I can be passive aggressive too!

[firstfloor]

I can be passive aggressive too!

Passive-aggressive is when you are angry with someone but you do not tell them. You’ll know when I am angry, but that is not often. My fault is that when I disagree, I do not try to soften the force of my counter-argument. It is sometimes too harsh for people who have very firmly set religious ideas.

You, I would say, are a bit prickly but definitely not passive-aggressive.

[firstfloor]

The authors of the Christian Testament were well aware at the time that this Psalm (22) was considered as a prophecy about Esther.
Babylonian Talmud (ca; 500CE):
Messianic interpretation of Psalm 22 do not appear until around 900 CE. But, in reference to a Jewish messianic figure around that time (I forget his name).
That's from a Jewish perspective, in case anyone wanted to know.
BTW, I do not have a problem with Christians trying to derive meaning from the Psalms and relate it to their God, Jesus. I often quote U2 lyrics for inspiration, but do not consider the fact that Bono is a Christian. All human wisdom is for the taking.
NORM

Thanks for that. I am not finding the internet very helpful for easily getting the Jewish perspective on Hebrew Scriptures. It’s wall to wall Christianity – how dreadful!
I agree with your last comment.

[Paprika]

The authors of the Christian Testament were well aware at the time that this Psalm (22) was considered as a prophecy about Esther.

Could you give a citation for this, please?

[firstfloor]

BTW, I do not have a problem with Christians trying to derive meaning from the Psalms and relate it to their God, Jesus. I often quote U2 lyrics for inspiration, but do not consider the fact that Bono is a Christian. All human wisdom is for the taking.
NORM

Your comment made me think. You know what? Christianity is far, far too complicated for most people. They just want to have permission to shout out “Praise The Lord” or “Thank you Jesus” whenever they have a touch of good fortune. I think there is a very small group who are actually interested in the mechanics of it all and when you delve into it you find that all the gears are ceased up and the people run around saying “No, no, you have to pull this lever over here.”

[Paprika]

Some fundamentalists overemphasize shallow views of prophecy in my opinion. I think Paprika has it right. There's no reason why what was profoundly true for the psalmist could not also be profoundly true for Jesus, or any of us for that matter.

firstfloor's attempt to treat all future-talk as meaningless for the present may be relevant for some other systems, but as regards Judaism and Christianity which are promise and thus hope-oriented his claim is so off the mark it isn't even wrong.

[firstfloor]

firstfloor's attempt to treat all future-talk as meaningless for the present may be relevant for some other systems, but as regards Judaism and Christianity which are promise and thus hope-oriented his claim is so off the mark it isn't even wrong.

In my own defence, I was asking the question about the logic behind the proposition that certain Old Testament passages refer specifically to Jesus. I was not making a claim other than I thought that the connections were plucked out of thin air after the fact of the Crucifixion by means of a non-Jewish reinterpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. It is not a secret that the Jewish messiah by definition is not and could not be Jesus most obviously because the messiah is a human being and Jesus, in the Christian tradition, is God.

The thing is that to a Christian, the reinterpretation is invisible. A Christian thinks it was ever thus and finally the truth is revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. What you get is the famous parting of the ways because the new interpretation cannot live with the old one. The historical disconnection leaves logical absurdities in its wake which you seem to solve by the use of knowledge so secret that it was not known even to its authors. God is a better spy than Johnny Worricker.

[robrecht]

In my own defence, I was asking the question about the logic behind the proposition that certain Old Testament passages refer specifically to Jesus. I was not making a claim other than I thought that the connections were plucked out of thin air after the fact of the Crucifixion by means of a non-Jewish reinterpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. It is not a secret that the Jewish messiah by definition is not and could not be Jesus most obviously because the messiah is a human being and Jesus, in the Christian tradition, is God.

The thing is that to a Christian, the reinterpretation is invisible. A Christian thinks it was ever thus and finally the truth is revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. What you get is the famous parting of the ways because the new interpretation cannot live with the old one. The historical disconnection leaves logical absurdities in its wake which you seem to solve by the use of knowledge so secret that it was not known even to its authors. God is a better spy than Johnny Worricker.

It was not uncommon for some Jews at the time of Jesus to believe that such secret knowledge in the scriptures would only be understood in the contemporary lives of the pious. You find such pesharim in Qumran texts that predate Jesus. So the early Jewish Christians that searched their Jewish scriptures for texts pointing to Jesus' life, death, and resurrection were actually engaging in a contemporary form of Jewish exegesis.

[Meh Gerbil]

The thing is that to a Christian, the reinterpretation is invisible. A Christian thinks it was ever thus and finally the truth is revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.

In every church I've ever attended the idea of progressive revelation was taught.
As history went on the answer to the sin problem was brought into sharp focus.

For example, if I were to buy you lunch today I might leave you some hints.

9:00 AM I will provide lunch.
9:15 AM The lunch will be wrapped in wheat.
9:30 AM The lunch will be hot.
9:45 AM The lunch will be cold.
10:00 AM The lunch will be wrapped in paper.

As the revelation of lunch progresses your idea about what the final product will be may vary throughout the morning. You may even have some doubts because of the contradictory nature of my clues; for example, "How can a lunch be hot and cold?" The clues finally make sense, and some of them are re-interpreted, when the final product appears: A buffalo chicken sandwich wrap.

The clue "the lunch will be hot" is re-interpreted from meaning 'temperature' to 'spicy' and the contradiction between hot and cold is resolved.

That all said, I think it can be rational for a skeptic to dismiss this sort of thing.
However, this is a very common way for systems that are thousands of years old to handle revelation.
You might not like it - you may reject it - but it isn't irrational.

[firstfloor]

In every church I've ever attended the idea of progressive revelation was taught.
As history went on the answer to the sin problem was brought into sharp focus.
............
That all said, I think it can be rational for a skeptic to dismiss this sort of thing.
However, this is a very common way for systems that are thousands of years old to handle revelation.
You might not like it - you may reject it - but it isn't irrational.

That Christian perspective fits my understanding of the situation.

[NormATive]

Thanks for that. I am not finding the internet very helpful for easily getting the Jewish perspective on Hebrew Scriptures. It’s wall to wall Christianity – how dreadful!
I agree with your last comment.

That's because my fellow Jews are somewhat superstitious when it comes to posting religious writing on the Internet.

NORM

[NormATive]

Could you give a citation for this, please?

I just did.

NORM

[lilpixieofterror]

Passive-aggressive is when you are angry with someone but you do not tell them. You’ll know when I am angry, but that is not often. My fault is that when I disagree, I do not try to soften the force of my counter-argument. It is sometimes too harsh for people who have very firmly set religious ideas.

You, I would say, are a bit prickly but definitely not passive-aggressive.

And yet, almost all of your post here are, in some way or another, attacking Christians and/or Christianity in general. Why is that?