Jesus as the “King of the Jews” An interesting perspective

[MoFacta]

I know it’s a long post but if you have an interest into a more historical study of the time of Jesus you might find this interesting:

If any of you have read, “The Hiram Key” or any such book on the academic and historical study of Religion, you may have encountered scholars which raise an interesting, if not grossly overlooked aspect of the crucifixion of Yehoshua ben Joseph (or his more commonly known title of Jesus Christ) and his fulfillment of the Jewish and resulting Christian prophecies of a Messiah.

Now, as many of you know, and as most of those in Judaism will tell you, it is prophesized in the Old Testament that a savior figure was expected through the line of David. Most of our understanding of the contemporary(1st, 2nd Century) and therefore more historical perception and interpretation of these prophecies was through the infamous Dead Sea and Nag Hammadi scrolls found in Qumran and Egypt, respectively. Among the ancient scrolls containing Jewish prophetic scripture was also included contemporary scripture written by those followers of the early Jerusalem Church (these scriptures were excluded from the official compilation of the Holy Bible in 325 AD at the Coucil of Nicea and subsequentially burned). These manuscripts are very important as they are our oldest and therefore closest link we have to envision what the expectation was for a “Messiah” at the time of Jesus the Christ and to understand how it is linked to Jesus.

In order to get a fuller understanding of this, it is necessary to understand the name of the man we so unassumingly call Jesus Christ. No body can say for sure what he was named at birth but what scholars can agree on was that he was probably called, as mentioned before, Yehoshua ben Joseph (It was common to add your earthly fathers’ name as a post-fix). The name Yehoshua specifically means ‘Yahweh delivers’ and can be translated today as the name Joshua. The name Jesus is simply the Greek interpretation of Yehoshua but as interesting as this is, it becomes a triviality as we difinitive part of his name and root word of Christianity, Christ.

Christ, or Christos, is a Greek variation of the Jewish word for Messiah, which today - and any Christian will undoubtedly agree – is conceptually synonymous with, “the bringer of salvation by the redemption of sin.” The conflict here was that if we are to assume that Jesus was fulfilling this concept of a ‘Messiah’, he would incontestably be subject to the expectations of those expecting him at the time, namely, the Jews! The concept the Jews at the time of Jesus had of a messiah was more likely to be defined as, “he who will become rightful King of he Jews.” The Jews, in short, were waiting for a leader, a military, or kingly leader to save them from bondage (the Jewish peoples have been notoriously suppressed and persecuted for a VERY long time) and raise them to a powerful nation serving the ways of Yahweh, their God. Contrary to what modern Christians believe, there were no supernatural, magical connotations to this story at all as the prophecies were expected to serve the Jewish nation as a whole, not the individual seeking salvation. This is supported by lots and lots of evidence which would take more and more of your time to read but for the intents and purposes of the idea at hand it is sufficient to know the aforementioned points as it is at the very heart of the next matter and the whole core of this historical ramble.

The word ‘Messiah’ appears but twice in the official version of the Old Testament and not at all in the New Testament. This can be explained by the assumption that the Greek translators in the 3rd Century who converted the Bible from Hebrew to Greek simply replaced the word ‘Messiah’ with ‘Christos’ every time they came across it. This, combined with the above perspective, all puts a remarkable twist on the way we perceive the Bible, more specifically the Old Testament, and it’s authority within the Christian Church. This consideration of a Messiah-figure practically severs all ties Christianity has to Judaism and the Old Testament, and no doubt leaves Jewish Scholars with the all too familiar feeling that their holy scripture was hijacked to lend credence to some ‘Roman mystery cult’ in the first century. The central argument here and the most logical point to support all this is the fact that since Jesus was crucified before his time he was unsuccessful at fulfilling the ‘Messiah’ prophecy and therefore failed at becoming the ‘King of the Jews’! Astounding! And no doubt disturbing to most followers of Christianity, I’m sure.

I know I’m throwing some pretty heavy ideas out here and I apologize if I’ve offended anyone but I’m sure if you follow the logic of what I’ve told you (you can even check my facts if you like) you will find it at least ponderous. But I suppose that if Religion was logical it would defeat it's purpose and we’d all be in quite a state of confusion. So, in closing, take what you can from this little piece of information and believe what you must. That’s definitely what I intend to do.

Thanks for your time! Love and happiness for all of you!

 

[robtex]

Mofacta, welcome to the forums. I have read the "Hiram Key" and found it really interesting. The premise of the book, for those who have not read it is that Jesus was a man and not a man/God. It is a book written of faith which is the language of all religions so weather someone accepts the premises of the literature or not it will be in the context of their faith based presentation. As far Jesus goes, there is no evidence of his existance at all by anyone today and any notions of who he was/is and what represents is a matter of faith. I think when "historians" step out of the realm of faith and move into the realm of evidence and "research" they are doing quite a dis-service to the others of their religion by presenting faith as something other than faith. Faith being a belief in the absense of evidence.

The OT prophets of Amos and Ezekiel are the sooth-sayers who predicited a messiah in the Bible. If a refence point was needed. I think in terms of the book one of the problems I saw with it, and it is true of any religion is that they tend to assume the scrolls or books are completely true and accurate and than they build a conclusion based on an assumed and unqualified presmise.

Many of the premises cannot be assertained do to time alone, however, it would be more academically accurate to say that they believed these conclusions based on faith in these scrolls or these ideas.

For instance, they state that the mummy they found was casterated because his hands are between his legs and his face looks as if in agony. It is fine to draw that conclusion (and why it matters was puzzling to me) however, within the context of that I think they should realize that what they have is an unprovable theory (which doesn't mean it is wrong), and to build a conclusion off of that premise is a sketchy proposal at best.

Their theory on the shroud of turin was the most interesting because the time line was more accurate than the biblical timeline however, again, it is a conclusion based on premises of faith and the reality of that shroud is that we don't know what it has and the idea that it has ANY religious signifigance is a huge leap of faith with the very little we know about it. It is much more accurate to say some people believe (insert theory) than to postulate it as a non-faith based idea.

I like the information they provided on religious history and really like reading about the mason rituals, though since they are so secretative I wonder how much they revealed and how much of it accurate, however, I dont' think they "found" the history of Jesus anymore than the Christians have and think when the day is done and the information is presented that the only reasonable conclusion by any religious group or thought is that the notion of what Jesus was or is, is an matter of faith and not one of evidencable theory.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The central argument here and the most logical point to support all this is the fact that since Jesus was crucified before his time he was unsuccessful at fulfilling the ‘Messiah’ prophecy and therefore failed at becoming the ‘King of the Jews’!

Simple, Christ's timing wasn't off, man's was. It's that whole "Church Age" thing and was one of the 7 mysteries in the Bible.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., you may have encountered scholars which raise an interesting, if not grossly overlooked aspect of the crucifixion of Yehoshua ben Joseph (or his more commonly known title of Jesus Christ) ...

It's always a bit amusing to hear folks lecture knowingly about "Yehoshua ben Joseph", despite the fact that the name was very likely "Yeshua".

Furthermore, if we are to be entertained with references to "Yehoshua", the very least one might expect is pedagogic consistency, which would minimally suggest, ...

not "Yehoshua ben Joseph", but "Yehoshua bar Yosef".​

... noting, of course, that the selection of "Yehoshua" is at best dubious. After all, the infamous ossuary that made its debut in October of 2002 bore the inscription

Ya'akov bar Yosef akhui di Yeshua​

Most of our understanding of the contemporary(1st, 2nd Century) and therefore more historical perception and interpretation of these prophecies was through the infamous Dead Sea and Nag Hammadi scrolls found in Qumran and Egypt, respectively.

There is nothing "infamous" about the DSS. There is nothing Christian about the DSS.

Among the ancient scrolls containing Jewish prophetic scripture was also included contemporary scripture written by those followers of the early Jerusalem Church (these scriptures were excluded from the official compilation of the Holy Bible in 325 AD at the Coucil of Nicea and subsequentially burned).

You cannot name a single manuscript tracable to "the early Jerusalem Church".

Furthermore, the Councile of Nicea had nothing to do with "the official compilation of the Holy Bible.

In order to get a fuller understanding of this, it is necessary to understand the name of the man we so unassumingly call Jesus Christ. No body can say for sure what he was named at birth but what scholars can agree on was that he was probably called, as mentioned before, Yehoshua ben Joseph (It was common to add your earthly fathersí name as a post-fix).

See above. Note, for example, that throughout the debate on the ossuary, not a single scholar to the best of my knowledge challenged the ossuary on the grounds that it should have read "Yehoshua" instead of "Yeshua".

The word 'Messiah' appears but twice in the official version of the Old Testament and not at all in the New Testament. This can be explained by the assumption that the Greek translators in the 3rd Century who converted the Bible from Hebrew to Greek simply replaced the word 'Messiah' with 'Christos' every time they came across it.

Or it can be explained by the fact that Greek translators neither translated nor converted the New Testament since it was written in (Koine) Greek.

I know I'm throwing some pretty heavy ideas out here and I apologize if I've offended anyone but ...

You are clearly throwing around "some pretty heavy ideas" - an obesity that might be remedied with a little study.

So, in closing, take what you can from this little piece of information ...

... or misinformation.

 

[MoFacta]

Technical discrepancies within my essay aside, I believe that the essence of what I am saying (or rather summarizing) is clear. Regardless of the nature of the accurate Hebrew name of the man we call Jesus Christ, or the lack in ‘infamy’ of the DSS (as I can see is the colloquial amongst the learned, and if might I add to their repertoire, modest), the point is still – and I believe this – that Christianity has no justification in using Jewish texts as their support for the prophecy regarding the coming of a Messiah. The fact that there “is nothing Christian about the DSS”- as was so humbly pointed out - only proves the point further.

As the Encyclopedia Encarta says:

“Jesus Christ (between 8 and 4 BC-AD 29?), the central figure of Christianity, born in Bethlehem in Judea. The chronology of the Christian era is reckoned from a 6th-century dating of the year of his birth, which is now recognized as being from four to eight years in error. Christians traditionally regard Jesus as the incarnate Son of God, and as having been divinely conceived by Mary, the wife of Joseph, a carpenter of Nazareth. The name Jesus is derived from a Greek rendering of the Hebrew name Joshua, or in full Yehoshuah (Jehovah is deliverance). The title Christ is derived from the Greek christos, a translation of the Hebrew mashiakh (anointed one), or Messiah. “Christ” was used by Jesus' early followers, who regarded him as the promised deliverer of Israel and later was made part of Jesus' proper name by the church, which regards him as the redeemer of all humanity.”
So, depending on which source you read, most give different interpretations and opinions of the most likely original name of Jesus. If that warrants such heavy condescension and criticism then please, forgive me. Perhaps let us leave that for a debate on the name of Jesus, shall we? This debate was not intended for that purpose given the fact that whether it is ‘Yehoshua’ or ‘Yeshua’, the point is that it translates into ‘Joshua’. Furthermore, this point, in this theory, is trivial and more of a matter of interest. It’s like debating what apples of made of when you are discussing whether it has gone rotten or not.

As far as the Jerusalem Church goes, it all depends on what book you read, or whether you have view all the actual evidence (or lack of) first hand, which I’m sure very few laymen have. If there was any evidence that could be traced back to the original Jerusalem Church for certain, the Catholic Church would have no doubt suppressed it already, or in the presence of a surprise manuscript, would find itself in a bit of a conflict.

Concerning the Council of Nicea, what exactly was its purpose? If I am misinformed on this, please, by all means, correct me with the obvious wisdom which I am lacking. As far as I know, the Council of Nicea met in 325AD to discuss the formal and official aspects of the trinity, Holy Scripture, and to agree on a standard outline for the Christian faith pertaining to the call of Emperor Constantine for a unified empire. As far as I know, it is the official birth of the Catholic Church and the official time of dialogue on what to include in the Catholic Bible and what not to. Am I wrong? If I am, please enlighten me.

Regarding the original language in which the Testaments were written, as far as I know the Old Testament, originally called the Septuagint (because of the 70 translators legend) was translated in the 3rd Century BC (I might have forgotten to include the BC part and for that I apologize) into Greek (hence the conjecture concerning the nature of the word Mashiakh). The New Testament (for the obvious reason that Christianity did not come into being until the 1st Century AD) was indeed written in Koine Greek. In my essay I was referring primarily to Old Testament manuscripts prophesizing a ‘Messiah’. The New Testament is a moot point as those can only be purely Christian and are irrelevant in this discussion. In retrospect I probably should have had stronger demarcation on the emphasis I was putting on the Old Testament.

I never claimed to be a learned Scholar, like some are implying they are, or claimed that my conjectures were solid, incontestable truth. I would be a fool to say so. I admit I put forth my essay with confidence but hardly such that warrants a label of ‘obesity’. A little diplomacy or humility even, may have been in order for those who wish to criticize so ‘knowingly’.

Thank you for your time. Love and happiness for you all!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Technical discrepancies within my essay aside, ...

You offered a multi-paragraph argument "throwing some pretty heavy ideas out" in defense of a position, and I'm not at all sure that you got a single element of the argumentation correct.

I admit I put forth my essay with confidence but hardly such that warrants a label of ‘obesity’. A little diplomacy or humility even, may have been in order for those who wish to criticize so ‘knowingly’.

You're probably right. Allow me to retract 'obese' and merely suggest that your "pretty heavy ideas" were a bit pudgy with inaccuracies.

 

[MoFacta]

Fair enough if I am innaccurate. I can not claim to know everything. But despite the fact that you have now so unabashedly condemned me to falsehood I still sit in waiting for enlightenment. So please, I have asked for correction in my previous reply so if there is something else you wish to correct me on, do so. Otherwise, the only things you have claimed superior knowledge are the name of Jesus and the technicalities of some historical events that can not be proven either way and are therefore based on opinion. All the points you have mentioned still have no bearing no the idea at hand, which, funnily enough, you haven't commented on yet.

If I didn't know any better it seems that the motivation for this thread has become intellectual vanity as opposed to constructive debate. So please, if you have any information on the true nature of this subject I really honestly would enjoy a better understanding of it all. Perhaps if you harbour some empathy of when you were once young and less-than-omipotent you may be able to bring people less fortunate by ways of intellect and research closer to understanding the truth. You know, all I wanted to do was put forth an idea which I found interesting. But what I got was a bout by the top heavyweight of the forum defending his title instead of someone of true maturity who can drop his pride in his intellect and usher the weaker-thans to enlightenment. And do not think that I see myself even as a worthy contender. I enjoy writing and a bit of religious history dabbling but I can now that I must expect much more than true, fair, open debate if I want to give my uncensored ideas. How about trying this, "Welcome to the forum MoFacta. Yes, an interesting idea it is. However, I have researched this area immensely and have found these inaccuracies in your arguement. Allow me to adress them point by point..."?

If you want to win me over with your arguement I think that would have been a far better way to start. Either way, I am not going to respond again to this thread unless a reasonable discussion is ensued and a bit more openness is allowed.

Thank you for your time, and Jaywalker Soule, in all fairness, you do indeed seem very learned and I duely respect that. The truth is, I enjoy religious history immensely and if there is something I can learn from you then I am an open door. Otherwise, I bid you happy and prosperous life, and perhaps one with a little less contempt and little more compassion.

Love and happiness for all!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you want to win me over ...

Not really.

 

[Super Universe]

The Son of God did not bestow upon the earth to become the leader of one small group of people. He had no intention of being the King of the Jews, and He certainly did not fail in His mission.

Jesus came to teach us about His Father, all of us, not just those who saw themselves as "chosen".

None of us were there, none of us saw proof of any miracles. Personally I don't need to see any miracles to believe because Jesus taught us things that all the previous wise men never thought of, including Moses who had a direct line to the Creator.