Jewish Messiah

[YoursTrue]

That is correct. Just as someone who is Navajo may or may not follow Navajo religion, someone who is a Jew may or may not follow Judaism.

I found it interesting that on that Jewish station it was noted by Pew research they are the least of the religions noted to believe in the Torah. Nevertheless, you believe that Luke was a Greek and not a Jew. Why, may I ask?

 

[YoursTrue]

That is correct. Just as someone who is Navajo may or may not follow Navajo religion, someone who is a Jew may or may not follow Judaism.

I don't think the Navajo religion is the basis as a foundation for offshoots, but I'm not sure about that. Do you know a lot about the Navajo religion?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I found it interesting that on that Jewish station it was noted by Pew research they are the least of the religions noted to believe in the Torah. Nevertheless, you believe that Luke was a Greek and not a Jew. Why, may I ask?

I'm not personally a scholar, but I trust the consensus of scholars. The consensus of scholars is that Luke was Greek, although there are a tiny minority who suggest he may have been a Hellenized Jew. I know that scholars form their views based on certain aspects of his writings, but what those aspects are is above my pay grade.

 

[paarsurrey]

"Jewish*" Messiah​

I'd like to say something here. It is true that some say that Luke was not a Jew*, and they base this mainly on Colossians 4:11 and 14.
Some draw the implication that Luke was not circumcised and therefore was not a Jew. But this is not conclusive and Romans 3:1,2 states that God entrusted his inspired utterances to the Jews -- Luke is one to whom inspired utterances were entrusted.

Luke was not circumcised

Yes, for a truthful *Israelite circumcision is essential as an apparent sign, as we get from Torah, right?
Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful *Israelite Messiah was circumcised, why didn't Luke follow him in this connection, please, right?
In that case his "inspired utterances" also become questionable/doubtful/made-up, please, right?

Regards

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not personally a scholar, but I trust the consensus of scholars. The consensus of scholars is that Luke was Greek, although there are a tiny minority who suggest he may have been a Hellenized Jew. I know that scholars form their views based on certain aspects of his writings, but what those aspects are is above my pay grade.

It's inconclusive. And you can trust your consensus including that the Torah is not true yet many stick with that with which they don't believe. Hey have a good one.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I don't think the Navajo religion is the basis as a foundation for offshoots, but I'm not sure about that. Do you know a lot about the Navajo religion?

Not a lot. Enough to appreciate it. I really love their concept of Hozho, the idea that one should live in harmony, beauty, order, and balance with life. I love their blessing, "Walk in beauty." I love how they have Sings for people who are ill.

 

[YoursTrue]

"Jewish*" Messiah​

Yes, for a truthful *Israelite circumcision is essential as an apparent sign, as we get from Torah, right?
Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful *Israelite Messiah was circumcised, why didn't Luke follow him in this connection, please, right?
In that case his "inspired utterances" also become questionable/doubtful/made-up, please, right?

Regards

One would think so, yes. There is nothing to conclude from the scriptures that Luke was not a Jew.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

"Jewish*" Messiah​

Yes, for a truthful *Israelite circumcision is essential as an apparent sign, as we get from Torah, right?
Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful *Israelite Messiah was circumcised, why didn't Luke follow him in this connection, please, right?
In that case his "inspired utterances" also become questionable/doubtful/made-up, please, right?

Regards

Circumcision is not what makes a person a Jew. However, it is Jewish law for all Jewish males to be circumcised, and thus scandalous for a Jewish man not to be circumcised. There was a case where Timothy who was a Jew (because his mother was a Jew) who was not circumcised, so there was no way the Jews were going to let him speak in the synagogue. So Paul had him circumcised.

Glad to see you switched to the more normative "Jewish messiah" rather than your previous awkward "Israelite messiah." Your English is getting better.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not a lot. Enough to appreciate it. I really love their concept of Hozho, the idea that one should live in harmony, beauty, order, and balance with life. I love their blessing, "Walk in beauty." I love how they have Sings for people who are ill.

That will happen I believe when God makes the great decision that is foretold in the Bible and peace will come to all lovers of peace. I believe. Obviously many do not believe that. I do. War will be no more. That's what the Bible says. In the Hebrew scriptures.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That will happen I believe when God makes the great decision that is foretold in the Bible and peace will come to all lovers of peace. I believe. Obviously many do not believe that. I do. War will be no more. That's what the Bible says. In the Hebrew scriptures.

Although I am not Dineh (Navajo) and do not follow their religion, I think there really are those who have lives of harmony, balance, order, and beauty, and others who do not, and that the former really is something to shoot for.

 

[YoursTrue]

Circumcision is not what makes a person a Jew. However, it is Jewish law for all Jewish males to be circumcised, and thus scandalous for a Jewish man not to be circumcised. There was a case where Timothy who was a Jew (because his mother was a Jew) who was not circumcised, so there was no way the Jews were going to let him speak in the synagogue. So Paul had him circumcised.

Glad to see you switched to the more normative "Jewish messiah" rather than your previous awkward "Israelite messiah." Your English is getting better.

Let's be honest -- you don't really believe the Bible anyway, do you? It is by no means conclusive from the Bible that Luke was not a Jew.

 

[YoursTrue]

Although I am not Dineh (Navajo) and do not follow their religion, I think there really are those who have lives of harmony, balance, order, and beauty, and others who do not, and that the former really is something to shoot for.

Not too many people are "shooting for" peace and harmony now, are they?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Let's be honest -- you don't really believe the Bible anyway, do you? It is by no means conclusive from the Bible that Luke was not a Jew.

I do not find it to be historically reliable. That does not automatically mean that I cannot discuss its stories.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Not too many people are "shooting for" peace and harmony now, are they?

Actually, I think almost everyone wants a life of harmony, balance, order, and beauty. But some people are better at achieving this than others.

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually, I think almost everyone wants a life of harmony, balance, order, and beauty. But some people are better at achieving this than others.

It depends on circumstances, IC. Either some believe in the power of God to solve mankind's problems as foretold in the Bible, or they do not. And perhaps follow their own way because for one thing, they don't really believe it. I remember the Articles of Faith of Maimonides a doctor, in which he proclaimed belief in a resurrection. That is what the scriptures say and I believe that. Have a good evening...look forward to peace as foretold.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It depends on circumstances, IC. Either some believe in the power of God to solve mankind's problems as foretold in the Bible, or they do not. And perhaps follow their own way because for one thing, they don't really believe it. I remember the Articles of Faith of Maimonides a doctor, in which he proclaimed belief in a resurrection. That is what the scriptures say and I believe that. Have a good evening...look forward to peace as foretold.

None of this is related to Hozho at all. You appear to be meandering.

 

[YoursTrue]

None of this is related to Hozho at all. You appear to be meandering.

Sad to say, I'm amazed yet unfortunately not overly surprised you don't see it. OK, time to go probably.

 

[joelr]

Many Jews would object to the terminology of "messiah"(especially capitalized). The word messiah is a corruption of the Hebrew word "moshiach". The meaning of the word messiah has been co-opted so much with the Christian definition of it that it is unpalatable to many Jews. Jews use the word moschiach.

Jewish theology used the concept and many others from the Persian beliefs during the 2nd Temple Period.



The Iranian Impact on Judaism


excerpted from N. F. Gier, Theology Bluebook, Chapter 12


It was not so much monotheism that the exilic Jews learned from the Persians as it was universalism, the belief that one God rules universally and will save not only the Jews but all those who turn to God. This universalism does not appear explicitly until Second Isaiah, which by all scholarly accounts except some fundamentalists, was written during and after the Babylonian exile. The Babylonian captivity was a great blow to many Jews, because they were taken out of Yahweh's divine jurisdiction. Early Hebrews believed that their prayers could not be answered in a foreign land. The sophisticated angelology of late books like Daniel has its source in Zoroastrianism.3 The angels of the early Hebrew books were disguises of Yahweh or one of his subordinate deities. The idea of separate angels appears only after contact with Zoroastrianism.


The central ideas of heaven and a fiery hell appear to come directly from the Israelite contact with Iranian religion. Pre-exilic books are explicit in their notions the afterlife: there is none to speak of. The early Hebrew concept is that all of us are made from the dust and all of us return to the dust. There is a shadowy existence in Sheol, but the beings there are so insignificant that Yahweh does not know them. The evangelical writer John Pelt reminds us that “the inhabitants of Sheol are never called souls (nephesh).”4

Saosyant, a savior born from Zoroaster's seed, will come and the dead shall be resurrected, body and soul. As the final accounting is made, husband is set against wife and brother against brother as the righteous and the damned are pointed out by the divine judge Saosyant. Personal and individual immortality is offered to the righteous; and, as a final fire melts away the world and the damned, a kingdom of God is established for a thousand years.7 The word paradis is Persian in origin and the concept spread to all Near Eastern religions in that form. “Eden” not “Paradise” is mentioned in Genesis, and paradise as an abode of light does not appear in Jewish literature until late books such as Enoch and the Psalm of Solomon.



Satan as the adversary or Evil One does not appear in the pre-exilic Hebrew books. In Job, one of the very oldest books, Satan is one of the subordinate deities in God's pantheon. Here Satan is God's agent, and God gives him permission to persecute Job. The Zoroastrian Angra Mainyu, the Evil One, the eternal enemy of God, is the prototype for late Jewish and Christian ideas of Satan. One scholar claims that the Jews acquired their aversion to homosexuality, not present in pre-exilic times, to the Iranian definition of the devil as a Sodomite.8


In 1 Chron. 21:1 (a book with heavy Persian influences), the Hebrew word satan appears for the first time as a proper name without an article. Before the exile, Satan was not a separate entity per se, but a divine function performed by the Yahweh's subordinate deities (sons of God) or by Yahweh himself. For example, in Num. 22:22 Yahweh, in the guise of mal'ak Yahweh, is “a satan” for Balaam and his ***. The editorial switch from God inciting David to take a census in 2 Sam 24:1, and a separate evil entity with the name “Satan” doing the same deed in 1 Chron. 21:1 is the strongest evidence that there was a radical transformation in Jewish theology. Something must have caused this change, and religious syncretism with Persia is the probable cause. G. Von Rad calls it a “correction due to religious scruples” and further states that “this correction would hardly have been carried out in this way if the concept of Satan had not undergone a rather decisive transformation.”9


The theory of religious influence from Persia is based not only on the generation spent in exile but the 400 years following in which the resurrected nation of Israel lived under strong Persian dominion and influence. The chronicler made his crucial correction to 2 Sam. 24:1 about 400 B.C.E. Persian influence increases in the later Hebrew works like Daniel and especially the intertestamental books. Therefore Satan as a separate evil force in direct opposition to God most likely came from the explicit Zoroastrian belief in such an entity. This concept is not consistent with pre-exilic beliefs.


There is no question that the concept of a separate evil principle was fully developed in the Zoroastrian Gathas (ca. 1,000 B.C.E.). The principal demon, called Druj (the Lie), is mentioned 66 times in the Gathas. But the priestly Jews would also have been exposed to the full Avestan scripture in which Angra Mainyu is mentioned repeatedly. His most prominent symbol is the serpent, so along with the idea of the “Lie,” we have the prototype for the serpent/tempter, in the priestly writers' garden of Genesis.10 There is no evidence that the Jews in exile brought with them any idea of Satan as a separate evil principle.

In Zoroastrianism the supreme God, Ahura Mazda, gives all humans free-will so that they may choose between good and evil. As we have seen, the religion of Zoroaster may have been the first to discover ethical individualism. The first Hebrew prophet to speak unequivocally in terms of individual moral responsibility was Ezekiel, a prophet of the Babylonian exile. Up until that time Hebrew ethics had been guided by the idea of the corporate personality – that, e.g., the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons (Ex. 20:1-2).


In 1 Cor. 15:42-49 Paul definitely assumes a dual-creation theory which seems to follow the outlines of Philo and the Iranians. There is only one man (Christ) who is created in the image of God, i.e., according to the “intellectual” creation of Gen. 1:26 (à la Philo). All the rest of us are created in the image of the “dust man,” following the material creation of Adam from the dust in Gen. 2:7.

Nick Gier. Emeritus Professor of Philosophy University of Idaho Senior Fellow Martin Institute o

 

[paarsurrey]

Jewish theology used the concept and many others from the Persian beliefs during the 2nd Temple Period.



The Iranian Impact on Judaism


excerpted from N. F. Gier, Theology Bluebook, Chapter 12


It was not so much monotheism that the exilic Jews learned from the Persians as it was universalism, the belief that one God rules universally and will save not only the Jews but all those who turn to God. This universalism does not appear explicitly until Second Isaiah, which by all scholarly accounts except some fundamentalists, was written during and after the Babylonian exile. The Babylonian captivity was a great blow to many Jews, because they were taken out of Yahweh's divine jurisdiction. Early Hebrews believed that their prayers could not be answered in a foreign land. The sophisticated angelology of late books like Daniel has its source in Zoroastrianism.3 The angels of the early Hebrew books were disguises of Yahweh or one of his subordinate deities. The idea of separate angels appears only after contact with Zoroastrianism.


The central ideas of heaven and a fiery hell appear to come directly from the Israelite contact with Iranian religion. Pre-exilic books are explicit in their notions the afterlife: there is none to speak of. The early Hebrew concept is that all of us are made from the dust and all of us return to the dust. There is a shadowy existence in Sheol, but the beings there are so insignificant that Yahweh does not know them. The evangelical writer John Pelt reminds us that “the inhabitants of Sheol are never called souls (nephesh).”4

Saosyant, a savior born from Zoroaster's seed, will come and the dead shall be resurrected, body and soul. As the final accounting is made, husband is set against wife and brother against brother as the righteous and the damned are pointed out by the divine judge Saosyant. Personal and individual immortality is offered to the righteous; and, as a final fire melts away the world and the damned, a kingdom of God is established for a thousand years.7 The word paradis is Persian in origin and the concept spread to all Near Eastern religions in that form. “Eden” not “Paradise” is mentioned in Genesis, and paradise as an abode of light does not appear in Jewish literature until late books such as Enoch and the Psalm of Solomon.



Satan as the adversary or Evil One does not appear in the pre-exilic Hebrew books. In Job, one of the very oldest books, Satan is one of the subordinate deities in God's pantheon. Here Satan is God's agent, and God gives him permission to persecute Job. The Zoroastrian Angra Mainyu, the Evil One, the eternal enemy of God, is the prototype for late Jewish and Christian ideas of Satan. One scholar claims that the Jews acquired their aversion to homosexuality, not present in pre-exilic times, to the Iranian definition of the devil as a Sodomite.8


In 1 Chron. 21:1 (a book with heavy Persian influences), the Hebrew word satan appears for the first time as a proper name without an article. Before the exile, Satan was not a separate entity per se, but a divine function performed by the Yahweh's subordinate deities (sons of God) or by Yahweh himself. For example, in Num. 22:22 Yahweh, in the guise of mal'ak Yahweh, is “a satan” for Balaam and his ***. The editorial switch from God inciting David to take a census in 2 Sam 24:1, and a separate evil entity with the name “Satan” doing the same deed in 1 Chron. 21:1 is the strongest evidence that there was a radical transformation in Jewish theology. Something must have caused this change, and religious syncretism with Persia is the probable cause. G. Von Rad calls it a “correction due to religious scruples” and further states that “this correction would hardly have been carried out in this way if the concept of Satan had not undergone a rather decisive transformation.”9


The theory of religious influence from Persia is based not only on the generation spent in exile but the 400 years following in which the resurrected nation of Israel lived under strong Persian dominion and influence. The chronicler made his crucial correction to 2 Sam. 24:1 about 400 B.C.E. Persian influence increases in the later Hebrew works like Daniel and especially the intertestamental books. Therefore Satan as a separate evil force in direct opposition to God most likely came from the explicit Zoroastrian belief in such an entity. This concept is not consistent with pre-exilic beliefs.


There is no question that the concept of a separate evil principle was fully developed in the Zoroastrian Gathas (ca. 1,000 B.C.E.). The principal demon, called Druj (the Lie), is mentioned 66 times in the Gathas. But the priestly Jews would also have been exposed to the full Avestan scripture in which Angra Mainyu is mentioned repeatedly. His most prominent symbol is the serpent, so along with the idea of the “Lie,” we have the prototype for the serpent/tempter, in the priestly writers' garden of Genesis.10 There is no evidence that the Jews in exile brought with them any idea of Satan as a separate evil principle.

In Zoroastrianism the supreme God, Ahura Mazda, gives all humans free-will so that they may choose between good and evil. As we have seen, the religion of Zoroaster may have been the first to discover ethical individualism. The first Hebrew prophet to speak unequivocally in terms of individual moral responsibility was Ezekiel, a prophet of the Babylonian exile. Up until that time Hebrew ethics had been guided by the idea of the corporate personality – that, e.g., the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons (Ex. 20:1-2).


In 1 Cor. 15:42-49 Paul definitely assumes a dual-creation theory which seems to follow the outlines of Philo and the Iranians. There is only one man (Christ) who is created in the image of God, i.e., according to the “intellectual” creation of Gen. 1:26 (à la Philo). All the rest of us are created in the image of the “dust man,” following the material creation of Adam from the dust in Gen. 2:7.

Nick Gier. Emeritus Professor of Philosophy University of Idaho Senior Fellow Martin Institute o

Very good points in one's post, I appreciate them.

Regards

 

[YoursTrue]

"Jewish*" Messiah​

Yes, for a truthful *Israelite circumcision is essential as an apparent sign, as we get from Torah, right?
Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful *Israelite Messiah was circumcised, why didn't Luke follow him in this connection, please, right?
In that case his "inspired utterances" also become questionable/doubtful/made-up, please, right?

Regards

No.