The Messiah of the Tanakh: simply a man who will rule Israel in the idyllic messianic era at the end of time.
We see places in the Tanakh to say otherwise.That's how Jews interpret the Messianic figure , i understand that perfectly.I just don't agree with it.
The Messiah of Christianity the incarnate God who suffers and dies to save the world from their sins.
If this was said by a Christian , it would be considered theologically wrong.
Jesus was not a Christian , he was a Jew.
Jews considered that he was an apostate , but what does that mean?
We can say 'he was , but only to you'(not you personally) and that is where that ends.
Well, certainly almost the same, with only a few differences.
I don't deny that there are no differences.
But these difference came up to be in post-Christ era.They were created after.
One is superficial, which is the organization of the books. For example, 1 and 2 Kings is one book, and the minor prophets are all one book. Books like Joshua are grouped with the prophets, and Daniel is not grouped with the prophets.
That is what i am saying , the organization of books came up post-Christ era.
Sadly we have only Josephus as early as it gets
Well , at least he talks about Jesus
The Works of Josephus
The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3
"3. (63) Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works-a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; (64) and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
Probably the only grouping that I think is a significant difference is that in the OT, it ends with the prophet Malachi, with the christian view that the OT points to the coming of the Messiah. The Tanakh on the other hand ends with Chronicles, with the Jews triumphantly returning to the Land and rebuilding the Temple, a fitting end, not a cliffhanger.
Because they rejected Jesus as the Messiah and so they organized the Books according to their own interpretation.
It doesnt matter who he is , what matters is that he confronted them , and they confronted him.
The other difference is pretty significant. Jews only accept the Hebrew texts as being the Tanakh. While translations may be helpful for those who don't read Hebrew, these translations are not considered the Tanakh.
Neither your own sources?
This is because translations are simply inadequate, often obscuring the exact meaning of the text, as well as being unable to translate puns and the numerical values of words. I can tell you from personal experience with Spanish that when I read English translations of my favorite songs, I think they are horrible. I think people that speak English only have no clue just how insufficient any translation is.
I agree.
But that means that Koine should be understood as Koine , Hebrew as Hebrew , Arabic as Arabic etc.
A non-Jew can learn Hebrew language
Same as non-Greek person can read Koine also.
Many of Orthodox clergy have learned Hebrew and Arabic through the centuries so they can preform worship in the original language.They learned from Hebrew sources.
The formation of teh Jewish canon happened in steps. The Torah was accepted first. By Jesus day, the Prophets had also been accepted by the Pharisees, but not the Sadducees, and we can throw in the Psalms. It is only The Writings that were accepted as canon after the advent of Christianity.
Yes , The Pharisees..
He argued the most with, corrected the most, and called out the Pharisees the most. He would not have done so if he didn't see them as the ones to minister to and correct. When the Temple was destroyed, the Sadducees were destroyed with it, and the Phrisees, no longer being 'separatists' (which is what Pharisee means,) became the Rabbis, and have remained so to this day.Jesus hardly bothered with the Saducees except on a couple of major occasions, mainly the resurrection of Lazarus (The sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead.)
He then harshly lampooned Caiaphas with the parable of the rich man. Caiaphas had 5 brothers in law, and everyone knew he was talking about the temple gate. 'Your brothers have the law; if they don't believe that, the dead rising sure won't convince them!' I suspect Jesus had his audience rolling on the floor laughing. They all knew what he was talking about.He also harshly shaded the Sadducees and gave tacit approval to the Essenes by getting baptized by John son of Zachariah, as the Essenes claimed legitimate priesthood-in-exile over the Sadducees who were installed by the Empire into the Temple. Jesus legitimized John the Baptist was the rightful Cohen, and having him administring the Baptism using, of all things, the Jordan, way out in the countryside, as his Mikvah, was a prophesy of doom against the Temple.
Jesus may not have been a lawyer of the Pharisees, and he hammered them for being bad guides to the laity, but he agreed with them on doctrine of the prophets' inspiration (the sadducees only acknowledged Torah), doing what he could to pry away their burdensome oral additions to it. (which would later become the Talmud.)
The Sadducees were destroyed with the Temple, and the Zealots, Sicarii and Essenes were snuffed out by the Empire. The Pharisees inherited what was left.
The issue of how the Nazarenes (Jewish believers in Jesus as the Messiah who continued to practice Judaism, including making sacrifices) differentiated from the Gentile Christians who believed Jesus was God, is really a topic fit for an entirely new thread. If you want to discuss it, go ahead and start it, and do the @name to draw my attention to it.
Yes i would like to , but it will take a time , because i am pre-ocupied at the moment with study.But we can work it out.I am really pre-ocupied , i come here read-answer a little bit to chill my head.
Most scholars date Acts to 80-90 CE, although some put the range at 70-110 CE. The council of Jamnia (Yevneh) was in 90 CE, but many scholars today believe that it was actually a series of councils that began in 70 CE rather than just the one where the Rabbis ironed out Jewish canon. It would obviously be premature to say that Acts was written before Jewish canon was formed.
Some events in Acts are dated very early.
Acts is letters , it is not a Book.
Why would they not be letters if the events are dated that early?
They were persecuted group among Jews in that time.We can confirm that with Paul.
They were sending letters among each other.
The Bible is what came after , 3 centuries later.
You make a good point, but there are other factors that override it. Scholars have quite a number of different reasons for dating Acts later.
Name what overrides it.
Without knowing who are they , i can tell you they have all been answered.
You can give it a try.
The development of theology presented indicates it is closer to the end of the first century.
Theology has nothing to do with dating of texts.
Kontex it what matters.
The events are described as eye-witness accounts.
I repeat , they are not a Book , they are letters among the Early Church.
Acts is considered sequel of Luke because of Acts 1
"In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen."
Paul arrived in Rome 58AD
Paul remained in custody for 2 more years (Acts 28:30) which brings us up to AD 60 for the end of the book of Acts.
Paul died 64/65 AD , Peter died 64 AD.
If their death is not mentioned then Acts was written as whole sonewhere between 60AD - 64 AD.
That is 4 year gap.
That alone tells that Luke is before that.
We can say for sure that Luke is written before 60AD.
That is what these 'schollars' don't tell ya all.
Acts is also connected to the gospel of Luke, being the second text written by the same author/authors.
Exactly , you see how you know,the second text.
I think you will understand now why Luke is dated before 60AD.
Luke contains a reference to the destruction of the Temple, meaning it was written after that event, so we can conclude that Acts was similarly written after that event. There's more but I'm trying to be succinct.
By far, Luke 21:5-33 clearly demonstrate that these verses, which parallel Matt. 24:4-35 and Mark 13:5-31, are prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple
They are not later writings.
They predict , which means before the destruction.
The epistles of Paul were written first, and are clearly written to give advice to his Gentile churches.
Most scholars believe that Paul actually wrote seven of the thirteen Pauline epistles (Galatians, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philemon, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians), while three of the epistles in Paul's name are widely seen as pseudepigraphic (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus).
But this is just another b*****.
Paul does not have to write an epistile , they can be atributed to his name.
Scholars divide Acts into two parts.The first part of Acts is basically a collection of legends that developed in the decades after Jesus' death
Please give me reference link and i will read it
, and is not a reliable source of historical information. The second part which reads like a travel journal of the missionary journeys of Paul, are considered a much more reliable source.
Not a reliable source? Who says that and where is the evidence for that ?
Revelation, the last to be written, was basically designed to give hope to the Chrsitians living through the two Roman-Jewish wars. It's message is simply, "These times are horrible, but if you pull back the curtain, God is in control."
Yes , Revelation is the last to be written , that is however true.
