Why was Jesus not a convince Christ to..........

by Spectrum 15 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Spectrum

  Narkissos,
  
  would you then say that the early Christians got it hopelessly wrong, that the jewish interpretation (ie a warring hero)was the correct way the original writers of the OT wanted it interpreted? Or did the original writers mean it the way the Christians have interpreted it regardless of whether that Christ was the one?
• 

  AuldSoul

  My understanding is that most of the prophecies taken now to refer to Jesus had other interpretations at vaiours times and they have other interpretations currently that allow for them to be fulfilled in the future. This being the case, many of the prophecies now deemed Messianic by both Jews and Christians were never intended to be understood as Messianic prophecies at all, so both groups are wrong. It's as though the desired result is the mold and the prophecies are Play-Doh and the Jews and Christians are forcing the prophecies into that mold.

  Of course, the desired shape is a foregone conclusion—so everything is interpretted to match it.

  But I am interested to read Narkissos reply to that one, Spectrum.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  Narkissos

  would you then say that the early Christians got it hopelessly wrong, that the jewish interpretation (ie a warring hero)was the correct way the original writers of the OT wanted it interpreted?

  My point was that there was no such thing as "the Jewish interpretation" prior to 70 AD. And that what you may now call "the Jewish interpretation" is a doctrine which emerged gradually, in part from the pre-70 pharisaic tradition, reflecting just one segment of 1st-century Judaism, in part from later rabbinical developments which built up against alternate Messianisms, including the Christian one(s).

  As AuldSoul pointed out, the vast majority of the OT texts which either Christians or Jews now describe as "Messianic prophecies" were not Messianic prophecies at all. Many of them, read in context, are devoid of any futuristic indication, hence they were no prophecies (e.g. Hosea 11:1 quoted in Matthew), or lack any focus on one end-time individual figure qualifying as the "Messiah," hence they were not Messianic. Sort the list of so-called "prophecies" by those two criteria and you will see that very little is left. Some vague expectations for a David-like ruler (e.g. Jeremiah 23 or Micah 5), which the prophets obviously hoped would appear in their time -- not centuries later. When such prophecies happened to be more specific (such as the prophecies on Zerubabbel in Haggai or Zechariah, which could qualify as "Messianic") they obviously failed. Later messianism, both Jewish and Christian, is a product of reinterpretation of Scripture.
• 

  Spectrum

  AuldSoul/Narkissos,
  
  If what you say is true then billions of people have been sold a lie for the last 3000 years beneficial effects to ensuing Judeochristain cultures notwithstanding. That is absolutely staggering!! They say the text is inspired of God and they can't even get their story straight.
• 

  Narkissos

  Spectrum,

  I would not call it a "lie". Creative reading of ancient texts has ever been an essential part of scriptural religion. This is apparent from the Hebrew Bible's own intertextuality, the Qumran pesharim, the OT quotations in the NT, the Jewish Targumim and Talmud, etc. Every generation is less interested by the original meaning of the texts than by the current meanings it reads into them.

  But, coming back to the thread topic, the awareness of this endless drift of interpretation should, at least, promote some tolerance, instead of contempt for alternate interpretations -- as in Christian antisemitism. The Christian who claims that "the Jews rejected the Messiah in spite of the prophecies" obviously doesn't know on which shaky ground he himself stands.
• 

  AuldSoul

  ...the awareness of this endless drift of interpretation should, at least, promote some tolerance, instead of contempt for alternate interpretations...

  I agree completely. Some of the texts that have been labeled lies and contradictions may just be (and probably are) a later understanding of something formerly held to be a different way. Both understandings were held in good faith contemporary with the writing. Drift in interpretation is required for any system of belief to remain relavent. When you examine the teachings attributed to Jesus, their nature makes them applicable to the species rather than to a specific group. They are timeless in application, like many of the teachings of Laozi (Lao Tzu, Lao Tsu) of Chinese lore whose literal existence is similarly challenged.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul