Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Serpent of Genesis is not the Dragon of Revelations
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 271 of 302 (298181)
03-25-2006 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by arachnophilia
03-25-2006 3:26 PM


Re: bronze serpents and goat-eaters
why don't you address my concerns about the comparison of christ to the serpent, instead of pretending that it's already been dealt with by a statement far less detailed than my question?
You're the one pretending to be interested in answers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by arachnophilia, posted 03-25-2006 3:26 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by arachnophilia, posted 03-25-2006 11:22 PM jaywill has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 272 of 302 (298189)
03-25-2006 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by jaywill
03-25-2006 11:11 PM


Re: bronze serpents and goat-eaters
You're the one pretending to be interested in answers.
what, no more preaching, jay?
what's wrong?
can't put that divinely imparted understanding into words to answer my questions?
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 03-25-2006 11:22 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by jaywill, posted 03-25-2006 11:11 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by jaywill, posted 03-26-2006 6:20 AM arachnophilia has replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1336 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 273 of 302 (298197)
03-25-2006 11:53 PM


My apologies if I sound harsh...
Look guys. I'm not trying to cause hard feelings here. And I am sorry if I've laid the sarcasm on a bit thick.
purpledawn, you might think I don't like you, or that I'm picking on your idea, but that's not true. I remember when you talked about what your father went through and the loneliness he felt when he needed someone, loneliness after having dedicating his to helping so many other other people. It's simply not fair what happened to him. And I think it can really leave someone doubting things about their faith.
arach, in like manner, I just want you to know that I really do listen to what you're saying -- so don't think I'm dismissing your thoughts. I think you do really present some really interesting ideas. I don't consider you, along with Ifen and NoseyNed, one of my favorite posters for nothing. And I remember how you spoke up in my defense when one of the administrators called me an idiot here.
But, having admitted all this, I still have to stand strong on this one. What you guys are presenting as a 'plain text' reading does not capture the full range of Jewish thought in regards to the serpent in Genesis. It seems to focus on the earliest Talmudic writings, writings which do not mesh easilly with later Talmudic writings but have nontheless since been passed in some form into modern day Rabbinic Judaism (to the exclusion of all other possibilities I might add).
And there's a lot of other "Jewish" possibilities out there.
Consequently, whenever I hear accusations to the effect of me having a 'preconceived notion' about the Scriptures, it really irks me a lot. Making an appeal to authority by labelling someone else's idea as merely an excercise in 'homiletics' while maintinaing their own opinions are the 'plain text' reading never really accomplishes much.
I'm no expert, but I have studied these things a lot. I can pretty much guarantee you guys that there's very little left in regards to my faith that I haven't examined in-depth. Besides that, I'm not actually into homiletics that much (not that this would be bad). But, technically speaking, I'm actually more of a dialectic type researcher than anything else.
This doesn't mean that I'm claiming this study means I'm right. I'm sure we've all studied a lot -- we wouldn't be having this discussion if we didn't. But it does suggest that I know what I believe and that I've examined it very carefully before accepting it -- so it's not a preconceived notion.
If you want to have your ideas discussed with integrity, then I would ask you to treat our ideas with the same amount of integrity as you'd hope we'd treat your ideas.
Sound fair?
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-26-2006 12:19 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by ringo, posted 03-26-2006 12:06 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 276 by arachnophilia, posted 03-26-2006 12:36 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied
 Message 281 by jaywill, posted 03-26-2006 7:17 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 286 by ramoss, posted 03-26-2006 11:33 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 274 of 302 (298199)
03-26-2006 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
03-25-2006 11:53 PM


Re: My apologies if I sound harsh...
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
What you guys are presenting as a 'plain text' reading does not capture the full range of Jewish thought in regards to the serpent in Genesis.
Sorry, but I think you're shooting yourself in the foot here.
How can a plain text reading "capture the full range of Jewish thought"? A plain text reading is what the words say, not every conceivable implication of what they say.
My purple friend can correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole point of the thread seems to be to avoid the extraneous externals.
(And I don't think you sound harsh. Nothing that long-winded could be harsh. )

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-25-2006 11:53 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-26-2006 12:16 AM ringo has replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1336 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 275 of 302 (298203)
03-26-2006 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by ringo
03-26-2006 12:06 AM


Re: My apologies if I sound harsh...
But that's my point: there's no such thing as a 'plain text' reading of the Genesis acount.
How on earth does one make sense of things like people living for hundreds of years, or Adam being made from the dust of the earth, or Eve being made from Adam's rib, or a talking snake that leads humanity astray?
There's like nothing plain text about it -- yet this is pretty much what pd wants us to adhere to. My point is that I don't think it can be fairly done without examining all the cultures that may have came prior to, or interacted with, the Israelites.
And, technically speaking, pd did bring this up in Message 4 of this thread when she said this...
purpledawn writes:
It's a shame that people forget that cultures continue to change and evolve over time and religions are no exception.
Religions are not immune to influence from the secular world and other religions.
I dunno. Maybe I'm wrong. But I think this is a fair criticism to point out. And, in my own way, I am pointing this out.
Perhaps someone could enlighten me on where we draw the line?
Edit: hope that was short enough. I know. I know. I'm working on it.
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-26-2006 12:33 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by ringo, posted 03-26-2006 12:06 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by ringo, posted 03-26-2006 12:40 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied
 Message 278 by arachnophilia, posted 03-26-2006 12:41 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied
 Message 280 by jaywill, posted 03-26-2006 6:26 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 276 of 302 (298210)
03-26-2006 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
03-25-2006 11:53 PM


Re: My apologies if I sound harsh...
arach, in like manner, I just want you to know that I really do listen to what you're saying -- so don't think I'm dismissing your thoughts. I think you do really present some really interesting ideas. I don't consider you, along with Ifen and NoseyNed, one of my favorite posters for nothing. And I remember how you spoke up in my defense when one of the administrators called me an idiot here.
and got suspended for it.
thanks, though.
But, having admitted all this, I still have to stand strong on this one. What you guys are presenting as a 'plain text' reading does not capture the full range of Jewish thought in regards to the serpent in Genesis.
well, there's a problem here though. there's what the text says, what the text implies or does not imply, and what people read it as meaning. the interpretted meanings are pretty varied -- we'll never represent the full range of jewish thought here.
because, and i think this is a fact we will have to face, the text does not represent the full range of jewish thought. if it DID, we wouldn't have things like the oral law (talmud). and we can barely get the text to agree with itself on some things -- how can we ever even dream of representing the full range of jewish thought?
the other obvious problem is that some of the thought in that range is sometimes wrong, or at least inconsistent with the text and its straightforward implications.
Consequently, whenever I hear accusations to the effect of me having a 'preconceived notion' about the Scriptures, it really irks me a lot. Making an appeal to authority by labelling someone else's idea as merely an excercise in 'homiletics' while maintinaing their own opinions are the 'plain text' reading never really accomplishes much.
well, if the plain text is devoid of references to satan, spiritual powers, demons, possessions, etc -- it *IS* the plain text reading to say that it does not represent those ideas. reading those ideas into the text must, therefore, be interpretation.
and interpretting something into a text when it does not literally present the idea frequently (though not always) involves a preconcieved notion. in this case, since the plain reading says nothing about satan -- and satan plays very little role in the hebrew scriptures at all, reading him into the text requires something of a preconcieved notion of who or what satan *IS*. the jewish scriptures don't mention much.
if we took satan's role in job, defined it as the angelic or demonic position that tests mankind's faith in god, and then went back to genesis we might say "well, that seems kind of like the serpent -- maybe satan had something to do with it." but that is reading the pre-concieved notion job implies into genesis -- it's interpretting genesis in light of job. the same would apply to revelation, or matthew, or anything else.
any way you look at this particular case, it's reinterpretting what this particular text says in light of something else -- with a preconcieved notion from that other source.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-25-2006 11:53 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 277 of 302 (298211)
03-26-2006 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
03-26-2006 12:16 AM


Re: My apologies if I sound harsh...
Mr. Ex Nihilo writes:
How on earth does one make sense of things like people living for hundreds of years, or Adam being made from the dust of the earth, or Eve being made from Adam's rib, or a talking snake that leads humanity astray?
Are you confusing "plain text" with "literal"?
A plain text reading of Goldilocks and the three bears does not require us to believe in talking bears, does it? Neither does it require us to read all kinds of symbolism and cultural implications into the story.
Sometimes a story is just a story.
Perhaps someone could enlighten me on where we draw the line?
Personally, I draw the line at talking snakes.
And what happens in Genesis stays in Genesis.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-26-2006 12:16 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 278 of 302 (298212)
03-26-2006 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
03-26-2006 12:16 AM


Re: My apologies if I sound harsh...
But that's my point: there's no such thing as a 'plain text' reading of the Genesis acount.
why not? just read what's there on the page.
How on earth does one make sense of things like people living for hundreds of years, or Adam being made from the dust of the earth, or Eve being made from Adam's rib, or a talking snake that leads humanity astray?
ah, see, maybe that's your problem. it's just plain hard to believe. what sense do you want me or anyone else to make of it? revelation won't change what's on the page of genesis. and genesis has a talking snake in it, and woman being made out of man, and man being made of dust.
i think the problem here is that faith is getting in the way. put the faith aside for a little while. don't worry about making sense out of it in terms of your beliefs or how we're going to fit it into christianity. just read it for what it is first.
There's like nothing plain text about it -- yet this is pretty much what pd wants us to adhere to. My point is that I don't think it can be fairly done without examining all the cultures that may have came prior to, or interacted with, the Israelites.
which is a good point, too. for instance, man being made out of dust comes from the babylonian myth, where marduk makes man. judaism isn't really all that different, and genesis is quite similar to the legends and myths of other cultures of the time and area.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-26-2006 12:16 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 279 of 302 (298240)
03-26-2006 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by arachnophilia
03-25-2006 11:22 PM


Re: bronze serpents and goat-eaters
can't put that divinely imparted understanding into words to answer my questions?
At the moment, I'm less concerned with divinely imparted understanding than your ability to simply read English.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by arachnophilia, posted 03-25-2006 11:22 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by arachnophilia, posted 03-26-2006 4:01 PM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 280 of 302 (298241)
03-26-2006 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
03-26-2006 12:16 AM


Re: My apologies if I sound harsh...
Mr. Ex Nihlo,
I think the criteria that some posters put here of "plain text" is a front. It simply a device to channel their supposed understanding in the direction where they want to go. Violations of the rule are permitted when it suits the same purpose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-26-2006 12:16 AM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 281 of 302 (298248)
03-26-2006 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
03-25-2006 11:53 PM


Re: My apologies if I sound harsh...
But, having admitted all this, I still have to stand strong on this one. What you guys are presenting as a 'plain text' reading does not capture the full range of Jewish thought in regards to the serpent in Genesis. It seems to focus on the earliest Talmudic writings, writings which do not mesh easilly with later Talmudic writings but have nontheless since been passed in some form into modern day Rabbinic Judaism (to the exclusion of all other possibilities I might add).
And there's a lot of other "Jewish" possibilities out there.
This does reinforce what I have been told. That is that Judaism from the first or second century AD has been structured around a denial of Jesus being the Messiah.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-26-2006 07:18 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-25-2006 11:53 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-26-2006 9:51 AM jaywill has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 282 of 302 (298255)
03-26-2006 7:45 AM


Purpledawn,
I would like to put this "plain text" philosophy of yours to the test.
Tell me please. After Adam sinned God came looking for him. Verse nine of chapter three says that God called out "Where are you?"
Why did God ask where Adam was?

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by purpledawn, posted 03-26-2006 9:39 AM jaywill has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 283 of 302 (298262)
03-26-2006 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
03-25-2006 10:18 PM


Plain Text, Not Literal
When I ask you to refer me back to where I have made statements, I'd appreciate it if you would provide the link, so that I can refer back to the post itself.
Mr.Ex writes:
The conclusion of the OP is this:
purpledawn writes:
Sometimes a snake is just a snake.
Did you notice the very first word in that statement? The point being that every usage of the word serpent or snake in the Bible isn't necessarily referring to Satan (enemy of God).
Again, in an OP we don't present our full argument. If you feel that the serpent/dragon in John's vision makes the snake in the Garden, Satan (enemy of God), then make the connection.
I think Ringo said it correctly in Message 274: My purple friend can correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole point of the thread seems to be to avoid the extraneous externals.
I also agree with what Ringo said in Message 277. You seem to be confusing "plain text" reading with literal. Remember the definition I gave you in Message 239: The understanding of scripture in its natural, normal sense using the customary meanings of the word’s being used, literary style, historical and cultural setting, and context.
Notice that literary style is taken into account. There are different literary styles within the Bible.
Fable: 1. a fictitious story meant to teach a moral lesson: the characters are usually talking animals. 2. a myth or legend
Myth: a traditional story of unknown authorship, serving usually to explain some phenomenon of nature, the origin of man, or the customs, religious rites, etc. of a people
Legend: a story handed down for generations and popoularly believed to have a historical basis
If you've read any Jewish teachings, you will see that they tend to draw upon their legends and they call them legends.
quote:
So you actually believe the people who scribed these thoughts and carried these traditions were writing them in order to carry on myths they didn't actually beleive in?
What do you mean by believe in? Each culture has their creation story. Are they all right or do you consider them to be myths?
quote:
In other words, what we have here is a tremendous body of Jewish literature concluding the snake was either:
1) influenced supernaturally by an adversary
2) became an/the adversary
3) represented or was an agent of the adverary
4) actually was an/the adversary
5) or was outright the pre-eminent symbol of enmity
I don't think I ever stated that the serpent in Genesis was not the "villain" of the story, but that doesn't make the snake Satan (enemy of God)
My opinion is that the plain text reading does not support that the serpent of Genesis is the same as the serpent/dragon in the vision of Revelation. Just because a dragon/serpent is used to symbolize Satan in John’s vision, doesn’t make the serpent/snake in the Garden, Satan.
I'm quite aware of the symbolism that surrounds snakes and other animals. Snakes have been used to symbolize fertility, wisdom, immortality, creation, the underworld, evil, etc.
quote:
Like I said before, I'm working on a chronology to analyse serpentine mythology throughout the period in question, and then backward from there into other ancient cultures.
I look forward to reading your findings.
quote:
Message 273
purpledawn, you might think I don't like you, or that I'm picking on your idea, but that's not true. I remember when you talked about what your father went through and the loneliness he felt when he needed someone, loneliness after having dedicating his to helping so many other other people. It's simply not fair what happened to him. And I think it can really leave someone doubting things about their faith.
My assumption is that you don't like the position I'm taking, not me, especially since we are debating the position not me. You don't actually know me to dislike me.
I didn't doubt my faith then and I don't doubt it now. The situation with my father lead me to study the Bible more intensely. What I have now is a better understanding and deeper inner peace.
IOW, trying to get me to feel bad about looking at the plain text isn't going to work.
This message has been edited by purpledawn, 03-26-2006 08:48 AM

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-25-2006 10:18 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 03-26-2006 7:55 PM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 284 of 302 (298269)
03-26-2006 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by jaywill
03-26-2006 7:45 AM


quote:
I would like to put this "plain text" philosophy of yours to the test. ...
Why did God ask where Adam was?
Because they were hiding.
Not sure how this is a test of the "plain text" reading.
Since this question is off topic, please don't assume that I don't know the commentaries and lessons that have elaborate reasons as to why God asked.
God asked this question of Adam so that he would have an opportunity to confess his sin and repent before God spoke again and pronounced punishment.
It is rather an upbraiding question, in order to his conviction and humiliation: Where art thou? Not, In what place? but, In what condition?
ETC
Commentaries and lessons aren't necessarily based on the plain sense reading of the text.
Please don't continue with this line of questioning. We're getting close to the limit of this thread and your question doesn't deal with the topic.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by jaywill, posted 03-26-2006 7:45 AM jaywill has not replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1336 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 285 of 302 (298271)
03-26-2006 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by jaywill
03-26-2006 7:17 AM


Re: My apologies if I sound harsh...
jaywill writes:
This does reinforce what I have been told. That is that Judaism from the first or second century AD has been structured around a denial of Jesus being the Messiah.
I would urge a bit of caution before drawing this conclusion. There are some very anti-semetic writers, seethingly anti-semetic I might add, who have drawn this same conclusion.
Unfortunately, these people are, in my opinion, just as guilty of not looking at the religious dynamics that were transpiring during 1st century Palestine. Although none of them seemed to have as lasting an influence as Jesus, it needs to be noted that there were many people who rose up and claimed to be the fullfilment of messianic expectations during this time.
My general conclusion is that the earliest Talmudic writings seem to be capturing a knee-jerk reaction against a perceived merging of their own Jewish identity with other cultures, such as the Hellenistic cultures for example. In other words, these writings seem to reflect a restricted time of repelling a cultural synthesis within Judaism. However, the earlier pseudographical writings which predated the earliest Talmudic writings seem to have no problem with this cultural sysnthesis. In addition to this, the later Talmudic writings, likewise, seem to contradict the earlier Talmudic writings as these ideas once again became more palpable.
While one could point to concepts within the early Talmudic writings which would seem to be separating themselves from the early Christian church, one could also note the same thing against other Jewish writers such as Philo of Alexandria for example.
There's an odd fact that many people in this thread seem to be overlooking concerning 1st century Palestine when discussing the religious dynamics: The heightened expectations of the messiah during this particular era.
Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver wrote his doctoral thesis on the analysis of Jewish messianic thought over the last two thousand years. The thesis was later published in 1927 as A History of Messianic Speculation in Israel. The Rabbi illustrated that there was a tremendous explosion of messianic expectation during the first few decades of the first century of the Christian era at the very time that Jesus of Narareth made his claims to be Israel's true messiah:
A History of Messianic Speculation in Israel by Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver writes:
Prior to the first century the Messianic interest was not excessive, although such great historical events as the conquest of Persia by Alexander, the rule of the Ptolemies and the Seleucides, the persecutions under Antiochus, the revolt of the Maccabees, and the Roman agression find their mystic-Messianic echo in the apocalyptic writings of the first two pre-Christian centuries. Calculations, however, as to the exact hour of the Messiah's appearance are wanting....The first century, however, especially the generation before the destruction [of the Temple in A.D. 70], witnessed a remarkable outburst of Messianic emotionalism. This is to be attributed, as we shall see, not to an intensification of Roman persecution but to the prevalent belief induced by the popular chronology of that day that the age was on the threshold of the Millennium.
When Jesus came into Galilee, speading the gospel of the Kingdom of God and saying the 'time is fulfilled' and the 'kingdom of God is at hand', he was voicing the opinion universally held that the year 5000 in the creation calendar, which is to usher in the sixth millennium -- the age of the Kingdom of God --was at hand. It was this chronologic fact which inflamed the Messianic hope of the people rather than Roman persecutions. There is no evidence anywhere to show that the political fortunes of the people in the second quarter of the first century of the common era -- the period of many Messianic movements -- were in any degree lower than those in the first quarter, in which no Messianic movements are recorded.
Jesus appeared in the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate (26 - 36 C.E.). The first mention of the appearance of a Messiah in Josephus is in connection with the disturbances during the term of office of the procurator Cuspius Fadus (c. 44 C.E.), It seems likely, therefore, that in the minds of the people the Millennium was to begin around the year 30 C.E.
Be it remembered that it is not the Messiah who brings about the Millennium; it is the inevitable advent of the Millennium which carries along with it the messiah and his appointed activities. The Messiah was expected around the second quarter of the first century C.E., because the Millennium was at hand. Prior to that time he was not expected, because according to the chronology of the day the Millennium was still considerably removed.
Rabbi Silver's research seems to positively demonstrate that the ancient Jewish writers understood from the Scripture's prophecies that the Messiah was expected to appear in the first few decades of the first century, in the lifetime of the generation that ended with the burning of the Second Temple in A.D. 70.
The early Talmudic sources do actually seem to claim many traditions and comments about the coming messiah. For example Rabbi Elijah, who lived about two hundred years before Jesus, is claimed to have told his students:
Rabbi Elijah writes:
The world will exist six thousand years. The first two thousand years were those of chaos [without the Torah]. The second two thousand years were those under the Torah. The last two thousand years are the messianic years.
The belief within many Pharisaic schools of thought during this time was that they were living approximately five thousand years after the creation of Adam aand Eve.
For example, Josephus in his history of the Jews, said, "Those Antiquities contain the history of 5,000 years, and are taken out of our sacred books."
Ezra IV, which was also written around the 1st century, also refers to this beleif that only five thousand years had elapsed, "And I did so in the seventh year of the sixth week of 5,000 years of the creation, and three months and twelve days."
This message has been edited by Mr. Ex Nihilo, 03-26-2006 07:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by jaywill, posted 03-26-2006 7:17 AM jaywill has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024