Jesus wasn't the only "messiah" during his time

[chaz0426]

In my religion vs. science class in college, it was brought up that during Jesus time there were numerous other movements going on at the same time with guys proclaiming to be the “messiah” and such in the same area with some of those performing miracles too.

It was also discussed that the one of the reasons Jesus message stood out and formed Christianity is because his followers did not die with him (stop preaching out of fear, move on in life ect.) but instead continued spreading the message throughout Europe and the Roman Empire. Some say it was the result of the Roman Empire legally “adopting” Christianity as it’s religion in the 300’s as the reason for it’s success as well.

I plan to do some more research and reading time permitting but it was just a little perplexing to hear that Jesus was just one of many movements going on at the same time (hence was not unique) and his succeeded by chance or circumstance otherwise it could have been another movement that could have succeeded.

I go to a state University so obviously the class is going to be an un-biased (supposedly) and secular view on science and religion so we look at most of the historical aspects of Christianity, it was just this one thing that got me last week.

 

[EphelDuath]

The fact that Christianity miraculously survived and spread so quickly and sustainably is one of the reasons to believe it’s true, I’d say. There were indeed several people who claimed to be the Messiah, but none of them fulfilled the Judaic prophecies but Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[crazzeto]

There were others, the bible it’s self points this out, say in Acts of the Apostles:

Act 5:34 But one in the council rising up, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, respected by all the people, commanded the men to be put forth a little while.
Act 5:35 And he said to them: Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do, as touching these men.
Act 5:36 For before these days rose up Theodas, affirming himself to be somebody, to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves. Who was slain: and all that believed him were scattered and brought to nothing.
Act 5:37 After this man, rose up Judas of Galilee, in the days of the enrolling, and drew away the people after him. He also perished: and all, even as many as consented to him, were dispersed.
Act 5:38 And now, therefore, I say to you: Refrain from these men and let them alone. For if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought:

What stands out about Christianity is the fact that Jesus actually rose from the dead, that is to say he proved he was God. Not merely that his followers managed to keep hanging in there (as your teacher suggests).

 

[DV56]

In my religion vs. science class in college, it was brought up that during Jesus time there were numerous other movements going on at the same time with guys proclaiming to be the “messiah” and such in the same area with some of those performing miracles too.

It was also discussed that the one of the reasons Jesus message stood out and formed Christianity is because his followers did not die with him (stop preaching out of fear, move on in life ect.) but instead continued spreading the message throughout Europe and the Roman Empire. Some say it was the result of the Roman Empire legally “adopting” Christianity as it’s religion in the 300’s as the reason for it’s success as well.

I plan to do some more research and reading time permitting but it was just a little perplexing to hear that Jesus was just one of many movements going on at the same time (hence was not unique) and his succeeded by chance or circumstance otherwise it could have been another movement that could have succeeded.

I go to a state University so obviously the class is going to be an un-biased (supposedly) and secular view on science and religion so we look at most of the historical aspects of Christianity, it was just this one thing that got me last week.

Yes, I’ve read the same thing. There were many claims of messiahship in the 100 to 200 years before Christ. All false of course. Can you imagine being a person back then? Lot’s of self proclaimed messiahs and you would have to hope to know the real one.

 

[chaz0426]

There were others, the bible it’s self points this out, say in Acts of the Apostles:

What stands out about Christianity is the fact that Jesus actually rose from the dead, that is to say he proved he was God. Not merely that his followers managed to keep hanging in there (as your teacher suggests).

Yes but we are looking at the historical aspects rather than the religious ones. Jesus rising from the dead is part of the Christian faith than historical fact (or cannot be proven historically outside of the gospels).

Quick note, I am catholic but am trying to learn more as well.

 

[chaz0426]

Yes, I’ve read the same thing. There were many claims of messiahship in the 100 to 200 years before Christ. All false of course. Can you imagine being a person back then? Lot’s of self proclaimed messiahs and you would have to hope to know the real one.

Exactly, but what gets me is that some of them could also supposedly do miracles as well “heal, cast out demons” notably Simon Magus. I thought originally that is what made Jesus unique along with his message of love.

 

[crazzeto]

Yes but we are looking at the historical aspects rather than the religious ones. Jesus rising from the dead is part of the Christian faith than historical fact (or cannot be proven historically).

Uh, it is in fact both historical fact and religious. I would caution against eating up too much secularist thought, it’s not going to get you anywhere you want to go.

At a very minimun you have:

1. Jesus existed
2. he truely died on the cross
3. His body most certainly went missing (as accounted not only in scriptures, but in other works like that of Josephus)
4. There isn’t really a whole lot of reasnoble explanation as to why his body went missing. He rose from the dead is actually the most plausable explanation.
5. As mentioned directly in the sacrade text (as well as historically I’m sure), the followers of the other so called massiah’s never lived on beyond the death of their teacher. It’s clear the resurrection embolded Christ’s followers.

 

[DV56]

Exactly, but what gets me is that some of them could also supposedly do miracles as well “heal, cast out demons” which I thought originally that is what made Jesus unique along with his message of love.

But Jesus cast out demons and performed miracles in God’s name. I’m familiar with these miracle workers also. They may have been performing miracles with Satan’s help. Remember that these messiahs knew they weren’t the real Christ.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Yes but we are looking at the historical aspects rather than the religious ones. Jesus rising from the dead is part of the Christian faith than historical fact (or cannot be proven historically outside of the gospels).

Quick note, I am catholic but am trying to learn more as well.

Consider Jesus as a Messiah claimant–he comes from “Hicksville” (Nazareth). He preaches for 3 (poossibly less) years and says things that alienate most of his followers (John 6) so badly they leave him. When he is quite publicaly executed only a few women (including his Mom) are there and one male disciple. The rest are in hiding.

So, it begs credulity to claim his “message” was what allowed this movement to survice its death–we are talking about Jews here, who have a proven track to forget and discount failed Messiahs–as witness, no one knew Bar Kochba’s given name until uncovered in the late 19th century

 

[chaz0426]

Uh, it is in fact both historical fact and religious. I would caution against eating up too much secularist thought, it’s not going to get you anywhere you want to go.

At a very minimun you have:

1. Jesus existed
2. he truely died on the cross
3. His body most certainly went missing (as accounted not only in scriptures, but in other works like that of Josephus)
4. There isn’t really a whole lot of reasnoble explanation as to why his body went missing. He rose from the dead is actually the most plausable explanation.
5. As mentioned directly in the sacrade text (as well as historically I’m sure), the followers of the other so called massiah’s never lived on beyond the death of their teacher. It’s clear the resurrection embolded Christ’s followers.

I’m aware of that and I’m not new in the faith (well versed) and I’m actually surprised that so far the course has been pretty non-biased that I can tell (just factual).

I think it’s good that a catholic learn both perspectives to strengthen the faith. Being open minded is not a bad thing in and of itself if one is grounded in his/her faith.

 

[chaz0426]

Consider Jesus as a Messiah claimant–he comes from “Hicksville” (Nazareth). He preaches for 3 (poossibly less) years and says things that alienate most of his followers (John 6) so badly they leave him. When he is quite publicaly executed only a few women (including his Mom) are there and one male disciple. The rest are in hiding.

So, it begs credulity to claim his “message” was what allowed this movement to survice its death–we are talking about Jews here, who have a proven track to forget and discount failed Messiahs–as witness, no one knew Bar Kochba’s given name until uncovered in the late 19th century

Exactly, I always thought his message about false prophets addresses those others doing the same as he does ect.

 

[crazzeto]

I’m aware of that and I’m not new in the faith (well versed) and I’m actually surprised that so far the course has been pretty non-biased that I can tell (just factual).

I think it’s good that a catholic learn both perspectives to strengthen the faith. Being open minded is not a bad thing in and of itself if one is grounded in his/her faith.

There’s a dangerously thin line between being “open minded” and being “pluralistic” or falling into agnostisism or some variant there of. There’s certainly nothing wrong with reading as many historical sources as you can, but your post comes dangerously close to compramising your core beliefs. It’s at this point where you can start walking down the wrong path, that’s something I don’t want to see anyone do.

So again, by all means read up on as many sources as you can. I suggest Flavious Josephus off the bat, I also suggest Eusebius of Caesarea’s History of the Church writen in 310 AD. You’ll find this particularly helpful as Eusebius is very good at citing non-Christian sources to verify his position. By reading a work like this, it will help you hone in on ancient sources which contain data about Christian beliefs.

 

[TomD123]

Of course if a religion is waiting for a promised figure, many will claim to be him. In Buddhism, some claim to be a reincarnate Buddha, in Islam some claim to be the Mahdi, and Judaism is no different. The claim of someone being the messiah in Jesus’s time was probably not all that rare and therefore, there must have been a very good reason for followers of the so called messiah to die for him.

Now your professor seems to think that the other “messiahs” also performed miracles but I would like to know what is the source of this. We have the Bible which records a lot about Jesus’s life, teachings, and miracles. No other “messiahs” have this. There have been no records of any other messiah with a name, estimated time period, following (big or small) or a messiah with specific miracles. Why was Jesus the only “messiah” to actually succeed. If Jesus was just another man claiming to be the messiah, how did his followers spread so much that today 1/3 of the earth fell for his claim. That would be the best lie in the history of the world! The type of person to claim to be the Messiah would probably be either a little crazy or after a lot of popularity. If Jesus was crazy, his lie would have probably fallen apart quickly because sane people would eventually look at the situation logically. If he was very power hungry or really wanted popularity, why does Jesus not accept being “forced into being king” as recorded in the Gospels, or why does Jesus accept crucifixion? There are a couple more things that make Jesus different:

1. Fullfills all of the prophecies, yet
2. Does not fit into the common “messiah” description- for example, he does not come as a king from this world
3. Jesus claims to be God- Why would someone who was claiming to be the messiah do this, wouldn’t they know that they would not be taken seriously? in Jewish culture, this was blasphemy? Finally, why would the followers of Jesus believe his claims if they too were Jews, wouldn’t this also be blasphemy. Christianity, especially the trinity and incarnation, both mysteries that are important to who Jesus is, are very anti-intuitive.

 

[jasev]

In my religion vs. science class in college, it was brought up that during Jesus time there were numerous other movements going on at the same time with guys proclaiming to be the “messiah” and such in the same area with some of those performing miracles too.

Why in the world would there be a “religion vs. science class” in a State University?

In any case - yes, this is true… well, except for the “miracles too” part. Not so sure about that, but would not be surprised. Barabbas, if I remember correctly, was one of these “messiahs.” There were a number of others. Messianic expectation at the time was very high given popular interpretations of prophecy. They expected a Messiah - an Anointed King - to come overthrow Rome and return Israel to its former glory. The whole thing finally came to an end in 70 AD when one of these messianic groups took on Rome… and lost.

Jesus’ message seems to have caught many off guard and angered quite a few as well. His message was that the Kingdom of God was at hand… but this time it wasn’t going to be the restoration of an earthly monarchy in Israel… it was going to be much, much bigger in size, scope, and meaning.

This should not be news to most Christians, it should be something we point out to others!

It was also discussed that the one of the reasons Jesus message stood out and formed Christianity is because his followers did not die with him (stop preaching out of fear, move on in life ect.) but instead continued spreading the message throughout Europe and the Roman Empire. Some say it was the result of the Roman Empire legally “adopting” Christianity as it’s religion in the 300’s as the reason for it’s success as well.

Bucket-loads of his followers blood was spilled before the religion made legal in the 300’s. One could look back from an armchair today and say Christianity has been successful because of Constantine… or one could put themselves in history just before Constantine and ask why against all of the odds, is this sect as successful as it is? In the end, arguments can be spun in a number of directions on this, but it doesn’t seem one can definitively prove or disprove anything. Fact is, Christianity did not die under immense persecution before Constantine… not only that, but it’s still here today.

I plan to do some more research and reading time permitting but it was just a little perplexing to hear that Jesus was just one of many movements going on at the same time (hence was not unique) and his succeeded by chance or circumstance otherwise it could have been another movement that could have succeeded.

I go to a state University so obviously the class is going to be an un-biased (supposedly) and secular view on science and religion so we look at most of the historical aspects of Christianity, it was just this one thing that got me last week.

I highly recommend N. T. Wright’s work on this subject. His book Simply Christian has a great chapter or two on these themes I think. His series Christian Origins and the Question of God provides many more details than you might care to dig into initially… but good stuff. I understand his book The Challenge of Jesus covers some of this in a much more distilled form… but confess that I haven’t read that one myself.

(Full disclosure - N. T. Wright is not RC but Anglican. I’m not RC either for that matter. That really shouldn’t matter, but some here might be put off by anything non-Roman Catholic. Others can likely provide some good RC material.)

 

[Oldtimer_7]

Josephus listed thirteen pretenders to Messiahship during the time of Christ. In this regard, Monty Python had it pretty accurate in The LIfe Of Brian. There was tremendous ferment in the Jews of the first century, as can be seen by the many rebellions that had to be put down. The disciples also did not understand what Jesus meant by being the Son of God until after the Resurrection. This was particularly evident in the Gospel of Mark and is generally referred to as the Messianic Secret. The Romans and the Jewish leadership regarded Jesus as a revolutionary. At His betrayal he asks why they are treating him as a thief, but this is a weak translation, as the Greek term “lestes” also carried a political element.

 

[steve53]

I just read a couple of books that might interest you, both by John Hagan. One is “Year of the Passover” and the other is “Fires of Rome.” In them, Hagan goes over the best of the ancient sources and puts together a fascinating picture of what happened in those times, up until the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. And yes, there were many messiahs in Jesus’ time. The Old Testament predicted them and Jewish men of ambition were more than willing to assume the role- merited or not. Someone earlier mentioned Josephus mentions thirteen. Maybe so, but Hagan focuses on several- Theudas, the Egyptian, Judas the Galilean, and others. Strongly recommended.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Yep, throughout Jewish history there were many others who claims to be the messiah. But, none of them fulfilled prophecy, nor rose from the dead.