the diffusion of an earthly Messiah concept among people (Romans, Jews or anybody) is a necessary precondition for anybody to be viewed as an eartly Messiah.
...is totally wrong
when it deals with Jews before the 70 CE, since we have independent evidence that:
- the Essenes adored Melkizedek as Messiah and Melkizedek was not a human but a celestial figure by that time;
- the early Christians adored Jesus as Messiah and Jesus was not an earthly but a celestial figure before the 70 CE.
My point is that, after the 70 CE, thanks to Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, etc, in Rome there was the diffusion of only
a meme of 'Jewish Messiah': as earthly
Hence, while before the 70
, in Judea
the presence of a celestial
Messiah among many other earthly and celestial
Messiahs was not a "problem" at all for the adorers of said Messiah, ...
...now, after the 70
, in Rome
the idea of an earthly
Messiah became increasingly popular as the 'only' 'original' concept of Messiah.
'Mark' (author) had to invent an earthly
Jesus Christ if
his goal was to persuade the Christian Romans that Jesus was the expected (earthly) Messiah.
Baley wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:01 am
Edit: in other words, I don't see how the remarks by Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus are a prerequisite for Jews, Greeks and Romans believing in an earthly Jesus Messiah figure.
before the 70 CE, the Romans didn't know what 'Messiah' meant and/or alluded to.
It is thanks both to Josephian propaganda and hearsay from the First Jewish War that the Romans knew the first time
that the Jews expected an earthly conqueror.