jre

[NOTE: I originally posted this in the Philosophy forum, thinking it would be suitable there, but in retrospect it seems more fitting here.]

Fundies claim that Jesus is the messiah because he's fulfilled messanic prophecies. Forgetting that half of these "prophecies" are just analogies (Eve hitting the snake and all), the other half are only semi-fulfilled or even unfulfilled. The common apologetic defence is "Jesus will fulfill all these prophecies come his second time around".

Isn't this alone proof that Jesus isn't the Messiah, but he only has the potential to be?

sighhswolf

jre,
Jesus was not the messiah, and there
is no mention of a "second coming" in the Jewish Tanach or the New Testament.
There is no prophesy stating the messiah will come,teach, and be killed only to return at a later date.

I am not Jewish, nor Christian, but the concept of the Messiah as presented by the Christian faith is not the concept outlined
by the Ancient Hebrews.

First: The term "Moshiach" translated as "Messiah" means simply annointed one.
It does not mean nor does it imply a "savior".

Judaic texts uses the term "messiah" for all kings, high priests and certain warriors.

Christians say Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies, but this is a contrived falsehood according to the Jews.
Jewish scholars say that Jesus did not by any streach of the imagination fulfill any
prophecies.
Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications attributed to the "real messiah".

The criteria for establishing the messiahs identity is as follows in Jewish "law".
( from Mishnah Kings 11:4)
"If a king arises from the house of David
who meditates on the Torah, occupies himself
with the commandments as did his ancestor King David, observes the commandments of the written and oral law, prevails upon all Israel to walk in the way of the Torah and to follow it's direction and fights the wars of G-d, it may be assumed that he is the "messiah"

If he does all these things and is fully successful, rebuilds the "Third Temple" on it's location and gathers the exiled Jews ,
he is beyond doubt the "Messiah".

BUT, if he is not fully successful, or if he is KILLED, he is not the "messiah"."

The last statement would automatically disqualify the character Jesus as being the "messiah".

The real "messiah" will be a mortal non-divine human being. A man like the rest of humanity.

He will not have supernatural powers, or perform miracles and display magic.
The charge to the messiah is to build the third temple. (Ezekiel 37:26-28)

Gather all the Jews back to Israel. (Isaiah 43:5-6)

He will usher in an era of "world peace" and end all hatred, suffering, oppression and disease.

"Nation shall not lift up sword against nation.
Neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah
2:4)
The Messiah will bring ALL people to the God of Israel.

Now, based on the information above, Jesus could never be the Messiah.
He did not build the third temple.
He did not bring a world peace.
He did not gather the people of Israel from exile.

Jesus in fact displayed (according to the NT) a rebellious streak against Jewish law,
and frequently was in opposition with the priests.

The Jews (or the Rabbi that I have spoken with) were not comfortable with any "miracles" performed by so-called messiahs. (of which there were many that made the claim, not just Jesus).

The Jews say that public displays of miracles can be staged and mean nothing.
In Jewish circles of scholarship it is widely held that G-d in fact allowed false messiahs to perform miracles to test the knowledge of it's people and the resolve
of it's faith.

There are many of the most orthodox Jews, that see Jesus as a false messiah sent by Satan to draw away Jews from their faith.

The Christian concept of Jesus being part of the "Trinity" is Idol worship according to Jewish law.

"I am the L-rd thy G-d, thou shalt have no other Gods before me".
The concept of Christianity that the father, son and holy spirit make up the "godhead" is unacceptable to the Jews.

Some of the New Messianic Jewish sects have differing ideas, but the majority of Orthodox Jews disqualify any thought of Jesus as being the messiah.

The interpretations and translations made from the Torah by the early Catholic compilers were absolutely wrong.
The terrible part is that in many instances,
the Church and the early writers knew words and phrases were being incorrectly translated, but in order to preserve the
new Christian movement, they were allowed to remain and as such were deliberate misquotes
and deceptions.

Jesus, the Messiah? Depends on who you talk to.
The second coming? No such thing is prophesied.
W.

Jesus Freak

Most of your argument that stems from the bible has no reference and those with references are wrong.
Example: Ezekiel 37:26-28 say:


37:26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.

37:27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

37:28 And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.
(KJV)

What Bible are you using?

As for no second coming in the new testament:

Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Matthew 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

Again I ask what Bible are you using?

Winston Day

I am not trying to interrupt this good exchange. I just have a quick question.
Where in the Bible does Jesus specifically claim to be the messiah? I could look it up but that would take time!!!!!
WD

hezekiah jones

And then ..., that is, immediately after (among other things) the sun "darkens," the moon stops "giving her light" [sic] and the stars fall from "heaven."

I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you. And stop being such a scriptural cherry-picker.

[ July 13, 2001: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]

rodahi

Jesus Freak: As for no second coming in the new testament:

Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Matthew 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

When Jesus speaks of the imminent coming of the Son of man in the sky to judge the sinners, he is speaking of the Son's FIRST coming, not a second. According to the narrative attributed to "Mark," Jesus believed himself to be the herald of the Son of man, not the Son of man himself.

rodahi

jre

Yes, I know all that, as I've mentioned above in my original post. Which is what I'm saying, the apologetic trick of the "second coming", isn't that in a way admitting that the Jesus thus far is not the messiah according to the bible? Should Jesus ever return (HA!), and then fulfills everything, then does he become the messiah?

As it stands, "second coming" notwithstanding, Jesus currently does not fit the criteria of the messiah according to the bible, which makes you realize that, as a saviour, he's totally useless to Christian and non-Christian alike.

Kosh

Of course, you can't really count these since
they were written after Jesus had
failed to fullfill the Jewish messianic
image and there was nothing left for them
to do but claim he would come again....

Remember JF, this is a forum where many us
doubt the validity of the claims in the
new testament, so don't just "but the Bible
tells me so!"

sighhswolf

jre,
I understand what you are saying, it's like the old "money in the bank" trick.
Christians will try and steer around the main
issue, which is the fact that Jesus died...
According to Hebrew prophecy the messiah does not die, if he is killed, he is not the Messiah. There is no "second chance", the real Messiah will get it right the first time.

It is rather ironic that the atonement in blood and the Christian concept of the crucifixion disqualifies Jesus from being the
Jewish Messiah, of prophecy, and Jewish law.

I agree totally with your statement, "as a saviour, he's totally useless, to Christian and non-christian alike".

Jesus certainly was not a "Saviour" of Mankind. His own family thought he was "crazy", deluded.

It is clear in scripture that Jesus family did not treat him as a "divine being".
Mark 3:21 relates to his family going to get him as "he is beside himself", referring to his claims of messiahship and rantings.

John 7:5 says " for even his brothers did not believe him".

In Luke 4:16 Jesus goes to the synagoue in Nazareth and hints that he is the Messiah.
No, he doesnt say it word for word but he hints to the fact.

So, what happens? In Luke 4:28, they heard this (referring to the people in the synagogue) they rose up to throw him out of the city.

Of course my opinions mean nothing, but
I have looked at the personality of this person at length. Modern theologians attribute many qualities to Jesus that were questionable, and were not supported in the Biblical Text.

And there are many instances of misquotes, and mistranslations that may have or may not have been purposely perpetrated by Christian leadership in the early church history.

John E. Remsburg's book, "The Christ A Critical Review of the Evidence of His Existence", should be a text book for people
interested in the Messiahship of Jesus.
Aside from the historical evidence factor,
Remsburg gives a very in depth look at the
factors of the time period.

Panu Derekh, a Jewish Scholar and Rabbi, puts Jesus into proper perspective in regards to the question of Messiahship.
What should the Messiah be like according to
Jewish law and scripture?

His character should be beyond reproach, impeccable in every way.
His charge was to fulfill the commandments of the Torah completely.
He was to "RESTORE" Torah observance to Israel.

The actual character of Jesus as portrayed in the Christian Gospels were as far away from the "character of the Messiah" expected by Hebrew teachings, as I am.

In Matt.23:2-3, Jesus is quoted as saying, "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses'
seat; therefore ALL THAT THEY TELL YOU DO AND OBSERVE".

Jesus also quoted from Deut.17:11, "You shall not deviate from the word that they will tell you, right or left".

Yet a simple law that was for the good of the people and was designed for health and good sanitary practices was called into question by Jesus.

Paraphrased: "wash your hands before you eat".
A very simple Jewish law to help control the spread of illness.

At one point Jesus was visited by the Pharisees for the purpose of listening to him teach his disciples, a visit without malice.
Jesus gives his disciples bread to eat, in front of the Rabbi's.

The disciples take the bread, and begin to eat without washing their hands first.
The Parisees ask Jesus a simple question.
"Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands"? Mark: 7

At this question, Jesus goes into a tirade and calls the Pharisaic Rabbis hypocrites.
And instead of a simple answer, he begins to Misquote scripture and changes the subject to something entirely irrelevent to the situation.

There seems to be a Christian interpretation
that he was defending himself from unwarrented attack from the Rabbis, but that is very simply not the case.

Over and over again Jesus puts himself at odds with the Pharisaic Rabbis, the very assembly of G-ds power on earth.
Matt.23:2-3 is the verse Jesus quotes, " The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat; therefore all that they tell you do and observe".

Seems a bit hypocritical on Jesus part, dont you think? This is just one instance, there are others that pit Jesus views against accepted Jewish law.

The "Messiah" of the Ancient Hebrews was certainly not Jesus, and the failure to abide by Jewish law reinforces this fact for them. Remembering that Jewish law was "G-d
Given", directly to the Jewish people through
his prophets.

There was no choice As a Jew, you either followed G-ds law or you did not and there was no room for negotiation or differing interpretations.


As I read these accounts though, I do have one opinion of the man in question, and that is that he was a revolutionary (if in fact he was a real flesh and blood character, and at this point I feel he was) who had enough
moxie to stand against the status quo.

Does this make him divine? Does this qualify him as G-d?
Does this endear him as the Messiah?
NO, Not then and not now.


I have to make a comment here that is usually glossed over and shoved to the back of every Christian argument for Jesus as the Messiah and is a subject that is taboo in Christian circles, and no one wants to explain and expand on this topic, using reality based ideas.

The topic is the fact that Jesus was first and foremost a JEW!
Many statements made in the KJV attributed to Jesus may have been forged and embellishments by the writers.

But it is inconceivable to me that a Jewish
teacher, a divinely inspired orthodox Jew, in that particular time period,
would be receptive to teaching Gods word to Gentiles.

And in fact he is quoted as equating Gentiles
with Dogs.
And at another point he tells his disciples not to teach the Gentiles.

Of course Christian Theologians will have their response to this and will try to prove that it meant nothing.

In fact some Christian scholars have said that the passage that refers to Gentiles in a derogatory manner was written "as they thought a Jew would speak about a Gentile, in the language of their time".

What does this say about the translations?
What does this say about the stereo typical
image that Christians have of Jews and vice versa?