jbernier

Some very good points are raised here by Jews for Judaism. In fact, I think that they highlight some very common Christian misconceptions of what it means to say that Jesus is "Messiah." Let us look at some in particular (paraphrased, so as not to violated copyright):

First point (which paraphrases Jews for Judaism's points 1 and 2): Messiah (English transliteration of Hebrew Mashiach) is best translated as "Anointed" and most often refers to an individual who has been anointed by oil as a sign that they are to serve God. This included both kings and high priests in the Tanakh.

Response: Mashiach is best understood as a type of person. By that I mean that many people throughout Jewish history have been Mashiach (this is to say that many people have been anointed with oil as a sign that they were to serve God). Christ must be understood as standing within this tradition not as the Mashiach but rather as one who was of the type Mashiach.

Second point (which paraphrases Jews for Judaism's points 3 through 6): There is no reference to haMashiach (the Messiah) in the Tanakh. There is, however, references to a coming "Messianic Age" in the prophets: An age in which the world is restored to its original state of perfection. The prophets often speak about a Davidic king who will rule during this age and his coming will coincide with the establishment of this "Messianic Age." He is called "theMessiah" by convention, to distinguish him from the other Messiahs (remember: "anointed") that have come throughout Israel's history.

Response: This is where early Christianity and early Rabbinic Judaism seem to have parted company. The former said "That Davidic king, the Mashiach who will make all things new, will usher in an age of peace, has come in Jesus of Nazareth"; the latter said "That Davidic king has not come." The former thus said that the Messianic age had in some sense begun whereas the latter said that it had not.

Third point (paraphrasing Jews for Judaism's point 9): Jesus of Nazareth did not usher in the "Messianic Age", the world is not restored to its original state of perfection, etc. Therefore Jesus is not the Messiah. Moreover, relegating this restoration to a "second coming" is not consistent with the Biblical tradition.

Response: To begin with one would to investigate this claim more closely. In particular one would need to look at the intertestamental period and see precisely what sort of difference expectations existed for Mashiach. Was it universally accepted in pre-Christian Jewish circles that Mashiach would effect this restoration within his human lifetime? I really do not know the answer to that; I raise it as a point which follows from Jews for Judaism's critique.

I must say that this is on the surface a very powerful critique: Probably the best that they have offered. But my above point is its Achilles' heel. No, the Hebrew scriptures do not say that the Messiah will effect the restoration of the world through two comings; neither, however, does it say that all will be accomplished in a single human lifetime. In fact the prophetic texts are very ambiguous about "Messianic timing." Thus leaves open the possibility that the "Messianic Age" in some sense began with Christ but is not yet completed. Now, the obvious objection is "Well, the world ain't gotten much better under Christianity's watch." Too true! And that is, I would argue, because Christianity succumbed to the temptations that Jesus refused in the desert: Specifically the temptation to use the tools of government to enforce a Christian order upon society. However, I would contend that if Christians had really done what they were called to do then the world would be a much better place today.

Did I neglect to respond to something you think important? Please, by all means, bring it to my attention.

Magus55

I don't think Deut 17 is referring to Jesus, but Jesus was a Jew anyway so it doesn't matter.

This was fullfilled in 2 parts. First with David, and then with Jesus ( the Shiloh). Jesus is of the tribe of Judah.

Fullfilled. Matthew 1:1

Future prophecy. Mat 24:31

These are all future prophecies. Jews assume the Messiah is supposed to have done all of this the first time around, which is why they reject Him. But it wasn't Jesus' intention to do this when He came 2000 years ago. His purpose then was to provide Salvation to the world, and spread His ministry. When He returns, all of these will be fullfilled. The Millenium kingdom will have the rebuilt temple. It will be a time of world wide peace. Everyone will observe God's laws. And everyone will accept the one God.

Biff the unclean

Those silly Jews! Just because somebody did not fulfill the requirements to be the Messiah...that he didn't even intend to fulfill them...and he's been dead as a door nail for 2000 years, they assume he isn't the Messiah. Whatever can they be thinking?
Word of advise...pay off your student loans during your first time around. Both banks and Jews frown on promises you intend to fulfill during your next lifetime.

Mageth

About those "future prophecies" (aren't all prophecies "future"?):

The early believers were, well, shocked when Jesus, who they thought was the Messiah, was crucified. That wasn't supposed to happen, so they needed an explanation. So they came up with the concept that indeed, Jesus was the Messiah, but instead of coming once to accomplish his mission, he would have to come twice. The first time, to do the sacrifice thing, to be the humble servant; mission accomplished. The second time, as triumphant king to kick some serious ass and to establish the Messianic kingdom. That's coming at some unspecified time in the future, though the early church thought it would be quite soon, within their lifetimes.

WCH

According to Matthew, Jesus is very definitely not a direct, male descendant of David. Matthew traces a family tree which skips generations and in several places goes through marriage (so there is nothing "direct" about it), and ends up at Joseph. Since Joseph was not married to Mary at the time of conception, Mary was not part of this family tree, and since Matthew claims Joseph wasn't the father, the entire tree is meaningless.

Magus55

Matthew wrote the legal geneology through Joseph. Luke wrote the biological one through Mary. In Judaism, your ancestory goes through the mother, not the father.

Magus55

Yes, i meant by future, hasn't happened yet, whereas many prophecies have.

Thats a nice story you've made up there Mageth. Unfortunately, its not the same one as in the Bible. But hey, no need to worry about plagarizing right?

Biff the unclean

Odd that Luke neglects to mention Mary's parents, or any women at all since you claim that ancestory goes through the maternal line. Odd that Matthew's version is "legal" if it goes against Jewish custom.
Odd that the fortune tellers who "foresaw" that the Messiah would be decended from a couple of piss-ant kings of a waste land far beyond the borders of civilization should miss the fact that he was also Godalmightycreatorof heaven&earth. You'd think a little detail like that wouldn't slip by them

Mageth

You're right; it's not the same as what's found in the Hebrew Bible, which is odd as that is what the Church believes, and what you expressed:

blt to go

Hey, Magus55. Nice to see you back in this thread. Did you think I had forgotten?

Are you getting around to responding to Mageths, Amaleq13 and my questions about God being in the presence of evil, in light of Job and other passages?