Visionary7

Yes.

Wallener

Why shouldn't it be? There is nothing magical about calling someone an 'annointed prince', it's a generic description of leadership and is used all over the place. Context is everything: if I refer to "a prince", you envision Ranier of Monaco, if I refer to "Prince", you envision a short black guy with a funky guitar.

Some prophecies specifically referring to HaMoshiak are...
Isaiah 2, 11, 42; 59:20
Jeremiah 23, 30, 33; 48:47; 49:39
Ezekiel 38:16
Hosea 3:4-3:5
Micah 4
Zephaniah 3:9
Zechariah 14:9

Note that the Jesus of the Christian texts failed to fulfill even a single one of these, which, relating back to the OP, is why Jews do not accept him as a messiah.

Diogenes the Cynic

1. 2 Peter is not part of the Hebrew Bible so it's irrelevant to establishing Jewish Messianic expectations. The Jewish Messiah is not supposed to die before fulfilling the requirements and there are no OT predictions of a second coming. The fact that Christians changed the definition and expectations for their own Messiah is neither here nor there.

2. 2 Peter was written more than a century after the alleged crucifixion and so was not a predictive prophecy but an acknowledgement of a failed expectation.

John A. Broussard

Do you mean if someone believes something, that makes it true? Sounds like something out of the Wizard of Oz.

As for the big M Messiah, were there caps in Aramaic and Hebrew? I know there weren't in Tocharian, but that's an Indo-European language.

OOPS. Forget that. The spoken language can use any kind of script when put into writing.

Wallener

I didn't mean "big M" in a literal sense. See how easy it is to fall into the quicksand of literalism? A word can be used like a name, indicating a specific instance of a general class. Like the difference between "a pill" and "the Pill".

Same noun, radically different meaning.

spin

While I agree with your general point regarding the "messiahship" of Jesus, your etymology of Mary is simply wrong. If you care to look at the way Miriam is translated in the LXX, you'll find Mariam. This was a usual thing to do when transliterating names from Hebrew into Greek. Make the best of what you hear of the original name, so we got Mariam. The next phase is to adapt the name so that it can take Greek declensions, so that more meaning could be transferred. This is what happened with various names. Think of Y(eh)ohanan, which in the LXX phase became iwanan, then iwannhs in the gospels (Saul, LXX = saoul in nt = saulos; Joseph is a notable exception). The Maria of the gospels is simply an adjustment in Greek because Mariam and other Hebrew names were often too awkward to use. There is no justification for the musings you are working with as an Indo-European source.

The trajectory for Mary as we have it is via the French so that Maria became Marie and finally Mary. There was never any "Mari" in the route from the Greek. So, certainly not, Mary doesn't mean young woman and there is no hint at such an idea in the literature.


spin

Fr.Andrew

When the Messiah comes:
Isaiah says that there will be no more war:
"And He [Messiah] shall judge among the nations and decide for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore."-(2:4)
Obviously this prophecy has not been realized.

Daniel says that the dead will be resurrected.
"And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake: some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."(12:2)
Our graveyards remain full, so this prophecy is apparently on hold as well.

Ezekiel says that when the Messiah comes, trees in Israel will bear new fruit every month.
"And on both sides of the bank of the stream, all trees for food will grow; their leaves will not wither nor will their fruit fail, but they will bear fresh fruit every month, because their waters flow from the Sanctuary; their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for medicine."(47:12)
You'll recall that Jesus cursed the fig tree because it was out of season and had no fruit for him to eat. (Mark 11:13-14)

Jesus wasn't the Jewish Messiah.

spin

He in the above case is obviously the Lord, not a messiah.

Christians have simply reinterpreted the Jewish notion of God's anointed, God's chosen. Initially, this anointed one was the high priest, the one anointed by God to enter the holy of holies into the presence of God. Kings were also seen as anointed, in that God "chose" them for his purposes, as even in the case of Cyrus. As the Jewish apocalyptic genre developed the figure of God's chosen was at the forefront of the apocalyptic time, when God through his chosen one, would bring the end of time (or end of the time being) here on earth, remove the failed status quo of war and rebellion and everyone who was righteous could live happily ever after, well, their families could...

But then the notion of resurrection got mixed up in the process, as an innovation during the Hellenistic Crisis, as seen in Daniel 12, 1 Enoch 90 and 2 Macc (can't remember the citation at the mo'), all written within the same timeframe the 160s BCE.

The christian innovation involved turning the Jewish messiah from a worldly figure (with a worldly scope of stimulating the end and leading to a new world of milk and honey) to a divine figure with salvific scope. This is stuff out of mystery religion, not Judaism.

Much of that seen as related to the big M christian Messiah alleged to be in the Hebrew bible usually turns out to be misunderstandings regarding God, as the above quotation from Isaiah.

The christian Messiah is a fabrication of misunderstanding and reinterpretation which bears little relation to any Jewish messiah.


spin

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): Hmm...right you are. For some reason, I've always thought that passage was a reference to the Jewish Messiah, but surrounding scripture says otherwise.
I stand corrected.

Visionary7

Perhaps because it hasn't happened yet?

Agreed, for the time being.

Jesus cursed the fig tree and killed as a literal metaphor of His power. Skeptical aren't you? BTW, A large portion of the Scripture you quoted is already in my head. I am a walking Bible.

Biblical references to back up this statement please.