• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

If Christ wasn't the messiah, what was he?

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The prophecy of Isa 9 seems Messianic to me.
I'm not sure why you are bringing up Isaiah 9. Doing so only unnecessarily complicates the discussion. Isaiah 9:6 is a completely different discussion than Isaiah 7:14. I mean we can talk about it if you wish; I would have a lot to say. I'm just not sure if you really want to change the topic.
I have heard that "almah" can mean "virgin" depending on the context
This not quite accurate. A young woman CAN be a virgin, or she CAN be a non-virgin. It is young women who have babies. But the word almah always means young woman. The word for virgin is betulah, not almah.
and that the child of Isa 7 is probably the child of Isa 9.
There is no objective reason to think this. The child of Isaiah 7 was someone who was born back when two armies of Syrians were threating. The child in Isaiah 9 is Hezekiah.
With Matthew knowing that Jesus had been born of a virgin, that would justify him saying that the prophecy of Isa 7:14 was speaking of a virgin.
First of all, the gospel of Matthew was not actually written by Matthew -- it is only an oral tradition of Christians. Nor can you say that anyone KNEW of a virgin birth. How would they know? Did they constantly accompany Mary 24/7 to verify she didn't have sex?
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Because that happens when Jesus returns in glory to judge the world and rule on the throne of David,,,,,,,,,,
I am aware that Christians believe this. My point is that the ONLY way we can identify the messiah is someone who keeps all the messianic prophecies. Since worldwide peace has never happened, we can be confident there has been no messiah.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
At the time the Gospels were written, Christianity was still a Jewish sect.
I don't think that is the case. The gospels were written AFTER the destruction of the Temple, which firstly, wiped out the ability of the Nazarenes to continue doing sacrifices. In fact, the leader of the Nazarenes, James, was martyred in 44 CE. Secondly, by that time, the alternative form of Pauline Christianity, what some call proto-orthodoxy, had taken root. Paul's Christianity was a Gentile church, a different religion, not a Jewish sect. The Nazarenes did morph, and became the Ebionites, but the writing was on the wall that they would be replaced by proto-orthodoxy. And don't forget that the Jews themselves declared belief in Jesus to be a heresy and literally kicked believers out of the synagogue, so at that point, there is no longer any way you can say it was a Jewish sect.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Your reply doesn't make sense practically no Christians are raised in Judaism.

I wasn't saying they are. He opined that most Christians are Christians because they were raised in Christianity. And yet he's Jewish and he was...raised in Judaism. Just like most people who inherit the worldview of their childhood. That was my point.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Hello Rubi,

This is my second attempt to respond to your question. I am new to this forum and might need some time to get the hang of things.
I would be delighted to have that conversation with you.
Tony

Hi Anthony,

@rubi hasn't been online since August 31st, so I suspect he may not reply. It's helpful, though, if you want to reply to someone to hit the Reply button on their post. That quotes their post in your reply and will send them a notification (if they check them) that you've responded to them.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Leaving aside questions of authorship, do you not find it unusual that the authors of the epistles and the gospels of Mark and John saw no need to share the "good news" of this virgin birth?

John probably knew the other gospel writings and probably saw no need to repeat them. John did say that there were things that he had left out of his gospel.
The source of Mark's gospel was probably what Peter had spoken in sermons etc and Peter may not have mentioned the virgin birth.
Because only Matthew has the Isa 7 prophecy, that does not mean that he made it up. Maybe that is how you see things, but I don't.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
I'm not sure why you are bringing up Isaiah 9. Doing so only unnecessarily complicates the discussion. Isaiah 9:6 is a completely different discussion than Isaiah 7:14. I mean we can talk about it if you wish; I would have a lot to say. I'm just not sure if you really want to change the topic.

I brought up Isa 9 because that Messianic prophecy would be a justification to see Isa 7:14 prophecy as about the Messiah also.

This not quite accurate. A young woman CAN be a virgin, or she CAN be a non-virgin. It is young women who have babies. But the word almah always means young woman. The word for virgin is betulah, not almah.

An almah can be a virgin or not. In the double prophecy about Hezekiah and the Messiah, when it was about Hezekiah is means young woman and when about the Messiah is meant virgin. Matthew see Isa 7:14 as about the Messiah and knew that Mary had been a virgin.
Interestingly the Septuagint translates the word as "virgin". Maybe the translators could see that Isa 9 was Messianic and with a divine Messiah and so Isa 7:14 could have been "virgin" with the Messiah as the Son of God.

There is no objective reason to think this. The child of Isaiah 7 was someone who was born back when two armies of Syrians were threating. The child in Isaiah 9 is Hezekiah.

This is an interesting article and the author tries to be objective.

First of all, the gospel of Matthew was not actually written by Matthew -- it is only an oral tradition of Christians. Nor can you say that anyone KNEW of a virgin birth. How would they know? Did they constantly accompany Mary 24/7 to verify she didn't have sex?

An oral tradition is not automatically untrue.
There is written tradition about a gospel Matthew wrote however and it's subsequent translation to Greek.
The story of the birth of Jesus came from somewhere. Do you think that the authors made it up?
Actually we are told in John's gospel that John took Mary into his house to look after her when Jesus was crucified. Presumably John and Mary would have spoken about many things.
Also it is the Catholic Church that tells us that Mary was a virgin all her life................ that is not what the Bible says. The Bible says that Joseph and Mary did not have sex till after Jesus was born.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Hi everyone, I'm Jewish, and I'm here to engage in a respectful and open discussion about the role of Jesus Christ. As someone who doesn't believe in Christ, I hold the perspective that both Christianity and Islam have been orchestrated by God to spread monotheism.

Recently, I had a thought-provoking discussion with a spokesman from a Christian institute on youtube, and it led me to ponder how difficult to discern Christ's true nature without understanding Hebrew.

Just for the sake of discussion, if Christ wasn't the Messiah, what was he?

I do apologize if anyone is offended, but I think we should have an open, respectful, and tolerant discussion about anything.
I look forward to hearing different perspectives and engaging in a thoughtful exchange of ideas.
To answer this question of Jesus and the Messiah, we need to go back to the Garden of Eden.

God never wanted Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God never wanted humans to learn the path of law. Law was not God's first choice, so God created a prohibition, against law; Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, to help Adam and Eve choose the tree of Life. How could God's second choice; law, be the best way toward salvation? This is common sense.

The analogy would be like a parent saying to their precocious High School child, you can become a doctor or artist, but we prefer you not become an artist. They are not telling the child what to do; be a doctor. but leaving it open for their will and choice. The child chooses to become an artist; sort of the taboo and the choice of the rebel. This is not the Parent's first choice; tree of Life, but they accept their child's choice and hire the Artist who won their child over by his artistic talent, to be their mentor. Satan was the good lawyer. The mentor is placed on the payroll, so the parents can advise the mentor, to help funnel their child down a path of success, as an artist.

The tree of Life was God's first choice. There were no restrictions not to eat of that tree. However, Adam and Eve made a choice, with the help of Satan, to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil; law. This symbolism shows that Law has a connection to Satan. This is why law falls short. Satan would become the middle man between God and Law; Book of Job, with God advising.

The Tree of Life had no middleman, but was a direct connection to God. The tree of life would be analogous to natural human instinct. The natural animal is true to its God given nature and does not need school to teach it how to be innate like a baby monkey, kitten or puppy. There was no entity in the Tree of Life to act as a middle man for Adam and Eve. Rather eating of this tree; choice; would have given them a direct interface to God; their purpose in life. Law is more like your social purpose from the superego of culture; learned good versus evil professions.

The Mosaic Law, although good in a relative sense of what came before, was still law and still had the Satan middleman. Satan followed Adam and Eve out of paradise was made the Lord of the Earth; mentor, in charge of humans, acting as their intermediary between God and Law, as Satan had done from the beginning; their first taste of the apple of law.

By the time of Jesus, the problems of law were starting to become obvious due to the Satan middleman; Lord of the Earth. Law can be used by crooks to fortify their power and oppress the poor. Law was originally created for the righteous man to protect them from evil, but the evil man soon learned from law, how to spin and twist law to benefit evil; Pharisees, hypocrisy and dual standards. Any corrupt dictator will make self-serving laws to maintain their control. Law of good and evil is not just for good but also has an evil side, in terms of human nature and implied applications. The Israeli and Palestinian problem is supported by laws on both sides.

Jesus, before he began his ministry, went into the desert to fast and pray. There Satan came to tempt Jesus. Among the many temptations, Satan offers Jesus all the power, glory and wealth of the Kingdoms of the Earth, if Jesus would bow and serve him. Had Jesus accepted the offer, he could have become the Messiah, who had been prophesied by the Law; powerful, wealthy and even able to subdue Rome, whose kingdom Satan appointed and controlled. But by refusing to bow to Satan, Jesus became something even better.

This refusal to become the Messiah, by Jesus, and his execution during Easter, would lead to a political battle in Heaven. Satan had been condoned in Heaven from the fall from Paradise, to that point in time, as the middle man of God; God's CEO, between Heaven and humans. But Jesus by not fulfilling the law of Satan, refused to become the rich, powerful and famous Messiah, and then Satan allowing Jesus to be killed, broke the contract with God, Satan and Law.

In Revelations of the New Testament, after a lengthy political debate, there is a battle in Heaven. Micheal the Archangel and his armies fought against Satan and his army, and Satan is forced out of Heaven. Law and Satan was no longer condoned in Heaven. However, law would remain on earth, since Satan remained, banished to the Earth. Most humans were not aware of the change, so law gets very repressive, especially toward the earliest Christians; law used by evil for evil.

Symbolically, Satan had been condoned by God during the Old Testament, to act as an intermediary to the humans. This had a progressive effect. Jesus marked a turning point, where Satan's services were no longer needed in Heaven. Instead, a direct connection would be established to God and the Tree of Life, via the Holy Spirit; one substance with God. Jesus first needed to be killed and resurrected; God's plan while Satan was still condoned in heaven, so Jesus could leave behind the Holy Spirit and help establish a connection to Tree of Life. In the future, Satan would be thrown to earth, where he continued to rule most humans, but now without a direct connection to God and the blessings of Heaven. It was the same law evolving, but not the same equation with respect to Heaven. From BC to early AD there was a transition in the law from bring condoned by Heaven and not condoned in Heaven, except via the Holy Spirit and Tree of Life.

I remember being young and always thinking of BC as being very bright; Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome, etc. This reminded me of summer. While AD, which would go into the pervasion of Rome, the invasion by the barbarians, the dark ages, etc., cloudy and dim. Now this sense appears to have been connected to Satan either being on God's payroll; summer of BC, or free lancing; rainy fall of AD.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Because only Matthew has the Isa 7 prophecy, that does not mean that he made it up. Maybe that is how you see things, but I don't.
FWIW ...
  1. As has been argued ad nauseam, there is no virgin birth prophesy in Isaiah 7:14 -- noting, of course, that I view "dual prophesy" as being more contrivance than explanation.
  2. I don't believe he simply "made it up." Rather, I suspect that it was a midrashic take on the Greek parthenos.
 

Balthazzar

Christian Evolutionist
Hi everyone, I'm Jewish, and I'm here to engage in a respectful and open discussion about the role of Jesus Christ. As someone who doesn't believe in Christ, I hold the perspective that both Christianity and Islam have been orchestrated by God to spread monotheism.

Recently, I had a thought-provoking discussion with a spokesman from a Christian institute on youtube, and it led me to ponder how difficult to discern Christ's true nature without understanding Hebrew.

Just for the sake of discussion, if Christ wasn't the Messiah, what was he?

I do apologize if anyone is offended, but I think we should have an open, respectful, and tolerant discussion about anything.
I look forward to hearing different perspectives and engaging in a thoughtful exchange of ideas.

A leader he was and is, a deliverer also, so I'll suggest this is what he'll remain to be. Anyone who's cause is to honor truth and honesty as a way to prevent walking in error and teaches these principles to others would qualify the title. That's what I gathered from his testimony.

Source/God/Universe
Resourced/children (Jesus)/the living.
Holy Spirit/truth/what is real.

Seems appropriate enough to pay attention to.
 
Last edited:

Colt

Well-Known Member
Hi everyone, I'm Jewish, and I'm here to engage in a respectful and open discussion about the role of Jesus Christ. As someone who doesn't believe in Christ, I hold the perspective that both Christianity and Islam have been orchestrated by God to spread monotheism.

Recently, I had a thought-provoking discussion with a spokesman from a Christian institute on youtube, and it led me to ponder how difficult to discern Christ's true nature without understanding Hebrew.

Just for the sake of discussion, if Christ wasn't the Messiah, what was he?

I do apologize if anyone is offended, but I think we should have an open, respectful, and tolerant discussion about anything.
I look forward to hearing different perspectives and engaging in a thoughtful exchange of ideas.
Jesus was Christ Michael incarnate, Son of God and creator of this and many other inhabited planets. It was like an episode of undercover boss except he was very cryptic and remained so even after returning from the death of his body in a new form and meeting with believers!
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Just for the sake of discussion, if Christ wasn't the Messiah, what was he?
Either way, he was a religious reformer who stood up for those being oppressed and forgotten, so he has my respect. Jesus is to the West what Siddhartha is to the East, imo. Both were religious reformers trying to undo the corruption of their religious paths and both are viewed as holy men by a wide variety of people of various religions and no religions.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I brought up Isa 9 because that Messianic prophecy would be a justification to see Isa 7:14 prophecy as about the Messiah also.
I realize you want to connect the two passages in your head, but the reality is they have nothing to do with each other.
An almah can be a virgin or not.
Correct. So it is absolutely ludicrous to translate Matthew 7:14 as virgin. And given that young women are the ones who give birth, it makes FAR more sense not to see this as a miracle.
In the double prophecy about Hezekiah and the Messiah
Sorry, but this whole Chrsitian notion of "double prophecies" is ridiculous to me. The text should only be read as the author intended. One should never superimpose our own unrelated notions onto a passage.
, when it was about Hezekiah is means young woman and when about the Messiah is meant virgin. Matthew see Isa 7:14 as about the Messiah and knew that Mary had been a virgin.
No, AGAIN (are you even listening) Matthew is NOT the author of the gospel, and even he had been, there is no possible way he could have known if she had been a a virgin or not, other than the basic knowledge that it takes two to tango.
Interestingly the Septuagint translates the word as "virgin". Maybe the translators could see that Isa 9 was Messianic and with a divine Messiah and so Isa 7:14 could have been "virgin" with the Messiah as the Son of God.
The Septuagint is known to be a pretty bad translation. Isaiah 7:14 is just one example of mistranslation. If the authors of Matthew hadn't been so stupid, they would have quoted the Hebrew. The preference for the LXX is evidence, IMHO, that they were not Jews from Judea. They were either Hellenized Jews, or they weren't Jewish at all.
This is an interesting article and the author tries to be objective.
Since we are sharing videos, here is one for you.
An oral tradition is not automatically untrue.
Oral traditions and stories are NOTORIOUSLY unreliable.
There is written tradition about a gospel Matthew wrote however and it's subsequent translation to Greek.
I realize that some Christian groups like to promote the idea that Matthew was originally written in Greek, but textual analysis of the Greek shows that it was not a translation. It does appear that there had been at one time a gospel written in Hebrew, but it was not Matthew, and no copy of it has survived.
The story of the birth of Jesus came from somewhere. Do you think that the authors made it up?
I think SOMEONE originally made it up, and then they told Sally and Sally told Joe, who told Fred... and so the story grew over time.

The various authors simply collected all the stories about Jesus that they could find, and edited them together. They made absolutely no effort to discern what was likely historical, and what was likely mere legend. The concept of History as we have it today was simply not clearly understood back then. With very few exceptions, authors were not concerned with accuracy. They were concerned with TEACHING.
Also it is the Catholic Church that tells us that Mary was a virgin all her life.
And you don't like that teaching because it is not in the Bible, yet you yourself do the identical thing when you adopt the oral legend that Matthew wrote Matthew.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
John probably knew the other gospel writings and probably saw no need to repeat them.
It is true that the gospel of John was the last of the four to be written. However, it was not written by John. Scholars think that it has as many as three authors, whose works were spliced together. They believe the original version was a text which they call "The Book of Signs." And please note, these are Christian scholars who say this.

 

Balthazzar

Christian Evolutionist
I realize you want to connect the two passages in your head, but the reality is they have nothing to do with each other.

Correct. So it is absolutely ludicrous to translate Matthew 7:14 as virgin. And given that young women are the ones who give birth, it makes FAR more sense not to see this as a miracle.

Sorry, but this whole Chrsitian notion of "double prophecies" is ridiculous to me. The text should only be read as the author intended. One should never superimpose our own unrelated notions onto a passage.

No, AGAIN (are you even listening) Matthew is NOT the author of the gospel, and even he had been, there is no possible way he could have known if she had been a a virgin or not, other than the basic knowledge that it takes two to tango.

The Septuagint is known to be a pretty bad translation. Isaiah 7:14 is just one example of mistranslation. If the authors of Matthew hadn't been so stupid, they would have quoted the Hebrew. The preference for the LXX is evidence, IMHO, that they were not Jews from Judea. They were either Hellenized Jews, or they weren't Jewish at all.

Since we are sharing videos, here is one for you.

Oral traditions and stories are NOTORIOUSLY unreliable.

I realize that some Christian groups like to promote the idea that Matthew was originally written in Greek, but textual analysis of the Greek shows that it was not a translation. It does appear that there had been at one time a gospel written in Hebrew, but it was not Matthew, and no copy of it has survived.

I think SOMEONE originally made it up, and then they told Sally and Sally told Joe, who told Fred... and so the story grew over time.

The various authors simply collected all the stories about Jesus that they could find, and edited them together. They made absolutely no effort to discern what was likely historical, and what was likely mere legend. The concept of History as we have it today was simply not clearly understood back then. With very few exceptions, authors were not concerned with accuracy. They were concerned with TEACHING.

And you don't like that teaching because it is not in the Bible, yet you yourself do the identical thing when you adopt the oral legend that Matthew wrote Matthew.

I equate virgin to suggest a "Maiden", unmarried specifically as it relates to the biblical account of Mary, and sometimes simply in reference to a young woman.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I equate virgin to suggest a "Maiden", unmarried specifically as it relates to the biblical account of Mary, and sometimes simply in reference to a young woman.
An almah refers to any young woman, virgin or not virgin. In Proverbs, the word almah is used with regards to a woman called an adulteress, so definitely not a virgin.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The story of the birth of Jesus came from somewhere. Do you think that the authors made it up?
In order for that account to not be invented, three men had to walk to and identify a specific manger using a star as a guide, where they encountered a woman who was a virgin and a mother. That's simply not believable to a critically thinking empiricist.

Think about the star part. Stars move 360 deg through the sky every 24 hours. One over the equator is moving about 1000 mph relative to the turning earth below it, as it traverses about 25,000 miles - the length of the equator - each (sidereal) day. If the star could be said to be directly over one location which could be identified by looking up at it, for how long do you think that would be? Where was it five minutes before and five minutes after relative to that manger? It was about 80 miles east of it and about 80 miles west of it at those moments, over other structures or over no structures at all.

For a critical thinker and empiricist, the first thing to do when evaluating the historicity of Jesus is to remove the unfalsifiable, magical claims - magi identifying a specific manger because it's the one directly below a certain star, a virgin birth, walking on water, fishes and loaves, and at least two resurrections (Lazarus and Jesus).

Now we ask, how much of what remains actually happened. To the skeptic, if Jesus wasn't a demigod, it doesn't matter how much of the rest is history and how much is legend or myth. It could all be true or none of it, or anything in between. Also, if Jesus wasn't channeling a god or a god himself, it doesn't matter if the words attributed to him were ever spoken or what they mean.
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
but what did he preach?
did he say to follow rabbis?
If he said He is the Messiah or God himself, then by Judaism, which was the law for 1360 years by then, he was a criminal and his punishment is death by the Judicial authority.
I didn't hear that he said any prophecy. Did he?
That is interesting. You say you are Jewish. The Jews are waiting for the Messiah. Yet you say if someone were to claim to be the Messiah it would be against the law and he would be a criminal. His punishment - death by the Judicial authority.
 
Top