• 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?

rubi

Member
Matthew would have used "virgin" imo maybe because the Septuagint used "virgin" in it's translation.
I find that hard to believe that the Greek translation translated העלמה as a virgin. the original Septuagint was forced upon the rabbis and was over the first 5 books - Genesis to Deuteronomy. Rabbis very disliked translating the Tanach in general and specifically the Tora. so, it is safe to assume that the Septuagint, if not made up entirely by the Romans, was an unauthorized translation.
Also since the child in Isa 9 is the Messiah
no, it is not. He is King Hezekiah. click here
the Isa 7:14 child is seen as a reference to a sign of the Messiah
the word עלמה means a young woman. while is possible to interpret it as a virgin. it is not the plain translation. understandably there are cases in which it will refer to a non-virgin as in
Proverb 30:19 The way of an eagle in the air,
The way of a serpent on a rock,
The way of a ship in the midst of the sea,
And the way of a man with a young woman.​
Proverb 30:20 This is the way of an adulterous woman:
She eats and wipes her mouth,
And says, “I have done no wickedness.​
(in this phrase God uses clean language to call her vagina "her mouth")

when the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 was told?
to whom was it told?
in what circumstances it was told? click here
I think that the romans needed Christ to be a god. For that, they needed to make him the messiah, by alternating the real translation of Isaiah 7:14.
 

rubi

Member
Here is a 3min 19 second video that gives imo a less biased analysis of the accuracy of the New Testament and how important the mistakes are.
How important are the 5-10% of the textual variances in the NT? Some of them are giants! Here are a few examples:

1) Is the doctrine of the Trinity found in 1 John 5:7-8? It depends on which manuscript you read.

2) Did Jesus appear to any of his followers after the resurrection in the book of Mark? It depends on which manuscript you read. None of the earliest manuscripts have any appearances. The last 12 verses of the book of Mark (16:9-20) were inserted by later scribes who were disappointed that the apostles didn’t encounter Jesus following his resurrection according to this account.

3) Was Jesus so distressed in the Garden of Gethsemane that he sweats blood? It depends on which manuscript you read. Some later scribes were concerned that Jesus showed little passion in Luke’s Passion Narrative so they inserted into the Garden prayer a scene where Jesus sweated blood. (Luke 22:43-44)

4) In the Book of Luke, did Jesus say to God that the Jews should be forgiven? Did Jesus request, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34)? It depends on which manuscript you read. Early Christians interpreted this as a prayer of forgiveness for the Jews, ignorant of what they had done. No wonder some scribes deliberately deleted the verse in the second and third centuries, when many Christians believed that Jews knew exactly what they were doing and that God had in no way forgiven them.

5) Did Jesus have an encounter with an adulterous woman and her accusers in which he told them, “Let the one without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her,” and in which he told her after all her accusers had left, “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more”? It depends on which manuscripts of John you read in chapters 7-8! The oldest manuscripts don’t have it. It was added later.

6) Did Luke understand that Jesus’ death was an atonement for sin? It depends on what you do with Luke 22:19– 20. Everywhere else in Luke and Acts, the author eliminated Mark’s references to Jesus’ death as an atonement. The only remnant of that teaching is in some manuscripts of the Lord’s Supper, where Jesus says that the bread is his body to be broken “for you” and the cup is his blood poured out “for you.” But in the earliest and best manuscripts, these words are missing (much of v. 19 and all of v. 20). Scribes have added them to make Luke’s view of Jesus’ death conform to Mark’s and Matthew’s. In other words, Luke disagreed with Mark and Matthew on one of the most important theological claims of the other gospels and Paul.

This variant questions whether Luke (whoever he was) believed that Jesus dies as a sacrifice for sin. It is not that Luke didn’t think that Jesus’ death was important. But he believed that if you think about Jesus’ death, you will repent. Thus, according to Luke, it is the repentance, NOT the sacrificial death of Jesus that atoned for sin. Meaning, without that later scribe addition, the author of Luke and Acts did not believe that Jesus died as an atoning sacrifice for your sins! Anyone would say that these variances are terrifically important for knowing what traditions about Jesus were in circulation among the early Christians.

7) After his resurrection, did Jesus tell his disciples that those who came to believe in him would be able to handle snakes and drink deadly poison without being harmed? It depends on which manuscripts of Mark you read.

8) Paul’s injunction to women to be “silent” in the churches and “subordinate” to their husbands was not originally part of 1 Corinthians 14:34– 35, but was added by later scribes intent on keeping women in their place. Is that a significant error or not?
 

rubi

Member
You didnt want to discuss it?
it wasn't the point that I made, but sure. It is quite ridiculous to say that Crist was the messiah when the idea is that he bring an undeniable change to the world, among them the end of death and especially wars. Now that I think about it I see what the Romans saw in this cult. They saw a belief surviving 370 years after the cult leader died. it has very strong foundations and they could easily harness it for their own agenda, which was power. Just think about the resemblance to the story of Hercules.
 

rubi

Member
In the question of "If God made Adam" - your point says they are an evolution the Jewish posts said otherwise.
I didn't say that. I said that evolution exists in nature. I also said that Adam was created as a full-grown young man
 
it wasn't the point that I made, but sure. It is quite ridiculous to say that Crist was the messiah when the idea is that he bring an undeniable change to the world, among them the end of death and especially wars. Now that I think about it I see what the Romans saw in this cult. They saw a belief surviving 370 years after the cult leader died. it has very strong foundations and they could easily harness it for their own agenda, which was power. Just think about the resemblance to the story of Hercules.
He oes bring those things about. Jesus was specific on that only God knew when those things would come to fruition....Mt 24:36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father."

One of the things that needed to take place was teaching Gods Kingdom on a global scale which is finally happening today. Mt 24:14 "And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come."

How long it takes doesnt make a diiference. God works on His timeline not ours....Hab 2:3 "For the vision is yet for its appointed time, And it is rushing toward its end, and it will not lie. Even if it should delay, keep in expectation of it! For it will without fail come true. It will not be late! ....2 Peter 3: 8 "However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.".....Psalm 90: 4 "For a thousand years are in your eyes just as yesterday when it is past, Just as a watch during the night."....

That undeniable change you refer is a future blessing. After the "Great Tribulation".
 

InChrist

Free4ever
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.
It was all Jewish people who first believed Jesus Christ was the Messiah and many Jews are still coming to that realization…




 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Sorry to be so slow in getting back to you. I gad a morning obligation at my synagogue.

When I'm dealing with relational/ethical questions, I read Torah as message while keeping in mind that the human messengers have an agenda and, in fact, multiple agendas. I embrace "Standing on the Parted Shores of History" as truth irrespective of the historicity of the Exodus narrative.

At the same time, I value history and, therefore, I value that which informs history, and I struggle with that which distorts history.
Thanks for the above, and especially the link.

I was gone most of today because of a doctor visit, mowing the lawn, and doing the watering. IOW, you win. :confused:
 

rubi

Member
It was all Jewish people who first believed Jesus Christ was the Messiah and many Jews are still coming to that realization…
the Jewish people have never believed in Christ. He may have misled people to believe in him, but it says nothing.
in the video, the possibility to make a sin is the issue. in Judaism, there are 620 commandments, and not committing them may be a sin in different levels. the sin that he talks about is looking at a woman with a luscious mind is written in Numbers 15:39
"And you shall have the tassel, that you may look upon it and remember all the commandments of the Lord and do them, and that you may not follow the harlotry to which your own heart and your own eyes are inclined"
 
the Jewish people have never believed in Christ. He may have misled people to believe in him, but it says nothing.
in the video, the possibility to make a sin is the issue. in Judaism, there are 620 commandments, and not committing them may be a sin in different levels. the sin that he talks about is looking at a woman with a luscious mind is written in Numbers 15:39
"And you shall have the tassel, that you may look upon it and remember all the commandments of the Lord and do them, and that you may not follow the harlotry to which your own heart and your own eyes are inclined"
I think what uou mean is the Jewish people as a whole didnt believe. And i think what the other person was saying was Jews were the first to believe him as Gentiles didnt come in until later.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
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 a nice Jewish man who tried to be the messiah and failed.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I can see no logical reason that *Romans*, who worshipped their own gods, would want Jesus to be God.
The Romans already had myths of virgin births and gods rising from the dead. They had no problems with saying that men were gods, i.e. Caesar was considered a god. Their problem with Christianity is not that Jesus was God, but that Christians claimed that he was the ONLY god.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium 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.

I apologize in advance but if he wasn't the Messiah, perhaps he was just a naughty boy?



In more seriousness, I don't see this as a question you can rationalise an answer to. Before answering what he was, you'd need to establish if he was.

As a Jew, you obviously don't completely buy the Christian Bible at face value, and as an atheist, neither do I. Putting aside him being a literal Messiah though, there's still a lot of wiggle room.

Jesus might have been a literal figure who made the claims outlined in the Bible, and was crucified either for those claims directly (unlikely I think) or for political advantage (more possible...the Romans were pretty pragmatic in that sense).

Jesus might have been a literal figure, but the Biblical accounts may be somewhat less than literal in all cases. Based on even a cursory review of what passed for historical accuracy in the days following his death, this seems almost certain if he was a literal figure.

Jesus might have been a literal figure, but also served as an amalgam of tales, myths and wisdom in terms of Biblical recount.

Jesus might not have been a literal/historical figure at all, but instead served as an amalgamation, or symbol.


My advice is to consider other literary sources from the same period, and see how literal and accurate they are generally considered. What do we know of a figure like Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (Caligula) and how much of what we know is likely instead written by those who remained after the fact, or by those with a specific viewpoint and bias, or by a misinterpretation of events.

If the Bible is true, and Jesus is basically as presented in a secular sense (whether you see him as divine or not), it would make the Bible an extremely unusual, and unique source of truth from that period.
I get why Christians believe in Biblical exceptionalism, but I think it's generally harder for a non-Christian to accept.
 
The Romans already had myths of virgin births and gods rising from the dead. They had no problems with saying that men were gods, i.e. Caesar was considered a god. Their problem with Christianity is not that Jesus was God, but that Christians claimed that he was the ONLY god.
Actually Jesus never claimed to be God. He claimed to be Gods Son but the pharisees twited his words.

Jesus replied to them: “I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me?” The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’? If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified— do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?-John 10:32-36
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Actually Jesus never claimed to be God. ]
If I am not mistaken, Thomas called Jesus my Lord and my God, and Jesus did not correct him.

But at any rate, your point is irrelevant. Christianity is not just based on the words of Jesus.

Don't get me wrong, I don't personally believe Jesus is God. I'm just saying that is what Christianity teaches.
 
If I am not mistaken, Thomas called Jesus my Lord and my God, and Jesus did not correct him.

But at any rate, your point is irrelevant. Christianity is not just based on the words of Jesus.

Don't get me wrong, I don't personally believe Jesus is God. I'm just saying that is what Christianity teaches.
Thats whats some of them teach, not all. After all simply calling Jesus god is correct as he is one. As is Satan too. Though niether of them are Yhwh.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Thats whats some of them teach, not all. After all simply calling Jesus god is correct as he is one. As is Satan too. Though niether of them are Yhwh.
It is what the overwhelming number of them teach. I know Jehovahs witnesses teach otherwise, but they are a teeny tiny group. I've also met individual Christians who reject the teaching, but they are certainly not typical and most churches hassle them for their divergence.
 
It is what the overwhelming number of them teach. I know Jehovahs witnesses teach otherwise, but they are a teeny tiny group. I've also met individual Christians who reject the teaching, but they are certainly not typical and most churches hassle them for their divergence.
Jesus only had a tiny group to start.
 
Top