• 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?

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Using Strong's and BDB are also not great, as each one is steeped in the uses of the word as per the KJV. Strong's is not a good lexicon and BDB is a cataloguing of words as the KJV translated them. But even the BDB doesn't say "virgin".

I would use Klein
עַלְמָה f.n. 1 marriageable girl, maiden, young woman. NH 2 miss. [f. of עֶלֶם ᴵ. cp. Syr. עְלַיְמֽתָא, Nab. עלימת, Ugar. glmt (= maiden).]

how about Jastrow
עַלְמָה . Ex. R. s. 1 , v. עָלַם II .—Pl. עֲלָמוֹת . Cant. R. to I, 3 חלים לפניו כע׳ they dance before him like maidens; Koh. R. to I, 11 . Y. Meg. II, 73ᵇ כאילין ע׳ , v. עֲלִימוּת ; a. e.

or
All of them basically say the same thing... a virgin that is of marriageable age
 

rubi

Member

Genesis 24:43​


43 Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;

Here she is a virgin
הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי נִצָּב עַל-עֵין הַמָּיִם וְהָיָה הָעַלְמָה הַיֹּצֵאת לִשְׁאֹב וְאָמַרְתִּי אֵלֶיהָ הַשְׁקִינִי-נָא מְעַט-מַיִם מִכַּדֵּך

Song of Solomon 1:3​

3 Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee.

Here they are virgins

לְרֵיחַ שְׁמָנֶיךָ טוֹבִים שֶׁמֶן תּוּרַק שְׁמֶךָ עַל-כֵּן עֲלָמוֹת אֲהֵבוּךָ.

Song of Solomon 6:8​

8 There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number.
שִׁשִּׁים הֵמָּה מְלָכוֹת וּשְׁמֹנִים פִּילַגְשִׁים וַעֲלָמוֹת אֵין מִסְפָּר.

In the phrases you brought, it is written in Hebrew עלמה and the editors of the New Testament chose to write a virgin.
the source in genesis is inquired in Judaism. Genesis 24:16 " The woman was very beautiful, a virgin; no man had ever slept with her. She went down to the spring, filled her jar and came up again." why would God say that no one slept with her? means, Rebekah was an anomaly among other girls there.
besides I think you're missing the point. it is Christianity that can't have עלמה not to be translated as a virgin because it says that the most solid connection (which is already debatable whether it is speaking about the Messiah or another savior) of the idea that Christ is God, is debatable. I mean, can anyone blame a jew at any point in history for translating a word for its literal meaning?
 

rubi

Member
In the Passover story there is a man (Moses) who can and may open the Ark of the Covenant, and his name reflects the names of Pharoahs of the 18th dynasty of Egypt, placing him (in my mind) sometime after one of those pharoahs. At the earliest it places him just before the 14th century or later. Most likely he is named after the most famous and bloodthirsty pharoah Thutmos III. For me this establishes the most generous time that could be the possible earliest beginning of Jewish monotheism where people acknowledge that they are monotheists. So the Zoroastrians only need to exist before 14th century BCE to be earlier than the Jews.

The encyclopedia Britannica says Zarathushtra is born anywhere in 2nd millennium BCE. That is: he is somewhere between 4000 and 5000 years old. There are definitely monotheist Zoroastrians in 1000BCE and sometime earlier. Here is where it becomes difficult: Zarathustra is consciously monotheist, but early Jews are part of a covenant and may not realize or accept that they are monotheists. Zoroastrians learn monotheism from preaching, but Jews may have come about it a different way. Did they learn it from a prophet named Moses? I'm not sure.

The date of the beginning of Jewish monotheism is difficult, because its possible Jews discover that they have (already) been practicing monotheism for centuries without realizing it is monotheism. Their devotion to their covenant reveals itself be theological. This covenant situation makes it difficult to put a finger upon when they become monotheists. When is their monotheism made official? If I read their scriptures I can read them two ways as theological or as legal. I can read things spoken by God as personification or as the words of a deity. When does monotheism begin for them?

The Babylonian Captivity occurs sometime in the 6th century BCE. Before that Jews may not be aware they are practicing monotheism. It is in Babylon that they must have encountered the belief in one God, so this is a time when they would definitely have been made aware of the concept of monotheism. It is soon after that Ezra compiles most of the bible.
it is interesting. but, I can't right now
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
The encyclopedia Britannica says Zarathushtra is born anywhere in 2nd millennium BCE.
And others do not. So, for example, Wikipedia notes:

There is little scholarly consensus on when he lived.[5] Some scholars, using linguistic and socio-cultural evidence, suggest a dating to somewhere in the second millennium BC. Other scholars date him to the 7th and 6th centuries BC as a near-contemporary of Cyrus the Great and Darius the Great.​

The entry cautions ...

By any modern standard of historiography, no evidence can place him into a fixed period and the historicization surrounding him may be a part of a trend from before the 10th century AD that historicizes legends and myths.​

A quick scan of a few articles suggests an ongoing debate between the 6th century BCE and the end of the 2nd millennium BCE.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
I don't remember which of the Rebbes of Habad said it, but he said that it is an old Hasidic faith to say that all the Rebbes of Habad are prophets. another source is in the book Tanya, the elder rebbe complained why Hasidim come to him with material issues, for it is a matter for prophets and not for rabbis. and still, he continued to answer material issues. it may explain why this Hasidic faith that all Habad's Rebbes were prophets, and I dare to say 'הבעש"ט והמגיד ממזריץ.
regarding the sources you brought, it may suggest that the level of prophecy was according to the prophet. what I'm saying is that there were prophets. also please take notice that for the first time in 2500 years, the Lubavitcher Rebbe was announced as a prophet.
I do think that the prophets would do ordination. after all part of their activity requires talking to the people and telling them the word of God.
While I appreciate the work of Chabad, I am not one to consider the rebbe (or any rabbi) a prophet in any actual sense. As to the rebbe's reputation, there is clearly a lot of discussion on the matter
 

Sgt. Pepper

All you need is love.
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?

To be honest, I'm not sure if a man named Yehoshua (Yeshua/Jesus) lived during biblical times, but if he did, then I'm come to believe that he was simply a mortal man and a popular religious teacher at the time. I don't believe he was a god with supernatural powers to perform miracles or revive the dead. On the contrary, I believe that it is more likely that his devoted followers embellished ordinary stories about him and also copied and adapted a few stories about different gods from Greek mythology or other ancient pagan religions that they were familiar with and attributed these myths to Jesus. I think that they wanted to make him appear to be godlike or even the God of the Bible, meaning he is fully God and fully human (referring to the hypostatic union).

Again, this is what I believe.
 
Last edited:

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Genesis 24:43

From Sefaria

נֵּ֛ה אָנֹכִ֥י נִצָּ֖ב עַל־עֵ֣ין הַמָּ֑יִם וְהָיָ֤ה הָֽעַלְמָה֙ הַיֹּצֵ֣את לִשְׁאֹ֔ב וְאָמַרְתִּ֣י אֵלֶ֔יהָ הַשְׁקִֽינִי־נָ֥א מְעַט־מַ֖יִם מִכַּדֵּֽךְ׃

As I stand by the spring of water, let the young woman who comes out to draw and to whom I say, “Please, let me drink a little water from your jar,”​

From the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Bible

While I stand here at the spring, if I say to a young woman who comes out to draw water, ‘Please give me a little water from your jug,’​
The real question is this:​

From the New International Commentary on the Old Testament (NICOT)

while I am standing by a spring, let the young girl who comes out to draw water and to whom I say, "Please give me a sip of water from your jug,"​

Parenthetically, the NICOT commentary on verses 42-49 begins:

Again, the servant makes some minor changes from the initial description when he recounts his meeting with Rebekah. In the first telling she is called a virgin (b'tulah, v. 16). Here the servant calls her an 'almah, the young girl (v.43).

At what point does persisting to mistranslate 'almah as virgin go beyond KJV-only willful ignorance and verge on deceit?

=======================

For what it's worth, the Sefaria / JPS rendering of verse 16 reads ...

וְהַֽנַּעֲרָ֗ טֹבַ֤ת מַרְאֶה֙ מְאֹ֔ד בְּתוּלָ֕ה וְאִ֖ישׁ לֹ֣א יְדָעָ֑הּ וַתֵּ֣רֶד הָעַ֔יְנָה וַתְּמַלֵּ֥א כַדָּ֖הּ וַתָּֽעַל׃
The maiden was very beautiful—[and] a virgin, no man having known her. She went down to the spring, filled her jar, and came up.
 
Last edited:

Rachel Rugelach

Shalom, y'all.
Staff member
Welcome to Religious Forums, Rubi!

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

I think that Jesus was a charismatic, mortal man who said a lot of smart things and had a big following as a result. I also think that the Apostle Paul was a major force behind the creation of Christianity and the successful marketing of it to Gentiles.

I say this without malice or intent to offend. I don't profess to have any special information on either of these historical figures -- I only say here what I have suspected for a long time. :)
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
.. if Christ wasn't the Messiah, what was he?
I do apologize if anyone is offended, but I think ..
A Hindu atheist here. I do apologise if anyone is offended by what I think, but IMHO, Jesus was an unsuccessful rebel to Judaism of his time like many others. We have had Hindu rebels also - Buddha, Mahavira of the Jains and others. I too belong to that category but keep my views to myself. I am no messiah. :)
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
And others do not. So, for example, Wikipedia notes:

There is little scholarly consensus on when he lived.[5] Some scholars, using linguistic and socio-cultural evidence, suggest a dating to somewhere in the second millennium BC. Other scholars date him to the 7th and 6th centuries BC as a near-contemporary of Cyrus the Great and Darius the Great.​

The entry cautions ...

By any modern standard of historiography, no evidence can place him into a fixed period and the historicization surrounding him may be a part of a trend from before the 10th century AD that historicizes legends and myths.​

A quick scan of a few articles suggests an ongoing debate between the 6th century BCE and the end of the 2nd millennium BCE.
You are right about this, and @rubi is right to be proud of Judaism though not because of some claim to being early. Being early does not make one early in God's timeless existence. I could be a monotheist who serves this world's cruelty -- like Thanos in Marvel comics. I could function as a creationist cog and be the first to spread monotheism and be ever so obedient to God: such a good monotheist -- but make no positive difference for my fellow humans.
 

rubi

Member
You are right about this, and @rubi is right to be proud of Judaism though not because of some claim to being early. Being early does not make one early in God's timeless existence. I could be a monotheist who serves this world's cruelty -- like Thanos in Marvel comics. I could function as a creationist cog and be the first to spread monotheism and be ever so obedient to God: such a good monotheist -- but make no positive difference for my fellow humans.
THIS IS SOMETHING I WROTE TO @Orbit AND I FIND IT SUITABLE TO YOU TOO:
I think that the only difference between us is whether Mount Sinai happened or not. because if it didn't happen I may agree with you on a lot of things like evolution, the age of the world, extraterrestrial life, and so on. By the way on the last subject, I do think there is life on other planets, but not intelligent. And if Mount Sinai did happen, it means that God exists.
I have also something to say about parallel universes and time travel. I think that science ignores the option of God's existence. I'm not mad about that, but I think we should keep that in mind.
 

Rachel Rugelach

Shalom, y'all.
Staff member
THIS IS SOMETHING I WROTE TO @Orbit AND I FIND IT SUITABLE TO YOU TOO:
I think that the only difference between us is whether Mount Sinai happened or not. because if it didn't happen I may agree with you on a lot of things like evolution, the age of the world, extraterrestrial life, and so on. By the way on the last subject, I do think there is life on other planets, but not intelligent. And if Mount Sinai did happen, it means that God exists.
I have also something to say about parallel universes and time travel. I think that science ignores the option of God's existence. I'm not mad about that, but I think we should keep that in mind.

I don't think that our belief in the revelation at Mount Sinai and the handing of the Torah to Moshe necessarily means that we cannot also take into consideration the theories and discoveries of modern-day science. Just as God established laws that govern humanity, God also established the natural laws that govern the world.

To quote Rabbi Dov Wagner, an Orthodox rabbi who, along with his wife Runya, runs the Chabad Jewish Student Center at the University of Southern California (quote is in blue text):

"I hate to get all rabbinic about this, but Judaism and science conflict completely—and they don’t conflict at all. Does one side of a coin conflict with the other? It’s the exact opposite, and yet they’re one and the same. Do the brain and the heart conflict? They can be diametrically opposed, and yet both together are who I am.

"Science tells us what. It is the study of measurable phenomena, the expectation of how those phenomena are likely to repeat or how they may have developed in the past. It is a doctor understanding the nature of what exactly makes up the human body and how those pieces work in concert.

"Judaism tells us why. It is the study of the Infinite Will, the understanding of our raison d’être and the application of moral and ethical guides for our existence. It is the psychologist delving into why I do what I do, the philosopher considering the implications of my being and my actions, the parent appreciating the wonder and awe of a newborn baby.

"Total opposites, yet both struggling with the same reality. Science is the study of G-d’s actions, while Judaism is the appreciation of His will. If they seem in conflict, one or both have not yet been understood to their ultimate truth."


If you are interested in what some other rabbis from various branches of Judaism had to say on this subject as well, you can go to this link:

Ask the Rabbis // Religion & Science

And here is a long-running, favorite website of mine with many informative and interesting articles on various topics: Judaism and Science

Shabbat Shalom! :heart:
 
Last edited:

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
To quote Rabbi Dov Wagner, an Orthodox rabbi who, along with his wife Runya, runs the Chabad Jewish Student Center at the University of Southern California (quote is in blue text):

"I hate to get all rabbinic about this, but Judaism and science conflict completely—and they don’t conflict at all. Does one side of a coin conflict with the other? It’s the exact opposite, and yet they’re one and the same. Do the brain and the heart conflict? They can be diametrically opposed, and yet both together are who I am.
As one Rabbi once told me: "We need to learn to dance with two partners at the same time." And then he smiled.
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
THIS IS SOMETHING I WROTE TO @Orbit AND I FIND IT SUITABLE TO YOU TOO:
I think that the only difference between us is whether Mount Sinai happened or not. because if it didn't happen I may agree with you on a lot of things like evolution, the age of the world, extraterrestrial life, and so on. By the way on the last subject, I do think there is life on other planets, but not intelligent. And if Mount Sinai did happen, it means that God exists.
I have also something to say about parallel universes and time travel. I think that science ignores the option of God's existence. I'm not mad about that, but I think we should keep that in mind.
Take your time to read this whenever it is good for you. Sinai is important. I gather that but do not understand. I don't expect ever to understand, so do not concern yourself too much with what I think. I cannot claim to have read much about it. Thanks for sharing your ideas. Sometimes things do not click for me right away, and I am frequently unaware of erroneous conclusions. I also think its important for us to disagree without having to spar frequently. If we do thats fine, but it is not the center. My connection to you through this site is too valuable to risk on stressful subjects. I also want you to feel comfortable enough to make friends with other people here, and that means its best if we don't focus on disagreements even though its also good to share them. Its a tight rope to walk.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I vote: no. According to the gospels, Jesus volunteered. Technically, it was God's will.

However, in truth, it is much more complicated than that. Even though something like this appears to be "absolute submission", there is also a rather strong ego-thing going on with Jesus in the gospels where he wants, desperately, to be known and remembered and acknowldged AS being submissive to God's will.

Paradoxes like this often occur when human emotions, motivations, and desires are expressed in the extreme. Extreme submission, is **willfull**.

And that's why I say it was Jesus who volunteered. Even if he commited crimes, the Sanhedrin did what they did because Jesus chose to behave in the extreme, in extreme defiance, he sacrificed himself. And that sacrifice is critical to the Christian narrative. But the Christian at the same time, may want to blame the Jews for what happened. You can't have it both ways.

But of course the story is what it is and no one really knows what happened.
The authorities arrested him.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I vote: no. According to the gospels, Jesus volunteered. Technically, it was God's will.

However, in truth, it is much more complicated than that. Even though something like this appears to be "absolute submission", there is also a rather strong ego-thing going on with Jesus in the gospels where he wants, desperately, to be known and remembered and acknowldged AS being submissive to God's will.

Paradoxes like this often occur when human emotions, motivations, and desires are expressed in the extreme. Extreme submission, is **willfull**.

And that's why I say it was Jesus who volunteered. Even if he commited crimes, the Sanhedrin did what they did because Jesus chose to behave in the extreme, in extreme defiance, he sacrificed himself. And that sacrifice is critical to the Christian narrative. But the Christian at the same time, may want to blame the Jews for what happened. You can't have it both ways.

But of course the story is what it is and no one really knows what happened.
The authorities arrested him.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
no, we don't. Jews who live in their own environment preserve their customs. christianity took our religion and modified it. so, now Christians throw Jewish terms but it makes no sense and the only reason it makes sense to them is because it was replayed to them so many times. for example the"human sacrifice" Christ is doing on a daily basis. It literally makes no sense. OMG, my head hurts when I hear about it.
Catholic Church theology teaches the perpetual “sacrifice” of Jesus Christ.
Most Bible believing Christians believe Jesus Christ died “once for all” ( Hebrews 7:27; 9;12).
 
Top