Jesus Failed Right?

[Enai de a lukal]

And why Paul was so persecuted if the impact was so small?

Because his message was one that would have been incredibly offensive to any Jew that heard it... Exhibit A: Paul's own persecution of Christians prior to his conversion.

I mean, Jews at the time believed that the messiah (i.e. the future King of Israel) would be a powerful military/political figure who defeats the Romans and re-establishes Israel as a sovereign state in accordance with the Davidic covenant. To tell them that their anticipated glorious and victorious figure was a man who got crushed like a bug by the Romans? Not an easy pill to swallow. In terms of the reaction you're likely to get telling people this randomly off the street, I imagine it would be a bit like walking up to random strangers and telling them their mother is fat. You're like to get punched in the face. And same for early Christians.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Jesus spent 3 years trying to convert people right.

Convert to what? Jesus never founded any new religion. He taught Torah to Jews who already practiced the same second temple Judaism that he did.

I was Paul who created a new religion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

yes… I do understand that many of today’s Jewish people don’t believe that Isaiah 53 referred to Jesus.

It's because the metaphor of the servant is used throughout the book of isaiah, and is on more than one occasion identified as Israel (not the messiah.)

Isaiah 41:8
“But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend,

Isaiah 49:3
He said to me, “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.”

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And why Paul was so persecuted if the impact was so small?

Paul taught that circumcision was worthless. He taught that it didn't matter if you kept the Shabbat or not. He called people "weak" who refrained from eating meat sacrificed to idols, despite the command from the Jerusalem council for Christians to abstain. IOW Paul had utter disregard for Jewish Law. This made him enemies not only among Jews in general, but even among the Nazarenes in Jerusalem under James (see Acts 21).

This was no small rift between Paul and James. When imprisoned in Rome, Paul laments about how all the churches have abandoned him.

Anyhow, Paul's impact was not small. He single handedly took belief in Jesus and turned it from being a small Jewish sect into being a completely new Gentile religion. Ultimately, James lost and Paul won.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Convert to what? Jesus never founded any new religion. He taught Torah to Jews who already practiced the same second temple Judaism that he did.

I was Paul who created a new religion.

Paul and a handful of other early Christians. But yeah, saying that Jesus started Christianity in any meaningful way, or that the doctrines or goals of the subsequent church that would bear his name had anything to do with the views or goals of the historical Jesus is... a bit of a fantasy. If anything, the subsequent Christian church because an inversion from Christ's original message. As Nietzsche somewhat famously put it:

"at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. The "Gospels" died on the cross. What, from that moment onward, was called the "Gospels" was the very reverse of what he had lived: "bad tidings," a Dysangelium." (1895)

So Paul indeed create a new religion, under the name of Jesus Christ, but while rejecting some of the most core doctrines Jesus taught during his lifetime.

 

[Nakosis]

Convert to what? Jesus never founded any new religion. He taught Torah to Jews who already practiced the same second temple Judaism that he did.

Convert the people of Israel to his views on God.

I was Paul who created a new religion.

Sure, Paul succeeded with the gentiles.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Convert the people of Israel to his views on God.

This makes no sense. Jesus' views on God did not differ from the Jews around him.

 

[Nakosis]

This makes no sense. Jesus' views on God did not differ from the Jews around him.

That makes no sense. Why would they want the Romans to crucify him then?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That makes no sense. Why would they want the Romans to crucify him then?

1. I don't know that they did. The people who wrote the gospels had a vested interest in kissing Roman butt (to reduce the persecutions) and to divide Christians from their Jewish roots. They exaggerated the conflict between Jesus and the other Pharisees. My assumption is that Jesus, being a Pharisee of the school of Hillel, had many normal debates with the Pharisees of the school of Shammai who ran the Sanhedrin during his ministry years. I doubt such arguments rose to the level of murder.

2. The Romans crucified all troublemakers with the drop of a hat. Although I don't really trust the legends about Jesus, if we are to believe the story of the "cleansing of the temple," Jesus basically became a threat to the peace at a time when Pilate was trying to keep a lid on things during a massive pilgrimage. That would not have been appreciated. Also, the story has Pilate nailing the charge against Jesus above his head: King of the Jews. IOW, a treasonous claim. I don't think Pilate needed any push from the Jewish leaders to crucify Jesus.

 

[Kenny]

Because his message was one that would have been incredibly offensive to any Jew that heard it... Exhibit A: Paul's own persecution of Christians prior to his conversion.

Yes… so offensive that many Jews believed

 

[Kenny]

It's because the metaphor of the servant is used throughout the book of isaiah, and is on more than one occasion identified as Israel (not the messiah.)

Isaiah 41:8
“But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend,

Isaiah 49:3
He said to me, “You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.”

However, the Jewish writers of the time of Jesus thought otherwise. Two people looking at the same scriptures and coming to a different conclusion

 

[Kenny]

Paul taught that circumcision was worthless. He taught that it didn't matter if you kept the Shabbat or not. He called people "weak" who refrained from eating meat sacrificed to idols, despite the command from the Jerusalem council for Christians to abstain. IOW Paul had utter disregard for Jewish Law. This made him enemies not only among Jews in general, but even among the Nazarenes in Jerusalem under James (see Acts 21).

This was no small rift between Paul and James. When imprisoned in Rome, Paul laments about how all the churches have abandoned him.

Anyhow, Paul's impact was not small. He single handedly took belief in Jesus and turned it from being a small Jewish sect into being a completely new Gentile religion. Ultimately, James lost and Paul won.

Could you give me some quoted material from the NT please along with the context of what he was referring to about the worthlessness of circumcision? I mean, after all,

Deuteronomy 3:6 And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.

Jeremiah 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, And take away the foreskins of your hearts, You men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, Lest My fury come forth like fire, And burn so that no one can quench it, Because of the evil of your doings.”

As well as the other points?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Yes… so offensive that many Jews believed

Actually no. The disciples struggled greatly converting jews, because a crucified messiah (an oxymoron, to a Jew at that time) was a total non-starter Their message, as Paul admitted, a stumbling block to Jews. Its what got Paul kicked and strapped and chased all over the place every time he'd try to talk about it. The early Christians enjoyed their greatest success converting gentiles, this has ben well-documented by several studies (i.e. the demographics of the rising Jesus movement)).

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes… so offensive that many Jews believed

There were millions of Jews in the Roman empire. Several thousand believed. I'd hardly call that "many."

 

[IndigoChild5559]

However, the Jewish writers of the time of Jesus thought otherwise. Two people looking at the same scriptures and coming to a different conclusion

Jews are a diverse lot. We entertain all sorts of ideas. However, in this case, the issue was thoroughly discussed and alternative interpretations were ditched for exactly the reasons that I gave you.

As someone who has taught English literature and composition, there are instances where legitimate differences in interpretation can exist. And there are other times where I have to give a student a failing grade because the text simply doesn't support their conclusions. In this instance, you cannot support the conclusion that Isaiah 53 is messianic--its an idea you completely pull out of your hat. I on the other hand, have given more than adequate textual support for Isaiah 53 being about Israel.

I realize that Christians are deeply and emotionally attached to Isaiah 53 being about Jesus. Given the tendency of humans towards confirmation bias, I do not expect you to see my point.

 

[Spice]

That makes no sense. Why would they want the Romans to crucify him then?

Politics, politics, politics

 

[Spice]

Could you give me some quoted material from the NT please along with the context of what he was referring to about the worthlessness of circumcision? I mean, after all,

Deuteronomy 3:6 And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.

Jeremiah 4:4 Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, And take away the foreskins of your hearts, You men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, Lest My fury come forth like fire, And burn so that no one can quench it, Because of the evil of your doings.”

As well as the other points?

Galatians 5:2-6

2 Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Could you give me some quoted material from the NT please along with the context of what he was referring to about the worthlessness of circumcision?

1 Corinthians 7:19
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing.

Galatians 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value.

Galatians 6:15
Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything;

 

[Nakosis]

1. I don't know that they did. The people who wrote the gospels had a vested interested in kissing Roman butt (to reduce the persecutions) and to divide Christians from their Jewish roots. They exaggerated the conflict between Jesus and the other Pharisees. My assumption is that Jesus, being a Pharisee of the school of Hillel, had many normal debates with the Pharisees of the school of Shammai who ran the Sanhedrin during his ministry years. I doubt such arguments rose to the level of murder.

2. The Romans crucified all troublemakers with the drop of a hat. Although I don't really trust the legends about Jesus, if we are to believe the story of the "cleansing of the temple," Jesus basically became a threat to the peace at a time when Pilate was trying to keep a lid on things during a massive pilgrimage. That would not have been appreciated. Also, the story has Pilate nailing the charge against Jesus above his head: King of the Jews. IOW, a treasonous claim. I don't think Pilate needed any push from the Jewish leaders to crucify Jesus.

So you don't see Jesus as the Messiah?
Jews then and now reject that idea.

 

[YoursTrue]

Because his message was one that would have been incredibly offensive to any Jew that heard it... Exhibit A: Paul's own persecution of Christians prior to his conversion.

I mean, Jews at the time believed that the messiah (i.e. the future King of Israel) would be a powerful military/political figure who defeats the Romans and re-establishes Israel as a sovereign state in accordance with the Davidic covenant. To tell them that their anticipated glorious and victorious figure was a man who got crushed like a bug by the Romans? Not an easy pill to swallow. In terms of the reaction you're likely to get telling people this randomly off the street, I imagine it would be a bit like walking up to random strangers and telling them their mother is fat. You're like to get punched in the face. And same for early Christians.

Some Jews today are still looking for The Messiah.