Jesus: The Misunderstood Messiah

[Sundance]

Examining His life, I have often encountered the claim that because Jesus of Nazareth doesn’t fulfill certain prophecies, He’s not the Messiah.

My response? From one perspective, that’s true. He was certainly a different kind of figure than people were hoping for. You would be right.

Yet, I do think that because of His Claim to be a different kind of messianic person: a saviour kind of figure, a king who governed the hearts of people, not one who aspired to earthly rule, both Jewish people and those of us who are non-Jews (yes, even Christians) have tended to not give His Teachings a open-hearted look otherwise.

My question for Jews, Christians, and others: Whether or not you believe that Jesus is the Messiah, is there anything you find of worth or value to Jesus or His Teachings?

 

[Audie]

It the religious who most misunderdtsnd who he was.

 

[Kenny]

In examining the criticisms made by religious Jews regarding Jesus as a false messiah, I’m honestly not convinced. Why? Simple: a disconnection of terminology. A divergence in understanding.

Regarding the word “messiah”, typically speaking, (from my understanding) the word was used in the Tanakh to describe an anointed king. During the Second Temple period, the concept of “The Messiah” as a distinct figure began to emerge. Past an anointed king, there wasn’t one particular conception of who this figure was or what He was to do.

After the Romans came to power, certain Jewish people began looking for a person to topple the oppressive political structures and restore Jewish sovereignty. Many individuals came up, claiming to be this person. One by one, all had failed.

Then, Jesus of Nazareth came. He was different. He never claimed to be the person who will take down Roman oppression or restore the sovereignty of His people to their land. Rather, He claimed that His Mission was to save His People (and indeed, all people) from the penalty for their sins. He was not claiming to be an earthly king, but rather, the ruler of people’s hearts. This is what He meant by His Claim to be the Messiah, even alluding to Isaiah chapter 61 to inaugurate His Ministry.


This reality begs the question: why have Jewish people slandered Jesus of Nazareth as a false messiah, when the New Testament never records Him as making claims to do any of what THEY say the Messiah is supposed to do? Do they understand what HE actually meant?

In my eyes, He’s not false, just misunderstood. Religious Jews say certain things about the Messiah, but Jesus was talking about something else.

(Addendum: Religious Jews have also made the claim that Jesus was not observant of the commandments and taught His Followers to do the same. This is false. He was observant, and actually told His Followers time and again, “Keep the commandments.” “Obey the commandments.” “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.”)

I'm not sure why we are zeroing on Jewish people since Gentiles can also misunderstand Jesus. Not only that, but it was the Jews that began the preaching.

Why are you zeroing in on the Jewish people?

 

[Sundance]

I'm not sure why we are zeroing on Jewish people since Gentiles can also misunderstand Jesus. Not only that, but it was the Jews that began the preaching.

Why are you zeroing in on the Jewish people?

Because I’m addressing a claiming that Jewish people make. People in non-Jewish religions, usually speaking, don’t care about any Messiah. It doesn’t apply to them.

 

[Left Coast]

In examining the criticisms made by religious Jews regarding Jesus as a false messiah, I’m honestly not convinced. Why? Simple: a disconnection of terminology. A divergence in understanding.

Regarding the word “messiah”, typically speaking, (from my understanding) the word was used in the Tanakh to describe an anointed king. During the Second Temple period, the concept of “The Messiah” as a distinct figure began to emerge. Past an anointed king, there wasn’t one particular conception of who this figure was or what He was to do.

After the Romans came to power, certain Jewish people began looking for a person to topple the oppressive political structures and restore Jewish sovereignty. Many individuals came up, claiming to be this person. One by one, all had failed.

Then, Jesus of Nazareth came. He was different. He never claimed to be the person who will take down Roman oppression or restore the sovereignty of His people to their land. Rather, He claimed that His Mission was to save His People (and indeed, all people) from the penalty for their sins. He was not claiming to be an earthly king, but rather, the ruler of people’s hearts. This is what He meant by His Claim to be the Messiah, even alluding to Isaiah chapter 61 to inaugurate His Ministry.


This reality begs the question: why have Jewish people slandered Jesus of Nazareth as a false messiah, when the New Testament never records Him as making claims to do any of what THEY say the Messiah is supposed to do? Do they understand what HE actually meant?

In my eyes, He’s not false, just misunderstood. Religious Jews say certain things about the Messiah, but Jesus was talking about something else.

(Addendum: Religious Jews have also made the claim that Jesus was not observant of the commandments and taught His Followers to do the same. This is false. He was observant, and actually told His Followers time and again, “Keep the commandments.” “Obey the commandments.” “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.”)

It is not "slander" of Jesus to say, "I don't think he met the requirements of what the Tanakh says the Messiah will be/do, therefore I don't think he was the Messiah."

He didn't. He was no more a king than I am a President. If I claimed to be the President, then redefined "President" to mean, "a spiritual leader of people hearts," that would be an absurd moving of the goalposts on my part.

On some level, I think even Christians recognize this, as they admit Jesus didn't fulfill all the requirements. Thus they claim he's going to come back a second time to finish the job.

 

[Sundance]

It the religious who most misunderdtsnd who he was.

Perhaps, dear Audie.

 

[Sundance]

It is not "slander" of Jesus to say, "I don't think he met the requirements of what the Tanakh says the Messiah will be/do, therefore I don't think he was the Messiah."

He didn't. He was no more a king than I am a President. If I claimed to be the President, then redefined "President" to mean, "a spiritual leader of people hearts," that would be an absurd moving of the goalposts on my part.

On some level, I think even Christians recognize this, as they admit Jesus didn't fulfill all the requirements. Thus they claim he's going to come back a second time to finish the job.

The Tanakh never clearly established who the Messiah will be or what He will do. All of the verses debated between Jews and Christians have nothing to do with the Messiah Himself. At the most, they’re historically prophetic; they don’t deal with a human figure.

Regarding the analogy of a president, you could be the president of anything: a nation, a book club, or some other organization.

So, let’s use your analogy: I’m claiming to be the President of my Book Club. You say, “Mauricius, you’re not the President, Joe Biden is!” I would respond, “I’m not claiming to be the President of the country, LC. It’s a book club I’m talkin’ about, wanna join?”

As to Christians, I understand that their goal is to convince religious Jews that Jesus fits their conception of who the Messiah is and what He will do. He doesn’t. He didn’t come for this. At least, not the first time. He came to establish a kingdom within the hearts of people. His disciples didn’t understand that, either. They, too, were expecting Jesus to be the Messiah of mainstream Judaism. That’s why you’ve got them asking in the Book of Acts,
“Lord, are you going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”


Even so, all of the things that religious Jews say the Messiah will do, Jesus never once claimed He was going to do, so again, this discrepancy ought to be addressed.

And yes, it is slanderous to call someone a liar based on one’s own misunderstanding.

 

[Left Coast]

The Tanakh never clearly established who the Messiah will be or what He will do.

Then how could Jesus claim to be the Messiah, if the criteria were unclear? On what basis?

All of the verses debated between Jews and Christians have nothing to do with the Messiah Himself. At the most, they’re historically prophetic; they don’t deal with a human figure.

That's mainly true of passage Christians think are Messianic, but Jews don't. When dealing with passages they agree refer to the Messiah, the claim is always that Jesus will come back later to finish the job.

As to Christians, I understand that their goal is to convince religious Jews that Jesus fits their conception of who the Messiah is and what He will do.

Even so, all of the things that religious Jews say the Messiah will do, Jesus never once claimed He was going to do, so again, this discrepancy ought to be addressed.

The discrepancy is addressed by them not believing he's the Messiah. They believe the Messiah is going to do xyz. Jesus didn't do xyz. Thus, he doesn't make the cut. That's not "slander."

 

[Audie]

Perhaps, dear Audie.

You havent a clue why I said that, do you?

 

[Sundance]

You havent a clue why I said that, do you?

I have a feeling, though I do invite an explanation. I’m not always adept at deciphering what people mean in particular when they say certain things.

 

[capumetu]

In examining the criticisms made by religious Jews regarding Jesus as a false messiah, I’m honestly not convinced. Why? Simple: a disconnection of terminology. A divergence in understanding.

Regarding the word “messiah”, typically speaking, (from my understanding) the word was used in the Tanakh to describe an anointed king. During the Second Temple period, the concept of “The Messiah” as a distinct figure began to emerge. Past an anointed king, there wasn’t one particular conception of who this figure was or what He was to do.

After the Romans came to power, certain Jewish people began looking for a person to topple the oppressive political structures and restore Jewish sovereignty. Many individuals came up, claiming to be this person. One by one, all had failed.

Then, Jesus of Nazareth came. He was different. He never claimed to be the person who will take down Roman oppression or restore the sovereignty of His people to their land. Rather, He claimed that His Mission was to save His People (and indeed, all people) from the penalty for their sins. He was not claiming to be an earthly king, but rather, the ruler of people’s hearts. This is what He meant by His Claim to be the Messiah, even alluding to Isaiah chapter 61 to inaugurate His Ministry.


This reality begs the question: why have Jewish people slandered Jesus of Nazareth as a false messiah, when the New Testament never records Him as making claims to do any of what THEY say the Messiah is supposed to do? Do they understand what HE actually meant?

In my eyes, He’s not false, just misunderstood. Religious Jews say certain things about the Messiah, but Jesus was talking about something else.

(Addendum: Religious Jews have also made the claim that Jesus was not observant of the commandments and taught His Followers to do the same. This is false. He was observant, and actually told His Followers time and again, “Keep the commandments.” “Obey the commandments.” “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.”)

The Bible revealed the time the Messiah was to come. Jehovah's people anticipated the Messiah's time period and thought that maybe John the baptizer might be him Luke 3:15.

Jerusalem was destroyed along with the lineage records shortly thereafter and therefore any messiah that came afterwards would have no documentation of lineage. Evidence shows that Jesus was the promised Messiah.

 

[Audie]

I have a feeling, though I do invite an explanation. I’m not always adept at deciphering what people mean in particular when they say certain things.

Jews look at what little can be perceived
of him through the lens of the belief he
was not this or that.

You, through the lens of what you choose to
think he was.

Historical figures are changed by
society into something quite different,
from who they were,, to be in keeping
with what sort of hero etc they want.

No doubt you could come up with many
examples, a scholar could probably cite
and recite until you were overcome by
exhaustion.

It happens to all historic figures, in some degree!

Its a pity, because the interesting real person
gets lost, and the lessons in reality are distorted.

So too, Jesus, whatever his real name, wherever
whenever he was really born, where or when
he died, all unknown.

Whatever he really did is lost and distorted
to where he would not recognize himself
in the stories.

Its too bad, he may have been a remarkable person.

 

[Sundance]

Then how could Jesus claim to be the Messiah, if the criteria were unclear? On what basis?



That's mainly true of passage Christians think are Messianic, but Jews don't. When dealing with passages they agree refer to the Messiah, the claim is always that Jesus will come back later to finish the job.



The discrepancy is addressed by them not believing he's the Messiah. They believe the Messiah is going to do xyz. Jesus didn't do xyz. Thus, he doesn't make the cut. That's not "slander."

Again, you missed the point, LC. Religious Jews today and Jesus then have very different conceptions of who the Messiah is and what He’s going to do. To claim that someone is false is to call them a liar. Not only that, it’s a misrepresentation of what He DOES say.

I ask, once again, “Understanding what Jesus Himself is recorded as having said about His role as Messiah, where’s the blatant lie? Does Jesus claim to do the things that religious Jews say that the Messiah will do?”

 

[Left Coast]

Again, you missed the point, LC. Religious Jews today and Jesus then

As well as Jews then, mind you.

have very different conceptions of who the Messiah is and what He’s going to do. To claim that someone is false is to call them a liar.

That's simply not true. People can be honestly wrong. Happens every day.

Not only that, it’s a misrepresentation of what He DOES say.

No, again, it isn't. They believe the Messiah will fulfill certain criteria. Jesus doesn't. Ergo, they don't think he's the Messiah. Fairly straightforward.

Also, we have no clue what Jesus actually said about anything.

 

[Sundance]

Then how could Jesus claim to be the Messiah, if the criteria were unclear? On what basis?

There were different conceptions of who the Messiah was and what He was expected to do.

That's mainly true of passage Christians think are Messianic, but Jews don't. When dealing with passages they agree refer to the Messiah, the claim is always that Jesus will come back later to finish the job.

I suppose that’s true. However, that’s not based on what He actually claims, but rather their own expectations.

 

[Left Coast]

There were different conceptions of who the Messiah was and what He was expected to do.




I suppose that’s true. However, that’s not based on what He actually claims, but rather their own expectations.

Yes, I understand it's based on their own expectations. That's fairly obvious. That doesn't make their view "slander."

 

[Audie]

There were different conceptions of who the Messiah was and what He was expected to do.




I suppose that’s true. However, that’s not based on what He actually claims, but rather their own expectations.

Amusingly enough, you echo what I
pointed out.

Not what he actually said but what they
wanted him to have said.

Written down 70 years later!

Without introducing magic to explain it,
there's no way to claim accuracy.

Yet its presented as verbatim!

 

[Sundance]

As well as Jews then, mind you.



That's simply not true. People can be honestly wrong. Happens every day.



No, again, it isn't. They believe the Messiah will fulfill certain criteria. Jesus doesn't. Ergo, they don't think he's the Messiah. Fairly straightforward.

Also, we have no clue what Jesus actually said about anything.

Again, it is. Because of the fact that their view of the Messiah is very different from His view of the Messiah.


I think it’s absolutely fine to have different conceptions of things. What I’m not fond of, however, is superimposing one’s own conception of something onto something else that is different in the first place.

 

[Audie]

Again, it is. Because of the fact that their view of the Messiah is very different from His view of the Messiah.


I think it’s absolutely fine to have different conceptions of things. What I’m not fond of, however, is superimposing one’s own conception of something onto something else that is different in the first place.

Ha. Again, echoing what I said.
Are you immune to the vice you decry?

 

[Left Coast]

Again, it is. Because of the fact that their view of the Messiah is very different from His view of the Messiah.


I think it’s absolutely fine to have different conceptions of things. What I’m not fond of, however, is superimposing one’s own conception of something onto something else that is different in the first place.

Except the Jews' conception came first. Jesus didn't invent the concept of the Messiah. He redefined it. Even the Gospels admit this. Jesus' own disciples thought the Messiah would do xyz, which Jesus didn't.

So it's Jesus (or more accurately, Christians) who superimposed a novel understanding of the Messiah onto the existing concept.