Jewish Messiah

[rosends]

Jews lost their way more than 2000 years ago.

Four centuries before Jesus they already were left without prophets ... so modern Jews are not even the shadow of the real thing. Remember: not prophet, no priests, no davidic king, no fulfilment of Moses' Law, no temple, no genealogies, , and a long etc. They don't even know what some old hebrew words in the Hebrew Scriptures mean with total certainty.

So, no. Leave your fairy tells for your children.

Have a good day.

Princess Bride Dizzying Intellect GIF - Princess Bride Dizzying Intellect Sarcasm - Discover & Share GIFs

Click to view the GIF

tenor.com

For someone who claims to have studied, you don't know much.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

the point is that everyone isn't going to agree on everything because of subjective experiences and knowledge. not everyone is at the same place in their development. whether jewish or not. obviously people agree on things but usually not 100%.

The point is that Christian interpretation goes against the interpretation of those to whom it was given, who speak the language, and indeed who even wrote it.

 

[Mister Emu]

Actually, there are Jewish explanations that the first followers of Jesus WERE Jews -- Jews who tried to confuse and deceive their fellow Jews into following Jesus

What evidence exists to support the claim that the apostles and disciples of the early church were intent on confusion and deception as opposed to spreading their true belief with the conviction that they were following their Jewish faith to the best of their ability?

So I ask the Christians now: why do you think the Jews expected and/or expect this?

For most of us, probably because we were taught that in Sunday school or during a sermon/sermons.

The first place to start is within the Christian scriptures and their depictions of His followers. In John 6, Jesus runs away from the crowd that he believed was ready to use force to make him king. Later in Acts 1 the resurrected Jesus is asked if now was the time for the kingdom of Israel to be restored. Revelations is at least partially explaining why Jesus didn't rule as a political leader with military victory over the forces of darkness, by placing those things in the future end times. This explanation would not be necessary unless there was a general belief that Jesus should have accomplished those things.

Also, the Essenes, one of the major sects of 1st century A.D. Judaism, seem to have also believed in a militaristic and political messiah. Their writings as found in the Dead Sea scrolls, for instance the War Scroll, appear to validate this claim.

While the Neofiti Targum may be a little late for absolute proof, it is clearly representative of a militant view of the messiah as well:
"How beautiful is king Messiah who is to arise from among those of the house of Judah. He girds his loins and goes forth to battle against those that hate him; and he kills kings with rulers, and makes the mountains red from the blood of their slain and makes the valleys white from the fat of their warriors".

It's probably a little simplistic to say "The Jews thought..." as though there weren't differences in thought in how the messianic age would play out. But, I've also never heard this claim contested or questioned before. Are you saying that 1st century Judaism didn't have a militaristic component to the messiah/messianic age?

The word you are looking for is "stolen".

Our faith is the result of Jews who knew, within themselves, they were properly following their Jewish beliefs. Jews started our Churches, wrote our scriptures, and provided the foundation of our theological outlook.

It's hard to steal what is already yours.

Yup pretty much.
All of the Messianic stuff existed prior to the discovery of these scrolls.

The Essenes existed and had their beliefs whether we had found the scrolls or not.

 

[Colt]

Expected. Past tense.

Well, I think this is a really good question. As a modern person, my concept of Moshiach comes from Tanach. But I have access to the entire Tanach. It's kind of hard to imagine 1st Cent. Jews knowing Tanach in that way, or being educated the way I've been educated.

In the Gospels, if I recall, Jesus' rejection by the Jews was never, "You're not the Mochiach!" And Jesus only maybe-maybe claimed to be The Messiah 1 time in public and 1 time in private. Again, based on my memory of the story.

So it seems like, at least according to the Gospels, "Is or Is Not the Moshiach?" wasn't even a question. So I'm not sure how a claim is made about what was expected at that time.

However, the answer I think is going to be dIfferent if the Christian is claiming, "Hey you, modern person, you're expecting a warrior king, but it's not, because..."

You are correct! There were only (2) occasions that the so called Christen Messiah came close to calling himself the Jewish Messiah. Jesus was actually quite vague; one could argue that Jesus gave a lawyerly answer as to his identity as "Messiah".

My bias is as a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth who was forced into a preexisting expectation prevalent among his followers.

* If we reverse engineer the Jesus movement then we can ask if there was a foundation of an expectation on top of which Jesus built his Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven?

* If Jesus wasn't presumed to be the Messiah by his followers, then what would he have been? Nobody would have been looking for anything or anyone that would have applied to his teachings?

* John the Baptist would have just been a babbling man in funny cloths down by the river IF there wasn't an anticipation in the air about a deliverer.

 

[Mister Emu]

Isaiah 53 is not about the messiah. It is about Israel. Isaiah specifically identifies the servant as Israel:

The difference between you and I is that I offered up Isaiah 41:8 as proof. You have no evidence of your postiion. Just wishful thinking.

The wikipedia article on Isaiah 53 offers some Jewish sources, both pre and post Christian, including Targum Jonathan, some Dead Sea Scrolls and Maimonides, that seem to interpret Isaiah 53 as referring to an individual messianic figure. I am happy to be shown that those references are not actually accurate.

Moreover, I can absolutely prove it was a Jewish belief in the 1st century because Jewish writers in the late first and early second centuries wrote that it was about Jesus.

 

[Flankerl]

Our faith is the result of Jews who knew, within themselves, they were properly following their Jewish beliefs. Jews started our Churches, wrote our scriptures, and provided the foundation of our theological outlook.

It's hard to steal what is already yours.

Thanks for providing zero evidence on anything of that.

So if they were Jews, why'd they get so much wrong about Jewish thought and practice of that time?

The Essenes existed and had their beliefs whether we had found the scrolls or not.

Okay, and?
They went extinct.
Gone.
Bye.
Tudelu.

 

[rosends]

What evidence exists to support the claim that the apostles and disciples of the early church were intent on confusion and deception as opposed to spreading their true belief with the conviction that they were following their Jewish faith to the best of their ability?

There are midrashim (I have 3 versions) that explain exactly this. Are they "real" and accurate or revisionism? I don't know - they are one version of events as recounted by people who were alive before me.

 

[rosends]

The wikipedia article on Isaiah 53 offers some Jewish sources, both pre and post Christian, including Targum Jonathan, some Dead Sea Scrolls and Maimonides, that seem to interpret Isaiah 53 as referring to an individual messianic figure. I am happy to be shown that those references are not actually accurate.

Moreover, I can absolutely prove it was a Jewish belief in the 1st century because Jewish writers in the late first and early second centuries wrote that it was about Jesus.

And the Contra Celsum (chapt 55) says that Jews at the time saw it as pointing to the nation

CHURCH FATHERS: Contra Celsum, Book I (Origen)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

 

[Fool]

The point is that Christian interpretation goes against the interpretation of those to whom it was given, who speak the language, and indeed who even wrote it.

this is an absolute statement about christians and isn't accurate

 

[Fool]

Now you are talking about the development of language - Hebrew has gone through many stages in its evolution. When we study, we make sure to study using the rules of Hebrew as it was, not the vocabulary and grammar that is current.

and that was what i was implying. languages evolve. the english of today is not that of 2000 years ago in some respects

 

[Mister Emu]

Thanks for providing zero evidence on anything of that.

Your welcome. I think it's fitting after you provided zero evidence that our heritage is stolen.

Okay, and?
They went extinct.
Gone.
Bye.
Tudelu.

And, they were a major sect of Judaism in first century Israel. The existence of a significant sect in the time period of Judaism from which Christianity arises that believed in a militaristic/political messiah is extremely pertinent to the question of why Christians might have a tradition of believing that the Jews of the time of Jesus thought the messiah would be militaristic.

There are midrashim (I have 3 versions) that explain exactly this. Are they "real" and accurate or revisionism?

Would you care to at least cite them? You don't know if they are accurate or spurious revisionism, and yet you offered their conclusion uncritically.

And the Contra Celsum (chapt 55) says that Jews at the time saw it as pointing to the nation

I never said that the view was absolute or unanimous, which seemed to be more your realm.

 

[rosends]

and that was what i was implying. languages evolve. the english of today is not that of 2000 years ago in some respects

But your claim was about religion, not language

 

[rosends]

Would you care to at least cite them? You don't know if they are accurate or spurious revisionism, and yet you offered their conclusion uncritically.

I offer them as uncritically as I would offer gospel accounts -- they are a version of events and I don't know how true they are. The difference is that I can find errors in the gospel accounts

"The Sages desired to separate from Israel those who continued to claim Yeshu as the Messiah, and they called upon a greatly learned man, Simeon Kepha, for help. Simeon went to Antioch, main city of the Nazarenes and proclaimed to them: "I am the disciple of Yeshu. He has sent me to show you the way. I will give you a sign as Yeshu has done."

Simeon, having gained the secret of the Ineffable Name, healed a leper and a lame man by means of it and thus found acceptance as a true disciple. He told them that Yeshu was in heaven, at the right hand of his Father, in fulfillment of Psalm 110:1. He added that Yeshu desired that they separate themselves from the Jews and no longer follow their practices, as Isaiah had said, "Your new moons and your feasts my soul abhorreth." They were now to observe the first day of the week instead of the seventh, the Resurrection instead of the Passover, the Ascension into Heaven instead of the Feast of Weeks, the finding of the Cross instead of the New Year, the Feast of the Circumcision instead of the Day of Atonement, the New Year instead of Chanukah; they were to be indifferent with regard to circumcision and the dietary laws. Also they were to follow the teaching of turning the right if smitten on the left and the meek acceptance of suffering. All these new ordinances which Simeon Kepha (or Paul, as he was known to the Nazarenes) taught them were really meant to separate these Nazarenes from the people of Israel and to bring the internal strife to an end."



Here is a version (sections 17-19 http://lemidrash.free.fr/JudaismeChristianisme/huldreich.pdf
Here are the three versions of the medrash that I alluded to

simon peter

web.archive.org

I never said that the view was absolute or unanimous, which seemed to be more your realm.

The question of whether a targum well after the fact which operates on a significantly deeper level of understanding (there are a variety of levels in Jewish thought) cites an opinion does not call into question the normative reading of the text (Does the Targum say Isaiah 53 is about the Messiah which also discusses exactly what Maimonides wrote).

 

[dybmh]

If Jesus wasn't presumed to be the Messiah by his followers, then what would he have been?

The divine presence returning. But that can be faked, and people can be led astray by an imposter.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

]
Moreover, I can absolutely prove it was a Jewish belief in the 1st century because Jewish writers in the late first and early second centuries wrote that it was about Jesus.

sUUUUUUURE you can.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

and that was what i was implying. languages evolve. the english of today is not that of 2000 years ago in some respects

English did not exist 2000 years ago.

 

[dybmh]

The wikipedia article on Isaiah 53 offers some Jewish sources, both pre and post Christian, including Targum Jonathan, some Dead Sea Scrolls and Maimonides, that seem to interpret Isaiah 53 as referring to an individual messianic figure. I am happy to be shown that those references are not actually accurate.

Moreover, I can absolutely prove it was a Jewish belief in the 1st century because Jewish writers in the late first and early second centuries wrote that it was about Jesus.

When I researched this, it still doesn't match Jesus. There's a role "a savior", and then there's the final king who is also a savior. But ultimately God is the savior for the Jewish people. The mainstream Christian approach is to combine all of these together. And while that is satisfying in some ways for an adherent intellectually and emotionally. I don't think it's an accurate representation of what is written in the text itself or in the commentaries.

What I'm saying is, it's complicated. What's being described in Isa 53 is actually much more complicated than it appears on the surface.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Moreover, I can absolutely prove it was a Jewish belief in the 1st century because Jewish writers in the late first and early second centuries wrote that it was about Jesus.

Would you please clarify for me what you mean by "a Jewish belief" by providing those proofs? Thanks.

 

[Fool]

But your claim was about religion, not language

everything evolves literally from the environment in which the mind is entrenched. they are inextricably intertwined. you can't convey beliefs/religions without language. it is the vehicle that transports the idea. unless it's an object that can be reversed engineered. language is the intrinsic issue here


this was the same issue in the time of isaiah

isaiah 6:9-10

 

[rosends]

everything evolves literally from the environment in which the mind is entrenched. they are inextricably intertwined. you can't convey beliefs/religions without language. it is the vehicle that transports the idea. unless it's an object that can be reversed engineered. language is the intrinsic issue here


this was the same issue in the time of isaiah

isaiah 6:9-10

If language is the issue, and we still study and use the language they used (separate from the conversational language in use today in conversation), then there is no problem. In Isaiah's time it wasn't about language.