Jews: Why do they not accept Jesus as Messiah

[Caladan]

Lets not derail the thread.

That is classic Hyam Maccoby but not necessarily the way things went down. I think you made some very excellent points in your previous post, but the whole subject of whether Paul 'Created' Christianity is unsettled.

I didn't really try to claim what is the root of Christianity, only which doctrines spread and won out at the end, and which ones (and there were many) were pushed into the outer reaches of history.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I didn't really try to claim what is the root of Christianity, only which doctrines spread and won out at the end, and which ones (and there were many) were pushed into the outer reaches of history.

That is fair.

To make the question more constructive, what we really should be asking is: Why did the Jews (of the first century CE) did not accept Jesus as the Messiah.
It seems that mainstream Jewish society was not carried by a wave of messianism as Jesus roamed ancient Galilee and Judea. Although the NT does raise an interesting point that Jesus did enjoy a certain amount of popularity and his herald, John the baptist was extremely popular with the Jews both by the gospels account and by Josephus' account.

So here is the meat of the question. It seems that there were many miracle makers, healers, and teachers wandering the region at the time. And since a historical Jesus is hard to trace outside the New Testament, it's possible to project from that fact that either the common Jews and Jesus himself did not consider his actions and sermons as part of a messianic mission, and certainly not as a path to apotheosis, or collective worship of a fellow Jew as God incarnate, as the Roman tradition concerning their emperors. It's easy to further project on such perspectives since the dogma around Jesus as messiah, and as God was edited on paper after his death (and canonized much later), and the popular acceptance of such hearsay came about among a non Jewish population who did not have contemporary experience with Jesus, and certainly not a deep understanding of Hebrew Scriptures (or Judaism, the origin of the Christian sect) as the Jews did.

The bottom line is, that mainstream Jews, people who know their scriptures, who share Jesus' norms and heritage, who experienced the social and political circumstances of his time did not come about to worship Jesus, or address him as a Messiah. Although it's possible that many of them respected him as one of the inspiring rebbes (or teachers) of his time. After all, what we have left is the edited and cut version which was put on paper, and in which Jesus has become a 'Son of God' a God, and a Messiah.
I think that any Christian who dismisses the entire body of Jewish society for not being carried away by an ecstatic wave of messianism during the first centuries, is only doing it in order to reaffirm their faith in Christian tradition and has never took the time to address the body of scholarship concerning these periods nor to honestly examine theology.

Yes, that is the bottom line. I wish Christians were aware of and did look into these things more frequently, but it is unlikely that we will. Things aren't looking good right now, and I say that with sadness and not a hint of maliciousness. I think it isn't over, but I'm not sure where I fit in.

 

[CMike]

It could have been everlasting--but they rejected truth--they rejected the Messiah. There house was cut off to them forever-Matt 23:37-38)-- the references to Israel after that--is speaking about spiritual Israel-meaning Gods chosen. The writers had no clue what the new religion would be called in the last days.
Yes the God of Abraham, Noah, Moses, David, Daniel, etc--all served YHWH(Jehovah) a single being God.

They rejected a false messiah...as they should of.

I care a lot more about what G-D has said than Matty.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

That is fair.

Yes, that is the bottom line. I wish Christians were aware of and did look into these things more frequently, but it is unlikely that we will. Things aren't looking good right now, and I say that with sadness and not a hint of maliciousness. I think it isn't over, but I'm not sure where I fit in.

There are groups of Christians who do.

What has bothered me is that I never looked into the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. When I was little and asked did Christians think that Jews would go to heaven, I was told "yeah they were Gods promised people, God would fulfill his promise to them"

My parents didn't believe that God had forsaken the Jews. So I always took it that relations were good, and given that I had Jewish friends I didn't think much about it until I was in my late teens. It was then I started realizing the tension between the two religions and with Islam.

But I hadn't realized how much we claim that "they just didn't understand" when it came to Judaism. It's funny cause when reading about the Pharisees as a child, I didn't take it to be reflective all jews, but just a particular small group of them.

 

[Shermana]

Lets not derail the thread.

That is classic Hyam Maccoby but not necessarily the way things went down. I think you made some very excellent points in your previous post, but the whole subject of whether Paul 'Created' Christianity is unsettled.

Actually this is very pertinent to the thread. And while Hyam Macobby might take a few, shall we say "liberties", it is precisely how it went down that the anti-Judaizers managed to win the battle of numbers and shove the Nazarenes/Judaizers into the realm of heresy, eventually using the state as their apparatus to try to wipe them out.

If Christianity had, for the most part in terms of demographics, retained its Petrine roots and wasn't so antinomian, I'd say many more Jews would have come to similar conclusions about it as I do. As I said though, unfortunately the anti-Judaizing version seems to be the association that most are familiar with. And then the antinomian Christians wonder why Jews won't accept a version of Jesus that has him totally against the idea of obedience to the Law, contrary to what the text actually has him saying.

 

[Shermana]

They rejected a false messiah...as they should of.

I care a lot more about what G-D has said than Matty.

While fully backing a false Messiah barely a century later, of whom how he fit the qualifications and how they interpreted him to be, especially by the "Father of the Talmud", is nothing but a head scratcher.

If only we knew what exactly God meant, and if we knew everything He said in the first place about it.

 

[kjw47]

I will ask you several questions, one I will ask because I want to and I don't think you will answer or you will answer in a manner that avoids answering and the others you can answer on your leisure.

1. Can you prove the existence of Abraham, Noah, Moses, Daniel and David? Particularly Abraham and Noah.

2. How do you know that Matthew was not improperly reporting on what was said in the OT. Do you think that the prophets would agree with Matthew as the context they use obviously speaks of Israel?

3. Considering that the Kingdom of David had been split into a Northern and Southern Kingdom, why would you assume that the Israel being spoken of is not the unificiation of that kingdom? The one that God had told David he would forever keep due to his love of him? God mentions that the throne of David will endure forever, was this a spiritual throne.

4. If your wife/husband were to be unfaithful to you, would you in turn be unfaithful to them?

5. Do you consider all history to be false? Or only the ones that do not align with your beliefs? What do you make of the Kennite Hypothesis?

6. Do you believe that cultures are isolated and have no influence on how they practice and worship?

7. Do all Christians share your beliefs?

8. Can a divided Kingdom stand?

1) no--by faith I know they were real and by the discoveries made that proved things in the ot were accurate.
2)Matthew was a servant of God and his son--he wouldnt report improperly.
3)yes Jesus is on that throne now in heaven. The Jewish religion will never accept Jesus as the messiah--they have lost--individual Jews may come out of her and find the messiah--its their only hope.
4)No, not in the sense you are thinking of--but I might reject them by divorcing them.
5)never heard of it( kennite)
6)The good news of the kingdom will be preached worldwide, then the end will come.
7) yes( true Christians)
8)No a divided kingdom cannot stand.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

1) no--by faith I know they were real and by the discoveries made that proved things in the ot were accurate.
2)Matthew was a servant of God and his son--he wouldnt report improperly.
3)yes Jesus is on that throne now in heaven. The Jewish religion will never accept Jesus as the messiah--they have lost--individual Jews may come out of her and find the messiah--its their only hope.
4)No, not in the sense you are thinking of--but I might reject them by divorcing them.
5)never heard of it( kennite)
6)The good news of the kingdom will be preached worldwide, then the end will come.
7) yes( true Christians)
8)No a divided kingdom cannot stand.

1) What are the things proved in the world that the OT is accurate that show that Abraham and Noah existed?
2) Is it a proven fact that Matthew wrote the new tetament
3) THe throne spoken of was physical evident by what God said to David.
“‘The Lord declares to you that the Lord himself will establish a house for you: 12 When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands. 15 But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.’”
17 Nathan reported to David all the words of this entire revelation.

How is this a reference to Jesus?
4) Divorce is not accepted by God.
5) How about the Midanites?
6) Not an answer to my question. Do you believe that cultures are isolated and have no influence on each other?
7)How is Christianity standing? You claim "True Christians" but I have seen many in different denominations who do not agree with you, I would say that even the early Disciples like James the Just would not agree with you.

8)If Jesus's church was to be built on Peter why is it that Paul's doctrine is the prevailing one?

9)Why are scholarly biblical consensus sure that those who are claimed to have written the NT Gospels, not the ones who actually did?

 

[Brickjectivity]

There are groups of Christians who do.

What has bothered me is that I never looked into the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. When I was little and asked did Christians think that Jews would go to heaven, I was told "yeah they were Gods promised people, God would fulfill his promise to them"

My parents didn't believe that God had forsaken the Jews. So I always took it that relations were good, and given that I had Jewish friends I didn't think much about it until I was in my late teens. It was then I started realizing the tension between the two religions and with Islam.

But I hadn't realized how much we claim that "they just didn't understand" when it came to Judaism. It's funny cause when reading about the Pharisees as a child, I didn't take it to be reflective all jews, but just a particular small group of them.

That is an interesting story. I was a little surprised when I found out that Jewish children sang 'Arky Arky' and 'Father Abraham' like we did. They're Christian songs, after all. Aren't they?

Actually this is very pertinent to the thread. And while Hyam Macobby might take a few, shall we say "liberties", it is precisely how it went down that the anti-Judaizers managed to win the battle of numbers and shove the Nazarenes/Judaizers into the realm of heresy, eventually using the state as their apparatus to try to wipe them out.

He doesn't tell lies nor make any firm claim against Paul as far as I recall, and he writes thoughtfully making interesting arguments inviting thought. He makes it plain that Jewish people didn't found Christianity, at least not on purpose, and that becomes important to Jews following the events of WWII. He did a good job on his work, and it is a good work for Jews to read. It should not be a textbook on Paul though.

If Christianity had, for the most part in terms of demographics, retained its Petrine roots and wasn't so antinomian, I'd say many more Jews would have come to similar conclusions about it as I do. As I said though, unfortunately the anti-Judaizing version seems to be the association that most are familiar with. And then the antinomian Christians wonder why Jews won't accept a version of Jesus that has him totally against the idea of obedience to the Law, contrary to what the text actually has him saying.

I am recalling that you are a Torah keeping kind of a Christian, but I don't know what conclusions you are referring to. Its true that some Christian groups have taught "Be immoral and say you're sorry" but most all pursued moral behavior or so I had thought. I don't see Paul teaching immorality, either. By antinomian are you strictly talking about not keeping Torah or teaching immorality beyond that?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

That is an interesting story. I was a little surprised when I found out that Jewish children sang 'Arky Arky' and 'Father Abraham' like we did. They're Christian songs, after all. Aren't they?
He doesn't tell lies nor make any firm claim against Paul as far as I recall, and he writes thoughtfully making interesting arguments inviting thought. He makes it plain that Jewish people didn't found Christianity, at least not on purpose, and that becomes important to Jews following the events of WWII. He did a good job on his work, and it is a good work for Jews to read. It should not be a textbook on Paul though.

I am recalling that you are a Torah keeping kind of a Christian, but I don't know what conclusions you are referring to. Its true that some Christian groups have taught "Be immoral and say you're sorry" but most all pursued moral behavior or so I had thought. I don't see Paul teaching immorality, either. By antinomian are you strictly talking about not keeping Torah or teaching immorality beyond that?

Christianity seemed to have open the flood gates for Islam, and Baha'i. Because if Christians can make the claim that they received a new revelation from God, then so can Islam and so can Baha'i...but each group believes their revelation is the only one.

To me I find it interesting simply because there have been many religions that have existed, and to this date only a few have actually survived and have practioners. I know some would say that there are definitely false religions...but to me, so many religions have gone by the wayside...it would seem that what is left are either those that are true...or had the might to silence the ones who oppose them.

 

[Shermana]

He doesn't tell lies nor make any firm claim against Paul as far as I recall, and he writes thoughtfully making interesting arguments inviting thought. He makes it plain that Jewish people didn't found Christianity, at least not on purpose, and that becomes important to Jews following the events of WWII. He did a good job on his work, and it is a good work for Jews to read. It should not be a textbook on Paul though.

And he's plainly wrong. Jewish people were the original Christians. All of them were Jewish. It was a Jewish movement, fully Torah obedient, until Paul entered the scene. What non-Jewish people founded was Antinomian Pauline Christianity. Have you fully read the Mythmaker to be able to discuss it? I agree it should not be a textbook.

It seems most scholarly sources seem to think Maccoby is taking far too many liberties:

Reception of Maccoby's view[edit source | editbeta]
Reception of Maccoby's view of Paul has generally been negative.[6] John Gager of Princeton University reviewed The Mythmaker (1986) in the Jewish Quarterly Review (1988) describing part of Maccoby's thesis as "perverse misreading" and concluded "Thus I must conclude that Maccoby's book is not good history, not even history at all."[7] Skarsaune (2002), referencing Maccoby's work and the theory that Paul represents a Christianity totally different from that of the early community in Jerusalem, writes that "Acts provides no evidence to substantiate this theory."[8] James D. G. Dunn (2006) describes Maccoby's revival of Graetz' accusations that Paul was a Gentile as "a regrettable reversion to older polemics".[9] The continuity with Graetz is also noted by Langton (2009), who contrasts Maccoby's approach with adherents of a "building bridges" view, such as Isaac Mayer Wise, Joseph Krauskaupf, and Claude Montefiore, even if they shared some details of the polemic critique of Paul.[10]

Hyam Maccoby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am recalling that you are a Torah keeping kind of a Christian

,

That is correct.

but I don't know what conclusions you are referring to. Its true that some Christian groups have taught "Be immoral and say you're sorry" but most all pursued moral behavior or so I had thought.

Historically yes but I've found that even today the majority of Christians defend a view that works are not important whatsoever, that good works are the "fruit of being saved", without specifying, even when asked over and over, what those works are. Especially so when the scripture implies that being saved is something that doesn't happen until you die, even the Historical church was of this opinion. The question of what constitutes "Pursuing moral behavior" is the issue. It can be argued that historically Christians have pursued this for the most part, and that they have had a mostly "Puritanical" approach in most respects (especially the "puritans"), but that doesn't mean they were doing what the text actually instructed.

I don't see Paul teaching immorality, either. By antinomian are you strictly talking about not keeping Torah or teaching immorality beyond that?

I am talking about keeping Torah. Paul's writings indeed are often about holding fast to good behavior, even that good behavior is a necessity for salvation, something most Christians I notice don't even incorporate when they go by Paul's writings, cherry picking a few things he says about "Grace" while rejecting or revisioning all his emphasis on good behavior, but what exactly constitutes good behavior is the issue at stake. It's very difficult to try to give Paul the benefit of the doubt that he is defending obedience to the Law, I've tried it and often am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt again, but it's simply too much of a pain and it feels like an exercise in dishonesty all the while. There's a reason many of the early Nazarenes rejected him, and I don't think it was based on misinterpretation of his views.

 

[Levite]

Its obvious when Jesus walked the earth--even though considered Gods chosen( Israelites) at that point-- satan had gotten many errors in. Jesus pointed out the errors to the Israelite teachers--they rejected truth--they rejected Jesus--God rejected them forever.
The Israelite teachers were expecting the Messiah when Jesus popped up-- they had the misconception that a great powerful king was coming to defeat the romans there and then--one of their biggest downfalls was they placed themselves upon a pedastel--they called the regular Jewish followers--Amharets--means like giving scraps to the dogs( spiritual scraps)---along comes a carpenters son- He tells them they are wrong on many points--their hearts turned to hatred. Hatred easily blinds one to truth. So I guess the major problem was within the hearts of the Israelite teachers. Jesus told them--they were sons of vipers. All through the history of the ot--satan got in to the Israelite religion and twisted it away from God. over and over they fell away from Gods grace. This is realitys pattern--but today 99% of all religions think they are immune to satan getting in and turning them from God. They must think they are wiser than Solomon who fell to false god worship in the end. This whole world needs to take a step back and look.

 

[Tarheeler]

While fully backing a false Messiah barely a century later, of whom how he fit the qualifications and how they interpreted him to be, especially by the "Father of the Talmud", is nothing but a head scratcher.

If only we knew what exactly God meant, and if we knew everything He said in the first place about it.

I don't see why it would be a "head scratcher".

Judas Maccabeus, Jesus, Simon bar Kokhba, Moses of Crete, Sabbatai Zevi....

All thought to be the messiah by some, and all dismissed after not fulfilling the prophecies.
People want a better world and want to see the messiah come; that kind of hope often leads to seeing the makings of the messiah in people who end up proving otherwise.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Have you fully read the Mythmaker to be able to discuss it?

No, but I have read some of it and own a copy.

That is correct.
Historically yes but I've found that even today the majority of Christians defend a view that works are not important whatsoever, that good works are the "fruit of being saved", without specifying, even when asked over and over, what those works are. Especially so when the scripture implies that being saved is something that doesn't happen until you die, even the Historical church was of this opinion. The question of what constitutes "Pursuing moral behavior" is the issue. It can be argued that historically Christians have pursued this for the most part, and that they have had a mostly "Puritanical" approach in most respects (especially the "puritans"), but that doesn't mean they were doing what the text actually instructed.
I am talking about keeping Torah. Paul's writings indeed are often about holding fast to good behavior, even that good behavior is a necessity for salvation, something most Christians I notice don't even incorporate when they go by Paul's writings, cherry picking a few things he says about "Grace" while rejecting or revisioning all his emphasis on good behavior, but what exactly constitutes good behavior is the issue at stake. It's very difficult to try to give Paul the benefit of the doubt that he is defending obedience to the Law, I've tried it and often am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt again, but it's simply too much of a pain and it feels like an exercise in dishonesty all the while. There's a reason many of the early Nazarenes rejected him, and I don't think it was based on misinterpretation of his views.

If Paul said anything of value then you should be able to find it in the Tanach anyway; but how do you intend to keep Torah? You have already become Jewish if you do that, and why would a Jewish person desire to study the NT other than for historical reasons? You are interesting. What you say about Paul could be correct, but the thing I am not understanding is you. I don't see why you would torment yourself by living apart from other Jews. I cannot see you sitting through a typical sermon in a typical Church anywhere.

 

[Shermana]

If Paul said anything of value then you should be able to find it in the Tanach anyway;

The Tanakh does not contain everything we need to know, the Rabbis are more than happy to admit this as well, so we turn to Commentaries and extracanonical literature. In Paul's case however, his Torah commentary seems to be more of an anti-Torah commentary.

but how do you intend to keep Torah?

What do you mean exactly? My main concern of how to keep Torah is how exactly some of the vague concepts apply. For instance, I've had a long struggle with the aspect of Kosher slaughter, whether or not that's what is meant by "As I have commanded you". I've come to accept it, while hungrily staring at otherwise fine quality Organic meat that I refuse to eat due to my acceptance of this. The issue of how to obey Torah properly is a central issue of whether we take Jesus's commentary or the Rabbis', or the Kairites, or any in between.

You have already become Jewish if you do that,

Wrong. One does not "become Jewish" by obeying the Torah in and of itself. The word "Jewish" in terms of religion, almost exclusively means "Rabbinicist" in modern speak, and the Rabbis have no serious monopoly on how to interpret Torah.

Now if you mean "become Jewish" culturally if not ethnically, I was born 100% Ashkenazi into a Reform Jewish Family that was very minimalist in Torah observance, but not as minimal as many others at least. So I never "became" Jewish. I've always been "Jewish". I find it interesting however that acceptance of one particular Rabbi's interpretations (who in reality doesn't really deviate much from Shammai) suddenly makes you "not Jewish" but not another.

With that said, the aspect of "Becoming Jewish" in all Rabbinical interpretations involves a formal conversion process. Unfortunately, the word "Jewish" in a religious sense has been monopolized to mean only those who follow specific interpretations of the text in terms of a Talmudic framework. With that said, I see no reason why one who obeys the Torah would "become Jewish", or why "becoming Jewish" is exclusive from following the teachings of Yeshu, of what we know from him, except by the decrees of the Talmudists.

and why would a Jewish person desire to study the NT other than for historical reasons?

Because they may be interested in the prospect that Yeshu was either the Messiah or had valid commentary on the Torah and may be interested in a Kairit-ish perspective on the Rabbinicists. According to what the Gospels say at least.

You are interesting.

Why thank you.

What you say about Paul could be correct, but the thing I am not understanding is you. I don't see why you would torment yourself by living apart from other Jews.

I prefer what I consider to be what God wants over the Social network of what I consider to be an extension of what caused them to be punished by God. God's a much better friend than any social support network could be. I don't consider it too far different than what the Essene mindset was like. It's mostly a matter of Theological difference. But there's also a Social aspect I'm not going to mention here.

I cannot see you sitting through a typical sermon in a typical Church anywhere.

I have worked for churches and had to sit through the same sermons over and over. I couldn't stand it (particularly their interpretations and dogma and doctrine), but I was more than happy to help them part with some of their money.

The loner lifestyle is something I've learned to love, and that's exactly what I believe Yeshua intended. Besides, going against the tendency for social group think has its perks. Being close with God is way better, but that's another story.

 

[kjw47]

1) What are the things proved in the world that the OT is accurate that show that Abraham and Noah existed?
2) Is it a proven fact that Matthew wrote the new tetament
3) THe throne spoken of was physical evident by what God said to David.
“‘The Lord declares to you that the Lord himself will establish a house for you: 12 When your days are over and you rest with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands. 15 But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.’”
17 Nathan reported to David all the words of this entire revelation.

How is this a reference to Jesus?
4) Divorce is not accepted by God.
5) How about the Midanites?
6) Not an answer to my question. Do you believe that cultures are isolated and have no influence on each other?
7)How is Christianity standing? You claim "True Christians" but I have seen many in different denominations who do not agree with you, I would say that even the early Disciples like James the Just would not agree with you.

8)If Jesus's church was to be built on Peter why is it that Paul's doctrine is the prevailing one?

9)Why are scholarly biblical consensus sure that those who are claimed to have written the NT Gospels, not the ones who actually did?

1) Archeologists dug up sights of those killed by God--there comments were--We cant understand why God waited so long to wipe them off of his earth.( That's proving the things written in the ot actually occurred and are substantiated by the scientific community. It doesn't prove-Abraham and Noah--but proof of some of the ot words is enough.
2) Matthew wrote Matthew--not the nt
3)This is referring To Jesus( son) as king of Gods kingdom-- it will never end-Daniel 2:44)
4)fornication is the only biblical grounds for a divorce-Matt 19:9
5) What about them?( midinites)
6)no they are not isolated( always an exception to the rule)
7) Don't agree with what?
8) I am not sure on that one, but it is truth about Peter.
9) Do you mean mislead trinity believing scholars?

 

[Shermana]

I don't see why it would be a "head scratcher".

Judas Maccabeus, Jesus, Simon bar Kokhba, Moses of Crete, Sabbatai Zevi....

All thought to be the messiah by some, and all dismissed after not fulfilling the prophecies.
People want a better world and want to see the messiah come; that kind of hope often leads to seeing the makings of the messiah in people who end up proving otherwise.

The head scratcher is what made the Father of the Talmud, the Grand Daddy Sage, Rabbi Akiva, decide he was Messiah in the first place. Apparently rising up against the Romans was all it took to fulfill the interpretation of the prophecies back then.

The issue is what exactly it means to "fulfill" the prophecies and what those "prophecies" actually are in the first place.

 

[Tarheeler]

The head scratcher is what made the Father of the Talmud, the Grand Daddy Sage, Rabbi Akiva, decide he was Messiah in the first place. Apparently rising up against the Romans was all it took to fulfill the interpretation of the prophecies back then.

Akiva was human, just like everyone else. He made a judgement call, and was proven wrong.
Like I said, hope can sometimes cloud our judgement.

 

[Shermana]

Akiva was human, just like everyone else. He made a judgement call, and was proven wrong.

The point is that this "judgment call" was based on a radically different interpretation of what it meant to be fulfilling those prophecies, and what those prophecies were in the first place.

And Akiva wasn't just any old Joe Average human, he was the Father of the Talmud. Big difference. We're talking the initial kickstarter of the entire corpus of Rabbinical thought. What he thought matters very much in determining the development of Jewish thought.

The idea that Jesus did not fulfill the "Messianic prophecies" is entirely based on an attempt to objectify what those "prophecies" are and what they mean in the first place, and then holding Jesus up to those arbitrary standards in Straw man fashion, hardly different than how Christians might be accused of doing the same for saying he was the Messiah. Apparently these same objective absolute interpretations didn't even hold up during Akiva's time, so at what point did the Rabbis decide what was and wasn't the correct way to interpret them?

 

[Tarheeler]

The point is that this "judgment call" was based on a radically different interpretation of what it meant to be fulfilling those prophecies, and what those prophecies were in the first place.

And Akiva wasn't just any old Joe Average human, he was the Father of the Talmud. Big difference. We're talking the initial kickstarter of the entire corpus of Rabbinical thought. What he thought matters very much in determining the development of Jewish thought.

The idea that Jesus did not fulfill the "Messianic prophecies" is entirely based on an attempt to objectify what those "prophecies" are and what they mean in the first place, and then holding Jesus up to those arbitrary standards in Straw man fashion, hardly different than how Christians might be accused of doing the same for saying he was the Messiah. Apparently these same objective absolute interpretations didn't even hold up during Akiva's time, so at what point did the Rabbis decide what was and wasn't the correct way to interpret them?

All it shows it that Akiba, as an individual, held a different idea about the messiah and that he was proven wrong. While he certainly was a great sage, he was not infallible and could error just like everyone else. If anything, Akiba's view also eliminates Jesus' candidacy.

I get your argument, and it is always possible that you could be right. But the lack of anything substantial pointing to it makes unlikely on the scale your insisting. I don't doubt that the prophecies have changed somewhat over the millennia, but not to the point that someone who would have qualified no longer does, especially after that person was denounce when he lived.

Jesus was just one of hundreds of people who have either claimed to be the messiah or who have been supported as such by the people. But all of them have been rejected after failing to do certain things, and that list of things predates Jesus.