Jews: Why do they not accept Jesus as Messiah

[Tarheeler]

I have a general question for everyone here: Why is there a need to make Jesus fit into the Jewish idea of the messiah? Isn't it enough that you believe in him, in whatever role?

 

[Shermana]

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.

There lies the issue, "lack of anything substantial". Again, there's a difference between what the Anointed One is supposed to do and what the effect of his coming is. The text doesn't necessarily say what he does. And it doesn't say whether its an overnight sensation or a process of an entire age. I don't see how being denounced by the majority while he was alive means anything. If anything, Zechariah 12:10 as I and most Christians see it, is all about "The one" whom they pierced (The word "Me" is not necessarily accurate for the pronoun indicator) being mourned over after an initial rejection.

Now as for what's happened, the whole world has become well acquainted with the Jewish god. And it happened to be through the emphasis on this "Jesus" character. I think that's very significant.

 

[Tarheeler]

There lies the issue, "lack of anything substantial". Again, there's a difference between what the Anointed One is supposed to do and what the effect of his coming is. The text doesn't necessarily say what he does. And it doesn't say whether its an overnight sensation or a process of an entire age. I don't see how being denounced by the majority while he was alive means anything. If anything, Zechariah 12:10 as I and most Christians see it, is all about "The one" whom they pierced (The word "Me" is not necessarily accurate for the pronoun indicator) being mourned over after an initial rejection.

Now as for what's happened, the whole world has become well acquainted with the Jewish god. And it happened to be through the emphasis on this "Jesus" character. I think that's very significant.

You're arguing that one rabbi supporting a false messiah is grounds for supporting alternate prophecies, but you don't see how a false messiah being denounced by many means anything?

What should happen is covered in the text, in both the Tankah and the Talmud. Most Christians are pretty quick to quote them when talking about what will happen during the second coming. Sure, we can argue about the difference between a messianic "age" and a messianic "person", but the conditions for either have not been met, and we have no evidence that it will any time soon.

But, even with this, there isn't anything that supports your hypothesis that there is an alternate set of prophesies that prove Jesus to be the messiah, and I've never seen a decent argument that explains why the sages of the time would reject the messiah if he met the requirements spelled out.

 

[Shermana]

You're arguing that one rabbi supporting a false messiah is grounds for supporting alternate prophecies, but you don't see how a false messiah being denounced by many means anything?

I certainly see how being denounced by many says something. But what I don't see is what it says about the objective picture. Most Rabbis think that the prohibition on boiling a kid in its mother's milk means you can't eat a chicken cheese steak. I see no reason to listen to the majority's opinion on a very vague, ambiguous issue which is riddled with straw men and rooted in bias and some of the most vitrolic language ever leveled. The Karaites for example have no problem rejecting what "many" have decreed on other issues, I see no reason why the "many" have any say on how to objectively identify something mired in unclear terms. If anything as I said, if the gospels are anything close to accurate, Jesus seems to have a lot of rebuke for the Status Quo and the Pharisaic interpretaitons which he calls the "Doctrines of men". One may certainly see how this would not sit well with those who prefer not to rock the boat.

What should happen is covered in the text, in both the Tankah and the Talmud.

What should happen is not exactly all that clear, especially as to the time frame, and I see no reason why the Talmud should be used as an objective indicator of what was indicated hundreds of years before its composition, outside of a Rabbinic perspective.

Most Christians are pretty quick to quote them when talking about what will happen during the second coming. Sure, we can argue about the difference between a messianic "age" and a messianic "person", but the conditions for either have not been met, and we have no evidence that it will any time soon.

One can argue that the conditions are being met. The Jews are making great headway into Israel, and most of the world believes in the Israelite god, and we live in relatively far more peace today than ever before. Even with the World Wars in mind, it's nothing quite like the constant individual wars and conflicts in between. Interpretation is not in anyone's exclusive monopoly. There are bumps in the road but nowhere does it say it will be a smooth ride. The alternative interpretation is a sudden Overnight sensation, as if everyone's hearts will be magically turned towards peace and truth all of the sudden like Pharoah when God overtook his mind. If anything, if everyone lived as Jesus taught, we WOULD be in that age. So perhaps that's the issue, the age is a matter of everyone learning to adopt what Yeshu taught and THEN the age will be in full swing.

But, even with this, there isn't anything that supports your hypothesis that there is an alternate set of prophesies that prove Jesus to be the messiah,

We have things like the Gabriel Stone and the Dead Sea Scrolls that may indicate there were more than one version of what constituted Messianic Prophecies. Just because the Pharisees-turned-Rabbis didn't adopt them doesn't make it so God didn't intend them to be taken as such. Josephus mentions a prophet of the Essenes, yet for some reason he isn't really mentioned by the Talmud. We simply don't know what was being said and done at the time.

and I've never seen a decent argument that explains why the sages of the time would reject the messiah if he met the requirements spelled out.

But the "requirements" are not spelled out to the point anyone can interpret them objectively. If you understand my point about Akiva, then you'll understand that not even the greatest of the sages had the same understanding as later Rabbis. And we don't know what exactly was spelled out and what wasn't.

As far as I'm concerned, as I've shown in more detail on Dantech's thread, the "Age" has been playing out for the last 1900 years, whether it's through Tribulations or not.

 

[outhouse]

I have a general question for everyone here: Why is there a need to make Jesus fit into the Jewish idea of the messiah? Isn't it enough that you believe in him, in whatever role?

Nope, fundementalist have a hard time accepting the truth.

Add to that the lack of credible statements that can apply, leaves huge gaps for imagination to play like a kid in a candy store.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

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?

1)Who were the ones killed by God?
2)My correction, what proof do you have that Matthew wrote Matthew, and that it is the same Matthew that was a disciple of Jesus? If not proof what evidence?
3) You said it's Jesus, so going by that verse did Jesus sin?
4) Jesus made it clear that God only allowed this because of humans harden rights, but it is not approved at all. What God has put together let no man tear asunder.
5) So you don't know about the Midinite or the Kennite Hypothesis. What can you tell me about Edom?
6)What are the exceptions in where two cultures have interacted and they have remained isolated.
7) With your doctrine
8) Then why did Paul set up the gentile church, which would become the predominate church? Why was James the Just the leader of the Jewish sect. What did Peter establish?
9) No. The scholarly biblical consensus is that Matthew did not write Matthew, Luke was a third party individual who people are unsure of who he really was or who he was writing too. Mark borrowed from another document (possibly the Q), and John is strongly debated. What do you make of these reports given evidence of documents that have been found that support these?

 

[Shermana]

I have a general question for everyone here: Why is there a need to make Jesus fit into the Jewish idea of the messiah? Isn't it enough that you believe in him, in whatever role?

Because if Jesus didn't fit what the Israelite prophets said was the Messiah, then he's not the Messiah. I believe he fit those requirements, regardless if I know the full story, based on my own interpretation.

Once we establish that the "Jewish idea of the messiah" is not necessarily the same thing as the "Original idea of the Israelite Messiah", we can get closer to an objective understanding. Hence why I bring up Rabbi Akiva's mistaken interpretation of Kokhba. There simply is not a "Jewish idea of the Messiah", there is an "Individual Jewish perception of what the Messiah is supposed to be" that eventually developed standardized interpretations among various Talmudic authors.

 

[Walkntune]

I believe personally that that this is a type and shadow of the story of Joseph who wasnt recieved by his own brothers.They did not even recognise Joseph when he was on the right hand of the king. I believe the ten brothers represents the law or ten commandments and Benjamin was the only other brother who was from the mother of promise.Joeph was gracious to Benjamin and gave him five times the food and clothing than the rest.I believe its symbolic to those under law not recognising grace.

 

[Shermana]

I believe personally that that this is a type and shadow of the story of Joseph who wasnt recieved by his own brothers.They did not even recognise Joseph when he was on the right hand of the king. I believe the ten brothers represents the law or ten commandments and Benjamin was the only other brother who was from the mother of promise.Joeph was gracious to Benjamin and gave him five times the food and clothing than the rest.I believe its symbolic to those under law not recognising grace.

A fine example of what I'm talking about the common Straw man representations of what Jesus's message was about which do nothing to bridge the gap. Telling Jews that they need to reject the Law and accept (The Pauline Concept of) Grace (Which is nothing close to what Jesus taught if you actually read the full context of the Gospels), or that they're wrong for "clinging" to the Law, when Jesus clearly teaches the opposite in that the Law is important for all time and necessary for achieving "age-long" life, is a prime example of the things that cause Jews to think of Jesus so negatively. But let's not turn this into yet another Law vs Grace thread.

At the very least, perhaps Christians should recognize that the Jerusalem Church under James was all about full compliance with the Law.

 

[Tarheeler]

I certainly see how being denounced by many says something. But what I don't see is what it says about the objective picture. Most Rabbis think that the prohibition on boiling a kid in its mother's milk means you can't eat a chicken cheese steak. I see no reason to listen to the majority's opinion on a very vague, ambiguous issue which is riddled with straw men and rooted in bias and some of the most vitrolic language ever leveled. The Karaites for example have no problem rejecting what "many" have decreed on other issues, I see no reason why the "many" have any say on how to objectively identify something mired in unclear terms. If anything as I said, if the gospels are anything close to accurate, Jesus seems to have a lot of rebuke for the Status Quo and the Pharisaic interpretaitons which he calls the "Doctrines of men". One may certainly see how this would not sit well with those who prefer not to rock the boat.



What should happen is not exactly all that clear, especially as to the time frame, and I see no reason why the Talmud should be used as an objective indicator of what was indicated hundreds of years before its composition, outside of a Rabbinic perspective.



One can argue that the conditions are being met. The Jews are making great headway into Israel, and most of the world believes in the Israelite god, and we live in relatively far more peace today than ever before. Even with the World Wars in mind, it's nothing quite like the constant individual wars and conflicts in between. Interpretation is not in anyone's exclusive monopoly. There are bumps in the road but nowhere does it say it will be a smooth ride. The alternative interpretation is a sudden Overnight sensation, as if everyone's hearts will be magically turned towards peace and truth all of the sudden like Pharoah when God overtook his mind. If anything, if everyone lived as Jesus taught, we WOULD be in that age. So perhaps that's the issue, the age is a matter of everyone learning to adopt what Yeshu taught and THEN the age will be in full swing.



We have things like the Gabriel Stone and the Dead Sea Scrolls that may indicate there were more than one version of what constituted Messianic Prophecies. Just because the Pharisees-turned-Rabbis didn't adopt them doesn't make it so God didn't intend them to be taken as such. Josephus mentions a prophet of the Essenes, yet for some reason he isn't really mentioned by the Talmud. We simply don't know what was being said and done at the time.



But the "requirements" are not spelled out to the point anyone can interpret them objectively. If you understand my point about Akiva, then you'll understand that not even the greatest of the sages had the same understanding as later Rabbis. And we don't know what exactly was spelled out and what wasn't.

As far as I'm concerned, as I've shown in more detail on Dantech's thread, the "Age" has been playing out for the last 1900 years, whether it's through Tribulations or not.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to chase your red herrings.

You haven't show anything that suggests that the idea or prophecies were unclear or differed significantly from what we currently have, and you go on to argue that the conditions we do have either have been or currently are being met.

Yes, there were competing sects that existed at the time that had their own beliefs and prophecies, but there isn't anything that suggests that they were ever dominate or prior occurrences. It simply shows that back then, just like today, people argue about religion. The Essenes differed distinctly from normative Judaism, even back then, and there isn't any reason that their sages or writings would be included in the Jewish cannon or Talmud.

Because if Jesus didn't fit what the Israelite prophets said was the Messiah, then he's not the Messiah. I believe he fit those requirements, regardless if I know the full story, based on my own interpretation.

Once we establish that the "Jewish idea of the messiah" is not necessarily the same thing as the "Original idea of the Israelite Messiah", we can get closer to an objective understanding. Hence why I bring up Rabbi Akiva's mistaken interpretation of Kokhba. There simply is not a "Jewish idea of the Messiah", there is an "Individual Jewish perception of what the Messiah is supposed to be" that eventually developed standardized interpretations among various Talmudic authors.

I think the bolded is the whole point here. You have found your own reasons to follow what you do, and you certainly have every right to do so.
But it doesn't make your interpretation the correct one, and it doesn't replace what others follow. You've come to a conclusion that there isn't any evidence for, and now you want to convince others that you're correct.

 

[kjw47]

1)Who were the ones killed by God?
2)My correction, what proof do you have that Matthew wrote Matthew, and that it is the same Matthew that was a disciple of Jesus? If not proof what evidence?
3) You said it's Jesus, so going by that verse did Jesus sin?
4) Jesus made it clear that God only allowed this because of humans harden rights, but it is not approved at all. What God has put together let no man tear asunder.
5) So you don't know about the Midinite or the Kennite Hypothesis. What can you tell me about Edom?
6)What are the exceptions in where two cultures have interacted and they have remained isolated.
7) With your doctrine
8) Then why did Paul set up the gentile church, which would become the predominate church? Why was James the Just the leader of the Jewish sect. What did Peter establish?
9) No. The scholarly biblical consensus is that Matthew did not write Matthew, Luke was a third party individual who people are unsure of who he really was or who he was writing too. Mark borrowed from another document (possibly the Q), and John is strongly debated. What do you make of these reports given evidence of documents that have been found that support these?

1)Different ones in the ot--the point is that science has proved the words of some of the ot correct--
8) he set up the governing body--established congregations( probably just in homes) corrected error teachings that got in. He did this as well because Jesus taught it was very important for one to be doing this everyday 24/7 ( whole heart, mind, soul, strength)-- keep on seeking FIRST( very important) the kingdom and his ( Jehovah) righteousness and all these other things will be added( sustenance, covering, spirituality)--- my teachers know the importance of getting that teaching deep into ones heart.
Since I know for sure the teachers I listen to teach Jesus' truths I will listen to them over documents.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

1)Different ones in the ot--the point is that science has proved the words of some of the ot correct--
8) he set up the governing body--established congregations( probably just in homes) corrected error teachings that got in. He did this as well because Jesus taught it was very important for one to be doing this everyday 24/7 ( whole heart, mind, soul, strength)-- keep on seeking FIRST( very important) the kingdom and his ( Jehovah) righteousness and all these other things will be added( sustenance, covering, spirituality)--- my teachers know the importance of getting that teaching deep into ones heart.
Since I know for sure the teachers I listen to teach Jesus' truths I will listen to them over documents.

1) Can you provide examples please?
8) Is not the Kingdom in our Midst?

 

[Shermana]

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to chase your red herrings.

We have different understandings of what "Red Herrings" means. You could technically call anything that doesn't fit the overnight sensation interpretation a "Red herring". We can write off anything that disagrees with the mainstream view as a "Red Herring".

You haven't show anything that suggests that the idea or prophecies were unclear or differed significantly from what we currently have,

I don't see anything showing the prophecies were clear to begin with, and I see no reason to discount the minority views regarding "What we currently have".

and you go on to argue that the conditions we do have either have been or currently are being met.

I don't see the problem. That's a perfectly valid interpretation. Even certain Rabbis have a concept of an unfolding Messianic Age but with a different interpretation of the criteria. I'm not saying everything was changed, I'm saying we may not have everything in our books that are supposed to be on the same level in our regards to what should be counted as what. The Essenes may have had some of this and it was rejected by the "Normative" Jews for one reason or another, but that doesn't make it wrong merely for not being "normative".

Yes, there were competing sects that existed at the time that had their own beliefs and prophecies, but there isn't anything that suggests that they were ever dominate or prior occurrences.

Ah, so if it wasn't "Dominant", it's a Red herring. I see. I don't see what the "Dominant" factor has to do with it. Is this a fallacious appeal to majority? There's quite a difference between what is "Dominant" and what "Was what likely was originally intended", of which we have nothing but a hope for direct revelation to tell us in either respect. We have absolutely nothing to suggest the current Rabbinical interpretation had a "Prior occurence", so unless you're going to throw out the "Dominant" interpretation, the "prior occurence" argument works both ways. And "Dominant" means nothing. The Trinity is the "Dominant" Christian Theology. Does that make the Trinity the right Christology?

It simply shows that back then, just like today, people argue about religion.

And it shows that there's no "Clear" interpretation either way.

The Essenes differed distinctly from normative Judaism, even back then, and there isn't any reason that their sages or writings would be included in the Jewish cannon or Talmud.

And that's back to the issue, there's no reason to assume that "Normative Judaism" and the "Jewish Canon" and "Talmud" indicate what was considered objectively true by the Prophets and what God Himself intended. It's basically one interpretation versus another. And another that is built on a development that radically deviates from what the initial Rabbis even believed apparently to begin with.

I think the bolded is the whole point here. You have found your own reasons to follow what you do, and you certainly have every right to do so.

Indeed, just as the Rabbis have found their own reasons over the years.

But it doesn't make your interpretation the correct one, and it doesn't replace what others follow.

I don't recall saying it DOES replace what others follow. It certainly trumps what they follow in my own belief, but I'm merely saying that their own idea of what the criteria is should not be regarded as the gold standard regarding the Hebrew scriptures, or that the "Normative Judaism" approach is necessarily what was the original.

You've come to a conclusion that there isn't any evidence for,

To me there is evidence based on how the events are interpreted. Just as the Rabbis have "evidence" for their views based on how the events are interpreted. If you write off my view as without evidence, certainly you must write off the Rabbis' view of what constitutes textual evidence for their own interpretation.

and now you want to convince others that you're correct

Of course, because it's about a matter of interpretation. Convincing others that I am correct is no different than convincing Christians that they are wrong about the Trinity or Pauline theology. It's really a matter of a clash of ideas that no one is able to prove in the first place except through how observation and personal assessment works. Otherwise, when I say "I don't have the full story", I'm just saying what's reality, NO ONE has the full story. Rabbinical Jews don't have the full story either. We simply don't know what constitutes what. Now if you insist that "Normative Judaism" was ORIGINAL Judaism, and contains what was ORIGINALLY intended to be regarded as the signs of Moshiach, then how are you different? The issue is whether or not the "Normative" Judaism approach is necessarily correct in why Jews shouldn't accept Jesus as Messiah, as if their own idea is necessarily concrete without question. Personally I wish I could flat out say that as sure as God lives, Yeshu was the incarnation of His chosen Messiah to usher in the Age, and that's what I do say, but it's not quite that easy when it comes to discussing the details.

Do the Rabbis not want to convince others that Jesus was not the Messiah? What evidence do they have that he wasn't other than the "Overnight sensation" model? To say objectively that "Jesus was not the Messiah" requires equal evidence and equal objectivity of assertion in saying what exactly the intended meanings of the prophecies were, and why sects like the Essenes should be discounted altogether merely because they represented a minority movement.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

Possibly, but I was able to come up with an alternative way of looking at his letters. To prove it to myself would require a lot of work, however. I'd use flow charts.

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.

The more I think about the 10 commands the more I realize that I am unsure what they mean. Chapter 11 of Deuteronomy begins talking about 'Generations' and "You shall know today that it was not with your sons who did not know and did not see....and His deeds that He did in the midst of Egypt to Pharoah...." Right away there is a huge emphasis. Right away it implies that inheritance is necessary to keep this law, since it is so intensively about parents. My parents don't keep the laws of Moses. How am I to interpret this law in such a way that it applies to me and to my family? (Don't answer that it will derail the thread.)

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.

They may have a monopoly over secret information about it. How should you know since your family was minimalist in its observance?

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.

Whatever the reason, they must tie it into the 10 commands somehow, because it is an extreme act to cut someone off.

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.

Jewish people are not any different from other people if you take away the Torah. If they aren't different then they're no longer a separate people, and if they aren't a separate people then everyone is Jewish. If it quacks like a duck, then its a duck.

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....

I don't follow you on solitary living or on the punishment. Isaiah 53 suggests they were 'Bruised for our transgressions'. The gospels record Jesus judgment that the man born blind in Israel was not especially iniquitous, and that implies his tragedy was brought upon him by the nation as a whole rather than something that was wrong with him alone. In a similar way it may not be the Jews own fault that they suffered. Perhaps it was for the sake of those outside Israel, as Paul suggested was the case?

 

[Moishe3rd]

Okay - I glanced through the thread and I didn't see this point so, pardon me if it's been said...

The Jewish concept of moshiach has nothing to do with the Christian; Western; 2,000 year old shaping of the word "messiah."
The word messiah no longer means "anointed one." Just as the word "christ" no longer means "anointed one."
These are Christian ideas that mean Jesus; "son of a god;" "divine part of a trinity; etc.

Whether or not Jesus fulfilled any prophecies or did miracles or rose from the dead or whatever - is all moot.
The Jewish concept of moshiach is NOT divine. Moshiach is NOT G-d. Moshiach is NOT dead (regardless of whether he pops up again).

The Christian (and therefore Western) concept of messiah has absolutely no correlation in the Jewish concept of moshiach.

 

[outhouse]

Okay - I glanced through the thread and I didn't see this point so, pardon me if it's been said...

The Jewish concept of moshiach has nothing to do with the Christian; Western; 2,000 year old shaping of the word "messiah."
The word messiah no longer means "anointed one." Just as the word "christ" no longer means "anointed one."
These are Christian ideas that mean Jesus; "son of a god;" "divine part of a trinity; etc.

Whether or not Jesus fulfilled any prophecies or did miracles or rose from the dead or whatever - is all moot.
The Jewish concept of moshiach is NOT divine. Moshiach is NOT G-d. Moshiach is NOT dead (regardless of whether he pops up again).

The Christian (and therefore Western) concept of messiah has absolutely no correlation in the Jewish concept of moshiach.

Frubals decent reply

 

[Shermana]

Okay - I glanced through the thread and I didn't see this point so, pardon me if it's been said...

The Jewish concept of moshiach has nothing to do with the Christian; Western; 2,000 year old shaping of the word "messiah."
The word messiah no longer means "anointed one." Just as the word "christ" no longer means "anointed one."
These are Christian ideas that mean Jesus; "son of a god;" "divine part of a trinity; etc.

Whether or not Jesus fulfilled any prophecies or did miracles or rose from the dead or whatever - is all moot.
The Jewish concept of moshiach is NOT divine. Moshiach is NOT G-d. Moshiach is NOT dead (regardless of whether he pops up again).

The Christian (and therefore Western) concept of messiah has absolutely no correlation in the Jewish concept of moshiach.

The Christian concept of the Trinity and being of a Virgin Birth are most likely both later interpolations invented by the gentilzers/anti-judaizers. Early Nazarenes like Cerinthus certainly did not subscribe to either. They have nothing to do with the concept of Messiah indeed, they are embellishments. This does not however have anything to do with the rest of the aspects which apply to arguments about Yeshu.

However, where do you get that the word "Christ" and "Messiah" no longer mean "Anointed one"? They don't mean "Savior" in their literal meanings, so are you saying that the meaning of the term is allowed to change over time deviating from its original use? Or are you saying that the word "Messiah" as its used has lost its original meaning and SHOULD mean "Anointed one"?

 

[Shermana]

Possibly, but I was able to come up with an alternative way of looking at his letters. To prove it to myself would require a lot of work, however. I'd use flow charts.

It's far more work than its worth to try to pretend that Paul promoted obedience to the Torah as a necessary element of Salvation, it can be done however, and I even give the slim benefit of the doubt that it may even be the case, there's a FEW, a very few radical critics that even believe works like Galatians are total forgeries just like Ephesians, and even mainstream liberal Christian scholars like Goodspeed who believe Romans might be a series of patchworks, and I actually think they may be right.

The more I think about the 10 commands the more I realize that I am unsure what they mean. Chapter 11 of Deuteronomy begins talking about 'Generations' and "You shall know today that it was not with your sons who did not know and did not see....and His deeds that He did in the midst of Egypt to Pharoah...." Right away there is a huge emphasis. Right away it implies that inheritance is necessary to keep this law, since it is so intensively about parents. My parents don't keep the laws of Moses. How am I to interpret this law in such a way that it applies to me and to my family? (Don't answer that it will derail the thread.)

I will refrain.

They may have a monopoly over secret information about it. How should you know since your family was minimalist in its observance?

What secret information could they possibly have? They reject the Essene specifics of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which I think would be "Secret information". There is a LOT of untranslated Talmud, that's a given, but I fail to see what "Secret information" they would have that I couldn't find in Apocryphal literature which they reject. As far as I'm concerned, the only "Secret Information" they may have, unless they have access to direct prophets who they don't talk about, is their own fabricated ideas. The true "Secret information" I believe is found in the "70 books hidden for the Wise" mentioned in 2 Esdras, which mainstream Rabbinical Jews reject.

Whatever the reason, they must tie it into the 10 commands somehow, because it is an extreme act to cut someone off.

It is suspiciously extreme how reactionary they have been and are to all things related to Jesus, don't you agree?

Jewish people are not any different from other people if you take away the Torah.

I can agree to that. Although Atheist Jews can still be significantly more clever than the general population.

If they aren't different then they're no longer a separate people, and if they aren't a separate people then everyone is Jewish. If it quacks like a duck, then its a duck.

Not sure I follow your point here.

I don't follow you on solitary living or on the punishment. Isaiah 53 suggests they were 'Bruised for our transgressions'.

No, it suggests HE, singular, was. Proper grammar is very important when discussing these. It clearly implies he will serve as a Guilt offering. Now with that, what don't you follow with my idea of having a similar mentality with the Essenes, that the mainstreamers simply have it all wrong?

The gospels record Jesus judgment that the man born blind in Israel was not especially iniquitous, and that implies his tragedy was brought upon him by the nation as a whole rather than something that was wrong with him alone.

I beg your pardon? It says he was born blind so that he could see for himself the power of God. Where did you get that second part? Just like getting the grammar right, we can't embellish what the text says if we want to extrapolate meaning from it.

In a similar way it may not be the Jews own fault that they suffered.

There is some argument to this, since the Israelites were defeated in battle and several killed because one of them hid away a valuable garment, against the orders of God. Beyond that though, the Tanakh is explicitly clear that people's sufferings as well as national tragedies in themselves are nothing less than the fruits of the grapes of wrath.

Perhaps it was for the sake of those outside Israel, as Paul suggested was the case?

Indeed there was much benefit to the gentiles, even if they had the completely wrong idea of what Jesus was and what his message was, and warped his message all the same. At least they knew who the Supreme god was, even if they conflated him with the Messiah Himself, it was the god of the Jews.

 

[Tarheeler]

We have different understandings of what "Red Herrings" means. You could technically call anything that doesn't fit the overnight sensation interpretation a "Red herring". We can write off anything that disagrees with the mainstream view as a "Red Herring".



I don't see anything showing the prophecies were clear to begin with, and I see no reason to discount the minority views regarding "What we currently have".




I don't see the problem. That's a perfectly valid interpretation. Even certain Rabbis have a concept of an unfolding Messianic Age but with a different interpretation of the criteria. I'm not saying everything was changed, I'm saying we may not have everything in our books that are supposed to be on the same level in our regards to what should be counted as what. The Essenes may have had some of this and it was rejected by the "Normative" Jews for one reason or another, but that doesn't make it wrong merely for not being "normative".



Ah, so if it wasn't "Dominant", it's a Red herring. I see. I don't see what the "Dominant" factor has to do with it. Is this a fallacious appeal to majority? There's quite a difference between what is "Dominant" and what "Was what likely was originally intended", of which we have nothing but a hope for direct revelation to tell us in either respect. We have absolutely nothing to suggest the current Rabbinical interpretation had a "Prior occurence", so unless you're going to throw out the "Dominant" interpretation, the "prior occurence" argument works both ways. And "Dominant" means nothing. The Trinity is the "Dominant" Christian Theology. Does that make the Trinity the right Christology?



And it shows that there's no "Clear" interpretation either way.



And that's back to the issue, there's no reason to assume that "Normative Judaism" and the "Jewish Canon" and "Talmud" indicate what was considered objectively true by the Prophets and what God Himself intended. It's basically one interpretation versus another. And another that is built on a development that radically deviates from what the initial Rabbis even believed apparently to begin with.





Indeed, just as the Rabbis have found their own reasons over the years.



I don't recall saying it DOES replace what others follow. It certainly trumps what they follow in my own belief, but I'm merely saying that their own idea of what the criteria is should not be regarded as the gold standard regarding the Hebrew scriptures, or that the "Normative Judaism" approach is necessarily what was the original.



To me there is evidence based on how the events are interpreted. Just as the Rabbis have "evidence" for their views based on how the events are interpreted. If you write off my view as without evidence, certainly you must write off the Rabbis' view of what constitutes textual evidence for their own interpretation.



Of course, because it's about a matter of interpretation. Convincing others that I am correct is no different than convincing Christians that they are wrong about the Trinity or Pauline theology. It's really a matter of a clash of ideas that no one is able to prove in the first place except through how observation and personal assessment works. Otherwise, when I say "I don't have the full story", I'm just saying what's reality, NO ONE has the full story. Rabbinical Jews don't have the full story either. We simply don't know what constitutes what. Now if you insist that "Normative Judaism" was ORIGINAL Judaism, and contains what was ORIGINALLY intended to be regarded as the signs of Moshiach, then how are you different? The issue is whether or not the "Normative" Judaism approach is necessarily correct in why Jews shouldn't accept Jesus as Messiah, as if their own idea is necessarily concrete without question. Personally I wish I could flat out say that as sure as God lives, Yeshu was the incarnation of His chosen Messiah to usher in the Age, and that's what I do say, but it's not quite that easy when it comes to discussing the details.

Do the Rabbis not want to convince others that Jesus was not the Messiah? What evidence do they have that he wasn't other than the "Overnight sensation" model? To say objectively that "Jesus was not the Messiah" requires equal evidence and equal objectivity of assertion in saying what exactly the intended meanings of the prophecies were, and why sects like the Essenes should be discounted altogether merely because they represented a minority movement.

A red herring is a logical fallacy that misleads or detracts from the actual issue, which, in this case, is the messianic prophecies used at the time.

And you haven't shown that they were anything other than what we hold today. Akiba's support of Bar Kokhba only shows that he, as an individual, held a divergent view, while the stance of the other sages in instances well predating this and other false messiahs (including Jesus) suggests that there was a fairly well established set of requirements already in place. Similarly, the existence of minor sects with their own ideas only show that they existed. There is nothing that suggests that their views were the original or somehow more valid (other than the fact that they work better with your own personal beliefs).

At this point, we've pretty well established that this is nothing more that your personally held beliefs, and that your free to hold them if you wish to do so. I have no intention of arguing the same things over and over.

 

[Moishe3rd]

The Christian concept of the Trinity and being of a Virgin Birth are most likely both later interpolations invented by the gentilzers/anti-judaizers. Early Nazarenes like Cerinthus certainly did not subscribe to either. They have nothing to do with the concept of Messiah indeed, they are embellishments. This does not however have anything to do with the rest of the aspects which apply to arguments about Yeshu.

However, where do you get that the word "Christ" and "Messiah" no longer mean "Anointed one"? They don't mean "Savior" in their literal meanings, so are you saying that the meaning of the term is allowed to change over time deviating from its original use? Or are you saying that the word "Messiah" as its used has lost its original meaning and SHOULD mean "Anointed one"?

Moshiach, the "anointed one," derives specifically from King David being anointed by G-d. King David is, indeed, called moshiach.
The whole notion of the "Divine Right of Kings" in Europe came from the genealogies invented to trace their lineage back to King David. That was what being the "anointed one" from King David came to mean.

The early Christians translated moshiach into Greek and came up with messiah and "Christos."
By the time Rome made Christianity the State religion, messiah no longer meant the "anointed one" descending from King David, it specifically meant Jesus, the son of a god.
All of the connotations of what Judaism imbued into the word moshiach were lost and it came to mean something else entirely.