I found scholarly articles which addressed this, but every single one required a membership to the library or society. I don't expect you to accept this merely because I said it. However, I would hope that you would let the possibility roll around in your head for a month or year or decade, and see if you can't see it for yourself in the text of the gospels.
I’m sure you can find articles. Remember “Two Jews = three opinions”? Articles abound. One thing I will agree with you is that people have used scriptures against Jews and created division. I have seen how people twist scriptures forming the results that leave a bad taste in people’s mouths for Christianity.
Even God had a problem with that when he said in Is 52: 22 “Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘This is what the Lord God says: “It is not for your sake, house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for My holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you went. 23 And I will (
E)vindicate the holiness of My great name which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned among them.
Though God had given the Jews the words of life, they had twisted it so that God’s name was profaned among the Gentiles leaving a bad taste in the lives of the Gentiles. But He also said He would vindicate His name.
So the other side of the coin is that there are the scholars that don’t twists the words to create a divide. CUFI (Christians United For Israel), which has mushroomed to 10 million and growing, are Christians who don’t use scriptures to divide but to unite and interpret the Gospels correctly. I’m of that camp and scholarly understanding. Hopefully we can vindicate the Gospels with was supposed to be a Gospel of the Good News of the God’s love for mankind.
No, not specifically the leadership. There are a gazillion statements about "the Jews" especially in the gospel of John that treat Jews as if we are monolithic when we are not. The author of John mentions "the Jews" 34 times. It is clear that him and his community, the Jews were "them" rather than "us." Here is just one example.
John 6:41
At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.”
I think it is easy to take a snapshot and create a position of divide if not taken in context. It would be like me saying, "32 Now when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people assembled around Aaron and said to him, “Come, make us [
a]a god who will go before us; for this Moses, the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt—we do not know what happened to him.” 2 Aaron said to them, “Tear off the gold rings which are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring
them to me.” 3 So all the people tore off the gold rings which were in their ears and brought
them to Aaron. 4 Then he took
the gold from their hands, and fashioned it with an engraving tool and made it into a cast metal calf; and they said, “This is your god, Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.”
LOOK, YOUR GOD IS A CALF. - Out of context… so let’s look at the context:
41 So then the Jews were complaining about Him because He said, “I am the bread that came down out of heaven.” 42 And they were saying, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, ‘I have come down out of heaven’?”
Of course it was difficult to understand. But to create a position of “divide” based on just one scripture is exactly what people do to create divide. But in the same chapter you also find:
34 Then they said to Him, “Lord, always give us this bread.”
So… no… I wouldn’t agree.
But yes, the gospels single out the religious leaders for special scorn, ridicule and condemnation. Keep in mind that these are the people who were teaching everyone to obey and worship God. The Pharisees took ethical monotheism to the remote parts of the Roman empire. They interpreted the law in such a way as to make it easier to obey. They created the first Jewish day schools where boys could learn to read the Torah for themselves. They built synagogues that functioned as places for the study of Torah and the prophets, worship of Adonai, and community hubs, basically taking Judaism out of the hands of the priesthood and giving it to the ordinary Jew. These were the good guys, yet the author of John puts into Jesus' mouth, "You belong to your father, the devil."
And yet, as you said, there was Nicodemus who wasn’t part of those people. While I am trying to convince you that it isn’t divisive, you are trying to convince me it is. Two sides of the coin.
The position “you belong to your father the devil”… ok. Is that there to correct or to divide. It was a Jew to a Jew. You could say that Jeroboam who built an idol and Ahab with Jezebel who worshipped false gods were of the devil. Does that mean those historical events are created to divide? I don’t think so. It was just addressing the issues of that time.
I don't dispute that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah. I dispute that he actually was.
I have no problem with people having their own thoughts. We can always agree to disagree.
I do understand your argument. However, this is the problem I find with it. If someone is able to say I'll fulfill this or that prophecy next time I come, then EVERYONE could claim to be the Messiah. Even *I* could say to you, "I am the Messiah, and I'll fulfill those prophecies next time." SMH It makes it impossible to identify the real Messiah.
Again… I have no difficulty in accepting tha tyou have a different position.
The reference to Bethlehem indicates that the Messiah will come from the Davidic line. As long as Christians continue to maintain he was born of a virgin, they cannot claim he is Davidic, because that is something passed only through the biological father. Not the mom. Not a foster dad. The bio dad.
Same as above.
This clearly about the Exodus, not the messiah.
Not a messianic prophecy. This verse is understood within the context of the Babylonian exile, where Rachel, the matriarch of the tribes of Israel, symbolizes the anguish of the Israelites over the loss of their children during the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile that followed. Rachel is seen as a representative figure for the Jewish people, particularly for the northern tribes of Israel (Ephraim). Her weeping signifies the sorrow and mourning of the entire nation over the destruction and loss of life.
"And I said to them: "If it pleases you, give [me] my hire, and if not, forbear." And they weighed out my hire: thirty pieces of silver."
How does that even remotely look to you like a messianic prophecy? It's about someone who has worked, asks for their pay, and receives it.
Think for a second. If a text said, "And he shall drink wine and eat bread," it can't be used as a messianic prophecy, because it is something that commonly happens. An identifying prophecy needs to be something highly specific that is rare, otherwise it is useless. In this case, getting paid for work is a perfectly ordinary thing. It cannot be used to identify the Messiah.
Isaiah 53 is about Israel, not the Messiah.
This is a case of Christians deliberately fudging the translation to force it to fit the crucifixion. Here is a far better translation:
"And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplications. And they shall look to me because of those who have been thrust through [with swords], and they shall mourn over it as one mourns over an only son and shall be in bitterness, therefore, as one is embittered over a firstborn son."
The "me" is God. Not the Messiah.
The one thing your post demonstrates quite clearly is the Christian predilection to see messianic prophecies where none exist. The truth is that the Tanakh says almost nothing about the Messiah. It speaks about the idyllic messianic era to come, but the Messiah is almost an afterthought.
And, yet, it was mostly Jewish writers and Jewish preachers (not Christian gentiles) who disagree with your position. Back to two Jews and three positions.
Who is the foolish man in James 2 Ken .. Brother of Jesus .. leader of the Church of Jersalem after the death of Jesus.
