• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why Jesus must be the Messiah

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Among the Jews, the family tree is very important, which can be seen just from the fact that the OT contains many family trees. For Jews family trees are identification, they show who a person is, to whom he belongs. Family trees are also proof for heirs, because in order to inherit something from an ancestor, the descendant must prove that he is the rightful heir and this is proven by a family tree. And that is the point, for we know that the Messiah is the rightful heir of King David and thus ascends the throne of David. Now the fact is that all the genealogical records of the Jews were destroyed by the Romans during the destruction of the temple. Only one family tree survived, the family tree of Jesus in the NT which goes from David to him. With this family tree one can prove that Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore has the right to the kingship of David. He is the only one who can do this, all other Jews living today have no family tree that leads up to David. If a Jew shows up and claims to be the Messiah but is not Jesus, he cannot prove that he is the descendant of David because he has no family tree.

Ask yourself, why did God destroy all the genealogies of the Jews except that of Jesus. He did it so that the world would know that there can be no other Messiah except Jesus.
It's not as simple as that.

Paul says his Jesus was descended from David (Romans 1: 3), but gives no other detail, not even the names of his earthly parents.

Mark says his Jesus was not descended from David (Mark 12:35-37).

The Jesuses of Matthew (Matthew 1:2-16 for Joesph) and of Luke (Luke 3:23+ for Joseph) are in the absurd position of being claimed to be descended from David, but that's supported by two fake and incompatible genealogies which anyway are expressly for Joseph, who out loud and proud is NOT Jesus' father.

John's Jesus (John 7:42) is said to be descended from David, but as with Paul, no other details are given.

So if we put it to a vote, three (Mark, Matthew, Luke) are not descended from David, and two (Paul, John) are said to be, but by bare assertion since we're not told how.

The numbers are against you.

And I can't see any reason at all why any mainstream Jew in Galilee or Judea should or would recognize Jesus as the Messiah, since he was neither a civil leader, a military leader, or a religious leader of the Jews.
 
Last edited:

Eli G

Well-Known Member
If Jesus had not been a descendant of David, that controversy would not have been invented by modern anti-biblical scholars, because the Jews would have been arguing about it since the first century to the present day.

BUT the Jews have NEVER questioned the Davidic lineage of Jesus, nor does the Bible mention that it was one of their excuses (and there were many they used against him) to deny his messiahship... which would have been a perfect pretext to denigrate him before his followers.
 
Last edited:

Eli G

Well-Known Member
The Bible reveals that when Jesus appeared on the Judean scene in the first century, the conditions for the arrival of the long-awaited Messiah were already ripe.

For example, the birth of Jesus as future king appointed by God was already known in Jerusalem, not only by the astrologers who had come to the region to pay homage to him a few months after his birth (Matt. 2:1-12), but also by the uproar they must have made in the city of Bethlehem the shepherds to whom the birth was announced (Luke 2:8-20).

Then we have the parents of John the Baptist receiving the news of the birth of both children, his father being a priest serving in the temple in Jerusalem when he heard the news of his own son and the events that followed (Luke 1:5-23). Other people, such as Ana, a prophetess, were also told of the appearance of the Messiah (Luke 2:32-38).

Over time, John the Baptist was heralding the soon public appearance of the Messiah. John's ministry was known in the Jewish religious realm even a few months before he baptized Jesus (John 1:19-34), whom he had been announcing, and his death became a matter even involving the official rulers of Judea.

All of the above without counting that an announcement of the appearance of the Messiah predicted that it would be 69 weeks of years (483 years) from the order of the restoration of the walls of Jerusalem and its gates... which would point to the first century, although that prophecy is not mentioned in the NT, today we can study it and conclude with full certainty that it indicated the baptism of Jesus and the beginning of his public work, and not something else (Dan. 9:24-26).

Modern Jews are waiting for someone who was already among the Jews of the first century long ago. The next appearance of the Messiah will be to exercise the kingship that rightfully belongs to him... and his dominion will not be in the modern country of Israel, but over the entire planet.
 
Last edited:

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Jesus can say whatever he wants. It is historical fact that the world has NEVER had peace between the nations, so Jesus didn't fulfill this prophecy.
One reason Christians have found the need to cast that event into the (distant) future. You can see this change from the imminent establishment of the messianic era in the earliest NT writings to some undefined future time in post-Temple-destruction NT writings.
 

Eli G

Well-Known Member
Jews and non-believing Bible scholars have never come to understand why the Messiah had to first come as a human to announce his future kingdom, and then receive it with full rights (Is. 53).
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
BUT the Jews have NEVER questioned the Davidic lineage of Jesus
WRONG.

1. The two genealogies, which contradict each other, are unreliable. They are essentially just made up stuff.

2. Christians insist that Joseph is not Jesus' biological father. The Davidic line can ONLY pass through the biological father. It cannot pass from an adopted dad / foster father. Nor can it pass through the mother. Essentially, if you insist on the virgin birth, then it is literally impossible that Jesus is of the Davidic lineage.
 
Last edited:

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
It's not as simple as that.

Paul says his Jesus was descended from David (Romans 1: 3), but gives no other detail, not even the names of his earthly parents.

Mark says his Jesus was not descended from David (Mark 12:35-37).

The Jesuses of Matthew (Matthew 1:2-16 for Joesph) and of Luke (Luke 3:23+ for Joseph) are in the absurd position of being claimed to be descended from David, but that's supported by two fake and incompatible genealogies which anyway are expressly for Joseph, who out loud and proud is NOT Jesus' father.

John's Jesus (John 7:42) is said to be descended from David, but as with Paul, no other details are given.

So if we put it to a vote, three (Mark, Matthew, Luke) are not descended from David, and two (Paul, John) are said to be, but by bare assertion since we're not told how.

The numbers are against you.

And I can't see any reason at all why any mainstream Jew in Galilee or Judea should or would recognize Jesus as the Messiah, since he was neither a civil leader, a military leader, or a religious leader of the Jews.
"And I can't see any reason at all why any mainstream Jew in Galilee or Judea should or would recognize Jesus as the Messiah, since he was neither a civil leader, a military leader, or a religious leader of the Jews."

My view is a little different.

The Jews have/had two choices, either :
  1. they would have accepted him as a truthful prophet as they had accepted Moses (right?), and or
  2. as it was incumbent on them to kill a false prophet (right), to kill Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah, if he was a false prophet in terms of Deuteronomy.
They failed to kill him as per (2)above, right?
So, the only alternative for them, as I understand, is to revert to becoming a true Israelite instead of remaining a Jew as per (1) above, right?

Regards
 
Last edited:

rosends

Well-Known Member
"And I can't see any reason at all why any mainstream Jew in Galilee or Judea should or would recognize Jesus as the Messiah, since he was neither a civil leader, a military leader, or a religious leader of the Jews."

My view is a little different.

The Jews have/had two choices, either :
  1. they would have accepted him as a truthful prophet as they had accepted Moses (right?), and or
  2. as it was incumbent on them to kill a false prophet (right), to kill Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah, if he was a false prophet in terms of Deuteronomy.
They failed to kill him as per (2)above, right?
So, the only alternative for them, as I understand, is to revert to becoming a true Israelite instead of remaining a Jew as per (1) above, right?

Regards
except that at the time of Jesus, the Jewish legal system was not enacting a death penalty so they couldn't kill him. That doesn't mean that they only had the alternative of accepting him.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
"And I can't see any reason at all why any mainstream Jew in Galilee or Judea should or would recognize Jesus as the Messiah, since he was neither a civil leader, a military leader, or a religious leader of the Jews."

My view is a little different.

The Jews have/had two choices, either :
  1. they would have accepted him as a truthful prophet as they had accepted Moses (right?), and or
  2. as it was incumbent on them to kill a false prophet (right), to kill Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah, if he was a false prophet in terms of Deuteronomy.
They failed to kill him as per (2)above, right?
So, the only alternative for them, as I understand, is to revert to becoming a true Israelite instead of remaining a Jew as per (1) above, right?

Regards
I don't see it like that. At the time the Apocalypse was in the air, the return of Enoch, God's end to Roman rule and so John the Baptist getting into political strife, interesting times. Jesus was just one more player in the religion industry, and not a very important one since there's no mention of him in any records from his time. Why would you think this particular person was the messiah, any more than you'd think anyone else was?

For a start, the first job a messiah had to undertake was getting them ******* Romans out of Judea / Galilee, and Jesus according to the NT was expressly not up for that bout. Then what was there messianic about him to persuade you he was the messiah? And that's assuming you'd ever heard of him, ever come across him, in the first place, since he didn't get to Jerusalem till act 5. And of course real messiahs don't end up crucified by the Romans before they'd actually done anything much.

On the evidence of Paul there was a cult of Jesus after his death, so he had some followers in his lifetime. Paul became an organizer for his own particular vision of Christianity ─ though again it's not clear how big a deal that was at the time, since the letters of Paul only enter the Christian story in the 2nd century when Marcion put them forward in his dispute with the other versions of Christianity.

If I were Jewish, I very much doubt I'd have noticed a messiah anywhere in all of that.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
What's your source for that?
The talmud, Sanhedrin 41a
ותניא ארבעים שנה קודם חורבן הבית גלתה סנהדרי וישבה לה בחנות ואמר ר' יצחק בר אבודימי לומר שלא דנו דיני קנסות דיני קנסות ס"ד אלא שלא דנו דיני נפשות
This assumes the timeline in which the temple was destroyed in 70ce and Jesus died in 33.

There were other reasons why even a sanhedrin that COULD enact the death penalty wouldn't but that's a separate issue.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The Bible reveals that when Jesus appeared on the Judean scene in the first century, the conditions for the arrival of the long-awaited Messiah were already ripe.
But as I was just saying to @paarsurrey, there was nothing about Jesus that was messiah-like. And in particular, he said out loud that he was NOT going to free the Jews from Roman rule, which is the BIG reason you'd want a messiah at that time.
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
Well, let me ask you. If you think that the Sanhedrin in Jesus' day carried out capital punishment, then explain why they went to Pilate. Why didn't they just do it themselves?

There just so many red flags in the Christian rendition of the legend.
I don't think that. I asked rosends to provide a source for the claim.
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
The talmud, Sanhedrin 41a
ותניא ארבעים שנה קודם חורבן הבית גלתה סנהדרי וישבה לה בחנות ואמר ר' יצחק בר אבודימי לומר שלא דנו דיני קנסות דיני קנסות ס"ד אלא שלא דנו דיני נפשות
This assumes the timeline in which the temple was destroyed in 70ce and Jesus died in 33.

There were other reasons why even a sanhedrin that COULD enact the death penalty wouldn't but that's a separate issue.
Thanks for that.

"The Gemara continues its question: And it is taught in a baraita: Forty years before the destruction of the Second Temple, the Sanhedrin was exiled from the Chamber of Hewn Stone and sat in the store near the Temple Mount. And Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avudimi says: The intent of the statement concerning the relocation of the Sanhedrin is to say that they no longer judged laws of fines. The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind to say that they no longer judged laws of fines? It is known that the Sanhedrin would judge laws of fines for hundreds of years after the destruction of the Temple. Rather, he must have said that the Sanhedrin no longer judged cases of capital law. Once the Sanhedrin left the Chamber of Hewn Stone, the court’s power to judge capital cases was nullified."

Referring your your original claim:

at the time of Jesus, the Jewish legal system was not enacting a death penalty so they couldn't kill him

There are two assumptions here:
1) That the Sanhedrin must have been involved in any attempt to kill Jesus
2) That an unlawful killing could occur given his mazal.

The account from John implies that the attempt to kill him was based on a religious imperative, not a legal one:

And one of them, [named] Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
John 11:49-51

Molnar's astrological solution provides a natural explanation of how the Magi knew that there would have been the birth of a very great king on a particular day in Judea


The teaching about unjustified hatred in the gospels leads to insight into what actually happened then the attempt was made on his life:

23He that hateth me hateth my Father also.
24If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.
25But [this cometh to pass], that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
26But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

There are three Psalms of David that mention unjustified hatred. Psalm 22 and 69 are about the crucified twin, Psalm 35 is about the Messiah, and Psalm 109 is about Paul.

19Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me: [neither] let them wink with the eye that hate me without a cause.
4They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, [being] mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored [that] which I took not away.
3They compassed me about also with words of hatred; and fought against me without a cause.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Thanks for that.

"The Gemara continues its question: And it is taught in a baraita: Forty years before the destruction of the Second Temple, the Sanhedrin was exiled from the Chamber of Hewn Stone and sat in the store near the Temple Mount. And Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avudimi says: The intent of the statement concerning the relocation of the Sanhedrin is to say that they no longer judged laws of fines. The Gemara asks: Does it enter your mind to say that they no longer judged laws of fines? It is known that the Sanhedrin would judge laws of fines for hundreds of years after the destruction of the Temple. Rather, he must have said that the Sanhedrin no longer judged cases of capital law. Once the Sanhedrin left the Chamber of Hewn Stone, the court’s power to judge capital cases was nullified."

Referring your your original claim:



There are two assumptions here:
1) That the Sanhedrin must have been involved in any attempt to kill Jesus
2) That an unlawful killing could occur given his mazal.

The account from John implies that the attempt to kill him was based on a religious imperative, not a legal one:

And one of them, [named] Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
John 11:49-51

Molnar's astrological solution provides a natural explanation of how the Magi knew that there would have been the birth of a very great king on a particular day in Judea


The teaching about unjustified hatred in the gospels leads to insight into what actually happened then the attempt was made on his life:

23He that hateth me hateth my Father also.
24If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.
25But [this cometh to pass], that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
26But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

There are three Psalms of David that mention unjustified hatred. Psalm 22 and 69 are about the crucified twin, Psalm 35 is about the Messiah, and Psalm 109 is about Paul.

19Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me: [neither] let them wink with the eye that hate me without a cause.
4They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, [being] mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored [that] which I took not away.
3They compassed me about also with words of hatred; and fought against me without a cause.
You can discuss whatever theories you want and analyze the Christian texts and their misuse of Jewish texts. I gave you the source for my statement about the Jewish authority to enact capital punishment via the religious court. This was on response to the statement that "as it was incumbent on them to kill a false prophet". So, again, it was not incumbent upon the Jews to kill a false prophet because the Jewish courts we not adjudicating dear penalty cases.
 

Ebionite

Well-Known Member
You can discuss whatever theories you want and analyze the Christian texts and their misuse of Jewish texts. I gave you the source for my statement about the Jewish authority to enact capital punishment via the religious court. This was on response to the statement that "as it was incumbent on them to kill a false prophet". So, again, it was not incumbent upon the Jews to kill a false prophet because the Jewish courts we not adjudicating dear penalty cases.
Yes, like I said, ignoring the argument indicates weakness. "mazel tov"
 
Top