Christians: What passage/s convince you that Jesus is the messiah?

[Avoice]

To Christians:
What passage or passages convince you that Jesus is the Messiah?
And are the passages upheld by the Hebrew scriptures?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Avoice in post #1]

There is no passage of Scripture which convinces me that Jesus was the Messiah. Rather, I have been convinced by the facts and evidence we have that Jesus was raised from the dead. I want to stress that I have no problem with those who come to different conclusions based upon the facts and evidence we have. However, the question of the OP was "What passage or passage convince you that Jesus is the Messiah"? I am simply saying that my conviction has nothing whatsoever to do with a passage of scripture. Rather, my conviction has to do with sitting down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims of the resurrection to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false.

What I can tell you is, there are facts and evidence surrounding the claims of the resurrection. Different folks come to different conclusions based upon the facts and evidence we have, and again, I have no problem with those who come to a different conclusion than I have. The problem comes in when there are those who want to insist there would be no facts and evidence involved.

I'll give you a thumbs up because of course the OP is asking what passages in the Bible support the belief or claim that Jesus was the messiah. Though it had to be said that the Christian idea of messiaship is not the Jewish one. Thus, it means the gospels were written by Christians with a Christian idea of what messiahship meant and could not possibly have been written by the followers of Jesus or those who heard the story from them.

This had to be said.

[TRANSPONDER]

To Christians:
What passage or passages convince you that Jesus is the Messiah?
And are the passages upheld by the Hebrew scriptures?

Matt. 1-28, Mark. 1-16, Luke 1-24, John 1-21. I don't think those would have happened, if Jesus is not the Messiah.

And in this case the Messiah means the person who is anointed by God and what happens in Gospels convinces me that Jesus is anointed by God.

And probably best scripture about Jesus in Hebrew scriptures is this:

Yahweh your God will raise up to you a prophet from among you, of your brothers, like me. You shall listen to him.
Deut. 18:15 (Acts 7:37)

Jesus is like Moses, he also is a mediator between God and men and new covenant was made through him, as it was foretold.

For finding fault with them, he said, "Behold, the days come," says the Lord, "That I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; Not according to the cov-enant that I made with their fathers, In the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; For they didn't continue in my covenant, And I disregarded them," says the Lord. "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. After those days," says the Lord; "I will put my laws into their mind, I will also write them on their heart. I will be to them a God, And they will be to me a people. They will not teach every man his fellow citizen,{TR reads "neighbor" instead of "fellow citizen"} Every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' For all will know me, From the least of them to the great-est of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness. I will remember their sins and lawless deeds no more."
Heb. 8:8-12 (Jer. 31:31-34)
Yahweh your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed, to love Yahweh your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, that you may live. Yahweh your God will put all these curses on your enemies, and on those who hate you, who persecuted you. You shall return and obey the voice of Yahweh, and do all his commandments which I command you this day. Yahweh your God will make you plenteous in all the work of your hand, in the fruit of your body, and in the fruit of your cattle, and in the fruit of your ground, for good: for Yahweh will again rejoice over you for good, as he rejoiced over your fathers;
Deut. 30:6-9
He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, "All of you drink it, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins.
Matt. 26:27-28

Taking the best view of your argument (which is very selective to the point of taking the point out of context), fine. God 'anointed' Jesus in a metaphorical sense. And the story has it that Mary Magdalene anointed him in a practical and Jewish Messianic way after the supper in Bethany before his messianic donkey ride to the Temple in the morning - so we wouldn't be hungrey and Luke has no damning of the fig tree) and that is the only prophect Jesus actually fulfilled.

But as to the fictitious Christian story, it does derive from the Jewish (or Pauline) messianic belief.

In the line of messianic rebels like Judas, Simon (of the 3 day resurrection, perhaps) and Athronges, John gathered his crowds to repentance on the Jordan border, attacking Antipas, so Josephus says. Antipas arrested him and eliminated him as a danger. I think Jesus took over, with his followers being originally John's, not his. First Gospel Messianic lie - Jesus came to join him, but the gospels have to have John grovel and swear that he is only there to herald the Real Messiah. Which is where the original gospel starts, as Mark has it. No nativity, no precocious boy lecturing the Priests and no wedding at Cana, attractive though the idea is that it was Jesus' own wedding.

No, the Jordan is where the spirit (Messianic, not God's) descends on him and God announces that Jesus is spiritually anointed to be the messiah, which is political activism, and not telling everyone how to get to heaven, and that is why he is king of the Jews, which is also not a spiritual title but a messianic and rebellious one. Which is exactly what Pilate staples him up for., and even the gospels don't try to pretend the actual charge was blasphemy.

It is clear as day to me that Jesus, following Jon attempted a messianic rebellion and paid the usual price. The Christian view of what messiahship is has evolved through Christian reworking so it has come to mean something quite remote from what any Jew - even Paul - thought it meant.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #11]

I really do not know what you intend by saying, "the Christian idea of messiaship is not the Jewish one". Maybe you can explain what you're meaning here? What I do know is, Paul was indeed a well-educated Jew steeped in Judaism, and most all scholars agree that Paul was the author of the letter to the Romans, and Paul begins this letter by saying,

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised before by his prophets in the holy Scriptures,) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

It certainly seems as if Paul had the same understanding of the Messiahship of Jesus as the other authors, and we know that Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus, and would have received much of his information from the closest followers of Jesus. So then, since we know that Paul was a Jew, with a very good understanding of Jewish teachings concerning the Messiah, are you suggesting that Paul had a different understanding of Messiahship than that of the other authors contained in the NT?

[MilesJBennell]

There's your problem, right there. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father

This is nothing to do with Messiahship, in the sense that any Jew of Jesus' time would understand it.

I see no problem there. If the messiah says we can only come to him if it were given to us by God the Father, then that would be the case. And I have found that to be the case as there are many in the world that can't come to Jesus, because it has not been given to them to do so. The misunderstanding of the Jews of Jesus' time would be irrelevant.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #11]

I really do not know what you intend by saying, "the Christian idea of messiaship is not the Jewish one". Maybe you can explain what you're meaning here? What I do know is, Paul was indeed a well-educated Jew steeped in Judaism, and most all scholars agree that Paul was the author of the letter to the Romans, and Paul begins this letter by saying,

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised before by his prophets in the holy Scriptures,) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

It certainly seems as if Paul had the same understanding of the Messiahship of Jesus as the other authors, and we know that Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus, and would have received much of his information from the closest followers of Jesus. So then, since we know that Paul was a Jew, with a very good understanding of Jewish teachings concerning the Messiah, are you suggesting that Paul had a different understanding of Messiahship than that of the other authors contained in the NT?

I can probably find a quote, but the idea of Jewish messianism is a person anointed by God or election to a position of authority, either kingship or High Priiestship The Maccabeans got both posts. In Jesus' time, Messianism was (as Luke says, through Cleophas) 'one to redeem Israel'. By Repentance, sure, but as Josephus suggests talking about the baptist, by criticising political leaders for immorality.

The Zealot rebels, from Athronges to N Bar - Kochba, were aiming at such messiahsip as King of the Jews, which was a political and temporal position, not spiritual, and is the very practical reason the charge that saw Jesus crucified - attempting to become King of the Jews', and explains why Paul sees that as a Son of David in the earthly sense; that messiaship was apparently a worldly one, and Paul didn't talk much about that. It was the messianic spirit (from heaven) which is the son of man as the Bible sometimes says, coming to correct the mistake the original Man had made.

This is still in the Jewish idea of the Messiah as well as son of God and King of the Jews. But the Christians who wrote the gospels gave it a different and not Jewish meaning. It was divine and next to God, if not God in person, as the later Church claimed. That is why Herod, hearing of a King of the Jews, rushes to prophecy rather than looking for a political rival, why the Blasphemy charge a makes no sense except to a Christian and is why the Gospels do not fit with the Jewish idea of Messiah, son of God or King of the Jews.

[TRANSPONDER]

There's your problem, right there. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father

This is nothing to do with Messiahship, in the sense that any Jew of Jesus' time would understand it.

I see no problem there. If the messiah says we can only come to him if it were given to us by God the Father, then that would be the case. And I have found that to be the case as there are many in the world that can't come to Jesus, because it has not been given to them to do so. The misunderstanding of the Jews of Jesus' time would be irrelevant.

As I argue above, this is a Christian idea of messiah ship and it quite unlike and nothing to do with Messiahship in Jewish thought, especially during the time Jesus lived.

Now, you may argue they didn't understand the messiaship that Jesus was, but the Gospels make it clear that the Sanhedrin and Herod not to mention Bar - Timaeus and a couple of centurions, all seemed to understand Messiaship claim in the Christian sense, which shows, I would argue, the gospels were written by Greek Gentile Christians. If the translation errors didn't already tell us that.

[MilesJBennell]

As I argue above, this is a Christian idea of messiah ship and it quite unlike and nothing to do with Messiahship in Jewish thought, especially during the time Jesus lived.

Can you briefly elaborate on what you mean by "Christian idea of messiah ship" and "Messiahship in Jewish thought"?

[TRANSPONDER]

As I argue above, this is a Christian idea of messiah ship and it quite unlike and nothing to do with Messiahship in Jewish thought, especially during the time Jesus lived.

Can you briefly elaborate on what you mean by "Christian idea of messiah ship" and "Messiahship in Jewish thought"?

Very briefly, In Jewish thought, a Messiah is a top temporal post, signified by anointing. There are two (mainly) High priest and king. While High Priest was by election and kingship was by lineage, usurpation or war (the usual) it could also be because God said so or the order of Melchizedek.


The Christian idea is clearly different. Messiah = divinity and semi divine if not identical with God.

That is why the Sadducees are shown as seeing the claim of messiahship (son of God') as blasphemous, which it wouldn't be unless in the Christian sense that didn't exist at that supposed time. Which is what shows the sanhedrin trial is a Christian invention, as well as John doesn't have one.

It is also found in the Nativity of Matthew where Herod, on hearing of a birth of a king of the Jews (Royal messaiah) doesn't set his secret police to check his family, nobles and generals, but rushes to scripture for a prophecy. This shows that Matthew had a Christian idea of Messiahship in mind as well as it is all contradicted by Luke, anyway.

We even has an amusing problem with the events at the crucifixion. The events seem to be based on the ripping of the temple veil (which I take as signifying that OT God has left the building) and maybe darkening of the sky and earthquakes, though John doesn't have that,as I recall, and even how Jesus dies, which was after drinking adulterated wine and crying out "It's corked" which is supposed to convince a Roman solder that Jesus was divine, and that should mean Son of the Jewish God in which this Centurion did not believe, but the Gospels are always pretending that Roman Centurions were Faithful Christians in some anachronistic way.

Only now, Luke i believe realises the problem and just has the soldier say this mas was innocent, or righteous, when the original intent was that the events should proclaim Jesus as divine.

Same in the healing at a distance. The centurion strolls up to Jesus to ask a favor, though he could only have Faith in Jesus as a healer, not as a divine son of the Jewish God. Luke again grasps the problem and had the centurion sens a bunch of Jews along to ask for Jesus' help, swearing that the centurion is a good fellow and loves the Jews; which doesn't help the Christian message much.

Again, Luke does his best, but it's feeble, weak and still anachronistic.

But be of good cheer. all ye faithful, as nobody noticed for 2000 years and they can hope nobody will mention it for the next 2000.

[gadfly]

To Christians:
What passage or passages convince you that Jesus is the Messiah?
And are the passages upheld by the Hebrew scriptures?

The question is aimed at Christians of only one ilk among many--mainly towards American Evangelicals and American Fundamentalists. These approach the bible not from an historical point of view but from a grammatically analytical point of view; that is, they do not tend to put the bible in its historical context, nor do they consider human authorial intent.

If by the phrase "Jesus is Messiah" we mean, "Jesus was the Davidic descendant anticipated by some 1st c. Jews" then there is no reason to conclude that Jesus was the Messiah. According to their criteria, Jesus failed as a candidate on almost all counts. The davidic messiah was supposed to liberate Israel politically. Jesus did not. There is nothing in the Hebrew Bible suggesting that the davidic Messiah would be shamefully executed and then be raised to a new and improved bodily state, as the NT authors claim.

When the NT authors claim Jesus as Messiah (Christos in Greek) they are simultaneously redefining what the term means based on their experiences with him--his ministry, his death and his resurrection. The Hebrew Scriptures did and do not anticipate the NT Jesus.

gadlfy

[TRANSPONDER]

No, they don't. Just as the OT doesn't tell of heaven and hell. These are all concepts evolved later.

But what apologetics then does is try to find stuff in the OT that can be made to look like it predicts later dogma and doctrine.

The prophecies of Jesus are the obvious frauds. The most famous in Isaiah are obviously taken out of a context that is nothing to do with Jesus, and it is only failure to fact - check that lets them pull this stuff.

So the character of Jesus was messianic - I think in fact as well, though it was a failed attempt ending on the cross, with some of his followers, I might believe. But the point is that the whole idea of what a messiah was was changed from the Jewish idea of a Messiah into a Greek gentile idea of what a saviour should be. Which means a divine figure the Jews would consider blasphemy. Which is why we get a blasphemy charge levelled at Jesus which would not even have occurred to the Jews of his time. It has to be evidence that the NT is anachronistic, written by Christians and cannot possibly have been said and done at the time.