Why Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah

[cnorman18]

A word before I begin:

This post is NOT an attack on Christianity.

Jews, as a rule, do not comment on the truth or falsehood of any other faith, and that includes the Christian faith; we have no right. We only claim to know how God chose to speak to US. If He chose to speak to another people in another manner, that is no business of ours, and we have no warrant to say yea or nay. Only in the matter of literally worshiping idols as divine beings do we pronounce judgment, and that is rather rare in the modern world.

In my own, personal belief, Jesus was indeed sent by God to bring the light of Torah to the rest of the world. The Jews will always be "a small people"--the Book says so--and surely the rest of the was not meant to be left in the darkness of paganism. If not for Jesus, and perhaps even more for Paul, my own Celtic ancestors might have continued to paint themselves blue and worship trees.

The battle has never been between Christians and Jews, anyway. We are on the same side. On the other side are today's pagans--those who worship things; money, power, fame, gratification, status. May we both always remember that.

This post is on the rather more limited topic of why the Jews did not, and do not, accept Jesus as our Messiah. That some few have, and do, does not matter. Peace to them, but there are reasons why very few Jews who are familiar with and committed to their faith and tradition ever have, or ever will, believe in Jesus. This post is an effort to explain some of the most important.

To begin, then; Jesus, to put it plainly, simply did not perform the very specific actions that the Messiah was expected to do. There can be no "wiggle room" here; the tradition has been constant for thousands of years, and has not changed.

It is not that there were certain "prophecies" that the Messiah had to "fulfill"; the Messiah was DEFINED by certain acts. To do them was to be the Messiah, and the meaning of the word "Messiah" was "the man who does these things."

Jesus did not do them. He was not the Messiah. There is no "therefore," because the phrases are synonymous.

Further, Jesus claimed (or it was claimed for him) that he had power and authority that no Jew could or would claim for any man, far beyond any that were ever attributed to the coming Messiah; and he took on a role that no Jew, at any time from Abraham forward, had ever contemplated that any man, Messiah or no, would ever be called upon to fulfill. There was no need for it.

Jesus fulfilled one and only one attribute of the Messiah; he was of the tribe of Judah. Much is made of this in two of the Gospels, Matthew and Luke, with elaborate genealogies given for Mary, and, oddly, for Joseph.

Other than that, St.
Paul and the Gospels to the contrary, Jesus did nothing expected of the Messiah. Three such expectations will suffice for our purposes: (1) The Messiah was to be a military, or at least a political, leader, an actual, rightful King. (2) He would restore the independence of Israel and free it from foreign (at the time, Roman) rule. (3) Most importantly, he would institute a reign of perfect peace, justice, liberty and piety that would shortly extend over all the earth.

It seems rather clear that none of these occurred; most glaringly the last, which was and has always been the most important sign and task of the Messiah (The short answer, for many Jews, to the question "Why don't you believe in Jesus?" is "Oy! Look around!").

The Messiah was the coming King who would restore the line of David, free Israel, and being peace to the world; he would institute the Messianic Age. He was named for it, and it would be named for him. The two would come together, or not at all. They were one.

At the end of Jesus's life, these things had not happened. The Messiah had not come.

As if all that wasn't enough, Jesus, or his followers, made claims for him that were alien to Judaism, and in fact often blasphemous from a Jewish point of view. For starters, that Jesus was God incarnate.

It would be hard to think of an idea more repugnant to Jews, then or now. The oldest and most fundamental and nonnegotiable tenet of Judaism is that God is One, which means a good deal more than "one God." Among other things, it means that God is unique and indivisible, and shares His Essence and Being with no one and nothing.

It would be easier for Jews to begin chowing down on ham-and-Swiss sandwiches than to accept the claim that a man could be, in any sense, God. The Messiah was never conceived to be anything other than an ordinary mortal man; anointed by God, to be sure, but no more a God himself than King David was. There is no hint of such a thing in any Jewish tradition; it is about as likely as the High Priest carving a stone idol and placing it in the Holy of Holies. It was, and remains, quite literally unthinkable.

Second, Jesus was said to be the literal son of God. This was way beyond bizarre. The idea that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Moses and Sinai, could or would come down to earth and father a human child is as foreign to Judaism as temple prostitution. That is a Greek idea, not a Jewish one--consider Zeus had Hercules--and it may be no coincidence that Paul was speaking to Greeks, not Jews, when he formulated it. There has never been anything within a light-year of that idea anywhere in all the enormous tradition and long history of the Jewish people. It is, again, unthinkable:

Third, Jesus claimed the power and authority to forgive sins.

All sins.

Now this is difficult, because this is not widely known: Jews do not believe that God Himself has that power. God can forgive sins against Himself--ritual offenses, broken vows, and so on--but no more; a sin against another human must be forgiven by that person, or not at all. (This is why there can be no forgiveness for murder. The only one with the power to forgive is dead. This is also why the Jews of today cannot "forgive" the Holocaust. You must ask the six million for that forgiveness; we have no right to give it.)

By claiming this power, Jesus was not claiming to be coequal with God, but in fact greater than God. No wonder some tore their robes when they heard him speak.

And again, as if all this were not enough--it is claimed that Jesus was the sacrifice that saves all men from their sins, and that this salvation is accessed by believing in it.

This seems simple; but for Jews, there are no less than six separate problems here.

First, the idea that people need to be saved from their sins. Jews have never believed in "Original Sin," or that all people are born sinful. We believe that everyone has an impulse to do good, and an impulse to do evil, and that these remain with us all our lives; our job is to follow the first and resist the second to the best of our ability.

Second, St. Paul to the contrary, Jews have never taught, nor do we believe, that we are obligated to fulfill "the whole of the Law" or face eternal damnation. We believe that, since God made us, He knows our imperfection and our weakness, and does not demand that we be perfect and without fault or flaw. That would be the act of an unjust God, and we do not believe that God is unjust.

Third, Jews do not believe that any human can bear the sins of another. That principle is underlined in the Torah over and over again. Each man bears his own sins, and that cannot be changed.

Fourth, we do not believe that a "sacrifice" is necessary to obtain forgiveness for sins, whether animal or human (and the idea of a human sacrifice is so far from any Jewish belief or practice that it is barely comprehensible that anyone would even propose it as a possibility). It is true that animal sacrifices were performed in the Tabernacle and later in the Temple, but it is clear throughout the Torah and the Prophets that the sacrifice itself was meaningless without the repentance and devotion of the individual human heart.

Fifth, in Judaism, "belief" accomplishes precisely nothing by itself. There is no Creed in Judaism, no specified set of acceptable beliefs. What one "believes" is all but insignificant next to what one does, and no amount of "belief" cancels or ameliorates the results of one's actions. Believing the proper "doctrines" in Judaism is utterly irrelevant to anything at all.

Put simply: if I am in need, what do I care what you "believe"? Will you help me, or not? Nothing else matters.

Sixth, Jews are not even certain that there is a Heaven at all. Judaism has rather little concern with the afterlife; it isn't mentioned in the Torah, and belief in it seems to have been entirely absent from its teachings in the early years of our religion. Even those Jews who do believe in Heaven spend little time or energy thinking and talking about it. The point of the Jewish religion is THIS life. The next, we leave to God.

As you can see, though Judaism and Christianity share an ethic, basic values, and many religious practices, our views of the nature and structure of the relationship between God and man, the nature and importance of sin and the means of its forgiveness, the significance of the afterlife, and many other matters, are so different that they really do constitute entirely separate religions. That one was derived from the other, and that we share a large body of Scripture, no longer matters. We stand beside each other as brothers; but we have long since taken separate paths. We ought to respect one another and work together where our ideals and ethics converge--which is almost everywhere. Where our beliefs differ, we should agree to disagree and leave each other alone.

One more note: It is wholly illegitimate and improper for a follower of any faith to attempt to dictate to a follower of another what his beliefs OUGHT to be, then castigate him because they do not follow his prescription. No one has any warrant to point out passages of "prophecy" in our own Scriptures that we do not, and have never, read as such, and overrule the traditions and beliefs that we have held for more than three thousand years--and tell us what we ought to think and believe. No one has that right.

We have no warrant to deny that Jesus is your Savior, or to deny that, for you, any belief you may hold about him is true. That is between you and God, and is none of our business.

But in the same way, it is not your right to insist that we abandon our own beliefs and convictions in favor of an understanding of our own Scriptures that we have never held.

Thank you for reading. May we all work together for the good of the Kingdom of God and forgive each other our disagreements.

I'll close with a saying from the Talmud. When the sages of old disagreed and could find no way to reconcile their differences, they would often allow both rulings to stand as equally acceptable options in Jewish law. When asked how this was possible, it was said that "When Elijah comes, he will explain which of us was right--or why we both were."

Peace to all.

Charles

[Catharsis]

JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN ORTHODOX DIALOGUE:
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.24.en.j ... alogue.htm

[cnorman18]

To Catharsis:

Sorry, you lost me about here:

The Jews were so disappointed that they murdered Him.

Peddling the old "Christ-killer" poison isn't much above peddling ritual murder. Would you care to guess how many hundreds of thousands of my people have been murdered over the centuries, by Orthodox Christians, as a direct result of that teaching?

Any words of regret for that? Or did they have it coming?

When members of the Orthodox Church discuss the need for "repentance," a good place to start the process would be the renunciation of that murderous doctrine.

Just for starters, I wasn't there.

[Easyrider]

you want a list, though. Wikipedia okay? Here's a list of historical expectations about the Messiah:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_messianism (examples followed)

That's their compilation. No evidence of a consensus amongst Jewish theologians. But that's beside the point. The point is that I didn't see one of those prophecies that would exclude Jesus, considering a 2nd Advent. In addition, one could be a nit-picker and say where's the scriptural evidence that all those are Messianic, since they don't have a direct reference to a specific Messiah?

Messiah Ben Joseph is a fairly obscure and little-known figure in Judaism, and almost unknown today except by specialists. I don't apologize for never having heard of him. Considering the rest of this information, I don't see how he's relevant to the discussion. Jesus wasn't of the tribe of Joseph anyway, so what's the point?

The point is that I documented, from Jewish sources, that there are allusions to at least two different Messiah types in Jewish literature.

Your "list of rabbis on Isaiah 53" consisted of a bunch of references from fundamentalist Christian scholars cherry-picking quotes from obscure and unknown "rabbis" that no one has ever heard of, in books that no one reads. Sorry. Find me some direct references in recent books actually written by Jews and I'll take a look.

Just because you're not well read on these matters doesn't mean that others consider these individuals and works obscure. The renowned Rabbi Maimonedes is "obscure and unknown"? Crispin? And the Targum Jonathan, the Babylonian Talmud, and quotes from Midrash and Zohar again obscure and unknown? Get real. And those we "cherry pick"? How does selecting rabbinic Messianic quotes on Isaiah 53 from various Jewish sources constitute "cherry picking"? Isn't that what one does when investigating a topic - find relevant quotes, etc., from Jewish literature, etc., and document them?

Christian writers have been distorting and twisting our Bible for centuries, and these quotes are pretty good examples.

Seems to me you guys are the ones want to sweep all those Messianic quotes from Isaiah 53, Jeremiah 23:5-6, etc., etc., under the rug so you don't have to deal with them. BTW, here's your Sanhedrin 98 (Isaiah 53) reference:

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/ ... in_98.html

If you have your own complete Sanhedrin website, let's see it.

So God couldn't have been talking about anything but "salvation" when speaking to Abraham? Everything is about being "saved"?

Strawman. Who said "Everything" is about being saved?

I hate to break it to you, but that concept comes out of Christian tradition and your own head. Judaism, especially as early as Abraham, just doesn't think in those terms. As I've said elsewhere, Judaism is minimally concerned with the afterlife. It isn't the focus of our religion and we don't think or talk about it much.

You're not being scriptural. I've already shown you passages in the Tanakh concerning the afterlife in Judaism. God wouldn't have inspired those to be in the "Word" if they weren't important. Also, God said, "I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." Not "was." He is not the God of the dead but of the living (as Jesus said).

Look, you can read the Bible any way you like; it's no concern of ours. We believe in religious freedom. But don't tell us how to read it, especially when you inject meanings into it that patently aren't there.

If you don't want to hear other viewpoints don't barge into a debating Christianity forum and try to tell us how to read it, and inject your meanings into passages that don't support them. For instance, who do you say the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is? At least I've backed up my claims, even from Jewish sources in many regards.

Jews believe we should be good BECAUSE IT IS GOOD. We should serve God BECAUSE HE IS GOD. If there is a Heaven, well, that would be wonderful; but we plan to be good and serve God anyway. Don't try to inject your bribe-and-threat system into our Scriptures.

Cool down, cnorman. This is a debate forum. And my "system" is the true fulfillment of OT Judaism, even if you don't believe it. That's my position, and the position of a great many others, including a good number of former believers in Judaism.

Isaiah 53 again. Just as predicted: the children are symbolic. The "stripes" are literal, the children symbolic, and the only standard is fitting the verses to the life of Jesus. That's not prophecy. That's editing.

Really? Document it's only symbolic? Other Jewish debaters claim the servant of Isaiah 53 is Israel (a major stretch, btw). And it wasn't symbolic to them. Why should I accept your view on that, especially when we have historical fulfillments documented in the Gospels and the Book of Acts that Isaiah 53 refers to Christ?

Your next question is equally telling. You want an acceptable list of good works? How about the list that Jesus gave? Did you feed me when I was hungry, clothe me when I was naked, and like that? Does that work for you?

So you're saying you achieve salvation by works? Or are the works the result of your spiritual composition? Don't get me wrong. Works are important but they don't earn salvation and you haven't told me "how many" of these works rings the bell to signal one is finally saved.

'Faith without works is dead." Or have you deleted the letter of James from your Bible?

Godly works are the result of spiritual regeneration, not the cause of it. Perhaps you should read Ezekiel 36:25-27 in your Tanakh so you can see the progression.

If Hitler had claimed to believe in Jesus on his deathbed, would he be cavorting in Heaven now? And are all the pious, faithful and observant Jewish families that he murdered now burning in Hell? Straight answers, please. Show me what kind of God you believe in. Say what you believe--unless you're ashamed of it, of course.

<chuckle>

I guess you're ok with the murderers Moses and King David (also an adulterer, btw) being in heaven, but not others if they repent?

Thank you for the spirited debate!

[cnorman18]

JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN ORTHODOX DIALOGUE:
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.24.en.j ... alogue.htm

It's good to see the Orthodox Christians and Jews having a dialogue, and it's good that tney're finding common ground.

It's probably best for them to avoid the topic of the Jews murdering Jesus for the moment. I think we should do the same here.

[Easyrider]

Would you care to guess how many hundreds of thousands of my people have been murdered over the centuries, by Orthodox Christians, as a direct result of that teaching?

I don't accept that believers of Judaism are murderers, either of Christ or others as a way of life. Conversely, I don't believe one should characterize Orthodox Christians as such either. You can't diss Judaism OR Christianity by appealing to examples of those who violate the tenets of their respective faiths.

[bernee51]

bernee51

God has yet to announce any saints. The only one's I know of have been pronounced by men.

Men are unable to fake signs that a person had pleased God.

Obviously they can.

There are thousands of witnesses who confirm that many Saints were able to see human soul, that is they knew all about person they meet for the first time.

Impartial witness of course, with no vested interest or bias. Someone such as yourself no doubt.

If anything I am militant against intolerance and bigotry - regardless of the source.

I don't play favorites with any of the monotheisms...they are all based in a deluded belief in a god myth. Each, in their own way, have caused untold misery in the history of mankind. The sooner we are rid of them - and their god - the better.

If you are so impartial, why do you take sides? How is one deluded belief in a god myth, is more acceptable to you?

Where have I taken sides. I really hadn't noticed anyone expressing outright bigotry and hate speak other than you. If they were please point them out so I can remonstrate.

By the way...this is what I posted to cnorman18:

"Judaism is complicit in bringing to the world one of the most vengeful. oppressive god concepts. A tribal god, that through Judaism's belief that a particular tribe was somehow 'chosen' in the Bronze Age, has fomented and continues to foment division and suffering.

This god concept was appropriated by a 'convert' from Judaism to establish a belief system the history of which is rife with misogyny, hatred of the body and a glorification of self abasement.

The sooner the world is rid of this concept - just as it has ridded itself of Thor, Zeus and a thousand others - the better it will be for it.

May you be happy, kind, loving and peaceful."

The bible is not evidence of anything but mankind's insecurity in the face of the trials of existence. It is but one of a myriad of so-called 'sacred' scriptures.

I believe in matters of Theology The Bible is the most useful source of reference.

Theology is the study of myth. The bible is still only one in many books which study theistic myth.

Knowing a little bit about how easy human made organizations are destroyed or filled with completely alien substance, one cannot arrive to another conclusion but that, that The Church is Divine organization and therefore its Teaching is the Absolute Truth.

It also speaks volumes of the political influence the church held for well over 1000 years....church and state were one and the same. Speaking out against the church was treasonable and meant certain death. Auto de fe had a way of convincing waverers to toe the line.

[Goat]

you want a list, though. Wikipedia okay? Here's a list of historical expectations about the Messiah:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_messianism (examples followed)

That's their compilation. No evidence of a consensus amongst Jewish theologians. But that's beside the point. The point is that I didn't see one of those prophecies that would exclude Jesus, considering a 2nd Advent. In addition, one could be a nit-picker and say where's the scriptural evidence that all those are Messianic, since they don't have a direct reference to a specific Messiah?

Messiah Ben Joseph is a fairly obscure and little-known figure in Judaism, and almost unknown today except by specialists. I don't apologize for never having heard of him. Considering the rest of this information, I don't see how he's relevant to the discussion. Jesus wasn't of the tribe of Joseph anyway, so what's the point?

The point is that I documented, from Jewish sources, that there are allusions to at least two different Messiah types in Jewish literature.

Your "list of rabbis on Isaiah 53" consisted of a bunch of references from fundamentalist Christian scholars cherry-picking quotes from obscure and unknown "rabbis" that no one has ever heard of, in books that no one reads. Sorry. Find me some direct references in recent books actually written by Jews and I'll take a look.

Just because you're not well read on these matters doesn't mean that others consider these individuals and works obscure. The renowned Rabbi Maimonedes is "obscure and unknown"? Crispin? And the Targum Jonathan, the Babylonian Talmud, and quotes from Midrash and Zohar again obscure and unknown? Get real. And those we "cherry pick"? How does selecting rabbinic Messianic quotes on Isaiah 53 from various Jewish sources constitute "cherry picking"? Isn't that what one does when investigating a topic - find relevant quotes, etc., from Jewish literature, etc., and document them?

Christian writers have been distorting and twisting our Bible for centuries, and these quotes are pretty good examples.

Seems to me you guys are the ones want to sweep all those Messianic quotes from Isaiah 53, Jeremiah 23:5-6, etc., etc., under the rug so you don't have to deal with them. BTW, here's your Sanhedrin 98 (Isaiah 53) reference:

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/ ... in_98.html

If you have your own complete Sanhedrin website, let's see it.

So God couldn't have been talking about anything but "salvation" when speaking to Abraham? Everything is about being "saved"?

Strawman. Who said "Everything" is about being saved?

I hate to break it to you, but that concept comes out of Christian tradition and your own head. Judaism, especially as early as Abraham, just doesn't think in those terms. As I've said elsewhere, Judaism is minimally concerned with the afterlife. It isn't the focus of our religion and we don't think or talk about it much.

You're not being scriptural. I've already shown you passages in the Tanakh concerning the afterlife in Judaism. God wouldn't have inspired those to be in the "Word" if they weren't important. Also, God said, "I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." Not "was." He is not the God of the dead but of the living (as Jesus said).

Look, you can read the Bible any way you like; it's no concern of ours. We believe in religious freedom. But don't tell us how to read it, especially when you inject meanings into it that patently aren't there.

If you don't want to hear other viewpoints don't barge into a debating Christianity forum and try to tell us how to read it, and inject your meanings into passages that don't support them. For instance, who do you say the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is? At least I've backed up my claims, even from Jewish sources in many regards.

Jews believe we should be good BECAUSE IT IS GOOD. We should serve God BECAUSE HE IS GOD. If there is a Heaven, well, that would be wonderful; but we plan to be good and serve God anyway. Don't try to inject your bribe-and-threat system into our Scriptures.

Cool down, cnorman. This is a debate forum. And my "system" is the true fulfillment of OT Judaism, even if you don't believe it. That's my position, and the position of a great many others, including a good number of former believers in Judaism.

Isaiah 53 again. Just as predicted: the children are symbolic. The "stripes" are literal, the children symbolic, and the only standard is fitting the verses to the life of Jesus. That's not prophecy. That's editing.

Really? Document it's only symbolic? Other Jewish debaters claim the servant of Isaiah 53 is Israel (a major stretch, btw). And it wasn't symbolic to them. Why should I accept your view on that, especially when we have historical fulfillments documented in the Gospels and the Book of Acts that Isaiah 53 refers to Christ?

Your next question is equally telling. You want an acceptable list of good works? How about the list that Jesus gave? Did you feed me when I was hungry, clothe me when I was naked, and like that? Does that work for you?

So you're saying you achieve salvation by works? Or are the works the result of your spiritual composition? Don't get me wrong. Works are important but they don't earn salvation and you haven't told me "how many" of these works rings the bell to signal one is finally saved.

'Faith without works is dead." Or have you deleted the letter of James from your Bible?

Godly works are the result of spiritual regeneration, not the cause of it. Perhaps you should read Ezekiel 36:25-27 in your Tanakh so you can see the progression.

If Hitler had claimed to believe in Jesus on his deathbed, would he be cavorting in Heaven now? And are all the pious, faithful and observant Jewish families that he murdered now burning in Hell? Straight answers, please. Show me what kind of God you believe in. Say what you believe--unless you're ashamed of it, of course.

<chuckle>

I guess you're ok with the murderers Moses and King David (also an adulterer, btw) being in heaven, but not others if they repent?

Thank you for the spirited debate!

Misrepresenting Sanhedrin 98B again I see. No matter how many times it was pointed out your quote is out of context, and really does not show what you claim, you keep on dragging it out. Don't you think that is more than a little 'willful ignorance' by this time?

[Catharsis]

To cnorman18

Quote:
The Jews were so disappointed that they murdered Him.


>>>Peddling the old "Christ-killer" poison isn't much above peddling ritual murder.<<<

I'm sorry that I lost you. The point of my post was anthropomorphism, which you missed -- and the explanation why THAT is the reason Jews rejected Christ. Also, you should know, when I say 'Jews' I do not mean all the Jews, down to one, including yourself, are guilty. I'd like to think it's clear in what context I meant 'they murdered Him', and I have never made any inflammatory or bigoted statements on this forum.


>>>Would you care to guess how many hundreds of thousands of my people have been murdered over the centuries, by Orthodox Christians, as a direct result of that teaching?

Any words of regret for that? Or did they have it coming?<<<

How can I justify or defend something that is clearly not humane or Christian?


>>>When members of the Orthodox Church discuss the need for "repentance," a good place to start the process would be the renunciation of that murderous doctrine.<<<

The Church definitely has no official doctrine or policy of persecuting Jews.

[Easyrider]

Misrepresenting Sanhedrin 98B again I see. No matter how many times it was pointed out your quote is out of context, and really does not show what you claim, you keep on dragging it out. Don't you think that is more than a little 'willful ignorance' by this time?

Like I said, show me your "complete" Sanhedrin website and we'll see how your specious allegations hold up. Your undocumented kibbitzing is hardly compelling.

[Goat]

Misrepresenting Sanhedrin 98B again I see. No matter how many times it was pointed out your quote is out of context, and really does not show what you claim, you keep on dragging it out. Don't you think that is more than a little 'willful ignorance' by this time?

Like I said, show me your "complete" Sanhedrin website and we'll see how your specious allegations hold up. Your undocumented kibbitzing is hardly compelling.

Let's see your use of it that includes the entire quote, and jewish commentary.

Out of context quotes from an evangelistic site just don't cut it you know.