Jesus & the Torah

[Murad]

I have studied the bible for over 40 years. ....Jesus fulfilled all the law and all prophecies about Him in the Spirit.

Question for debate:
1. Did Jesus fulfill all the prophesy in the Torah like many Christians claim?

[fewwillfindit]

To others:

I also have yet to see anyone post proof, from scripture alone and not rabbinical tradition, of what I keep reading here, that the messiah must be mortal. Born a man, yes, but where does the scripture specifically preclude him from being not only a man who dies, but posessing eternal life as well? Notice that I didn't ask where it says he is immortal, I'm asking where it precludes the possibility.

Behold, the days are coming," declares the LORD,
"When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch;
And He will reign as king and act wisely
And do justice and righteousness in the land.
"In His days Judah will be saved,
And Israel will dwell securely;
And this is His name by which He will be called,
'The LORD our righteousness.' Jeremiah 23:6

The title "Branch" is a Messianic title.

Then say to him, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Behold, a man whose name is Branch, for He will branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the LORD. "Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the LORD, and He who will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne Thus, He will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices."' Zechariah 6:12-13
""a man whose name is Branch,""....The Messiah would be a man.

To try and prove that the Messiah would not be a god is trying to prove a negative. Can anyone prove that the Messiah would not be an effeminate flaming pedophile?

Christ Shepherd

I agree. Branch is a Messianic title. If you'll read the post you quoted, I also said that he will be a man. However, I'm not asking anyone to prove a negative. I'm simply asking for scriptural evidence that he is to be mortal. As you know, Christians believe He immortal, so it's not an issue with us. But in perousing through this forum, I keep coming across Jews who repeatedly espouse the opinion that since Jews believe He is mortal, then the Christian Messiah cannot possibly be the Jewish Messiah. It is Jews that are saying this, not Christians, and I genuinely wanted to know where, in scripture, they find this. Can you understand how this would give a Christian pause?

And logically, to me anyhow, if someone is using that as a proof that my Messiah isn't who He said He was, then isn't it natural to want to see the scripture that plainly states this proof? Maybe you are misunderstanding my angle, hence the "prove a negative" comment. I'm not trying to convince Jews that Jesus is their Messiah. Just the opposite. They are trying to convince the reader that their Messiah's mortality is proof that Christianity is in error. If they have no scriptural proof, then it should no longer be used as proof. If they do, I want to see it, because I believe the Bible is true.

Perhaps what I am writing is coming off as a bit disjointed. I'm honestly trying to articulate my thoughts here, but sometimes its hard to do on a tiny smartphone screen and keyboard.

[Cathar1950]

To others:

I also have yet to see anyone post proof, from scripture alone and not rabbinical tradition, of what I keep reading here, that the messiah must be mortal. Born a man, yes, but where does the scripture specifically preclude him from being not only a man who dies, but posessing eternal life as well? Notice that I didn't ask where it says he is immortal, I'm asking where it precludes the possibility.

Behold, the days are coming," declares the LORD,
"When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch;
And He will reign as king and act wisely
And do justice and righteousness in the land.
"In His days Judah will be saved,
And Israel will dwell securely;
And this is His name by which He will be called,
'The LORD our righteousness.' Jeremiah 23:6

The title "Branch" is a Messianic title.

Then say to him, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Behold, a man whose name is Branch, for He will branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the LORD. "Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the LORD, and He who will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne Thus, He will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices."' Zechariah 6:12-13
""a man whose name is Branch,""....The Messiah would be a man.

To try and prove that the Messiah would not be a god is trying to prove a negative. Can anyone prove that the Messiah would not be an effeminate flaming pedophile?

Christ Shepherd

I agree. Branch is a Messianic title. If you'll read the post you quoted, I also said that he will be a man. However, I'm not asking anyone to prove a negative. I'm simply asking for scriptural evidence that he is to be mortal. As you know, Christians believe He immortal, so it's not an issue with us. But in perousing through this forum, I keep coming across Jews who repeatedly espouse the opinion that since Jews believe He is mortal, then the Christian Messiah cannot possibly be the Jewish Messiah. It is Jews that are saying this, not Christians, and I genuinely wanted to know where, in scripture, they find this. Can you understand how this would give a Christian pause?

And logically, to me anyhow, if someone is using that as a proof that my Messiah isn't who He said He was, then isn't it natural to want to see the scripture that plainly states this proof? Maybe you are misunderstanding my angle, hence the "prove a negative" comment. I'm not trying to convince Jews that Jesus is their Messiah. Just the opposite. They are trying to convince the reader that their Messiah's mortality is proof that Christianity is in error. If they have no scriptural proof, then it should no longer be used as proof. If they do, I want to see it, because I believe the Bible is true.

Perhaps what I am writing is coming off as a bit disjointed. I'm honestly trying to articulate my thoughts here, but sometimes its hard to do on a tiny smartphone screen and keyboard.

Before you go on, Jesus was not immortal; He died.
Mortal people die while immortal people die. If you want to claim he didn't die then you will have to argue with Paul.

[cnorman18]

...But in perousing through this forum, I keep coming across Jews who repeatedly espouse the opinion that since Jews believe He is mortal, then the Christian Messiah cannot possibly be the Jewish Messiah. It is Jews that are saying this, not Christians, and I genuinely wanted to know where, in scripture, they find this...

Can you give a few examples? If you "keep coming across" this, you ought to be able to give more than one. How about some links or quotes?

And logically, to me anyhow, if someone is using that as a proof that my Messiah isn't who He said He was, then isn't it natural to want to see the scripture that plainly states this proof? Maybe you are misunderstanding my angle, hence the "prove a negative" comment. I'm not trying to convince Jews that Jesus is their Messiah. Just the opposite. They are trying to convince the reader that their Messiah's mortality is proof that Christianity is in error. If they have no scriptural proof, then it should no longer be used as proof. If they do, I want to see it, because I believe the Bible is true.

Again, I'd have to see where that claim has ever been made. I haven't made it, and there aren't just a whole lot of Jews on this forum.

The issue, for me, is that Christians claim that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. He wasn't, because the Christian Christ and the Jewish Messiah are two separate and all but unrelated concepts. If you're OK with that formulation, so am I; but I haven't met a Christian who will sign off on it yet.

Here is my own argument for that position, which you have yet to address:

This works the other way around. YOU have to show where the Hebrew Scriptures say -- positively, clearly, comprehensively, consistently, and clearly -- That Mashiach would be (1) born of a virgin, (2) the literal Son of God, (3) God incarnate, (4) a substitutionary sacrifice for the sins of all humans, (5) raised from the dead, and (6) the only way to salvation by faith alone.

NONE of those teachings are in the Hebrew Bible in more than one or two ambiguous and invariably either mistranslated or out-of-context verses; they certainly are NOT major themes. Those Christian doctrines are NOT comprehensively or consistently taught throughout the Hebrew Bible, and in the few places they are alleged to be found, they are certainly NOT clear and unambiguous.

You're claiming that I have to show that the Bible says these things are impossible, and that's ludicrous. By that standard, it would be perfectly okay to claim that the Messiah was a space alien, because the Bible certainly doesn't say that he wasn't.

Rabbinic tradition, i.e. the Talmud, is where Jewish teachings are found, and not in Scripture; but it's not necessary to go there to show that these Christian beliefs have no root or source in Judaism. They aren't in the Jewish Bible either. Those beliefs are, every single one of them, Greek in origin and not Jewish. I'm not saying they're wrong for Christians; that's not for me to say. But they are wrong for Jews. WE get to make that determination, not Christians. You don't get to tell us what we have to or ought to believe, any more than I have the right to make corrections to Christianity according to my own beliefs.

If you really want to be challenged on this, take a look at the link I provided above: here it is again.

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/blog/wp-c ... e-suit.pdf

Perhaps what I am writing is coming off as a bit disjointed. I'm honestly trying to articulate my thoughts here, but sometimes its hard to do on a tiny smartphone screen and keyboard.

I understand, believe me. I've been on this forum for three years, and only in the last have I posted from a laptop. Before that it was my BlackBerry.

Now how about those examples, and addressing my own arguments?

[fewwillfindit]

I also have yet to see anyone post proof, from scripture alone and not rabbinical tradition, of what I keep reading here, that the messiah must be mortal. Born a man, yes, but where does the scripture specifically preclude him from being not only a man who dies, but posessing eternal life as well? Notice that I didn't ask where it says he is immortal, I'm asking where it precludes the possibility.

(Uh, Jesus WAS mortal. He died, didn't he? And doesn't the New Testament teach that EVERYONE has immortality in the sense that Jesus did, after the general Resurrection at the end of time?)

This works the other way around. YOU have to show where the Hebrew Scriptures say -- positively, clearly, comprehensively, consistently, and clearly -- That Mashiach would be (1) born of a virgin, (2) the literal Son of God, (3) God incarnate, (4) a substitutionary sacrifice for the sins of all humans, (5) raised from the dead, and (6) the only way to salvation by faith alone.

NONE of those teachings are in the Hebrew Bible in more than one or two ambiguous and invariably either mistranslated or out-of-context verses; they certainly are NOT major themes. Those Christian doctrines are NOT comprehensively or consistently taught throughout the Hebrew Bible, and in the few places they are alleged to be found, they are certainly NOT clear and unambiguous.

You're claiming that I have to show that the Bible says these things are impossible, and that's ludicrous. By that standard, it would be perfectly okay to claim that the Messiah was a space alien, because the Bible certainly doesn't say that he wasn't.

Rabbinic tradition, i.e. the Talmud, is where Jewish teachings are found, and not in Scripture; but it's not necessary to go there to show that these Christian beliefs have no root or source in Judaism. They aren't in the Jewish Bible either. Those beliefs are, every single one of them, Greek in origin and not Jewish. I'm not saying they're wrong for Christians; that's not for me to say. But they are wrong for Jews. WE get to make that determination, not Christians. You don't get to tell us what we have to or ought to believe, any more than I have the right to make corrections to Christianity according to my own beliefs.


If you really want to be challenged on this, take a look at the link I provided above: here it is again.

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/blog/wp-c ... e-suit.pdf

Please see my post to ChristShepherd. His reply was very close to what you are saying here, so my reply would be similar to you as well. One thing though: you said, "This works the other way around. YOU (all caps. Yes, I get it) have to show where the Hebrew scriptures say..." No, it doesn't work the other way around, because I'm not the one trying to disprove another person's religion as you are.

Why do I have to, when Jews are the one saying that one of the proofs that Christianity is wrong is that they, apart from any scriptural proof, believe the Messiah is mortal. As I said in another reply, I am not trying to convince you that Jesus is the Messiah, but you are trying to convince me that He is not. Isn't it natural for me to want proof from a body of text that I believe is true; the Bible? Let's see if I can put this another way. The worst possible thing to do when debating an athiest is to use scripture to prove him wrong. To him, it comes off like this, "My proof that my imaginary God exists is that He said so in the book that He wrote. And I know the book is true because He told me so." It is similar (not entirely of course, but just for comparison's sake, even though it is hyperbole) to what I am reading in this forum from Jews. To a Christian, rabbinic tradition is not a credible source of evidence to prove or disprove a doctrine, but we see them repeatedly stating that something apart from scripture is proof that a Christian should accept. This really is no different than a Catholic trying to convince me that purgatory is a valid doctrine, yet their only source of proof is a body of evidence I do not accept, the Apocrypha coupled with Papal tradition.

Perhaps, because the tone that you are taking with me, you think that I am angry and combative. Please understand that I'm not just popping in here and off-handedly tossing around controversial posts because I get off on debate for the sake of debate. My questions are real genuine concerns.

I just found this forum today, and I'm thrilled to be here. I'm tired of getting into discussions about Christianity/Athiesm/Deism, etc. in other forums, like technical forums, where these kind of discussions end up getting locked down because they are off topic. I can't believe I didn't find this forum sooner than I did.

Anyhow, the last thing I want to do is start off on the wrong foot here.

[ChristShepherd]

If you look at Christ's geneology in Matthew 1, it moves forward from Abraham to Joseph, and establishes that Joseph is a direct descendent of David. The geneology in Luke is vastly different, and moves backward, beginning with "Joseph, son of Eli." Since we know from Matthew that Joseph's father was named Jacob, this is easily reconciled by understanding that Eli was Joseph's father in law, thus establishing a direct bloodline from Mary to David. This would establish Jesus' potential royalty through his legal father, Joseph, and also satisfy the requirement to be from the fruit of David's loins, via the bloodline of Mary.

Regardless of what current rabbinical tradition may say about it, i.e; how generations are to be reckoned, this completely satisfies this particular requirement of being a blood descendent.

The genealogy in Luke's gospel is not Mary's genealogy. Mary is never even mentioned. How can you have a genealogy without naming the person whose genealogy it is supposed to be?
"""according to Patrizi, the view that St. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary began to be advocated only towards the end of the fifteenth century by Annius of Viterbo, and acquired adherents in the sixteenth. St. Hilary mentions the opinion as adopted by many, but he himself rejects it (Mai, "Nov. Bibl, Patr.", t. I, 477). It may be safely said that patristic tradition does not regard St. Luke's list as representing the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin. """ From the Catholic Encyclopedia.
The doctrine that Luke's genealogy is Mary's genealogy is a late invention. Even the Catholics don't believe it's true.

The bloodlines in Israel were reckoned by the male bloodline.
""Take a census of all the congregation of the sons of Israel, by their families, by their fathers' households, according to the number of names, every male, head by head "" Numbers 1:2

Mary was probably not even of the tribe of Judah. Her relatives Elizabeth and Zacharias were Levites. Elizabeth, Mary's cousin was a descendant of Aaron which makes it even more improbable that Mary was from the tribe of Judah. Luke 1

Christ Shepherd

You cannot emphatically say, as you did, that the account in Luke is not Mary's geneology. You certainly have the right to disagree with it, but the Catholic Encyclopedia is not the final authority on anything. All it proves is that not everyone agrees with the geneology in Luke belonging to Mary. Just because the census was reckoned by counting the sons, doesn't eliminate the possibility that if Mary was a direct descendant of David, that Jesus had David's genes, and thereby fulfilling one of the requirements of the messiah. Certainly, there was no provision made in the Law that allowed for a miracle like a virgin birth. It was a one-time special ocurrence. And coupled with the fact that Jesus was the legal son of Joseph, there is at least enough evidence to make a plausible case for a viewpoint other than yours.

My point, I guess, is that your interpretation does not emphatically discredit Christianity like you are trying to make it do, if there is even a remote possibility of another interpretation being true. It is simply your viewpoint.

Also, if Jacob is Joseph's father, and Luke says, "Joseph, son of Eli," that is a pretty strong indication that it is sayiing that Eli is his father in law.

I cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that this is the correct interpretation, but neither can you prove that yours is any more valid, in light of the existence of another possible interpretation, since this is one of the instances where it isn't spelled out plainly.

"" Joachim (whose name means Yahweh prepares), was the father of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
If we were to obey the warning of St. Peter Damian, we should consider it a blameable and needless curiosity to inquire about those things that the Evangelists did not deem it advisable to relate, and, in particular, about the parents of the Blessed Virgin (Serm. iii de Nativ. B.M.V.). Tradition nevertheless, grounded on very old testimonies, very early hailed Saints Joachim and Anne as the father and mother of the Mother of God. True, this tradition seems to rest ultimately on the so-called "Gospel of James", the "Gospel of the Nativity of the Blessed Mary", and the Pseudo-Matthew, or "Book of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the Childhood of the Saviour"; and this origin is likely to rouse well-founded suspicions. It should be borne in mind, however, that the apocryphal character of these writings, that is to say, their rejection from the canon, and their ungenuineness do not imply that no heed whatever should be taken of some of their assertions; side by side, indeed, with unwarranted and legendary facts, they contain some historical data borrowed from reliable traditions or documents; and difficult though it is to distinguish in them the wheat from the tares, it would be unwise and uncritical indiscriminately to reject the whole.""
From the Catholic Encyclopedia.

We have 4 books of apocryphal literature that say "Joachim" was Mary's father. However unreliable this literature may be, it suggests [Damned if anyone knows for sure] that Joachim was Mary's father. So I wouldn't put much faith in Eli since there is absolutely no evidence that the genealogy in Luke's gospel is that of Mary.

In any case the genealogy in Luke's gospel is flawed. It has the Davidic line coming through David's son Nathan, when the Hebrew Scriptures indicate that the Davidic line of the Messiah would come through Solomon. [2Sam 7:12-16, 1Chron 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:6-7]
So Luke's genealogy is useless no matter whose genealogy it is.

Christ Shepherd

[fewwillfindit]

Now how about those examples and addressing my own arguements

Looks like we cross posted. I took a phone call and it sat for a bit. I need to hit the sack right now; I have to get up in 4 hours, but I will do my best to address them hopefully tomorrow.

[Goat]

If you look at Christ's geneology in Matthew 1, it moves forward from Abraham to Joseph, and establishes that Joseph is a direct descendent of David. The geneology in Luke is vastly different, and moves backward, beginning with "Joseph, son of Eli." Since we know from Matthew that Joseph's father was named Jacob, this is easily reconciled by understanding that Eli was Joseph's father in law, thus establishing a direct bloodline from Mary to David. This would establish Jesus' potential royalty through his legal father, Joseph, and also satisfy the requirement to be from the fruit of David's loins, via the bloodline of Mary.

R.

Point one.. I would love to see where the scripture says that the geneology of Luke is via Mary's line. Ignore what Matthew says, and show me in Luke that it is from Mary. Point out the exact phrase.

And you do know that Mary's line when it comes to the Jewish expectations of the Messiah is totally worthless anyway, don't you? The 'Seed of David' is a direct male descendant from David through Solomon. He has to carry the "David" y-chromosome in other words.

[fewwillfindit]

To others:

I also have yet to see anyone post proof, from scripture alone and not rabbinical tradition, of what I keep reading here, that the messiah must be mortal. Born a man, yes, but where does the scripture specifically preclude him from being not only a man who dies, but posessing eternal life as well? Notice that I didn't ask where it says he is immortal, I'm asking where it precludes the possibility.

Behold, the days are coming," declares the LORD,
"When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch;
And He will reign as king and act wisely
And do justice and righteousness in the land.
"In His days Judah will be saved,
And Israel will dwell securely;
And this is His name by which He will be called,
'The LORD our righteousness.' Jeremiah 23:6

The title "Branch" is a Messianic title.

Then say to him, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Behold, a man whose name is Branch, for He will branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the LORD. "Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the LORD, and He who will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne Thus, He will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices."' Zechariah 6:12-13
""a man whose name is Branch,""....The Messiah would be a man.

To try and prove that the Messiah would not be a god is trying to prove a negative. Can anyone prove that the Messiah would not be an effeminate flaming pedophile?

Christ Shepherd

I agree. Branch is a Messianic title. If you'll read the post you quoted, I also said that he will be a man. However, I'm not asking anyone to prove a negative. I'm simply asking for scriptural evidence that he is to be mortal. As you know, Christians believe He immortal, so it's not an issue with us. But in perousing through this forum, I keep coming across Jews who repeatedly espouse the opinion that since Jews believe He is mortal, then the Christian Messiah cannot possibly be the Jewish Messiah. It is Jews that are saying this, not Christians, and I genuinely wanted to know where, in scripture, they find this. Can you understand how this would give a Christian pause?

And logically, to me anyhow, if someone is using that as a proof that my Messiah isn't who He said He was, then isn't it natural to want to see the scripture that plainly states this proof? Maybe you are misunderstanding my angle, hence the "prove a negative" comment. I'm not trying to convince Jews that Jesus is their Messiah. Just the opposite. They are trying to convince the reader that their Messiah's mortality is proof that Christianity is in error. If they have no scriptural proof, then it should no longer be used as proof. If they do, I want to see it, because I believe the Bible is true.

Perhaps what I am writing is coming off as a bit disjointed. I'm honestly trying to articulate my thoughts here, but sometimes its hard to do on a tiny smartphone screen and keyboard.

Before you go on, Jesus was not immortal; He died.
Mortal people die while immortal people die. If you want to claim he didn't die then you will have to argue with Paul.

Did you really just say that? I thought, in a forum such as this, that people would have at least a basic understanding of Christianity. You must be toying with me, as I haven't gotten to know everyone's personality here yet. I need to go to bed.

[cnorman18]

I also have yet to see anyone post proof, from scripture alone and not rabbinical tradition, of what I keep reading here, that the messiah must be mortal. Born a man, yes, but where does the scripture specifically preclude him from being not only a man who dies, but posessing eternal life as well? Notice that I didn't ask where it says he is immortal, I'm asking where it precludes the possibility.

(Uh, Jesus WAS mortal. He died, didn't he? And doesn't the New Testament teach that EVERYONE has immortality in the sense that Jesus did, after the general Resurrection at the end of time?)

This works the other way around. YOU have to show where the Hebrew Scriptures say -- positively, clearly, comprehensively, consistently, and clearly -- That Mashiach would be (1) born of a virgin, (2) the literal Son of God, (3) God incarnate, (4) a substitutionary sacrifice for the sins of all humans, (5) raised from the dead, and (6) the only way to salvation by faith alone.

NONE of those teachings are in the Hebrew Bible in more than one or two ambiguous and invariably either mistranslated or out-of-context verses; they certainly are NOT major themes. Those Christian doctrines are NOT comprehensively or consistently taught throughout the Hebrew Bible, and in the few places they are alleged to be found, they are certainly NOT clear and unambiguous.

You're claiming that I have to show that the Bible says these things are impossible, and that's ludicrous. By that standard, it would be perfectly okay to claim that the Messiah was a space alien, because the Bible certainly doesn't say that he wasn't.

Rabbinic tradition, i.e. the Talmud, is where Jewish teachings are found, and not in Scripture; but it's not necessary to go there to show that these Christian beliefs have no root or source in Judaism. They aren't in the Jewish Bible either. Those beliefs are, every single one of them, Greek in origin and not Jewish. I'm not saying they're wrong for Christians; that's not for me to say. But they are wrong for Jews. WE get to make that determination, not Christians. You don't get to tell us what we have to or ought to believe, any more than I have the right to make corrections to Christianity according to my own beliefs.


If you really want to be challenged on this, take a look at the link I provided above: here it is again.

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/blog/wp-c ... e-suit.pdf

Please see my post to ChristShepherd. His reply was very close to what you are saying here, so my reply would be similar to you as well. One thing though: you said, "This works the other way around. YOU (all caps. Yes, I get it) have to show where the Hebrew scriptures say..." No, it doesn't work the other way around, because I'm not the one trying to disprove another person's religion as you are.

I'm not trying to disprove your religion either; I'm showing that Christ and Mashiach are two different concepts, as I've said repeatedly. Jesus may very well have been the (or at least A) Messiah for Gentiles; that's not for me to say. But he wasn't the Jewish Mashiach, for the reasons I've stated above, among others. If you want to say that Jesus WAS the Jewish Mashiach, which is certainly the impression I'm getting, you have to show where the beliefs that Christians have about Jesus as the Christ have some kind of relationship to Judaism. They don't.

Why do I have to, when Jews are the one saying that one of the proofs that Christianity is wrong is that they, apart from any scriptural proof, believe the Messiah is mortal.

And I ask again: Who is saying that, where did they say it, and when? I haven't seen that argument anywhere here. Can you actually show where someone has made that argument, or is it a strawman? I'm not looking for a fight either, but you did claim to have seen it more than once. Where? From whom?

As I said in another reply, I am not trying to convince you that Jesus is the Messiah, but you are trying to convince me that He is not.

And as I've said repeatedly, he might very well have been the Christian messiah, aka "Christ," but no, he wasn't the Jewish Mashiach. That position seems clear enough to me, and if you're OK with that formulation, I am too.

Isn't it natural for me to want proof from a body of text that I believe is true; the Bible? Let's see if I can put this another way. The worst possible thing to do when debating an athiest is to use scripture to prove him wrong. To him, it comes off like this, "My proof that my imaginary God exists is that He said so in the book that He wrote. And I know the book is true because He told me so." It is similar (not entirely of course, but just for comparison's sake, even though it is hyperbole) to what I am reading in this forum from Jews. To a Christian, rabbinic tradition is not a credible source of evidence to prove or disprove a doctrine, but we see them repeatedly stating that something apart from scripture is proof that a Christian should accept. This really is no different than a Catholic trying to convince me that purgatory is a valid doctrine, yet their only source of proof is a body of evidence I do not accept, the Apocrypha coupled with Papal tradition.

And if you'll read my posts again, you'll see that I'm not appealing to rabbinic tradition. That IS where Jewish beliefs and teachings are to be found, but I'm not using the Talmud to prove anything at all. I'm asking you to show me where, in the Hebrew Bible -- which you do accept, under the name of the Old Testament -- the concepts that describe that of the Christian Christ can be found. I say they aren't there, and that Jews shouldn't be expected to believe in Jesus as fulfilling a role that isn't a part of our religion.

Like I said; if you'll sign off on Jesus not being the Jewish Mashiach, we have no argument. If you, like every Christian I've ever seen around here, insist that he was -- well, then I'd like to see you address my arguments. From the Hebrew Scriptures, of course, which we both accept. If you're on board with my own idea, that we can read those books differently and not presume to dictate how the other religion should understand them, we're good.

Perhaps, because the tone that you are taking with me, you think that I am angry and combative. Please understand that I'm not just popping in here and off-handedly tossing around controversial posts because I get off on debate for the sake of debate. My questions are real genuine concerns.

I quite understand that, and don't assume that I'm being angry and combative either. I am quite emphatic in my beliefs on this subject, but that's pretty usual around here. It doesn't necessarily entail anger or combativeness. We debate -- vociferously -- but always civilly, when we do it right.

I just found this forum today, and I'm thrilled to be here. I'm tired of getting into discussions about Christianity/Athiesm/Deism, etc. in other forums, like technical forums, where these kind of discussions end up getting locked down because they are off topic. I can't believe I didn't find this forum sooner than I did.

Anyhow, the last thing I want to do is start off on the wrong foot here.

A belated welcome. I appreciate your attitude and your approach, and I hope we can all be clear and cordial in our discussions here. I like this forum too, after having been on some that were incredibly boring and more that were unpleasant snakepits. It's a nice place, and like I said, welcome.

[ChristShepherd]

I agree. Branch is a Messianic title. If you'll read the post you quoted, I also said that he will be a man. However, I'm not asking anyone to prove a negative. I'm simply asking for scriptural evidence that he is to be mortal. As you know, Christians believe He immortal, so it's not an issue with us. But in perousing through this forum, I keep coming across Jews who repeatedly espouse the opinion that since Jews believe He is mortal, then the Christian Messiah cannot possibly be the Jewish Messiah. It is Jews that are saying this, not Christians, and I genuinely wanted to know where, in scripture, they find this. Can you understand how this would give a Christian pause?

And logically, to me anyhow, if someone is using that as a proof that my Messiah isn't who He said He was, then isn't it natural to want to see the scripture that plainly states this proof? Maybe you are misunderstanding my angle, hence the "prove a negative" comment. I'm not trying to convince Jews that Jesus is their Messiah. Just the opposite. They are trying to convince the reader that their Messiah's mortality is proof that Christianity is in error. If they have no scriptural proof, then it should no longer be used as proof. If they do, I want to see it, because I believe the Bible is true.

Perhaps what I am writing is coming off as a bit disjointed. I'm honestly trying to articulate my thoughts here, but sometimes its hard to do on a tiny smartphone screen and keyboard.

Jesus died so he wasn't immortal.
I think what you are asking is there any Scripture which says the Messiah would be just a regular man and not a God/Man as Christians believe is the situation with Jesus.
Deuteronomy 18:15
" The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him.
Many believe the above Scripture to be a Messianic Scripture. See Peter's speech at Acts 3 where he uses this Scripture to refer to Jesus.
Moses is the one who wrote Deut 18:15 so if ""God will raise up for you a prophet like me [like Moses]"" refers to the Messiah, then the Messiah would be just a man like Moses.

Christ Shepherd