Is Jesus same MashiH?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Yusef
Banned
Banned
Posts: 470
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:39 pm
Location: His Earth
Contact:

Is Jesus same MashiH?

Post #1

Post by Yusef »

I think the messiah of Judaism was same Jesus!
Is that true?

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: Is Jesus same MashiH?

Post #11

Post by Goat »

Yusef wrote:I think the messiah of Judaism was same Jesus!
Is that true?
No, not at all. Jesus did not meet the messianic requirements for Judaism.. the accomplishments for the Messiah are yet to be met.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: Is Jesus same MashiH?

Post #12

Post by bluethread »

Haven wrote:
bluethread wrote: I think so.
What leads you to believe Jesus was the Jewish Messiah? How would you respond to the arguments Jews give against your claim?
I have to preface this discussion by saying that currently my time is limited. Therefore, a detailed discussion could take some time, as I will no doubt be slow in responding. That said, rather than me shooting in the dark and being accused of making straw man arguments, it might be best if you brought up the objections you have in mind.

To begin with the is Isaiah 53.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: Is Jesus same MashiH?

Post #13

Post by Goat »

bluethread wrote:
Haven wrote:
bluethread wrote: I think so.
What leads you to believe Jesus was the Jewish Messiah? How would you respond to the arguments Jews give against your claim?
I have to preface this discussion by saying that currently my time is limited. Therefore, a detailed discussion could take some time, as I will no doubt be slow in responding. That said, rather than me shooting in the dark and being accused of making straw man arguments, it might be best if you brought up the objections you have in mind.

To begin with the is Isaiah 53.
Why, let us indeed begin with Isaiah 53. >> it has to be read in context. Isaiah 53 is what is known as 'The forth Servant Song', and it is much abused and mistranslated by the Christians who want to see the Jewish Scripture as jsutifying their belief in Jesus.

The main thing.. who is the servant in Isaiah 53. Let's look at what the forth song says about who is the servant.
“You are My servant, O Israel� (41:8)
“You are My servant, Israel� (49:3)

So, the writer of the fourth servant song specifically says the servant is Israel.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

cnorman18

Post #14

Post by cnorman18 »

Mithrae wrote:I may be wrong about this, but to my knowledge in the Tanakh the term 'messiah' is used numerous times in references to priests and kings, but on only three occasions to a specific future leader: Twice in Isaiah with reference to Cyrus, and once in Daniel when it's said that an 'anointed one' will be 'cut off' - followed shortly thereafter by the temple's destruction.

I am certainly open to correction on that point.

Pending that, I wonder which parts of the Jewish scriptures - Isaiah 11 perhaps, extrapolated to this 'messiah' rather than Hezekiah? - can be demonstrably identified as 'messianic' prophecies or expectations? Christians do not deny (in fact it's part of their very gospels) that Jews were hoping for a military saviour. And I certainly recognise that in many respects the Christians' use of the Tanakh is either misguided and ignorant or thoroughly deceitful.

But having read through Cnorman's first post, I don't think I saw any biblical references to this 'messiah' he's talking about. Without subjecting themsleves to accusation of eisegesis, Christians may have no reference to 'messiah' besides Daniel 9 - but by that same standard, what 'messiah' references do Jews have?

To my mind it seems self-evident that 19th or 20th century Judaism no more represents 1st century Judaism than 19th or 20th century Christianity represents 1st or 2nd century Christianity. So we're reduced (sigh) to the level of looking at ancient writings rather than taking folks' word for it. Was the 'interpretation' and wishful thinking of 1st century Jews obviously superior to the 'interpretation' and wishful thinking of 1st century Christians?
For starters, you're laboring under a very common misconception; that the Tanakh holds the same sort of ultimate authority for Jews that the Christian Bible holds for Christians. It doesn't, and never did. Jewish teachings and practices cannot be derived from the Bible; the Bible, for Jews, is unintelligible without the assistance of the tradition of teaching, interpretation, and debate that we have maintained and revised for many centuries. Much of it can be found in the Talmud, but by no means all. That tradition of debate and revision continues to this day.

The same is true of Christians, of course, but only the Roman Catholic Church explicitly acknowledges the fact; there are TWO authorities in the RCC -- the Bible and Holy Mother Church. Protestants, too, have their own interpretations of Scripture which take precedence over other readings, but each sect generally just maintains that its particular reading is the only acceptable one. Sola Scriptura has always been an unsustainable claim; without some system or tradition of interpretation, the Bible is almost completely opaque.

Jewish thought about the Messiah has changed a very great deal since the first century; today, very many Jews no longer speak of a personal Messiah at all, but of a "Messianic Age." It is also a common belief that the Messiah will not be the agent who institutes a time of perfect peace and justice, but that that is OUR job, we humans (not just Jews), and that the Messiah will come only after that job is accomplished. There are other schools of thought as well, but none of them hold that Jesus was in any sense the Jewish Messiah.

For an excellent discussion and explanation of the rejection of Jesus in his own day, one might consult David Klinghoffer's excellent book, Why The Jews Rejected Jesus.[/i] For a more modern explanation, consult any good book on basic Judaism, such as Judaism for Dummies or Milton Steinberg's Basic Judaism.

User avatar
Moses Yoder
Guru
Posts: 2462
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 2:46 pm
Location: White Pigeon, Michigan

Post #15

Post by Moses Yoder »

If Jesus was resurected from the dead, how can He not be the Messiah? I understand, I can't prove He was. Just wondering if Jews then assume He was not resurected. I read some of CNormans post, but not the whole book. Maybe when I have more time I will. Part 2, I always assumed Jesus only fulfilled some of the prophecys of the Messiah the first time He was here. The rest are to be fulfilled in the future when He returns. Part 3, is it also assumed Jesus did not actually perform miracles, such as healing leprosy, etc. If He actually did those and then gave His apostles power to do the same, how can He not be the Messiah?

cnorman18

Re: Is Jesus same MashiH?

Post #16

Post by cnorman18 »

Goat wrote:
bluethread wrote:
Haven wrote:
bluethread wrote: I think so.
What leads you to believe Jesus was the Jewish Messiah? How would you respond to the arguments Jews give against your claim?
I have to preface this discussion by saying that currently my time is limited. Therefore, a detailed discussion could take some time, as I will no doubt be slow in responding. That said, rather than me shooting in the dark and being accused of making straw man arguments, it might be best if you brought up the objections you have in mind.

To begin with the is Isaiah 53.
Why, let us indeed begin with Isaiah 53. >> it has to be read in context. Isaiah 53 is what is known as 'The forth Servant Song', and it is much abused and mistranslated by the Christians who want to see the Jewish Scripture as jsutifying their belief in Jesus.

The main thing.. who is the servant in Isaiah 53. Let's look at what the forth song says about who is the servant.
“You are My servant, O Israel� (41:8)
“You are My servant, Israel� (49:3)

So, the writer of the fourth servant song specifically says the servant is Israel.
Well said. Let me add this, from the same thread to which I posted a link above, my first on this forum:
The absence of any other reference to a Messiah figure in Deutero-Isaiah argues strongly that the "Suffering Servant" was not such a figure. Jewish tradition is of many opinions as to who that figure is intended to represent: the Jewish people as a whole, a faithful minority among those people, even Jeremiah or Moses. None of those opinions holds that the servant is the Messiah, let alone Jesus.

There is also the little matter of v. 10, which clearly states that the servant will live to see his children. Unless one is willing to sign off on The Da Vinci Code as part of the Christian canon, that does not appear to apply to Jesus.

This is a pretty good example--indeed, the most commonly seen example--of Christians overruling the Jews' interpretation of their own Scriptures and substituting their own. If I were to cite Jesus's remark that "If he calls him 'my Lord,' how can he be his son?" as evidence that Jesus did not believe that the Messiah could come from the house of David (which appears to be the plain meaning of that text), I would be engaged in the same sort of thing.

If Christians wish to believe that Jesus was who he is credited as being in Christian belief, and that Isaiah 53 refers to him, that is their right and peace to them; but they have no right to dictate to Jews how we must read our own Bible. After all, it was OUR book first.
In a later post, I remarked that the Christian interpretation of Deutero-Isaiah is remarkably self-serving and selective, in that the "stripes" are said to be literal, and the "children" said to be symbolic. This is characteristic of many "prophecies" which are claimed as "Messianic"; where the verses fit Jesus, they are said to be literal, and where they do not, they are said to be "symbolic."

As I said earlier; the question of who will fulfill the office of Messiah is not, in Jewish tradition, determined by "prophecy," which has a different meaning in Jewish teachings than Christian. It is determined by performance, and by that standard -- the only standard that Jews have ever held -- Messiah has not yet come. Then, too, there is the matter of the claims made for Jesus that have nothing whatever to do with ANY Jewish teaching about the Messiah; God Incarnate, literal Son of God, resurrection from the dead, forgiveness of sins through belief, and so on.

Christians, as I keep saying, may believe whatever they like with no argument from me; but they may not dictate what Jews ought to believe, or even more outrageously what Jews actually do believe and are too benighted to understand.

Period, full stop.

cnorman18

Post #17

Post by cnorman18 »

Moses Yoder wrote:If Jesus was resurected from the dead, how can He not be the Messiah? I understand, I can't prove He was. Just wondering if Jews then assume He was not resurected. I read some of CNormans post, but not the whole book. Maybe when I have more time I will. Part 2, I always assumed Jesus only fulfilled some of the prophecys of the Messiah the first time He was here. The rest are to be fulfilled in the future when He returns. Part 3, is it also assumed Jesus did not actually perform miracles, such as healing leprosy, etc. If He actually did those and then gave His apostles power to do the same, how can He not be the Messiah?
There is nothing in Jewish tradition about the Messiah being raised from the dead.

There is nothing in Jewish tradition about the Messiah coming TWICE.

There is nothing in Jewish tradition about the Messiah being a healer or worker of miracles. Further, healers and wonderworkers were thick on the ground in Jesus's day, just as they are today.

On all these matters, cherrypicked Christian reinterpretations of Jewish scriptures are irrelevant.

The standard, for Jews, is the same now as it was then; when Messiah comes, the world will be filled with peace, justice and piety. It isn't. No one has any right to tell us Jews that that standard must change.

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: Is Jesus same MashiH?

Post #18

Post by bluethread »

cnorman18 wrote:
Christians, as I keep saying, may believe whatever they like with no argument from me; but they may not dictate what Jews ought to believe, or even more outrageously what Jews actually do believe and are too benighted to understand.

Period, full stop.
Let me make one thing clear. I am not dictating that anyone believe anything. I am simply responding to an inquiry regarding what I believe. So, shall we agree that neither of us should be playing the victim card when someone does not share our views?

Regarding the greater context, which Goat appears to believe covers some 13 chapters or so, I will need time to review that greater context.

spayne

Post #19

Post by spayne »

cnorman18 wrote:
Moses Yoder wrote:If Jesus was resurected from the dead, how can He not be the Messiah? I understand, I can't prove He was. Just wondering if Jews then assume He was not resurected. I read some of CNormans post, but not the whole book. Maybe when I have more time I will. Part 2, I always assumed Jesus only fulfilled some of the prophecys of the Messiah the first time He was here. The rest are to be fulfilled in the future when He returns. Part 3, is it also assumed Jesus did not actually perform miracles, such as healing leprosy, etc. If He actually did those and then gave His apostles power to do the same, how can He not be the Messiah?
There is nothing in Jewish tradition about the Messiah being raised from the dead.

There is nothing in Jewish tradition about the Messiah coming TWICE.

There is nothing in Jewish tradition about the Messiah being a healer or worker of miracles. Further, healers and wonderworkers were thick on the ground in Jesus's day, just as they are today.

On all these matters, cherrypicked Christian reinterpretations of Jewish scriptures are irrelevant.

The standard, for Jews, is the same now as it was then; when Messiah comes, the world will be filled with peace, justice and piety. It isn't. No one has any right to tell us Jews that that standard must change.
The standard was also that the Messiah would come from the line of David. How will this be confirmed when he comes since the line of David is either gone or lost? Will they force the Messiah to undergo DNA testing to confirm if he is the one?

The standard, according to the prophet Micah (5:2) was that he would come from the City of Bethlehem. Does this still hold true?

The standard, according to the prophet Zechariah (9:9) was that he would come to his people riding a donkey. Is this still the expectation? And if not, why has it changed?

cnorman18

Post #20

Post by cnorman18 »

spayne wrote:
cnorman18 wrote:
Moses Yoder wrote:If Jesus was resurected from the dead, how can He not be the Messiah? I understand, I can't prove He was. Just wondering if Jews then assume He was not resurected. I read some of CNormans post, but not the whole book. Maybe when I have more time I will. Part 2, I always assumed Jesus only fulfilled some of the prophecys of the Messiah the first time He was here. The rest are to be fulfilled in the future when He returns. Part 3, is it also assumed Jesus did not actually perform miracles, such as healing leprosy, etc. If He actually did those and then gave His apostles power to do the same, how can He not be the Messiah?
There is nothing in Jewish tradition about the Messiah being raised from the dead.

There is nothing in Jewish tradition about the Messiah coming TWICE.

There is nothing in Jewish tradition about the Messiah being a healer or worker of miracles. Further, healers and wonderworkers were thick on the ground in Jesus's day, just as they are today.

On all these matters, cherrypicked Christian reinterpretations of Jewish scriptures are irrelevant.

The standard, for Jews, is the same now as it was then; when Messiah comes, the world will be filled with peace, justice and piety. It isn't. No one has any right to tell us Jews that that standard must change.
The standard was also that the Messiah would come from the line of David. How will this be confirmed when he comes since the line of David is either gone or lost? Will they force the Messiah to undergo DNA testing to confirm if he is the one?

The standard, according to the prophet Micah (5:2) was that he would come from the City of Bethlehem. Does this still hold true?

The standard, according to the prophet Zechariah (9:9) was that he would come to his people riding a donkey. Is this still the expectation? And if not, why has it changed?
As I said in another post; Jewish beliefs about the Messiah have changed a great deal in 2,000 years. I see that I have failed to mention perhaps the most important way in which they have changed; most modern Jews don't think about the Messiah at all.

The figure of the Messiah was never central to the Jewish religion, and now is barely a peripheral concern. As a practical matter, we're no longer looking and waiting. We've been burned too many times by claimants to that title -- not only Jesus, who never really had much of a following among Jews, but by such figures as Sabbatai Zevi and Simon Bar-Kokhba, who had much greater followings, and with catastrophic results.

Once more; for Jews, "salvation" does not come from the Messiah. That is a Christian concept, not a Jewish one. Your questions are not particularly relevant today; in fact, those very questions are among the reasons that many rabbis, for centuries, have taught that the time when the Messiah could be expected to appear has passed.

Post Reply