Was Jesus the messiah of the Hebrew bible?

[Nickman]

Cholland said he would like to debate this point so here it is.

Was Jesus the the messiah as prescribed by the Hebrew bible?

What prophecies does he fulfill and why?

Can he be shown to not fulfill the Hebrew text?

Cholland your up.....

[Nickman]

...What verse that applies to the messiah from the Hebrew scriptures says that the messiah would be ressurected? Youll never find one.

Where among my general criteria--prophet, priest, king, and sacrificial lamb--do I mention anything about "resurrection"? The resurrection was a surprise, by the power of a God who (per the Hebrew text) often surprises.

Exactly, it is not an aspect associated with the messiah. Because of this glaring fact, Jesus is disqualified as messiah because the OT is completely silent on it, to the point of its nonexistence.

You have to make ressurection into a later addition by god. Thats not a very good argument. Your basically saying, "well its not in the OT but it is still part of what the messiah was supposed to do."

[EduChris]

...Jesus is disqualified as messiah because the OT is completely silent on it...

Your logic is faulty. In order for your argument to work, the OT would have to have said, "The Messiah will not be resurrected," which of course it doesn't say.

...Your basically saying, "well its not in the OT but it is still part of what the messiah was supposed to do."

Nope. I'm saying that the resurrection was a bonus, a surprise, coming from a God who is portrayed in the OT as a very surprising character.

[Nickman]

...Jesus is disqualified as messiah because the OT is completely silent on it...

Your logic is faulty. In order for your argument to work, the OT would have to have said, "The Messiah will not be resurrected," which of course it doesn't say.

...Your basically saying, "well its not in the OT but it is still part of what the messiah was supposed to do."

Nope. I'm saying that the resurrection was a bonus, a surprise, coming from a God who is portrayed in the OT as a very surprising character.

My logic is in order. It states that the Hebrew bible does not speak of a virgin birth, and therefore there is no reason to assume it to be true. Your adding to the story what is not there. You are also assuming Jesus to be the messiah based on the silence of the subject in the OT. That is not a sound argument. It is faulty. Your taking a Greek text and applying it to a Hebrew text and attempting to have a sound argument based on silence. The only argument that is logical is one based off of what is said about the messiah. Not what is not said.

[The Tongue]

...Do Jews in general accept that Jesus was their messiah? Should we completely discount their thoughts on it?...

Well, let's not discount the earliest Jewish followers of the Jew, Jesus.

Many first-century Jews were open to (even eager for) the idea of Jesus being the Messiah prior to: 1) the crucifixion, and 2) the incorporation of Gentiles into the people of God without any prior requirement to convert to Judaism. And even with these two caveats, many first-century Jews did accept Jesus as Messiah.

Anyway, the problem of the crucifixion is solved if the resurrection occurred, and the Gentile issue is likewise resolved if the resurrected Jewish Messiah did in fact tell Peter that Jewish dietary and association restrictions were no longer required for inclusion into the people of God.

So it seems the issue of Messiahship hinges on whether the resurrection occurred, and not on what Jews today happen to think. Thus, your objection/point is not valid unless you can demonstrate that the resurrection did not occur.

The great grandfather of the biblical Jesus was Yehoshua/Jesus III, who was the high priest in Jerusalem from 36 to 23 BC. The sonless Yehoshua, had three daughters, Joanna, Elizabeth and Anna/Hanna. Knowing that his Zadokian lineage would become extinct unless his daughters were placed with future husbands according to the Torah he married them off to the elite at that time.

Hanna/Anna, was betrothed to Alexander Helios (Heli) A Macedonian Jew, of the tribe of Judah through Nathan the Levite, an adopted son of David. Heli, is thought by some, to be the twin brother of Herods young Jewish wife Cleopatra, a Macedonian Jewess.

Heli, was a descendant of Nathan the priest who was the biological son of Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite, (The Hittites occupied Macedonia in those days) who became a member of the tribe of Levi by his marriage to Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel, the son of Oded-Edom, who was a descendant of Moses from the house of Levi, through his second wife, who was the daughter of Hobab the Kenite, one of the two Fathers-in-law to Moses.

The Talmud states, "Whoever brings up an orphan in his home is regarded...as though the child had been born to him." (Sanhedrin 119b). In other words, the adopted child is to be treated as a child born to the father of that house.

Which means that Heli and his descendants were heirs to the throne of David, Heli, who died in 13 BC, by order of Herod the Great, had previously sired a son, who we know by the name Joseph the Levite from Cyprus, and Heli was to later sire the child Mary to Hanna the daughter of the high priest Yehoshua III. Mary and her half brother Joseph the son of Heli, are the biological parents of Jesus.

Yehoshua, the great grandfather of Jesus is said to have died 3 years before Mary the daughter of Hanna and Heli was born. If it was his death that ended his period as high priest in Jerusalem in the year of 23 BC, this would mean that Mary was born in 20 BC, and was 7 years old when her father Heli died in 13 BC, and 14 years old when she gave birth to Jesus, who was born in 6 BC. This would make Mary who married Cleophas/Alpheaus, the father of James the younger of Marys three biological sons, about 47 years old when Jesus, the first of her three biological sons, was crucified.

Simeon, the stepbrother of Jesus, who succeeded James the brother of the Lord to the Episcopal throne of the church of the circumcision in Jerusalem, was the son of Cleophas to a previous marriage, as was Judas the son of Alpheaus, the other stepbrother of Jesus. Cleophas and Alpheaus, which both names mean, Of a renown father, are one and the same person. Cleophas the male abbreviation of the female Cleopatra, a Macedonian name, is the Greek, for Of a renown father, and Alpheaus, the biological father of James the younger of Marys three sons and the brother of the Lord, is the Aramaic of the same meaning, Of a renown father.

Elizabeth was also a daughter of Yehoshua III,she was the sister to Hanna and aunty to Mary. Elizabeth was betrothed to a Levite priest by the name Zacharias of the priestly course of Abijah.

Being the grandson of Alexander Helios (HELI) who was the son of Mark Antony the Macedonian Jew, and Cleopatra the Jewish Queen of Egypt, and the twin brother to the young wife of Herod the Great, Cleopatra the mother of Philip of Bethsaida, Jesus would have been seen by the Jews as a pretty good contender to the throne of Israel. In fact it was for this very reason that Herod had Heli killed when his daughter, Mary the mother of Jesus, was only about 7 years old.

As was the custom in those days, Mary as a young child, was betrothed to another man by the name of Joseph, but he was the son of Jacob from the cursed line of Jehoiachin, of who it is written in Jeremiah 22: 30;This man is condemned to lose his children, to be a man who will never succeed. He will have no descendants who will rule in Judah as Davids successor." Perhaps, knowing that any child born of that union, would have no claim to the throne of the Jews, may have saved the young child Jesus from the wrath of Herod, until He was about two years old and the wise men came looking for the child that was born to be, King of the Jews.

Knowing that according to the holy scriptures, Joseph the son of Heli was the biological father of Jesus, and that Joseph the Levite who came from Cyprus (Macedonia) had a half sister by the name Mary, and that it was not until after Mary returned from visiting her pregnant aunty Elizabeth that she was found to be with child, we can assume that Joseph the son of Heli, would have met Mary for the first time, at the gathering of the family and friends of the pregnant Elizabeth, the aged sister of Anna and aunty of Mary, who were both of the daughters of Levi.

This was some months after the young parthenos (Unmarried) Mary had told the angel that up until that point in time she had never had any sexual relations with a man. Implying that the unmarried girl, Almah=Parthenos was still a virgin, before she met Joseph the Levite from Cyprus. Undoubtedly they did not realise at that time that they had a common father, Heli, a descendant of Nathan the adopted son of David, who was the son of Bathsheba from the tribe of Levi.

This Joseph the Levite, who is the descendant of Nathan, came from Cyprus and he had a half sister by the name Mary, who was the adopted mother of John, who Jesus had surnamed Son of Thunder, and who is identified with the young John who was surnamed Mark, which means Hammer, or The Hammerer.

After the death of Jesus, this Joseph the Levite, who is also named Barnabas, took his half sister and young John up north into the land of Pamphylia, where today, in the town of Ephesus, the grave sites of both Mary and John can still be visited.

Isaac, the biological son Abraham, who is the son of Terah, was born according to the workings of the Holy Spirit, as was Jesus the son of Joseph, who is the son of Heli.
.
Amplified Bible Galatians 4: 29; And just as at that time the child that was born according to the flesh (Ishmael) despised and persecuted (Isaac) who was born according to the promise and the workings of the Holy Spirit.

Isaac is a prototype of Jesus and like Jesus, was born of Gods promise according to the workings of the Holy Spirit. Both are seen as the seed that was promised to Abraham.

Both Isaac and Jesus were the sons of parents who were both sired by the one Father.

Terah, is the father to both Abraham and Sarah by different mothers, while Heli, is the father of both Joseph and Mary, by different mothers.

Both Mary and Sarah were informed by an angel that they would become Pregnant and bear the son of Gods promise. Isaac was offered up as a sacrifice by his physical father, Jesus was offered up by his spiritual father, who descended upon him in the form of a dove as the voice was heard to say, you are my beloved in whom I am well pleased, TODAY I have become your Father. Or rather, Today I have begotten thee. See the more ancient authorities of Luke 3: 22; and Isaac was offered up on the same mountain at the very spot where Jesus was crucified.

In Luke 3: 22; (In place of Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.) The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, This day I have begotten thee, vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine. All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, This is my son in whom I am well pleased. Whereas the original variant was, Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.

But the Jewish Messiah has not yet appeared to save the inhabitant of Israel from the surrounding nation who would drive God's chosen people into the sea, and he is "ELIJAH" the prophet of Fire, who is the duplication=twin of "ENOCH."

Mark 9: 12; why it was written that Elijah must come first, he answered, Elijah is indeed coming first, (Future tense) and will restore all things, yet why do the scriptures say, that the Son of Man, must suffer many things and be treated with contempt But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him (The Son of Man) in scripture.

[cholland]

My logic is in order. It states that the Hebrew bible does not speak of a virgin birth, and therefore there is no reason to assume it to be true. Your adding to the story what is not there. You are also assuming Jesus to be the messiah based on the silence of the subject in the OT. That is not a sound argument. It is faulty. Your taking a Greek text and applying it to a Hebrew text and attempting to have a sound argument based on silence. The only argument that is logical is one based off of what is said about the messiah. Not what is not said.

Yes, the prophet Isaiah wanted to declare that God was going to show the Jews a sign so extraordinary and miraculous as a birth from a "young woman."

[The Tongue]

My logic is in order. It states that the Hebrew bible does not speak of a virgin birth, and therefore there is no reason to assume it to be true. Your adding to the story what is not there. You are also assuming Jesus to be the messiah based on the silence of the subject in the OT. That is not a sound argument. It is faulty. Your taking a Greek text and applying it to a Hebrew text and attempting to have a sound argument based on silence. The only argument that is logical is one based off of what is said about the messiah. Not what is not said.

Yes, the prophet Isaiah wanted to declare that God was going to show the Jews a sign so extraordinary and miraculous as a birth from a "young woman."

Go to A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature, by David Jeffery.
There you will find written, Many scholars consider the new Revised Standard Version of the King James translation, which is probably the most widely used version of the English bible today, and considered by most modern scholars to be to be the most accurate translation of the Old Testament. It follows the modern consensus in translating Almah as Young Woman in Isaiah 7: 14.

In 1973, an ecumenical edition of RSV was approved by both Protestant and Catholic hierarchies, called the common bible. As a matter of fact, I have in front of me, A New English Translation of the Bible, published in 1970 and approved by the council of churches in England, Scotland, Wales, the Irish council of churches, the London Society of Friends, and the Methodist and Presbyterian churches of England. And what do we read in Isaiah 7: 14; A young Woman is with child, and she will bear a son. I also have before me The Good News Bible, catholic Study Edition, with imprimatur by Archbishop John Whealon: and on turning to Isaiah 7: 14; and what do you know? It says here, A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc.

The word Virgin in reference to the mother of Jesus was first introduced in the 5th century Latin Bible The Vulgate, due mainly to the effort of Jerome who was commissioned to make a revision of the books that had already been translated to Latin by, in most cases, persons unknown, and with those books translated by Jerome himself, which revision was completed in 405 A.D. became the official bible of the universal church that had been established by its unorthodox and non-christian champion, King Constantine, who had his father Constantius deified and was accorded the same honour himself after his death.

In translating the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an Almah an unmarried female is with child and will bear a son, into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for virgin, the authors of the Septuagint and Matthew correctly used the Greek word Parthenos, which carries a basic meaning of girl, or unmarried youth, and denotes virgin only by implication. A more accurate rendering of the Greek parthenos is a person who does not have a regular sexual partner, a widow with a family of children, would be a parthenos, Hanna who nursed the baby Jesus before Mary performed the ceremony of purification, was a widow of seven years, and is referred to as a parthenos for seven years, but she was in no way, a virgin.

Matthew 1: 22-23; must now be seen to read, "Now all this happened to make come true what the lord had said through the prophet, "A young unmarried woman who is with child will bear a son and his name shall be called "IMMANUEL." "God is with us." For the young man Jesus was the one chosen by God to be the earthly host body for his chosen successor "The Son of Man" to reveal himself to the world and the awesome sacrifice that he makes for the body of mankind in which body he develops.

You disciples of the Anti-Christ who refuse to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being born of the seed of Adam, are far, far, worse than the Atheists themselves.

[Nickman]

My logic is in order. It states that the Hebrew bible does not speak of a virgin birth, and therefore there is no reason to assume it to be true. Your adding to the story what is not there. You are also assuming Jesus to be the messiah based on the silence of the subject in the OT. That is not a sound argument. It is faulty. Your taking a Greek text and applying it to a Hebrew text and attempting to have a sound argument based on silence. The only argument that is logical is one based off of what is said about the messiah. Not what is not said.

Yes, the prophet Isaiah wanted to declare that God was going to show the Jews a sign so extraordinary and miraculous as a birth from a "young woman."

Isaiah was not a messianic prophecy. It was a sign to the King Ahaz. How can it be a sign to Ahaz if if was to be fulfilled after his death?

Isaiah 7:12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test.

13 Then Isaiah said, Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you [c] a sign: The virgin [d] will conceive and give birth to a son, and [e] will call him Immanuel. [f] 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah"he will bring the king of Assyria.

Now you will se the fulfillment of this sign in Chapter 8

The LORD said to me, Take a large scroll and write on it with an ordinary pen: Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. [a] 2 So I called in Uriah the priest and Zechariah son of Jeberekiah as reliable witnesses for me. 3 Then I made love to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the LORD said to me, Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. 4 For before the boy knows how to say My father or My mother, the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria.

Now you see the exact sign being fulfilled right here.

In Isaiah 7:14 we have two possible meanings, virgin or non virgin woman. When put in context we see that the prophetess gave birth to a son for Ahaz as was promised. This is not messianic

[Rkrause]

...What verse that applies to the messiah from the Hebrew scriptures says that the messiah would be ressurected? Youll never find one.

Where among my general criteria--prophet, priest, king, and sacrificial lamb--do I mention anything about "resurrection"? The resurrection was a surprise, by the power of a God who (per the Hebrew text) often surprises.

Exactly, it is not an aspect associated with the messiah. Because of this glaring fact, Jesus is disqualified as messiah because the OT is completely silent on it, to the point of its nonexistence.

You have to make ressurection into a later addition by god. Thats not a very good argument. Your basically saying, "well its not in the OT but it is still part of what the messiah was supposed to do."

I will help you out with passages from the OT


Psalm 16:10

New International Version (NIV)

10 because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead,
nor will you let your faithful[a] one see decay.

Isaiah 53:10

New International Version (NIV)

10 Yet it was the Lords will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[a] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.

[bluethread]

My logic is in order. It states that the Hebrew bible does not speak of a virgin birth, and therefore there is no reason to assume it to be true. Your adding to the story what is not there. You are also assuming Jesus to be the messiah based on the silence of the subject in the OT. That is not a sound argument. It is faulty. Your taking a Greek text and applying it to a Hebrew text and attempting to have a sound argument based on silence. The only argument that is logical is one based off of what is said about the messiah. Not what is not said.

Yes, the prophet Isaiah wanted to declare that God was going to show the Jews a sign so extraordinary and miraculous as a birth from a "young woman."

Isaiah was not a messianic prophecy. It was a sign to the King Ahaz. How can it be a sign to Ahaz if if was to be fulfilled after his death?

Isaiah 7:12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test.

13 Then Isaiah said, Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you [c] a sign: The virgin [d] will conceive and give birth to a son, and [e] will call him Immanuel. [f] 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah"he will bring the king of Assyria.

Now you will se the fulfillment of this sign in Chapter 8

The LORD said to me, Take a large scroll and write on it with an ordinary pen: Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. [a] 2 So I called in Uriah the priest and Zechariah son of Jeberekiah as reliable witnesses for me. 3 Then I made love to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the LORD said to me, Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. 4 For before the boy knows how to say My father or My mother, the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria.

Now you see the exact sign being fulfilled right here.

In Isaiah 7:14 we have two possible meanings, virgin or non virgin woman. When put in context we see that the prophetess gave birth to a son for Ahaz as was promised. This is not messianic

I will begin by agreeing with your assessment of Is.7:14. The problem is not with Is.7:14, but with a proper undestanding of Mattityahu's use of the term "fulfill". It is common for rabbis to take a well known passage and use it to illustrate a point being made that is not directly related to the context of the original passage. This is what I believe Mattityahu is doing when he uses the term "fulfilled". The point of the illustration is filled out in the point of the midrash. In this specific case, the salvation of the nation of Israel, that is assured through the birth of the child who's mother calls him Emmanuel, is seen in the coming of Yeshua. As the birth of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, whom his mother called Emmanuel, garaunteed that Ahaz would be delivered from Retzin the king of Aram and Pekach the son of Remalyah, king of Isra'el, so Adonai's people would be saved from HaSatan and the apostate leadership of Isra'el through Yeshua.

[The Tongue]

In 1973, an ecumenical edition of RSV was approved by both Protestant and Catholic hierarchies, called the common bible. As a matter of fact, I have in front of me, A New English Translation of the Bible, published in 1970 and approved by the council of churches in England, Scotland, Wales, the Irish council of churches, the London Society of Friends, and the Methodist and Presbyterian churches of England. And what do we read in Isaiah 7: 14; A young Woman is with child, and she will bear a son. I also have before me The Good News Bible, catholic Study Edition, with imprimatur by Archbishop John Whealon: and on turning to Isaiah 7: 14; and what do you know? It says here, A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc.

Matthew 1: 22-23; must now be seen to read, "Now all this happened to make come true what the lord had said through the prophet, "A young unmarried woman who is with child will bear a son and his name shall be called "IMMANUEL." "God is with us." For the young man Jesus was the one chosen by God to be the earthly host body for his chosen successor "The Son of Man" to reveal himself to the world and the awesome sacrifice that he makes for the body of mankind in which body He, "The Son of Man," who is the son of the MOST HIGH in the creation, develops.

The emphases of the prophecy should be on the fact that the child of the young unmarried woman="ALMAH,"would be called IMMANUEL.

The Light of man came In the body of a human being, which he had filled with his spirit and lived with us, and we saw his Sh'khinah, (Dwelling place) the Sh'khinah, or Dwelling place, which was the body that the Father had prepared for his Son, who was to come down and fill with his spirit that body that his Father had prepared for him, was the man Jesus the earthly dwelling of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth, who, as he came up out of the baptismal waters, the spirit of our Lord and saviour descended on him in the form of a dove, as the heavenly voice was heard to say, "You are my beloved in whom I am well pleased, 'THIS DAY' have I begotten thee."