One More Time: Why Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah

[cnorman18]

From some recent threads, it appears that it’s time to repost this yet again -- as usual, as an informational piece only. It first appeared, in a slightly different form, in late 2007. It was among my very first posts to this forum.

My usual caveats before I begin:

This post is NOT an attack on Christianity.

This post is intended to EXPLAIN some things that very many non-Jews, including many Christians but also including many others, apparently do not understand.

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, in the words of our tradition, 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 that He did not.

Asserting a belief in one tradition is NOT, in our view, a negation of all others, no matter how passionately others try to put those words in our mouths. We go our own way, and others may go theirs; we do not believe ours to be "the only true religion," as some others do, nor do we believe that one must be Jewish to be "saved." We truly have no such concept anyway, as will be seen presently.

This post is also not addressed to atheists. I have spoken on the radically different theology (insofar as it exists) of the Jewish religion elsewhere, and at length, and have many times noted the fact that very many Jews ARE atheists; but all of those issues, and the debates and discussions connected thereto, are not for this thread, and I will not be dealing with them here.

This post is on the rather more limited topic of why the Jews did not, and do not, and will not, accept Jesus as our Messiah.

That some few have, and do, does not matter, any more than the fact that very many Christians have converted to Judaism as well (I am one of them). People may choose to believe as they like; but that is not relevant here. The fact is that 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 of those reasons. If you do not agree with them, that is your right, but these matters are not, for Jews, open to debate or argument.

The core of this problem is that the office of “Messiah,� to Jews, and that of the “Christ,� to Christians, are two very different and virtually mutually exclusive things.

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, quite literally, thousands of years, and it has not changed. It is true that most modern Jews are no longer much interested in the figure of the Messiah, and his importance has rather sunk into the background in recent centuries; but the concept, and the office, remains the same.

The issue was never that there were certain "prophecies" that the Messiah had to "fulfill," as many seem to think. Most of the “prophecies� which it is claimed that Jesus “fulfilled� were never considered “prophecies� by Jews in the first place, a fact which is easily confirmed by any good book on Judaism. The very term prophecy has a different meaning in the Jewish religion anyway; there, it is only occasionally related to “foretelling the future,� and even then generally only in the short term.

The Messiah was never to be identified by “prophecy�; he was to be identified by the PERFORMANCE of certain concrete, real-world actions. 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.

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:

The Messiah was to be a military and/or a political leader, an actual, rightful King who would restore the line of David to the throne of Israel and reign in Jerusalem as the actual, literal earthly monarch of the Jewish nation.

He would restore the political independence of the land of Israel and free it from foreign rule.

Most importantly, his coming would coincide with the beginning of a time of perfect peace, justice, liberty and piety that would shortly extend over all the earth -- in THIS world and THIS life, and not in a "symbolic" or “spiritual� way, but in literal, present human history. Whether he himself would bring about this "Messianic Age," or whether he would arrive after we humans ourselves have achieved it by our own efforts, has been a bone of contention among Jews for centuries. I, myself, do not claim to know.

This last is, as I say, the most important signifier of all; the Messiah would arrive with the Messianic Age. He was named for it, and it was named for him. The two would come together, or not at all. They were, and remain, one.

It seems rather clear that none of these occurred, and 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 world is not at peace; ergo, Messiah has not come. That's an end to the "debate," for most Jews.

And now we come to the nature of the Christian Christ, and the enormous differences between what is said of Jesus and the attributes of the Jewish Messiah.

Put simply: Jesus claimed (or it was claimed for him) that he had power and authority that no Jew could or would claim for any man, and power and authority far beyond any that were ever attributed to the coming Messiah. These claims were, and remain, alien to Judaism and are in fact often blasphemous from a Jewish point of view.

First, It was claimed that Jesus was God incarnate; that he, a human being, was, in fact and truth, God Almighty Himself in the flesh.

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. He is Alone. He is One.

It was, therefore, and will remain, impossible for Jews 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, the paradigmatic King in Jewish history and tradition. There is no hint of such a thing as a Divine Man anywhere in Jewish tradition, teaching or literature; 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.

The one -- count ‘em, ONE -- verse from Scripture (Isaiah 9:6) that is commonly given as proof that this notion DID have a part in Jewish tradition is, without apology, a gross misreading and mistranslation of the passage in question; and it is also, just as importantly, unique. The idea that such a radical departure from the ancient tenets of the Jewish religion would not be known and even heavily emphasized throughout Jewish teachings over the centuries, as opposed to appearing in one and only one verse of the Bible, is more than a little ludicrous. Basing the practice of snake-handling on one verse in Mark is positively reasonable and credible in comparison.

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 on a human woman is as foreign to Judaism as temple prostitution. That is a Greek idea, not a Jewish one -- consider Zeus and 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, once again, unthinkable:

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

All sins.

It may be more difficult to see why this is such a problem for Jews, because this is not widely known: In the Jewish religion, sins can only be forgiven by the person being sinned against. That means, among other things, that God Himself cannot forgive all sins. If I punch you in the nose, who is God to forgive me? That sin must be forgiven by you, and only you, or it is not to be forgiven at all. No one else has the right. God can forgive sins against Himself -- failures to honor vows, ritual "sins," and so on -- but not personal sins against other people.

This is why Jews do not generally respond to the observation that the Holocaust should be "forgiven." We, the Jews of the present day, have no right. As Elie Wiesel, himself a Holocaust survivor, once said: "Ask the six million for forgiveness."

By the same token, even Christians, I think, often feel a certain revulsion when some convicted murderer taunts his victim's family with "God has forgiven me; why can't you?" I think most people instinctively feel that claim to be fraudulent and self-serving, not to mention hypocritical, even if they don’t share our belief.

By claiming the authority to forgive ALL sins, Jesus was not claiming to be coequal with God; he was claiming to be greater than God. No wonder some tore their robes and cried “Blasphemy!� when they heard him speak.

Fourth, as if all this were not enough: It was claimed that Jesus took on a role that had never been contemplated by any Jew from Abraham onward, a role that was not necessary and was, again, alien to the whole of Jewish teachings and traditions from the beginning to the present day; That role was that of “Savior.� it is claimed that Jesus was the sacrifice that saves all men from their sins, and that this salvation is accessed by believing in him, and nothing more.

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 in the first place. Jews have never believed in "Original Sin," nor 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 (or redirect) 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. Sins are forgiven through prayer, repentance, and “deeds of lovingkindness.� No blood is necessary.

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.

A concrete example, 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 is not 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 -- and there is no belief in an eternal fiery Hell at all, anywhere in all of Jewish history or tradition. The focus of the Jewish religion is THIS life, in THIS world. The next, we leave to God. “Salvation,� in the Christian sense of “going to Heaven,� is a non-issue for Jews. It is not even a peripheral interest, let alone a central principle.

As you can see, though Judaism and Christianity share an ethic, basic values, and many religious practices, as well as (in part) common literature, 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 profoundly different that they really do constitute two 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 in the real world -- which is almost everywhere. Where our beliefs differ, we should agree to disagree and leave each other alone, because there can be no reconciliation there.

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; not you, not your Church, not Jesus himself.

To Christians: This caveat applies in both directions. We have no warrant to tell YOU how to read the Bible, either; you may read the Hebrew Bible, which you have adopted as your Old Testament, in any way you choose. We also 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; for all any Jew knows, those beliefs are true and correct for Christians and God will honor them. Jesus may very well be YOUR Messiah, even though he is not ours. That is not for us to say.

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. As I say; this matter is not open to debate. This determination was made by my people two thousand years ago, and it has been reaffirmed in every generation.

If anybody is planning to post a point-by-point attempt at refuting all this, complete with a whole raft of "proof texts" from the Bible -- Old OR New Testament -- it will be a waste of your time. It won't be a waste of mine, because I've seen them all before, and I'll be declining to "debate." Others may choose to respond, which is fine, but for my part, I'll just refer you to this website, where you will find all the information you need.

If anyone wishes to DISCUSS these things, on the other hand, I'd be glad to participate. But don't try to convince me, as so many have, that Judaism actually, really does teach that Jesus was the true Messiah. That argument entails one of two, and only two, corollaries, you see; (1) that Jews are too stupid to understand their own religion and have been for 2,000 years, or (2) that we all secretly know that Jesus was our Messiah and have simply been lying about it. Both of those claims are insulting, demeaning, and grossly offensive to Jews, and are therefore by definition antisemitic. Don't go there.

I'll close with a saying from the Talmud that, I would hope, indicates a way to peace. 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."

In that spirit, I'll offer this: I have said for many years that, when (if) the Messiah finally comes, the Jews will look up and say, “You’re here!� the Christians will look up and say, “You’re back!� -- and then we’ll all hug each other and laugh about it.

Peace to all.

[cnorman18]

Lesson 1: Shas is the Israeli Ultra-Orthodox party. They not only don't represent all Jews; they don't even represent all ORTHODOX Jews.

Why would the former Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel ask voters to vote for Shas so as to be assured a place in heaven if, as you claim, getting to heaven is not a Jewish concern? Do you think he was appealing to Christians to vote for Shas? Obviously, he considered reaching heaven a widespread Jewish concern.

Among the ultra-Orthodox, perhaps it is. As I have specified rather often, inspeak from and for modern liberal Judaism. If you want to denounce that as illegitimate or heretical, feel free; but your opinions on that score are of no concern to me either.

Do you consider your opinions about Judaism more authoritative than those of Ovadia Yosef and Rashi?

"Cursed be he who does not uphold the words of this Torah, to fulfill them. And all the people shall say, 'Amen!'"

Rashi:
"Here [in this curse,] Moses included the entire Torah, and they accepted it upon themselves with a curse and an oath."

No; but I DO consider the consensus of the Jewish community as expressed in the Talmud and other Jewish literature to be more authoritative than either. That Jews are not expected to be PERFECT is a rather well-established teaching.
[font=Comic Sans MS][/font]

[Paul2]

Do you consider your opinions about Judaism more authoritative than those of Ovadia Yosef and Rashi?

No; but I DO consider the consensus of the Jewish community as expressed in the Talmud and other Jewish literature to be more authoritative than either. That Jews are not expected to be PERFECT is a rather well-established teaching.
[font=Comic Sans MS][/font]

There is no requirement under Australian law that I be PERFECT but I still must OBEY every applicable law.

First, It was claimed that Jesus was God incarnate; that he, a human being, was, in fact and truth, God Almighty Himself in the flesh.

Who made this claim? Is this a claim of Christianity? (You've said your post is not an attack on Christianity.) The RCC and Protestants have claimed that Jesus is a hypostasis of "the trinity" and that that purported trinity is God Almighty. I haven't seen a claim that Jesus was "the trinity" incarnate. Have you?

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 82 by Paul2]

Nicene creed, 4th century.

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made."

Seems pretty clear to me.

Don't misunderstand; Christians may believe that doctrine, or any other that they choose; but that is not a belief that Jews may embrace and remain Jews.

[99percentatheism]

cnorman18

From some recent threads, it appears that it’s time to repost this yet again -- as usual, as an informational piece only. It first appeared, in a slightly different form, in late 2007. It was among my very first posts to this forum.

My usual caveats before I begin:

This post is NOT an attack on Christianity.

My responses in my post here is by no means "an attack on Judaism." Nor is it an attack on what has become known as "Judaism." Which invention may have no connection to Moses or Abraham, Isaac and Jacob at all, other tahn another spinoff religious culture. Though the charge could be made that in the case of a new invention of a religious structure, different from that set forth in the Tanakh - The Torah, The Writings (stories) and the Prophets - especially in the Gospel records. What is recorded in the Gospels is that Jesus railed against an invention of new and altered religious structure that may not even have any connection with the Hebrews/Israelites other than some people of multiple dispersions claiming it to have that connection. In other words: Is "Judaism" the religion of Moses and the Patriarchs and the Prophets? That seems an historically fair question to ask. Jesus is quoted as having a major problem with whatever religion is being represented by a group of religious leaders that he may be claiming are extremely wrong about "The Law of Moses." And also, obviously, how "the religious leaders" were handling "the Prophets" and prophecy as well.

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

All sins.

It may be more difficult to see why this is such a problem for Jews, because this is not widely known: In the Jewish religion, sins can only be forgiven by the person being sinned against. That means, among other things, that God Himself cannot forgive all sins. If I punch you in the nose, who is God to forgive me? That sin must be forgiven by you, and only you, or it is not to be forgiven at all.

No one else has the right. God can forgive sins against Himself -- failures to honor vows, ritual "sins," and so on -- but not personal sins against other people.

This is why Jews do not generally respond to the observation that the Holocaust should be "forgiven." We, the Jews of the present day, have no right. As Elie Wiesel, himself a Holocaust survivor, once said: "Ask the six million for forgiveness."

By the same token, even Christians, I think, often feel a certain revulsion when some convicted murderer taunts his victim's family with "God has forgiven me; why can't you?" I think most people instinctively feel that claim to be fraudulent and self-serving, not to mention hypocritical, even if they don’t share our belief.

Psalm 51 shows then, and the Prophet Nathan claims that "God" HAS forgiven David for murdering Uriah the Hittite and raping and impregnating his wife Bathsheba. Yet in the case of Uriah, no way can David ever atone for that sin and we never see David asking Bathsheba to forgive him. Though, in fact, we see Bathsheba and King David being blessed with children, even after the death of their first born son was allowed to die by God for David's sin. Per the Prophet Nathan.

Clearly in the following, it seems we have a difference of opinion between the Prophet Nathan, God, King David, and the adherents of Judaism in the Sanhedrin and elsewhere in Jewish history . . . as you present it, do we not?

51:1 Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.

51:2 Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.

51:3 For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.

51:4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

51:6 Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.

51:7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

51:8 Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.

51:9 Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.

51:10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

51:11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.

51:12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.

51:13 Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.

51:14 Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.

51:15 O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise.

51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.

51:17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

51:18 Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem.

51:19 Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar.

- The Tanakh, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/js ... lms51.html

By claiming the authority to forgive ALL sins, Jesus was not claiming to be coequal with God; he was claiming to be greater than God. No wonder some tore their robes and cried “Blasphemy!� when they heard him speak.

King David, and the Prophet Nathan seem to differ in this opinion of what God can do with no opinions being able to alter their view. King David "sinned" against many people that he had no ability to talk to directly. In the case of Uriah, an extremely loyal and righteous man, Uriah was dead. God, would indeed have to stand in for Uriah in the forgiveness arena.

And isn't David, in Psalm 51, asserting a sin nature is present pre-birth? At least in the case of him anyway?

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 84 by 99percentatheism]
Just for the record, in the modern Jewish religion -- which has changed much since Jesus's day, and had changed much BEFORE Jesus's day, as it was intended to in our belief -- the books of Kings, Psalms, etc. hold little authority, if any at all. The Torah of Moses was the foundation -- and even that may be overruled by the consensus of the wise among our people, also identified by consensus. As far as any records show, the death penalty was never imposed upon disobedient children, for instance.

That you think modern Judaism is somehow illegitimate or inauthentic troubles me not at all. Many people -- very many -- think that modern Christianity is illegitimate or inauthentic, in that it has very little to do with the actual teachings or person of Jesus; and yet, most recognize it as an authentic and honorable religion, as is modern rabbinic Judaism.

Taking some advice from a certain Facebook post, I decline to reply further. Opinions differ; that's the way it's supposed to be.

Have a good day.

[Eliyahu]

One More Time: Why Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah

Bs'd

He was not the messiah because he didn't fulfill the messianic prophecies.

It doesn't get more simple than that.

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 86 by Eliyahu]

I disagree. "Prophecies" are not the issue and never were. Jesus did not accomplish the things the Messiah was to accomplish and which were to identify him as the Messiah. If a black guy named Howard born in Cleveland accomplished those things, he would be the Messiah. All the rest is window dressing. Jesus himself seemed to be aware of this; cf. Matthew 22:45.

[Eliyahu]

Bs'd

It looks like we're in perfect agreement: JC didn't fulfill the messianic prophecies, therefore he was not the messiah.

[OnceConvinced]

Really enjoyed reading your opening post CNorman and also the debate afterward. Your opening post certainly makes a lot of sense and after reading through this thread I have to say I now have more respect for the Jewish religion and less respect for Christianity. It is true that Christians have tried to twist the Hebrew texts and created a new religion based on it. Jesus was clearly not the Messiah the Jews were expecting.

I also agree that a Messianic Jew or Jewish Christian, or whatever they're called are simply just Christians with a Jewish past. It would be the same as calling a Muslim who had become a Christian a Muslim Christian. Some aspects of their previous culture is still going to be brought with them into their new religion, but the fact is their religion has changed. There are plenty of examples of this in places like Africa where Christians there have incorporated a lot of their old traditions into Christianity.

Even when I was a Christian myself I had a problem with the concept of a Messianic Jew. It troubled me. How could they claim to be Jews if they believed Jesus was the Messiah? It was an oxymoron. They are Christians, nothing more. As were the "Jews" who wrote the New Testiment. They ceased to be Jews once they took on Jesus as their saviour. They went from one religion to another.

[Goat]

Really enjoyed reading your opening post CNorman and also the debate afterward. Your opening post certainly makes a lot of sense and after reading through this thread I have to say I now have more respect for the Jewish religion and less respect for Christianity. It is true that Christians have tried to twist the Hebrew texts and created a new religion based on it. Jesus was clearly not the Messiah the Jews were expecting.

I also agree that a Messianic Jew or Jewish Christian, or whatever they're called are simply just Christians with a Jewish past. It would be the same as calling a Muslim who had become a Christian a Muslim Christian. Some aspects of their previous culture is still going to be brought with them into their new religion, but the fact is their religion has changed. There are plenty of examples of this in places like Africa where Christians there have incorporated a lot of their old traditions into Christianity.

Even when I was a Christian myself I had a problem with the concept of a Messianic Jew. It troubled me. How could they claim to be Jews if they believed Jesus was the Messiah? It was an oxymoron. They are Christians, nothing more. As were the "Jews" who wrote the New Testiment. They ceased to be Jews once they took on Jesus as their saviour. They went from one religion to another.

It is even more complicated than that. Many of the people who go to the 'Messianic' synagogues aren't even of Jewish heritage. If you look at the funding of the Jews for Jesus, in specifically, you will see that the Southern Baptists , particularly in the founding years, funded a lot of their activities. The Luther Synod also funded and started a number of Messianic Synagogues. I found it very telling so many of the board members of the J4J's were Southern Baptist ministers in the early years.

I have met more than one convert to Judaism that came into Judaism from the Messianic Jews.. they went from Christian to Messianic Jew to rejecting that to full Judaism. I always found that very ironic.