Is Jesus same MashiH?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
cnorman18

Re: Is Jesus same MashiH?

Post #31

Post by cnorman18 »

bluethread wrote:
cnorman18 wrote:
bluethread wrote: So, how do you suggest we approach the question? Should this thread be off limits to anyone who is not a certified rabbi?
What ARE you talking about? What "question"?

If you think that the point of this thread is to try to convince Jews to accept that our Scripture show that Jesus was the Messiah, or to convince us to believe in Jesus as the Christ -- well, that effort is doomed to failure. As far as I'm concerned, we're just talking and comparing beliefs. I don't say that your beliefs about Jesus are false; I just say that they are not my own, and that they are not Jewish beliefs.

Old saying from my childhood: "Wanna fight? So join the Marines."
What question? Is Yeshua HaMeshiach, of course? Isn't that what this thread is about? I personally do not expect to convince anyone of anything. In spite of any opinions or experiences that one may have had with others, my interest is in examining the questions posed. If others are convinced or not is secondary at best.

So, are you simply refering to the beliefs I have experessed on this thread or is this another post that I am supposed to take as addressed to others and not just me? Sorry, in english "your beliefs" can be singular or plural.
Well, here's the opening post:
Yusef wrote:I think the messiah of Judaism was same Jesus!
Is that true?
If the question is, "Is the Messiah of Judaism Jesus?" there can be only one answer, that which has consistently been the consensus of the entire Jewish community for two thousand years.

"No, he was not."

Guess we're done...

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9133
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #32

Post by bluethread »

Well, I was hoping to see what the Jewish interpretations of the various passages are. However, if this is just a thread about whether or not Judaism sees Yeshua as HaMeshiach, then I guess your correct. Judaism has distanced itself from this view ever since the followers of Yeshua were caste out of the synagogues.

cnorman18

Post #33

Post by cnorman18 »

bluethread wrote:Well, I was hoping to see what the Jewish interpretations of the various passages are. However, if this is just a thread about whether or not Judaism sees Yeshua as HaMeshiach, then I guess your correct. Judaism has distanced itself from this view ever since the followers of Yeshua were caste out of the synagogues.
"Distanced itself"? No need to do that. It's just not our view that Jesus was the Messiah. No "distancing" necessary. I have to wonder what you mean by that. I would guess, but I don't want to be accused of putting words in your mouth.

If you want to know about the Jewish interpretation of Biblical passages, pick up a Jewish Study Bible. Most of the passages that Christians allege to be "Messianic" have detailed commentary there, and it's just generally a very good guide to modern Jewish Biblical scholarship. I recommend it highly

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24704
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Is Jesus same MashiH?

Post #34

Post by Goat »

bluethread wrote:
cnorman18 wrote:
bluethread wrote: So, how do you suggest we approach the question? Should this thread be off limits to anyone who is not a certified rabbi?
What ARE you talking about? What "question"?

If you think that the point of this thread is to try to convince Jews to accept that our Scripture show that Jesus was the Messiah, or to convince us to believe in Jesus as the Christ -- well, that effort is doomed to failure. As far as I'm concerned, we're just talking and comparing beliefs. I don't say that your beliefs about Jesus are false; I just say that they are not my own, and that they are not Jewish beliefs.

Old saying from my childhood: "Wanna fight? So join the Marines."
What question? Is Yeshua HaMeshiach, of course? Isn't that what this thread is about? I personally do not expect to convince anyone of anything. In spite of any opinions or experiences that one may have had with others, my interest is in examining the questions posed. If others are convinced or not is secondary at best.

So, are you simply refering to the beliefs I have experessed on this thread or is this another post that I am supposed to take as addressed to others and not just me? Sorry, in english "your beliefs" can be singular or plural.
No.. Jesus is not the messiah. The tasks that have to be completed to identify how the Jewish concept of the messiah is to be are yet undone. It won't be until the tasks are complete will who that person will be.

And, Jesus is dead.. so he can't finish them.
“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

jedicri
Scholar
Posts: 350
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:40 pm

Post #35

Post by jedicri »

cnorman18 wrote:
bluethread wrote:Well, I was hoping to see what the Jewish interpretations of the various passages are. However, if this is just a thread about whether or not Judaism sees Yeshua as HaMeshiach, then I guess your correct. Judaism has distanced itself from this view ever since the followers of Yeshua were caste out of the synagogues.
"Distanced itself"? No need to do that. It's just not our view that Jesus was the Messiah. No "distancing" necessary. I have to wonder what you mean by that. I would guess, but I don't want to be accused of putting words in your mouth.

If you want to know about the Jewish interpretation of Biblical passages, pick up a Jewish Study Bible. Most of the passages that Christians allege to be "Messianic" have detailed commentary there, and it's just generally a very good guide to modern Jewish Biblical scholarship. I recommend it highly
Unfortunately, I won't be picking up the book recommended above, not yet anyway; but I am curious as to how it interprets Daniel's prophecy on the coming of the Messiah, Daniel 9:24-26.

I've recently started to read Joe Schoeman's Salvation is From the Jews and he presents an interpretation of Daniel's prophecy from the Jewish perspective. I will post it hopefully later today verbatim. But you must know that he converted to Catholicism from Judaism. In his preface to the aforementioned book he writes:

If there is one theological issue which both Jews and Christians should be able to agree on, it is that "salvation is from the Jews". It has been a constant teaching of Judaism from the days of Abraham onwards that the salvation of all mankind is to come from the Jews. That is the primary sense in which the Jews are "the Chosen People". And Christians, or at least Christians who believe in the accuracy of the New Testament, have no choice but to believe that "salvation is from the Jews", since those are the very words which Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:22). This book is an attempt to examine the meaning of those words, from a Jewish perspective within the Catholic faith.

As a Jew who has entered the Catholic Church, I might be accused by some of being singularly unqualified to speak for Judaism -- that I am the worst of all possible Jews, an apostate, a traitor, a turncoat, a Jew who has "switched allegiances" and become Catholic. Yet on the contrary, I would claim that a Jew who has become Catholic is the best person to explore the true meaning of Judaism. To understand salvation history one must be a Christian, since the Incarnation, death and Resurrection of Christ are at the center of salvation history, and the fullness of the relevant doctrine is contained in the teaching of the Catholic Church. A Catholic who is not from a Jewish background would necessarily have a more abstract and incomplete understanding of Judaism than someone who grew up within Judaism. This problem is compounded by the variety and inconsistency of beliefs within the Jewish community, sometimes making it difficult to ascertain "what Jews believe" or "what Judaism says" about a certain topic.

And although Jews might question the right that an "apostate" Jew has to represent Judaism, that characterization in itself points to the heart of the underlying problem. Is the issue who "we" are, or who Jesus was? If Jesus was the Jewish Messiah -- the Messiah long prophesied, expected and prayed for by the Jews -- then a Jew can either be "right" and accept that He was the Messiah, or be wrong and maintain that he was not. If Jesus was the Messiah, then Jews who reject Christianity (or Messianic Judaism) are wrong; if Jesus was not the Messiah, then Christians, however well meaning, are wrong. There is not necessarily any moral shame or culpability in being wrong, but it is nonsense to maintain that somehow Judaism is right for Jews, and Christianity is right for Christians, and that the truth is dependent on what group one belongs to. If Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, then of course the entire meaning and purpose of the Jewish religion revolve around its role in bringing about the Incarnation of God as man, and any Jew who does not accept Jesus is necessarily in the dark about the true role of Judaism in salvation history. So the issue is not whether one is an "apostate" or "real" Jew, but whether one recognizes or does not recognize that Jesus was the Messiah. Obviously one who does is in a better position to understand the unfolding of salvation history.

In no way does the book intend to offend or criticize Jews who remain loyal to Judaism and reject the claims of Christianity. I certainly know from my own experience that it is only grace that can bring the truths of faith to anyone. The grace that brought about my conversion was entirely unmerited; and I can only pray for a similar outpouring of grace on as many of my coreligionists as possible, that they too might come to an awareness of the fullness of the beauty, of the truth, of the glory of Judaism; of the nobility and incomprehensible honor of being members of the race that was chosen to bring about the Redemption of all mankind, by bringing about the Incarnation of God himself as a man of flesh and blood, of their flesh and their blood.


On a side note:
I was wondering what the significance it is among Jews regarding the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. Why was it never built up again? To this day, has there been an attempt to rebuild it so the sacrifice of the Passover be continued? How do they see this inability for priests to no longer offer the sacrifice once performed by the priests of old.

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9133
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #36

Post by bluethread »

jedicri wrote: I was wondering what the significance it is among Jews regarding the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. Why was it never built up again? To this day, has there been an attempt to rebuild it so the sacrifice of the Passover be continued? How do they see this inability for priests to no longer offer the sacrifice once performed by the priests of old.
I am sure I will be corrected with regard to any response I may make. However, in the spirit of open discussion, it is my understanding that this is a very contentious issue in judaism. There are some who see the building of the temple as a precurser to HaMeshiach. While others take great offense at that, because they believe that only HaMeshiach can oversee the building of the temple. Even if one holds to the construction as a precurser, one must deal with the requirements for the anointing of the priests. Since there are no currently anointed priests, who is going to perform this ritual?

jedicri
Scholar
Posts: 350
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:40 pm

Post #37

Post by jedicri »

bluethread wrote:
jedicri wrote: I was wondering what the significance it is among Jews regarding the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. Why was it never built up again? To this day, has there been an attempt to rebuild it so the sacrifice of the Passover be continued? How do they see this inability for priests to no longer offer the sacrifice once performed by the priests of old.
I am sure I will be corrected with regard to any response I may make. However, in the spirit of open discussion, it is my understanding that this is a very contentious issue in judaism. There are some who see the building of the temple as a precurser to HaMeshiach. While others take great offense at that, because they believe that only HaMeshiach can oversee the building of the temple. Even if one holds to the construction as a precurser, one must deal with the requirements for the anointing of the priests. Since there are no currently anointed priests, who is going to perform this ritual?
Re: the bolded above, what does this mean to Jews with the absence of anointed priests, and by extension, the absence of the Passover sacrifice?

As promised above, re: Daniel 9:24-27, Joe Schoeman writes:

A few keys are necessary to decipher this passage. The Hebrew word for "week" is the same word as for "seven", and a day represents one year; hence "seven weeks" is 49 years, "sixty-two weeks" is 434 years, and "seventy weeks" is 490 years. The "going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem" refers to the order of King Artaxerxes to rebuild Jersualem recorded in Ezra 7:11-26, which was given in 458 B.C. It took exactly "seven weeks", or 49 years, to complete the walls of Jersusalem, indicated by the fact that 49 years after Artaxerxes' decree, or in 409 B.C., Nehemiah ended his appointment as governor of Judah. Adding another sixty-two weeks, or 434 years, brings us to A.D. 26, which is the year that many, including the ancient Church historian Bishop Eusebius, give as the date of Jesus' baptism in the Jordan by John and the beginning of His public ministry. Then, in the "half of the week" --- that is, three and a half years later --- the "victim and the sacrifice shall fail". And it was about three years and four months after Jesus' baptism that He was crucified, at which time the Temple veil was rent in two as a sign that the Temple sacrifices would henceforth fail. (The fact that the Temple sacrifices failed at the time of the cruxifiction is further confirmed in a passage in the Talmud --- in Rosh Hashanah 31b --- which will be discussed later.) Then within a generation, the Romans came and destroyed the Temple and the entire city of Jerusalem and sent the Jews into exile, fulfilling the verse "a people with their leader that shall come, shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be waste, and after the end of the war the appointed desolation".

Regarding the passage cited in the Talmud in Rosh Hashanah 31b, I will post later; briefly, this passage recounts of "the miracle of the scarlet thread" in which the scarlet thread would miraculously turn white as the sign that God had accepted the High Priest's sacrifice; but at the moment of Christ's cruxifiction, the thread failed to turn white and hence thereafter. The fact that it ceased to occur about A.D. 30 is also recounted in Yoma 39b.

cnorman18

Post #38

Post by cnorman18 »

With all due respect to the beliefs of others; this is yet another example of a non-Jew (in this case an ex-Jew, but that is irrelevant) dictating what Jews do or should believe. Jews have no obligation to respond, to disprove, or even to think about it. Nevertheless, I shall post a few words, but with no intention of getting into extended debate on the matter.

"Salvation" in the Christian sense -- that is, of individually being "saved" from Hell and going to Heaven -- is not a Jewish concept. "Salvation" in the Hebrew Bible refers to actual salvation from danger in the real world, not in some future world; and "redemption" refers to the redemption and repair, again, of THIS world, not of individual redemption in some hypothetical "next world." Peace to Joe Schoeman, but I have no interest whatever in his Catholic perspective, nor in his Catholicized ideas about the meaning and beliefs of Judaism. He has left our community and no longer practices the Jewish religion; his opinion is not of interest to us, and I think I can speak for all Jews on that subject.

The Temple is still a concern for some Orthodox and otherwise old-school Jews, but most modern Jews have little interest in the building of a third Temple and the reintroduction of the Temple hereditary priesthood and of sacrifices. We have long since moved beyond the need for such things; the Torah is our "portable Temple," and we are taught by learned laymen, or "rabbis," and not by hereditary priests. Judaism is today characterized by study and learning, and not by ritual; indeed the "ritual" of today consists largely of reading from the Torah, and indeed reading aloud the passages about the actual rituals of the past. We have had no need to go farther for two thousand years. As my own rabbi once put it, "Who wants a holy slaughterhouse in the middle of downtown Jerusalem?"

Further, a much more practical problem involved in building a third Temple is the necessary and unavoidable demolition of two (2) Muslim sacred sites, the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which now occupy the site of the ancient Temple. Whatever ritual daydreams some Jews might have regarding a third Temple aren't worth fulfilling at the cost of precipitating worldwide outrage on the part of even moderate Muslims and the immense bloodshed of the no doubt catastrophic war which would ensue.

Very many modern Jews regard the idea of a third Temple as more than a little silly; and the idea that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah is simply out of court, for reasons which have been posted here many times. We haven't thought that worth debating for a couple of millennia, either.

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9133
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #39

Post by bluethread »

cnorman18 wrote:
Further, a much more practical problem involved in building a third Temple is the necessary and unavoidable demolition of two (2) Muslim sacred sites, the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which now occupy the site of the ancient Temple. Whatever ritual daydreams some Jews might have regarding a third Temple aren't worth fulfilling at the cost of precipitating worldwide outrage on the part of even moderate Muslims and the immense bloodshed of the no doubt catastrophic war which would ensue.
I respect your assessment of current judaism. I do find it concerning that you seem to be unconcerned about bowing to the Muslim practice of destruction and replacement. Do you not find it offensive that Muslims make a point of building Mosques over the holy sites of other religions?

User avatar
Tex
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1944
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:25 am
Location: canada

Post #40

Post by Tex »

If we all waited for the Jews, that didn't believe in the Lord to pick their Messiah....WE would all still be worshiping the sun today.

Post Reply