Why did the Jews reject their Messiah when he DID come?

[Desert Snake]

Monotheism is to accept there is only One Source to all; the 'Fake Jews' have made Yahavah Elohim (which is a plural word to begin) into the head of the Divine Council, and an image of the Godhead (as it appears in form in the Bible)...

When El Elyon is beyond form, has no image, and has never interacted with mankind directly.

In my opinion.

Thats questionable if its even theism.

 

[JJ50]

Thats called a mystery g-d.

Why miss out the 'o' in the word 'god'?

 

[Desert Snake]

then read many of the world's religious texts which confirm it...

What? 'Other religions',
You need to present them, to make a claim.

References to these other religions.


Revelation 11:15-19

 

[stvdv]

Did they not recognize Him as earlier prophesied in the OT?

Christians consider Him as Lord, Jesus Christ.

Maybe the Jews will finally get it on His second coming?

IF Jesus was the Messias and the Jews rejected Him that would prove they were blind (no spiritual eye opened)

IF Jesus was not the Messias then the Jews had it right

Either way this proves that there are many blind people (Christians or Jews) running around, claiming they know best. Many ignorant and arrogant people.

 

[rosends]

I'm not asking this for instruction. I'm asking on behalf of your own statement not being a fiat ("Because I said so") statement.

But it isn’t “because I said so”. It is because I am Jewish and understand Jewish concepts. You created a hypothetical which runs contrary to basic Jewish thought. You have proven that. There is no burden of proof for me to teach you what Judaism says and does and why you are wrong because my point was simply that your words speak for themselves.

If I said to you “here’s a hypothetical – 2+2 equals cow” you have the right to say “this shows you don’t understand how math works.” There is no burden on you then to teach math. Anyone who is annoyed that you don’t teach me math and therefore assumes your point is “right” (though there is no point to your claim – it was a flawed hypothetical) can feel free to be equally as ignorant. I am dismissing your hypothetical automatically.

Or try "imagine what Christianity would be like if Jesus never existed" -- that is an impossible hypothetical. Does it need to be explained why?

Well, I admit it is hilarious. But you can learn a great deal about a culture's mentality from an accurate portrayal of the group of people involved. Or have the Japanese people never committed seppuku? While, yes there are inaccurate stereotypes, some cultural myths come from somewhere. Where does this come from?

So you are content learning about Japanese culture from the fact that some people have killed themselves in certain contexts. Nice generalizing. Some Jews have, worn vests. Therefore we can learn the Judaism requires vests? Feel free to learn about Judaism from a play or a movie. Then I’ll learn all about dogs from Benji or Rolf on the Muppet show. Dogs talk, right?

Well, we have kosher law that separates milk from meat,

IIRC you said “They build walls to split their cities into sacred and profane” so now talking about different categories of food is shifting the goal posts.

blood in all cases from the flesh of an animal, animals into categories of cloven or uncloven, cud-chewing and un(?)cud-chewing, shellfish and other fish, prey birds and stuff like chicken, and so on. There are rules about mixing fabrics. There are rules about how you can associate with Gentiles. There are rules about people you can touch (such as not touching the sick or lepers). Let's watch the scene.

So nothing about walls and sacred and profane. The fact that there are rules for food and interpersonal contact (in Judaism, I can touch a non-Jewish man much more readily than a Jewish woman) has nothing to do with what you claimed. If you want to shift again and discuss intermarriage, that’s separate (and nothing to do with sacred and profane). You really should start by accepting your ignorance and asking respectful questions instead of citing movies as your proof.

it gives very clear insight into the mentality of a Jew, as does their reaction when Jesus is talking about how a prophet is not welcome in his own land, and talks about how only a Syrian was healed.

Well, it does reinforce those looking to criticize and hate ("the mentality of a Jew" wonderful). Of course, people who choose to learn have a different reaction.

There are about ten or so walls in Jerusalem.

Every house has a wall, too. What does this have to do with sacred and profane? And Montreal has walls also. And what about Wall Street? And there are no walls past which only rabbis and priests can go. You conflate a whole lot.

There are symbolic walls around kosher diet and meat/milk, from separate dishes to each separate fridges

Separate fridges? No, not really. At least not for most of the year. And, my clothes which make me not naked are a symbolic wall also, right? What about my car? If anything is symbolic then everything can be symbolic. People in general have walls around everything they do. By writing in English you are erecting a wall against non-English readers. Wall builder!

Moses beat one of the overseers to death, if memory serves me.

Ah, so killing a man who is beating another is murder. Got it.

Psalm 118:22-24, the same thing Jesus quotes about the cornerstone. We have a preconceived notion, all of us, about what something we idealize should look like. When it doesn't fit some of our standards, we decide it must not be so.

No, that’s your interpretation of the verse. You start outside of Judaism and you wonder why I point out that you end outside of Judaism.

The Messiah on the other hand, is whoever God chose,

And God was clear about who that would be. Not Jesus.

and rejecting him on the basis that he's an outsider is not a good choice.

It is actually the best choice.

The test of the annointed or chosen of God, is that God (not us) chooses him. That he fulfills the prophecies.

And those two things go hand in hand. When they don’t, expect rejection.

 

[shunyadragon]

Christians, Jews, Muslims all accept these prophecies, that Armageddon will happen with a big war between Muslims and Jews; then we have Baha'i not dealing with the texts, and just making up their own ideas as it sounds a nice alternative.

Actually NO, only Some Christians, maybe some Muslims, believe that there will be an 'Armageddon with a big war between Muslims and Jews' You would have to cite some source to document this assertion.

If we also read the letter from Albert Pike wrote to Giuseppe Mazzini in 1871, it isn't speculation to say these wars have been predicted, and orchestrated.

Highly biased unreliable source.

Like have you read the Quran?

It explains they've corrupted the texts, as they were put under the Curse of Moses, and because their leaders lied so much, the modern day 'Fake Jews' have very little clue that they're responsible for much of their own confusion.

Need references and exact quotes from the Quran, though I believe the scriptures of ancient religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam have been corrupted by interpretation, and human editing of scriptures.

So when you say to me, "they don't agree", of course they don't; it was prophesied by every prophet they'd be facing backwards to the things of God (Deuteronomy 31:24-29).

In my opinion.

Again good thing you express this as your opinion, because that is all it represents.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not sure what this is supposed to mean.

Simply, it is the Jews scripture in their language, and from the perspective of the Jews they are closer to the source. Actually, many of the prophecies are subjective and open to interpretation to justify one belief system over another..

Despite my religious beliefs, I take a neutral stance on the claims of one religion against another, as in Judaism versus Christianity, and I believe the Claims of all ancient religions as each claims to 'know' the true interpretation of the scriptures are questionable at best, because of the documented facts that the scriptures are edited, redacted and compiled by humans over the millennia with significant human influence, and mostly completely lack provenance of original authorship. There are absolutely no documented originals of the texts with provenance of authorship. In fact Genesis, and parts of the Pentateuch contain older mythologies of older cultures, and later compiled by Hebrew scholars melding them with Hebrew culture and beliefs about 1000-700 BCE.

Actually, from the contemporary perspective, and the evidence, all ancient religions are questionable as to their claims as having uniquely revealed Revelation from God over other religions and their claims. As stand alone unique religions with true claims, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all unfounded claims based on the evidence.

 

[PruePhillip]

Simply, it is the Jews scripture in their language, and from the perspective of the Jews they are closer to the source. Actually, many of the prophecies are subjective and open to interpretation,

So, in other words, Jews and Judaism is closer to God than Christianity.
Given their exile and suffering under the heel of the Gentile for two
millennium - should we draw any inference from this, or is the Jewish
suffering just a coincidence?

 

[PruePhillip]

It's boilerplate because we have to keep repeating the explicit. Imagine you're running and people keep telling you, "there's a wall in front of you". Your response, "Such a typical remark". Would you rather people not told you about the wall you're about to run into?



That is not at all what happens in Isaiah 52. Israel is referred to as both masculine and feminine, in the singular and plural throughout the chapter.
In verses 1-2 Israel is metaphorically referred to as Zion, in the feminine singular.
In verse 3, Israel is referred to in the masculine plural.
In verses 4-6 Israel is referred to in the masculine singular.
In verses 7-10 Israel again is referred to in the feminine singular and feminine plural.
In verses 11-12 Israel is referred to in the masculine plural (and possibly in the feminine plural)
In verses 13-15 Israel is referred to in the masculine singular.

I never noticed it before, but you actually see a pattern there of feminine -> masculine plural -> masculine singular repeated twice.

In any case, once you realize that, you'll also see that your interpretation of Isa. 53 is also off.

So Isaiah is telling us the Jews, as a perfect people, give their lives to redeem the Gentiles?
Do those who die in suffering (such as during the Crusades, the pogroms and the Holocaust)
look down upon the living and feel satisfied that their deaths have atoned for the sins of mankind?

 

[PruePhillip]

Simply, it is the Jews scripture in their language, and from the perspective of the Jews they are closer to the source. Actually, many of the prophecies are subjective and open to interpretation.

Despite my religious beliefs, I take a neutral stance on the claims of one religion against another, as in Judaism versus Christianity, and I believe the Claims of all ancient religions as each claims to 'know' the true interpretation of the scriptures are questionable at best, because of the documented facts that the scriptures are edited, redacted and compiled by humans over the millennia with significant human influence, and mostly completely lack provenance of original authorship. There are absolutely not documented originals of the texts with provenance of authorship. In fact Genesis, and parts of the Pentateuch contain older mythologies of older cultures, and later compiled by Hebrew scholars melding them with Hebrew culture and beliefs about 1000-700 BCE.

You come across as one who might as well be atheist. You are saying that the Gospels
are suspect, if not fraudulent. You are also saying that Jesus was not the Son of God.
Jesus was a narrow minded man who presented a very narrow way of living. He had
no tolerance for the religions of this world.
We do have original authorship of Jesus - and not Wikipedia styled opinions on this
matter.
Paul wrote of Jesus and the resurrection less than 20 years after Jesus' crucifixion.
Luke wrote the Acts, indeed, never finished it, before AD66.
Luke would have written the Gospel of Luke some time before this.
Did Luke quote other Gospels? Not sure, if so then these were extant when he wrote
his own account.
John's Gospel was probably written as it happened.

 

[rosends]

Nice try. There's many Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh, but only two actually use the word for Messiah. If memory serves me that's Psalm 2 and Daniel chapter 9, but that's from memory...

You have a couple of errors here. The first is that there are only two messianic prophecies that use the word for messiah (check out the Abarbenel to 2 Sam 23:1 and also the Rashi to Dan 9:25, in which he makes the case that this text is not about a future messiah). The second is assuming that sections that have a future messianic element don't, primarily, have a non-messianic meaning. Psalm 2 is a fine example of that. Starting with verse one, the text is about David. It is later also applied to the messiah (though not as a prophecy, per se). In fact, it is the use of the word "m'shicho" that clues us in to the fact that it refers to David. The same holds true for Psalm 18 -- it is literally about David, but continues to apply to a future messiah.

So, according to your logic and argument, that cancels out a major percentage of your Messiah prophecies, since there's no explicit mention of the Messiah in them.. That's assuming you're one who values Old Testament Messianic prophecies also.

No, just because I point out how your one example isn't messianic and doesn't mention the messiah doesn't mean that all prophecies have to mention the messiah by name. Your conclusion is flawed.

That's like the skeptic who challenged me to show him where the Tanakh mentions two advents of the Messiah (which is doable). So I countered back and asked him to show me where it mentions just one advent. Crickets...

Hope that clarifies things for you.

I'm not sure how you clarified anything. I showed you how the quote you gave to bolster your point does nothing of the sort and you try to equate it to some other case with a skeptic? The totally separate question of one or two messiahs in the text is fruitless as your understanding of the text is limited and your understanding of the eschatalogical approach of Judaism are skewed.

 

[rosends]

There were and are TWO profiles of the Messiah in Judaism and Christianity.

In my almost forty years of Biblical studies, speaking with and debating Jews and skeptics, and researching the concept of the Jewish Messiah, one thing became crystal clear: the Jewish people were expecting “Messiah ben David” and not the “Suffering Messiah,” aka Messiah ben Joseph. But Messiah ben Joseph - the Suffering Servant - showed up first. Surprise!

In Judaism, and also in Christianity, “Messiah ben David” is the conquering king, much like King David in the Jewish Tanakh / Old Testament. It is believed in Judaism that Messiah ben David will conquer the enemies of the Jewish people, build the “Third (Jewish) Temple,” and usher in a thousand-year Messianic kingdom.

Messiah ben Joseph is described as the “Suffering Servant” (note Isaiah chapter 53) who atones for the sins of his people. He appears on the stage in Israel, will be rejected by his people, and dies in the war against evil. Following that the world is filled with calamities and war until Messiah ben David – the Conquering King – appears and sets everything right.

Judaism has never been able to reconcile the two faces of the Messiahs. Christianity does. Jesus came the first time as Messiah ben Joseph, the 'Suffering Servant," and will come again as 'Messiah ben David,' the "Conquering King".

You do know that in Judaism, if the MB"Y actually shows up (it isn't clear if he will at all) he is SUPPOSED to show up first, right? So saying that the people were expecting Ben David and "surprise" the Ben Yosef showed up first makes no sense. Of COURSE he would have showed up first. That's the whole point.

 

[sooda]

Did they not recognize Him as earlier prophesied in the OT?

Christians consider Him as Lord, Jesus Christ.

Maybe the Jews will finally get it on His second coming?

Jesus didn't fulfill the prophecy.. They expected an anointed warrior king who wou

Why miss out the 'o' in the word 'god'?

Hebrew had no vowels.

 

[shunyadragon]

You come across as one who might as well be atheist. You are saying that the Gospels
are suspect, if not fraudulent. You are also saying that Jesus was not the Son of God.
Jesus was a narrow minded man who presented a very narrow way of living. He had
no tolerance for the religions of this world.

Made no such claims as above. Please cite my post as I wrote them. Bitter acrid rhetoric is not contributing to a constructive dialogue. Most of what I describe concerning the NT is based on factual evidence.

We do have original authorship of Jesus - and not Wikipedia styled opinions on this
matter.

Sarcasm gets you nowhere. We have nothing in terms of original authorship even close to the life of Jesus. Please cite specifics if you believe this is so. All apologist arguments are based on internal circular arguments based on th scriptures alone, and not outside evidence.

Paul wrote of Jesus and the resurrection less than 20 years after Jesus' crucifixion.

True, but even Paul's letters are not all attributed to Paul, and Paul does not remotely a first hand witness of the life of Jesus.

Luke wrote the Acts, indeed, never finished it, before AD66.
Luke would have written the Gospel of Luke some time before this.
Did Luke quote other Gospels? Not sure, if so then these were extant when he wrote
his own account.
John's Gospel was probably written as it happened.

Speculation. there is absolutely no objective evidence of this. The only gospel fragments are 2nd century.. No such provenance of authorship of the gospels exists.

By the way the prophecy as literally cited describes a warrior king that will bring an army to free the Jews from Roman domination. This is what many of the rebel messianic movements around the time of Jesus claimed. Jesus was actually convicted and crucified (which is the penalty for rebellion against Rome) for inciting rebellion against Rome, and claiming to be the King of the Jews.

 

[Tumah]

So Isaiah is telling us the Jews, as a perfect people, give their lives to redeem the Gentiles?
Do those who die in suffering (such as during the Crusades, the pogroms and the Holocaust)
look down upon the living and feel satisfied that their deaths have atoned for the sins of mankind?

No. Again, if you go back and read it in context, you will see that this is what the Gentile leaders are saying about how they treated the Jewish nation.
It doesn't say anything about the Jews being perfect - that's just you hearing the word "lamb" and thinking "perfect lamb of Jesus". But that's symbolism you're adding to the verse. The verse uses the lamb as a metaphor for docility.
It doesn't say anything about the Jewish people giving their lives to redeem the Gentiles either - that's you again reinterpreting verses to fit the idea of Jesus dying for your sins.
The verses you are thinking of are again, what these Gentile leaders perceive of their treatment of the Jewish people. Now that the Messianic Age has come and the Jewish nation has been vindicated, they've opened up to a new perspective on the Jewish people that they never had before as 52:15 tells us. They look back at how they've treated the Jews as the evil that needs to be purged and they think, "We were in the wrong. We were in the wrong and they suffered because of our mistake. We thought we would find peace when they were gone so we beat them. And we were totally off. And G-d made these people carry our sins. He didn't immediately kill us or remove them from among us. He made them suffer under us. And they bore it. We killed them in the black plague. We killed them with Inquisitions. We killed them with blood libels. We killed them with pogroms. And they quietly bore it all. We judged them for death and buried them with the wicked, though they had done nothing to us." That's the first half of Isa. 53.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

But it isn’t “because I said so”. It is because I am Jewish and understand Jewish concepts. You created a hypothetical which runs contrary to basic Jewish thought. You have proven that. There is no burden of proof for me to teach you what Judaism says and does and why you are wrong because my point was simply that your words speak for themselves.

If I said to you “here’s a hypothetical – 2+2 equals cow” you have the right to say “this shows you don’t understand how math works.” There is no burden on you then to teach math. Anyone who is annoyed that you don’t teach me math and therefore assumes your point is “right” (though there is no point to your claim – it was a flawed hypothetical) can feel free to be equally as ignorant. I am dismissing your hypothetical automatically.

Or try "imagine what Christianity would be like if Jesus never existed" -- that is an impossible hypothetical. Does it need to be explained why?



So you are content learning about Japanese culture from the fact that some people have killed themselves in certain contexts. Nice generalizing. Some Jews have, worn vests. Therefore we can learn the Judaism requires vests? Feel free to learn about Judaism from a play or a movie. Then I’ll learn all about dogs from Benji or Rolf on the Muppet show. Dogs talk, right?




IIRC you said “They build walls to split their cities into sacred and profane” so now talking about different categories of food is shifting the goal posts.



So nothing about walls and sacred and profane. The fact that there are rules for food and interpersonal contact (in Judaism, I can touch a non-Jewish man much more readily than a Jewish woman) has nothing to do with what you claimed. If you want to shift again and discuss intermarriage, that’s separate (and nothing to do with sacred and profane). You really should start by accepting your ignorance and asking respectful questions instead of citing movies as your proof.



Well, it does reinforce those looking to criticize and hate ("the mentality of a Jew" wonderful). Of course, people who choose to learn have a different reaction.



Every house has a wall, too. What does this have to do with sacred and profane? And Montreal has walls also. And what about Wall Street? And there are no walls past which only rabbis and priests can go. You conflate a whole lot.


Separate fridges? No, not really. At least not for most of the year. And, my clothes which make me not naked are a symbolic wall also, right? What about my car? If anything is symbolic then everything can be symbolic. People in general have walls around everything they do. By writing in English you are erecting a wall against non-English readers. Wall builder!




Ah, so killing a man who is beating another is murder. Got it.




No, that’s your interpretation of the verse. You start outside of Judaism and you wonder why I point out that you end outside of Judaism.



And God was clear about who that would be. Not Jesus.



It is actually the best choice.



And those two things go hand in hand. When they don’t, expect rejection.

Hey just a heads up, when I quote stuff you pick at quote by quote like this it winds up looking like this. Riddled with comments that I can't easily respond to without copying and pasting. Generally, I have a better attitude toward ppl when they view my posts as one long thread rather than nitpicking individual points.

You say it's because you're a Jew and you understand Jewish concepts, and I feel like I'm in a doctor's office and they're trying to treat me like a kid by using words in hopes that I don't understand Latin roots. Only I kinda do, and the fact that someone is like "you'd never understand" is frankly insulting. Christians came from Judaism actually, and I've studied many (though not all) of the laws.
I've also studied psychology, and can piece together what a culture is like from the rules they make, so no, I'm agraid (dammit Kindle) this "only Jews can understand" won't cut it. The Jewish culture repeatedly was invaded by outsiders so they began to see mixing with other cultures and worshipping their gods as sin, as they fell as a country whenever they let foreign interests run their lives. They are currently doing it again, btw, with Palestine. On the other hand, Jewish culture became centered around these "walls" (kosher refusal to mix anything) so to speak to such an extent that they often lost sight of justice. By the time of Jesus's ministry, they had basically pushed away most of their prophets who declared a change from these traditions and Judaism realy was stuck in the mud. They valued Sabbath, but forgot that there was a rule that if one's horse or ox was suffering that day, it was your job to try to save its life. Jesus healed during the Sabbath, yet had to quote again and again why to do so. They had become rules lawyers, losing touch of why the law mattered in the first place. But no, I don't know anything about Judaism! ;p

And Montreal does have alot of walls. But they are not centered progressively around a single building. The Jewish culture layers walls based on levels of clearance, almost like a FBI building and its keycards. You can tell about the culture by how it treats common objects. Montreal I don't think I've been to, but I'm pretty sure they don't have a huge curtain obscuring sight of a room, as it was in Jesus's time. These things matter, and the fact that you don't seem to understand what I'm getting at, means you understand this mindset less even than I do. Why did the Christian account of Jesus's death include the curtain being ripped? Why do you think this was important? I can answer if you can't!

 

[Phaedrus]

But no, I don't know anything about Judaism! ;p

I agree.

 

[Spartan]

The total number is the total number of people who authored the NT. That's...not very much at all.

It's more than you have to the contrary. Plus, there's over forty individuals who have written about Jesus within 150 years of his life.

So you're saying, the Jewish people are wrong even though they can't rationally be proven to be wrong, just because we have a history of sometimes doing the wrong thing.
That's an interesting argument, but not a very convincing one, I'm afraid.

There's plenty of Jews who have received Christ as their Messiah and their Savior. Messianic Jews. And it all started in Jerusalem - not by gentiles but by Jews.

Not that I expected better from you, but still.

The Resurrection, Tumah. It's the crux of Christianity. If you can bust that, you win and I convert to Judaism.

Would God raise an impostor from the dead, if Jesus were not who he claimed to be? Has he ever resurrected an impostor? No. I've studied that resurrection for forty years from every angle I can, and I can't falsify it. And unless you can, you can't beat Christianity. You're welcome to try now, though.

 

[rosends]

Hey just a heads up, when I quote stuff you pick at quote by quote like this it winds up looking like this. Riddled with comments that I can't easily respond to without copying and pasting. Generally, I have a better attitude toward ppl when they view my posts as one long thread rather than nitpicking individual points.

And I have trouble when people quote an entire post and inject, in blue italics, their responses. Go figure.

You say it's because you're a Jew and you understand Jewish concepts, and I feel like I'm in a doctor's office and they're trying to treat me like a kid by using words in hopes that I don't understand Latin roots. Only I kinda do, and the fact that someone is like "you'd never understand" is frankly insulting. Christians came from Judaism actually, and I've studied many (though not all) of the laws.

No, it is like when you are in the doctor's office telling him that because you know a little Latin you can explain to him why his methods and diagnoses are wrong. He looks and says "you have no idea what you are talking about" and you say "don't insult me -- I studied a little medicine." That you insist that you, who use Fiddler as your source for knowledge of Judaism and Jewish culture, can say things contrary to what Judaism actually is and teaches is insulting.

I didn't say "you'd never understand" just "you have shown that you don't understand."

I've also studied psychology, and can piece together what a culture is like from the rules they make,

Well, that's also anthropolgy and sociology, and I studied all three and I still wouldn't piece together what a culture is like from simple observation (all the moreso if the observation is pop culture based).

so no, I'm agraid (dammit Kindle) this "only Jews can understand" won't cut it.

Good, since I never said that. Plenty of non-Jews understand. You can tell because they don't post what you did.

The Jewish culture repeatedly was invaded by outsiders so they began to see mixing with other cultures and worshipping their gods as sin,

What? Rules against idolatry came as a response to invasions? Your timeline is off. If you believe in the biblical text, the rules against idolatry were foundational from the moment the Jewish culture was created, before there were any invasions.

as they fell as a country whenever they let foreign interests run their lives. They are currently doing it again, btw, with Palestine.

That must explain chorban bayit sheini. Thanks. Of course, trying to connect it with the current political situation is silly, but you just go with what you think you know.

On the other hand, Jewish culture became centered around these "walls" (kosher refusal to mix anything) so to speak to such an extent that they often lost sight of justice.

Not only isn't this on any other hand, but it isn't an issue of "became" as food rules and other rules weren't developmentally added, nor do they have any negative impact on justice.

By the time of Jesus's ministry, they had basically pushed away most of their prophets who declared a change from these traditions and Judaism realy was stuck in the mud.

Sure, if you give any credence to the gospels. I don't.

They valued Sabbath, but forgot that there was a rule that if one's horse or ox was suffering that day, it was your job to try to save its life.

Can you show me that rule? Hint -- start in the talmud, you know, the rules that Jesus lived by (Mas. Shabbat 128b) and then consider that if the rule is in the Talmud, it would have been what the Jews knew and taught, not what they forgot. Maybe they know the rules better than you and were following the rules. Maybe the gospel writer didn't know the rules.

Jesus healed during the Sabbath, yet had to quote again and again why to do so. They had become rules lawyers, losing touch of why the law mattered in the first place. But no, I don't know anything about Judaism! ;p

No, you clearly don't. The fact that you mistake random healing for the Jewish concept which is actually totally allowed on the Sabbath shows that you don't know the laws.

 

[Spartan]

You do know that in Judaism, if the MB"Y actually shows up (it isn't clear if he will at all) he is SUPPOSED to show up first, right? So saying that the people were expecting Ben David and "surprise" the Ben Yosef showed up first makes no sense. Of COURSE he would have showed up first. That's the whole point.

The Messiah ben Joseph suffers and dies, rosends. So how can he be Messiah ben David also in the same lifetime? Judaism has claimed they are two different individuals.