Jesus: The Misunderstood Messiah

[Sundance]

Amusingly enough, you echo what I
pointed out.

Not what he actually said but what they
wanted him to have said.

Written down 70 years later!

Without introducing magic to explain it,
there's no way to claim accuracy.

Yet its presented as verbatim!

Without going into this particular discussion, I’m going to say, the Apostolic Writings are what we have available regarding the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Kenny]

Because I’m addressing a claiming that Jewish people make. People in non-Jewish religions, usually speaking, don’t care about any Messiah. It doesn’t apply to them.

As a Gentile, I do care about the Messiah. I just don't see any difference between the two. There is a reason why not all Gentiles believe Jesus is the Messiah as well as Jewish people and yet you will find both categories have those who believe.

On the issue, however, if I am not mistaken - the Jewish people who don't believe simply are waiting for the reigning Messiah and not a Messiah who suffered.

Not-Jewish people simply don't care, have their own religion that satisfies their thirst or simply don't believe in a God.

 

[Sundance]

Except the Jews' conception came first. Jesus didn't invent the concept of the Messiah. He redefined it. Even the Gospels admit this. Jesus' own disciples thought the Messiah would do xyz, which Jesus didn't.

So it's Jesus (or more accurately, Christians) who superimposed a novel understanding of the Messiah onto the existing concept.

There was no one existing conception of the Messiah, LC. Though, you can say that His understanding of the concept was idiosyncratic.

 

[Kenny]

Except the Jews' conception came first. Jesus didn't invent the concept of the Messiah. He redefined it. Even the Gospels admit this. Jesus' own disciples thought the Messiah would do xyz, which Jesus didn't.

So it's Jesus (or more accurately, Christians) who superimposed a novel understanding of the Messiah onto the existing concept.

No... I wouldn't come to that conclusion since Jesus specifically wasn't redefining but rather clarifying. The TaNaKh is full of examples of when the Jewish nation was believing the wrong things and had to come back to original intent.

 

[Sundance]

Except the Jews' conception came first. Jesus didn't invent the concept of the Messiah. He redefined it. Even the Gospels admit this. Jesus' own disciples thought the Messiah would do xyz, which Jesus didn't.

So it's Jesus (or more accurately, Christians) who superimposed a novel understanding of the Messiah onto the existing concept.

Again, they didn’t understand what He was ACTUALLY talking about.

 

[Audie]

Without going into this particular discussion, I’m going to say, the Apostolic Writings are what we have available regarding the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

I know that. And I understand its indiscreet to
inquire closely.

 

[Sundance]

Ha. Again, echoing what I said.
Are you immune to the vice you decry?

No, I’m not, but I suppose I may have to plead the Fifth here.

 

[Left Coast]

There was no one existing conception of the Messiah, LC.

The fact that Christians posit a second coming wherein they believe Jesus will meet all the Messiamic prophecies he hasn't yet, indicates that in fact they did know of, and endorse, a prior conception of the Messiah. They altered that conception to argue that Jesus could fulfill the requirements on a second trip to Earth.

 

[Audie]

No, I’m not, but I suppose I may have to plead the Fifth here.

Better still, think it over.

The actual topic here is not Jesus, as who /
what he was is forever inaccessible, but
the assumed infallibility of those who
project their hopes and expectations onto
an essentially blank screen.

 

[Left Coast]

No... I wouldn't come to that conclusion since Jesus specifically wasn't redefining but rather clarifying. The TaNaKh is full of examples of when the Jewish nation was believing the wrong things and had to come back to original intent.

This is semantics. The Messiah was supposed to do xyz. Jesus didn't. The Christian rationalization is that he'll do them in a second round, since he didn't the first time. No conception of the Messiah predating Jesus interpreted the Tanakh to say the Messiah would first die without completing the Messianic prophecies, but then come back to Earth later and finish them a second time. That's a change.

And none of this is "slander" of Jesus. That was my original point here.

 

[Sundance]

The fact that Christians posit a second coming wherein they believe Jesus will meet all the Messiamic prophecies he hasn't yet, indicates that in fact they did know of, and endorse, a prior conception of the Messiah. They altered that conception to argue that Jesus could fulfill the requirements on a second trip to Earth.

Again, that comes from their own expectation that He was (because Jews back then were hoping for a warrior-like king who would redeem them from oppression), not anything that Jesus Himself is recorded as having said.

 

[Left Coast]

Again, that comes from their own expectation that He was (because Jews back then were hoping for a warrior-like king who would redeem them from oppression), not anything that Jesus Himself is recorded as having said.

Yes, I understand it's their own conception. Jesus/his followers created their own conception which Jews don't buy. Thus they don't think he's the Messiah.

None of that is "slander" of Jesus.

 

[Colt]

In examining the criticisms made by religious Jews regarding Jesus as a false messiah, I’m honestly not convinced. Why? Simple: a disconnection of terminology. A divergence in understanding.

Regarding the word “messiah”, typically speaking, (from my understanding) the word was used in the Tanakh to describe an anointed king. During the Second Temple period, the concept of “The Messiah” as a distinct figure began to emerge. Past an anointed king, there wasn’t one particular conception of who this figure was or what He was to do.

After the Romans came to power, certain Jewish people began looking for a person to topple the oppressive political structures and restore Jewish sovereignty. Many individuals came up, claiming to be this person. One by one, all had failed.

Then, Jesus of Nazareth came. He was different. He never claimed to be the person who will take down Roman oppression or restore the sovereignty of His people to their land. Rather, He claimed that His Mission was to save His People (and indeed, all people) from the penalty for their sins. He was not claiming to be an earthly king, but rather, the ruler of people’s hearts. This is what He meant by His Claim to be the Messiah, even alluding to Isaiah chapter 61 to inaugurate His Ministry.


This reality begs the question: why have Jewish people slandered Jesus of Nazareth as a false messiah, when the New Testament never records Him as making claims to do any of what THEY say the Messiah is supposed to do? Do they understand what HE actually meant?

In my eyes, He’s not false, just misunderstood. Religious Jews say certain things about the Messiah, but Jesus was talking about something else.

(Addendum: Religious Jews have also made the claim that Jesus was not observant of the commandments and taught His Followers to do the same. This is false. He was observant, and actually told His Followers time and again, “Keep the commandments.” “Obey the commandments.” “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.”)

Good points, the concept of a strictly Jewish Messiah and a material-Israel "kingdom" as it evolved in Judaism left the Jews with rigid false expectations of the person of the Son of God who was coming. The problem wasn't Jesus, the problem was an inflexible nationalist/religious doctrine that still persists today among Israelites.

Jesus didn't publicly proclaim to be the "Jewish Messiah", he called himself "the son of man". But he did meet the Jews half way buy building his ministry on the conflicted expectations.

Further, in the Original, pre-cross (good news) Gospel, Jesus never taught the penalty of sins theory, he taught salvation by faith in the Father.

 

[Kenny]

This is semantics. The Messiah was supposed to do xyz. Jesus didn't. The Christian rationalization is that he'll do them in a second round, since he didn't the first time. No conception of the Messiah predating Jesus interpreted the Tanakh to say the Messiah would first die without completing the Messianic prophecies, but then come back to Earth later and finish them a second time. That's a change.

And none of this is "slander" of Jesus. That was my original point here.

Not as Christians (Jew or Gentile) understand it. It was first to redeem and then second to rule. Both agree on the latter of the two.

And I agree.... nothing is "slander". I didn't like the tone of the OP.

 

[Sundance]

As a Gentile, I do care about the Messiah. I just don't see any difference between the two. There is a reason why not all Gentiles believe Jesus is the Messiah as well as Jewish people and yet you will find both categories have those who believe.

On the issue, however, if I am not mistaken - the Jewish people who don't believe simply are waiting for the reigning Messiah and not a Messiah who suffered.

Not-Jewish people simply don't care, have their own religion that satisfies their thirst or simply don't believe in a God.

Indeed, dear Ken. All of what you speak is true.

 

[Audie]

Indeed, dear Ken. All of what you speak is true.

Until he mentions slander and the tone of the op.

 

[Sundance]

Until he mentions slander and the tone of the op.

Indeed, Audie. I do admit, there tends to be a rather fiery tone in my style of debate. However, I do maintain that the claim that Jesus is a “false Messiah” implies that Jesus is lying about something, as the word false itself does. To accuse someone of lying, especially when there isn’t anything that would point to them doing so, is slanderous.

 

[Brickjectivity]

This reality begs the question: why have Jewish people slandered Jesus of Nazareth as a false messiah,

Slander is a very serious charge in Judaism and seems unfair in this situation. He never announced he was the messiah, so how could they slander him? The gospels records that he hides his miracles and won't let anyone announce him. His own disciples are unsure about who he is and what his aims are. How can Jews be blamed (by you) for slandering him if there is nothing for them to slander him about?

After the Romans came to power, certain Jewish people began looking for a person to topple the oppressive political structures and restore Jewish sovereignty. Many individuals came up, claiming to be this person. One by one, all had failed.

You weren't there, obviously. It is hearsay for you.

This reality begs the question: why have Jewish people slandered Jesus of Nazareth as a false messiah,

...but they didn't. They merely didn't accept him as the messiah. There's a difference, a very important distinction. They're required to make a decision about things like this. If the high priest had said to Jesus "Give glory to God" then Jesus would have been required to testify, but this never happened. (actually its a little confusing whether he was required to testify against himself) Instead Jesus agrees with his own death sentence, and this becomes important as part of the basis of atonement. The man is condemned simply for being a human --> hence humanity is atoned when Jesus is proven innocent later...according to Hebrews and Romans. Jesus frustrates the High Priest who charges him to answer, but Jesus refuses. (Matthew 26:63) a clear choice on Jesus part, because when the high priest charges a man to tell the truth the Torah says he must reveal his guilt. Jesus answer is ambiguous. Is he the messiah or not? He doesn't say. Instead he says "You say I am."

Now who is guilty of slander?

 

[Audie]

Indeed, Audie. I do admit, there tends to be a rather fiery tone in my style of debate. However, I do maintain that the claim that Jesus is a “false Messiah” implies that Jesus is lying about something, as the word false itself does. To accuse someone of lying, especially when there isn’t anything that would point to them doing so, is slanderous.

Fiery is fine. Fiery in furtherance of foolishness,
not so much.

I dont hold back much.
I do like to see reason and evidence
though, employed in any discussion.

The "accuse of lying" thing didn't happen,
and makes no sense, as has been carefully
and meaningfully pointed out to you.

Any ongoing failure on your part to acknowledge your mistake doesn't
fit with a ressoned discussion.

It is a total side issue any way, and has
no actual bearing on the right or wrong
of your basic thesis.

As before, think it over.

 

[Sundance]

Slander is a very serious charge in Judaism and seems unfair in this situation. He never announced he was the messiah, so how could they slander him? The gospels records that he hides his miracles and won't let anyone announce him. His own disciples are unsure about who he is and what his aims are. How can Jews be blamed (by you) for slandering him if there is nothing for them to slander him about?

He didn’t have to claim it Himself. He knew it already. Peter’s confession? John’s baptism?

The uncertainty of His Disciples is factual. Yet, it segues into what my point is. Religious Jews today say Jesus is a false Messiah, a false prophet. How? Because of things He never claims about Himself?

You weren't there, obviously. It is hearsay for you.

I don’t have to be. It’s history. Already done.

...but they didn't. They merely didn't accept him as the messiah. There's a difference, a very important distinction. They're required to make a decision about things like this. If the high priest had said to Jesus "Give glory to God" then Jesus would have been required to testify, but this never happened. (actually its a little confusing whether he was required to testify against himself) Instead Jesus agrees with his own death sentence, and this becomes important as part of the basis of atonement. The man is condemned simply for being a human --> hence humanity is atoned when Jesus is proven innocent later...according to Hebrews and Romans. Jesus frustrates the High Priest who charges him to answer, but Jesus refuses. (Matthew 26:63) a clear choice on Jesus part, because when the high priest charges a man to tell the truth the Torah says he must reveal his guilt. Jesus answer is ambiguous. Is he the messiah or not? He doesn't say. Instead he says "You say I am."

Now who is guilty of slander?

They didn’t, but why? He didn’t fit THEIR conception of who the Messiah was and what He’s supposed to do. The Pharisees at the cross even taunted Him, and called Him a blasphemer. Why? Because of what they didn’t understand? Religious Jews today call Him a liar, a false messiah, a false prophet. Why? What did Jesus lie about, regarding what He Himself claimed?