If Christ wasn't the messiah, what was he?

[seekandfind]

Jesus only had a tiny group to start.

He also said most are on the path to destruction while few find the path to life.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Jesus only had a tiny group to start.

But that is not the case today. today there are approximately 2,604,381,000 christians in the world. JW's are a miniscule group within that.

 

[seekandfind]

But that is not the case today. today there are approximately 2,604,381,000 christians in the world. JW's are a miniscule group within that.

 

[seekandfind]

As Jesus said it would be.

"Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it" Mt 7-13-14

 

[IndigoChild5559]

As Jesus said it would be.

"Go in through the narrow gate, because broad is the gate and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are going in through it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are finding it" Mt 7-13-14

How does this refute the numbers I just gave you?

 

[Brian2]

It is quite ridiculous to say that Crist was the messiah when the idea is that he bring an undeniable change to the world, among them the end of death and especially wars.

With a resurrected Jesus and the Messianic age extending from 2000 years ago till Jesus returns and finishes the job, it becomes less ridiculous.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

it wasn't the point that I made, but sure. It is quite ridiculous to say that Crist was the messiah when the idea is that he bring an undeniable change to the world, among them the end of death and especially wars.

Wait... Wars have ended? This is news to me.

 

[Kenny]

if I understood you correctly, you're saying that phrase 19 and phrase 20 are two separated phrases with no connection between them, correct?
who can you call here to be an external commenter?
I didn't understand the issue with Adam.

That vs 19 isn't talkng about an adulterous woman but a snake of a man trying to entice a virgin woman. Vs 20 is a different subject.

Point is that the main Jewish point on Adam is that God created him from scratch and not by evolution.

And God created man in His image: In the form that was made for him, for everything [else] was created with a command, whereas he [man] was created with the hands (of God), as it is written (Ps. 139:5): “and You placed Your hand upon me.” Man was made with a die, like a coin, which is made by means of a die, which is called coin in Old French. And so Scripture states (Job 38:14): “The die changes like clay.” - [from Letters of Rabbi Akiva , second version; Mid. Ps. 139:5; Sanh.38a]		וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָֽאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ: בִּדְפוּס הֶעָשׂוּי לוֹ, שֶׁהַכֹּל נִבְרָא בְּמַאֲמָר וְהוּא נִבְרָא בַּיָּדַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וַתָּשֶׁת עָלַי כַּפֶּכָה (תהילים קל"ט); נַעֲשָׂה בְחוֹתָם כְּמַטְבֵּעַ הָעֲשׂוּיָה עַל יְדֵי רֹשֶׁם שֶׁקּוֹרִין קוי"ן בלע"ז וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר תִּתְהַפֵּךְ כְּחֹמֶר חוֹתָם (איוב ל"ח):
in the image of God He created him: It explains to you that the image that was prepared for him was the image of the likeness of his Creator. — [from B.B. 58a]		בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אותו: פֵּרֵשׁ לְךָ שֶׁאוֹתוֹ צֶלֶם הַמְתֻקָּן לוֹ, צֶלֶם דְּיוֹקַן יוֹצְרוֹ הוּא:
male and female He created them: Yet further (2:21) Scripture states: “And He took one of his ribs, etc.” The Midrash Aggadah (Gen. Rabbah 8:1, Ber. 61a, Eruvin 18a) explains that He originally created him with two faces, and afterwards, He divided him. The simple meaning of the verse is that here Scripture informs you that they were both created on the sixth [day], but it does not explain to you how they were created, and it explains [that] to you elsewhere. — [from Baraitha of the Thirty Two Methods , Method 13] Chapter 2: and He breathed into his nostrils: He made him of earthly matter and of heavenly matter: the body of earthly matter the soul of heavenly matter. Because on the first day, heaven and earth were created. On the second day, He created the firmament for the heavenly beings; on the third day [He commanded], “and let the dry land appear,” for the earthly beings; on the fourth day, He created luminaries for the heavenly beings; on the fifth day, [He commanded],“Let the waters swarm,” for the earthly beings; on the sixth day, it became necessary to create for both the heavenly and the earthly beings, for if not, there would be jealousy in the Creation, for these would exceed those by the creation of one day. — [from Gen. Rabbah 12:8]		זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אותם: וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר וַיִּקַּח אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו וגו' (בראשית ב')? מִדְרַשׁ אַגָּדָה שֶׁבְּרָאוֹ שְׁנֵי פַרְצוּפִים בִּבְרִיאָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ חֲלָקוֹ. וּפְשׁוּטוֹ שֶׁל מִקְרָא, כָּאן הוֹדִיעֲךָ שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם בַּשִּׁשִּׁי וְלֹא פֵי' לְךָ כֵּיצַד בְּרִיָּתָן, וּפֵרֵשׁ לְךָ בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר:

 

[Kenny]

Assuming that Adam was an actual person, which is dubious to say the least, the question should be how did God make Adam? IOW, as you know, the ToE does not in any way negate God's creative powers.

But my point is if God "Created man" as Jewish scripture and scholars suggest (not having anything to do with ToE of the rest of creation, then God can create a body in a woman too unless we limit His capacity as God.

 

[Kenny]

I didn't say that. I said that evolution exists in nature. I also said that Adam was created as a full-grown young man

OK... then God also has the capacity to create a body in a virgin.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But my point is if God "Created man" as Jewish scripture and scholars suggest (not having anything to do with ToE of the rest of creation, then God can create a body in a woman too unless we limit His capacity as God.

If God wanted to literally create a woman out of a man's rib, he can. But is that what happened? All the overwhelming evidence says no.

I have no problem with evolution being God's modus operendi.

 

[Brian2]

I find that hard to believe that the Greek translation translated העלמה as a virgin. the original Septuagint was forced upon the rabbis and was over the first 5 books - Genesis to Deuteronomy. Rabbis very disliked translating the Tanach in general and specifically the Tora. so, it is safe to assume that the Septuagint, if not made up entirely by the Romans, was an unauthorized translation.

The history of the Septuagint seems to be different when presented by a Jew. The books other than the Pentateuch are supposed to have been translated in the years following the Pentateuch translation and I hear that the Septuagint was commonly used in Jewish circles around the time of Jesus. This makes sense when we consider the Jewish Diaspora in Greek speaking areas. The Septuagint also was used by the authors of the New Testament a lot and in some cases it may have been those who translated the New Testament to Greek. Matthew is thought to have made a Hebrew or Aramaic gospel which was later translated.
BUT the Septuagint does have "virgin" at Isa 7:14.
You seem to have some Roman conspiracy happening with the New Testament. That sounds like it is beyond what any history tells us.

no, it is not. He is King Hezekiah. click here

I know the Jewish understanding of the child in Isa 9 however it cannot be denied that this could be a Messianic passage, since it does say that the child will sit on the throne of David forever. But an interpretation like that involves going beyond what the rabbis tell you and actually looking at what the passage says.

the word עלמה means a young woman. while is possible to interpret it as a virgin. it is not the plain translation. understandably there are cases in which it will refer to a non-virgin as in

Proverb 30:19 The way of an eagle in the air,​

The way of a serpent on a rock,​

The way of a ship in the midst of the sea,​

And the way of a man with a young woman.​

​

Proverb 30:20 This is the way of an adulterous woman:
She eats and wipes her mouth,
And says, “I have done no wickedness.​

(in this phrase God uses clean language to call her vagina "her mouth")

when the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 was told?
to whom was it told?
in what circumstances it was told? click here

Yes almah can mean virgin at times.
If the connection is seen between the child of Isa 7 and that of Isa 9 and if the Messiahship of the Isa 9 child is seen and the possible divinity then that would make it legitimate for almah to be a virgin and the whole thing to be in the prophetic perfect tense since after all Isa 9:7 says that the zeal of YHWH will accomplish it. It is for the future and established that it will happen.

I think that the romans needed Christ to be a god. For that, they needed to make him the messiah, by alternating the real translation of Isaiah 7:14.

Jesus was already the Messiah according to the Christians. The Romans did not need to do that. Maybe you mean that they needed Jesus to be a god. But of course His deity is established in the Christian scriptures and not anything to do with the Romans.

 

[Brian2]

How important are the 5-10% of the textual variances in the NT? Some of them are giants! Here are a few examples:

1) Is the doctrine of the Trinity found in 1 John 5:7-8? It depends on which manuscript you read.

2) Did Jesus appear to any of his followers after the resurrection in the book of Mark? It depends on which manuscript you read. None of the earliest manuscripts have any appearances. The last 12 verses of the book of Mark (16:9-20) were inserted by later scribes who were disappointed that the apostles didn’t encounter Jesus following his resurrection according to this account.

3) Was Jesus so distressed in the Garden of Gethsemane that he sweats blood? It depends on which manuscript you read. Some later scribes were concerned that Jesus showed little passion in Luke’s Passion Narrative so they inserted into the Garden prayer a scene where Jesus sweated blood. (Luke 22:43-44)

4) In the Book of Luke, did Jesus say to God that the Jews should be forgiven? Did Jesus request, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34)? It depends on which manuscript you read. Early Christians interpreted this as a prayer of forgiveness for the Jews, ignorant of what they had done. No wonder some scribes deliberately deleted the verse in the second and third centuries, when many Christians believed that Jews knew exactly what they were doing and that God had in no way forgiven them.

5) Did Jesus have an encounter with an adulterous woman and her accusers in which he told them, “Let the one without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her,” and in which he told her after all her accusers had left, “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more”? It depends on which manuscripts of John you read in chapters 7-8! The oldest manuscripts don’t have it. It was added later.

6) Did Luke understand that Jesus’ death was an atonement for sin? It depends on what you do with Luke 22:19– 20. Everywhere else in Luke and Acts, the author eliminated Mark’s references to Jesus’ death as an atonement. The only remnant of that teaching is in some manuscripts of the Lord’s Supper, where Jesus says that the bread is his body to be broken “for you” and the cup is his blood poured out “for you.” But in the earliest and best manuscripts, these words are missing (much of v. 19 and all of v. 20). Scribes have added them to make Luke’s view of Jesus’ death conform to Mark’s and Matthew’s. In other words, Luke disagreed with Mark and Matthew on one of the most important theological claims of the other gospels and Paul.

This variant questions whether Luke (whoever he was) believed that Jesus dies as a sacrifice for sin. It is not that Luke didn’t think that Jesus’ death was important. But he believed that if you think about Jesus’ death, you will repent. Thus, according to Luke, it is the repentance, NOT the sacrificial death of Jesus that atoned for sin. Meaning, without that later scribe addition, the author of Luke and Acts did not believe that Jesus died as an atoning sacrifice for your sins! Anyone would say that these variances are terrifically important for knowing what traditions about Jesus were in circulation among the early Christians.

7) After his resurrection, did Jesus tell his disciples that those who came to believe in him would be able to handle snakes and drink deadly poison without being harmed? It depends on which manuscripts of Mark you read.

8) Paul’s injunction to women to be “silent” in the churches and “subordinate” to their husbands was not originally part of 1 Corinthians 14:34– 35, but was added by later scribes intent on keeping women in their place. Is that a significant error or not?

Yes there is no doubt that changes have happened over the years either by accident or on purpose, however these things are known because of the many manuscripts and the work done to establish errors. Modern translations usually recognise what are considered to be errors. There of course are Christians who like their older translations which were made before all this work on the correct text, and so they stick to their older translations, such as those who think that the King James Version is correct.
If I may be so bold, it does seem that the Jews are a bit like this in their sticking to the Masoretic text and not recognising work that says other texts might be preferred above the Masoretic text.

 

[Brian2]

I was told here that was known because angel Gabriel said so. to whom was it told?

Yes Matthew would have known that story maybe even though it is in Luke's gospel, and so would have known that Mary had been a virgin and may have known Mary also . That Jesus is the Son of God is common in the gospels.

 

[Brian2]

Jesus was a nice Jewish man who tried to be the messiah and failed.

And He ended up with a group of followers who grew into two thirds of the world, who believed He is the Messiah, but the Jews say Jesus is anathema for a Jew and that you cannot be a Jew and believe Jesus is the Messiah.
And the Temple was destroyed and the Jews kicked out of Israel not long after the death of Jesus.

 

[Kenny]

If God wanted to literally create a woman out of a man's rib, he can. But is that what happened? All the overwhelming evidence says no.

I have no problem with evolution being God's modus operendi.

I'm not sure what evidence you have. We seem to be able to create things from stem cells.

And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall: [Gen. Rabbah 17:4] When He brought them [the animals], He brought before him of every species, male and female. He (Adam) said, “Everyone has a mate, but I have no mate.” Immediately,“And God caused to fall.”		ולאדם לא מצא עזר. וַיַּפֵּל ה' אֱלֹהִים תַּרְדֵּמָה: כְּשֶׁהֱבִיאָן הֱבִיאָן לְפָנָיו כָּל מִין וָמִין זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, אָמַר לְכֻלָּם יֵשׁ בֶּן זוּג וְלִי אֵין בֶּן זוּג, מִיָּד וַיַּפֵּל (בראשית רבה):
of his sides: Heb. מִצַּלְעֹתיו, of his sides, like (Exod. 26:20):“And for the side (וּלְצֶלַע) of the Tabernacle.” This coincides with what they [the Rabbis] said: They were created with two faces. — [from Gen. Rabbah 8:1] See also Eruvin 18a, Ber. 61a.		מצלעותיו: מִסְּטָרָיו, כְּמוֹ וּלְצֶלַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן (שמות כ"ו), זֶהוּ שֶׁאָמְרוּ שְׁנֵי פַרְצוּפִים נִבְרְאוּ (עירובין י"ז):
and He closed: the place of the incision. — [from Ber. 61a, Eruv. 18a]		ויסגור: מְקוֹם הַחֲתָךְ:
and he slept, and He took: So that he should not see the piece of flesh from which she was created, lest she be repulsive to him. — [from Sanh. 39a]

I certainly don't know exactly what God actually did.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And He ended up with a group of followers who grew into two thirds of the world, who believed He is the Messiah, but the Jews say Jesus is anathema for a Jew and that you cannot be a Jew and believe Jesus is the Messiah.
And the Temple was destroyed and the Jews kicked out of Israel not long after the death of Jesus.

You should be aware that argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument. What that means is that saying something is true simply because it is popular is completely irrational.

 

[Brian2]

You should be aware that argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument. What that means is that saying something is true simply because it is popular is completely irrational.

That's true, it does not matter what people think when it comes to the truth.
What God thinks is different however and I suggest that God has shown the Jews through exile and suffering that He was displeased with them. (and I am not saying that those who caused the Jews to suffer in Exile were innocent in God's eyes.)

 

[seekandfind]

How does this refute the numbers I just gave you?

Why do you need your numbers refuted? You pointed out Jehovahs Witnesses are a minority and i pointed out Jesus said his followers would be as well.

 

[Colt]

Hi everyone, I'm Jewish, and I'm here to engage in a respectful and open discussion about the role of Jesus Christ. As someone who doesn't believe in Christ, I hold the perspective that both Christianity and Islam have been orchestrated by God to spread monotheism.

Recently, I had a thought-provoking discussion with a spokesman from a Christian institute on youtube, and it led me to ponder how difficult to discern Christ's true nature without understanding Hebrew.

Just for the sake of discussion, if Christ wasn't the Messiah, what was he?

I do apologize if anyone is offended, but I think we should have an open, respectful, and tolerant discussion about anything.
I look forward to hearing different perspectives and engaging in a thoughtful exchange of ideas.

He was the Son of God incarnate! He realized that he could not live up to the expectations of a Jewish Messiah. But the coming of a deliverer had been foreseen by seers for ages, that's where the idea developed from.

The problem wasn't the Son of God, the problem was the rigid expectations for the form and function of a Messiah type figure.