• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How can a Jew reject Jesus as the Messiah?

Ehav4Ever

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Redemptionsong said:
Your reference to Moses is an interesting comparison. Scripture tells us where and when Moses was born. It also tells us about his return to save the Israelites from slavery. He didn't return to Egypt from another part of Egypt but from Mount Sinai, the mountain of God.
Click to expand...

The Hebrew text was written, after the fact. Meaning, that the Hebrew Torah was written by Mosheh prior to his death. There was no part of the Torah, that existed during the time of the Israeli/Jewish exile in Egypt that predicted where and who would lead Israel out.

If you read the Hebrew text I posted you would have seen that the only sign Mosheh was given of the success of his mission was when he was successful at doing it and the entire Jewish nation were with him at the same mountain where Hashem spoke to him. No second comings and no beleif - someone is successful in their lifetime and if not we know they were not from Hashem.

Further, Jewish text such as the Sefer Hayashar explain that 40 years before the exit from Egypt a group of Israelis from the tribe of Ephrayim left Egypt think that that the time had already come. Thus,
 
Ehav4Ever

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Redemptionsong said:
They have to be combined to produce a complete picture. Matthew provides Joseph's line, and Luke provides Mary's line. [Don't let Heli confuse the issue]
Click to expand...

Where in the NT text does it state, they have to be combined to produce a complete picture? If it is not stated there, where do you pick that up from? Do all Christians agree with your claim? If not, why not? If so, who agrees with you?
 
Flankerl

Flankerl

Well-Known Member
robocop (actually) said:
I once heard that the Raelian prophet Rael visited a Rabbi and said, "If Moses came back to life would you follow Moses or continue to follow the Torah?" He said, "I would continue to follow the Torah." Perhaps that is what's going on here.
Click to expand...

Hashem probably shouldn't have told Moses that he should tell us to keep to the Torah after he is gone.
If Moses came back he would obviously only be relevant if he kept to the Torah.
Same reason why it's irrelevant what the Moses who lived among the Egyptians thought of theological matters.



Redemptionsong said:
The genealogy of Jesus Christ gives a paternal line from David.
Click to expand...

And here I thought your "God" impregnated a woman Greco-Roman style. (which isn't really my type of intercourse, far too impersonal and rather rapey)
Turns out that wasn't it.
Glad that this is finally over.

Here lies Christianity
3841 - 5781​
 
Redemptionsong

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Ehav4Ever said:
I am saying that the word "messiah" and also how the NT interprets that word are wrong. The closest thing to the English word "messiah" in Hebrew is the word (מושיע) but that word, in Hebrew, doesn't mean what (Μεσσίας) means in Greek. Also, the Hebrew word (משיח) doesn't equate to the Greek word (Μεσσίας).
Click to expand...

Most people accept that a Messiah is an 'anointed one'. The anointing is with the outward symbol of oil, which represents the Holy Spirit, God's inner anointing. This matches all that happened between Samuel and David. [1 Samuel 16:12,13]

The distinction of importance to this discussion is about the temporal and the eternal. The messiahs of the Tanakh are not everlasting, with the exception of one, 'my servant David' [Ezekiel 37:24]. It is this one ruler that can be associated with Micah's prophecy, for he is the only one that fits the words of Micah 5:2, 'from of old, from everlasting (eternity)'.
 
Ehav4Ever

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Redemptionsong said:
Most people accept that a Messiah is an 'anointed one'. The anointing is with the outward symbol of oil, which represents the Holy Spirit, God's inner anointing. This matches all that happened between Samuel and David. [1 Samuel 16:12,13]

The distinction of importance to this discussion is about the temporal and the eternal. The messiahs of the Tanakh are not everlasting, with the exception of one, 'my servant David' [Ezekiel 37:24]. It is this one ruler that can be associated with Micah's prophecy, for he is the only one that fits the words of Micah 5:2, 'from of old, from everlasting (eternity)'.
Click to expand...

Like I said, what you are describing is a Christian invention. That is why the Christian translotors invent two different definitions for the word (משיח) which they use in their translations.
 
Redemptionsong

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Mestemia said:
Why were they split apart in the first place?
Click to expand...

For a very important reason. Jesus is only 'supposed' to be Joseph's son [Luke 3:23]. This is because Mary's conception was miraculous, and Joseph had nothing to do with the conception of Mary. But by marrying Mary, Joseph brings the royal line and the human line together in one legally acceptable way. Thus, Jesus is born of God, but still fully human.
 
Ehav4Ever

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Concerning the two different geneologies given in the NT. Here in a scholar who points out that there are lots of theories about that part, not the one that presented here.

 
Last edited:
McBell

McBell

mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Redemptionsong said:
For a very important reason. Jesus is only 'supposed' to be Joseph's son [Luke 3:23]. This is because Mary's conception was miraculous, and Joseph had nothing to do with the conception of Mary. But by marrying Mary, Joseph brings the royal line and the human line together in one legally acceptable way. Thus, Jesus is born of God, but still fully human.
Click to expand...
That just does not make sense.
Bringing his step fathers genealogy into the picture reveals nothing about the genealogy of Jesus any more than bringing my genealogy into the picture.

I know, I know, you flat out said "legally"...
What does god care of mans "legalities"?

Or better yet, why is mans legality so important here when it has absolutely nothing to do with the genealogy of Jesus?
 
Ehav4Ever

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Redemptionsong said:
For a very important reason. Jesus is only 'supposed' to be Joseph's son [Luke 3:23]. This is because Mary's conception was miraculous, and Joseph had nothing to do with the conception of Mary. But by marrying Mary, Joseph brings the royal line and the human line together in one legally acceptable way. Thus, Jesus is born of God, but still fully human.
Click to expand...

Where in the NT is this descried, as you wrote it? According to Christian scholars there are several theories about the Jesus geneology problem.
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Tumah said:
Of course, that's assuming that the Christian Testament's narrative is even remotely factual.

But also, when you consider the vagueness of the suffering described in the Psalm, it's very easy to say that there were many Jewish people who's lives paralleled Psalm 22. In fact, just look at the Holocaust for a most recent example.
Click to expand...

When Jesus was on the cross, he quoted the opening line from Psalm 22. He said, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" By doing so, he was applying the psalm to himself. The psalm describes the righteous sufferer, publicly mocked and shamed, brought down to the jaws of death in the midst of terrible suffering and humiliation, and miraculously delivered by God, to the praise of his name. So it applies powerfully to Jesus, the ideal righteous sufferer.

No Old Testament person could have imagined that his personal deliverance from death could be the occasion for the world's conversion. Such a hope must be restricted to the future Redeemer. Under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, David in Psalm 22 saw his descendant resembling, but far surpassing, himself in suffering. Furthermore, the deliverance of this descendant would have meaning for all mankind.

What other person's terrible suffering and death was worthy of worldwide attention to to the point that the nations actually turned to the God of Israel because of it? Applying this psalm to the Messiah is in keeping with the clear meaning of the text.
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Shadow Wolf said:
How can that be when the similarities basically begin and end at the same names and claims to be of the same god?
Click to expand...

Christians and Jews both believe in the Old Testament. Psalm 22 in the Septuagint uses the word " they pierced". The oldest Hebrew copy of the Psalms we possess, from the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating back to the century before Jesus, uses the Hebrew verb ka'aru, which comes from the root meaning 'to bore through'-not ka'ari, which means 'like a lion.'
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Skywalker said:
Christians and Jews both believe in the Old Testament.
Click to expand...
They don't believe the same things about the OT, however, and the Tanakh has a Jewish understanding, interpretation, and beliefs while Christians have the OT which features entirely new characters, perspectives, interpretations, and beliefs that are unknown, foriegn, amd even blasphemous in Judaism.
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Rival said:
To be fair, if a bloke comes to you claiming his biological mother is a virgin and you accept it then you're clearly well on your way to believing anything at that point :D
Click to expand...

Since the Messiah was to be God, him being born of a virgin would be respectful. Isa al-Mesih

A king who was anointed by the authority of God also had a special relationship with God and were called "God's son." This is shown in Psalm 2 where God's anointed king is called his "son." King Saul, King David and King Solomon were all anointed by God. They were anointed by the Spirit of God to be kings over God's people. This anointing changed King Saul's character. (Anbia, 1 Samuel 10:1, 9-11) King David received the Spirit of God in power. (Anbia, 1 Samuel 16:13) God called Solomon his son and Solomon was promised the continual love and wisdom of God. (Anbia, 2 Samuel 7:12-16, Anbia, 1Kings 3:5-14)

So who really is Jesus the Messiah (al-Mesih)? The Holy Scriptures tell us he is a King. You may have heard that some people call Jesus Christ a "son." Is he really a "son?" If so, what kind of "son" is he? If anointed kings (mesih) were called "sons," is it proper to call the anointed Messiah, (al-Mesih) a "son"? The word "son" can be used in different ways. Sometimes the Holy Bible uses it in the physical sense, sometimes in the spiritual or figurative sense. The word "son" can be used in all of these senses in the Holy Bible, but it never means that God had a wife. This is a common misunderstanding among Muslims who are led to believe by their own leaders that this "sonship" is the result of a physical relationship between God and Mary. This, however, is not what the Holy Bible teaches. When referring to the Lord Jesus Christ, this term is used in the spiritual sense and simply refers to a special relationship through an anointing by God. It is a term of great honour and expresses a special choosing.

It is clear that al-Mesih, Jesus Christ is an anointed king, but is it really true that Isa al-Mesih is "Jesus, the one and only Son of God"? If we look carefully we will see that the meaning is the same. Both terms mean an anointing by God. The reason why a king was called a son in the Zabur and Sahaif-e-Anbia, was because God chose him to rule over his people. The spiritual anointing, giving him authority and power, was demonstrated by a physical anointing. The words Messiah, Christ and Mesih, mean, "anointed one." In the Injil, one of Jesus' disciples, the Apostle Peter, connected these two terms together. He said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Injil, Matthew 16:16) Jesus' reply was, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven." (Injil, Matthew 16:17) Are we faithful to the true meaning of Isa al-Mesih?

When Jesus came, he was called "the Son of God." Notice that he wasn't simply called "a son of God." The angel Gabriel said to Miriam, (Mary) the mother of Jesus, " ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God’." (Injil, Luke 1:35) In the presence of many people, a voice came from heaven saying, " 'You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.' " (Injil, Luke 3:21-22) Many times this phrase is used of Jesus. What does it mean? It refers to a special relationship with God. He is not just "a son of God;" he is "the Son of God." He is referred to in the Bible as God's "one and only Son." (Injil, John 3:16) The word for "one and only" in the original language of the Injil means "unique" or "best-beloved." He was the unique Son of God because he was the Spirit of God clothed in human flesh.

We have seen that in order to be a "son," one needs to have a special anointing. In the case of Adam, God breathed into him the breath of life. He was anointed with the breath of life. In the case of King Saul, his character changed. The Prophet David was given power by God. The Prophet Soloman was loved by God and given special wisdom.

We have also seen that the Hebrew word, Messiah, actually means "anointed one." This is important. Understanding Jesus Christ as "the Son of God," begins with acknowledging the fact that he is the Messiah (al-Mesih). According to the prophets who lived hundreds of years before Jesus Christ, the Messiah would be a man who would speak and act with the power and authority of God and would also be called with the names of God Almighty.
Click to expand...
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Shadow Wolf said:
They don't believe the same things about the OT, however, and the Tanakh has a Jewish understanding, interpretation, and beliefs while Christians have the OT which features entirely new characters, perspectives, interpretations, and beliefs that are unknown, foriegn, amd even blasphemous in Judaism.
Click to expand...

The Hebrew word in Psalm 22, ka'aru, comes from the root meaning 'to bore through'. The interpretation "like a lion, they are at my hands and feet" is not the only interpretation to Jewish scriptures. I don't think the interpenetration and beliefs of the Old Testament are blasphemous to Judaism.
 
rosends

rosends

Well-Known Member
Skywalker said:
Christians and Jews both believe in the Old Testament. Psalm 22 in the Septuagint uses the word " they pierced". The oldest Hebrew copy of the Psalms we possess, from the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating back to the century before Jesus, uses the Hebrew verb ka'aru, which comes from the root meaning 'to bore through'-not ka'ari, which means 'like a lion.'
Click to expand...
There is no Hebrew word ka'aru. The word is ka'ari unless you want to claim the slightly elongated yod is a vav and then it is a mistake.
Dead sea scrolls and Psalm 22

Psalms 22 question
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top