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

[metis]

Hmmm, I tend to disagree with this. You really had two different schools of thought that were very disagreeable with each other. In Jerusalem under James you had the Nazarenes, all Jews, for whom believing in Jesus was a sect of Judaism. They were all "zealous for Torah," including continuing to sacrifice at the temple. Then you had the Gentile churches set up by Paul, whom he pretty much taught NOT to keep the law, degrading its worth.

But as they morphed, the latter became dominant as the Gentiles gradually dominated even by the latter 1st century. Splinter groups did gradually emerge but pretty much got absorbed in the 3rd and 4th centuries.

Where there was some differences even later where in areas not so much under Roman Control, such as in India and Ethiopia. However, in much more recent times, almost all of them merged with either the Catholic or the Orthodox churches.

 

[Spice]

I found the verse I was thinking of. Here, an adulteress is called almah.

There are three things which are too wonderful for me, for which I do not understand: 19the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the middle of the sea, and the way of a man with a young woman [b’almah][/b’almah]. 20This is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats and wipes her mouth, and says, “I have done no wrong.”

(Proverbs 30:18-20)

But it still needs a cultural interpretation, does it not? Word for word translation alone simply does not work between translations any more than they do within the same language of different eras. Do you agree? And this is why the Christian Bible continues to be debated. The word "adultrey" is not limited to sexual misconduct in my understanding, but to destruction of one's marital trust in many possible ways.

 

[Kenny]

I believe the man and/or young woman have to be married to someone else. It was more common for a married man to go after a virgin, before she was wedded. Only one of the two had to be married.

But this can also occur if an Overlord, takes a new bride on her wedding day, before her husband. They are both married with the wife still a virgin and maiden, when defiled. I saw that scenario portrayed in the movie Brave Heart with Mel Gibson. It led to a war.

In the story of Mary Magellan, Jesus says you have had three husbands; of other women. Adultery adds a wild card that can become very disruptive to families and neighbors, and therefore had a strong social taboo; ripple effect was never justified.

Although, there was a gray area,, in times of war and conquest; beyond one's control and spoils of war. Although social judgements of another kind could emerge; half breed children could have a hard time or special protections by the conquerors.

I don’t see much to discuss here. Informative.

 

[The Hammer]

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


A hot mess.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But it still needs a cultural interpretation, does it not? Word for word translation alone simply does not work between translations any more than they do within the same language of different eras. Do you agree? And this is why the Christian Bible continues to be debated. The word "adultrey" is not limited to sexual misconduct in my understanding, but to destruction of one's marital trust in many possible ways.

adultery is when a woman cheats on her husband (it's not the same as for a man, since polygamy was allowed). If she is cheating on her husband, she is not a virgin twice over, since she is having sex with two men.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But as they morphed, the latter became dominant as the Gentiles gradually dominated even by the latter 1st century. Splinter groups did gradually emerge but pretty much got absorbed in the 3rd and 4th centuries.

Where there was some differences even later where in areas not so much under Roman Control, such as in India and Ethiopia. However, in much more recent times, almost all of them merged with either the Catholic or the Orthodox churches.

Of course. But the Pauline churches, what many call the proto-orthodox churches, took many centuries to establish themselves as Christian orthodoxy. In the first two centuries, you didn't just have the proto-orthodox, you also had the Nazarenes (who became the Ebionites), the Marcionites, and the Gnostics. So really, you cannot say there was only one church in the beginning.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I guess if one wants to have a reason, we can always find a reason that is good enough for one’s position.

How did you find the word in Prov 30?

טדֶּ֤רֶךְ הַנֶּ֨שֶׁר בַּשָּׁמַיִם֘ דֶּ֥רֶךְ נָחָ֗שׁ עֲלֵ֫י צ֥וּר דֶּֽרֶךְ־אֳנִיָּ֥ה בְלֶב־יָ֑ם וְדֶ֖רֶךְ גֶּ֣בֶר בְּעַלְמָֽה:

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Please note the context… the way of a man with a “young woman” - virgin where she ends up as an “adulterous woman”.

The next verse STATES that she is an adultress.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

not when they are virgins unless a supernatural creation is performed by God’s Holy Spirit.

But we aren't talking about virgins. We are talking about young women.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Pilate, whose first duty was to Rome, could find no fault with Jesus, but had him executed to placate Rome’s Judean subjects. A few decades later, all of Judea was in open revolt, and a few centuries later, Rome became the capital of Christianity in Europe. Howabout that for dramatic irony?

I think it’s fair to say that there were historical forces at work, over which neither Pilate not anybody else had the slightest control.

Well that's the christian legend about the incident, yes. The Christians who wrote the gospels many agendas, including these two:
1. To kiss Roman butt. Because Rome persecuted the church, they needed to go out of their way to be nicey nice to Rome.
2. To try to distinguish Christianity as separate from Judaism. This was not always the case. In the earliest days, they were a sect of Judaism. But as Paul established the faith as a Gentile religion, it was important to the churches to cut their previous ties with the Jews. Thus the gospels go out of their way to make the Jews the bad guy.

 

[Spice]

adultery is when a woman cheats on her husband (it's not the same as for a man, since polygamy was allowed). If she is cheating on her husband, she is not a virgin twice over, since she is having sex with two men.

In acknowledgement of language changing over time, including definitions of words, and in the sense that trust within a committed relationship goes far beyond sexual, I've discussed with others in the past this possibility of definition evolution.

The New Living Translation uses the word adultery in reference to Israel's relationship to God in Isaiah 57. Even in other translations, where the actual word adultery is not used, the text appears to allude to the "intimate trust" between Israel and God with Israel being unfaithful. That brings the thought that in the Christian NT, when Jesus states Moses allowed adultery as the only acceptable reason for divorce, thar many Christian denominations hold to stingently, there could be merit in the acceptability of divorce for seriously broken intimate trust. ie. Domestic abuse.
Isaiah 57:7,8
"7)You have committed adultery on every high mountain. There you have worshiped idols and have been unfaithful to me.

8)You have put pagan symbols on your doorposts and behind your doors. You have left me and climbed into bed with these detestable gods. You have committed yourselves to them. You love to look at their naked bodies."

Do words in sacred texts evolve in their meanings?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

In acknowledgement of language changing over time, including definitions of words, and in the sense that trust within a committed relationship goes far beyond sexual, I've discussed with others in the past this possibility of definition evolution.

The New Living Translation uses the word adultery in reference to Israel's relationship to God in Isaiah 57. Even in other translations, where the actual word adultery is not used, the text appears to allude to the "intimate trust" between Israel and God with Israel being unfaithful. That brings the thought that in the Christian NT, when Jesus states Moses allowed adultery as the only acceptable reason for divorce, thar many Christian denominations hold to stingently, there could be merit in the acceptability of divorce for seriously broken intimate trust. ie. Domestic abuse.
Isaiah 57:7,8
"7)You have committed adultery on every high mountain. There you have worshiped idols and have been unfaithful to me.

8)You have put pagan symbols on your doorposts and behind your doors. You have left me and climbed into bed with these detestable gods. You have committed yourselves to them. You love to look at their naked bodies."

Do words in sacred texts evolve in their meanings?

Most words, although their main meaning is something quite literal, can also be used figuratively. For example a rose is a literal flower. But in the poem "Go Lovely Rose," rose refers to a woman in a figurative sense.

I am of the opinion that the texts should be read in the sense that the author intended.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well that's the christian legend about the incident, yes. The Christians who wrote the gospels many agendas, including these two:
1. To kiss Roman butt. Because Rome persecuted the church, they needed to go out of their way to be nicey nice to Rome.
2. To try to distinguish Christianity as separate from Judaism. This was not always the case. In the earliest days, they were a sect of Judaism. But as Paul established the faith as a Gentile religion, it was important to the churches to cut their previous ties with the Jews. Thus the gospels go out of their way to make the Jews the bad guy.

At the time the Gospels were written, Christianity was still a Jewish sect. The divergence happened over centuries, not years or decades.

Hence my point about dramatic irony; the interpretation of the Gospels - John’s Gospel can be regarded as most problematic in this regard - as anti Jewish, came a long time after the event.

 

[Altfish]

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.

A very naughty boy.

Oh, sorry, that was Brian

 

[Brian2]

You mean we are IN the messianic age? Please explain for me then, why the best known messianic prophecy has not yet occurred:

Isaiah 2:4
He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.

Because that happens when Jesus returns in glory to judge the world and rule on the throne of David,,,,,,,,,, and that peace then goes on into eternity. The thing is that if Jesus is the resurrected Messiah then He is alive and well and is doing things in this Messianic age and continues to do things in this age until the end of this age.
I agree that it is a Messianic prophecy but how does a Jew decide such things? Reading the text seems to indicate that it is the LORD who judges between nations etc.

Isaiah 2:1 The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.

2 lIt shall come to pass in the latter days

that the mountain of the house of the LORD

shall be established as the highest of the mountains,

and shall be lifted up above the hills;

and nall the nations shall flow to it,

3 and many peoples shall come, and say:

“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,

to the house of the God of Jacob,

that he may teach us his ways

and that we may walk in his paths.”

For out of Zion shall go forth the law,

and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

4 He shall judge between the nations,

and shall decide disputes for many peoples;

and they shall beat their swords into plowshares,

and their spears into pruning hooks;

nation shall not lift up sword against nation,

neither shall they learn war anymore.

 

[Brian2]

Let's assume for a moment that Isaiah 7:14 says virgin. It doesn't but for the sake of argument, we will temporarily assume it. This CANNOT be a sign. A sign is something you SEE, like the rainbow is a sign. A sign is not necessarily a miracle, like a rainbow is perfectly natural. We cannot see any conception, virgin or regular. Thus, it is not the sign.

You have to read the entire passage, and then the sign becomes clear. They were at that time surrounded by two armies of Syrians, led by two kings. The sign is that these Syrians would be defeated before the child weans. Nothing to do with any miracle, or virgin birth, or the messiah.

BTW, a much better translation of Isaiah 9:6 is "A wonderful counselor IS the mighty God." Note the linking verb. In Hebrew, they don't actually use linking verbs, but rather they are implied. For example, you can have a name like Dani-el which literally translates "God my judge." The linking verb is implied "God IS my judge." These sorts of names that make statements about God were very, very common.

The prophecy of Isa 9 seems Messianic to me. It no doubt had a meaning for Israel back in the days it was written but the more full meaning seems to be Messianic since the child will rule on the throne of David forever.
I have heard that "almah" can mean "virgin" depending on the context and that the child of Isa 7 is probably the child of Isa 9.
With Matthew knowing that Jesus had been born of a virgin, that would justify him saying that the prophecy of Isa 7:14 was speaking of a virgin.
This of course does not deny or negate the meaning of the prophecy that the Jews had back in Isaiah's time, when "maiden" was seen as the meaning,,,,,,,,,, it just points out an extended meaning obtained by Jesus followers who had been told and believed Mary to have been a virgin, pregnant with Jesus.

 

[Kenny]

But we aren't talking about virgins. We are talking about young women.

thank you for the inquiry… I have no desire to go through the whole thread and repeat it all over again. It is ok if you believe it wasn’t a virgin woman.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This of course does not deny or negate the meaning of the prophecy that the Jews had back in Isaiah's time, when "maiden" was seen as the meaning,,,,,,,,,, it just points out an extended meaning obtained by Jesus followers who had been told and believed Mary to have been a virgin, pregnant with Jesus.

Leaving aside questions of authorship, do you not find it unusual that the authors of the epistles and the gospels of Mark and John saw no need to share the "good news" of this virgin birth?

 

[metis]

Of course. But the Pauline churches, what many call the proto-orthodox churches, took many centuries to establish themselves as Christian orthodoxy. In the first two centuries, you didn't just have the proto-orthodox, you also had the Nazarenes (who became the Ebionites), the Marcionites, and the Gnostics. So really, you cannot say there was only one church in the beginning.

Depends on one's perspective. Jesus appointed 12 Apostles to lead his Church, and that same organization(s) exists today through what's called "Apostolic Succession"*. Paul was not an Apostle, but still his influence on the Church was obviously significant. The important thing here per our discussion is that at no point in history did this Church disappear.

* Apostolic succession - Wikipedia

 

[IndigoChild5559]

thank you for the inquiry… I have no desire to go through the whole thread and repeat it all over again. It is ok if you believe it wasn’t a virgin woman.

It is not a matter of my belief. It is simply a fact that the Hebrew word almah means young woman, not virgin.