Is it Possible to Prove Being the Messiah?

[Vinayaka]

That's certainly an option though the presence or absence of a Messiah doesn't necessarily make it easier or result in less arguments.

I like your new avatar btw.

Thanks. Generally I find it's just not presented as an option in these Abrahamic based debates. To me, it's a false assumption that starts many 'debates'. So I feel somebody should occasionally point that out. Probably half the planet's people don't feel the need for any messiah figure. But it does seem to permeate the forum at times.

 

[PruePhillip]

Do you know what chapter and verses that is in Daniel?
.

Frankly, I find religious people who go on about these verses are focused upon issues of earth and time
instead of the spirit. But having said that...

Daniel 9
that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be
seven weeks; and for sixty- two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous
times. And after the sixty-two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, (but for his people); and the people of a
prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; but his end shall be with a flood; and unto
the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week;
and for half of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease;...

Just ignore the weeks stuff - nobody agrees on this
Daniel is in Babylonian captivity. He is told that Jerusalem will be restored
even in times of troubles (this was the Greeks and Romans)
but the 'anointed' one (Messiah) will come to His temple while it is still standing
but this Messiah shall be destroyed. This puzzled the Jews who prefer the Messiah as King
and those who destroyed the Messiah will also destroy the temple, Jerusalem and Israel.

There are other Daniel verses about this I think. I am giving you one I know.

 

[blü 2]

There will be a Messiah.
There will be a Hebrew nation.
The Hebrews will reject their Messiah.
The Hebrews will lose their nation
The Gentiles will believe upon the Messiah
When the Gentiles no longer believe the Hebrews will return to their land
The Messiah will return as King

That all falls down because Jesus doesn't qualify as a messiah.

If there was an historical Jesus, very little can be said about him. He may have been a bit player in the Jerusalem religion industry, he may have preached the imminence of the endtimes like JtB, he may have been executed by the state. Or not. But if he was there, he certainly flew under the radar, entirely unnoticed in life or death at the time. Why any citizen of Jerusalem would even notice him, bother to think about him, let alone think he was a messiah, a leader of any kind, is wholly opaque; the first and most important gospel account of him, Mark's, is devised 45 years after his purported death, and can be mapped episodically onto the Tanakh (and as Ted Weeden points out, the trial of Jesus is taken from Josephus' account (Wars 6.5) of the trial of Jesus son of Ananias / Ananus) ─ although it can't be mapped onto the known history of Jerusalem / Judea around 30 CE. Add to that the not fewer than five Jesuses that the NT offers and while it's clear the gospel writers are making things up to suit themselves, it's far from clear that any of them is touching on real history at any point at all.

 

[Trailblazer]

Be wary of religions that base their doctrines upon prophecies. I figure most of these,
even correct ones, are a form of fear mongering (ie Jehovah Witness) But for the most
part there are motives for the church prophetic interpretations. I recall some churches
teaching that the beast with ten horns was the European Union as it had ten members.
But now there's about 25 members in the EU.

No, doctrines should not be based upon prophecies but the prophecies in the OT do point to who the Messiah will be. The problem is that many of these prophecies can be interpreted in many different ways, and as an atheist poster on my forum said: "When it comes to the Bible, whatever you want it to mean, you can probably find a passage that can be interpreted to mean it."

The prophecies in the OT are not like the Book of Revelation. There is so much symbolism in the Book of Revelation that there is no way to parse out a definitive meaning.

 

[PruePhillip]

That all falls down because Jesus doesn't qualify as a messiah.

If there was an historical Jesus, very little can be said about him. He may have been a bit player in the Jerusalem religion industry, he may have preached the imminence of the endtimes like JtB, he may have been executed by the state. Or not. But if he was there, he certainly flew under the radar, entirely unnoticed in life or death at the time. Why any citizen of Jerusalem would even notice him, bother to think about him, let alone think he was a messiah, a leader of any kind, is wholly opaque; the first and most important gospel account of him, Mark's, is devised 45 years after his purported death, and can be mapped episodically onto the Tanakh (and as Ted Weeden points out, the trial of Jesus is taken from Josephus' account (Wars 6.5) of the trial of Jesus son of Ananias / Ananus) ─ although it can't be mapped onto the known history of Jerusalem / Judea around 30 CE. Add to that the not fewer than five Jesuses that the NT offers and while it's clear the gospel writers are making things up to suit themselves, it's far from clear that any of them is touching on real history at any point at all.

You are certainly right about a lot of things.
In the beginning both Jesus and John the Baptist were quite famous.
But as their message began to sink in they became less famous
Until in that last journey to Jerusalem it says, quite candidly in Matt 21,
the city was stirred to ask "who is this?"
In short, they didn't want to know.

If you want to see how studiously the Jews ignored Jesus just read
Josephus. The verses about Jesus being an honorable man and killed
are evidently fake because this "description" would have invited a lot
more inspection. Josephus was an historian - but he ignored a very
famous man who spawned a whole new faith. That's deliberate,
regardless of whether Jesus was just a man or the Son of God.

As for Mark being the first - maybe, that's the popular theory. We don't
know. But as for 45 years....no. That would be, what, ca AD 80?
Paul wrote about Jesus and the resurrection ca AD 50
and Luke wrote his Gospel and Acts before he died ca AD 68.
And we can be sure there was a lot more text flying around the Middle
East before these earliest surviving examples.

 

[PruePhillip]

No, doctrines should not be based upon prophecies but the prophecies in the OT do point to who the Messiah will be. The problem is that many of these prophecies can be interpreted in many different ways, and as an atheist poster on my forum said: "When it comes to the Bible, whatever you want it to mean, you can probably find a passage that can be interpreted to mean it."

The prophecies in the OT are not like the Book of Revelation. There is so much symbolism in the Book of Revelation that there is no way to parse out a definitive meaning.

I accept that. I believe (though few agree with me) that the bible is written for everyone.
If you want to believe in and love God it's for you.
If you want to ridicule it, the bible will accommodate you (ie apparently glaring contradictions)
If you feel it's your nation's history then you will preserve it (even when you are now a pagan nation, as happened)
If you love earth and time issues there's some of that too.

The bible itself says that God sends strong delusion through it.

It is up to the individual as to what they will see in the bible. It's written that way. It's like the life we are given, we are
free to do as we please - for now. God reveals Himself to those who love him, and hides from those who don't. And
Jesus himself rejoiced with this thought.

 

[Trailblazer]

That all falls down because Jesus doesn't qualify as a messiah.

No, Jesus did not qualify as the Messiah, but the way Christians skirt that issue is by saying Jesus will qualify when He returns, which makes no sense because Jesus doesn't suddenly do an about face and become a King with a kingdom, especially given He said...

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

So what it boils down to is that Christians cherry pick verses to create Jesus in their own image, what they want Him to be. They want Jesus to come back and rule so they find verses that they believe are saying that. It is all psychological.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thanks. Generally I find it's just not presented as an option in these Abrahamic based debates. To me, it's a false assumption that starts many 'debates'. So I feel somebody should occasionally point that out. Probably half the planet's people don't feel the need for any messiah figure. But it does seem to permeate the forum at times.

FWIW, I think its a completely valid perspective in the context of an interfaith discussion to state its not part of your paradigm. Its equally as valid of course to state it being part of your of your world view. Not all Christian groups are expecting a Messiah but the majority do. The majority of Muslims have a strong expectation of a Messiah figure called the Mahdi who will be a redeemer along with the Return of Christ. Its there in Judaism and of course you are familiar with concepts such as Avatars in some parts of Hinduism and the Maitreya Buddha in Buddhism. So it various from religion to religion and within religions. but its far more important we are kind to each other and get along than to debate about religious differences.

 

[Trailblazer]

God reveals Himself to those who love him, and hides from those who don't.

I think that is true, even though I do not necessarily think it is fair because it assumes that everyone can love God, and I do not think that is necessarily true because humans are complex and there are so many factors involved.

In spite of the fact that I might not like it I believe it because Baha'u'llah says it in so many words:

5: O SON OF BEING! Love Me, that I may love thee. If thou lovest Me not, My love can in no wise reach thee. Know this, O servant.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 4

 

[PruePhillip]

No, Jesus did not qualify as the Messiah, but the way Christians skirt that issue is by saying Jesus will qualify when He returns, which makes no sense because Jesus doesn't suddenly do an about face and become a King with a kingdom, especially given He said...

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

So what it boils down to is that Christians cherry pick verses to create Jesus in their own image, what they want Him to be. They want Jesus to come back and rule so they find verses that they believe are saying that. It is all psychological.

It says in Zechariah that the Messiah will come to Israel and reign
over her enemies. And that the Jews will recognize this Messiah
as the one they had "pierced."
What does that say to you?

 

[Trailblazer]

It says in Zechariah that the Messiah will come to Israel and reign
over her enemies. And that the Jews will recognize this Messiah
as the one they had "pierced."
What does that say to you?

I'd have to see the actual verses and read them in context in order to have an opinion.

But according to my beliefs, the Messiah is the return of the Christ Spirit so the Jews who recognize Him will recognize Him as the one they had "pierced."

 

[blü 2]

You are certainly right about a lot of things.

I'll slip in a 'Thanks' there before you get to the rest.

In the beginning both Jesus and John the Baptist were quite famous.

If memory serves, there's a mention or two of JtB in independent sources. But I know of no contemporary basis whatsoever for the idea that Jesus was famous ─ or anything else ─ at any time. What do you have in mind?

But as their message began to sink in they became less famous

Same again ─ says what independent witness?

Until in that last journey to Jerusalem it says, quite candidly in Matt 21,
the city was stirred to ask "who is this?"
In short, they didn't want to know.

First, that part of the story doesn't occur in Mark, written about a decade earlier. Second, why would anyone in Jerusalem know about Jesus from Hicksville anyway? Till that point there was nothing for them to ignore. (Though I have a certain fondness for the image of Matthew's Jesus going to town bestraddling a donkey and a foal. And separately from the fun, it's a perfect example of a gospel writer reinventing the story to accommodate parts of the Tanakh that he thinks will pass for 'messianic prophecies'.)

If you want to see how studiously the Jews ignored Jesus just read Josephus. The verses about Jesus being an honorable man and killed are evidently fake because this "description" would have invited a lot more inspection. Josephus was an historian - but he ignored a very famous man who spawned a whole new faith. That's deliberate,
regardless of whether Jesus was just a man or the Son of God.

Oh come now! Before they can ignore him, they first have to notice him. There's zero evidence of that. As I said before, if the arrest of jesus had been such a big deal that it kept the Sanhedrin up late and got the personal intervention of the Prefect, that would be a Big Deal and someone would have noticed. No one noticed, not till a generation or more down the track with Mark's author, who was getting his Adventures of Jesus from the Tanakh, not from anything historical that he knew. (Though if there was an historical Jesus, then it seems he was uniformly aggressive towards his mother in particular and his family in general; and sayings may have been attributed to him.)

As for Mark being the first - maybe, that's the popular theory. We don't
know.

As Weeden points out, the author of Mark is using Josephus' Wars, which reached the public c. 75 CE. That's five years after the fall of the Temple, and we could speculate that's what drove Mark's author to pick up pen in the first place.

But as for 45 years....no. That would be, what, ca AD 80?
Paul wrote about Jesus and the resurrection ca AD 50

Traditional date for the crucifixion 30 CE, some say 33 CE. Paul's letters from 51 CE. Romans is thought to be the last; it dates somewhere between 55 and 58 CE. Mark is c 75 CE, Matthew and Luke say mid 80s, John c. 100 CE. (You're no doubt aware that the historical existence of Paul is also disputed, since his letters weren't known before Marcion's day in the 2nd cent. But I don't think anyone could invent a dingbat like Paul, so I'm inclined to
orthodoxy on the point.)

 

[blü 2]

No, Jesus did not qualify as the Messiah, but the way Christians skirt that issue is by saying Jesus will qualify when He returns, which makes no sense because Jesus doesn't suddenly do an about face and become a King with a kingdom, especially given He said...

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

So what it boils down to is that Christians cherry pick verses to create Jesus in their own image, what they want Him to be. They want Jesus to come back and rule so they find verses that they believe are saying that. It is all psychological.

Nicely put. And of course they assume, but the text doesn't make clear, that the coming ruler, the Son of Man, is the same person as Jesus.

(The administration of heaven would be an interesting study, no? With its own Bannons, Scaramuccis, Sir Humphreys and so on. "Tell the BVM again to stop sending emails on the unsecure line!")

 

[Desert Snake]

[[

You are certainly right about a lot of things.
In the beginning both Jesus and John the Baptist were quite famous.
But as their message began to sink in they became less famous
Until in that last journey to Jerusalem it says, quite candidly in Matt 21,
the city was stirred to ask "who is this?"
In short, they didn't want to know.

If you want to see how studiously the Jews ignored Jesus just read
Josephus. The verses about Jesus being an honorable man and killed
are evidently fake because this "description" would have invited a lot
more inspection. Josephus was an historian - but he ignored a very
famous man who spawned a whole new faith. That's deliberate,
regardless of whether Jesus was just a man or the Son of God.

As for Mark being the first - maybe, that's the popular theory. We don't
know. But as for 45 years....no. That would be, what, ca AD 80?
Paul wrote about Jesus and the resurrection ca AD 50
and Luke wrote his Gospel and Acts before he died ca AD 68.
And we can be sure there was a lot more text flying around the Middle
East before these earliest surviving examples.

Josephus didn't ignore Jesus. Even called Him the [Christ, and mentions that there are a tribe of Christians.

Josephus speaks highly of Jesus.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nicely put. And of course they assume, but the text doesn't make clear, that the coming ruler, the Son of Man, is the same person as Jesus.

Mark 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Mark 13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

Did anyone ever wonder why Jesus did not say “And then shall they see me coming in the clouds with great power and glory?” Not once in the entire NT did Jesus ever say He was coming back to earth. I have discussed this with Christians for years and the verses just are not there. Christians just want it to be Jesus so they interpret verses to mean they are about Jesus when they are not. And if Jesus was coming back to earth, where is He? The prophecies have been fulfilled and still no Jesus.

Why would Jesus keep it a secret if He had been planning to return to earth? Why did Jesus say His work was finished here (John 17:4) and He was no more in the world (John 17:11) if He was planning to return to earth? Why did Jesus say “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36) if He was planning to come back and build a kingdom on earth? When asked if He was a king, why did Jesus say explain to Pilate “To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth” (John 18:37) if Jesus was coming back to rule as a king, as Christians believe? All these things are clues that tell us that Jesus was never planning to return to earth to rule and build the Kingdom of God, and that means that the Messiah who would accomplish this has to be another man.

The title ‘Son of man’ is symbolic of the perfect humanity that Jesus represented, but it does not apply exclusively to Jesus. It ultimately comes from the Book of Daniel, where it refers to the Messiah.

 

[PruePhillip]

[[

Josephus didn't ignore Jesus. Even called Him the [Christ, and mentions that there are a tribe of Christians.

Josephus speaks highly of Jesus.

So think about it. In his book on the war of the Jews he gave HALF the book to
Herod's family. Half. If Jesus was the Christ to him - why didn't he give Jesus
half a book? No, the reference to Jesus feels contrived, slotted in by someone
else. Josephus loved history and wanted to show Rome his nation. Even
curiosity about this burgeoning movement called Christianity didn't prompt
this Pharisee to provide details.

 

[PruePhillip]

As Weeden points out, the author of Mark is using Josephus' Wars, which reached the public c. 75 CE. That's five years after the fall of the Temple, and we could speculate that's what drove Mark's author to pick up pen in the first place.

This is news to me. I have read Wars many times and see no connection.

 

[blü 2]

This is news to me. I have read Wars many times and see no connection.

I'm just looking up my old notes on Weeden's list of parallels between Josephus' account (Wars 6:5) of the trial of Jesus of Jerusalem / Jesus son of Ananias, and Mark's Jesus. For some reason I'm missing the first nine points, but the rest are these:

10. Both are arrested by or at the instigation of Jerusalem leaders.
11. Both are assailed at their respective Jewish hearings/trials for their attacks on the temple.
12. Both keep their silence in the face of the charges against them with regard to their respective pronouncements.
13. Both provoke an enraged response from the Jerusalem leader(s) for making inflammatory pronouncements.
14. Both are chastised by Jerusalem leaders.
15. Following the hearings, both are delivered to the Roman governor.
16. Both are interrogated by their respective governor.
17. Both are asked by the Roman governor to disclose their respective identities.
18. Each governor moves to release his "Jesus."
19. Both are scourged.
20. Both are killed by Roman soldiers.
21. Both let out a woeful cry of personal woe.
22. Both die with a loud cry.
23. Both have their prophetic judgment against the temple verified and vindicated.
24. The term for temple used in the syntax of their pronouncements is identical.​

 

[sooda]

It says in Zechariah that the Messiah will come to Israel and reign
over her enemies. And that the Jews will recognize this Messiah
as the one they had "pierced."
What does that say to you?

Do you notice the shift?

"And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn," (Zechariah 12:10).


The Historical and Literary Context
This prophecy is an oracle about Judah, who at that time was in despair. Zechariah explains that Judah will triumph one day as they did in the time of David when the angel of the Lord went before them (12:1-9).1 However, the oracle shifts in verse 10 where Zechariah states that the inhabitants will look on Yahweh whom they have pierced.

 

[PruePhillip]

I'm just looking up my old notes on Weeden's list of parallels between Josephus' account (Wars 6:5) of the trial of Jesus of Jerusalem / Jesus son of Ananias, and Mark's Jesus. For some reason I'm missing the first nine points, but the rest are these:

10. Both are arrested by or at the instigation of Jerusalem leaders.
11. Both are assailed at their respective Jewish hearings/trials for their attacks on the temple.
12. Both keep their silence in the face of the charges against them with regard to their respective pronouncements.
13. Both provoke an enraged response from the Jerusalem leader(s) for making inflammatory pronouncements.
14. Both are chastised by Jerusalem leaders.
15. Following the hearings, both are delivered to the Roman governor.
16. Both are interrogated by their respective governor.
17. Both are asked by the Roman governor to disclose their respective identities.
18. Each governor moves to release his "Jesus."
19. Both are scourged.
20. Both are killed by Roman soldiers.
21. Both let out a woeful cry of personal woe.
22. Both die with a loud cry.
23. Both have their prophetic judgment against the temple verified and vindicated.
24. The term for temple used in the syntax of their pronouncements is identical.​

I am sorry, but you have lost me here. Wars is about the Roman war - not Jesus of Nazareth.
I had to look up this Jesus of Ananias. Jesus was a common name and it was important for
the Gospels to show the commonness of the Messiah - common name, common occupation,
and exceptionally common town and common death. "Woe to Jerusalem" became a common
lament - it was even seen in the clouds and the omen of Halley's comet.
The Nazarene was a wise, gracious and dignified man. Some people who draw parallels between
things often conspire to hide the differences.

The suffering of the Messiah is most clearly read in David's psalms. In his own suffering David
had this vision of the Christ - something his opulent living son Solomon never had.

nb Who do YOU think Paul was writing about when he spoke of the resurrection of Jesus?
Many of his readers were familiar with Jesus on a personal level.