Why did the Jews reject their Messiah when he DID come?

[PruePhillip]

You're the mistaken one.

So whom do YOU think is the Messiah? And upon what do you based
your assessment?

 

[PruePhillip]

Actually, base don the Hebrew perspective of the Torah and Tanakh, easy.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean.

 

[PruePhillip]

It's not a matter of lying. Obviously Jesus himself believed he was the messiah. That doesn't mean he was. It's called being mistaken.

How was Jesus mistaken?

 

[LoisD]

So whom do YOU think is the Messiah? And upon what do you based
your assessment?

God’s Son, Jesus. Based God's word the Bible. Prophesy of the
OT, testimony of the NT & Spirit left behind when He returned
to heaven.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Blueness.

Samantha Rinne said: ↑
And if you answer a question without providing any context as to how it's wrong, I'm gonna say you don't either.

I don't have to provide context. It isn't my job to teach you. The hypothetical you presented was impossible on its face and is all the proof anyone who understands the concepts needs.

I'm not asking this for instruction. I'm asking on behalf of your own statement not being a fiat ("Because I said so") statement. You see, when you don't provide proof/context of your assertions, they can be dismissed automatically. Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit. That is, a person who lays an assertion always must defend it. Until they do, the other party is automatically assumed to be right.

Burden of proof (law) - Wikipedia

Samantha Rinne said: ↑
I understand enough of Jews from Fiddler on the Roof to understand that outsiders holding a key place in their prophecy is anathema to them.

I just need to take a moment to finish laughing at the stupidity of your claiming to learn about Jews by watching Fiddler. Was this the play or the movie? I mean, if you are going to learn about a complex and ancient religion, I would think you would do so from a play, right?

Well, I admit it is hilarious. But you can learn a great deal about a culture's mentality from an accurate portrayal of the group of people involved. Or have the Japanese people never committed seppuku? While, yes there are inaccurate stereotypes, some cultural myths come from somewhere. Where does this come from?

Well, we have kosher law that separates milk from meat, blood in all cases from the flesh of an animal, animals into categories of cloven or uncloven, cud-chewing and un(?)cud-chewing, shellfish and other fish, prey birds and stuff like chicken, and so on. There are rules about mixing fabrics. There are rules about how you can associate with Gentiles. There are rules about people you can touch (such as not touching the sick or lepers). Let's watch the scene.

Notice who he doesn't reject. Insane socialist radical who is always talking about justice. But peace-loving Gentile Christian who is the epitome of charity and a genuinely good guy? Gasp! I'm not giving my blessing, and get away from me you! Shame on you for marrying that guy. As absurd as I will admit this sounds, it gives very clear insight into the mentality of a Jew, as does their reaction when Jesus is talking about how a prophet is not welcome in his own land, and talks about how only a Syrian was healed.


Samantha Rinne said: ↑
They build walls to split their cities into sacred and profane, Jew and outsider.

Yeah...no.

Yeah... yes? There are about ten or so walls in Jerusalem.

First, we have the outer gates, to the country. These are walls to defend Israel from invaders. Then the gates to the city. Then historically, there were walls sectioning off the Gentile world from the Temple Mount. There are walls dividing sheep and goats. There are walls past which women cannot go. There are walls past which only rabbis and priests can go. And finally, there was the curtain to the holiest place in the temple where the High Priest and God were, and the former only on certain occasions.

There are symbolic walls around kosher diet and meat/milk, from separate dishes to each separate fridges and such. Zoroastrians also had a similar law. But they just dealt with it by not eating milk animals. The Jews have "walls" around everything they do.

Samantha Rinne said: ↑
But I know enough of Hod to know that he doesn't operate 100% like his followers.

You know the Hods? They live right near me. I didn't see you at the aufruf this past Shabbos.

(I'm typing on a Kindle half the time, and as you know it is a covfefe, I mean convention that the spellcheck will do stupid stuff. It even cuts off words to things that aren't words, like shortening the word sacrifice with sacr)

Samantha Rinne said: ↑
That he doesn't choose people as they would expect. Was Moses the best person for the job? Uhhh well, he was a murderer and he was slow of speech. Samson basically hung around Philistines (making him by all accounts a traitor) and he broke basically all his Nazirite vows. God has a long, long history of using flawed ppl to preach to a broken world.

What are you even talking about? Moses wasn't a murderer. He had a speech issue but God chose him anyway because that was part of the lesson. God uses the right person to get to the right end. You don't have to like it, but your reaction just means that you don't understand the point.

Moses beat one of the overseers to death, if memory serves me. Yeah, I think it's Exodus 2:12.

God uses flawed people. Broken pots.

Samantha Rinne said: ↑
You'd be quick, I imagine, to dismiss the guy I picked in the scenario. But maybe you should read about Cyrus in Isaiah 45. Despite not being a Jew, he was an ally of the Jews, and helped them achieve many of their goals.

What does being a Jew have to do with anything? An Arab cab driver helped me out when I was 13.

And yet, you said something about, lemme see if I remember it right "If you really understood these prophecies, you'd know why this scenario would not work." But as I say, you didn't elaborate on why that is, so lemme elaborate on why in fact it isn't.

Psalm 118:22-24, the same thing Jesus quotes about the cornerstone. We have a preconceived notion, all of us, about what something we idealize should look like. When it doesn't fit some of our standards, we decide it must not be so.

In Greek thought, this is called a Procrustean bed. That is, this guy named Procrustes has a bed which was a certain width by a certain length. If someone was too short, he'd probably stretch them out. If they were too long, he would actually cut off part of their limbs until they fit. That is to say, we reject anything that doesn't perfectly fit our notions in the same way this guy cuts away stuff that doesn't fit into his bed. Or a builder rejects a stone.

But God doesn't care what we say should be the case. He doesn't even care about prophecies. Because humans can write prophecies ("some time tomorrow, I shall fall asleep. When this happens, terrible things will happen" and tomorrow, the terrible thing in question is that I miss a meal or something bland) but we have no way of knowing whether such are from God until they happen. In fact, until they are fulfilled, they can be assumed to be false prophecies. And this is saying nothing of averted prophecies, either/or branch prophecies, self-fulfilling prophecies, and people just being stubborn and doing the opposite to disprove a prophecy. What God cares about is our choices.

The difference between an outsider perhaps being the Messiah (and no, I do not know if that is the case... but nor do I know that it is not the case), and a cab driver is that the cab driver in all likelihood hoped for a bigger tip or something. The Messiah on the other hand, is whoever God chose, and rejecting him on the basis that he's an outsider is not a good choice. The test of the annointed or chosen of God, is that God (not us) chooses him. That he fulfills the prophecies.

Samantha Rinne said: ↑
Jesus repeatedly says that the kingdom will come as a thief in the night, using a bridegroom and maids with lanterns in many cases.

Um, who cares?

What he means by thief in the night is that such things can and will happen by means completely unexpected to us. Have we already met the Messiah, for that matter already rejected the Messiah? Will he come the day of our death? Is he there to be a king, or is that false prophecy? And how do we know whether they predicted correctly? I'm looking at the prophetic material in the New Testament such as Revelation and it's extremely odd language which really only makes sense after it's happened (not helpful).

 

[InChrist]

Did they not recognize Him as earlier prophesied in the OT?

Christians consider Him as Lord, Jesus Christ.

Maybe the Jews will finally get it on His second coming?

I believe they will recognize Him at His second coming....

“And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. Zechariah 12:10

 

[Samantha Rinne]

The righteous ones will. The ones who have sold their souls to big government, may continue to reject the Messiah. To look for a ruler as the world sees its rulers.

Jesus talks about how kings of this world currently are, versus a model of service.

 

[Tumah]

Tell you what, then - give me Singer's best ONE (1 - just ONE) scriptural example from the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) that he claims is bogus. Cite the scripture with an explanation why it's wrong. I'd like to see it. Then we'll see who has the sharp mind.

You are mistaken:
I am not the one who mentioned Singer.
Anti-missionaries don't usually argue against random NT claims, but against those passages that reinterpret the Tanach or make other statements about Judaism.

But if you're just looking for an example of why a particular passage in your book is wrong, that's not too difficult. Just pick the first NT passage that has Jesus as a fulfillment of some Tanach prophecy and you'll have found it. Then, if you need an explanation of why it's wrong, find the relevant passage and read the context in which it's found. That will clearly show you that the NT is wrong because it reinterpreted the passage outside of it's context with a new meaning completely irrelevant to it's context.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

They were expecting a leader to save them from the Roman
rule. He was a baby, born into family of a Carpenter, later a
wandering teacher. He didn’t fit their profile of Messiah.

You should go into more detail about WHY they expected a messiah that would save them from the Romans. It has to do with messianic prophecy. Even Christians agree with it but say Jesus will fulfill it the second time he comes.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

How was Jesus mistaken?

He is not the messiah. He did not fulfill the things the messiah is to do.

 

[Spartan]

You are mistaken:
I am not the one who mentioned Singer.

My bad.

But if you're just looking for an example of why a particular passage in your book is wrong, that's not too difficult. Just pick the first NT passage that has Jesus as a fulfillment of some Tanach prophecy and you'll have found it. Then, if you need an explanation of why it's wrong, find the relevant passage and read the context in which it's found. That will clearly show you that the NT is wrong because it reinterpreted the passage outside of it's context with a new meaning completely irrelevant to it's context.

I don't share that opinion. You gather together YOUR prophecies of the Messiah and I'll bet I can show you the same kinds of things.

 

[Spartan]

Your understanding of Isaiah is bizarre. The text is really clear about whom it speaks. it doesn't mention a messiah. It uses a first and second person and has God talking to the nation and to Isaiah, himself. Now, sure, there is the Malbim's comment (and the Metzudat David), but that doesn't really support your position. Here is the Radak's statement also

כי נבואותיך יהיו לעתיד לאור גוים שיראו שיתקיימו נבואותיך ישובו לדרך טוב ויאירו בך להיות ישועתי עד קצה הארץ, כי בתשועת ישראל יהיו נושעים גם כן הגוים אחר מלחמות גוג ומגוג, כמו שאמר יבאו כל בשר להשתחוות לפני, ואמר והלכו גוים לאורך ומלכים לנוגה זרחך

That should clarify it for you.

Nice try. There's many Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh, but only two actually use the word for Messiah. If memory serves me that's Psalm 2 and Daniel chapter 9, but that's from memory...

So, according to your logic and argument, that cancels out a major percentage of your Messiah prophecies, since there's no explicit mention of the Messiah in them.. That's assuming you're one who values Old Testament Messianic prophecies also.

That's like the skeptic who challenged me to show him where the Tanakh mentions two advents of the Messiah (which is doable). So I countered back and asked him to show me where it mentions just one advent. Crickets...

Hope that clarifies things for you.

 

[Spartan]

So whom do YOU think is the Messiah? And upon what do you based
your assessment?

Jesus.

The Old and New Testaments.

 

[Tumah]

Supposing this one, for instance comes to fulfill all of the mission of the Messiah.

Judaism 101: Mashiach: The Messiah


But supposing despite this, you didn't want to do some of the things demanded of you. Suppose for instance, you don't much care for secular Jews entering Jerusalem. Or suppose him being a great judge, you do not like his judgements? Would you think of an excuse why this wasn't the Messiah?

Let's give a theoretical. Donald Trump is a political leader, has ties with Judaism (I think his wife is Jewish), is charismatic, and a military leader. He probably knows some Jewish law. He has even tried to establish Jerusalem as capital of Israel. And he is definitely human. Yet suppose you disagree with his politics, being a liberal socialist, or maybe convinced that a Messiah ought to have more of a Jewish bloodline. Despite what he does for Israel, despite that God chooses, and not us humans (see David's own selection as to how that works), would you not reject him soundly as Messiah because we do not think him born under the Jewish line of David, and because he is not Jewish? It's possible that even if a man like this does everything he can to restore the Temple, to rebuild Jerusalem, we'd focus on how we don't think he's the son of David. Well yeah, but David himself was chosen by God from what looked like much more worthy candidates. It's possible that one called "his son" is not actually at all blood-related, but in the same way elected by God.

Suppose I told you in advance that I was going to give you a present. And you believe from what you know of me (practically nothing) that I'm going to give you a pony. I said nothing of the sort, only a bunch of vague hints like "it's gonna be huge" and "I hope you will enjoy using it." So you unwrap this huge package, and find instead a treehouse. Will you say, "Well, this is a cool gift, I bet Samantha spent loads of money setting this up"? Or do you say, "There's gotta be a pony in there somewhere!"

Jesus tells a parable of a man who invites people to a party, and they all have excuses not to come. So he says, invite people from the street to come instead. Bottom line of what happened with Jesus. He wasn't what they were looking for, having a vision of a king, a ruler. So they made excuses why they couldn't follow him. So he picked people with no connection at all to God's chosen people.

If the Messiah comes to rule, will you find a similar excuse because he is outside your perfectly constructed norm? Because he doesn't look like Eliab, or Abinadab, or Shammah, or any of the main seven?

Allow me to clarify why this hypothetical is not realistic from a Jewish perspective.
The prophecies about the Messiah are not either-or. They paint a complete picture of who the Messiah is. Someone who doesn't fulfill all of these prophecies isn't the Messiah. It's only because a person has fulfilled all these prophecies that we know that he is the Messiah.

We don't look for excuses why someone isn't the Messiah - someone who hasn't fulfilled the Messianic prophecies, is clearly not the Messiah. And it clearly needs to be this way. Think about it: one of the prophecies is that the Messiah would ride into Jerusalem on a donkey. Do you know how many people rode into Jerusalem on a donkey over the past 2000 years? Lots. Are they all the Messiah? Obviously not. But if we were to say that simply fulfilling a portion of the prophecies was adequate, we'd no longer have a reason to disqualify them all, they'd all be the Messiah. And that would contradict the purpose of having a Messiah in the first place. on the other hand, G-d gave us a number of prophecies about the Messiah. It's reasonable to assume that He did so, because the Messiah will have all those qualities, not only a few of them.

That's why your tree house analogy isn't really relevant here. Your tree house analogy also isn't well thought out. If you were to say that you're giving me a pony but when I unwrapped your present I found a tree house, I would be left with a question: Why would you say that you're giving me a pony when you really intended to give me a tree house? Maybe the tree house isn't the real gift and I need to search within it to find a pony. Or maybe this wasn't the gift you were referring to when you said you would give me a pony.

It's true that David was selected from among those that appeared more worthy. But he wasn't selected from among those that could not qualify to begin with. He wasn't selected from the tribe of Levi or the tribe of Zebulun. He wasn't selected from the Philistines. All of the tribe of Judah were acceptable candidates, as the tribe of Judah was considered the ruling tribe, the tribe from which the kings would come. It's from that pool that David was chosen. Trump would be analogous to being chosen from the Philistines - he's not a descendant of the House of David and not even Jewish. He likewise isn't G-d fearing and could not teach us the Law, etc. etc.

This is why I said earlier that any Messiah that I could rationally reject is not the Messiah. The way that we know the Messiah is not by his claims, but by his actions. When he fulfills all the Messianic prophecies, when the world has reached the Messianic Age, we'll know he's the one. It will be clear that he is the one. Until that point, he's not it.

 

[Spartan]

They were expecting a leader to save them from the Roman
rule. He was a baby, born into family of a Carpenter, later a
wandering teacher. He didn’t fit their profile of Messiah.

There were and are TWO profiles of the Messiah in Judaism and Christianity.

In my almost forty years of Biblical studies, speaking with and debating Jews and skeptics, and researching the concept of the Jewish Messiah, one thing became crystal clear: the Jewish people were expecting “Messiah ben David” and not the “Suffering Messiah,” aka Messiah ben Joseph. But Messiah ben Joseph - the Suffering Servant - showed up first. Surprise!

In Judaism, and also in Christianity, “Messiah ben David” is the conquering king, much like King David in the Jewish Tanakh / Old Testament. It is believed in Judaism that Messiah ben David will conquer the enemies of the Jewish people, build the “Third (Jewish) Temple,” and usher in a thousand-year Messianic kingdom.

Messiah ben Joseph is described as the “Suffering Servant” (note Isaiah chapter 53) who atones for the sins of his people. He appears on the stage in Israel, will be rejected by his people, and dies in the war against evil. Following that the world is filled with calamities and war until Messiah ben David – the Conquering King – appears and sets everything right.

Judaism has never been able to reconcile the two faces of the Messiahs. Christianity does. Jesus came the first time as Messiah ben Joseph, the 'Suffering Servant," and will come again as 'Messiah ben David,' the "Conquering King".

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I don't share that opinion. You gather together YOUR prophecies of the Messiah and I'll bet I can show you the same kinds of things.

"And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11:12)

No one has done this yet. No one has brought ALL of Israel back to the Land. Not Jesus, not Bar Kochba, not Rabbi Zevi Shabbetai, not Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson, no one. The Messiah has not yet come.

 

[Spartan]

Allow me to clarify why this hypothetical is not realistic from a Jewish perspective.
The prophecies about the Messiah are not either-or. They paint a complete picture of who the Messiah is. Someone who doesn't fulfill all of these prophecies isn't the Messiah. It's only because a person has fulfilled all these prophecies that we know that he is the Messiah.

We don't look for excuses why someone isn't the Messiah - someone who hasn't fulfilled the Messianic prophecies, is clearly not the Messiah. And it clearly needs to be this way. Think about it: one of the prophecies is that the Messiah would ride into Jerusalem on a donkey. Do you know how many people rode into Jerusalem on a donkey over the past 2000 years? Lots. Are they all the Messiah? Obviously not. But if we were to say that simply fulfilling a portion of the prophecies was adequate, we'd no longer have a reason to disqualify them all, they'd all be the Messiah. And that would contradict the purpose of having a Messiah in the first place. on the other hand, G-d gave us a number of prophecies about the Messiah. It's reasonable to assume that He did so, because the Messiah will have all those qualities, not only a few of them.

That's why your tree house analogy isn't really relevant here. Your tree house analogy also isn't well thought out. If you were to say that you're giving me a pony but when I unwrapped your present I found a tree house, I would be left with a question: Why would you say that you're giving me a pony when you really intended to give me a tree house? Maybe the tree house isn't the real gift and I need to search within it to find a pony. Or maybe this wasn't the gift you were referring to when you said you would give me a pony.

It's true that David was selected from among those that appeared more worthy. But he wasn't selected from among those that could not qualify to begin with. He wasn't selected from the tribe of Levi or the tribe of Zebulun. He wasn't selected from the Philistines. All of the tribe of Judah were acceptable candidates, as the tribe of Judah was considered the ruling tribe, the tribe from which the kings would come. It's from that pool that David was chosen. Trump would be analogous to being chosen from the Philistines - he's not a descendant of the House of David and not even Jewish. He likewise isn't G-d fearing and could not teach us the Law, etc. etc.

This is why I said earlier that any Messiah that I could rationally reject is not the Messiah. The way that we know the Messiah is not by his claims, but by his actions. When he fulfills all the Messianic prophecies, when the world has reached the Messianic Age, we'll know he's the one. It will be clear that he is the one. Until that point, he's not it.

I love Messianic literature, etc.

Skeptics argue that Jesus didn't fulfill all the Messianic prophecies so he can't be the Messiah. The correct response to that is that Jesus fulfilled a good number of them during his first advent and will fulfill the remainder when he returns at the end times.

Daniel chapter nine has been acknowledged my many as a Messianic prophecy (I have quotes from ancient Rabbis). If you read it in light of the Messiah, it says he will be "cut off" (killed), and THEN "war will continue until the end." So, if that's the Conquering King Messiah Judaism believes in, then how is he a final conqueror when he's killed before he can finally conquer?

 

[Spartan]

"And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11:12)

No one has done this yet. No one has brought ALL of Israel back to the Land. Not Jesus, not Bar Kochba, not Rabbi Zevi Shabbetai, not Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson, no one. The Messiah has not yet come.

Skeptics argue that Jesus didn't fulfill all the Messianic prophecies so he can't be the Messiah. The correct response to that is that Jesus fulfilled a good number of them during his first advent and will fulfill the remainder when he returns at the end times.

 

[Tumah]

I don't share that opinion. You gather together YOUR prophecies of the Messiah and I'll bet I can show you the same kinds of things.

I see that you're trying to throw the ball to my court. The thing is, my argument has been that your NT doesn't correctly interpret Tanach passages, in order to create the impression that Jesus is the Messiah.

But, to avoid the claim that I'm avoiding your argument, how about Isa. 11. There is says that:
The Messiah would be filled with wisdom and fear of G-d.
Would judge people without seeing them.
Will be righteous.
Hunters and their prey will live side by side.
The world will be completely filled with knowledge of G-d.
The Jews will be returned from exile.
Israel will take the Land of Israel including the land of the Philistines, Amon and Moab.
G-d will make a path through the Nile for the remainder of the Jews to return from Israel.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I love Messianic literature, etc.

Skeptics argue that Jesus didn't fulfill all the Messianic prophecies so he can't be the Messiah. The correct response to that is that Jesus fulfilled a good number of them during his first advent

BarKochba fulfilled a good number of them too. Many believed he was the messiah, and in fact the head of the Sanhedrin, R. Akiva, declared him to be such. Heck maybe he'll fulfill the rest the next time he comes. Why not believe in him?