• 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!

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

Spartan

Well-Known Member
It always amuses me how many people will bend over backwards to fit Jesus into their theology somehow, even if they accept that he didn't do this or that; rather than just letting him go they shoehorn him into any crevice possible. It's a bit weird.

It would be weird if that were true. But Jesus wasn't shoehorned in by anyone. Some people are just too Biblically challenged to recognize the real thing.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Mere humans don't heal the sick and raise the dead and resurrect themselves from the dead.
It doesn't matter if Jesus actually did any of these things; what matters is that he failed to fulfil any of the messianic prophecies. Even if he did everything attributed to him, it would make him no more the messiah than I am.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
What content?
I made three comments on your earlier post. Are you having trouble identifying them?

That Zechariah is speaking of a war which hasn't happened?
The bible is often not written in linear style. These verses clearly speak of the
Messiah.
Where in the chapter is it "clearly" speaking of the Messiah. It mentions a war on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem by the nations. There is no mention there of the Messiah.

An interesting war which hasn't happened yet is the one mentioned in Ezekiel
38 or 39.
Why do you think this is relevant to this discussion?

This battle is in the future, and reads like a nuclear one. All the parties
are mentioned with the exception of one - the ally of Israel. This ally wasn't like
Ethiopia or Libya etc.. It just refers to it as the nation of the "islands" or the
"coast lands" Sounds like America to me -
There is no such verse in those chapters with those words.

particularly in "sending fire" upon
"Magog" from the north, yet describing Magog was being to the "uttermost
north." That could be across the north pole - something absurd to readers of
Old Testament times.
You'll have to explain why across the north pole would be described as "uttermost north" and not "north west" or "north east". While you're at it, you should probably also explain why it can't be a country already in Eurasia.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
I really shouldn't try using grammatical terms...

What type of grammatical word describes salvation, and not a noun, as for me as an archangel we offer people salvation, so it is a doing word for us, which is then a verb, what is it for you?

Thank you, will take a look into it.

In my opinion. :innocent:
Not only shouldn't you use grammatical terms, you also shouldn't try interpreting Biblical Hebrew due to your lack of knowledge on Biblical Hebrew grammar - and apparently English grammar as well.

In my opinion - but strongly suggested you look into it.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Elish and Elijah are said to have done the first two. The last one has not yet been observed by any credible sources.

The Gospel authors and various others attest to the resurrection of Jesus. Plus over 500 saw Jesus afterwards. Denials aren't credible.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
The Gospel authors and various others attest to the resurrection of Jesus. Plus over 500 saw Jesus afterwards. Denials aren't credible.
What would make these even slightly belieavble would be if any of the resurrection stories agreed with each other. None do. All four accounts vary on who was there first, how many angels there were, which Mary was there, where Jesus was, what he said &c.
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
This is all still mired in the same erroneous thinking. You say "Jesus came to save the Jews." Assuming the gospels have any measure of accuracy, this would be meaningless in any Jewish sense. Then "Jews largely decided they didn't need saving" is likewise alien to Jewish thought. The whole "messiah will come again" has no place in Judaism. So what is the point of restating things that have no bearing on or relevance to Judaism as if they speak for anything native to Jewish theology?

I'm pretty sure you don't understand what I said. No, they don't believe the Messiah will come again. But for them, he hasn't. He came as the Gentile Messiah, despite being born a Jew. That's not one of theirs. He didn't respect their Sabbath, and he couldn't be their Messiah.

It's like this. To the Jew, Messiah has not come. To the Christian, Messiah will come again. This implies if both can be considered right (I don't see why not), that the second Messiah these Jews meet will be their first Messiah and will probably rebuild the Temple, among other things. By the way, there are a few hardships with this. First, they would need the right bloodline. The Cohen is a priest line that got lost in history after the Jews were scattered. There's also a sacrifice of a red heifer, I think it was, in order to consecrate the land for the Temple. Extinct now, so they'd need to breed one. And then there's the fact that non-Jews have basically occupied the Temple Mount.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
The Gospel authors and various others attest to the resurrection of Jesus. Plus over 500 saw Jesus afterwards. Denials aren't credible.
Denials are quite credible when the only sources are one or two individuals writing about what they and others saw.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
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?

Some Jews didn't, including Paul, Peter, thousands of early converts, ME, etc.

Maybe the percentage of Jews who trust Christ is similar to the percentage of Gentiles who trust Him....
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
What would make these even slightly belieavble would be if any of the resurrection stories agreed with each other. None do. All four accounts vary on who was there first, how many angels there were, which Mary was there, where Jesus was, what he said &c.

There's a number of problems with your claims.

First, there are no variations in the resurrection accounts in the Gospels. All four agree Jesus was resurrected. The issues you raise (how many angels appeared, etc.) occur AFTER the resurrection.

Second, those events are not contradictory, they’re complementary. If you put them on a timeline (How many angels were at the tomb? Answer: What time was it when the first one appeared, and then the second?), then most of the alleged contradictions disappear. Then there’s also what Cold Case Detective J. Warner Wallace calls “literary spotlighting.” One skeptic would argue that John’s Gospel only mentions Mary Magdalene at the tomb. That’s who John focused the “spotlight” on initially. But in reality, John was aware of the presence of other women at the tomb because later in the Gospel John wrote, “So she (Mary Magdalene) came running to the Simon and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, ‘They have taken the Lord out of the tomb and WE (“We”) don’t know where they have put him.’” – John 20:2

Finally, there's Simon Greenleaf’s “Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts,” which places the resurrection scriptures in chronological order.

Greenleaf’s Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts

It's amazing what you discover when you dig deep and do your due-diligence.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure you don't understand what I said. No, they don't believe the Messiah will come again. But for them, he hasn't. He came as the Gentile Messiah, despite being born a Jew. That's not one of theirs. He didn't respect their Sabbath, and he couldn't be their Messiah.
But there is no "Gentile Messiah" in Judaism so the entire claim is a non-starter. The concept of a "messiah" develops from Jewish thought so advocating two separate messiah-figures, complying with mutually exclusve theologies co-existing makes no sense.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
There's a number of problems with your claims.

First, there are no variations in the resurrection accounts in the Gospels. All four agree Jesus was resurrected. The issues you raise (how many angels appeared, etc.) occur AFTER the resurrection.

Second, those events are not contradictory, they’re complementary. If you put them on a timeline (How many angels were at the tomb? Answer: What time was it when the first one appeared, and then the second?), then most of the alleged contradictions disappear. Then there’s also what Cold Case Detective J. Warner Wallace calls “literary spotlighting.” One skeptic would argue that John’s Gospel only mentions Mary Magdalene at the tomb. That’s who John focused the “spotlight” on initially. But in reality, John was aware of the presence of other women at the tomb because later in the Gospel John wrote, “So she (Mary Magdalene) came running to the Simon and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, ‘They have taken the Lord out of the tomb and WE (“We”) don’t know where they have put him.’” – John 20:2

Finally, there's Simon Greenleaf’s “Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts,” which places the resurrection scriptures in chronological order.

Greenleaf’s Harmony of the Resurrection Accounts
Or the authors of the gospels could have just, you know, written the full account as they believed it, instead of this convoluted mess you've just presented.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
I'm pretty sure you don't understand what I said. No, they don't believe the Messiah will come again. But for them, he hasn't. He came as the Gentile Messiah, despite being born a Jew. That's not one of theirs. He didn't respect their Sabbath, and he couldn't be their Messiah.

It's like this. To the Jew, Messiah has not come. To the Christian, Messiah will come again. This implies if both can be considered right (I don't see why not), that the second Messiah these Jews meet will be their first Messiah and will probably rebuild the Temple, among other things. By the way, there are a few hardships with this. First, they would need the right bloodline. The Cohen is a priest line that got lost in history after the Jews were scattered. There's also a sacrifice of a red heifer, I think it was, in order to consecrate the land for the Temple. Extinct now, so they'd need to breed one. And then there's the fact that non-Jews have basically occupied the Temple Mount.
I just want to add to what @rosends already said.

Not only is there no basis in Jewish Scriptures for a "Gentile Messiah" who's separate from the Jewish one, Christians don't claim that their messiah is different than ours and many of their prophecies are based on Jewish Scriptures that were altered to fit their ideal. So nobody is making the claim that you are.

Also, there are plenty of Priests today - although the Messiah is not a descendant of the Priestly class, so this is not an issue.
Red Heifers are not a separate species of cows, they're regular cows with some sort of genetic mutation that makes them brownish red and they're born all the time. They're also not used to consecrate the land, but to remove impurity from contact with a dead person from a live person.
Non-Jews currently occupy the Temple Mount, but presumably after the advent of the Messiah, they'll be more agreeable to putting up a Temple.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Or the authors of the gospels could have just, you know, written the full account as they believed it, instead of this convoluted mess you've just presented.

The only convoluted mess is what you previously presented in your arguments against the resurrection.
 
Top