Political Crossfire Forums

[Nathyn]

I started a thread on this subject once on another forum and it ended up being like 30 pages long. The subject essentially revolves around the question, "Was Jesus the Messiah of the Jews?"

I should be a fairly neutral party here to act as a sort of 'referee', in this debate, as I believe that both Judaism and Christianity are false, though I believe in God. I do consider Jewish theology, including its interpretation of the Messiah, to be more credible than Christianity, but still, I'm not Jewish or Christian, so I have no real bias in favor of either perspective.

The question over whether or not Jesus was the Messiah involves an inherent amount of sophistry regarding Messianic prophecies. Because the Bible doesn't explicitly state, "MESSIANIC PROPHECY STARTING NOW," and then, "MESSIANIC PROPHECY OVER." It doesn't distinguish the scriptures which are Messianic prophecies, leaving that entirely up to the reader. We can say that the story of the suffering servant is or isn't Messianic prophecy, but in the absence of any such distinction, we have no real way to determine the truth. It simply involves a circular argument: Judaism is true, therefore it isn't Messianic prophecy or Christianity is true, therefore it is Messianic prophecy.

I do agree that if you look at Jesus' life, you could draw a vast number of parallels with Old Testament prophecy. But as a Jewish person once remarked to me, this could've been intentionally, on Jesus' part or on the part of the New Testament authors. In Matthew 21:1-7, Matthew describes Jesus as riding on two donkeys. Mark and Luke describe the same event as involving Christ riding on simply one animal. The only plausible explanation for Matthew's error is that he misinterpreted the Messianic prophecy in Zechariah 9:9 to read that the Messiah will ride on two donkeys. And so, Matthew wrote such in order to add credibility to the claim that Christ was the Messiah, while ironically discrediting him because of his clear misunderstanding of Hebrew.

Furthermore, one can attribute such to coincidence alone. I'm sure you've seen this before:
"Any similarity between the persons depicted in this film and actual persons, alive or dead, is purely coincidental."

Why shouldn't the same apply here? Mere similarities with scripture ensure divinity?

From the standpoint of historical evidence for Jesus, Jews tend to agree with the secular perception of Jesus: that the details of his life are sketchy at best and his existence as a historical figure is questionable. Some even propose, according to scripture, that Christ and Barabbas (whose name was "Yeshua Bar-Abbas," meaning, Yeshua son of the Father) were the same person and that Christ, hanging around with so many zealots with anti-Roman ties, was himself an anti-Roman revolutionary. This is further established from Luke 22, where Christ told his followers to get swords.

But most importantly of all, Judaism rejects Christ as the Messiah because of how it so sharply breaks away from Jewish tradition and belief. And hence, Jews will say that Christ was an apostate. It makes little sense that God would tell the Jews all of these rules, have them wander through the desert for decades, and then abandon them. Of course, it equally makes little sense that God would create the Earth and then flood it, but that's beside the point: The Christian interpretation about the Messiah was so radical for Jews that most did reject it. It wasn't until a century after Christ's death that Christianity started to become "mainstream." Before then, it was regarded as a tiny Jewish cult. For Jews, the Messiah was a typically unimportant figure, life on Earth now was what was most important. "Sheol," the word often interpreted by Christians to mean "Hell," literally just meant "pit," and it was more of an underworld-like place, similar to the Greek Hades, not a place of eternal damnation. Nor did God ever reveal what happened in sheol, whether we go to heaven and hell or reincarnate, and there are Jews which believe both.

If the Christian list of Messianic prophecies were, in fact, Messianic prophecies, then why didn't God ensure that they were interpreted correctly? Why wasn't God more clear? In terms of the traditional interpretation of the Messianic prophecy, Christ failed miserably. Any Jew could give you a long list of Messianic prophecies why Christ did not fulfill and would also say that the "second coming," was an embellishment created later. Christ, himself, claimed that "none shall taste death," until the Messianic prophecy was totally fulfilled (Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27). That, of course, never happened as there still hasn't been world peace and so on, so his followers had to say, "Oops! I guess he'll probably be back in a few thousand years!"

Why should Jews, back then, have abandoned traditional doctrine in favor of a new, radical interpretation which seemed to cherry-pick Biblical passages to support lawlessness? I mean, Christians advocated worshipping a man (idolatry), abandoning the Sabbath, eating pork -- all of which were severe crimes, some punishable by death. This is sharply at odds with his claim, "I came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it."

There are 613 commandments, not 10.

613 - 10 = 603.
603/613 = 0.983

So, Jesus abolished approximately 98% of the law. There's no real way getting around that, at least. And certainly, the Book of Revelations, which is of dubious authorship, was a huge embellishment on the Messianic prophecy, even moreso than the creation of the "second coming."

[John]

Quote: So, Jesus abolished approximately 98% of the law. There's no real way getting around that, at least. And certainly, the Book of Revelations, which is of dubious authorship, was a huge embellishment on the Messianic prophecy, even moreso than the creation of the "second coming."

Do you believe that the "Law" was just a test to see if man could obey a bunch of rules? Or that they have a purpose?

Let's take eating pork for example. Its purpose was to keep the body ritually clean. Now if this is a ritual...then the ritual represents a reality. The reality of the spirit truly being clean. Now if Jesus dying on the cross pays for all sin and enables all men to be able to accept the Holy Spirit, which continually cleanses their spirit. Do you really think there is a need to keep abstaining from pork? Do we continue to practice the ritual, even after the reality has come?

Would an Indian keep doing his rain dance after it started to rain? As long as it is raining....their is fulfillment in the purpose of the ritual.

[mODULAR mAN]

Why did God need a human sacrifice to decide this? (And then make it sound like it was a tremendous sacrifice, but he knew he was going to resurrect himself?)

The actions of this character are not worthy of worship. He should be, well, crucified.

[Nathyn]

John wrote: Quote: So, Jesus abolished approximately 98% of the law. There's no real way getting around that, at least. And certainly, the Book of Revelations, which is of dubious authorship, was a huge embellishment on the Messianic prophecy, even moreso than the creation of the "second coming."

Do you believe that the "Law" was just a test to see if man could obey a bunch of rules? Or that they have a purpose?
Well, like I said, I don't believe in the Bible at all. But if I were to assume that there was actual evidence supporting the Torah's credibility, then I could only conclude that the most rational interpretation of the Old Testament is Jewish. How any person understands the rules doesn't change them. They probably have a purpose, but even if such a purpose is inconceivable, it doesn't change the fact that it was God that put forth such rules. Not being able to find a purpose doesn't give you the authority to ignore God's commandments (the sacrifice of Isaac, Genesis 22).

John wrote: Let's take eating pork for example. Its purpose was to keep the body ritually clean. Now if this is a ritual...then the ritual represents a reality. The reality of the spirit truly being clean. Now if Jesus dying on the cross pays for all sin and enables all men to be able to accept the Holy Spirit, which continually cleanses their spirit. Do you really think there is a need to keep abstaining from pork? Do we continue to practice the ritual, even after the reality has come?

Would an Indian keep doing his rain dance after it started to rain? As long as it is raining....their is fulfillment in the purpose of the ritual.
OK, Jews follow God's commandments because God revealed himself at Mt. Sinai, which (according to them) was such an extraordinary and undeniably true event, that the story's authenticity cannot be denied. Now, being so: God established the commandments by appearing to millions of Jews. The only way therefore that God could "take back," or "change," his words would be for him to equally appear before millions of Jews.

Jesus' miracles tended to happen before small crowds of people (sometimes large crowds, but never in the millions, like Mt. Sinai) and there's virtually no historical evidence for the claims made by the New Testament.

Christ's own apostles -- his wisest and dearest followers -- did not believe Christ was resurrected until they saw him with their own eyes (Luke 24).

Why should you expect Jews, or anyone else for that matter, to be any less skeptical than the Apostles?

If God came down, throwing around bolts of lightning, and said, "Ehhh, about what I said a few thousand years ago. Yeah, I changed my mind. Follow this guy, Jesus," I could see your point, but Christianity has never achieved that standard of proof.

[Nathyn]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Why did God need a human sacrifice to decide this? (And then make it sound like it was a tremendous sacrifice, but he knew he was going to resurrect himself?)

The actions of this character are not worthy of worship. He should be, well, crucified.
When you state the story of Christ plainly, it sounds ludicrous:

Christ was a guy that was half-human, half-god (well, actually, BOTH man and God, however that works) that was brutally slaughtered in order to render us unaccountable for our immoral actions. Well, no, not really, because you can still go to hell if you're a bad person. The price for immoral actions is death -- this is automatic. God didn't do this. Satan did and we did. "The price for sin is death," is sort of automatic, out of God's power.

Anyway, God gave his only son (actually, Christ IS God, so he sort of gave himself) as a sacrifice, but then, it wasn't really a sacrifice because Jesus ended up resurrecting himself anyway. This absolved us of moral responsibility because Jesus' blood pulls us to heaven like a magnet, away from the Hell that God allowed to develop and condones by continually allowing to exist.

Just so long as you're not a homosexual.

[mODULAR mAN]

Nathyn wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: Why did God need a human sacrifice to decide this? (And then make it sound like it was a tremendous sacrifice, but he knew he was going to resurrect himself?)

The actions of this character are not worthy of worship. He should be, well, crucified.
When you state the story of Christ plainly, it sounds ludicrous:

Christ was a guy that was half-human, half-god (well, actually, BOTH man and God, however that works) that was brutally slaughtered in order to render us unaccountable for our immoral actions. Well, no, not really, because you can still go to hell if you're a bad person. The price for immoral actions is death -- this is automatic. God didn't do this. Satan did and we did. "The price for sin is death," is sort of automatic, out of God's power.

Anyway, God gave his only son (actually, Christ IS God, so he sort of gave himself) as a sacrifice, but then, it wasn't really a sacrifice because Jesus ended up resurrecting himself anyway. This absolved us of moral responsibility because Jesus' blood pulls us to heaven like a magnet, away from the Hell that God allowed to develop and condones by continually allowing to exist.

Just so long as you're not a homosexual.

My theory is that the Jews realized that Jesus was God incarnate and were so pissed at him for being such a bastard in the past, they crucified him. :wink:

So, when he said, "Father, why have you forsaken me." he was talking to the preist and the people. :lol:

It's a beautiful story: God gets his Comupance for abusing his Creation!

Moral of the story: you don't get to rule with a violent and uneven hand just because you are stronger than , or created, people.


(If you think about it, it makes sense. Jesus was all "awww, be good to your enemies (because he had a guilty conscious and knew people would be mad) and when we killed him he suddenly shows humility and allows us to go to Heaven as long as we call him. Because before, he called us all useless sinners and killed at will...) :)

[Nathyn]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Nathyn wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: Why did God need a human sacrifice to decide this? (And then make it sound like it was a tremendous sacrifice, but he knew he was going to resurrect himself?)

The actions of this character are not worthy of worship. He should be, well, crucified.
When you state the story of Christ plainly, it sounds ludicrous:

Christ was a guy that was half-human, half-god (well, actually, BOTH man and God, however that works) that was brutally slaughtered in order to render us unaccountable for our immoral actions. Well, no, not really, because you can still go to hell if you're a bad person. The price for immoral actions is death -- this is automatic. God didn't do this. Satan did and we did. "The price for sin is death," is sort of automatic, out of God's power.

Anyway, God gave his only son (actually, Christ IS God, so he sort of gave himself) as a sacrifice, but then, it wasn't really a sacrifice because Jesus ended up resurrecting himself anyway. This absolved us of moral responsibility because Jesus' blood pulls us to heaven like a magnet, away from the Hell that God allowed to develop and condones by continually allowing to exist.

Just so long as you're not a homosexual.

My theory is that the Jews realized that Jesus was God incarnate and were so pissed at him for being such a bastard in the past, they crucified him. :wink:

So, when he said, "Father, why have you forsaken me." he was talking to the preist and the people. :lol:

It's a beautiful story: God gets his Comupance for abusing his Creation!

Moral of the story: you don't get to rule with a violent and uneven hand just because you are stronger than , or created, people.


(If you think about it, it makes sense. Jesus was all "awww, be good to your enemies (because he had a guilty conscious and knew people would be mad) and when we killed him he suddenly shows humility and allows us to go to Heaven as long as we call him. Because before, he called us all useless sinners and killed at will...) :)
No, it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense that I should face "eternal fiery damnation," for masturbating. Nor does it make sense that strapping someone, including God, to a piece of wood and nailing him to it somehow absolves me of responsibility for my deeds.

Oh boy, Jesus was brutally murdered. Now that means I can masturbate without being perpetually tortured after I die. Thank you, Jesus.

You know, I sort of figured that God would've so loved the world that he would've told us the right rules straight from the start, made us smart enough to figure it out the first time around, and powerful enough to not allow the creation of any beings which could "thwart his will." Or he could have made it so that we're only punished for things which are actually harmful -- like rape and murder. At the very least, I'd think God wouldn't wait several thousand years to demonstrate his love or use the Jews as guinea pigs for an experiment in salvation.

[eynon]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Why did God need a human sacrifice to decide this? (And then make it sound like it was a tremendous sacrifice, but he knew he was going to resurrect himself?)


humans are pretty hard-headed.....God needed to give us a "HOLY-s**t!" moment to get through to us.........plus it provides a great example of humility.

[mODULAR mAN]

eynon wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: Why did God need a human sacrifice to decide this? (And then make it sound like it was a tremendous sacrifice, but he knew he was going to resurrect himself?)


humans are pretty hard-headed.....God needed to give us a "HOLY-s**t!" moment to get through to us.........plus it provides a great example of humility.

Or, you are making this up to fit your beleif.

[eynon]

mODULAR mAN wrote: eynon wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: Why did God need a human sacrifice to decide this? (And then make it sound like it was a tremendous sacrifice, but he knew he was going to resurrect himself?)


humans are pretty hard-headed.....God needed to give us a "HOLY-s**t!" moment to get through to us.........plus it provides a great example of humility.

Or, you are making this up to fit your beleif.

making what up?

[John]

Quote: Well, like I said, I don't believe in the Bible at all. But if I were to assume that there was actual evidence supporting the Torah's credibility, then I could only conclude that the most rational interpretation of the Old Testament is Jewish.

The New Testament was written by Jews. Don't you know that the New Testament is one of the prophecied that needed to be fulfilled?

[John]

Quote: When you state the story of Christ plainly, it sounds ludicrous:




1 Corinthians 1

18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written,
"I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE,
AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE."

20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom;

23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,

24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble;

27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,

28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are,

29 so that no man may boast before God.

30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,

31 so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."

[eynon]

John wrote: Quote: Well, like I said, I don't believe in the Bible at all. But if I were to assume that there was actual evidence supporting the Torah's credibility, then I could only conclude that the most rational interpretation of the Old Testament is Jewish.

The New Testament was written by Jews. Don't you know that the New Testament is one of the prophecied that needed to be fulfilled?

you know....we keep running into this in the Number 31 thread........the OT on it's own, does not make sense, you new the New to complete it.

[Nathyn]

John wrote: Quote: When you state the story of Christ plainly, it sounds ludicrous:




1 Corinthians 1

18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written,
"I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE,
AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE."

20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom;

23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,

24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble;

27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,

28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are,

29 so that no man may boast before God.

30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,

31 so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."
It's a frequent tactic for cults to tell their members that reason is "lower" or "fallible," when compared to some kind of divine reasoning or revelation, whether it comes in the form of doctrine or a charismatic leader, much as Jesus was I'm sure, if he ever existed.

Obviously, you couldn't convince people that a comet was coming to take them away to paradise, and that they needed to drink kool-aid laced with cyanide, if they relied upon human reason. Nor, without human reason, could you convince anybody that a man being brutally tortured saves them from a fictional dimension of eternal suffering.

In fact, in the absence of human reason, we can't really be too sure of anything.

[Whitefields]

Nathyn wrote: John wrote: Quote: When you state the story of Christ plainly, it sounds ludicrous:




1 Corinthians 1

18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written,
"I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE,
AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE."

20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom;

23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,

24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble;

27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,

28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are,

29 so that no man may boast before God.

30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,

31 so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."
It's a frequent tactic for cults to tell their members that reason is "lower" or "fallible," when compared to some kind of divine reasoning or revelation, whether it comes in the form of doctrine or a charismatic leader, much as Jesus was I'm sure, if he ever existed.

Obviously, you couldn't convince people that a comet was coming to take them away to paradise, and that they needed to drink kool-aid laced with cyanide, if they relied upon human reason. Nor, without human reason, could you convince anybody that a man being brutally tortured saves them from a fictional dimension of eternal suffering.

In fact, in the absence of human reason, we can't really be too sure of anything.

No offense, but human reasoning isn't very good at all. Men have been wrong again and again through out history. Human reasoning isn't very reliable.

[Vexillum]

If I were a Jew, I might wonder why I have had no Temple for the last 2000 years or how will the Messiah prove his genealogy through Judah considering Jews lost their genealogy records 2000 years ago.

[The Comrade]

Vexillum wrote: If I were a Jew, I might wonder why I have had no Temple for the last 2000 years or how will the Messiah prove his genealogy through Judah considering Jews lost their genealogy records 2000 years ago.

the reason there is no temple has to do with the dome of the rock. it's built right on top of the temple mount.

[Duchifas]

Vexillum wrote: If I were a Jew, I might wonder why I have had no Temple for the last 2000 years

We been misbehavin'.

Quote: or how will the Messiah prove his genealogy through Judah considering Jews lost their genealogy records 2000 years ago.

Why should a Jew wonder about that? How to prove the Messiah's genealogy is G-d's problem. Or Messiah's. Let them deal with it. Why do Jews need that headache?

[Vexillum]

The Comrade wrote: the reason there is no temple has to do with the dome of the rock. it's built right on top of the temple mount.

That's a complication, not a reason.

[John]

eynon wrote: John wrote: Quote: Well, like I said, I don't believe in the Bible at all. But if I were to assume that there was actual evidence supporting the Torah's credibility, then I could only conclude that the most rational interpretation of the Old Testament is Jewish.

The New Testament was written by Jews. Don't you know that the New Testament is one of the prophecied that needed to be fulfilled?

you know....we keep running into this in the Number 31 thread........the OT on it's own, does not make sense, you need the New to complete it.

And vice versa.