Questions for Christians re: Judaism and how Christianity came to be (spin off) - Page 2

[Rico'sAlice]

Originally Posted by mom2seven

This link lays out the criteria for someone being the Messiah and might help you to understand where the OP's question is coming from.

Thank you very much for this link. I am currently going through these one by one, but it takes time.

But quickly, it seems that a major difference is the requirement for the Messiah to have met ALL of the criterion.

For me- I see many, many prophecies and that Jesus fulfilled too many of them for it to just be a coincidence. Statistically that just doesn't work for me. Therefore, I am comfortable assuming that is "enough" evidence for being the Christ, and I fully expect him to fulfill the rest of the prophecies at the 2nd coming. (In agreement with the new prophecies of Revelations) Again- I get why this probably doesn't work for you. But the OP was trying to understand how Christians could believe this way. And that is what I am trying to explain.

[crazy_eights]

But there were many people who met 'some' of the criteria.

[Rico'sAlice]

Originally Posted by mom2seven

But there were many people who met 'some' of the criteria.

I did not use the word "some."

[crazy_eights]

Some vs. all. You state that he didn't have to meet all the requirement .

[crazy_eights]

This explains the Jewish position better than I ever could:

In an attempt to prove the concept of the "virgin birth," the book of Matthew 1:22-23 states: "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, "Behold a virgin shall be with child and will bear a son and they shall call his name Emmanuel,' which translated means, G-d with us." Missionaries claim that this is the fulfillment of a prophecy recorded in Isaiah 7:14, that actually reads: "Behold, the young woman is with child and will bear a son and she will call his name Emmanuel."

There are numerous inaccuracies in the Christian translation. For example:

1) The Hebrew word, "almah -," means a young woman, not a virgin, a fact recognized by biblical scholars1;

2) The verse says "ha'almah--," "the young woman," not a young woman, specifying a particular woman that was known to Isaiah during his lifetime; and

3) The verse says "she will call his name Emmanuel," not "they shall call."

Even apart from these inaccuracies, if we read all of Isaiah Chapter 7, from which this verse is taken, it is obvious that Christians have taken this verse out of context.

This chapter speaks of a prophecy made to the Jewish King Ahaz to allay his fears of two invading kings (those of Damascus and of Samaria) who were preparing to invade Jerusalem, about 600 years before Jesus' birth. Isaiah's point is that these events will take place in the very near future (and not 600 years later, as Christianity claims). Verse 16 makes this abundantly clear: "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken."

In fact, in the very next chapter this prophecy is fulfilled with the birth of a son to Isaiah. As it says in Isaiah 8:4, "For before the child shall know to cry, "My father and my mother' the riches of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria." This verse entirely rules out any connection to Jesus, who would not be born for 600 years.

Some argue that in an ancient translation of the Bible called the "Septuagint," 70 great rabbis translated the word "almah--" in Isaiah 7:14, as "parthenos--," and that this Greek word means a virgin. This claim is false for several reasons: 1) The 70 rabbis did not translate the book of Isaiah, only the "Pentateuch," the five books of Moses. In fact, the introduction to the English edition of the Septuagint states concerning the translation, "The Pentateuch is considered to be the part the best executed, while the book of Isaiah appears to be the very worst;" 2) In Genesis 34:2-3 the word "parthenos" is used in reference to a non-virgin, a young woman who had been raped; 3) The entire Septuagint version that missionaries quote from is not the original, but from a later, corrupted version.

[crazy_eights]

RE: Isaiah 53

[some] assert that the entire chapter 53 of the book of Isaiah refers to Jesus as the "Suffering Servant" of G-d who dies for the sins of the world. Someone could easily be fooled to believe this argument if Isaiah is read out of context and without a proper translation.

However, [when read in context] it is obvious that Isaiah is telling us how the nations of the world will react when they witness the future messianic redemption of the Jewish people.1 First, they will be astonished, literally covering their mouths at what they see, because they never believed that they would witness the glorious redemption of a persecuted, rejected and despised Israel. Secondly, they will try to understand why this newly exalted Israel suffered so much. Originally they believed it was because G-d had rejected the Jews. Now that they see that this is not true, they will say that the suffering was the result of the transgressions of the nations who persecuted the Jewish people.2

2 When translated correctly, this can be seen clearly in the following two verses: 1."He [Israel] was wounded because of (m'--) our [the nations] transgression." Isaiah 53:5 In this verse the Hebrew letter means "because of" or "from." It is never translated as "for" which would incorrectly indicate a vicarious atonement. 2. "For the transgression of my people they (lamo-- ) were stricken." Isaiah 53:8 The word lamo () is plural (see Psalm 99:7) and clearly indicates that this verse does not refer to a single individual.

[crazy_eights]

I do think it interesting that some of the assuption is that Christians have a more accurate mesoratic text than the one that we as Jews continue to use today.

[Rico'sAlice]

Originally Posted by mom2seven

Some vs. all. You state that he didn't have the requirement to meet all.

OK, OK. I know what you mean. But the "some" that I believe Jesus fulfilled (hundreds) is in a different range than the "some" that can be ascribed to ant other of many different people. I guess I normally take some to mean "a few" and not be synonymous with "many, many" But, that is just me.

[Rico'sAlice]

Originally Posted by mom2seven

I do think it interesting that some of the assuption is that Christians have a more accurate mesoratic text than the one that we as Jews continue to use today.

My understanding is that for modern translations, Christians are using the same text that Jews use today. That's how my bible describes it.

[crazy_eights]

It's a fundamental difference however, b/c we have a tradition that someone must fulfill ALL or they are a 'false messiah' or 'failed messiah'.

[kama'aina mama]

Originally Posted by eilonwy

I'd like to know exactly how you came to understand, from the scriptures, that Jesus was in fact the Messaiah. Reading the scriptures in Hebrew, and even reading Jewish translations, there are many, things which prove, flat out, that he couldn't possibly have been Moshiach. Isn't Christianity ostensibly based on the fact that Jesus was the Jewish Moshiach? If so, wouldn't he then have had to meet the requirements laid out for Moshiach in the Tanach in order to be Christ? I'm asking an honest question here, one to which I do not understand an answer. Is it something within the scriptures that leads you to believe this, or something without?

***Note: I'm okay with debate, of course, and questions and answers, but I did not start this thread with the intent of attacking anyone's beliefs, only understanding. Please, no attacks! I really want to learn something here.

To answer the original question.... it's hard to say. I was in Catholic schools from the age of five on. I learned what they told me. The watered down version of the NT I recall hearing frequently contained the phrase "in fulfillment of the Scripture." What did I know? I was a child, not a Rhodes Scholar. The more I learn the more I question whether the man called Jesus can rightfully be called the Jewish Messiah.

Originally Posted by eilonwy

if it is pointed out that a text you (general) read and put a great deal of stock in is, in fact, a misrepresentation, and that you have access to a far more accurate representation, wouldn't you want to explore that further? i guess what I'm asking is, why don't more Christians question Jewish translations? If they do, how could they possibly come to the same conclusions that they held before?

As a matter of fact, yeah.... I do want to question this. But at the same time I do not fit your qualifier of it being something I put a great deal of stock in. It's part of the milleau but it's not the decider for me. In fact I find these books that take the tack of "here, let me mathematically prove to you that Jesus is the Messiah and G#D, etc... " rather misguided. If it can be catagorically proven it ceases to be faith. It loses it's mysticism and much of it's sacredness.

[Rico'sAlice]

Originally Posted by mom2seven

It's a fundamental difference however, b/c we have a tradition that someone must fulfill ALL or they are a 'false messiah' or 'failed messiah'.

I understand that. And I believe that Jesus WILL fulfill them all.
For me, I believe that he has already fulfilled too many to not be the Christ. And therefore I don't see him as a false/failed messiah, but rather one who has not finished yet.

Again, I thought the OP's reason for this thread was to understand how Christians can believe that Jesus is the Messiah. I am not trying to tell you that you have to agree with my/Christianity's understanding of things. I am only trying to express how I am able to accept this. I am feeling that you are trying to tell me why I am wrong. If that is not your intent, than I am sorry, and will try harder not to interpret your comments as argumentative.

[BinahYeteirah]

Originally Posted by kama'aina mama

To answer the original question.... it's hard to say. I was in Catholic schools from the age of five on. I learned what they told me. The watered down version of the NT I recall hearing frequently contained the phrase "in fulfillment of the Scripture." What did I know? I was a child, not a Rhodes Scholar. The more I learn the more I question whether the man called Jesus can rightfully be called the Jewish Messiah.

Just thought that last bit was pretty funny.

I totally get what you are saying about faith. I don't generally like books that try to prove G-d exists using all types of logical, scientific, and historic ideas. To me, that's not the point. As some point, you just have faith and that is more meaningful.


~~~


I guess that is one of the points of the OP, does J. really fulfill the requirements of the Jewish Messiah. It seems we agree that J. did not do all the things that the Messiah is supposed to do according to the Tanach. Only some. Whether you consider "some" just a few or many, still he did not do everything as prophesized. I can understand why a Christian would believe in the Christian "prophecies" about the "second coming", but needing a second chance disqualifies J. as the Jewish messiah. There have been many people who have been considered miracle workers, etc. through history. Yet we are not living in an era of world peace, without sickness and famine, etc.

I also don't really understand how Christianity can consider itself a continuation of Judaism when it does not observe most of the significant Jewish religious observances as described in the Tanach. I know that Christians believe that those things are no longer needed due to J. and his "fulfillment" of the covenant. It seems clear that this is just a concept that came in when Christianity became popular with non-Jews. In the Tanach, it clearly states that when the Mosiach arrives all will obey G-d's law from the Torah. I don't think it is possible to find a place in the Tanach where is says that once the messiah comes, no one will be required to follow the Law.

If the Christian religion is the entire basis of one's faith and J's life and death are central, I guess I can see how someone might see "prophecies" regarding him in the Tanach. But only in retrospect and only if one were willing to take up a less simple interpretation. If someone read the Tanach with no knowledge of the Christian scriptures, I don't think she would come away expecting a virgin birth, a crucifixion, a man to die "for our sins", etc.

[BinahYeteirah]

Originally Posted by Rico'sAlice

I understand that. And I believe that Jesus WILL fulfill them all.
For me, I believe that he has already fulfilled too many to not be the Christ. And therefore I don't see him as a false/failed messiah, but rather one who has not finished yet.

Again, I thought the OP's reason for this thread was to understand how Christians can believe that Jesus is the Messiah. I am not trying to tell you that you have to agree with my/Christianity's understanding of things. I am only trying to express how I am able to accept this. I am feeling that you are trying to tell me why I am wrong. If that is not your intent, than I am sorry, and will try harder not to interpret your comments as argumentative.

I guess I can understand why you believe it. You have faith and you believe your Christian scriptures and leaders. That's fine, of course.

On some level you are right, we are trying to tell you you are wrong. Not to destroy your faith, but just to point out that J. cannot be the JEWISH messiah. If you believe that he is the messiah, I can see that. But the JEWISH messiah? He didn't do most of the things a Jewish messiah is supposed to do, not to mention the fact that the Jewish messiah is just a man, not divine.

So the Christian religion is telling us *we* are wrong. Right? But then Christianity says that it is a CONTINUATION of the Jewish religion. Wait! Are we wrong or are we truly what the Christian religion is based on? It seems it couldn't be both. It seems to me that Christianity is a NEW RELIGION, totally separate from Judaism. It does not accept the basic tenets of Judaism; it merely took over some of our holy writings and called some of our values their own. Stop saying it is the same thing, we just don't believe in J. and that's it. It's not the same.

Sorry if that last paragraph was a bit intense. It was not directed to anyone in particular, just to the idea that Judaism and Christianity are some kind of continuum. Christianity is the totally new religion that developed as a "messiah" who happened to be Jewish was popularized among non-Jews.

[crazy_eights]

I guess I understand where Christians are coming from but where I am lost is at how they got there. The point at which I am lost is that we have a clear tradition of what these texts mean and they aren't what the Christian texts claim they do. So how did we get from starting point a to point b which ended in the foundation of Christianity? I also am confused on the idea of the second coming. It seems to me from prior conversations I've had that the arguement is circular - if Jesus was the messiah and he didn't fulfill his mission there HAS to be a second coming during which time he will do it. Am I wrong?

[Rico'sAlice]

Originally Posted by BinahYeteirah

So the Christian religion is telling us *we* are wrong. Right? But then Christianity says that it is a CONTINUATION of the Jewish religion. Wait! Are we wrong or are we truly what the Christian religion is based on? It seems it couldn't be both. It seems to me that Christianity is a NEW RELIGION, totally separate from Judaism. It does not accept the basic tenets of Judaism; it merely took over some of our holy writings and called some of our values their own.

I am wracking my brains for a PC way of approaching this. I can't think of a way to say this inoffensively. Earlier in the thread I was really trying to explain how I understand things without saying that another understanding is wrong. But I'm not sure that it possible. We all don't "like" to tell each other that someone else is wrong, but I think we have to end up there if we are being honest.
---
Basically I , believe that the Tenach or Old Testament (The Mosaic books, the Histories, the Prophets, & the Writings) are all true, and inspired by God. [Books like the Maccabees I belief are useful and basically historically accurate, but not scripture. I believe the same position is held in Judaism.]
I do not feel strictly bound by historical interpretations, or feel that Talmudic commentary is directly from God. It may be interesting to consider, but not scripture.

I believe in the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob. I believe He is the one and only true God.

I do believe Jesus is most definitely the Christ, Messiah of the Tenach. I believe that the (non-Messianic) Jews are incorrectly interpreting the prophecies of the Tenach, in terms of which ones are/are not messianic and when/how they need to be fulfilled. Basically that an idea developed of who the Messiah would be that was not 100% accurate. In that way, Christianity is based on the Tenach while disagreeing with Jewish understanding/interpretation of it.

So, while I understand that Jesus does not meet what you feel are the criteria outlined in the Tenach, He does meet what I feel are the criteria outlined in the Tenach. This difference in opinion of the requirements lead to different conclusions. That is why I would refer to him as the Jewish Messiah (as in the Messiah foretold by the Jewish Tenach), even though He is not fitting the definition of Messiah that most Jews have.

[Rico'sAlice]

Originally Posted by mom2seven

I also am confused on the idea of the second coming. It seems to me from prior conversations I've had that the arguement is circular - if Jesus was the messiah and he didn't fulfill his mission there HAS to be a second coming during which time he will do it. Am I wrong?

I may not understand your question. But from a Christian perspective, the second coming is believed in for reasons outside of unfulfilled OT prophesy. Jesus says He will come back. And later John has visions of the second coming (Revelations). That is why we believe there will be a second coming.

[MyLittleWonders]

These questions are exactly what lead my dh and I out of Christianity. We started actually looking at the idea of what constituted the Jewish Messiah and whether or not Jesus met those requirements. From the Christian pov (at least when we were in the church - which seems so long ago but was only 1 year ago), there are many "prophecies" from the "OT" that are fulfilled in the "NT". But, there are legitimate prophecies from the Tanakh that are not fulfilled; when we questioned those, we were always told that they either (1) would be fulfilled in the 2nd Coming or (2) were fulfilled symbolically. We studied some of the supposed prophecies that were fulfilled in Jesus, but what really started getting us is the following:

1. Ezekiel 37:21-28:

"21 Say to them, 'Thus said the Lord HaShem/Elohim: Behold, I am taking the Children of Israel from among the nations to which they have gone; I will gather them from all around and I will bring them to their soil; 22 I will make them into one nation in the land, upon the mountains of Israel, and one king will be a king for them all; they will no longer be two nations, and they will no longer be divided into two kingdoms, ever again. 23 They will no longer be contaminated with their idols and with their abhorrent things and with all their sins. I will save them [taking them] from all their dwelling places in which they had sinned, and I will purify them; they will be a nation to Me, and I will be a God to them. 24 My servant David will be king over them, and there will be one shepherd for all of them; they will follow My ordinances and keep My decrees and fulfill them. 25 They will dwell on the land that I gave to My servant Jacob, within which your fathers dwelled; they and their children and their children's children will dwell upon it forever; and My servant David will be a leader for them forever. 26 I will seal a covenant of peace with them; it will be an eternal covenant with them; and I will emplace them and increase them, and I will place My Sanctuary among them forever. 27 My dwelling place will be among them; I will be a God to them and they will be a people to Me. 28 Then the nations will know that I am HaShem Who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary will be among them forever.'"

We couldn't get past what was supposed to happen for a man to be proclaimed the Jewish Messiah. From the verses above, the Messiah is to gather all of Israel back home and be king over them. The Temple will be rebuilt. All other nations will know that G-d sanctifies His people and the Temple will stand forever. None of those things happened within the lifetime of Jesus. Infact, his life seemed to separate people, cause division, and shortly after his death, the Temple was destroyed.

2. Micah 4:1-3:

"1 It will be in the end of days that the mountain of the Temple of HaShem will be firmly established as the most prominent of the mountains, and it will be exalted up above the hills, and peoples will stream to it. 2 Many nations will go and say, 'come, let us go up to the Mountain of HaShem and to the Temple of the God of Jacob, and He will teach us of His ways and we will walk in His paths.' For from Zion shall go forth the Torah, and the word of HaShem from Jerusalem. 3 He will judge between many peoples, and will settle the arguments of mighty nations from far away. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning knives; nation will not lift sword against nation, nor will they learn war anymore."

Again, the Temple will be built and stand forever; people will stream to it and know that G-d is the G-d of Jacob. There will be peace; nations will not take up the sword against one another again. These things did not happen.

3. Second Coming: This one still baffles us ... where is the prophecy of a Second Coming during which the Moshiach gets to get it all right. *IF* Jesus is afforded somehow a Second Coming, then there are many, many others who also are to be afforded a Second Coming to get it right. As mentioned previously, there are many others who tried on the title of Moshiach, yet during their lifetime they did not fulfill the prophecies. Jesus didn't fulfill the prophecies. There isn't a prophecy that says, "If you don't get it all done during your first life-time, don't worry, because I'm going to give you a second chance."

4. Human sacrifice for sins/vicarious sacrifice for sins: Again, this one flies smack in the face of the Tanakh. G-d does not allow other's to take your place in the "fire" so to speak. Each man is responsible for himself. (I can't find the references I want off the top of my head ... I'll see if I can later tonight once the boys are in bed.) Human sacrifice was forbidden in the Tanakh; why would G-d change His mind suddenly?

That's all I can get down right now ... I'm being interrupted. I love this discussion though ... it's been a while since I've delved into the Tanakh and the Christian Bible ... I forgot how much I enjoyed it.

*Quotations from the Artscroll Tanakh, Stone Edition.

[BinahYeteirah]

Originally Posted by Rico'sAlice

That is why I would refer to him as the Jewish Messiah (as in the Messiah foretold by the Jewish Tenach), even though He is not fitting the definition of Messiah that most Jews have.

Why not call him the "messiah of the Tanach" or better yet, "the messiah of the OT" then? I don't agree that he is that, but he definitely has nothing to do with Judaism as it has ever been known. The term "Jewish" implies of or pertaining to Judaism. Judaism did not change its requirements for the messiah to disqualify J. The requirements have been the same since well before J. lived. If you believe Judaism is incorrect about the requirements, then we were always wrong, and there is nothing much "Jewish" about J. as a "messiah" (other than the person J. being Jewish himself).

Anyway, we'll just have to agree to disagree. We both knew *that* from the beginning, didn't we?

[BinahYeteirah]

Originally Posted by Rico'sAlice

In that way, Christianity is based on the Tenach while disagreeing with Jewish understanding/interpretation of it.

Again, this basically says to me that this is a religion based on a new interpretation of our religious text, while totally disregarding the "Judaism" that it is a part of.