Is Jesus the Messiah?

[Archetype]

The Tanakh is the Hebrew Bible, the Jewish Scriptures, and the Torah is the Law, the first five books.

Do either of these acknowledge what christians consider the old testament( all books)? i'm assuming that the new testament is out of the question since jews don't regard the son as god.

 

[Free]

I am fairly certain that the contents of the OT and the Tanakh are the same, they are just in a different order. The written Torah, also known in the Greek as the Pentateuch, is the same as the first five books of the OT. And, yes, Jews do not acknowledge the NT but they do have the oral Torah and numerous commentaries on the Tanakh which carry varying degrees of authority.

 

[harv]

Nope - not one of them.

"Nope," does seem to be a rather confident negative.

Like perhaps you really dont believe there is, or perhaps even could be, any factually sound Biblical proofs demonstrating that the Jesus person of the era of history contemporary with Pilate, the procurator of Judea, could answer "rightly" to the title "Messiah."

I would agree with you, that if you are correct that there is no sound proof, for accepting the historical Jesus as the one and only Messiah worthy to receive that title, then are we all without
hope for life beyond the grave: We are, as Paul the Apostle and declared witness of that era, "of all men most miserable," having no certainty for the resurrection from the dead, and our belief is therefore also vane.

I'm not going to immediately answer with the proof that is available direct from one singular book of the Bible which preceded the era of the Jesus of History by some 600 years. Now all those other points of prophecy which have been cited are like bits and pieces of of a puzzle that were intended to cometogether in the life events of the "anointed one of God." But at what time in history were they to transpire together centered wholly upon that one person? Except that time were at least definite to ('pre-determined') a near year then the witness of the new testament writers were all possible fanatic zealots.

I Once asked a Christian minister who had become converted to Christ from Jewry, "What particular book and chapter of the Bible brought your attention to Jesus as the true Messiah of the prophets?" [Note: The wording of this question should be very important to you professing Christians.] This former Jew answered very directly, "Daniel, Chapter NINE." Without this one chapter in Daniel, as correlated with Isaiah, chapter 53, and Ezra, chapter 7, we have no central focus for the other personal events which were foretold to transpire upon "the Anointed One" to come. as fer the name, Jesus. That was an extremely common name among the people speaking the Hebrew language. Could have been anyone of a large number of persons in the land of Jewry.

And by the way. This same chapter nine from Daniel was the convincing Biblical and historical factor for my personal recognition that Jesus WAS and IS the TRUE MESSIAH of the Old AND the New Testaments. The New Testment is the witness to the Old, Affirming the Christ (Messiah) of the Old Testament Prophets: Especially The prophet of the Messianic times for both His First Advent and His Second Advent.

Dont have time to or space to write a book. I dont have a personal web site as yet. But if you have attempted to read and associate these points of Biblical references I offer here please do. Then meet with us here on this thread with your perceptions and questions.

For God, in the person of Jesus Christ, loved/s us so much that He permitted Himself to be "CUT OFF" for us; and to demonstrate the power of His Resurrection; That we might have reasonable assurance, through His example, for everlasting Life with Him to come, At The Last Day."

 

[wavy]

However, the first Christians experienced a cognitive dissonance. The old "ways" and "presumptions" and "interpretations" were destroyed when they considered what they had witnessed. This cognitive dissonance called for new means of interpretations, new manner of coming to the Scriptures, taking seriously Luke's words in the Gospel:

And he (Jesus) said unto them, These [are] the words which I spoke unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses and [in] the prophets and [in] the psalms, concerning me. Then he opened their understanding that they might understand the scriptures and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day Luke 24:44-46

Thus, Paul's words came true - that Christ was a stumbling block for the Jews. They had not experienced the cognitive dissonance, the experience of being taught one thing and SEEING another thing! Thus, Christians look to the OT with Christ in mind.

Regards

i'm amazed every once in a while at some of the characters i encounter over the internet. this logic is terrible. basically, the 'new' christian interpretations or 'cognitive dissonance' serve here as euphemisms for inventing your own beliefs and reading them back into the old testament. you said so yourself: 'Thus, Christians look to the OT with Christ in mind.'

what does that have to do with proving christianity true or proving that 'paul's words came true''? you're just begging the question of what you believe. that what you believe is true because you say so.

awful reasoning.


~eric

 

[francisdesales]

i'm amazed every once in a while at some of the characters i encounter over the internet. this logic is terrible. basically, the 'new' christian interpretations or 'cognitive dissonance' serve here as euphemisms for inventing your own beliefs and reading them back into the old testament. you said so yourself: 'Thus, Christians look to the OT with Christ in mind.'

The fact of the matter is that the first Christians experienced something that shook their commonly accepted paradigms to the core. They thought that the Messiah would be a victorious conqueror. This was based on INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures, since the Word of God does not clearly state such things. These same men believed that the Scriptures were God's Word. They believed the Jewish stories that God came to the Jewish people to save them, the Exodus story, and that God gave them the Law and formed a covenant with them.

Then, these people experienced the Resurrection...On the one hand, they had their BELIEFS of what the Messiah was SUPPOSED to be. Then, they had eyewitnessed God suggesting something else. This is what cognitive dissonance is. The point where one must change their paradigm. It is NOT "special pleading" or inventing a doctrine and then going back to Scriptures to find ANYTHING that might suggest it. It is realizing you were wrong and correcting your paradigm. Those people experienced something that they just KNEW was from God and that they HAD to change their previous interpretations that were held.

Regards

 

[einstein]

Nope - not one of them.

"Nope," does seem to be a rather confident negative.

Like perhaps you really dont believe there is, or perhaps even could be, any factually sound Biblical proofs demonstrating that the Jesus person of the era of history contemporary with Pilate, the procurator of Judea, could answer "rightly" to the title "Messiah."

I would agree with you, that if you are correct that there is no sound proof, for accepting the historical Jesus as the one and only Messiah worthy to receive that title, then are we all without
hope for life beyond the grave: We are, as Paul the Apostle and declared witness of that era, "of all men most miserable," having no certainty for the resurrection from the dead, and our belief is therefore also vane.

I'm not going to immediately answer with the proof that is available direct from one singular book of the Bible which preceded the era of the Jesus of History by some 600 years. Now all those other points of prophecy which have been cited are like bits and pieces of of a puzzle that were intended to cometogether in the life events of the "anointed one of God." But at what time in history were they to transpire together centered wholly upon that one person? Except that time were at least definite to ('pre-determined') a near year then the witness of the new testament writers were all possible fanatic zealots.

I Once asked a Christian minister who had become converted to Christ from Jewry, "What particular book and chapter of the Bible brought your attention to Jesus as the true Messiah of the prophets?" [Note: The wording of this question should be very important to you professing Christians.] This former Jew answered very directly, "Daniel, Chapter NINE." Without this one chapter in Daniel, as correlated with Isaiah, chapter 53, and Ezra, chapter 7, we have no central focus for the other personal events which were foretold to transpire upon "the Anointed One" to come. as fer the name, Jesus. That was an extremely common name among the people speaking the Hebrew language. Could have been anyone of a large number of persons in the land of Jewry.

And by the way. This same chapter nine from Daniel was the convincing Biblical and historical factor for my personal recognition that Jesus WAS and IS the TRUE MESSIAH of the Old AND the New Testaments. The New Testment is the witness to the Old, Affirming the Christ (Messiah) of the Old Testament Prophets: Especially The prophet of the Messianic times for both His First Advent and His Second Advent.

Dont have time to or space to write a book. I dont have a personal web site as yet. But if you have attempted to read and associate these points of Biblical references I offer here please do. Then meet with us here on this thread with your perceptions and questions.

For God, in the person of Jesus Christ, loved/s us so much that He permitted Himself to be "CUT OFF" for us; and to demonstrate the power of His Resurrection; That we might have reasonable assurance, through His example, for everlasting Life with Him to come, At The Last Day."

Finding it difficult to find time to keep up with all the "proof texts". Dan9 is another one that I would like to discuss with you, when I have more time.

 

[einstein]

Psalm 110.

Whereas the Christian interpretation is that the author of this psalm must be King David, the Jewish interpretation is that it may, but not necessarily be King David. Noting that the superscript is omitted completely in the KJB, it reads in Hebrew "l'david mizmor" where the prepostion l' can be translated as of, to, for or by. In other words, it's possible the psalm was composed by David or for David. In addition one should keep in mind that in some psalms eg 144 King David refers to himself in the 3rd person-Ps144:10-Who gives salvation to the kings; Who delivers David His servant from the evil sword.

Thus possible scenarios are that this psalm was composed for David or by David and if by David, it is possible he is writing about himself in the 3rd person or writing about the Messiah.

Having stated this, none of the possible above scenarios support the Christian perspective that the second "Lord" is a divine being who is Jesus.

The proper Hebrew translation of the opening line is as follows: "Of David, a psalm. The word of the L-rd (Y-H-V-H) to my lord (or master) (ladoni):"Sit at my right hand,until I make your enemies a footstool at your feet."

The word "adoni" (ie without the preposition) is never used to address the Creator. It is used in addressing mortals, or sometimes, angels. It should be pointed out the the exact term "ladoni" is found 24 times in the Hebrew bible and the KJB translated that term as "to/unto my lord/master in 23 instances the only exception being this psalm where a captial "L" is used for obvious reasons. Additionally, the combination of the the Tetragrammation (Y-H-V-H) and the term "ladoni" occurs 9 times, with the KJB translating the combination correctly as "LORD" and "lord/master" in 8 out 9 instances. Again the exception is Ps 110.

If King David authored this psalm he could be referring to the Messiah when he used the term ladoni noting that the term is used in addressing mortals but not the Divine. The fact that the Messiah will be greater than David in his accomplishment, that he will be human and is still a descendant of David are all compatible outcomes of this scenario. Again, if David authored this psalm, he could also be referring to himself in the 3rd person, Finally, if someone else authored this psalm dedicated for David, then the psalm simply is speaking of King David, and how G-d will subdue his enemies.

With the Christian interpretation there is a glaring inconsistency in v5 where the KJB has "The Lord (ie Jesus) at thy right hand..." whereas the Hebrew has "a-donai" ie the normally pronounced word representing The Eternal indicating that G-d is going to be with King David.
l

 

[GraceBwithU]

If anyone wishes to post regarding the genealogies, please do. I am not going over the same territory over and over. GBWU, your response indicates that either you don't understand what has already been posted or in the alternative, you do understand, but won't admit that- hence the repetition of your post.

I apologize for repeating...but I could also say you either don't understand or you do understand and do not want to admit it. I am also short of time sometimes. Perhaps it would be better to keep our posts shorter.

Are you fluent in Hebrew? I am. Have you studied the Hebrew Bible in its original language? I have. My clarification regarding the issue with the daughters of Zelophehad was based on a direct translation of the Hebrew. I don't know what you are using but in reality you are depending on a modern English translation of an Elizabethan translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation of the HEBREW.

Being fluent in Hebrew does not make you an authority. I actually use several different Lexicons. I do this because I do know the KJV to have flaws. But not the flaws that you speak of. We can go around and around about translations.

If you really want to know the truth either learn Hebrew or get an authorized proper translation like the Judaica Press Tanach or Artscroll-or in the alternative buy a proper Hebrew-English dictionary.

See...Even you mention translations although you say you are fluent in Hebrew. Translations are all subject to the readers interpretation. The translation you have mentioned….

“The first American Jewish English translation of the Bible was the 19th century effort by Isaac Leeser. Leeser began with a five-volume, bilingual Hebrew-English edition of the Torah and haftarot, The Law of God (Philadelphia, 1845).

The 1917 translation was felt to be outdated by the 1950s, and a new effort developed that involved cooperation between numerous Jewish scholars from a variety of denominations. The translation of the Torah was started in 1955 and completed in 1962. Nevi'im was published in 1978 and Ketuvim in 1984.

The entire Tanakh was revised and published in one volume in 1985, and a bilingual Hebrew-English version appeared in 1999 (also in one volume).†(Wiki)
The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Bible begun in 1604 and first published in 1611 by the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha was translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX). (Wiki)

modern English translation

As you can see the English translation of the KJV dates from 1611...as you can see the Tanakh was translated much later.

Actually sir there is probably no absolutely perfect English translation of the bible. Even when you, (being fluent in Hebrew), speak of any of this in English…you are translating…interpreting.

Are we to understand by this that ONLY those that understand fluent Hebrew have been given the word of God…God forbid!

At the beginning of this thread I asked if you were Jewish. I did not ask this because I hate Jews or to insult you. I asked you this because I knew that you would not believe, therefore we would both be wasting our time.

God Bless you sir...Jesus loves you too. :

 

[Vic C.]

At the beginning of this thread I asked if you were Jewish. I did not ask this because I hate Jews or to insult you. I asked you this because I knew that you would not believe, therefore we would both be wasting our time.

This is true. I should also mention that continued posts that consimn will be dealt with. Nonbelievers who keep pushing the envelope need to realize and respect that this is a Christian site. We don't swim in your toilet, so please don't pee in our pool. 8-)

 

[einstein]

Could you clarify something for me? How do you define pushing the envelope? Have I said anything here that is offensive or insulting to Christianity? I saw the thread and felt you might appreciate another perspective. I realize this is a Christian website. I was expecting that those who frequent this site might enter a reasonable and civil discussion without any rancour. This type of thing occurs regularly on some Jewish websites where Christians participate and there are usually no problems if all parties are treated with civility. Anyway, if anyone wishes to continue,please let me know. : On the other hand, if I am being censored, let me know and I will depart, no hurt feelings.

 

[Vic C.]

Have I said anything here that is offensive or insulting to Christianity?

Where would you like us to start? For starters, let me say that denying Messiah was offensive to God 2,000 years and is still offensive to Him and those who follow Christ.

I realize this is a Christian website.

No, I don't think you do actually, If you do, then you don't respect our beliefs. You keep insisting they're not true.

This isn't censorship. One cannot call something censorship when you agreed to the Terms when signing up. This post and the one before it are blanket statements and are directed at anyone who consistently comes here to denigrate our core beliefs.

1 - This is a Christian site, therefore, any attempt to put down Christianity and the basic tenets of our Faith will be considered a hostile act. see Statement of Faith

and

10-... Editing and deleting of posts is at the discretion of the Mods and Admins. Refusal of membership and suspension or termination of existing members is at the discretion of the Administrators. Openly challenging a Mod or Admin is frowned upon.

 

[einstein]

Interesting. So if anyone comes here and provides the slightest challenge to your way of thinking your response is "LEAVE" and you find that offensive. :

If I were a person without any religious affiliation THAT type of reaction in and of itself would suggest that the particular religion I was exploring had a very weak foundational basis since its adherents were not willing to even countenance any challenges. It's "Jesus or be damned" all over again :

 

[GraceBwithU]

Interesting. So if anyone comes here and provides the slightest challenge to your way of thinking your response is "LEAVE" and you find that offensive. :

If I were a person without any religious affiliation THAT type of reaction in and of itself would suggest that the particular religion I was exploring had a very weak foundational basis since its adherents were not willing to even countenance any challenges. It's "Jesus or be damned" all over again :

You sir should simply find yourself a Jewish forum. There is nothing weak about Christianty. There are many things I could say to you, but I will not. I have a very deep respect for Israel. But to come on a Christian website and act the same as the pharisees...why are you surprised? The rules to this site you agreed with before you signed up. I'm not even sure what you wanted to accomplish.

Christianity has stood the test of time, just a hand full of believers. The ones given to God to spread the gospel, (as in Moses). Jesus fits all the prophecies that the OT quotes. But you choose to act the same as the Pharisees and not believe. It doesn't matter that you don't believe. That does not change the scripture. I truly believe that Christians and Jews worship to the same God. (true Jews that is). Jesus was a Jew. The Jews did not give Jesus to the world...God did. The jews did not take His life or the Romans, God did. Jesus the Messiah was sent into this world to save anyone that would believe in him. And He will come again, but only once more...that whosoever believes in Him is His chosen elect.

I would not have any hesitation in dying for Christ. We believe in the same God but you refuse to believe in the Messiah. This is also part of God’s word. I am not going to pretend to know God’s will, but I do know it is just. When will your Messiah come…he has promised. When He comes again He has been promised also. As far as I know, Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah to all Jews. He claimed iit in secret. This is all for a purpose. If the Pharisees had believe him to be the Messiah, they would not have handed Him over to Rome. If that had not happenned no souls would have been saved...encluding your own or mine.

Jesus and God are one.

:

 

[wavy]

i don't personally see that einstein has done anything wrong. this is the *apologetic* section of this website. einstein hasn't tried to 'put down' christianity...not anymore than the atheists on this site or the christians that are labeled by the mainstream as 'cults'. he's provided an opportunity for christians to make apologetics...in the apologetics forum.

what else are non-christians supposed to do? agree with christianity? and what is the apologetics section for? preaching to the choir? i can understand if einstein were bashing christianity malevolently in some kind of way, or insulting christians or similar...but he isn't.

if you ask me, i think the rules have been stretched and how they apply in this situation doesn't make sense. i also think they have been invoked because of a failure to provide a legitimate counter argument that actually addresses einstein's points.

i've been a member of this site for about three years. i've seen far worse coming from other persons (including myself, btw) and neither vic nor any other moderator made a big deal of it. i could find plenty of my old forums back from '05/'06 when i was a 'messianic' that were deliberately trying to 'put down' christianity. no one said anything then probably because my arguments were stupid and no one took me seriously.

i respect you, vic, but i have to disagree.


~eric

 

[einstein]

Wavy, Thank you for those kind remarks. If anyone in this forum wishes to continue this discussion, go ahead. I would be pleased to respond as best I can. If the moderators think what I post is inappropriate- well - that's life. :