Are Jewish People Still Awaiting the Messiah?

[Lapell]

Jesus actually interpreted the scriptures quite similarly to how the Pharisees did, as did Paul/Saul.

So you’re letting your faith turn on your understanding of a single word? “almah” is what Isaac calls his future wife when he meets her at the well. The word is sparsely used in the Old Testament, but certainly does not exclude the possibility of the “young woman” being a virgin.

And though I am not a specialist in Hebrew, I read somewhere that in Hebrew, “almah” has the same two meanings as the word “virgo”: “young girl”; “virgin”.

 

[qui_est_ce]

At this point in time, I want to clarify something. As I am becoming Jewish, I am strictly adhering to the notion that Jews do not “seek converts.” I am not here to say, “You are wrong and thus you should think like me.”

I started this thread so I could better understand Judaism. I am not seeking to convert anybody or tell you you are wrong in this venue. You were questioning Christian belief, and I should not have responded, as it was off topic

Amen, QEC. People do deceive themselves when they misunderstand Scriptures. The question is, who?

That’s a topic for another thread.

 

[tomarin]

I don’t doubt that there is tremendous peace when one meditates on the words and story of the Humble Galilean. I’ve experienced inner peace when meditating on the Tao Teh Ching, as it surely has provided comfort to countless over the millennia.

That’s not really my point. The kingdom of heaven has nothing to do with inner peace. It’s a supernatural reality that is more real than the world we perceive with our senses. We catch a glimpse of it when we treat other humans the way Christ commanded us to. Ubi caritas est vera, Deus ibi est – where there is love, there is God.

However, I don’t believe that the Scriptures relating to Jewish Mashiach were solely talking about Inner harmony. No doubt, in order to achieve this peace promised, soundness of mind and heart must be achieved. But this era of peace was literally a cessation of physical hostility. “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore.” (Isaiah 2:4)

Jesus of Nazareth did not do that. Ask the Jewish residents of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.

That’s because Christ represented a new covenant with humanity. He came “not to destroy the law but to fulfill it” (Matthew 5:17). Prior to Jesus’s birth, God spoke to the Hebrews through prophets. With Jesus He has shown us His face. Which was a beautiful and loving thing to do.

 

[Lapell]

If you read the first chapter of Matthew’s Gospel, you will see that Jesus was born to a man (Joseph) and woman (Mary). As for the notion of virgin birth, you should not restrict the miracle of Jesus’ nativity to a woman’s virginity, but rather regard it as an extension of God’s direct intervention in salvation history. There was no human agent in the Messiah’s conception as there was no human agent in the Messiah’s annointment. The Messiah was annointed directly by God’s Spirit and He was conceived by the power of the same Spirit.

Well, the virgin birth is seen in the sudden change of expression when we arrive at Joseph’s name:" Jacob begat Joseph, husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus called the Messiah".
And then, how do you put new wine in an old wineskin? You must use a new wineskin for that purpose, that the wine and the wineskin be not lost…

 

[Lapell]

Now, back to the topic…
The Jews are still awaiting the Messiah…
So do we!
Amen! Amen! Allelu Yah!

 

[Ed_Rand]

I love the social justice messages of Jesus of Nazareth. I quote Matthew 25:31-46 all the time. Historic Jesus the Jewish rabbi was a heroic figure who assaulted the status quo and defended the helpless and oppressed. That is the Jesus I will always admire.

I was an agnostic for 5 years and I was in the same position. I believed that Jesus was the greatest man who ever lived with the most exemplary life and most sublime teachings that ever hit the earth. What was always troublesome for me was that, he said all these things that moved my heart, but yet He also said that He was God!!! So, the greatest “teacher” that ever lived was also quite delusional. So, you have to admire Him for all those amazing qualities, then, on the other hand, he’s a cook! a whacko! saying that He is God… bah! delusional, no doubt about it.

There is something that has always nagged me about the “Jesus as Messiah” narrative. As I understand it, the coming of the Messiah would bring an undeniable era of peace. The rise and fall of Jesus Christ, though, never did such.

What is the Catholic defense? And for the record, I fully reject the “Second Coming.” Also from what I understand, it has no basis from the Hebrew Scriptures, as many see it as a theological addition to validate the descriptions of Jesus’ divinity.

I can’t speak for all Catholics, but here’s my answer. You admit that Jesus was a great Jewish sage? You admit that he probably had a better understanding of scripture than everyone here? Here’s the point: He didn’t even try to fit into typical views of the messiah. As someone reminded us “I come to bring not peace but the sword.” Obviously, he was aware that the Jewish people expected political deliverance from their messiah. Basically, he understood things from the scriptures that mainstream Judaism wasn’t privy to. For instance, the idea of the “suffering messiah” has never caught on with the Jews who still believe that the Israelite nation as a whole was that servant.

In a nutshell, the Jewish authorities of Jesus’ time didn’t understand what Jesus saw in the scriptures, and this difference of understanding remains today. Jesus saw the suffering messiah in the scriptures, so we Christians see the suffering messiah in ours, and we see Isaiah’s prophecy fulfilled in Jesus.
About the second coming: a link posted on another thread I’m watching gave a good video explaining the Jewish scriptural foundations of Jesus. He linked the second coming to Moses’ second coming down the mount.
Anyway, in Jesus’ day there was obviously not a consensus on what the messiah would be like. There were no checklists for the Messiah to fulfill. If there was a checklist, it was a Pharisee checklist, and we know that they had totally lost their way.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

That’s not really my point. The kingdom of heaven has nothing to do with inner peace. It’s a supernatural reality that is more real than the world we perceive with our senses. We catch a glimpse of it when we treat other humans the way Christ commanded us to. Ubi caritas est vera, Deus ibi est – where there is love, there is God.

I know it doesn’t, but that’s what defenders of the “Jesus as Messiah” narrative seem to endorse, in light of the failure to insure that war will be no more.

Then why didn’t God, through the prophets, inform the ancient Hebrew scribes of this change? As you stated in a previous post, the Israelites had no veritable perception of a spiritual realm after this life. Fair enough- so what we have on hand is wonderful proof of anthropological change withing a community’s conscience and spiritual understanding.

It’s real untenable.

 

[Ed_Rand]

I know it doesn’t, but that’s what defenders of the “Jesus as Messiah” narrative seem to endorse, in light of the failure to insure that war will be no more.

Then why didn’t God, through the prophets, inform the ancient Hebrew scribes of this change? As you stated in a previous post, the Israelites had no veritable perception of a spiritual realm after this life. Fair enough- so what we have on hand is wonderful proof of anthropological change withing a community’s conscience and spiritual understanding.

It’s real untenable.

Jewish theology was evolving over time. Ideas of the afterlife, as opposed to rewards and punishment in this life, were only later coming to prominence. For instance, their are psalms that hint at the afterlife. Also, the idea of Satan was something that developed over a long period of time, I believe. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, please.

Also, what is untenable? That Judaism split is untenable? That God’s message changed?

 

[Sepharad]

Wait a minute! I haven’t read the Zohar, but I read of its existence, and i think it was written in the medieval times not before that! How otherwise would you explain that the first one was identified as “Messiah ben Yosseph”. So I don’t think the Zohar was written when the New Testament was put together in the 4th or 5th Century!

The Kabbalah was set into writing later, but the teachings contained in it were originally of an oral nature (very much like the Talmud). Practically all Jewish teachings apart from the (written) Torah and the rest of the Tanakh (“Old Testament”) were originally passed down orally.

Just as the NT was not put into writing until much later as well.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

I was an agnostic for 5 years and I was in the same position. I believed that Jesus was the greatest man who ever lived with the most exemplary life and most sublime teachings that ever hit the earth. What was always troublesome for me was that, he said all these things that moved my heart, but yet He also said that He was God!!! So, the greatest “teacher” that ever lived was also quite delusional. So, you have to admire Him for all those amazing qualities, then, on the other hand, he’s a cook! a whacko! saying that He is God… bah! delusional, no doubt about it.

His social teachings still move me, but the Messiah part just doesn’t harmonize for me anymore, especially with the comparisons of both sides’ arguments. I was a deist for two years after I ceased being a practicing Roman Catholic. (Yes, my Anglican posts are valid, I am not being coy here- I was deist even during my temporary stint in the Episcopal Church).

I can’t speak for all Catholics, but here’s my answer. You admit that Jesus was a great Jewish sage? You admit that he probably had a better understanding of scripture than everyone here?

Yes, I believe he was a great social reformer. I don’t believe I said that his Scripture understanding was better than most. Maybe it was?

Here’s the point: He didn’t even try to fit into typical views of the messiah. As someone reminded us “I come to bring not peace but the sword.” Obviously, he was aware that the Jewish people expected political deliverance from their messiah. Basically, he understood things from the scriptures that mainstream Judaism wasn’t privy to. For instance, the idea of the “suffering messiah” has never caught on with the Jews who still believe that the Israelite nation as a whole was that servant.

You see, there’s the clincher- Jesus of Nazareth DIDN’T fit the mold necessary to satisfy the Mashiach. Charismatic? Yes! Pacifist? You bet! Actually fulfilling prophecies? No. The Vatican and other Christian communions can’t have it both ways- stringently quote and defend Tanakh passages seemingly foretelling of Christ’s Messiah nature, yet back off and alternate the message when the actual passages don’t jive with what occured.

They were promised no war and no hatred. It didn’t happen! Not only did the Jews not return to the Holyland, they were either massacred or expelled! When the objectives weren’t achieved, voila! Jesus suddenly has a Second Coming to manifest those promises that weren’t achieved in the First Coming.

As I understand it, the Messiah was supposed to do it with his one arrival, not two.

So, this is more of my disaffection with post-Jesus Christian theology. We all arrive at different maturities of belief, in either direction! No one is more superior to another.

Look, I think the historical Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth, born to a poor young woman in rustic Galilee, manifested the best of Jewish social ethics. Negating the non-harmonizing portions of the synoptic Gospels, Jesus was a true proponent of Tikkun Olam (repairing the world)! The Good Samaritan is a veritable aspect of this. That’s why “faith alone” types have no point in being Christian, because their notion is totally off kilter with Jesus’ view of works and faith.

The problem with institutionalized Christianity, is that for centuries it did not properly follow Jesus. The Church (and then churches) returned to a system where the Good Samaritan had no place in the hierarchy, where the pope would not sit with Gentiles (meaning Jews and other heretics) and tax collecters, like Jesus did. Now, popes do. Benedict prayed with Jews in the Cologne synagogue. John Paul II prayed with various religious representatives at Assisi. But that doesn’t excuse the past.

But, I am done debating publicly. If you want to continue the converasation with me, send a private message.

God bless.

 

[inJESUS]

I still do not get this era of peace thing. A human who will utter an era of peace, mustn’t he change the hearts of men? the hearts of Muslims sitting on the temple with no intention to move? the teachings of Muhammad that at the end of days Muslims will annihilate the Jews, something they are trying to fulfill ?how can anyone see a prospective of peace, let alone a universal one? such a human must be God, and such scenario must be on the end of days with apocaliptic drastic changes done only by God. I still do not get it. Sometimes the messiah is portrayed as a normal human being, sometimes as an apocalyptic figure. I don’t get it.

 

[tomarin]

Then why didn’t God, through the prophets, inform the ancient Hebrew scribes of this change?

What do you think has been going on for the last two thousand years?

 

[tomarin]

Then why didn’t God, through the prophets, inform the ancient Hebrew scribes of this change?

perhaps God doesn’t work according to a human-approved script the way you suppose.

 

[inJESUS]

But this era of peace was literally a cessation of physical hostility. “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore.” (Isaiah 2:4)

but the way you are interpreting it gives no room to a fulfillment. If we all believe God is all knowing, and in His foreknowledge forsees that a man called Muhammad will make war a part and parcel of his religion, then the Isaiah verse becomes false because Muslims will not stop following their ideologies in the name of Allah and will keep fighting Jews will the end of days…add to it that there will be a change in all human’s hearts, no wacko like Hitler or Usama Ben Laden will live anymore, or will be even able to work on their insanity, as if free-will will ceize to exist and humanity will turn once again to Adam and Eve before the fall state. Does scripture say all this?

 

[inJESUS]

Interesting. So Jesus of Nazareth (as described by later writers) interjected his own interpretations of the Scriptures? But then God would have been deceiving the Israelites of old by giving them one notion, and then introducing another?

 

[Roamin_Xian]

but the way you are interpreting it gives no room to a fulfillment

 

[inJESUS]

inJESUS;3958479:

We’ve had 2,000 years to wait for fulfillment. It’s not like this occured yesterday.

that is not the issue but rather, do you see the fulfillment of this verse ever in light of the past, present and future, having in mind the war ideologies that others must observe in the name of their scriptures and which they will never abandon? having in mind the wackos blood/power-lovers? just what utopea are you looking for in face of ideologies rooted in blood and free-will of humans? will the Messiah change the ideologies and hearts of people and make them the New Adams and Eves before the fall?