Are Jewish People Still Awaiting the Messiah?

[Sepharad]

i do not understand why my question put you guys in a defensive mood.

could be because it makes you guys think about Jesus being the True Messiah?

It has nothing to do with that at all. If you knew just a tenth of my background, you’d know I’ve truly “been through the mill” on that issue.

You see, its just that Jews are sick and tired of always being targeted for conversion, one way or another…and such questions always seem to reek of the “why don’t you believe in Jesus” thingie. It gets uber-tiresome after a while.

 

[wisdomseeker]

It has nothing to do with that at all. If you knew just a tenth of my background, you’d know I’ve truly “been through the mill” on that issue.

You see, its just that Jews are sick and tired of always being targeted for conversion, one way or another…and such questions always seem to reek of the “why don’t you believe in Jesus” thingie. It gets uber-tiresome after a while.

So are we catholics. protestants hunt us down to convert us to their religions. so, i understand what you saying.

but here and now, i was just seeking more info on Judaism.

peace

 

[Kaninchen]

i do not understand why my question put you guys in a defensive mood.

could be because it makes you guys think about Jesus being the True Messiah?

I’ve found my boredom threshold has lowered over the years.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

I have to admit, my theological understanding of matters has decreased over the past couple of years, especially since I have placed more focus on my university studies. However, I am always interested in learning.

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.

Please forgive me of seeming combative- that is not my intention at all. I hope to gain wisdom and friendship here, through amiable dialogue of important issues.

 

[Sepharad]

I have to admit, my theological understanding of matters has decreased over the past couple of years, especially since I have placed more focus on my university studies. However, I am always interested in learning.

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.

Please forgive me of seeming combative- that is not my intention at all. I hope to gain wisdom and friendship here, through amiable dialogue of important issues.

(Waving hand wildly)…I know the (Christian) answer! I don’t agree with it of course, but I know what the usual reply is, when asked why Jesus did not usher in universal peace (which was what the Messiah was supposed to do more than anything else).

The usual reply is, “Well, when someone accepts Jesus as their Savior, they have inner peace, and so that is how he ushered in universal peace”. (Which sounds nice, except that it does not fit with the prophecies.)

I’ll tell you how the second coming idea came to be…it actually comes from a Jewish source originally, just tweaked a bit.

In the Zohar (part of the Kabbalah, which is Jewish mysticism), it speaks of TWO Messiahs to come to the Jewish people. The first messiah would be one who would fight for the Jewish people, and die in battle (this is Messiah ben Joseph).

The second would come much later, and would be the one to usher in universal peace (this is Messiah ben David).

What the Christians did (since most of them were Jews originally) was change that from two messiahs coming once each, to one messiah who comes twice. They probably saw Jesus as fitting that prophecy, since he was supposed to be of the line of King David, and his father was Joseph. Plus, he died the “first” time around.

 

[tomarin]

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?

Let me have a try at answering your question. First of all, Jesus himself says in the gospel of Matthew (verse 10 chapter 34) “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword!” So if you believe Jesus had any authority to say what he did then that requires a different understanding of what the ancient prophesy means.

What he did do was redeem all of humanity past, present and future from a spiritual death due to our ancestors’ disobedience and transgressions. His ministry on earth and his sacrifice wiped out a debt that humanity owed to god, thereby setting things right and bringing peace to the universe in a cosmic sense that is much more profound than mere “earthly” peace.

The “kingdom of heaven” that Christ brought in his person is supremely peaceful; it can only be partially achieved in this life, however, when we strive to emulate his example, love God and love our neighbor. (I would recommend the Pope’s book “Jesus of Nazareth” for more on the kingdom of heaven and what it means.) Most of the time the world we inhabit falls far short of the standards of the kingdom of heaven – which is what one would expect, in a fallen world.

Don’t forget that the ancient israelites, like many people in the world of antiquity, did not conceive of a distinct spiritual realm that stood apart from the material realm. Consequently, the concept of an afterlife in which people are reunited with God is extremely undeveloped, if not totally alien to the people of Jesus’s time. It’s perfectly understandable, then, that the Jews of that era had the expectations they had about the Messiah and what it meant but God, being eternal and therefore not bound by culture, could very well have had his own ideas about what the prophesy meant and how it was to be fulfilled.

 

[qui_est_ce]

(Waving hand wildly)…

.

I know the (Christian) answer! I don’t agree with it of course, but I know what the usual reply is, when asked why Jesus did not usher in universal peace (which was what the Messiah was supposed to do more than anything else).

The usual reply is, “Well, when someone accepts Jesus as their Savior, they have inner peace, and so that is how he ushered in universal peace”. (Which sounds nice, except that it does not fit with the prophecies.)

Well, non Catholics anyway.

 

[qui_est_ce]

We do not believe there have been any further prophets other than those mentioned in the TaNaKh. ALthough there were prophets that were not mentioned (prior to the time of Jesus)

Weren’t the Hebrew Scriptures closed at Jamnia in 90 AD? Would that have anything to do with it?

 

[ckempston]

(Waving hand wildly)…I know the (Christian) answer! I don’t agree with it of course, but I know what the usual reply is, when asked why Jesus did not usher in universal peace (which was what the Messiah was supposed to do more than anything else).

The usual reply is, “Well, when someone accepts Jesus as their Savior, they have inner peace, and so that is how he ushered in universal peace”. (Which sounds nice, except that it does not fit with the prophecies.)

Did prophecies typically become fulfilled the way the Jews expected???

 

[qui_est_ce]

Did prophecies typically become fulfilled the way the Jews expected???

Could you give us a few examples of prophesies that weren’t fulfilled as expected? I’m thinking of Isaiah in the Northern Kingdom. The Assyrians were supposed to scare the Hebrews, but instead annihilated them.

 

[Lapell]

(Waving hand wildly)…I know the (Christian) answer! I don’t agree with it of course, but I know what the usual reply is, when asked why Jesus did not usher in universal peace (which was what the Messiah was supposed to do more than anything else).

The usual reply is, “Well, when someone accepts Jesus as their Savior, they have inner peace, and so that is how he ushered in universal peace”. (Which sounds nice, except that it does not fit with the prophecies.)

I’ll tell you how the second coming idea came to be…it actually comes from a Jewish source originally, just tweaked a bit.

In the Zohar (part of the Kabbalah, which is Jewish mysticism), it speaks of TWO Messiahs to come to the Jewish people. The first messiah would be one who would fight for the Jewish people, and die in battle (this is Messiah ben Joseph).

The second would come much later, and would be the one to usher in universal peace (this is Messiah ben David).

What the Christians did (since most of them were Jews originally) was change that from two messiahs coming once each, to one messiah who comes twice. They probably saw Jesus as fitting that prophecy, since he was supposed to be of the line of King David, and his father was Joseph. Plus, he died the “first” time around.

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!

 

[Lapell]

I wonder how Jews would include a “Messiah son of Yosseph”… and why the son of Yosseph must come before the son of David…

 

[ckempston]

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!

This is an anachronistic Jewish claim just like the claim of the authentic “Hebrew” Bible (i.e. the Masoretic Text), which was put together hundreds of years after Christ.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

The “kingdom of heaven” that Christ brought in his person is supremely peaceful; it can only be partially achieved in this life, however, when we strive to emulate his example, love God and love our neighbor. (I would recommend the Pope’s book “Jesus of Nazareth” for more on the kingdom of heaven and what it means.) Most of the time the world we inhabit falls far short of the standards of the kingdom of heaven – which is what one would expect, in a fallen world.

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.

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.

Don’t forget that the ancient israelites, like many people in the world of antiquity, did not conceive of a distinct spiritual realm that stood apart from the material realm. Consequently, the concept of an afterlife in which people are reunited with God is extremely undeveloped, if not totally alien to the people of Jesus’s time. It’s perfectly understandable, then, that the Jews of that era had the expectations they had about the Messiah and what it meant but God, being eternal and therefore not bound by culture, could very well have had his own ideas about what the prophesy meant and how it was to be fulfilled.

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?

But my major sticking point, why I am turning from Christianity, is the virgin birth- the matter of Almah.

 

[qui_est_ce]

But my major sticking point, why I am turning from Christianity, is the virgin birth- the matter of Almah.

Let’s not derail this thread. There are many threads dealing with this topic.

 

[ckempston]

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.

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.

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?

But my major sticking point, why I am turning from Christianity, is the virgin birth- the matter of Almah.

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.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

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.

I should have clarified- it is yet another sticking point for me personally. I don’t doubt that a young woman is a virgin. Most are (atleast I pray so)! However, virgin birth is an outright non-Jewish (therefore, non-biblical) concept. Mashiach would be born to a man and woman. God is not a man, but an incorporeal transcendent being.

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.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Interesting. So Jesus of Nazareth (as described by later writers) interjected his own interpretations of the Scriptures?

Well, if Jesus is God, I would think he has a right to correct misinterpreted Scripture. To which later writers are you referring? His Apostles who personally knew Him?

But then God would have been deceiving the Israelites of old by giving them one notion, and then introducing another?

God isn’t deceiving anybody. People deceive themselves when they twist Scripture to fit their own world view.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

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.”

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

 

[Angelos]

I should have clarified- it is yet another sticking point for me personally. I don’t doubt that a young woman is a virgin. Most are (atleast I pray so)! However, virgin birth is an outright non-Jewish (therefore, non-biblical) concept. Mashiach would be born to a man and woman. God is not a man, but an incorporeal transcendent being.

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.