The Messiah.

[lemonbeam]

I am conversing with a Jewish man, about Christianity, and we are talking about the resurrection of Christ. He sent me this e-mail.

‘…But theres no tradition of a slain & resurrected DEITY in Judaism. More importantly, the concept of a physically incarnate deity, of a divine human being, is fundamentally and deeply blasphemous to Judaism. It is akin to idolatry to suggest that God could be contained in a physical body, or that any human could claim physical descent from God. Jesus’s divinity was not even a doctrine among the earliest Jewish Christians. They believed he was the Messiah, not God on earth. Very different concepts’

What do you think of this, from a Christian perspective?

 

[Strategery]

Wow, I’ve never thought about that. You’ve convinced me. I’m not going to church any more.

 

[lemonbeam]

Wow, I’ve never thought about that. You’ve convinced me. I’m not going to church any more.

You are being sarcastic, right?

 

[lemonbeam]

‘It is akin to idolatry to suggest that God could be contained in a physical body, or that any human could claim physical descent from God. Jesus’s divinity was not even a doctrine among the earliest Jewish Christians.’

Is this true, do Jewish people actually believe this? That it is idolatry to suggest that God could be in human form?

 

[RunningDuck]

I am conversing with a Jewish man, about Christianity, and we are talking about the resurrection of Christ. He sent me this e-mail.

‘…But theres no tradition of a slain & resurrected DEITY in Judaism. More importantly, the concept of a physically incarnate deity, of a divine human being, is fundamentally and deeply blasphemous to Judaism. It is akin to idolatry to suggest that God could be contained in a physical body, or that any human could claim physical descent from God. Jesus’s divinity was not even a doctrine among the earliest Jewish Christians. They believed he was the Messiah, not God on earth. Very different concepts’

What do you think of this, from a Christian perspective?

The Jews had/have enough prophecy in the Torah/Tanakh about the coming Messiah. If the Magi were able to determine the timetable for the birth of Jesus, the Jews should have been more so. They also should know the reason for the birth of the Messiah; going daily to the temple to sacrifice him in the shape of an innocent animal.

I understand there are all kinds of Jews with varying concepts of what that is. Don’t let him dilute your beliefs nor sidetrack you from our Saviour.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Actually, I’d like to see some documentation that the ‘earliest Jewish Christians’ did not believe in His divinity. (One of the earliest Jewish Christians was St. Paul. Even the most cursory readings of St. Paul show that he wholly accepted and preached Christ’s Divine Sonship and ‘equality with God’.

Then there was the Roman centurion of all people who said, “Truly this was the Son of God” when Christ died on the cross.

And lest you cavil at him and St. Paul (a Roman citizen), how about St. Peter? Who called Jesus the Son of God? and St. Thomas, who referred to Jesus as “My Lord and My God.”

When you read Acts, you see that the disciples were preaching Christ’s divinity from the start.

So ask your friend to provide you with nice primary source proof. Not what Jews in the 21st think happened, or what they believe. Maybe they don’t believe in the New Testament themselves but the earliest Jewish Christians, by definition, believed in the teachings given them by the apostles. . .and a huge teaching was Christ’s Divinity. I don’t know HOW these people can stand there with a straight face and claim otherwise. . .

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I am conversing with a Jewish man, about Christianity, and we are talking about the resurrection of Christ. He sent me this e-mail.

‘…But theres no tradition of a slain & resurrected DEITY in Judaism. More importantly, the concept of a physically incarnate deity, of a divine human being, is fundamentally and deeply blasphemous to Judaism. It is akin to idolatry to suggest that God could be contained in a physical body, or that any human could claim physical descent from God. Jesus’s divinity was not even a doctrine among the earliest Jewish Christians. They believed he was the Messiah, not God on earth. Very different concepts’

What do you think of this, from a Christian perspective?

He’s right on all counts.​

And ?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

‘…But theres no tradition of a slain & resurrected DEITY in Judaism. More importantly, the concept of a physically incarnate deity, of a divine human being, is fundamentally and deeply blasphemous to Judaism. It is akin to idolatry to suggest that God could be contained in a physical body, or that any human could claim physical descent from God. Jesus’s divinity was not even a doctrine among the earliest Jewish Christians. They believed he was the Messiah, not God on earth. Very different concepts’

I raised essentially this question here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=291700

I started that thread by reference to the book Why the Jews Rejected Jesus which I find very convincing on some essential points.

The gist of the Jewish argument is this: Jesus did not fulfill Jewish expectations of the Messiah.

Christians have gone to great lengths to answer this criticism from day one. I am not entirely convinced by the Christian answer.

But there is a deeper answer that Christians implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) give: we learned something new about God from Jesus.

The fact that the OT give no hint that God might become human and walk among men is not evidence against the possibility unless you assume, further, that everything that could be known about God was revealed to the Jews before Jesus arrived.

Personally, I’m more struck by the coincidence of Jesus arrival. Jesus comes, enlists some Jews in a new sect, no longer centered around the Temple, that splits from Judaism and spreads out to the wider world. Then, just a few decades later, the Jews fall upon the Roman sword, the Temple is destroyed, and Judaism has to reinvent itself to survive the diaspora.

 

[skeyes]

I think the Old Testament is full of predictions of Jesus’ coming as Messiah. Isaiah is chocked full.
In His service,
Stan

 

[JMJ_coder]

Isaiah 9:6

For to us a child is born,

to us a son is given;
and the government will be upon his shoulder,
and his name will be called
“Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”​

As Brother Bob Fishman, a Jewish convert to Catholicism, relates - many of the Jews then did not want a suffering servant who would take away their iniquity and reconcile them with God. They wanted a conquering king who would rise up to put to the sword their oppressors (at that time, the Romans). A king who would shout the battle cry “NEVER AGAIN!” - we will be the rulers and you will serve us. That is the Messiah they hoped for, not the infinitely more glorious One God had in store.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Is this true, do Jewish people actually believe this? That it is idolatry to suggest that God could be in human form?

You have to keep in mind, here, that a Jew today is someone who comes from a long line of people who succeeded in resisting the Gospel. Judaism has gone to great lenghts to innoculate itself from Christian influence.

This is best demonstrated by the fact that a Jew can be an atheist, a Jew can believe in reincarnation, a Jew can be secular, a Jew can even ben anti-semitic. But a Jew can never, ever, accept Jesus as the Messiah.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

The gist of the Jewish argument is this: Jesus did not fulfill Jewish expectations of the Messiah.

Christians have gone to great lengths to answer this criticism from day one. I am not entirely convinced by the Christian answer.

But there is a deeper answer that Christians implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) give: we learned something new about God from Jesus.

Yes… I don’t think this is nearly as important as you think, though. It is absolutely true that the Jewish model of a Messiah was not fulfilled in Jesus. 100 years after Jesus was born a warlord named Bar Kokhba who issued coins in his name was considered a candidate for being the Messiah, but that hope was given up when he was killed. jewfaq.org/moshiach.htm

He was a brutal warlord. Today he is still considered a good model for the Jewish Messiah by the Jewish people themselves.

They expected a warlord, not a personal Savior. All that tells me is that they did not understand the spiritual meaning of their own Scripture.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Yes… I don’t think this is nearly as important as you think, though. It is absolutely true that the Jewish model of a Messiah was not fulfilled in Jesus. 100 years after Jesus was born a warlord named Bar Kokhba who issued coins in his name was considered a candidate for being the Messiah, but that hope was given up when he was killed. jewfaq.org/moshiach.htm

He was a brutal warlord. Today he is still considered a good model for the Jewish Messiah by the Jewish people themselves.

They expected a warlord, not a personal Savior. All that tells me is that they did not understand the spiritual meaning of their own Scripture.

I think you are mistaken on two levels:

First, it would be very strange, indeed, if the Jews did not understand their own scripture. Imagine, for example, if someone came along and claimed that Catholic dogma is 100% correct but that every Catholic, including the Pope, misunderstood it and that the truth was something radically different. It stretches credulity to believe that so many could be so wrong.

Second, the Jews were not as unified in their opinion as we are led to believe. As it just so happens, I came across this very issue tonight as I was reading Rome and Jerusalem. On page 192 (in the paperback edition), author Martin Goodman (who is Jewish, I think), describes the tremendous variety of beliefs that Jews in 1C AD held about the Messiah. There was no concensus among Jews!

And, in fact, what historians suspect (there is some indirect evidence) is that very many Jews became Christians. When Paul refers to “the Jews”, he is referring to those who have not become Christians.

So what we have are variety of expectations about the Messiah among Jews in 1C AD leading to many, but not all, becoming Christians. The remaining, following two wars against Rome and destruction of Israel, reinvent Judaism with a particular emphasis on innoculating it against Christianity.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

I think you are mistaken on two levels:

First, it would be very strange, indeed, if the Jews did not understand their own scripture. Imagine, for example, if someone came along and claimed that Catholic dogma is 100% correct but that every Catholic, including the Pope, misunderstood it and that the truth was something radically different. It stretches credulity to believe that so many could be so wrong.

Second, the Jews were not as unified in their opinion as we are led to believe. As it just so happens, I came across this very issue tonight as I was reading Rome and Jerusalem. On page 192 (in the paperback edition), author Martin Goodman (who is Jewish, I think), describes the tremendous variety of beliefs that Jews in 1C AD held about the Messiah. There was no concensus among Jews!

And, in fact, what historians suspect (there is some indirect evidence) is that very many Jews became Christians. When Paul refers to “the Jews”, he is referring to those who have not become Christians.

So what we have are variety of expectations about the Messiah among Jews in 1C AD leading to many, but not all, becoming Christians. The remaining, following two wars against Rome and destruction of Israel, reinvent Judaism with a particular emphasis on innoculating it against Christianity.

I think you are obviously mistaken and misunderstand the point. Instead of searching for the answer in history books, perhaps you should read the conversations Jesus had with the Jews. Those are recorded, you know.

Jesus told the Pharisees themselves that they did not understand their own Scriptures.

That does not mean there were not many Jews who did.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Jesus told the Pharisees themselves that they did not understand their own Scriptures. That does not mean there were not many Jews who did.

Believe it or not, there were many Jews who were not pharisees. There were many Jews who followed Jesus as recorded in the NT. There was a great variety of Jewish beliefs, e.g. between the Sadducees and the Pharisees, as recorded in the NT.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

Believe it or not, there were many Jews who were not pharisees. There were many Jews who followed Jesus as recorded in the NT. There was a great variety of Jewish beliefs, e.g. between the Sadducees and the Pharisees, as recorded in the NT.

Why wouldn’t I believe that? The different varieites of Judiasm are entirely irrelevant to the point I am making.

Here is my point, very simply. The Old Testament prophesied of a Messiah. There are many specific prophecies about him, (from a Christian perspective, some are fulfilled, and some we are waiting for the Second Coming), but only** one **over-arching role.

That role is Liberator.

When some people saw the description of the Messiah, they saw only political power. Jesus taught us that this kind of power is a power that comes from the Prince of the Power of the Air, and that before we have external freedom from him and world peace, we must have inner freedom and inner peace.

When Jesus came to earth, he came in humility and hidden power. His KINGDOM began in the heart.

This is the spiritual truth that many Jewish people could not accept. Most people cannot accept Jesus message, so the Jewish rejecters are not alone.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Believe it or not, there were many Jews who were not pharisees. There were many Jews who followed Jesus as recorded in the NT. There was a great variety of Jewish beliefs, e.g. between the Sadducees and the Pharisees, as recorded in the NT.

Even in the New Testament, there is testimony to this diversity of belief. Some believed in a resurrection of the body and some did not; some were what we might call sola scripturists, some believed in more than just what was literally printed on the scrolls; a very few awaited a Messiah who would be a suffering servant, most awaited a conquering king who would subjugated the world under Israel; etc., etc.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Here is my point, very simply. The Old Testament prophesied of a Messiah. There are many specific prophecies about him, (from a Christian perspective, some are fulfilled, and some we are waiting for the Second Coming), but only** one **over-arching role.
That role is Liberator. When some people saw the description of the Messiah, they saw only political power. Jesus taught us that this kind of power is a power that comes from the Prince of the Power of the Air, and that before we have external freedom from him and world peace, we must have inner freedom and inner peace. When Jesus came to earth, he came in humility and hidden power. His KINGDOM began in the heart.

This much we can agree on.

This is the spiritual truth that many Jewish people could not accept. Most people cannot accept Jesus message, so the Jewish rejecters are not alone.

You are, if anything, understating the case. However, the question is whether the Jewish expectation of a national liberator was unreasonable.

Even in the New Testament, there is testimony to this diversity of belief. Some believed in a resurrection of the body and some did not; some were what we might call sola scripturists, some believed in more than just what was literally printed on the scrolls; a very few awaited a Messiah who would be a suffering servant, most awaited a conquering king who would subjugated the world under Israel; etc., etc.

Yes, exactly.

Regarding Jesus views on the Pharisees interpretation, see also Matthew 23:2.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

This much we can agree on.

You are, if anything, understating the case. However, the question is whether the Jewish expectation of a national liberator was unreasonable.

Was it unreasonable? No. Not a bit. Peter expected the same, did he not? When Jesus was being arrested, did he not take up his sword and slice off the ear of the Roman guard? When the nation of Israel was being taken by Moses through the desert to the Promised Land, was it unreasonable for them to be tired of eating Manna, and to complain and ask for meat? I’m a human being, too, and I can really understand their desire for some dietary variety. What does that prove?

Do you think that Jesus is not the Messiah of the Jewish people?

Which is easier, to rise from the dead or to liberate the nation of Israel from Rome?

Which is easier, to heal the lepers or to crush Herod?

I am going to post this link from YouTube, not for you, because you have probably examined this argument in depth and it would be elementary for you, but for anyone else reading this thread who is not familiar with the question of why Jesus did not seize political power. It is a perfect clip to address these issues from the 1977 movie Jesus of Nazareth. youtube.com/watch?v=o4w0xB9gEtM&feature=PlayList&p=14433535A0913931&index=1

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It is a perfect clip to address these issues from the 1977 movie Jesus of Nazareth.

I would really like to see someone tackle a movie that starts with Jesus and then carries through the siege of Jerusalem and the Jewish diaspora.

The question in my mind is not so much why the Jews rejected Jesus in Jesus time on earth but why they continued to do so after their rebellion against Rome led to the destruction of Israel and the end of the Temple. On the one hand, they had seen that before when the first Temple was destroyed. On the other hand, there is not much that early Christians rejected of the Torah (e.g. the dietary laws) that most modern Jews (except Orthodox) have not also rejected.