Please enlighten me. Jesus was Jewish. The rules for the Messiah - a Jewish concept - were recorded (and did not pertain to him). Yet, people came along and said: "Although he is Jewish and doesn't fit the criteria for being the Messiah we are going to worship him as just that anyway because he says he is."

Can you refresh me as to what the "rules for the Messiah" were? Which ones did Jesus not meet?

Jesus didn't say that he was the Messiah, everyone else did.

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:

Can you refresh me as to what the "rules for the Messiah" were? Which ones did Jesus not meet?



Why not. Firstly, the Messiah could not be a mamzer (hebrew for conceived from a forbidden relationship) which he was. Secondly he has to be a descendant of King David of Israel which he was not. Third, he has to give to Judaism not take away from it. There are more.

Then there is the Sanhedrin (High Court). It says in Deutoronomy that God will appoint judges for the times and that they will be divinely inspired. Because of this we are supposed to trust the Court's decision because they communicated with God using their Urim V' Tumim.

You have to realize that mysticism was common back then due to the Temple's presence. Miracle feats could be done by anyone that immersed himself in the Torah (Old Testament).

quote:Originally posted by malaria:

Jesus didn't say that he was the Messiah, everyone else did.

No everyone else did not. He went to the Sanhedrin saying that he was. They disagreed. It was only afterwards that people decided to follow him and disregard the rest of the heritage (Oral Law, etc.)

Contrary to popular belief the Temple wasn't destroyed when he died but 50+ years or so afterward due to unrelated events.

What's the point in this thread? The Jews won't care what the Christians say because they will think they are misinterpreting their holy books, and the Christians will think the Jews are blind for not listening to their holy books.

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

What's the point in this thread? The Jews won't care what the Christians say because they will think they are misinterpreting their holy books, and the Christians will think the Jews are blind for not listening to their holy books.

That's my point exactly. The Torah is a Jewish text, just like the Messiah is a Jewish concept and Jesus was Jewish.

How can a person say "ok he was Jewish, and what we think he is is based on a Jewish concept," but deny the interpretation of the very book that alludes to the coming of the Messiah and His requirements?

How can they then disregard the Oral Torah which was, funnily enough, current until Jesus and which gives the proper interpretation because it conflicts with him being the Messiah. I mean he studied the Oral Torah and the Torah and then people disregard it "to make room."

Am I making enough sense?

If I need to explain more I will. I have stayed up all night and am getting tired.

Filthy penny pinching jew.

Anyway, some cults worship their leader as their savior, but we all know how ridiculous they are. I mean how could a messiah be born now, as opposed to 2000 years ago? Just doesn't make sense.

ryanl,

if you immerse yourself in subject matter you will find that jesus did indeed conform to the various prophetical passages that describe the messiah (infact some would claim he delibrately went out of his way to do so. Schonfield wrote a good book on this very point 'the passover plot').

modern theologists/biblical scholars by and large accept the fact that jesus was 1) a descendant of david and 2)the rightful king of israel.

you might also look into non biblical sources pertaining to the attributes of the messiah ( the dead see scrolls for example).

it may also surprise you to learn that many jews at that time expected not one but TWO messiahs (one 'priestly' the other 'kingly'...whose attributes and lineage happened to combine in jesus..)

quote:Originally posted by asthesunsets:

Filthy penny pinching jew.

Anyway, some cults worship their leader as their savior, but we all know how ridiculous they are. I mean how could a messiah be born now, as opposed to 2000 years ago? Just doesn't make sense.



Firstly I give more of my income to charity in a year that you will in 5. Maybe I am smart with money but I spend it where it is needed instead of indulging in excess personal benefits.

Secondly, what are you talking about? even in the Christian belief system Jesus is supposed to be "re-born," in the future and not 2000 years ago. Let me ask you how many prophets have you had in the past 2000 years? Judaism has had hundreds including the Ari, the Rema, the Vilna Gaon, and the Ulter Rebbe.

One of the requirements is that the Messiah will come in the last 2000 of 6000 years. Jesus came before then. It is year 5765 now. The Ulter Rebbe proved his ability with a few mystical feats. All his prophesies have come true and one of them is that the Messiah will come in this generation. We are the last to be punished for Adam's sin and we are the first to be redeemed.

Thirdly, you aren't making any sense I have no idea what you are asking or even talking about.

The RCC used to set up religious debates. That is what I am trying to do now. I want you to use rationale and not follow the common Morman belief of avoiding any anti-morman text because it will sway your belief system (much like cults say that if you think badly of the leader it is the devil trying to catch you out).

Ryan

quote:One of the requirements is that the Messiah will come in the last 2000 of 6000 years.

according to whom? sounds sorta rabbinical but i don't remember hearing that one before (although my knowledge of rabbinical judaism is sketchy )

[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 04-18-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

ryanl,

if you immerse yourself in subject matter you will find that jesus did indeed conform to the various prophetical passages that describe the messiah (infact some would claim he delibrately went out of his way to do so. Schonfield wrote a good book on this very point 'the passover plot').

modern theologists/biblical scholars by and large accept the fact that jesus was 1) a descendant of david and 2)the rightful king of israel.

you might also look into non biblical sources pertaining to the attributes of the messiah ( the dead see scrolls for example).

it may also surprise you to learn that many Jews at that time expected not one but TWO messiahs (one 'priestly' the other 'kingly'...whose attributes and lineage happened to combine in jesus..)



Thank you for your rational reply; however, I must disagree with you. I will start at the beginning and work my way down.

I like how you say that "some would claim he deliberately went out of his way to do so." Of course he did. He claimed that he was the Messiah and he wanted to back it up; unfortunately, you can't change the fact that you are born out of a forbidden relationship, you can't change what tribe you are from, and you can't change your ancestry.

Religion in all its forms has been molded to fit the world view that everyone should be equal. Everyone is changing their interpretations of the Old Testament to avoid confrontation. Hence, reform Judaism and all these books that you are quoting.

Here is something you should know. You can't change God's word to fit your belief system. There were two things passed down to Moses. One, the Written Torah (Old Testament). Two the Oral Torah (Where God taught Moses the meaning of the Written Torah). Both are just as relevant. The Oral Torah, to reiterate, gives the proper meaning of Gods word!

The resources you are quoting are all fine and dandy except for one fact. Can their text compare to the actual Testament that was handed down from God Himself? How can a prophet (Ulter Rebbe), that died only a decade ago and who proved himself countless times, communicate with God if he was missing something so fundamental? By the way, he was a Son of David and fit all the requirements.

To address the next paragraph: the key thing that you are saying is “modern theologists/biblical scholars.” They are obviously trying to make sense of their belief system. I haven’t heard any interpretations change in the Orthodox Jewish community from Mt. Sinai until today. The Sages were the most knowledgeable scholars ever and their interpretations were recorded and are still used now along with the interpretations of my own ancestry Rashi and many great prophets of the last 2000 years.

I have never heard of Two Messiahs. Sermons, lectures, immersion in study and I have never come across any such thing. The Messiah is supposed to be a re-incarnation of King David who was a re-incarnation of Moses and so on down the line (meaning only one soul and only one person). If you are speaking of an advisor to the king that would be a tool in Gods way not a Messiah.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

according to whom? sounds sorta rabbinical but i don't remember hearing that one before (although my knowledge of rabbinical judaism is sketchy )



I was going to bring this up in my reply to you but I thought you would read it anyway. It was the Sages who proved this. I can't remember the other two sets of 2000 years but this one stuck in my mind (it was 2000 of something, then 2000-4000 something else, then 4000-6000 is when the Messiah will come depending on when people repent.

[This message has been edited by ryanl (edited 04-18-2005).]

I meant to say: until the Ulter Rebbe concealed himself not passed away.

quote:Originally posted by ryanl:



Thank you for your rational reply; however, I must disagree with you. I will start at the beginning and work my way down.

I like how you say that "some would claim he deliberately went out of his way to do so." Of course he did. He claimed that he was the Messiah and he wanted to back it up; unfortunately, you can't change the fact that you are born out of a forbidden relationship, you can't change what tribe you are from, and you can't change your ancestry.

Religion in all its forms has been molded to fit the world view that everyone should be equal. Everyone is changing their interpretations of the Old Testament to avoid confrontation. Hence, reform Judaism and all these books that you are quoting.

Here is something you should know. You can't change God's word to fit your belief system. There were two things passed down to Moses. One, the Written Torah (Old Testament). Two the Oral Torah (Where God taught Moses the meaning of the Written Torah). Both are just as relevant. The Oral Torah, to reiterate, gives the proper meaning of Gods word!

The resources you are quoting are all fine and dandy except for one fact. Can their text compare to the actual Testament that was handed down from God Himself? How can a prophet (Ulter Rebbe), that died only a decade ago and who proved himself countless times, communicate with God if he was missing something so fundamental? By the way, he was a Son of David and fit all the requirements.

To address the next paragraph: the key thing that you are saying is “modern theologists/biblical scholars.” They are obviously trying to make sense of their belief system. I haven’t heard any interpretations change in the Orthodox Jewish community from Mt. Sinai until today. The Sages were the most knowledgeable scholars ever and their interpretations were recorded and are still used now along with the interpretations of my own ancestry Rashi and many great prophets of the last 2000 years.

I have never heard of Two Messiahs. Sermons, lectures, immersion in study and I have never come across any such thing. The Messiah is supposed to be a re-incarnation of King David who was a re-incarnation of Moses and so on down the line (meaning only one soul and only one person). If you are speaking of an advisor to the king that would be a tool in Gods way not a Messiah.

ahhh right now i see where you are coming from http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

the oral traditon defining the written is an arguement i know from the catholic scholars and one that is impossible to counter, at least for someone whose interest is the 'historical-critical' method of study.

you have obviously immersed yourself in the subject but seem to be coming at it from a 'jewish' perspective (and a jewish one i don't know either i must admit. i have heard of the ulter rebbe but thats all).

quote:I haven’t heard any interpretations change in the Orthodox Jewish community from Mt. Sinai until today.

don't take this the wrong way , i don't have a problem with your faith but if you truly believe what you wrote there then there is no point in discussing this question further.

you are measuring jesus by 'messianic requirements' that have been decided by people you believe to be divinely inspired/informed.

which makes debate damn near impossible. because if (for example) the ulter rebbe said jesus was not a son of david then nothing i could say will convince you otherwise,will it? and we'd just end up going around in circles.

its a shame becuse this topic is one that deserves debate.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

according to whom? sounds sorta rabbinical but i don't remember hearing that one before (although my knowledge of rabbinical judaism is sketchy )



According to the Talmud, in which a Kabbalistic teaching says that for each day of creation there will be 1000years of the world. 2k years until exile, 2k years in exile, and then 2k years in which the Messiah may come.

This also means the world will end in less than 300 years.

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

According to the Talmud, in which a Kabbalistic teaching says that for each day of creation there will be 1000years of the world. 2k years until exile, 2k years in exile, and then 2k years in which the Messiah may come.

This also means the world will end in less than 300 years.

thanks http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)...although if it is a kabbalisitic teaching then i doubt somehow it means what it seems to say.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

don't take this the wrong way , i don't have a problem with your faith but if you truly believe what you wrote there then there is no point in discussing this question further.

you are measuring jesus by 'messianic requirements' that have been decided by people you believe to be divinely inspired/informed.

which makes debate damn near impossible. because if (for example) the ulter rebbe said jesus was not a son of david then nothing i could say will convince you otherwise,will it? and we'd just end up going around in circles.

its a shame becuse this topic is one that deserves debate.

It definitely is a topic that deserves a debate and the fact is that it is stated in the Torah in Deutoronomy that these judges are divinely inspired and if we deny that fact society would fall apart just as it did. Jews are assimilated all over the world now. Regular Judaism has become ultra Orthadox…

Let me try throwing another proof at you that I thought of while I was in the shower. It says in the Torah that there are two things that cannot be broken. Covenants, and oaths. This is why we try our hardest not to make them because we will have to fulfill them by the next holiday. Even God can not be the one to break his covenant with Noah (not to destroy the world again by flooding it). Abraham made a covenant with God. The covenant was of circumcision. If Jesus was really the Messiah, how could God break his end of his covenant with Abraham. And how could the covenant be broken by Christians, who aren’t circumsized, when they still believe in the Old Testament and the Messiah. God is like a King. When He makes an oath or covenant He honours it because it is in His name.



[This message has been edited by ryanl (edited 04-18-2005).]

Yes thank you so it was the Sages. Although the world won't end. When the Messiah comes we will be in Gan Eden. We will live forever. It is the beggining not the end.

The Talmud is part of the Oral Torah. And Kabbalistic teachings mean what they say but they also have hidden mysticism behind them. Its like a code that one needs to have a divine gift to break. But what it says on the surface is true as well. Better yet it probably came from deep thought and that is what they derived from it.

[This message has been edited by ryanl (edited 04-18-2005).]

quote:If Jesus was really the Messiah, how could God break his end of his covenant with Abraham. And how could the covenant be broken by Christians, who aren’t circumsized, when they still believe in the Old Testament and the Messiah. God is like a King. When He makes an oath or covenant He honours it because it is in His name.



never make the mistake of judging the historical jesus by 'christians'.

jesus and the jewish apostles were concerned with 'converting' the gentiles to become 'ger toshabs' (sorry if i spelt that wrong..its been a while). nothing more or less.

if you read what jesus etc preached then there is little there that would break with the faith of abraham or the laws of noah.

infact most of whta he taught was said by the great rabbi's before and after him (hillel etc)

Aphelion Corona it is the beggining because that is what Adam was put here for but he failed. We have spent history to redeem for his sin and others so that we can get back to where he was and not make the same mistake. In fact we will be on a higher plain than him.

There's no point getting all Torah-based with totse, it doesn't have the capacity.

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

There's no point getting all Torah-based with totse, it doesn't have the capacity.



the torah i can handle but i'll readily admit that my knowledge of the judaic faith after Jaffa AD 90? is patchy. and the talmud (which one?) i've only encountered briefly.

Before getting into this debate too heavily, it's very important to recognise that the meaning of the term "messiah" has changed a lot before it became the idea we attribute to it today. The meaning of messiah that we use is heavily related to the mythology that has grown up around Jesus over the last two millenia, so obviously it could not have had the same meaning back then.

When he was alive, he referred to himself as Jesus, it only became standard to refer to him as "the Christ" after his death. To be more accurate, the word "Christ" that we use comes from the Greek "Khristós" which means "the anointed one". In Hebrew, the word for "the anointed one" is "Messiah".

"The anointed one" refers to being anointed with oil. This in turn referred to the Hebrew ceremony that marked out kings, priests and prophets. Until the time Jesus was born, the Hebrews had been waiting for someone to come along who was all three of these things in one person, and he would be their savior, referred to as "the anointed one".

The basis for recognising the appearance of this savior was a set of at least 300 prophecies in the Old Testament of the Bible about this savior. Some say he fulfilled them all to the letter, others say he fulfilled a lot of them but not all, it's not an argument that's likely to ever be settled. What is agreed on at least is that nobody else came close. But in any case, Jesus never referred to himself as the Messiah, only others did.

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

There's no point getting all Torah-based with totse, it doesn't have the capacity.

Ok, although he is very knowledgeable.



-----------

quote:



jesus and the jewish apostles were concerned with 'converting' the gentiles to become 'ger toshabs' (sorry if i spelt that wrong..its been a while). nothing more or less.

----------------

I will close by saying that contrary to your belief Orthadox Judaism is a faith that doesn't promote conversion. Unlike Mormanism or Johova's witnesses we don't believe in going out of our way to “convert gentiles,” as you say. That is a purely modern religious technique. If people are interested of their own accord only then we will consider it as we have to be sure that they are converting for the right reasons.

Thanks for the discussion, I may post again later.

quote:I will close by saying that contrary to your belief Orthadox Judaism is a faith that doesn't promote conversion. Unlike Mormanism or Johova's witnesses we don't believe in going out of our way to “convert gentiles,” as you say. That is a purely modern religious technique. If people are interested of their own accord only then we will consider it as we have to be sure that they are converting for the right reasons.

Thanks for the discussion, I may post again later.



which is why i put it in commas...

good night (its 23:27 here) and i hope you do post again although you could work on your objectivity too :P

quote:Originally posted by ryanl:

No everyone else did not. He went to the Sanhedrin saying that he was. They disagreed. It was only afterwards that people decided to follow him and disregard the rest of the heritage (Oral Law, etc.)

Judas betrayed Jesus by saying he was the Christ/Messiah. The courts asked him if he was, he said 'So you say.' He never mentions being the Messiah any other times, and it's only mentioned in 1 gospel that he says "I am" (Mark, I believe).

Now, all this is questionable as it is recorded many years later, but it's all we can really go on.

I've read the NT thoroughly many times and still don't believe he ever said he was the Messiah (except where I just mentioned, hearsay). If you have Jewish sources, I'm more than willing to read about it. I haven't read the OT in years, but the version I read is the Tanakh.

quote:Originally posted by imperfectcircle:

Before getting into this debate too heavily, it's very important to recognise that the meaning of the term "messiah" has changed a lot before it became the idea we attribute to it today. The meaning of messiah that we use is heavily related to the mythology that has grown up around Jesus over the last two millenia, so obviously it could not have had the same meaning back then.

When he was alive, he referred to himself as Jesus, it only became standard to refer to him as "the Christ" after his death. To be more accurate, the word "Christ" that we use comes from the Greek "Khristós" which means "the anointed one". In Hebrew, the word for "the anointed one" is "Messiah".

"The anointed one" refers to being anointed with oil. This in turn referred to the Hebrew ceremony that marked out kings, priests and prophets. Until the time Jesus was born, the Hebrews had been waiting for someone to come along who was all three of these things in one person, and he would be their savior, referred to as "the anointed one".

The basis for recognising the appearance of this savior was a set of at least 300 prophecies in the Old Testament of the Bible about this savior. Some say he fulfilled them all to the letter, others say he fulfilled a lot of them but not all, it's not an argument that's likely to ever be settled. What is agreed on at least is that nobody else came close. But in any case, Jesus never referred to himself as the Messiah, only others did.



Ok one last post from me for now. Quite a few people came close. Another example was Shabsai Tvi the fake Messiah and the Ulter Rebbe, as I was saying, who fit all the requirements and a widely accepted belief is that he will be reincarnated to be the final redeemer. It says somewhere in scripture that there is supposed to be a false Messiah that will test our faith and our knowledge. This person would make miracles but he would not fit all the requirements. It also says that he would take away from Judaism rather than giving to it.

Also, I am 99.9% sure that Jesus did refer to himself as the Messiah and this is why he was tried at the Sanhedrin for meeting the requirements.

Another thing, the term Messiah was always known as the same thing in scripture (to Orthadox Jews) due to the fact that requirements, duties and the post-redemption way of life are all recorded.

Thats it from me for now

He doesn't mention himself being the Messiah, that's why Muslims see him as a prophet. (Their other argument is that he has disciples instead of prophets).

Son of Man, yes. Son of God, yes but we all are. Messiah..no.

quote:Originally posted by malaria:

He doesn't mention himself being the Messiah, that's why Muslims see him as a prophet. (Their other argument is that he has disciples instead of prophets).

Son of Man, yes. Son of God, yes but we all are. Messiah..no.

I hope that people read the second page I wanted to ask a question today.

I believe that the belief is that he didn't have any independant power from God - which no-one does. Yet, you worship him. Why?

Even when Moses, the greatest prophet of all time, redeemed Israel people did not worship him and he would have been the final redeemer had he been allowed into Israel. In my opinion its bordering on idolotry (which it is Gods greatest request that you not be idolotrous) because you are worshiping a cross because of some historical meaning.

quote:I believe that the belief is that he didn't have any independant power from God - which no-one does. Yet, you worship him. Why?



personally ,on the evidence, i think jesus would be horrified that christians worship him.

christians get around the 'no other gods before me' commandment by declaring jesus as part of the triune god head (which biblically is nonsense and was a belief hoisted on the church some 300 years after christ by a pagan emperor. and that is all demonstrable fact too, a matter of historical record.)

I personally don't believe in/worship Jesus, so my pov my be kind of irrelevent. I do agree with Jack, though, in thinking Jesus would be mortified if he knew people were worshipping him over God (or saying he was God).

The triune is goofy and could be related to some pagan things, but we'll let that go for another day.

I do believe it is idolotrous to own/worship (in a way) crosses and crucifixes, so we agree there.

Then again, it doesn't really bother me because I don't worship that God, anyway.

I feel a Bill Hicks quote coming on....

"A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. You think when Jesus comes back he ever wants to see a fucking cross? It's like going up to Jackie Onassis wearing a rifle pendant."

As usual, he makes a funny and true point. The true miracle of Christianity is (supposedly) Jesus' ressurection, not his death. It's bizarre when you think that the image Christians use to rejoyce in Christ is the image of his death.

Which also brings up something else that has never made sense to me... Christians say that Jesus died to save us for our sins, or to redeem us for our sins. Scripturespeak aside, what does this mean in practical terms? That we no longer have original sin? Because we are still told we are sinful and must repent (something I hate about the church). Does it mean we are better people? Because I don't know if you've watched the news lately, but the human race is still a violent shower of bastards. Does it mean we can't go to hell? Because if so, what's the relevence of the church? I'm not trying to pick a fight with someone who has strong beliefs in Christ, this just makes no sense to me however much I think about it.

Jesus was king of the jews.

http://www.netzarim.co.il/

quote:Originally posted by shiftyboyos:

Jesus was king of the jews.

No he wasn't.

quote:Originally posted by shiftyboyos:

Jesus was king of the jews.

No he wasn't. lol, dumbass.

Jesus once fucked a hooker. What a chump.

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

There's no point getting all Torah-based with totse, it doesn't have the capacity.

Quite true...

Digital_Saviour,

We can continue our discussion of first century Christianity here if you like. I was really looking forward to your response. Also, check the email you used to sign up for totse, please.

The jews were the chosen race (chosen by god), but it turned out that many jews didn't believe he was teh Messiah, like the preists that prosecuted him

(Jews still don't believe the Messiah has come)

quote:Originally posted by stiffo:

(Jews still don't believe the Messiah has come)



Thats not true, yes we do (hehehe)... his name is Bob Dobbs, lol.

quote:Originally posted by Maccabee:



Thats not true, yes we do (hehehe)... his name is Bob Dobbs, lol.

You're forgetting that some of the Chabadniks think that Menachem Mendel Schneerson was haMashiach...he's not dead he's just hiding!

quote:Originally posted by ryanl:



Firstly, the Messiah could not be a mamzer (hebrew for conceived from a forbidden relationship) which he was.



Well, firstly, he isn't really the Jewish messiah, but the Christian messiah. Secondly, he was supposedly born through immaculate conception; that is, Mary (hence the name the Blessed Virgin) never fucked Joseph. Thirdly, there is something about Mary being of the Davidic line, I believe, but I'm not sure of the source.

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

...he's not dead he's just hiding!

Wouldn't you?

As for Mary being of the line of David. That comes from the "Golden Legend" A story about Mary's aging parents and the baby they had. It was created by the church to bridge some of those gaps that CANNOT be filled in. If I recall correctly there is nothing in jewish texts that says that the "annointed one" need be born of a virgin.

It doesn't matter if Jesus was the sone of Ol' Joe or Yahweh OR if he was the jewish messiah or not. What matters is people (christians, messianic jews) think that he was.

Oh kinda off topic Ryan would you happen to have any of the old books in english on ebook? I'd love to read them but for a former seminary student it's kinda hard to find. Thanks.

Even if mary were of a descendant of David it wouldnt matter. Lineage is passed down through the male line of the family... not that most people will listen to the actual prophecy or realize that jesus did not fulfil it.

Others have already said the rest (to clarify this is coming from a conservative Jewish viewpoint).

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

Digital_Saviour,

We can continue our discussion of first century Christianity here if you like. I was really looking forward to your response. Also, check the email you used to sign up for totse, please.

yeah....ummmm

Can you post your last post here ?

*LOL*

Baaaad memory, and not enough juice in my spirit to go look for it.

Thanks, hon.

DIMMU ROCKS !

quote:Originally posted by Fascistsmasher:

Even if mary were of a descendant of David it wouldnt matter. Lineage is passed down through the male line of the family... not that most people will listen to the actual prophecy or realize that jesus did not fulfil it.

Others have already said the rest (to clarify this is coming from a conservative Jewish viewpoint).



Christ was from the house of David on BOTH sides of his family. Both mother, and father.

I have written the genealogies here before...I can try and find the info again, if you like.

Jesus fulfilled every single propechy written about him...except for the second coming portion.

I can illustrate that as well.

You guys got it all wrong here. Jesus is not the Messiah. He is not the Message. He has the Message, but he is not the Message itself. This is all christian/zionist opium.

In any case, get over it: he died 2000 years ago. Why cry over spilled milk?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Christ was from the house of David on BOTH sides of his family. Both mother, and father.

I have written the genealogies here before...I can try and find the info again, if you like.

Jesus fulfilled every single propechy written about him...except for the second coming portion.

I can illustrate that as well.

Joseph was descended from a former king named Jechoniah whose line was cursed by G-D. In Jeremiah 22:28-30 one can clearly see that this particular line was cursed, making anyone descended from that line ineligible for the throne. And Mary does not count, as legitimacy to the throne was passed on through the male line.

Jesus wasn't Jewish.

quote:Originally posted by niggersexual:

Jesus wasn't Jewish.

Yes, I know that nigger... and OZ is over the rainbow... LOL

Jesus was also a carpenter

If physical paternal blood lineage does not pass through Solomon, the debate is academic.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

yeah....ummmm

Can you post your last post here ?

*LOL*

Baaaad memory, and not enough juice in my spirit to go look for it.

Thanks, hon.

DIMMU ROCKS !

The discussion we had on this page: http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/003887-3.html

quote:Originally posted by Maccabee:

Joseph was descended from a former king named Jechoniah whose line was cursed by G-D. In Jeremiah 22:28-30 one can clearly see that this particular line was cursed, making anyone descended from that line ineligible for the throne. And Mary does not count, as legitimacy to the throne was passed on through the male line.

Christians counter with this...

quote:Messiah's Right to David's Throne

by Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum - Director, Ariel Ministries



Modern Rabbi's Teach:

Because of the New Testament claim that Jesus was born of a virgin birth, it would have been impossible for him to have been a descendant of the House of David. According to Numbers 1:18, the tribal lineage was traced through the father only. Contrary to Christian teaching, the New Testament, therefore, does not give an account for Mary’s ancestry. The accounts in both Matthew and Luke, which are extremely contradictory, demonstrate that Joseph was from the House of David. Because Jesus was claimed to have come from a virgin birth, it would be necessary for Mary to also have been a descendant of the House of David. The real Messiah will be a legitimate heir to the Throne of David; however, this could not have been possible if Jesus had a human Jewish father.

In order to uphold the argument that Jesus was from the House of David and born of the virgin birth, Christians have claimed that Luke’s genealogy is really of Mary, not Joseph. This also clears up some of the contradictions between the two accounts; however, it is a false view, which contradicts Jewish tradition.

Believers in Messiah Teach:

Of the four Gospels, only two give us a genealogy, the same two that deal with the birth and early life of Jesus. While both Matthew and Luke give us the story of the birth of Jesus, they tell the story from two different perspectives. Matthew tells the story from Joseph’s perspective while Luke tells the story from Mary’s perspective.

Matthew’s genealogy (Matt. 1:1-17) traces the line of Joseph, the step-father of the Messiah. The line is traced from Abraham (v. 2), and continues down to David and Solomon (v. 6), and then to King Jechoniah (v. 11), who was one of the last kings before the Babylonian Captivity. It is the person of Jechoniah that is significant in dealing with the genealogy of Matthew because of the special curse pronounced on him in Jeremiah 22:24-30.

Jeremiah 22:30 says of King Jechoniah:

Thus saith Jehovah, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no more shall a man of his seed prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling in Judah.

In the Matthew genealogy, it should be noted that Joseph was a direct descendant of Jechoniah (v. 16). This means, then, that Joseph, having the blood of Jechoniah in his veins, was not qualified to sit on David’s throne. This would also mean that no son of Joseph would have the right to claim the Throne of David. In essence, Matthew’s point is this: if Jesus were really Joseph’s son, He could not claim to sit on David’s throne because of Jechoniah’s curse. Then Matthew proceeds to show that Yeshua was not truly Joseph’s son, for He was born of the virgin Mary (Matt. 1:18-25).

If, by Jewish law, the name of a woman could not be mentioned in a genealogy, but you wished to trace a woman’s line, how would you go about doing so? The answer is that you would use the name of her husband. However, if the husband’s name were used, that raises a second question. Suppose somebody picked up a genealogy to read; how would he know whether the genealogy is that of the husband or that of the wife because, in either case, it would be the husband’s name that was used?

The answer to that riddle lies in a problem with the English language which does not exist with the Greek or Hebrew languages. In English, it is not good grammar to put the word "the" before a proper name. We do not use a definite article before a proper name; such as, the Matthew, the Luke, the Mary, the John. However, this is quite permissible in both Greek and Hebrew grammar. The Greek text of Luke’s genealogy is very interesting because of this. In the Greek text, every single name mentioned in the genealogy of Luke has the definite article "the" with one exception, and that is the name of Joseph. His name does not have the definite article "the" in front of it. What that would mean to someone reading the original is this: when he saw the definite article missing from Joseph’s name while it was present in all the other names, it would mean that this was not really Joseph’s genealogy, rather, it is Mary’s genealogy. So, in keeping with Jewish law, it was the husband’s name which was used. We have two examples of this in the Old Testament: Ezra 2:61 and Nehemiah 7:63.

Luke’s genealogy traces the line of Mary and portrays how Jesus could claim the Throne of David. The line is traced until it returns to the family of David (vv. 31-32). However, the son of David involved in this genealogy is not Solomon but Nathan. The important point here is that Mary was a member of the House of David totally apart from Jechoniah. Since Jesus was Mary’s son, He, too, was a member of the House of David, totally apart from the curse of Jechoniah. In this manner, He fulfilled the first Old Testament requirement for kingship.

However, Yeshua was not the only member of the House of David apart from Jechoniah. There were a number of other descendants who could claim equality with Yeshua to the Throne of David, for they, too, did not have Jechoniah’s blood in their veins. At this point, it is important to note the second Old Testament requirement for kingship: divine appointment. Of all the members of the House of David apart from Jechoniah, only One received divine appointment.



[This message has been edited by Sephiroth (edited 05-19-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

Christians counter with this...

The Christian argument relies upon the belief, that Jesus was born of a virgin... I don't have that problem.

Well, duh, I'm just pointing out that they have an argument for everything else, it's just Torah and Hallakhah that I think I have them on, and that the fact that they throw it out.

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

Well, duh, I'm just pointing out that they have an argument for everything else...

I know, I was just being... difficult. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

personally ,on the evidence, i think jesus would be horrified that christians worship him.

christians get around the 'no other gods before me' commandment by declaring jesus as part of the triune god head (which biblically is nonsense and was a belief hoisted on the church some 300 years after christ by a pagan emperor. and that is all demonstrable fact too, a matter of historical record.)

Jack, what is your take on John 20: 28-31?

you also said,

quote:"if you immerse yourself in subject matter you will find that jesus did indeed conform to the various prophetical passages that describe the messiah (infact some would claim he delibrately went out of his way to do so. Schonfield wrote a good book on this very point 'the passover plot')"

How does John 19:23-24 fit with Schonfield's (and others) view on deliberate fulfillment?

Also about Trinity: how about John 14:26?