The State Religion of the 50s and being marginalized.....

[agricola]

It is not yet shown, of course, that EVERY 'improvement' is objectively an improvement - yet. For that, we have to wait and look back - like we look back now on the 50's and say 'this was good, this was not good'. I don't think anybody can look around at the CURRENT culture and flawlessly recognize which elements will and won't last, and which ones are absolutely good or not (if any are 'absolute').

Plus, of course, one's opinion on which elements are desirable is very likely to be contingent on how that element affects them personally. Isn't that always the way?

As for Jesus being of the tribe of Judah - well he certainly could have been. But the two genealogies in the NT don't agree with each other, each one is FAR too short to be a complete 1000 year version (there are 1000 years between David and Jesus - one would expect between 30 and 50 generations, not 12 or so), and at least one of them names a son of David whom the prophets absolutely specify as NOT being eligible to produce the messiah (due to personal failings).

But all of that doesn't matter much, because the only REAL way to recognize the messiah is for the messiah to accomplish the job of the messiah: world peace for one item. Any messiah candidate who fails to do that is simply a failed candidate, and not the messiah.

Jesus didn't accomplish world peace, therefore Jesus was not the messiah. It's as simple as that from the Jewish POV. Nothing against the guy: he just didn't fulfill the job description.

[KLP]

...Jesus didn't accomplish world peace, therefore Jesus was not the messiah. It's as simple as that from the Jewish POV. Nothing against the guy: he just didn't fulfill the job description.

Yes there are Jews who refuse to accept Jesus, that is a POV. Do you have documents that indicate 1st century Jews were using total and immediate world peace as their bench mark for Messiah recognition?

[williamray123]

Jesus didn't accomplish world peace, therefore Jesus was not the messiah. It's as simple as that from the Jewish POV. Nothing against the guy: he just didn't fulfill the job description.

Yes, this is problematic for CoC that doesn't believe in the millennial reign of the messiah, but it isn't a problem for those of us who accept the earthly reign of the messiah over a restored Israel.

Yes, there are things predicted of the messiah that Jesus didn't accomplish in his first advent, but he claimed he would return to the mount of olives just as Zechariah 14 says and at that point, all else will be accomplished.

What is the explanation of Daniel saying messiah would be "cut off" or killed? Also, if you calculate the the 69 weeks of Daniel, it ends on the precise day that Jesus arrived in Jerusalem on Passover week. Daniel gives a specific time period that would pass from the rebuilding of Jerusalem until Messiah comes - a time that ended precisely at the moment Jesus appeared in Jerusalem before being "cut off" as Daniel says. That time period ended long, long ago. Isaiah 53 also speaks of his suffering and death - so the prophets of old did prophesy the messiah would be killed. There are other things you spoke of and I agree he did not accomplish in his first advent. To a believer in the millennium, this isn't a problem. When he returns as Zech 14 says, he will defeat Israel's enemies and bring in an era of world peace as you mentioned. The government will be on his shoulders as he rules and reigns from Jerusalem. He will build his temple (Zech 6) and it will stand for all time (Ezekiel 37). CoC heads explode over this, but for a reader and believer of the OT and NT and believer in the millennial reign, it isn't a problem.

[agricola]

Daniel is not considered a prophet by anybody but Christians, william.

Anybody can research the evolution of the idea of 'the messiah'. At the end of the Second Temple period, the messiah was definitely expected to be a this-world secular ruler from the line of King David, who would drive out the Romans and re-establish a free and independent nation with the capitol in Jerusalem. That was the overwhelming mainstream view, and you can see in the NT that this is largely what the apostles were expecting, with their discussions on who would sit where in court.

What Jesus actually thought, I don't know.

There were splinter groups that had some variations on the theme of the messiah (notably the Qumran community) but they were destroyed by the Romans and we don't know as much about their ideas as we might like. We have some of their writings, but we don't have their interpretations of what their writings meant.

So, if not 'world peace' in first century, then 'free and independent Jewish kingdom'. That wasn't accomplished either.

[williamray123]

Daniel is not considered a prophet by anybody but Christians, william.

Anybody can research the evolution of the idea of 'the messiah'. At the end of the Second Temple period, the messiah was definitely expected to be a this-world secular ruler from the line of King David, who would drive out the Romans and re-establish a free and independent nation with the capitol in Jerusalem. That was the overwhelming mainstream view, and you can see in the NT that this is largely what the apostles were expecting, with their discussions on who would sit where in court.

What Jesus actually thought, I don't know.

There were splinter groups that had some variations on the theme of the messiah (notably the Qumran community) but they were destroyed by the Romans and we don't know as much about their ideas as we might like. We have some of their writings, but we don't have their interpretations of what their writings meant.

So, if not 'world peace' in first century, then 'free and independent Jewish kingdom'. That wasn't accomplished either.

You are correct that the book of Daniel is not classified as prophecy in the Jewish OT. It is in the Ketuvim, or other writings. But the argument is a technical one, the difference between a seer of visions and a prophet. Daniel was obviously anointed by God and the visions may not have been strictly classified as prophecy by the Talmud, but we are still talking about a book that was canonized into the Jewish bible, and not thrown out. Whether prophecy or vision, his writings weren't thrown out, they were included in the Ketuvim and therefore valid. Yes Christians believe he was a prophet because the Jewish founder of the religion said so - also, as I said, the Messiah suffering and dying was mentioned in Isaiah 53, who is undoubtedly considered a prophet.

You said what Jesus thought you don't know, but he didn't tell the disciples he was not going to restore Israel - he told them it was not for them to know the time, implying he would restore it, but not then. You are correct the Jews were looking for a physical kingdom and a lot of the new testament goes towards rationalizing the death of the Messiah they thought would restore Israel at that time. I personally believe the Devil thought the same thing and believed he was winning by killing Jesus but defeated himself in the process.

I believe we both believe the same thing about the future Messiah, we just disagree on whether it is the coming of a new person, or the person who already came and died once. Thanks for the discussion.

[KLP]

Yes, Jesus failed in the eyes of those seeking and expecting an earthly kingdom. But the whole argument is that the Jews did not understand the divine plan and they did not understand the prophesy included in their scripture. Jews think they know it all or know it best while Jesus and his followers think Jews missed it. It is the same argument for 2k yrs. So yes of course, from Jews who are looking for a physical land kingdom thing, then Jesus (if he was the Messiah) was a failure.

We see this disconnect back in the selecting and anointing of King David. God and Man do not have the same POV or objective or prerogative. So as many times as Agri wants to say Jesus is a failure and Christianity is wrong I can just as easily point out how Jews were wrong over and over about things related to religion and God and should not be assumed to be experts about God. Or I can point out the line about how Jews today have a veil over their minds that prevents them from seeing the glory of God and the truth about Jesus. The same Gospel is foolishness to some and life to others. Yes, we can lob these back and forth over and over. Nothing new here. In the end it is simple contradiction back and forth, because it is a matter of faith. So I am disengaging for now.

[agricola]

Not exactly what I'm saying - I'm saying that believing Jesus was the messiah is an OPINION, which Jews do not share ('and here's why'). Certainly Christians have a different opinion - and their own 'here's why' to reference.

I don't think there's any absolutes about either position; you have to believe in it or not, and you can't just 'make' yourself believe something when you don't.

There are other differences between Judaism and Christianity besides the person or messiah-ness of Jesus, anyway. The Trinity, for example. Or the idea of substitutionary atonement. Or whether people are 'fallen' and in need of saving in the first place. Lots of other differences.

Daniel only barely made the cut into the Jewish canon (along with Esther - which never mentions God - and the Song of Songs - too sexy). The Ketuvim are the Writings and the Writings are not considered to be the word of God. Again: the Writings are NOT CONSIDERED to be the word of God. What the Writings are, are 'inspiring literature'.

Jews consider the Torah (the Pentateuch) to be the Word of God. The prophets (which include the historical books except for Chronicles, and the regular prophets except not Daniel, or Jonah or Job) are God's MESSAGES but rendered through the thoughts and words and understanding of the various prophets.

'Prophet' means someone who speaks to the people, bringing a message from God. It does NOT mean someone who predicts the future. (Isaiah 53 is part of a lengthy message directed at the current King of the Northern Kingdom, not a future prophecy of a distant in time event).

Daniel is clearly quite 'late' - written most probably during the Hasmonean period (second century BCE). We know this because the language includes some Greek borrow words which didn't exist prior to Alexander the Great, and because some of the events 'prophesied' or envisioned had already happened or were in progress during the second century BCE (like the rise of Rome). A few Jewish groups think Daniel MIGHT have some 'prophecy' in it, but it is generally accepted that he's one of those 'prophets' that are only going to be clear after the fact. Little kids learn about Daniel in the Lion's Den and such in kindergarten, but adults don't spend much (if any) time on it. It's not one of the writings which is attached to a holiday (Ruth, for example, is read during Shavuot).

[williamray123]

Well fair enough about Daniel, I accept your beliefs and respect them. Just wanted to counterpoint about the things the messiah didn't accomplish in his first advent are not a problem to OT reading people who believe in the millennial reign of messiah.

Daniel may not be an official prophet, but his words written down hundreds of years before the messiah (and locked into the Greek Septuagint 200 years before Jesus.) predict to the day the arrival of messiah in Jerusalem. Jesus arrived on that day. I believe that is a compelling case that Jesus is the messiah. Not arguing, and we can agree to disagree here, just wanted to make the point, prophet or not, Daniel predicts messiah's arrival in my opinion, and he clearly says messiah would die. As I said, he may not meet the strict talmud requirements of being a prophet, but in my opinion, he predicts Jesus' arrival and death, prophet or not, and with history to look at, it vindicates him in my opinion.

And I believe Isaiah 53 can have a local, contemporary application and also speak to the future, like much of Isaiah does - just as you mentioned the world peace messiah brings in Isaiah 2 and echoed in Micah 4.

We can agree to disagree - and I respect the Rabbis and their position - just wanted to offer a non-CoC opinion that doesn't have an issue with the OT prophecies. Thanks for the discussion.

[agricola]

Well fair enough about Daniel, I accept your beliefs and respect them. Just wanted to counterpoint about the things the messiah didn't accomplish in his first advent are not a problem to OT reading people who believe in the millennial reign of messiah.

No of course not. That's exactly what I meant when I said 'opinion' (i.e., belief without evidence one way or the other). From the Jewish POV, of course, Christians are 'reading it wrong'. I believe Jews have a valid point there, because a) it is, after all, JEWISH scripture and b) Jews had it 'first' (800 years or so before Jesus) so their interpretation at least has seniority.

Daniel may not be an official prophet, but his words written down hundreds of years before the messiah (and locked into the Greek Septuagint 200 years before Jesus.) predict to the day the arrival of messiah in Jerusalem. Jesus arrived on that day. I believe that is a compelling case that Jesus is the messiah. Not arguing, and we can agree to disagree here, just wanted to make the point, prophet or not, Daniel predicts messiah's arrival in my opinion, and he clearly says messiah would die. As I said, he may not meet the strict talmud requirements of being a prophet, but in my opinion, he predicts Jesus' arrival and death, prophet or not, and with history to look at, it vindicates him in my opinion.

Daniel probably predates Jesus by under 200 years, actually. He's definitely part of the whole apocalyptic gestalt which is still dominant in the first century. The Greek Septuagint that was born around the same time (100-200 BCE) included only Torah. The translation of other books into Greek occurred over the next several centuries. The Greek versions of all the books of the Hebrew Bible are sometimes loosely called 'Septuagint' but that is a misnomer.

Of course you believe both that Daniel predicts a dying messiah (which is news to the Jews, by the way) and that Jesus is the messiah. That's what Christianity teaches. All I'm' saying is that it isn't as obvious and clear as is sometimes preached.

And I believe Isaiah 53 can have a local, contemporary application and also speak to the future, like much of Isaiah does - just as you mentioned the world peace messiah brings in Isaiah 2 and echoed in Micah 4.

We can agree to disagree - and I respect the Rabbis and their position - just wanted to offer a non-CoC opinion that doesn't have an issue with the OT prophecies. Thanks for the discussion.

What I'm trying to avoid is the kind of 'discussion' that occurs far too often, with Christians flat out telling Jews they don't understand their own scripture and that they are 'wrong'. Having a different interpretation is completely valid, and not 'wrong'. It's just a different interpretation - with its own support and reasons.

The Essenes apparently believed in a kind of 'two messiah' prediction, with one perhaps dying and the other perhaps succeeding. It is hard to be sure, because none of them are around anymore to ask. Jews (today) look at Deuteronomy and see that they are prohibited from 'inquiring of the dead' about what is going to happen in the future - no necromancy, no witchcraft of the predicting kind, no divination - and generally consider looking for predictions of the future in Prophets (or anywhere else) to be a forbidden activity, even if it might possibly 'work'.

However, ANY reader of the Prophets should ALWAYS remember that the prophet was speaking to his immediate audience PRIMARILY; even if you believe his words apply to some later time, it is necessary that they first and primarily apply to the time in which the prophet lived.

[williamray123]

Thanks for the response. I won't push it further as I think we understand each other. I do appreciate the discussion though and I respect your beliefs. Have a good one. =)