Quote:The angel told Joseph to name Him Jesus, it had nothing to do with Mary's desire.
In a dream! We're not even talking about an account of an actual Angel appearing to Joseph here, but it is true according to the story, that Mary's preference had nothing to do with it.
Quote:Emmanuel means God with us, it's a prophetic name for Jesus, you guys need to start using the brains you claim to have. I use the word claim with full intent, until you all show us different.
That is the meaning of Emmanuel but it isn't prophetic for Jesus any-more than any other Jewish name. All Jewish names have some meaning or other and most are related to God. As it happens my father's middle name is Emmanuel - its common enough and has been since well before Jesus.
On the broader issue of why Jews didn't accept Jesus:
He is an intermediary where none was allowed:
Christianity attempts to bypass this issue with the three in one thing but I've never met a Christian who can explain that one properly and the general ultimate response is "I don't understand it fully either."
Its a fudge.
His role isn't required:
Essentially Christianity has adopted the scape-goat idea to justify Jesus. The scape goat itself is generally considered by Jewish scholars to be aberrant behaviour that shouldn't be required either.
In order to pull off this trick Christianity had to disavow itself of the idea that there were sins on one side and good deeds on the other. There is no word in English for the antonym of sin, nor, as far as I am aware in any of the European Languages.
There is a word, however, in Hebrew - Mitzvah (literally commandment - as in Barmitzvah - son of the commandments) which came to mean good deed.
The basic idea of Judaism is that you are judged after death - with good deeds on one side and sins on the other. If the balance of good deeds outweighs bad then you are in. Depending on the imbalance determines how long you spend outside of Heaven (which is conceptually vague in Judaism, as is hell). There is no concept of eternal damnation in Judaism- again that is a uniquely Christian addition.
All of this had to be abandoned in Christianity to make room for Jesus who takes responsibility for your sins off you whilst you get away with it scot free as long as you believe in Jesus in the end.
Aside from the horrific basis for the idea and the licence it provides for behave appallingly throughout your life it has caused innumerable issues and problems.
For example the Catholic belief that an unbaptized child that dies goes to purgatory to wait there till the end of time - as if it wasn't bad enough for the poor grieving parents that a child had died.
This was doctrine until very recently (1960's?)
At the same time take the worst, most sadistic criminal you can imagine. On his deathbed he recants (genuinely), confesses his sins, is blessed by a priest and skips off into heaven to rub shoulders with the blessed and the meek.
Peachy!!
Of course there is also the flip side. A good man - someone who has done wonderful things for his fellow man though-out his life, someone who has held the highest moral standards but just happens not to believe in Jesus, what happens to him?
You don't need too many guesses to you? (Hnt - he will never be cold).
If asked about Judaism I generally tend not to give a particularly positive opinion of it. I think it is a revolting religion in many ways. Its only in comparison to Christianity that it can look almost palatable.
He just wasn't all that convincing:
The only people that met Jesus were the Jews - and they didn't buy it. A few Romans were also exposed to him of course - but they didn't convert either.
In fact there is a case to be put that the closer you were to Jesus, the less likely you were to follow him. There are references in the gospel to Jesus visiting his home-town where he was roundly rejected and left gutted and disappointed, if not mystified.
The only exceptions to this are his mother (but not, apparently his brothers and sisters, or father come to that) and the dumb-asses he chose amongst the fishermen and the like that would have been easy to hoodwink.
Failure by definition:
There is no provision in Judaism for the Messiah to come and fail to convince the people that he is the Messiah. This didn't happen with the prophets and it certainly wouldn't happen with God's chosen Messiah.
Jesus clearly saw himself as the Jewish Messiah (and only that till the dubious resurrection). Time and again in both Mark and Matthew he makes it as clear as day that he is here for the "Children of Israel" and not anyone else. How Christians ignore this is beyond me.
So Jesus thought he was the Jewish Messiah. He failed to convince the people. Therefore, definitionally, he wasn't. There's no getting out of that for an Omnipotent God who had never failed to get his way before.
This is supposedly the same God that appointed Abram/Abraham/Israel, Jacob, Joseph, Saul, David, Solomon etc. etc. (to name just a few). None of them failed in their primary mission, yet Jesus did?
Oh screw it - I'm boring myself with this shit. Suffice to say it goes on and on for pages if you want it to.
Kuusi palaa, ja on viimeinen kerta kun annan vaimoni laittaa jouluvalot!
