Why Jesus is not the messiah.

[GrandizerII]

Then your Jewish counter-missionary was a moron.

Maimonides devotes much of the "Guide for the Perplexed" to the fundamental idea that God is incorporeal, meaning that He assumes no physical form. God is Eternal, above time. He is Infinite, beyond space. He cannot be born, and cannot die. Saying that God assumes human form makes God small, diminishing both His unity and His divinity. As the Torah says: "God is not a mortal" (Numbers 23:19)

Rambam said regarding the messiah, "there shall rise up one of whom none have known before, and signs and wonders which they shall see performed by him will be the proofs of his true origin." This is contrary to your point that "According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, (2) nor will he possess supernatural qualities."

"Jewish sources" have conflicting views on the messiah. When you go to sites that are writing against Christianity, you only hear one side.

Now, as for your quotation, bravo, you can quote the old testament. Pity you don't know "context," huh?

And as for yours, bravo, you can C&P from Jewish sites which present one side of Jewish thought in an attempt to refute Christian interpretation.

What would really impress me is if there is at least one clear unambiguous passage in the Old Testament that predicted the Messiah would be crucified and rise from the dead within three days.

Obviously, as someone who's extensively read the Old Testament several times, I really doubt someone could provide me with such a passage, but it does show you something is just not right when the New Testament stresses on the crucifixion and resurrection of the Messiah but the Old Testament doesn't even hint at it.

[Minimalist]

There're more serious problems in america to think about ..

Horseshit, Arty. When there is some blithering lunatic jesus butt-sniffer on my doorstep THAT is the most serious problem at that moment.

I'm sure you know the type.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Dates to the end of the 5th century and was still being edited centuries later. Somewhat late for your horseshit.

Why? A post-Christianity date helps me. Jews then had reason not to note passages indicating a suffering messiah, but they did so anyway.

---

According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, (2) nor will he possess supernatural qualities.

LOL. This one is ridiculous. I once debated a Jewish counter-missionary on this topic, and he also made this claim. I asked him to provide the passages that show the messiah would be descended from David. He ignored it. I repeated the question. He dodged it. The reason he didn't want to answer is that some passages regarding descent from David also show that the messiah will be more than just a normal human. You're probably familiar with one yourself:

Isaiah 9
6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto 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.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

From a time of royal bloodlines, and oligarchy, not sure what would make anyone think some random peasant would end up on a throne.

[GrandizerII]

Why? A post-Christianity date helps me. Jews then had reason not to note passages indicating a suffering messiah, but they did so anyway.

---

LOL. This one is ridiculous. I once debated a Jewish counter-missionary on this topic, and he also made this claim. I asked him to provide the passages that show the messiah would be descended from David. He ignored it. I repeated the question. He dodged it. The reason he didn't want to answer is that some passages regarding descent from David also show that the messiah will be more than just a normal human. You're probably familiar with one yourself:

Isaiah 9
6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto 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.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

From a time of royal bloodlines, and oligarchy, not sure what would make anyone think some random peasant would end up on a throne.

Right. Jesus actually failed to fulfill that one. Next?

[downbeatplumb]

There are trespassing laws everwhere you go..

you're not the brave exception.

There're more serious problems in america to think about ..

THINK about ...try it.

But you are supposed to forgive trespassing or so the crappest prayer ever says.

[Creed of Heresy]

Rambam said regarding the messiah, "there shall rise up one of whom none have known before, and signs and wonders which they shall see performed by him will be the proofs of his true origin."

Signs and wonders that we haven't seen before except for the plagiarized myths of Babylonia, Macedonia, Egypt, etc. etc...

This is contrary to your point that "According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, (2) nor will he possess supernatural qualities."

And yet...he was Jewish and didn't believe Jesus was the messiah...

...You don't see an issue with the guy who wrote this and knew of Jesus and all his stuff not believing Jesus was the messiah despite writing that?



There still lies the problem that there is a bunch of the other messianic prophecies that Jesus did not fulfill. You didn't address any of those.

"Jewish sources" have conflicting views on the messiah. When you go to sites that are writing against Christianity, you only hear one side.

Now, as for your quotation, bravo, you can quote the old testament. Pity you don't know "context," huh?

And as for yours, bravo, you can C&P from Jewish sites which present one side of Jewish thought in an attempt to refute Christian interpretation.

That's the thing, though, I'm only using those sites for quick reference. I've gone over this before years ago, and I admit, it's been about as long since I read through the bible again. I'm not exactly equipped to quote passages by heart. But needless to say, I've heard the Christian arguments before, and they just don't address some of the most glaring issues. The lack of historian acknowledgement of Jesus' existence doesn't help matters much, especially given how long after his supposed death the gospels were written. We THINK it was like 40 years after the supposed event or something like that...which is more than enough time to go back and say "Oh yeah, the leader of our little cult fulfilled all these prophecies about how he would die and rise again!" That's another thing, how the fuck did none of the historians at the time fail to mention the dude who died and came back to life? It seems to me like the gospel writers didn't take into account the silence of historians for future generations, or thought nobody would think to inquire about that later on. So it's possible (to be generous), or rather, highly likely (to be honest) that Jesus didn't fulfill any of the messianic prophecies, if he existed at all, honestly.

IF HE DID, however, there is a huge amount of skepticism that is worth sending the way of the whole ordeal. The timing of the scripture's initial distribution, the various missing fulfillments of the prophecies, the clear covering of the writers' asses by making up some bullshit "second coming" thing to excuse the fact that their messiah failed to bring the golden age around, or failed to do anything beyond getting nailed to a T-stick and inspiring the bloodiest, most aggressive religion in history to arise to grand prominence (nowadays being overshadowed in that regard by islam). Good goin', Chrissy boy; peace, love, and putting your family members to the sword and inciting violence against anyone who doesn't accept him... What a great message. Truly.

Gotta be honest, John. I really, truly do not understand the appeal of what you believe in. I really cannot fathom who in their right mind would call themselves a Christian and then call their values and beliefs "good." I just. I just can't. I once thought I could and then I realized what it was I was adhering to. You'll have to try to explain what the appeal is to me. Cuz...I just don't. I just I don't! I don't. That's all I've got is I just...I don't.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Why? A post-Christianity date helps me. Jews then had reason not to note passages indicating a suffering messiah, but they did so anyway.

---

LOL. This one is ridiculous. I once debated a Jewish counter-missionary on this topic, and he also made this claim. I asked him to provide the passages that show the messiah would be descended from David. He ignored it. I repeated the question. He dodged it. The reason he didn't want to answer is that some passages regarding descent from David also show that the messiah will be more than just a normal human. You're probably familiar with one yourself:

Isaiah 9
6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto 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.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

From a time of royal bloodlines, and oligarchy, not sure what would make anyone think some random peasant would end up on a throne.

Chances are Isaiah was flapping his jaws about the Assyrian king's son.

[John V]

And yet...he was Jewish and didn't believe Jesus was the messiah...

...You don't see an issue with the guy who wrote this and knew of Jesus and all his stuff not believing Jesus was the messiah despite writing that?

Of course not. When considering a complex question which is dependent on multiple factors, people can agree on particular factors and yet reach different overall conclusions.

There still lies the problem that there is a bunch of the other messianic prophecies that Jesus did not fulfill. You didn't address any of those.

I addressed most of them by noting that they will be fulfilled in the second advent.

That's the thing, though, I'm only using those sites for quick reference. I've gone over this before years ago, and I admit, it's been about as long since I read through the bible again. I'm not exactly equipped to quote passages by heart. But needless to say, I've heard the Christian arguments before, and they just don't address some of the most glaring issues. The lack of historian acknowledgement of Jesus' existence doesn't help matters much, especially given how long after his supposed death the gospels were written.

Whoa, where did that come from? Seems desperate to try to change the conversation to historicity of Jesus.

Gotta be honest, John. I really, truly do not understand the appeal of what you believe in. I really cannot fathom who in their right mind would call themselves a Christian and then call their values and beliefs "good." I just. I just can't. I once thought I could and then I realized what it was I was adhering to. You'll have to try to explain what the appeal is to me. Cuz...I just don't. I just I don't! I don't. That's all I've got is I just...I don't.

That's your shortcoming. While you can disagree with people, if you can't understand the mindset of a really big group of people, there's something wrong with you. I can understand why people might be atheist or Muslim. Politically I'm a little right of center, but I can understand the far left and far right, while disagreeing with them.

---

What would really impress me is if there is at least one clear unambiguous passage in the Old Testament that predicted the Messiah would be crucified and rise from the dead within three days.

That wouldn't make sense, as the people who crucified him knew the Scripture. If it were that clear and ambiguous, they would kill a claimant in a different way.

Obviously, as someone who's extensively read the Old Testament several times, I really doubt someone could provide me with such a passage, but it does show you something is just not right when the New Testament stresses on the crucifixion and resurrection of the Messiah but the Old Testament doesn't even hint at it.

That's a different standard. You should be able to find hints of a suffering messiah.

[GrandizerII]

What would really impress me is if there is at least one clear unambiguous passage in the Old Testament that predicted the Messiah would be crucified and rise from the dead within three days.

That wouldn't make sense, as the people who crucified him knew the Scripture. If it were that clear and ambiguous, they would kill a claimant in a different way.

Then how can anyone say with confidence that these prophecies have been fulfilled if they're just going to be vague and ambiguous? Do you really not see what is wrong with this?

Also, isn't God supposed to be in control here? If he is sovereign, couldn't he state a prophecy clearly and ensure that it be fulfilled anyway?

[John V]

Then how can anyone say with confidence that these prophecies have been fulfilled if they're just going to be vague and ambiguous?

It's called a faith for a reason.

Do you really not see what is wrong with this?

No, I don't, but feel free to explain.

Also, isn't God supposed to be in control here? If he is sovereign, couldn't he state a prophecy clearly and ensure that it be fulfilled anyway?

Sure. Or, he could state a prophecy with some ambiguity, and ensure that those who are troubled by that believe anyway, if that's his will.