Other than rumors of miracles never proven Jesus did little different from other so called "messiahs". He was a revolutionary and not always nonviolent. So why him versus others?
Other than rumors of miracles never proven Jesus did little different from other so called "messiahs". He was a revolutionary and not always nonviolent. So why him versus others?
First, what do you mean by your title - that He never brought the Kingdom of David?
Second, Jesus as the proven Messiah does not simply rely on miracles, and prophecies from the Old Testament that were fulfilled in Him.
There's also the reality of the Resurrection, as witnessed by His disciples.
And why should we believe the Resurrection did happen?
What more compelling evidence than the dramatic transformation of the Apostles and other disciples after witnessing the resurrected Christ? From being fearful, confused followers of Jesus, they emerged brimming with confidence and willingly embraced martyrdom for their relentless spread of the gospel.
Why do you think Christianity suddenly exploded in the region after His death? Because of His Resurrection.
He was not supposed to bring the Kingdom of David. He was supposed to (and did) bring the Kingdom of God. Furthermore (as pointed out above) He was resurrected from the dead, and continues to live in and with and through us today.
This explosion as you put it had nothing to do with this resurrection.
Other than rumors of miracles never proven Jesus did little different from other so called "messiahs". He was a revolutionary and not always nonviolent. So why him versus others?
By definition the messiah is the one that does bring the kingdom of David. All others are nothings.Does anyone here have any religious education?
By definition the messiah is the one that does bring the kingdom of David. All others are nothings.Does anyone here have any religious education?
Anyone at all versed in the messianic prophecies in the Old Testament (like, you know, actual Jews), can tell you that the story of Jesus does not fulfill those prophecies.
That completely ignores the remainder of the Messianic prophecies Jesus is expected to fulfill at his second coming.
Also, there are the "Two Faces of Messiah" in Judaism - the Suffering Servant (Messiah ben Joseph), and the Conquering King (Messiah ben David). Jesus fulfilled the former at his first advent and is expected to fulfill the latter one at his second advent.
Daniel chapter 9, which specifically mentions the Messiah, says he will be "cut off" (killed)
and then after that, "war will continue until the end."
Sounds more like what happens with Jesus than with the Jewish version of the Messiah.
Other than rumors of miracles never proven Jesus did little different from other so called "messiahs". He was a revolutionary and not always nonviolent. So why him versus others?
Which is not a part of Judaism at all. Claiming that Jesus fulfills the Jewish myth of the messiah, and then deciding that some of the myths don't count, is nonsense. Judaism has no second coming.
Jesus did not fulfill the only important prophecy. That is, bringing about the kingdom of god on Earth. Everything else is window dressing.
The virgin birth (which is not referenced in Judaism at all, no matter what modern translations of Isaiah like to say), nor the birth in Bethlehem (How exactly what Jesus of Nazareth from Bethlehem again?), nor the coming on Passover and being heralded by Elijah (which did not happen to Jesus). If someone doesn't, while still alive, usher in the kingdom of god on Earth (which is a worldwide government directly ruled by god, not a metaphor), then that person is 100% not the messiah as predicted by Judaism.
Hi, actual Jew here. There is no such notion as this in Judaism. The messiah does one thing and one thing only. There are not two faces. There are not two comings. There are not separate myths. There's just one story.
New translation, huh? According to Judaism, the messiah's appearance marks the end of war.
Logicman: Isaiah 53 is another Messianic prophecy confirmed by numerous rabbis, and in that one the Messiah also dies.
That doesn't actually have anything to do with the messiah. Again, cherry picked translations and "confirmations". What does that even mean, anyway? They "confirmed" it. Rabbis don't reach a consensus on anything. There's an old joke, that if you put four rabbis in a room overnight, in the morning you'll get five different opinions.
I'm going to correct your errors about what Judaism has to say.
There's also the reality of the Resurrection, as witnessed by His disciples.
And why should we believe the Resurrection did happen?
What more compelling evidence than the dramatic transformation of the Apostles and other disciples after witnessing the resurrected Christ? From being fearful, confused followers of Jesus, they emerged brimming with confidence and willingly embraced martyrdom for their relentless spread of the gospel.
Why the sudden enthusiasm, and fearless gungho determination from His followers?
They're even willing to face brutal consequences. How many time was Paul beaten to a bloody pulp before meeting his martyrdom? All of them, except one, were martyred.
So explain what drove them, if it's not witnessing the Resurrection.
Why do you think Christianity suddenly exploded in the region after His death? Because of His Resurrection.
There wasn't a sudden explosion of Christianity until much later, and it wasn't so much sudden as steady. Christianity as a whole was not only struggling in the early days it was divided, as each of the 12 disciples had different views on the details. For example not all of the disciples agreed with Paul (I think) about it being preferential to not be married at all, but to have at most 1 wife if you were a church leader. It wasn't until one of the Roman emperors converted that he declared Christianity the empire's official religion and forced its spread.Expand on that please. Why do you think Christianity spread out so quickly like wildfire in the region and beyond AFTER His death?
... nor the birth in Bethlehem (How exactly what Jesus of Nazareth from Bethlehem again?),...
That one's easy. Mary and Joseph were of Nazareth but they were in Bethlehem for the census. Since they were not of Bethlehem, neither was Jesus, regardless of where he was born. BTW I'm assuming that the bolded word was supposed to be "was".
You do know that the Romans, who kept very thorough records, never once required people to uproot their lives and go where their ancestors were from for a census. They counted people right where they were. There is no record of this bizarre and backwards census, and there are many records of Roman censuses. There are no records or evidence whatsoever of an empire-wide upheaval and migration like this. Or even of a smaller one, if it was contained just to Judea. The Romans were a much more sensible people than to do that.
Later on, decades after when Jesus and his apostles are said to have lived, when Greek writers were compiling the gospels, they noticed that some Jewish legends about the messiah suggest that he will be from Bethlehem, so they changed the story so that Joshua of Nazareth better fit the existing stories.
Of course everything written after Jesus died redefines what the Messiah was to be, and paints him a the Messiah. This is how religions get started, its not unique to Christianity for a figure to die, and their early followers in the decades after write holy books that proclaim that figure to be divine and provide accounts that are to prove that. At the time of Jesus, religion was politics, there was no division between the two. Jesus, like every other messianic figure at the time, was executed for sedition by the Roman authorities. Later, the Gospel writers in an attempt to make the movement appealing to Romans, painted it as though Jesus was executed by the Jews rather than by the Roman authorities. Crucifixion was the punishment for sedition. Stoning was the punishment for heresy. Pontius Pilate was a brutal governor who had no qualms executing any Jew he saw as creating any problems. Yet he is supposed to have found Jesus innocent and left it up to the Jews (who he had no respect for at all) to determine his fate?? Most of the New Testament was written after the Jews rebelled and their rebellion was brutally put down. The accounts in the New Testament have to be taken in light of that, in light of the fact that Judaism was by then a pariah in the Roman Empire.
Much has been made in this thread about how the Apostles saw the resurrected Jesus and thus this is evidence for Jesus being resurrected. However, from an academic perspective that is not evidence of a miracle at all. It is only evidence that the Apostles believed that they saw and met the resurrected Jesus. There are plenty of rational explanations for this that do not require anything supernatural. For example, what if Jesus had a twin? Sure, the likelihood of that is extremely small, but its still far more likely than the supernatural explanation of his being physically resurrected.
By definition the messiah is the one that does bring the kingdom of David. All others are nothings.Does anyone here have any religious education?
Do you have any actual evidence for all these theories of yours?
I recommend you read any historians account of the time of Christ, Roman Law, and Israel under Rome. This is a great one that builds upon the known history of the time and builds a picture of Jesus the man. Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth: Reza Aslan: 9781400069224: Amazon.com: Books
What proof do you have other than a canonical set of books, compiled into a single book at the Synod of Hippo in 383. A collection of books that claims to be the inspired word of God and inerrant, yet makes all sorts of claims we now know could not possibly be true (example: The creation stories, Noah's Ark, and various other myths). If believes it then fine, it is a matter of faith though, not evidence. I merely provided what is the historians account of the time.
The Koran details numerous miracles, claims to be divinely inspired, and over 1 billion Muslims believe that. Does that make it evidence?
I recommend you read any historians account of the time of Christ, Roman Law, and Israel under Rome. This is a great one that builds upon the known history of the time and builds a picture of Jesus the man. Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth: Reza Aslan: 9781400069224: Amazon.com: Books
There are others as well of course. What proof do you have other than a canonical set of books, compiled into a single book at the Synod of Hippo in 383. A collection of books that claims to be the inspired word of God and inerrant, yet makes all sorts of claims we now know could not possibly be true (example: The creation stories, Noah's Ark, and various other myths). If believes it then fine, it is a matter of faith though, not evidence. I merely provided what is the historians account of the time.
The Koran details numerous miracles, claims to be divinely inspired, and over 1 billion Muslims believe that. Does that make it evidence?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?