Is Jesus the Messiah?

[mik]

There are verses right above those which state something more. You quoted parts of Mas. Rosh HaShana 17a which is talking just about the minim and the informers and the scoffers. I believe what I said still stands.

it teaches a maximal period of 12 months (for a reason I do not know) for corrective punishment of the spirit. If the absolute worst people that have ever lived still are not changed, then they are annihilated. This I think is a much better view than what typical Christians have. But don’t get me wrong, I would like Universalism to be true.

The rebellious Jews who have sinned with their bodies and also the rebellious people of the nations of the world who have sinned with their bodies descend to Gehenna and are judged there for twelve months. After twelve months, their bodies are consumed, their souls are burned, and a wind scatters them under the soles of the feet of the righteous, as it is stated: “And you shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet” (Malachi 3:21).

But the heretics; and the informers; and the apostates [ apikorsim ]; and those who denied the Torah; and those who denied the resurrection of the dead; and those who separated from the ways of the Jewish community and refused to share the suffering; and those who cast their fear over the land of the living; and those who sinned and caused the masses to sin, for example, Jeroboam, son of Nebat, and his company; all of these people descend to Gehenna and are judged there for generations and generations, as it is stated: “And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have rebelled against Me; for their worm shall not die; neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh” (Isaiah 66:24).

Thank you for the information, I will actually follow up with him.

[mik]

@qaz I don’t see what your trying to accomplish here. This subsection is about whether or not Jesus is the Messiah. All I have done is provide with what I would say are verses that are not well thought out in common Christianity, and are better explained through the eyes of the OT in context. I just so happen to come across Rabbi Singer and I thought he explained the issues well.

I will admit I am not well versed in the Talmud, but I need to take baby steps and actually study the OT before I move on to fully extra-biblical documents. I still think my points are valid, but you are more than welcome to make another forum on the issue of whether or not Rabbi Singer believes in ET.

[pilgrim]

Certainly I do (I was only disputing interpretations about how most Jews reacted to this claim). Jesus and the apostles are cited as both pointing to Isaiah 53, and Christians clearly recognize Jesus as the central fulfillment of Isaiah 53.

Indeed, we and I personally even recognize that it epitomized the central nature of Messiah’s true vocation. What I’ve outlined in several papers about Jesus on this site is that I follow Wright in seeing Jesus bring a reinterpretation of how Jews read their Scriptures and this especially applies to his claims about Messiahship.

Hi Bob - thank you for that answer.
However, I’m not sure where the ‘re-interpretation’ leaves us. Just to get a clearer idea on where you are coming from, I don’t think it unreasonable to suggest that the author of Isa 53 either intended to write a prophecy concerning Israel or concerning the Messiah.
Now, I’m a great believer in prophecies having layers of fulfilment, there are ‘types’ which may prevent (in the traditional meaning of that word) the final fulfilment, but I cannot put the two interpretations of Isa 53 into this category.
Either the author had Israel in mind or he had Messiah in mind. At least one of the two groups had/have mis-interpreted it. Do you agree?

[Bob_Wilson]

Either the author of Isaiah 53 had Israel in mind or he had Messiah in mind. At least one of the two groups had/have mis-interpreted it. Do you agree?

Well, I think a NT text speaks of the prophets inquiring and wondering what they were describing, which seems to acknowledge that the NT is finding fulfillments that the prophet themselves would not recognize. E.g. Isaiah 7’s text of a young woman giving birth that the NT finds as a pattern fulfilled in Jesus’ virgin birth seems clearly to be understood by Isaiah as a birth in his own generation. And I see no reason why 53 could not also be read as having a similar double meaning.

My sense is that Isaiah clearly specifies the servant as Israel early on, but by 53 appears to narrow it to an individual representative of Israel. But I doubt Isaiah defined even that chapters impressive personage as the Messiah, since this portrait was so contrary to the texts widely recognized in Israel as describing the Messiah, indeed as one who kills but isn’t killed.

So in one sense, both religion’s interpretations have merit. Jews are correct that Isaiah 53 was not understood as Messianic, and that the explicit description of the "anointed one,’ a king like David, seem inconsistent with the suffering servant. But of course if the NT is correct (which Jews don’t accept) that Jesus fulfills a version of Messiah that conflates the portraits of both these figures, then it is also correct that Isaiah 53 is Messianic.

[steve7150]

My sense is that Isaiah clearly specifies the servant as Israel early on, but by 53 appears to narrow it to an individual representative of Israel. But I doubt Isaiah defined even that chapters impressive personage as the Messiah, since this portrait was so contrary to the texts widely recognized in Israel as describing the Messiah, indeed as one who kills but isn’t killed.

So in one sense, both religion’s interpretations have merit. Jews are correct that Isaiah 53 was not understood as Messianic, and that the explicit description of the "anointed one,’ a king like David, seem inconsistent with the suffering servant.

But also the theme wasn’t only about a Messiah but also Israel itself failed in it’s God given mission to bring the light of God to the world, instead keeping it to themselves & hiding it under a bushel basket.
God divorced Israel for unfaithfulness & so the fact they didn’t accept the Messiah was not so odd considering that often they didn’t accept God.

[Bob_Wilson]

Jews are correct that that the explicit description of the "anointed one,’ a dominate king like David, seems inconsistent with Isaiah 53’s suffering servant.

The fact they didn’t accept the Messiah was not so odd considering they often didn’t accept God.

Yes, the OT narrative is dominated by their failure to recognize their true calling. Still, my point is that much of their Scripture gave them reason to think that they were following God, especially in their perception that Jesus was a blasphemer who opposed Israel’s understanding of God’s ways. My paper recently printed on the OT vs. NT topic tries to illustrate how unbiblical Jesus could have understandably seemed to them.

[steve7150]

Still, my point is that much of their Scripture gave them reason to think that they were following God, especially in their perception that Jesus was a blasphemer who opposed Israel’s understanding of God’s ways

Much of their scripture gave them reason to believe they were following God? A lot of their writings were warnings from God and sometimes they killed their own prophets. I’m not so sure about your conclusion plus how could they honestly believe that if God divorced Israel?

[Bob_Wilson]

My point is that much of their Scripture gave them reason to think that they were following God, especially in their perception that Jesus was a blasphemer who opposed Israel’s understanding of God’s ways. My paper recently printed on the OT vs. NT topic tries to document how unbiblical Jesus could have understandably seemed to them.

Much of their scripture gave them reason to believe they were following God? I’m not so sure about your conclusion plus how could they honestly believe that if God divorced Israel?

As I said, my conclusions on Israel’s rationale for rejecting Jesus hangs on evaluating the examples I gave on the other thread. I’m not familiar with your view that they recognized themselves as already “divorced,” or no longer God’s chosen.

[davo]

Is it possible the author of Isaiah 53 thought he had Israel in mind, but inadvertently (from his perspective, not God’s) wrote a prophecy about Christ?

I think Isaiah DID have Israel in mind, period. The NT writers simply APPLIED the passage to Jesus, which wasn’t an uncommon practice. Daniel was NOT written with the Romans of AD70 in mind, BUT rather, Antiochus Epiphanes; Jesus however prophetically APPLIES or recapitulates Daniel’s prophecy in terms of the coming Roman onslaught he foresaw of his day.

You might find this informative…

Another reason to think that Isaiah’s suffering servant is the generation of...

[steve7150]

I’m not familiar with your view that they recognized themselves as already “divorced,” or no longer God’s chosen.

Jer 3.8 God informed Israel of the divorce because of infidelity.

[Bob_Wilson]

I’m not familiar with your view that they recognized themselves as already “divorced,” or no longer God’s chosen.

Jer 3.8 God informed Israel of the divorce because of infidelity.

What does that lead you to believe than Jews think about themselves as Jews?

[steve7150]

What does that lead you to believe than Jews think about themselves as Jews?

That they are human and fall short and need to repent as Christians do too.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

This might be a good place, to share this reflection today - from the Center for Action and Contemplation ( CAC):

Church: Old and New

If We Were Christian

Friday, November 1, 2019
All Saints’ Day

A Circle expands forever
It covers all who wish to hold hands
And its size depends on each other
It is a vision of solidarity
It turns outwards to interact with the outside
And inward for self critique
A circle expands forever
It is a vision of accountability
It grows as the other is moved to grow
A circle must have a centre
But a single dot does not make a Circle
One tree does not make a forest
A circle, a vision of cooperation, mutuality and care
—Mercy Amba Oduyoye [1]

Hospitality is the practice that keeps the church from becoming a club, a members-only society. —Diana Butler Bass [2]

Practical, practice-based Christianity has been avoided, denied, minimized, ignored, delayed, and sidelined for too many centuries, by too many Christians who were never told Christianity was anything more than a belonging or belief system. And we only belonged to our own little club or denomination at that! Some of us were afraid to step foot into a house of worship across the street for fear of eternal punishment. Now we know that there is no Methodist or Catholic way of loving. There is no Orthodox or Presbyterian way of living a simple and nonviolent life. There is no Lutheran or Evangelical way of showing mercy. There is no Baptist or Episcopalian way of visiting the imprisoned. If there is, we are invariably emphasizing the accidentals, which distract us from the very “marrow of the Gospel,” as St. Francis called it. We have made this mistake for too long. We cannot keep avoiding what Jesus actually emphasized and mandated. In this most urgent time, “it is the very love of Christ that now urges us” (2 Corinthians 5:14).

Quaker pastor Philip Gulley superbly summarizes how we must rebuild spirituality from the bottom up in his book, If the Church Were Christian. [3] Here I take the liberty of using my own words to restate his message, which offers a rather excellent description of what is emerging in Christianity today:

1. Jesus is a model for living more than an object of worship.

2. Affirming people’s potential is more important than reminding them of their brokenness.

3. The work of reconciliation should be valued over making judgments.

4. Gracious behavior is more important than right belief.

5. Inviting questions is more valuable than supplying answers.

6. Encouraging the personal search is more important than group uniformity.

7. Meeting actual needs is more important than maintaining institutions.

8. Peacemaking is more important than power.

9. We should care more about love and less about sex.

10. Life in this world is more important than the afterlife (Eternity is God’s work anyway).
    If this makes sense to you, you are already participating in evolving Christianity. Do read it several times. It only makes more and more sense.

[Bob_Wilson]

What does that lead you to believe than Jews think about themselves as Jews?

That they are human and fall short and need to repent as Christians do too.

Of course, but I’m not following how recognizing that they fall short would insure that they wouldn’t reject Jesus or read the texts they saw as Messianic as exposing him as a blasphemer against the law.

[steve7150]

What does that lead you to believe than Jews think about themselves as Jews?

That they are human and fall short and need to repent as Christians do too.

Of course, but I’m not following how recognizing that they fall short would insure that they wouldn’t reject Jesus or read the texts they saw as Messianic as exposing him as a blasphemer against the law.

My point was that if the Jews rejected God which led to God divorcing Israel that they most likely would reject God’s son.
Israel often rejected their own prophets , they rejected God & so predictably they rejected Jesus. I suspect they had Rabbinical Judaism way back before it became officially recognized.