What was so special about Jesus?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I'm leaning toward the view that Jesus was an Aspy.

Why?

Originally posted by vistesd
To Jews, who were often subjected to mockery and contempt when asked where their messiah was, this conclusion was painful. But an honest facing of the facts makes it inescapable. In adversity and joy, through holocaust and statehood, Jews who are truly faithful to the Torah and prophets can only repeat the words of their forefathers: "I believe with complete faith in the coming of the messiah; and though he may tarry I shall wait for him every day."

I would like to respond to this last sentence. Here we see that there is the admission that the Messiah tarries. Why would they think this? Is he admitting that Daniel 9:24-27 points to the coming of the Messiah some 500 years later that never transpired or is he simply saying that it has been a long time in relation to man's time table? After all, the Bible plainly states in Psalms that to God a thousand years is as a day so I do not know why they would think he tarries other than interpreting the prophecy of Daniel the way those that believe Jesus was the Messiah do.

I do realize that the Jews say that they reject the notion that Jesus is the Messiah because he has not of yet fulfilled ALL of the prophecies concerning him. After all, to be Jewish and not Christians they must do so. However, no where does it speicifically say in the OT when the Messiah will fulfill all the prophecies and it has been my experience that prophecy is often not linear, rather, it jumps around somewhat. For example, in Revelation prophecies speak about the present and then the future and then the past and then back to the present all in one breath!! Also, it is unprecidented that God gives a prophecy that does not come to pass. Therefore, to glibly say that God decided to delay his coming after giving us a calendar for his coming I think is in error.

Anyhew, thanks for sharing. 😉

Originally posted by whodey
I would like to respond to this last sentence. Here we see that there is the admission that the Messiah tarries. Why would they think this? Is he admitting that Daniel 9:24-27 points to the coming of the Messiah some 500 years later that never transpired or is he simply saying that it has been a long time in relation to man's time table? After all, the Bi ...[text shortened]... r giving us a calendar for his coming I think is in error.

Anyhew, thanks for sharing. 😉

Well, it is that “calendar for his coming” (i.e., Daniel) that is in question. A great deal of that question has to do with the dating of Daniel. This seems to be an issue based on modern textual criticism; I’m not sure how the ancient rabbis dated it.

Nevertheless, here are some Talmudic quotes, just to give an idea of the variety of views (I went to my simplest source first, but am still working on the internet). Clearly, they show that not all the rabbis thought that Daniel provided a specific calendar:

_________________________________

The Son of David will not come until the generation will be either all righteous or all wicked. [Sanhedrin 98]

The Son of David will not come until all qualities will be equal in men. [ibid]

A sage said: “May the curse of heaven fall upon those who calculate the date of the advent of the Messiah and thus create political and social unrest among the people.” [Sanhedrin 97b]

—Alternative version: R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: Blasted be the bones of those who calculate the end.* For they would say, since the predetermined time has arrived, and yet he has not come, he will never come. But [even so], wait for him, as it is written, Though he tarry, wait for him.

* “The end” is given in context as the advent of the Messiah.

Rabbi Akiba was rebuked by Rabbi Joe, The Galilean, for “profaning the Divine Presence” by teaching that the Messiah occupies a throne alongside of God. (If miracles are to be performed, God alone will perform them. The Messiah’s advent will not change the course of nature.) [Hagiga, 14a]

It was also taught: “the Son of David will come when no one expects him. Three things come unexpectedly: the Messiah, a discovery, and a winning.” [Sanhedrin 99]

In the Age-to-Come God Himself will purify Israel from all their uncleanness. [Peskita Buber, f, 4b]

—All quotes (except the “alternative version” above) from The Talmudic Anthology, edited by Louis I. Newman
______________________________________

“Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai used to say: ‘If there be a plant in your hand when they say to you: ‘Behold the Messiah! —Go and plant the plant, and afterward go out to greet him.’” Avot de-Rabbi Natan [I have found two iterpretations of this saying thus far: (1) that planting a tree is a greater mitzvah than greeting the messiah; and (2) that one should not be too eager to look for the messiah, since there have been so many....]

Originally posted by whodey
Point taken, however, I would not expect all Biblical archeologists to agree in one accord that the OT is 100% factual. In fact, I know of no scientific pursuit in which all agree 100% about everything.

True. According to these authors though, the scholarly consensus in the last couple decades has moved toward a very different story than how the OT has traditionally been presented. It's very interesting for what it's worth.

Happy Holidays.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I understand that there is much historical evidence for Jesus in Roman history alone. Most historians agree that there was a guy called Jesus who was crucified for blasphemy.

How come I have never heard of that before? Do you have any references?

Originally posted by twhitehead
How come I have never heard of that before? Do you have any references?

Cornelius Tacitus, Roman historian alive between 56-117 A.D., made reference to Christ's death and to Christianity.

"...Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus (Christ, dm.), who in the reign of Tibertius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate... At first they were only apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards a vast multitude discovered by them, all of which were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind..." (Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44).

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
So, God needed a Son to enable Man's redemption?

Yes, not only redemption but dispensation of God into man to produce the mingling of divinity and humanity according to God's eternal purpose.

God is from eternity to eternity Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

As we peer back through the past we see no time in which the Son was not, as with also Father and Spirit. What God IS in His triune being is intrinsically bound up with what God DOES - bring man back to Himself through redemption in order to dispene His life and nature into man.

God therefore needed God / Man by way of the Son's incarnation, in order to produce redeemed men to be other God / men - the church and the New Jerusalem.

Redemption is not the end in itself. Redemption is a procedure to bring man back to the eternal purpose of God to produce many God-men.

Redemption is God's sending His Son to shed His blood to purchase the sinful man out from under the law of God. Once this purchase has been made man is back on the right track of God's central work to dispense His life into man that God and man might be mingled together to produce New Jerusalem.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Cornelius Tacitus, Roman historian alive between 56-117 A.D., made reference to Christ's death and to Christianity.

"...Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus (Christ, ...[text shortened]... the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind..." (Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44).

But that is reporting on the existence of Christians and their beliefs - it hardly qualifies as being an independent report. At best it verifies that that belief existed amongst Christians around the time that the Gospels were being written.

If I found someone that wrote about Elvis 100 years after his death that many of his fans still believe that he is alive, is that independent verification that he never died?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But that is reporting on the existence of Christians and their beliefs - it hardly qualifies as being an independent report. At best it verifies that that belief existed amongst Christians around the time that the Gospels were being written.

If I found someone that wrote about Elvis 100 years after his death that many of his fans still believe that he is alive, is that independent verification that he never died?

The problem with history is that much of it is guess work and theory. All we can do is look at what other things we believe happened or existed and what the historical evidence is for it and then develop a consistent approach. My understanding is that there is just as much evidence for the existence of Jesus and him having lived and preached the way he did as there is for many other things that we never think to question the veracity of.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Well, it is that “calendar for his coming” (i.e., Daniel) that is in question. A great deal of that question has to do with the dating of Daniel. This seems to be an issue based on modern textual criticism; I’m not sure how the ancient rabbis dated it.

I think there may be some question as to when Daniel was written, however, we have a general idea as to when. Also, there is some speculation as to the time line of the calendar for the Messiah and his first coming, however, I think most can agree that there is a general time line possible as well and we have well passed it. Therefore, from my own perspective, either God inspired a prophecy that gave a calendar for the Messiahs coming that he later changed his mind about and decided to modify the calendar in some way by delaying his coming, or he actually has already come. However, the implications for God changing his mind about anything has huge ramifications. Namely, an all knowing God would NEVER change his mind. Why would you if you knew everything about the past, present and future? Therefore, the original calendar would implicate an all knowing God as being a liar regarding the first calendar, no?

Originally posted by whodey
I think there may be some question as to when Daniel was written, however, we have a general idea as to when. Also, there is some speculation as to the time line of the calendar for the Messiah and his first coming, however, I think most can agree that there is a general time line possible as well and we have well passed it. Therefore, from my own perspecti ...[text shortened]... al calendar would implicate an all knowing God as being a liar regarding the first calendar, no?

Maybe God is a liar. 😉

We have argued ad nauseum about what I and others see as inconsistencies in your God-concept. We could probably write each other’s posts!

With regard to God changing his mind: read the Jonah story again, paying close attention to the exact message that God gave to the Ninevites through Jonah,* God’s changing his mind, and Jonah’s reaction.




* Although they did express repentance, that was not given as a condition, or an out, in God’s message to them; he simply pronounced sentence. Was he lying to them? Was he deliberately mis-stating his true intentions? You can decide that God didn’t really change his mind, but that reading is based on certain presuppositions that are not there. The Bible often talks about the wondrous things that God knows, and people assume from various statements that the Biblical God knows everything; that’s not an unreasonable assumption, but it’s not strictly textual either, and not all interpreters have come to that conclusion.

This is similar to those folks who assume from the sutra that the Buddha taught that “All life is suffering.” That is an error.

Originally posted by vistesd
By the way, here is a very interesting exchange that I found:

Letter from an American Christian and the Rabbi's Response

From The Restoration Newsletter, Sept/Oct. 1995.

Letters to the Editor...

(The following is the relevant excerpt of a letter which was received in Jerusalem from a reader in Maryland. We are including it here because we underst ...[text shortened]... r knowledge of G-d and hastening the Redemption. Nor is this the pro...

Did this post get cut off? If so, could you post the rest of it?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Did this post get cut off? If so, could you post the rest of it?

Ooops! 😳 Thanks for catching that. Here is the rest, beginning with the paragraph that got truncated. It’s from the (rather messy and mishmash) site listed at the end.
___________________________________________________

We have already written in these pages that we believe that the messiah, sent by G-d Al-mighty, is not G-d, but a human being - but the greatest leader and wisest teacher who ever lived. He will put his extraordinary talents to use to precipitate a worldwide revolution which will bring perfect justice and harmony to humanity. Please understand that several rabbis state that the historical Jesus - not the man-god Christianity made him into - did accomplish a great deal in turning people away from idolatry and towards a more authentic knowledge of G-d. But he did not claim the role which was given him by the early church fathers, nor do these rabbis ascribe any role to him. He has no connection with authentic Jewish thought. For reasons of space, this is not the proper format to enter into a lengthy debate or disputation on every possible Biblical verse - BUT I AM PREPARED TO DO SO - although at Light to the Nations, we prefer to stress that which we share, and unite around what should be our common goal: Greater knowledge of G-d and hastening the Redemption. Nor is this the proper time for me to put forth every aspect of this discussion.

We all want G-d in our lives, and we all want to do the right thing. But we are now living in very special times indeed. G-d is moving the hearts of men - foretold by the prophet Haggai as the time when the very heavens and earth will be shaken and now men are coming forward, unabashedly, to learn the truth of G-d. I have had no intention, Heaven forbid, to offend you. But just as you feel that you must do what G-d requires of you, so have I done as well. If you, or any of our readers, wish to correspond with me and truly establish a dialog, I am at your service. You may circulate this to whomever you like and I will be happy to respond to anyone.

http://www.ldolphin.org/messiah.html

Originally posted by vistesd
Ooops! 😳 Thanks for catching that. Here is the rest, beginning with the paragraph that got truncated. It’s from the (rather messy and mishmash) site listed at the end.
___________________________________________________

We have already written in these pages that we believe that the messiah, sent by G-d Al-mighty, is not G-d, but a human being - bu ...[text shortened]... mever you like and I will be happy to respond to anyone.

http://www.ldolphin.org/messiah.html

Thanks. I found this and the one of the other links very educational. In all my years as a Christian, nobody ever mentioned the real reasons why Jews do not accept Jesus as the Messiah.

It is odd how people of strong belief [definitely a larger group than just a certain religion] sometimes cannot even articulate basic opposition positions.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Thanks. I found this and the one of the other links very educational. In all my years as a Christian, nobody ever mentioned the real reasons why Jews do not accept Jesus as the Messiah.

It is odd how people of strong belief [definitely a larger group than just a certain religion] sometimes cannot even articulate basic opposition positions.

There is also a very rich stream (a river, really) of the “perennial philosophy” in Judaism.

I was like you. Then about 7 years ago I found out that I had some Jewish heritage (that had been kept hidden (!) in our family. So, I spent a few years immersed in studying.

For a number of reasons, I now claim Zen Buddhism as my expression; a year ago, I did not—simply describing myself as a non-aligned non-dualist/monist. I still feel quite at home, though, in the Jewish expression of it—as well as bit in Sufism, Taoism or Advaita Vedanta (No.1 Marauder is really the resident expert in the latter at the present time). Zen is less symbolically rich, but it’s stripped-down directness is good for my otherwise messy mind.