Was Jesus The Messiah?

Video: http://rationalisttube.com/index.php?page=...p;vid_id=100007

From http://christianityisbullshit.com/2008/09/...us-the-messiah/

Was Jesus the Messiah? The answer is a resounding “no” for the following reasons, gathered from Jewish sources.

Jesus of Nazareth: The False Messiah

Paul and the writers of all four canonical Gospels described the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, as they understood it had happened. There is a acknowledged consensus among academic Christian theologians that:

• The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by Jesus’ disciples but by a person or persons whose names are unknown.
  
• Neither Paul nor any of the Gospel writers had been an eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry or death.
  
• The Gospels record the beliefs and memories of various Christian groups as they had evolved at the time they were written.
  

Christians love to claim that Jesus fulfilled 300+ prophecies, but that simply isn’t true. Relevant links:

300 Prophecies?? - http://home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/prophecies.html

The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah - http://tinyurl.com/6yx998

Prophecy Imaginary and Unfulfilled - http://tinyurl.com/kp4p

The following textual analyses are from a Jewish perspective:

• Genesis 1:1,26
  
• Genesis 3:15; 12:7
  
• Genesis 18:1-3
  
• Leviticus 17:11
  
• Deuteronomy 6:4
  
• Isaiah 7:14
  
• Isaiah 9:6
  
• Isaiah 53
  
• Jeremiah 23:5-6
  

• Jeremiah 31:30-33
  
• Micah 5.1
  
• Zechariah 12:10
  
• Psalm 2
  
• <a href="http://biblegateway.com/bible?version=50&passage=Psalm+22" class="bibleref" title="NKJV Psalm 22" target="_new">Psalm 22
  
• Psalm 110
  
• Proverbs 30:2-4
  
• Daniel 9:26
  

The Origins of the Jesus Mythos

At the time of Jesus of Nazareth, as for centuries before, the Mediterranean world roiled with a happy diversity of creeds and rituals. Details varied according to location and culture, but the general outlines of these faiths were astonishingly similar. Roughly speaking the ancients’ gods:

• Were born on or very near our Christmas Day
  
• Were born of a Virgin-Mother
  
• Were born in a Cave or Underground Chamber
  
• Led a life of toil for Mankind
  
• Were called by the names of Light-bringer, Healer, Mediator, Savior, Deliverer
  
• Were however vanquished by the Powers of Darkness
  
• And descended into Hell or the Underworld
  
• Rose again from the dead, and became the pioneers of mankind to the Heavenly world
  
• Founded Communions of Saints, and Churches into which disciples were received by Baptism
  
• Were commemorated by Eucharistic meals
  

Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki; the Savior Dionysus was born of the virgin Semele. Buddha too was born of a virgin, as were the Egyptian Horus and Osiris. The old Teutonic goddess Hertha was a virgin impregnated by the heavenly Spirit and bore a son. Scandinavian Frigga was impregnated by the All-Father Odin and bore Balder, the healer and savior of mankind.

Mithras was born in a cave, on December 25th, of a virgin mother. He came from heaven to be born as a man, to redeem men from their sin. He was know as “Savior,” “Son of God,” “Redeemer,” and “Lamb of God.” With twelve disciples he traveled far and wide as a teacher and illuminator of men. He was buried in a tomb from which he rose again from the dead — an event celebrated yearly with much rejoicing. His followers kept the Sabbath holy, holding sacramental feasts in remembrance of Him. The sacred meal of bread and water, or bread and wine, was symbolic of the body and blood of the sacred bull.

The celebration of Christmas on December 25 was originally the pagan birthday of Mithras, the sun god, whose day of the week is still known as “Sunday.” The halo of light which is usually shown surrounding the face of Jesus and Christian saints, is another concept taken from the sun god. The theme of temptation by a devil-like creature was also found in pagan mythology. In particular, the story of Jesus’s temptation by Satan resembles the temptation of Osiris by the devil-god Set in Egyptian mythology.

The Source of the Original Gospels

Theologians have also observed for many decades that two of the synoptic gospels (Matthew and Luke) have many points of similarity. In fact, the writings have many dozens of phrases and sentences that are identical. This observation led to the theory that both gospels were based largely on an earlier document called “Q” meaning “Quelle,” which is German for “source,” and is comprised of three distinct documents:

• Q1 described Jesus as a Jewish philosopher-teacher, written circa 50 CE.
  
• Q2 viewed Jesus as a Jewish apocalyptic prophet, written circa 60 CE.
  
• Q3 described Jesus as a near-deity who converses directly with God and Satan, written circa 70 CE during a time of great turmoil in Palestine.
  

The authors of the Gospels of Matthew (circa 80 CE) and Luke (circa 90 CE) wrote their books using text from Q, Mark and their own unique traditions. The author of the Gospel of Thomas also used portions of Q1 and Q2 in his writing, but seems to have been unaware of Q3. This gospel was widely circulated within the early Christian movement but did not make it into the Christian Scriptures.

What is remarkable about Q1 is that the original Christians appeared to be centered totally on concerns about their relationships with God and with other people, and their preparation for the Kingdom of God on earth. Totally absent from their spiritual life are almost all of the factors that we associate with Christianity today. There is absolutely no mention of (in alphabetic order):

• adultery
  
• angels
  
• apostles
  
• baptism
  
• church
  
• clergy
  
• confirmation
  
• crucifixion
  
• demons
  
• disciples
  
• divorce
  
• Eucharist
  
• healing
  
• great commission to convert the world
  
• heaven
  

• hell
  
• incarnation
  
• infancy stories
  
• John the Baptist
  
• Last Supper
  
• life after death
  
• Mary and Joseph and the rest of Jesus’ family
  
• magi
  
• miracles
  
• Jewish laws concerning behavior
  
• marriage
  
• Messiah
  
• restrictions on sexual behavior
  
• resurrection
  

• roles of men and women
  
• Sabbath
  
• salvation
  
• Satan
  
• second coming
  
• signs of the end of the age
  
• sin
  
• speaking in tongues
  
• temple
  
• tomb
  
• transfiguration
  
• trial of Jesus
  
• trinity
  
• virgin birth
  

Verses Fundies Ignore

• “G-d is not a man.”

  
  

• Atonement without blood.

  
  

• Torah is always there for us.

  
  

• Deuteronomy 4

  
  

A Historical Jesus?

John E. Remsburg’s The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence, lists the following writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus is supposed to have lived:

• Josephus
  
• Philo-Judææus
  
• Seneca
  
• Pliny Elder
  
• Arrian
  
• Petronius
  
• Dion Pruseus
  
• Paterculus
  
• Suetonius
  
• Juvenal
  
• Martial
  
• Persius
  
• Plutarch
  
• Pliny Younger
  

• Tacitus
  
• Justus of Tiberius
  
• Apollonius
  
• Quintilian
  
• Lucanus
  
• Epictetus
  
• Hermogones Silius Italicus
  
• Statius
  
• Ptolemy
  
• Appian
  
• Phlegon
  
• Phæædrus
  
• Valerius Maximus
  
• Lucian
  

• Pausanias
  
• Florus Lucius
  
• Quintius Curtius
  
• Aulus Gellius
  
• Dio Chrysostom
  
• Columella
  
• Valerius Flaccus
  
• Damis
  
• Favorinus
  
• Lysias
  
• Pomponius Mela
  
• Appion of Alexandria
  
• Theon of Smyrna
  

Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, according to Remsburg, “aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.” Nor, do any of these authors make note of the Disciples or Apostles — increasing the embarrassment from the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity.

A Jewish Messiah

Judaism, unlike the Christianity, does not believe that the Messiah is Jesus. The noun moshiach (translated as messiah) annotatively means “annointed one;” it does not, however, imply “savior.” The notion of an innocent, semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought or scripture. In Judaic texts, the term messiah was used for all kings, high priests, certain warriors, but never eschatological figures. In the Tanach, moshiach is used 38 times: two patriarchs, six high priests, once for Cyrus, 29 Israelite kings such as Saul and David. Not once is the word moshiach used in reference to the awaited Messiah. Even in the apocalyptic book of Daniel, the only time moshiach is mentioned is in connection to a murdered high priest. The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Pseudepigrapha, and Apocrypha never mention the Messiah.

The man destined to be the Messiah will be a direct descendant of King David (Isaiah 11:1) through the family of Solomon, David’s son (1 Chronicles 22:9-l0). He will cause all the world to serve God together (Isaiah 11:2), be wiser than Solomon (Mishnah Torah Repentance 9:2), greater than the patriarchs and prophets (Aggadah Genesis 67), and more honored than kings (Mishnah Sanhedrin 10), for he will reign as king of the world (Pirkei Eliezer).

Amongst the most basic missions that the Messiah will accomplish during his lifetime (Isaiah 42:4) are to:

• Oversee the rebuilding of Jerusalem, including the Third Temple, in the event that it has not yet been rebuilt (Michah 4:1 and Ezekiel 40-45)
  
• Gather the Jewish people from all over the world and bring them home to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 11:12; 27:12-13)
  
• Influence every individual of every nation to abandon and be ashamed of their former beliefs (or non-beliefs) and acknowledge and serve only the One True God of Israel (Isaiah 11:9-10; 40:5 and Zephaniah 3:9)
  
• Bring about global peace throughout the world (Isaiah 2:4; 11:5-9 and Michah 4:3-4).
  

There are over a dozen additional prophecies which the Messiah will also achieve (there is no mention of any “second coming” in the Tanach or the New Testament). In order to avoid identifying the wrong individual as Messiah, the Code of Jewish Law dictates criteria for establishing the Messiah’s identity (Mishnah Torah Kings 11:4):

“If a king arises from the House of David who meditates on the Torah, occupies himself with the commandments as did his ancestor King David, observes the commandments of the Written and Oral Law, prevails upon all Israel to walk in the way of the Torah and to follow its direction, and fights the wars of God, it may be assumed that he is the Messiah.If he does these things and is fully successful, rebuilds the Third Temple on its location, and gathers the exiled Jews, he is beyond doubt the Messiah. But if he is not fully successful, or if he is killed, he is not the Messiah.”

Over 1,000 years before the attributed birth of the historical Jesus, it was recorded in the Tanach:

• Numbers 23:19: God is not a man, that He should be deceitful, nor the son of man, that He should repent. Would He say and not do, or speak and not confirm?
  
• Psalms 146:3: Do not rely on princes nor in the son of man, for he holds no salvation.
  

Even the New Testament concurs that Jesus, in fact, is not the Messiah:

• Matthew 20:28: Just as the son of man did not come to be served, but to serve.
  

Sources & Resources

• http://www.messiahtruth.com
  
• http://home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/j4j_no.html
  
• http://home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/Countermissionary.pdf (PDF)
  
• http://www.messiahtruth.com/messiahtruth.pdf (PDF)
  
• http://www.messiahtruth.com/matthew.pdf (PDF)
  
• The Messianic Rooster - http://home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/prophecies.html#A
  
• Tiger Woods is the Messiah - http://home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/prophecies.html#Tiger
  

If you are a Christian, good luck trying to debunk or respond to what the Jews have to say. They can prove that Jesus was not the Messiah. Glory!

Wow that was really good Jeff. Maybe this should be pinned? It makes a good reference.

Mithras was born in a cave, on December 25th, of a virgin mother. He came from heaven to be born as a man, to redeem men from their sin. He was know as “Savior,” “Son of God,” “Redeemer,” and “Lamb of God.” With twelve disciples he traveled far and wide as a teacher and illuminator of men. He was buried in a tomb from which he rose again from the dead — an event celebrated yearly with much rejoicing. His followers kept the Sabbath holy, holding sacramental feasts in remembrance of Him. The sacred meal of bread and water, or bread and wine, was symbolic of the body and blood of the sacred bull.

I stopped reading after this. This paragraph displays an impressive lack of scholarship. Mithras does indeed share some parallels to Jesus, namely that he is a dying-and-rising-god, and his followers shared a meal together. But this sounds like it literally came straight out of the Da Vinci Code. And works of fiction are not good sources for scholarship. It is known by reasonable scholars that these claims are inflated. Whether Dan Brown simply made this stuff up, or whether he heard it from some other sensationalist, I don't know. But at any rate, incorrect information like this does not help the case. Jesus can already be discredited without stretching the truth...

“G-d is not a man.”

“G-d is not a man.”

This is one thing I never understood. Why do some people spell god's name as g-d anyway?

Some hypocrites will not spell god's name out of superstitious fear that comes from the OT writings. They imitate the Jews in not spelling out god's name

I've always assumed that was some silly belief that saying one's particular deity's name would bring down said deity's wrath upon them. Either that or a corruption of the 'name-in-vain' commandment. But I too would like to hear someone more knowledgeable comment on this.

ETA: Oops. Heretic posted while I was writing.

Mithras was born in a cave, on December 25th, of a virgin mother. He came from heaven to be born as a man, to redeem men from their sin. He was know as “Savior,” “Son of God,” “Redeemer,” and “Lamb of God.” With twelve disciples he traveled far and wide as a teacher and illuminator of men. He was buried in a tomb from which he rose again from the dead — an event celebrated yearly with much rejoicing. His followers kept the Sabbath holy, holding sacramental feasts in remembrance of Him. The sacred meal of bread and water, or bread and wine, was symbolic of the body and blood of the sacred bull.

I stopped reading after this. This paragraph displays an impressive lack of scholarship. Mithras does indeed share some parallels to Jesus, namely that he is a dying-and-rising-god, and his followers shared a meal together. But this sounds like it literally came straight out of the Da Vinci Code. And works of fiction are not good sources for scholarship. It is known by reasonable scholars that these claims are inflated. Whether Dan Brown simply made this stuff up, or whether he heard it from some other sensationalist, I don't know. But at any rate, incorrect information like this does not help the case. Jesus can already be discredited without stretching the truth...

Below is from: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/Mithraism.html

The theology of Mithraism was centred upon the dying/rising Mithra, emerging fully grown from the ‘virgin dawn’ or rock. The association of gods with rocks or stones is not surprising: fiery rocks falling from the sky (meteorites) and even sparks released by colliding stones would equally strike the simple mind as ‘evidence’ of a godly presence. Holy stones were anointed with oil. Mithra was fathered by the creator god Ahura-Mazda.

Miracle Birth

Roman silver token/coin showing birth of Mithras. He emerges fully formed from a rock.

On reverse Mithras is linked with creator god Ormzad and Egyptian sun god Re.

(Verulamium, England, 2nd-3rd century)

Mithras’s supposed creation had occurred in a ‘time before men’, a cosmic creation in a celestial heaven. At no time was it believed that he had lived as a mere mortal and trod the earth. Mithraism's failure to have anthropomorphised its god into a man – something which was to be accomplished so successfully by Christianity – weakened the cult's appeal to the uneducated and opened the door to the competition.

In all other major respects the theology of the two cults were all but identical.

Mithras had had twelve followers with whom he had shared a last sacramental meal. The evidence from a mithraeum at Dura Europus suggests members of the congregation and thiasos (sacred company) held a banquet in which eating, drinking and musical performances featured as well as religious ceremonial.

"A third-century account for the mithraeum at Dura Europus lists the prices of materials required for a ritual banquet:

'Meat, 19 denarii; sauce, 1 denarius; paper, 1 obol; water, 1 denarius; wood, 1 denarius; jar of wine, 28 denarii 11 obols; total 51 denarii 11 obols.' "

– K. Butcher, Roman Syria, p213.

He had sacrificed himself to redeem mankind. Descending into the underworld, he had conquered death and had risen to life again on the third day. The holy day for this sun god was, of course, Sunday (Christians continued to follow the Jewish Sabbath until the fourth century). His many titles included ‘the Truth,’ ‘the Light,’ and ‘the Good Shepherd.’ For those who worshipped him, invoking the name of Mithras healed the sick and worked miracles. Mithras could dispense mercy and grant immortality; to his devotees he offered hope. By drinking his blood and eating his flesh (by proxy, from a slain bull) they too could conquer death. On a Day of Judgement those already dead would be raised back to life.

=============================================

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras

Religious practice was centered around the mithraeum (Latin, from Greek mithraion), either an adapted natural cave or cavern or an artificial building imitating a cavern. Mithraea were dark and windowless, even if they were not actually in a subterranean space or in a natural cave. When possible, the mithraeum was constructed within or below an existing building. The site of a mithraeum may also be identified by its separate entrance or vestibule, its "cave", called the spelaeum or spelunca, with raised benches along the side walls for the ritual meal, and its sanctuary at the far end, often in a recess, before which the pedestal-like altar stood. Many mithraea that follow this basic plan are scattered over much of the Empire's former area, particularly where the legions were stationed along the frontiers (such as Britain). Others may be recognized by their characteristic layout, even though converted as crypts beneath Christian churches.

From the structure of the mithraea it is possible to surmise that worshippers would have gathered for a common meal along the reclining couches lining the walls. Most temples could hold only thirty or forty individuals.

The mithraeum itself was arranged as an "image of the universe". It is noticed by some researchers that this movement, especially in the context of mithraic iconography (see below), seems to stem from the neoplatonic concept that the "running" of the sun from solstice to solstice is a parallel for the movement of the soul through the universe, from pre-existence, into the body, and then beyond the physical body into an afterlife.

=============================================

The use of the mithraeum may have been what prompted the assumption by the author that Mithras was born in a cave. Christian tradition holds that Christ was born in a manger which was constructed in a small cave, which could have been an imitation of an mithraeum (that is to say, they borrowed from the tales and traditions of Mithras in their telling of the birth of Jesus). This tradition supports the notion of the Christ as Mithras even if Mithras were not born in a cave.

HZ

I've always assumed that was some silly belief that saying one's particular deity's name would bring down said deity's wrath upon them. Either that or a corruption of the 'name-in-vain' commandment. But I too would like to hear someone more knowledgeable comment on this.

 

ETA: Oops. Heretic posted while I was writing.

You got it right! I did not explain it as well.

“G-d is not a man.”

This is one thing I never understood. Why do some people spell god's name as g-d anyway?

Is "God" a name?

The real answer is because it's not allowed (in Jewish thinking) to erase/deface the name of their "god" in any language and so they use a stand-in such as "g-d." Even electronic mediums can be altered/deleted so it's used there as well.

mwc

I only skimmed through the article but I do have one nit and that's in the section of the Jewish Messiah (I think that's the name). It includes requirements from the Mishnah and such. The problem is that's all Rabbinic Judaism. After the fact if we're to accept the dates on the gospels as given. As a result the authors would not have considered these "requirements" for their messiah at all since they hadn't been invented yet (so none of the whole "wiser than Solomon" thing or the rest from those sources).

mwc

The writer may also have been thinking of Horus:

Horus was born to a virgin (who remains eternally virginal), Isis-Meri, on December 25 in a cave or a manger.

Isis, the goddess of motherhood and fertility, was called 'Mother of Heaven', 'Regina Coeli' (Queen of Heaven) and 'Stella Maris', as is Mary, the mother of Jesus, even today in the Roman Catholic Church: "Graeco-Roman culture was particularly enamoured of [isis] and called her the Stella Maris (star of the sea), represented in the heavens by the north star ... [Mary's] portraits with the Christ often bear a striking similarity to those of Isis with Horus." -- Jordan, Michael, The Encyclopedia of Gods: Over 2,500 deities of the world, Kyle Cathie Ltd, London, 1992

Mithras was born in a cave, on December 25th, of a virgin mother. He came from heaven to be born as a man, to redeem men from their sin. He was know as “Savior,” “Son of God,” “Redeemer,” and “Lamb of God.” With twelve disciples he traveled far and wide as a teacher and illuminator of men. He was buried in a tomb from which he rose again from the dead — an event celebrated yearly with much rejoicing. His followers kept the Sabbath holy, holding sacramental feasts in remembrance of Him. The sacred meal of bread and water, or bread and wine, was symbolic of the body and blood of the sacred bull.

I stopped reading after this. This paragraph displays an impressive lack of scholarship. Mithras does indeed share some parallels to Jesus, namely that he is a dying-and-rising-god, and his followers shared a meal together. But this sounds like it literally came straight out of the Da Vinci Code. And works of fiction are not good sources for scholarship. It is known by reasonable scholars that these claims are inflated. Whether Dan Brown simply made this stuff up, or whether he heard it from some other sensationalist, I don't know. But at any rate, incorrect information like this does not help the case. Jesus can already be discredited without stretching the truth...

That's too bad. You missed out on some great information then. Controversial or inflated or not, these claims still have a significant basis in fact, which is why Christians don't like to hear about it.

“G-d is not a man.”

This is one thing I never understood. Why do some people spell god's name as g-d anyway?

It's a sign of fear and respect for the deity by the Jews.

That's too bad. You missed out on some great information then. Controversial or inflated or not, these claims still have a significant basis in fact, which is why Christians don't like to hear about it.

Jesus was a carpenter so perhaps someday they will discover toilet set covers he made and installed in someone's outhouse. I wonder if he was smart enough to burn his initials under the lid--© 00AD 'JC's Sanctified Seats'.

You missed out on some great information then. Controversial or inflated or not, these claims still have a significant basis in fact, which is why Christians don't like to hear about it.

They didn't like it 2000 years ago when Justin Martyr and Origen and others tried to explain away the similarities between JC and the other resurrecting savior gods...even now they are still trying to explain it...fortunately for them most people have little knowledge of history. - Heimdall

I'm certainly not denying that there is a parallel - a very strong one - between Mithras and Jesus. I'm just saying that over time, some of the "similarities" have grown in the telling. Certainly Mithras was a dying-and-rising-god, he was apparently born of a virgin, and he had a sacramental meal that his followers partook. But things like "his followers kept the Sabbath holy" - well, a) they celebrated their "services" or what-have-you on Sunday, and b') they wouldn't have called it the Sabbath anyway. This sort of thing is as a result of reading into the parallel to make it seem more parallel. Lots of religions have a day set aside for weekly gatherings, and, well, there's only seven to choose from.

At any rate, I'm not at my home computer at the moment, so I don't have my bookmarks handy, but one I can think of off the top of my head who talks about this sort of thing is POCM, who "recanted", if you will, their section on Mithras: http://www.pocm.info/pagan_christs_mithras.html

And of course, when the question is "Is Jesus the Messiah?" we must try to differentiate between what other influences helped to shape his legend and what was later borrowed from pagan cultures. In terms of stuff like December 25, etc:

"Unfortunately, we don't know what exactly happened at Milvan Bridge, because the dear Emperor kept changing his story and telling different versions of the events to different people. At least six different, contradictory versions have survived from different people who all claimed to have heard it first-hand from the good emperor himself. As he kept telling these conflicting stories, he still apparently remained personally converted to the Mithraic sun-cult common in the Empire at the time. Besides the somewhat dismissive wording of the letters in the Edict of Milan (see above), there is the small matter of the Milvan Arch. As a monument to his victory at Milvan Bridge, some years later, he raised a triumphal arch, which survives to this day. It still bears on it a dedication to the "Unconquered Sun" (a reference to Mithra) and referred to Jesus Christ "driving his [the sun's] chariot across the sky." He commanded the Christians to hold their services on Sun-day, and to commemorate the birth of their savior on December 25 - the birthday of Mithra."

(from http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm)

In other words, Constantine later adapted the religion and combined it with other pagan religions - which is fine to make a point on in terms of corrupting influences, but not in the development of the Jesus myth. The legends of Jesus were around long before Constantine got around to messing with them yet again.

At any rate, I'll concede the point. Either way, there's a parallel there - I just don't feel it's appropriate to spread around exaggerations. Too similar to what Christians do...

That's too bad. You missed out on some great information then. Controversial or inflated or not, these claims still have a significant basis in fact, which is why Christians don't like to hear about it.

Well, part of the reason I stopped reading was because I was running short on time. But at any rate, I gave it a second glance, looks like good stuff, and I agree that it is based in fact, but as I said - exaggerations aren't necessary when facts can already drive the point home

Jeff H, thank you! I went looking for that Mithras link and got sidetracked (damn! that's a great site! LOL)

You need to edit and put a space after your Bidstrup link, before the bracket. As is, it goes nowhere.

This was all the stuff I looked through that brought it all down like the walls of Jericho for me (which never happened as written).

Origins and History.

Craig L. Duckett's site is another wealth of great info.

“G-d is not a man.”

This is one thing I never understood. Why do some people spell god's name as g-d anyway?

Jewish people do that. They don't say it like that, they just write out like that. It's not god's name, as their god's name isn't in English, so out of reverence to their god they write it like that when they write in English.

Though, I've seem some Christians do this but they only are copying Jews.

Brother Jeff writes: “Was Jesus the Messiah? The answer is a resounding “no” for the following reasons, gathered from Jewish sources.

Jesus of Nazareth: The False Messiah”

My answer: Yes, of course no prophecy in the Tan’’kh – the Jewish Bible - is about J*esus (name forbidden to be pronounced according to Torah; because one shouldn’t pronounce the name of elohim akherim – other g*ods)! Devarim (Deuteronomy) 13:1-6 states that a person who removes or adds commandments to the 613 commandments in Torah is a false prophet.

The prophecies in Tan’’kh is about the first century Pharisee Ribi Yehoshua – the Mashiakh (the Messiah).

Danieil (9.24-27) prophesied that the Mâshiakh (the Messiah) would be killed in 30 C.E.

In an especially ludicrous attempt to avoid the following pinpoint prophecy, a prominent 'anti-missionary,' Rabbi Singer, actually had no alternative but to resort to the khutzpah of publishing that Danieil (Hellenized to Daniel) (rather than himself) was mistaken!!!

Read more here:

www.netzarim.co.il; click at “History Museum” in the left menu; click at “Mashiakh” in the top menu; click at “Mâshiakh of Tana"kh Subverts Tana"kh

to be the Mâshiakh?” to the right of the burning scroll”; scroll down to Danieil 9.24-27

So either the Mashiakh has come; or there will never be a Mashiakh.

From Anders Branderud

Geir Toshav, Netzarim in Ra’anana in Israel (www.netzarim.co.il) who are followers of Ribi Yehoshua – Messiah – in Orthodox Judaism

Brother Jeff writes: “Was Jesus the Messiah? The answer is a resounding “no” for the following reasons, gathered from Jewish sources.

 

Jesus of Nazareth: The False Messiah”

 

My answer: Yes, of course no prophecy in the Tan’’kh – the Jewish Bible - is about J*esus (name forbidden to be pronounced according to Torah; because one shouldn’t pronounce the name of elohim akherim – other g*ods)! Devarim (Deuteronomy) 13:1-6 states that a person who removes or adds commandments to the 613 commandments in Torah is a false prophet.

The prophecies in Tan’’kh is about the first century Pharisee Ribi Yehoshua – the Mashiakh (the Messiah).

Sorry, Brother Anders, but there are no prophecies in the Tanakh about Jesus or Ribi Yehoshua, or whatever you choose to call him. They simply do not exist. What Christians do is read Jesus into the Tanakh because they want him to be there. See this link:

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/messianic.html

Danieil (9.24-27) prophesied that the Mâshiakh (the Messiah) would be killed in 30 C.E.

Daniel did not prophecy any such thing. See this link:

http://home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/Daniel9.html

Are you aware of the fact that the book of Daniel is fraudulent fiction masquarading as a prophetic work? See this link:

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/daniel.html

This is interesting as well. From http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim...prophecies.html

"A prophecy relating to the time of the Messiah which many evangelical Christians find extremely convincing is found in the book of Daniel. It is probably no exaggeration to say that this prophecy, more than any other, convinces Christians that Jesus was the Messiah. Daniel 9:24-27 says:

Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy place.

So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.

Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.

And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.

The word translated in these verses as "weeks" is a form of the Hebrew word for "sevens," and is interpreted by Christians to mean seven years rather than seven days. Thus "seventy weeks" in verse 24 is interpreted to mean seventy periods of seven years, or 490 years, "seven weeks" in verse 25 is interpreted to mean 49 years, "sixty-two weeks" in verses 25 and 26 is interpreted to mean 434 years, and "one week" in verse 27 is interpreted to mean seven years.

The starting point of the prophecy is the "issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem." A decree described in the Bible to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem is found in 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4. These verses describe the decree issued by Cyrus, king of Persia and contemporary of Daniel, in 538 B.C.E. "Seven weeks and sixty-two weeks," or 483 years, after this decree would be 55 B.C.E., many years too soon for Jesus.

So Christians must reject the equation of the decree in verse 25 with that of Cyrus, and they do. What other decrees are available? Josh McDowell (1972, p. 180) offers three alternatives: a decree of Darius described in the book of Ezra, a decree of Artaxerxes described in Ezra, and a decree of Artaxerxes described in Nehemiah. The decree of Darius, described in Ezra 6:1-9, was to conduct a search of the archives to find the text of the decree of Cyrus, and then to resume the construction of the temple at Jerusalem using tax money. This occurred around 522 B.C.E. (see Ezra 4:24), which would put the coming of the Messiah at 39 B.C.E.--still too early for Jesus.

The decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra described in Ezra 7:11-28 allows for the people of Israel to return to Jerusalem, taking with them various support from the royal treasury. This decree was issued in 458 B.C.E. (see Ezra 7:7), which would put the coming of the Messiah at 26 C.E. This works fairly well if you take the end of the "sixty-two weeks" to be the beginning of Jesus' ministry, though most Christians take the end point to be the crucifixion due to the reference in verse 26 of the Daniel prophecy to the Messiah being "cut off." Most Christians reject this decree, as well as those of Cyrus and Darius, as being the appropriate starting point for the prophecy. One exception is Gleason Archer. Archer (1982, pp. 290-291) argues that Ezra 9:9 implies that Ezra was given permission by Artaxerxes to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, despite the fact that they were not rebuilt until the time of Nehemiah (see Nehemiah 1:3. Ezra 9:9 states that God has not forsaken the Jews but has given them a chance "to raise up the house of our God, to restore its ruins, and to give us a wall in Judah and Jerusalem." In defense of the end point of the "sixty-two weeks" being the beginning of Jesus' ministry rather than his crucifixion, Archer points out that verse 26 of the prophecy says only that the Messiah's being "cut off" occurs after that time period, not necessarily immediately after it.

The decree of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah described in Nehemiah 2:1-6 is really no decree at all. Rather, Artaxerxes gives Nehemiah letters of safe conduct for travel to Judah and to obtain timber to rebuild the gates of the temple and the walls of Jerusalem. This occurred in 445 B.C.E., putting the time of the Messiah at 39 C.E., too late for Jesus, who is believed to have been crucified some time between 29 and 33 C.E. Despite these flaws, most evangelical Christians adopt this as the appropriate decree because Nehemiah rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem. In order to make the 445 B.C.E. starting point result in an ending point 483 years later that is either at the beginning of Jesus' ministry or at the time of the crucifixion, something other than a 365-day year must be used. The most popular such calculation, due to Sir Robert Anderson and promoted by Josh McDowell, is to adopt a "360-day prophetic year"--an invention of Anderson based on his reading of Revelation 11:2-3, where he equates 42 months with 1260 days, giving 30 days per month. Using "prophetic years" puts the end of the 483-year period at 32 C.E., believed by many to be the year of the crucifixion. Robert Newman (1990, pp. 112-114) points out several flaws in this calculation scheme which together are fatal to it: (1) Revelation 11:23 does not justify the invention of the "prophetic year," because there is no indication that 1260 days is said to be exactly 42 months (it could be 41.5 rounded up), (2) a 360-day year would get out of synch with the seasons, and the Jews added an extra lunar month every two or three years to their 354-day lunar year, giving them an average year length of about 365 days, and (3) the present consensus on the date of the crucifixion is 30 C.E. rather than 32 C.E.

Newman offers his own alternative: the use of sabbatical years, which do have biblical justification (Exodus 23:10-11 and Leviticus 25:3-7,18-22). Every seventh year is a sabbatical year. Newman uses information from the first book of Maccabees, which has reference to an observance of a sabbatical year, to calculate that 163-162 B.C.E. was a sabbatical year and therefore 445 B.C.E., the starting point of the Daniel prophecy, falls in the seven-year sabbatical cycle 449-442 B.C.E. If this is the first sabbatical cycle in the count, the sixty-ninth is 28-35 C.E., a time period that the crucifixion falls in. In response to the criticism that the prophecy says that the Messiah will be "cut off" after sixty-two weeks, Newman says that in conventional Jewish idiom "after" means "after the beginning of."

There are further problems for all of the above interpretations, which Gerald Sigal (1981, pp. 109-122) points out. Foremost among Sigal's criticisms is that the Masoretic punctuation of the Hebrew Bible places a division between the "seven weeks and sixty-two weeks," meaning that rather than stating that the Messiah will come after the combined time periods, he will come after the "seven weeks" alone. Another criticism Sigal makes is that the Hebrew text does not put a definite article in front of the word "Messiah" (or "anointed one"). The Revised Standard Version of the Bible is translated with these facts in mind, and it gives the Daniel 9:24-27 as follows:

Seventy weeks of years are decreed concerning your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war; desolations are decreed. And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.

Using the Masoretic punctuation, the "sixty-two weeks" goes with the rebuilding of the city rather than with the coming of the Messiah. This interpretation explains why "seven weeks and sixty-two weeks" are given separately, rather than simply stating "sixty-nine weeks." Most apologists are either unaware of or ignore the Masoretic punctuation, but Robert Newman (1990, p. 116) rejects it on the grounds that "such punctuation may not date back before the ninth or tenth century AD" and that the structure of the verses as a whole favor his interpretation.

The result of all this? The Daniel prophecy is not nearly so convincing as it might initially appear to someone presented only with one of the interpretations that "works." It is not surprising that with four choices for beginning points (the decrees of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes, plus the letters of Artaxerxes for Nehemiah), several possible choices for end points (the birth, ministry, and crucifixion of Jesus), and at least three ways of counting (ordinary years, "prophetic years," and sabbatical cycles) calculations have been found for which Jesus fits the prophecy. There are good reasons to reject each of these interpretations. The first two choices for beginning points don't work for any offered interpretations. The Artaxerxes decree works for ordinary years with the ministry of Jesus as the end point, but says nothing about rebuilding Jerusalem. The Artaxerxes letters work for sabbatical cycles with the crucifixion as an end point, but they are not a decree to rebuild the city of Jerusalem. Rather, they gave Nehemiah safe conduct to Judah and permission to use lumber from the royal forests. Finally, none of them take into consideration the Masoretic punctuation, which, if not itself in error, eliminates all of them as possible interpretations of the text."

Amazing the facts that just a little research will turn up! Why don't you try doing some research yourself, Brother Anders, instead of just blindly believing what you want to be true?

So either the Mashiakh has come; or there will never be a Mashiakh.

As there is no God, there can be no Messiah of God. Thus, there never will be a Messiah.

who are followers of Ribi Yehoshua – Messiah – in Orthodox Judaism

Sorry, you can be a Chistian or a Jew, but you cannot be both at the same time. It's impossible, as Christianity and Judaism are distinct and incompatible religions. See this book (page 5) for the details:

http://www.messiahtruth.com/matthew.pdf

It's amazing the number of silly beliefs and complex systems of worship that arise from the fictional ramblings of ancient nomads. Any nutjob that bothers to read this drivel and take it seriously can invent his own theology and vigorously defend it as the One True Faith™.

 

All the incompatible conclusions that have been drawn from "sacred" writings are equally irrelevant.

:whs: Irrelevant pretty much sums it up.

Danieil (9.24-27) prophesied that the Mâshiakh (the Messiah) would be killed in 30 C.E.

In an especially ludicrous attempt to avoid the following pinpoint prophecy, a prominent 'anti-missionary,' Rabbi Singer, actually had no alternative but to resort to the khutzpah of publishing that Danieil (Hellenized to Daniel) (rather than himself) was mistaken!!!

They have not used the same calender all through history. So, it's pointless to say that any prophesy predicted that Jesus died in 30 CE.

We have used the Gregorian calender since 1582 (named after Pope Gregory XIII) and I would like to point out that not everyone does. The Jewish religion has their own calender and, no, Jesus didn't die in 30 CE according their calender. Also, the Gregorian calender is off around 7 years, so Jesus, if he even existed, did not die or was killed in 30 CE.

Please provide the calender that would correspond to Jesus death in 30CE. If you can't than the interpretation is simply wrong.

All the incompatible conclusions that have been drawn from "sacred" writings are equally irrelevant.

 

:whs: Irrelevant pretty much sums it up.

Yeah... the cranky old bastard nailed it.