Topic: The Definition of "Messiah" (Read 10023 times)

nojc4me · « **on:** December 15, 2005, 04:12:23 PM »

The Definition of "Messiah"

Please Note: The following post will reflect the view of at least one Jewish Rabbi. This is not to say that everything I post is in fact Judaism's view. Consult your local Orthodox Rabbi.

Messiah is the Anglicized version of the Hebrew word transliterated as "moshiach," which means "anointed." To be messiah, one was anointed with the holy oil of anointing.

Ex. 30:25 And thou shalt make it an oil of holy ointment, an ointment compound after the art of the apothecary: it shall be an holy anointing oil.

The oil of anointing was to be made by certain people only, in using a certain formula. The common man was not to mimic the oil, nor was the common man to use the oil of anointing for unauthorized use.

Ex 30:32 Upon man's flesh shall it not be poured, neither shall ye make any other like it, after the composition of it: it is holy, and it shall be holy unto you.

The oil was used for authorized purposes when it was used to anoint a prophet of G-d, a priest of the Levites, or a King of Israel.

Ex 28:40 And for Aaron's sons thou shalt make coats, and thou shalt make for them girdles, and bonnets shalt thou make for them, for glory and for beauty. [28:41] And thou shalt put them upon Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him; and shalt anoint them, and consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office.

Ex 29:7 Then shalt thou take the anointing oil, and pour it upon his head, and anoint him.

The Oil was poured on his head. Such a person was then considered to be holy to the L-rd, and must be afforded certain special status. Such anointings were done in public, so that all knew who was the L-rd's anointed, and not afflict the L-rd's anointed unintentionally.

I Sam. 24:6 And he said unto his men, The L-rd forbid that I should do this thing unto my master, the L-rd's anointed, to stretch forth mine hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the L-rd.

Ps 105:15 Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.

Thus, according to the Tanakh, "messiah" means, "One who is anointed with the Holy Oil of Anointing, to fill the office of Prophet, Priest or King." However, the pagans also anointed their kings, and sometimes, such a pagan king, though not anointed with the Holy Anointing Oil, could be, or become, "the L-rd's anointed."

Is 45:1 Thus saith the L-rd to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;

Does "Chryst" mean "Messiah"?

Missionaries who seek to win Jews over to their (the Crosstian's) zombie-god, find it hard to convince Jews that Yashka was the Jewish messiah. There's good reason for this, but one mistake Jews sometimes make is accepting the missionary's definitions of Jewish words and concepts. For example, the missionaries claim that "Chryst" means the same thing in Greek as "messiah," does in Hebrew, as seen in John's Little Book of Lies.

Jo 1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the [Chryst].

Does 'chryst' mean the same thing as 'messiah'? No, it doesn't. To the Greek Nu Testament's characters, "Chryst" means more than messiah does to the knowledgeable Jew. Let me explain by giving the Jewish definition for "messiah," and then I'll define "Chryst," not by reading from the liars who will twist things for their own purposes, but by pulling some references from the Nu Testament itself.

Some verses such as Matt 2:4 and John 1:41 associate "Chryst" with the expected Jewish messiah, king of Israel, but the association is faulty, and has been refuted in other pieces. The Nu Testament, though, identifies J.C. as "Chryst." What does that term mean? The Oxford English Dictionary, I have been told, as well as other highly respected tomes, equates "Chryst" with "messiah." (Why should I accept an Oxford Dictionary definition for a matter of Jewish Law?) But, is this true? No. How can I know? Look at the way "Chryst" is used in the Nu Testament, which is from where the word came to be popular. (NOTE: In Mark 12:35, Yashka also denies that "chryst" means the same thing as "messiah," by misrepresenting the words of a Psalm, which is taken as a messianic prophecy, but isn't.)
The word "chryst" does not occur once in the Hebrew Holy Scriptures, nor even in the "Old Testament," which is a perversion of the Hebrew Holy Scriptures, badly translated and rearranged so as to make G-d's scriptures seem to be Nu Testament friendly. The first occurrence of "Chryst" is in Matthew chapter 1, verse one, and used as a title for Yashka HaMamzer. But that verse's usage doesn't help us define the title. Other verses, however, do.

Matt 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the [Chryst], the Son of the living G-d.

This is a new meaning of "chryst," as "the (not 'a') son of G-d." The implication is that Yashka was the literal son of G-d, as is explained earlier in Matthew's Little Book of lies.

Matt 1:18, "Now the birth of J[.] C[.] was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy [Spook]."

It is expounded upon in Luke's Little Book of Lies.

Luke 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? [1:35] And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy [Spook] shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of [G-d].

This has no comparison in Judaism, except that all Israelites are the sons of G-d.

Ex 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the L-rd, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

Torah (Deut 4:12-16, for example) makes it clear that G-d has no form, and therefore has no body parts with which to impregnate a woman, as is the assumption in the Nu Testament. Interestingly, Mark 12:35-37 has Yashka calling into question the idea that the messiah (chryst) is supposed to be the son (descendant of) David, and rejecting this kind of association. Perhaps he knew there was no way the Chryst could be both the son of David and of G-d?

Matt 22:42, Mark 14:61, and other verses, reassert the idea that "chryst" is the son of G-d. The idea has already been dispensed with, so I'll ignore all other reiterations of that meaning of "chryst."

Mark 15:32, and 23:2 associate "chryst," with messiah, the king of Israel. The king of Israel is in fact a messiah, but Yashka was neither a king of Israel, nor any other type of anointed.

Luke 2:11 calls the chryst a savior. The L-rd is the only savior, and there is no mention that I know of to associate 'savior' with any messiah. Also, Yashka was not G-d.

Luke 24:26 describes the chryst as someone who would be expected to suffer.

Lk 24:26 Ought not [Chryst] to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

No such association for the messiah can be found in the Tanakh. There is a suffering servant spoken of in the Tanakh, but that's Israel, not Yashka, nor any messiah. Besides, Yashka suffered for only a day or so, and how does that make him a sufferer? Do we call a man "a man of books" because he has read one book?

In John 4:29, we have a new definition of 'chryst': fortune teller or palm reader.

Jo 4:29 Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the [Chryst]?

Jo 4:42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the [Chryst], the Savior of the world.

The verse in John's Little Book of Lies implies that one could be convinced that a claimant could speak words which prove he is the chryst, but it is the events surrounding the messiah that will prove he is the messiah, not his words.

John sought to define the chryst as a magician or miracle worker.

Jo 7:31 And many of the people believed on him, and said, When [Chryst] cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done?

The answer, if the question is taken to mean 'messiah' when it talks of 'chryst', is 'no!' The messiah lives in times when G-d does great miracles, but the messiah himself does none. But, there ARE greater miracles which will be done during the times of them true messiah. They will be so compelling that nobody will be able to deny that the messiah has indeed come.

John 12:34 tries to say that the Jews believe the messiah will be eternal.

Jo 12:34 The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that [Chryst] abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?

According to some missionaries, this was a reference to Ps 89:36,37 and Micah 4:7. Let's look at the verses.

Ps 89:35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. 89:36 His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. 89:37 It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah.

I see no indication that the messiah will be eternal, only that the lineage of David will not be cut off.

Micah 4:7 And I will make her that halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a strong nation: and the L-rd shall reign over them in mount Zion from henceforth, even for ever.

There is no mention of any messiah being eternal, only that the Eternal, the G-d of Israel, will reign eternally. There's a big difference between G-d and any messiah, and, Yashka was neither G-d nor messiah. The Nu Testament is being duplicitous.

The Nu Testament, then defines 'chryst' as:

* messiah, a definition it rejects (Mark 12:35,) and Yashka was never anointed, as according to the Tanakh definition of moshiach;

* a king, which Yashka was not;

* the son of David, a definition the Nu T rejects, and the first thing the Nu T tries to prove is that Joseph was a descendant of David, but that Yashka was not the son of Joseph;

* a miracle worker fortune teller, which Yashka may have been, but in the Tanakh there is no connection between that definition and the messiah;

*savior, but in the Tanakh there is no association with the messiah and a savior, since G-d is the Savior, and Yashka wasn't G-d.

*a sufferer, apparently a surrogate sufferer. But according to Tanakh, "the soul that sins, it shall die," (Ezekiel 18) so there is no reason to believe that, because Yashka suffered for a few short hours, his sufferings free anyone else from suffering. Nor is one called "a sufferer" or "well acquainted with" suffering simply for suffering for a few short hours in a single day, just as a person who reads a single book is not called "a man of books" or "well read".

*eternal, but that's based on a false reading of the Hebrew Holy Scriptures, and only HaShem is eternal, and again, Yashka wasn't G-d.

Therefore, Yashka was called "Cryst", but the title is used as if it apportions some of G-d's qualities to a mere man, and a sinning and unrepentant man, so I do not use it, as according to Ex 23:13; the names of false gods shall not pass my lips, nor intentionally be typed by me.

Since G-d accepted Cyrus as an anointed, shouldn't Jews accept Yashka as an anointed? No. Why not? Because Yashka was Jewish, and was never anointed with the Holy Oil of Anointing. There is an instance of Yashka HaMamzer being anointed, but that was not the Holy Oil of Anointing; was not done by an authorized person; was not done in public; the oil was not smeared upon his head, but upon his feet; and was not done to anoint him as a prophet, priest, or king, but was done "in preparation of [his] burial." See Mark 14:3-8. This may have just been a lie on the part of Cheezis, though, because the Little Book of Lies makes it clear that the women in Yeshu's life still made efforts to anoint his body for burial after he died. See Mark 16:1. So Yashka was not the L-rd's anointed, or 'messiah.'

In "The Problem With Matthew" A Guide For Refuting Missionaries By Drashi (Drashi@drashi.com) you'll find the following:

"... [T]he following are other 'Prophecies' that the book of Matthew claims is part of the Messianic Prophecy. 'Matthew' states that the Christ was 'prophesied' to be:

"Born of a virgin (1:23), and people will call him Emmanuel.
Born in Bethlehem (2:5)
Escaping to Egypt (2:15)
Escaping from being murdered (2:18)
Moving to Nazareth (2:23)
Moving to Capernum (4:14)
Expelling unclean spirits, curing the sick (8:17)
Hiding from the Pharisees (12:18)
Teaching in illustration (13:14)
Teaching in parables (13:35)
Riding a donkey (21:5)
Betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (27:9)

"These 'prophecies' have either been taken out of context, have nothing to do with the Messiah, or were completely made up (as was the case for #5 and #12)! I cover this in greater detail in the chapter 'False Prophecies'."

Cook · « **Reply #1 on:** December 18, 2005, 07:46:01 PM »

Quote

No such association for the messiah can be found in the Tanakh. There is a suffering servant spoken of in the Tanakh, but that's Israel, not Jesus, nor any messiah.

Zechariah 12:10 JPS
And I will pour upon the house of David, And upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, The spirit of grace and of supplication; And they shall look unto Me because they have thrust him through; And they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, And shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

In Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 52a

"And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart [Zech. 12:12]....What is the cause of the mourning? -- R. Dosa and the Rabbis differ on the point. One explained. The cause is the slaying of Messiah the son of Joseph, and the other explained, The cause is the slaying of the Evil Inclination.

It is well with him who explains that the cause is the slaying of Messiah the son of Joseph, since that well agrees with the Scriptural verse, And they shall look upon me because they have thrust him through, and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for his only son; but according to him who explains the cause to be the slaying of the Evil Inclination, is this an occasion for mourning? Is it not rather an occasion for rejoicing? Why then should they weep?"

Ibn Ezra in the 12th century commented

All the heathen shall look to me to see what I shall do to those who pierced Messiah, the son of Joseph.

16th century Rabbi Moses Alshech said:

"The shall look unto me," for they shall lift up their eyes unto me in perfect repentence, when they see Him whom they have pierced, that is Messiah, the son of Joseph; for our Rabbis, of blessed memory have said that He will take upon himself all the guilt of Israel, and shall then be slain in the war to make atonement in such manner that it shall be accounted as if Israel pierced Him, for on account of their sin He has died; and therefore, in order that it may be reckoned to them as a perfect atonement, they will repent and look to the blessed One, saying that there is none beside Him to forgive those that mourn on account of Him who died for their sin: this is the meaning of 'They shall look upon Me."

cook

nojc4me · « **Reply #2 on:** December 19, 2005, 01:22:19 AM »

Cook suggested:

Quote nojc4me:
"There is a suffering servant spoken of in the Tanakh, but that's Israel, not Jesus, nor any messiah."

Zechariah 12:10 JPS
And I will pour upon the house of David, And upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, The spirit of grace and of supplication; And they shall look unto Me because they have thrust him through; And they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, And shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Here, God says that they (the Gentile nations) will look toward God because of the one whom they thrust through ('him', not 'Me,' so the one thrust through is not God), and they (the Gentiles again) will mourn for those slain (from among Israel, due to the reference of a 'firstborn' - and Israel is God's firstborn).
So, Israel is attacked by the Gentiles, some Israelites are slain, and when the realization of the sins strikes the Gentiles (of their heinous nature of the actions they took against Israel,) the Gentiles will mourn for Israel and seek to follow God - by asking the Israelites how they should worship God, according to one of the prophets.
So, where's this "vicarious suffering servant" the new testament spoke of?

In Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 52a

"And the land shall mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart [Zech. 12:12]....What is the cause of the mourning? -- R. Dosa and the Rabbis differ on the point. One explained. The cause is the slaying of Messiah the son of Joseph, and the other explained, The cause is the slaying of the Evil Inclination

Okay, so, if that's a real and accurate quote, where's this "vicarious suffering servant" the new testament spoke of? Why does the mourning of a death have to imply that the dead person(s) died "for" the sins of anyone else (as in "in place of") ?

Ibn Ezra in the 12th century commented

All the heathen shall look to me to see what I shall do to those who pierced Messiah, the son of Joseph.

All that says (if that's a real and accurate quote,) is that God will smite those who injured Israel, and the fear of it will cause the Gentiles to mourn and turn to God. So, where's this "vicarious suffering servant" the new testament spoke of?

16th century Rabbi Moses Alshech said:

"The shall look unto me," for they shall lift up their eyes unto me in perfect repentence, when they see Him whom they have pierced, that is Messiah, the son of Joseph; for our Rabbis, of blessed memory have said that He will take upon himself all the guilt of Israel, and shall then be slain in the war to make atonement in such manner that it shall be accounted as if Israel pierced Him, for on account of their sin He has died...

If that's a real and accurate quote, it seems to me that " on account of" here does not mean "to repay" or "to atone for," but "as a result of." So, where's this "vicarious suffering servant" the new testament spoke of?

... and therefore, in order that it may be reckoned to them as a perfect atonement, they will repent and look to the blessed One, saying that there is none beside Him to forgive those that mourn on account of Him who died for their sin: this is the meaning of 'They shall look upon Me."

"Due to" or "as a result of", but not "to repay" or "to atone for." So, where's this "vicarious suffering servant" the new testament spoke of? The reference to making atonement is that one needs to mourn for one's sins, else atonement will be denied, or it will at least be imperfect. "Therefore, in order that it may be reckoned to them as a perfect atonement, they will repent and look to the blessed One..."

No "vicarious atonement" at all. "The soul that sins, it shall die." (Moses and Ezekiel agree here. You do not, apparently. They're prophets of God most High; you're not. Therefore, you're wrong.)

And since when do you accept the decisions of the rabbis? Why do you pick and choose which of their decrees you want to believe, rejecting others? Why do you not accept their report that Yeshu haMamzer was an idolator, worked magic, and led Israel astray?
I know why: you want to!
But God said to accept their decrees, even if you don't want to.
So, you disobey God simply to make yourself seem to obey God's command to follow the rabbis - so long as those rabbis agree with your own perverted beliefs in a vicarious atonement so that you need feel no compulsion to repent of your sins and let someone else "do" it for you.

nojc4me · « **Reply #3 on:** December 19, 2005, 01:35:12 AM »

[The following is an extract, and part of another topic, but some of it may be enlightening.]

First, if you look at Zechariah 12:10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, it becomes extremely obvious that it does not refer to Jesus, because it says that "I will pour upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and supplications, and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced (Christians claim that this refers to Jesus, who was stabbed) and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son (which Christians again point to Jesus, the supposed son of God)... In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem... and the land shall mourn, every family apart... all the families that remain..." Now, if this refers to the first coming of Jesus, then what was the spirit of grace and supplication? It never seems to have occurred!? In addition, there certainly was no great mourning in Jerusalem and throughout the land by all of the Jewish families after the death of Jesus. On the contrary, since many Jews, according to the Gospels, encouraged the crucifixion, if anything there was a great rejoicing, rather than mourning. Thus, without any doubt, Zechariah 12:10 does not refer to Jesus.

- You Take Jesus; I'll Take God by Sam Levine. It's so important, it part of the first item the author dealt with.

valerie · « **Reply #4 on:** December 19, 2005, 08:08:41 AM »

Actually, Zechariah does refer to the Saviour, Jesus Christ, but not his first coming. It is a prophesy of his second coming which obviously has not happened yet.

In the final great war, all nations shall be engaged at Jerusalem but the Lord shall defend his people

Cook · « **Reply #5 on:** December 19, 2005, 09:51:38 AM »

Val,

AMEN!

Nojc,

I don't accept any rabbi's teaching except the rabbis of the NT. I use your rabbis only to prove that they lie when they say such ideas did not exist in Judaism. Surely you understand the concept, since you use the NT against us without accepting it's truth.

cook

nojc4me · « **Reply #6 on:** December 19, 2005, 10:53:55 AM »

valerie said:

76399062Actually, Zechariah does refer to the Saviour, Jesus Christ, but not his first coming.

Actually, no it doesn't.
A) Zechariah never named that particular son of no particular father.
B) There is One Savior: the L-rd G-d Almighty; and jesus wasn't Him.
C) There is no passage or series of passages in the Hebrew Holy Scriptures that speak of a messiah who fails and dies only to come "back" from the dead to finally do what he failed to do "the first time around." In fact, God's designated "experts" on His Law say that one way to tell a false messiah is when he dies leaving essential messianic prophecies unfulfilled. In short, if he died, he wasn't "the" messiah.
If you can correct me, please feel free to try. (You'll fail, as everyone else here has in the past when they tried to do these things, and I have the right understanding on my side.)

It is a prophesy of his second coming which obviously has not happened yet.

A) "It" what is a prophecy of the "second coming"? Nowhere in Zechariah does it mention any passage of centuries of time, much less millennia between the "beginning" of the messianic era and its fulfillment.
B) If this passage is yet to be fulfilled (and I believe it is yet to be fulfilled), why should we not simply expect the real messiah to fulfil it, rather than that failure, jesus of Nazareth come "back" and give it another try? He "tried" and failed; time for a better person to actually do it. That sinner, jesus, struck out; the other team takes their turn at bat.

In the final great war, all nations shall be engaged at Jerusalem but the Lord shall defend his people

valerie · « **Reply #7 on:** December 19, 2005, 02:41:08 PM »

Blah, blah blah blah blah...
So are you done nojc4me? Boy the arrogance around here is stiffling.

I am sure you are aware of the multitude of names that Jesus was referred to as? I will list the OT names if it is more pleasing to you...

Names, Titles, and Concepts of the Lord Jesus in the O.T.
Seed of the woman, Gen. 3: 15.
The Prophet, Deut. 18: 15-16.
Emmanuel, Isa. 7: 14; Isa. 8: 8.
Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Isa. 9: 6.
Everlasting Father, Isa. 9: 6.
Prince of Peace,Isa. 9: 6.
Stem of Jesse, Isa. 11: 1.
Mighty One of Jacob, Isa. 60: 16.
Servant of the Lord, or of Jehovah, Isa. 42: 1-7; Isa. 52: 13-15; Zech. 3: 8.
The Lord our Righteousness, Jer. 23: 6; Jer. 33: 16; Mal. 4: 2.
The Messiah, Dan. 9: 25.
The Messenger of the covenant, Mal. 3: 1.
Redeemer, Job 19: 25; Isa. 59: 20; Isa. 60: 16.
Holy One, Ps. 16: 10.
Holy One of Israel, Isa. 1: 4.
Blessed of God, Ps. 45: 2.

Quote

There is no passage or series of passages in the Hebrew Holy Scriptures that speak of a messiah who fails and dies only to come "back" from the dead to finally do what he failed to do "the first time around."

Failed at what? Perhaps you could be more specific. Perhaps there is no passage of failure because he was indeed the prophesied Messiah and he did not fail.

While it is true that Zechariah does not say something to the effect of "a thousand years hence" you certianly cannot use that as proof of it's intended time frame. He simply says in verse 6 of chapter 12 "In that day..." whenever that day is. I think we are in agreement that "that day" has not occured yet.

Quote

Some rabbis assert that the current dispersion has gone on so long that there is no need for such a war to "clense" Israel.

Are those the same rabbis that dismiss the signs fortold of the Messiah's coming as just "tricks of nature"? So what is their explanation of this Jesus Christ? Just some great guy? Well, I guess we will just have to wait and see who is right and who is wrong.

Quote

the Jews never crucified jesus, and it's anti-Semitic to claim they did.

I am not here to be politically correct. If it is anti-Semitic to claim the Jews, or whoever else was there, pushed for Jesus's death then so be it. I would think that being the particular expert on the Bible that you are you would have noticed that it was was the Romans that actually nailed Jesus to the cross at the behest of the Jews and others. Perhaps you should go back and read that part again.

Quote

Quit blaming others, especially the innocent Jews, for doing what YOU have done, or for doing what was done at YOUR behest.

Boy, I am a good deal older than I thought! Although, you are not far from being correct. If Christ had not died then all people would be lost never again to return to live with God. So yes, I would agree that I cast my vote in for his death. For through his death all find life. But we're REALLY discussing his physical betrayal and crucifixtion. Which as I pointed out above did happen at the behest of the Jews.

valerie · « **Reply #8 on:** December 19, 2005, 04:11:57 PM »

As for the annointing stuff you posted...
Jesus is called the Christ (a Greek word) or the Messiah (an Aramaic word). Both words mean

nojc4me · « **Reply #9 on:** December 20, 2005, 09:53:24 PM »

valerie said:

Blah, blah blah blah blah...
So are you done nojc4me? Boy the arrogance around here is stiffling.

"Done"? I'm just gettin' started!
Yes, I'm arrogant. At least, the missus says I am. And, (since she's the missus), she's right. She's always right. (Just ask her!)
But it helps when I'm also right, as I am here!
And "stifling" only has the one "f".

Names, Titles, and Concepts of the Lord Jesus in the O.T.
Seed of the woman, Gen. 3: 15.

Um, no. That's actually a reference to ME. I[/u] am the seed of the woman. (You are, too, by the way.) That sinner, jesus, however, is not, because he was a fictional character, and so was the seed of the man who dreamed him up.

The Prophet, Deut. 18: 15-16.

That's been covered in other threads. Jc was not "the prophet" he was "the FALSE prophet," as described in Deuteronomy 13.

Emmanuel, Isa. 7: 14; Isa. 8: 8.

Nope. Emmanuel was the son of Isaiah. And jesus was never named "Emmanuel." In fact, Isaiah 8:8 shows that Emmanuel was the son of Isaiah.

Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Isa. 9: 6.

A) jesus was not "wonderful", he was a sinner, and there's nothing wonderful about that.
B) the counsel of jesus was of extremely dubious quality.
C) jesus was not "mighty."
D) jesus was not God.

Everlasting Father, Isa. 9: 6.

A) jesus was not everlasting, but (according to the new testament) suddenly decided to assume room temperature one fine day. Apparently, he wasn't pleased with his hands being affixed to a board for so long as some others wanted them to be.
B) jesus was the father of nobody - unless you believe "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" (or whatever it was called).

Prince of Peace,Isa. 9: 6.

jesus himself disagrees with you. "Think not that I am come to bring peace. I am come not to bring peace, but a sword," (or words to that effect.)

Stem of Jesse, Isa. 11: 1.

So, you can finally produce the REAL lineage of jesus? Because Matthew and Luke disagree, so if you can clarify the issue, I'm sure two thousand years of dead christians will applaud you in the afterlife.

Mighty One of Jacob, Isa. 60: 16.

How mighty does one have to be in order to get nailed?
To a piece of wood I mean. Silly!

Servant of the Lord, or of Jehovah, Isa. 42: 1-7; Isa. 52: 13-15; Zech. 3: 8.

Well, if he was going to be the servant of God, he probably should have done a better job of it, don't you think?

The Lord our Righteousness, Jer. 23: 6; Jer. 33: 16; Mal. 4: 2.

jesus was not righteous. At least, not according to the new testament.

The Messiah, Dan. 9: 25.

Daniel does not call jesus the messiah.

The Messenger of the covenant, Mal. 3: 1.

jesus was not the messenger of the covenant because jesus preached against the covenant.

Redeemer, Job 19: 25; Isa. 59: 20; Isa. 60: 16.

jesus couldn't redeem a pop bottle.

Holy One, Ps. 16: 10.

jesus was un holy, not holy.

Holy One of Israel, Isa. 1: 4.

Redundant, much? Why didn't you just lump this false tag with the other just above? Did you think a longer list would be more impressive than a shorter one that is just as inaccurate?

Blessed of God, Ps. 45: 2.

Does the "blessed of God" lie, cheat, and steal? Because jesus did lie, cheat, and steal.

Failed at what? Perhaps you could be more specific. Perhaps there is no passage of failure because he was indeed the prophesied Messiah and he did not fail.

"Failed at what?"!? Why, Failed at "ushering in the messianic era," of course! That's one very good way we can tell jesus was not the messiah: he failed to usher in the messianic era.

While it is true that Zechariah does not say something to the effect of "a thousand years hence" you certianly cannot use that as proof of it's intended time frame.

Why not? Where can you deduce that the messiah comes, leaves, and comes back thousands of years later to complete the mission?
AAMOF, the experts say that, one who dies without finishing the task of ushering in the messianic era is obviously not the expected messiah.

He simply says in verse 6 of chapter 12 "In that day..." whenever that day is. I think we are in agreement that "that day" has not occured yet.

Right. So jesus was not the messiah.

Are those the same rabbis that dismiss the signs fortold of the Messiah's coming as just "tricks of nature"?

Hardly! The signs of the coming of the messiah will make it obvious that the man IS the messiah. And since those signs have not appeared, we can be sure the messiah has not come.
Why? What "signs" are supposedly dismissed as "tricks of nature"?

So what is their explanation of this Jesus Christ?

There are several. I favor one or two.
He was a fictional character, or he was a sinner, or he was an ernestness man whose actions nevertheless resulted in honest failure.

Just some great guy?

Does a "great guy" announce to all around (INSIDE the Holy Temple) that the man his mother had married was not the father of her child?
Does a "great guy" utter lies and calumnies against the innocent?
Does a "great guy" seek to pervert justice by insisting a guilty person be let off without so much as a slap on the wrist?
Does a "great guy" dispute the Word of God?
Because, if he does, then, yes, jesus was "a great guy."
A great big JERK of a guy!

Well, I guess we will just have to wait and see who is right and who is wrong.

We don't have to wait all that long at all. We can know NOW, today!
If he were the messiah, we would now be living in the messianic era.
But we're not, so he's not.
See? That wasn't so hard to decide.

I am not here to be politically correct.

Apparently, you're here to be incorrect!

I would think that being the particular expert on the Bible that you are you would have noticed that it was was the Romans that actually nailed Jesus to the cross at the behest of the Jews and others.

A) Why would the Jews wish that? What would it gain them?
B) Why should we believe the Romans would do anything the Jews (or anybody else) asked them to do?
Nope. The mere suggestion is simply anti-Semitic. It's designed to blame the Jews for the acts of Rome.
Perhaps you should go back and read that part again. Only this time, have a history book beside you as you read from your Little Book of Lies.

Boy, I am a good deal older than I thought!

Oh, then it's a good thing you have the strength to type.

Although, you are not far from being correct.

I'm so "not far from correct" that I AM correct!

If Christ had not died then all people would be lost never again to return to live with God.

False. "The Lord is near to all who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in truth.... He will hear their cry, and will save them." Psalm 145.
That was said hundreds of years before christians started claiming to have the "one way" to God. You don't need jesus, and never did. The Jews knew this all way back then. That's just one reason they "rejected" the claims of the christians.

So yes, I would agree that I cast my vote in for his death.

I do, too. I'm glad he's dead. Just as I am glad he still is dead, you want the truth. The world doesn't need such a blasphemer, liar, and deceiver as jesus was. (IF he ever lived in the first place, that is.)

For through his death all find life. But we're REALLY discussing his physical betrayal and crucifixtion. Which as I pointed out above did happen at the behest of the Jews.

Prove it. But if you try to use the new testament, realize I will point out the many other lies that little book of lies contains... and some of them you're really not going to like! Then I will ask, "Why should we believe the new testament about your claim when you don't want to accept the other lies it spouted on about?"

valerie · « **Reply #10 on:** December 21, 2005, 07:35:33 AM »

Interesting noj4me. You reject the Messiah because he did not fulfill some man-made idea of what his mission was. Since when does the Messiah answer to you and those who believe as you do? Futhermore your defense against this Jesus Christ is that the New Testament is a lie. You're not interested in conversation you just want to stomp around like a five year old yelling "Liar, Liar!". Then you throw in a "You hurt my feelings, Jews didn't kill Jesus Christ!"

Of course no one has proved you wrong about anything! How could they when you are too wrapped up in your tantrums to hear anything being said? My two year old throws tantrums all the time. It doesn't make her right! The proof is there nojc4me but you push it aside as lies. You're as hard hearted as the Israelites when Moses came down from the mount.

Let's just put Jesus Christ aside for the moment, if you would allow me to. I am curious as to your interpretation of some OT scripture, specifically Ezekial 37: 21-28. Would this be a fair representation of what you are waiting for?

nojc4me · « **Reply #11 on:** December 22, 2005, 09:58:52 PM »

valerie,

Interesting. You change the mission of the messiah from what the Torah says into something else entirely manmade, and then wonder why I don't accept your change as equal to - or preferable to - the original.
It is obvious that Jc was not the messiah, because he failed to bring about the Messianic Era in his lifetime, nor even soon after his "resurrection" claim. (Isa. 42:4) "He shall not fail nor be crushed, till he have set the right in the earth..."

Futhermore your defense against this Jesus Christ is that the New Testament is a lie.

Right. You catch on quick.

Then you throw in a "You hurt my feelings, Jews didn't kill Jesus Christ!"

I don't remember actually saying so, but it DOES hurt my feelings when people lie about the Jews. It also will hurt the feelings of the liar(s) when they find themselves roasting in the eternal barbeque for having stuck their finger in the "apple of God's eye." (See Zech 2:8).
But how does the fact that the new testament is chock full of lies have anything to do with you not wanting me to stop you from maligning the Jews? To you, the two are mutually exclusive?

Of course no one has proved you wrong about anything!

Oh, well that's sweet! You want to white-wash my track record! Are you trying to butter me up?
Actually, I've been corrected a time or two. I'd be willing to bet I've been corrected at least once by almost every member on this forum, though I couldn't prove it. Once recently, actually. I had transposed "intentional" and "unwittingly." Boy, was my face red!

Let's just put Jesus Christ aside for the moment, if you would allow me to.

Good idea. May I suggest the trash basket? If you're going to throw him into the toilet, you might want to cut him up into little pieces, so the toilet doesn't back up. Plumbers are expensive, unless you're married to one, or a handyman.

I am curious as to your interpretation of some OT scripture, specifically Ezekial 37: 21-28. Would this be a fair representation of what you are waiting for?

Well, I don't use the "OT", but yes, that passage (as it appears in the Hebrew Holy Scriptures) is part of it. For a more thorough view, here are the main prophecies that deal with the messiah and the messianic era:
Ezek. 16; 36, 37, 39:25-29. 47
Isaiah 2, 11, 25, 26; 51; 56:1-5, 6-12. 60, 61
Zechariah 4:11-14; 8; 9:9 & 12:10; 14:16-21.
Jeremiah 3, 23, 31:2-14.
Dan 7:13, 14; 12.
Malachi 3:22-24\ ...these two refer to the Shekinah
Deut 30:3........./
Psalm 72:7-11.
Here's another list:
1. Arrival of Elijah the Prophet (e.g., Mal 3:23-24 [4:5-6 in Christian Bibles])
2. Building the Third Temple in Jerusalem (e.g., Ezek 37:26-28, [also Ezekiel Chapters 40-48]; Is 33:20)
3. In-gathering of Jewish exiles to Israel (e.g., Is 11:12, 43:5-6; Jer 16:15, 23:3; Ezek 37:21-22; Zech 10:6-10)
4. Reunification of Judah and Israel into one people (e.g., Is 11:13; Ezek 37:16-22)
5. World peace (e.g., Is 2:4, 11:6-8, Micah 4:3-4)
6. Universal knowledge of G-d (e.g., Is 11:9; Jer 31:33 [34 in Christian Bibles]; Zech 14:9)
7. Resurrection of the dead (e.g., Is 26:19; Dan 12:2; Ezek 37:12-13)

nojc4me · « **Reply #12 on:** December 22, 2005, 10:22:19 PM »

Going back, I see I missed this one. Not wanting to be accused of shunning the "hard" questions, or "ignoring the telling facts", I'll try to deal with it some time in the next few days, b'li neder (that is, "without a vow to do so").

valerie said:

Jesus is called the Christ (a Greek word) or the Messiah (an Aramaic word). Both words mean

valerie · « **Reply #13 on:** December 23, 2005, 07:06:41 AM »

Quote

But how does the fact that the new testament is chock full of lies have anything to do with you not wanting me to stop you from maligning the Jews? To you, the two are mutually exclusive?

What? Not sure I understood that. Regardless, the fact that you subscribe to the NT as being full of lies prohibits anyone from providing much (if anything) to disprove you. That was my point.

Moving on...
Well at least now it sounds like we can have a civilized discussion with no tantrums involved. Not only that but you and are I not so different. We both are awaiting things that were prophesied to come to fruition. Glad to hear that you believe in Ezekial 37. When do you think those prophesied events will take place? Ezekial, again, isn't very forthright in this matter. What do you make of verses 15-19?

What is "the Shekinah"?

That is probably enough questions for now.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #14 on:** December 23, 2005, 08:12:43 PM »

What is the purpose for anointing?

nojc4me · « **Reply #15 on:** December 23, 2005, 10:26:37 PM »

valerie said:

As for the annointing stuff you posted...
Jesus is called the Christ (a Greek word) or the Messiah (an Aramaic word). Both words mean

nojc4me · « **Reply #16 on:** December 23, 2005, 10:33:50 PM »

geegee asked:

What is the purpose for anointing?

Apparently, according to one source, to consecrate a person or thing as holy to the Lord.

Zagzagel · « **Reply #17 on:** December 23, 2005, 11:38:52 PM »

How is this anointing to be done?

valerie · « **Reply #18 on:** December 24, 2005, 07:37:41 AM »

You see nojc4me, this is the problem we have. You post your interpretations as fact. You leave no room for possible error. That is why I say your definition of the Messiah's mission is "manmade". Because you force your interpretation, or a rabbis', onto the words of the Bible. This is done by everyone essentially, yet others tend to at least admit that there is a possiblity for other interpretation.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your willingness to share your beliefs.

Quote

He's the messiah because you say he is; we have no way of proving that he really was anointed, by God or ny anyone else.

Exactly, the opposite could also be said of you. He is not the Messiah because you say he is not. You too have no way of proving it. And don't bother going on with your "lies" defense because I can throw it right back at you. YOU are a liar and the people teaching you do not have any real knowledge, that being from God, pertaining to the true mission of the true Messiah. Pretty hard to prove anything to me if I continue to claim YOU are a liar.

So let's just admit that we are playing a very unique game here. One in which the proof that we present on either side is worth nothing. So how do you play a game with no founding principles? Any suggestions?

nojc4me · « **Reply #19 on:** December 24, 2005, 08:02:23 PM »

geegee asked:

How is this anointing to be done?

Read the first post in this thread again. I think I explained it there.

Author Topic: The Definition of "Messiah" (Read 10023 times)