Understanding the Jews and Christian Messianic Beliefs

[Kris]

Hello,

I am new here, so I hope I am posting this in the right place! My question kind of transcends Jewish and Christian writings to a certain extent. Recently, I have been studying why the Jews do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. Recently, I ran across an Christian Website that purports to use the Talmud and other Jewish writings in order to assert that the Jews knew that the messiah should have come prior to the destruction of the second temple. I have provided a link to this website just for your reference:

http://www.jesusplusnothing.com/messiah ... pendix%20B

A few things kind of bothered me, as I did not have easy explanations for them. It seems that the Christians used Daniel as part of the proof of this belief in the messiah appearing before the temple destruction. I think that Daniel is referring to a prior time in 167bc or there abouts--- as referenced in the Maccabee Chronicles. However, I also know that the end did not come at that time, and so it is likely the both christians and jews might try to reinterpet the information in Daniel to try to come up with a more current time so his prophecy would not be false-- kind of like what we do today!! I was wondering though, if when the "destruction of the temple" was first mentioned in Daniel, if that would also mean descecration, as the christians assert that during 167bc during Antiouchus (I am sure I butchered this name!) reign, the temple wasn't actually destroyed, only defiled. They then try to tie Daniel to 70ad.

The other area that confused me was where christians try to tie Genesis 49:10 to the time of Jesus as well. In this, they state that Genesis speaks of Judah, stating that the sceptor would not part from him, nor a law-giver from between his feet until Shiloh come? And supposedly Shiloh is the messiah? I know that Justin used this line of reasoning when he was arguing with Trypho. And as you can see in the link I provlded that christians use this to state that around Jesus time, the Sanhedrin lost their rights to hear on capital offenses, and then the temple was destroyed in 70ad, and the high priest rule ended. So, they assert that this "prophecy" was fulfilled in Christ. I have written to a rabbi to get his take on this information, but have not yet heard back from him. Can anyone help me understand how this verse may have been mis-interpeted by Justin and subesequent christians?

Thanks for any help you all can provide!

[Kris]

a few interesting things that I have found is that the Sanhedrin continued on after the temple destruction, at least until the 400's. Also, there were exilarchs who claimed to be rulers of the Jewish people until the 1000's. So, this might help in debunking that sceptors and lawgiving completely terminated in Israel upon the death of Jesus and the destruction of the temple. I was also thinking about the Talmud and that it came in to being shortly after the temple was destroyed-- could that also be considered an ongoing lawgiving?

[ficino]

Kris!! Welcome on here!! Wish I could help with this question...

Adding - the Talmud did not come into being shortly after 70. The Yerushalmi is usually put in the 400s and the Bavli maybe a century later. Of course, what we have are compilations of earlier material, and you know that many of the personages mentioned are from the first and second centuries. It was taught to us in Hebrew class that the Talmud is a commentary on the Mishnah, which is an earlier commentary on parts of the Torah.

[Mental flatliner]

Hello,

I am new here, so I hope I am posting this in the right place! My question kind of transcends Jewish and Christian writings to a certain extent. Recently, I have been studying why the Jews do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. Recently, I ran across an Christian Website that purports to use the Talmud and other Jewish writings in order to assert that the Jews knew that the messiah should have come prior to the destruction of the second temple. I have provided a link to this website just for your reference:

The only valid answer you can get is one from a modern Jew. Christians are not equipped to deal with Talmudic traditions that are totally alien to them.

A rabbi once described Jewish belief in a messiah as an evolution:

Stage 1: belief in an heir to the throne of King David (prevalent through the end of the Roman period)
Stage 2: belief in a messianic age (probably originated with rabbinic Judaism of 600 BC and still favored today)
Stage 3: belief in a messenger who will announce the beginning of a messianic age (a more modern theory common among reform Jews today)

In other words, they don't believe a messiah is coming at all if they adhere to the last option.

My own opinion is that Jews reject Jesus as a messiah on entirely emotional grounds (Christians did horrible things to Jews for centuries, and this is one of the predictable responses).

[Kris]

Well, I think the whole messiah business could be a crock, concocted and believed by both the Jews and Christians. I am just trying to figure out what the Jewish viewpoint may have actually been versus what the Christians thought.

[Ulan]

Recently, I have been studying why the Jews do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

I would point to the Disputation of Barcelona as one of the main sources, which was mostly about this point, among others. It was a Jewish-Christian debate in front of the Spanish king, and the Jewish debater won. The main argument was that Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies, as there wasn't any messianic age yet. That's what Christians have the second coming of Christ for. They simply postponed the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies to the future.

[Stephan Huller]

The truth is that the Dispute only tells the story from Ramban's POV (he wins). I have heard though that another Latin text exists in the Vatican archive where his opponent wins. No one should trust any source completely.

[Ulan]

The truth is that the Dispute only tells the story from Ramban's POV (he wins). I have heard though that another Latin text exists in the Vatican archive where his opponent wins. No one should trust any source completely.

The point that the Dominicans declared victory themselves is mentioned in the Wikipedia article I linked. Actually, it doesn't really matter who won, but the points that were made answer the original question of the OP.

The main argument that gets always repeated when the disputation gets mentioned is that the messianic age has not come yet, which would be a period of peace. What actually happened after Jesus' death was that the land got ripped apart by war, and war basically never ended.

[Charles Wilson]

I am just trying to figure out what the Jewish viewpoint may have actually been versus what the Christians thought.

Kris, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but I do not think you will ever be able to answer that. Another way of looking at this is to ask, "When did the first "Christian" appear?" I'm already in a fist fight with someone, and I mean right now! Before I even ask "When did the first Christian appear?", there are people looking for me. I can't possibly tell you what the "Jewish Viewpoint" was because they had everything stolen from them with many of them killed. We know that Titus allowed certain Jews to live and transform their Messianic Judaism into a non-threatening Rabbinic Judaism. I believe that this is the meaning of the discussion in Acts 5:

Acts 5: 34 - 39 (RSV):
[34] But a Pharisee in the council named Gama'li-el, a teacher of the law, held in honor by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a while.
[35] And he said to them, "Men of Israel, take care what you do with these men.
[36] For before these days Theu'das arose, giving himself out to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him; but he was slain and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing.
[37] After him Judas the Galilean arose in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered.
[38] So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this undertaking is of men, it will fail;
[39] but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!"

Already, there are people trying to get their "Reply" uploaded.

I do know that "Even down to the present day..." (Hi Jay!), there are Jewish Scholars who are not sure of how far to take an argument. Hyam Maccoby, a GREAT Scholar, thought that "Paul" was real. An adventurer, a liar, a cheat, a creator of a New Religion, but REAL. Alive in the 40s real. 'N that cannot be.

So, take your learning seriously, expect to find some appalling responses (Let the reader note this) and have some fun.

CW

[Stephan Huller]

My point was just "what the Jews said or believed" isn't sure just like a forced confession.