Hey folks, I suspect this question has been asked many times elsewhere, but I have not been able to find a discussion that addresses this objection to recognizing Christ as the Messiah by the Jewish faith:
Christ as the Messiah - From what I have read the Torah teaches that that he Messiah would only arise when the land was inhabited by a majority of world Jewry, and that the Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel so the period of prophets had to stop at 350 BCE.
If Christ was born “too late” according to this teaching in Judaism, what is the official response?
Another concern as an aside relates to performing miracles, etc. by the Messiah, which if I understand correctly Judaism also says would be a sign of a “false Messiah”… any help on that point would be extra-appreciated!
…first you have to understand that practicing Jews cannot, by default, accept Jesus as the Messiah.
…this born too late interpretation clashes with, what I understand as, the majority of rabbinic interpretation of a pending Messiah; just a few years ago (less than a decade) some Russian Jews that migrated to the US claimed that their Rabbi was the Messiah… soon after their pronouncement the man died–they then claimed that it was meant for him to die but that he would soon return (resurrected/glorified body… don’t remember the exact claim)… well… they fell out of the news.
…as for the signs; rather than a few, Jesus performed hundreds of miracles, including returning (resurrecting) to life those who had died (i.e.: Lazarus and the young child of the Roman Centurion); but the signs were only partial demonstration of the Coming of the Messiah; John the Baptist, the precursor, came and he converted the hearts of the people so that they would receive the Baptism of repentance and so that the Messiah would be Revealed.
Jesus proved through signs, Teachings, and dominion over evil spirits that He was the Messiah that was to come.
One of the principle prophecies is that Yahweh God would Come to the Temple (Malachi 3:1)–and so He did! Jesus name means God Saves… but He is also known by the name Immanuel, which means God-with-us… Yahweh God did Come to the Temple and He lived amongst His chosen people (St. John 1:1-18)
Jesus prophesied about two important events: Worship and the Temple.
He prophesied that neither in the mountain (Samaritan’s place of worship) or in the Temple would true Worship continue to Worship but they would Worship God in Spirit and in Truth (St. John 4:19-26).
Jesus also prophesied that the Temple would be razed to the ground and that not even a stone upon a stone would be left… it happened around AD 70–there was a Jewish revolt and the Roman Empire did not only quench it but it castigated the Jews by dismantling the Temple (their most precious religious and cultural icon); they did it in such a way as to fully deflate their psyche (hope, moral strength)… the Temple stones were used in Roman civil engineering–imagine such turmoil when being forced to see the Temple stones being used as material for road building/repairing… how great a desecration!
The Temple cannot ever be rebuilt!
Not just because it was destroyed by the Romans and the Temple site being controlled by both Israelites and Muslins, but because its purpose has been fulfilled(St. John 4:24; Galatians 3:15-29).
The Messiah Came to His own and they rejected Him; since He was rejected by Israel, the Promise Yahweh God made to Abraham was fulfilled as Jesus became the Hope of the Gentiles! (Romans 9:1 through 11:32)
I don’t want to get into a discussion on this subject (after 10 years here, well, you can imagine . . . ) but, if you want a basic idea of Jewish beliefs/attitudes, Judaism 101 is always a good start. Here they are on the subject of Messiah.
…I understand your stance (non aggression); yet, do you truly think that a Jewish link will offer the Church’s official understanding on the rejection of Christ as the Messiah?
…if I understand the OP issue, he/she is seeking clarification on a Jewish definition of the Messiah from a Catholic perspective/understanding… what you are suggesting is Jewish apologetics not Church Teaching or the Catholic perspective.
I do not understand the font request… your computer is not able to read it?
…not offended–I simply thought that offering a perspective from a Jewish definition on a Jewish definition would not afford clarity on the Church’s understanding…
…say I were to respond in Spanish… unless the OP was fluent in Spanish my response would be of little benefit; now, had the OP query indicate that there was some writings, in Spanish, which he/she needed to translate into English… well, as far as my abilities would enable me, I would be more than glad to assist making the necessary references to the Spanish Language idiom/usage of which I am aware.
Thank you both for commenting, I appreciate it, and while the link to Judaism 101 is interesting, as commented I am really looking for the “official” response to those points. I have had some success with points #2 and #3, but still looking at #1. Let me say though that I have a great admiration for Judaism and the culture and history of the Jewish faith and people and wish to see them more closely united, even if we don’t all agree on all the points
It was because, from experience, Christians tend to ‘invent’ Judaisms. By that I mean that they come across Jewish perspectives within a Christian context and move on from there, when, if people are really interested, they have to come to terms with a Jewish perspectives in a Jewish context. To understand Christianity you have to be able to see it through Christian ‘lenses’ and the same goes for Judaism, you need to be able to see it through Jewish ‘lenses’ as well.
Jews do not believe that Jesus was the mashiach. Assuming that he existed, and assuming that the Christian scriptures are accurate in describing him (both matters that are debatable), he simply did not fulfill the mission of the mashiach as it is described in the biblical passages cited above. Jesus did not do any of the things that the scriptures said the messiah would do…
All that is false.
Consider, Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus. ~37 to ~101] . Consider he is NOT a
Christian, so he has no horse in the race.
From my copy, “Complete Works of Josephus”, of which Antiquities of theJews is included he names in his history, others who were called Jesus
*]Jesus Christ pg 379
*]Jesus son of Phabet pg 467
*]Jesus son of Sapphias pg 497
*]Jesus son of Ananus pg 582
*]Jesus brother of Onias pg 316
*]Jesus son of Gamaliel pg 424
*]Jesus son of Damneus pg 424
*]Jesus son of Gamala pg 10
Since I’ll guess you don’t have a copy of this work, and can’t flip to those pages, I found a link where you can read online, what he says about Jesus Christ. On page 381 which (page #'s aren’t in the following link) is a full page drawing of the crucifixion.
The following comes from Book XVIII, Ch 3, paragraph 3 Antiquities of the Jews
** I left the footnotes operational
*3. *Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, **(9) **those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; [/FONT]10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
** From: [/FONT]
As an aside, Josephus is not trying to prove anything. This is NOT an apologetic. As a Jew, He just records people places and events as an historian of his day, as he received the information.
In the beginning,
*]all of Jesus apostles were Jews.
*]all of His followers were Jews
*]Saul who became Paul the apostle, was Rabbi Gamaliel’s top student.
*]100% of those in the Church Jesus established were Jews
*]Jesus gave Jews 1st right of refusal. #[FONT="]17[/FONT]
Really. There is no reason to be offended by a font, if I used Times New Roman, I would talking 19th Century Newspaper grandeur non-descript. If I spoke in Helvetica not so public domain replaced with Arial public domain I would be speaking matter of fact. That is I suspect your requested font.
“Don’t speak to me in that font”, I guess is the new Internet communication insulting but what annoys you most is that you read the statement with the feeling of the font, and the font jcrichton uses doesn’t provide you with enough huff and puff as what a reading of Arial would.
Interesting, and thank you for pointing out a strange human trait to me.
Interestingly as Steve B says Christianity was born out of Judaism. This is not a question I want an answer to as its off topic, this is a question just for you to think about. Over the last 2000 years has Judaism diverged from itself? If you were to pick yourself up and travel back in time 2000 years, would you recognize them, and would they recognize you? Would you have the same passion, would you listen to the Rabbis and comprehend? You would be able to experience Temple sacrifice.
click on either footnotes then scroll up the page till you get to footnote 10… The point of my response to Kaninchen, Jesus is a historical person.
[/FONT]10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
[FONT="]scroll up the page when clicking on 10[FONT="], till you find [FONT="]footnote 10. That takes you to
**SEDITION OF THE JEWS AGAINST PONTIUS PILATE. CONCERNING CHRIST, AND WHAT BEFELL PAULINA AND THE JEWS AT ROME,
And start reading.
"2. But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews (8) were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day…"