what messianic prophecies where not fulfilled by jesus?

[SanFrank]

I do not think you are using "objective" here correctly. I do not believe the Jewish world expected the Messiah at that time because of Daniel but because of the suffering felt under the Roman empire. To say that the Jewish world thought it was a ticking clock leading to that time period would be misrepresenting the truth.

I give messianic Jews credit for calculating the passage of time necessary to arrive at 1948 using Daniel's weeks and punishment 7 times over. Those calculations are not mere coincidences but you can choose to believe anything.

If I read Deut., I see no punishment for rejecting the messiah. None at all. All the punishments are for not following the Torah, and the Torah never once says "Believe in the messiah" or "Follow the messiah". If you would like to find it, please show us all because I would be very, very happy to see that. Until then, the punishments are for failure to keep the Torah and the majority of Jews fail to keep the Torah today. Funny how that works.

'If you remain hostile toward me and refuse to listen to me, I will multiply your afflictions seven times over, as your sins deserve." Leviticus

Nothing is cut and dry as one would like things to be. Since Christ claimed to be Son, refusing to listen to Him would be refusal to listen to G-d.

We were told by the Prophets we would be without sacrifice. We were told what to do when that happens. There are, in fact, "substitutes" for that. I recommend reading the prophets instead of inventing problems for Judaism.

Please quote me the "substitutes".

 

[LoAmmi]

I give messianic Jews credit for calculating the passage of time necessary to arrive at 1948 using Daniel's weeks and punishment 7 times over. Those calculations are not mere coincidences but you can choose to believe anything.

I have seen those. "Manipulate" in order to arrive at the correct years would be my statement. We will simply have to agree to disagree here.

'If you remain hostile toward me and refuse to listen to me, I will multiply your afflictions seven times over, as your sins deserve." Leviticus

Nothing is cut and dry as one would like things to be. Since Christ claimed to be Son, refusing to listen to Him would be refusal to listen to G-d.
Please quote me the "substitutes".

So if someone else came and claimed to be HaShem at that point in time, and I'm sure someone else did, and we were punished later, couldn't it be that person instead of Jesus?

No, the overwhelming message of the Torah and the prophets is KEEP THE TORAH. There is nothing made more clear in the Tanakh than that simple statement. Listening to HaShem is always shown to be keep the Torah. If you want to try to pull out some passages and set them alone and try to claim it has to do with Jesus, that is your business. I prefer to look at the whole, and the whole supports that failure to keep the Torah brings upon the curses. In fact, I'm pretty sure the beginning of the curses section is about the commandments. It is certainly 100% not about the messiah.

Hosea 14:3 says that we render bulls with our lips in prayer. Hosea is specifically saying that prayer can be a substitute for the sacrifices there.

1 Kings 8, when Solomon is dedicating the Temple, he addresses what happens when people cannot make sacrifices at the Temple. We are to turn back to HaShem and repent, and our sins will not be remembered.

We are also clearly told that we can only make sacrifices in the Temple. If HaShem allowed the Temple to be destroyed, as he did in the Babylonian captivity, we are not to sacrifice just wherever we want. Like Daniel, we must wait for the promise of the rebuilt Temple. This one will stand the test of time, unlike the one Daniel was told about that would exist in trouble times and be destroyed.

 

[SanFrank]

I
Hosea 14:3 says that we render bulls with our lips in prayer. Hosea is specifically saying that prayer can be a substitute for the sacrifices there.

1 Kings 8, when Solomon is dedicating the Temple, he addresses what happens when people cannot make sacrifices at the Temple. We are to turn back to HaShem and repent, and our sins will not be remembered.

We are also clearly told that we can only make sacrifices in the Temple. If HaShem allowed the Temple to be destroyed, as he did in the Babylonian captivity, we are not to sacrifice just wherever we want. Like Daniel, we must wait for the promise of the rebuilt Temple. This one will stand the test of time, unlike the one Daniel was told about that would exist in trouble times and be destroyed.

We disagree too much. Those 'substitutes' are a matter of your personal interpretation.

Why can't you see that the Mashiach arrived at the temple spoken of by Malachi? That temple is described as pre-existing when the Lord appeared. That could only be Herod's temple. There is no temple today and thus this prophecy was already fulfilled.

"See, I will send my messenger,http://www.biblestudytools.com/malachi/3.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-1 who will prepare the way before me.http://www.biblestudytools.com/malachi/3.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-2 Then suddenly the Lordhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/malachi/3.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-3 you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant,http://www.biblestudytools.com/malachi/3.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-4 whom you desire,http://www.biblestudytools.com/malachi/3.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-5 will come," says the LORD Almighty. But who can endurehttp://www.biblestudytools.com/malachi/3.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-6 the day of his coming?http://www.biblestudytools.com/malachi/3.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-7 Who can standhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/malachi/3.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-8 when he appears? For he will be like a refiner's firehttp://www.biblestudytools.com/malachi/3.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-9 or a launderer's soap. He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver;http://www.biblestudytools.com/malachi/3.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-11 he will purifyhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/malachi/3.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-12 the Levites and refine them like gold and silver.http://www.biblestudytools.com/malachi/3.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-13 Then the LORD will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness,"http://www.biblestudytools.com/malachi/3.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-14
​

 

[LoAmmi]

Why can't you see that the Mashiach arrived at the temple spoken of by Malachi? That temple is described as pre-existing when the Lord appeared. That could only be Herod's temple. There is no temple today and thus this prophecy was already fulfilled.

"See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty. But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner's fire or a launderer's soap. He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. Then the LORD will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness,"
​

You do realize that only works if we believe the messiah is HaShem, right? We do not.

1. Behold I send My angel, and he will clear a way before Me. And suddenly, the Lord Whom you seek will come to His Temple. And behold! The angel of the covenant, whom you desire, is coming, says the Lord of Hosts.


In those days, once the Temple is rebuilt, HaShem will reside within it as He did in the previous Temple. You make it Jesus by saying Jesus is HaShem, so it is circular reasoning on your end.

Ezekiel 37:

26. And I will form a covenant of peace for them, an everlasting covenant shall be with them; and I will establish them and I will multiply them, and I will place My Sanctuary in their midst forever. 27. And My dwelling place shall be over them, and I will be to them for a God, and they shall be to Me as a people. 28. And the nations shall know that I am the Lord, Who sanctifies Israel, when My Sanctuary is in their midst forever."

Sounds like the Temple (Sanctuary) will need to be rebuilt and the sign will be that the Temple will stand forever.

Ezekiel 37 is so beautiful. So clear is the promise of the return of the Exiles, so clear is the promise of a rebuilt Temple, a physical Temple that will stand the test of time, so clear about the Jews all living in Israel.

 

[SanFrank]

You do realize that only works if we believe the messiah is HaShem, right? We do not.

1. Behold I send My angel, and he will clear a way before Me. And suddenly, the Lord Whom you seek will come to His Temple. And behold! The angel of the covenant, whom you desire, is coming, says the Lord of Hosts.

Describes the Lord and the angel or messenger was John the Baptist. Mention of covenant....

In those days, once the Temple is rebuilt, HaShem will reside within it as He did in the previous Temple. You make it Jesus by saying Jesus is HaShem, so it is circular reasoning on your end.

Ezekiel 37:

26. And I will form a covenant of peace for them, an everlasting covenant shall be with them; and I will establish them and I will multiply them, and I will place My Sanctuary in their midst forever. 27. And My dwelling place shall be over them, and I will be to them for a God, and they shall be to Me as a people. 28. And the nations shall know that I am the Lord, Who sanctifies Israel, when My Sanctuary is in their midst forever."

Sounds like the Temple (Sanctuary) will need to be rebuilt and the sign will be that the Temple will stand forever.

Ezekiel 37 is so beautiful. So clear is the promise of the return of the Exiles, so clear is the promise of a rebuilt Temple, a physical Temple that will stand the test of time, so clear about the Jews all living in Israel.

What makes you think the temple is built as if by human hands? A physical temple? I say it describes the Lord in our midsts as in the feast of tabernacles; the Lord resides with men. The Lord is the temple in that future temple. The temple in Malachi was Herod's. The covenant of peace was made already, that is the new covenant as found in the gospels. Read it again.

 

[LoAmmi]

Describes the Lord and the angel or messenger was John the Baptist. Mention of covenant....

In your opinion. I disagree.
Some guy mentioning the covenant does not this prophecy fulfill.

What makes you think the temple is built as if by human hands? A physical temple? I say it describes the Lord in our midsts as in the feast of tabernacles; the Lord resides with men. The Lord is the temple in that future temple. The temple in Malachi was Herod's. The covenant of peace was made already, that is the new covenant as found in the gospels. Read it again.

What makes you think it is not a physical Temple? In all the Tanakh the Sanctuary is a physical building. The Covenant of Peace has not been made because, and this is actually pretty obvious, there is no peace. Jeremiah describes a period of total peace when this New Covenant arises. How many wars have there been since Jesus? Read it again.

 

[dfw69]

I believe god made a temple in men....and his spirit works in us....but i also believe a future literal temple must be built....the prophecies must come to be fulfilled as spoken by the prophets.....but before jesus builts or oversees this final temple...another temple will be built by a false messiah...this temple will last until jerusalem is broken up into 3 parts by a mighty earthquake.....imo

 

[dfw69]

Im wondering why did jews send jesus to pilot?...why not carry out punishment themselves?....stephen was stoned....so why not do it themselces?....was it because of the crowd that followed him was great?...or something else?

 

[smaneck]

Im wondering why did jews send jesus to pilot?...why not carry out punishment themselves?....stephen was stoned....so why not do it themselces?....was it because of the crowd that followed him was great?...or something else?

Because Jesus was charged with treason rather than blasphemy.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Because Jesus was charged with treason rather than blasphemy.

You do have to concede, though, that the Biblical narrative as-is does not seem to be very clear on this topic, making quite an obvious effort to shift the blame from the Romans to the Sanhedrin. (Possibly because these books were primarily intended for gentile converts who identified as Romans, or because animosities between the early Christians and more traditional Jewish sects became more pronounced at the time when these texts were composed.)

 

[LoAmmi]

You do have to concede, though, that the Biblical narrative as-is does not seem to be very clear on this topic, making quite an obvious effort to shift the blame from the Romans to the Sanhedrin. (Possibly because these books were primarily intended for gentile converts who identified as Romans, or because animosities between the early Christians and more traditional Jewish sects became more pronounced at the time when these texts were composed.)

Well, you have to come up with something to explain why the leader of your religion was killed in the way the Empire executed enemies of the state. The Jews were a great target, even having them saying at one point that his blood was upon them and upon their children. Certainly not on the Romans.

 

[smaneck]

You do have to concede, though, that the Biblical narrative as-is does not seem to be very clear on this topic, making quite an obvious effort to shift the blame from the Romans to the Sanhedrin. (Possibly because these books were primarily intended for gentile converts who identified as Romans, or because animosities between the early Christians and more traditional Jewish sects became more pronounced at the time when these texts were composed.)

Dear Jane,

Keep in mind that aside from Luke/Acts all of the books of the NT were written by Jews and I think the majority of Christians at the time were still Jewish. I think they were intended to do the opposite of what you indicate. The writers of the NT were trying to take responsibility themselves for what happened. In other words, it was a way of saying "we were responsible for this." That gets turned on its head when the majority of Christians are gentiles. At that point, they are saying, "you are responsible for this, not us."

The exception here would be John's Gospel. It was written at a time when Christians were being thrown out of the synagogues throughout the Roman Empire. Hence John does not even bother to specify the 'scribes and the Pharisees" as the villains. It becomes "Jews" collectively.

There may be one other element present for which I would draw on our own religion's history. Roman's controlled the state and Christians were eager to persuade the state that they were no threat to it. Therefore there was some political advantage to saying, 'we don't blame you for this.' I see the same thing in Baha'i history. The 'ulama or Muslim clergy gets blamed for all persecution against Baha'is whereas the role played by the state tends to be downplayed.

warmest, Susan

 

[LoAmmi]

Keep in mind that aside from Luke/Acts all of the books of the NT were written by Jews and I think the majority of Christians at the time were still Jewish. I think they were intended to do the opposite of what you indicate. The writers of the NT were trying to take responsibility themselves for what happened. In other words, it was a way of saying "we were responsible for this." That gets turned on its head when the majority of Christians are gentiles. At that point, they are saying, "you are responsible for this, not us."

I would have to disagree with this. I do not believe the Gospels to have been written until far after Jesus' death. This would have been after Paul and his successful mission to spread his religion to the gentiles. The religion was already mostly gentiles as it never caught that much fire among Jews.

 

[smaneck]

I would have to disagree with this. I do not believe the Gospels to have been written until far after Jesus' death. This would have been after Paul and his successful mission to spread his religion to the gentiles. The religion was already mostly gentiles as it never caught that much fire among Jews.

Paul made have been already active in his ministry but wherever he went he appealed first to the Synagogue in the area where he traveled. Indeed, most of the Gentiles who converted to Christianity were those the Jews called "God-fearers", gentiles who hung around the synagogues but followed the Noachide Code rather than formally convert to Judaism.

Mark's Gospel was likely written first and is about as old as Paul's earliest epistles. Matthew and Luke were both written after the destruction of the Temple. John was written towards the end of the first century.

I think you underestimate the number of Jews that were attracted to Christianity. This appears to have been even more true outside the Roman Empire. Nearly all of the bishops in Persia, for instance, had Hebrew names.

warmest, Susan

 

[LoAmmi]

I think you underestimate the number of Jews that were attracted to Christianity. This appears to have been even more true outside the Roman Empire. Nearly all of the bishops in Persia, for instance, had Hebrew names.

I think people overestimate how many Jews converted to Christianity.


Why did the rabbis not write of this mass conversion of Jews who would have fallen into idolatry or heresy? It would have been a major event for so many to have converted and ceased following Torah. Jews write about those things, it would not have been swept under the rug as it would have been preserved for later generations not to fall into the same problem.

 

[smaneck]

Why did the rabbis not write of this mass conversion of Jews who would have fallen into idolatry or heresy? It would have been a major event for so many to have converted and ceased following Torah. Jews write about those things, it would not have been swept under the rug as it would have been preserved for later generations not to fall into the same problem.

My understanding is that after the destruction of the Second Temple, most Jewish Christians moved to areas outside the Roman Empire, like Arabia, Mesopotamia and Iran. I don't know how much access you would have to their sources. The Syrian Church appears to be primarily of Jewish background, at least judging by the family surnames. Also, the church in Kerala, India is of primarily Jewish Christian background. Since, they too are Nestorian Christians like those of Persia, I'm guessing that the Nestorian Church was primarily Jewish-Christian.

 

[JJWhite]

I think people overestimate how many Jews converted to Christianity.


Why did the rabbis not write of this mass conversion of Jews who would have fallen into idolatry or heresy? It would have been a major event for so many to have converted and ceased following Torah. Jews write about those things, it would not have been swept under the rug as it would have been preserved for later generations not to fall into the same problem.

Maybe it wasn't seen as a "conversion".. what if there was no idolatry involved at that point in time?

 

[smaneck]

Maybe it wasn't seen as a "conversion".. what if there was no idolatry involved at that point in time?

It was by the end of the first century. By then Christians are being thrown out of the synagogues.

 

[LoAmmi]

My understanding is that after the destruction of the Second Temple, most Jewish Christians moved to areas outside the Roman Empire, like Arabia, Mesopotamia and Iran. I don't know how much access you would have to their sources. The Syrian Church appears to be primarily of Jewish background, at least judging by the family surnames. Also, the church in Kerala, India is of primarily Jewish Christians background. Since, they too are Nestorian Christians like those of Persia, I'm guessing that the Nestorian Church was primarily Jewish-Christian.

Perhaps we are actually in agreement, but in different terms. When people tell me that there was massive Jewish support, I am usually told millions of followers. Considering the rough size of the entire Jewish population was something like 13-14 million (if I am remembering that correctly) this would be a significant percentage of Jewish people and there would have been a lot of writing about it. Nobody is going to convince me that 25% of Jews at the time just up and became Christians and Jewish writing on the matter is silent. That just cannot happen.

If we're talking more like 1% of the population, a couple hundred thousand at most, then I could possibly see that. Some might call that to be "massive" support, but it is 1 in 100 at best.

 

[smaneck]

Perhaps we are actually in agreement, but in different terms. When people tell me that there was massive Jewish support, I am usually told millions of followers. Considering the rough size of the entire Jewish population was something like 13-14 million (if I am remembering that correctly)

No, no, no. That's the number of Jews there are today!

It was about half that at the beginning of the Christian era, two million in Palestine and five million in the diaspora. I think the Christian community in Jerusalem number only about 3000. Most Jews who became Christian lived in the diaspora. My guess would be that they were mostly centered in Syria, Mesopotamia and Persia.

Nobody is going to convince me that 25% of Jews at the time just up and became Christians and Jewish writing on the matter is silent. That just cannot happen.

Again, have you looked at eastern Jewish sources? But I wouldn't suggest 25% of the Jews became Christian. Christianity grew at the rate of only about 4% a year until Constantine converted, and that included Gentiles.