Why do Christians say that Jesus is the Messiah?

King Cyrus said:

That's what we're waiting for, as it written: "For the children of Israel shall be many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without a pillar, and without an ephod or teraphim; afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall come trembling unto the LORD and to His goodness in the end of days." (Hosea 3:4-5)

Click to expand...

That sounds a lot like what will happen when Jesus returns

Steve Petersen said:

If you are referring to this passage in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 98a) as a Second Temple source, you are wrong. Joshua b. Levi lived in the first half of the third century.

R. Alexandri said: R. Joshua b. Levi pointed out a contradiction. it is written, in its time [will the Messiah come], whilst it is also written, I [the Lord] will hasten it!33 — if they are worthy, I will hasten it: if not, [he will come] at the due time. R. Alexandri said: R. Joshua opposed two verses: it is written, And behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven34 whilst [elsewhere] it is written, [behold, thy king cometh unto thee … ] lowly, and riding upon an ass!35 — if they are meritorious, [he will come] with the clouds of heaven;36 if not, lowly and riding upon an ass. King Shapur said to Samuel, 'Ye maintain that the Messiah will come upon an ass: I will rather send him a white horse of mine.'37 He replied, 'Have you a hundred-hued steed?'38
​

Click to expand...

Thanks for catching up but you didn't read carefully enough.

I referred to two things, It's recording in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and Sanhedrin 98a to show the extant expectation, which is undeniable. That doesn't require that Sanhedrin 98a was written in the 2nd temple era... The writing represents the expectation that was in the second temple era. I'm not saying it is a second temple source, I am saying it is a source of second temple beliefs.

King Cyrus said:

You still haven't given any evidence that 2nd Temple Pharisees believed that the Messiah would come on a donkey before actually doing anything, such as being triumphant and victorious as verse 9 says. And you're ignoring the fact that what we find here in Zechariah 9:9 continues on into verse 10 which says: "And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, And the horse from Jerusalem, And the battle bow shall be cut off, And he shall speak peace unto the nations; And his dominion shall be from sea to sea, And from the River to the ends of the earth." Ignoring the fact for right now that Jesus never ruled from sea to sea and to the ends of the earth, we have statements right here which explain the imagery of the King Messiah riding on a donkey which is that a donkey, which is an animal not used for war, represents the Messiah bringing peace in the world and as we read in verse 10 that HaShem will destroy the chariot of Ephraim and the horse from Jerusalem and the battle bow shall be cut off because all three of these things represent the various instruments used in war. But when the Messiah comes and defeats all of the enemies of G-d, there will be no need for these things since Israel will never have to go to war again.


No one thought that HaShem was the cloud rider like its only imagery that can be used for HaShem and speaking of which no one believed that HaShem was literally surfing on the clouds. You reference Deuteronomy 33:26 but it literally says: "There is none like unto God, O Jeshurun, Who rides upon the heaven as thy help, And in His excellency on the skies." So this is an ongoing process but last time I checked I've never see HaShem as a man surfing on the clouds in the sky.

So then what was your whole point about the assumption of Moses mentioning Michael as the one who is speaking here? We know that it is an angel speaking here since we are specifically told in Zechariah 3:1 that Joshua was standing before an angel of the LORD and Satan was acting as a prosecutor to accuse him. But the angel standing as God's representative speaks as God as already explained. What you're trying to do is create a false dichotomy as if a slightly different format completely changes the dictum of Hebrew agency.

There is in fact a real historic literal expectation to the coming of the Messiah in contrast to the Christian concept of the conveniently invisible kingdom that Jesus is now artificially ruling. You're the one who must provide historical evidence that the Jews in Jesus' time expected the Messiah to come and die as a "vicarious atonement" and then return later to actually fulfill the main Messianic prophecies. Just imagine if I took someone like Bar Kokhba who came way closer to fulfilling the Messianic prophecies than Jesus did and say that he was sinless and that he was wrongly killed by the Romans and that he was ressurected and that he would return as the Messiah. Would you believe me? Of course not.

It could easily be stated that the reason God destroyed the Temple was because many Jews (many according to the NT) believed in Jesus. So believing that God sacrificed a man to atone for everyone's sins even though human sacrifice and men dieing on behalf of other people's sins are blasphemous ideas and is a good way to bring God's righteous wrath on the nation.

The text explicitly shows that the reason Peter pulled Jesus aside and ridiculed him is because he just told his disciples that he would die.

He is speaking from the point of view of someone who doesn't know if the Messiah has come yet.

But you're ignoring the fact that the Babylonian Talmud and Jerusalem Talmud are simply records of discussions on all aspects of Jewish life. It is only the legal part of the Talmud (the Mishnah) which is binding.

No, not really. Being pierced is a form of affliction.

So what you're trying to say is because the Hebrew word "elohim" is plural that it means that G-d is more than one Person. Of course if you read any authoritative Christian lexicon, they will unanimously tell you that "elohim", when used of a singular individual, is a plural intensive since in a Hebrew plural doesn't necessarily mean a plural in number but a plural in power or greatness. For instance, we read in Job 40:15-16: "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; He eateth grass as an ox. Lo now, his strength is in his loins, And his force is in the stays of his body." The word "behemoth" is actually plural but when applied to a singular, individual animal it signifies the chiefest and largest of beasts. Similarly, "elohim" when applied to a singular individual signifies the cheifest power or a great power. The word elohim is also used of singular, pagan gods such as dagon in 1 Samuel 5:7. It's meaning in regards to the one true elohim is that all the powers are embodied in Him and therefore He controls all the forces of creation.

So then you admit that there is no for sure evidence that Jesus is the Messiah according to his first coming. Thank you for admitting it. It would therefore be ridiculous for you to say that Jews are going to be in an eternal barbeque because your "messiah" accomplished nothing cutting off any chance of informed Jews believing in him.

First off, as already mentioned, the text in Daniel simply says that the Messiah is coming with the clouds. Second, Daniel says he saw someone "like" a son of man because from what Daniel could tell, the person he was seeing looked like a man.

Psalm 82 is not a prophecy. The only men (plural) who are called elohim in this Psalm are God's appointed judges and magistrates in verse 6.

How do I know the Messiah in Daniel 7:13-14 is simply a man? Because we are specifically told in verse 14 that he is given dominion. HaShem cannot be given dominion by anyone and to suggest so is blasphemy. And we are also told in Micah 5 that HaShem is the God of the Messiah. Do really expect me to believe that HaShem has a God?

Click to expand...

Regarding the Donkey.
I did give evidence that there as a messianic expectation that the Messiah would come on a donkey. We would not have it in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John if there was not an expectation. Even if they all made it up to trick the Jews, it requires the expectation that the Messiah comes on a donkey for them to write that Jesus did. Why else would we have this scene? Why would we se this without the prior expectation? We see it in the Talmud Sanhedren 98a which represents long term expectations. And finally Wikipedia calls it a Jewish tradition.
In Jewish tradition, the Messiah's Donkey (Hebrew: חמורו של משיח) refers to the donkey [1] upon which the Messiah will arrive to redeem the world at the end of days. In Modern Hebrew the phrase "the Messiah's donkey" is used to refer to someone who does the 'dirty work' on behalf of someone else.

The origin of the belief can be found in Zechariah 9:9: "... your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey."[2] The 'king' referred to in this verse is interpreted by Chazal as referring to the Messiah.

Regarding Zechariah 9:9-10
You say what about Zechariah 9:10 prophesying peace among the nations, and war horses and chariots being cut off. So you think that it is the Messiah that will do that? Don't read any further think about that and come to your answer and return. Zechariah 9:10 says "I" will do those things. So if you just said yes then you now have a problem. This section refers to Psalm 110:1

Regarding the cloud rider.
I am telling you, and you would already know this if you studied the Ancient near east, that this was actually a belief contemporary with those writers. For example Baal is also called the rider of the clouds. You have no idea what you are talking bout here and asserting things out of complete ignorance on ancient beliefs. It was an ongoing polemic over who was the actual cloud rider Hashem or Baal. You also need to explain why this Messiah is given the same titleship of the cloud rider motif as Hashem.

Regarding Jewish expectation of atonement.
The Jews did not recognize Jesus, they had some of the right expectations but the realization that Jesus was the Messiah could not come from Scripture alone. It had to be revealed by the Spirit. As I said there is a partial hardening on the heart of Israel. The second reason, and the reason that His kingdom is spiritual first, is that he is taking the nations back from the princes of those nations. It says in 1 Corinthians 2:8 "None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." That is referring to those princes. Do you know what those princes are? Think back to Daniel 10:13 and Psalm 82. First, the nations must be taken back from those princes, because otherwise those nations are still allotted to those princes, whereas Israel is Hashems allotment (Duet 32:9).

Regarding the destruction of Jerusalem.
Relatively very few Jews believed in Jesus, in fact they were persecuting the early Christians. Paul was beaten several times by them. Why else would Paul say Israel was hardened and it is the time of the Gentiles? The reason you lost the Temple is because you stored up weapons against Rome, and revolted. You were given several clear omens that Hashem was leaving the Temple. You fought valiantly with great tactics and many small but amazing victories, but all that did was serve to exhaust the mercy of Rome and result in your dispersal. You sacrificed lambs to the very end, until you ran out. But Hashem always supplies the lamb does He not? Christ warned the Christian Jews and they fled. He warned you with many omens and you ignored it as you did His son.

The disciples disbelief
You are literally quoting Peter disbelieving that Jesus would die to say that they knew He would die.

Johns expectations
John had already baptized Jesus. John said earlier one is coming whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. Jesus then comes to John, and John baptizes Jesus and Hashem says from heaven this is my son. So what, John just forgot all that?

None of the Talmud is binding unless ypu bind yourself to it. The affliction in that verse is an empathetic experience, being pierced is not an empathetic experience. They mourn over the person whom they pierced. They mourn as if over an only child. How thick and stiff necked do you have to be?

On Elohim
I said no such thing, I'm not talking about the plurality. Elohim is a class of being not a name. When we say G-d we mean all three persons united in substance.

On judgement.
I believe as Romans 1-2 implies. That we are judged by our hearts response to the revelation we have received. Though it is not mine to know it is possible that because Israel has a partial hardening, they may be judged differently.

On Daniel.
No, "Like" a son of man means the appearance of a son of man. It does not mean it is a man, it means it looks like a man. Daniel isn't having a seance here and looking through a crystal ball and calling out what he sees okay? This is really getting obtuse here man. If you were being even a bit intellectually honest here you would admit that it could refer to appearance only.

Psalm 82
Why do these judges need to be told they will die like men? Or is this going to be another contrived stretching of the word "like" such as the one you gave for Daniel. Your novel interpretation utterly ignores divine council passages in the the OT, ANE discoveries in Ugarit, parallel references to Greek divine allotment, Psalm 89:5-7, which has the assembly in Heaven, and second temple literature. The Rabbis of today thrust their own meaning upon the word to obscure the past. They don't involve themselves with the methods to understand the text, they involve themselves with the methods to read the text in the way they desire.

On Dominion.
Hashem the Father gives dominion to Hashem the son. There are two Hashems.

Genesis and Zechariah.
I saw no reply on these two verses, so I can only assume that you just willfully refuse them.

King Cyrus said:

The same reason Matthew in Matthew 1:23 completely takes Isaiah 7:14 out of context and mistranslates it to make it seem like it was a Messianic expectation that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. As already stated, perhaps the Messiah will ride on a donkey. It's open to interpretation. But the problem is that thousands of people in Israel during the time of Jesus rode on a donkey. So how do we determine if any person riding on a donkey is the Messiah? It's easy. Because in the same verse of Zechariah 9:9 we are told that the Messiah riding on the donkey is victorious and triumphant. It could be suggested that this scene of the Messiah riding on a donkey is a future scene of the Messiah riding triumphantly and humbly on a donkey throughout the streets of Jerusalem in some sort of parade after having defeated the enemies of G-d. It's not for sure but it's a good suggestion. What is for sure is that the Messiah riding upon a donkey is triumphant and victorious and neither of those describes Jesus. Yes, G-d will do it only He will be using His anointed King and the armies of Israel (also possibly the angels - Daniel 12:2) to accomplish this task. But it only says that the Messiah will be coming with the clouds. Not riding on them like a flying carpet. So you're whole argument is rendered mute. Furthermore, please explain what it meant that Baal rode on a clouds and please explain what it means in Psalm 104:3 that G-d makes the clouds His chariot. Unless you can prove that it meant that someone riding on the clouds meant they were a deity then your entire point is meaningless. Thank you for admitting that one can't come to the conclusion that Jesus is the Messiah with Scripture alone without "the Spirit" revealing it to them. So what if I say that "the Spirit" revealed to me that Jesus is not the Messiah? It must be an evil spirit right? Your reasoning why Jesus' kingdom must be spiritual right now doesn't make any sense and Daniel 10:13 and Psalm 82 say nothing about whatever princes you're talking about. From what I can see, Jesus' attempt to "take back the nations from those 'princes'" hasn't worked very well. Even in the book of revelation of the christian bible we are told that all the leaders of the world will be evil and follow satan and the antichrist. And of course they won't be stopped until Jesus physically "comes back." Or it can be said that G-d didn't allow us to defeat the Romans because they were too many christians walking around telling everyone that G-d sacrificed a man on a cross to magically atone for the sins of everyone and that this man was G-d's chosen king. It doesn't even matter if there were a few of them. In fact, we find a very similar occasion of this in Joshua 7. No, I'm saying that Peter got frustrated with Jesus because Jesus was telling them that he had to die but Peter didn't think that the Messiah had to die which is clear from Peter's reaction to Jesus saying that. No, but when HaShem supposedly said "this is my son in whom I am well pleased" the word "son" can be also used for anyone who has a good relationship with G-d (Psalm 82:6). So perhaps John just thought that he was just a prophet. The fact that John says in the narrative of Matthew "are you the one, or shall we look for someone else" shows that he wasn't sure that Jesus was the Messiah and so by implication he didn't know if the Messiah had come yet. Who are you to determine what G-d considers an empathetic experience? Considering Isaiah 63:9, it makes perfect sense. Also, considering the fact that the text says: "And they shall look to Me Whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him" shows that the Speaker (i.e. G-d) is not the one who is actually being mourned for and therefore He is not the one who is actually being pierced. He's not looking through a crystal ball but he is seeing a vision. The word "like" used here doesn't mean that the person he is seeing is only like a man but he is actually something else. He is simply describing the person he is seeing as someone who looks like a son of man. He is simply identifying the being that this person has which in this case is man. Nothing more and nothing less. Even the Jesus of the NT recognizes that what is being spoken of here is men (John 10:34) and almost every serious christian commentator recognizes this as well: John 10:34 Commentaries: Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS '? The meaning of "Nevertheless, ye shall die like men" is that even though they are elohim (powerful ones) and son of the Most High, they will die like all other men. But to say that there is two HaShems is completely ridiculous and nonsensical and the fact is that if you had never been exposed to Christianity before reading the Hebrew Bible completely (which you clearly haven't done), then you would have never came to the conclusion that HaShem is more than One Person which is a contradiction. And you even further your blasphemy by implying that HaShem gives to dominion to HaShem. And you still haven't addressed the fact that HaShem is the G-d of the Messiah (Micah 5:4).

I'm not sure what verses you're talking about.

Let me ask you a question which is: "Why don't you believe that Nero Caesar is the antichrist?" The reason this question is important is because it helps relate to Christians how Judaism answers the question of: "Why don't you believe that Jesus is the King Messiah?" The reason being is because I think you would agree that the Christian scriptures give very unambiguous prophecies about what the Christian antichrist must do and what will happen during his time. But relating this to Nero, it just so happens to be that he did fulfill some of the prophecies concerning the Christian antichrist. For instance, if you use gematria to calculate the name "Nero Caesar" in Hebrew, it just so happens to be that his name adds up to 666 and I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. And Nero also happened to be the chief persecutor of the Christian church during his time so that is also consistent with the Christian prophecies concerning the antichrist. In fact, Nero matched the description good enough to where many early Christians thought that he was the antichrist. But now that Nero is dead, why do almost all Christians not recognize Nero as the antichrist? The obvious answer to that question is that he did not fulfill all of the prophecies concerning the antichrist in the Christian bible and things which are suppose to happen in the antichrist's time did not occur during the time of Nero. Similarly, there is no indication in the Hebrew Bible that there would be two comings of the Messiah son of David. We are told unambiguously what he would do and what would happen during his day in passages such as in Jeremiah 33:15 ("In those days, and at that time, Will I cause a shoot of righteousness to grow up unto David; And he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land") as well as in Isaiah 2, Isaiah 11, Zechariah 9:9-10, Zechariah 14, Daniel 7:13-14, Ezekiel 45:22, Ezekeil 34:24, etc.

Click to expand...

Regarding the coming of the Messiah.
Oh so now it's not unambiguous but open to interpretation hunh? When we started you adamantly asserted they were imagery saying "No, it's not. I already explained that these verses use imagery to convey to the reader the single coming of the Messiah". And now that you have nothing to say in rejection you casually give me the "oh it's open to interpretation speech". You have the intellectual honesty of a politician. But, now that you publicly accept that there was an expectation that the Messiah was to come on a Donkey it should now be obvious why there is a set of prophecy that hasn't been fulfilled, that being that you can't logically come on a donkey and on the clouds. Jesus was Triumphant over the nations, but that is the princes over the nations. Did you know after Jesus death and Resurrection the Pagans accused the Christians because their oracles and miracles ceased? We have their accusations recorded. PORPHYRY: 'And now they wonder that for so many years the plague has attacked the city, Asclepius and the other gods being no longer resident among us. For since Jesus began to be honoured, no one ever heard of any public assistance from the gods.' Plutarch, a Pagan, even recorded the death of Pan. I'd say He was pretty triumphant. The Jews had nothing to do with that just as they had nothing to do with the fact the whole world now calls on his name.

Regarding the son of Man
Jesus is an anointed king, Messiah means anointed. Daniel doesn't say one "like" the ancient of days, or "like" thrones, "like" wool, "like" snow, "like" river, he uses it only for the son of man. He also records "Like a son of G-d" in the fiery furnace scene and that wasn't a vision. So your visionary motif is groundless. Nebuchadnezzar says he sees 4 men, and one is "like" a son of G-d. And besides all that, besides the fact that he is the cloud rider, besides the fact that Pslam 82 has him as an Elohim, the one "like" a son of man is seen approaching the ancient of days in heaven via a cloud. What man can do that? What man can approach Hashem? What man can rule forever?

Regarding he cloud rider.
Mentioning that someone came in a Porsche doesn't mean that person never drove a Porsche again. That is logically ridiculous, and you should be ashamed that you put "and that renders your argument mute" at the end of it. We know from ANE discoveries, like those in Ugarit, that Baal was also called the cloud rider. That is a fact. Do you know of any men who can ride on the clouds? I don't. In the ANE the deities did not walk, they had vehicles, this is why you will see some of them standing on animals in iconography. Baal was known to ride the clouds and Daniel 7 contains a polemic against the baal cycle, see chart below. Baal cycle on 1 Daniel on 2.
Ugarit - Baal Cycle vs Daniel 7
(A1) El, the aged high God, is the ultimate sovereign in the council. (A2) The Ancient of Days, the God of Israel is seated on the fiery, wheeled throne (cf. Ezekiel 1). Like Ugaritic El, he is white haired and aged (“ancient”).
(B1) El bestows kingship upon the god Baal, the Cloud-Rider, after Baal defeats the god Yamm in battle. (B2) Yahweh-El, the Ancient of Days, bestows kingship upon the Son of Man who rides the clouds after the beast from the sea (yamma) is destroyed.
(C1) Baal is king of the gods and El's vizier. His rule is everlasting. (C2) The Son of Man is given everlasting dominion over the nations. He rules at the right hand of God.

So if the son of man is a man, why is there a contemporary parallel with Baal who is not a man? So many questions, so few answers from you. (Note, I do not view such parallels as a copying in either direction, but an identification of the personhood regarding the beliefs and expectations that formed the backdrop of ANE world.)

On coming to know Christ.
You don't need to thank me for being intellectually honest, and agreeing with you that it required the Holy Spirit to see that Jesus was the Messiah. Everyone expects intellectual honesty in a conversation, but few are willing to give it including you. I would say you don't see it because your heart is hardened, as Paul said. That and it would be incredibly embarrassing to have killed the very Messiah you have been waiting for. I don't boast over you in saying that, because it is the Holy Spirit that revealed Christ to the Gentiles, not themselves. If I had said princes to any 2nd temple Jew they would know what I was talking about, that you don't, shows how far you have fallen away from traditional Judaism. If you bothered to click one of my links from before and read it you will see that Biblical Scholarship has come to a consensus that Judaism was Binatarian, even some rabbi's will tell you that, and due to ANE discoveries in Ugarit, and parallel cultural references we know they believed in a divine council of Elohim (not men) and divine allotment and rulership over the nations. It even says so in the Torah, Duet 32:8 either from the LLX or the dead sea scrolls. And before you go ask your rabbi sources, I will say "Israel wasn't even born yet" so don't bother with that response. The Judaism you know is anachronistic.

Regarding the destruction of Jerusalem.
The cognitive bias is incredible. Of course the Jews can't be responsible for the loss of the Temple and Hashems departure for they are Pius!. It must be someone else!!! ....No. It's you, you are in a perpetual state of disobedience, and Hashem will humble you before you look on Him whom you pierced. It's tragically ironic that you cite Joshua 7 because the wicked families were the ones slain, and the faithful were the ones that remained alive.

Peter's Confusion
That is correct. No one expected Jesus to die. Everyone in Israel was looking for the Messiah to save them from Rome. They weren't hoping for the disfigured messiah, they were hoping for the later Messiah because of their situation.

John the Baptist.
You ignore the fact that John said you should baptize me. He prophesied the coming, and recognized Jesus even before Hashem spoke. Like any good rabbi you are adept at finding ways to make words mean what you need them to mean. But in doing so you do violence to Hashems voice. Be adept at finding out what the author of the text is telling you instead.

The Pierced one.
Who am I? I am the one reading the text. Hashem is afflicted because Israel is afflicted, that is pretty plain in the text. Now when we come to the piercing there is only one who is pierced and only one who is mourning. It's not a mirrored experience, but an individual one. The language of Zechariah 12:10 is yet another example of the Binatarian language in the OT. There are no more nouns to apply "him" too, but me. The speaker is "me"... 'When they look on me, comma, on Him whom they have pierced'. Very simple and plain language without the cognitive bias. The OT is chock full of linguistic occasions that require two powers.

Psalm 82.
No. Jesus would not have believed it men, because the people of the second temple era did not believe it was men. It would be anachronistic to believe that. Not to mention you would have Jesus downplaying His own divinity. The reason why Christians believed that in the commentaries is because they didn't have access to the ANE discoveries and scholarship that we have now. On many attempts you have tried to circumvent grammar, and Historical Scholarship because you don't know anything about them by appealing to other verses but that will never wipe away the existence of the grammar or Historical Scholarship that stands against you.

Two Hashems
I tell you that there are two Hashems because the language requires it, to which you have yet failed to even counter 2 examples out of a plenitude of examples. It is a historical fact that we have Jewish speculation over the second power, in memra discussions, metatron discussions, and contemporary speculative literature. Your belief that there are not 2 powers is anachronistic to that period. You can huff an puff over that all you want but you cannot deny it with any evidence. Even some Rabbi's have admitted this. Go look for counters to the idea of Jewish Binatarianism, all you will find is Rabbinic word play and made up Jewish customs, some of which you have already repeated here. I did address that Hashem is Jesus's G-d, but you were confused by why I mentioned that G-d means Elohim and went on about plurality which I didn't even mention.

Genesis and Zechariah
Still no explanation for why the language of Genesis 19:24 requires two Hashems, or why Zechariah 3:2 contains the same appeal to a higher power as the assumption of Moses, or why Hashem would speak in the third person. You are either out of excuses or just willfully refusing them.

Regarding NT eschatology
There are actually several antichrists in NT eschatology, even some during Paul's time. Eschatology in the NT is ambiguous, not unambiguous. Nero was an antichrist, but he was not the antichrist mentioned in Revelation. It's ironic I suppose that you chose the antichrist as a metaphor because the prophecy of beast is that he is a king that was, is not, and will be. Some think the one that returns is Nero, I think it will be Nimrod. So you actually chose a metaphor of someone will will come twice. And that is not very surprising given that the Christians believed Jesus would come twice. I think the OT is pretty clear in at least one regard, it speaks of a Messiah coming on a donkey, and one coming on the clouds. And that makes sense given that there are two things to accomplish, the retaking of the nations from the spiritual powers back to Hashem, and then the earthly dominion. You can't have the earthly dominion without first retaking the nations from their spiritual oppression.

King Cyrus said:

No, the coming of the Messiah and what will happen in his days is unambiguous. What is ambiguous is if the Messiah will literally ride on a donkey. As I've already shown, there is a direct parallel between the Messiah riding on the donkey and what is said in the next verse about G-d cutting off the chariot from Ephraim and the horses from Jerusalem and the battle bow being cut off. Also, why do you keep ignoring the fact that the text simply says that the Messiah is coming with the clouds, not on them?

What Porphyry is trying to say is that because the people are turnng to Jesus that the gods are no longer protecting them and doing miracles for them. That's why he mentions "the plague" because during that time there was a great plague and many pagans were saying that the gods were angry due to more and more people not venerating them. But no, Jesus was not triumphant over everything unless you include [as I've already mentioned] his conveniently invisible act of somehow magically dieing for everyone's sins even though it is never explained how that actually happened.

Again, Psalm 82 is not a prophecy nor it does it call a single man "elohim." My interpretation of how Daniel uses the phrase "like a son of man" is proven by the fact that in the NT Jesus never says that he is the one who is "like" a son of man...only that he is the son of man.

But you keep ignoring that the text doesn't say that he is "in" the clouds or "on" or "riding" the clouds. Only that he is coming with the clouds. It's hard to tell what he will approach HaShen means but we know that during the Messianic Kingdom that the Messiah will prepare a sacrificial offering for himself and for the people (Ezekiel 45:22) so what is probably intended here is what we find in the Torah about people "appearing before the LORD" during sacrificial ceremonies (Deut 16:16). Regarding what man can rule forever, if HaShem anoints a man to rule forever, then it won't be a problem especially considering that the Messiah was blessed with six virtues, as it is written: "And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord' (Isaiah 11:2); and it is written: 'And his delight shall be the fear of the Lord, and he shall neither judge after the sight of his eyes, nor decide after the hearing of his ears" (Isaiah 11:3).

From what source are you determining that the Messiah is here being paralleled with Baal? Do really think that Daniel was thinking to himself when he saw this vision "hey, he's doing the same thing Baal does"? Also, for like the fourth time, why do you keep ignoring the fact that the text simply says that the Messiah is coming with the clouds, not riding on them? And why is it that with your misunderstanding of the text that you interpret the Messiah supposedly "riding on the clouds" here as literal when even all throughout your own scripture you wouldn't accept things such as "beasts rising out of the sea" (revelation 13:1) as literal?

Stop comparing the ancient pagan culture to the Biblical/Hebraic culture. Also, "even some rabbis" will tell you that"? Please give me the names of the Orthodox Rabbis who suggests that the Jews during the second Temple were binitarians.

Thank you for admitting it.

Well frankly it's hard to tell which parts in the NT concerning John the Baptist were factual since according to Jesus, John the Baptist is Elijah (Matthew 11:7-14) yet in John's gospel John the Baptist explicitly denies this claim (John 1:19–23).

Here's another example of you using an ambiguous text to interpret the entire Jewish Bible. If the one "Me" (i.e. HaShem) in this verse is talking about someone else (according to you, HaShem #2), then the "first" HaShem speaking in this verse is not the one who is actually being pierced. In other words, you have to concede that the "Me" is only figuratively being pierced. Unless you want to say that since "hashem the son" was pierced that "hashem the father" was also literally pierced.

The language does not require two HaShems. You might can say that it requires two persons but the fact is (as I've already shown) that someone's agent in the Hebraic understanding is as the agent himself. As we have Moses calling himself YHVH G-d in Deuteronomy 29:6 and speaking as G-d in Deuteronomy 11:14-15. We read in Isaiah 7:10-11: "And the LORD spoke again unto Ahaz, saying: ’Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God: ask it either in the depth, or in the height above'" yet as it turns out the Prophet Isaiah is the one who is actually speaking here.

But it doesn't say that he will come riding on the clouds. And just because Jesus rode on a donkey doesn't make him the Messiah as already explained. There is no such thing in Scripture about the nations being held in "spiritual powers." Therefore, this artificial oppression of yours is irrelevant. When G-d raises up the true Davidic King and he rules and speaks peace unto the nations (Zechariah 9:10) and there will be no more war (Isaiah 2) and when the Messiah builds the Temple of Ezekiel (Zechariah 6:12-13), then the nations will know that it is the one true G-d that sanctifies Israel (Ezekiel 37:28).

Click to expand...

Regarding the coming of the Messiah
No, you have been objecting that the coming on the Donkey is imagery of being humble. You are now backtracking because you can no longer deny your view is mistaken. Why would the Messiah bring balls of water vapor to heaven Cyrus? It's a silly objection, any contemporary person, or some who studies the ANE is going to see the cloud rider motif. The people in Deut 16:16 didn't appear before the Lord in Heaven. They can't see Him face to face. And Hashem can't make a person live forever without first dealing with death. Otherwise He is made a liar in Genesis when He says you shall surely die. You are just making up ad hoc things to suit yourself.

On Porphyry
"What porphyry is trying to say"... here we go, now your going to Bias-splain why it doesn't mean the thing you can't allow it to mean. Even though you have never heard this before, or studied the context you magically have an explanation. In your Bias-splaining you forgot to deal with the important part... Why did it cease? Why did the oracles all over Rome cease, prompting Plutarch to right a book on that very topic. Which includes the death of Pan.

Psalm 82
You say it's not a prophecy? Then when were the nations taken back? You say "nor it does it call a single man "elohim." Right there are no men in psalm 82, only Elohim which is contrary to your last post. "Even the Jesus of the NT recognizes that what is being spoken of here is men". So I'm glad we moved past that even though you could just say you were mistaken rather than acting like you didn't just say the opposite. So if there are no men called Elohim in Psalm 82 then verse 8 doesn't refer to a man.

On ANE parallels.
I linked where I got the chart from, but we know the parallels because we find texts, like those from Ugarit, that show us the parallels. Take a look at modern biblical study that involves themselves with the ANE discovers. The Ugarit beliefs and the Hebrew beliefs track. Even mount Tsaphon was shared, which you might see in your OT as "Sides of the North". As I said, Daniel isn't thinking of Baal and copying it. He is thinking of the personal experiences and beliefs that formed the backdrop of regional expectations. That backdrop includes the cloud rider. You are factually mistaken according to ANE discoveries to think it is symbolic.

On princes of the nations.
I listed other sources because if something is true in the OT and it would affect areas outside Israel that we should see signs of it, and we do. You can huff and puff and try to ignore those facts but they are still there, but I also gave you an example in the OT. Deut 32:8 "He divided the nations according to the number of the sons of G-d". 70 nations = 70 princes. And what do we find in Ugarit? a tablet speaking of the 70 sons of El. It's not a coincidence, and that is why Biblical Scholarship sees a divine council, not to mention the OT has several council scenes, we have Gabriel being captured by one of the Princes in Daniel while calling Michael Israels prince, and Psalm 89 has the council in heaven.

The "Rabbi" I was thinking of was Alan Segal, but I am mistaken. He is not a Rabbi, he is a believing Jew and a distinguished scholar of ancient religions. If I make mistake I'm honest about.

Me's and hims.
The transition in pronouns between persons that we have in Zechariah 12:10 is consistent with all the other cases showing binatarianism as well as Trinitarian views. You haven't shown that Zechariah 3:2 fits the format of these listed verses. It needs to show "Hashem said" and then it needs to speak in the third person. The verses you give are only partly similar...and again they say nothing of the format found in the assumption of Moses. You continue to refuse to deal with that. I give exact parallels, you give me half parallels and demand "Jewish custom". You also continue to say nothing of Genesis 19:24. If you can't overcome these how can you overcome the rest?

King Cyrus said:

I never backtracked. I'm still of the opinion that it is imagery considering the parallel in the next verse. I was simply conceding that if your interpretation of this text was true that it would still completely debunk Jesus as the Messiah. Thousands of people rode on donkeys in second Temple Israel. None of them fulfilled the Messianic prophecies, Jesus included.

But the text doesn't say that the Messiah is riding on the clouds, only that he is coming with them. What do you not understand about that?

Neither does the text in Daniel say that the Messiah appears before HaShem in heaven or sees him "face to face."

What does that have to do with anything?

But that's literally what he is talking about. Check the context. Why else do you think he mentions "the plague"? I already addressed the point you were trying to make. Porphyry, a pagan, is saying that the help of the gods have left the people because they have abandoned worshipping them. That's why he says "And now they wonder that for so many years the plague has attacked the city."

I said it doesn't call a single man "elohim" because there is not one particular man in view here but instead it's speaking of G-d's appointed judges (plural).

But the text doesn't say that the Messiah is a cloud rider, only that he is coming with the clouds.

What does any of this have to do with your conveniently invisible "spiritual oppression" that is supposedly going on? Just admit that you are trying to give Jesus' first coming some sort of purpose since you know that he accomplished absolutely nothing which can be verifiable.

I already gave you Isaiah 7:10-11 where we read: "And the LORD spoke again unto Ahaz, saying: ’Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God: ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.’" If you read the proceeding verses, it turns out that Isaiah is the one who is actually speaking here. Not to mention (as already stated) Deuteronomy 29 where we see Moses speaking of the LORD in third person in verses 2 and 4 and them seemingly switches to speaking as G-d in verse 6.

According to Bereishit Rabbah 51:3, this is to be understood as the angel Gavriel and HaShem dividing the labor; the former set these harmful substances in motion, the region it emanated from was provided by the Lord Himself. Again, this consistent with the Hebraic understanding of a principle's agent being regarded as the principle himself.

Click to expand...

On the Messiahs Donkey.
You have the opinion that it is imagery only because of Jesus, there is no indication in the text. Your ancestors expected him on a donkey, you have no reason to suspect it as imagery other than the fact Jesus came on a Donkey. That is circular reasoning, that is hearing Hashems words based on your expectations, which is to not hear him at all. So thousands of people rode on Donkeys? How many people rode on Donkeys and had people lay down palm leaves? The fact that people rode donkeys is not a logical case against Jesus, the prophecy is there and the fulfillment is there. Think about it in reverse, a lot of people have been humble, therefore it debunks your messiah. A lot of these rebuttals aren't being thought out fully.

Clouds.
Explain to me why anyone in the ANE would think that the Messiah would bring balls of water vapor into heaven for no reason at all? Because I can tell you everyone in the ANE knew who the cloud rider was and would understand this. I can tell you the second temple Jew knew it because we have Jesus going up in a cloud and we are told he will come back in a cloud. How do you suppose this man of yours got to heaven when he came "with" the clouds? How does a man carry clouds with him? Go ahead explain how balls of water vapor make any sense at all of this text and your belief it's a man. I would love to hear the narration. I would love to hear how your man builds a plane, captures the clouds somehow and lands the plane in heaven and delivers those clouds for no reason at all.

All silliness aside, the clouds are the chariots of heaven (Psalm 103:3), He comes leading the war horses of a heavenly army. This is the commander of the host of heaven who has the appearance of a man in Joshua 5 and whose presence makes the very ground as Holy as it was on Sinai. The same one that when He speaks it is written as Hashem speaking in 6:2. Nowhere do we see the word of Hashem being given to the commander as we do in the format of your examples of speaking for Hashem. When He speaks it is automatically Hashem speaking, and this is an on going theme in the OT that is unique to the Angel of the Lord.

Oh and by the way, the preposition regarding the clouds in aramaic can be translated "with" or "upon" so it's not even a proper objection.

Ancient of Days.
He approached the Ancient of Days and was lead into His presence. Daniel was close enough to describe the Ancient of Days hair, and thrones are set up so it's a council scene, so the cloud rider came very close. Are you going to concoct another magical word play and say well, presence doesn't say face to face. Moses had to be hid by a rock, and by Hashems hand just to see His backside. Hmmm* is there any man who actually saw hashem face to face and lived....

Living forever - "what does that have to do with anything"
Keep up. You were explaining why the cloud rider can have everlasting dominion while being a man. To do that without first conquering death would break Hashems decree to Adam and make the adversaries claim true.

Porphyry
He makes three claims. The first, that for "so many years the plague has attacked the city". The second claim, That Asclepius, and the other gods are no longer resident among us. Which is exactly what we anticipate with Christ taking the nations back from the spiritual rulers. The third claim is the reason why there is a plague. That is that there is no public assistance from the gods. Asclepius was a god of healing, you would go into incubation chambers and receive dreams from the god on how to be cured. See, you interpret the meaning toward your ends before even knowing anything about it. The incubation Chambers no longer worked, meaning no assistance with the plague which is why it went on for so many years, and that was a broader theme spanning into oracles as well. So he is saying that the plague remains unchecked because there is no assistance in its cure, not because there is wrath from Asclepius. You would catch that if you knew anything about the backdrop of that era, the context of where it is taken from, or even the ability to read something without trying to make it say what you want. So why did they receive oracles, and visions from these gods, and why did that cease after Jesus began to be preached? Why were they forced out of the region by Christ so that they were no longer resident among them?

Psalm 82
First you need to explain why your interpretation that these are men makes any sense in light of what I have told you regarding divine council scenes in the OT, it taking place in heaven in Psalm 89, and the texts from Ugarit. Second, if Psalm 82 is not a prophecy then when did an Israelite judge, judge the earth (which is Hashems role) and take the nations back?

Princes of nations.
These princes are allotted rulership over the nations. That is what happens in Deut 32:8, also in the same chapter we have Israel as Hashems allotment. That authority over the nations has to be broken. Why do you think Naaman took dirt from Israel back to his country? He wasn't a geologist. He took it because his dirt was owned by the gods of his land. This is why Gabriel was captured by the prince of the nation of Persia and only Israels prince could rescue him. That dominion has to be broken first. You know nothing about what your ancestors knew because modern Judaism is anachronistic.

Isaiah 7
You are using a literary device called compression as a standard. I mentioned compression before, it is when a writer condenses his material so as not to be overly wordy. You have in Isaiah 7:3 the format "And the Lord said to Isaiah, “Go out to meet Ahaz..." and then Hashem tells Isaiah what to say. Then in verse 10 you have the compression "Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz:". That is what "again" means, it is a literary compression of the exact thing we have in 7:3. And I have told you several times, Deut 29 doesn't fit the format. It doesn't say Hashem said Hashem X. It has the speaker titled as Moses. It is NOT the same literary format. You need to find the same literary format, not a partially similar one. And yet again no mention of the assumption of Moses.

Midrash
In quoting Genesis Rabbah you are quoting one of the many examples of Jewish speculation over the second power that is found in the OT. Notice this guy, who you are quoting, see's two powers in this verse. Again, because the Grammar requires it! Funny how you suddenly see two powers when you think you have found a statement that might pull you out of the pit. This behavior of bias chasing is entirely anticipated. This era of writing represents the speculative age over this second power, and if you read the abstract of that dissertation I linked you might have already caught that. In any case there is utterly no reason to assign this second power to Gabriel, when the name given is Hashem. Being a Rabbi doesn't give anyone the ability or right to insert their own imaginations into Hashems sacred words.

Oscarr said:

I don't see any teaching in the Old Testament about that. Building a doctrine from one verse of Scripture is pretty dodgy hermeneutically. I'm not a Hebrew scholar, so I can't comment on the meaning of Hebrew words and what those meanings imply.

I think that Jesus' response was more simple and straightforward. All He was doing was to counter the accusation that He cast out demons through the power of the devil. He made the valid point that a kingdom divided against itself could not stand, and that the concept of Satan casting out Satan is stupid and unworkable. I don't see anywhere that Jesus actually referred to Satan having a kingdom. I think the New Testament refers to a "kindgom of darkness" but doesn't go into a comprehensive description of exactly what it is.

Click to expand...

You will often see Isaiah 45:7 antagonistically and speciously quoted in Atheistic discussions. I see it at least once a year. The word evil doesn't mean what evil means in modern English. It simply means adversity, which contrasts nicely with peace just as light and darkness does. Whenever you read "evil" in the OT think adversity. To think of these verses as the evil we mean today in English is what they call a Semantic Anachronism.

King Cyrus said:

What about the prophecies I just quoted?

Click to expand...

You never actually quoted ANY prophecies. You just alluded that Jesus fulfilled prophecies, without actually quoting any. So which prophecies DID he fulfill?

StephenDiscipleofYHWH said:

That is exactly what the Jews of Christ's time said. And Christ gave the Answer.
Luke 11:
15 But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils.
16 And others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from heaven.
17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.
18 If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub.
19 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges.
20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.

Matt 12:
24But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. 25And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: 26And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? 27And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. 28But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

Click to expand...

This is NOT an answer to the question that was asked by the OP, which was: "How is Jesus the King Messiah when he did not fulfill the main Messianic prophecies?"

There are NO fulfilled prophecies in what you quoted!

maintenance man said:

For one who has already made up his or her mind that Jesus is not the Messiah, no amount of evidence will be convincing. But for those who are honest in asking, the evidence speaks for itself.

Jews for Jesus

Click to expand...

Maybe you could try showing some of the evidence that you are referring to, instead of making a statement with absolutely no substance or meaning, unless you back it up with the actual evidence you are referring to! Or maybe you have none!

yeshuaslavejeff said:

As noted in "Evidence That Demand a Verdict"
as well as in thousands of other writings, books, documents, and all history,

Yeshua did fulfill all prophecies concerning Messiah , so far. And no one else did.

Click to expand...

Yeshua has NOT fulfilled all the prophecies concerning the Messiah, so you are making a false statement. Just because no one else did, does not mean that no one else will. Yeshua hasnt fulfilled them either, & until he does, logically he is NOT the messiah, because whoever fulfills ALL of the prophecies is the messiah. So far that isnt Yeshua!

Theo Barnsley said:

Maybe you could try showing some of the evidence that you are referring to, instead of making a statement with absolutely no substance or meaning, unless you back it up with the actual evidence you are referring to! Or maybe you have none!

Click to expand...

There is a link attached to that post with a mountain of evidence.

King Cyrus said:

How is Jesus the King Messiah when he did not fulfill the main Messianic prophecies? For instance, we read in Isaiah 11: And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, And a twig shall grow forth out of his roots. And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and might, The spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD. And his delight shall be in the fear of the LORD; And he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, Neither decide after the hearing of his ears; But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, And decide with equity for the meek of the land; And he shall smite the land with the rod of his mouth, And with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, And faithfulness the girdle of his reins. And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, And the leopard shall lie down with the kid; And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear feed; Their young ones shall lie down together; And the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the cobra, And the weaned child shall put his hand on the viper's den. They shall not hurt nor destroy In all My holy mountain; For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, As the waters cover the sea. And it shall come to pass in that day, That the root of Jesse, that standeth for an ensign of the peoples, Unto him shall the nations seek; And his resting-place shall be glorious. And it shall come to pass in that day, That the Lord will set His hand again the second time To recover the remnant of His people, That shall remain from Assyria, and from Egypt, And from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, And from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And He will set up an ensign for the nations, And will assemble the dispersed of Israel, And gather together the scattered of Judah From the four corners of the earth. The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, And they that harass Judah shall be cut off; Ephraim shall not envy Judah, And Judah shall not vex Ephraim. And they shall fly down upon the shoulder of the Philistines on the west; Together shall they spoil the children of the east; They shall put forth their hand upon Edom and Moab; And the children of Ammon shall obey them. And the LORD will utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; And with His scorching wind will He shake His hand over the River, And will smite it into seven streams, And cause men to march over dry-shod. And there shall be a highway for the remnant of His people, That shall remain from Assyria, Like as there was for Israel In the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt."

Nothing even remotely like this happened in the days of Jesus. We also read in Jeremiah 23:5-6: "See, a time is coming—declares the LORD—when I will raise up a true branch of David’s line. He shall reign as king and shall prosper, and he shall do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah shall be delivered and Israel shall dwell secure. And this is the name by which he shall be called: 'The LORD is our Vindicator.'"

And again it is written of the Messiah in Zechariah 9:9-10: "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion, Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; Behold, thy king cometh unto thee, he is triumphant, and victorious, Lowly, and riding upon an ass, Even upon a colt the foal of an ass. And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, And the horse from Jerusalem, And the battle bow shall be cut off, And he shall speak peace unto the nations; And his dominion shall be from sea to sea, And from the River to the ends of the earth."

Jesus never reigned as king nor did he prosper nor was Judah delivered in his day.

We also read concerning the Messianic age in Isaiah 2: "And it shall come to pass in the end of days, That the mountain of the LORD’S house Shall be established as the top of the mountains, And shall be exalted above the hills; And all nations shall flow unto it. And many peoples shall go and say: ‘Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, To the house of the God of Jacob; And He will teach us of His ways, And we will walk in His paths.’ For out of Zion shall go forth the law, And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And He shall judge between the nations, And shall decide for many peoples; And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, And their spears into pruninghooks; Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, Neither shall they learn war any more."

In contrast, there has been more war after the days of Jesus than before he existed.

I'm looking to see what answers Christians have for this.

Click to expand...

He became the messiah "anointed one" by God during his baptism. His prophethood and his spiritual relationship with God as his chosen and "son" is what makes him anointed.

The two coming is about how Jesus informed the Jews. The Jews refused to believe simply because most of them don't have a correct Messianic view. This is further skewed ever since the rabbis picked up and revived Judaism after AD 200. They no long follow the fundamental Pharisaic concepts in terms of interpreting the Scripture.

The NT Bible already points out how corrupted the Pharisees were. That's why they failed to stay close with God to know Jesus. That's how the AD 70 siege happened. The revival of Judaism (i.e., it's today's Judaism) is not legitimate. It's no longer the same as Judaism back in Jesus' days.

It's thus basically no point to discuss anything Messianic as the concept itself could possibly wrong from the very beginning (as how Christianity deviated from the Jewish religion), and further skewed after being picked up by rabbis after the big gap between AD 70 and after AD 200. By now it's rather a cultural view instead of a legit view.

Hawkins said:

The Jews refused to believe simply because most of them don't have a correct Messianic view.

Click to expand...

This lack clarity.
NO ONE had a correct Messianic view.

Thus, the reason ANYONE (including the whole whole/ all society)
refuses to believe is something else.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

This lack clarity.
NO ONE had a correct Messianic view.

Thus, the reason ANYONE (including the whole whole/ all society)
refuses to believe is something else.

Click to expand...

It's generalization. It depends on whether you are agree with the historical view that the Jews (those in Jesus' days) took it wrong and had an expectation that the Messianic prophecy is about a military leader against the Romans. This is the reason why the Jews back then rejected Jesus. It's thus no point for a further discussion if this is the main stream historical view even back then.

Hawkins said:

It's generalization. It depends on whether you are agree with the historical view that the Jews (those in Jesus' days) took it wrong and had an expectation that the Messianic prophecy is about a military leader against the Romans. This is the reason why the Jews back then rejected Jesus. It's thus no point for a further discussion if this is the main stream historical view even back then.

Click to expand...

It was, and is today, for posters and readers of this forum, due to unbelief,
not expectations right or wrong. Posters who do not accept Jesus as Messiah have not repented of their sin, and are not saved, same as the Jews who did not believe in the first century, those who were never immersed in Jesus' Name for the forgiveness of their sin.