• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Since Jesus Never Brought The Kingdom of David Why Call Him The Messiah?

rhinefire

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
10,282
Reaction score
2,964
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Other than rumors of miracles never proven Jesus did little different from other so called "messiahs". He was a revolutionary and not always nonviolent. So why him versus others?
 
Other than rumors of miracles never proven Jesus did little different from other so called "messiahs". He was a revolutionary and not always nonviolent. So why him versus others?

First, what do you mean by your title - that He never brought the Kingdom of David?

Second, Jesus as the proven Messiah does not simply rely on miracles, and prophecies from the Old Testament that were fulfilled in Him.

There's also the reality of the Resurrection, as witnessed by His disciples.
And why should we believe the Resurrection did happen?
What more compelling evidence than the dramatic transformation of the Apostles and other disciples after witnessing the resurrected Christ? From being fearful, confused followers of Jesus, they emerged brimming with confidence and willingly embraced martyrdom for their relentless spread of the gospel.

Why do you think Christianity suddenly exploded in the region after His death? Because of His Resurrection.
 
Last edited:
Other than rumors of miracles never proven Jesus did little different from other so called "messiahs". He was a revolutionary and not always nonviolent. So why him versus others?

He was not supposed to bring the Kingdom of David. He was supposed to (and did) bring the Kingdom of God. Furthermore (as pointed out above) He was resurrected from the dead, and continues to live in and with and through us today.
 
First, what do you mean by your title - that He never brought the Kingdom of David?

Second, Jesus as the proven Messiah does not simply rely on miracles, and prophecies from the Old Testament that were fulfilled in Him.

There's also the reality of the Resurrection, as witnessed by His disciples.
And why should we believe the Resurrection did happen?
What more compelling evidence than the dramatic transformation of the Apostles and other disciples after witnessing the resurrected Christ? From being fearful, confused followers of Jesus, they emerged brimming with confidence and willingly embraced martyrdom for their relentless spread of the gospel.

Why do you think Christianity suddenly exploded in the region after His death? Because of His Resurrection.

This explosion as you put it had nothing to do with this resurrection.
 
By definition the messiah is the one that does bring the kingdom of David. All others are nothings.Does anyone here have any religious education?
 
He was not supposed to bring the Kingdom of David. He was supposed to (and did) bring the Kingdom of God. Furthermore (as pointed out above) He was resurrected from the dead, and continues to live in and with and through us today.

He brought the kingdom of God???!!! How so, in the acts of human atrocities that followed his life? WOW!
 
This explosion as you put it had nothing to do with this resurrection.

Expand on that please. Why do you think Christianity spread out so quickly like wildfire in the region and beyond AFTER His death? Why the sudden enthusiasm, and fearless gungho determination from His followers?
They're even willing to face brutal consequences. How many time was Paul beaten to a bloody pulp before meeting his martyrdom? All of them, except one, were martyred.

So explain what drove them, if it's not witnessing the Resurrection.
 
Last edited:
Other than rumors of miracles never proven Jesus did little different from other so called "messiahs". He was a revolutionary and not always nonviolent. So why him versus others?

He was ressurected by God .... They were not rumos of miracles, he was widely known as a miracle worker, even Josephus recognized this. What made the Jesus movement (The Nazereans as they were called) last beyond his death was his ressurection.
 
By definition the messiah is the one that does bring the kingdom of David. All others are nothings.Does anyone here have any religious education?

The Messiah is also one who is the Suffering Servant (Messiah ben Joseph), as we see in Isaiah chapter 53, which ancient Jewish rabbis recognized as applying to the Messiah. Jesus fulfilled that during his first advent, and will fulfill the rest (Messiah ben David) at his second advent.

So your argument has no merit.
 
By definition the messiah is the one that does bring the kingdom of David. All others are nothings.Does anyone here have any religious education?

What do you consider the kingdom of David to be?
 
Anyone at all versed in the messianic prophecies in the Old Testament (like, you know, actual Jews), can tell you that the story of Jesus does not fulfill those prophecies.
 
Anyone at all versed in the messianic prophecies in the Old Testament (like, you know, actual Jews), can tell you that the story of Jesus does not fulfill those prophecies.

That completely ignores the remainder of the Messianic prophecies Jesus is expected to fulfill at his second coming.

Also, there are the "Two Faces of Messiah" in Judaism - the Suffering Servant (Messiah ben Joseph), and the Conquering King (Messiah ben David). Jesus fulfilled the former at his first advent and is expected to fulfill the latter one at his second advent.

Daniel chapter 9, which specifically mentions the Messiah, says he will be "cut off" (killed) and then after that, "war will continue until the end." Isaiah 53 is another Messianic prophecy confirmed by numerous rabbis, and in that one the Messiah also dies. Sounds more like what happens with Jesus than with the Jewish version of the Messiah.
 
Last edited:
That completely ignores the remainder of the Messianic prophecies Jesus is expected to fulfill at his second coming.

Which is not a part of Judaism at all. Claiming that Jesus fulfills the Jewish myth of the messiah, and then deciding that some of the myths don't count, is nonsense. Judaism has no second coming. Jesus did not fulfill the only important prophecy. That is, bringing about the kingdom of god on Earth. Everything else is window dressing. The virgin birth (which is not referenced in Judaism at all, no matter what modern translations of Isaiah like to say), nor the birth in Bethlehem (How exactly what Jesus of Nazareth from Bethlehem again?), nor the coming on Passover and being heralded by Elijah (which did not happen to Jesus). If someone doesn't, while still alive, usher in the kingdom of god on Earth (which is a worldwide government directly ruled by god, not a metaphor), then that person is 100% not the messiah as predicted by Judaism.

Also, there are the "Two Faces of Messiah" in Judaism - the Suffering Servant (Messiah ben Joseph), and the Conquering King (Messiah ben David). Jesus fulfilled the former at his first advent and is expected to fulfill the latter one at his second advent.

Hi, actual Jew here. There is no such notion as this in Judaism. The messiah does one thing and one thing only. There are not two faces. There are not two comings. There are not separate myths. There's just one story.

Daniel chapter 9, which specifically mentions the Messiah, says he will be "cut off" (killed)

Your interpretation. Not any mainstream Jewish one.

and then after that, "war will continue until the end."

New translation, huh? According to Judaism, the messiah's appearance marks the end of war. There's only one appearance.

Isaiah 53 is another Messianic prophecy confirmed by numerous rabbis, and in that one the Messiah also dies.[/quote]

That doesn't actually have anything to do with the messiah. Again, cherry picked translations and "confirmations". What does that even mean, anyway? They "confirmed" it. Rabbis don't reach a consensus on anything. There's an old joke, that if you put four rabbis in a room overnight, in the morning you'll get five different opinions.

Sounds more like what happens with Jesus than with the Jewish version of the Messiah.

Yes, because they're completely dissimilar stories. The story of Jesus and the Jewish myths of the messiah are not similar at all. I don't doubt for a moment that you want the stories to align, or that you have a clear idea of the story of Jesus. But as an actual (former) Jew, who was raised in the Jewish traditions and knows a whole lot about his own (former) religion, I'm going to correct your errors about what Judaism has to say.
 
Other than rumors of miracles never proven Jesus did little different from other so called "messiahs". He was a revolutionary and not always nonviolent. So why him versus others?

I tend to suspect it's because of the belief that he rose from the dead and ascended to the heavens, which makes his story particularly stunning.
 
Which is not a part of Judaism at all. Claiming that Jesus fulfills the Jewish myth of the messiah, and then deciding that some of the myths don't count, is nonsense. Judaism has no second coming.

Show me in the OT where the Messiah only appears once? And how do you reconcile the "Two faces of the Messiah (Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David) with each other. Do you even know anything about Messiah ben Joseph, the "suffering servant" who dies?

Jesus did not fulfill the only important prophecy. That is, bringing about the kingdom of god on Earth. Everything else is window dressing.

He already did that. He said the "Kingdom is within you."

The virgin birth (which is not referenced in Judaism at all, no matter what modern translations of Isaiah like to say), nor the birth in Bethlehem (How exactly what Jesus of Nazareth from Bethlehem again?), nor the coming on Passover and being heralded by Elijah (which did not happen to Jesus). If someone doesn't, while still alive, usher in the kingdom of god on Earth (which is a worldwide government directly ruled by god, not a metaphor), then that person is 100% not the messiah as predicted by Judaism.

Tsk tsk. The virgin with child is Isaiah 7:14; born in Bethlehem Micah 5:2, Jesus is the sacrificial suffering servant of Isaiah 53, and Jesus will wrap everything up at his 2nd Coming.

Hi, actual Jew here. There is no such notion as this in Judaism. The messiah does one thing and one thing only. There are not two faces. There are not two comings. There are not separate myths. There's just one story.

You're not very well informed for being a Jew.

Messiah ben Joseph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New translation, huh? According to Judaism, the messiah's appearance marks the end of war.

Daniel chapter 9 says otherwise. And ancient Jewish rabbis believed Daniel 9 spoke of the Messiah. Here's just two:

In the 12th Century A.D., Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon (Maimonides), one of the most respected rabbis in history, said:

"Daniel has elucidated to us the knowledge of the end times. However, since they are secret, the wise (rabbis) have barred the calculations of the days of Messiah's coming so that the untutored populace will not be led astray when they see that end times have already come but there is no sign of the Messiah."

In addition, Rabbi Moses Abraham Levi said regarding the time of the Messiah's coming:

"I have examined and searched all the Holy Scriptures and have
not found the time for the coming of Messiah clearly fixed, except
in the words of Gabriel to the prophet Daniel, which are written
in the 9th chapter of the prophecy of Daniel."

Logicman: Isaiah 53 is another Messianic prophecy confirmed by numerous rabbis, and in that one the Messiah also dies.

That doesn't actually have anything to do with the messiah. Again, cherry picked translations and "confirmations". What does that even mean, anyway? They "confirmed" it. Rabbis don't reach a consensus on anything. There's an old joke, that if you put four rabbis in a room overnight, in the morning you'll get five different opinions.

Hey listen - your own Jewish rabbis confirm Isaiah 53 speaks about the Messiah. So don't try to sluff it off just because you don't like it.

Rabbi Moses Alschech (1508-1600) said: "Our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view."

Many more quotes from the rabbis in the following link:

Isaiah 53 Rabbinical Commentary

I'm going to correct your errors about what Judaism has to say.

You can start anytime. So far it's you who was corrected.
 
I think many Jews have/had theological issues with Jesus as the Messiah because they were looking for a political leader and ruler to deliver them from Rome and make Israel a national power in the region.

What Jesus did was come to fulfill the Law under which the Jews followed. To them such a thing was heresy and as such Jesus was crucified and Christians persecuted as heretics of Jewish Law. With the Jewish Law fulfilled, no longer must man sacrifice and adhere to the Laws set forth by God through Moses for the forgiveness of sin since Jesus, as the son of God, was the atonement for such things. The significance in the veil being torn between the Holy of Holies and the Temple from top to bottom signifies that since Jesus was the atoning sacrifice for sin, people no longer needed a priest to intervene or to adhere to Jewish Law since it had been fulfilled and now people may stand in the presence of God (which is what the priest did in the Holy of Holies once a year in accordance with the Law) through the atoning blood of Christ that does have authority to forgive sin. Jesus was the atoning sacrifice, greater than the lambs and animals required to bring about forgiveness of sin. No longer did Temple Customs and the Law of Moses need adhered too because with the atoning sacrifice of God Himself in human form such things were fulfilled and made obsolete. The Messiah came to bring salvation and forgiveness of sin and fulfill the Law of Moses.

Jesus, under messianic prophesies, is the Messiah. The New Testament also brings light to His status as the Son of God with explanations as to why the Jewish Law has been fulfilled by the Messiah who came to atone for sin and reconcile man with God, not to lead the nation of Israel into a political power and separate them from the Romans.
 
Last edited:
There's also the reality of the Resurrection, as witnessed by His disciples.
And why should we believe the Resurrection did happen?
What more compelling evidence than the dramatic transformation of the Apostles and other disciples after witnessing the resurrected Christ? From being fearful, confused followers of Jesus, they emerged brimming with confidence and willingly embraced martyrdom for their relentless spread of the gospel.
Why the sudden enthusiasm, and fearless gungho determination from His followers?
They're even willing to face brutal consequences. How many time was Paul beaten to a bloody pulp before meeting his martyrdom? All of them, except one, were martyred.

So explain what drove them, if it's not witnessing the Resurrection.

Others from other religions have also embraced martyrdom for the spread of their religion. How is theirs any less valid than Christianity? People throughout history have been driven by many things including insanity that led to martyrdom. Not all of it religion in nature. Take out a particularly popular and effective revolutionary leader and his followers might make a martyr out of him and fight all the more harder.

Why do you think Christianity suddenly exploded in the region after His death? Because of His Resurrection.
Expand on that please. Why do you think Christianity spread out so quickly like wildfire in the region and beyond AFTER His death?
There wasn't a sudden explosion of Christianity until much later, and it wasn't so much sudden as steady. Christianity as a whole was not only struggling in the early days it was divided, as each of the 12 disciples had different views on the details. For example not all of the disciples agreed with Paul (I think) about it being preferential to not be married at all, but to have at most 1 wife if you were a church leader. It wasn't until one of the Roman emperors converted that he declared Christianity the empire's official religion and forced its spread.


... nor the birth in Bethlehem (How exactly what Jesus of Nazareth from Bethlehem again?),...

That one's easy. Mary and Joseph were of Nazareth but they were in Bethlehem for the census. Since they were not of Bethlehem, neither was Jesus, regardless of where he was born. BTW I'm assuming that the bolded word was supposed to be "was".
 
That one's easy. Mary and Joseph were of Nazareth but they were in Bethlehem for the census. Since they were not of Bethlehem, neither was Jesus, regardless of where he was born. BTW I'm assuming that the bolded word was supposed to be "was".

You do know that the Romans, who kept very thorough records, never once required people to uproot their lives and go where their ancestors were from for a census. They counted people right where they were. There is no record of this bizarre and backwards census, and there are many records of Roman censuses. There are no records or evidence whatsoever of an empire-wide upheaval and migration like this. Or even of a smaller one, if it was contained just to Judea. The Romans were a much more sensible people than to do that.

Later on, decades after when Jesus and his apostles are said to have lived, when Greek writers were compiling the gospels, they noticed that some Jewish legends about the messiah suggest that he will be from Bethlehem, so they changed the story so that Joshua of Nazareth better fit the existing stories.
 
You do know that the Romans, who kept very thorough records, never once required people to uproot their lives and go where their ancestors were from for a census. They counted people right where they were. There is no record of this bizarre and backwards census, and there are many records of Roman censuses. There are no records or evidence whatsoever of an empire-wide upheaval and migration like this. Or even of a smaller one, if it was contained just to Judea. The Romans were a much more sensible people than to do that.

That's speculative at best.

http://christianthinktank.com/quirinius.html

Later on, decades after when Jesus and his apostles are said to have lived, when Greek writers were compiling the gospels, they noticed that some Jewish legends about the messiah suggest that he will be from Bethlehem, so they changed the story so that Joshua of Nazareth better fit the existing stories.

This is nuts. Document where they "changed the story"?

The earliest extant manuscripts agree with what we have today about Jesus/Bethlehem.
 
Of course everything written after Jesus died redefines what the Messiah was to be, and paints him a the Messiah. This is how religions get started, its not unique to Christianity for a figure to die, and their early followers in the decades after write holy books that proclaim that figure to be divine and provide accounts that are to prove that. At the time of Jesus, religion was politics, there was no division between the two. Jesus, like every other messianic figure at the time, was executed for sedition by the Roman authorities. Later, the Gospel writers in an attempt to make the movement appealing to Romans, painted it as though Jesus was executed by the Jews rather than by the Roman authorities. Crucifixion was the punishment for sedition. Stoning was the punishment for heresy. Pontius Pilate was a brutal governor who had no qualms executing any Jew he saw as creating any problems. Yet he is supposed to have found Jesus innocent and left it up to the Jews (who he had no respect for at all) to determine his fate?? Most of the New Testament was written after the Jews rebelled and their rebellion was brutally put down. The accounts in the New Testament have to be taken in light of that, in light of the fact that Judaism was by then a pariah in the Roman Empire.

Much has been made in this thread about how the Apostles saw the resurrected Jesus and thus this is evidence for Jesus being resurrected. However, from an academic perspective that is not evidence of a miracle at all. It is only evidence that the Apostles believed that they saw and met the resurrected Jesus. There are plenty of rational explanations for this that do not require anything supernatural. For example, what if Jesus had a twin? Sure, the likelihood of that is extremely small, but its still far more likely than the supernatural explanation of his being physically resurrected.

The world's over 1 billion Muslims believe that Mohammed had his heart cut out from his chest by the angel Gabriel, purified by holy water, then placed back in his chest leaving no scar. They believe that Mohammed mounted a mare, road that mare to heaven and met Allah. God told Mohammed how many times a day his followers were to pray, and then he rode the mare back to earth. All of Mohammed's early followers believed that with every fiber of their being, and the religion spread like wildfire. Is that evidence that it actually occurred?
 
Of course everything written after Jesus died redefines what the Messiah was to be, and paints him a the Messiah. This is how religions get started, its not unique to Christianity for a figure to die, and their early followers in the decades after write holy books that proclaim that figure to be divine and provide accounts that are to prove that. At the time of Jesus, religion was politics, there was no division between the two. Jesus, like every other messianic figure at the time, was executed for sedition by the Roman authorities. Later, the Gospel writers in an attempt to make the movement appealing to Romans, painted it as though Jesus was executed by the Jews rather than by the Roman authorities. Crucifixion was the punishment for sedition. Stoning was the punishment for heresy. Pontius Pilate was a brutal governor who had no qualms executing any Jew he saw as creating any problems. Yet he is supposed to have found Jesus innocent and left it up to the Jews (who he had no respect for at all) to determine his fate?? Most of the New Testament was written after the Jews rebelled and their rebellion was brutally put down. The accounts in the New Testament have to be taken in light of that, in light of the fact that Judaism was by then a pariah in the Roman Empire.

Much has been made in this thread about how the Apostles saw the resurrected Jesus and thus this is evidence for Jesus being resurrected. However, from an academic perspective that is not evidence of a miracle at all. It is only evidence that the Apostles believed that they saw and met the resurrected Jesus. There are plenty of rational explanations for this that do not require anything supernatural. For example, what if Jesus had a twin? Sure, the likelihood of that is extremely small, but its still far more likely than the supernatural explanation of his being physically resurrected.

Do you have any actual evidence for all these theories of yours?
 
Do you have any actual evidence for all these theories of yours?

I recommend you read any historians account of the time of Christ, Roman Law, and Israel under Rome. This is a great one that builds upon the known history of the time and builds a picture of Jesus the man. Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth: Reza Aslan: 9781400069224: Amazon.com: Books

There are others as well of course. What proof do you have other than a canonical set of books, compiled into a single book at the Synod of Hippo in 383. A collection of books that claims to be the inspired word of God and inerrant, yet makes all sorts of claims we now know could not possibly be true (example: The creation stories, Noah's Ark, and various other myths). If believes it then fine, it is a matter of faith though, not evidence. I merely provided what is the historians account of the time.

The Koran details numerous miracles, claims to be divinely inspired, and over 1 billion Muslims believe that. Does that make it evidence?
 
I recommend you read any historians account of the time of Christ, Roman Law, and Israel under Rome. This is a great one that builds upon the known history of the time and builds a picture of Jesus the man. Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth: Reza Aslan: 9781400069224: Amazon.com: Books

Thanks. I've read a lot of books about that time period. I usually find that the ones that attempt to rewrite the Gospels are based more on false claims and speculative theories than actual facts.

What proof do you have other than a canonical set of books, compiled into a single book at the Synod of Hippo in 383. A collection of books that claims to be the inspired word of God and inerrant, yet makes all sorts of claims we now know could not possibly be true (example: The creation stories, Noah's Ark, and various other myths). If believes it then fine, it is a matter of faith though, not evidence. I merely provided what is the historians account of the time.

Some may not know this but in the first century the "New Testament" was then 27 separate works in different places that had not yet been compiled together. Of those, there were four separate, independent Gospels accounts, plus various epistles - all of which confirmed the resurrection of Jesus.

The Koran details numerous miracles, claims to be divinely inspired, and over 1 billion Muslims believe that. Does that make it evidence?

Muhammad was a false prophet.

Muhammad's False Prophecies

In contrast, there's fulfilled Messianic prophecies of Jesus that did come to pass (note Matthew's Gospel).
 
Last edited:
I recommend you read any historians account of the time of Christ, Roman Law, and Israel under Rome. This is a great one that builds upon the known history of the time and builds a picture of Jesus the man. Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth: Reza Aslan: 9781400069224: Amazon.com: Books

There are others as well of course. What proof do you have other than a canonical set of books, compiled into a single book at the Synod of Hippo in 383. A collection of books that claims to be the inspired word of God and inerrant, yet makes all sorts of claims we now know could not possibly be true (example: The creation stories, Noah's Ark, and various other myths). If believes it then fine, it is a matter of faith though, not evidence. I merely provided what is the historians account of the time.

The Koran details numerous miracles, claims to be divinely inspired, and over 1 billion Muslims believe that. Does that make it evidence?

Don't ask Logicman to read stuff, he doesn't even read the links he posts or the scriptures he sites ... much less books.

I've read Reza's book, heres what he does (and many historical Jesus scholars do), he Points Jesus in a chariacture, and he takes everything that agrees With that persona as historical and dismisses everything else as a later Church creation (as if the Church had nothing to do With the actual historical Jesus), yes, Jesus was percieved as a political threat and yes he did have a socio-economic Message, but there was much more than that. I suggest you Read NT Wrights book Simply Jesus Simply Jesus: A New Vision of Who He Was, What He Did, and Why He Matters: N. T. Wright: 9780062084392: Amazon.com: Books or The Challenge of Jesus The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was & Is: N. T. Wright: 9780830822003: Amazon.com: Books.

Another assumption historial Jesus scholars do is that historical writers were more concerned With theology than history .... and adjusted the history to fit the theology, when it's ususally the other way around.
 
Back
Top Bottom