Why did the Christian messiah fail to fulfill the messianic prophecies?

My impression is that the Tanakh does not actually speak of The Messiah as such. Rather, The Messiah is a title applied to someone who will fulfil a number of prophecies, notably ruling over a restored Israel which will be acknowledged as God's chosen kingdom.Accordingly any claim that any other prophecy is Messianic needs to show that it applies to the same person. Even the title messiah is insufficient, since there are any number of messiahs (the Persian emperor Cyrus being a significant example - Isaiah 45:1)To answer the question in the OP, in my view the followers of Jesus started with the conviction that Jesus was The Messiah. When Jesus died some of them dealt with it by becoming more extreme and came up with the idea of the Second Coming to explain away Jesus' failure. This is not to say that they did not believe it - they did. But that doesn't make it anything more than a way of hiding from the truth.

quote:

---

You also said that there is nothing about a dying Messiah in scripture, but there is, in Daniel 9:24-26, which Patai also references, and this passage speaks explicitly of the Messiah:

---

I could say a lot about your assertions but let's start with thus. How do you know that that passage is explicitly about The Messiah ?

quote:

---

Because it says it's about the Messiah.

---

Does it ? I think you'll find that that is just your interpretation - and one that is not supported in any significant way by the text.So, let me repeat the question: How do you know that that passage is explicitly about The Messiah ?

So the word "messiah" appears. But you know perfectly well that "there are many "messiahs"". And since neither of the two messiahs mentioned seem to be doing anything attributed to The Messiah what reason is there to think that either is The Messiah rather than just a messiah ?

quote:

---

Looks obvious to me as I'm sure it does to you as well

---

Since I'm pretty sure that you know that the word translated as messiah doesn't have to mean The Messiah I'd say that it's pretty obvious to you that I am right.

quote:

---

and how about the fact that not only 2000 years of Christian understanding plus the sources I mentioned from the Patai book regard it as referring to THE Messiah,

---

If they don't have a decent case - and they don't - their opinion isn't worth much.

quote:

---

and if you still want to argue go ahead I won't answer since you have no real interest in the truth about it anyway.

---

On the contrary. The fact that you can't support your assertion rather shows that you are the one who has no interest in the truth.

quote:

---

Also, wherever a "Messiah" is spoken of by that title alone, without giving the identity of the one anointed -- such as Saul or David or Solomon and so on -- it is understood to refer to THE Messiah promised and prophesied down the centuries from Eden, who will save the people from their sins

---

That may be the way your idols interpret it, but that's hardly a good reason to insist on it.

quote:

---

The fact that there are many ordinary messiahs is irrelevant and a red herring, since all the anointed ones but THE Anointed One are clearly identified.

---

In other words the fact that you are making a completely unjustified assumption is "irrelevant". Hardly the words of someone with a genuine interest in the truth!The fact is that there is no sound basis to conclude that this passage is about The Messiah. Your claim that it was explicitly about The Messiah is an obvious falsehood as can be seen by anyone who understands that "messiah" is a title applicable to many individuals - as you do. And that is why you will not discuss this issue with me - because you know that I am telling the truth.

quote:

---

Daniel the prophet himself of course, because the book makes absolutely no sense at all written by anyone else who came later.

---

In fact it makes a good deal of sense for it to be written later, and for the Daniel of the book to be a complete fiction. There are clear problems in the book (e.g. "Where's Nabonidus?" - and the failed prophecies) and not one even reasonably clear reference to the man or the book anywhere close to the supposed time of writing.

quote:

---

One of those Likely Stories made up by unbelievers, but if you actually READ Daniel you couldn't possibly believe such nonsense without committing some pretty terrible false witness against him. He prophesied of Antiochus Epiphanes, and much before and after that character as well.

---

Having actually READ Daniel, I can say that without doubt Antiochus Epiphanes and the Jewish resistance to his rule are the central focus. Daniel 8, for instance is quite clear that the End Times centre around the Diadochi states. Try READING it for yourself and see.

A couple of points NoNukes.First, Eliahyu is arguing from a Jewish perspective - assuming the truth of the Judaic religion. From that point of view the question of how Jesus fits into the views of Judaism is vitally important.Also we must not forget that Christianity is founded on the premise that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah (it's even in the name "Christianity") and more, and that the Jewish scriptures show that this is true. If the claims of Christians for Jesus are false from his perspective then that is enough for him. And it should be enough for even non-Jews to consider the claims of Christianity thoroughly suspect.Finally I must say that it seems odd to deny that Jesus was a failure. It seems to me that he set out to prove himself the Messiah - and establish a free Jewish kingdom in the lifetime of his followers. Yet he managed no more than a brief faddish popularity (exaggerated in the Gospels) before being caught and executed by the Romans. That would seem to be something of a failure.

quote:

---

Being a Jew doesn't make them right, to put it mildly.

---

But it DOES mean that he is coming at it from a Jewish perspective and responses to him need to take that into account. That's the point I was making.

quote:

---

And how much of the NT do you have to rewrite to come to that absurd conclusion?

---

None of it, of course. Taking a critical view of the Gospels, and taking into account the lack of impact that Jesus had outside Christianity is not in any sense rewriting. It's simply taking more of a historian's perspective.

quote:

---

Brief?

---

Absolutely. Jesus is at most a footnote in Josephus and no other non-Christian sources from anywhere close to the time think that he amounted to much.

quote:

---

But the Gospel According to Paul K is of course superior to the Bible itself and the testimony of 2000 years and millions upon millions of believers, true believers who are willing, even today, to die for the truth we find in the Bible.

---

The truth is more important than your pride. Too bad that you can't see that.

quote:

---

I believe I've acknowledged that part of Eliahyu's position, while dismissing it as a major concern for me. Eliahyu thinks my dismissal is nonsense, but makes no substantial argument for it other than to quote even more unfulfilled scripture.

---

And the reason you say that is because you're NOT adequately taking his position into account. THat scripture, to him IS decisive. It may not be to you, but you'd be better off agreeing to differ rather than arguing at cross-purposes.

quote:

---

Christianity was founded among Jews, but has grown considerably beyond that. Christianity, at least for gentiles, does not absolutely require all Christ to be a military leader. And even if Jesus is not the Jewish military leader, the story according to the Gospels is that he was acknowledged directly by God as his Son, performed miracles etc.

---

However, the idea that Jesus is the Messiah is still pervasive in Christianity - do you really think that it should be renamed probably-not-Christ-but-we-don't-care-ianity ? If Jesus isn't the Messiah the rest becomes suspect- or, rather, more suspect.

quote:

---

Show me support for the proposition that Jesus tried to establish an earthly kingdom in his time, and I'll agree that you have made a substantial argument.

---

Of course there's very little GOOD evidence about what Jesus did or did not do. To the point where scholars admit that recovering the historical figure is not really possible. However there are certainly indications that way. e.g. the crucifixion indicates that the Romans thought of him as a rebel. Riding on a donkey into Jerusalem makes the identification with the King of Zechariah 9. The use of Daniel in the Olivet discourse suggests that he believed that Daniel's Kingdom of God would arrive soon.

quote:

---

HOWEVER, you also said that since Eliyahu regards the claims for Jesus to be false that "even non-Jews" should regard those claims to be "thoroughly suspect."

---

Which does not entail arguing that he is right. But I think we can justifiably argue that if a Jewish understanding of the Jewish scriptures points to Jesus not being the messiah at all then there is a real problem with Christian claims that needs to be addressed.

quote:

---

Eliyahu represents today's Pharisees, the descendants of the very men Jesus was constantly condemning for their misreading of scripture.

---

Which doesn't make him wrong. For that you'd have to argue the scriptures themselves.

quote:

---

No, as I showed you'd have to rewrite pretty much the entire NT
because there what we have is Jesus doing not one single thing to suggest He intended to fulfill the worldly aims of the Jews as a conquering hero, quite the opposite, as I pointed out, also we have the Jewish leaders being denounced by Jesus as wrong wrong wrong.

---

Where did you "show" this ? Because it certainly isn't true that I'd have to rewrite a word of it.

quote:

---

Your "critical view" must ignore just about all of it,

---

Again, you're simply wrong here.

quote:

---

but the idea of Jesus' "lack of impact" has my jaw on the floor.

---

Reality is often surprising, especially to people like you.

quote:

---

Jesus' impact for starters converted some 30,000 Jews according to some figuring I did quite a while back based on the Book of Acts

---

The entire Book of Acts concerns events AFTER Jesus' death. It really doesn't show that he was that successful in life, did it ? There were about 30,000 Mormons at the time of Joseph Smith's death, so timescales are rather important, too. And obviously numbers can be exaggerated.

quote:

---

Yeah, Christianity made CONVERTS in the millions.

---

Eventually. And much more due to the efforts of Paul than of Jesus.

quote:

---

No doubt because I'm the one with the truth, you the one with the made up crap, and the pride to boot.

---

Keep on living in your topsy-turvy fantasy land.

quote:

---

I think I have acknowledged that too. It seems to be only Eliahyu who thinks his logic ought to be decisive to both of us. I am not trying to convince Eliahyu to adopt my position. I am only trying to point out the holes in his argument.

---

But you're missing the hidden assumption that Judaism is correct.

quote:

---

Apparently a lot of people at the time did think that Jesus was going to free the Jews from the Romans. But the Gospels pretty much describe the Jews being the ones who were angry about Jesus with the Romans being largely indifferent.

---

That's not entirely true. Prior to Jesus' arrest the Gospels depict Jesus as being at odds with rival religious leaders, but not with the Jewish people in general. And even that depiction is problematic. The scene with Pilate and the Jewish crowd, however, is frankly unbelievable, even in Mark. There's no record of any custom of releasing a prisoner at Passover and Pilate appears to have been an autocrat with no real respect for the Jews - and as for the Jewish crowd ritually taking responsibility... No, just No.It's pretty clear that the Gospels have a pro-Roman and anti-Jewish bias and with Christianity becoming a Gentile religion trying to exist within the Roman Empire it's entirely likely that the Messianic elements of Jesus' teachings would be watered down. Although, it must be said that the Revelation is still strongly anti-Roman - but even that viewpoint an hardly be help but be influenced by the fact that Jesus did not conquer or rule.

quote:

---

I don't find those arguments very compelling. Perhaps it is start. It is at least an argument.

---

But what would you expect given the paucity of evidence, and the vast majority of it reflecting the Christian view of decades after Jesus' death ? As I've already said you will find no compelling arguments either way because the historical Jesus is lost to us.

quote:

---

More difficult to answer are questions about why Jesus did not fulfill his own prophecies, but questions about why he did not fulfill some ancient Jewish scripture that may be wishful thinking on the part of an an oppressed people are quite easy for me to dismiss.

---

How about the question of why he would claim to be the fulfilment of those prophecies, if he was not ? Because the prophecies you refer to are those which DEFINE the concept of The Messiah.

quote:

---

But Jesus can be the Son of God without doing a single thing the Jews were, and perhaps still are expecting their messiah to do

---

That's a very different question to whether Jesus was The Messiah or not. Really it's off-topic.

quote:

---

And aren't some of those predictions about what the messiah is supposed to accomplished already out of reach anyway? Why isn't that a problem.

---

It isn't a problem for ME because I don't believe in predictive prophecy. I'd agree that it should be a problem for Christians and Jews, though.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Hardly. That was addressed and resolved in the very teachings of Jesus himself who exposed the unscriptural understanding of the Pharisees, and today's Jews are the same as those erring Pharisees. They crucified Him because they didn't believe He was the Messiah, and nothing has changed in their view of Him today either. Why on earth should we reconsider something that was so definitively put to rest in Jesus' own time.

---

If you have an answer then that's no reason for not producing it. If you don't then all that is just a bluff.

quote:

---

I pointed out that Jesus didn't do one thing that suggested an ambition to establish an earthly kingdom that would involve political and military arrangements. He taught, he did miracles, nothing suggestive of the kind of Messiah some of the Jews were wrongly expecting.

---

Well that's not entirely true, is it ? Take the context of Zechariah 9 for a start. And the Romans were worried enough to execute him as a rebel. Now I happen to think that Jesus expected God to do most of the killing, but who knows what would have happened if he had got to a position where armed rebellion was a real possibility ?

quote:

---

You didn't bother to answer this

---

Because I wanted to see your full argument. Odd then, that you don't answer my question of where I can find it.

quote:

---

You didn't bother to answer this but it's a fact that everything Jesus did works against such an idea, as well as everything He taught, most particularly "My Kingdom is not of this world."

---

If he did indeed teach that. Which we can't really know.But I'm still waiting to see any real argument that I have to rewrite a word of the Gospels. COme one, Faith. Name one verse - or a larger passage if you need that - that I have to rewrite. And explain WHY I have to rewrite it, rather than, say, simply not believing it to be accurate. RIght now I see less cause for you to accuse me of rewriting them than I have to make the same accusation of Biblical inerrantists like you.

quote:

---

Why would I accept that assumption in an argument that is essentially about whether Judaism is correct?

---

That's a hypothetical question. The real question is why you would insist on talking at cross-purposes for no reason.