Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus (souls, last supper, Catholic, Biblical)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In Judaism, the word root is m-sh-ch, meaning anointed. High Priests and kings were anointed with a particular oil and were called then "anointed ones". The notion of a future "anointed one" is because he will be anointed as a king. In the text there is one situation (IIRC) where a person is referred to as an anointed one even when he was not actually anointed with the oil, but that's because he was approved of in the position of king by divine decree and the term is used as a figure of speech and not literal, requiring oil.
Jesus was not qualified to be either a priest or king and was never anointed or appointed as anything so he wasn't "an anointed one" and therefore, not a "messiah." Whether he was a "messianic figure" to some looser understanding of the word, especially in the eyes of a non-Jewish world, is a separate issue. Islam (AFAIK) sees him as a prophet.
..
Excuse the cut. But the first 2 paras are very important in the NT debate. As I understand it, one could be a ruler by 'Divine decree' without being chosen by any earthly group. Or in other words, King, or High priest, not because they had any 'Right' to be, but because God (or so they claimed) Said So. I gather that this what being 'King' or High Priest or the order of Mechizedelek (I'll check the spelling ) Melchizedek and Jesus was one of these, according to the Gospels.
This is pretty much saying that he was not in the line of descent entitled to anything, and it was on God's say -so that he had these titles.
Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah spoken of as "a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek" (Ps. 110:4), and so Jesus plays the role of the king-priest once and for all. According to the writer of Hebrews (7:13-17) Jesus is considered a priest in the order of Melchizedek because, like Melchizedek, Jesus was not a descendant of Aaron, and thus would not qualify for the Jewish priesthood under the Law of Moses.
Melchizedek is referred to again in Hebrews 5:6-10; Hebrews 6:20; Hebrews 7:1-21: "Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek"; and Hebrews 8:1.[Wiki]
Well, perhaps not too significant for being King of the Jews (Son of David) and High Priest because God said so and thus, Luke the Hasmoneans, double Messiah. King and High Priest at the same time.
I once used to take the gospels as 'reliable' even if very much adapted and the story Christianized (1). Looking specifically at the most reliable parts (agreed by all four gospels) we get the crucifixion, give or take a penitent thief or a spear -stab (not known to the other three...the resurrections are quite contradictory) as broadly reliable, and one reason I think broadly true. The evangelists had to work so hard to adapt the story to be what they wanted, why wouldn't they write it that way to start off with? It looks like they were stuck with an account that didn't suit them, and thus, it has to be true.
It would be very nice if John's account had reliable elements; the seamless robe, the raising of Lazarus. Because the latter has all the hallmarks of a set - up fake resurrection miracle, designed to impress everyone. But not only could it be a trick, but the details ensure that it HAD to be a trick. Just as, IF the details of the crucifixion are true (Arimathea getting involved, the wine given to Jesus in a sponge on a stick) it had all the signs of a plan to get Jesus off the cross alive.
But Lazarus is known to neither Mark nor Matthew, though it is Just possible that Luke knew of it and concealed it in the story of Lazarus and the son of the widow of Nain, though that is more arguable than, say, the Anointing at Bethany which Luke shifts to Galilee, or the healing of the Paralytic with "Take up your camp bed and walk" in Jerusalem in John and Galilee in the Synoptics.
But, if the singular details could be trusted, the seamless Robe at the crucifixion would sound very much like a priestly Ephod. And given that Jesus was High Priest because of God's say -so, probably a High Priest's "gorgeous" (purple) robe. Just as we hear at the Trial.
IF that was true, Jesus could only have got hold of it at the Temple. And there was only one opportunity: when he and his followers took it over, effectively, upon arriving in what was clearly an announcement that their Messianic liberator had arrived.
It all works very nicely, and what's more, the Evangelists know it does, which is why the yfiddle the events in various ways to cover up what was really going in, and make it look all preachy and saintly.
Now I have to doubt a lot of the details, but even so, I'd say the cover - up is undeniable - once you see it.
(1) why do I even bother with spellcheck? There are some words that it says are wrong no matter how you spell them.
And a P.S. Let me save the knotty problem of unhistorical Jesus. How Josephus (never mind Philo and that other fellow at Tiberias) never mentioned Jesus or his mission, whether as Prophet, Messiah or Zealot. And how we would know nothing of other wannabee messiahs if Josephus hadn't mentioned them. I believe that the account of the siege of Masada would not have been known if the account had been censored by the early church and replaced by some tale of Jesus in Gethsemane or at Gadara.
Flavius Josephus, a Jew born and raised in Jerusalem, is the only historian to provide a detailed account of the Great Jewish Revolt and the only person who recorded what happened on Masada.[Wiki]
It is not impossible that a quite significant Zealot Jesus could have vanished from history with Church assistance. Indeed, that an evidently fraudulent potted bio. of Jesus was inserted into Josephus by a Christian editor might suggest that the same editor could have taken out a Josephan account of Jesus that the Church didn't much like.
But, as I say, let's not go into that
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-24-2018 at 06:47 AM..
Excuse the cut. But the first 2 paras are very important in the NT debate. As I understand it, one could be a ruler by 'Divine decree' without being chosen by any earthly group. Or in other words, King, or High priest, not because they had any 'Right' to be, but because God (or so they claimed) Said So. I gather that this what being 'King' or High Priest or the order of Mechizedelek (I'll check the spelling ) Melchizedek and Jesus was one of these, according to the Gospels.
This is pretty much saying that he was not in the line of descent entitled to anything, and it was on God's say -so that he had these titles.
Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah spoken of as "a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek" (Ps. 110:4), and so Jesus plays the role of the king-priest once and for all. According to the writer of Hebrews (7:13-17) Jesus is considered a priest in the order of Melchizedek because, like Melchizedek, Jesus was not a descendant of Aaron, and thus would not qualify for the Jewish priesthood under the Law of Moses.
Melchizedek is referred to again in Hebrews 5:6-10; Hebrews 6:20; Hebrews 7:1-21: "Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek"; and Hebrews 8:1.[Wiki]
Unless he is mentioned in John, Melchizedek is not mentioned in the gospels. His role in Hebrews is interesting as Melchizedek is an evolved character from the king described in the OT. There he is given 1/10th of some spoils of war from Abraham, whereas some of the descendants of Abraham (who would become the Levite priesthood) received 1/10th as taxes.
The Epistle to the Hebrews is against temple worship, and is contrasting the heavenly temple (with an evolved OT Melchizedek as priest) with the earthly one (Levites descended from Abraham). The earthly sacrifice is one a year, the one in heaven by Jesus is once only.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Well, perhaps not too significant for being King of the Jews (Son of David) and High Priest because God said so and thus, Luke the Hasmoneans, double Messiah. King and High Priest at the same time.
The Essenes had at least two expected messiahs, one was a priest, a second was a warrior king. At the end of times, they thought they would have a meal to celebrate their victory over evil, and the Eucharist may well have started of in the same way before it evolved into an act of cannibalism. There are other similarities between the Essenes and the early Christians (12 chief priests / disciples and 3 overseers / pillars) but not enough to make a definite connection.
The concept of not needing a savior is the gnostic concept that we are already perfect and inseparable from our maker
This would be a perfect profile of people that don’t own their own stuff
Do you know anyone like that?
At one time, many Jews proclaimed Cyrus as their Messiah, after he took Babylon and let them go home, to oppress their fellow Jews who weren't exiled.
Jewish leaders and their peoples just weren't any good at keeping the covenants, that's all, and obsoleted themselves, so it was time the implement the Mosaic prophecies and take the religion to universal status, 'a light to all people', something the post-exile leaders were obviously never going to do, since it meant all their obsessions with genealogies and 'racial purity' laws would be meaningless babble and cut them out of plush Temple jobs. The religion moved on to genuine glory and success under the new covenant with God, becoming one of the largest sects in the world and doing great things, while the tribal Jews thought God was going to wipe out the Romans for them, they were 'special' in their minds, and instead they got their Temple burned and dispersed, and ended up sulking in self-isolation and arrogance. they now have some interesting reform movements going on that migh make them relevant again, though.
Last edited by OberonKing; 09-24-2018 at 09:15 AM..
At one time, many Jews proclaimed Cyrus as their Messiah, after he took Babylon and let them go home, to oppress their fellow Jews who weren't exiled.
Jewish leaders and their peoples just weren't any good at keeping the covenants, that's all, and obsoleted themselves, so it was time the implement the Mosaic prophecies and take the religion to universal status, 'a light to all people', something the post-exile leaders were obviously never going to do, since it meant all their obsessions with genealogies and 'racial purity' laws would be meaningless babble and cut them out of plush Temple jobs. The religion moved on to genuine glory and success under the new covenant with God, becoming one of the largest sects in the world and doing great things, while the tribal Jews thought God was going to wipe out the Romans for them, they were 'special' in their minds, and instead they got their Temple burned and dispersed, and ended up sulking in self-isolation and arrogance. they now have some interesting reform movements going on that migh make them relevant again, though.
To be fair, the different sects that would become Judaism did attack each other, often physically.
But it was a quick conversion to Christianity, Oberon was an agnostic two days ago. Now he is spouting Christian propaganda and Christian invented 'history'.
Unless he is mentioned in John, Melchizedek is not mentioned in the gospels. His role in Hebrews is interesting as Melchizedek is an evolved character from the king described in the OT. There he is given 1/10th of some spoils of war from Abraham, whereas some of the descendants of Abraham (who would become the Levite priesthood) received 1/10th as taxes.
The Epistle to the Hebrews is against temple worship, and is contrasting the heavenly temple (with an evolved OT Melchizedek as priest) with the earthly one (Levites descended from Abraham). The earthly sacrifice is one a year, the one in heaven by Jesus is once only.
The Essenes had at least two expected messiahs, one was a priest, a second was a warrior king. At the end of times, they thought they would have a meal to celebrate their victory over evil, and the Eucharist may well have started of in the same way before it evolved into an act of cannibalism. There are other similarities between the Essenes and the early Christians (12 chief priests / disciples and 3 overseers / pillars) but not enough to make a definite connection.
How does that fit into your theory?
Well, the first is that it might she light on whether Jesus was aiming at being High priest as well a messianic ruler. If he wasn't aiming at both posts, it isn't essential to my Onlyatheory.
The thing about the Essenes is that - do we know that it was the Essenes that had two expected messiahs - or both posts in one, perhaps (big Hint). Is this based on Qumran texts? I have my suspicion that this was a zealot community rather essene. It is (so far as i have read) just assumed that it was Essenic because it was some kind of isolated community. For my money it could have equally well as been a Nazorean-zealot community.
I had a check and there are only two mentions of the name One Genesis where Melchizedek is mentioned as High Priest and Psalms where someone is referred to as a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, which sounds like elected by God rather than the people. So it would fit someone trying to get the post of High Priest who wasn't actually eligible. If God appointed him, who could say no?
It's factual history, and nothing anti-semitic about it. My grandparents on my father's side were Jewish, and well informed on Jewish history. The OT and NT corroborate it as well, as does post-exilic Jewish history up to the Christian era. Just because someone who is JEwish doesn't like something doesn't make it anti-semitic, and in any case your bigotry against Christians is already on display elsewhere, repeating the lie that the Holocaust was commuted by Christians, so I can't really get all excited about your sniveling considering your bigoted rubbish.
At one time, many Jews proclaimed Cyrus as their Messiah, after he took Babylon and let them go home, to oppress their fellow Jews who weren't exiled.
Jewish leaders and their peoples just weren't any good at keeping the covenants, that's all, and obsoleted themselves, so it was time the implement the Mosaic prophecies and take the religion to universal status, 'a light to all people', something the post-exile leaders were obviously never going to do, since it meant all their obsessions with genealogies and 'racial purity' laws would be meaningless babble and cut them out of plush Temple jobs. The religion moved on to genuine glory and success under the new covenant with God, becoming one of the largest sects in the world and doing great things, while the tribal Jews thought God was going to wipe out the Romans for them, they were 'special' in their minds, and instead they got their Temple burned and dispersed, and ended up sulking in self-isolation and arrogance. they now have some interesting reform movements going on that migh make them relevant again, though.
This smacks of Anti-Semitism, and while I don't have any Jewish blood to somehow magically qualify me in speaking on a subject, I agree with Richard, but then Me and Richard don't see eye to eye on everything, I think all Gentiles are anti-Semitic, I can just snap my fingers and see Anti-Semitism just from people being a Christian, and it will be Jews who take up for the people who I raise an eyebrow to.
But yeah, sounds like you even have an agenda.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) Melchizedek and Jesus was one of these, according to the Gospels. 
