Many messiahs?

[xrseyre]

In Hebrew, the word which is translated in English as “messiah” is “moschiach”. This word means “anointed” and is used in quite a few passages of, for instance, items used ritually in Judaism.

In texts in Biblical Hebrew it tends to come without any "the" (maybe it always does, but I'm careful about claims like that, as I don't read Hebrew to any significant extent!).

Now, in the Hebrew scriptures (in Christianity referred to as the Old Testament), where we're talking about human beings who are given this label, they are priests or kings (Saul and David spring to mind as both having been labelled so); Cyrus is, if I'm not mistaken, the only non-Jewish person so labelled, in Isaiah 45:1. In addition there are, of course, multiple references to a future "annointed one" in the prophetic writings.

The direction of my thinking on this subject makes me an equal-opportunity offender from the point of view of both Judaism and Christianity. It goes as follows:-
1. Multiple people are described in scripture as "moschiach", including one non-Jew. Multiple messiahs are therefore scripturally sound as a concept, taken historically.
2. There is no helpful "the" to distinguish whether what is being talked about prophetically is A messiah or THE messiah.
3. The assumption that prophecy using the word "moschiach" refers to one single individual is therefore unfounded in Scripture, taken purely on the face of the words.
4. The tradition of "one messiah" may therefore not be what the prophets intended to indicate. (In fact, I'm aware of a smallish Jewish school of thought which talks of two messiahs, a kingly and a priestly one, and another which talks of a "messiah of the age")
5. Judaism therefore need never have looked for one person to fulfil all messianic prophecy.
6. Christian identification of Jesus as "the messiah" is therefore based on an error of interpretation. It was open to him, possibly, to have been "a messiah", and using the example of Cyrus, he didn't have to be of either a kingly or priestly line for that to be a valid identification. It didn't, however, have to be exclusive, as he didn't have to fit all messianic prophecy (and there are a lot of these recognised in Judaism, few of which have so far actually been satisfied). One would do.
7. Reb. Schneerson (former leader of the Chabad Lubavitch group within Judaism and controversially hailed as “moschiach” by many during his lifetime and still by some today) may well also have been correctly identified as "moschiach", and the same comments apply.
8. I take the view that if the “end times” are actually going to occur in a literal sense, there’s no good reason to believe that that will be any time soon. In terms of fulfilling all messianic prophecy, it seems to me hugely unlikely that a confluence of all these will in fact happen during the lifetime of any one individual, so messianic expectations in both religions are likely to continue unfulfilled. However, they don't necessarily need to, purely on the basis of the Hebrew Scriptures.

It's clear to me that there has been a development of a tradition (within pre-second century Judaism) on which both the modern Jewish and the Christian positions are based, but I haven't yet been shown a logic for this development and would question it if it were shown. I don't remotely expect either religion to break with this tradition, but I wonder whether freeing up the possibilities a little would not be a good thing...

And on that note, in Christianity we look for the return of Jesus. In part, theologians justify the fact that Jesus emphatically did not satisfy all prophecy referring to a future messiah in the Hebrew Scriptures by suggesting that the remaining prophecies will be satisfied on his return, which is conceived as a once-and-for-all event. Indeed, a return is talked of in the NT eschatological scriptures, and very many people take that as prophetic and literal. While I take note that it might be, on the whole I look for how the eschatological scriptures might be interpreted in terms of the here and now on a spiritual basis.

However, I don’t at this point need to explore this avenue in detail, because I have a number of well-developed principles in Christianity which allow me a view of Jesus as having already returned in some sense (or possibly having never left). The church as the body of Christ, for instance. Jesus being our “head”, i.e. controlling our actions. Aspiring to be Christ-like. Entering into His death and resurrection ourselves. My list is not exhaustive…

This opens the way for me to look for individual Christians or the Church as a whole to fulfil messianic prophecies in advance of any dramatic “second coming”, and thereby to become “moschiach”, “messiah” themselves, in a limited sense individually, but possibly in a more general sense collectively.

The notable unfulfilled prophecies which I have in mind are “a time of world peace” (Isaiah 2:4) and “a time when everyone believes in God” (Isaiah 66:23), these being accessible to everyone as aims. We may be pursuing the second, but I suggest we should maybe not be looking for divine intervention to establish the first. Other notable ones are “gather all the Jews” (Isaiah 11:12), “rebuild the Temple” (Ezekiel 37:27 inter alia) and “a time when all Jews follow God’s commandments” (Ezekiel 37:24); I see the first two as up to Judaism and the nation of Israel to accomplish, though the rest of us should approve. The third, I could interpret as indicating that we should not attempt to persuade Jews to cease following all of the commandments.

There’s also Zechariah 8:23, indicating that the rest of the world will turn to the Jews for spiritual guidance. Now in the person of Jesus, a Jew, I could argue that Christians already do this. However, it may very well be that there’s more to it than that, and that we should re-examine any supercessionist thinking we may have (and the passages which lead us to that) and enquire whether we should not be taking concepts such as, for instance, mitzvah into our own thinking, at the very least. Pace the Council of Jersualem in Acts 15:28-29, while accepting that there is no obligation on us as Christians to follow any of the commandments specific to Israel (and this is echoed within Judaism in the “Noahide” concept), there is also (I suggest) no overriding reason why we could not regard voluntary adherence to some of those as being a valid and worshipful action, and something which could be introduced into our own praxis.

I should maybe underline that I do not think of any of this as being "the truth" in distinction from any other thoughts about the situation. I am merely advancing it as an interesting and perhaps viable way of thinking.

[shunyadragon]

In Hebrew, the word which is translated in English as “messiah” is “moschiach”. This word means “anointed” and is used in quite a few passages of, for instance, items used ritually in Judaism.

In texts in Biblical Hebrew it tends to come without any "the" (maybe it always does, but I'm careful about claims like that, as I don't read Hebrew to any significant extent!).

Now, in the Hebrew scriptures (in Christianity referred to as the Old Testament), where we're talking about human beings who are given this label, they are priests or kings (Saul and David spring to mind as both having been labelled so); Cyrus is, if I'm not mistaken, the only non-Jewish person so labelled, in Isaiah 45:1. In addition there are, of course, multiple references to a future "annointed one" in the prophetic writings.

The direction of my thinking on this subject makes me an equal-opportunity offender from the point of view of both Judaism and Christianity. It goes as follows:-
1. Multiple people are described in scripture as "moschiach", including one non-Jew. Multiple messiahs are therefore scripturally sound as a concept, taken historically.
2. There is no helpful "the" to distinguish whether what is being talked about prophetically is A messiah or THE messiah.
3. The assumption that prophecy using the word "moschiach" refers to one single individual is therefore unfounded in Scripture, taken purely on the face of the words.
4. The tradition of "one messiah" may therefore not be what the prophets intended to indicate. (In fact, I'm aware of a smallish Jewish school of thought which talks of two messiahs, a kingly and a priestly one, and another which talks of a "messiah of the age")
5. Judaism therefore need never have looked for one person to fulfil all messianic prophecy.
6. Christian identification of Jesus as "the messiah" is therefore based on an error of interpretation. It was open to him, possibly, to have been "a messiah", and using the example of Cyrus, he didn't have to be of either a kingly or priestly line for that to be a valid identification. It didn't, however, have to be exclusive, as he didn't have to fit all messianic prophecy (and there are a lot of these recognised in Judaism, few of which have so far actually been satisfied). One would do.
7. Reb. Schneerson (former leader of the Chabad Lubavitch group within Judaism and controversially hailed as “moschiach” by many during his lifetime and still by some today) may well also have been correctly identified as "moschiach", and the same comments apply.
8. I take the view that if the “end times” are actually going to occur in a literal sense, there’s no good reason to believe that that will be any time soon. In terms of fulfilling all messianic prophecy, it seems to me hugely unlikely that a confluence of all these will in fact happen during the lifetime of any one individual, so messianic expectations in both religions are likely to continue unfulfilled. However, they don't necessarily need to, purely on the basis of the Hebrew Scriptures.

It's clear to me that there has been a development of a tradition (within pre-second century Judaism) on which both the modern Jewish and the Christian positions are based, but I haven't yet been shown a logic for this development and would question it if it were shown. I don't remotely expect either religion to break with this tradition, but I wonder whether freeing up the possibilities a little would not be a good thing...

And on that note, in Christianity we look for the return of Jesus. In part, theologians justify the fact that Jesus emphatically did not satisfy all prophecy referring to a future messiah in the Hebrew Scriptures by suggesting that the remaining prophecies will be satisfied on his return, which is conceived as a once-and-for-all event. Indeed, a return is talked of in the NT eschatological scriptures, and very many people take that as prophetic and literal. While I take note that it might be, on the whole I look for how the eschatological scriptures might be interpreted in terms of the here and now on a spiritual basis.

However, I don’t at this point need to explore this avenue in detail, because I have a number of well-developed principles in Christianity which allow me a view of Jesus as having already returned in some sense (or possibly having never left). The church as the body of Christ, for instance. Jesus being our “head”, i.e. controlling our actions. Aspiring to be Christ-like. Entering into His death and resurrection ourselves. My list is not exhaustive…

This opens the way for me to look for individual Christians or the Church as a whole to fulfil messianic prophecies in advance of any dramatic “second coming”, and thereby to become “moschiach”, “messiah” themselves, in a limited sense individually, but possibly in a more general sense collectively.

The notable unfulfilled prophecies which I have in mind are “a time of world peace” (Isaiah 2:4) and “a time when everyone believes in God” (Isaiah 66:23), these being accessible to everyone as aims. We may be pursuing the second, but I suggest we should maybe not be looking for divine intervention to establish the first. Other notable ones are “gather all the Jews” (Isaiah 11:12), “rebuild the Temple” (Ezekiel 37:27 inter alia) and “a time when all Jews follow God’s commandments” (Ezekiel 37:24); I see the first two as up to Judaism and the nation of Israel to accomplish, though the rest of us should approve. The third, I could interpret as indicating that we should not attempt to persuade Jews to cease following all of the commandments.

There’s also Zechariah 8:23, indicating that the rest of the world will turn to the Jews for spiritual guidance. Now in the person of Jesus, a Jew, I could argue that Christians already do this. However, it may very well be that there’s more to it than that, and that we should re-examine any supercessionist thinking we may have (and the passages which lead us to that) and enquire whether we should not be taking concepts such as, for instance, mitzvah into our own thinking, at the very least. Pace the Council of Jersualem in Acts 15:28-29, while accepting that there is no obligation on us as Christians to follow any of the commandments specific to Israel (and this is echoed within Judaism in the “Noahide” concept), there is also (I suggest) no overriding reason why we could not regard voluntary adherence to some of those as being a valid and worshipful action, and something which could be introduced into our own praxis.

I should maybe underline that I do not think of any of this as being "the truth" in distinction from any other thoughts about the situation. I am merely advancing it as an interesting and perhaps viable way of thinking.

This to a certain extent reflects the Baha'i view, which believes in 'messiahs' in a universal context of all peoples and cultures of the world throughout time. In this concept the 'messiahs' enlighten and teach humanity in a spiritual progressive evolving process we call revelation. The 'return' of the Lord (messiah) and prophecy is common tradition in many cultures of the world. The religions and beliefs we have today reflect the human view of this process influence by culture and human influence.

[xrseyre]

This to a certain extent reflects the Baha'i view, which believes in 'messiahs' in a universal context of all peoples and cultures of the world throughout time. In this concept the 'messiahs' enlighten and teach humanity in a spiritual progressive evolving process we call revelation. The 'return' of the Lord (messiah) and prophecy is common tradition in many cultures of the world. The religions and beliefs we have today reflect the human view of this process influence by culture and human influence.

I recall many years ago having some exchanges with a number of Baha'is and forming a very favourable impression of the faith through some of their insights, needless to say because they seemed to be running along much the same lines as my own, and he who agrees with me must obviously be thinking well. :wink: Sadly, I don't remember nearly enough of the specifics. However, I have never seen a good reason why any prophet, messiah or whatever should be thought to have uttered the "last word"; I've always taken the view that the reporting of experience of God is necessarily dependent upon the culture, philosophy and language of the time and place in which it's reported, and at the very least is likely to need translating in all three respects in order to be fully appreciated in another time and place.

[RBerman]

It's pretty clear in the New Testament that the Jews (and Samaritans) were awaiting a Messiah for their situation. Obviously Jesus wasn't exactly what they were looking for, or they wouldn't have killed him. That just means that they didn't understand the way that God intended to fulfill the OT prophecies about an "anointed one" by sending one particular and definitive "messiah to end all messiahs." But it would be wrong to say, "Christian theology talks about the Messiah in a different way than Jewish theology previously did, so the Jews are right, and the Christians are wrong."

[xrseyre]

It's pretty clear in the New Testament that the Jews (and Samaritans) were awaiting a Messiah for their situation. Obviously Jesus wasn't exactly what they were looking for, or they wouldn't have killed him. That just means that they didn't understand the way that God intended to fulfill the OT prophecies about an "anointed one" by sending one particular and definitive "messiah to end all messiahs." But it would be wrong to say, "Christian theology talks about the Messiah in a different way than Jewish theology previously did, so the Jews are right, and the Christians are wrong."

My thesis was not that Judaism has a better messiah concept, but that Christianity inherited a scripturally flawed messiah concept from Judaism - the same messiah concept.

Clearly it was open to God to satisfy all the outstanding "messiah" prophecies in one person, and that's what Judaism had decided would happen, but it isn't what scripture at that stage indicated. Judaism now rightly points out that not all of the OT messianic prophecies were fulfilled in the First Century, Christian theologians answer that by saying the remainder will be fulfilled at the second coming. Both expect a future event which will resolve the situation.

Judaism further suggests that some prophecies Christianity considers fulfilled by Jesus at the first coming were not in fact messianic prophecies, notably the "suffering servant" passages of deutero-Isaiah. Actually, I'm inclined to agree; there is a viable typology for applicational purposes, but identification is a difficulty as Jesus did not in fact comply with all of the "suffering servant" description. That is, I think, the only respect in which I might say that Jewish theology is superior to Christian theology on the subject.

[RBerman]

Are you then disagreeing with the exegesis of Philip in Acts 8, when he speaks to the Ethiopian eunuch about Isaiah 53 being about Christ?

I agree that not every OT prophecy about Christ has reached utter fulfillment yet.

[shunyadragon]

I recall many years ago having some exchanges with a number of Baha'is and forming a very favourable impression of the faith through some of their insights, needless to say because they seemed to be running along much the same lines as my own, and he who agrees with me must obviously be thinking well. :wink: Sadly, I don't remember nearly enough of the specifics. However, I have never seen a good reason why any prophet, messiah or whatever should be thought to have uttered the "last word"; I've always taken the view that the reporting of experience of God is necessarily dependent upon the culture, philosophy and language of the time and place in which it's reported, and at the very least is likely to need translating in all three respects in order to be fully appreciated in another time and place.

For more on the Baha'i Faith, simply go on line. A caution of the self-fulfilling finding the belief that fits ones own thinking. If the shoes fit to well they are not the right shoes. In fact the Baha'i Faith does not fit many of my views well. Actually I personally prefer the Unitarian agnostic perspective.

[xrseyre]

Are you then disagreeing with the exegesis of Philip in Acts 8, when he speaks to the Ethiopian eunuch about Isaiah 53 being about Christ?

I agree that not every OT prophecy about Christ has reached utter fulfillment yet.

I think I have to disagree with that exegesis if the implication is that Isaiah 53 is ONLY about Christ, as it seems clear to me that the "suffering servant" is throughout best identified with Israel. However, as God's annointed, Christ is representative of Israel and reasonably partakes of the typology of Israel without necessarily there being identity - in that event, the passage is still about Christ in a sense.

GwG

Chris

[xrseyre]

For more on the Baha'i Faith, simply go on line. A caution of the self-fulfilling finding the belief that fits ones own thinking. If the shoes fit to well they are not the right shoes. In fact the Baha'i Faith does not fit many of my views well. Actually I personally prefer the Unitarian agnostic perspective.

SelectSmart gives me 100% for Unitarian Universalist and a few percent less for Mainstream to Liberal Christian, with Hindu and Liberal Quaker in between and Mahayana Buddhism just behind. My first nine results are all over 70%. I've a fairly high compatibility index, you might say! I actually function within Anglicanism.

Would you say that religion, like the preacher, should comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable? :wink:

GwG

Chris

[RBerman]

I think I have to disagree with that exegesis if the implication is that Isaiah 53 is ONLY about Christ, as it seems clear to me that the "suffering servant" is throughout best identified with Israel. However, as God's annointed, Christ is representative of Israel and reasonably partakes of the typology of Israel without necessarily there being identity - in that event, the passage is still about Christ in a sense.
OK. I agree. Also, in Isaiah 50, the Suffering Servant is not Israel, but rather is Isaiah himself, suffering at the hands of Israel.

[NormATive]

In Hebrew, the word which is translated in English as “messiah” is “moschiach”. This word means “anointed” and is used in quite a few passages of, for instance, items used ritually in Judaism.

In texts in Biblical Hebrew it tends to come without any "the" (maybe it always does, but I'm careful about claims like that, as I don't read Hebrew to any significant extent!).

Now, in the Hebrew scriptures (in Christianity referred to as the Old Testament), where we're talking about human beings who are given this label, they are priests or kings (Saul and David spring to mind as both having been labelled so); Cyrus is, if I'm not mistaken, the only non-Jewish person so labelled, in Isaiah 45:1. In addition there are, of course, multiple references to a future "annointed one" in the prophetic writings.

The direction of my thinking on this subject makes me an equal-opportunity offender from the point of view of both Judaism and Christianity. It goes as follows:-
1. Multiple people are described in scripture as "moschiach", including one non-Jew. Multiple messiahs are therefore scripturally sound as a concept, taken historically.
2. There is no helpful "the" to distinguish whether what is being talked about prophetically is A messiah or THE messiah.
3. The assumption that prophecy using the word "moschiach" refers to one single individual is therefore unfounded in Scripture, taken purely on the face of the words.
4. The tradition of "one messiah" may therefore not be what the prophets intended to indicate. (In fact, I'm aware of a smallish Jewish school of thought which talks of two messiahs, a kingly and a priestly one, and another which talks of a "messiah of the age")
5. Judaism therefore need never have looked for one person to fulfil all messianic prophecy.
6. Christian identification of Jesus as "the messiah" is therefore based on an error of interpretation. It was open to him, possibly, to have been "a messiah", and using the example of Cyrus, he didn't have to be of either a kingly or priestly line for that to be a valid identification. It didn't, however, have to be exclusive, as he didn't have to fit all messianic prophecy (and there are a lot of these recognised in Judaism, few of which have so far actually been satisfied). One would do.
7. Reb. Schneerson (former leader of the Chabad Lubavitch group within Judaism and controversially hailed as “moschiach” by many during his lifetime and still by some today) may well also have been correctly identified as "moschiach", and the same comments apply.
8. I take the view that if the “end times” are actually going to occur in a literal sense, there’s no good reason to believe that that will be any time soon. In terms of fulfilling all messianic prophecy, it seems to me hugely unlikely that a confluence of all these will in fact happen during the lifetime of any one individual, so messianic expectations in both religions are likely to continue unfulfilled. However, they don't necessarily need to, purely on the basis of the Hebrew Scriptures.

It's clear to me that there has been a development of a tradition (within pre-second century Judaism) on which both the modern Jewish and the Christian positions are based, but I haven't yet been shown a logic for this development and would question it if it were shown. I don't remotely expect either religion to break with this tradition, but I wonder whether freeing up the possibilities a little would not be a good thing...

And on that note, in Christianity we look for the return of Jesus. In part, theologians justify the fact that Jesus emphatically did not satisfy all prophecy referring to a future messiah in the Hebrew Scriptures by suggesting that the remaining prophecies will be satisfied on his return, which is conceived as a once-and-for-all event. Indeed, a return is talked of in the NT eschatological scriptures, and very many people take that as prophetic and literal. While I take note that it might be, on the whole I look for how the eschatological scriptures might be interpreted in terms of the here and now on a spiritual basis.

However, I don’t at this point need to explore this avenue in detail, because I have a number of well-developed principles in Christianity which allow me a view of Jesus as having already returned in some sense (or possibly having never left). The church as the body of Christ, for instance. Jesus being our “head”, i.e. controlling our actions. Aspiring to be Christ-like. Entering into His death and resurrection ourselves. My list is not exhaustive…

This opens the way for me to look for individual Christians or the Church as a whole to fulfil messianic prophecies in advance of any dramatic “second coming”, and thereby to become “moschiach”, “messiah” themselves, in a limited sense individually, but possibly in a more general sense collectively.

The notable unfulfilled prophecies which I have in mind are “a time of world peace” (Isaiah 2:4) and “a time when everyone believes in God” (Isaiah 66:23), these being accessible to everyone as aims. We may be pursuing the second, but I suggest we should maybe not be looking for divine intervention to establish the first. Other notable ones are “gather all the Jews” (Isaiah 11:12), “rebuild the Temple” (Ezekiel 37:27 inter alia) and “a time when all Jews follow God’s commandments” (Ezekiel 37:24); I see the first two as up to Judaism and the nation of Israel to accomplish, though the rest of us should approve. The third, I could interpret as indicating that we should not attempt to persuade Jews to cease following all of the commandments.

There’s also Zechariah 8:23, indicating that the rest of the world will turn to the Jews for spiritual guidance. Now in the person of Jesus, a Jew, I could argue that Christians already do this. However, it may very well be that there’s more to it than that, and that we should re-examine any supercessionist thinking we may have (and the passages which lead us to that) and enquire whether we should not be taking concepts such as, for instance, mitzvah into our own thinking, at the very least. Pace the Council of Jersualem in Acts 15:28-29, while accepting that there is no obligation on us as Christians to follow any of the commandments specific to Israel (and this is echoed within Judaism in the “Noahide” concept), there is also (I suggest) no overriding reason why we could not regard voluntary adherence to some of those as being a valid and worshipful action, and something which could be introduced into our own praxis.

I should maybe underline that I do not think of any of this as being "the truth" in distinction from any other thoughts about the situation. I am merely advancing it as an interesting and perhaps viable way of thinking.

Very interesting take on this subject, xrseyre.

I am Jewish on my mother's side and was raised Christian because of my father's side of the family. So, I was schooled in both traditions and can relate to everything you mention.

It is with egg on everyone's face that the whole messiah / moshiach thing didn't quite work out so well. Christians were expecting Jesus to return within their (first century) lifetime. Jews felt abandoned by G-d because Moshiach didn't rescue them in their darkest hour (shoah).

As for the Jews, from what I understand, the "expectation" of Moshiach is mostly a cultural thing - sort of like waiting for Santa on Christmas Eve. Everyone knows it ain't gonna happen, but we still leave cookies / Elijah's wine goblet out - just in case.

Personally, I think both religions' notion of messiah / moshiach is outdated and irrelevant to modernn culture. What good does it do to "wait" for some promised super-dude to come save the day? Meanwhile, there are plenty of hobgoblins we should be figting on our own.

The Agnostics and Atheitst have it correct: we have met the enemy, and we are it. We have it within ourselves to bring about our own salvation. In a way, I think the story of Jesus hints at this idea. Unfortunately, the mystics felt the need to "dress" up his teachings with signs and wonders.

Unfortunately, as long as there are significant numbers of people still waiting on messiahs, moshiachs, supermen or magic unicorns to do our work for us, we will never bring about "the world to come."

NORM

[RBerman]

Unfortunately, as long as there are significant numbers of people still waiting on messiahs, moshiachs, supermen or magic unicorns to do our work for us, we will never bring about "the world to come."
And still more unfortunately, there are significant numbers of well-meaning people who imagine, in defiance of all the lessons of recorded history, that utopia can be built and maintained through human effort. Such efforts all ultimately end in disappointment, if not tyranny.

[xrseyre]

OK. I agree. Also, in Isaiah 50, the Suffering Servant is not Israel, but rather is Isaiah himself, suffering at the hands of Israel.

That works for me, using non-exclusive typology!

GwG

Chris

[shunyadragon]

SelectSmart gives me 100% for Unitarian Universalist and a few percent less for Mainstream to Liberal Christian, with Hindu and Liberal Quaker in between and Mahayana Buddhism just behind. My first nine results are all over 70%. I've a fairly high compatibility index, you might say! I actually function within Anglicanism.

I had a similar response from this survey.

Would you say that religion, like the preacher, should comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable? :wink:

GwG

Chris

I am not sure that I would include preachere here, but the concept general fits the messiahs of history..

[John Goddard]

And still more unfortunately, there are significant numbers of well-meaning people who imagine, in defiance of all the lessons of recorded history, that utopia can be built and maintained through human effort. Such efforts all ultimately end in disappointment, if not tyranny.

USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba...tried and failed compared to an officially-Christian nation like the UK.

--------------

There are non-Jewish Messiahs like Cyrus, who might compare to building Norm's idea of a secular utopia, but they came and went too. The one from David is supposed to make it all happen.

--------------

Suffering Servant is all righteous Jews, Jesus of course being leader of them, suffering for the sins of wicked Jews.

[xrseyre]

Very interesting take on this subject, xrseyre.

I am Jewish on my mother's side and was raised Christian because of my father's side of the family. So, I was schooled in both traditions and can relate to everything you mention.

It is with egg on everyone's face that the whole messiah / moshiach thing didn't quite work out so well. Christians were expecting Jesus to return within their (first century) lifetime. Jews felt abandoned by G-d because Moshiach didn't rescue them in their darkest hour (shoah).

As for the Jews, from what I understand, the "expectation" of Moshiach is mostly a cultural thing - sort of like waiting for Santa on Christmas Eve. Everyone knows it ain't gonna happen, but we still leave cookies / Elijah's wine goblet out - just in case.

Personally, I think both religions' notion of messiah / moshiach is outdated and irrelevant to modernn culture. What good does it do to "wait" for some promised super-dude to come save the day? Meanwhile, there are plenty of hobgoblins we should be figting on our own.

The Agnostics and Atheitst have it correct: we have met the enemy, and we are it. We have it within ourselves to bring about our own salvation. In a way, I think the story of Jesus hints at this idea. Unfortunately, the mystics felt the need to "dress" up his teachings with signs and wonders.

Unfortunately, as long as there are significant numbers of people still waiting on messiahs, moshiachs, supermen or magic unicorns to do our work for us, we will never bring about "the world to come."

NORM

Thanks for your response; it;s interesting to have feedback from someone with some knowledge of the Judaic side. I don't, as far as I'm aware, have any Jewish ancestry, nor do I have any early exposure to Jewish culture to assist me (sadly, my home is in a synagogue-free area).

What I do have is the firm opinion that as over two thirds of Christian scripture is "borrowed" from Judaism, we look to a leader who was reportedly a practising Jew and our own scriptures rely heavily on Hebrew scripture for their basis, I should take the Hebrew scriptures seriously in their own right and should also take seriously Judaic interpretation of those scriptures (allowing for the fact that that has moved on since the first century too, usually with the injunction "not as the gentiles" in the forefront of thinking).

Pace some Jewish opinion, I thus have spiritual roots in Judaism (or at least Second-Temple Judaism); if I am part of something "grafted on", I should be concerned that the root is healthy and nourished. Otherwise the branch withers and dies, however it may reach for the heavens.

For your information, I have a PM today indicating that there's material in the Talmud justifying the "one messiah" concept from a Judaic point of view. I don't know what it is, or where in the Talmud it's to be found, however.

Otherwise? Well, yes, whether or not there's likely to be a helping hand from the Almighty, I think it's our job to bring about the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, for the most part.

Onward!

Chris

[shunyadragon]

For your information, I have a PM today indicating that there's material in the Talmud justifying the "one messiah" concept from a Judaic point of view. I don't know what it is, or where in the Talmud it's to be found, however.

Otherwise? Well, yes, whether or not there's likely to be a helping hand from the Almighty, I think it's our job to bring about the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, for the most part.

Onward!

Chris

This would be interesting. Please add this to the discussion.

[NormATive]

And still more unfortunately, there are significant numbers of well-meaning people who imagine, in defiance of all the lessons of recorded history, that utopia can be built and maintained through human effort. Such efforts all ultimately end in disappointment, if not tyranny.

Nevertheless, it was Jesus' belief that we CAN do it. I'll take him at his word and do my part.

NORM

[NormATive]

Thanks for your response; it;s interesting to have feedback from someone with some knowledge of the Judaic side. I don't, as far as I'm aware, have any Jewish ancestry, nor do I have any early exposure to Jewish culture to assist me (sadly, my home is in a synagogue-free area).

Don't rule it out. I never knew of my Jewish ancestry until after my grandfather died and we found his original birth certificate from New York City (he was orphaned as a small child and shipped off to Ohio where things like being Jewish were frowned upon) listing his parents religious affiliation.

The Diaspora of hundreds of thousands of Jews means that their blood courses through the veins of diverse people-groups.

What I do have is the firm opinion that as over two thirds of Christian scripture is "borrowed" from Judaism, we look to a leader who was reportedly a practising Jew and our own scriptures rely heavily on Hebrew scripture for their basis, I should take the Hebrew scriptures seriously in their own right and should also take seriously Judaic interpretation of those scriptures (allowing for the fact that that has moved on since the first century too, usually with the injunction "not as the gentiles" in the forefront of thinking).

Pace some Jewish opinion, I thus have spiritual roots in Judaism (or at least Second-Temple Judaism); if I am part of something "grafted on", I should be concerned that the root is healthy and nourished. Otherwise the branch withers and dies, however it may reach for the heavens.

I too used to believe that Christianity (the faith in which I was raised) was formed from Judaic roots. After much study, however, I have come to the conclusion that the two religions are as far apart from each other as the east is from the west.

The Christian scriptures (taken as a whole and in context) speak to an apocalyptic future with everything on earth in condemnation and destined for complete destruction.

In contrast, Judaism teaches that the earth is good and that our role is that of steward and witness to the goodness of HaShem.

The Christian belief that peace on earth brought about by human striving is a pipe dream is a complete 180 of what Judaism teaches. Keep in mind that according to the Tanakh, Moshiac is fully human.

For your information, I have a PM today indicating that there's material in the Talmud justifying the "one messiah" concept from a Judaic point of view. I don't know what it is, or where in the Talmud it's to be found, however.

They are probably referring to the Isaiah text that speaks of Israel as the "suffering servant." It has been misconstrued (from the Jewish perspective) as descriptive of Moshiac, which it clearly isn't taken in context. It does generate goose-bumps when sung in Handel's Messiah, though.

Now, since I really don't take the Hebrew or Christian scriptures as divinely inspired, it doesn't matter to me that Christians use this imagery to reinforce their apocalyptic story line. It really does make good theology!

Otherwise? Well, yes, whether or not there's likely to be a helping hand from the Almighty, I think it's our job to bring about the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, for the most part.

Onward!

Chris

Yes, the ball is clearly in our court.

NORM

[Bosco]

It's pretty clear in the New Testament that the Jews (and Samaritans) were awaiting a Messiah for their situation. Obviously Jesus wasn't exactly what they were looking for, or they wouldn't have killed him. That just means that they didn't understand the way that God intended to fulfill the OT prophecies about an "anointed one" by sending one particular and definitive "messiah to end all messiahs." But it would be wrong to say, "Christian theology talks about the Messiah in a different way than Jewish theology previously did, so the Jews are right, and the Christians are wrong."

Good observation RB. Judaism has always spoken of two Messiahs. Messiah ben Joseph, the suffering servant, and Messiah ben David, the conquering king. Some believe this to be two different Messiah's, others believe one in two roles. Nevertheless, we know Yehoshua fills both as he came as Messiah ben Joseph (aka Messiah ben Ephraim) and will return as Messiah ben David as he will then put all enemies under his feet.

The trouble with many of the Jews in his day was that, being in bondage to Rome, they expected the conquering king, the one who would free them from bondage. They got that in a way they did not expect, as he came as the suffering servant to free them from the bondage of sin and death.

The OP is correct... there have been other Messiahs. The word Machiach (Messiah) is used in scripture pertaining to King David as one example. However, there is a slight difference in usage when speaking of one who is annointed... and the ONE who would free us from the bondage of sin and death. There are messiahs, annointed ones, and then there is THE annointed one, THE Messiah.

Peace.
Ken