Is Jesus the Messiah?

[Douglas Bilodeau]

The primary Sabbath (i.e. Sunday) observance in Indiana seems to be to annoy blue-state heathen visitors who try to buy liquor and discover at the supermarket checkout line that they have to wait till Monday sunrise.

me again

why keep a 'Sabbath' and not the 10 COmmandments?

why keep any remnant of JEwish Law qt all?

Why keep the Greek word Democracy, or echoes of the Roman concepts of civic virtue? Why construct imposing public buildings with lots of columns in front?

Actually, people have mostly forgotten why. But it was once natural to imitate aspects of past societies which were found to be admirable (both the societies and the things we imitate). This would have been especially true of ancient Israelite society, which was thought to have been put in order by God. The Puritans especially thought that ancient Jewish Law, as expressed in the Hebrew scriptures, which they considered to be divinely inspired and ordained (as opposed to the Talmud, which they did not), contained a blueprint for an ideal society. Laws concerning ritual sacrifice and the temple were generally considered to have been superseded according to Christian scriptures. Sometimes a distinction was made between ceremonial, judicial and moral laws. Article VII of the 39 Articles of Faith of the Church of England says:

THE Old Teſtament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Teſtament everlaſting life is offered to Mankind by Chriſt, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for tranſitory promiſes. Although the Law given from God by Moſes, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Chriſtian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of neceſſity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithſtanding, no Chriſtian man whatſoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.

The Puritans were far more strict and consistent about their observance of the "Sabbath" (though very few Christians have moved observance back to Saturday). Anglicans and others were less strict. Today it is commonly thought that the Puritan theocratic ideal is unrealizable and that their legalism is inconsistent with reliance on faith rather than law. Others would say on the other hand that grace is for a community rather than individuals, and that communities need rules. Then there are Wesleyan and "holiness" churches whose legalism is based more on an aspiration to moral perfectibility rather than specific scriptural laws. This latter aspiration has survived to some extent in the "social gospel" of liberal Christianity.

The cultural tradition of strong emphasis on the Ten Commandments in Christian culture derives partly from Puritan theocracy, partly from their perception as a foundation for moral or social perfectionism, partly from the convenience of including them in catechism and confirmational training as one of the few succinct, specific and clear summations of moral principles in scripture.

A waning faith is often compensated by a moral emphasis: "I don't believe in miracles or all that theological nonsense, but I try to live by the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount." This seems to have been a common attitude since at least the 18th century.

[AzariLoveIran]

Is Jesus the Messiah? on the Spengler Blog
by David Layman
It all depends what the meaning  of "is," is.

Is Jesus the Messiah now? Bloody unlikely. Whether your political rogue du jour is Obama or Palin, politicians lie, the elderly and sick die (panels or no panels), wars arise and end with predictable pace; how long does this ellipsis have to be.........................?

Was Jesus the Messiah 2000 years ago? I suppose it depends who you  ask. The Jews didn't think so. Jesus simply didn't meet the job qualifications: execution by the enemies of the Jewish people was not a good way to get this particular job promotion. As Maimonides said a millenium later in Ch. 11 of Hilchos Melachim of his Mishneh Torah, Rabbi Akiva believed that Ben Koziva (Simon bar Kokhba) was the messiah, but once he was killed, realized it was not the case.

The Greek transliteration of mashiach only appears twice in the New Testament. In John 1:41, Andrew told Simon Peter, "We have found the Messiah" and the author quickly paraphrased the term into the Greek equivalent Christos. But Jesus did not affirm the description.

In the next scene, Jesus saw Nathaniel approaching, and called him "an Israelite without any guile." Nathaniel returned the compliment in spades: "you are the son of God! You are the king of Israel!" (Flattery will get you somewhere?) Jesus sarcastically retorts: if you believe because I said I saw you under a fig tree, then you are certainly easy to convince! If "king of Israel" was meant as a periphrasis for mashiach, then Jesus brushed it aside: Nathaniel would see events more powerful than something that would make him believe Jesus was the king of Israel. He would see "heaven opened" and the "the Son of Man" revealed.

In only one case did Jesus directly link himself to the mashiach identification: in the story of the Samaritan woman at the well, in John 4. The discussion turned to the religious differences between Jews and Samaritans, and the proper location for worship. Jesus told the woman that, while "salvation is of the Jews," in a future era worship will be neither at Jerusalem or Mt. Gerizim, but "in spirit and in truth." The woman responded,when the Messiah comes, he'll straighten out this fight and declare or announce (anangelei) everything. Jesus then said: egô eimi o lalôn soi: "I am (the one) speaking to you." It is not clear that Jesus was saying "I am the Messiah." The Samaritan woman was expecting someone to pronounce the solution to the centuries-old Jewish-Samaritan schism; Jesus said: I am speaking it now.

This redefinition of the messianic identity is nowhere clearer than in the basic text, Matthew 16:16: the Petrine confession, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus most certainly owned this definition, but in so doing was quite clear that the traditional expectations of the Jews had nothing to do with it: "flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven (v. 17 ESV)." (If Peter or Jesus was basing his messianic identity on current expectation then the phrase, "flesh and blood has not revealed this" would have been false.) In no text or tradition did the Jews connect "Son of God" with the Messiah.

So early Christianity quickly redefined Christos as Son of Man (probably a reference to the heavenly son of man in Daniel 7:13) and Son of God. Paul ignored any reference to a messianic identity based upon a genealogical linkage, however hypothetical, to David. Rather, Christ Jesus' divine identity was based on his resurrection from the dead: the gospel was "concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh  and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,.... (Romans 1:3-4)" (To understand the Pauline dichotomy between "flesh" and "spirit," see Romans 8.)

The ecumenical creeds (Nicene, Apostles', Athanasian) or Reformation confessions (Augsburg, Heidelberg, Westminster) nowhere declared belief in the messianic identity of Jesus to be an article of faith. Indeed when the Heidelberg Catechism had an opportunity to make the connection, it twice went out of its way to avoid it. In Question 31, "Why is he called CHRIST, that is, the ANOINTED ONE?," it answered that Christ is "ordained by God the Father and anointed with the Holy Spirit." Christ had a three-fold ministry, prophet, priest and king, but  the kingly authority (where one would expect some interpretation of his messianic identity) was given a spiritualized explanation: Christ is "governing up by his Word and Spirit and defending and sustaining us in the redemption he has won for us."

So where does the generally held claim that Jesus "was the messiah" arise? The "spiritualized" Christ was the standard view through the Protestant confessions. So when does it become "de-spiritualized"? The short answer appears to be in English empiricism, beginning with Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Hobbes observed that the Jewish kingdom of God was a worldly kingdom. Although he thought that the Jews had rejected the theocratic rule when they asked for a king, Jesus came, as a messiah, to restore that rule. However, such a rule would not be fulfilled until at his second coming. In the meantime, because life was nasty, brutish, and short, men covenanted with each other to chose a sovereign, who constrained the otherwise vicious liberty of men, and thus brought an end to the war of all against all. So for Hobbes, while God, with his messianic vicar Jesus, was in heaven, man ruled on earth. And "man," for Hobbes, was the sovereign king.

Locke seems to have done something similar: calling Jesus "messiah" was shorthand for saying that Jesus was superlative, perhaps quasi-divine, teacher. Certainly both Hobbes and Locke claimed to believe in Christianity. However, as scholars have noted of both men, it was a very strange Christianity. Both were radical empiricists. The continuities between Hobbes and David Hume are obvious and strong (see the first ten chapters or so of Leviathan). Hobbes especially is suspected of having been a closet atheist. Clearly, their belief that "Jesus was the messiah" was not part of a vital Christian faith, a supernatural empowerment by one believed to be the incarnation of God. Rather, for both Hobbes and Locke, the core of Christianity was intellectual assent to certain basic doctrines, most importantly that Jesus was the messiah, and that this assent was expressed by obedience to a basic program of moral law. (For Locke, see pp. xxiii-xxv in the Introduction to the Clarendon Edition of Locke's The Reasonableness of Christianity.)

Therefore, the affirmation, "Jesus was the messiah expected by the Jews," is not contained in the New Testament; is not required by Christian creeds or confessions;  originated as an attack upon traditional Christian faith and practice, by trying to make Christianity a moral mode of life in the rationalistically conceived order of the world; and is a tacit denial of any manner of supernatural power in or through Jesus Christ. Perhaps it is long overdue for Christians to drop it.

The sad news is , there is not a single evidence that Jesus or Moses ever existed , not a single hard evidence .. all hear say . .

Unfortunately, Mo has left lots of foot prints (with the girls) and not much doubt he really was having fun with Ayesha ..

By definition (see above), Jesus can not be Messiah or anything else ..

[charleston]

The sad news is , there is not a single evidence that Jesus or Moses ever existed , not a single hard evidence .. all hear say . .

Unfortunately, Mo has left lots of foot prints (with the girls) and not much doubt he really was having fun with Ayesha ..

By definition (see above), Jesus can not be Messiah or anything else ..

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,579052,00.html

Dispute among Islam Scholars
Did Muhammad Ever Really Live?
A number of Islamic associations have put a quick end to their collaboration with a professor -- and trainer of people who are supposed to teach Islam in German high schools -- who has expressed his doubt that Muhammad ever lived. Islam scholar Michael Marx spoke with SPIEGEL ONLINE about what lies behind the debate and the historical person of the Prophet.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Marx, someone studying Islam learns that the Prophet Muhammad was born on the Arabian Peninsula in A.D. 570 and died in Medina in A.D. 632. Is there any reason for doubting that this is true?

Michael Marx: Those are provisional dates that we should hold on to until there are better figures. The Islamic sources are rich with material about the person of the Prophet and his life story. Some of it is has elements that are somewhat mystical. But we can generally rely on the solid core of Islamic tradition.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: There is a group of prominent German Islamic scholars, who are becoming increasingly aggressive about questioning whether the existence of the Prophet is even historically accurate. The theory got its most recent backing from the University of Münster's Professor Muhammad Sven Kalisch, who is in charge of training teachers for Islamic education at the secondary-school level. The Ministry of Education of the state of North Rhine-Westphalia is now planning to calm the waters by appointing an additional professor of Islamic pedagogy. Are we witnessing a split into two camps?

there are many scholars who deny the existence of the mohammed of the koran and hadits, but these scholars are afraid for their lives. People are killed for questioning or criticizing islam.

Your arguments, such as they are, are based on popular current positions assumed by the undergraduate who believes, because he attends some second tier university, is smarter than his parents-and therefore an intellect to be respected...

your arguments are based on assumptions and propaganda...you have no idea about any facts

[rhapsody]

your arguments are based on assumptions and propaganda...you have no idea about any facts

All holy men, prophets, messiahs... are DEAD. That is a word many people need to learn by head first.

[AzariLoveIran]

The sad news is , there is not a single evidence that Jesus or Moses ever existed , not a single hard evidence .. all hear say . .

Unfortunately, Mo has left lots of foot prints (with the girls) and not much doubt he really was having fun with Ayesha ..

By definition (see above), Jesus can not be Messiah or anything else ..

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,579052,00.html

Dispute among Islam Scholars
Did Muhammad Ever Really Live?
A number of Islamic associations have put a quick end to their collaboration with a professor -- and trainer of people who are supposed to teach Islam in German high schools -- who has expressed his doubt that Muhammad ever lived. Islam scholar Michael Marx spoke with SPIEGEL ONLINE about what lies behind the debate and the historical person of the Prophet.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Marx, someone studying Islam learns that the Prophet Muhammad was born on the Arabian Peninsula in A.D. 570 and died in Medina in A.D. 632. Is there any reason for doubting that this is true?

Michael Marx: Those are provisional dates that we should hold on to until there are better figures. The Islamic sources are rich with material about the person of the Prophet and his life story. Some of it is has elements that are somewhat mystical. But we can generally rely on the solid core of Islamic tradition.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: There is a group of prominent German Islamic scholars, who are becoming increasingly aggressive about questioning whether the existence of the Prophet is even historically accurate. The theory got its most recent backing from the University of Münster's Professor Muhammad Sven Kalisch, who is in charge of training teachers for Islamic education at the secondary-school level. The Ministry of Education of the state of North Rhine-Westphalia is now planning to calm the waters by appointing an additional professor of Islamic pedagogy. Are we witnessing a split into two camps?

there are many scholars who deny the existence of the mohammed of the koran and hadits, but these scholars are afraid for their lives. People are killed for questioning or criticizing islam.

Your arguments, such as they are, are based on popular current positions assumed by the undergraduate who believes, because he attends some second tier university, is smarter than his parents-and therefore an intellect to be respected...

your arguments are based on assumptions and propaganda...you have no idea about any facts

No Idea about any fact ??

Well, name any historical fact that Jesus or Mosses ever existed .

Mo did not exist too . . if so, reason to celebrate , though Islam was not made by Mo but by Omar and he 4sure existed.

Undergraduate ?? hehehe

[Pastaneta]

(though very few Christians have moved observance back to Saturday)

I blame Constantine...

[AzariLoveIran]

(though very few Christians have moved observance back to Saturday)

I blame Constantine...

Christianity should get a "make over" . . All based on Mitra . . Ahmadinejat's ancestor religion . . Vatican built on Mitra temple . .

[Douglas Bilodeau]

(though very few Christians have moved observance back to Saturday)

I blame Constantine...

Let's see, are you referring to Eddie Constantine, American B-movie reject, who went on to become a huge star of French B-movies of the 50s as Lemmy Caution, private-eye? (Only to be immortalized playing the same character in Godard's absurdly artsy but intriguing film Alphaville.)

Or perhaps the eponymous exorcist/demon-fighter played by Keanu Reeves in the film 'Constantine"?

No? Well, as for the old emperor Constantine, he did us the favor of founding "Historical Christianity" centered in the Roman Empire (later the two Roman Empires), which became identified with a unified church hierarchy and aristocratic and monastic high culture. But even without the centralizing uniformity of the empire, the Christianity practiced in many dispersed places would have diverged from Jewish practice. Even diaspora Judaism diverged at least a bit, with different customs on at least minor points in Mesopotamia, Spain and Poland, etc. Christians did the same with their "inheritance" from Judaism.

(From what I've read, though, there was a lot of friendly fraternizing between Christians and Jews in the time before Constantine, more than the higher authorities of either religious group were comfortable with. Both sides made rules against it. As soon as the Empire became involved, of course, the Christian side had an army of brutal soldiers to enforce their rules, whether the ordinary Christian wanted them to or not.)

[AzariLoveIran]

(though very few Christians have moved observance back to Saturday)

I blame Constantine...

Let's see, are you referring to Eddie Constantine, American B-movie reject, who went on to become a huge star of French B-movies of the 50s as Lemmy Caution, private-eye? (Only to be immortalized playing the same character in Godard's absurdly artsy but intriguing film Alphaville.)

Or perhaps the eponymous exorcist/demon-fighter played by Keanu Reeves in the film 'Constantine"?

No? Well, as for the old emperor Constantine, he did us the favor of founding "Historical Christianity" centered in the Roman Empire (later the two Roman Empires), which became identified with a unified church hierarchy and aristocratic and monastic high culture. But even without the centralizing uniformity of the empire, the Christianity practiced in many dispersed places would have diverged from Jewish practice. Even diaspora Judaism diverged at least a bit, with different customs on at least minor points in Mesopotamia, Spain and Poland, etc. Christians did the same with their "inheritance" from Judaism.

(From what I've read, though, there was a lot of friendly fraternizing between Christians and Jews in the time before Constantine, more than the higher authorities of either religious group were comfortable with. Both sides made rules against it. As soon as the Empire became involved, of course, the Christian side had an army of brutal soldiers to enforce their rules, whether the ordinary Christian wanted them to or not.)

Actually I liked Eddie Constantine . . In Munchen there was this Cinema that showed, mid nights, his movies, next to Schwabing.

[Douglas Bilodeau]

Actually I liked Eddie Constantine . . In Munchen there was this Cinema that showed, mid nights, his movies, next to Schwabing.

I've only seen him in Alphaville (when I was 18 or so), plus a glimpse of a few scenes of some other film of his on late-night TV. I remember reading in Time or Newsweek back then that he was idolized by demure French convent students, who would hide a photo of him under their pillows. This in spite of his craggy features and total deadpan expression. (Cf. pics here.)

I actually was powerfully influenced by Alphaville. If you want to see a bizzare French take on the Anglo-American genre of science fiction (crossed with gritty noir and Dada, in this case), it was a vastly more interesting creation than "Barbarella". It also benefits from the talents of Akim Tamiroff near the end of his long career. And Anna Karina ... the ultimate masterpiece of Danish Modern aesthetics.

[Victor]

We all say things that someday we come to regret and I'm going to quote one here and I know that this comment is way too late and I apologize for not having checked "IT" earlier but my defense is that "TIme" is but a moment for "The Gods".

I hear ya! NO! I'm not a god but I've been told that I've been made in HIS Image and I'm still learning.

Anyway here are some quotes below: and maybe you could send me an email telling me what you think cause lately I've been spending too much time on some blogs and we must remember that I am only human which is at this moment flesh, bones and blood so if I forget to check back here, I'm not responsible so if you think "IT" is worth "IT", please send me an e-mail and I'll do my best to answer you otherwise I ask that you forgive me.

Spengler wrote:
Is Jesus the Messiah? on the Spengler Blog
by David Layman
It all depends what the meaning of "is," is.

Is Jesus the Messiah now? Bloody unlikely

.

As most of you probably are, I'm still searching and it is not easy when some would want me to think that I'm living a lie and not really mean me any harm while doing "IT".

Anyway today in prayer and to be honest I shortened "IT" and my prayer also cause "IT" BURNED in me that I should write. I guess I wrote in the wrong place cause it was not posted and I know that this man certainly is only trying to protect me and I would bet a few of my ESC on "IT".

Anyway I won't tell you what subject "IT" was about and because of the times I stay on topic, most probably won't even guess "IT" but nevertheless here "IT" is below.

Dear Joe,

I don't know if you'll allow this but at least, you'll get to read it. I hope?

Anyway just like you, who got a chance to interview Saint Paul, I tried it in prayer with help from the Sacred Heart of JESUS and go figure, some grain cells answered me in thought.

I started off my prayer by saying that everything that was good belonged to You JESUS, everything good in the past, present and future and why not because Your Heavenly Father created U>S usual sinners in His OWN Image through Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve as many would want us to believe. Yes! Adam and Eve led us down but Your Father still Loved Himself so much that He sent prophets to help Himself out of The Black Hole that He had created for Himself but wouldn't you know it, sins would not hear of it so they corrupted these prophets and the ones that they could not corrupt, they simply killed. In other words, sins literally made pigs of themselves thinking that they were really "IT".

Some who were working in God's Vineyard noticed what was going on but were not strong and/or brave enough to do anything about it so they simply, when sin was not looking, fanned it up toward Heaven where they figured that God would eventually get wind of it because the smell was terrible. Go Figure! Some of these workers literally had to hold their noses and they had none that humans could see.

God's Brother, got wind of it first cause He had hired most of these workers and checked on them periodically to see if they needed anything. To make a long story short, and because He was so close to Our Heavenly Father, He heard from The Grape Vine that His Brother was going to send His Word to investigate for Himself the so called smelly charges. Don't tell anyone but He's not the push over that His Loving Brother is. For example He found out that His Loving Brother had sent a man to prepare His Son's Way but go figure cause sin was quietly diplomatically going to destroy him, in other words they were going to use a country that He had given birth to, to destroy this man. To make another long story short, He sent one of His Angel who killed 180,000 of their soldiers and then John The Baptist was free to do his work.

I hear ya! Why did His Brother not warn Him of what might happen to His Word? Between you and me, He did try hard and some of the things that He told His Brother would bring tears to some souls and/or spirit depending on what hold sin had on them. You guess it! He said, they will laugh at Your Word and when He becomes man they will literally throw Him out of His Own Prophet's House.

Jesus knew His Father's Brother well and that's why He told humans in The Flesh not to make fun of Him. What a man, cause He JESUS said, Go ahead and make fun of me if you want to but for your soul/spirit heart of heart sake, Don't make fun of Him cause He's really hurting right now if you know what I mean?

Joe, I don't read The Bible and between you and I, why should I? I really don't know for sure what your profession is but let's just pretend that you are a university professor and when you start class no one wants to listen to you. "To Sir With Love" might be appropriate if you really care about them. Don't you think?

God Bless,

Peace

I hear ya! Have you been drinking again Victor?

Just a little but that's no reason why I can't have my say! Is "IT"?

[Pastaneta]

Maybe the question should have been...

Was Jesus a Messiah....

[Uche Africanus]

Is Jesu Christy the Messiah? Who wants to know?

Of course, He is and understanding this will not come from reading books that others who don't know much about Christ's divinity write in order to help alleviate their confusion. Knowledge about Christ's God nature can only come through divine revealation and its interpretation by faith communities. This tendency to explore what others have said about Christ being a messiah while a noble scholarly pursuit will not yield the revealation required to know the answer. Instead, it puts us squarely in the midst of Greek paganism where theology became a substitute for the spiritual.

[rhapsody]

It has been personally revealed to me that Christ was not The Messiah.

[Pastaneta]

I think the question should be: was Jesus A Messiah...