2 In days to come
the mountain of the Lord’s house
shall be established as the highest of the mountains,
and shall be raised above the hills;
all the nations shall stream to it.
3 Many peoples shall come and say,
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
to the house of the God of Jacob;
that he may teach us his ways
and that we may walk in his paths.”
For out of Zion shall go forth instruction,
and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
4 He shall judge between the nations,
and shall arbitrate for many peoples;
they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more.
Gary: Did Jesus fulfill any part of this prophecy during his life time? Answer: No. Neither did Bar Kochba nor any other messiah pretender. They all failed! They did not judge the nations of the world. They did not bring peace to the entire world. That is the true test of the real messiah: bringing peace to the entire world. Jesus did not do that. Saying that he will do it when he comes a second time is nothing more than spin: a desperate attempt to come up with an ad hoc solution to Jesus’ failure to fulfill this prophecy during his lifetime.
The Hebrew Bible says NOTHING about the messiah coming to earth TWO times. Forget about the other problems with Jesus’ messiah claim, such as his two discrepant genealogies found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, the fact that Jesus did not establish an earthly kingdom in Jerusalem that brought peace to the entire world during his lifetime is absolute, indisputable evidence that Jesus was not the messiah. Don’t buy into the desperate, contorted “harmonizations” raised by Christian apologists for why Jesus will fulfill this prophecy in the future (two thousand years and counting, btw).
There is no concept of a “second coming” of the messiah in any passage of the Hebrew Bible!
Copied from Jews for Judaism:
The word “Messiah” is an English rendering of the Hebrew word “Mashiach”, whose translation is “Anointed”. It usually refers to a person initiated into G-d’s service by being anointed with oil. (Having oil poured on his head. Cf. Exodus 29:7, I Kings 1:39, II Kings 9:3).
–There are many Messiahs in the Bible. Since every King and High Priest was anointed with oil, each may be referred to as “an anointed one” (a Mashiach or a Messiah). For example: “G-d forbid that I [David] should stretch out my hand against the L-rd’s Messiah [Saul]…” I Samuel 26:11. Cf. II Samuel 23:1, Isaiah 45:1, Psalms 20:6.
—The Hebrew word “HaMashiach” (lit. the Messiah) describing a future anointed person to come does not appear anywhere in the Bible. Since the Bible makes no explicit reference to the Messiah, it is unlikely that it could be considered the most important concept in the Bible. Indeed, in Jewish thought, the Messianic idea is not the most crucial. However, in Christian thought, the Messiah is paramount- a difficulty in light of its conspicuous absence from scripture.
–Where does the Jewish concept of Messiah come from? One of the central themes of Biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of G-d. Isaiah 2:1-4; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Isaiah 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34.
–Many of these prophetic passages speak of a descendant of King David who will rule Israel during the age of perfection. Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23:5-6, 30:7-10, 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:11-31, 37:21-28; Hosea 3:4-5.
–Since every King is a Messiah, by convention, we refer to this future anointed one as The Messiah. The above is the only description in the Bible of a Davidic descendant who is to come in the future. We will recognize the Messiah by seeing who the King of Israel is at the time of complete universal perfection.
—The Bible never speaks about believing in the Messiah. Because his reign will be an historically verifiable reality, self-evident to any person, it won’t require belief or faith.
–Because no person has ever fulfilled the picture painted in the Bible of this future King, Jewish people still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.
–The claim that Jesus will fulfill the Messianic prophesies when he returns does not give him any credibility for his “first” coming. The Bible never speaks about the Messiah returning after an initial appearance. The “second coming” theory is a desperate attempt to explain away Jesus’ failure. The Biblical passages which Christians are forced to regard as second coming (#5 above) don’t speak of someone returning, they have a “first coming” perspective.
–According to Biblical tradition, Elijah the prophet will reappear before the coming of the Messiah (Malachi 4:5-6). In the Greek Testament, Jesus claims that John the Baptist was Elijah (Matthew 11:13-14, 17:10-13). However, when John the Baptist was asked if he was Elijah, he denied it (John 1:21).
End of post.
26 thoughts on “Absolute Proof that Jesus was Not the Messiah”
I really don’t see how anyone can expect to “prove” anything at all by using interpretations of “prophetic” scriptures….
I mean, in Judaism, concepts of afterlife / heaven / hell / resurrection / “new heavens and a new earth” and so on are all just “preferential beliefs”. There is no dogma regarding any of this stuff in Judaism (although, the Orthodox hold to a belief in the resurrection). But, when Judaism allows for a belief in no afterlife at all, or a bodily resurrection, or spiritually spending eternity “in heaven”, then, you can’t look at this kind of stuff (as has been quoted in the original post) and say “see here? This proves thus-and-such”. It only “proves” something to those who hold the viewpoint which provides the proof. It means nothing to another (Jewish) viewpoint which says “there is no afterlife”, or “the Messiah is Israel itself”, and so on…
More like absolute proof that Judaism is false since the Messiah never came to the second temple as He needed to in Malachi 3:1. So Judaism is false.
However… Jesus DID claim to be the awaited Messiah and rose from the dead. Historical fact. Can’t get away from that. I guess I’m going to go with the historical truth here…
I also have the most famous Jewish Pharisee ever saying that all God’s promises are yes and amen in Jesus (2 Cor 1:20). I would imagine that he knew something that modern Judaism, so far removed from anything resembling the ordinances at Sinai, doesn’t.
Anyway, keep being passionate about Jesus. Maybe you’ll meet Him at some point. Would pray that you do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My goodness, Liam. Your desperation to support your ancient superstition is so very sad. Read Malachi 3:1. You will not find the term “second temple” anywhere in that passage. You are delusional.
See, I am sending my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple. The messenger of the covenant in whom you delight—indeed, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts. -Malachi 3:1
So the resurrection is an historical fact? Please give a reference from any public university world history text which states that the resurrection of Jesus is an historical fact. You can’t. Once again, you are delusional. Rabidly delusional on this particular wild claim.
Jesus spoke ” those who deny me before man I will deny before the father ” and ” I am the truth the light no one can come to the father but through me” you have to be redeemed by Christ to be present in heaven its about the blood! If you would open your mind and loosen your heart and seek the truth you will find Christ Jesus. No prophet has ever said I am the truth and the life…..why? Because they are not speaking truth the truth is not in them they are of the Father of Lies… The bible is the only book in the world that is consistent throughout the 2000 yers it was written, all authors wrote the same persistant theme and never knew each other also the bible is the only book that is about a personal relationship with the creator! And spoke about things thousands of years later that came to pass!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Justin. How confidant are you that your God belief is true,0-100%?
‘Jesus DID claim to be the awaited Messiah.’ He did? Where? Some among his script-writers may have made the claim for him, but we have no way of knowing if Jesus himself thought so. There are indications in the earliest gospel that he did not. In any case, if he did have such delusions, then why haven’t we seen the fulfilment of all those Messianic prophecies from the Old Testament? If Jesus was the Messiah, he was, as Gary suggests, a pretty rubbish one.
‘and rose from the dead. Historical fact.’ Erm, no. Not historical fact. Visions, hearsay and contradictory accounts written decades after the supposed event do not constitute historical fact.
‘Can’t get away from that.’ The book Gary recommended a few posts back, Michael J. Alter’s ‘The Resurrection: A Critical Enquiry’ does ‘get away from that’. It convincingly disconfirms the historicity of the resurrection accounts.
‘Maybe you’ll meet (Jesus) at some point.’ No, Gary won’t and neither will you.
‘Would pray that you do.’ Like this is going to have any effect. Find something useful to do with your time, and life, Liam.
Anyway, keep being passionate about Jesus. Maybe you’ll meet Him at some point. Would pray that you do.
I question if Liam is being nice, here. Is he making a passive-aggressive threat?: “Jesus is going to crush you to your knees one day, you blaspheming SOB. And then he is going to burn you forever! And you will DESERVE it!”
What a sick belief system.
Jesus, in many places, referred to Himself as the “Son of Man” which is in reference to Daniel 7:13 where it is inferred that the Son of Man, someone who approaches God Himself in His throne room and given authority and Dominion, was the coming Messiah. When Jesus walked on water and scared the disciples in Matthew 14:22-33 and Mark 6:45-52, He said, “Fear not, I am.” Which is a reference to God Himself. I AM. Then, in Matthew 15-17 (Mark 8:29, Luke 9:20, John 6:68-69) Jesus asked the apostles who they think He is and Peter said “You are the Messiah”. Jesus doesn’t disagree, instead, He said “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in Heaven.” I think that alone qualifies as Jesus admitting He is the Messiah.
Now, I’d like to know what you consider the first gospel. The first written? Or the first in the Bible? And where does it suggest Jesus did NOT think of Himself as the Christ?
As for the resurrection not being a historical fact, indeed it is. Or, rather, the empty tomb is historical fact. I invite you to read ‘Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?’ by William Lane Craig, ‘Atheism vs. Christianity: Where Does the Evidence Point?’ also by William Lane Craig with Frank Zindler and ‘Three Crucial Questions about Jesus’ by Murray J Harris. They tell it way better than I ever could.
Even if Jesus’ tomb was found empty, how does that prove that he is the Creator God of the universe?
LikeLiked by 1 person
First, let me ask, do you believe that Jesus was a real person, a real historical figure? And do you believe that the gospel writers were real people writing about their real experiences, real biographies about a real person? That they followed the real person of Jesus Christ?
I think it’s quite likely there’s some historical person behind the Jesus stories, but that person is almost certainly nothing like what is recorded by the gospel authors.
The gospel authors are unlike to have been eyewitnesses, or even have associated with eyewitnesses, although we can say that nobody knows who they were, when exactly they wrote, or where they wrote their books,
The reality of Jesus is beyond dispute. Jesus Christ’s life and teachings and the origin of Christianity is even in public school text books. The gospels meet all 5 criteria for historical reliability. They were, indeed, written by eyewitnesses, with the exception of Luke. Luke was a follower of Paul. Luke was a doctor and a respected historian. The first century Jewish historian Josephus, who was not a Christian, wrote about Jesus, as did Roman historians in the first century. Highly respected atheists have had to concede the truth of Jesus as a real person. There is actually more documented proof of His and the apostles’ existence than there is of Alexander the Great.
I didn’t mean to post that yet, I wasn’t finished. So to continue,
Eric Meyers, an archaeologist and emeritus professor in Judaic studies at Duke University, said in a national geographic article, ” I don’t know any mainstream scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus. The details have been debated for centuries, but no one who is serious doubts that He’s a historical figure.”
Byron McCane, an archaeologist and history professor at Florida Atlantic University, said much the same. In the interest of space, please look at these articles and blogs concerning the validity and accuracy of the gospels.
Also, Lee Strobel is someone to read.
I’m sincerely interested in your thoughts after you read these.
Much Love in Christ
I dispute that the gospels represent an accurate historical record of Jesus, especially given the miraculous claims about him. As for the claim about being written by eyewitnesses, the majority of NT scholars don’t agree with your assessment.
I do not dispute that that there was probably a historical Jesus, my complaint is that we do not have good reason to accept that the gospels are genuinely historical about his life, and ministry. I’m not a Jesus mythacist, I just don’t think we can know much about him that is more likely to be legendary.
Considering that we actually have coins with Alexanders image, and dozens of cities named Alexandria, I’d say we have much better evidence for Alexander than we do for Jesus, or his disciples. All we have for the existence of the disciples is Paul’s say-so.
I’m sorry to tell you that the vast majority of NT scholars do not accept your dating of Luke, or Acts, and believe that Paul probably knew nothing about what the author of Luke/Acts wrote. The claim that Paul quotes the Gospel of Luke is based on the idea that 1 Timothy 5:18. The problem is that it’s very unlikely that Paul wrote Timothy.
Gary has posted this video several times:
This is my area. I can back up everything I’ve said, and I did. I’m sorry, but you are incorrect. The vast majority of NT scholars HAVE agreed that the gospels represent eye witness accounts. I’m not going to repeat the evidence that I already given you. The NT scholars I’ve read and the ones I’ve already quoted here have backed up their research. If you’d like, I’ll pull out my books and give you an extensive list of world recognized scholars who agree. I can list several athiests who agree. One in particular was Charles Templeton. Full on did not believe God exists, did not believe Jesus was the son of God, but did acknowledge that, in light of the archeological evidence, Jesus did, in fact, exist, as did his apostles.
Nothing was written about Alexander until about 500 years after he lived. My point in that is that there are documents outside of the gospels that were written during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. That’s not enough time for legends to build.
I’m about to start my day, so I’m not going to write a book. If you really want to know what the historians are saying, what the current research is showing, what the NT scholars are REALLY saying, read some. Read Lee Strobel, read William Ramsey, read Clifford Wilson, read Fredrick Kenyon.
These are all learned scholars. They have initials behind their name. Take some time to get out of your comfort zone.
I’m still going to tell you that you’re completely wrong about scholarship with regards to the gospels. The only way you can make this statement true is if NT scholar simply means “evangelical scholar.” Your argument is extremely common among most Evangelical Christians, but it has to ignore the vast majority of non-evangelical NT scholars (who are nearly universally Christian.)
The Oxford Annotated Bible (a compilation of multiple scholars summarizing dominant scholarly trends for the last 150 years) states (pg. 1744):
Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk. 1.4; Jn. 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings. (see https://celsus.blog/2013/12/17/why-scholars-doubt-the-traditional-authors-of-the-gospels/ for more reasons)
What you’re telling me is what evangelical scholars think, and what gets published in evangelical apologetic books like The Case for Christ. Among mainstream scholars, most do not accept the traditional authorship hypothesis.
I really don’t care what any individual scholar thinks, as I’m not interested in an appeal to authority. Anyone can cherry-pick the scholars that agree with their position, I care more about the consensus position of scholars, and what they generally agree on. In this regard you don’t have much of a case.
Frankly, even if you did show me that the authors of the gospels are who you think they are, it doesn’t get us any closer to establishing the truth of the central claims of Christianity, namely:
1. Jesus is God
2. There is an afterlife
3. Your afterlife is determined by what you believe(d) about Jesus
Except that this statement isn’t likely to be true. The oldest surviving biographies we have are from about 400-500 years after his life, but there were actually biographies written that did not survive, that were used as sources for later biographers. There’s a huge difference between these two claims. Even if I was to grant that your claim is true, we still have other good reasons to believe that he existed, and conquered parts of Asia and Africa. In the end, even if I’m wrong, none of this matters, because I’m not disputing that there was somebody who the gospels built their stories around. My dispute is how accurate your religious propaganda is.
And there it is! Read Lee Strobel. It’s the book that every Evangelical Christian points me to. I’ve read it, and was extremely disappointed by it, and how it ignores modern scholarship.
The only thing that book is good for is to find out what evangelicals believe, and are committed to. If I want to find out what mainstream scholarship (which is primarily Christian, but not Evangelical) there are much better sources that Strobel. Strobel’s writings are meant to convince existing evangelicals that they have good reasons to believe the nonsense that they do, but he’s useless for actual truth.
I have plenty of other sources. You should try and look at what real mainstream scholarship has to say about your position. You probably won’t like it.
It’s not going to matter what or who I put in front of you. You’re going to find some way to dispute it, whether I find it logical or not. Unfortunately, you’re not going to step down from your position unless and until Jesus Himself stands in front of you and I’m never going to step down from mine. Ever. I’d rather believe in God and be wrong than not believe and be wrong. If I’m wrong, no harm no foul, when I die I’m just dead. But if you’re wrong, what happens when you die? It’s too sad to even think about.
I know the truth of my claims just as you feel your own stand is truth.
I have read extensively outside of Strobel, I just happen to be re-reading Case for Faith and Case for Christ right now so its fresh on my mind and I’m too lazy to go dig through my library. I’ve read secular historical accounts, too. I’ve read both sides. I’ve read about Christians who turned atheist and atheist turned Christian, Christians who have converted to other forms of religion, I’ve read papers by scientists who have concluded that there has to be an intelligent designer behind the universe and life but still won’t believe in the bible.
Bottom line, there has to be a small level of faith to believe in God and Jesus as the Son of God. There has to be a small amount of faith in the second coming and the new Jerusalem. A person must be able to look at the proven people, places and events that are beyond doubt, (for example, Pontius Pilate, King Herod, Solomon’s Temple, Herod’s Aqueduct, Ephesus, Philippi, the city of Ur has recently been found, the Egyptian city of Pithom, the Israel Antiquities Authority has excavated burnt bones, pottery, etc dated 2600 years ago, proving the burning of the city of David, the list goes on,) and come to the conclusion that the rest is just as true.
We have to agree that the Smithsonian is pretty objective. They have this to say about the subject:
“Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say that names of all peoples and places mentioned can be identified today, or that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated.” http://www.csnradio.com/tema/links/SmithsonianLetter.pdf.
The Roman historian Tacitus writing between 115-117 A.D. had this to say:
“They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh-not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home.” From his Annals, xv. 44.
Here is a pagan historian, hostile to Christianity, who had access to records about what happened to Jesus Christ.
One has to reason that the writers of the bible aren’t going to write all that truth and then make up everything else. I don’t think someone would be willing to die for someone who didn’t do what they claimed He did, for someone who wasn’t exactly who they said He was.
So faith plays a part. I’ve been trying to find a way to say this that doesn’t sound like I’m putting people down. Because I’m not. I know what I mean, I just can’t articulate it. But I’m going to try.
Basically, (risking offending you and turning you from God permanently,) there are certain characteristics we must have to make eternity work and still keep free will. Faith (I think its a logical faith given that there are so many truths available) is the biggest part of that. There’s a reason Jesus makes so many comparisons to ‘weeding’ and harvesting. Our hearts need to be receptive.
I can see your heart isn’t there. You’re looking at documentation and research with a jaded eye, with the sole purpose of disproving it in any way possible. I am sincerely praying that someday you will be ready to look objectively for the truth. And that when you are, I’d be honored to show it to you.
God’s peace on your day.
One thing tho. Where do you get your information from? Just Gary?
One more point, The gospel of Luke was written prior to 62 AD, given that Paul was martyred in 62, Luke finished Acts shortly before that happened and since Acts was a continuation of the gospel, it had to be before that. If a 2-4 year gap is estimated between Acts and the Gospel of Luke, this would mean the Gospel of Luke was written in AD 58-60. If another 2-4 years separate the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Matthew, this would mean the Gospel of Matthew was written in AD 54-58. And if another 2-4 years separate the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Mark, this would mean the Gospel of Mark was written in AD 50-56. In other words, three of the four Gospels could be deduced to have been written by Jesus’ disciples or their secretaries only about 20 to 30 years after they last saw Jesus, and they were read by people who had witnessed the events recorded and could personally confirm their details.
The gospel of John was written last, in the 80’s or 90’s, it’s believed that he wrote it when he was on the island of Patmos.
I want to share this article with you. It’s a little long winded but so full of great information about the historicity of the resurrection. It may answer your question above. I am still very interested in knowing the answer to my previous question to you. I feel like, even if you don’t realize it, you’re seeking something. I sincerely pray you find it. I’d love to help.
He probably is. It always comes down to ‘you’ll regret this when you’re facing
God on the day of judgement.’ Ho-hum.
And finally, Gary, your arguments don’t really hold water, I’m afraid to say. Nowhere does the Old Testament say there WASN’T going to be a second coming. And how was Jesus supposed to accomplish all the things you seem to think He was supposed to when Isaiah 53, which is widely accepted as Messianic Prophecy, says “for He was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. He was assigned a grave with the wicked… Though he had done no violence nor was any deceit in his mouth dot-dot-dot for he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”
How was He supposed to build a physical kingdom during His first coming if He was also supposed to be ‘pierced for our transgressions’, to be the perfect sacrificial lamb? He must save us from the punishment forgot sin before He brings His kingdom to us. We’re not righteous enough to be in Yahweh’s presence.
Then there’s the fact of the prophesies that even you can’t deny He fulfilled. According to Louis S. Lapides, M.DIV., TH.M. (Messianic Jewish, btw) the odds of one person fulfilling even 8 of the 48 Messianic Prophecies is one chance in one hundred million billion. Thats millions of times greater than the number of people who have ever walked the planet.
I urge you to read “Jesus was a Jew” by Arnold Fruchtenbaum, “What Rabbis know about the Messiah” by Rachmiel, ” The Messiah in the Old Testament” by Walter Kaiser to start with. When you get through those, let me know, there’s 3 or 4 more that would be great for you to read.
Oops, that should read Rachmiel Frydland. My bad.
You’ve assumed the choice is between atheism and Christianity, when in fact the choice is between Christianity and any of the thousands of other religions out there. If you’re wrong about Allah you’ll end up in the Muslim version of hell. If you’re wrong about Hinduism you could end up as a cockroach on your next life.
I see no credible evidence to believe that any religion is correct, and I see no reason to believe that any afterlife threats (and don’t kid yourself, they are threats, nobody chooses to go to hell) are credible.
Also, belief is not a choice. There are thousands of things I could ask you to will yourself to believe that you can’t actually make yourself believe. Libertarian Free Will, a requirement for most forms of Christianity, doesn’t seem to exist.
Any “papers” would not be scientific in nature. The fact that some scientists hold religious ideas is not in question. The problem is that they don’t use good methods to arrive at these religious positions.
Also, Intelligent Design is nothing more than pseudoscience.
That’s not how we determine that something is true. The existence of New York City doesn’t make Spider-Man more likely, nor does Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter make vampires more likely. We evaluate independent claims independently. A book with 1000 claims, where 999 of them can be investigated, and shown correct, doesn’t make the last one more likely to be correct until we can actually investigate and show it to be true.
The difference between you and me is that I care about what’s true, and what we can determine to be true using reliable methods of investigation. You care about what you believe. I care about what’s true. I’ve written about this before:
Wow. I’ve been gone for a couple of days and missed this interesting conversation. Herald seems to be handling the skeptic’s side of this issue just fine so I think I will stay out of the conversation unless “Imtalking” has something specific and concise to ask me personally.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“They all failed! They did not judge the nations of the world. They did not bring peace to the entire world.”
Its not that messianic claimants failed but that the OT prophets were frauds.
“The Hebrew Bible says NOTHING about the messiah coming to earth TWO times.”
The Hebrew Bible says NOTHING about “the messiah” at all. There are lots of prophecies, all about different people, that dummies pretended were about the same person to make a fake figure called “the messiah.” These prophecies don’t link together in reality because they don’t use such a term.