Is the only argument against Jesus being the Messiah basically "But he didn't fulfill the prophecies in the way we expected!"?
Isn't that the whole point of prophecies?

>>17756183 (OP)
There's more, from a Jewish POV. Like him not being an actual blood descent dant of David if he Truly is the son of God.
Though a main one is that he simply did not fulfill the prophecies not "in the way we expected" he just did not do it.

>>17756211
Can you elaborate Anon? I'm not trying to pick a fight I'm trying to deepen my knowledge.

>>17756211
>him not being an actual blood descent dant of David
Mary was from the line of David anyway.

>>17756522
Yeah but the Messiah needs to be a male line descendant. And the early Christians knew as well as anyone else evidenced by the fact two gospels begin with extensive genealogies of Jesus tracing back to Adam and ending with Joseph. (Omitting the beginning mention of God and ending mention of Jesus).

>>17756589
>Yeah but the Messiah needs to be a male line descendant.
Proof?

>>17756589
Jesus is the legal son of Joseph.

>>17756211
Mary and Joseph both come from the line of David. And the messiah was meant to be born of a virgin, anyway.
Isaiah 7:14 - Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

>he just did not do it.
There's the whole "second coming" part that Christians believe in where Christ returns to establish New Jerusalem on Earth and finish the prophecies.

>>17756895
>Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Doesn't say virgin in the iriginal hebrew and the prophecy is linked to the political situation at the time it was given; it has nothing to do with the messiah

>>17756183 (OP)
The messianic prophecies are clear on what it should happen; a king fron the line of david would save his people from foreign domination and restore the land, rebuild the temple and offer sacrifices forever to god; jesus has accomplished none of this

>he will do it later
Sure, untill then he hasn't accomplished anything beside being executed for sedition and blasphemy

>>17756914
Read the New Testament

>>17756902
>Doesn't say virgin in the iriginal hebrew
its says "almah" which means "virgin" or "adolescent female ready for marriage" also known in jewish circles as a virgin.

>he prophecy is linked to the political situation at the time it was given
nonsense, the entire book of Isaiah is about messianic prophecies

>>17756917
Ehy should I trust what the new testament says? They knew their messiah failed, that's why they cope by making up events and prophecies that never existed

>>17756920
>its says "almah" which means "virgin" or "adolescent female ready for marriage" also known in jewish circles as a virgin.
False, bethula is virgin, the prophet also says that the girl is already with child

>nonsense, the entire book of Isaiah is about messianic prophecies
That specific prophecy isn't messianic

Ravvi Yeshua didn't even fulfill his own prophecy to return in the apostles lifetimes

>>17756922
>Ehy should I trust what the new testament says?
Because the only reason you would say those things is if you don't know what the New Testament says
>They knew their messiah failed, that's why they cope by making up events and prophecies that never existed
Now this is cope

>>17756930
>Because the only reason you would say those things is if you don't know what the New Testament says
I know what it says, that's why I know they lied>>17756930
>Now this is cope

Let's test it, did herod kill order the killing of children to find jesus?

>>17756925
you'd have to believe this "adolescent woman of marriagable age" wasn't a virgin, which is absolutely not something BC jews believed. We know this for a fact because the Septuagint translates the word to Parthenos, 200 years before Christ.

> the prophet also says that the girl is already with child
He absolutely does not.

>That specific prophecy isn't messianic
Who says that, your rabbis in the Talmud?

>>17756946
>The young woman is pregnant

>you'd have to believe this "adolescent woman of marriagable age" wasn't a virgin, which is absolutely not something BC jews believed

False, there is a term for virgin and it wasn't used; you want me to believe young women couldn't be married or pregnant, ehich is stupid; almah has never meant virgin

>Septuagint translates the word to Parthenos, 200 years before Christ.
Parthenos didn't use to mean exclusively virgin

>> the prophet also says that the girl is already with child
He absolutely does not.

He does
>>The young woman is pregnant
Also of course children are born to girls that were once virgin; there is no hint to supernatural conception

>>That specific prophecy isn't messianic
Who says that, your rabbis in the Talmud?

Because it doesn't talk about the messiah; it just predicts that the enemy of the king will ve deafeated while the child is still young, there is nothing messianic

>>17756943
>I know what it says, that's why I know they lie
Ok, now try reading it without love of your sins
>Let's test it
No sir, you may not sit in judgement of the word of God

>>17756902
The word used in the original almost certainly is used with the meaning of virgin as is the case everywhere else in the bible. Besides, the alternative meaning of "young woman" would be weird. "Born from a young woman" as opposed to born from what?

>>17756957
>No sir, you may not sit in judgement of the word of God
Come on; did the new testament claim herod killed a bunch of children to find jesus? Yes or no

>>17756958
False; almah doens't mean virgin and there is no implication of a magical conception

>almah doesn't mean virgin

Parthenos does, jew.

And Jews at the time of Christ and 200 years before, we all speaking Greek.
These same jews wrote and preached from the Septuagint.
Jews saw her as a virgin then, Jews today can't stand that.

>>17756972
>Parthenos does, jew.
False, it also means young girl; dinah is referd as such despite not being virgin; seethe forever

if Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience to fulfill Jewish prophecy, why would we have any reason to bring up a virgin birth, if it meant nothing to jews then?

>>17756895
>Isaiah 7:14
Read in context it's pretty clearly talking about contemporary events to that books writing.
Here:
>15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.

>16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

>17 The Lord shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria.

>There's the whole "second coming" part that Christians believe in where Christ returns to establish New Jerusalem on Earth and finish the prophecies.
Well yeah but the prophechies don't have a section on how the Messiah will come two times and the first will be as a raving homelessman who gets executed then come back in an indeterminate amount of time to do all the important stuff.

>>17756977
Matthew was a good little jew who did his homework.

>if Jesus was born to a virgin
>and jews back then DIDNT believe the messiah to be of virgin birth
>instead the messiah would be born to some already ran through jewess related to david as jewanon suggests

Matthew pointing out this virgin birth would be a detriment to proving the messianic case of Jesus.
Not only to himself, but his audience.
Don't ever listen to any jew tell you that they never believed Isaiah 7:14 to be referring to a virgin.

>>17756993
A few passages before he copes about it by writing down t genealogy of jesus; also matthew did fail, the majority of jews never accepted jesus

Reminder Jews were the ones to translate almah as parthenos in Isaiah 7:14 in the first place

>>17757010
So which one was it?
Was Jesus conceived through the Holy Spirit within a virgin? (Seemingly meaningless to Jews)
Or was he a descendant of David through Joseph?

>>17757033
Metthew though it was both, somehow; the writers of the gospels were extremely dishonest

>>17756589
Actually one is the lineage of Mary and the other of Joseph but I forgot which one is is which.

>>17757148
That is bullshit christians came up with. Fact is the gospels contradicted each other because they were tripping over themselves trying to portray rabbi yeshua as le line of david epic moschiach

It can't be mary because both family trees start with JOSEPH