Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: ejh@sei.cmu.edu (Erik Hardy) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Questions about the Messiah Message-ID: Date: 11 Feb 91 02:35:04 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 96 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu I have some questions about the Messiah: [note to the moderator: I find your responses the most enlightening of all that I read here, and most of the time I'd rather hear yours last, as it usually hits the nail right on the head. If you send this on to the net, I'd rather hear your analysis last, if you don't mind.] 1. I've searched my Bible (NEB), and nowhere do I find in any Messiah prophecy any indication that the Messiah was prophesied to the son of God. So how did Jesus go from being the Messiah to being the son of God? Are the two necessarily synonymous within Christianity; they certainly don't appear to be in Judaism. When Jesus was asked if he was the Messiah, he answered in the affirmative; to my knowledge, he never said he was the son of God. I know that he was wont to say 'my father' and such, but, to me, that just sounds like artistic license; after all, he did teach us to pray 'Our Father, who art...', so I can't think of his use of 'my father' as a discriminator in this. My suspicion in this matter is that his words were construed afterward, but I'm open to reasonable discussion. 2. I don't know if this is about the Messiah per se, but rather about ecumenism: If the Jews are not convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, but Christians are, how is it that rabbis and pastors, etc. can get together to participate in ecumenical activities? i mean, what can they possibly have to talk about, if they can't get past this most fundamental of differences? 3. How can Jews for Jesus and similar groups exist? The coming of the Messiah was supposed to signal an era of well-being for the Jews, but things have not been all that good for Jews since Jesus. So how can they possibly justify belief in a Messiah that has apparently been pretty ineffectual in living up to the prophecies (at least for them)? erik yaccity yacc (don't awk back) [You'd like my analysis last after what? There aren't going to be any responses to your posting in this group of postings, since nobody but me has seen them. There were a number of concepts in the 1st Cent. of what the Messiah would be like. Son of God is one phrase that characterizes the specific Christian concept of what the Messiah is. So it's synonymous with Messiah only for Christians. Actually in the 1st Cent. this phase could have a somewhat different implication, since "son of" in Hebrew simply indicated someone with a particular quality. Thus a son of God would be a godly person. It seems to be used in Deut 32:8 that way. Some of the NT uses of the phrase are probably to be taken this way, rather than as specifically Christian affirmations. See e.g. Mat 27:54. However for modern Christians the term is used in light of both the NT and theological discussions that took place in the 2nd to 4th Cents, culminating in the concept that Christ is both a normal human and God. If you're not familiar with these ideas, you might want to take a look at a book on Church history or Christian doctrine, since it's probably not practical to give a presentation here that is going to do justice to the ideas. The Gospels at least emphasize that Jesus acted with God's authority. See e.g. Mark 2, where Jesus forgives sins, which is God's prerogative alone, or John, in which Jesus' "I am" statements seem to be intended to remind us of God's Name "I am that I am". (This is clearest in John 18, where even the soldiers sent to arrest Jesus fall on their faces when he says "I am".) One of the major thesis of Hebrews is that Jesus has a status higher than the angels: "You are my son; today I have begotten you." (This is of course from Psalm 2:7, where it is addressed to the king, and has a less radical meaning. In the context of Hebrews however it clearly has a meaning very close to the modern Christian affirmation of Christ as Son of God.) I would say that every part of the NT presents Jesus as having unique authority. While the precise images they use are different, they all agree that in some way he had the authority of God. Whether Christ was actually as the NT describes him is of course a matter of faith. In many ways the Christian concept is better characterized as "God with us" than "Son of God". The problem with Son of God is that it can have several meanings, and some of the most obvious are heretical. It implies to some a separate supernatural entity that is God's child. This is in fact the Arian view, which it appears is held by modern Jehovah's Witnesses. Mormons also see Jesus as a separate god, though their concept is not the same as the Arian one. The orthodox view is not that Jesus is a separate God, but rather the presence of the one God in human history. Of course Christians see Christ as the fulfillment of prophecies about the Messiah, but I don't think many of us believe that the prophets fully foresaw what Christ was going to be like. Some of the most relevant passages may not be those that explicitly mention the Messiah, e.g. Ezek. 34:11 ff, which talk about God himself being present with his people. --clh]