Who Can See a Messiah in Jesus?

  Although disputed by some modern Jews, the Jews did expect a Messiah.  Messiah was not just the 'anointed ONE'' but the ''anointed one'' as any king was anointed.

  All kings of the house of David were seen as 'anointed.' This is to say that all kings of Israel were seen as God's anointed leaders of Israel, but it is not to be mistaken!, one Messiah, one Savior was expected in 1rst century Judaea.

  An interesting topic of debate is, ''Did Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary and Joseph, fulfill the role of  Messiah?''

  This question I will not directly address.  It take much more scholarship to make a sufficient post on such a question.  What I will do is address this with some common sense, not to prove whether Jesus fulfilled the role of Messiah, but why one would even use this title on Jesus based on the story we have.

 Jesus Christ.

 Christ is the English derivative of the Greek word used for the Hebrew word for Messiah.  So when we use the title, ''Christ,''  we invoke the title of the Jewish expectations of a King who was sent by God as THE anointed one.

 Most have come across the idea that Jesus was not what the Jews expected.  This is elementary, but let's take this very simple, general understanding and pose some questions to see if we can not establish Jesus as who He said He was.

  One has to know, at least generally, what the Jews were expecting. They were expecting the Anointed One to defeat the Romans and establish a kingdom which ruled all nations, that is, the whole world.

  Many interpret this as expecting a warrior, an Alexander the Great type, but Jewish.

  Jesus was not this, He was a teacher, a healer, and a professor of peace, love, and unity.

  So let us examine what this means, not to us, but for those who want to negate Christianity all together.

  Why in an era of great expectation, would men boast the death of a man who taught peace and love?

   Wouldn't this sound ridiculous to claim one as the Messiah, who was neither a crowned royal or a warrior hero?

   These were Jews who proclaimed the life of Jesus! Didn't they want what all Jews wanted?  Didn't they want to see Rome defeated and the Jews triumphant! 

   In fact, it was quite opposite! After the fall of the temple, Christianity spread even more rapidly, and Jesus' name was more affirmed by the many in the pagan Empire.

   Reflect on it, swallow it, and realize: this makes no sense for someone to make up a story about a man in Israel, to be not only a peacemaker, but to be put to death, with what to show for it?

  Let me answer myself!  One could surmise that this was a movement to glorify the deaths of the fallen brothers. 

  That this Messianic-type of hero in the body of Jesus of Nazareth was a archetype to illustrate the great struggle and heroism which prevailed in the day against the tyranny of the Roman superiors.

  I like the effort, but good try, this would mean that this message was for Jews, and only Jews! 

  What would the pagan Greeks and Roman slaves care about the heroism of the Jewish spirit?

   Please tell me! I tried to reflect on it! Can you give me one reason why someone would conjure up a story of such glorious meaning (i.e. of a Messiah), and not give the audience a convincing  rendition?

   I mean, why boast the death of a hero who failed?  What sense is in that? 

   Why make the Messiah a peacemaker and not a champion of great human privileges and honor?

      Jesus was betrayed, denied, and accused!  Is this the Messiah one would make up to convince the masses?      Hello! I found the Messiah, he hasn't taken over the world, he actually died before he could do that, but boy! he sure was a great guy! 

   Reflect on it!  There is something utterly unique in this tale.  A Messiah promised! And wait, here is the best part, he has died as a common criminal!  He manifested no ill against the enemy, His friends denied Him, can you believe it! The Messiah! A carpenter! A man condemned to death after three years of a bunch of chit chat and roaming around!

  There were others running around claiming to be a Messiah, their movements died at their death.  I think it easy to imagine without studying them that they were revolutionaries, bearing arms and rallying militias.  That is, playing to what was expected of them, taking up a role and not commanding understanding.

   This proclaimed Messiah, Jesus Christ, He came and claimed not the thrown of worldliness, but a thrown greater than that of the universe.  Who saw that coming? And who would dare believe it?

  Imagine in World War II if the occupied French were expecting liberation, and they got a Huckleberry Finn telling them, ''Give on to the Nazis what are the Nazis, and give on to me your greatest trust, as I will redeem you not through arms but through the spirit.''

  Lovely! Doesn't sound plausible for a second! Jesus is no Huckleberry Finn, but he is closer to that than Alexander the Great!

 Almost like Ghandi, but even Ghandi saw immediate societal success in his day.  Jesus did not, not as the proclaimed Messiah would have been expected!

  Other instances of the like:

       1) Women as witnesses -- In this day in Judaea, women were not seen as legitimate witnesses, yet their testimony is conveyed in the Resurrection story.  Again, poor job trying to convince people!  Didn't they learn that if they wanted to make an argument they needed to speak to their audience!
     
      2) Paul, a Jew, who was a persecutor of the Christians, suddenly makes a radical change and becomes on the of the primary evangelists of this message.  We have his letters and his testimony.

      3)  Peter, who in John 21 was told to feed Jesus' sheep and flock, denied Jesus three times, even was accused of being a hypocrite by Paul when Peter first tried to appease the Jewish Christians in the question of the Gentiles.  Yet, it was Peter who Jesus chose.  

    What a marvelous narration, time after time, we do not see heroes, we see follies and failure, outcasts and underachievers, denials and turn aways, and weakness and hesitance.  

  What are they trying to convince us of again?

        I hope when reflected on, you will see that this idea of the Messiah doesn't really seem legitimate if based on fiction. I propose, there is more reason to believe in the ''lack'' of Messiah than the expected Messiah in the embodiment of Jesus, as the story would not seem in the least believable to fit in the context of what the Messiah was to be. I find it hard to deceiver through why anyone would lay claim to the anti-messiah, if you will, in positioning a witness to the True Messiah, if it wasn't true! 

       This is just one exercise in defending Jesus as Christ, the Messiah.  There are several more, such as:
                       

 

 

Did the Jews Expect a 1rst Century Messiah?

A link to a in depth study on 1rst century Jewish expectations of the Messiah


EXAMPLES FROM JOSEPHUS

• [Josephus gives us much historical detail about self-proclaimed and popularly-embraced 'messiahs' of the period. As such, these would only document the popular belief in messianix, not necessarily his own. But this will suffice for my point here--that there WERE significant (if ill-formed) expectations of heaven-sent deliverance by one 'anointed' and/or 'inspired by God' to the task. I will cite two texts from J. that show BOTH the claimants' use of an appeal to being 'inspired/anointed/selected by God' for the task AS WELL AS a more 'legitimate' understanding of sovereignly-appointed leadership.
  
• Jewish War 2.258-60: "Besides these there arose another body of villains, with purer hands but more impious intentions, who no less that the assassins ruined the peace of the city. Deceivers and impostors, under the pretense of divine inspiration fostering revolutionary changes, they persuaded the multitude to act like madmen, and led them out into the desert under the belief that God would give them tokens of deliverance."
  
• Jewish War 6.312-13: "What more than all else incited them to the war was an ambiguous oracle, likewise found in their sacred scriptures, to the effect that at that time one from their country would become ruler of the world. This they understood to mean someone of their own race, and many of their wise men went astray in their interpretation of it. The oracle, however, in reality signified the sovereignty of Vespasian, who was proclaimed Emperor on Jewish soil."
  
• [Notice in the above quote that J. HELD TO the belief of a prophesied emperor, but differed on the identification of the figure(!), and that the phrase 'many of their wise men' probably indicates that the messianic expectation was (a) widespread and (b) not confined to the less-educated populace.]

Jesus came to tear down religion?

No Sin, Only Sinners Denying Sin

It seems apparent to me.

Modern day people look at the Christian message and reject it for two reasons:

1) Their modern logic tells them that such a story, is just that, a story.

    Response: On the surface, it may seem that way, but when truly digging in the details, there is A LOT where logic can be used to substantiate Christianity.

 

  There was a book called ''Who moved the stone.'' It was two skeptics looking to disprove Christianity. One converted based on what he found. Link to Book

2) The second is sin.  People all over the place are denying sin, or if they are Christian, take part in a church that says: All of your sins are forgiven when you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior! (Born Again-Calvinist-Baptist-Evangelicals)

 

   Modern people equate 'nice' as not evil, or as good.  I am nice to 90% of the people I know, therefore, I am good.

   It won't be rare to find me writing 'evil' like this: 'evil'

Because people do not like this term categorically, and so by putting the ' ' around it.  I am acknowledging that the word has a personal interpretation, but I by no means am trying to sugar coat it, I mean to use the word evil.

 

   In Morality, there is Good and Evil. Evil is usually interpreted as of the devil, mean spirited, an evil person as the devil themself, or to mean that if they are evil the they are DAMNED, going to Hell.

   But it is not the case, evil simply means against Good, and not a personal good, but the Great Good.  It would be 'nicer' to say, harmony.  Sin is against what is harmonious.

   In this very blog, I try to illustrate this in the post about 'Untamed Sexuality.'

  Modern day people are so offended by the word evil, they categorically deny the term, and then deny sin all together, or almost all together.  If not all together, then they only recognize those really, really 'evil' things people do like serial killers, or cruel world leaders.

   It shocks me that people want to deny sin, i.e. evil

   The hard truth, I think,  is that majority of people are not only sinners (as we all are sinners) but the majority do not want to hear about their lifestyles as being profoundly sinful.  And they then have a very simple solution for this, they take away the voices that say they are living in sin. 

  In other words, it is not a denial on evidential circumstances, it is a denial based on self-preservation and self interests.

  Also known as PRIDE, the deadliest of all sins

  Our culture is one of pleasure and release.  This release is typically either by violence or through an imprisonment of sexual channels

  Basically, we as a culture do not like sin, because we are sour pusses / immature in our nature / confused on what is a true good. Or as the pope says, maybe we are just idiots.

 WHAT modernity loses in Christianity is the answer to sin.  Not an answer by denying it, or a self-interested redefining of what sin is or is not, the Christian answer to sin is one of mercy.

  Mercy is what is not appreciated.  It is not appreciated that we are capable to recognize ourselves as sinners, but we have a calling to pursue the mercy offered to us despite our sinfulness.

  This is great, and this is harmonious! One can thrive in knowing that even with the pain of sin, we still have the advantage of recapturing/reconciling oneself despite sin. 

  When talking to modern people, they don't want to hear the words ''evil'' or 'sin.'' So instead. one can say disharmony, harmful, unhealthy, unwholesome,'troublesome'

  You have to soften the language as if to a child !!!!!!

   I wonder if it helps modern westerners to think of sin in a new way, sin as against liberty and justice. What is sin if it is not invading one's freedom? Freedom of living. Is a robber not a sinner? Is a rapist or a murder not sinful?  These people take away one's freedom, you see. Taking away the freedom of walking down the street safely, freedom of preserving their body,  freedom of meeting their own life end.   What is Justice if there is not sin? On what account can one claim injustice without sin?  I put it to them who deny sin, that this has to be sincerely re-evaluated!

Jesus's Bible

  Jesus Bible: Where is it?

 Well are we talking about the book of Jesus' followers, containing His Words, parts of His life, and His mission?  We know where to find it, don't we.

  OR!

 Is it the book He wrote Himself? His own work, very literally, ''the words of the Lord.''
   Where is it?  Let's examine what this non-existence means.


 Let's be straight forward and brief about what this means, it means that Jesus intended men to carry out His work.  It means that the very act of writing a Gospel or a letter preaching the teachings of Christ is done by work.  It means that salvation is not by faith alone, it means the word must be given, something must be done for all to share in the salvation.  It is a mission of man, commissioned by God.

  The Bible is much more than a foretelling of the One True God incarnate.  It is more than trying to tell or convince one of the existence of God.

  The Bible is a lot more than a book which tells one, 'Hey" Don't I have a message for you! Jesus is Lord, if you accept Him, You are saved!''

  Much more!

  Yes! It is a witness to Christ as incarnate, yes!, it is about God's design for salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

  But when you read the letters, understand that these are people who are bringing us Jesus' message, not Jesus Himself.  Jesus commissioned men (and 'man') to the obligation to spread the message.
  Many non-Catholics look at the Catholic Church and question all claims of authority by a single expression, ''Catholicism is a man's religion.''

  The Bible was written by men, guided by the Holy Spirit to claim the Truth.

  How could one, on one hand, say that the Catholic Church is 'man made,' but the Bible is 'Holy Spirit guided.

  There is an obvious inconsistency there. Could it just so happen to be that this Holy Spirit not only guided men to write a book, but stayed with their communities and guided them as well?

  Without getting into the theological disputes on grace, one should surely see that what is salvation without works? What is it without the works of men?

  What if the Apostles were just happy to live by faith and did not go out and work on missions around the Mediterranean and Middle East?  Where would we be today without the work of men?

   Does one not see that men are commissioned to work for God?  God's plan is for men to take the seeds of His mission in the works of Jesus Christ and to water and nurture this message.

  God commissioned us! God's vision of man is of men!

  So what is the beef with the Catholic Church? Is the Church not descendants of the Apostles themselves?  Protestants may not want to believe it, but history says otherwise.

   This is very evident when reading the New Testament book of the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles.

 Let's get biblical and show how evident this is: Jesus came to plant the seed, men were commissioned for it to grow.

  ^{1 Corin 3 : 6} I planted, Apol′los watered, but God gave the growth. ⁷ So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. ⁸ He who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall receive his wages according to his labor. ⁹ For we are God’s fellow workers;^[a] you are God’s field, God’s building.
¹⁰ According to the commission of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it. ¹¹ For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. ¹² Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble— ¹³ each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day^[b] will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. ¹⁴ If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. ¹⁵ If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

Galatians 6: 6 Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Look to yourself, lest you too be tempted. ² Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. ³ For if any one thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. ⁴ But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor. ⁵ For each man will have to bear his own load.

 

Much is Given, Much is Required

Luke 12:48

⁴⁸ But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)



   Catholicism is often looked on by other Christians and the non-Christian/non-Religious crowds as being harsh, and filled up with rules.

  Outsiders shouldn't fret over these rules, it is simple:  It takes belief, and when one has belief God blesses them greatly, when one is blessed so greatly, it is on them to blossom and sustain this grace as the most precious gift that it is.

  In other words, to who much is given, much is required.

  In Catholic circles, it is quite understood that priest and the ordained, i.e. those who are involved in counseling Christians in being Christians, will be judged more harshly than outsiders.

  Catholicism is a calling, it is the call to the mission of the Lord, he who carries his cross follows Him!  (Matthew 16: 24-26)  Or, he who follows Him will have to bear crosses! 

  So when outsiders criticize Catholics over the rules, as my own wife offered 'I once thought the Church was suppose to help people, but when I got closer, it was nothing but rules,' it seems pointless.

 Of course, it seems pointless, they are lacking faith.

 In one way, it is like saying, it is pointless being a mother, motherhood is nothing but doing for others, why would anyone WANT to do that? That can't be fun!

 Well for those who believe that motherhood is the greatest of gifts, it is fun! as is Catholicism.  When one is able not to love themselves, but love the gift given, it is a walk in the park on a cool and sunny Sunday morning ( with humming birds and dancing flora).

  Just look to this pope.  The media has fallen head over heels over his expression of mercy and humanity (and well deserved) towards the world.

  It is because Pope Francis gets it! 

  Look at what this merciful pope tells fellow priests:  

  THIS IS THE BEST I CAN FIND SO FAR,  BUT HE HAS BEEN AFTER PRIESTS IF ONE HAS PAID ATTENTION

  
"We are anointed by the Spirit, and when a priest is far from Jesus Christ he can lose this unction. In his life, no: essentially he has it... but he loses it. And instead of being anointed he ends up being smarmy," the pope added.
"And how damaging to the Church are smarmy priests!" the leader of the world's 1.2 billion Roman Catholics went on to say. "Those who put their strength in artificial things, in vanity, in an attitude... in a cutesy language... But how often do we hear it said with sorrow: 'This is a butterfly-priest,' because they are always vain... [This kind of priest] does not have a relationship with Jesus Christ! He has lost the unction: he is smarmy."

 By being far from Jesus, "we necessarily compensate for this with other, worldly attitudes," he added. "And so all these figures... priest-wheeler dealers, priest-tycoons... But the priest who adores Jesus Christ, the priest who talks with Jesus Christ, the priest who seeks Jesus Christ and who is allowed to seek Jesus Christ: this is the center of our life. If that is not there, we lose everything. And what will we give to the people?"

 People cannot be fooled, the pope suggested. When they look at a true priest they say: "Yes, he's difficult, he's this or that... But he is a priest! And people know!" On the other hand, when they see "priest idolaters, so to speak, priests who instead of having Jesus have little idols... worshipers of the god Narcissus... When people see [priests like this] they say 'poor guy!'"

 The relationship with Jesus "saves us from worldliness and idolatry that makes us smarmy, preserves us in the anointing [we have received]," the pope said. "And today, this is my hope for you… Even if you lose everything in life, don't lose this relationship with Jesus Christ! This is your victory. Go forward with this!"

  Reading this, I do not find it harsh, but I am inspired by this message to our priests, but imagine if any of this language was a winkle of what the world was hearing from the pope, the world would scorn him, as they have the other gracious popes.

  But this pope has talent, he knows those of who much is given, much is required.

  

Ignatius of Antioch

Ignatius lived from around A.D. 35 to 107. He was the third bishop of Antioch and tradition records that he was a disciple of the apostle John
  

 
On the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ (1374).  In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius addresses the issue of those who do not believe as the Church does:

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God… They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 6

Ignatius also explains that the Eucharist must be administered either by a bishop or one of his ordained ministers:

Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.—Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8

On the Authority of the Catholic Church
The Greek root of the term catholic means "according to the whole" or “universal.”  Ignatius uses the term to refer to the visible and authoritative Church:

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8

Ignatius urges the faithful to submit to the authority of their bishop because it is the will of God:

But inasmuch as love suffers me not to be silent in regard to you, I have therefore taken upon me first to exhort you that you would all run together in accordance with the will of God. For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the manifested will of the Father; as also bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds of the earth, are so by the will of Jesus Christ… Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God. —Letter to the Ephesians, Ch 3,5

 Ignatius recognizes the authority, or “presidency,” in particular of the Church at Rome:

Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, his only son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is; to the Church wich also holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father; here therefore do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. —Letter to the Romans, Intro

Ignatius indicates that the Church at Rome possessed the authority to teach others:

You have envied no one; but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instruction may remain in force. —Letter to the Romans, Ch 3

Finally, Ignatius confirms—as do other Church Fathers—that this authoritative Church at Rome was founded by Peter and Paul:

Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you. They were apostles and I am a convict. They were free, and I even to the present time am a slave. —Letter to the Romans, Ch 4