Talk:Messiah

Bible Dictionary...was Jesus always the Christian messiah

That Bible Dictionary was a 19th century production. Easton's Bible Dictionary - see one of the wikipedia pages of public domain resources. The ref remains at the bottom of most (name that Book of the Bible) entries. It was annoyingly non NPOV, let me tell you, and not only to non-Christians; it was annoyingly 19th C Protestant. As soon as someone seriuosly revises an entry or rewrites a lot the ref. should be cut, just as we should cut the Britannica refs readily, too. --MichaelTinkler

---

This seems pretty fair and balanced to me. I do have one point, really a suggestion that you or someone else may know more about. I believe some historians of early Christianity argue that the Christian view of Jesus as Messiah was not made by the first Christians (i.e. the first generation or two of Jesus' followers) and is not even crystal clear in the synoptic Gospels. So perhaps Jesus really was very well-received by Jews when he first entered Jerusalem -- but as a teacher and a bit of a rebel, and not as a messiah? I recal a recent article in the New York Review of Books that touches on these issues (and cites a bunch of books). The High Priest may have had Jesus arrested not because Jesus had pissed of Jews but because he was stirring up trouble and that pissed off the Romans.

By the way, my recollection about Elijah is that he is the harbinger of the messiah. He is a special character, because he didn't die but went directly to heaven. That said, I think it is fascinating that Judaism doesn't make more out of him. He is in some prayers, especially a song sung at the conclusion of the Sabbath. Still, given that he didn't die, it is striking -- at least, I think, it reveals a striking difference between Judaism and Christianity (which theologically makes much of the problem of death and the possibility of resurrection). -- SR

I wrote a few paragraph on my church's position at Unification Church/Elijah. -- Ed

I disagree quite strongly with your position, "SR". For starters, all the first Christians, "followers of Christ", believed that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, ("Christ" is a literal translation of "messiah", which means "anointed one of Yah", for God's purposes, so it couldn't mean anything else). If the first Jewish Christians weren't convinced that Jesus (Y'Shua in Hebrew) was their Jewish Messiah, they wouldn't have followed Him.

Also, the synoptic Gospels were messages or letters to the Jews announcing the "good news" ("gospel" means "good news"), that the long-awaited Jewish Messiah had in fact arrived at last. Otherwise, what was the "good news" that the Gospels announced?

The remark that Jesus was "stirring up trouble" and had angered the Romans, was in fact the convenient excuse that the Sanhedrin (the Roman-appointed religious leadership of Judea, hence the term "Jew", in that day; the Roman conquerors had named leadership that met with their own approval, and the Sanhedrin was therefore dominated by the Hellenistic Jewish party, the Saducees, who were lovers of ancient Greek culture, like the pagan Romans were, although the Sanhedrin also included their rivals the Pharisees, who were traditional Hebrew zealots) used at the trial (by night) of Jesus to incriminate Him before handing Him over to the pagan Roman leadership for execution (the Romans had forbidden the Jews to execute anyone for a capital crime, or else Jesus would have been stoned to death, not crucified). The capital crime that the Jewish Sanhedrin actually judged Jesus guilty of was blasphemy (speaking against God, for claiming to be the Jewish Messiah), which Jesus admitted under direct questioning by the Jewish high priest Caiaphas. The story that Jesus was stirring up trouble against the pagan Romans (whom the Jewish common people of their day largely detested as being unclean/uncircumcized pagan conquerors, barbarians and cruel despots), was concocted after the first trial and presented to the Romans at the subsequent Roman trial of Jesus (before Pontius Pilate, who was unconvinced of Jesus' guilt), so that the Jewish leadership could have Jesus killed. This was not done by the Sanhedrin for any anti-Semitic reasons (all of their membership was presumably Jewish), but instead to silence a dangerous rival. Did they consider that Jesus may in fact be their Messiah?

The Sanhedrin was in fact quite fearful that the Jewish common people might follow Jesus and declare him the Messiah ("the son of David"), as they did on the day of Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem, when the crowd chanted "Hosannah! Hosannah to the son of David!" On that special day, which fulfilled one of the prophecies of Daniel (Daniel predicted the precise date that the Messiah would enter Jerusalem), Jesus rode on the back of a donkey (another messianic symbol which fulfilled a prophecy of Micah, I believe; that the Messiah would enter Jerusalem seated on the foal of a donkey, the way that King David, the anointed king of Israel, had done many centuries before. The extreme messianic fervor of that day was being expressed by the people of Jerusalem: that the Messiah, a nationalistic/religious/political figure predicted by Jewish religious leaders and prophets for centuries, was going to liberate the oppressed Jewish people from their hated pagan Roman rulers.

In short; that is why Jesus was loved and ardently followed: because the common Jewish people believed He was their long-awaited Jewish Messiah. And that is why He was hated by the religious leadership: if He was their Messiah, Jesus would have replaced them (the religious leaders who had been appointed by the Romans would have been no longer needed), and the common Jewish people would have followed Jesus directly.(In fact, the Jews had wanted to make Jesus King, replacing the hated Pilate. The promised Messiah was to become the Jewish political leader as well as the religious leader, an arrangement common at that time.) The main reason the common Jewish people turned against Jesus at his Roman trial, and condemned Him and called for his crucifixion and execution, was for NOT doing that (for not being radical enough, for not overthrowing the Romans, which Jesus refused at that time to do, for His own reasons,and because of God's plan). Jesus was born the King of the Jews, a fact that Pilate acknowledged, but still decided to have Jesus executed out of convenience; but unfortunately, most of the Jewish people did not continue to recognize the whipped, beaten and crucified Jesus as their Messiah during His lifetime.

You say that 'Messiah' translates to 'Christos', but the meaning is slightly different. In Judiasm, the chosen of God is annointed with oil to rule in God's name. In Paganism, The chosen of God were the literal children of a coupling between a deity and a mortal, or decendants thereof, who thereby gained the right to rule in a religio-political manner similar to the Jewish Messiahs (anointed ones). The use of the term 'Christos' and the official deification of Jesus at the [Council of Constantine] in 325 CE (the movement started earlier, but was contentious) represent a paganization of a Jewish notion. This schism is reflected in Islamic views of Jesus.

--68.104.139.213 01:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The Jews translated "Messiah" as "Christos" 200 years before Jesus' birth. So you are wrong. 71.198.169.9 11:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The section is about modern Christian Belief. We Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah. The Section does not present it as fact, it presents it as our opinion, which it is.--MathaytaceChristou 22:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Betulah

Actually, there is a biblical Hebrew word for virgin, "betulah," while the text in Isaiah uses the "alma", meaning "young woman." Danny

Messiah

we musn't forget that messiah (moshiach in hebrew) was a term used for high priests and kings and was not a synonym for the son of G-D or a divine being ...those beliefs are completely christian and were developed outside of judaism

The Septuagint and "Jesus is the Christ"

There was a sentence in the entry which claimed that Jews accepted the Septuagint as valid "until Christians began using it to demonstrate that Jesus was the Christ." This is incorrect. It makes Jews look terrified to believe the words of their own Bible, and implies that they deliberately changed their own Bible to deny its truth. But that's not what happened. RK

Hi RK: I agree with the sentiment, but actually, there is considerable validity to that claim that Jews used the Septuagint "until Christians began using it to demonstrate that Jesus was the Christ." In Jewish tradition, the Septuagint did have, for some time, a certain authoritative status, which, while not equal to the Hebrew Tanach, was accepted in certain communities, i.e, Alexandria. The problems began after the rise of Christianity, since there was no definitive scribal tradition with regard to the Greek translation. Inevitably, changes were made to the text, so that there are countless seemingly minor divergences between all the earliest Greek manuscripts of the Bible. While some of these can be attributed to scribal error, others were attempts at embellishment, while still others certainly had a more theological motive. If anything, changes were made to the Septuagint to justify a Christian religious position. At that point, the Septuagint went out of vogue in the Jewish community. I would not remove the statement. Rather, I would just alter it slightly: "until Christians began using it to back their own religious positions." What do you think? Danny

Good point, Danny. What you write sounds a lot more like what I have read on this topic. Maybe you could modify the paragraph that you just wrote here, shorten it just slightly, and add it to the text. RK

There is no proof that the Septuagint was modified( by whom, the Jewish people?) so as not to coincide with the Christian Old Testament. The two are in fact identical; the Christian Old Testament IS the Hebrew Septuagint, which was decisively proven by the finding of the Dead Sea scrolls (ancient copies of the Hebrew Septuagint). For religious reasons, no authentic Hebrew scribe would have changed the words of Moses or the prophets, and out of the fear of their god, Yah. And no authentic Christian scholar would have changed the Septuagint, for the same reasons. Also, they wouldn't have needed to. There are tens of thousands of virtually identical copies and fragments of the original Hebrew text in existence, which proves the case for the subsequent arrival of Jesus, who said that Moses spoke of Him. And the Septuagint was translated by seventy Hebrew scholars, hence the term "Septuagint", from "seventy", translated several centuries before the arrival of Jesus Christ, the Jewish Messiah. At the time the Septuagint was written and translated from Hebrew into Greek, Christianity didn't exist. Therefore, there was no need to change it, and there were no Christians around to do it. Instead, it is secular, non-believing, non-religious people who have been changing things around and making up alternative theories ever since, because they refuse to face the fact that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, and that Christianity and ancient Messianic Judaism have been proven to be true. Without God and Christianity, sceptics need to make up stories to believe in that explain their universe. See the excellent books written by the Christian scholar, Josh McDowell, himself a former atheist, making the intellectual case proving beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus is the Messiah. For example, the book "More than a Carpenter" tells about Josh's conversion from unbelief into Christianity, and presents many convincing proofs that faith in God is real, and that Jesus is the true Messiah.

post-Jesus Jewish messianic movements

Someone pasted in a long discussion of post-Jesus Jewish messianic movements. Stylistically, it seems old enough to be out of copyright, but it's full of unexplained cross-references and odd shorthand. I've changed "Mohammedan" to Muslim, but am less sure of geography, whether the "Sanh." here is short for "Sanhedrin," etc. This needs an informed eye. Vicki Rosenzweig

This new material came from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, which is a public domain resource. You're right on all acounts; it still needs a lot of cleaning up. I just thought that this is an interesting topic; there is much more we can add on post-700s Islamic messianic movements and post 300 Christian messianic movements. RK

"The Quran describes Jesus as a human being"

Quote: [i]The Quran, Islam's holiest book, describes Jesus as a human being, and not a son of God nor part of a trinity. These ideas are rejected as heresy; however, Islam teaches that Jesus indeed is the messiah, and holds him to be a human leader. [/i] This text says or suggests that Islam rejects a Quran teaching as heresy, and frankly, I cannot imagine that.

Messianic vs. Christian

Budo adds "Religions which believe Jesus was messiah but not God are called Messianic as opposed to Christian." I disagree; as far as I know, this is not a standard use of terminology. In fact, there are a number of messianic religious groups which do not believe that Jesus was the messiah. The three most well known messianic groups are the Frankists, the followers of Sabbatai Zevi, and Habad Lubavitch Hasidic Jews. RK 17:23, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)

It is not standard terminology, or a reliable guide. There may be a sense in which Islam and some other non-Christian groups acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah - but this terminology of "messianic as opposed to Christian" is not applicable to them. There are numerous Christian groups which deny the deity of Jesus (or the unique deity of Jesus), who claim that they are the true Christianity. They do not shun the name. The sentence Budo added is simply not true. Mkmcconn 21:05, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well the people watching over the Christian pages refuse to let anyone describe as christian any group which does not believe in the messiah as God. Messianic Jews do not call themselves Christians they call themselves messianic. Also many religions without Abrahamic origins are still described as messianic. So where can we mention these? You see the confusion above on the Question of why "islam rejects a Quran teaching as heresey" because there are two views of Messiah. One is the christian view and one is the messianic view. Shouldn't an encyclopaedia clarify points like this for people on the pages they will first look to for answers?

I am a Messianic gentile. On a weekly basis I attend a Protestant church, (where I often teach in the children's program), a Messianic synagogue, and a Reform Jewish temple. I also am the webmaster for about 20 Messianic and Christian websites. I have completed five 20-hour Messianic yeshiva courses including courses in Messianic Jewish Theology and Messianic Apologetics and 10 courses through a Christian seminary's extension program, as well as attending a 3-day New Members orientation program at the Messianic synagogue.

Theologically, the mainstream Messianic Movement is extremely similar to evangelical Protestantism. Most Messianic clergy either hold active Protestant clergy credentials or at one time they were ordained in a Protestant denomination before switching to Messianic Judaism. Messianic clergy and evangelical Protestants frequently teach and preach in each other's congregations. Most Messianic clergy are graduates of either a Protestant Bible college or a Protestant seminary. Many Protestant seminaries now have a Jewish Studies program specifically to train people interested in Messianic ministry. Examples are St. Petersburg Theological Seminary in Florida, Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, Dallas Theological Seminary (I forget in which city <g>) and Christ for the Nations in Dallas. Messianic clergy routinely use either mainstream Protestant Bible translations such as the NASB and the NKJV, or they use David Stern's Complete Jewish Bible.

The two best (and pretty inexpensive) overviews of Messianic theology are Growing to Maturity by Daniel C. Juster, Th.D. and Messianic Jewish Manifesto by David Stern, Ph.D., M.Div. Both are leading theologians in the Messianic Movement, both are graduates of Protestant seminaries and both teach that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God and the HaShem of Judaism. In fact, we believe that the "Jehovah" of the "Old Testament" was Jesus, not "the Father", as many Christian laypeople believe.

Regarding, "Messianic Jews do not call themselves Christians they call themselves messianic," that is really like, "Is the glass half empty or is it half full?" A more accurate statement would be, "It depends who is listening."

To most Jews, "Christian" evokes thoughts of the Holocaust (Hitler had some Roman Catholic upbringing), Jews being expelled from Spain in 1492 (because Ferdinand and Isabella borrowed heavily from Jews to finance their battle to get the Moslems out of Spain and once they succeeded in 1492 they didn't want to pay back the loans), the Spanish Inquisition, (which, contrary to common belief among gentiles, was mainly directed against Jews), Crusaders attacking Jewish hamlets (no pun intended . . .) on the way from Europe to Jerusalem, etc.

Mainstream (almost exclusively gentile) Christians don't cant Torah from scrolls, wear kippot and prayer shalls, keep the sabbath, study Hebrew, circumcise their sons for religious reasons, etc. So, culturally, yes, "Messianics" are not "Christian". However, those practices all deal with form.

However, theologically, (the vast majority of) Messianics believe in a single triune God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that that God manifests to humans in three hypostheses (similar to "persons"), that one of those hypostheses, the eternal Word of God became incarnate, was born of the Virgin Mary, took on the sins of the world, died, was resurrected, etc. I have personally heard that taught by the "Who's Who" of Messianic Judaism including Dan Juster, Marty Waldman, Seth Klayman, Dan Juster, Russ Resnick, Mitch Glazer, Jonathan Bernis, Jeffrey Seif, David and Emma Rudolph, Asher Intrater, Etian Shishkoff, Don Finto, Michael L. Brown (the evangelist and apologist, not the former head of FEMA!) and others.

Yes, there are some splinter groups who claim to be Messianic and who believe Jesus is not divine. But you get the same thing in "gentile" Christianity too, with Unitarians, Seventh-Day Adventists and others who reject various long-settled doctrines.

RickReinckens 07:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Move Other Jewish people purported to be messiahs to the False messiah page?

I would like to move list headed by "== Other Jewish people purported to be messiahs ==" to the False messiah page. Your comments please. OneVoice 22:40, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Does a lack of response at Wikipedia correspond to agreement? OneVoice 19:07, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, I would see it as more of a "why are you bothering with something futile?"

I think it would've helped your cause to make the merge go to the correct place, rather than Messianism/Messiah, then find out on the talk page that it should really should go to False messiah.

Since your post is a year and a half old, I am going to take the merge template off of that page. Feel free to revert if this is still active, and I'm not realising it.

— <TALKJNDRLINETALK>     17:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Mahdi will slay Ad-Dajjal or Jesus?

According to Mahdi, al-Mahdi will not defeat ad-Dajjal, the false messiah: Jesus will. This article says al-Mahdi will help to defeat him. Could someone clarify? --Spikey 18:31, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This article is incorrect: the Mahdi is supposed to die before ad-Dajjal appears. As in the Christian version of the story, Jesus (Isa) is supposed to kill the Antichrist. — No-One Jones (talk) 18:33, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting this...I must have misread the Mahdi article from which I got the information. OneVoice 19:03, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

the xtian g-d's name...and false messiahs vs. tzaddikim

I'd like to point out two things (from a quick scan of the article): The xtian g-d's full name as it is described by xtianity, is used at the begining of the article, and I believe that this is not in the spirit of being neutral- the translation reads 'xtians believe that xxxxx the messiah, is the messiah' when in truth it should read 'xtians believe that xxxxx was the messiah' In addition, maybe point out that they hold by default that he is much more than just the messiah- something that noth Judaism and [lhavdil] Islam are very strongly against.

The second point is this: from reading the list of 'false messiahs' one gets the sense that these Jews were really 'out there' and fell for every 'yutz' who called himself the Moshiach. In truth, most of those who were leaders of the generation, or were great 'Tzaddikim' (righteous people) were considered to be *worthy* to be the Moshiach, and thus there was hope that they would in fact be just that. So all those in that list (or rather *most* in the list) were not 'false Messiahs' but rather 'potential Messiahs'. For example R' Isaac Luria was not the Messiah, but the Messiah will come about in a large part because of his teachings. He didnt run around claiming to be Moshiach, but rather taught teachings that were very closely related to the era of Moshiach... and were it the time for Moshiach, then he would have in all likelihood been the Moshiach... ETC. Unsigned by User:151.204.128.16

Please note that this user has been filling Talk:Chabad Lubavitch with promotional slogans for the Chabad sect. I discourage responding to him here. JFW | T@lk 13:57, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Other Jewish Messiah claimants who led or incited civil unrest"

Shouldn't we change that to something like "Other historially signficant Jewish Messiah claimants"? I mean does one have to cause trouble to get into this encyclopedia?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 04:13, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

That seems like a better title to me. Jayjg 04:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because the Messiah, like King David, will lead the Jewish people to greatness on earth and/or into heaven, it presumably makes sense to assume that the Jewish people are not there yet, and that they are downtrodden/dissatisfied with their lot, hence the need for a messianic "trouble-maker" to help them. The Messiah will be called a trouble-maker and an enemy by those who do not want to upset the status quo, and will label Him as a rebel.

Suggestion, ideas to improve the article

1. When did this whole idea of a "Messiah" came to existance ?
2. Who are the names behind it?
3. What was the social situation the jews were facing ? Were they in the exile ? Isn't the messianic idea the "rational" solution for a people who is in captivity and does not have the means to organise itself politically ? --217.228.223.17 22:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some scholars have suggested that messianic beliefs came into Judiasm from Zoroastrianism. Cyrus the first (Cyrus the Great), leader of the Persian empire, captured Israel from the Babylonian empire. Cyrus had made a habit of restoring the local religions that the Babylonians had suppressed. Even the Zoroastrian preists of Cyrus's empire were from a land Cyrus or one of his predecessors (can't remember) had captured and controlled. Because of the benevolence of the Persian empire, ending the Babylonian captivity and helping to rebuild the Jewish temple, and because of the theological similarities between the Judiasm and the Persian preistly caste, Zoroastrianism had a profound influence on the Jewish people and possibly vice versa. Some scholars have tried to relate this event to the story of Daniel and the Lion's den where Jewish leaders are said to have taught another people many things. I don't know what the support for this reading is.

Interestingly, the "Magi" who appear at the beginning of the New Testament are Zoroastrian preists.

--68.104.139.213 01:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

"literal translation"

What precisely is a "literal translation", and why is such a form of words preferable to my edit, "transliteration"? Translation is only meaningful in contexts where there's an existing word in the 'target' language, and is doesn't make sense in the process of forming a loan-word. Alai 03:03, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A literal translation is fairly self explanatory; it attempts to translate a word into a new language as literally as possible (also see the links). Translations can also be idiomatic, interpretational, etc. On the other hand, a transliteration is a word which attempts to maintain the sound (not meaning) of a word in a new language. Thus "Messiah" is an English transliteration of "Moshiach", but "Khristos" is a Greek translation of "Moshiach". "Christ" is an English transliteration of the Greek word "Khristos". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:44, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Khristos has a different meaning than "Moshiach." Khristos implies decendence from a Deity. "Moshiach" does not. There is no literal translation into Greek that I'm aware of. Perhaps you could qualify Khristos in some way to make it clear that the word in Hebrew does not refer to a literal blood relationship. "Spiritually Khristos" or somthing like that. Not quite as euphonic, though.

Regardless of your personal interpretation, most writers say that Xristos is the Greek translation for Moshiach. Check www.BlueLetterBible.org. You can look up text from the King James Version in both Hebrew (Tanakh) and Greek (Septuagint). Remember, the KJV is a Christian translation, so you also have to look for "anointed".

To use it:

• use Phrase Search / Concordance. (search for "anointed")
• After results come up, click on a verse cite (e.g., Lev. 4:3)
• The KJV text will come up with a bunch of white letters on blue background, like little books. Click on the [C]. That will pull up the text in English and Hebrew with each word in the Hebrew explained and it will also show the Greek from the Septuagint. (I suppose being able to read a little Greek would be a big help, of course.)

The Septuagint texts were translated before Christianity started, so you can see how the words were used before their influence. Of course, because there are no actual Septuagint scrolls, etc., that are confirmably pre-Christian, no one is sure that the current copies were not modified to some extent. But in any case, the majority of experts agree that Xristos is the equivalent of Moshiach. --Judah haNasi 06:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Other historically significant Jewish Messiah claimants

This list should belong in List of messiah claimants --PinchasC 04:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lists are just that, lists with just the most significant details. The article, however, expands considerably on each individual. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:31, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article which expand on each individual should belong over by List of messiah claimants--PinchasC 00:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's not how lists work; lists give one line descriptions of the items at most. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lists give basic information as needed. If more detail is required, the list links to main articles. You are both right. This article should link to the aforementioned list instead of describing each individual here. The list page should be expanded slightly to explain who they are and the basis of their claim, and each should have a main article that describes the whole claim in depth. --Will2k 20:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Spare us lists of everything. Those are only necessary when they pertain to more than one topic, or when they clutter an article. In this case, the list of claimants only pertains to this article, and contains more prose. JFW | T@lk 10:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Umm...the section in this article is not a list; it is a section that provides information on them...—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 21:18, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, this should be an article on the nature of the term "messiah". Claimants to the title deserves it's own article as in the list mentioned above.--Will2k 20:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Splitting off Other Jewish Messianic Claimants section

• How about splitting off the "Other historically significant Jewish Messianic claimants" section into a new article? (I'll volunteer to do it.)
• What would the title be? I can't see someone searching for "Historically significant . . ."

How about calling it "Jewish Messianic claimants"? RickReinckens 09:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Splitting probably would help "revive" contributions to this article, which has gotten overloaded with arcane minutia.
• The "historically significant" group is pretty arcane and of little interest to most people who want to learn about "messiah".

RickReinckens 04:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Why would you want to make a third article? I think two are enough, you can merge it into the List of messiah claimants unless others want to leave it here. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I split off the "Other historically significant Jewish Messianic claimants" section into article Jewish Messiah claimants, since there were no other comments pro or con. "Messiah" is really more about theology and JMc is really more about history. Hopefully, moving that large block will encourage contributions to this article and make it more usable to the majority of readers--who really couldn't care less about "Other historically significant Jewish Messiah claimants".

RickReinckens 08:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Merging with Messianism

• oppose the merger with Messianism. Leave Messiah to the more specific personages (Messianic figures), and give the general discussion of the phenominon there. At least, that's what many of the links each place expect. There ought to be plenty of non-Jewish examples in both places (many of which are already links to each page). --William Allen Simpson 10:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

  I've examined and disambiguated *all* the current references to "Messianic" and have come to the conclusion that by far the greatest number want a link to something very like Messianism. Therefore, I'd propose moving "Messianic" to "Messianic (disambiguation)" and then Messianism to Messianic, with a disambiguation link at the top. --William Allen Simpson 12:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• oppose the merger with Messianism. --Cberlet 14:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• strongly oppose the merger with Messianism. The Messianism article needs to be expanded.

---

As this article shows, any article with this type of topic very quickly turns into an extensive exposition of Jewish interpretations and Jewish historical figures. Compare the length of the New Testament and Islam sections with "Significant Jewish Messiah claimants". The result is that many potential contributors who want to discuss the topic from a different perspective, e.g., Islam, decide it's not worth getting involved.

---

Also, although the topics are related, they are in fact different. The Messiah article deals with a person. The Messianism article doesn't. Frankly, I don't quite understand what it does deal with. (See Accuracy Dispute)

---

I have added an Accuracy Dispute tag to the Messianism article with a fairly extensive list of reasons on the Talk:Messianism page. It would not be a good idea to merge a disputed article into Messiah until some of those problems are cleaned up.

Also see above re splitting this article.

RickReinckens 04:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment More liberal forms of Judaism believe in a Messianic era rather than a personal Messiah, so in Judaism there are definitely two different concepts here. --Shirahadasha 02:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• strongly oppose two different concepts as said before - does anyone actulay want to merge as said previously by others Messiah is about the Messiah and the Messianism is about Messianism which is different.--Max Randor 08:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

History of Messianic Expectations

Perhaps a sub-title recounting the history of Messianic expectations from its inception to present-day would be good, if not here, then at least the Moshiach article. Hairouna 03:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

prophecy and sacrifice

I am reverting edits by User:63.105.65.6 stating as fact that prior to Christianity, the Messiah was prophecied to become a sacrificial offering. This is a controversial claim that would need to be stated as opinion and attributed to an established source in order to be included. At one point, User:63.105.65.6 wrote that, in the New Testament, Jesus, Paul, and Peter all claim that the Messiah was prophecied to become a sacrifice. If true, I think this would a fair inclusion; the New Testament is a known and established source despite controversy over its reliability. But if anyone wants to reinsert that claim, please cite chapter and verse on the talk page so the rest of us can verify that it's really in the New Testament. Thanks. --Allen 05:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No, if they are going to reinsert it they should include the cite with the insertion in the article or at least with a reference footnote. It is well-documented that before Christianity some interpreters thought the Messiah would be a sacrificial offering, so if that is put back it needs to indicate that it was neither the only view nor the main view and needs to include both a credible reference and an attribution to the particular group(s) that held that interpretation. RickReinckens 00:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus certainly did say that he was going to be a sacrifice 'Mathew 16:21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.' 'John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.' - sacrificed --Max Randor 19:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Literal translation of Mashiach

"the word Christ (Greek Χριστός, Khristos, "the anointed one") is a literal translation of "mashiach"."

Hmm, it seems to me that Christ comes from the word cross, via crucifiction, i.e. christ means the one who was crucified. Am I wrong, or is the article claiming that mashiach literally refers somehow to crucifiction?

You are wrong. 24.7.87.135 08:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Christian view misrepresented

Whoever wrote this article is completely ignorant of mainstream Christianity's view of the Old Testament prophecies regarding the Messiah. It should be mentioned that Matthew chronicled Jesus' life with the goal of showing that Jesus fulfilled those prophecies, and showing that the first century Jewish idea of the Messiah as a political and military leader was predicated upon incorrect readings of the prophecies. 24.7.87.135 08:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the statement that Matthew wrote with the purpose of showing that Jesus fulfilled prophecies. But what is the basis for claiming that Matthew was trying to show that the Jewish idea of the Messiah as a political and military leader was based a wrong interpretation? I have heard numerous Messianic leaders say that it was based on wrong interpretations, but I have not heard anyone say that one of Matthew's purposes was to show this. Do you have any references for claiming that as one of his purposes?

I deleted a lot of the new material in New Testament because it was off topic (dispensationalism, etc.) and reworded other parts from evangelical jargon to wording the average person should understand.

RickReinckens 00:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

What is "dispensationalism"? Does it have to do with the New Testament or the Tanakh? --Judah haNasi 22:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

dispensationalism is a christian eschatological viewpoint which divides history into a number of dispensations: generally, creation, antidiluvian, patriarchal, exodus, judges, monarchy, exile, return, church, tribulation, millenium reign, end of the world. And yes, it's would be pretty off topic here. Thanatosimii 00:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

First line vague

Can someone put a date in the first line of the article? What does "initially" mean? Also, you've written: "In English today, it is used in two major contexts: the anticipated saviour of the Jews, and one who is anticipated as, regarded as, or professes to be a saviour or liberator." This does not include the sense in which the word is probably most commonly used, which is to refer to Jesus as the promised savior of mankind.

"Initially" is a valid description. In Judaism the concept of "messiah" as savior, etc., really developed more with the Nevi'im (prophets), especially Isaiah. Regarding "In English today", Christians do not commonly refer to Jesus as "the Messiah". They generally say he is "the Christ" unless they are trying to proselytize Jews. --Judah haNasi 05:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have heard Christians refer to Jesus as "the Messiah" when no Jews were present. Does anyone have any good sources on this either way? 24.7.87.135 04:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I have frequently heard Jesus refered to as the messiah indeed some translations of the bible have footnotes for every mention of Jesus or Christ saying i.e. the messiah.'(paraphrased) I read this in 'Betrayed!' by Stan Telchin ISBN 0-551-00941-1. Which is written from a Jewish perspective. but do not have time to re-read the entier book to find the reference sorry. Christ,Jesus,the Messiah they are all the same thing as far as I understand. --Max Randor 19:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Messiah in Fiction and Fantasy

I removed this section. All it said was (title) The Messiah in science fiction and fantasy (text) The idea of a messiah figure has long been an element in the genres of science fiction and fantasy. See the article Messiahs in fiction and fantasy. (end text) The link is in See also. Just saying the idea has been an element in certain types of literature doesn't add any useful information. If it is added back it at least needs some examples like Luke Skywalker (Star Wars) and Neo (The Matrix). --Judah haNasi 06:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Female messiah?

The Other Messiahs section mentions Shakers. Other than that, has anyone seen any reference to a female messiah? Not a messianic figure a la Joan of Arc. The article probably should indicate that the messiah contemplates a male savior, to avoid misrepresenting in the name of political correctness or NPOV. --Judah haNasi 06:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it probably unnecessary to be so specific. The reference to 'messiess' has been removed, and I support its removal: I can find only one source that uses the word, and it is an obscure French work of the mid 17th century. Myopic Bookworm 10:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Messianic figure

Much as I hate to say it, Hitler definitely qualifies as a "messianic figure". Is it too much of a stretch to say the George Washington and Boris Yeltsin could be viewed as messianic figures? I realize it is borderline, but is it too much? Any other suggestions many people would recognize? --Judah haNasi 22:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sophia was a female Messiah in Gnostic Christianity.

The gnostics thought that the first murderer was a hero. Hitler as messianic figure - I don't see how that was possible - he did not even belive in God (or at least from his actions he did not believe in the same God as Christians or Jews or any other religion I have heard of)--Max Randor 19:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Addition of "Confusing" template in "Christian view"

The Christian View section is quite confusing. It was labelled "In the New Testament" even though it basically doesn't mention the NT. Problem sentences are in subsections due to length. (Sorry about the detail, but it sort of comes with the territory in my field.) --Judah haNasi 06:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem sentence 1

• Relevance? "In the centuries before Jesus, it was a Jewish belief that the Messiah foretold in the Hebrew Bible would descend from King David and would restore the monarchy/theocracy and Jewish independence." --Judah haNasi 06:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it sets the context for explaining what Jesus's followers thought he might be. Myopic Bookworm 17:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem sentence 2

Comments re: "Christians believe that the passages in question actually predicted the coming of one who restore mankind to grace, and believe that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled these prophecies."

• Identify some "passages in question".
• Too vague: What does "grace" mean in this context?
• Confusing and misleading: Explain "restore mankind to grace". Christianity definitely does not claim that all people are "restored to grace".
• Source for "restore mankind to grace"
• Confusing and misleading: This sounds like, "Christians believe the Jewish interpretation was totally wrong and instead . . ." Christians do believe Jesus is descended from King David.
• Confusing and misleading: Christianity claims Jesus will someday rule the world from Jerusalem, which sounds like they claim he will restore the monarchy/theocracy. --Judah haNasi 06:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your first two Problem sentences. Christians regard the religion Jesus founded as the true completion of BC Judaism. Though the first sentence originally seemed to be a rebuttal, I left in the current version for that reason. About the "passages in question," do you want a list, or what? What you said about the statement about grace is well taken. Someone should alter that. 24.7.87.135 08:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Think of it from the point of view of a Buddhist in Asia, a Hindu in India, etc. What passages? I have seen books and websites with a fairly long list of cites. It should not be difficult to just list cites to maybe 10 major passages, possibly in a Notes section. I checked through the "See also" and "External links" sections and found several pages with such information.

Also, not to be offensive, but Christians who write about these things tend to use way too much jargon and forget that even most Americans and Canadians whose native language is English don't know the theological terminology and concepts, etc., or even much about the Bible. For instance, you say, "Christians regard the religion Jesus founded as the true completion of BC Judaism." What does that mean? I have been told that Jesus' original apostles continued to follow Jewish practices and that Christianity in the sense that it is practiced today began at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. The question they decided was, "Do gentiles have to convert to Judaism?" From what I have been told, and the text seems to agree, the Council never even considered the question, "Do we Jews who believe Jesus is the Messiah have to abandon our historic practices?" For instance, Jesus' brother Jacob (whose name somehow wound up being translated James, even before the King James Bible) was a leader in the Jerusalem synagogue until he was executed sometime around 62 C.E. I read some of his letter where he talks about "Faith without good works is dead," feeding and clothing a hungry cold person instead of just praying for the person, etc. Judaism calls those things mitzvot and it's considered a fundamental part of following G-d.

My main point overall is that someone with no concept of Christianity should be able to read the "Christian view" section and have a basic idea of what the Christian view of the messiah is. As it is currently worded they could easily get a grossly distorted view by accurately interpreting the article as written. --Judah haNasi 07:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I've taken out what seemed jargonistic to me. Feel free to make further suggestions. Myopic Bookworm 17:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Grace in this circumstance is being made right with God through Gods grace - giveing when the recipient is undeserving. regarding "Christians regard the religion Jesus founded as the true completion of BC Judaism." As a Christian I believe that I believe in the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob - the God of the Jews. and that it was His plan for Jesus to die and for us to save us from our sins. but yes jargon does need explaining and a link to citations would be useful. --Max Randor 19:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Problem sentence 3

Comments re: They hold that the messiah was foretold by Isaiah (e.g., 52:13-53:12) to become a sacrificial offering for the sins of the world (though neither the term 'messiah' nor the ideas of kingship traditionally associated with it appear in this passage), and that in allowing himself to be killed Jesus fulfilled this prophecy and reconciled mankind to God; see Lamb of God.

• NPOV violation: Rebuttals should be in a separate subsection clearly marked as such, not inserted in parentheses in the middle of a sentence about "View of XYZ Group:". Imagine what a mess WP would be if Christians added parenthetical inserts all over the place in sentences in Jewish articles, Orthodox/Conservatives started adding inserts in Reform articles, Moslems started adding such inserts in the middle of sentences on Christian or Jewish views, (American) Democrats and Republicans add comments in the middle of sentences in presidential biographies, etc.

• 1) Confusing, 2) Religious jargon, 3) Western-centric: "reconciled to mankind to God".

Western religions such as Islam, Christianity and Judaism generally have the concepts of (1) a single "personal" deity (a deity that can think, see, hear, has a personality, etc.) (2) that has a set of moral standards, (3) that "mankind" has become distanced from that deity, (4) as the result of "sin", and that (5) somehow mankind must become "reconciled" to the deity.

Non-western religions often lack all of these concepts. --Judah haNasi 06:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could conclude the sentence with a different "see ..." Lamb of God isn't quite right. 24.7.87.135 08:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Since we're discussing a concept of Hebrew origin, I think it's worth noting here that the Christian take on it covers things that the Jewish tradition doesn't even really consider messianic. Myopic Bookworm 17:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with 'reconciled mankind to God' would you prefer 'made right with God' or is it that 'God'needs explaing as beeing the God refered to by Isiah? --Max Randor 19:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Problem sentence 4

Comments re: "According to mainstream Jewish belief, the failure of Jesus to restore the temporal Kingdom of Israel and fulfil other messianic prophecies, and above all his execution by the Romans, negated claims that he was the messiah."

• NPOV violation: Again, rebuttals should be in a separate subsection clearly labelled as such. If the current approach is going to be followed, should we invite Christians, Moslems, atheists, etc., to put rebuttals in the middle of the "Traditional and contemporary Judaism" section?
• Off topic: The section is "Christian view" (and was "In the New Testament"). Views of other religions are off-topic for the section. --Judah haNasi 06:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, since the concept is origially Jewish, a brief note seems worth making, with a link to the proper discussion of Judaism's view of Jesus. Myopic Bookworm 17:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem sentence 5

Comments re: "Some Christians regard the prophecies as having spiritual significance, and not literal."

• 1) Confusing, 2) Religious jargon: Simply put, what the heck does it mean?
• Identify who: Is this a mainstream view? Is it limited to Catholics, Protestants, conservatives, mainstream, liberals?
• Identify the prophecies: Which prophecies? All of them? --Judah haNasi 06:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can or should go into the complete debate between Christian and Jewish views of Messiah. I've contrasted the 'spiritual' bit with the literal 'earthly Israel' alternative: does that help? Myopic Bookworm 17:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it means that some Christians hold that you should not take all prophecies literally--Max Randor 19:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Problem sentence 6

Comments re: "Others see a complete fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies taking place at the Second Coming, see Christianity and Biblical prophecy."

• Arguable NPOV violation: Considering the article subject, it would be better to say "in the Hebrew Bible" than "Old Testament". Jews don't have an "Old" Testament.
• Vague: "Others"--who? Protestants, Catholics, conservatives, mainstream, liberals? Is this a common belief?
• Confusing and misleading: This does not say it is limited to Old Testament messianic prophecies.
• Confusing and misleading: Does this mean that Jesus fulfilled no Old Testament prophecies?
• Confusing: Does this mean that all Old Testament prophecies will be completely fulfilled at the Second Coming? Will they be fulfilled by the Second Coming or will the Second Coming and the fulfillment just happen to occur at the same time? --Judah haNasi 06:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I have little idea, since I don't hold thesse beliefs, and I suspect that those who do disagree among themselves. Myopic Bookworm 17:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes saying in the Hebrew Bible would probably be more acceptable but it is basiclay the same as the OT. yes it should be messianic prophecies. and they will be fulfilled by the second comming and many many prophecies wer e forfilled in the NT - i was not aware that any were not. --Max Randor 19:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Problem sentence 7

Comments re: "Many Christians believe that Jesus' messianic character will be vindicated in his prophesied Second Coming."

• Vague and confusing: "messianic character will be vindicated"
• Misleading: This gives the impression Christians believe Jesus is one messiah among several because he has a "messianic character".
• Misleading: "Many Christians believe". Regarding "many", my understanding is that this is one of the basic beliefs of Christianity and that if a person doesn't believe Jesus is the Messiah Christians do not consider the person a Christian. --Judah haNasi 06:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That's true, but some Christians don't actually expect a literal earthly Second Coming, which is the subject here. Myopic Bookworm 22:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes messianic character could be clarified but it does mean the things that show he is the messiah - it is misleading. Which Christians don't believe in a second comming? - it is quite possible but I have not heard of them - I thought Revelation made it clear. The 'many' is probably inserted because not everyone would agree and so it makes it more acceptable but I dont see how someone can be a Christian and not belive in Jesus--Max Randor 19:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Problem sentence 8

Comments re: "In this sense, Jesus is believed to be the fulfilment of the Jewish Messiah, and will also be the fulfilment of his own prophecies of the Second Coming."

• Confusing: I think this could be reasonably interpreted to mean that Jesus is both "the Messiah" and "the fulfillment of the Jewish Messiah" as if they are somehow different. That is not the Christian interpretation.
• Confusing: In context, it is "Many Christians believe that Jesus' messianic character will be vindicated in his prophesied Second Coming. In this sense, Jesus is believed to be the fulfilment of the Jewish Messiah, &#133;". In what sense?
• Confusing and misleading: Is this saying that in the sense that he will return he is the fulfillment of the Jewish Messiah but in other respects he is not the fulfillment? That is not the Christian view. It also is not the Jewish view that Messiah will come, leave and return. --Judah haNasi 07:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem sentence 9

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons, a false church of Christ) believe that the Jews will be redeemed at the coming of the Messiah, but that the Jewish Messiah is Jesus Christ."

Very POV, as it claims, not suggests, that the Mormons are a false church. Can someone edit this please?

Rewritten section

I have attempted to rewite this whole section in a way which presents, without assuming, Christian beliefs about Jesus as Messiah. In particular, I have tried to avoid the impression of the previous version that all Christians are fundamentalists who expect Jesus to return and reign for a thousand years. I have not met every single one of the points made above, but I hope it's a start towards removing the confusing label. Myopic Bookworm 17:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I'm going so far as to take the template off: if anyone's still confused, feel free to say why and I'll try to unconfuse them! Myopic Bookworm 22:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Section neutrality and accuracy disputed tag

Regarding the re-write, sorry to say this, but you failed miserably. If "The ABC Church" believes "the moon is made of green cheese because our leader says so", it is not POV or assuming their view is correct to simply state, "The ABC Church believes the moon is made of green cheese, based on the teaching of their leader." The re-write tries to be so politically correct that it is almost incomprehensible. As Judah said, rebuttals should be in a separate section, not mixed in.

What is a "universal" significance? The changes grossly misrepresent the views of the mainstream Christian religions. "Christian view" doesn't mean, "Harry and Fred and Juan believe". What is the recognized credible source for that claim and who are the "some Christians" who hold that interpretation? WP NPOV rules say that extreme minority views should not be presented unless they are clearly labelled as such because otherwise it gives the false impression that a fringe view is mainstream. (Actually, it says that extreme minority views should not be presented at all except in a separate article about that extreme minority view.)

If you think a Christian has to be a "fundamentalist" to believe Jesus will return and reign for a thousand years, you should not be touching the article. That is the mainstream interpretation. The only variation between "mainstream" and what you call "fundamentalist" is that some "mainstream" interpreters interpret "1000 years" as "a long time", not literally 365,000 days and even a lot of "fundamentalists" would not dispute the "long time" interpretation.

"Several sayings attributed to Jesus in the Christian New Testament indicate that he considered himself to be the Messiah, even though he appears to have had little or no political ambition; certainly his immediate followers regarded him as such, and the very name of 'Christian' refers to the Greek word for 'Messiah' (Khristos)." is just a ridiculous sentence. An accurate statement of the "Christian view" would be , "In the New Testament Jesus and his disciples repeatedly refer to him as the "Christ", which is the Greek word for Messiah, for example, Matthew 2:3, Mark 3:4, Luke 5:6 and John 7:8; 9:10, 11:12-13." (fake citations shown here)

Also, as Judah pointed out, the re-write still uses too much jargon and is too Western-centric. What is "prefigure", why and how do people have to be "reconciled to God", etc.

If an article has a section "The Democratic Party's political platform" and you state, "The Democratic Party is pro-choice on abortion," the contrasting Republican view is not relevant in the Democratic Party section. This section is "Christian view". In this section what the Jewish or Moslem or Wiccan or Satanist or any other groups' interpretations are or were is irrelevant and off-topic. Anything on the Jewish interpretation belongs in the Judaism section.

Why is it you folks can't seem to state the "Christian view" clearly and simply? No one puts all sorts of "weasel wording" and rebuttals in the Judaism and Islam sections. It's not like anyone has to really do heavy duty research to find out what the mainstream Christian view is. If someone can state simply and clearly why Adolf Hitler qualifies as a messianic figure, it shouldn't be that hard to explain clearly and simply the basic Christian view of the Messiah without loading the section with blatant anti-Christian prejudice and claiming it's NPOV. I would do it but I have looked through the history of some of these articles and they are constant edit fights with non-Christians continually re-writing the Christian descriptions to dispute them. Charles Ulysses Farley 08:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Added a Section neutrality and accuracy dispute tag. Didn't bother re-adding the Confusing tag although it still is. Charles Ulysses Farley 08:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You are completely right. The mainpage of Wikipedia should have a disclaimer which says "If you are looking for objective information about Christianity do not look for it here." I guess a lot of people are bitter about Christianity for some reason or other. 24.7.87.135 00:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that Christians don't seem to care enough about Judaism to vitiate articles pertaining to it? Hmmm I wonder. 128.32.158.192 20:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Many of them probably do care, but don't want to get slapped with an "anti-Semitic" tag.

I've no mandate for bitterness, but I'm doing my best to make this objective while I still have the patience to worry about it. If you've any suggestions as to how the existing wording can be made any more neutral while still actually saying something, then here's the talk page. And would someone like to take the disputed template off? (I don't feel I can, since the earlier version it was slapped on was my own earlier attempt to move the section away from its over-disputatious tone.) Myopic Bookworm 22:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added two sentences to Christian view. They say that Son of Man is a figure in the Book of Daniel and that Christians see Jesus' use of this title as a direct claim that he is the Messiah. Please nobody add "though Jewish rabbis hold that this figure is not Jesus." 24.7.87.135 08:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The Christian view section is still screwed up. I guess it's impossible to get the Christian view of the Messiah past you censors. The Christian view of the concept of Messiah, which is what this article is about, is basically that the prophecies in the Hebrew Bible regarding the Messiah predicted the coming of one who would die for the sins of the world and who would be a great king. We see Jesus as fulfilling both kinds of messianic prophecies in the OT: he suffered for our sins and, being God, is the king of heaven (while after the fall of the second temple Jews started to think that the prophecies must refer to two different men). The belief that Jesus fulfilled the promises made to Israel is a central tenet of Christianity.

You people need to realize that "Christian" does not equate to "New Testament." Our Bible contains the books of the Hebrew Bible as well, believe it or not. The Christian view of the concept of Messiah should (clearly) include some mention of the Christian interpretation of the messianic prophecies in the Old Testament.

I am going to read some books on this topic, and after doing so I will rewrite this section entirely. 24.7.87.135 00:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have continued to adapt this section, partly in response to comments and partly as a result of my own reading. It would not be appropriate to give all the details of Christian beliefs about Messianic prophecy here, as there is a whole separate article on the topic which is explicitly linked from here. I have, however, thought it worth adding the verses from the end of Luke, which present Jesus himself as the originator of this Christian tradition of interpretation. Myopic Bookworm 13:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Good job on that section. 71.198.169.9 10:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the POV tag. 71.198.169.9 23:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you thought it was OK: someone's edited over it now. Myopic Bookworm 07:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well it's even better now. This section has come a long way from "Christians think that Jesus was the Messiah, but they're wrong." 71.198.169.9 19:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

References

Who are Ankerberg and Weldon, and McDowell? Myopic Bookworm 07:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That's kinda why there are book names, publisher names, publication dates and ISBN numbers in the References section, wouldn't you say? Search for their names at amazon.com and Google--or even Wikipedia! I added link to their WP articles in the References section. (I hope that won't screw up the cite template.) Judah haNasi 06:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I was expecting a link from where they are mentioned to where they are explained.

(By the way, it may seem pedantic, but the Biblical references strictly show only that the author of John's Gospel believed that Jesus claimed to be God. There is a scholarly debate about how much later theology was read back into the Gospel texts. But I won't quibble...) Myopic Bookworm 11:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Revert to Lacrimoses's version?

should the article be reverted to Lacrimoses's version as I think that the change made by IP adress 202.142.180.1 might not be accepted by the people in question and that a sect is more appropriate than calling the Ahmadiyya a whole new religion - but I do not know anything about them so cannot say - what do you think? --Max Randor 17:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Islam

The islamic verse it's dangerously used here, depicting the muslim as snobbish radical harmful religion at a near subliminal level, the sentence "Allah will perish all religions except Islam." has nothing to do with the article and could had been changed by "(...)" between phrases. I know you will say "but it's there so we need to show", but don't forget the jews also have lots of this snob discriminating stuff on their scriptures but the article doesn't mention it (making looks like only the muslim do that), it's like when gentiles are accused to use talmud out of context to inspire anti-semitism. Someone will come to read about the messiah and at the islamic part of the article will think "this greedy damned terrorists" - mainly now after, the new terrorist trend worldwide. If you decide to keep you should at least put the judaic sentences about how life will be for the jews when the messiah comes and put the chosen people at their command post, or at least Martin Luther's claim that "the jews expect the messiah to come riding a horse and slaughtering people with a sword". I still think it's wrong this kind of comment on any religion because all religions are selfish at some point, just fix the Islam part. I am sorry if the complain looks silly but I know pretty well and I fear a lot this kind of subconscious association.