GAAAAHHH!!! Scott, it’s OVER. Let it go!
In what way? He can’t make his point, but he is still asking questions, and I want to free him of a false conception of judaism. You know, as in the pupose of the board.
Well, in his last post, he asked for input. Please then give a prespective on his case, and mine, if you feel it is over, to tell us why.
Heh. Heh.
Scott… I have never used a Hebrew name to refer to Jesus. Not once. You’re confused again.
But that’s OK.
While you are posting, would you like to do more then chuckle? I did just reply to your last post, in case you haven’t noticed. I see no such reply from you.
And btw, a good chuckling is “Heh, heh.”, not “Heh. Heh”
Oh, and
Christ means “annointed” , and is a title. It means no more and no less then Messiah, or rather Mashiach.
And is it a Hebrew name? And is it different than how it is used 90% of the time?
OK, Scott. Based on good advice from many quarters, I am done with you. You may declare victory from this withdrawal; I can’t help that.
On all this foofaraw about the Messiah:
-
Chaim or Zev has set forth in some detail in GD threads what Jews expect the Messiah to be and do. He must meet all those minimum qualifications. On the basis of the evidence for Jesus available, He was/did not. Obviously, I (like Bricker) personally disagree with that analysis, but I do have to respect it as the Jewish Messiahship standard.
-
Almost nobody from Classical times is uncontrovertably proven to have been the person that cultural literacy understands him/her to have been. But the material on Jesus, allowing for the fact that it was polemic and includes some miracle stories, provides more unmythologized information about Him than is available about Socrates.