Why Jesus is not the promised Jewish Messiah (part 1)

In the dispute between Christians and Jews over whether Jesus ought be accorded some special status, its not uncommon to come across some fairly awful reasoning on the part of Christian apologists.

The over-riding objection with such reasoning might seem to be that they have already decided on the conclusion before beginning the argument but this in itself is not necessarily an objection so long as one argues cogently and coherently. However, one consequence of taking sides in advance is that the advocate often doesn't think critically enough about the arguments offered in defence of their pre-conceived notions.

Of course I may be subject to the same criticism so rather than begin with my conclusion, I point to my arguments. Rubbish those and I’ll have to admit that my conclusion doesn’t stand and in such circumstances I’ll be happy to do so…

In a recent discussion a Christian apologist presented the Jewish position as follows and attempts to show why the conclusion cannot be drawn from the premises;

1) The Messiah will fulfil prophecies x, y & z

2) Jesus did not fulfil prophecies x,y, & z

Conclusion: Jesus cannot be the messiah.

The critic attempts to show that premise 2 doesn’t stand because Jesus will come back and for the conclusion to stand the Jewish position must be amended to read “Jesus did not and will not fulfil prophecies x,y, & z. 

Essentially this is offering the notion of a second coming as refutation that Jesus is not the Jewish messiah. However the refutation of the objection is that it is not reasonable to believe that Jesus will return, because no evidence is presented to support such a notion. 

There are a number of problems with this reasoning.

1) The burden of proof is on the Christian’s shoulders, not that of the Jewish people. Since Judaism pre-dates Christianity, the burden of proof lies with those who are claiming new information, not with those who are saying nothing has changed. This is obvious. 

If you want to convince others that an apparently ordinary person who lived and died, actually has a special status, you need evidence to support this conclusion and yet none is offered that survives scrutiny.

2) Given that Jesus died prior to the fulfilment of the relevant prophecies and that this was 2000 odd years ago you would need a convincing explanation for why he will still be able to fulfil the prophecies. Mere possibility alone is foolish. After all its possible that tomorrow my dog will start talking or become a chess grand-master but no reasonable person expects either of these things to happen. If you are happy to base your decisions on probability then I am offering bets on my three-legged donkey winning the Grand National, any takers?

3) The “he’ll do it later” argument may convince those with a pre-existing belief that Jesus is a special person but it doesn’t provide any support to convince someone who doesn’t believe that Jesus is special.  If you’re not providing any evidence I have no obligation to accept your argument and you have no reason to accept it either. To the non-believer in Jesus this sounds like a classic case of cognitive dissonance.

4) Additionally, the notion of a second coming is entirely extra-textual to the Hebrew Bible, thus there is no basis for a believer in the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures to accept such a notion. Yet it gets worse, the text of the Hebrew Bible instructs believers to reject ideas which are not found in the text. Thus the only consistent position is to reject the notion of a second coming and claims made in respect of Jesus coming back to do x, y & z.  

5) A further related problem is that to uphold the “he’ll do it later” principle one also has to explain why you give preference to belief in Jesus over belief in other religious figures, such as, Muhammed, Joseph Smith or Reverend Moon. If the notion is not excusive to Jesus then it isn’t evidence that he’s special.

If possibility is sufficient, then believing in Muhammed, or Jospeh Smith is as reasonable as belief in Jesus but the Christian offers no grounds for choosing one over the other. Can’t these other figures also come back and do it later if G-d wills it such? If not you have to say why and have a reasoned argument that can not also be used to refute your own position. No such argument exists. 

For these reasons, an inconsistent position is taken somewhere along the line and a rational person (a category which ought to include Christians) has no reason to accept the conclusion that Jesus is special.