What you're missing is that the Jews didn't have a good record of hearing the truth through prophets. They persecuted many of them, and killed some of them. True prophets were not popular people. Given such a record, it's no surprise that Jesus was rejected also. Just because he was considered a pagan heretic by the majority of Jews at the time doesn't confirm that he was or wasn't what he claimed to be. It just means that the Jews of the time were true to form and persecuted the one who claimed to be bringing a message from God. Interestingly, the message of Jesus and his resurrection flourished in the very city that he was crucified and resurrected a mere five weeks after the event. His resurrection and his message must have been credible enough by the people who were there at the time that there was no denial of the original prophecies, but an acceptance of the Christian interpretation of them.

Yes, that's his prophecies work. You have to meet them to truly be considered the Messiah. Jesus was considered a pagan heretic by the majority of Jews at the time. Just like Joseph Smith or any other religious ego maniac. Why do you think Jews don't accept jesus as the messiah? Christians are in denial of the original prophecies, just like Mormons, Jehovas Witnesses, and Muslims.

See how this works? You are confining the prophecies to a narrow interpretation claiming that they HAVE to mean he would bring the nations together in his lifetime. Who says they have to mean that? Jesus said, "This time I have come in salvation and judgment to redeem people from their sins. Next time I will come in salvation and judgment to bring all nations together." The thing is this: every generation in the OT was warned by the prophets that they had not understood properly. When the Law came through Moses, it was to correct the people's tendency toward polytheism (Egypt, Mesopotamia, and others). They had not understood properly about God's nature, and how to have a relationship with him. When David was king, God used him to help the people know they had not understood properly about the land and his covenant. When Solomon was king, God used him to help the people know they had not understood properly about the temple and His presence. Through the era of the prophets (during the monarchy and the exile), God used them to help the people know they had not understood properly about faithfulness to the covenant. Then when Jesus came, he help the people understand properly about redemption and salvation. He also explained that the judgment, his kingship, and bringing the nations together was still future. Why does that disqualify him as being the true messiah, since he himself will return to accomplish that?

And possibly Jesus didn't change the rules of prophecy, but helped people understand properly about them. Joseph Smith and Mohammad didn't only change the rules of prophecy, they changed the content of revelation, the nature of God, and the theology of salvation. What they did was heresy.

> As far as Jesus being purely human, and not a "son of God," you possibly haven't read the Gospels. He did many things that the OT says only God can do, such as forgive sins and heal the blind, and that the OT attributed to God, such as walking on the water.

But does this not disqualify Jesus as being the true messiah? He was supposed to be born of human parents and bring all nations together in his lifetime. Furthermore, if Jesus was allowed to change the rules of prophecy, then why wasn't Joseph Smith, Muhammed, or any other self-proclaimed prophet?

Well, therein lies the differences of opinion. In the OT, there's no clear notion of "first time" and "second time". But we know that even in the OT God reveals himself progressively, and prophecies are progressive. Abraham found out more than Noah ever knew; Moses found out more than Abraham ever knew; David found out more than Moses ever knew. But the prophecies didn't stop there. Isaiah, Daniel, Malachi, et al. all continue to make messianic prophecies. It's no surprise that when Jesus came he revealed something more that was new: there are stages of fulfillment. The fact that Jesus was such an astounding fulfillment of all of the Law and the Prophets, along with specific prophecies such as Micah 5.2, caused many people to recognize the truth of what he was teaching. So nothing has yet disqualified Jesus as the true messiah. Just because the Jews disagreed with him doesn't disqualify him, since many Jews of his day (though be far a minority) also believed in him. It's also true today that many Jews (though by far a minority) believe in him. He was the Adam that Adam never was, the Moses that Moses never was, and the David that David never was.

As far as Jesus being purely human, and not a "son of God," you possibly haven't read the Gospels. He did many things that the OT says only God can do, such as forgive sins and heal the blind, and that the OT attributed to God, such as walking on the water.

We have to take the whole picture of the OT, and the whole picture of the NT, and we find out in remarkable ways that Jesus completely fulfilled the OT, including hundreds of prophecies, with some of the fulfillments still in the future.

But weren't those prophecies supposed to be fulfilled the first time around? The "second coming" is solely a christian prophecy, not a Hebrew one. Isn't this what disqualifies jesus as the true messiah? Along with the true messiah being purely human, not a "son of god".

When people want to talk about messianic prophecies, they generally want to talk about specific texts, the “fingerprints” of messianic prophecies scattered about the Old Testament, where God marked out, "This is a prophecy about the Messiah." Some are debatable, but some are widely agreed upon. One can readily see that these texts speak of a righteous political ruler, with a throne in Jerusalem, subduing the nations and ruling with justice and power. But what of Jesus, then, who never established an earthly kingdom?

The problem arises when one is looking for Jesus only in certain Old Testament texts instead of throughout its entirety. A more accurate perspective of Jesus is to recognize that he said all of the Old Testament was prophetic about him (Matthew 5.17; Luke 24.27), not just the specifically messianic texts. In other words, all of the Old Testament Scriptures, not just the "fingerprints," speak of Jesus, his coming, his character, his work, and his reign.

So I don't look past the unfulfilling of prophecy. The entirety of the OT is about Jesus. He was the fulfillment of all the Law and the Prophets. All of it. He specifically fulfilled the prophecies about his first coming (which were mostly hidden), and has yet to fulfill the ones pertaining to his second coming (what most Jews consider to be those "fingerprints," the prophecies known to be messianic).

It's fairly common knowledge that Jesus didn't completely fulfill the Hebrew prophecies, which is why Jews don't accept him as the messiah or as the Son of God. What are your thoughts on this, and why do you look past the unfulfilling of prophecy?