How can a Jew reject Jesus as the Messiah?

Ehav4Ever · Dec 31, 2020

Redemptionsong said:
There is a concept of faith, or loyalty ['emun'], in the Torah.
Deuteronomy 19,20. [JPS 1985 Edition].

Incorrect, faith and loyalty are not the same thing even in English. Also, the JPS is not a valid translation, especially if one reads their introduction. The Hebrew word (אמונה) does not mean what "faith" means in English. As Rav Saadya Gaon, Rambam, Rabbi Hirsch, and others explain the root (א-מ-נ) is derived in trust in something has been established. This is why the Rambam explains that the first mitzvah of the Torah is (לידע שיש שם מצוי ראשון) not (להאמין) but (לידע) meaning to "Know that there is a Source of creation."

Also, if one reads the Hebrew one knows that the concept of what Christians have for rightousness is not the same as the concept of (צדקה) found in the Tanakh. As the Rambam explains:

מי שזכייותיו יתרות על עוונותיו, צדיק

According to Christianity.com, rightousness in Christianity is defined as:

Righteousness is an attribute that belongs to God, the Lawgiver, and is manifested in His laws. No man can be justified by his own works apart from God’s ordinance. Therefore, righteousness is a wonderful gift from God to humanity through His love: it is the God-given quality imputed to man upon believing in the Son of God.

These are not the same thing. Thus, as Christians hold by a completely concept that is based on Greek texts, English translations of those texts, and not you sitting down and reading a Hebrew text from start to finish.

As I told you. You are going to have to start with a Hebrew text and not an English translation. (No matter who did the English translation) I live in Israel and I read things in Hebrew and Aramaic. You will have to prove things from there of you haven't proven anything to me at all.

Cheers

Ehav4Ever · Dec 31, 2020

ayin said:
Since the Jews rejected Jesus, the new message was transmitted to the Gentiles. The most known language of the Gentiles at that time was Greek, for this reason it was written in this language. That's no problem.

Okay. So we agree that Christianity is for non-Jews since that is what the early authors of the NT were shooting for by writing everything in Greek using ideas found in Hellonism. That I can agree with you on.

Ehav4Ever · Dec 31, 2020

ayin said:
The Greek word translated "cross" in many Bibles is the Greek word "stauros", which means "an upright pole, especially a pointed one, a cross". The word itself, therefore, can be used for both shaped pieces of wood.

So, if the word in Greek has more than one meaning and doen't describe any one specific type of shape then it means that there is no connection between any symbols of ancient scripts you presented and the method the Roman's used to execute a lot of Jews, not just Jesus during their reign in this region. Further, the peice that you presented doesn't have any statements on it that connect the letter Taw to Jesus or the act of execution on a wooden frame. In fact, the NT doesn't make any kind of connection to an ancient Hebrew symbol. This leads me to beleive that some are just making up traditions of men out of no where that are not found in any NT text or claim.

ayin · Dec 31, 2020

Ehav4Ever said:
Okay. So we agree that Christianity is for non-Jews since that is what the early authors of the NT were shooting for by writing everything in Greek using ideas found in Hellonism. That I can agree with you on.

No, it is not like that. It is also for the Jews. The New Testament was written by Jews who accepted Jesus, you can call them Jews who left the Law of Moses and accepted the grace of Jesus. Any Jew can do that too. But the fact is that Jesus was rejected by his people, not Jesus rejected his people but the people rejected him. Jesus himself said in one passage: "Do not go to the Gentiles but to the children of Israel." He was looking for closeness. But they did not. At one point it is said that Jesus wept a lot because of this rejection. So what could Jesus do? He instructed his disciples to send the Good Message worldwide, if they do not want it, then the others will get it. But every Jew can still join.

Ehav4Ever · Dec 31, 2020

ayin said:
Since the Jews rejected Jesus, the new message was transmitted to the Gentiles.

Since we Torah based Jews still reject Jesus, the NT, and the theologies that came out of it aren't you supposed to take the command that the NT author's claim Jesus stated below?

Matthew 10:14 NIV "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet."

Ehav4Ever · Dec 31, 2020

ayin said:
No, it is not like that. It is also for the Jews. The New Testament was written by Jews who accepted Jesus, you can call them Jews who left the Law of Moses and accepted the grace of Jesus.

Can you give the names, and father's names of the Jews who you say wrote the NT? Also, what happened to their children? Did they have any children or did they follow Paul's advice below?

1 Corinthians 7 :: NIV. Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.

Also, why is it that the Church Father's were the first to put names to the Gospel authors? Also, why are there only four gospels? If Jesus has 12 disciples why aren't there 12 gospels?

Ehav4Ever · Dec 31, 2020

ayin said:
The site is very reliable with the letters.

The Taw's on this look more like + signs. Are you saying that the Romans used + signs or are you saying that specifically for Jesus they look at this stone and made a special exception? What proof do you have historically for what type of frame the Romans using during the 1st to 2nd cent?

ayin · Dec 31, 2020

dybmh said:
Looks like that word is more often translated as a hook, not a nail. But I see where you're coming from, now. Thanks.

One of the definitions next to nail is hook, but the image of letter makes clear it is a nail.

ayin · Dec 31, 2020

rosends said:
That's nice. Here's another translation

And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplications. And they shall look to me because of those who have been thrust through [with swords], and they shall mourn over it as one mourns over an only son and shall be in bitterness, therefore, as one is embittered over a firstborn son.

This translation is so far away from the Hebrew text that one could really speak of a forgery.
The literal, structural, and accurate translation is, Zechariah 12:10 Hebrew Text Analysis

There is a parallel to this in the New Testament in Revelation 1:7.
"Behold, he cometh with the clouds, and every eye shall see him, even they that pierced him: and all the tribes of the land shall mourn because of him. Yes, amen."

rosends · Dec 31, 2020

ayin said:
This translation is so far away from the Hebrew text that one could really speak of a forgery.
The literal, structural, and accurate translation is,
Zechariah 12:10 Interlinear: And I have poured on the house of David, And on the inhabitant of Jerusalem, A spirit of grace and supplications, And they have looked unto Me whom they pierced, And they have mourned over it, Like a mourning over the only one, And they have been in bitterness for it, Like a bitterness over the first-born.

There is a parallel to this in the New Testament in Revelation 1:7.
"Behold, he cometh with the clouds, and every eye shall see him, even they that pierced him: and all the tribes of the land shall mourn because of him. Yes, amen."

No, the interlinear translation you cited is wrong from the first word. It skips a word and changes the tense and meaning. It is what happens when people try to translate words in a vacuum and get confused. Jews know that -- you should have gotten the memo. Give me your email address and I can check the rolls to make sure that the cabal leaders have the most updated contact info.

ayin · Dec 31, 2020

rosends said:
No, the interlinear translation you cited is wrong from the first word. It skips a word and changes the tense and meaning. It is what happens when people try to translate words in a vacuum and get confused. Jews know that -- you should have gotten the memo. Give me your email address and I can check the rolls to make sure that the cabal leaders have the most updated contact info.

The tense was wrong, I have changed the link. This is the correct translation:
"And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of grace and supplication; and they will look upon me whom they have pierced, and they will mourn over him like the mourning over the only son, and bitterly grieve over him as one bitterly grieves over the firstborn."
Zechariah 12:10 Hebrew Text Analysis

Colt · Dec 31, 2020

Because Jesus wasn't the Jewish Messiah, he was the Son of God. His coming had been known among the seers for ages and was the basis for the erroneous concept of a Jewish Messiah that would do very specific things. Jesus could never be what the Israelites expected a Messiah to be.

The Jewish Messiah as conceived by Judaism didn't come.

Tumah · Dec 31, 2020

Redemptionsong said:
You claim that Bethlehem is not to be understood literally but as a representation of an individual, Jesse. I think, however, that the comparison between Zion and Bethlehem is not a fair comparison. Zion is regularly referred to as having spiritual significance. Bethlehem, on the other hand, is a birth place on earth, not a spiritual city.

As you well know, Bethlehem has a long biblical history, beginning as the burial place for Rachel [Genesis 35:19]. It appears again in the story of Elimelech and Naomi [book of Ruth]. It was there that Naomi gave birth to Obed, who was the father of Jesse. A long line of Bethlehemites, even before the birth of David (about 1085 BCE).

In all the references to Bethlehem that I have read, Bethlehem is always referred to as a place, not as a person.

This makes it pretty clear to me that Micah 5:2 must be referring to Bethlehem as the birth place of the Messiah.

Are you doing this on purpose?!?

I'm not saying that every account of the city is a reference to people.
I'm saying that when a passage anthropomorphizes a city or town (as it's doing here), it's talking about the inhabitants, not the physical city. When it doesn't do that, it's not.

rosends · Dec 31, 2020

ayin said:
The tense was wrong, I have changed the link. This is the correct translation:
"And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of grace and supplication; and they will look upon me whom they have pierced, and they will mourn over him like the mourning over the only son, and bitterly grieve over him as one bitterly grieves over the firstborn."
Zechariah 12:10 Hebrew Text Analysis

OK, so you start with one you insist is right, then change when I point it out. But also pointed out that it misses a word which, therefore, changes the meaning, and this new one you point to is also wrong. Will you now look for another? I posted one which accounts for all the words and the grammar properly and you, with no insight as to why, claimed it was wrong. What are your credentials to make that claim? I checked the list of worldwide Jews and I haven't found your name - and you still haven't answered about ice cream. I'm beginning to suspect that you are not really who you say you are.

ayin · Dec 31, 2020

rosends said:
OK, so you start with one you insist is right, then change when I point it out. But also pointed out that it misses a word which, therefore, changes the meaning, and this new one you point to is also wrong. Will you now look for another? I posted one which accounts for all the words and the grammar properly and you, with no insight as to why, claimed it was wrong. What are your credentials to make that claim? I checked the list of worldwide Jews and I haven't found your name - and you still haven't answered about ice cream. I'm beginning to suspect that you are not really who you say you are.

I changed it even before you mentioned this error. I accidentally linked the wrong part of the site.
Which word is missing, which meaning was changed? Please be more detailed.

rosends said:
I'm beginning to suspect that you are not really who you say you are.

My friend, I am more Jewish than you are.

Tumah · Dec 31, 2020

Skywalker said:
If you had foster or adopted or step siblings, would they be any different from a biological relative in terms of closeness and friendliness?

They would be no different from biological relatives in terms of closeness and friendliness, but they would be different in term of Jewish Law. For instance, they wouldn't naturally inherit from our parents unless our parents specifically stipulated that they should. Of course, tribal identity is only passed along the biological line, so they'd inherit whatever tribal identity their father had, or none if their father wasn't Jewish.

ayin · Dec 31, 2020

cOLTER said:
Because Jesus wasn't the Jewish Messiah, he was the Son of God. His coming had been known among the seers for ages and was the basis for the erroneous concept of a Jewish Messiah that would do very specific things. Jesus could never be what the Israelites expected a Messiah to be.

The Jewish Messiah as conceived by Judaism didn't come.

Wrong. Jesus is the Jewish Messiah and the last king. He also fulfilled the prophecies. The whole New Testament clearly states that it is Jesus.
John 4:25-26 The woman saith unto him, I know that the Messiah cometh, which is called Christ: when he cometh, he will declare all things unto us. Jesus says to her: It is I who am speaking to you.

rosends · Dec 31, 2020

ayin said:
I changed it even before you mentioned this error. I accidentally linked the wrong part of the site.
Which word is missing, which meaning was changed? Please be more detailed.

My friend, I am more Jewish than you are.

If you can read then you know what was skipped -- a word that has a grammatical and definitional impact on the preposition used to introduce the object of that preposition. If you look at the translation which I provided, you will see the impact. And if you were actually Jewish, you would have responded correctly to the question about ice cream, but you didn't. You also would know that there is no such thing as "more Jewish." You should report to the local office and surrender your membership card.

Colt · Dec 31, 2020

ayin said:
Wrong. Jesus is the Jewish Messiah and the last king. He also fulfilled the prophecies. The whole New Testament clearly states that it is Jesus.
John 4:25-26 The woman saith unto him, I know that the Messiah cometh, which is called Christ: when he cometh, he will declare all things unto us. Jesus says to her: It is I who am speaking to you.

As I said, the concept of a coming deliverer was in the air, it was expected for thousands f years, it was the basis for the development of the concept of an exclusively "Jewish Messiah".

The problem wasn't Jesus, the problem was a false expectation of what the Jewish Messiah was supposed to be.

Redemptionsong · Dec 31, 2020

Ehav4Ever said:
Incorrect, faith and loyalty are not the same thing even in English. Also, the JPS is not a valid translation, especially if one reads their introduction. The Hebrew word (אמונה) does not mean what "faith" means in English. As Rav Saadya Gaon, Rambam, Rabbi Hirsch, and others explain the root (א-מ-נ) is derived in trust in something has been established. This is why the Rambam explains that the first mitzvah of the Torah is (לידע שיש שם מצוי ראשון) not (להאמין) but (לידע) meaning to "Know that there is a Source of creation."

Also, if one reads the Hebrew one knows that the concept of what Christians have for rightousness is not the same as the concept of (צדקה) found in the Tanakh. As the Rambam explains:

מי שזכייותיו יתרות על עוונותיו, צדיק

According to Christianity.com, rightousness in Christianity is defined as:

Righteousness is an attribute that belongs to God, the Lawgiver, and is manifested in His laws. No man can be justified by his own works apart from God’s ordinance. Therefore, righteousness is a wonderful gift from God to humanity through His love: it is the God-given quality imputed to man upon believing in the Son of God.

These are not the same thing. Thus, as Christians hold by a completely concept that is based on Greek texts, English translations of those texts, and not you sitting down and reading a Hebrew text from start to finish.

As I told you. You are going to have to start with a Hebrew text and not an English translation. (No matter who did the English translation) I live in Israel and I read things in Hebrew and Aramaic. You will have to prove things from there of you haven't proven anything to me at all.

Cheers

You and I are both human beings, and we share an earthly experience. If it were not possible for me to understand you and your language then we would be true aliens sharing the same breathing space. But this is not, I believe, the case. Your tactic, I believe, is to avoid cross-contamination of faith by placing obstacles in the path of honest discussion.

To say that the Christian understanding of righteousness is different from the Jewish understanding is fair enough. There is a difference, and this difference was fully understood by the Jewish apostle Paul. Paul's credentials as a Jew are laid bare by the man himself.

'I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.' [Romans 11:1]

'Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinks that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
Circumcised on the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness that is in the law, blameless.
But what things were gain to me I counted loss for Christ.' [Philippians 3:4-7]

Did Paul not understand the nuance of language? Of course he did. He knew exactly what the Hebrew Scriptures taught.

What Paul recognised was that there was a difference between righteousness under the law, and the righteousness of God. Paul claimed to be blameless under the law, in a way that modern Jews, without the Temple, can only imagine. But Paul had more to say about righteousness,

'Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:' [Philippians 3:8,9]

How can a Jew reject Jesus as the Messiah?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member