• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How can a Jew reject Jesus as the Messiah?

rosends

rosends

Well-Known Member
Redemptionsong said:
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]
Click to expand...
So because he identified himself as a Jew, he had the right to reinterpret, authoritatively, Jewish concepts? If a Christian atheist came forward and wrote about how righteouosness has to do with eschewing religion, would you agree that his definition has value?
 
Ehav4Ever

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Redemptionsong said:
You and I are both human beings, and we share an earthly experience.
Click to expand...

See, we agree on one thing and even if we didn't life would still go one for both us.

Redemptionsong said:
Your tactic, I believe, is to avoid cross-contamination of faith by placing obstacles in the path of honest discussion.
Click to expand...

Your beleif here is incorrect. My "issue" is that I have asked a number of questions that I find some Christians either a) refuse to answer or b) they just make up something and pretend as if they answered my question. Those questions are based on the requirements that Hashem gave to all Israelis/Jews who were at Mount Sinai in Hebrew to determine if someone is presenting something that is true or if they are conning us.

Besides, the disucussion has been very honest. It could simply be that some people are not equiped to answer the questions I presented about Christian history and such. Consider like this. You are trying to convince me of something but I am not trying to convince you of something. It is up to you then to start by addressing the standards that have put in place for a discussion about facts. That is all.
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Tumah said:
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.
Click to expand...

That isn't directly stated in the halacha-it comes from interpretations of it.
 
Ehav4Ever

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Redemptionsong said:
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]
Click to expand...

See that is just it. That is not how we Jews show our credentials. Anyone can walk down the street and make that kind of extremely generic claim. If Paul really wanted to get somewhere, as a Jew, he would I am said the following in Hebrew.

My name is Paul ben-[Peloni] son of [Peloni] son of [Peloni]. I am from the Jewish community of [fill in the blank] and some of the leaders of that community are [fill in the blank]. ​

Paul then would have had to prove that he knew Hebrew and he would have to prove who learned from. For example, if Paul's teachers of Talmud Torah could have indentified him that may help in even listening to him. Yet, the minute he started quoting Hellonist writers and concepts he made it clear that his claims about himself are not to be trusted.

Yet, what you quoted was to Roman Christians so it makes sense that he would be able to generalize with them and no one would have questioned him.

Further, Paul's claim that his followers should be unmarried like him also makes him extremely suspect.

One thing I do agree with Paul on is that a person must fact everything. As can be seen by my posts I know a few things about the New Testaement. I have read it in about 3 languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and English). That is one of the reasons that I know it doesn't line up with the Hebrew Torah that Am Yisrael received at Mount Sinai.

Besides, now there is someone who is Bahai who is vying for Jewish attention. Is there some reason we should reject his claims and accept yours instead?
 
dybmh

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
ayin said:
Jew translated means "Yah be praised", I praise YHWH so I am of course a Jew.
Click to expand...
Cultural appropriation is a form of theft thus violating one of the ten commandments. Exodus 20:15

"When cultural elements are copied from a minority culture by members of a dominant culture, these elements are used outside of their original cultural context—sometimes even against the expressly stated wishes of members of the originating culture."

Cultural appropriation - Wikipedia.
 
Tumah

Tumah

Veteran Member
Skywalker said:
That isn't directly stated in the halacha-it comes from interpretations of it.
Click to expand...
The reason that is the halachah is because the Tanach doesn't say that tribal affiliation can be inherited to adopted children. That's a novel idea, so we'd need a verse that says it to think it was true.
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Ehav4Ever said:
So, what makes your description of them as such more accurate than their description of you? Are you then saying that Mormons, JW, and Sacred Namers are not going to heaven if they continue to be Mormons, JW, and Sacred Namers? What standard placing them outside of the correct Christian theology?
Click to expand...

That's between them and God. I'm not saying my beliefs are more accurate than the beliefs of anyone else. I said their beliefs are like those of the Judaizers during Paul's day because using the English name of Jesus is not unbiblical. Messianic Judaism follows Jewish law because of their heritage and marriage, not because of a belief that the old covenant must be continued.

I'm not saying any theology isn't correct Christian theology, but I don't agree with the teachings on Jesus being the Archangel MIchael and the brother of Lucifer, or his name having to be Hebrew. Whether someone is a Christian is between them and God.
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Tumah said:
The reason that is the halachah is because the Tanach doesn't say that tribal affiliation can be inherited to adopted children. That's a novel idea, so we'd need a verse that says it to think it was true.
Click to expand...

It's vague on it, it doesn't say it can or can't happen. That's why Jesus being the step-son of Joseph is not anything out of the ordinary, especially because Jesus being born of a virgin is consistent with him being God incarnate.
 
Ehav4Ever

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Skywalker said:
That's between them and God. I'm not saying my beliefs are more accurate than the beliefs of anyone else. I said their beliefs are like those of the Judaizers during Paul's day because using the English name of Jesus is not unbiblical.

I'm not saying any theology isn't correct Christian theology, but I don't agree with the teachings on Jesus being the Archangel MIchael and the brother of Lucifer, or his name having to be Hebrew. Whether someone is a Christian is between them and God.
Click to expand...

Well that presents a problem. Obviously not all Christian sects who have contradictory beleifs can be true. You are claiming that your ideas are true. So, you should also be prepared to explain why you are correct and Christians who disagree with you are wrong. Especially since you claimed earlier that the JW were wrong about something.

For example, you mentioned the Judaizers that Paul was bashing. Was he calling them out because they were wrong about something? Obviously he called them out because he felt they were wrong about something and misleading others down the wrong path.

The question was not whether or not JW, Mormons, Sacred Namers, etc. are Christians. For the sake of the conversations they are all Christians. YET, which group is currently doing what Jesus and disciples were doing - and correctly doing what the authors of the NT claim jesus and Paul taught? Obviously, Jesus and his original group would have been the pinnacle of Christian history and theology. The question is what group of Christians today are doing what they were doing and has the same theology they had? It is okay if you don't personally have the answer that is okay - yet I know of Christian groups who say that they do have the answer and that they are it.

It could be that answer is that you not following the NT as it is written and the JWs, Mormons, Sacrad Namers, etc. collectively or individually are. It could be that they are not and you are. That should be pretty simple for a Christian to clarify - I would hope.
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Ehav4Ever said:
Interesting, so how was it that they got the texts correct but they got their teachings incorrect? Do you consider the Marcionites to be true Christians or false Christians? Also, do they have a place in heaven? Is it then possible for Christians to have their understandings wrong?
Click to expand...

Maybe they were more accurate than the NIV and KJV but I don't agree with what they believe about the Old Testament. God is not a demiurge or a tyrant.

I don't know if they were true or false Christians. What do you mean is it possible for Christians to have their understandings wrong?
 
rosends

rosends

Well-Known Member
By the way, "Yah be praised"? o. The name Judah comes from the idea of "I should praise God" but is turned into a name which has no direct meaning. Jew, an English word, comes, by steps, from the name Judah but has no meaning of its own other than "someone who is from that group of people subscribing to and defined by the complete Torah. Someone here probably doesn't even like ice cream.
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Ehav4Ever said:
Well that presents a problem. Obviously not all Christian sects who have contradictory beleifs can be true. You are claiming that your ideas are true. So, you should also be prepared to explain why you are correct and Christians who disagree with you are wrong. Especially since you claimed earlier that the JW were wrong about something.

For example, you mentioned the Judaizers that Paul was bashing. Was he calling them out because they were wrong about something? Obviously he called them out because he felt they were wrong about something and misleading others down the wrong path.

The question was not whether or not JW, Mormons, Sacred Namers, etc. are Christians. For the sake of the conversations they are all Christians. YET, which group is currently doing what Jesus and disciples were doing - and correctly doing what the authors of the NT claim jesus and Paul taught? Obviously, Jesus and his original group would have been the pinnacle of Christian history and theology. The question is what group of Christians today are doing what they were doing and has the same theology they had? It is okay if you don't personally have the answer that is okay - yet I know of Christian groups who say that they do have the answer and that they are it.

It could be that answer is that you not following the NT as it is written and the JWs, Mormons, Sacrad Namers, etc. collectively or individually are. It could be that they are not and you are. That should be pretty simple for a Christian to clarify - I would hope.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with Jehovah Witness on Jesus being the Archangel Michael because the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah say nothing about the Messiah being an angel. How could an angel pay the infinite price of sin? An angel is a finite being.

I don't agree with the Judaizers because they taught that Christians have to follow the Old Covenant.

I don't agree with any pastor or priest a hundred percent. They are all human beings who teach things that I don't agree with or don't agree with to the most minute detail.
 
Wandering Monk

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
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
Click to expand...

Josiah, not Jesus.
 
Ehav4Ever

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Skywalker said:
What do you mean is it possible for Christians to have their understandings wrong?
Click to expand...

What I mean is, is it possible for a Christian or a group of Christians to misunderstand the NT as a whole or in part? If the answer is yes, what standard do Christians use to determine if they are understanding the NT correctly?

For example, JW beleifs about Jesus vs. Catholic beleifs about Jesus. Both groups use the NT and both have ideas about Jesus that contradict each other. How does an outsider, a non JW and non Catholic, determine which group got it right? What is the standard used?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top