• 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?

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
I said Cain's offering was inferior. This can be seen in the text (Genesis 4:4), Abel brought the first and fattest of his flock,

I think you're making an assumption that the offering brought in this chapter is for atonement. However the text clearly states that offerings are not needed for atonement yet. If one does well, one is accepted (Genesis 4:7).

OK, ok :) You don't accept the Talmud. I'll not use it as a source in this conversation with you. The important point is that a Paschal Lamb offering is of lesser sanctity and does not bring atonement. It's detailed clearly in Leviticus 7:1. The burnt offering is "most holy". If someone told you that the Paschal lamb offering is most holy and brings atonement, they were misinformed.

Why do I think it's a warning? That's literally in the text. Genesis 4:15.

I also think you're misinterpreting the verse in Ezekiel 9:4. Those people were were marked because they recognized the abomination. They were righteous. This is what the mark meant. Not salvation righteousness.

Besides, you admit that the two signs were different. In Genesis it's Aleph-Vav-Tav. In Ezekiel, it's just Tav-Vav. So trying to equate the two as meaning the same thing is a bit of a stretch.

The offerings were not done for atonement. They were done to foreshadow the Messiah who would atone for the sins of people.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
By identifying himself as a Jew, with a blameless background under the law, Paul was showing that he understood what it meant to live by the law in righteousness.
I have no idea what this means. He called himself a Jew, that's wonerful. But no matter whether or not he happen to sin like other humans has no bearing on his ability to change Jewish concepts.
Yet, because he later experienced the baptism in the Holy Spirit, prophesied by Joel [Joel 2:28],
Except that's not what Joel 3:1 says. If he knew anything about Joel, he would understand WHEN what is spoken of will happen, under what conditions, to whom, and what it will mean.
he also knew that there was a better covenant than the one that he had previously experienced.
None of it points to a "better" covenant.
This is not a reinterpretation of Jewish concepts, but a new and better covenant that was prophesied in scripture.
This is a misunerstanding of so, so much and then a presentation of false doctrine under Jewish understanding. He wasn't very informed then.
No longer is the Jew called to live under the law; they are called to live by faith in Christ under grace. This is the only way to fulfil all of God's law in righteousness.
See, that's a mistake. The law is eternal. Making up other stuff in books that have no vaue doesn't change that.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
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?

We have a pretty good picture of Saul's life. We know from the biblical record that he grew up as a Jew in Tarsus, Cilicia, Asia Minor. We know that he was the son of a Pharisee [Acts 23:6], had Roman citizenship and was freeborn [Acts 22:28]. We know that he studied under a doctor of the law, and Pharisee, named Gamaliel. In fact, it says that Saul was 'brought up in this city (Jerusalem) at the feet of Gamaliel' [Acts 5:34 and Acts 22:3]. We also know that when he persecuted the early Church he was given authority in letters from the High Priest and Jewish elders [Acts 22:5]. This is in addition to the tribal claims already made.

Later in life, Paul finds himself amongst men of high repute in the Roman world, including Felix the governor at Caesarea and his wife Drusilla. At Caesarea, Paul was confronted by the High Priest Ananias, along with a famous orator of the times, Tertullus. Two years later, Portius Festus met with both the High Priest in Jerusalem, and with Paul, who was still being held in Caesarea. Finally, Paul appealed to Caesar Augustus, but before departing for Rome he was visited by King Agrippa and Bernice.

Much of this can be researched, and will be found to be historically accurate. Moreover, Paul made a number of missionary journeys, each of which can be mapped out from the accuracy of the place names provided. One of the places he visited was Troas, or Troy. I have visited the site. Many people could not be sure that Troy existed in the area described, until rediscovered by Calvert, and by Schliemann, in the Nineteenth Century.

Do you have any ancestors who lived two thousand years ago for whom you can claim detailed proof of identity?

And just out of interest, which part of the Gospel account of Jesus leads you to believe that he did not fulfil the Torah requirements?
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
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.

They were misleading others by elevating law over grace.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
While it's possible some of the Jewish Christians thought that following both covenants is a self contradiction, Messianic Judaism still exists after decades. I don't think Messianic Judaism is wrong because to some people's convictions following both covenants isn't self contradictory. I believe that following the Torah isn't for every Christian.

Yet, we agree that the messianics of today are not connected to or like the original Jewish Christians. Their current existance, which started in the 1960's, isn't of any importance to Torath Mosheh Jew. They can do whatever they want similar to how Karaites and Samaritans do what ever they want in thier own spaces. Besides, the messianic movement has made it clear that they don't hold by Torath Mosheh and that they have their own "theologies" which at times conflicts with normative Christianity.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
We have a pretty good picture of Saul's life. We know from the biblical record that he grew up as a Jew in Tarsus, Cilicia, Asia Minor. We know that he was the son of a Pharisee [Acts 23:6], had Roman citizenship and was freeborn [Acts 22:28]. We know that he studied under a doctor of the law, and Pharisee, named Gamaliel. In fact, it says that Saul was 'brought up in this city (Jerusalem) at the feet of Gamaliel' [Acts 5:34 and Acts 22:3]. We also know that when he persecuted the early Church he was given authority in letters from the High Priest and Jewish elders [Acts 22:5]. This is in addition to the tribal claims already made.

I don't see any historical proof for any of that. Can you tell me what Paul's father's name was? What about his father's father? Further, the term you used "doctor fo the law" is not a Jewish term. That sounds more like a Hellionist term. Given that Gamilel is not a name that belongs to only one Jew it is safe to say that Paul meant that he learned from a Hellonist Jew named Gamliel who lived in Tarsus. Further, Paul in his own letters never claims to have learned from anyone named Gamliel. Further, there is no one named Gamliel who claims to have taught Paul.

Also, Paul's level of Greek writing places him as someone who did not learn in Jerusalem but instead somewhere else.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
They were misleading others by elevating law over grace.

So, in other words Paul was calling them out because they were misleading people about Christian principles and he was willing to call them out on it. Meaning Paul is claiming they were wrong just like how the Ebionites claimed that Paul was a heretic to their type of Christianity.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Yet, we agree that the messianics of today are not connected to or like the original Jewish Christians. Their current existance, which started in the 1960's, isn't of any importance to Torath Mosheh Jew. They can do whatever they want similar to how Karaites and Samaritans do what ever they want in thier own spaces. Besides, the messianic movement has made it clear that they don't hold by Torath Mosheh and that they have their own "theologies" which at times conflicts with normative Christianity.

Do you think them following both covenants is not consistent or not ideal with being a Christian? Jewish people I go to church with celebrate Hannukah and my church had a Jewish passover. Jewish holidays are in the Tanakh and the Old Testament.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
And just out of interest, which part of the Gospel account of Jesus leads you to believe that he did not fulfil the Torah requirements?

External to the Gospel, the authorship issues of the Gospels and the choice of which ones were acceptable by the Church Fathers. Lack of details about the "claimed" authors. The names of their fathers and grandfathers.

Internal to the Gospels.
  1. The Gospels author's accounts of how Jesus treated his parents and family.
  2. The Gospels author's accounts of how he was not married and having children.
  3. The Gospels author's accounts of how he told someone to let the dead bury the dead concerning the man's own family.
  4. The Gospels author's accounts of how Jesus claimed that he would reappear before the Sanhedrin after he died.
  5. The Gospels author's accounts of how he Jesus explained his use of parables.
  6. The Gospels author's accounts of how Jesus told people to do away with body parts that are causing them to "sin."
  7. The Gospels author's lack of description of Jesus not writing the two Torah scrolls that he would have been required to write. In fact, the NT authors don't even show Jesus performing the mitzvah that every Jewish man has to write, or acquire, a personal Sefer Torah.
  8. The Gospels author's accounts of how he destroyed property that did not belong to him.
  9. The Gospels author's accounts of how of how he did not provide a solution for Jews coming to the Temple who did not have the ability to bring their own Qorban.
  10. The Gospels author's accounts of how of Jesus named called those who were not Jewish and who wanted to follow him.
  11. The Gospels author's accounts of how he treated a Canaanite.
  12. The Gospels author's accounts of how he Jesus said it was wrong to call someone a fool then he the NT authors have both Jesus and Paul calling people who disagreed with them fools.
Also, the fact that whoever Jesus was he didn't take the time to sit down and write his own gospel to make it clear what he was really about.

There are more, but that is what I have off hand.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
So, in other words Paul was calling them out because they were misleading people about Christian principles and he was willing to call them out on it. Meaning Paul is claiming they were wrong just like how the Ebionites claimed that Paul was a heretic to their type of Christianity.

Paul was not against the practices of the Jewish Christians. Not all Jewish Christians were Judaizers.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Do you think them following both covenants is not consistent or not ideal with being a Christian? Jewish people I go to church with celebrate Hannukah and my church had a Jewish passover. Jewish holidays are in the Tanakh and the Old Testament.

I think the best way is to do it like this. Have them contact me personally and I will talk to them about where they are missing the mark. Besides, when did Hanuka become a part of any covanent? You seem pretty focused on that one thing.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
Paul was not against the practices of the Jewish Christians. Not all Jewish Christians were Judaizers.

He was certainnly full in for Hellonism. He even quoted some Hellonist authors glowingly. Yet, since we were not provided with his father or his father's name he doesn't have to be considered by Torah based Jews. We can just ignore him and be okay. According to the mitzvoth that Hashem gave in the Torah. If his works have meaning to people who are 100% Christian that is fine by us. You can be proud of that for yourselves. You don't need us to admire Paul or any of the other NT authors.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
I think the best way is to do it like this. Have them contact me personally and I will talk to them about where they are missing the mark. Besides, when did Hanuka become a part of any covanent? You seem pretty focused on that one thing.

The Tanakh doesn't just mention the laws of Moses it mentions Jewish holidays.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
He was certainnly full in for Hellonism. He even quoted some Hellonist authors glowingly. Yet, since we were not provided with his father or his father's name he doesn't have to be considered by Torah based Jews. We can just ignore him and be okay. According to the mitzvoth that Hashem gave in the Torah. If his works have meaning to people who are 100% Christian that is fine by us. You can be proud of that for yourselves. You don't need us to admire Paul or any of the other NT authors.

Not everything that Greek philosophers said disagrees with the Tanakh and the Bible. Paul did not quote what they said about polytheism.
 

Ehav4Ever

Well-Known Member
For those who are really concerned about why we Jews don't accept the NT claims about Jesus.

If you don't mind me asking, how far are you guys willing to go to try to prove to the Jews on RF that we should be following Christianity? It has been detailed in full why we don't and it appears to me that some of you are not happy with the answers.

That leads me to ask. According to the NT authors Jesus stated "And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two." Are you as Christians "required" to literally do this?

So, for example if I ask you all to get completely fluent in Hebrew and then come back and try to convince me only in Hebrew, are you required to do so? Based on the NT authors claim about Jesus' words are you required to double you language learning to include Aramaic if I request it?
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
A plague befell them sounds like it could be a verse about Israel, but Israel wasn't a pacifist nation. During the Old Testament times they were a nation of human beings who lied like everyone else. How did Israel's soul make restitution?
I had to chuckle. They both lie and we should trust any of their beliefs about the messiah?
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
I honestly feel like screaming whenever a Christian writes this.

Israel/Jacob is referred to in the singular hundreds of times. Israel is the servant. This is abundantly clear from the context.

Yeshayahu 49:3

And He said to me, "You are My servant, Israel, about whom I will boast."
It’s like Lady Liberty or Uncle Sam with the US.
 
Top