• 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?

S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Rival said:
The 'Old Testament Saints'? Who are they and what evidence have you that the Messiah is more than a man?
Click to expand...

Job didn't believe that the Messiah was a mere man. I Know My Redeemer Lives

We do not “know” that Christ lives, just because this idea makes us feel good. Here is how we really know, and know that we know.

We have the testimony of the scriptures. (1) David prophesied that though Christ would be murdered, he would rise from the grave (Psalm 16:10; cf. Acts 2:25ff). (2) Isaiah foretold that while Jehovah’s suffering Servant would be put to death, nonetheless he would “see his seed” (i.e., numerous spiritual offspring, cf. Isaiah 11:1; Romans 7:4; Hebrews 2:13), and his days would be prolonged (Isaiah 53:10b). (3) Jesus himself promised he would be raised from the dead (Matthew 16:21; John 2:19, 21). (4) Many witnesses testified to the fact that Christ was raised to die no more (Romans 6:9; Revelation 1:18). For a consideration of some of those witnesses, see 1 Corinthians 15:1-8.
Click to expand...
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Rival said:
Prove it in your own words.
Click to expand...

Abraham was Jewish and he never mentioned the belief that the Messiah was a mere man. That was the belief of many of the Jewish people during the time of Jesus and before Jesus, that the Messiah would be a political figure, but that doesn't mean all Jewish people had that belief. Many Christians believe in name it and claim it theology, but it's not in the Bible, and many other Christian people either never followed it or realized that it's the wrong interpretation of the scriptures.
 
Rival

Rival

se Dex me saut.
Staff member
Premium Member
Skywalker said:
Abraham was Jewish and he never mentioned the belief that the Messiah was a mere man. That was the belief of many of the Jewish people during the time of Jesus and before Jesus, that the Messiah would be a political figure, but that doesn't mean all Jewish people had that belief. Many Christians believe in name it and claim it theology, but it's not in the Bible, and many other Christian people either never followed it or realized that it's the wrong interpretation of the scriptures.
Click to expand...
Scriptures :clapping:

Verses :clapping:

Evidence :clapping:

Bring some.
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Rival said:
No.

I'm saying that the Jewish concepts of Messiah that you are saying are made up by Rabbis are in the Tanakh.
Click to expand...

The Tanakh mentions the second coming of the Messiah. There are no two Messiahs-God is the only Messiah there is. Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Does the Bible teach that there would be two comings of the Messiah? | GotQuestions.org

In Zechariah, we have a hint of the two comings of the Messiah. Zechariah 9 predicts a king coming in humility and peace, which seems to contradict Zechariah 14, which speaks of a conquering king. Micah 5says that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem, while Daniel 7presents Him as a divine figure. Isaiah 9 teaches that He will reign forever, and Daniel 9 teaches that He will be cut off. Furthermore, Isaiah introduces another image, that of the Suffering Servant who will bear sins for people (Isaiah 53). Verse 9 speaks of the Servant’s death, and verse 12 says that, after that, the Servant will be victorious and receive the spoils due Him. In other words, He will be killed and yet will live. How could this be?

In short, there were many things in the Old Testament about the coming of the Messiah that were not fully explained, and sometimes seemingly contradictory things were presented in the same book or even the same chapter. Some of the Jewish rabbis even suggested that there would be two Messiahs, a humble, suffering one and a conquering, reigning one; but no one was suggesting that the same Messiah would come twice, once to suffer and once to reign.
Click to expand...
 
Rival

Rival

se Dex me saut.
Staff member
Premium Member
That's me done here, I think. I have a nice bottle of cherry rum I think I deserve and would offer @Harel13 some if he drank. Wow, this stupid thread.
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Rival said:
Scriptures :clapping:

Verses :clapping:

Evidence :clapping:

Bring some.
Click to expand...

Abraham believing in the Messiah doesn't mean that he wasn't Jewish. While Jews who believe in Jesus as a denomination are Messianic Judaism, and not Judaism and Christianity, because it's like a family member can be a friend but they are first and foremost your family member, that's just a lingustic issue. There's nothing incorrect about calling Jews who believe in Jesus, Jewish Christians. I've heard people, Messianic Jew and non Messianic Jew, call Messianic Jews, Jewish Christians.
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
metis said:
That reference is to God as Jesus hadn't even been born yet.
Click to expand...

The name of Jesus was Yeshua, which in Hebrew means God saves. Job didn't know that the name of the Redeemer was Yeshua, but he knew that the Messiah was his Redeemer and not a mere man. The second coming of Jesus will have political aspects, but the Messiah is a Redeemer and not a mere man. Does the Bible teach that there would be two comings of the Messiah? | GotQuestions.org

In Zechariah, we have a hint of the two comings of the Messiah. Zechariah 9 predicts a king coming in humility and peace, which seems to contradict Zechariah 14, which speaks of a conquering king. Micah 5says that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem, while Daniel 7presents Him as a divine figure. Isaiah 9 teaches that He will reign forever, and Daniel 9 teaches that He will be cut off. Furthermore, Isaiah introduces another image, that of the Suffering Servant who will bear sins for people (Isaiah 53). Verse 9 speaks of the Servant’s death, and verse 12 says that, after that, the Servant will be victorious and receive the spoils due Him. In other words, He will be killed and yet will live. How could this be?

In short, there were many things in the Old Testament about the coming of the Messiah that were not fully explained, and sometimes seemingly contradictory things were presented in the same book or even the same chapter. Some of the Jewish rabbis even suggested that there would be two Messiahs, a humble, suffering one and a conquering, reigning one; but no one was suggesting that the same Messiah would come twice, once to suffer and once to reign.
Click to expand...

Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
 
metis

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Skywalker said:
The name of Jesus was Yeshua, which in Hebrew means God saves. Job didn't know that the name of the Redeemer was Yeshua, but he knew that the Messiah was his Redeemer and not a mere man. The second coming of Jesus will have political aspects, but the Messiah is a Redeemer and not a mere man. Does the Bible teach that there would be two comings of the Messiah? | GotQuestions.org



Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
Click to expand...
I well know what his name is and means as I taught Christian theology for a decade and a half and Jewish theology for another decade.

Also, Isaiah is not really about Jesus but sorta "prefigures" Jesus, as so much Judeo-Christian theology involves "flashbacks" of sorts.
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
metis said:
I well know what his name is and means as I taught Christian theology for a decade and a half and Jewish theology for another decade.

Also, Isaiah is not really about Jesus but sorta "prefigures" Jesus, as so much Judeo-Christian theology involves "flashbacks" of sorts.
Click to expand...

Do you think Jewish and Christian are mutually exclusive? The term Judaism wasnt used in the Bible, but I don't disagree with Messianic Jews who use the term biblical Judaism when discussing not agreeing with Rabbinic tradition. Job believing in the coming redeemer and following Judaism were not mutually exclusive concepts-the only difference was that he probably didn't use the term Christian when talking about his faith. Some people associate Christianity with the division of Christianity and Judaism, and Jesus and following Old Testament festivals can be and are practiced separately, and I would use the term Messianic Judaism and not Judaism and Christianity, but following Jesus and following the Old Testament are not mutually exclusive.
 
shunyadragon

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Skywalker said:
The Trinity is mentioned in the first book of the Bible. Genesis 1:26
Click to expand...

No it is not. Ask any Jewish scholar.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that God ever said this. Genesis is evolved mythology from older Babylonian, Sumerian, Canaanite and Ugarite sources. Nothing in Hebrew before 700-600 BCE.

Numbers 23 and 1 Samuel 15 say God is not a man. God is invisible and cannot be seen, and yet He's seen at different times. The elders of Israel-74 people, see the God of Israel on Mount Sinai, in Exodus the 24th chapter. How is it that God is unseen and yet seen? It's through his Son. He's complex in His unity. The memra is a reference to God being complex in His unity. MEMRA - JewishEncyclopedia.com
Click to expand...

Rejects the concept of the Trinity.
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
shunyadragon said:
No it is not. Ask any Jewish scholar.



There is no evidence that God ever said this. Genesis is evolved mythology from older Babylonian, Sumerian, Canaanite and Ugarite sources. Nothing in Hebrew before 700-600 BCE.



Rejects the concept of the Trinity.
Click to expand...

Deuteronomy 6:4 doesn't mention yachid. Trinity: Oneness in unity not in number: Yachid vs. Echad

Yachid vs. Echad: The most important verse Jews memorized in the Bible was Deut 6:4: "Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [Echad]!" There are a few words in Hebrew that the Holy Spirit could have used a word the has one exclusive meaning: the numeric, solitary oneness of God ("yachid" or "bad").

Instead the Holy Spirit chose to use the Hebrew word, "echad" which is used most often as a unified one, and sometimes as numeric oneness. For example, when God said in Genesis 2:24 "the two shall become one [echad] flesh" it is the same word for "one" that was used in Deut 6:4.

This is most troubling for Jews and Anti-Trinitarians since the word yachid, the main Hebrew word for solitary oneness, is never used in reference to God.
Click to expand...
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
shunyadragon said:
. . . because the line of belief between Judaism and Christianity is specific and clear, and based on sharply contrasting beliefs and interpretation of the Tanakh and the New Testament.
Click to expand...

Is it because most of Christianity and Judaism have mutually exclusive beliefs in this dispensation of history, or it would be weird to word it like it sounded like you follow two religions?
 
S

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
shunyadragon said:
Considering the Tanakh as a whole all Jewish scholars agree, God is ONE, only One, Oneness in unity and number.
Click to expand...

Echad doesn't imply solitary oneness. Trinity: Oneness in unity not in number: Yachid vs. Echad
  1. [*]Christians, being the excellent scholars of ancient Biblical Hebrew openly admit that Echad is used many times in the Old Testament to mean one and one alone: "Two are better than one [Echad] because they have a good return for their labor. For if either of them falls, the one [Echad] will lift up his companion. But woe to the one [Echad] who falls when there is not another to lift him up. Furthermore, if two lie down together they keep warm, but how can one [Echad] be warm alone? And if one [Echad] can overpower him who is alone, two can resist him. A cord of three strands is not quickly torn apart." (Ecclesiastes 4:9–12)
    1. The argument that not that ECHAD is Deut 6:4. The argument is that this word has two meanings: unified and singular one.
    2. The argument is that the word YACHID, which always means one and ONE ALONE (not a unified one) is NEVER used of God ANYWHERE in the Old Testament.
    Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top