-
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?
- Thread starter ayin
- Start date
-
- Tags
- jesusisyhwh
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
God in 3 persons is an idol. It's easy to see why.
God, literally, cannot be idolized. As soon as someone idolizes something, that's proof the idol isn't God who created heaven and earth.
Since people idolize the Trinity, it cannot be God who created everything. Idolatry is a moving target. As time goes on and people idolize more and more things, more and more things are proven not to be God.
The Old Testament doesn't use the term yachid to talk about the unity of God. Plurality in the Old Testament
I gather that the apocryphal Esdras have different names by different churches. If you're referring to the one where Ezra writes the 94 books, then I've read that (in Hebrew it's called Ezra 4 or the External/Apocryphal Ezra). That particular section goes against one of the prime concepts in Judaism, which is the unbroken chain of tradition. Obviously the author wished to praise Ezra, but in doing so he was also undermining all of Jewish tradition.
I've heard this. And this is a claim made at least as far back as Origen (Letter to Africanus), but nope. I prefer Jerome's explanation per his discussions with actual Jews of his time, which was very close to the time the Jewish canon was locked:
"The Hebrews say that these men who "committed foolishness in Israel" and "committed adultery with the wives of their fellow citizens" are the elders to whom Daniel spoke...But what is said in the present passage, "whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire," appears to contradict the historia of Daniel, which asserts that the elders were stoned to death by the people as a result of Daniel's judgement, whereas here it is written that the king of Babylon roasted them in the fire. For this reason, this story is rejected as a mere fable by many of us and by almost all of the Hebrews; nor do they read it in their synagogues. "For how could it be," it is argued, "that captives had the authority to stone their own leaders and prophets?" (Source)
Origen's explanation makes little sense to me, when considering that Tanach is stuffed to the brim with scenes that depict Israelite leaders in controversial positions and actions.
You have touched upon a point that I'm coming to realize more and more is a key difference between Judaism and Christianity, and was also noted by the guy in that video: in Judaism, the sages of past generations are considered greater, both in knowledge and in holiness. Criticism of these sages is generally based on their spiritual level, not by comparing them to later generations. That dude in the video stated something about either Irenaeus or Justin Martyr - can't remember which one - saying something along the lines of "He took great liberties with scripture, I wish I could meet him just to point out all of his mistakes". Which undermines the term "Church Father". Meaning, being a "Church Father" is merely a title and doesn't mean that you were on a higher spiritual level than modern-day Christians. It seems to me that you're suggesting the same. That's fine, stick to your views if you wish. But that's not our views. Generations long past were greater than us. Not infallible, but certainly greater than us in many aspects.
Thus, my personal analysis will only get me so far. I trust the teachings of our sages. You may appreciate at the very least that these men had access to ancient traditions long since lost to us. Consider that 1500-2000 years ago was much closer to the times of the last prophets (in particular according to the Jewish chronology) than our time.
You reminded me now of one particular paragraph in Jubilees that was undermined in the Talmud:It's another one worth checking out. Even if it's as approached as a fiction novel.
"And in this thirty-ninth jubilee, in the second week in the first year, Terah took to himself a wife, and her name was ’Êdnâ, the daughter of ’Abrâm the daughter of his father's sister. And in the seventh year of this week she bare him a son, and he called his name Abram, by the name of the father of his mother; for he had died before his daughter had conceived a son." (Jubilees 11)
While in the Talmud it says:
"And Rav Hanan bar Rava says that Rav says: The mother of Abraham was called Amatlai bat Karnevo." (Bava Batra 91a)
Few apocryphal works are referenced by name by the sages of the Mishnaic and Talmudic periods, but this may be a hint towards at least one reason why Jubilees was not included in Tanach. As to why this tradition is more trustworthy than Jubilees's, that's an interesting subject in itself, but the short answer is that there's recorded evidence that Rav himself knew many more traditions and had access to ancient texts that we no longer have.
Last edited:
God in 3 persons is not an idol. An idol would be a concept of God that isn't holy and just.
Not just? You mean like Jesus messing up the booths outside of the Temple without a proper trial? Unjust like that?
Jesus doing certain things was different because Jesus is God. Did Jesus Sin in Cleansing the Temple?
I recommend watching the following video, in particular from 2:42 to 3:48, to understand what is very problematic with what you are saying, with regards to the fact that Jesus, while he was alive, was "fully human" as you Christians say, and thus must be subject to the same laws as other men. If not, then the term "fully human" is utterly meaningless.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
God in 3 persons is an idol.
Putting God "in" anything is an idol.
If it has a form and people worship it, it's an idol.
Jesus being God explains why he was at the temple talking to the rabbis when his parents were looking for him.
Sooo...if you're god you can disrespect your parents, diss the general public, be unjust, and still demand mankind be kind, respectful and just themselves. Well. I'm glad I don't believe in your god.
Jesus didn't diss people. He, as God, spoke out against their corruption.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Let me just briefly mention is that with the Catholic "understanding" of the Trinity, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of God but not exactly the same as God. Since this is beyond our ability to more fully comprehend, we often refer to it as being the "Mystery of the Trinity".
Jesus called a non-Jewish woman a dog. If that's not dissing, then I don't know what is. Matthew 15:
21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”
23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.
23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.
This passage always made me feel a bit sick. I think it would be interesting to start a new thread on it asking Christians about it though.
While it will likely be "featured" quickly, I doubt it would really get anywhere.
I assume it would have been incredibly easy for Jesus to say: "No, child, you and your kin are not dogs. I simply have other priorities."
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I read this link and it is nothing short of being pure nonsense.
To call a person a "dog" back then was a very nasty insult, probably due to the fact that wild dogs running around in eretz Israel were a threat to any traveler especially. We may think dogs are cute today, but they certainly weren't viewed as such 2000 years ago there.
To understand what Jesus said one has to understand the context of the Bible verses. Jesus didn't call the Canaanite woman a dog in a derogatory way. Why did Jesus call the Canaanite woman a dog? | GotQuestions.org