How can a Jew reject Jesus as the Messiah?

[Ehav4Ever]

You are using a strawman argument here. I did not say the Jews cannot read their
own Torah in Hebrew. I just asked what it said.

Your question was not clear. Maybe it was in how you wrote it. i.e. the way you wrote your comment it appeared that you were saying that no one could read the Torah scroll and the Humash.

Essentially, one is a Torah scroll and one is a Humash. They contain all of the mitzvoth that Hashem gave to Jews, even on this topic. In short, from section to section and page describes what is the basis for Jewish understanding. That basis is different than Christians have as a basis from the NT.

I person can call that a strawman arguement if they want, but the burdon of proof is not on Torah based in this matter. The OP asked a question and Torah based Jews have answered from one side to the other. It may be that some people just don't like the answer, which is fine.

Besides, I am not making arguements since I am not trying to prove anything. If Christians want to prove something to Jews you are going to pull out a Hebrew text, w/o translation, and prove it solely on the Hebrew alone.

 

[PruePhillip]

Your question was not clear. Maybe it was in how you wrote it. i.e. the way you wrote your comment it appeared that you were saying that no one could read the Torah scroll and the Humash.

Essentially, one is a Torah scroll and one is a Humash. They contain all of the mitzvoth that Hashem gave to Jews, even on this topic. In short, from section to section and page describes what is the basis for Jewish understanding. That basis is different than Christians have as a basis from the NT.

I person can call that a strawman arguement if they want, but the burdon of proof is not on Torah based in this matter. The OP asked a question and Torah based Jews have answered from one side to the other. It may be that some people just don't like the answer, which is fine.

Besides, I am not making arguements since I am not trying to prove anything. If Christians want to prove something to Jews you are going to pull out a Hebrew text, w/o translation, and prove it solely on the Hebrew alone.

So what you seek to do is play the word game, elevating the argument to
the level of the Hebrew language.
Can you tell me how you read Job 19:25-27 ?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

So what you seek to do is play the word game, elevating the argument to the level of the Hebrew language.

No games here. This is all intellectual. The text was written in Hebrew and that is the source. Nothing else. Kind of like that British law called the law of best evidence which states. The best evidence rule is a legal principle that holds an original of a document as superior evidence. The rule specifies that secondary evidence, such as a copy or facsimile, will be not admissible if an original document exists and can be obtained.

Can you tell me how you read Job 19:25-27 ?

Yeah, you read Iyov (Job) 1 through 19 first.

If you give me your email address I can set up a zoom and we can go through the entire text line by line, in Hebrew, and then you will know what 19:25-27 means.

 

[Tumah]

So, does the Messiah come from Bethlehem, or not?

His place of birth is undisclosed. He can come from anywhere in the world.

 

[Jedster]

How is this possible?

I can't help but notice that among the so-called Abrahamic religions, the Jews are the only one still waiting for a living Messiah.
Jesus, The Bab, Baháʼu'lláh . Mirza Ghulam Ahmad are all dead and there is nothing like world peace.

I mean, seriously, what's the point in a dead Messiah?

ETA I should have included Muslims who are awaiting the Mahdi.

 

[PruePhillip]

His place of birth is undisclosed. He can come from anywhere in the world.

And what does Micah 5:2 say in Hebrew?

 

[PruePhillip]

No games here. This is all intellectual. The text was written in Hebrew and that is the source. Nothing else. Kind of like that British law called the law of best evidence which states. The best evidence rule is a legal principle that holds an original of a document as superior evidence. The rule specifies that secondary evidence, such as a copy or facsimile, will be not admissible if an original document exists and can be obtained.



Yeah, you read Iyov (Job) 1 through 19 first.

If you give me your email address I can set up a zoom and we can go through the entire text line by line, in Hebrew, and then you will know what 19:25-27 means.

We don't need to go to that trouble. I read the Interlinear and it says much the same as Christian translations,
that is,

I parsed the sentence, "I know that my Redeemer lives, and he shall stand on the earth in the latter day."

I… not someone else, me

Know… not believe, not think, not suppose, but know

My… not someone else's, mine

Redeemer… not a king, not a warrior, not a philosopher

Lives … not did live, not will live, but live as in now

He … coming as a man

Shall… not maybe, not possibly

Stand… not recline, lie down - but stand for something

Earth … here, this place

Latter day… in the future.

 

[Redemptionsong]

It is interesting -- the topic of this thread is "how can a Jew reject..." and you start with a statement which posits that "the eternal law is love." That makes the answer obvious. The Jew rejects the radical destruction of the entire system of Judaism that reduces everything into some platitude and replaces a comprehensive way of living and of life with an alien set of writings that hold no authority, peopled by characters who espouse foreign and unwelcome positions.

It is interesting - that you should think that love is just a platitude.

Love does not 'replace a comprehensive way of living'. The style of clothes you wear is not the issue; the type of food you prefer to eat is not the issue; nor are the days you choose to hold festivals, or the language you speak.

Jesus was very clear about the law of Moses. Do it all. Not just the outer law, but the inner law of love. Demonstrate that you are a good tree bringing forth good fruit.

When you fail to be perfectly good by your own efforts, you may begin to realise that the starting point for all goodness is the Spirit of love. The Holy Spirit is not man's corrupted spirit, but the Spirit that is of God.

Jesus and Paul did not teach that the law of Moses was unnecessary. Paul described the law as a 'schoolmaster'. They taught that salvation is by grace; the gift of Holy Spirit that comes to man through the one and only Way, Christ Jesus. Righteousness is not of man, but of God.

Law exists to restrict freedoms for the primary reason that people use freedom for evil, rather than for good. If people desired only to do good, many of the laws would vanish. This should make us realise that love is the motivation for all that is good.

 

[Redemptionsong]

So you value love and power instead of commitment. Got it.

God is love. The Holy Spirit is the power of love. Should I not value them?

 

[Tumah]

And what does Micah 5:2 say in Hebrew?

לכן יתנם עד עת יולדה ילדה ויתר אחיו ישובון על בני ישראל
...
...
I'm just joking. The verse you're looking for is probably 5:1 in the MT. The prophet is anthropomorphizing Bethlehem as the source of the Messiah. I just had this discussion with someone else in another thread.

Whenever the prophets anthropomorphize a place, they're speaking about the inhabitants, past, present or future, not the actual place itself. We find this just a few verses prior, where Zion is anthropomorphized to represent the Jews (a common anthropomorphism in the Tanach). In this case, the metaphor is obviously used to represent Jesse and his family, the ancestor of the Messiah.

 

[Redemptionsong]

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.

The heart of the matter is whether or not Jesus Christ is love personified. Despite your interpretation of the passages mentioned above, I cannot see that there was any failure to follow the way of truth and love. No man has ever accomplished the purity of life that he achieved, or followed the will of God so obediently. If there were moments of harshness, then these were worthy of the righteous anger of God. It was not just as a man that Jesus spoke; his prophetic words were a lesson to all around him, including his own mother.

 

[Redemptionsong]

His place of birth is undisclosed. He can come from anywhere in the world.

That is not true.

What is clear is that you accept a place as literal when it suits you, and you make it representative of an individual when it doesn't suit you!

If place names were not to be taken literally, then many Jews would not be living in the land they believe to be their ancestral home. Nor would there have been an Exodus from Egypt, and so on.

 

[Tumah]

That is not true.

What is clear is that you accept a place as literal when it suits you, and you make it representative of an individual when it doesn't suit you!

If place names were not to be taken literally, then many Jews would not be living in the land they believe to be their ancestral home. Nor would there have been an Exodus from Egypt, and so on.

If I had just cherry picked this instance as a case of metaphor, then you might have an argument. But I didn't, I gave you a rule with which you need to apply to all cases in Tanach. So your argument holds no water.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

We don't need to go to that trouble.

I kind of had a feeling you were going to write that. I.e. you would not take up the offer of going from the beginning to the end of the entire text in Hebrew. That is fine. It can be whatever you want it to be.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

The heart of the matter is whether or not Jesus Christ is love personified.

If that is what you want Jesus to be for you, run with it.

 

[Redemptionsong]

If I had just cherry picked this instance as a case of metaphor, then you might have an argument. But I didn't, I gave you a rule with which you need to apply to all cases in Tanach. So your argument holds no water.

I believe you are wrong. You used the example of Zion. Zion is used throughout scripture as both a person, the Messiah or Son of God [Isaiah 49:14], and as a place of spiritual redemption. When God talks about the earthly city, he usually speaks of Jerusalem.

If what you are arguing is that some place names gain their title from people, then that is true. For example, we know many of the ancient lands of Arabia through the tribal leaders that occupied the first settlements. But to argue that places are to be understood as people, without the place itself being of significance, makes no sense.

To take this matter further, consider 1 Chronicles 3:4,5. Here we are told about the sons born to David in Hebron and in Jerusalem. What according to your interpretation of scripture does this mean? Were they really born in these cities?

In Judges 12:10 it says that Ibzan was buried at Bethlehem. What does that mean?

 

[PruePhillip]

I kind of had a feeling you were going to write that. I.e. you would not take up the offer of going from the beginning to the end of the entire text in Hebrew. That is fine. It can be whatever you want it to be.

No, we don't have to read the whole Tanakh, nor do we have to read the
whole of Job. This man made one comment about the Messiah as our
Redeemer and it would be nice if you give the Hebrew interpretation of
that. Alternatively, do you have a problem with the Interlinear?

 

[Tumah]

I believe you are wrong. You used the example of Zion. Zion is used throughout scripture as both a person, the Messiah or Son of God [Isaiah 49:14], and as a place of spiritual redemption. When God talks about the earthly city, he usually speaks of Jerusalem.

Zion is always used as either synonymously with Jerusalem or as an anthropomorphism of the Israelites who lived there.

You do yourself no favors by saying that Isaiah 49:14 is about the Messiah/son of G-d. Cities in Hebrew are feminine nouns and all the verbs there are ...feminine. It's again anthropomorphizing the city as a reference to the Israelites who lived there.

If what you are arguing is that some place names gain their title from people, then that is true. For example, we know many of the ancient lands of Arabia through the tribal leaders that occupied the first settlements.

I am not.

But to argue that places are to be understood as people, without the place itself being of significance, makes no sense.

The place's significance is that it holds the people...

To take this matter further, consider 1 Chronicles 3:4,5. Here we are told about the sons born to David in Hebron and in Jerusalem. What according to your interpretation of scripture does this mean? Were they really born in these cities?

In Judges 12:10 it says that Ibzan was buried at Bethlehem. What does that mean?

Do you know what anthropomorphism means? Do you see any anthropomorphism in those verses?

 

[Hawkins]

How is this possible?

Judaism is enforced by the 6000 Pharisees back then, more or less like how today's churches governing what Christianity is. The 6000 Pharisees (most of them) are however corrupt. "Corrupt" means fundamentally they lost contact with God and can no longer receive messages from God. Judaism under their control thus failed to receive the correct message from God. Under the circumstance (i.e., God's chosen people no longer know God, or God's earthly Church no long knows God), Daniel's prophecy will come true, that is, the abomination of desolation will come (which in the end means Satan will take control). Jerusalem was thus destroyed completely in AD70.

 

[rosends]

It is interesting - that you should think that love is just a platitude.

No, your statement which included love was a platitude. Love is a noun and a verb, and a word which is used as part of a sentence. It could even be an adjective.

Love does not 'replace a comprehensive way of living'. The style of clothes you wear is not the issue; the type of food you prefer to eat is not the issue; nor are the days you choose to hold festivals, or the language you speak.

All those other things are the issue as they are all subject to laws of God. If you say they are not the issue then you are displacing their centrality. That's a problem.

Jesus was very clear about the law of Moses. Do it all. Not just the outer law, but the inner law of love. Demonstrate that you are a good tree bringing forth good fruit.

A) but who cares what Jesus might have said
B) creating a differentiation between an "inner" and "outer" law is arbitrary, artificial and useless
C) inventing an "inner law of love" is doubly useless

When you fail to be perfectly good by your own efforts, you may begin to realise that the starting point for all goodness is the Spirit of love. The Holy Spirit is not man's corrupted spirit, but the Spirit that is of God.

When I fail to be perfectly good by my own efforts, I thank God that there are avenues for repentance, forgiveness and improvement. The first step in wisdom is to fear God.

Jesus and Paul did not teach that the law of Moses was unnecessary. Paul described the law as a 'schoolmaster'. They taught that salvation is by grace; the gift of Holy Spirit that comes to man through the one and only Way, Christ Jesus. Righteousness is not of man, but of God.

Yes, but who cares about Paul? Not me.