Is according to Jews everything God's will?

[Skywalker]

Greetings. You do know what the term Avodah Zara means, right?

I will explain.

1. The concept of "messiah" that is put forth in the New Testament is Avodah Zara. I.e. the meaning of the word (and what kind of individual it is supposed to describe) put forth by the NT is Avodah Zara.
2. Further, statements made by the NT authors about Jesus are Avodah Zara.
3. The future expectations taught by various NT authors from Matthew to Revelations and how they have been historically interpreted from the time they were written, to the Church Father's allucidations on them, and how they are perceived today are Avodah Zara.

For example, the following statements made in the NT are a few examples of Avodah Zara concepts in the NT text.

View attachment 48221

Thus, Torath Mosheh Jews and Orthodox Jews were warned by Hashem to stay away from such.

I hope that helps.

in the New Testament, God Himself provided a "parachute" for us, and the Bible tells us regarding the Savior, "Put on the Lord Jesus Christ." Just as a parachute solved your dilemma with the law of gravity and its consequences, so the Savior perfectly solves your dilemma with the Law of God and its consequences. It is the missing puzzle-piece that you need. How did God solve our dilemma? He satisfied His wrath by becoming a human being and taking our punishment upon Himself. The Scriptures tell us that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself. Jesus provides the only parachute to save us from the consequences of the Law we have transgressed.

 

[Skywalker]

It actually is.

That's nice, but that doesn't make what they believe actually Jewish.

You're conflating here Jewish identity and the Jewish religion (i.e. Judaism). Those are not the same.

Before the 11th century, Jews didn't think that the suffering servant was Israel. Israel is not sinless and never atoned for others. Suffering Servant, Resurrected Lamb

First, in Isaiah 53, the prophet, Isaiah, prophesied about Jesus, the Messiah, 700 years before His birth and 733 years before His cruel death on the cross.

But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:5-6)

Today, the response to Isaiah 53 for the Jewish and rabbinical theologians is that the Suffering Servant described in Isaiah 53 was not referring to the coming Messiah, but to the nation of Israel. The first Jew to propose that Isaiah 53 is referring to the nation of Israel was Shlomo Yitzchaki, more familiarly known as Rashi (c. 1040-1105). According to Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek in their book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (2004), there are at least three reasons why Isaiah 53 cannot be referring to the nation of Israel:

• First, unlike Israel, the Servant is sinless. (53:9) If Israel is sinless, then why did God give the Jews a sacrificial system? Why did they have a Day of Atonement? Why did they constantly need prophets to warn them to stop sinning and to come back to God?
• Second, unlike Israel, the Suffering Servant is a lamb who submits without any resistance whatsoever (53:7) History show us that Israel certainly is not a lamb–she lies down for no one.
• Third, unlike Israel, the Suffering Servant dies as a substitutionary atonement for the sins of others (53:4-6, 8, 10-12) But Israel has not died, nor is she paying for the sins of others. No one is redeemed on account of what the nation of Israel does. Nations, and the individuals that comprise them, are punished for their own sins.

(Geisler and Turek, 2004, pp. 333-334)

Who alone in all of human history can match the description of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53? None but Christ alone.

 

[Skywalker]

Then Jesus could not have been the Messiah, since, having no bio dad, he was not of the line of David.

You can have the Davidic line, or you can have the virgin birth, but you cannot have both.



The Messiah is not God. He will be a man. An ordinary man. There is no need to give him deity or to dress him up in wings or have fire shoot from his mouth or anything. Such things are simply not necessary to his mission of ruling during the messianic era.

Joseph was legally the father of Jesus.

 

[Skywalker]

Any time you make something from heaven above or earth below into a deity (that includes a man like Jesus) this is avodah zarah for the Jew.

The Tanakh says that the Messiah would be God. Jesus Christ, the God-Man

Why would Jesus refer to the Father as “my God,” if he himself possessed the nature of God? Does this somehow contradict the concept of the deity of Christ? John Calvin suggested that while on earth, Christ’s use of the “my God” expression was a reflection of his human nature (see: Matthew 27:46). But Jesus continues to refer to the Father as “my God” even after his ascension back into heaven (Rev. 3:2). How can this conflict be resolved?
This is a perfectly legitimate question. But it is complex, and needs to be analyzed carefully and incrementally.

What Is the Nature of Christ?
If the New Testament clearly affirms the divine nature of Jesus Christ and yet the Lord referred to the Father as “my God,” then obviously there is no compromise of the Savior’s nature by his use of this expression.

It is beyond dispute that the Bible affirms the deity of Jesus Christ. Any student of the scriptures who has a threshold level of interpretative ability can see this truth. The following facts are evident.

First, the Old Testament unequivocally foretold the coming of the incarnate God (Isa. 7:14; 9:6; 40:3; 44:6; Jer. 23:5-6; Micah 5:2; Zech. 13:7).

Second, Christ himself claimed to be deity in nature (Jn. 5:17-18;10:30). Others acknowledged him as such, and even worshiped him — both angels (Heb. 1:6) and men (Mt. 2:2; 14:33; Jn. 20:28).

There must, therefore, be a way of harmonizing these facts with the Savior’s use of the expression “my God.”

“My God”
Addresses such as “my God” and “my Father” (Mt. 27:46; Lk. 2:49; Jn. 5:17-18; 10:37-38; 20:17), when employed by Christ, certainly have a connection with the incarnation (i.e., the Word becoming flesh (Jn. 1:14; cf. Phil. 2:5-11).

However, the use of singular pronouns like, “my” and “mine” rather than the plurals, like “our” and “ours” reflects a distancing of himself from ordinary people in terms of an equal relationship with the Father. This suggests a unique association between Christ and God. It hints of a nature not shared with others. It underscores his deity.

Christ Retains His Humanity
What many do not realize is the fact that Jesus Christ, even after his ascension back into heaven, retained a nature-identification with his people. This is a most profound truth that is scarcely perceived by many Christians. Let’s analyze the evidence.

After his conversion, Saul of Tarsus began preaching the gospel of Christ in the city of Damascus. In his presentations he “kept on proclaiming” (so the force of the verb in Acts 9:20) of Jesus that “he is [present tense verb] the Son of God.”

 

[Harel13]

Before the 11th century, Jews didn't think that the suffering servant was Israel. Israel is not sinless and never atoned for others. Suffering Servant, Resurrected Lamb

Please stop listening to Jews for Jesus. They really don't know what they're talking about.
Here - Origen, one of the Church Fathers, commonly had discussions with Jews in the Land of Israel - Caesarea in particular - during the 3rd century CE. Here's what he wrote of these chapters in Isaiah:

"Now I remember that, on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I quoted these prophecies; to which my Jewish opponent replied, that these predictions bore reference to the whole people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations. And in this way he explained the words, Your form shall be of no reputation among men; and then, They to whom no message was sent respecting him shall see; and the expression, A man under suffering. " (Contra Celsum, ch. 55)
​

You see? Hundreds of years before Rashi, Origen - a famous, highly-reputed Christian, recorded that the Jews believed this.

 

[Skywalker]

Please stop listening to Jews for Jesus. They really don't know what they're talking about.
Here - Origen, one of the Church Fathers, commonly had discussions with Jews in the Land of Israel - Caesarea in particular - during the 3rd century CE. Here's what he wrote of these chapters in Isaiah:

"Now I remember that, on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I quoted these prophecies; to which my Jewish opponent replied, that these predictions bore reference to the whole people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations. And in this way he explained the words, Your form shall be of no reputation among men; and then, They to whom no message was sent respecting him shall see; and the expression, A man under suffering. " (Contra Celsum, ch. 55)
​

You see? Hundreds of years before Rashi, Origen - a famous, highly-reputed Christian, recorded that the Jews believed this.

Israel wasn't sinless and didn't do substitutionary atonement.

 

[Harel13]

Israel wasn't sinless and didn't do substitutionary atonement.

First, do you accept that Jews for Jesus are wrong, at least in their claim about the Jewish view of these chapters?

 

[Skywalker]

First, do you accept that Jews for Jesus are wrong, at least in their claim about the Jewish view of these chapters?

The Jews in the 200s believed that the Jewish diaspora was the suffering servant, not the nation of Israel.

 

[Harel13]

The Jews in the 200s believed that the Jewish diaspora was the suffering servant, not the nation of Israel.

No, that's not what Origen said. And there are other sources, too.
I would be more than happy to reply to your previous question, but I want you to reply to my query on whether or not you are willing to admit that Jews for Jesus are wrong on their claim about the Jewish view of these chapters?

 

[rosends]

Following Jesus isn't inconsistent with being Jewish.

Sure it is. If you don't understand Judaism, you shouldn't make statements like this thinking you are representing Jewish thought. And if you are just parroting non-Jewish websites, then, all the moreso are your statements in error.

Jewish people who believe in Jesus say that it made them more Jewish.

And if a Christian said that murdering people made him more Christian would that be persuasive to you?

Jesus fulfilled all of the prophecies of the Old Testament.

No he didn't. Heck, he didn't even fulfill all of the messianic ones. If he had, why would there be any concern for a "second coming"?

One can keep Jewish identity and believe in Jesus-the two are not mutually incompatible.

One keeps a Jewish identity because one cannot change his lineage. But being an actual Jew IS incompatible. Again, your statement comes as a misrepresentation of Judaism and I find it problematic that you keep thinking you have a position to speak on behalf of Judaism when you know so little about it.

Observing festivals or new moons is a non-issue for Christians.

Well, that's because those believe in Jesus aren't Jewish. That's sort of the point. The fact that you keep making unconnected, irrelevant and incorrect statements, ignoring material presented to the contrary, all in an attempt to mispresent Judaism and convince readers of a position which is based on ignorance seems more like trolling than engaging in any fruitful discussion.

 

[rosends]

Joseph was legally the father of Jesus.

Under what system of laws?

 

[Skywalker]

Sure it is. If you don't understand Judaism, you shouldn't make statements like this thinking you are representing Jewish thought. And if you are just parroting non-Jewish websites, then, all the moreso are your statements in error.

And if a Christian said that murdering people made him more Christian would that be persuasive to you?

No he didn't. Heck, he didn't even fulfill all of the messianic ones. If he had, why would there be any concern for a "second coming"?

One keeps a Jewish identity because one cannot change his lineage. But being an actual Jew IS incompatible. Again, your statement comes as a misrepresentation of Judaism and I find it problematic that you keep thinking you have a position to speak on behalf of Judaism when you know so little about it.

Well, that's because those believe in Jesus aren't Jewish. That's sort of the point. The fact that you keep making unconnected, irrelevant and incorrect statements, ignoring material presented to the contrary, all in an attempt to mispresent Judaism and convince readers of a position which is based on ignorance seems more like trolling than engaging in any fruitful discussion.

Do you think that halacha is from the Tanakh or from later rabbinic traditions?

 

[rosends]

Do you think that halacha is from the Tanakh or from later rabbinic traditions?

Yes. Next question?

 

[Skywalker]

Under what system of laws?

Step parents are close family. Joseph the Father of Jesus

It is clear that others recognized Joseph as the legal father of Jesus in verses such as John 1:45. Joseph's influence during those early years must have been incredible. When Jesus spoke of God as being like a loving Father, he could draw from his youth the kind of love he had from Joseph. Joseph stands as a testimony to the value of integrity, obedience, faithfulness, and especially to honoring the entrusted role of "fatherhood.”

 

[rosends]

Step parents are close family. Joseph the Father of Jesus

So you mean not Jewish law. You could just say that -- try it with me: "not Jewish law."

 

[Skywalker]

Sure it is. If you don't understand Judaism, you shouldn't make statements like this thinking you are representing Jewish thought. And if you are just parroting non-Jewish websites, then, all the moreso are your statements in error.

And if a Christian said that murdering people made him more Christian would that be persuasive to you?

No he didn't. Heck, he didn't even fulfill all of the messianic ones. If he had, why would there be any concern for a "second coming"?

One keeps a Jewish identity because one cannot change his lineage. But being an actual Jew IS incompatible. Again, your statement comes as a misrepresentation of Judaism and I find it problematic that you keep thinking you have a position to speak on behalf of Judaism when you know so little about it.

Well, that's because those believe in Jesus aren't Jewish. That's sort of the point. The fact that you keep making unconnected, irrelevant and incorrect statements, ignoring material presented to the contrary, all in an attempt to mispresent Judaism and convince readers of a position which is based on ignorance seems more like trolling than engaging in any fruitful discussion.

Why is there there being a Messiah who came to save us and teach us how to live, inconsistent with Judaism?

I don't know if the church persecuted Jews or not, but whatever they did, it has nothing to do with God, or God creating and saving his creation.

 

[Skywalker]

So you mean not Jewish law. You could just say that -- try it with me: "not Jewish law."

Step parents being close family isn't inconsistent with Old Testament laws.

 

[rosends]

Why is there there being a Messiah who came to save us and teach us how to live, inconsistent with Judaism?

If you have questions about Judaism then you are admitting you do not understand Judaism and that's an important first step!

I don't know if the church persecuted Jews or not, but whatever they did, it has nothing to do with God, or God creating and saving his creation.

Swing and a miss. You claimed that people say that believing in Jesus makes them more Jewish. I am equting that with people saying "murdering makes me more Christian." The way you feel about the latter is how I feel about the former. If you don't understand that, then I can't help you.

 

[rosends]

Step parents being close family isn't inconsistent with Old Testament laws.

Nor is it part of Jewish law. So say it with me "not Jewish law."

 

[Skywalker]

Sure it is. If you don't understand Judaism, you shouldn't make statements like this thinking you are representing Jewish thought. And if you are just parroting non-Jewish websites, then, all the moreso are your statements in error.

And if a Christian said that murdering people made him more Christian would that be persuasive to you?

No he didn't. Heck, he didn't even fulfill all of the messianic ones. If he had, why would there be any concern for a "second coming"?

One keeps a Jewish identity because one cannot change his lineage. But being an actual Jew IS incompatible. Again, your statement comes as a misrepresentation of Judaism and I find it problematic that you keep thinking you have a position to speak on behalf of Judaism when you know so little about it.

Well, that's because those believe in Jesus aren't Jewish. That's sort of the point. The fact that you keep making unconnected, irrelevant and incorrect statements, ignoring material presented to the contrary, all in an attempt to mispresent Judaism and convince readers of a position which is based on ignorance seems more like trolling than engaging in any fruitful discussion.

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Isaiah 53:5-6

The more people read the Scriptures, the more they notice things that weren't there before. Deuteronomy talked about a prophet greater than Moses who will come and whom we should listen to. Who can be greater than Moses? Deuteronomy 18:15

The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

That verse is a prophecy about the Messiah-someone as great and as respected as Moses but a greater teacher and a greater authority. Isaiah 53, with clarity and specificity, in a haunting prediction wrapped in exquisite poetry, here was the picture of a Messiah who would suffer and die for the sins of Israel and the world-written more than seven hundred years before Jesus walked the earth.