Jesus believers, answer this question please.

[dantech]

Just how many "why don't Jews accept Jesus" threads do need before realizing that they serve little function beyond providing yet another platform for Christian apologetics? If it was as simple as smugly referencing a handful of quotes from the Tanakh Christianity would have never gotten off the ground in the first place.

I am not sure what you think I am trying to accomplish with this forum, but let me just say that it is nothing more than wanting to educate myself on a subject I really fail to understand, one that to me makes no sense.

Well, dantech, this seems to be working quite well.

I am not sure what you mean by "This". It's not like I'm trying to get Christians to convert. I'm simply trying to understand how they can believe in something that is so difficult for me to find basic logic in...

And if your problem with this thread is because there are many that revolve around the same subject, then please go into every thread out there in which the subjects are about homosexuality, proof of God's existence, and the other typical subjects discussed about on these forums and give them your famous "" as well.

 

[dantech]

I believe the prophet Zechariah chapter 12 indicates two reasons why the Messiah returns later: 1) to save Israel from the surrounding nations who attempt to destroy her and 2) because He was rejected nationally (not individually) by Israel the first time but this time all Israel will see He is the Messiah and mourn their historical rejection.

This is all based on the verse 12:10 that speaks about mourning. Even with that verse in mind, there is nothing that suggest this anointed will be coming back a couple thousand years later and finish his job. In fact, in verse 12:6 you can see that it starts with "On that day".
Now, getting back to 12:10, the version you are reading is wrongly translated and is misleading. The JPS translation which I find more accurate translates it this way:
"But I will fill the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem with a spirit of pity and compassion; and they shall lament to me about those who are slain, wailing over them as over a favorite son and showing bitter grief as over a first-born."

In Daniel 7:13 the term “Son of Man ‘ is used and then in Daniel 9:25 ”Messiah the Prince” are used.But I think the concept of Messiah is something which grew with understanding as God gave progressive revelation. References to an anointed one were first applied to the leaders and kings of Israel culminating in the anticipation of a final Messiah who would come through the Davidic line to restore the kingdom and rule from Jerusalem.

Yes, I agree. However, Jesus did not come to restore the kingdom and rule from Jerusalem. Also, as you know, there are many debates on whether or not he was actually from David's bloodline, so there's no evidence there either.

“ The connection of the term "Messiah" as applied to an anointed king appears especially strong, and was used in a prophetic sense of the coming Davidic ruler. Both Second Samuel and the Psalms refer to King David as the "anointed one" (mashiach) whose descendants will rule forever (2 Sam. 22:50-51 = Psa. 18:50-51). In addition, the concept of a universal messiah is seen in texts that give to the Davidic house dominion over foreign nations (2 Sam. 22:44-51 = Psa. 18:44-51; Psa. 2:7-9). In the prophetic writings the messianic concept has a special reference to God’s promised Davidic ruler who will restore Israel to the divine ideal (Isaiah 9:7; Jeremiah 23:5-6; Ezekiel 34:23-24; 37:25; Amos 9:11-12). Psalms 2 (vss. 2-6, 7-9) and 89 (vss. 3-4, 20-29) depict a divinely appointed king messiah (or “anointed”) who will destroy God’s Gentile opponents and as His representative will reign over the nations. The pre-exilic prophet Isaiah likewise predicts a future Davidic Messiah who will smite Israel’s enemies and rule in justice over the nations (Isa. 11:1-10). The post-exilic Chronicler also speaks of a Davidic ruler-restorer who will rebuild the Temple, to whom God would be Father without the need for correction, and who will serve as regent in God's kingdom (1 Chronicles 17:11-14).”

I don't see how you can use this as a way to prove Jesus was the anointed one. He did not even come close as to accomplishing all these prophecies, and as I stated in the OP, if anything, we are further away today, than we were when he lived.

[FONT=&quot]“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—Jeremiah 31:31

[FONT=&quot]

I know there will be a new covenant, but where did you get that it will cancel out the previous one? When has a covenant with God ever annulled a previous one?

[/FONT]

If Jesus was the Messiah as He claimed, He said He came to fulfill the Law/covenant.

We each have the obligation to fulfill the law for ourselves. Many verses in the Torah speaking about the law refer to the population, not just to Moses, or whoever is the anointed one of that generation. If Jesus fulfilled the Law, great! But I don't see how it can mean that you can now start eating pork, or lighting a fire on the Sabbath.

You may see things differently and not agree with my perspective, but I honestly believe Jesus is the Savior.

I respect your beliefs, I just don't understand them. I hope this thread will get me to a point where I can say: "Oh okay, I guess now I can see how they got there."

 

[garrydons]

the first coming was Messiah ben Yoseph while the 2nd coming is Messiah ben David, a conquering Messiah. there is a lol lot of verses in the Scriptures to support this. One is Isaiah 53, etc.

 

[dantech]

the first coming was Messiah ben Yoseph while the 2nd coming is Messiah ben David, a conquering Messiah. there is a lol lot of verses in the Scriptures to support this. One is Isaiah 53, etc.

Are you suggesting that Jesus was Mashiah ben Yoseph, and will be Mashiah ben David as well?

 

[Freelance_Policeman]

You will no doubt prove yourself to be masterful [if only in your own mind]. opcorn:

You misjudge me. I'm showing that it's possible to defend against Christianity, rather than complaining that someone has tried to create a debate thread. If anything, you're helping the Christians by saying that we can't refute their arguments.

 

[sojourner]

The Tanakh prophecies are pretty clear on how things will pan out when the Messiah reigns. It speaks of total peace, even in the animal kingdom (Isaiah 2:4, 11:6-8), worldwide knowledge of G-D (Isaiah 11:9, Jeremiah 31:34), the Temple standing in Jerusalem forever(Ezekiel 37:27-28, Ezekiel 40-48), resurrection of the dead (Daniel 12:2, Isaiah 26:19), and the return of the descendants of Israel to Israel (Jeremiah 23:7-8, Isaiah 27:13).

We also find a few verses describing a righteous judge who will fear God (Isaiah 11:1-4), and I doubt God fears himself so this doesn't really work with the Trinity concept.


A few points clearly stand out. First, not only were these prophecies not accomplished in Jesus' life, but the exact opposite occurred during and after his life.
1)The Temple was destroyed.
2)The Jews were scattered and many were murdered
3)The birth of many religions occurred after his life, preaching anything but a universal knowledge of God.

Second, even if you are one of those who suggests that the prophecies are slowly coming to fruition as a result of Jesus' life, you would still be able to show somewhat of an upward slope on said prophecies. However, we see the complete complete opposite: destruction of the temple, development of countless new religions, further scattering of the children of Israel. Also, I have failed to find anywhere in the Hebrew scriptures anything about the Messiah (which he was never called, by the way) coming back x thousand years later to complete his job.

Third, I have also failed to find mention anywhere that the arrival of the messiah would warrant a new covenant that would result the previous one in being annulled.

I guess the question is:
How can you, knowing all these facts and scriptures, honestly believe that Jesus is/was indeed our sent savior?

God Incarnate-as-messiah is a game-changer. The Jewish prophecies and writings never anticipated that happening. When God shows up "in the flesh," all bets are off. So the prophecies "not lining up" doesn't make any difference. Matthew makes a convincing case for the church being the "true Israel," which redirects our attention from the prophets to the Son.

 

[dantech]

God Incarnate-as-messiah is a game-changer. The Jewish prophecies and writings never anticipated that happening. When God shows up "in the flesh," all bets are off. So the prophecies "not lining up" doesn't make any difference. Matthew makes a convincing case for the church being the "true Israel," which redirects our attention from the prophets to the Son.

How can you say all bets are off?
Even if you are correct in the sense that God did incarnate as messiah, it's okay for something that wasn't prophecied about to happen, but it's not okay for something that was prophecied about to not happen...
How does the Messiah actually being God, cancel out the other prophecies?

 

[InChrist]

This is all based on the verse 12:10 that speaks about mourning. Even with that verse in mind, there is nothing that suggest this anointed will be coming back a couple thousand years later and finish his job. In fact, in verse 12:6 you can see that it starts with "On that day".
Now, getting back to 12:10, the version you are reading is wrongly translated and is misleading. The JPS translation which I find more accurate translates it this way:
"But I will fill the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem with a spirit of pity and compassion; and they shall lament to me about those who are slain, wailing over them as over a favorite son and showing bitter grief as over a first-born."

When I see phrases such as: “on that day” or “in that day” I take it to refer to the last days, the end of the age and when the LORD will fulfill the remaining prophecies/promises to Israel which have not yet been fulfilled.

Well since you prefer a different translation, which is fine, it makes it a little more difficult to discuss. Yet, my perspective is that the son or firstborn referred to is Jesus the rejected Messiah, who will be recognized and grieved over. Again, my view here.

Yes, I agree. However, Jesus did not come to restore the kingdom and rule from Jerusalem. Also, as you know, there are many debates on whether or not he was actually from David's bloodline, so there's no evidence there either.

I don't see how you can use this as a way to prove Jesus was the anointed one. He did not even come close as to accomplishing all these prophecies, and as I stated in the OP, if anything, we are further away today, than we were when he lived.

I think you, as most Jewish people do (but not all) and as did the religious leaders at the time of Christ, look at the Hebrew Scriptures and don’t see two comings of Messiah in a similar way many Christians look at the New Testament scriptures and miss seeing that Christ must return twice: once to remove the church/believers in the rapture and then to literally come to rule and reign (but that is another subject).
In one way you are correct to ask, where in the Hebrew Scriptures does it say that there will be two comings of Messiah or that He will come once and then come back thousands of years later to finish things? Because you are correct...nowhere does it say this directly. But I believe the implication is definitely there in the scripture. I see no other way to reconcile into one time frame the many passages given by the Hebrew prophets; some which say Messiah will completely deliver Israel from their enemies, restore the kingdom and bring everlasting peace (Isaiah 9:7; Isaiah 11; Isaiah 65:17-25; Ezekiel 37:35-27) and some which say He will be hated and killed (Isaiah 53; Psalm 22; Daniel 9:25-26). The passage below is an example of what I believe is a twofold prophecy which Jesus fulfilled in part during His first coming and will complete at His second coming.

“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Behold, your King is coming to you;
He is just and having salvation,
Lowly and riding on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.

I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim
And the horse from Jerusalem;
The battle bow shall be cut off.
He shall speak peace to the nations;
His dominion shall be ‘from sea to sea,
And from the River to the ends of the earth. Zechariah 9:9-10

I also see in the Hebrew Scriptures that the Messiah was foretold to come at a specific time, the first time, which at this point it is too late for anyone else to fulfill. This is another whole subject, though.

I know there will be a new covenant, but where did you get that it will cancel out the previous one? When has a covenant with God ever annulled a previous one?

We each have the obligation to fulfill the law for ourselves. Many verses in the Torah speaking about the law refer to the population, not just to Moses, or whoever is the anointed one of that generation. If Jesus fulfilled the Law, great! But I don't see how it can mean that you can now start eating pork, or lighting a fire on the Sabbath.

[FONT=&quot]I do not believe the law or Mosaic Covenant was annulled and I do believe it is still in place. Even Paul said the law was not void (Romans 13:31). I just see that GOD has a better way of dealing with sin. I am saying I believe that Jesus as the Savior fulfilled the law and it is this reality that makes a huge difference for me. I believe it also would for anyone who considers the implications because I believe the law is impossible for any human to keep perfectly as the scriptures show over and over again how those of Israel fell short and had to repeatedly offer sacrifices for their sin and breaking the laws. So because I see that Christ fulfilled the law covenant completely and since my belief is in Him the scriptures tell me that His righteousness and perfection is applied to me, so I am free to rest in His perfect lawfulness. He is my Sabbath each day. I just see God’s desired purpose for humanity to be something more than avoiding certain foods or not doing things on a certain day. I am dead and delivered from the law and risen and alive in Christ to obey by the Spirit rather than the flesh. I am not saying Jewish individuals should stop keeping the law. I’m just saying I don’t think anyone can keep the laws perfectly and therefore doing so won’t save anyone or make them right with the LORD GOD.


[/FONT]

I respect your beliefs, I just don't understand them. I hope this thread will get me to a point where I can say: "Oh okay, I guess now I can see how they got there."

[/quote]

I also respect your beliefs and am trying to see things from your perspective. You have really covered many areas which I could have delved into much deeper, but I think this post is already too long. I don’t know if you will understand my perspective, all I can do is try to express my thoughts, but I’m not good at articulating all that I would like to say in a concise manner.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If anything, you're helping the Christians by saying that we can't refute their arguments.

I am saying that you cannot effectively 'refute' refute their arguments.

 

[gzusfrk]

The Tanakh prophecies are pretty clear on how things will pan out when the Messiah reigns. It speaks of total peace, even in the animal kingdom (Isaiah 2:4, 11:6-8), worldwide knowledge of G-D (Isaiah 11:9, Jeremiah 31:34), the Temple standing in Jerusalem forever(Ezekiel 37:27-28, Ezekiel 40-48), resurrection of the dead (Daniel 12:2, Isaiah 26:19), and the return of the descendants of Israel to Israel (Jeremiah 23:7-8, Isaiah 27:13).

We also find a few verses describing a righteous judge who will fear God (Isaiah 11:1-4), and I doubt God fears himself so this doesn't really work with the Trinity concept.


A few points clearly stand out. First, not only were these prophecies not accomplished in Jesus' life, but the exact opposite occurred during and after his life.
1)The Temple was destroyed.
2)The Jews were scattered and many were murdered
3)The birth of many religions occurred after his life, preaching anything but a universal knowledge of God.

Second, even if you are one of those who suggests that the prophecies are slowly coming to fruition as a result of Jesus' life, you would still be able to show somewhat of an upward slope on said prophecies. However, we see the complete complete opposite: destruction of the temple, development of countless new religions, further scattering of the children of Israel. Also, I have failed to find anywhere in the Hebrew scriptures anything about the Messiah (which he was never called, by the way) coming back x thousand years later to complete his job.

Third, I have also failed to find mention anywhere that the arrival of the messiah would warrant a new covenant that would result the previous one in being annulled.

I guess the question is:
How can you, knowing all these facts and scriptures, honestly believe that Jesus is/was indeed our sent savior?

Ironic you quote jeremiah 31:34 yet fail to mention the 3 verses prior, which state "Behold days are coming when I will make, ( note He says "days are coming" and "I will make" meaning they are yet to happen) a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them out of the land of egypt, My covenant which they broke although I was a husband to them declares the Lord, But this is the covenant which I will make, I will put my law within them, and on their heart I will write it and I will be their God and they shall be my people. He states new covenant, prophecy fulfilled. The Living Word of God, Jesus Christ,which is changing the hearts of men as we speak, this quote from jeremiah is also in Hebrews twice *8th and 10th chapter.

 

[Tarheeler]

I guess the question is:
How can you, knowing all these facts and scriptures, honestly believe that Jesus is/was indeed our sent savior?

What you need to understand is that Christianity approaches everything much differently than Judaism. They understand our scriptures through the lense of the New Testament, and come to much different conclusions.

We are two separate religions and understand the same words much differently.

You are right when you say that Jesus doesn't meet the requirements for the Jewish messiah. But that doesn't preclude him from being the Christian one.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What you need to understand is that Christianity approaches everything much differently than Judaism. They understand our scriptures through the lense of the New Testament, and come to much different conclusions.

We are two separate religions and understand the same words much differently.

You are right when you say that Jesus doesn't meet the requirements for the Jewish messiah. But that doesn't preclude him from being the Christian one.

Well said.

 

[Freelance_Policeman]

I am saying that you cannot effectively 'refute' refute their arguments.

What do you mean?

What you need to understand is that Christianity approaches everything much differently than Judaism. They understand our scriptures through the lense of the New Testament, and come to much different conclusions.

We are two separate religions and understand the same words much differently.

You are right when you say that Jesus doesn't meet the requirements for the Jewish messiah. But that doesn't preclude him from being the Christian one.

With all due respect, don't Christians accept the "Old Testament?" The Messiah is supposed to be for the descendants of Israel as well as for foreigners.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

With all due respect, don't Christians accept the "Old Testament?"

You will need to ask them.

 

[sojourner]

How can you say all bets are off?
Even if you are correct in the sense that God did incarnate as messiah, it's okay for something that wasn't prophecied about to happen, but it's not okay for something that was prophecied about to not happen...
How does the Messiah actually being God, cancel out the other prophecies?

Because we interpret the biblical story "from the other side," so to speak, through the lens of the Greek texts, the meanings of the prophecies changes. Here's what I mean: For the Jews, it's important that y'all be gathered together as a people distinct as "God's people." And I respect that; I really do! But when God becomes Incarnate, God establishes a covenant, not just with Jews, but with humanity in general. Matthew assures us that our mission, as those "who have God's ear," is to go out -- not to "circle the wagons." We are to "make disciples of all nations" (the Greek words are laos and ethne). We are to make "us" (laos) out of "them" (ethne). In other words, as Paul says, "There is no more Jew or Greek, for all are one in Christ Jesus." Therefore, since we perceive that Jesus has been sacrificed "once for all," there is no need for the Temple (whose purpose it is to receive the sacrifice). Since "all are one," there is no need for all to be gathered in the Promised Land.

Prophecy isn't about "predicting future events." It's about proclaiming the will of God. For you, that will is to be gathered together. For us, it's to spread out and join with all others.

 

[sojourner]

The Messiah is supposed to be for the descendants of Israel as well as for foreigners.

Is he? (I'm not being sarcastic; I simply was not aware of that -- I thought the Messiah was for the Jews only).

 

[InChrist]

If Zechariah was prophesying about Jesus, then Judas was an agent of God. Zechariah is the shepherd of "the flock," and kills three evil shhepherders who try to steal the sheep. However, the sheep grow to hate him, and he likewise. So, he quits and requests payment. He is paid thirty pieces of silver, and is told by Hashem to throw it to the potter.

Does this seem familiar? Matthew thinks so. Chapter 27, verse 9.

There you have it. Either Zechariah or Matthew is wrong—unless Jesus was an evil shepherd.

I see many prophetic passages as twofold, meaning that they have application during the time they are given and with the person or people they are given to and in reference to a future event or person(s). In the future or Messianic aspect of this passage I see Zechariah as representing (Messiah)Jesus the Good Shepherd who was hated and rejected by the three shepherds (possibly three types of Jewish leaders: teachers of the law, priests, and kings or civil magistrates) which He gave charge over His flock (the people of Israel), but these evil shepherds controlled and exploited the people. It was the Good Shepherd who was rejected and valued at no more than 30 pieces of silver, the price of a slave who had been gored by an ox (Exodus 21:32). This rejection brought about the breaking of the staff ( beauty, favor, grace verse 11:10)) or the covenant of God to protect His flock, the people of Israel from Gentile oppression and the other staff (bonds, union verse 11:14) which pictures the breakdown of solidarity between Judah and Israel, this discord being one of the factors which led to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and a new dispersion of the Jews.

Given that Jesus has done none of these things, I think you just weakened your own argument.

Again, I see that Jesus did fulfill important aspects of the prophecies and so see no reason that He will not fulfill the remaining parts also.

Why does the New Covenant have to replace the old? Does the Nazarite covenant replace the Mosaiac covenant? Does the Mosaiac covenant replace the Abrahamic covenant? Does the Abrahamic covenant replace the covenant with Noah?

I'm not quite saying that one covenant replaces another as much as I'm saying I believe God has various ways of dealing with people and nations at different points through history, yet I see faith as consistent throughout.

Not to insult you or your religion, but Christianity is pretty clear that those of us who reject Jesus are doomed to Hell.

If Jesus is the Messiah of the Hebrew Scriptures and the One who came to save, if the God of the Tanakh is the same God of the NT then it is not just Christianity that says one who rejects Jesus will not be saved form destruction. I realize that is a big "if" for some people, nevertheless it is important enough that I hope warrants serious consideration.

"I, I am Hashem, and besides me there is no savior." Isaiah 43:11



"You are my witnesses," declares Hashem,
"And my servant whom I have chosen,
that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he."
Isaiah 43:10.

"And it shall come to pass that everybody who calls upon the name of Hashem will be saved."
Joel 2:32

And if you believe that God and Jesus are the same—

"God is not man...or a son of man." Numbers 23.

"For I Hashem do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed."
Malachi 3:6

[/quote]

I love all these verses and see no conflict in believing that Jesus is God.

 

[InChrist]

What you need to understand is that Christianity approaches everything much differently than Judaism. They understand our scriptures through the lense of the New Testament, and come to much different conclusions.

This is true.

We are two separate religions and understand the same words much differently.

You are right when you say that Jesus doesn't meet the requirements for the Jewish messiah. But that doesn't preclude him from being the Christian one.

[/quote]

Although I see unity.

 

[Tarheeler]

With all due respect, don't Christians accept the "Old Testament?" The Messiah is supposed to be for the descendants of Israel as well as for foreigners.

Like I said, they see it through the lense of the New Testament.

 

[Freelance_Policeman]

Is he? (I'm not being sarcastic; I simply was not aware of that -- I thought the Messiah was for the Jews only).

"It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make you as a light to the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth." Isaiah 49:6

Both

It's unclear what "as a light to the Gentiles" means, but yes.

I see many prophetic passages as twofold, meaning that they have application during the time they are given and with the person or people they are given to and in reference to a future event or person(s). In the future or Messianic aspect of this passage I see Zechariah as representing (Messiah)Jesus the Good Shepherd who was hated and rejected by the three shepherds (possibly three types of Jewish leaders: teachers of the law, priests, and kings or civil magistrates) which He gave charge over His flock (the people of Israel), but these evil shepherds controlled and exploited the people. It was the Good Shepherd who was rejected and valued at no more than 30 pieces of silver, the price of a slave who had been gored by an ox (Exodus 21:32). This rejection brought about the breaking of the staff ( beauty, favor, grace verse 11:10)) or the covenant of God to protect His flock, the people of Israel from Gentile oppression and the other staff (bonds, union verse 11:14) which pictures the breakdown of solidarity between Judah and Israel, this discord being one of the factors which led to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and a new dispersion of the Jews.

Erm, this would only work if Jesus killed people. Looking at his teachings, I doubt he would do that. Also, I don't believe he altered the relationship between the Jews and Israelites at all. Furthermore, the roles are completely switched. Zechariah was paid those 30 pieces for destroying shepherds. Jesus identified himself as a shepherd. He was "destroyed" by Judas, who was paid the 30 pieces. You cannot apply this prophecy to Jesus.

Personally, I don't believe Jesus was evil, any more than you believe the Buddha was evil. But to try this prophecy fit Jesus is highly dangerous to your position.

Again, I see that Jesus did fulfill important aspects of the prophecies and so see no reason that He will not fulfill the remaining parts also.

By that logic, anyone coukd be the Messiah if he or she rode a donkey into Jerusalem. To be honest, I'm not sure what other prophecies he fulfilled.

I'm not quite saying that one covenant replaces another as much as I'm saying I believe God has various ways of dealing with people and nations at different points through history, yet I see faith as consistent throughout.

So the "Old" Covenant made with the Israelites remains valid?

If Jesus is the Messiah of the Hebrew Scriptures and the One who came to save, if the God of the Tanakh is the same God of the NT then it is not just Christianity that says one who rejects Jesus will not be saved form destruction. I realize that is a big "if" for some people, nevertheless it is important enough that I hope warrants serious consideration.

If the God of the Tanakh is the God of the "NT" and also the God of the Qua'ran, we're both in trouble. Nevertheless, I feel fairly confident that Jesus wasn't the Messiah.

By the way, if you're not a Jehovah's Witness, you'll burn in hell. And if you're not a Mormon...well, you had the alternative of having your own planet. Does that make you re-consider your beliefs?

I love all these verses and see no conflict in believing that Jesus is God.

So Jesus constantly refers to himself as the "son of man," and
God declared that he is neither a man or son of man.

From my perspective, this seems like one giant of a contradiction.

Like I said, they see it through the lense of the New Testament.

Unfortunate. I don't think I ever did, personally. Of course, I've left Christianity now, so my opinion probably isn't valid