Why did the Jews reject their Messiah when he DID come?

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes... the claim that Jesus, a Jew, wasn't circumcised as an infant is ridiculous.

Well, they may be arguing that he was cirumcised, but taught against it as an adult, a claim that is equally ridiculous. They don't want to acknowledge that he practiced second temple Judaism.

 

[PruePhillip]

I'm thinking of examples such as the Sufi mystic Al Hallaj who worshiped the God of Abraham. He made claims such as "I am truth" and "I am God" just as the gospels say Jesus did. He was executed by the religious authorities, and was reportedly seen by many following his death. The parallels to Jesus are stunning. Should we accept his resurrection based on these eyewitness accounts?

Maybe the "stunning" parallels are stunning examples of appropriating
other people's religions.
Part of the depth to the biblical account lies in the prophecies - we read
the full account of the Messiah, from his birth to death and resurrection
plus the reaction by Israel and the Gentiles.

As for saying "I am God", there's no end of people who say that. And
no end of people who will believe it too - including various messiahs
in Israel after Jesus who brought about that nation's downfall.

 

[sooda]

Maybe the "stunning" parallels are stunning examples of appropriating
other people's religions.
Part of the depth to the biblical account lies in the prophecies - we read
the full account of the Messiah, from his birth to death and resurrection
plus the reaction by Israel and the Gentiles.

As for saying "I am God", there's no end of people who say that. And
no end of people who will believe it too - including various messiahs
in Israel after Jesus who brought about that nation's downfall.

You run into the same problem with the Ugaritic tablets that are much, much older than Genesis.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Maybe the "stunning" parallels are stunning examples of appropriating
other people's religions.

LOL Appropriating other people's religions is things like taking their sacred texts as if they are your own and then interpreting them in esoteric manners, which is exactly what Christians do with the Tanakh, even reading "Israel" as if it applies to them rather than to Israel.

There is nothing "appropriating" about Al Hallaj. He is a historical person. He did the things I said he did, was executed for blasphemy, and witnesses stated he was risen from the dead. This is something you have yet to come to terms with. You still think Jesus is some unique case.

 

[sooda]

LOL Appropriating other people's religions is things like taking their sacred texts as if they are your own and then interpreting them in esoteric manners, which is exactly what Christians do with the Tanakh, even reading "Israel" as if it applies to them rather than to Israel.

There is nothing "appropriating" about Al Hallaj. He is a historical person. He did the things I said he did, was executed for blasphemy, and witnesses stated he was risen from the dead. This is something you have yet to come to terms with. You still think Jesus is some unique case.

All true..........I wonder why fervent denial is necessary?

 

[PruePhillip]

LOL Appropriating other people's religions is things like taking their sacred texts as if they are your own and then interpreting them in esoteric manners, which is exactly what Christians do with the Tanakh, even reading "Israel" as if it applies to them rather than to Israel.

There is nothing "appropriating" about Al Hallaj. He is a historical person. He did the things I said he did, was executed for blasphemy, and witnesses stated he was risen from the dead. This is something you have yet to come to terms with. You still think Jesus is some unique case.

So tell me the depth of this Hallaj guy.
What was said of him before he arrived? (you know, back when writing first appeared)
How did his movement conquer the world?
What happened to him after he died?
He's now dead - is that the end of the matter?

 

[Spartan]

You run into the same problem with the Ugaritic tablets that are much, much older than Genesis.

Doesn't mean anything. There could be older tablets discovered tomorrow citing Genesis accounts. And any flood accounts would have come from Noah and/or his descendants.

 

[PruePhillip]

All true..........I wonder why fervent denial is necessary?

The "Jews" (ie mainstream Judaism) see just one Messiah - the King
They ignore the other Messiah - the Redeemer.

"ignore" as in gloss over, explain away, ridicule, read over etc..

Christianity believes in both - the Redeemer as Jesus and the King as
in His Second Coming (read Zechariah 9 and 12 if I recall.)

The Messiah as Redeemer texts speak of His rejection by Israel, and
their exile into slavery again. That actually happened, and as was foretold
the Jews would lose their their temple and their nation - and for millions of
them - their lives. Two millennium of exile and persecution doesn't say
anything to them about their beliefs.

 

[PruePhillip]

Doesn't mean anything. There could be older tablets discovered tomorrow citing Genesis accounts. And any flood accounts would have come from Noah and/or his descendants.

The Genesis account comes from Sumer. It wasn't "borrowed" by them. Until Abraham, all
of Genesis has nothing to do with any Jew or Israel - both didn't exist.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

All true..........I wonder why fervent denial is necessary?

Because it is NECESSARY that Jesus be unique. If he were simply one choice in a multiple choice world, it would take away much of Christianity's triumphal assumption that it is special and that anyone who looks at it fairly can see that it's claims are true. The fact that Jesus is NOT unique is devastating to their integrity as a religion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So tell me the depth of this Hallaj guy.
What was said of him before he arrived? (you know, back when writing first appeared)
How did his movement conquer the world?
What happened to him after he died?
He's now dead - is that the end of the matter?

If you are asking whether his movement came to establish a worldwide religion, no it did not. Other political factors simply were not there to carry it to that end as was so for Christianity. This, however, is not the point.

We were talking about Jesus, and how his followers believe he came back from the dead, and the claim was made that this was unique. It is not. So the fact that his followers believed he had risen cannot be used as evidence for the resurrection unless you also want to say that Al Hallaj also came back from the dead.

 

[PruePhillip]

If you are asking whether his movement came to establish a worldwide religion, no it did not. Other political factors simply were not there to carry it to that end as was so for Christianity. This, however, is not the point.

We were talking about Jesus, and how his followers believe he came back from the dead, and the claim was made that this was unique. It is not. So the fact that his followers believed he had risen cannot be used as evidence for the resurrection unless you also want to say that Al Hallaj also came back from the dead.

You can take any great man, and find others that went before him who said or did
similar. Often people will do this to diminish the great man, or worse, seek to show
he didn't exist.
What separates Jesus from similar claims is the circumstantial evidence
1 - it was said he would do such and such
2 - and this would result in such and such happening in the world
3 - and many attested to this man and many many more believed in him

We are given a precise picture of what Jesus would do
We are given a picture of the result of this to Jews and Gentiles
This eventually took place
And He changed the world

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That isn't an inference that the religion, Jesus religion , either believed that anyone should practice circumcision, or where the practice was from.
•
According to the explained Covenantal Theology of the New Testament, the practice of circumcision isn't Abraamic, it's Mosaic, (with other priests.

So,
Galatians 2:3-5
Galatians 2:21
[The law cannot bring righteousness
Galatians 3:6-7
[Abraam equated with faith, not law
Galatians 3:8
[The nations, context
Galatians 3:9
[Faith equated with Abraam
Galatians 3:10
[The law is a curse
Galatians 3:14
[Abraam》》Jesus Christ, (same Covenant

Galatians 3:17
[The law was given after the Covenant with Abraam

(Contextually, the practice of circumcision, being used as a 'basic example', of an added law, added after the Covenant with Abraam.

Galatians 3:19
[The law was "added" because of transgressions
Galatians 3:22
Galatians 3:28

•

The New Testament is clearly associating the practice of circumcision, with the Mosaic laws, (this means priests also, not just Moses, and clearly isn't associating the practice of circumcision, with the Abraamic Covenant.
In fact, the New Testament is differentiating the Abraamic Covenant, from the Mosaic laws [added laws, called a curse, by using the example of the practice of circumcision, (it's an obvious difference, though obviously other added laws aren't associated with the Abraamic Covenant , either.

I'm not going to look up your flood of verses. If you had really wanted me to read them, you would have quoted them, and you probably would have picked fewer but more pointed choices.

Here are my points.

Jesus was born a Jew, the son of a Jewish mother. That means he would have followed the religion of his people. He would have been circumcised on the 8th day, for example.

We can assume therefore that unless the gospels state that Jesus was opposed to a teaching of Second Temple Judaism, that he was not. Since it never states that he was against circumcision for Jews, we can assume he was in favor of circumcision for Jews. He does preach to the Jews to keep the commandments. Circumcision is one of the commandments.

I don't know about the stupid commentary you are reading, but all you have to do is open Genesis and you will find out that the covenant of circumcision was given to Abraham. Was it always followed? We don't know. But it certainly didn't originate with Moses. Be careful that your commentaries don't outright contradict what is in the text.

I'm not concerned in the slightest about your doctrine of salvation. That's a totally different topic. I am not interested in Christian theology. I'm sticking solely to the question of whether Jesus taught circumcision for Jews. It is plain that he did. His followers did as well. If you go to Acts 21:20, it states that all the thousands of Jewish believers were all "zealous for Torah." Jewish believers obeyed the Torah, Gentile believers were not so obligated.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You can take any great man, and find others that went before him who said or did
similar. Often people will do this to diminish the great man, or worse, seek to show
he didn't exist.
What separates Jesus from similar claims is the circumstantial evidence
1 - it was said he would do such and such
2 - and this would result in such and such happening in the world
3 - and many attested to this man and many many more believed in him

We are given a precise picture of what Jesus would do
We are given a picture of the result of this to Jews and Gentiles
This eventually took place
And He changed the world

Moses changed the world. And he did this without a false claim of being the messiah or of being God incarnate. He received a covenant that has grounded a People for 5000 years, and that has further spun off two heretical but powerful world religions (Christianity and Islam) that furthered the spread of Torah and ethical monotheism throughout the world.

We could open up a whole new thread on the so called messianic prophecies, and I could show you one at a time how they are not prophecies at all, but simply castles that Christians have imagined in the clouds.

I'm not sure if Jesus wouldn't roll over in his grave the things that have been done in his name. The history of the church is nothing to be proud of.

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm not concerned in the slightest about your doctrine of salvation. That's a totally different topic. I am not interested in Christian theology. I'm sticking solely to the question of whether Jesus taught circumcision for Jews. It is plain that he did. His followers did as well. If you go to Acts 21:20, it states that all the thousands of Jewish believers were all "zealous for Torah." Jewish believers obeyed the Torah, Gentile believers were not so obligated.

The answer should be obvious, whenever the verses were added to Genesis, about deity coming down and telling abraham, to 'start practicing that custom they were doing in egypt', it obviously wasn't believed by the Biblical scholars and believers, who knew the context, the Theology, and the history. Which is why, it is opposed, isn't traditional, and explained (actually, when the practice of circumcision started taking place.
Your 'ideas', don't make sense, contradict scripture, which you don't believe, yet quote, etc.

 

[PruePhillip]

Moses changed the world. And he did this without a false claim of being the messiah or of being God incarnate. He received a covenant that has grounded a People for 5000 years, and that has further spun off two heretical but powerful world religions (Christianity and Islam) that furthered the spread of Torah and ethical monotheism throughout the world.

We could open up a whole new thread on the so called messianic prophecies, and I could show you one at a time how they are not prophecies at all, but simply castles that Christians have imagined in the clouds.

I'm not sure if Jesus wouldn't roll over in his grave the things that have been done in his name. The history of the church is nothing to be proud of.

Q1 - This "history of the church" - is it Christ's church, or a church doing things in Christ's name?
Q2 - What did Moses say about the Messiah and the new covenant?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Oooh now you've gone to 'Torah', instead of your usual 'Tanach', which you believe some of it is made up, anyway.

It just depends what I'm referring to which I say. When I'm talking about obeying God, I say the Torah, because those are the five books of Law.

The answer should be obvious, whenever the verses were added to Genesis, about deity coming down and telling abraham, to 'start practicing that custom they were doing in egypt', it obviously wasn't believed by the Biblical scholars and believers, who knew the context, the Theology, and the history. Which is why, it is opposed, isn't traditional, and explained (actually, when the practice of circumcision started taking place

It doesn't matter whether Egyptians practiced circumcision first, or whether they learned it from the Jews. It's besides the point. The point is that FOR THE JEWS it became the sign of the COVENANT between God and Abraham, and those of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob.

Let me give you an analogy. Pine trees for Solestice festivities among pagans were common. But a Christmas tree for Christians means something very different -- for a Christian it means the birth of their savior. It is irrelevant that such a thing was practiced earlier by pagans -- it has a completely different meaning to Christians.

For Egyptians, circumcision just didn't mean having a covenant with the Creator of the universe.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Q1 - This "history of the church" - is it Christ's church, or a church doing things in Christ's name?

A distinction without significance.

Q2 - What did Moses say about the Messiah and the new covenant?

Not a word is said about the messiah in the Torah. The whole concept of the messiah did not exist until Israel had chosen to have a king. There was a concept of a "messianic age," but until Israel had chosen to have a king, there was no idea of a king upon the throne during that time.

 

[PruePhillip]

A distinction without significance..

So YOU see no distinction between Isaiah's lowly man of sorrows who rejected fame
and power, forgave his enemies and entreated others to be as He was.
As compared to the Catholic Church (say) of the Middle Ages which crowned kings,
lived in sumptuous wealth, ruled the known world and killed those who opposed or did
not believe in it?

I think you have the classic problem of not being able to make distinctions.

 

[PruePhillip]

Not a word is said about the messiah in the Torah. The whole concept of the messiah did not exist until Israel had chosen to have a king. There was a concept of a "messianic age," but until Israel had chosen to have a king, there was no idea of a king upon the throne during that time.

Jacob, grandson of Abraham, spoke of a future Hebrew nation with a king.
But that this king would last only until the Messiah came, and in this Messiah
would the Gentiles trust.
Moses showed the people the nature of his Messiah, “...like unto me from the
midst, of your brethren. Him you shall hear.”
Job told the people that his Redeemer already lives and one day shall stand
upon the earth.
David saw the Messiah suffering on the cross
Isaiah saw his as the lowly man of sorrows who paid the price to redeem us.
Zechariah showed this lowly man and the reigning king were one and the same person.
Malachi celebrated his coming as one who would heal.
King Nebuchadnezzar saw him as "the son of God."