Why do you think the Jews rejected Jesus?

[Ingledsva]

The NT is a miracle of itself. You have obviously never read it or only casually. The proof of its truth is in the emergence of the true people of God from the hypocrisy that Judaism had become by the time of the holocaust circa AD70. When Christ came, the Jews were looking out for the Messiah, but he came in a form that they did not expect him.

Ask yourself, if you really believe in the OT, which you obviously don't, why would God spend so muich effort in creating a people given over to sedition and sophistry, which characterizes Judaism in the years leading up to and beyond AD70? Where was the righteousness that God demanded? Why did God abolish the covenant by allowing the temple to be destroyed and the Jews excluded from their own land? The priestly families were steeped in sin. Where were the real people of God?

You need to get the bigger picture, and the NT is part of the bigger picture, showing the direction and movement of God's plan. Moreover there is nothing about Christ that is in any way "incredible." The NT is as much about unreasonable unbelief in a credible messiah as it is about belief in Christ.

That's the way you read it. I don't read it that way. Neither do the Jewish people.

And I assure you, I not only read it, I studied it.

I get a kick out of your picking out the Jews, - when all nations were, and are, fighting, - doing evil, etc. That includes so-called Christian nations.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

I have a written record that says Jesus did many things no Jew could do. If you say it is not true, it is up to you to prove it. Why should I take your word for anything in the Bible you say is not true?

I don't have to prove anything. Though I usually do with the verses, etc.

Christians are the ones stealing Hebrew scriptures and twisting them too make their Jesus appear to be the awaited Jewish Messiah.

Is your reading comprehension that poor? He did not tell Satan what to do. and it certainly doens' tsay God is responsible. Sad how you folks twist the Scriptures to fit your agenda.

Again - repeating crap when you have been shown the specific verses, - will get you nowhere!

He not only told him to do it, but the rest of the text tells us over and over that YHVH is the one responsible.

Funny how you folks pick and choose what you want it to say.

YAWN. Talk is heap. where are your FACTS.

We have shown the error over and over.

No virgin birth. Immanuel is Isaiah son. There is no Lucifer in Tanakh - and the verse is talking about a King of Babylon. No evil autonomous Satan in Tanakh. etc. And on and on it goes.

Texts Christianity misunderstands and twists.

However, the Jewish Lines were passed down through the father. Which is why we have those male genealogies in the Bible - that leave women out. And it specifically says from the LINE OF KING DAVID

Talk is cheap;. Where are your facts?

LOL! You don't believe anything I SHOW you. Look it up on a Tanakh site.

How exactly is it through the female line when it specifically has all men in the father to son genealogy LINE????? Which you gave us from the NT.

You don't even understand your own Scriptures. I explained the difference about "called" and "brought," but I am sure it will not sink in.

It is not going to "sink in" because it is incorrect.

*

 

[outlawState]

That's the way you read it. I don't read it that way. Neither do the Jewish people.

There is no unity of belief amongst the "Jewish people." It is a fiction to impute to yourself a knowledge of what the "Jewish people" think.

And I assure you, I not only read it, I studied it.

Paul the Pharisee also was steeped in knowledge of the Old Testament. Like you, he never understood it until he was enlightened.

I get a kick out of your picking out the Jews, - when all nations were, and are, fighting, - doing evil, etc. That includes so-called Christian nations.

I agree it is pure vanity to see any one people or nation as possessing the truth, but then this affirms Jesus' prophecy that the true kingdom of heaven is of the spirit, for "nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is in your midst." Luke 12;21.

 

[omega2xx]

I don't have to prove anything. Though I usually do with the verses, etc.

You don't have to but if someone challenges a statement you make, you loose your credibility if you don't. You do it with verses you don't understand.

Christians are the ones stealing Hebrew scriptures and twisting them too make their Jesus appear to be the awaited Jewish Messiah.

The verses speak for their self for those who understand them.

Again - repeating crap when you have been shown the specific verses, - will get you nowhere!

Again repeating verse you don't understand will get you nowhere.

He not only told him to do it, but the rest of the text tells us over and over that YHVH is the one responsible.

God NEVER told Satan what to do. He only limited what he could do---not take Job's life.

Funny how you folks pick and choose what you want it to say.

Funny how preconceived bias keep some from not understanding simple English.

We have shown the error over and over.

You can't show anything with ignorance.

No virgin birth. Immanuel is Isaiah son. There is no Lucifer in Tanakh - and the verse is talking about a King of Babylon. No evil autonomous Satan in Tanakh. etc. And on and on it goes.

Texts Christianity misunderstands and twists.

Text Jews and skeptics don't understand.

LOL! You don't believe anything I SHOW you.

You finally got something right.

Look it up on a Tanakh site.

Look it up in a conservative Christians site.

How exactly is it through the female line when it specifically has all men in the father to son genealogy LINE????? Which you gave us from the NT.

It isn't. Mary is included as is Tamar, Ruth and Bahsheba

It is not going to "sink in" because it is incorrect.

*

You can correct ha with just a little understanding.


Ps 22:17b - They divided My garments and for My clothing they cast lots.

Jn 19:24 - So they said to one another, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, to decide whose it shall be"; this was to fulfill the Scripture, They divided My outer garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You can correct ha with just a little understanding.


Ps 22:17b - They divided My garments and for My clothing they cast lots.

Jn 19:24 - So they said to one another, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, to decide whose it shall be"; this was to fulfill the Scripture, They divided My outer garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.

What you call fulfillment of scripture, I would call a literary device.

 

[Ingledsva]

There is no unity of belief amongst the "Jewish people." It is a fiction to impute to yourself a knowledge of what the "Jewish people" think.

LOL! I am telling you what they have said on this site.

And it is hilarious as a member of a heretical offshoot of the Hebrew religion - with books written after Jesus DEATH (he didn't fact check them) - that you think you know what their texts mean, - and that YOU are correct.

Paul the Pharisee also was steeped in knowledge of the Old Testament. Like you, he never understood it until he was enlightened.

And the only people claiming that are the later heretical and blaspheming (trinity YHVH idea) offshoot.

Saul/Paul CLAIMED to have met the dead Jesus. No proof what-so-ever.

How conveniently easy to take over a new religious group. Just claim their dead prophet/God appeared to you, then grab the reins and run with your agenda.

I agree it is pure vanity to see any one people or nation as possessing the truth, but then this affirms Jesus' prophecy that the true kingdom of heaven is of the spirit, for "nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is in your midst." Luke 12;21.

It affirms nothing other then that people can be evil, and most have agendas.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

You don't have to but if someone challenges a statement you make, you loose your credibility if you don't. You do it with verses you don't understand.

LOL! How to take something out of context.

I said - "I don't have to prove anything. Though I usually do with the verses, etc."

I have been showing you folks verses, when you try to claim they mean something else.

The verses speak for their self for those who understand them.

That is pure bull.

I have repeatedly shown texts that Christians have twisted.

Our Jewish members have shown texts that Christians have twisted. They have also gone into the Hebrew to explain it to you.

It is you folks that have the credibility problem.

Again repeating verse you don't understand will get you nowhere.

LOL! See above.

God NEVER told Satan what to do. He only limited what he could do---not take Job's life.

YHVH calls him over. YHVH points Job out to him. YHVH tells him to put his regard to Job = meaning do his job of testing/stumbling blocks.

The text itself - AS SHOWN - puts YHVH as the cause. It does NOT say anywhere in there that Satan is responsible. Or Why is Satan doing this to me? They tells us YHVH is the cause.

Funny how preconceived bias keep some from not understanding simple English.

And how exactly does my pointing out Christians picking and choosing from another religion's texts, which are in Hebrew, - mean I don't understand simple English?

You can't show anything with ignorance.

LOL! You have been shown the error, including the Hebrew from our Jewish members.

Text Jews and skeptics don't understand.

LOL! Here it is again. Pick one out and explain how we are wrong and you are right.

"No virgin birth. Immanuel is Isaiah son. There is no Lucifer in Tanakh - and the verse is talking about a King of Babylon. No evil autonomous Satan in Tanakh. etc. And on and on it goes."

You finally got something right.

It is your problem when you are SHOWN your error, and chose to remain in it.

Look it up in a conservative Christians site.

And why exactly would I be preferring a later hieratical Christian group's ideas, - over going to the source, and their theologians, or directly to the Hebrew language, etc?

If you haven't noticed - whenever possible I use Christian theologians, when their own research disproves what Christians are saying.

It isn't. Mary is included as is Tamar, Ruth and Bahsheba.

Wow you are really twisting in the wind here.

YOU gave us Luke 3:23-38 - which is all MALE linage. I will post the text in my next reply to you, so you can SEE how ridiculous you sound with this.

You can correct ha with just a little understanding.

I understand plenty well.

Ps 22:17b - They divided My garments and for My clothing they cast lots.

Jn 19:24 - So they said to one another, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, to decide whose it shall be"; this was to fulfill the Scripture, They divided My outer garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.

What exactly is your point here? You are taking verses written after Jesus death which we don't even know are correct in any way, - and are written by people that had read Tanakh, - and thus could WRITE-IN verses to make him look like the awaited Messiah.

As well as the fact that they probably tossed lots to divide the belongings of all prisoners.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

...

It isn't. Mary is included as is Tamar, Ruth and Bahsheba
...

Here it is. The so-called Jesus Line of David genealogy - which YOU gave us - and YOU say has female linage, - and is actually the linage of Joseph, whom IS NOT according to you folks, - Jesus' father! Note all the MALES and SON of MALES!!! Obviously through the MALE LINE!


Luk 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Luk 3:24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

Luk 3:25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

Luk 3:26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

Luk 3:27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

Luk 3:28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

Luk 3:29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

Luk 3:30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

Luk 3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

Luk 3:32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,

Luk 3:33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,

Luk 3:34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,

Luk 3:35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,

Luk 3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

Luk 3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,

Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

*

 

[omega2xx]

What you call fulfillment of scripture, I would call a literary device.

There is no literal device in the literal.

 

[omega2xx]

LOL! How to take something out of context.

I said - "I don't have to prove anything. Though I usually do with the verses, etc."

I have been showing you folks verses, when you try to claim they mean something else.

I have been showing you that they do mean something else.

That is pure bull.

I have repeatedly shown texts that Christians have twisted.

You haven't shown me any.

Our Jewish members have shown texts that Christians have twisted. They have also gone into the Hebrew to explain it to you.

My resources on Hebrew understand the language better than anyone in this forum.

It is you folks that have the credibility problem.

Not on your say so.

YHVH calls him over.

He does not. He came on the day when the sons of God came of a special day.

YHVH points Job out to him. YHVH tells him to put his regard to Job = meaning do his job of testing/stumbling blocks.

God does point Job out but he does not tell Satan to do anything to him.

[/QUOTE]The text itself - AS SHOWN - puts YHVH as the cause. It does NOT say anywhere in there that Satan is responsible. Or Why is Satan doing this to me? They tells us YHVH is the cause.[[/QUOTE]

Not true. Satan accuses God is protecting Job and Satan says "put forth your hand..." and God allows, not commands, Satan to touch Job. That makes whatever Satan does he cause.

And how exactly does my pointing out Christians picking and choosing from another religion's texts, which are in Hebrew, - mean I don't understand simple English?

What I have just explained to you show you do not understand the passage. Nowhere did God COMMAND Satan to do anything.

LOL! You have been shown the error, including the Hebrew from our Jewish members.

Then they don't understand "commanded" either.

LOL! Here it is again. Pick one out and explain how we are wrong and you are right.

"No virgin birth. Immanuel is Isaiah son.

Immanuel is not Isaiah's son.

There is no Lucifer in Tanakh -

Who is God disputing with in Job? Who is the Serpent in the Garden?

and the verse is talking about a King of Babylon. No evil autonomous Satan in Tanakh. etc. And on and on it goes.

The king of Babylon is a metaphor for Satan as is he king of Tye in Ezk 28.

It is your problem when you are SHOWN your error, and chose to remain in it.

It is your problem when you don't understand the verse or its context.

And why exactly would I be preferring a later hieratical Christian group's ideas, - over going to the source, and their theologians, or directly to the Hebrew language, etc?<<

It is a big mistake to think understanding Hebrew means they understand the verses the words are used in.

If you haven't noticed - whenever possible I use Christian theologians, when their own research disproves what Christians are saying.

I haven't seen evidence of that, but if it is true, you are quoting liberal theologians.

Wow you are really twisting in the wind here.

Not on your say so.

YOU gave us Luke 3:23-38 - which is all MALE linage. I will post the text in my next reply to you, so you can SEE how ridiculous you sound with this.

I gave you Mathew 1:3, 5-6

What exactly is your point here? You are taking verses written after Jesus death which we don't even know are correct in any way,

WHEN God inspired something to be written does not make it false. I know they are correct.

- and are written by people that had read Tanakh, - and thus could WRITE-IN verses to make him look like the awaited Messiah.

Unless you can prove that, you are bearing false witness.

As well as the fact that they probably tossed lots to divide the belongings of all prisoners.

*

Another bit of your usual speculation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no literal device in the literal.

You think it's literal? I'd love to hear your argument for that conclusion.

 

[omega2xx]

You think it's literal? I'd love to hear your argument for that conclusion.

Remind me of the verse or passage and I will be glad to explain it to you, but you will not accept what I say.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Remind me of the verse or passage and I will be glad to explain it to you,

You cited it as John 19:24.

but you will not accept what I say.

Don't sell yourself short - I'll accept any argument as long as its logic is valid and its premises are demonstrably correct.

 

[Ingledsva]

I have been showing you that they do mean something else.
You haven't shown me any.

I have shown you folks all kinds of things, - as have our Jewish members, and others. You choose to call all of us wrong, since we don't agree with YOU.

My resources on Hebrew understand the language better than anyone in this forum.

And THAT speaks volumes. If you are getting your info there, - then you need to find real sources.

Not on your say so.

It obviously isn't just me saying you have a credibility problem.

He does not. He came on the day when the sons of God came of a special day.
God does point Job out but he does not tell Satan to do anything to him.

Again baloney! YHVH strikes up the conversation and tells him to PUT HIS REGARD on Job. It says - have you put your regard on Job.

Job 2:2 And YHVH said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

Job 2:3 And YHVH said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

Job 2:6 And YHVH said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life.

Job 6:4 For the arrows of the Almighty are within me, the poison whereof drinketh up my spirit: the terrors of God do set themselves in array against me.

The text itself - AS SHOWN - puts YHVH as the cause. It does NOT say anywhere in there that Satan is responsible. Or Why is Satan doing this to me? They tells us YHVH is the cause.

Not true. Satan accuses God is protecting Job and Satan says "put forth your hand..." and God allows, not commands, Satan to touch Job. That makes whatever Satan does he cause.
What I have just explained to you show you do not understand the passage. Nowhere did God COMMAND Satan to do anything.
Then they don't understand "commanded" either.
Immanuel is not Isaiah's son.

Satan does not accuse YHVH. He makes a logical statement.

Job 1:9 Then Satan answered YHVH, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? (In other words, was Job a God fearing man for no reason? - As God has just pointed him out to the Tester.)

Job 1:10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. (To this point you have given him everything - so why?)

Job 1:11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. (Surely if you put forth your hand NOW - he will curse you) (I might add with a reason, as he has supposedly been a godly man.)

*

 

[omega2xx]

You cited it as John 19:24.

Okay, look at the details. They did not gamble for all of His garments. The seamless garment was extra and to keep from fighting over it and tearing it, they gambled for it. That is exactly what Psa 22:18 says. Also compare Psa22:1 with Mt 27:46

Don't sell yourself short - I'll accept any argument as long as its logic is valid and its premises are demonstrably correct.

It really doesn't matter if you accept it. You ask, so I answered.

 

[outlawState]

LOL! I am telling you what they have said on this site.

And it is hilarious as a member of a heretical offshoot of the Hebrew religion - with books written after Jesus DEATH (he didn't fact check them) - that you think you know what their texts mean, - and that YOU are correct.

Even a child could understand them.

And the only people claiming that are the later heretical and blaspheming (trinity YHVH idea) offshoot.

Not me. I am not a Catholic Trinitarian. I do not accept the unscriptural "God the Son."

Saul/Paul CLAIMED to have met the dead Jesus. No proof what-so-ever.

He was wise enough. I think that is the proof.

How conveniently easy to take over a new religious group. Just claim their dead prophet/God appeared to you, then grab the reins and run with your agenda.

Well it is easy I agree, but charlatanism is exposed very quickly. The problem for you is that everything that the apostes said is very coherent. No evidence of charlatanism at all.

It affirms nothing other then that people can be evil, and most have agendas.

If eternal life is an agenda, I agree that Christianity does have one.

 

[Ingledsva]

Even a child could understand them.

Obviously not the case as we have shown Christian error in texts they misunderstood from the Hebrew.

Not me. I am not a Catholic Trinitarian. I do not accept the unscriptural "God the Son."

We have several Christians here whom don't believe in the trinity idea.

He was wise enough. I think that is the proof.

You have no proof he wrote anything, let alone that he met Jesus, or was wise. All you have is later edited texts.

Well it is easy I agree, but charlatanism is exposed very quickly. The problem for you is that everything that the apostes said is very coherent. No evidence of charlatanism at all.

Not so. However, we will mention the most obvious problem.

He was JEWISH and taught TANAKH. He never taught the trinity idea, nor said he was God. There is no trinity in Tanakh.

Yet that is what the majority of Christians claim he is. That is a glaring problem. Along with that "virgin birth." And mistakenly calling him Emmanuel, etc.

If eternal life is an agenda, I agree that Christianity does have one.

I believe the Christian group in the past had an agenda to make Jesus into a God/Messiah. Most Later Christians just run with what they are told they have to take on faith.

*

 

[roger1440]

The NT is a miracle of itself. You have obviously never read it or only casually. The proof of its truth is in the emergence of the true people of God from the hypocrisy that Judaism had become by the time of the holocaust circa AD70. When Christ came, the Jews were looking out for the Messiah, but he came in a form that they did not expect him.

Ask yourself, if you really believe in the OT, which you obviously don't, why would God spend so muich effort in creating a people given over to sedition and sophistry, which characterizes Judaism in the years leading up to and beyond AD70? Where was the righteousness that God demanded? Why did God abolish the covenant by allowing the temple to be destroyed and the Jews excluded from their own land? The priestly families were steeped in sin. Where were the real people of God?

You need to get the bigger picture, and the NT is part of the bigger picture, showing the direction and movement of God's plan. Moreover there is nothing about Christ that is in any way "incredible." The NT is as much about unreasonable unbelief in a credible messiah as it is about belief in Christ.

What’s up with them Jews anyway? It’s takes a non-Jew to explain Judaism to a Jew.

 

[roger1440]

I have a written record that says Jesus did many things no Jew could do. If you say it is not true, it is up to you to prove it. Why should I take your word for anything in the Bible you say is not true?

If I believed each and every word I have ever read I would be put in the nut house.

 

[wizanda]

Immanuel is Isaiah son.

Isaiah didn't have a physical son, it is all a metaphor.

People could confuse that 'Maher Shalal Hash Baz' (Isaiah 8:3) is Isaiah's son; yet anyone with common sense, would realize you would not call your own son, 'those quick to the spoils, swift to the prey' as the name is an insult.

The terminology 'Immanuel' meaning 'God is with us' is that the spirit of the Lord is upon the person in Isaiah 7:14, it is also used in Isaiah 8:10 that the spirit of the Lord is with the people.