Why Torah based Jews would be unconvinced

[rosends]

I'm afraid l cannot accept the claim that all 'Torah based Jews' are beyond persuasion.

When Jesus began to preach in Galilee and Judea, two thousand years ago, all the Jews listening to him were 'Torah based Jews'. Were some of these 'Torah based Jews' convinced he was the Holy One of God? Clearly the answer is, Yes, given that all the first Christians were Jewish.

Are you saying, therefore, that you see it as part of your identity/mission to persuade 'Torah based Jews' to accept Jesus?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Ask somebody who is neither Jew nor Christian if Jesus fulfills the Old Testament messianic prophecies. You can expect a Jew to say no and a Christian to say yes. I'd bet that most people that are neither of these will give you the same answer about which is correct. Nobody who doesn't have a stake in calling Jesus messiah would say that Jesus fulfilled the Hebrew prophecies. And the Christian arguments are a classic Texas Sharpshooter fallacy:" an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are overemphasized. From this reasoning, a false conclusion is inferred"

We see this fallacy when creationists claim that the creation story in Genesis anticipated science by pointing out where they agree (a short list) while ignoring where they disagree (a much longer list).

We also see this a lot with people trying to argue that secular humanism or the US Constitution are derived from Christianity. There's very little overlap in either case. We could make a list of biblical principles for government and those embodied by the Constitution, and find very little overlap, or the principles of secular humanism and Christianity, and see the same. This is how apologists try to knit together two things that don't mesh.

Likewise, we could make a list of messianic prophecy items and the qualities of Jesus, compare them, and find that demonstrate that the claim that the former is the source of the latter to be false. We can best understand why the Christian disagrees, and everybody else disagrees with them, by understanding that only the Christians have a stake in connecting Jesus to the Old Testament, and all others are free to make unbiased judgments. I'm an atheist, I can give you a disinterested opinion, and it will be the same one as the overwhelming majority of non-Christians : no, Jesus doesn't fulfill of Hebrew prophecy.

 

[Rival]

Were some of these 'Torah based Jews' convinced he was the Holy One of God? Clearly the answer is, Yes, given that all the first Christians were Jewish.

You're making the mistake of believing these were educated people. Most if not all of Jesus' followers were unschooled people from the Galilee. This group were essentially 'country people' who were not well-versed in the intricacies of the Torah and Prophets, and thus were apt to be taken in by charlatans.

 

[firedragon]

"If that is what you consider to be true then why does it matter to you what we Jews say?" That is the question I often want to ask when threads are started as if they are asking questions to Jews when instead what is being posted is a statement or manifesto. That is not to say that some people aren't actually asking honest questions. I am speaking about a minority of situations where someone really isn't.

Just for the sake of brevity there is a real simply way to understand why Torah based Jews don't buy into Christian theology.

1. The same arguements presented today from various sects of Christianity have been presented for the last 1,500 years.
2. Literally, there is nothing new about the arguements - and the only time that Christianity recieved a positive response to it was when Jews were being tortured and threatened into becoming Christian. (Inquisitions and such)
3. You're not the first Christian in the last 2,000 years to take information written by Jews and say how wrong we are - we got it, thank you for your concern.
4. What it really boils down to is that a Christian bible is not scripture for Torah based Jews.
   • Literally, we are not reading the same texts. Your translations were crafted by Christian translators with Christian agendas.
   • Jews who know Hebrew/Aramaic can read the originals w/o having to deal that issue. You won't convince us with anything less than proof from the originals.
   • Consider statistically how few Hebrew/Aramaic fluent Torah based Jews willingly bacame Christian in the last year. The last ten years. The last several hundred years, etc.
5. Whether you like it or not the Hebrew/Aramaic Tanakh is the only authorative version for Torah based Jews.
   • Even translations made by other Jews are not "authoratitive." especially since there are literally a large enouch set of Jews in the world who understand Hebrew and Aramaic at a high level.
6. The Talmud won't help you prove Jesus to us, so just leave the Talmud to the professionals - Torah based Jews.
   • For every statement in English translations of the Talmud you think supports Christian theology there are 20 in the actual texts that contradict it from some of the very same rabbis you try to quote.
7. Further, to the Talmud point. If you haven't read the Talmud in Hebrew/Aramic then you haven't really read it.
   • Here is something that may shock you. Certain copies of the Talmud were edited and written in Hebrew/Aramaic code due to.......drum roll......the reality that various European Christian authorities had a thing for censoring and(or) burning anything they suspected gave a bad light to Jesus.
   • Even Jews who don't know Hebrew/Aramaic don't really know the Talmud. Thus, when Jews want to really learn Talmud they have to learn how to read and understand Hebrew and Aramaic from Jewish teachers who are fluent in it.
8. If what you beleive as a Christian makes you happy then you keep it. It is yours, enjoy. You won't get any arguement from most Jews about what you personally beleive. We are not here to try to convince you to take on our views.

I post this out of concern for the time and effort that someone may decide to put into the, "The Jews are so wrong and I have a clever new arguement or angle to prove it." In reality, you don't. You really don't.

It seems like you ran into a typical missionary. I must say that you have a lot of truth in what you say above. Especially the Jewish methodology of scholarship and knowledge. Peace.

 

[firedragon]

I'm sorry, but I object to your claim to speak for all Jews. If you choose to discuss an issue of interest to both Christians and Jews, then that is a matter of choice. No one has forced you into a 'disputation' with threats of death!

As a believer in Jesus as Christ, I am bound to present a view that challenges what Torah Jews believe. Much of the time, I am not using the Greek scriptures, but am quoting from English translations of the Hebrew/Aramaic text. I don't accept that a translation takes away all meaning from the original language. Good translation/transliteration makes allowance for nuances in meaning, and there are many translations that can be compared. There are also concordances and dictionaries that allow for individual words to be checked for meaning.

Then there's the issue of whether the Hebrew God is the same as the Christian God. Since both Christian and Jew believes in one God, and the Christian claims are based, at source, on the prophecies of the Tanakh, it seems highly likely that Christian and Jew are believing in the same God.

So, does God have two truths, one for the Torah Jew and another for the 'body' of Christ? There may be two distinct paths, but the king must ultimately be the same king, the face of God. Or are Torah Jews claiming a king who is not God?

But you should know that there is much lost in translation, especially the way most of the Christian Bibles have been translated. I understand that this is your faith and you may feel you have to make your case, and its with any other person I suppose. But still you should have some empathy for the Jews as well.

Every Jew I have ever known to have been educated in scripture general cringe when their Tanakh is called "OT". For them there is nothing OT about it. And These Jews are born into their Hebrew language, and as the OP says, they dont just make statements about their own scripture and theology randomly. They study it deeply. Bottom up. From linguistics to Tafseer. All the way.

I dont have to embrace their theology, but I can respect their scholarship.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

But you should know that there is much lost in translation, especially the way most of the Christian Bibles have been translated. I understand that this is your faith and you may feel you have to make your case, and its with any other person I suppose. But still you should have some empathy for the Jews as well.

Every Jew I have ever known to have been educated in scripture general cringe when their Tanakh is called "OT". For them there is nothing OT about it. And These Jews are born into their Hebrew language, and as the OP says, they dont just make statements about their own scripture and theology randomly. They study it deeply. Bottom up. From linguistics to Tafseer. All the way.

I dont have to embrace their theology, but I can respect their scholarship.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Ask somebody who is neither Jew nor Christian if Jesus fulfills the Old Testament messianic prophecies. You can expect a Jew to say no and a Christian to say yes. I'd bet that most people that are neither of these will give you the same answer about which is correct. Nobody who doesn't have a stake in calling Jesus messiah would say that Jesus fulfilled the Hebrew prophecies. And the Christian arguments are a classic Texas Sharpshooter fallacy:" an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are overemphasized. From this reasoning, a false conclusion is inferred"

We see this fallacy when creationists claim that the creation story in Genesis anticipated science by pointing out where they agree (a short list) while ignoring where they disagree (a much longer list).

We also see this a lot with people trying to argue that secular humanism or the US Constitution are derived from Christianity. There's very little overlap in either case. We could make a list of biblical principles for government and those embodied by the Constitution, and find very little overlap, or the principles of secular humanism and Christianity, and see the same. This is how apologists try to knit together two things that don't mesh.

Likewise, we could make a list of messianic prophecy items and the qualities of Jesus, compare them, and find that demonstrate that the claim that the former is the source of the latter to be false. We can best understand why the Christian disagrees, and everybody else disagrees with them, by understanding that only the Christians have a stake in connecting Jesus to the Old Testament, and all others are free to make unbiased judgments. I'm an atheist, I can give you a disinterested opinion, and it will be the same one as the overwhelming majority of non-Christians : no, Jesus doesn't fulfill of Hebrew prophecy.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Really, so maybe you can answer a few questions I have been asking on RF for a while but no one has been able to answer.

1. What Christians today descend from those supposed Jews you are describing?
2. Can you give me the names of about 100 of them?
3. Can you provide a description of how they produced techeleth?
4. Did any of those Jews you are describing wear tefillin? If so, when, where, and what type?
5. How many of them were Cohenim? How many were Lewyim?
6. In the year 400 C.E. who were the leaders of these Jews you are describing? What were their names?
7. Did these Jews you describe happen to have cousins in Berea?

The covenant that Jesus renews becomes an everlasting covenant, not a covenant of law. The things you look for in your list above are things that apply under the law, not under the eternal seed. The generation of Jesus Christ is one spiritual generation.

Joshua 24 gives clues to this renewel of the covenant. If you read 'Joshua' as 'Jesus', you will see that Joshua tells the people, "You will not be able to serve the LORD, for He is a holy God. He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgressions and your sins. If you forsake the LORD and serve alien gods, He will turn and deal harshly with you and make an end of you, after having been gracious to you." But the people replied to Joshua, "No we will serve the LORD!"

Despite the warning that God is holy, and that his standards are exacting, the people continue to stubbornly claim that they will serve the LORD in their own righteousness (under the law). This is despite the gracious offering made by God to be their strength.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

The covenant that Jesus renews becomes an everlasting covenant, not a covenant of law. The things you look for in your list above are things that apply under the law, not under the eternal seed. The generation of Jesus Christ is one spiritual generation.

Joshua 24 gives clues to this renewel of the covenant. If you read 'Joshua' as 'Jesus', you will see that Joshua tells the people, "You will not be able to serve the LORD, for He is a holy God. He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgressions and your sins. If you forsake the LORD and serve alien gods, He will turn and deal harshly with you and make an end of you, after having been gracious to you." But the people replied to Joshua, "No we will serve the LORD!"

Despite the warning that God is holy, and that his standards are exacting, the people continue to stubbornly claim that they will serve the LORD in their own righteousness (under the law). This is despite the gracious offering made by God to be their strength.

No answers. Got it.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Are you saying, therefore, that you see it as part of your identity/mission to persuade 'Torah based Jews' to accept Jesus?

I am happy to share my understanding with anyone who is prepared to listen. 'Torah based Jews' have an interesting perspective on scripture, and a wealth of learning, but they don't have the NT.

 

[Harel13]

but they don't have the NT.

And B"H to that.

 

[Redemptionsong]

No answers. Got it.

The answers you seek do not apply under the renewed covenant.

At some point, you will see that a renewed covenant was made necessary because of sin. A people determined to be righteous by their own efforts will fail - time and time again!

As I see it.

 

[Lain]

Okay. First, thank you for that break down. That is actually one of the most clear break downs I have seen a Christian give about how their concepts work and the source of them.

So, per you earlier question I will answer what the differences are that I was describing. I will try to do w/o as little text as possible. If I missed something I think some of the other Torah based Jews on the forum can help also.

Below I have marked the concepts that you have listed that are considered what is called Avodah Zara for Jews, according to Torath Mossheh and Orthodox Judaism. I apologize for how it may sound in a written form but it is one of the only ways to express it in writing.

This statement, sttarts knocking on the door of a strange concept contrary to Torath Mosheh. If all that seperates the two scenarios is an upper case or lower case letter this starts to draw the question of, "What is the root of the word god which requires it to have a distinction using capitals?"

In Hebrew there are no capitals so the use of capitals to designate between a person and something else is a bit foreign.

So the above is also Avodah Zara for Jews. The connection between a "divine nature" and "divine persons as whole" is a foreign concept that Jews were warned to stay away from by The Source of Creation/Reality. The source of this comes from numerous places one of which is the following from the Torah.

View attachment 57194

What you are describing about principles and principles of all and father and uncauses would also be Avodah Zara for Jews. There is no place in the Hebrew Tanakh where what you mentioned is described as such with the exception of warnings against Jews trying assigning such concepts to The Source of Creation.

This issue is actaully addressed in the Tanakh as well as later writings by Rabbi Saadya Gaon in his book (אמונות ודעות) section 8, segment 9 where he explains how the Christian concept and it got started among certain Jews and where their error was. This is also covered in the Moreh Nevuchim, Mishnah Torah, Igereth Teiman, and Torath Hhovoth Levavoth.

This is also Avodah Zara for Jews and if this is a concept that came from the Church Fathers it is definately something that would be Avodah Zara. If Peter is the source of it this would also mean that Peter produced this concept from a more Hellonized base of thinking. Thus, a Torah based Jew would distance themselves from Peter if this is what he was teaching to around the Galilee.

This is also a very fundamental element of what The Creator of all things warned Torah based Jews to stay away from. It is actually one of the oldest forms of Avodah Zara that even existed during Avraham ben-Terah's (Abraham) time.

Thus, respectfully, I would have to say that if the concepts you mentioned are the most ancient and authoratitive Christian concepts then Torath Mosheh Jews are closer to athiests than they are Christians.

No problem and thank you.

With the lowercase and uppercase thing, it's just an English convention, the Scriptures don't have it but I just use it to distinguish what's being talked about, since there is a difference between speaking of the Creator and speaking of a judge. The word applied to both is the same but to quickly make a distinction I uppercase one and lowercase the other.

Which passage of the Torah is that you attached concerning Person/Nature? I do not read Hebrew. Concerning this also: do Jews not have the idea that God is a Person (although they'd say singular) and has a Nature? For His Nature is simply what He is, and His Person is simply Who He is. I would be surprised if this concept was not present in that religion.

Where in the Torah is the Principles and such spoken of? For to say that God is the Uncaused Cause is nothing more than to say (in general) that He is the Eternally Self-Existent Creator, or that He was not created and caused by any other. You saying "The Source of All Creation" to me sounds like you agree.

If there is such a distance then I'd agree.

 

[Redemptionsong]

But you should know that there is much lost in translation, especially the way most of the Christian Bibles have been translated. I understand that this is your faith and you may feel you have to make your case, and its with any other person I suppose. But still you should have some empathy for the Jews as well.

Every Jew I have ever known to have been educated in scripture general cringe when their Tanakh is called "OT". For them there is nothing OT about it. And These Jews are born into their Hebrew language, and as the OP says, they dont just make statements about their own scripture and theology randomly. They study it deeply. Bottom up. From linguistics to Tafseer. All the way.

I dont have to embrace their theology, but I can respect their scholarship.

I do respect Jewish scholarship, and have learnt much from it.

I have also learnt from Jesus, and from the Holy Spirit.

Which of the two would I rather follow as my guide? Well, I'll let you work that one out!

 

[firedragon]

I do respect Jewish scholarship, and have learnt much from it.

I have also learnt from Jesus, and from the Holy Spirit.

Which of the two would I rather follow as my guide? Well, I'll let you work that one out!

Your prerogative. Its just not relevant to what I said.

 

[rosends]

I am happy to share my understanding with anyone who is prepared to listen. 'Torah based Jews' have an interesting perspective on scripture, and a wealth of learning, but they don't have the NT.

Your statement included a particular word as your wrote, "l cannot accept the claim that all 'Torah based Jews' are beyond persuasion" (emphasis mine). Do you see a specific goal of your sharing to be the persuading of others, or are you interested in simply explaining who you are and what you believe without preaching (in the sense of teaching or earnestly advocating)?

 

[PruePhillip]

"If that is what you consider to be true then why does it matter to you what we Jews say?" That is the question I often want to ask when threads are started as if they are asking questions to Jews when instead what is being posted is a statement or manifesto. That is not to say that some people aren't actually asking honest questions. I am speaking about a minority of situations where someone really isn't.

We know the Christians 'explain' the destruction of the temple, Israel
and millions of Jewish lives over the past 1900 years as being God's
rejection of the Jews. What do the Jews say?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

With the lowercase and uppercase thing, it's just an English convention, the Scriptures don't have it but I just use it to distinguish what's being talked about, since there is a difference between speaking of the Creator and speaking of a judge.

Yeah, that is a problem from a ancient Hebrew perspective. For example, in ancient Hebrew one doesn't need to distiquish between (אלהים) when dealing with The Source of Creation and (אלהים) when dealing a normal human person who is strong/has power/or some type of judicial authority. There is no need to spell it any different or try to distiquish it in ancient Hebrew. In ancient Hebrew, it all goes back to what the three letter roots (א-י-ל) or (א-ו-ל) to a word means.

Thus, what I mean when I say that conceptually a god in English is not equatable to what (אלהים) means in Hebrew.
The word applied to both is the same but to quickly make a distinction I uppercase one and lowercase the other. This is one of the things I personally hold back on explaining because I have experienced missionizing Christians who change, on the fly, their theological and historical definitions to try to match Jewish ones.

Which passage of the Torah is that you attached concerning Person/Nature? I do not read Hebrew.

Message me privately and I will let you know. Because of the fact that someone on this thread has made missionary type statements I know that if I explain it to you they will change their definitions, present a Christian translation/or Christian inspired one, and pretend as if it matches the Hebrew text. (I have had past expereince with some people doing this.)

Concerning this also: do Jews not have the idea that God is a Person (although they'd say singular) and has a Nature? For His Nature is simply what He is, and His Person is simply Who He is. I would be surprised if this concept was not present in that religion.

No, we don't historically have such a concept. There are some Jews, influenced by English, who when speaking English sometimes use terms that may sound to a non-Jew like we do, but again, when a Torah based Jew is saying something in English they often have a different meaning than someone who is not Jewish with the exception of some athiests and some Classical Arabic speaking Muslims. Like I mentioned I can actually relate to Athiests conceptually better than I can Christians on this issue.

What I mean by this is that the terms we Torah based Jews often use in Hebrew to describe THE Source of Creation would be a lot closer to saying (מהפץ הגדול) or as you say in English "the Bing Bang" or what caused it [the big bang] rather than the English word "god." Even if one was to say, there was more than one big bang, the Hebrew language would say - the Source of the very first one all sub-sequent ones.

That is because the concept of how the Torah, in Hebrew, is worded is more conceptual than it is something that a human being can pinpoint. The reason being that the scope of something that caused the universe/reality to exist is way more vast than humanity and can only be related to using mathetmatics, science, and philosphical concepts. Other than that humans are way too small in the scope of even our solar system to really take that and then place it in human terms. This is why Rabbi Mosheh ben-Maimon (Rambam) stated in his book Moreh Nevuchim that if a Jew really wants to come to Hashem, as they can humanly do, they must know Torah, Halakha, Philosophy, Math, science, history, and they must experiment and challenge every concept they accept or reject over and over and over again for the their entire lives.

By like token, if the Big Bang is not a thing based on/or confined to a state of energy or matter, does not become human, is not human like, has no emotions, and is way beyond what a human is by magnitudes beyond calculation for logical reasons - by like token, it makes no sense for a person to say that the Big Bang became human is broken up into idependent conscious parts and it also serves logical purpose for such a thing to be human/humanlike/to split itself into parts or send part of itself to be human for the sake of saving people sins. This same same concept, to distance ourselves from such an illogical scenary, was conveyed to the Israeli/Jewish people about Hashem, The Source of Creation/reality, when the Torah was given at Mount Sinai. It is further the reason that most Jews are not compelled, or commanded, to try and convince the world to join us or hold by these concepts.

Thus, the shortest way to deal with is, from a Torah based Jewish perspective is to say. We don't define the nature of The Source, because that is not possible or even necessary and even the concept of "nature" "characteristics" etc. are not adequote. What we can do is say what The Source is not. I.e. The Source of creation is not human, not human-like, won't be human, has no reason to be human, and is not made up of matter like humans and what we experience, as a result of The Source in the reality that we exist in is the result of what The Source established.

The closest thing to the English word "god" would be (אלילים) which normally denotes something that, idependantly, has no power/strength on its own but people think/believe it does. For example, there were cultures in ancient, and in some places in modern times, that believed/beleive that they are taking what you can term in English as "spiritual" energy from an external source and putting it into physical objects. For Jews, this is a type of Avodah Zara. By like token, the concept of trying to connect physical things to The Source of creation is also Avodah Zara for Jews, even if it is conceptual. The concept is called (שיתוף) and is considered a part of what most Christians hold by.

Where in the Torah is the Principles and such spoken of?

In the Hebrew text virtually from start the start of the Torah Scroll to the finish. Even the individual letters have always been considered to be a part of what explains this.

From the start:

to the finish:

First word, (בראשית) Beresheeth and last word (ישראל) Yisrael.

For to say that God is the Uncaused Cause is nothing more than to say (in general) that He is the Eternally Self-Existent Creator, or that He was not created and caused by any other. You saying "The Source of All Creation" to me sounds like you agree. If there is such a distance then I'd agree.

I will shorten what you above so we can be saying the same thing. Delete everything in red below and only go by the blue w/o anything else and it is possible we are saying the same thing.

"For to say that God is the Uncaused Cause is nothing more than to say (in general) that He is the Eternally Self-Existent Creator, or that He was not created and caused by any other. You saying "The Source of All Creation/Reality" to me sounds like you agree. If there is such a distance then I'd agree."

If you go by the blue w/o any religious concepts attached to it we are saying the same thing, in principle.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

We know the Christians 'explain' the destruction of the temple, Israel
and millions of Jewish lives over the past 1900 years as being God's
rejection of the Jews. What do the Jews say?

Some of us [Jews] say that if you, as Christians, beleived what you wrote that you would be happy being Christians and just ignore us Jews alltogether. Some others say that if you, as Christians, really beleived that you would would want to distance yourself as far as possible from Jews as to not share our fate.

YET, there are others who take both of these say that Christian theories about the plight of the Jews had their highest points when Jews could not live in the land of Israel, in any form of idenpendence, and when Jews were 100% at the mercy of whatever host nation we were exiled to. YET, when the modern secular state of Israel was estasblished it shook up that theory that some Christians had because now they had to explain why Jews could be able to reform a country in the land of Israel.

Using the words of some of those particular Christian proponents, "If God had really rejected the Jews why did he allow them to go back to the land of Israel? Why did he allow people in the modern era who grew up as Christian to all of a sudden find out they have Jewish ancestry and then become Jewish? Why were the Jews able to preserve Torah scrolls that match the Dead Sea scrolls?"

There are also Jews who have noticed that some Evangelicals and various Christian missionary organizations support Israel because they see it as a sign from their god. Ths, there is now loads of missionary propoganda targeting Jews. This same missionary propoganda has taken on a more ferevant pitch here in Israel, where I live. Christian missionaries here are pulling all kinds of tricks out of their hat to try and convert Jews because they see Jews as being critical to their idea that jesus will come back - if only we Jews will beleive.

In short, we Jews know why that the 1st Temple was destroyed. There were three reasons that were due to the governments of Northern Israel doing a type of Avodah Zara (a similar type to what is found in Christianity) and in the region of Yehudah/Judah the government had done the three but at a lessor level. That is why in Northern Israel their entire system was exiled by the Assyrians and in Yehudah/Judah only the government was exiled for 70 years by the Babylonians. The average Jew was able to remain.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Your statement included a particular word as your wrote, "l cannot accept the claim that all 'Torah based Jews' are beyond persuasion" (emphasis mine). Do you see a specific goal of your sharing to be the persuading of others, or are you interested in simply explaining who you are and what you believe without preaching (in the sense of teaching or earnestly advocating)?

I argue what l believe to be true, which may still be seen by some as preaching.