Why Jews Don't Accept Jesus?

[RBBI]

1 - All the witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus are from hear-say. Provide me with an eyewitness and I'll become a Christian like you.

2 - Revelations come through dreams and visions and, revelations of Divine origin never come to confirm non-Jewish doctrines.

3 - The gospel of Paul, not the gospel of Jesus which was Judaism.

4 - Quite metaphorical the language.

5 - Jesus was a Jew. Those things you have put in his mind are not Jewish. There is no more than 20% in the NT that comes from Jesus or is about him.

1) But who will you count as an eyewitness? Because He is alive, I know; I've literally seen Him myself. So have a lot of the people I know personally. And I was not brought up in this faith. I'm descended from Sephardic Jews. One of my ancestors was a well known Jewish scholar.

2) I agree with you. But what you don't understand and can't perceive right now, is that much was hidden from our understanding that even PARDES, couldn't unveil, because it simply wasn't time, according to HaShem's timetable, and because it takes a portion of the same Spirit to receive from the Spirit. Properties in the creation (one of His witnesses) bear this witness as water and oil do not mix.

If HaShem is a Spirit, does it not make reasonable sense that to be able to commune with Him you would need the same make-up, a portion of that Spirit? Enter the spiritual fulfillment of Pentecost where 3000 JEWS from at least 18 nations according to scholars, received the baptism in this Spirit, with accompanying signs and wonders, which are still available today, during the 2 (thousand year) days of Pentecost. It was a wedding contract, just like Mt. Sinai was, complete with fire on the "mountains".

He spoke to Moses out of a burning bush as a prophetic sign that He was going to raise up in a Spirit man veiled in flesh and speak to those still under the bondage the literal understanding of the law carries with it, in the last days. The Hebrews were in bondage to the Egyptians (a type of the flesh, flesh as in sinful nature) because of HaShem's law and HaShem put them there.

But He took them in, so He could take them out. First they had to see what was in their own hearts, face to face, before they would cry out to Him for deliverance (from the fleshly natures as epitomized by the Egyptians). He did the same principle again in the wilderness, where He said He took them there to show them what was STILL in their own hearts. He knew what was in them, but He wanted them to know. Once again, they saw it face to face, as a golden calf made from vanity and pride, which became an idol. Vanity, pride and idolatry. A three way cord is hard to break.

3) I agree with you, Jesus was a Jew, and He participated in all the feasts, ect. But so was Paul, a self-described, Pharisee of the Pharisees who testified that he still worshipped in the manner of his fathers, nearing the end of his life. There are many things wrong with Christianity, but it's not Paul's fault. The wild olive boasted itself against the tree it was grafted into, with confusion and 56,000 sects being the fruit of that labor. I read the same books and still only see one: Jew or Gentile after the flesh, one grafted into the other, intended to be one new man, both male (Jew, representative of the male, the seed: is it any wonder He commanded circumcision of THIS part?) and female (gentile, representative of the soul, soil the seed was planted in), made He them. Sadly, they have rejected each other and so no marriage has taken place.....yet.

4) Everything in there is a multi-faceted reflection of Truth, that keeps revealing more and more the more you look at it.

5) Answered this above. Except I will say, that about 80% are quotes or references to the things in the Jewish bible, so you're stats are a bit off.

 

[chair]

Sure it does.

Where? Chapter and verse.

So does yours.

Where? Chapter and verse.

 

[Wick Stick]

2 - Well! Jesus called the apostles when he was conscripting them.

Well, yes. But we were talking about the majority of 1st century Jews; not the disciples.

3 - But there was Judaism since a long time ago.

Yes, but even from antiquity the identity of the Jews, vis a vis their relationship to God is that they are called out. As I mentioned before, Abram was called out of Ur and Haran. Moses and the entire nation called out of Egypt. The Paschal holiday is meant to be a time when Jews all experience the exodus from Egypt personally, for themselves. Even in Commandment #1: I AM the LORD your God, who brought you out. It's just the nature of the thing.

4 - Jesus did conscript his disciples to work among the Jews.

The calling is not a conscription to work. It's an act of separating oneself.

5 - I thought that Ek klesia was the Greek word for church.

Other way round. "Church" is the English word given in translation for Ekklesia, and a piss poor translation it is. Ek Klesia literally means "called out."

6 - Kahal is the community of Israel. A personal reference to the People.

I thought kahal was the synagogue?

Jarrod

 

[chair]

I thought kahal was the synagogue?
Jarrod

The term is Biblical. Predates the synagogue by many centuries.

 

[Wick Stick]

The term is Biblical. Predates the synagogue by many centuries.

Or, depending on one's perspective, perhaps the synagogue/kahal existed from the beginnings of the Jewish nation, and the temple cult was a corruption of Jewish religion, which needed to be removed so that authentic practice of Judaism could continue. :thumb:

That might explain why God removed it several times with extreme prejudice.

Jarrod

 

[chair]

Or, depending on one's perspective, perhaps the synagogue/kahal existed from the beginnings of the Jewish nation, and the temple cult was a corruption of Jewish religion, which needed to be removed so that authentic practice of Judaism could continue. :thumb:

That might explain why God removed it several times with extreme prejudice.

Jarrod

Perhaps pineapple-shaped aliens were the original Temple Priests, and they sacrificed to the Avocado god.

 

[Wick Stick]

I see that you had to think long and hard about that one. Why not give it honest consideration?

 

[chair]

I see that you had to think long and hard about that one. Why not give it honest consideration?

Provide some shred of evidence for your idea, then I will consider it.

 

[Wick Stick]

Hmmm... a large undertaking, that is. It requires me to explain a whole 'nother paradigm to you. Let's see if I can make a Cliff's notes version.

1) The Law does not establish either a king or a temple. It established a High Priest and a Tabernacle.

2) The Israelite King was added at the people's request, in an act of rejecting both the High Priest and God. God granted them their request and gave them a king AS A PUNISHMENT. Read 1Samuel 8, the whole chapter.

3) The temple was established as a way of centralizing power by the Davidic dynasty, as a response to the capture of the Ark of the Covenant.

4) Solomon was the primary person responsible for building the temple. He was not a good king. Or maybe I should say, he was excellent at the administrative functions of a king, but his practice of religion led the entire nation into apostasy. Note that under his reign, idolatry was tolerated and made normative within the state. He also moved the capital to Lebanon, and made alliances with the Canaanites, with whom Moses forbids allying.

5) Solomon's temple was largely built under the direction of Canaanites hired out by Solomon from his good friend the king of Tyre. It contains numerous symbols of Canaanite religion and fertility cults, such as the net of pomegranites, and the gold leaf palm trees and cherubim.

This seems like a good place to break. Let me know which points you find are not supported from the book.

Jarrod

 

[chair]

Hmmm... a large undertaking, that is. It requires me to explain a whole 'nother paradigm to you. Let's see if I can make a Cliff's notes version.

1) The Law does not establish either a king or a temple. It established a High Priest and a Tabernacle.

2) The Israelite King was added at the people's request, in an act of rejecting both the High Priest and God. God granted them their request and gave them a king AS A PUNISHMENT. Read 1Samuel 8, the whole chapter.

3) The temple was established as a way of centralizing power by the Davidic dynasty, as a response to the capture of the Ark of the Covenant.

4) Solomon was the primary person responsible for building the temple. He was not a good king. Or maybe I should say, he was excellent at the administrative functions of a king, but his practice of religion led the entire nation into apostasy. Note that under his reign, idolatry was tolerated and made normative within the state. He also moved the capital to Lebanon, and made alliances with the Canaanites, with whom Moses forbids allying.

5) Solomon's temple was largely built under the direction of Canaanites hired out by Solomon from his good friend the king of Tyre. It contains numerous symbols of Canaanite religion and fertility cults, such as the net of pomegranites, and the gold leaf palm trees and cherubim.

This seems like a good place to break. Let me know which points you find are not supported from the book.

Jarrod

2) is wrong. It was not a punishment. The people were warned what king would do, but they insisted on one anyhow. For good reason. You will also have to deal with the status that God gave kings like Saul and David.

And none of this says anything about the hypothesized original "kahal" or "synagogue".

 

[Wick Stick]

(2) is debatable. The way it is laid out, with God pronouncing their misdeeds through Samuel, acting in the capacity of a judge, a case can be made that this is mishpat we are looking at.

Even if we disallow it as a punishment, the main point stands. Having kings was not a positive. The acts of the kings are suspect.

Suspect, yes, especially when they make arbitrary changes in the law, such as changing the succession of priests, or doing away with the tabernacle and its circuit in favor of a temple.

As to the kahal, you already pointed out its antiquity. It clearly comes from Moses.

Now, you asked for a shred of evidence. I feel I've provided several shreds.

You really ought to look into the possibility that the changes wrought by David and Solomon to the system given through Moses, were corruptions of it.

It takes a whole new paradigm, like I said. I only ask that you study it, rather than dismissing it out of hand.

Jarrod

 

[chair]

(2) is debatable. The way it is laid out, with God pronouncing their misdeeds through Samuel, acting in the capacity of a judge, a case can be made that this is mishpat we are looking at.

Even if we disallow it as a punishment, the main point stands. Having kings was not a positive. The acts of the kings are suspect.

Suspect, yes, especially when they make arbitrary changes in the law, such as changing the succession of priests, or doing away with the tabernacle and its circuit in favor of a temple.

As to the kahal, you already pointed out its antiquity. It clearly comes from Moses.

Now, you asked for a shred of evidence. I feel I've provided several shreds.

You really ought to look into the possibility that the changes wrought by David and Solomon to the system given through Moses, were corruptions of it.

It takes a whole new paradigm, like I said. I only ask that you study it, rather than dismissing it out of hand.

Jarrod

It is clear that there was a development of the religion. Just as there was a development of the nation, from nomads to an actual country.

According to the Biblical account, most of these changes had divine approval. Though later much of it went sour.

What this has to do with Jesus isn't clear to me at all.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Why Jews Don't Accept Jesus

For the same reason of any ethnic group, Romans 1:18-32.

Rejection of our Lord has no earthly special connection to the Jews or any other group.

AMR

 

[Wick Stick]

It is clear that there was a development of the religion. Just as there was a development of the nation, from nomads to an actual country.

According to the Biblical account, most of these changes had divine approval. Though later much of it went sour.

Okay, but were these "developments" intended to be permanent progressions, or were they temporary measures intended to deal with current circumstances?

What this has to do with Jesus isn't clear to me at all.

A Rabbi in the 1st century tries to institute reforms back to an older practice of Judaism, predicts the destruction of the temple, and proclaims that "the kingdom is here" in the middle of a Galilean field. :connectthedots:

Jarrod

 

[chair]

Okay, but were these "developments" intended to be permanent progressions, or were they temporary measures intended to deal with current circumstances?

A Rabbi in the 1st century tries to institute reforms back to an older practice of Judaism, predicts the destruction of the temple, and proclaims that "the kingdom is here" in the middle of a Galilean field. :connectthedots:

Jarrod

The vast majority of what this Rabbi supposdedly said is not different from what earlier prophets said.

 

[Wick Stick]

...and then you totally changed the subject. Cool.

 

[Ben Masada]

Why Jews don't Accept Jesus?

Why Jews don't Accept Jesus?

1)

But who will you count as an eyewitness? Because He is alive, I know; I've literally seen Him myself. So have a lot of the people I know personally. And I was not brought up in this faith. I'm descended from Sephardic Jews. One of my ancestors was a well known Jewish scholar.

There was no eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus and, none has seen him but through their eyes of faith. Don't forget that now you walk by faith and not by sight. (II Cor. 5:7) To walk by sight is to walk with understanding; to walk by faith is to leave the understanding with Paul. That Jesus resurrected is according only to the gospel of Paul if you read II Tim. 2:8.

2) I agree with you. But what you don't understand and can't perceive right now, is that much was hidden from our understanding that even PARDES, couldn't unveil, because it simply wasn't time, according to HaShem's timetable, and because it takes a portion of the same Spirit to receive from the Spirit. Properties in the creation (one of His witnesses) bear this witness as water and oil do not mix.

There is an enormous difference between a witness and an eyewitness. That's a difference between the night of the time of Jesus and his day.

If HaShem is a Spirit, does it not make reasonable sense that to be able to commune with Him you would need the same make-up, a portion of that Spirit?

If! Are you doubting the word of Jesus that HaShem is a Spirit? (John 4:24)

He spoke to Moses out of a burning bush as a prophetic sign that He was going to raise up in a Spirit man veiled in flesh and speak to those still under the bondage the literal understanding of the law carries with it, in the last days. The Hebrews were in bondage to the Egyptians (a type of the flesh, flesh as in sinful nature) because of HaShem's law and HaShem put them there.

Moses was a prophet. So, the way Hashem chose to communicate with His prophets is through a dream or vision. (Numb. 12:6)

But He took them in, so He could take them out. First they had to see what was in their own hearts, face to face, before they would cry out to Him for deliverance (from the fleshly natures as epitomized by the Egyptians). He did the same principle again in the wilderness, where He said He took them there to show them what was STILL in their own hearts. He knew what was in them, but He wanted them to know. Once again, they saw it face to face, as a golden calf made from vanity and pride, which became an idol. Vanity, pride and idolatry. A three way cord is hard to break.

I am not sure what you mean by "face-to-face" when talking about HaShem and man.

3) I agree with you, Jesus was a Jew, and He participated in all the feasts, ect. But so was Paul, a self-described, Pharisee of the Pharisees who testified that he still worshipped in the manner of his fathers, nearing the end of his life.

Paul was no longer a Jew when he founded Christianity. (Acts 11:26)
Paul was never a Pharisee because, Pharisee by definition is the separated one and, the Sect of the Pharisees would never approve the requisition of a Hellenistic Jew to join in with them. Paul must have been in some king of controversy with the Pharisees when he found necessary to lie that he had been a Pharisee himself.

There are many things wrong with Christianity, but it's not Paul's fault. The wild olive boasted itself against the tree it was grafted into, with confusion and 56,000 sects being the fruit of that labor. I read the same books and still only see one: Jew or Gentile after the flesh, one grafted into the other, intended to be one new man, both male (Jew, representative of the male, the seed: is it any wonder He commanded circumcision of THIS part?) and female (gentile, representative of the soul, soil the seed was planted in), made He them. Sadly, they have rejected each other and so no marriage has taken place.....yet.

I am not sure about the other wrongdoings of Christianity but those with basis in the NT, the finger of Paul is almost in every page.

5) Answered this above. Except I will say, that about 80% are quotes or references to the things in the Jewish bible, so you're stats are a bit off.

You are right. About 80% of the NT is composed of attempts at vandalizing the Tanach with the intent at enhancing the NT.

 

[Ben Masada]

Why Jews don't Accept Jesus?

Why Jews don't Accept Jesus?

For the same reason of any ethnic group, Romans 1:18-32.

Rejection of our Lord has no earthly special connection to the Jews or any other group.

AMR

I agree with you but only when the rejection is without knowledge aka by faith. I mean, when one rejects him only because he is rejected by others, completely without the understanding why he ought to be rejected.

 

[RBBI]

1)

There was no eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus and, none has seen him but through their eyes of faith. Don't forget that now you walk by faith and not by sight. (II Cor. 5:7) To walk by sight is to walk with understanding; to walk by faith is to leave the understanding with Paul. That Jesus resurrected is according only to the gospel of Paul if you read II Tim. 2:8.

You're taking that eyes of faith out of context. A whole list of men in Hebrews is given credit for having faith. Noah, had faith there was a flood coming and built an ark, yet Moses literally saw a burning bush and all of Israel saw the pillar of cloud and fire..

I didn't see Him by faith, I saw Him literally as real as you are. However obedience to something He said and the faith to do it, brought me to that mo'ed. So in essence I did walk by faith, but a literal scene was what resulted from it.

Faith is the evidence of things not seen, yet believed for. Another way to put it is, what you see in the natural is what you have had the faith to believe for.

This is why faith without works is dead. Faith is not just about what you believe, faith requires an ACTION. To hear, to HaShem means more than a mental agreement to something spoken. To hear to HaShem means to hear AND obey. Hearing is faith activating, but obedience is the action needed to move His hand.

And works without faith is dead, because it is HaShem that gives you the measure of faith (He gives all men a measure of faith to receive Him) to perform the works. So if He has spoken something He has already given you the measure of faith to believe it and produce the required ACTION, and so this is why in that day NO MAN, Jew or gentile, will have an excuse. Because even the heavens bear witness to the Truth.



There is an enormous difference between a witness and an eyewitness. That's a difference between the night of the time of Jesus and his day.



If! Are you doubting the word of Jesus that HaShem is a Spirit? (John 4:24)

Not at all. It was a reasoning out of what should be obvious.



Moses was a prophet. So, the way Hashem chose to communicate with His prophets is through a dream or vision. (Numb. 12:6)

A vision is not just like a waking dream; it is a momentary tear in the fabric of space and time that is the veil that obscures our viiew from that which is eternal. But dreams and visions are not the only way He communicates, and what Moses saw on the mount was no mere vision, because it changed his physical countenance. He was in the PRESENCE.



I am not sure what you mean by "face-to-face" when talking about HaShem and man.

No man can see HaShem and live = live unto himself (old ways) anymore. Moses saw him and went on to live just fine.



Paul was no longer a Jew when he founded Christianity. (Acts 11:26)
Paul was never a Pharisee because, Pharisee by definition is the separated one and, the Sect of the Pharisees would never approve the requisition of a Hellenistic Jew to join in with them. Paul must have been in some king of controversy with the Pharisees when he found necessary to lie that he had been a Pharisee himself.

Paul had been their henchman, killing Christians. His perceived "conversion" no doubt was quite an embarrassment for them. He went from being the hunter, to the hunted. He was a student of Gamaliel. But once he was knocked off his "high horse" and was blind to the natural world for 3 days, until he obeyed and went in to a gentile household (humbling, wouldn't you say?) before he could receive his sight, I think he had a major attitude shift. There is no mistaking the One when you meet him.



I am not sure about the other wrongdoings of Christianity but those with basis in the NT, the finger of Paul is almost in every page.

That's because he's the one that met and was taught of the RISEN Lord, and was alone learning from Him for many years before he came on the scene, and he was approved of HaShem by signs and wonders, just as Yeshua had been. The others saw Him and were taught of Him for 40 days before He ascended. Saul/Paul was taught of Him for years.



You are right. About 80% of the NT is composed of attempts at vandalizing the Tanach with the intent at enhancing the NT.

It's not vandalizing; it's using it for a witness to what happened, as it was prophesied. And it's the foundation for the teachings contained in the Tanach. Most Christians don't even realize how much of it is either a direct quote or a reference to a teaching or principle contained therein.

I do understand your fury at what you perceive as someone trying to steal and corrupt the Tanach, particularly since 90% of them do it so badly, but this is because they left the pattern given them in the beginning and ignored HaShem's command to build it according to the pattern seen on the mount. Because of the division that came, I suppose they had no choice, and clearly it has not taken HaShem by surprise. So it is what it is now, and we walk according to the light given us until the time of the whole restoration.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I agree with you but only when the rejection is without knowledge aka by faith.

Romans 1:18-32 disagrees with you. No one possesses any excuse, even the savage in the jungle who has never heard of the name of Our Lord.

AMR