Why Jews Don't Accept Jesus?

[Ben Masada]

Why Jews don't Accept Jesus?

Why Jews don't Accept Jesus?

The question really is: "Why should Jews accept Jesus?"
If the answer is "because Christianity's holy book says you should", then we will ignore you.
If the answer is "because a Christian reinterpretation of the Hebrew Bible says you should"- then we get upset at how you twist our holy book.

So far I haven't seen anything at all that would make me even interested in considering "accepting Jesus".

The point Chair, is not why we don't accept Jesus but how. I accept Jesus but not as a Christian does. I accept Jesus as a fellow Jew accepts another. There is nothing wrong with accepting Jesus but as he really was; a Jew who came to confirm the Law and the prophets down to the letter. (Mat. 5:17-19) The man I just cannot accept is Paul who was banished from Jerusalem for preaching the idolatry that Jesus was the son of God. (Acts 9:20)

 

[Ben Masada]

This is typical of the "proofs" of Jesus in the Hebrew Bible. Jesus isn't in that chapter of Proverbs unless you put him in there. It is about Wisdom.

How is it that what is supposedly the most important message in the Hebrew Bible is hidden in obscure verses and questionable interpretations?

That's a classic example why we cannot accept Jesus as a Christian does. They vandalize the Tanach by interpolating Jesus wherever they feel like to.

 

[Caino]

Most normative Jews feel patronized and dismissed by being "taught" religion by Christians.
If a Jew is labeled "Messianic" then they are not Jews. Simple as that.

The God of Israel allowed for a messiah, but it was not a Jesus figure who would be put to death on a cross. In Jewish tradition, the messiah was an anointed military king who would throw off the yoke of foreign domination for God's people.

Based on their tradition, Jesus could never be the messiah long hoped for by the Jews.

:first:

 

[Ben Masada]

Why Jews don't Accept Jesus?

Why Jews don't Accept Jesus?

1 - He doesn't call all Jews "children of the devil," just the Pharisees/Zadokites He was talking with.

2 - Jesus sermons in John teach that the physical nation of Israel as it was known to them was made up of a mixture of "true" Israelites and fake ones. Wheat and tares. Sheep and dogs. And He teaches that there is to be a reckoning in which the two are sorted out.

3 - The point of the exchange in John 8, is to teach how to tell a true Israelite from a fake one. John 8:41 is the thesis statement.

4 - Paul has it straight in Romans 9:6, as well.

Jarrod

1 - No Jarrod, that's not true. If you read John 8:31, Jesus was speaking to the Jews who had believed in him. Now, see the contradiction: How could Jesus call the Jews who had believed in him children of the Devil in John 8:44? That's the reason why those Jews who had believed in Jesus, had grown up with him and were aware of a terrible secret about Jesus and saw the occasion just right to reveal it. (John 8:41) They implied that Jesus had been born out of fornication. This reminded me of Josephus' report that rapes of young Jewish ladies in Israel in the First Century was catastrophic. Hence the birth of an excessive number of illegal children.

2 - Sheep and dogs! The Jews! I don't think so. If you read Mat. 15:26, Jesus rather distinguished between Jews and Gentiles as children and dogs.

3 - You are wrong again. The exchange in John 8:41 was not to distinguish between a true Israelite and a fake one but between born legal children from children born our of corruption aka rape by Roman soldiers.

4 - Paul did not know what he was talking about as his anti-Jewish attitude would interfere with his judgment.

 

[Ben Masada]

Why Jews don't Accept Jesus?

Why Jews don't Accept Jesus?

1 - Granted, Jesus kept the law.

2 - He kept it in spiritual perfection, not like you or the jews of his day thought he ought to.

3 - Now as far as the parable.... Abraham said if they did not believe Moses they would not believe one who came back from the dead.

4 - You greatly err as Moses wrote of Christ the one who did come back from the dead and you still cannot see it.

5 - John 5:39 KJV.

6 - 39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

7 - 46For had ye believed Moses, Ben Masada,ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

1 - And mind you, down to the letter. (Mat. 5:17-19)

2 - How do you know what we think? Don't you think you are exaggerating?

3 - One who came back from the dead! Show me something to that matter in the Tanach. I don't accept NT quotes about the Tanach without a logical explanation.

4 - There will be no problem. Just show me in the Tanach and I'll pay you all the homage you deserve.

5 - I have been searching the Tanach for 2 hours a day and have never found Moses speaking about Jesus.

6 - The Tanach says nothing about eternal life. It rather says in Gen. 3:22 that man cannot live forever.

7 - I am ready to believe in Jesus as you do if you show me where in the Tanach Moses spoke of Jesus.

 

[Wick Stick]

1 - No Jarrod, that's not true. If you read John 8:31, Jesus was speaking to the Jews who had believed in him.

I'll concede that point. I remembered Him talking to the Scribes in the former part of the chapter, but upon review I find that you are correct that verse 31 makes a change and He is addressing the audience.

Now, see the contradiction: How could Jesus call the Jews who had believed in him children of the Devil in John 8:44?

The text suggests that this is because they did not "continue in His word" (verse 35), and that this was predictable, because "servants abideth not in the house forever." (Note that the two bolded words are the same word in Greek.)

Perhaps it's a good moment to point out a flaw in modern preaching. We oftentimes treat belief as a one-time thing, and that once it has been done, conversion is complete, people are a new creature, yada yada yada. The Bible however talks about belief as an ongoing thing - "believe and continue believing" - with the conceptual possibility that one might not.

That's the reason why those Jews who had believed in Jesus, had grown up with him and were aware of a terrible secret about Jesus and saw the occasion just right to reveal it. (John 8:41) They implied that Jesus had been born out of fornication.

You're reading a little much into it, but yes, I doubt that too many people were credulous of a virgin birth.

This reminded me of Josephus' report that rapes of young Jewish ladies in Israel in the First Century was catastrophic. Hence the birth of an excessive number of illegal children.

You have two things that are true, that you are connecting. The problem is that they don't actually connect. Direct Roman administration of Judea began in 6AD, which was several years too late to have anything to do with Jesus' birth.

2 - Sheep and dogs! The Jews! I don't think so. If you read Mat. 15:26, Jesus rather distinguished between Jews and Gentiles as children and dogs.

Mixed my metaphors, didn't I? It was supposed to say "sheep and goats," but that's what happens when you post at 1am.

Anyway, I would contend that Jesus is calling out some large portion of the populace as being illegitimate. Not necessarily due to the Romans, but we can throw that into the basket with all the other times where the same crisis was a problem. Such as in the book of Nehemiah. Also in the book of Joshua. Wheat and tares. Sheep and goats. Not all Israel, is actually Israel.

Frankly, it seems that he is saying that everyone's parentage is so murky, that another criteria is needed, besides the genealogies.

(Also, dogs are emblematic specifically of Canaanites, rather than all Gentiles, but that's not important to this argument.)

3 - You are wrong again. The exchange in John 8:41 was not to distinguish between a true Israelite and a fake one but between born legal children from children born our of corruption aka rape by Roman soldiers.

Are those not the same thing? A false Israelite might think himself legitimate... he just... isn't... if he has for his g-g-g-g-g-grandfather a Canaanite, or Egyptian, or Babylonian...

The solution Jesus presents to this ambiguity of parentage, is to gauge parentage by looking at actions. "Ye do the deeds of your father." By this criteria, a "Jew" who does not act act as Abraham acted, is apparently not a Jew at all.

And the corollary, which is most offensive, is that if a Gentile acts like Abraham, we have good reason to believe that he might in fact be a descendant of Abraham, through one of those "lost tribes." "Other sheep, not of this fold." Sent to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel," where 'house of Israel' was always an epithet for the northern kingdom; not Judah.

4 - Paul did not know what he was talking about as his anti-Jewish attitude would interfere with his judgment.

I disagree, but this would seem to be an entirely different argument, so I'll just leave it be so that we can focus on the topic of this thread.

Jarrod

 

[Ben Masada]

Why Jews don't Accept Jesus?

Why Jews don't Accept Jesus?

You're reading a little much into it, but yes, I doubt that too many people were credulous of a virgin birth.

Only that the virgin birth was not supposed to be taken literally. Therefore, nothing to do with Jesus and Mary.

You have two things that are true, that you are connecting. The problem is that they don't actually connect. Direct Roman administration of Judea began in 6AD, which was several years too late to have anything to do with Jesus' birth.

The Romans did not care who in Israel was born legally or as a result of fornication.

Mixed my metaphors, didn't I? It was supposed to say "sheep and goats," but that's what happens when you post at 1am.

Well, at least you have learned some thing unintentionally.

Anyway, I would contend that Jesus is calling out some large portion of the populace as being illegitimate. Not necessarily due to the Romans, but we can throw that into the basket with all the other times where the same crisis was a problem. Such as in the book of Nehemiah. Also in the book of Joshua. Wheat and tares. Sheep and goats. Not all Israel, is actually Israel.

Are you implying that even Jesus himself could not have been a true Israelite?

Frankly, it seems that he is saying that everyone's parentage is so murky, that another criteria is needed, besides the genealogies.

Perhaps the Jewishness of the mother.

The solution Jesus presents to this ambiguity of parentage, is to gauge parentage by looking at actions. "Ye do the deeds of your father." By this criteria, a "Jew" who does not act act as Abraham acted, is apparently not a Jew at all.

How did Abraham act that the Jews of the time of Jesus did not?

And the corollary, which is most offensive, is that if a Gentile acts like Abraham, we have good reason to believe that he might in fact be a descendant of Abraham, through one of those "lost tribes." "Other sheep, not of this fold." Sent to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel," where 'house of Israel' was always an epithet for the northern kingdom; not Judah.

Again, how did Abraham act for the possibility that Gentiles who acted like him could claim the descent of Abraham?

 

[Wick Stick]

The Romans did not care who in Israel was born legally or as a result of fornication.

You missed the point. At the time of Jesus birth, there were no Roman legions stationed in Judea, and auxiliaries in the area were not Roman in origin. The area was under Herod's thumb, and he utilized a combination of his own people, Samaritans, and mercenaries. The rape of the country hadn't begun in earnest yet.

Perhaps the Jewishness of the mother.

Yes, that is the solution that was eventually adopted. At least we can see the same problem.

How did Abraham act that the Jews of the time of Jesus did not?

He responded to God's calling him out, by believing and going. Genesis 15:7

Likewise, the Israelites in the time of Moses. Deuteronomy 5:6

Again, how did Abraham act for the possibility that Gentiles who acted like him could claim the descent of Abraham?

It isn't for nothing that early believers called themselves ek klesia.

Jarrod

P.S. Have you ever been to Masada?

 

[RevTestament]

A false Israelite might think himself legitimate... he just... isn't... if he has for his g-g-g-g-g-grandfather a Canaanite, or Egyptian, or Babylonian...

Where do the scriptures disallow marriage of an Israelite to an Egyptian or Babylonian? They are allowed to marry an Egyptian after the 2nd generation of the converted - I assume this means if their grandparent converted to Hebraism, an Egyptian can marry a Jew.
I know no proscription against "Babylonians" at all.

 

[aikido7]

What is the meaning of the word "Messiah"? What did the ancient Jews actually mean when they used the term?

A messiah was the long-anticipated military king that would throw off the yoke of foreign domination and rescue the Jewish people. The word means "anointed" and that refers to the historical practice of blessing the king or messiah with holy oil on his forehead.

That is truth. That is history. That is real, honest data.

A Messiah was to be a hero. And heroes were not heroes if they were crucified like a common criminal. That was the "scandal" of the cross for those who followed Jesus after his death.

The way they were able to keep their definition and reformulation of Jesus as the Messiah was to introduce the Pharisaical idea of resurrection with a new twist. Instead of hoping for a general resurrection in their lifetime, the followers of Jesus declared there was one resurrection in Jesus and then a final one after everyone's death.

This was a new and novel idea and it worked. It kept the emphasis of looking forward to Jesus's prediction that it would happen during their lifetimes. It helped them to have something they could look forward to.

And today's Jews don't think the messiah is around yet. So they don't accept Jesus as Christians do.

It's as simple as that.

 

[Wick Stick]

Where do the scriptures disallow marriage of an Israelite to an Egyptian or Babylonian? They are allowed to marry an Egyptian after the 2nd generation of the converted - I assume this means if their grandparent converted to Hebraism, an Egyptian can marry a Jew.

I know no proscription against "Babylonians" at all.

Conversion changes everything. Jewish proselytes are baptized in the name of Abraham, which, at least in the ancient reckoning, makes them children of Abraham, and therefore Hebrew; no longer an Egyptian (or whatever they were).

Now, imagine that you have thousands of babies whose fathers were not Jewish. Those babies never underwent conversion or adoption unto Abraham, because they were either thought to be Jewish, or because "nobody needs to know."

If you are figuring heredity from a patriarchal standpoint, they aren't actually Jews, even though they think they are.

And that brings us back to the gospels, where Jesus makes a case that many of "the Jews," well... aren't.

Jarrod

P.S. The book of Nehemiah has a blanket condemnation of intermarriage.

 

[RBBI]

@ Ben Masada....according to your post # 115, Jesus did display the faith of Abraham, the faith you attribute to Jews, ie. believing against hope (that He would be resurrected).

 

[Wick Stick]

What is the meaning of the word "Messiah"? What did the ancient Jews actually mean when they used the term?

A messiah was the long-anticipated military king that would throw off the yoke of foreign domination and rescue the Jewish people. The word means "anointed" and that refers to the historical practice of blessing the king or messiah with holy oil on his forehead.

The Jewish anticipation of THE messiah as a conquering king is a historical fact, but it isn't quite as ancient as you would think, and it wasn't a universal belief in antiquity (was anything?). In short, the title is kind of overblown.

When the ANCIENT Jews used the word, they were referring to one of the two leaders of the country - the High Priest, or the King. Usually, the current one(s). Not some future ideal king who was going establish a Jewish empire. Actually, they HAD a Jewish empire for quite some time, and it turned out to be fairly corrupt, and not much better than the Goyim.

The New Testament has some of this usage. Jesus is called Messiah there, and while we read it as "LONG-AWAITED SAVIOR OF THE WORLD" there is a pretty good chance that the author was just trying to make a case that Jesus was the legitimate heir to the position of king.

Jarrod

 

[aikido7]

The Jewish anticipation of THE messiah as a conquering king is a historical fact, but it isn't quite as ancient as you would think, and it wasn't a universal belief in antiquity (was anything?). In short, the title is kind of overblown.

When the ANCIENT Jews used the word, they were referring to one of the two leaders of the country - the High Priest, or the King. Usually, the current one(s). Not some future ideal king who was going establish a Jewish empire. Actually, they HAD a Jewish empire for quite some time, and it turned out to be fairly corrupt, and not much better than the Goyim.

The New Testament has some of this usage. Jesus is called Messiah there, and while we read it as "LONG-AWAITED SAVIOR OF THE WORLD" there is a pretty good chance that the author was just trying to make a case that Jesus was the legitimate heir to the position of king.

Jarrod

Common sense; well stated.

 

[Ben Masada]

Why Jews don't Accept Jesus?

Why Jews don't Accept Jesus?

1 - You missed the point. At the time of Jesus birth, there were no Roman legions stationed in Judea, and auxiliaries in the area were not Roman in origin.

2 - The area was under Herod's thumb, and he utilized a combination of his own people, Samaritans, and mercenaries. The rape of the country hadn't begun in earnest yet.

3 - He responded to God's calling him out, by believing and going. Genesis 15:7

4 - It isn't for nothing that early believers called themselves ek klesia.

5 - P.S. Have you ever been to Masada?

1 - Not so. According to Josephus, in the beginning of the year 4 BCE, there was a revolt of the Pharisees against Herod and, by command of Caesar a legion of two, from Syria was sent to turn down the revolt and that legion remained in Israel for two years when the wave of rapes was alarming. That's when Jesus was born. I don't mean by saying this that Jesus was born out of fornication according to John 8:41. Just quoting where the case is mentioned.

2 - Herod had dominion over all the area including Judea which was inherited by his son Archelaus when his father died at the end of 4BCE. (Mat. 2:22)

3 - And the Jews didn't at the time of Jesus?

4 - And the Jews had nothing to do with "ekklesia" but Kahal.

6 - More than several times. A few times through the snake track.

 

[Ben Masada]

Why Jews don't Accept Jesus?

Why Jews don't Accept Jesus?

The Jewish anticipation of THE messiah as a conquering king is a historical fact, but it isn't quite as ancient as you would think, and it wasn't a universal belief in antiquity (was anything?). In short, the title is kind of overblown.

When the ANCIENT Jews used the word, they were referring to one of the two leaders of the country - the High Priest, or the King. Usually, the current one(s). Not some future ideal king who was going establish a Jewish empire. Actually, they HAD a Jewish empire for quite some time, and it turned out to be fairly corrupt, and not much better than the Goyim.

The New Testament has some of this usage. Jesus is called Messiah there, and while we read it as "LONG-AWAITED SAVIOR OF THE WORLD" there is a pretty good chance that the author was just trying to make a case that Jesus was the legitimate heir to the position of king.

Jarrod

Just trying to add to your account, the author who was trying to make a case by claiming that Jesus was the legitimate heir to the position of king Messiah was Paul if you read II Tim. 2:8.

 

[Ben Masada]

Why Jews don't Accept Jesus?

Why Jews don't Accept Jesus?

@ Ben Masada....according to your post # 115, Jesus did display the faith of Abraham, the faith you attribute to Jews, ie. believing against hope (that He would be resurrected).

I don't think so. Why? Because the idea that Jesus had resurrected was fabricated by Paul if you read II Tim. 2:8. It means that Jesus himself would have never believed against hope that he would be resurrected. It was all in the mind of Paul and not in that of Jesus. (II Tim. 2:8)

 

[Ben Masada]

Why Jews don't Accept Jesus?

Why Jews don't Accept Jesus?

1 - What is the meaning of the word "Messiah"? What did the ancient Jews actually mean when they used the term? A messiah was the long-anticipated military king that would throw off the yoke of foreign domination and rescue the Jewish people. The word means "anointed" and that refers to the historical practice of blessing the king or messiah with holy oil on his forehead.

2 - That is truth. That is history. That is real, honest data. A Messiah was to be a hero. And heroes were not heroes if they were crucified like a common criminal. That was the "scandal" of the cross for those who followed Jesus after his death.

3 - The way they were able to keep their definition and reformulation of Jesus as the Messiah was to introduce the Pharisaical idea of resurrection with a new twist. Instead of hoping for a general resurrection in their lifetime, the followers of Jesus declared there was one resurrection in Jesus and then a final one after everyone's death.

4 - This was a new and novel idea and it worked. It kept the emphasis of looking forward to Jesus's prediction that it would happen during their lifetimes. It helped them to have something they could look forward to.

5 - And today's Jews don't think the messiah is around yet. So they don't accept Jesus as Christians do. It's as simple as that.

1 - The word "Messiah" per se means the anointed one of the Lord. There were more than three different meanings for the word "Messiah". They had the King Messiah, anointed to be king, the High Priest, anointed to be the head of the priests, and the Messiah per se that the ancient Israelites expected to be a king or to become one and, the collective Messiah referred to by Prophet Habakkuk in 3:13 "The Lord goes forth to save His PEOPLE; to save His anointed one." That's a special Messiah known by being a Kingdom of Priests and a holy nation according to Exodus 19:6.

2 - The collective concept of the Messiah is equally true; perhaps truer because the Messiah is not supposed to physically die but to remain as a People before the Lord forever. (Jer. 31:36) The individual is born, lives his span of life and dies but the People remain before the Lord forever.

3 - This text is according to the gospel of Paul. Nothing Jewish about it. (II Tim. 2:8)

4 - This never happened and there is no evidence that it ever did. It was all fabricated by Paul who was the one with the idea that Jesus had resurrected. (II Tim. 2:8)

5 - Not all Jews. There are many among the Jews that hold unto the collective concept of Messiah, including myself. The own People of Israel being the Messiah. (Hab. 3:13 and Exod. 19:6) " And you shall be to Me, a Kingdom of priests and a holy nation." On this concept rest most of the Messianic evidences.

 

[Caino]

Just trying to add to your account, the author who was trying to make a case by claiming that Jesus was the legitimate heir to the position of king Messiah was Paul if you read II Tim. 2:8.

Jesus didn't want David's corrupt, exaggerated seat, he has his own place on high.

 

[RBBI]

I don't think so. Why? Because the idea that Jesus had resurrected was fabricated by Paul if you read II Tim. 2:8. It means that Jesus himself would have never believed against hope that he would be resurrected. It was all in the mind of Paul and not in that of Jesus. (II Tim. 2:8)

The problem with your take on that is, that there were many witnesses to His resurrection. And Paul was making a statement regarding the revelation he had been given as to WHY it occurred.

The gospel IS, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Without the resurrection, there is no "good news", man stays outside the garden forever sowing and reaping, ie. no true Sabbath rest.

And it definitely WAS in the mind of Jesus as He told them that if they destroyed this temple (of His body) He would raise it up again in 3 days, which He did.

I do think it's great you've read the book, at least.