Why did the Jews reject Jesus?

[GrayAngel]

Earlier on, in the book of Exodus, the Hebrew nation is clearly identified as being the first born son of God:

Exodus 4:22
New International Version (NIV)
22 Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son,

And so all subsequent verses referencing the firstborn son of God is in reference to the Israeli nation.

Different book, different context. Angels were also called sons of God because they had no lineage.

Isaiah was a prophet, and he was speaking of the Son of God who would come. There are countless prophecies in his book alone that coincide with Jesus' life. Far too many to be just a coincidence.

This doesn't look to me like the verses are saying the God will incarnate and the Jews will reject Him. I don't know where you got that from.

Isaiah is a book of prophecy, speaking of things that haven't happened yet. It's much like the book of Revelation, except that we can look back on Isaiah in retrospect because we live in the days after the prophecies have come true. The Jews at the time had no idea what Isaiah was talking about, although I'm sure they made a lot of false conclusions, as we do now with Revelation.

References to this scripture are found six times in the NT (Matt. 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; Ephesians 2:20; I Peter 2:6).

Alright, I can kind of see how you can interpret this verse that way but I'm still not convinced. Let's look at whole Psalm and see what it's about:

Psalm 118

1 Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good;
his love endures forever.
2 Let Israel say:
“His love endures forever.”
3 Let the house of Aaron say:
“His love endures forever.”
4 Let those who fear the LORD say:
“His love endures forever.”

5 When hard pressed, I cried to the LORD;
he brought me into a spacious place.
6 The LORD is with me; I will not be afraid.
What can mere mortals do to me?
7 The LORD is with me; he is my helper.
I look in triumph on my enemies.

8 It is better to take refuge in the LORD
than to trust in humans.
9 It is better to take refuge in the LORD
than to trust in princes.
10 All the nations surrounded me,
but in the name of the LORD I cut them down.
11 They surrounded me on every side,
but in the name of the LORD I cut them down.
12 They swarmed around me like bees,
but they were consumed as quickly as burning thorns;
in the name of the LORD I cut them down.
13 I was pushed back and about to fall,
but the LORD helped me.
14 The LORD is my strength and my defense[a];
he has become my salvation.

15 Shouts of joy and victory
resound in the tents of the righteous:
“The LORD’s right hand has done mighty things!
16 The LORD’s right hand is lifted high;
the LORD’s right hand has done mighty things!”
17 I will not die but live,
and will proclaim what the LORD has done.
18 The LORD has chastened me severely,
but he has not given me over to death.
19 Open for me the gates of the righteous;
I will enter and give thanks to the LORD.
20 This is the gate of the LORD
through which the righteous may enter.
21 I will give you thanks, for you answered me;
you have become my salvation.

22 The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
23 the LORD has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes.
24 The LORD has done it this very day;
let us rejoice today and be glad.

25 LORD, save us!
LORD, grant us success!

26 Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD.
From the house of the LORD we bless you.
27 The LORD is God,
and he has made his light shine on us.
With boughs in hand, join in the festal procession
up[c] to the horns of the altar.

28 You are my God, and I will praise you;
you are my God, and I will exalt you.

29 Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good;
his love endures forever.

That's it. It's just a verse in the middle of a Psalm that is prayer asking for victory over ones enemies. I see nothing at all in here pointing toward Jesus. This doesn't look like a prophesy and is not presented as such.

You're assuming that the whole chapter is meant to be read as a unit. It's not. The chapters and headings were added in much later. The paragraph is the unit.

Also, don't you find it funny that the author who wrote of this cornerstone here said almost the exact same thing as Isaiah, the prophet? There are parallels like this one all over the OT, from authors who never met and have likely never read from the other's works.

Read through the entire book of Isaiah instead of just passages. The servant of the Lord is identified in many places (not just in Isaiah but throughout the OT) as being the Holy city of Jerusalem:

Isaiah 52

1 Awake, awake, Zion,
clothe yourself with strength!
Put on your garments of splendor,
Jerusalem, the holy city.
The uncircumcised and defiled
will not enter you again.
2 Shake off your dust;
rise up, sit enthroned, Jerusalem.
Free yourself from the chains on your neck,
Daughter Zion, now a captive.

3 For this is what the LORD says:

“You were sold for nothing,
and without money you will be redeemed.”

4 For this is what the Sovereign LORD says:

“At first my people went down to Egypt to live;
lately, Assyria has oppressed them.

5 “And now what do I have here?” declares the LORD.

“For my people have been taken away for nothing,
and those who rule them mock,[a]”
declares the LORD.
“And all day long
my name is constantly blasphemed.
6 Therefore my people will know my name;
therefore in that day they will know
that it is I who foretold it.
Yes, it is I.”

7 How beautiful on the mountains
are the feet of those who bring good news,
who proclaim peace,
who bring good tidings,
who proclaim salvation,
who say to Zion,
“Your God reigns!”
8 Listen! Your watchmen lift up their voices;
together they shout for joy.
When the LORD returns to Zion,
they will see it with their own eyes.
9 Burst into songs of joy together,
you ruins of Jerusalem,
for the LORD has comforted his people,
he has redeemed Jerusalem.
10 The LORD will lay bare his holy arm
in the sight of all the nations,
and all the ends of the earth will see
the salvation of our God.

11 Depart, depart, go out from there!
Touch no unclean thing!
Come out from it and be pure,
you who carry the articles of the LORD’s house.
12 But you will not leave in haste
or go in flight;
for the LORD will go before you,
the God of Israel will be your rear guard.

The Suffering and Glory of the Servant

13 See, my servant will act wisely;
he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted.
14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him[c]—
his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being
and his form marred beyond human likeness—
15 so he will sprinkle many nations,[d]
and kings will shut their mouths because of him.
For what they were not told, they will see,
and what they have not heard, they will understand.

The entire book? Are you serious? Do you really expect someone to read every chapter of Isaiah before they use it?

When Isaiah speaks of Jerusalem, he speaks of Jerusalem. The chapter I quoted from makes no mention of Jerusalem, and wouldn't even make a lick of sense in that context. You really think that in all 66 chapters of Isaiah, Jerusalem is the only thing he could find the time to talk about?

Furthermore, if you really think the verses I quoted is speaking of Jerusalem, could you explain to me what it means? Could you tell me how the city of Jerusalem could be sacrificed for the sins of Isaiah's people (i.e. Jerusalem)?

 

[Beautiful Ignorance]

That's what I just said, wasn't it?

Not quite. You just said something along the lines that some people claim guidance from the Holy Spirit. This is vague. I was recounting the specific case of when God gave the Torah to the Hebrew nation.

Except that the Torah wasn't given "at once directly by God to the entire Hebrew nation".

So now we are ignoring the bible completely and just making things up?

I'm not doing it.

I disagree.

But the Bible is the Christian holy text, now you are just being silly. Next you are going to tell me it is wrong to go to the Muslims to interpret the Qur'an, wrong to go to the Mormons for the Book of Mormon and wrong to go to the Zoroastrians for the Avesta.

Most of the Bible is actually the Jewish holy text and was before it was the Christians. Both versions of the Old Testament, the Septuagint and the TaNaKh, were written and canonized by the Jews.

Since the Jews wrote their part first and their part is about 10 times as much as what the Christians wrote, they have a much, much stronger case than do the Christians.

Have you not heard of the Incarnation before?

Yes I have and I reject it because of the first two Commandments. Number one is You shall have no gods before God. Jesus is presented as a god before God. The first commandment says not to worship him. The second commandment is you shall make no images or likenesses of God or anything in Heaven. Jesus is said to be God in human form, thereby giving an image to God, thereby violating the commandment.

What separates Old Testament religion from all the false gods is that all the false gods are dudes, statues of dudes, statues of animals or other created things while the Old Testament God is unseen, has no image and is the creator, NOT the created. As a man who was born of a woman, Jesus was a created thing, therefore cannot be God. Jesus had a beginning in that his body was birth by Mary and therefore could not be God. Jesus was seen, not invisible and so could not be God. Jesus was in a specific place (the middle east) during a specific, limited time (approximately 33 years during the first century ce) and so could not be God.

 

[Aeneas]

Not quite. You just said something along the lines that some people claim guidance from the Holy Spirit. This is vague. I was recounting the specific case of when God gave the Torah to the Hebrew nation.

ok.

So now we are ignoring the bible completely and just making things up?

No, but God didn't assemble the Hebrews together and directly address the entire nation, and give them the entire Torah directly all at once, did he?

I disagree.

That doesn't make sense since I haven't referenced any religion other than Christianity so far, but ok.

Most of the Bible is actually the Jewish holy text and was before it was the Christians. Both versions of the Old Testament, the Septuagint and the TaNaKh, were written and canonized by the Jews.

Yes, the Septuagint. What about it?

Since the Jews wrote their part first and their part is about 10 times as much as what the Christians wrote, they have a much, much stronger case than do the Christians.

Case for what? There is no case.

Anyways, you've committed

Appeal to accomplishment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genetic fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes I have and I reject it because of the first two Commandments. Number one is You shall have no gods before God. Jesus is presented as a god before God.

No He isn't.

The first commandment says not to worship him. The second commandment is you shall make no images or likenesses of God or anything in Hell. Jesus is said to be God in human form, thereby giving an image to God, thereby violating the commandment.

And it is patently obvious that isn't what the commandment meant. Never heard anyone try to take the commandment against idol worship against the Incarnation before. Quite a stretch.

What separates Old Testament religion from all the false gods is that all the false gods are dudes, statues of dudes, statues of animals or other created things while the Old Testament God is unseen, has no image and is the creator, NOT the created. As a man who was born of a woman, Jesus was a created thing, therefore cannot be God. Jesus had a beginning in that his body was birth by Mary and therefore could not be God. Jesus was seen, not invisible and so could not be God. Jesus was in a specific place (the middle east) during a specific, limited time (approximately 33 years during the first century ce) and so could not be God.

You really ought to read St. Athanasius' On the Incarnation and stop trying to reinvent the wheel. All of this was dealt with over a thousand years ago.


Anyways, seeing how this has slipped into apologetics and blaspheming the faith, what was your "exploration" you wanted in this forum, because the way it is going is against the rules. Just sayin'.

 

[GrayAngel]

Yes I have and I reject it because of the first two Commandments. Number one is You shall have no gods before God. Jesus is presented as a god before God. The first commandment says not to worship him. The second commandment is you shall make no images or likenesses of God or anything in Heaven. Jesus is said to be God in human form, thereby giving an image to God, thereby violating the commandment.

Jesus isn't before God, he is God. The Trinitarian belief is of One God, three "persons." They are not separate. But, really, if we had to choose one or the other, I think most Christians would put the Father on a higher pedestal anyway. After all, Jesus Himself didn't consider Himself equal to the Father.

Also, the command was that we not make an image of God. Did we make Jesus? The body of Jesus was the only good image of God because He was the only image chosen by and created by God for Himself.

Interestingly enough, some famous painters were technically guilty of making an image of God, depicting Him as some old naked man sitting in the clouds. I think they're safe, though. Nobody I know of worships the God of the paintings. Creating the golden calf was a sin for the Hebrews because they equated it with God and worshiped it.

 

[Beautiful Ignorance]

To add to the answer I already gave, Jesus was not only prophesied to be rejected by the Jews, but also that He would bring salvation to the gentiles.

Isaiah 49:6 - he says:
“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

I am not seeing this the same way as you do at all. The way I understand this is that God is saying that His servant WILL restore tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel that God has kept. But this is too small of a thing to stop there and so God will also make His servant a light for the Gentiles, etc. There is nothing at all in here about the Jews rejecting anyone.

Let's look at the surrounding verses:

1 Listen to me, you islands;
hear this, you distant nations:
Before I was born the LORD called me;
from my mother’s womb he has spoken my name.
2 He made my mouth like a sharpened sword,
in the shadow of his hand he hid me;
he made me into a polished arrow
and concealed me in his quiver.
3 He said to me, “You are my servant,
Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.”
4 But I said, “I have labored in vain;
I have spent my strength for nothing at all.
Yet what is due me is in the LORD’s hand,
and my reward is with my God.”
5 And now the LORD says—
he who formed me in the womb to be his servant
to bring Jacob back to him
and gather Israel to himself,
for I am[a] honored in the eyes of the LORD
and my God has been my strength—
6 he says:
“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

7 This is what the LORD says—
the Redeemer and Holy One of Israel—
to him who was despised and abhorred by the nation,
to the servant of rulers:
“Kings will see you and stand up,
princes will see and bow down,
because of the LORD, who is faithful,
the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you.”

This verse identifies Israel as the servant of God. And so we have Israel being identified as both the first born son of God and the servant of God. And God is going to use his servant, Israel, to be a light to the gentiles so that salvation can reach the ends of the earth. And So Israel is the servant, not Jesus.

So why did the Jews reject Jesus and the gentiles accept Him when the Jews had prophecy to fall back on?

Simple. The prophesy plainly identifies them as the servant, not Jesus.

Simple. If the Jews had accepted Jesus, the scriptures would have been wrong. And if the scriptures were wrong, then why accept Jesus?

Except for the servant is plainly identified as being Israel, not Jesus in the text.

On another note, I never realized just how deeply antisemitic Christianity really is until just now.

Prophecies from God are not given to us so we can change history. We will never be able to make God wrong.

In the Old Testament, prophecies were given for two main reasons. The first was to identify the person making the prophesies as a real prophet. If a prophet made a prediction and it came to pass, it helped to establish the prophet as a mouthpiece for God.

The second was so that the people could prepare for what was coming, (famines, invading enemies, etc.).

Different book, different context. Angels were also called sons of God because they had no lineage.

But only Israel is identified as the first born son of God.

Isaiah was a prophet, and he was speaking of the Son of God who would come.

Except for Israel has already been identified, in the Torah no less, as being the first born son of God and In Isaiah, Israel is identified as being the servant. Does God have two first born sons now?

There are countless prophecies in his book alone that coincide with Jesus' life. Far too many to be just a coincidence.

Actually they more closely coincide with the history of Israel which comes as no surprise since Israel is plainly identified as being the subject of the prophesies.

References to this scripture are found six times in the NT (Matt. 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; Ephesians 2:20; I Peter 2:6).

2 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

“‘The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;
the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’[a]?

In reference to possibly either Isaiah 8:14 or Isaiah 28:16

4 He will be a holy place;
for both Israel and Judah he will be
a stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.
And for the people of Jerusalem he will be
a trap and a snare.

If this is really talking about Jesus, then it sounds like he will be a stumbling block for the Jews. And the Jews did reject Jesus and so it looks like prophesy is fulfilled. But is that what the verse is really talking about? Let's look at the verse in context of the surrounding verses and see if this stone is identified:

5 The LORD spoke to me again:

6 “Because this people has rejected
the gently flowing waters of Shiloah
and rejoices over Rezin
and the son of Remaliah,
7 therefore the Lord is about to bring against them
the mighty floodwaters of the Euphrates—
the king of Assyria with all his pomp.
It will overflow all its channels,
run over all its banks
8 and sweep on into Judah, swirling over it,
passing through it and reaching up to the neck.
Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land,
Immanuel!”

9 Raise the war cry,[c] you nations, and be shattered!
Listen, all you distant lands.
Prepare for battle, and be shattered!
Prepare for battle, and be shattered!
10 Devise your strategy, but it will be thwarted;
propose your plan, but it will not stand,
for God is with us.[d]

11 This is what the LORD says to me with his strong hand upon me, warning me not to follow the way of this people:

12 “Do not call conspiracy
everything this people calls a conspiracy;
do not fear what they fear,
and do not dread it.
13 The LORD Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy,
he is the one you are to fear,
he is the one you are to dread.
14 He will be a holy place;
for both Israel and Judah he will be
a stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.
And for the people of Jerusalem he will be
a trap and a snare.
15 Many of them will stumble;
they will fall and be broken,
they will be snared and captured.”

16 Bind up this testimony of warning
and seal up God’s instruction among my disciples.
17 I will wait for the LORD,
who is hiding his face from the descendants of Jacob.
I will put my trust in him.

18 Here am I, and the children the LORD has given me. We are signs and symbols in Israel from the LORD Almighty, who dwells on Mount Zion.

None other than God Almighty Himself is identified as being the subject of the verses we were looking for and, in context, the preceding verses are saying that an enemy invasion is coming but not to fear. God alone is the one to fear, etc. The verse is not about Jesus or some future prophet but about events that are soon to transpire.

16 So this is what the Sovereign LORD says:

“See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone,
a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation;
the one who relies on it
will never be stricken with panic.

Let's look at this one in the context of it's surrounding verses and see if the cornerstone is identified:

5 In that day the LORD Almighty
will be a glorious crown,
a beautiful wreath
for the remnant of his people.
6 He will be a spirit of justice
to the one who sits in judgment,
a source of strength
to those who turn back the battle at the gate.

7 And these also stagger from wine
and reel from beer:
Priests and prophets stagger from beer
and are befuddled with wine;
they reel from beer,
they stagger when seeing visions,
they stumble when rendering decisions.
8 All the tables are covered with vomit
and there is not a spot without filth.

9 “Who is it he is trying to teach?
To whom is he explaining his message?
To children weaned from their milk,
to those just taken from the breast?
10 For it is:
Do this, do that,
a rule for this, a rule for that[a];
a little here, a little there.”

11 Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues
God will speak to this people,
12 to whom he said,
“This is the resting place, let the weary rest”;
and, “This is the place of repose”—
but they would not listen.
13 So then, the word of the LORD to them will become:
Do this, do that,
a rule for this, a rule for that;
a little here, a little there—
so that as they go they will fall backward;
they will be injured and snared and captured.

14 Therefore hear the word of the LORD, you scoffers
who rule this people in Jerusalem.
15 You boast, “We have entered into a covenant with death,
with the realm of the dead we have made an agreement.
When an overwhelming scourge sweeps by,
it cannot touch us,
for we have made a lie our refuge
and falsehood our hiding place.”

16 So this is what the Sovereign LORD says:

“See, I lay a stone in Zion, a tested stone,
a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation;
the one who relies on it
will never be stricken with panic.
17 I will make justice the measuring line
and righteousness the plumb line;
hail will sweep away your refuge, the lie,
and water will overflow your hiding place.
18 Your covenant with death will be annulled;
your agreement with the realm of the dead will not stand.
When the overwhelming scourge sweeps by,
you will be beaten down by it.
19 As often as it comes it will carry you away;
morning after morning, by day and by night,
it will sweep through.”

In context of the preceding verses, which have to do with the Jews complaining about the Torah, the cornerstone appears to be the Torah. I am open to other suggestions but I do not see any reason at all to suppose this refers to a person.

At any rate, since it states that the covenant with death will be annulled, it does not sound like rejecting the Jews in favor of everyone is part of God's plan.

I'll cover the remaining verses in another post as I don't really have room here (word number limit)

You're assuming that the whole chapter is meant to be read as a unit. It's not. The chapters and headings were added in much later.

Actually, I'm not assuming that at all. I'm perfectly aware that all that was added later. My assumption is that the book as a whole is the unit and that everything in the book is to be taken in context together. For example, if Israel is identified as being the servant of God in one verse, then for all subsequent verses in the same book that speak of the servant are in reference to Israel unless another verse identifies the servant as being someone or something else.

The paragraph is the unit.

That sounds just as arbitrary as assuming the chapters or verses are the units. The original text wasn't divided up into paragraphs either but all ran together. The Torah wasn't even divided up into words or sentences but all ran together.

Also, don't you find it funny that the author who wrote of this cornerstone here said almost the exact same thing as Isaiah, the prophet? There are parallels like this one all over the OT, from authors who never met and have likely never read from the other's works.

Actually, I have yet to come accross a single verse that unambiguously prophesizes about Jesus. Most of the verses people claim point to Jesus turn out to be about something else entirely when you look them up in the OT.

The entire book? Are you serious? Do you really expect someone to read every chapter of Isaiah before they use it?

Yes I do. Because if you just take a verse here and there, you can use it to support anything. Using the same method, I can make the OT testament for tell my own life.

But taking the verse in context of the surrounding verses, the meaning of the verses becomes a lot more limited.

When Isaiah speaks of Jerusalem, he speaks of Jerusalem. The chapter I quoted from makes no mention of Jerusalem, and wouldn't even make a lick of sense in that context. You really think that in all 66 chapters of Isaiah, Jerusalem is the only thing he could find the time to talk about?

Actually, I believe I was mistaken. I thought those verses were referencing Jerusalem because of a verse that I thought was identifying Jerusalem as the servant. The verse was ambiguous but another verse clearly identified Israel of as the servant of God.

Furthermore, if you really think the verses I quoted is speaking of Jerusalem, could you explain to me what it means? Could you tell me how the city of Jerusalem could be sacrificed for the sins of Isaiah's people (i.e. Jerusalem)?

Actually, I think now they were referring to Israel as a nation and this servant has in fact been figuratively crucified over and over again by the rest of the world. Not just Jesus but Jews everywhere have paid the price time and time again for the sins of the rest of the world. No people have ever been more hated and persecuted than the Jews. And yet, despite two thousand years of constant attempts to rid them from the face of the earth, God has preserved them.

 

[Beautiful Ignorance]

No, but God didn't assemble the Hebrews together and directly address the entire nation, and give them the entire Torah directly all at once, did he?

Yes, In fact. that's exactly how it went down. The Hebrew nation assembled at the base of Mt. Sinai and God gave them the Torah. Or at least it started that way. As soon as the the Hebrews heard the voice of God it scared them so badly that they asked God to use Moses as the middle man because they were afraid that God's voice alone would kill them. The story isn't necessarily told in that straight forward of a manner and so I have edited it together. Here it is:

1 On the first day of the third month after the Israelites left Egypt—on that very day—they came to the Desert of Sinai. 2 After they set out from Rephidim, they entered the Desert of Sinai, and Israel camped there in the desert in front of the mountain.

3 Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, “This is what you are to say to the descendants of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: 4 ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. 5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you[a] will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.”

7 So Moses went back and summoned the elders of the people and set before them all the words the LORD had commanded him to speak. 8 The people all responded together, “We will do everything the LORD has said.” So Moses brought their answer back to the LORD.

9 The LORD said to Moses, “I am going to come to you in a dense cloud, so that the people will hear me speaking with you and will always put their trust in you.” Then Moses told the LORD what the people had said.

10 - 15 are about preparing for this

16 On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain, and a very loud trumpet blast. Everyone in the camp trembled. 17 Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain. 18 Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the LORD descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, and the whole mountain trembled violently. 19 As the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder, Moses spoke and the voice of God answered him.[c]

20 The LORD descended to the top of Mount Sinai and called Moses to the top of the mountain. So Moses went up.

17 To the Israelites the glory of the LORD looked like a consuming fire on top of the mountain. 18 Then Moses entered the cloud as he went on up the mountain. And he stayed on the mountain forty days and forty nights.

10 Remember the day you stood before the LORD your God at Horeb, when he said to me, “Assemble the people before me to hear my words so that they may learn to revere me as long as they live in the land and may teach them to their children.” 11 You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens, with black clouds and deep darkness. 12 Then the LORD spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice. 13 He declared to you his covenant, the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets. 14 And the LORD directed me at that time to teach you the decrees and laws you are to follow in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess.
. . .
35 You were shown these things so that you might know that the LORD is God; besides him there is no other. 36 From heaven he made you hear his voice to discipline you. On earth he showed you his great fire, and you heard his words from out of the fire.

1 Moses summoned all Israel and said:
Hear, Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. 2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 It was not with our ancestors[a] that the LORD made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today. 4 The LORD spoke to you face to face out of the fire on the mountain. 5 (At that time I stood between the LORD and you to declare to you the word of the LORD, because you were afraid of the fire and did not go up the mountain.) And he said:

6 “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
7 “You shall have no other gods before me.
. . .
22 These are the commandments the LORD proclaimed in a loud voice to your whole assembly there on the mountain from out of the fire, the cloud and the deep darkness; and he added nothing more. Then he wrote them on two stone tablets and gave them to me.

23 When you heard the voice out of the darkness, while the mountain was ablaze with fire, all the leaders of your tribes and your elders came to me. 24 And you said, “The LORD our God has shown us his glory and his majesty, and we have heard his voice from the fire. Today we have seen that a person can live even if God speaks with them. 25 But now, why should we die? This great fire will consume us, and we will die if we hear the voice of the LORD our God any longer. 26 For what mortal has ever heard the voice of the living God speaking out of fire, as we have, and survived? 27 Go near and listen to all that the LORD our God says. Then tell us whatever the LORD our God tells you. We will listen and obey.”

28 The LORD heard you when you spoke to me, and the LORD said to me, “I have heard what this people said to you. Everything they said was good. 29 Oh, that their hearts would be inclined to fear me and keep all my commands always, so that it might go well with them and their children forever!

And so there you go. I am skeptical of Jesus at least in part because he didn't make himself perfectly clear the way that God did at Sinai. I don't believe for a second that God is in the business of playing games with us. I think that if God has something that God wants us to know, he lets us know it in such a way that it's unambiguous.

That doesn't make sense since I haven't referenced any religion other than Christianity so far, but ok.

I'm sorry but I don't remember what we were talking about here.

Yes, the Septuagint. What about it?

The TaNaKh is the original canonized Hebrew Bible. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the TaNaKh with an extra half added to Daniel and 7 more books added, all written in Greek. It's ten times as long as the New Testament.

Case for what? There is no case.

Case for the oral and written traditon. The Jewish oral and written tradition was a mass revelation to the entire Hebrew nation. As the bible verses above state above, God spoke and the entire Hebrew nation heard the voice of God. This is makes for a pretty strong case for the Jews.

The Christian oral tradition, by contrast, was only revealed to a small group of people and the written tradition came some 30 years later. And Jesus himself didn't leave behind any writings. This makes for a significantly weaker case for it's divine inspiration.

Anyways, you've committed

Appeal to accomplishment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genetic fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I concede that.

No He isn't.

Yes he is:

6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

According to this, you must go through Jesus to get to the father. This is in direct contradiction to the first commandment.

And it is patently obvious that isn't what the commandment meant.

Actually, no it is not. Patently means openly, plainly, or clearly and it seems to me that it is 'patently' or openly and plainly obvious that the first commandment means worshiping people is strictly off limits, no matter who they claim to be. I straight up have no idea whatsoever how this commandment leaves any room for worshiping a man.

Never heard anyone try to take the commandment against idol worship against the Incarnation before. Quite a stretch.

Then you haven't ever researched at all why the Jews rejected Jesus because this is actually at the top of the list. And it's not a stretch at all. There is no room in the first commandment for worshiping people.

You really ought to read St. Athanasius' On the Incarnation and stop trying to reinvent the wheel.

I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel. This is actually the oldest argument in the book. Literally. The Jews rejected Jesus because, quite simply, the first commandment said not to worship people.

All of this was dealt with over a thousand years ago.

Apparently not to the satisfaction of the world wide Jewish community.

Also, just because it has does not mean I have ever come across anything dealing with this. St. Athanasiuis' writings are not canonized and I grew up Protestant and so I have never heard of him. In fact I haven't heard anyone at all ever deal with the difficulties the first two commandments pose to the Christian faith. Apparently never have you because you haven't ever heard of this conflict and you didn't notice it on you own.

At any rate, why didn't you post a link so that I could? Or at least some text from his writings.

Anyways, seeing how this has slipped into apologetics and blaspheming the faith, what was your "exploration" you wanted in this forum, because the way it is going is against the rules. Just sayin'.

You have a point. I think we are just now getting to the unexplored territory part. I have never heard any Christians anywhere deal with the problems between keeping the commandments and worshiping Jesus.

 

[Sketcher]

Most did not. Even during his lifetime, most of the Jews he came in contact with failed to recognize or be convinced of his deity. Even the crowds that he attracted did not remain loyal and his movement mostly dissipated after his death.

Everywhere the story of Christ was told, there was division among the Jewish audience as to whether he was the Messiah or not, just like when Jesus himself was teaching the crowds. But "dissipated" is not the right word at all. It grew and spread in such ways that the Jewish opponents could not contain it. It took adding a "blessing" to synagogue services (which was a curse on Christians) to get them out of the synagogues. That needed to be combined with the Bar Kabbah revolt and the political fallout associated with it in order for Jewish Christians to largely disappear as a group.

His movement was mostly taken over by Paul and didn't really take off until Paul took it to nonJews. By that time, it had changed so much that it was no longer recognizable as even being Jewish.

Paul preached accurately about Christ, and there is no contradiction, or serious candidate for contradiction between their teachings. Furthermore, if Paul took over the movement, you would need to explain the widespread influence that Jesus' disciples Peter and John have always had and still have to this day.

some of Paul's writing suggest that he might have been confused as to whether or not Jesus was a real flesh and blood human being.

Name them.

Whereas Jesus’ teachings were still mostly centered mostly on action and works, Paul taught salvation by grace and belief.

Then explain Mark 1:14-15, Mark 16:16, Luke 8:1-15, John 3:13-18, John 3:36, and John 6:35-59.

More accurately, they became the predecessors of the first Christians (protoChristian maybe?) The transition from Judaism to Jesus’ cult to Christianity was neither instant nor smooth but took hundreds of years.

Within a decade after his death, different groups had already sprung up with competing gospels. By the end of the 2nd century, there were hundreds of different gospel accounts and other writings circulating the middle east and it would be a another 200 years before the NT was canonized. It was around this time that essential Christian doctrines like the Nicene creed and the Trinity were introduced. And so it was approximately 350 years after the death of Jesus before anyone had and believed the complete list of doctrine that is necessary to be a Christian by the standards of mainstream Christianity today.

Christianity has always had its foundation in Jesus' teachings and in what the Holy Spirit followed up with in the first generation after Jesus' death and resurrection. There was only ever one Gospel, though there were some Judaizers who fell short of it due to their failure to grasp Christ's sufficiency, which he declared on the cross (John 19:30). There numerous Gnostic imitators of course, whose faith predated Christianity and thought they could use it as a vehicle to breathe fresh life into their movement. But they all fall short of what Jesus preached, and the apostles did after him. The vote on what made the NT canon was so lopsided in part because what is today recognized as the New Testament stood out so much from the Gnostic texts as far as truth preached, verifiability, and how broadly they were accepted. Furthermore, I'm not sure what you mean by "mainstream Christianity," but the core Christian truths come straight out of the New Testament, which can be verified to the second century as far as actual remains go.

That is entirely incorrect. The reason the Hebrews rejected the Torah in the desert was because they were operating on autopilot. They were the first generation to receive the Torah which meant they had grown up without it. Which meant that it wasn’t ingrained into them but was foreign and so it just their natural tendency to not keep it.

God gave them more than enough signs and wonders before the rebellion in the desert to convince them. And they were still faithless, except for Moses and a few others. Whether they grew up with Torah or not, they saw the Ten Plagues, they crossed the Red Sea on dry land only for Pharoah's army to be swept away when it gave chase, they saw water come from the rock, they saw divine provision of manna and quail, and they saw the pillar of smoke by day and the pillar of fire by night. God was beyond good to them, giving them more than enough opportunities to trust in his power, love and provision for them. Yet they still complained and turned away at the least sign of trouble. No matter what anyone's background is, seeing even some of those things should make a passionate, faithful convert out of him.

Again this is entirely incorrect. The reason why they went into captivity was because they had started worshipping the statues of false gods that their soldiers had brought home from conquered territories. And so again its for the exact opposite reasons.

I said they went into captivity because they rejected Torah. If I am incorrect then, you would have to say that idolatry is somehow permitted in Torah.

The reason that the Jews rejected Jesus as a God was because he was a man and the God of Judaism is not a man but is unseen, eternal and unchanging. The first commandment was to have no gods before God but Jesus was claiming/claimed to be a god between man and God. The second commandment was to make no images of God or anything in Heaven but Jesus was claiming/claimed to be a god therefore making himself an image of God. There was no way they could accept Jesus as their God without violating both of those commandments.

So, when God wrestled Jacob and revealed himself to Ezekiel, Isaiah and Daniel, what was God doing? Was he making an image of himself? Christianity teaches that Jesus as the image of God is similar, though more personal. Think of the incarnation as a flesh-and-blood Shekhinah. Furthermore, Christianity did not constitute classical idolatry. They had to make up another category for it to fit it in. If you doubt me, there is much Jewish literature that differentiates Christians from idolaters.

They rejected Jesus as their messiah because a messiah, if nothing more, is a kind and Jesus was not. The Jewish understanding of The Davidic Messiah was one would restore Israel, bring all the Jews home from Dispora and teach the whole world to worship the God of Abraham. Jesus did none of those things.

With Christianity as the largest religion in the world and the force that drove paganism underground the Western world, that makes a good case for teaching the whole world to worship the God of Abraham. We worship him all the time. As far as the rest goes, he will do that when he returns. We do not have two messiahs. We have one Messiah, and two comings.

And so they rejected Jesus for the exact opposite reasons, because they were keeping the Torah.

If they kept the Torah, they would have believed in Jesus, because he was foretold through Moses, David, and the prophets.

No. Not even.

Your statement here makes the false assumption that Jews define their religion in terms of their relationship to Jesus and in doing so confuses which came first. If Judaism was an offspring of Christianity instead of the other way around, your statement would be perfectly accurate by necessity. But since Judaism came first, it was not founded or shaped by its relationship to Jesus. There was not a tradition of rejecting Jesus before he appeared on the scene and, quite simple, nothing change. Jesus is just not a part of Judaism. And rejecting Jesus is no more a Jewish tradition than rejecting David Koresh or Reverend Moon or any number of other false 2nd Comings of Jesus is a Christian tradition.

Hardly. My statement simply states that there is a tradition within Jewish culture to reject Jesus if the subject comes up. There are various reasons for this. Some Jews think that we're out to destroy them. Some Jews think that Jesus really was the bad person that hundreds of years worth of lies make him out to be, rather than going to the most accurate record about him, which is the New Testament. Many don't want to even pick up the New Testament to read it for cultural reasons, it's just taboo.

This has suspicious written all over it. For starters, Brown is an Anglo not a Jewish name and so he’s was either a convert or the descendent of one which raises doubts in my mind as to how well he understands Judaism.
Secondly, if the Jews have enough reasons for rejecting Jesus that he can fill five entire volumes with those reasons, that kind of speaks for itself.

So you, a self-proclaimed Gentile, are trying to tell me that this man does not understand Judaism because his last name indicates to you that he was descended from a convert, yet you're trying to lecture me on what Judaism teaches. And then you're saying five books speaks for itself - without considering the content of those five books. Do yourself a favor and investigate the facts before you dismiss them, whether it is about a person or his body of work. I could tell you that he was born Jewish, has his doctorate in Semetic languages, debates rabbis frequently and does so well that he makes them available. But since that's not enough, you can investigate him yourself here and here. Instead of making assumptions based on his last name, read some of his books.

 

[Beautiful Ignorance]

Jesus isn't before God, he is God.

I understand what the claim is. But the God of Abraham is NOT a man. And so he can only be considered a foreign god.

The Trinitarian belief is of One God, three "persons." They are not separate. But, really, if we had to choose one or the other, I think most Christians would put the Father on a higher pedestal anyway. After all, Jesus Himself didn't consider Himself equal to the Father.

Right there, we have a problem. The Old Testament says that God is one. It does not say God is three:

4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Notice that the Lord is ONE, NOT three.

Jesus himself repeated this very verse even calling it the most important one:

29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.

Also, if Jesus is not an equal with the father, then he would be a lesser god before God and so we are back to where we started; Worshiping him violates the first commandment.

Also, the command was that we not make an image of God. Did we make Jesus? The body of Jesus was the only good image of God because He was the only image chosen by and created by God for Himself.

This assumes that Jesus is God. The problem with that is by the fact that Jesus is a man and has an image, he can't be the God of Abraham because the God of Abraham is not a man and is unseen. Here's the verse from the Torah no less:

God is not human, that he should lie,
not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?

But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

If this is correct, then either everyone who ever met Jesus died immediately or he wasn't God. I see no other way around this.

Interestingly enough, some famous painters were technically guilty of making an image of God, depicting Him as some old naked man sitting in the clouds. I think they're safe, though. Nobody I know of worships the God of the paintings. Creating the golden calf was a sin for the Hebrews because they equated it with God and worshiped it.

Painting a picture of God as an Old Man is just as blasphemous as painting a portrait of a cow and calling it God.

People do worship the Jesus of the paintings. Many people have an idea that God looks like a Spaniard (the famous paintings of Jesus that found their way into our collective psyche were done by Spaniards who quite naturally painted Jesus to look like themselves, thereby recreating god in their own image) and that's the face that comes to mind when they pray.

And so, yes, Christianity is very much so in the business of giving God and image. This is in direct violation of the 2nd commandment. I see no way around this.

 

[Aeneas]

I just remembered; didn't St. John Chrysostom like write an entire homily series on the Jews rejecting Christ?

*googles*

Found it: HOMILIES AGAINST THE JEWS[bless and do not curse] |[bless and do not curse] Church History

But do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them. The morning Sun of Justice arose for them, but they thrust aside its rays and still sit in darkness. We, who were nurtured by darkness, drew the light to ourselves and were freed from the gloom of their error. They were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogs received the strength, through God's grace, to put aside the irrational nature which was ours and to rise to the honor of sons. How do I prove this? Christ said: "It is no fair to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs". Christ was speaking to the Canaanite woman when He called the Jews children and the Gentiles dogs.

Pretty cool, looks like what we've all been discussing.

 

[someguy14]

According to my knowledge and experience, of all peoples, Jews are the most resistant to Jesus and Christianity. Since Jesus was supposedly the fulfillment of God's promise to them for a messiah, they more than anyone else should have been able to recognize Jesus as such but the exact opposite happened. Not only did they not recognize him as such but they, more than any group of people, have rejected him.

Why do you think that is?

Matthew 13:57
And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

 

[Beautiful Ignorance]

Everywhere the story of Christ was told, there was division among the Jewish audience as to whether he was the Messiah or not, just like when Jesus himself was teaching the crowds. But "dissipated" is not the right word at all. It grew and spread in such ways that the Jewish opponents could not contain it. It took adding a "blessing" to synagogue services (which was a curse on Christians) to get them out of the synagogues. That needed to be combined with the Bar Kabbah revolt and the political fallout associated with it in order for Jewish Christians to largely disappear as a group.

I never said that there wasn't Jewish followers of Jesus but they were relatively small in number. The vast majority of Jews that came in contact with the Jesus cult before the final split rejected their teachings.

Paul preached accurately about Christ, and there is no contradiction, or serious candidate for contradiction between their teachings. Furthermore, if Paul took over the movement, you would need to explain the widespread influence that Jesus' disciples Peter and John have always had and still have to this day.

Just because Paul took over does not automatically necessitate that no one else was involved. I am not dismissing Peter and John's influence. Just saying it wasn't as great as Paul's.

But really how can you deny that he took over? He wrote about 2 thirds of the New Testament and did more to spread Christianity than all the other early apostles combined.

Name them.

Better yet, I'll quote them. But keep in mind, I said that Paul was confused, I didn't say he was certain. You might be able to come back with a dozen quotes that show that Paul did think that Jesus was a real flesh and blood person. In which case, I would say, "Yeah, he was confused." Here are the verses:

3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh,[a] God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh,

In the likeness of flesh? The word 'likeness' suggests similarity to a thing but not the thing itself, i.e. "He wasn't made flesh but in the likeness of flesh."

11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.
13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

Paul's Gospel is NOT of human origin and he didn't learn it from any man. Instead he learn it from Jesus. This doesn't sound like he thought that Jesus was a human or a man. Also, notice that God didn't reveal His son TO Paul but IN Paul. Again, this sounds like he has some idea of Jesus other than a flesh and blood man.

Then explain Mark 1:14-15, Mark 16:16, Luke 8:1-15, John 3:13-18, John 3:36, and John 6:35-59.

14 After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. 15 “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”

16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

1 After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, 2 and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; 3 Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.
4 While a large crowd was gathering and people were coming to Jesus from town after town, he told this parable: 5 “A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path; it was trampled on, and the birds ate it up. 6 Some fell on rocky ground, and when it came up, the plants withered because they had no moisture. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up with it and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up and yielded a crop, a hundred times more than was sown.”

When he said this, he called out, “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.”

9 His disciples asked him what this parable meant. 10 He said, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that,

“‘though seeing, they may not see;
though hearing, they may not understand.’[a]

11 “This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God. 12 Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. 13 Those on the rocky ground are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away. 14 The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life’s worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature. 15 But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop.

I see nothing here that contradicts what I said or that significantly departs from Judaism. And even if it did, I did mention that Jesus did make a few alterations to the Torah and so I don't know why you think this needs explaining.

I haven't looked at the verses in John and wont bother because I don't consider John to be historical. The Jesus in John doesn't match the Jesus of the other three gospels at all, it was written more than 50 years after his death and TMK, most serious scholars do not consider it to be historical at all either. And so when it comes to discussing the actual historical Jesus, what the real flesh and blood person said and did, I leave the gospel of John alone.

Christianity has always had its foundation in Jesus' teachings and in what the Holy Spirit followed up with in the first generation after Jesus' death and resurrection. There was only ever one Gospel, though there were some Judaizers who fell short of it due to their failure to grasp Christ's sufficiency, which he declared on the cross (John 19:30). There numerous Gnostic imitators of course, whose faith predated Christianity and thought they could use it as a vehicle to breathe fresh life into their movement. But they all fall short of what Jesus preached, and the apostles did after him. The vote on what made the NT canon was so lopsided in part because what is today recognized as the New Testament stood out so much from the Gnostic texts as far as truth preached, verifiability, and how broadly they were accepted. Furthermore, I'm not sure what you mean by "mainstream Christianity," but the core Christian truths come straight out of the New Testament, which can be verified to the second century as far as actual remains go.

When you say there is only one gospel, what you really mean is there is only one gospel you consider to be divinely inspired. But there were many different gospels being preached, taught and written during the early centuries of Christianity. Some of which have survived to the present day.

When I say mainstream, I mostly mean the points that Catholics and protestants agree on. There is no consensus at all among Christians what is essential doctrine and practice but a majority of Christians agree on a list of doctrine that includes the trinity and the death burial and resurrection of Jesus.

God gave them more than enough signs and wonders before the rebellion in the desert to convince them. And they were still faithless, except for Moses and a few others. Whether they grew up with Torah or not, they saw the Ten Plagues, they crossed the Red Sea on dry land only for Pharoah's army to be swept away when it gave chase, they saw water come from the rock, they saw divine provision of manna and quail, and they saw the pillar of smoke by day and the pillar of fire by night. God was beyond good to them, giving them more than enough opportunities to trust in his power, love and provision for them. Yet they still complained and turned away at the least sign of trouble. No matter what anyone's background is, seeing even some of those things should make a passionate, faithful convert out of him.

Okay. I get what you are saying. I think you are saying that the signs and wonders during the Exodus should have made converts out of them just like Jesus' signs and wonders should have. The problem here is that God led them out of Egypt and gave them the promise land. Jesus didn't exactly do anything for Israel. Yeah, he was a healer and other miracle worker but healing and magic alone a god does not make. He wasn't the only miracle worker present in the middle east during the day and they weren't supposed to just go around worshiping every miracle worker than came along.

Also, consider the following verses:

1 [a]If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

8 If cases come before your courts that are too difficult for you to judge—whether bloodshed, lawsuits or assaults—take them to the place the LORD your God will choose. 9 Go to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is in office at that time. Inquire of them and they will give you the verdict. 10 You must act according to the decisions they give you at the place the LORD will choose. Be careful to do everything they instruct you to do. 11 Act according to whatever they teach you and the decisions they give you. Do not turn aside from what they tell you, to the right or to the left. 12 Anyone who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the LORD your God is to be put to death. You must purge the evil from Israel. 13 All the people will hear and be afraid, and will not be contemptuous again.

The whole crux of the issue is that the God of Abraham is NOT a man. Any man who either claims himself or is claimed to be a god cannot be the God of Abraham because THE GOD OF ABRAHAM IS NOT A MAN. Jesus, by just being a man, would be a foreign god.

Also Jesus was quite contemptuous of the religious leaders of the day. Regardless of the legitimacy or lack thereof of what was going on in the temple, the verse says to pt to death those that show contempt for the priests and judges. Jesus being sentenced to death for his action was perfectly well within the bounds of the Torah

 

[Beautiful Ignorance]

I said they went into captivity because they rejected Torah. If I am incorrect then, you would have to say that idolatry is somehow permitted in Torah.

No, you are entirely correct. That is exactly why they went into captivity. The problem here is you said they rejected Jesus for the same reason they rejected Torah and that is not at all correct. There is nothing whatsoever in the Torah telling the Jews to follow Jesus.

So, when God wrestled Jacob and revealed himself to Ezekiel, Isaiah and Daniel, what was God doing? Was he making an image of himself?

I am not a literalist. I don't believe that the universe was created in six literal days 5772 literal years ago nor do I believe there was ever a world wide flood. And I don't believe that Jacob literally wrestled with God. I can see why you might consider that copout and so I'll try to explain this the best I can.

I treat the bible like a religious text, not a scientific or historical text. This means I don't insist on it being either scientifically or historically accurate but I do insist on a consistent theology. In many places the uses metaphors, allegories and symbolism to explain things that we have no way of referring to directly due to the limitations of our language. And in the Old Testament, there's room for that. I have wrestled with God myself but not literally and so I see how Jacob could wrestle with God is a likewise metaphorical sense.

But in the New Testament, it's inescapable. Jesus is presented as being unmistakably a flesh and blood person in the four Gospels and throughout the rest of the NT, he presented as either a god or an intermediary between God and man, both of which are forbidden in the OT.

Christianity teaches that Jesus as the image of God is similar,

The God of Abraham has no image though. Not in that sense.

though more personal. Think of the incarnation as a flesh-and-blood Shekhinah.

The God of Abraham is NOT flesh and blood.

Furthermore, Christianity did not constitute classical idolatry. They had to make up another category for it to fit it in. If you doubt me, there is much Jewish literature that differentiates Christians from idolaters.

Actually there is not a universal consensus among Jews over this and I am among those hardliners that say, "Yes it is straight up idolatry."

With Christianity as the largest religion in the world and the force that drove paganism underground the Western world, that makes a good case for teaching the whole world to worship the God of Abraham.

Except for the God of Abraham is not a man. In this case, Mohammud makes a better case for the messiah than did Jesus because the Islamic Allah has more in similarity with YHWH than does the Christian Jesus. Christianity, being a pantheon of three gods, resembles paganism more closely than Judaism.

We worship him all the time. As far as the rest goes, he will do that when he returns. We do not have two messiahs. We have one Messiah, and two comings.

And so this an admission that Jesus didn't fulfill the requirements of the messiah after all. In Judaism, one must fulfill the requirements before, not after being considered the messiah.

Besides, the messiah is not a godman, not a god, not a demigod, not an angel or even an alien but a normal flesh and blood human being conceived not of a virgin but by two very human parents.

If they kept the Torah, they would have believed in Jesus, because he was foretold through Moses, David, and the prophets.

This comes back to the very point of the thread. It seems like everyone but the people that actually read and practiced the Old Testament religion thought Jesus was a messiah. If the Old Testament contains anything at all in it about Jesus, it was so poorly communicated that no one at all came up with the idea that God would become a man and get crucified ahead of time. No one.

In a nutshell, what it seems you are doing here is asking me to accept the idea that God is a very poor communicator.

Hardly. My statement simply states that there is a tradition within Jewish culture to reject Jesus if the subject comes up.

To the Jew, Jesus is no more God than David Koresh. If there is a tradition here, that tradition is not worshiping men as God. Jesus is not more or less rejected as God than any other man.

There are various reasons for this. Some Jews think that we're out to destroy them. Some Jews think that Jesus really was the bad person that hundreds of years worth of lies make him out to be, rather than going to the most accurate record about him, which is the New Testament. Many don't want to even pick up the New Testament to read it for cultural reasons, it's just taboo.

I have a feeling that your understanding of Judaism is mostly academic. My personal experience with Judaism is somewhat limited because of the part of the USA I live in doesn't have a large Jewish population. But most of the Jews I have known, both IRL and on the internet have read the NT in its entirety and know more about early Christian history than most Christians I know.

So you, a self-proclaimed Gentile, are trying to tell me that this man does not understand Judaism because his last name indicates to you that he was descended from a convert, yet you're trying to lecture me on what Judaism teaches. And then you're saying five books speaks for itself - without considering the content of those five books. Do yourself a favor and investigate the facts before you dismiss them, whether it is about a person or his body of work. I could tell you that he was born Jewish, has his doctorate in Semetic languages, debates rabbis frequently and does so well that he makes them available. But since that's not enough, you can investigate him yourself here and here. Instead of making assumptions based on his last name, read some of his books.

For the name, I just said it sounded suspicious. A man who calls himself Michael Brown is someone who clearly does NOT identify as being Jewish and so it's like he is broadcasting his bias upfront.

But maybe you are right, I might should consider the actual content of the book before dismissing it but I don't see why its necessary. If Jesus really is somewhere in the OT, shouldn't we be able to just pick up the OT and find it?

 

[Beautiful Ignorance]

Matthew 13:57
And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

If you don't have anything to say, why did you post? What were you hoping to accomplish here?

 

[Beautiful Ignorance]

I just remembered; didn't St. John Chrysostom like write an entire homily series on the Jews rejecting Christ?

*googles*

Found it: HOMILIES AGAINST THE JEWS[bless and do not curse] |[bless and do not curse] Church History

Pretty cool, looks like what we've all been discussing.

Was there any intent to this post outside of just flaming?

 

[GrayAngel]

I am not seeing this the same way as you do at all. The way I understand this is that God is saying that His servant WILL restore tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel that God has kept. But this is too small of a thing to stop there and so God will also make His servant a light for the Gentiles, etc. There is nothing at all in here about the Jews rejecting anyone.

Let's look at the surrounding verses:

This verse identifies Israel as the servant of God. And so we have Israel being identified as both the first born son of God and the servant of God. And God is going to use his servant, Israel, to be a light to the gentiles so that salvation can reach the ends of the earth. And So Israel is the servant, not Jesus.

Israel has never been a light to the gentiles. The Jews were quite happy keeping salvation all to themselves. Salvation was never offered to the gentiles, or spread to the ends of the earth, until after Jesus. Isaiah was not speaking of Jerusalem.

The second was so that the people could prepare for what was coming, (famines, invading enemies, etc.).

If you read it on the surface level alone, that's what it looks like, but prophecies are rarely spoken plainly. They use symbols, which have a different meaning than the literal. The book of Revelation is written in much the same way.

What you're ignoring is how all of these prophecies clearly point to the life of Jesus. And I have only pointed out a very select few of them.

Even if you chose to interpret it as speaking of Jerusalem, it doesn't make any sense that way. How could Jerusalem die for the iniquities of Jerusalem? How could Jerusalem be given a rich man's grave? These things do not apply to Israel.

Actually they more closely coincide with the history of Israel which comes as no surprise since Israel is plainly identified as being the subject of the prophesies.

How so? I don't see how these prophecies could make a lick of sense if it were speaking literally of Israel alone.

In reference to possibly either Isaiah 8:14 or Isaiah 28:16

If this is really talking about Jesus, then it sounds like he will be a stumbling block for the Jews. And the Jews did reject Jesus and so it looks like prophesy is fulfilled. But is that what the verse is really talking about? Let's look at the verse in context of the surrounding verses and see if this stone is identified:

None other than God Almighty Himself is identified as being the subject of the verses we were looking for and, in context, the preceding verses are saying that an enemy invasion is coming but not to fear. God alone is the one to fear, etc. The verse is not about Jesus or some future prophet but about events that are soon to transpire.

I've already pointed out the verses the NT was referencing, but since you chose to use this one instead...

Jesus is God. Other prophecies identified a son who would be born who would be called Mighty God.

Isaiah 9:5-6 - For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Was Israel called Mighty God or Everlasting Father? No. This is the same child spoken of a few chapters earlier.

Isaiah 7:14 - Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Yes, I am aware that the word for "virgin" could also be translated to "young unmarried girl." But at that time, young unmarried girls were assumed to be virgins. Furthermore, this is identified as a "sign" (i.e. a miracle). It wouldn't be a miracle if this son were born the normal way.

Also, as I'm sure you're aware, Immanuel means "God with us." Jesus was God with us. No one else fits that description.

We also have a hint of a virgin birth in Genesis.

Genesis 3:15 - "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

Jesus was the offspring of a woman alone, with no help from a man. Therefore Jesus was the offspring of Eve, as opposed to Adam. Also, why does God speak of this offspring in singular form, or more specifically as a male descendant? Who has crushed the head of Satan?

Yes I do. Because if you just take a verse here and there, you can use it to support anything. Using the same method, I can make the OT testament for tell my own life.

But taking the verse in context of the surrounding verses, the meaning of the verses becomes a lot more limited.

Yes, scripture can be easily twisted, but Christians aren't the ones who are guilty of doing so. The OT scriptures clearly point to Jesus. False interpretations usually cling to one or two verses taken out of context, not hundreds. I doubt you could find hundreds of passages that describe your life.

The scriptures even describe when the Messiah would come. He was predicted to ride into the city of Jerusalem on a lowly donkey and that He would enter the temple. What happened to the temple? It's in ruins, as was also predicted. Either the messiah came already, or he's not coming at all.

Actually, I think now they were referring to Israel as a nation and this servant has in fact been figuratively crucified over and over again by the rest of the world. Not just Jesus but Jews everywhere have paid the price time and time again for the sins of the rest of the world. No people have ever been more hated and persecuted than the Jews. And yet, despite two thousand years of constant attempts to rid them from the face of the earth, God has preserved them.

The scriptures say that the servant died for the iniquities of Isaiah's people, not the sins of everyone else. The Jews were never sacrificed for their own sins, or for the sins of anyone. God didn't kill Israel for the forgiveness of their own sins. They weren't led like lambs to the slaughter, they gave lambs to the slaughter for the forgiveness of sins.

The servant is also supposed to rise from the dead. Don't know too many Jews who've managed to do that.

I understand what the claim is. But the God of Abraham is NOT a man. And so he can only be considered a foreign god.

You've got it backwards. Yes, God was not a man. But the man was God. God made Himself into the form of a man. He isn't a foreign god, because they are one and the same.

Right there, we have a problem. The Old Testament says that God is one. It does not say God is three:

Notice that the Lord is ONE, NOT three.

Jesus himself repeated this very verse even calling it the most important one:

Also, if Jesus is not an equal with the father, then he would be a lesser god before God and so we are back to where we started; Worshiping him violates the first commandment.

You're right. God is one. No one, except the Mormons, would argue otherwise. The Trinity is one God, manifested in three ways. If they were three separate Gods, then God would be three, but that is not what the Bible teaches.

Jesus didn't consider Himself equal to God, not because He was separate from God, but because He came to be a servant:

Philippians 2:5-8 - In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

This assumes that Jesus is God. The problem with that is by the fact that Jesus is a man and has an image, he can't be the God of Abraham because the God of Abraham is not a man and is unseen. Here's the verse from the Torah no less:

If this is correct, then either everyone who ever met Jesus died immediately or he wasn't God. I see no other way around this.

Take your own advice and read the scripture in context. I don't interpret this as saying that God is unable to take on human form. To say so would be limiting God's power. I think this passage is saying that God the Father doesn't have the weaknesses of man. He will never lie, change His mind, or break a promise.

God is not a man. The man was God in human form (incarnate).

As for dying as a result of seeing God's face, I thought you said He didn't have an image? How could God show His face if He didn't have an image?

This is how I interpret it. God the Father is infinite. No one can grasp infinity, and so God cannot "show Himself" fully to anyone. It would literally kill us.

Painting a picture of God as an Old Man is just as blasphemous as painting a portrait of a cow and calling it God.

People do worship the Jesus of the paintings. Many people have an idea that God looks like a Spaniard (the famous paintings of Jesus that found their way into our collective psyche were done by Spaniards who quite naturally painted Jesus to look like themselves, thereby recreating god in their own image) and that's the face that comes to mind when they pray.

And so, yes, Christianity is very much so in the business of giving God and image. This is in direct violation of the 2nd commandment. I see no way around this.

People do not worship the paintings of Jesus. And, again, we did not make Jesus: God did. We are not breaking any law.

 

[Hismessenger]

It was because of the leaders who felt threatened by His truth. Pharisees and Sadduccees.

hismessenger

 

[Aeneas]

Was there any intent to this post outside of just flaming?

Posting patristics. How on earth was that flaming?

 

[Beautiful Ignorance]

Israel has never been a light to the gentiles.

That's just straight out false through and through. If anyone has been a light to the world, it's been the Jews.

To point to the very most obvious example, the OT is by far the all time most widely published and available book.

With the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the Jews spread out all over the earth and everywhere they went, people abandoned their own ideas about God adopted Jewish ideas. Europe abandoned polytheism and paganism in exchange for Christianity. It might not be quite monotheistic as Judaism but it's a lot closer than what came before. The Arab world was likewise steeped in Polytheism and they invented Muslim, which is straight out an imitation of Judaism. A number of less successful religions that are more or less imitations can be found all over Asia.

On another note, as a group, Jews have done as much or more to advance the human race as any group of people on the earth. Approximately 20% of all Nobel prize laureates have been Jewish despite the fact that 1/5 of the worlds population is not Jewish. (Jews actually make up approximately 0.17 % of the total worlds population).

Einstein, who is pretty much universally agreed upon to be the greatest scientist of the 20th century and possibly of all time and completely changed our ideas about space and time was Jewish.

The Jews were quite happy keeping salvation all to themselves. Salvation was never offered to the gentiles, or spread to the ends of the earth, until after Jesus.

The Jewish religion has never held that people are in need of Salvation. There is no Hell nor are people 'lost' in the OT.

It is not entirely true that Jews have never tried to spread their religion or seek converts. In the years between the fall of Jerusalem up to the time that Constantine began Christianizing Rome, the Rabbinical Jews did seek converts. Once Christianity took over, it became out-lawed under penalty of expulsion or death.

During the middle ages, there were numerous occasions when Jews were invited to publicly debate the divine statue of Jesus. These debates almost always resulted in more people converting to Judaism than they other way around and so the Jews were almost always hit with a backlash of angry Christians.

Also, during the same centuries whenever a famine would hit, the Jews were always better prepared for it than their Christian neighbors (preparing for the coming famine is part of the religion. It's a reoccuring theme throughout the OT) and so they would see an influx of people trying to convert and join the Jewish community to avoid starving to death. And as a result, they were almost always hit with a backlash against the Christian community for stealing people's faith. Also, because everyone besides the Jews were starving to death, many people got the idea that the Jews orchestrated it. People thought they sucked up all the wealth and let everyone else to starve and so they got hit for that also.

Also, because their religion required that they maintain a unique culture from that of the places where they settled, they were easily identifiable as foreigners and so made easy scapegoats for incompetent rulers

That's what happened in Russia prior to the Communist takeover and also what happened in Europe between WW I and WW II.

Jews have never tried to "hide the light" but no only has the world not wanted it, the world has tried over and over again to annihilate them for being the people that had it.

Isaiah was not speaking of Jerusalem.

Actually, the text mentions the servant of God in four different places. In one of those places, Israel, not just Jerusalem, is identified as being the Servant of God.

If you read it on the surface level alone, that's what it looks like, but prophecies are rarely spoken plainly. They use symbols, which have a different meaning than the literal. The book of Revelation is written in much the same way.

Not quite

Revelation is using a code which means the person that wrote it knew what they were writing and intentionally obscuring it so that those without the code couldn't decipher it's meaning. Christians were being fed to lions by the Romans at the time and so the write had good reason to keep his message and intent hidden from the wrong audience.

The meaning of the text is not hidden to anyone possessing the key to unlock the code. I don't claim to have the complete key but I do have part of it and understand enough about Jewish symbolism to recognize how the rest of it's put together. For example, different animals, numbers, and body parts carry different specific meanings. 7 is the number for perfection and eyes represent sight or gaining knowledge while mouths represent giving knowledge. And so some text describing a thing with seven eyes means that the thing has perfect knowledge or insight while a thing with 7 mouths speaks perfect truth.

Isaiah on the other hand is merely poetic. There is nothing in the text or in the historical context of the text to suggest that any attempt was made to obscure its meaning.

What the original gospels writers, and Christians ever since have done is select passages here and there that can be used to describe or tell the Christ story, pulled them out of the surrounding text and claim that they point toward or prophesize of Jesus. The problem with this approach is you can take any book of sufficient length and do the same thing. But when you look at the verse in context of the surrounding verses, it doesn't appear to prophesize of Jesus at all.

What you're ignoring is how all of these prophecies clearly point to the life of Jesus. And I have only pointed out a very select few of them.

I'm not ignoring them at all. I'm putting them into context with the surrounding text and the surrounding text does not at all support the assertion that they are actually about Jesus.

Even if you chose to interpret it as speaking of Jerusalem, it doesn't make any sense that way. How could Jerusalem die for the iniquities of Jerusalem? How could Jerusalem be given a rich man's grave? These things do not apply to Israel.

The best way, I think, to address the subject is to post a specific verse and then let's discuss it. Keep in mind, I will read whatever verses you post in the context of its surrounding verses.

How so? I don't see how these prophecies could make a lick of sense if it were speaking literally of Israel alone.

Post specific verse and we'll talk about it.

I've already pointed out the verses the NT was referencing, but since you chose to use this one instead...

Jesus is God. Other prophecies identified a son who would be born who would be called Mighty God.

Isaiah 9:5-6 - For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Was Israel called Mighty God or Everlasting Father? No. This is the same child spoken of a few chapters earlier.

Good. Just what I was asking for. Thank you.

Let's look at the verse in context of it's surrounding verses.

1 [a]Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the nations, by the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan—

2 The people walking in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of deep darkness
a light has dawned.
3 You have enlarged the nation
and increased their joy;
they rejoice before you
as people rejoice at the harvest,
as warriors rejoice
when dividing the plunder.
4 For as in the day of Midian’s defeat,
you have shattered
the yoke that burdens them,
the bar across their shoulders,
the rod of their oppressor.
5 Every warrior’s boot used in battle
and every garment rolled in blood
will be destined for burning,
will be fuel for the fire.
6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the greatness of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the LORD Almighty
will accomplish this.

The child here isn't clearly identified. The entire chapter does appear to be someone talking to God and so its possible that the speaker is saying the child will be called wonderful counselor and then addressing God again. For example, if the same speaker was talking to George, the text might read,

"For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, George."

But to assume that the child will be called wonderful counselor and mighty God, the text is then saying he will be called that. Doesn't say he will BE that.

But aside from that, it's the parts that I have in bold that really rule out Jesus. Jesus didn't head a government, didn't set on the throne of David or any other throne, nor has he established peace without end.

I'm not at all ignoring how this prophesy clearly points to Jesus because if it does point to Jesus, its not at all clear. The prophesy is prophesizing things that Jesus didn't do. How else am I to read that than to conclude it wasn't Jesus?

Isaiah 7:14 - Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Yes, I am aware that the word for "virgin" could also be translated to "young unmarried girl." But at that time, young unmarried girls were assumed to be virgins. Furthermore, this is identified as a "sign" (i.e. a miracle). It wouldn't be a miracle if this son were born the normal way.

There is a Hebrew word for female virgin (there is no Hebrew word that means male who hasn't had sex nor is there in most other languages) and it is not used. Instead, the word for maiden is used.

Let's take a look at the verse in context:

When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.
2 Now the house of David was told, “Aram has allied itself with[a] Ephraim”; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.

3 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, “Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub, to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Launderer’s Field. 4 Say to him, ‘Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood—because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah. 5 Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah’s son have plotted your ruin, saying, 6 “Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it.” 7 Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says:

“‘It will not take place,
it will not happen,
8 for the head of Aram is Damascus,
and the head of Damascus is only Rezin.
Within sixty-five years
Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people.
9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria,
and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah’s son.
If you do not stand firm in your faith,
you will not stand at all.’”

10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”

12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test.”

13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[c] a sign: The virgin[d] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[e] will call him Immanuel.[f] 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”

This is clearly not talking about Jesus but a child that is to be born in the near future. Take specific note of: for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

Also, as I'm sure you're aware, Immanuel means "God with us." Jesus was God with us. No one else fits that description.

Alright, then tell me about the time when Jesus didn't know right from wrong yet. This happens around the same time that the two kings that Ahaz dreaded were laid to waste. I thought Jesus was born hundreds years later but apparently not. Or maybe Ahaz and those two dreaded kings lived a really long time?

 

[Beautiful Ignorance]

We also have a hint of a virgin birth in Genesis.

Genesis 3:15 - "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."[/quote]

To be honest with you, I don't know what this means. I have some ideas but I don't know how accurate they are.

But there is nothing here implying a virgin birth. I don't get how you got that. Because it just says the woman and doesn't mention the man?

Jesus was the offspring of a woman alone, with no help from a man. Therefore Jesus was the offspring of Eve, as opposed to Adam. Also, why does God speak of this offspring in singular form, or more specifically as a male descendant? Who has crushed the head of Satan

Okay gotcha. That's seems to be reaching though. If you can make your case and convince me with other verses, I will grant you this one. But by itself, it's too weak. It can be interpreted other ways.

The biggest problem right off the bat is that the serpent is never identified as Satan. You are just assuming that but it's nowhere in the text. Also, Satan is never identified as the devil in the whole OT.

Your reasoning here is circular. You are assuming the Devil and Satan are one and the same and that the Serpent is Satan/the Devil because they are identified as such in the NT. And so you are assuming the NT is correct to make the case that this points toward Jesus which would prove the NT right.

Try just using the text in Genesis alone to make the same case. You can't do it though because there is no mention of any devil anywhere in the entire Old Testament.

Yes, scripture can be easily twisted, but Christians aren't the ones who are guilty of doing so. The OT scriptures clearly point to Jesus. False interpretations usually cling to one or two verses taken out of context, not hundreds. I doubt you could find hundreds of passages that describe your life.

Why not? The Old Testament is the Jewish Bible, Jesus was a Jew. You take any Jew on the planet and you can find hundreds if not thousands of verses that describe their life. Not because it's prophecised but because they are just following instructions.

The scriptures even describe when the Messiah would come. He was predicted to ride into the city of Jerusalem on a lowly donkey and that He would enter the temple. What happened to the temple? It's in ruins, as was also predicted. Either the messiah came already, or he's not coming at all.

Or the temple will be rebuilt. The messianic temple is describe in detail in the book of Ezekial and the temple of Herod, the temple during Jesus' day, didn't match the description and so he couldn't be The Messiah.

You are right that the OT does tell when the Messiah will appear and Jesus was about 2200 years too early. The Jewish calender is on a 6000 year time line and THE Messiah is not scheduled to appear until near the end.

In a nutshell, the timeline is as follows; the second temple will be destroyed and the Jews will be scattered all over the earth. Everywhere they go, people will abandon their old gods and adopt Jewish ideas about God but the Jews will be hated and despised wherever they go. Toward the end, Torah observance will increase among the gentiles and the Jews will be begin returning to Israel. (That's where we currently are). When more than half the world's population of Jews are back in the holy land, the age of prophets will began again. A great enemy, (I believe the King of Persia, or modern day Iran, but I'm not for certain) will stand against Israel. The messiah will then be revealed, descending from the sky (thanks to the invention of planes, this is the first time in history this actually literally possible) to destroy the enemy. The messiah will establish world peace, end social injustice, etc. and teach the whole world to worship the God of Abraham. At this point in time, all religions will disappear except the religion of the Messiah.

The last thousand days of the timeline will be the reign of the Messiah. The current year is 5772 and so we have about two more centuries before The Messiah is to appear.

Christians for the most part agree with the Jews about everything on this timeline except for the identity of the Messiah or whether he has been here before. Also, in Judaism, he is not believed to be a godman.

Many of the Pharisees in Jesus' day weren't even looking for the Messiah because it was 2200 years two early

The scriptures say that the servant died for the iniquities of Isaiah's people, not the sins of everyone else. The Jews were never sacrificed for their own sins, or for the sins of anyone. God didn't kill Israel for the forgiveness of their own sins. They weren't led like lambs to the slaughter, they gave lambs to the slaughter for the forgiveness of sins.

Please post the verses in Isaiah or wherever else you are referring to.

The servant is also supposed to rise from the dead. Don't know too many Jews who've managed to do that.

Not Jews as individuals but the nation of Israel. After being gone from the earth for 1900 years, the nation of Israel was refounded, thereby being resurrected from the dead.

You've got it backwards. Yes, God was not a man. But the man was God.

If a man is God then God is a man. You can't have x=a and x=/=a and the same time. that is utter nonsense.

God made Himself into the form of a man. He isn't a foreign god, because they are one and the same.

Instead of just repeating myself over and over again I'm going to try to get you to look at it from the Jews POV. God told the Jews to have no gods before him. Doesn't matter what they look like. If it looks like any thing at all, it's off limits.

It's kind of like if God tells you're not to eat any apples. Doesn't matter how big they are, what color, where they were grown, etc. If it's an apple, it's off limits.

And so every time that the Jews worshiped anything at all they could see, God came along, killed a lot of them, beat up a lot of them and bad, broke their legs, arms, noses, captured a lot of them and thew them into prisons where they starved to death, were beaten, made them sick, he didn't play games with them. He messed them up and bad.

The same thing happens to you every time you eat an apple. God marches into your home and beats you into a body cast. Breaks every bone in you whole body. And then you heal up, not in the hospital but in a cold dark basement.

Then in the first century, Jesus comes along, made an impression and some of the Jews made a religion out of him. All the rest of them didn't want to have anything more to do with worshiping a man than you want to have with eating apples.

Worshiping a man means really bad news for Jews. Worshiping anything they can see means lots of pain and lots of death.

 

[Beautiful Ignorance]

Posting patristics. How on earth was that flaming?

If that wasn't intended as a flame, I apologize. I didn't read the link but they part of it you posted had some very unkind things to say about Jews.