Why did the Jews reject Jesus?

[Beautiful Ignorance]

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?

 

[drich0150]

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?

Because they had a picture of a conquering all powerful liberator, that would free them from the Romans. When in fact the freedom He was offering was much much greater. (Freedom from sin, and freedom from their religion.)
Which points to the second reason the "priests" did not want to accept Christ. In that He made the way they made a living pretty much obsolete. He did not play image to their efforts, He did the exact opposite. He exposed their selfishness and self righteousness without apology. In short He did not play to their pride, and their personal sense of righteousness superseded the righteousness of God. This is the same reason people do not believe in Christ now.

 

[razeontherock]

Very true. Additionally, many Jews did accept that Jesus is the Christ, and if they all did, Salvation wouldn't be available to us.

 

[Beautiful Ignorance]

Because they had a picture of a conquering all powerful liberator, that would free them from the Romans.

The reason they were expecting that is because that's the way the Old Testament describes the messiah.

Its as if God never intended for the Jews to recognize the Messiah but instead planned them to reject the Messiah all along. Considering that according to Christianity, those that do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah and the Savior are going to Hell, it seems like God chose the Jews to be damned.

And if God does his own chosen people that way, what hope do I have?

When in fact the freedom He was offering was much much greater. (Freedom from sin,

The Jews already had that. The law taught them how to live without sinning. Also, God readily gave his forgiveness to all whose made an honest effort in keeping the law.

and freedom from their religion.)

And why exactly would they ever want that? Especially when Christianity is the alternative?

Contrary to popular belief among Christians, the Jews do not see the law as a curse but as a blessing and Christianity is not an improvement over Judaism. For one thing, consider the difference in religious identity: Jews are the chosen people of God, selected out of all people to fulfill a special purpose and being a Jew is special privilege. And the law is the language by which they get to live out that special relationship.

Christians, on the other hand, are dirty wicked sinners who are but filthy rags before God, merely forgiven, as the special language of the Law has been done away with and it's not an opportunity so much as an obligation because otherwise you'll be sent to Hell. If you thought your relationship with God was bad under the OT, at least you didn't have didn't have Jesus' death hanging over your head. Also, you didn't have to worry about going to Hell as the worst that happened to you was dying.

That's a pretty huge step backwards.

Also, Jews treat each other world's better than Christians do. Christians treat each other like absolute dung in comparison. One of the reasons that Jews don't seek converts as that throughout the last 2 thousand years, any time a famine would strike an area populated with Jews, gentiles would try to convert to Judaism because they knew that Jews prepared ahead of time and took care of each other whereas Christians didn't and would let the have-nots starve. When this happened, the Jews feared a backlash from Christians for stealing people's faith. Also, they didn't want false conversions.

On another thread I commented that for a Jew to become a Christian meant going from being treated like a Jew by other Jews to being treated like a Christian by other Christians. A Jew would have to be either completely convinced or downright insane to give up being a Jew to be a Christian.

Which points to the second reason the "priests" did not want to accept Christ. In that He made the way they made a living pretty much obsolete.

It is extremely unlikely that they looked at it that way. The Sadducees (the "priests") were the ones that turned Jesus over to the Romans to be put to death. They only believed in the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) and none of the rest of the Old Testament. The promise of the Messiah didn't come until much later. They didn't believe in the Messiah and certainly didn't think of the Messiah as a God-man sacrifice (The Old Testament God is unseen and invisible, not a man).

Their motivations for putting Jesus to death probably had a lot more to do with the incident involving the money changers than anything theological. When Jesus crossed the line and got physical, they probably got scared that he would start a riot and that would attract the attention of Pontious Pilate who had a reputation for being ruthless and cruel. They certainly didn't want that and so they got rid of him to keep Pilate from killing them all.

(On a side note, that the Sadducees had Jesus killed has been a source of religious antisemitism for the last two thousand years. What's really, really sad about this is the modern day Rabbinical Jews are descendants of the Pharisees, not the Sadducees. The Sadducees were wiped out with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the branch that did survive (The Pharisees) had nothing whatsoever to do with crucifixion (Jesus himself was a Pharisee, evidenced in that he used the Septuagint instead of the just the Torah, quoted from other sources like the Talmud and the Midrush that the Pharisees used but the Saduccees rejected, and was even called by the title given to the Pharisees). And so all this time, Christians have been persecuting and murdering the entirely wrong group of Jews.)

He did not play image to their efforts, He did the exact opposite. He exposed their selfishness and self righteousness without apology. In short He did not play to their pride, and their personal sense of righteousness superseded the righteousness of God. This is the same reason people do not believe in Christ now.

None of this has anything to do with why I am not a Christian. I deconverted from Christianity mostly because I grew up in a Christian environment being treated like a Christian by other Christians and the experience was so incredibly miserable that I couldn't fathom that the "God of Love" had anything at all to do with Christianity. I couldn't imagine that any place filled with nothing but Christians would be anything other than Hell.

I remained an atheist for over the next decade and in that time, I read the OT and the NT in order and in their entirety. That's when I first got an idea of just how different the OT is from the NT. Completely different theology. I started believing in the OT because I recognized the God of the OT as being the same God I see in the universe around me. The NT, on the other hand, presents an entirely different idea of God, one for which I see no supporting evidence whatsoever.

But all this aside, it still strikes me as extremely odd that the very people that God chose to write the Bible and tell the world the truth about God could so misunderstand their own religion so badly that they couldn't even recognize their own Messiah.

God spent all that time with the Jews, preparing them for the coming Messiah only so that they could entirely miss it when he came?

Consider this: Jesus was rejected by the Jews themselves but accepted and worshiped as the messiah and a deity by the Romans, a civilization that had no background in Old Testament theology but did have a history of worshiping men as gods. These are the people that first tried to tell the Jews what their religion was really about. Is it any wonder the Jews didn't listen?

 

[Aeneas]

Because they had a picture of a conquering all powerful liberator, that would free them from the Romans.

Which was really quite ridiculous; the Romans were notable in how tolerant they were of local affairs in their territories.

 

[Beautiful Ignorance]

Very true. Additionally, many Jews did accept that Jesus is the Christ, and if they all did, Salvation wouldn't be available to us.

You bring up an interesting point in that the spread of Christianity was entirely dependent upon the Jews rejecting Jesus. The early Christians turned to gentiles only after the vast majority of Jews refused to convert. When they did this, they dropped most of the Jewish requirement for conversion and that's when it became an entirely different religion.

Had the Jews accepted Jesus, Christianity would have stayed with the Jews and Europe would have remained Pagan.

The problem with with this idea is it suggests that the Jews played the exact opposite role in which they thought they were playing. Instead of being God's chosen people, they become the only people not chosen by God. Their reward for being the ones' that chose to follow God and take the covenant is that they are sacrificed on the alter of damnation so that the rest of us can escape Hell.

In which case, Jesus' sacrifice pales in comparison to that of his people and the Jews are the ones we should be thanking.

But I reject that for the simple reason that if this is true, then God has lied to the Jews.

 

[Aeneas]

You bring up an interesting point in that the spread of Christianity was entirely dependent upon the Jews rejecting Jesus. The early Christians turned to gentiles only after the vast majority of Jews refused to convert. When they did this, they dropped most of the Jewish requirement for conversion and that's when it became an entirely different religion.

There was never a requirement that one convert to Judaism before converting to Christianity.

 

[Beautiful Ignorance]

There was never a requirement that one convert to Judaism before converting to Christianity.

You really need to read your own bible better before commenting because this is entirely incorrect. The NT makes note of the debate between Peter and Paul about whether or not gentiles were required the same things as the Jews were (circumcision, dietary requirements, etc). Eventually Peter relented and the Jewish requirements were dropped.

 

[Beautiful Ignorance]

Which was really quite ridiculous; the Romans were notable in how tolerant they were of local affairs in their territories.

The Romans didn't care at all about the Jews practicing Judaism. It was that the Romans taxed and ripped off the Jews whenever they felt like it and their was nothing they could do about it. A tax collector would come and had to have a his cut and so you had to pay both Roman taxes and for the service of someone collecting your taxes. Also a Roman could at anytime take up residency in a Jews house and confiscate their fishing boat or whatever else they used to make a living and their was nothing they could do about it. The Jews had plenty of reasons to want the Romans gone from their lands.

The promised Messiah would be one who liberated Israel from foreign lands, returned the Jews in Dispora home to Israel, ended social injustice, war and famine, restore the Israel state and teach the whole world to worship the God of Abraham.

Jesus did none of that. What he did do is offer salvation to the very people that were oppressing the Jews.

 

[Aeneas]

You really need to read your own bible better before commenting because this is entirely incorrect. The NT makes note of the debate between Peter and Paul about whether or not gentiles were required the same things as the Jews were (circumcision, dietary requirements, etc). Eventually Peter relented and the Jewish requirements were dropped.

Sts. Peter and Paul disagreeing over whether there should be a requirement does not mean it ever existed.

 

[Aeneas]

The Romans didn't care at all about the Jews practicing Judaism.

That's my point.

It was that the Romans taxed and ripped off the Jews whenever they felt like it and their was nothing they could do about it.

This is normal, even in the modern day. What about it.

A tax collector would come and had to have a his cut and so you had to pay both Roman taxes and for the service of someone collecting your taxes.

Which is how things work today.

Also a Roman could at anytime take up residency in a Jews house and confiscate their fishing boat or whatever else they used to make a living and their was nothing they could do about it.

And they were noted for not doing these sorts of things very often.

The Jews had plenty of reasons to want the Romans gone from their lands.

They brought it on themselves. The Romans did a lot for them.

The promised Messiah would be one who liberated Israel from foreign lands, returned the Jews in Dispora home to Israel, ended social injustice, war and famine, restore the Israel state and teach the whole world to worship the God of Abraham.

Jesus did none of that. What he did do is offer salvation to the very people that were oppressing the Jews.

Yes, pity they rejected him then. The Romans weren't particularly oppressive. What about it?

 

[Beautiful Ignorance]

That's my point.



This is normal, even in the modern day. What about it.



Which is how things work today.



And they were noted for not doing these sorts of things very often.



They brought it on themselves. The Romans did a lot for them.



Yes, pity they rejected him then. The Romans weren't particularly oppressive. What about it?

You really need to learn your history better because you appear to completely fail to appreciate the nature of the condition of the Jews in that region in the first century. It was a lot worse then it is now. There were no such things as civil rights, no constitutions or anything like that for people under Roman occupation who were not citizens and so their was nothing to restrain the Romans from abusing them. To make matters worse, they were under the jurisdiction of Pontius Pilate who was an exceptionally cruel governor, and under the Kingship of Herod who was so corrupt that when he died, the Jews actually elected direct Roman rule over having the throne pass to his heir.

Also take note that most people would do anything to avoid a fight and revolutions only happen when things can't get any worse because they usually involve people dying in large numbers and people are usually not willing to just get killed unless either death or a change would better than the way things are.

 

[Aeneas]

You really need to learn your history better because you appear to completely fail to appreciate the nature of the condition of the Jews in that region in the first century.

Disagreeing with you does not make me ignorant. The fact that you are arguing with ad hominems does not especially help your case.

It was a lot worse then it is now.

Societies advance. Of course it is better now, which does not really condemn conditions at the time.

There were no such things as civil rights, no constitutions or anything like that for people under Roman occupation who were not citizens and so their was nothing to restrain the Romans from abusing them.

No... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peregrinus_(Roman)

To make matters worse, they were under the jurisdiction of Pontius Pilate who was an exceptionally cruel governor,

You can't condemn an entire governance that lasted centuries by a single Prefect. That is patently absurd.

and under the Kingship of Herod who was so corrupt that when he died, the Jews actually elected direct Roman rule over having the throne pass to his heir.

Again a single king, who wasn't even a Roman. You just made my point for me.

 

[Beautiful Ignorance]

Disagreeing with you does not make me ignorant. The fact that you are arguing with ad hominems does not especially help your case.

The point was that you seem to have this rose colored idea of life for first centuries Jews under Roman rule. Conditions were so bad that many of them were willing to die as opposed to keep living like they were.

Societies advance. Of course it is better now, which does not really condemn conditions at the time.

Your previous post was based in part on the assumption that things are no different now (in many parts of the world, things are no different and those very same places are torn apart by constant warfare).

No... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peregrinus_(Roman)

It would be a good idea to check your links before posting them.

You can't condemn an entire governance that lasted centuries by a single Prefect. That is patently absurd.

But that's not at all what I doing. I was addressing the specific conditions of the people under the rule of the specific single Prefect in question that was over the specific region in question. And the fact remains that that single Prefect was relentless cruel to the people in the specific region during that specific time. It would be a good idea if you actually read something about Pilate before coming to his defense.

Again a single king, who wasn't even a Roman.

Herod's father, Herod the Great was installed by the Romans. Perhaps you should actually read a little about him and his son before jumping to the defense of the Romans.

You just made my point for me.

Do you even know what your point is?

 

[Aeneas]

The point was that you seem to have this rose colored idea of life for first centuries Jews under Roman rule. Conditions were so bad that many of them were willing to die as opposed to keep living like they were.

Just because there was civil unrest doesn't mean that conditions were necessarily bad. It has always seemed to me that the unrest was clearly motivated by religious fanatics.

Your previous post was based in part on the assumption that things are no different now (in many parts of the world, things are no different and those very same places are torn apart by constant warfare).

*patiently* Because you were complaining about taxation, as if it was some unusual and appalling evil.

It would be a good idea to check your links before posting them.

Thank goodness I make a habit of it.

But that's not at all what I doing. I was addressing the specific conditions of the people under the rule of the specific single Prefect in question that was over the specific region in question. And the fact remains that that single Prefect was relentless cruel to the people in the specific region during that specific time. It would be a good idea if you actually read something about Pilate before coming to his defense.

...I'm not. What the heck are you talking about?

Herod's father, Herod the Great was installed by the Romans.

I'm glad to see you admit that it is wrong to blame the Romans for his governance.

Perhaps you should actually read a little about him and his son before jumping to the defense of the Romans.

You're new hear, but you really should understand that we are big on the idea of discussing the post, not the posters.

Do you even know what your point is?

Yes. It is encoded in this video: Zelda Ocarina of Time - Twinrova - No damage - YouTube

 

[Beautiful Ignorance]

Sts. Peter and Paul disagreeing over whether there should be a requirement does not mean it ever existed.

I almost posted the following and left it at that:

"You know what? Just nevermind. If you can't be bothered to read your own bible or learn the history of your own religion, why should I be bothered to waste my time with you.

But I'll go ahead and post a reply for the lurkers and people on the fence.

Peter knew Jesus personally and was the leader of the 12 disciples. Paul didn't come on the scene until much later, when there was already enough converts to the Jesus cult to attract the attention of the Sanhedrin. When they started turning to gentiles, Peter just assumed all the Jewish rules applied to gentiles also and so was requiring gentile converts to get circumcised. This is what started the debate between Peter and Paul. Eventually Peter relented.

Had the Jews accepted Jesus, the nature of Paul's conversion (assuming he would still convert) would have been somewhat different. It's unlikely they would have turned to gentiles and even if they did, they probably wouldn't have dropped the Jewish requirements (why should they, they Jews kept the requirement, so can everyone else) which would have kept the Jesus cult limited to the Jewish people.

 

[Aeneas]

I almost posted the following and left it at that:

"You know what? Just nevermind. If you can't be bothered to read your own bible or learn the history of your own religion, why should I be bothered to waste my time with you.

There's a certain degree of amusement to be derived in someone who isn't a Christian attempting to school me in the fundamentals of my religion. Kind of similar to how some Christians insist that all Muslims believe in terrorism: it is comical.

But I'll go ahead and post a reply for the lurkers and people on the fence.

Peter knew Jesus personally and was the leader of the 12 disciples. Paul didn't come on the scene until much later, when there was already enough converts to the Jesus cult to attract the attention of the Sanhedrin. When they started turning to gentiles, Peter just assumed all the Jewish rules applied to gentiles also and so was requiring gentile converts to get circumcised. This is what started the debate between Peter and Paul. Eventually Peter relented.

*patiently*

Yes, Saint Peter did this, but it wasn't a an actual requirement, it was just something he DID. The Church held a Council and decided that such practices were unorthodox. As such, there has literally never been a time in which conversion to Judaism has been required by the Church. Saint Peter may be "leader of the choir of the Apostles", but he doesn't set the standard for the entire Church in his mere actions. The Church is conciliar.

Had the Jews accepted Jesus, the nature of Paul's conversion (assuming he would still convert) would have been somewhat different. It's unlikely they would have turned to gentiles and even if they did, they probably wouldn't have dropped the Jewish requirements (why should they, they Jews kept the requirement, so can everyone else) which would have kept the Jesus cult limited to the Jewish people.

I don't even see the point of this speculation. The Jews didn't accept him, so what they may or may not have done is purely intellectual.

 

[Beautiful Ignorance]

Just because there was civil unrest doesn't mean that conditions were necessarily bad. It has always seemed to me that the unrest was clearly motivated by religious fanatics.

The zealots were the sect that lead most of the revolts against Rome. Some of it was religiously motivated but not entirely. Many of the zealots were people that were just tired of being tread on by the Romans.

*patiently* Because you were complaining about taxation, as if it was some unusual and appalling evil.

Okay, since you apparently know nothing about the actual conditions of the time. I'll explain it here. I'll answer no further posts of yours addressing this because this is getting absurd and I'm losing my patience.

During that time, when the tax collector came around, he'd clean people out as much as he could and there was nothing they could do about it. The tax collectors often left people with just barely enough to survive. The Romans were take over peoples house holds. Imagine if some soldier from a foreign country just came in to your house, took your bed and, his underlings took the other beds and the couches in your house and you get to sleep outside in the garage. Whatever good food you might have in the place they are going to eat it first and you get whatever is left over. You work 80 hours a week and these are the conditions you come home to.

Or imagine that you are a fisherman. Your boat is how you make you feed your family and you don't know or have anything else. Some soldier from an occupying foreign country comes along confiscates your boat to use for his own purposes. If that means you go hungry, that's your problem, not his.

This is what conditions were like on the ground for the Jews during the first century.

But aside from all this, I realize you have effectively derailed my thread as this has nothing at all to do with why the Jesus rejected Jesus.

Thank goodness I make a habit of it.

Apparently you didn't this time and so I will post a part of the page from the link you posted:

Peregrinus (Roman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Did you mean: Peregrinus (Roman)
Look for Peregrinus (Roman on one of Wikipedia's sister projects:

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Peregrinus (Roman in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.
Search for "Peregrinus (Roman" in existing articles.
Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

Are you aware that the link you posted didn't lead to any specific page? If so, why did you not just post a link to a specific page? Or better yet, why not just post the text you wanted me to read? Maybe text that reads something like:

Social status

Peregrini were accorded only the basic rights of the ius gentium ("law of peoples"), a sort of international law derived from the commercial law developed by Greek city-states,[4] that was used by the Romans to regulate relations between citizens and non-citizens. But the ius gentium did not confer many of the rights and protections of the ius civile ("law of citizens" i.e. what we call Roman law).

In the sphere of criminal law, there was no law to prevent the torture of peregrini during official interrogations. Peregrini were subject to de plano (summary) justice, including execution, at the discretion of the legatus Augusti (provincial governor). In theory at least, Roman citizens could not be tortured and could insist on being tried by a full hearing of the governor's assize court i.e. court held in rotation at different locations. This would involve the governor acting as judge, advised by a consilium ("council") of senior officials, as well as the right of the defendant to employ legal counsel. Roman citizens also enjoyed the important safeguard, against possible malpractice by the governor, of the right to appeal a criminal sentence, especially a death sentence, directly to the emperor himself.[Note 3][7]
As regards civil law, peregrini were subject to the customary laws and courts of their civitas (an administrative circumscription, similar to a county, based on the pre-Roman tribal territories). Cases involving Roman citizens, on the other hand, were adjudicated by the governor's assize court, according to the elaborate rules of Roman civil law.[8] This gave citizens a substantial advantage in disputes with peregrini, especially over land, as Roman law would always prevail over local customary law if there was a conflict. Furthermore, the governor's verdicts were often swayed by the social status of the parties (and often by bribery) rather than by jurisprudence.[9]
In the fiscal sphere, peregrini were subject to direct taxes (tributum): they were obliged to pay an annual poll tax (tributum capitis), an important source of imperial revenue. Roman citizens were exempt from the poll tax.[10] As would be expected in an agricultural economy, by far the most important revenue source was the tax on land (tributum soli), payable on most provincial land. Again, land in Italy was exempt as was, probably, land owned by Roman colonies (coloniae) outside Italy.[11]

In the military sphere, peregrini were excluded from service in the legions, and could only enlist in the less prestigious auxiliary regiments.[12]
In the social sphere, peregrini did not possess the right of connubium ("inter-marriage"): i.e. they could not legally marry a Roman citizen: thus any children from a mixed union were illegitimate and could not inherit citizenship (or property). In addition, peregrini could not, unless they were auxiliary servicemen, designate heirs under Roman law.[13] On their death, therefore, they were legally intestate and their assets became the property of the state.

Emphesis mine.

..I'm not. What the heck are you talking about?

You accused me condemning the entire Roman empire for the actions of Pilate and I was doing no such thing.

I'm glad to see you admit that it is wrong to blame the Romans for his governance.

First of all, I didn't admit anything. Secondly, he was only in power because the Romans gave it to him and so they were at least in part responsible for his crimes against the Jewish people. Finally, the point was about how bad conditions were on the ground for the first century Jew. Regardless of whether the Romans were to blame for him or not, he was still a terrible king and made life miserable for those under his rules.

You're new hear, but you really should understand that we are big on the idea of discussing the post, not the posters.

Alright. I see that.

I'm just kind of losing patience because none of this really has anything to do with the topic of this thread. What kind of leader the Herods were, the degree to which the Romans influenced their rule or how much you have actually read about them has little or nothing to do with why the Jews rejected Jesus.

Things could have a been perfect for the Jews and it still doesn't change the fact that Jesus did not match either Jewish ideas about the Messiah or Jewish ideas about God.

From here on out I'll not be answering your posts unless they actually address the topic of this thread.

Yes. It is encoded in this video: Zelda Ocarina of Time - Twinrova - No damage - YouTube

I didn't watch the video and I don't care about Zelda at all.

 

[drich0150]

The reason they were expecting that is because that's the way the Old Testament describes the messiah.

I have read through the scriptures and studied them myself, and I can see if they were only looking for Physical liberation, Christ not full fill His task.. But, what if God purposes and plans exceeded those of his people who wished to be liberated from Rome? Then that would mean they openly chose to stay with the "religious" interpretations of God, rather than with God Himself?? Why would anyone completely commit themselves to their personal expectations and demands from God, rather than changing their own definitions of God to match what He has provided for us?

Its as if God never intended for the Jews to recognize the Messiah but instead planned them to reject the Messiah all along.

Indeed. Because if for not the Jews refusal, the Rest of the world would be condemned.

Considering that according to Christianity, those that do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah and the Savior are going to Hell, it seems like God chose the Jews to be damned.

Actually Christ explained it a little differently:
Matthew 22 NASB - Parable of the Marriage Feast - Jesus - Bible Gateway

And if God does his own chosen people that way, what hope do I have?

As you can see God's invitation went unheeded by the "chosen." The hope you have is in the same invitation that was extended to them, is now available to you. If you choose to accept. If not know you fate will be the same as those who did not accept the original wedding invitation.

The Jews already had that. The law taught them how to live without sinning.

.. Yet they all continued to sin anyway..

Also, God readily gave his forgiveness to all whose made an honest effort in keeping the law.

.. But this "effort" was conditional on the completion of a certain ceremony was it not?

Especially when Christianity is the alternative?

Is that what you think? True Christianity does not describe a specific "faction" of "christianity. it is a condition of the Heart that is why there are no commands for a hierarchy nor an established religious structure like God provided for the Jews.
Religion is Man's effort to serve and praise God. Christianity is God's effort to reach out and provide for man.

So why would one NOT want religion? Because "Man's efforts" do not amount to a pile of beans in God's economy. God has provided or reached out to us. Who are we to turn our backs on His efforts in favor of our own?

Contrary to popular belief among Christians, the Jews do not see the law as a curse but as a blessing and Christianity is not an improvement over Judaism.

You do not understand. The Law is not a curse. The Law is a tool used to identify sin in everyones life. Once sin is identified then one can seek atonement for said sin. What the "curse is," is trying to obtain, earn, or award ourselves or each other the redemption that only God is worthy to Give.

For one thing, consider the difference in religious identity: Jews are the chosen people of God, selected out of all people to fulfill a special purpose and being a Jew is special privilege. And the law is the language by which they get to live out that special relationship.

Indeed, but this privilege is a doubled edged sword. One that cuts both ways. For some, they forget who gave this and honor to them, and why He gave it. If this gift was not well received then it is for Him to also take away. (How many times was Isreal conquered for this very reason?)
Only a proud emperor would think He is wearing "special cloths" when they have been taken from him.

Christians, on the other hand, are dirty wicked sinners who are but filthy rags before God,

Amen

merely forgiven, as the special language of the Law has been done away with

Not done away with.. "Completed."

and it's not an opportunity so much as an obligation because otherwise you'll be sent to Hell.

Actually no, No one enters Hell who truly wants to be with God.

If you thought your relationship with God was bad under the OT, at least you didn't have didn't have Jesus' death hanging over your head.

A man can show no greater love than to lay His life down for the ones He loves.

Also, you didn't have to worry about going to Hell as the worst that happened to you was dying.

Just because all a man knows is death does not men he is only reserved to die..

Also, Jews treat each other world's better than Christians do. Christians treat each other like absolute dung in comparison. One of the reasons that Jews don't seek converts as that throughout the last 2 thousand years, any time a famine would strike an area populated with Jews, gentiles would try to convert to Judaism because they knew that Jews prepared ahead of time and took care of each other whereas Christians didn't and would let the have-nots starve.

"Mitzvahs" were often limited to public displays, and certain times of the Year. Not to mention because a people knew that people were "converting" for food the actual "conversion process" was next to impossible to complete.. This is apart of what happened in post WWI Germany.

On another thread I commented that for a Jew to become a Christian meant going from being treated like a Jew by other Jews to being treated like a Christian by other Christians. A Jew would have to be either completely convinced or downright insane to give up being a Jew to be a Christian.

That is the whole crux of the issue. It seems simply being a "Jew" is held in a higher regard than one's Love for the Lord. What is our greatest command again? Is it to Love your fellow Jew with all of your Heart Mind Spirit and Strength? and the second greatest command being to Love your God as yourself???

If you Love God with ALL of your being, then how you are treated by: Jew, gentile, unbeliever, Mother, father, sister, brother, wife, husband, child, or grandchild all comes in a far second to a Love that encompasses All of your Heart, Mind, Spirit and Strength.

Now, that said.. will a Jew love his God to the point of fore sake his community and or family? Again you ask the question, and the honest answer is why the Jews (who did not convert) did not convert?? They loved themselves and the thought of their God given position, over that of God himself. How can God continue to "choose a people" who choose themselves over Him?? Even if this is not true for all Jews (Save the 144,000) it is true for you!

It is extremely unlikely that they looked at it that way.

Are you Not familiar with the account at the money changers tables?

The Sadducee's (the "priests") were the ones that turned Jesus over to the Romans to be put to death.

They only believed in the Torah They didn't believe...

"The Saducees were not the only influential class of priest in that time. The Pharisees did indeed believe in the things that Christ represented himself as, (but not Christ being the embodiment of those things) and is what inflamed charges of blaspheme.. Why did you only represent a half truth? Were you hoping I did not know Who both parities were?

Their motivations for putting Jesus to death probably had a lot more to do with the incident involving the money changers than anything theological.

So you do see where the Chief priests could construe that Christ was threating their very livelihoods and wanted to change their very way of life? (Why did He over turn the money changers tables what were His charges???)

When Jesus crossed the line and got physical, they probably got scared that he would start a riot and that would attract the attention of Pontious Pilate who had a reputation for being ruthless and cruel.

Outside of the bible there are one or two secular references
that go into any detail of Pontious Pilate, and they do coincide with the biblical account. He was an appeaser who was being threatened by Rome that if He did not do something about the civil unrest in his prefecture that he would have to answer to a very unhappy Cesar. Which is somewhat confirmed by the biblical account of him. (That is why He washed His hands symbolically of Christ)

They certainly didn't want that and so they got rid of him to keep Pilate from killing them all.

So now you are contradicting the biblical account?(Why then did Pilate wash His hands if they did not call for His death?)

Not that He died because of their actions
(He died because of mine)

(On a side note, that the Sadducee's had Jesus killed has been a source of religious antisemitism for the last two thousand years. What's really, really sad about this is the modern day Rabbinical Jews are descendants of the Pharisees, not the Sadducee's. The Sadducee's were wiped out with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the branch that did survive (The Pharisees) had nothing whatsoever to do with crucifixion (Jesus himself was a Pharisee, evidenced in that he used the Septuagint instead of the just the Torah, quoted from other sources like the Talmud and the Midrush that the Pharisees used but the Saducees rejected, and was even called by the title given to the Pharisees). And so all this time, Christians have been persecuting and murdering the entirely wrong group of Jews.)

1) if the Sadducee's were so roman compliant then why were they targeted, and completely obliterated by the romans after the siege in 70 AD?? Maybe perhaps that it was the Sadducee's who were indeed looking for a Messiah and thought the found one when they incited the rebellion that lead to the destruction of the temple? The truth is the saw what they wanted to see in whom and where they wanted to see it. Which is why God removed that stain from what was left of His people.

2)If the Pharisees prior to 70 AD were the minority of temple priest, then what happened after 70 AD? And who was it that persecuted the first century church and help Rome hunt down and try and destroy the whole of Christianity during the reign of Domitian? (Because the mass of the 1 century church were converted Jews. That is why there was so much controversy in the early church about circumcision. They thought one had to be a Jew first then a "Messianic believer.") Which if this is what you are doing is not necessary. Per Paul and not me.

Also, Do not mistake my intentions in no way do i condone any of our forefathers actions against any of their confused brothers.

None of this has anything to do with why I am not a Christian. I deconverted from Christianity mostly because I grew up in a Christian environment being treated like a Christian by other Christians and the experience was so incredibly miserable that I couldn't fathom that the "God of Love" had anything at all to do with Christianity.

So you converted from Christianity because you Choose to Love your God as yourself and seek the Love of your brother with all of your being.. You know Even the Jew can not deny the accurate version of these commands.

I couldn't imagine that any place filled with nothing but Christians would be anything other than Hell.

for sure there will be a measure of us there. Along with many, many others.

I remained an atheist for over the next decade and in that time, I read the OT and the NT in order and in their entirety. That's when I first got an idea of just how different the OT is from the NT. Completely different theology.

Kinda like how the front of a dollar bill is printed in black, and the back in green? The questions is which side is worth a dollar?

I started believing in the OT because I recognized the God of the OT as being the same God I see in the universe around me. The NT, on the other hand, presents an entirely different idea of God, one for which I see no supporting evidence whatsoever.

Well from your testimony, if you were to seek God first, and not love from your brother first, you will find what it is you seek. For what father gives his son/daughter a snake when he asks for an egg?

But all this aside, it still strikes me as extremely odd that the very people that God chose to write the Bible and tell the world the truth about God could so misunderstand their own religion so badly that they couldn't even recognize their own Messiah.

It thought you said they weren't looking for Him So if they did not know to look, then how would they know if they saw Him?

God spent all that time with the Jews, preparing them for the coming Messiah only so that they could entirely miss it when he came?

So are we talking about the Pharisees now?
Or are they now an integrated people? Because if they are then What I originally said still stands. They saw Him and refused to acknowledge Him as their God because they (as you put it) "could Not imagine themselves giving up what they had" for what Christ was asking of them.

Consider this: Jesus was rejected by the Jews themselves

They weren't. Of the early church only a fraction of the believers did not have Jewish roots, (Before we were known as Christians "we" were known as the messianic sect of Judea) and after only one generation, those believers no longer identified themselves as Jews. So an accommodation had to be made.

but accepted and worshiped as the messiah and a deity by the Romans,

353 years later. The first purpose built church was built in Syira. and the first "christian nation was Armenia in 301 AD, The Romans were a bunch of Johnny come laties to the party.

a civilization that had no background in Old Testament theology but did have a history of worshiping men as gods.

Again Rome was not the "Genesis" of the church, Judea was.(Right in the middle of Jerusalem)

These are the people that first tried to tell the Jews what their religion was really about. Is it any wonder the Jews didn't listen?

Maybe you should looking into things yourself rather than than simply taking a well meaning rabbi's word for it.

I have acouple of questions:
What are you doing here is this all some big final exam or conversion test?

You said it yourself Jews do not look to convert, are you just here to gloat or show us your newly found version of righteousness? Is this what it means to be a giyoret in your heart?

 

[Beautiful Ignorance]

There's a certain degree of amusement to be derived in someone who isn't a Christian attempting to school me in the fundamentals of my religion. Kind of similar to how some Christians insist that all Muslims believe in terrorism: it is comical.

I grew up Christian and didn't deconvert until my early twenties and so depending on your age, I might well have spent more time as a Christian than you have even been alive. I have read both the OT and the NT in their entirety and right now I attend RCIA, and occasionally services and bible studies at a local Church of Christ with my parents. Also my parents are still Christians as well as my sister.

And so your comparison is entirely wrong.

*patiently*

Yes, Saint Peter did this, but it wasn't a an actual requirement, it was just something he DID. The Church held a Council and decided that such practices were unorthodox. As such, there has literally never been a time in which conversion to Judaism has been required by the Church. Saint Peter may be "leader of the choir of the Apostles", but he doesn't set the standard for the entire Church in his mere actions. The Church is conciliar.

Okay, I see what the problem here is. It appears to me that you don't quite get that they were Jewish first and had to learn how to be Christians. The reason this is important is because they didn't have a gentile understanding of the way the world worked. Having grown up Jews and having been following Jesus, who was a Pharisee and so kept Kosher himself, keeping Kosher was just their way of life and it only came natural that they would expected that nonJews should get Kosher if they wanted to join their cult. That Jewish requirements would keep most gentiles from converted was something that had to be discovered and once it was, they mostly dropped those requirements.

I say mostly because it wasn't until the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD that the Jewish requirements were completely dropped. James the Just, the younger brother/cousin (there seems to be disagreement between Protestants and Catholics what his exact relationship to Jesus was and I don't know enough to take a side one way or the other) of Jesus was what would today be called the bishop of a church in Jerusalem that kept kosher and observant all the way up until the temple was destroyed during the Roman invasion. And so again, what you said is not correct.

I don't even see the point of this speculation. The Jews didn't accept him, so what they may or may not have done is purely intellectual.

The point is that the spread of Christianity appears to have been dependent largely upon the Jews rejecting Jesus. If this is really is the case, and even many Jewish scholars think it is, it casts serious doubts on the legitimacy of or the divine inspiration of Christianity.

But you in the end you are right. It is a purely academic exercise because there is no way to check to see how things would have worked out had the Jews not accepted Jesus.

But again, why didn't they? If God's plan really was to incarnate himself and be sacrificed for the sins of all mankind, why did God not communicate the clearly enough to the Jews so that they could recognize Jesus as the Messiah and God when he came?