Why did the Jews reject Jesus?

[Aeneas]

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.

It certainly isn't politically correct.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Christ looked exactly like me... and you too. No problem with portraying him in art in a manner like you.

 

[Beautiful Ignorance]

Christ looked exactly like me... and you too. No problem with portraying him in art in a manner like you.

Are you saying that we are now free to recreate god in our imagine if we so choose? What if I choose to create god in the imagine of a Chimp? Is it less blasphemous to suppose that god looks like me instead of a chimp?

 

[Beautiful Ignorance]

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

hismessenger

Now there's a well researched and thought out answer.

 

[razeontherock]

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.

True! Israel is a type of Christ, prefiguring His role, so we would be better prepared to recognize His arrival. The real clue is "behold my Servant." (It refers to both)

 

[razeontherock]

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.

And here, yet again, you are not rejecting Christianity at all but you are correctly rejecting false teaching. Teaching that was declared to be heresy over 1500 years ago.

I'm not sure what it is you need to discover, to recognize what Christianity actually is, before you can truthfully accept it or reject it; but either way, that step lies ahead of you.

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

This much is accurate. I'm not quite sure I go as far as the "liar Lord or lunatic" argument, but if He wasn't who He claimed to be then He did deserve the execution He got. And there is a LOT of OT Scripture you have to turn a deaf ear and a hard heart to, in order to pretend it never pertained to Christ's suffering.

 

[razeontherock]

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.

You should recognize that during the period from roughly 70AD to 150, both Judaism and Christianity changed so as to exclude the other. You could look at those changes within Judaism and see the anti-Christian bias, and it would actually help you a great deal.

 

[Stephen Kendall]

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?

Be careful. All of Jesus' disciples were Jews, as well as most all of the very earliest churches. There are many Jewish Christians today. Prophecy is your answer, as well as human reasoning. Think here is a stubborn people who couldn't seem to follow God and even when they did as in Jesus' day, they were evil thoughout. They must come around on their own, not being forced by God to see and be healed. Why won't they? The answer is they don't belong to God or seek him? I hope not. Those of God's will hear his voice and be saved. I pray that all will hear his voice and be saved, would any Christian pray less? Loving the lost, be they even our enemies, is paramount towards our own salvation. We must be this kind, loving and caring children of God's.

We cry Abba? Why? We seek our Father? Why? We are his, yet we live here in the sins of the world. We fear God, for we must to make our way through this evil world.

Remember that the Jews rejection of Christ is for us, the Gentiles, our salvation. Somehow God allows the lost to be as they are as to save the lost (Gentiles, us). There is wisdom in the foolishness of God, as there is no wisdom in the intelligence of man. God saves by losing? Why is love so powerful and consuming? God will be glorified by all.

 

[drich0150]

I'm currently working on a reply. There is a lot here and so a lot to tackle and so this will take some time and research. BTW, thank you. Your are providing a challenge.

Did I miss your reply or are you still working on it?

 

[Beautiful Ignorance]

Did I miss your reply or are you still working on it?

Still working on it. I won't reply to anymore posts until I'm done with my reply to you.

 

[razeontherock]

Still working on it. I won't reply to anymore posts until I'm done with my reply to you.

Good! It is a most worthwhile challenge. You'll also need to deal with the fact that when Jesus died, there was no Ark of the Covenant in the Most Holy Place. The whole point of the Priesthood was past tense already. When that Temple was built, was there any Ark of the Covenant to place in it?

This all indicates a change of the Priesthood.

 

[Sketcher]

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.

Israel had small remnants that were saved out of various rebellions, too. This is really just part of that spiritual pattern, unfortunate as it is.

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.

Doing a lot for Christianity doesn't mean taking it over. Christians with even a middling education in their faith don't believe that he took over, expert Christians don't believe that, Paul didn't believe that, and the church at the time didn't believe that. I'm a Protestant and reject the papacy for good reasons, but some evidence that Paul did not take over Christianity is that the popes/patriarchs claimed to trace their authority to Peter, rather than Paul. And whether someone is Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, he's going to point his interpretation of his faith ultimately to Jesus' teachings.

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:

Romans 8:3

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."

This does not indicate any measure of confusion. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, and that he is sinless. He took on a human nature without taking on a sinful nature. Paul is not confused here. He is saying that man is sinful, and Jesus took on the nature of man without the sin part.

Galatians 1:11-17

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.

I'm not sure how anyone could get that meaning out of it without deliberately twisting it. There is nothing to indicate any uncertainty or denial of Jesus Christ having come in the flesh, died, raised from the dead by God, and 40 days later ascending to Heaven. Also, Paul does not deny that Jesus revealed to him, nor does he deny that Jesus was revealed by him to others; when Jesus is revealed in any Christian, that is the most complete way to put it, and a wonderful spiritual happening. Because "Christian" means "little Christ," for Christ to be revealed in you means that in that particular way, you are like Christ. Every Christian wants Christ to be revealed in him in every possible way, at very least eventually. This is part of what St. Francis of Assisi was getting at when he rebuked his followers to "Preach the Gospel at all times, and if necessary, use words." When we are Christlike, he is revealed in us. And we certainly won't be sinning against one another like those wayward monks were doing when that was said.

I see nothing here that contradicts what I said or that significantly departs from Judaism.

1) Jesus plainly said to believe in him for salvation.
2) If you don't see anything that significantly departs from Judaism, good. That should move you one step closer to believing in Jesus as I do.

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.

In that case, you are ignorant about what most scholars think about the gospel of John. Not only that, John, one of the inner three disciples, wrote that well after the other gospels were written to compliment what they already said about Jesus. This man knew Jesus well, and his report of the character and teaching of Jesus does not in any way contradict that of the synoptic gospels. You dismiss John to your own disservice.

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.

Not in any significant manner, and if they did, they would not endanger any of what I said.

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.

Those key beliefs have always been part of the Christian faith.

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:

deut. 13

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.

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.

The God of Abraham is all-powerful, and it is not beyond his limits to incarnate himself to teach people on Earth while remaining in charge in Heaven. But more to the point about Jesus, he told people to worship God, and his miracles prompted those who believed in him to worship God. He did not lead anyone to idolatry by word or deed.

deut. 17

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.

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

Would you say that killing Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Malachi would have been within the bounds of Torah too? They rebuked corrupt priests.

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.

The people of Israel rejected Moses, despite the signs that came with him, and the Torah that God gave through him. They rejected the prophets because they rejected Torah and they faithlessly dismissed the signs and wonders God did through them which accompanied their message. The same hard-heartedness motivated the rejection of Jesus as the Messiah.

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.

I am a literalist, and many well-read, religious Jews are also literalists. You should consider it.

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."

Since there's no consensus, and there are well-read, religious Jews who disagree with you, I'm not going to take that as an authoritative opinion.

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 do not have three gods, but one God who is complex in his unity. I know who I worship. It is the God of the Old Testament, who is the same as the God of the New Testament.

 

[Sketcher]

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.

Dr. Brown's books can better answer this than I can, but you're wrong on all counts. He is very well-read in Jewish literature, and can demonstrate why. This I will tell you: belief in a second coming does not nullify the first coming.

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.

I don't have any reason to believe that the Pharisees of the first century practiced the Old Testament religion. Remember, Jesus taught a lot of what is already in Torah. This was to an audience who needed to hear it. The destitute needed hope, and the elites needed a kick in the pants to love people.

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.

No more poorly communicated than any other distant prophesy, really.

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.

You should listen to what he actually has to say before making that judgment. He is very open about his Jewish heritage. Nothing fake about it, his mother and his father are both Jews.

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?

Give it a chance, I believe you'll be surprised. If a Jew can read the NT, surely you can read what this man has to say.

 

[drich0150]

Still working on it. I won't reply to anymore posts until I'm done with my reply to you.

Just know I took out my Hebrew bibles and will be waiting for book Chapter and verse. That means do not look to dispel or ignore established Written commands (BCE) with verbal traditions established after the end of the "Common Era."

You will need to "proof" your assertions and references as I have, or can upon request. I will not look to hold your beliefs to strict Christian interpretations, rather look to see scriptural justifications (Before the Common Era) for your stated beliefs.

 

[Criada]

Mod Hat On

​

This thread has been closed as some members feel that it is anti-semetic.
If you wish to continue any of the side discussions, please start a new thread.
Thanks

Mod Hat Off​