why do jews reject jesus?

[fatboys]

I see zero evidence for the resurrection. It is something you accept on faith that I do not. It would need proof

As you have faith that he did not come already. The Jews of Jesus's day wanted a messiah to lead them from the physical bondage placed on by the Romans. They did not understand that Rome may have put them in physical bondage but because of the misinterpretation of the scriptures they had lost sight of the spiritual freedom they could gain. Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of guiding the branch of Jesse back to this spiritual freedom. But there were many who did not understand and rejected this restoration of truth.

 

[fatboys]

You believe as you wish.

I believe as I wish.

I agree to dis agree.

If you want to ignore research of history and peoples your call.

'cryptic', LOL. Jesus is the Messiah, from my research and to me ... I don't like your tone, not wasting my time here for the likes of you. You worship your God and I worship my God all I got to say ...

Don't be angry because disagreement. You have faith that Jesus is the messiah. Loamme does not. If you want to get your point across you have to respect others beliefs even if they are very much different. If it were not for the tribe of Judah there would not have been a messiah. They are the chosen people to not only bring us the record of the Jews and none of the prophecies that could bring us to understand the messiah would exist. I see them as the parent and we are the children. Without the parent the children would not exist.

 

[Goatee]

Yes, this is accurate to us. Jesus doesn't play a role in our faith. He isn't a prophet, he isn't a rabbi, he isn't a deity. At absolute best, he was a Jewish man who claimed certain things, fell short of them, and was executed by the Romans in the same way thousands of other Jews were executed. He isn't rejected; he's a non-factor.

But, i would say that it was the Jews that had him executed. Is that right?

 

[ViaCrucis]

But, i would say that it was the Jews that had him executed. Is that right?

Last I checked crucifixion was a Roman method of execution. Further we as Christians we confess, "[He] suffered under Pontius Pilate..."

No, "the Jews" did not have the Lord executed.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Goatee]

Last I checked crucifixion was a Roman method of execution. Further we as Christians we confess, "[He] suffered under Pontius Pilate..."

No, "the Jews" did not have the Lord executed.

-CryptoLutheran

But it was them that wanted him crucified?

 

[LoAmmi]

But, i would say that it was the Jews that had him executed. Is that right?

Christians would say that, but none of the other people who rose up claiming to be the Messiah were executed by Jews. The Romans, however, had a definite interest in there not being a charismatic leader telling the common Jews about a new kingdom coming.

My belief is that once Christianity became a Gentile faith, the narrative was changed so that the Jews were ultimately responsible because it would be a lot harder to convert Romans to a faith where an executed seditionist was the leader.

 

[LoAmmi]

As you have faith that he did not come already. The Jews of Jesus's day wanted a messiah to lead them from the physical bondage placed on by the Romans. They did not understand that Rome may have put them in physical bondage but because of the misinterpretation of the scriptures they had lost sight of the spiritual freedom they could gain. Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of guiding the branch of Jesse back to this spiritual freedom. But there were many who did not understand and rejected this restoration of truth.

Which prophecies to restore the branch of Jesse back to spiritual freedom? Specific ones. And please read the context surrounding those texts, because I can assure you if it isn't strongly presented in the text I'm going to point out every one of those flaws.

 

[smaneck]

As you have faith that he did not come already. The Jews of Jesus's day wanted a messiah to lead them from the physical bondage placed on by the Romans.

Freedom from physical bondage is what the messianic prophecies in the Tanakh were all about. Of course, they were referring to to bondage to Babylon, not Rome.

They did not understand that Rome may have put them in physical bondage but because of the misinterpretation of the scriptures they had lost sight of the spiritual freedom they could gain.

And where does the Tanakh speak of spiritual freedom?

 

[smaneck]

Christians would say that, but none of the other people who rose up claiming to be the Messiah were executed by Jews.

In any case, Jews would have stoned false claimants to death, but they don't crucify people.

 

[smaneck]

But it was them that wanted him crucified?

Since we don't have the Jews' version of the story, it is hard to say.

 

[Goatee]

Since we don't have the Jews' version of the story, it is hard to say.

Oh, ok, so it wasn't them that shouted 'Crucify him?'

 

[smaneck]

I don't believe the concept of Messiah came from Zoroastrians nor do I think Jesus meets the qualifications to be the Jewish Messiah.

Certainly not the concept of the Messiah as articulated in the Tanakh. However, I think many of the concepts of the Messiah that were extant in Jesus' time may very well have been influenced by the Zoroastrian concept of Sayoshant. This would include the believe that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. Certainly the story of the Magi visiting the Christ child suggests Zoroastrian influence. It may have also fed into the Son of Man motif in Daniel. Unlike the Messiah, the Son of Man was clearly super human.

 

[smaneck]

Oh, ok, so it wasn't them that shouted 'Crucify him?'

Again, the only record we have that anyone shouted anything comes from a Christian source. There is no Jewish source that can even confirm Jesus existed.
Rather strange if He was actually tried by the Sanhedrin.

 

[LoAmmi]

Oh, ok, so it wasn't them that shouted 'Crucify him?'

I don't trust the New Testament as a source. I don't believe that event happened, nor do I believe there was some tradition where the Romans would agree to release dangerous seditionists on Passover to be nice.

 

[Goatee]

I don't trust the New Testament as a source. I don't believe that event happened, nor do I believe there was some tradition where the Romans would agree to release dangerous seditionists on Passover to be nice.

Obviously you think the NT is fake then?

 

[LoAmmi]

Obviously you think the NT is fake then?

Well, it exists, but I think the Gospels were written to appeal to the wider Roman audience since it was obvious the Jews were not going to mass convert to the new faith. So, it had to be explained that the Romans were unwitting partners in killing Jesus and not the ones who decided it had to be done. A man who was recalled to Rome for being too brutal, Pilate, was cast as a milquetoast that didn't make the decision but capitulated to the Jews. Everything was done to make it so that the evil Jews, who were at the time were enemies of Rome, killed Jesus and Rome wasn't the evil party.

 

[smaneck]

Obviously you think the NT is fake then?

What does "fake" mean in reference to the NT?

 

[Goatee]

What does "fake" mean in reference to the NT?

Not real?

 

[smaneck]

Not real?

Again, I don't know what 'not real' means in this connection. I don't think they just made Jesus up out of whole cloth.

 

[Soyeong]

Oh, ok, so it wasn't them that shouted 'Crucify him?'

It was mostly just the Jewish leadership that stirred up a crowd. Most Jews didn't even know about it until after it happened.