• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

why do jews reject jesus?

do jews reject jesus?

  • yes jews do reject jesus.

  • jews don't reject jesus.

  • don't know that jews reject jesus.


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Eyes wide Open

Love and peace is the ONLY foundation-to build....
Dec 13, 2011
977
136
Australia
✟42,410.00
Gender
Male
Faith
I believe that it may have been a great local flood, and the author of Genesis mistakenly said it encompassed the whole world. Or that humans lived only in a certain part of the world then.


It wouldn’t be hard for someone to built a large boat and have animals on it for food after flood waters subsided, due to all the crops and the landscape being destroyed for many, many miles, and with little effective storage or warehousing of grain and cereals to take on board, animals would have been the only food source to live off. Humans could have easily have lived elsewhere but in smaller tribal communities where the risks of the below understandings happening would have been non existent.

The following is a snippet from Ronald Wrights book, ‘A Short History Of Progress’.


The Chiefs of Hawaii were warned by their elders against hording food or goods: “The hands of Arii must always be open; on (this) rests your prestige.” And it was said of the Chinese emperors that their first duty was to feed their people. The truth that china, like most Agrarian societies, lurched from famine to famine well into modern times. Effective food security was as rare in the past as it is today in the Third World. Most ancient states did not have the storage capacity or transport to deal with anything worse than a minor crisis. The Incas and Romans were probably the best at famine relief, and it’s no coincidence that both were very large empires spread over several climatic zones, with good warehousing, roads and sea lanes.

A small civilization such as Sumer, dependant on a single ecosystem and without high ground, was especially vulnerable to flood and drought. Such disasters were viewed, then as now, as “acts of God” (or gods). Like us, the Sumerians were only dimly aware that human activity was also to blame. Floodplains will always flood, sooner or later, but deforestation of the great watersheds upstream made inundations much fiercer and more deadly than they would otherwise have been. Woodlands, with their carpet of undergrowth, mosses, and loam, work like great sponges, soaking up rainfall and allowing it to filter slowly into the earth below; trees drink up water and breath it into the air. But whatever primeval woods and their soils have been destroyed by cutting, burning, overgrazing, or ploughing, the bare subsoil bakes hard in dry weather and acts like a roof in the wet. The result is flash floods, sometimes carrying such heavy loads of silt and gravel that they rush from steep ravines like liquid concrete. Once the waters reach a floodplain, they slow down, dump their gravel, and spread out in a brown tide that oozes its way to the sea.

Staggering alluvial forces are at work in Mesopotamia. In the 5000 years since Sumerian records began, the twin rivers have filled in eighty miles of the Persian Gulf. Iraq’s second city of Basra was open sea in ancient times. The plains of Sumer are more then two hundred miles wide. In times of unusually great flood, the kind that might happen once a century or so, a king standing in the rain on a temple softening under his feet would see nothing but water between him and the rim of the sky.

Not only did Adam and Eve drive themselves from Eden, but the eroded landscape they left behind set the stage for Noah’s flood. In the early days, when the city mounds were low and easily swamped, the only refuge would have been by boat. The Sumerian version of the legend, told in the first person by a man names Utnapishtim, has the ring of real events, with vivid detail on freak weather and broken dams. In it we may not only see the forerunner of the biblical story but the first eyewitness account of a man made environmental catastrophe.
 
Upvote 0

Dialogues

Regular Member
Mar 9, 2014
430
5
✟15,910.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Private
Salaam Alaikum, Dialogues. I will be a bit busy for a while, it may take me 2-3 weeks to respond. Thank you for your patience.

No problem. Take your time, Brother.

But please send me a PM to alert me to your response, so I don't miss it.

Peace.
 
Upvote 0

smaneck

Baha'i
Sep 29, 2010
21,182
2,948
Jackson, MS
✟63,144.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Baha'i
Marital Status
Single
Did you mean he would have no reason?

Yes, that's what I meant.

To many people today, so does the crucifixion.

Not for historical reasons and not for reasons that would have concerned Tacitus.

And again, we know that Tacitus hated the Christians. There is no reason to assume he would have used them as a source.

He didn't hate them as much as he did Nero and realized they were being made into scapegoats. There was no reason for him to doubt what Christians were saying in this regard.

Can I ask you how you became Bahaii, and what were your reasons for this?

I became a Baha'i because when I heard the story of the Bab it was so Christlike that I either had to accept both or reject both.

Do you accept that Jesus is the Son of God and God, and that He was crucified and rose from the dead after three days?

I believe Jesus is the Son of God in the sense that He fully reflects (manifests) all the Names and Attributes of God. But I do not believe that the Essence of God can be incarnated into a human being. I most certainly believe in the crucifixion and never would have become a Baha'i if it meant denying that. As for the resurrection, obviously something happened or there would be no church today. My beliefs regarding the resurrection as as much based on the scholarship of James M. Robinson as specifically Baha'i. Robinson suggests that the earliest tradition understands the resurrected Christ as a luminous, heavenly body. Whether it is physical or not is another question.
 
Upvote 0

LoAmmi

Dispassionate
Mar 12, 2012
26,944
9,715
✟217,033.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
I believe Jesus is the Son of God in the sense that He fully reflects (manifests) all the Names and Attributes of God. But I do not believe that the Essence of God can be incarnated into a human being. I most certainly believe in the crucifixion and never would have become a Baha'i if it meant denying that. As for the resurrection, obviously something happened or there would be no church today. My beliefs regarding the resurrection as as much based on the scholarship of James M. Robinson as specifically Baha'i. Robinson suggests that the earliest tradition understands the resurrected Christ as a luminous, heavenly body. Whether it is physical or not is another question.

"Something happened" covers quite a lot. In my mind, there's no reason it couldn't have been a few of his followers still insisting that he was the Messiah after his death and basically having cognitive dissidence. The story would grow in the telling and would end up incorporating aspects of the surrounding culture into it. Paul's writings are, what, 20 years later and they are the earliest things we have. Plenty of time for the legend to grow.
 
Upvote 0

smaneck

Baha'i
Sep 29, 2010
21,182
2,948
Jackson, MS
✟63,144.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Baha'i
Marital Status
Single
2) He is claimed to be son of God or God or 1/3 of a trinity of God.

Jesus never said anything about the Trinity. That word first appears in the writings of Tertullian who lived in the Third Century. It is not found in the New Testament.
 
Upvote 0

smaneck

Baha'i
Sep 29, 2010
21,182
2,948
Jackson, MS
✟63,144.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Baha'i
Marital Status
Single
Why would anyone consider the Muslim "recording" of the story of Jesus as even remotely authoratative? It's not a recording- it's a redaction. It's blatant revisionism. The recording was made by the eyewitnesses- The Apostles and those who learned from them personally!

Uh, that would be an exaggeration. "Those who learned from" the Apostles could hardly be eyewitnesses. It becomes hearsay at that point. None of the Gospels can be definitely traced back to an apostle. I would agree, however, that one should not rely on a scripture written hundreds of years later as history of the event in question. This would be true of the Qur'an's depiction of Christ, but it would be just as true of Genesis' account of the Patriarchs, or the accounts of Moses' life.
 
Upvote 0

smaneck

Baha'i
Sep 29, 2010
21,182
2,948
Jackson, MS
✟63,144.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Baha'i
Marital Status
Single
"Something happened" covers quite a lot. In my mind, there's no reason it couldn't have been a few of his followers still insisting that he was the Messiah after his death and basically having cognitive dissidence. The story would grow in the telling and would end up incorporating aspects of the surrounding culture into it. Paul's writings are, what, 20 years later and they are the earliest things we have. Plenty of time for the legend to grow.

Believing he was the Messiah and believing he rose from the dead would be entirely two different things. From my standpoint it doesn't much matter what they saw as the fact they came to recognize that those who die in the path of God are not really dead.
 
Upvote 0

LoAmmi

Dispassionate
Mar 12, 2012
26,944
9,715
✟217,033.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Believing he was the Messiah and believing he rose from the dead would be entirely two different things. From my standpoint it doesn't much matter what they saw as the fact they came to recognize that those who die in the path of God are not really dead.

The resurrection of the dead during the messianic age is in the Tanach. Heck, it's why Matthew has a bunch of dead Jews rising up and walking into Jerusalem. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to find a way to apply that when their person died to him and suggest he would come back later to finish the job.
 
Upvote 0
S

simplegifts

Guest
Which still gets us nowhere because one cannot die for the sins of another. The Tanach is quite clear on this point. The person who sins is the one who has to pay the price. Moses was not allowed to offer his own life for the sins of Israel. We're still at something that sits outside of Jewish understanding.

Yes, I understand but you missed my point. Christ, God's Word [the Word that was creative, gave us the commandments] incarnate was sacrificed for the sins of man it is a wild and novel idea.

None of the other myths, cults has their God loving mankind to the point of sacrificing himself.

Yet didn't Jews use a scapegoat and sacrifice another goat for the atonement of sins?
 
Upvote 0

LoAmmi

Dispassionate
Mar 12, 2012
26,944
9,715
✟217,033.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Yes, I understand but you missed my point. Christ, God's Word [the Word that was creative, gave us the commandments] incarnate was sacrificed for the sins of man it is a wild and novel idea.

None of the other myths, cults has their God loving mankind to the point of sacrificing himself.

Putting gravy on skittles would be a wild and novel idea. I have no interest in it. Wild and novel doesn't mean correct and when I line it up to what we were told would happen in the Tanach, it doesn't equate. HaShem also cannot die, therefore HaShem cannot be a sacrifice nor does it make much sense that HaShem would come down to be a sacrifice for Himself. Seems rather pointless and ill conceived.
Yet didn't Jews use a scapegoat and sacrifice another goat for the atonement of sins?

I'm not sure what your point is here. One goat was a sin offering and was sacrificed on the altar in the Temple, the only valid place a sacrifice could happen as opposed to a hill that wasn't on the altar of the temple, and the other was sent off into the desert.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
S

simplegifts

Guest
Putting gravy on skittles would be a wild and novel idea. I have no interest in it. Wild and novel doesn't mean correct and when I line it up to what we were told would happen in the Tanach, it doesn't equate. HaShem also cannot die, therefore HaShem cannot be a sacrifice nor does it make much sense that HaShem would come down to be a sacrifice for Himself. Seems rather pointless and ill conceived.


I'm not sure what your point is here. One goat was a sin offering and was sacrificed on the altar in the Temple, the only valid place a sacrifice could happen as opposed to a hill that wasn't on the altar of the temple, and the other was sent off into the desert.

you said - Which still gets us nowhere because one cannot die for the sins of another. The Tanach is quite clear on this point. The person who sins is the one who has to pay the price. Moses was not allowed to offer his own life for the sins of Israel. We're still at something that sits outside of Jewish understanding.

How does that that work with how the sacrifice and the scapegoat were used?
 
Upvote 0

smaneck

Baha'i
Sep 29, 2010
21,182
2,948
Jackson, MS
✟63,144.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Baha'i
Marital Status
Single
You are going to have to point out the similarities on this one. Bodhisatva died to atone the sins of all man?

They are not going to be dying for people's sin because sin in Buddhism is not the central human problem, ignorance is. But certainly the notion of self-sacrifice is there.

Bodhisatvas are Buddha-type figures who have taken a vow *not* to enter Nirvana until all sentient beings have gone before them. In other words they condemn themselves to eternal rebirth (a fate worse than death in Buddhism) in order to save everyone. In a number of their past lives they are said to sacrifice themselves to save others. For instance, one of the Jataka Tales speaks of how Avalokiteshvara in one of his past lives was the monkey king. When his tribe of monkeys was being chased by lion they came to a ravine to wide to jump. Avalokiteshvara stretch his body out over the ravine so the monkeys could cross to safety. After they did so, Avalokiteshvera could not get up and fell himself into the ravine.
 
Upvote 0

LoAmmi

Dispassionate
Mar 12, 2012
26,944
9,715
✟217,033.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
you said - Which still gets us nowhere because one cannot die for the sins of another. The Tanach is quite clear on this point. The person who sins is the one who has to pay the price. Moses was not allowed to offer his own life for the sins of Israel. We're still at something that sits outside of Jewish understanding.

How does that that work with how the sacrifice and the scapegoat were used?

Before I answer that, a question.

Do you believe that if I sinned against HaShem, all I had to do was bring an animal to be sacrificed to the Temple and I was forgiven? That it was a magic charm and I could just go right back to sinning without any repentance and plan on bringing a new animal next week?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.