why do jews reject jesus?

[LoAmmi]

The point is that they interpret one word two different ways. 'Though hast broken' versus 'Thou hast lengthened.'

Actually, the guy seems to be arguing that it's a different word. Car vs. bicycle (but obviously closer). It's also midrash. So, it has nothing to do with interpreting prophecies which has always been understood to be as close to the text as possible.

 

[Dialogues]

Salaam Alaikum.

Wa alaikum salaam.

Yet Deuteronomy 18:1-5 makes clear that "brethren" means "Israel".

I have been through this already. I understand you disagree. But like I said, the Jews can and do likewise insist that the prophecies talk of the return of Elijah himself. So do they not have a valid point?

Ishmael and Isaac are both seed of Abraham, and it was promised to Ishmael that he will become a great nation. However, this doesn't mean that the prophet would come from him.

And he became 'a great nation' after their acceptance of the message of Muhammad s.a., as I said, but I understand you disagree with my explanation.

Why would a vision not count?

Because, for one, the prophecy did not say Elijah will return in a vision. Secondly, some pious people see visions of Prophet Muhammad s.a., and not one of them claims that it was 'a return' of Prophet Muhammad s.a. I am sure Israelite prophets and saints were shown such visions from time to time. Thirdly, the vision was only seen by Jesus a.s. and a few disciples.

His followers are His spiritual offspring.

My point was that he had followers before the attempted crucifixion, so it becomes meaningless to say he will see his offspring after a prolongation of his life, as he saw them before anyway.

Tacitus was a respected historian. He was not careless in his work, and would not have used the beliefs of Christians, who he found detestable and hated, as evidence.

Sure. Again, the point is that IF one were to take their testimony as true, it is clear evidence that Jesus survived the cross without being killed on it.

The fact that Tacitus reported the crucifixion of Jesus and not His resurrection is to me strong evidence that Jesus was crucified. The crucifixion of Jesus was witnessed by crowds of people, Jews and pagans and Christians (His followers).

First of all, let us make clear that the correct meaning of crucifixion is death on the cross. A person who is placed on a cross and taken down alive is not said to have been crucified. This is true in English as well as in Arabic. However, it is a common misunderstanding to think crucifixion means merely placing someone on the cross even if he didn't die on it, or perhaps people just aren't careful in their usage of the term.

Anyway, I believe Jesus was placed on the cross but didn't die on it. The people who are supposed to be eyewitnesses had fled the scene according to the Bible. Peter even denied and cursed Christ three times. The other disciples fled. There was a darkness in the land according to the Bible. People were afraid of their lives perhaps because of tremors and left. The vital signs were not checked in any case. So, there was no proper confirmation of death.

The only thing was the head bowing down, but this happened immediately after receiving a drink on the cross. If he died, then it would be very logical to conclude that the drink was poisoned. If however one takes into account his being seen physically alive afterwards, then one would logically conclude that the drink was drugged, most probably with an opiate, to render him unconscious so that he would appear to have died, and hence his legs would be spared and not broken, which is what happened.

The resurrection was witnessed only by His followers. Had Tacitus reported the resurrection, one could have more easily accused him of being a Christian, or copying his sources from them. He didn't. He reported His crucifixion, which would have been something that was publicly witnessed.

Right, so the most one can say from his account is that Jesus was placed on a cross and he appeared to have died on it.

Not the strongest, but among the most easy to prove.

How is it easy to prove when it necessitates a study of the historical and archaelogical data?

Feel free to do so and get back to me.

I could do, but again, even before looking into it, it seems to me that it will end in a stalemate.

Would you like an even easier example? OK, no problem.

Good.

16:69 states that God told the bee to, among other things, eat from all the fruits.

Yet we know that there are some fruit that bees are unable to get access to, and others that poison them.

This argument comes from not properly understanding Arabic grammar and usage. The verse doesn't say "Everything" (kulli); rather it says "from/of everything (min kulli)". It's an Arabic expression which means "many/ a lot of".
​

Let's examine other verses where this expression is used:

Indeed, I found [there] a woman ruling them, and she has been given of all things, and she has a great throne. [27:23]

And Solomon inherited David. He said, "O people, we have been taught the language of birds, and we have been given from all things. Indeed, this is evident bounty." [27:16]

The expression in the verses means that all necessary things were given to them. In contrast, when the Qur'an wishes to include all things, the word from/of (min) is missing, and everything (kulli) is used on it's own, meaning there are no exceptions, viz:

"And we made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe? [21:30]

Every soul will taste death. And We test you with evil and with good as trial; and to Us you will be returned. [21:35]
​

Below is a website that gives a word-by-word breakdown of the verses. The verse does not say that the waters one day will meet, or that the barrier is only for the present time.

It states that the bodies of water (or "seas") meet, and do not "transgress". How can there be a barrier between waters if they are said to be meeting? That is a good question.

Again, the misunderstanding stems from not properly understanding Arabic grammar. In Arabic, there are two tenses, the past (which is perfect) and the imperfect, which applies to both the present and the future. The context will determining whether the tense is present or future or both. In the verse under consideration, it can only be the future tense (they will meet), because it is made clear there currently exists a barrier between them (which will one day be removed so they will encroach/transgress, i.e. meet.

Some Muslims claim that this is a reference to the halocline, which stratifies water into a fresh level and a salty level.

Then the problem is the understanding of some Muslims, and not a problem with the Qur'an itself.

How is this a reference to the Suez and Panama Canals?

Because there was a barrier between the two seas, and they met through the canals.

Also, how can the verse be a prophecy if it is referring to something in the present?

I have already explained that it can only be the future tense that is used, not the present.

Peace.

 

[danny ski]

I think what's omitted here is that even Jesus' followers held traditional view of messiah. When Jesus talked about his execution,, Peter reacted with disbelief. If I remember correctly, that's noted in more than one place. Peter did not act maliciously, he was just being Jewish.

 

[LoAmmi]

I think what's omitted here is that even Jesus' followers held traditional view of messiah. When Jesus talked about his execution,, Peter reacted with disbelief. If I remember correctly, that's noted in more than one place. Peter did not act maliciously, he was just being Jewish.

This is true. It's why any suggestion that Isaiah 53 meant the messiah to Jews prior to Jesus and that Jews have changed it since to "cover up" Jesus is absurd.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Did anybody mention that the idea of the messiah-as-God-Incarnate is utterly alien to Jewish theology, both before and after the 1st century CE?

In fact, there had already been several "Anointed Ones" (which is what messiah - or its Greek equivalent "Christos" - actually means) in the Bible, among them King David, and the messiah that was prophecied was pretty much expected to be a mortal leader - touched by god, sure, achieving great deeds, most certainly. But a man, not a deity.

The whole idea of the One God impregnating a virgin and becoming a part of his own creation is utterly alien to Judaism, has never been part of the messianic prophecies, and sounds a lot more like the hellenic mystery religions that existed at approximately the same time throughout the Roman empire.

The same goes for the whole "restoring cosmic balance by means of divine sacrifice and resurrection"-motif, as well as the very concept of initiation, mystery, and eucharist.

 

[LoAmmi]

Did anybody mention that the idea of the messiah-as-God-Incarnate is utterly alien to Jewish theology, both before and after the 1st century CE?

In fact, there had already been several "Anointed Ones" (which is what messiah - or its Greek equivalent "Christos" - actually means) in the Bible, among them King David, and the messiah that was prophecied was pretty much expected to be a mortal leader - touched by god, sure, achieving great deeds, most certainly. But a man, not a deity.

The whole idea of the One God impregnating a virgin and becoming a part of his own creation is utterly alien to Judaism, has never been part of the messianic prophecies, and sounds a lot more like the hellenic mystery religions that existed at approximately the same time throughout the Roman empire.

The same goes for the whole "restoring cosmic balance by means of divine sacrifice and resurrection"-motif, as well as the very concept of initiation, mystery, and eucharist.

This is all true, however, if Jesus were to accomplish the messianic task, Jews would simply accept it. It isn't like the messianic task can be completed multiple times by multiple people. It's a one-and-done thing.

 

[light upon light]

Also, the notion of Jesus as God incarnate is not something He said, but one belief among many that won the debate among Christians at the council of Nicea and then was enforced (sometimes violently!) by the Christian authorities.

I can understand why Jews find that conception utterly unacceptable.

 

[Supreme]

Did anybody mention that the idea of the messiah-as-God-Incarnate is utterly alien to Jewish theology, both before and after the 1st century CE?

In fact, there had already been several "Anointed Ones" (which is what messiah - or its Greek equivalent "Christos" - actually means) in the Bible, among them King David, and the messiah that was prophecied was pretty much expected to be a mortal leader - touched by god, sure, achieving great deeds, most certainly. But a man, not a deity.

The whole idea of the One God impregnating a virgin and becoming a part of his own creation is utterly alien to Judaism, has never been part of the messianic prophecies, and sounds a lot more like the hellenic mystery religions that existed at approximately the same time throughout the Roman empire.

The same goes for the whole "restoring cosmic balance by means of divine sacrifice and resurrection"-motif, as well as the very concept of initiation, mystery, and eucharist.

Indeed. This is part of the reason why I love Christianity so much. Because it is just the most unlikely idea for a world religion. A Man comes to a people who would never have come up with the notion of Him being the Son of God, then dies in the most humiliating manner possible and is then brought to life again. You would never invent something like that for a world religion, but it works so well, and has done for millenia.

 

[gord44]

Indeed. This is part of the reason why I love Christianity so much. Because it is just the most unlikely idea for a world religion. A Man comes to a people who would never have come up with the notion of Him being the Son of God, then dies in the most humiliating manner possible and is then brought to life again. You would never invent something like that for a world religion, but it works so well, and has done for millenia.

it's not an overly uncommon idea.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Also, the notion of Jesus as God incarnate is not something He said, but one belief among many that won the debate among Christians at the council of Nicea and then was enforced (sometimes violently!) by the Christian authorities.

I think the importance of that particular council is somewhat overestimated by many.

Reading the gospel of "John", it becomes quite clear that the Jesus-as-god-incarnate-motif was already quite pronounced at the turn of the second century CE, and the progenitors of Christianity as we know it most certainly embraced this particular doctrine WAY before Nicea.
Other viewpoints most definitely existed, and some even held a similar amount of influence in some locations, but the one that eventually gained sufficient power to suppress its competitors was Pauline, trinitarian Christianity.

 

[LoAmmi]

Indeed. This is part of the reason why I love Christianity so much. Because it is just the most unlikely idea for a world religion.

I'm not so sure that follows as I will elaborate:

A Man comes to a people who would never have come up with the notion of Him being the Son of God

a people who lived among another group of people who had sons and daughters of deities in a ton of their myths

, then dies in the most humiliating manner possible

In the same way that thousands of others died, especially those of the people he is claimed to be part of..

and is then brought to life again.

Just like a lot of the mystery religion demi-gods that were popular in the area.

You would never invent something like that for a world religion, but it works so well, and has done for millenia.

It seems pretty common to the dying/resurrecting mystery cults mixed with SOME Judaism. Its lasting power may be something to see, but Judaism has lasted longer so we can't really go by time served here.

 

[simplegifts]

...


It seems pretty common to the dying/resurrecting mystery cults mixed with SOME Judaism. Its lasting power may be something to see, but Judaism has lasted longer so we can't really go by time served here.

Of all those cults, Christianity is the only "cult" where the person died for another's sins.

 

[LoAmmi]

Of all those cults, Christianity is the only "cult" where the person died for another's sins.

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.

 

[danny ski]

Of all those cults, Christianity is the only "cult" where the person died for another's sins.

Not a person. A god-man, fully man and fully god. This is the reason Christianity had to deify Jesus. A death of a man no matter how holy is still just a circle of life; a tragedy, but nothing out of ordinary. Greek Prometheus suffered much worse for the sake of men(and ladies),btw. But, kill a god for the sake of man and we may have something(the idea of killing all powerful and immortal being makes no sense, but that is beside the point). It is a powerful image that would be appealing to many.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Of all those cults, Christianity is the only "cult" where the person died for another's sins.

Well, no mystery cult (a term that does not carry the same connotations as "cult" does in colloquial language) was a xerox copy of the others, but what they all have in common is the dying-and-rising deity restoring cosmic order (along with some other concepts and practices that you'll also find in Christianity as we know it today).

Besides, Jewish commentaries on the Scriptures (found in the Talmud) establish quite clearly that Judaism never conceived of Creation in general or Man in particular as fundamentally broken and in need of cosmic correction.
The notion that we'd need a supernatural event in order to be saved from utter damnation is very much a Gnostic concept, condemning the world of matter (i.e. "the flesh") and exalting the world of spirit.

 

[Dialogues]

Hi

Loammi and Danisky,

Whilst it is true that the Tanach is clear that everyone is responsible for their own sins, vicarious atonement is a later Christian teachings, as is trinity and literal sonship. Jesus did not teach them such things. So these erroneous doctrines cannot prove that Jesus wasn't the Israelite Messiah. The Nazarenes and Ebionites remained true to Judaism whilst accepting Jesus as Messiah. What happened in councils such as that of Nicea and how the message of Jesus got corrupted in time in the Roman Empire is another story.

Also, Jesus is reported to have been seen alive by his disciples after the attempted crucifixion, and it is also clear that he is avoiding other Jews and Romans. His behaviour is that of one who has survived crucifixion and does not want to be captured again and killed for certain this time. There is sufficient evidence to show he travelled to the lost tribes of Israel (who were taken into captivity by the Babylonians and Assyrians over have a millenium before Christ (721BC is one date), and many of them settled in Kashmir. Here is a Jewish website mentioning this:

The Mystery of the Ten Lost Tribes

It is reported that Jesus travelled there, preached to the lost tribes, got married and had children and lived to a ripe old age. Hence the prophecy in Isaiah 53:10 about seeing his offspring was fulfilled.

Peace.

 

[LoAmmi]

Hi

Loammi and Danisky,

Whilst it is true that the Tanach is clear that everyone is responsible for their own sins, vicarious atonement is a later Christian teachings, as is trinity and literal sonship. Jesus did not teach them such things. So these erroneous doctrines cannot prove that Jesus wasn't the Israelite Messiah. The Nazarenes and Ebionites remained true to Judaism whilst accepting Jesus as Messiah. What happened in councils such as that of Nicea and how the message of Jesus got corrupted in time in the Roman Empire is another story.

Also, Jesus is reported to have been seen alive by his disciples after the attempted crucifixion, and it is also clear that he is avoiding other Jews and Romans. His behaviour is that of one who has survived crucifixion and does not want to be captured again and killed for certain this time. There is sufficient evidence to show he travelled to the lost tribes of Israel (who were taken into captivity by the Babylonians and Assyrians over have a millenium before Christ (721BC is one date), and many of them settled in Kashmir. Here is a Jewish website mentioning this:

The Mystery of the Ten Lost Tribes

It is reported that Jesus travelled there, preached to the lost tribes, got married and had children and lived to a ripe old age. Hence the prophecy in Isaiah 53:10 about seeing his offspring was fulfilled.

Peace.

and again, none of that matters because the prophecies were not fulfilled. Isaiah 53 is only used in trying to show that he was supposed to die for the sins of the world when a reading of the Hebrew pretty much debunks that because the person suffers not "for" the sins of the world but "because of" the sins of the world.

To illustrate this, if I were to go into a court and offer to be punished for another's crime, that would be "for their sins". If I am attacked in the street and beaten nearly to death, that is "because of their sins". Two entirely different concepts. So Jesus could have lived to be 1000 with a million children and he is no closer to being messiah while the messianic prophecies remain unfulfilled.

 

[Dialogues]

and again, none of that matters because the prophecies were not fulfilled. Isaiah 53 is only used in trying to show that he was supposed to die for the sins of the world when a reading of the Hebrew pretty much debunks that because the person suffers not "for" the sins of the world but "because of" the sins of the world.

That has been my understanding of Hebrew 53 as well. And Jesus did indeed suffer because of the sinfulness of the people who wanted him crucified, not because of any guilt on his part.

To illustrate this, if I were to go into a court and offer to be punished for another's crime, that would be "for their sins". If I am attacked in the street and beaten nearly to death, that is "because of their sins". Two entirely different concepts. So Jesus could have lived to be 1000 with a million children and he is no closer to being messiah while the messianic prophecies remain unfulfilled.

And those 'messianic prophecies' will remain unfulfilled till the day of judgement, just as prophecies about the messiah's second coming held by Christians and some Muslims will forever remain unfulfilled, all because a lot of people gave them erroneous interpretations. i.e. those prophecies have been fulfilled but not as people expected them. God guides whom He wills to the right path, and let's others go astray, and God's will is not blind or unjust.

Peace.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

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.

Oh-oh-oh! Don’t forget about the implied cannibalism, that is soooooooo Jewish.

 

[LoAmmi]

Of course the clearly worded prophecies about the messiah are anything but, Dialogues! Are you sure it isn't Loki you desire to worship?