How can a Jew reject Jesus as the Messiah?

[Skywalker]

I am not saying that Christianity didn't come from the Old Testament I'm saying that Judaism and the Old Testament are different. Judaism is the Old Testament and rabbinic tradition. It's very easy to misunderstand Bible verses. People sometimes take Bible verses out of context, even with the best of intentions. Judaism rejects the Savior prophesied in the Old Testament and follows rabbinic tradition. The term Judaism was not used in the Old Testament to refer to biblical Judaism.

 

[Skywalker]

LOL!!

No, it is the other way around. Judaism is the original religion. Christianity is an offshoot. It eventually dwarfed its predecessor.

The first Christians were Jewish. What they believed in was somewhere in the middle of modern Christianity and modern Judaism. Jewish Christian - Wikipedia

The split of Christianity and Judaism took place during the first centuries CE.[2][3]While the First Jewish–Roman War and the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE were main events, the separation was a long-term process, in which the boundaries were not clear-cut.[2][3]

 

[Trailblazer]

I've not heard of a messianic expectation in Asatru or Kemeticism.

I do not know if all religions have a messianic expectation, I only know that the major religions do.

I was commenting on the fact that Christians won't leave Jews alone and Jews continuously explain why they don't believe Jesus was the Messiah, but nothing ever seems to sink in.

Join the crowd.
Christians won't leave Baha'is alone either. Baha'is continuously explain why they don't believe Jesus was the Messiah, but nothing ever seems to sink in, not even the verses in their own Bible!

 

[Subduction Zone]

The first Christians were Jewish. What they believed in was somewhere in the middle of modern Christianity and modern Judaism. Jewish Christian - Wikipedia

Correct. Christianity arose from Judaism.

I guess if one relies on cladistics one could say that Christianity is still Judaism, but modern Judaism is still more basal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not saying that Christianity didn't come from the Old Testament I'm saying that Judaism and the Old Testament are different. Judaism is the Old Testament and rabbinic tradition. It's very easy to misunderstand Bible verses. People sometimes take Bible verses out of context, even with the best of intentions. Judaism rejects the Savior prophesied in the Old Testament and follows rabbinic tradition. The term Judaism was not used in the Old Testament to refer to biblical Judaism.

I see the better arguments coming from Jews in regards to interpretations of the Old Testament. Christians have to regularly attempt to change the meaning of various verses. Did you forget our Isaiah 9 6 discussion? Christians changed the tense of the verbs in that verse to make an event that occurred in the past to be one that was to happen in the future.

 

[Skywalker]

Not unless the New Testament is rife with many errors.

the New Testament has no errors. The Bible doesn't contradict itself. Jesus said in John 12;21 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is thatto thee? follow thou me. John 21:23 says Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

 

[Skywalker]

Correct. Christianity arose from Judaism.

I guess if one relies on cladistics one could say that Christianity is still Judaism, but modern Judaism is still more basal.

Christianity did not arise from what rabbinic Judaism. Biblical Judaism believed that the Messiah was a Redeemer. What Are the Differences Between Judaism and Christianity?

Borrowing from the Word of Christ
Obviously, those in Judaism have regarded much of the Bible as the truth, especially the Old Testament. Since Jesus, Immanuel, is God with us (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23), the Old Testament is His Word. Therefore, Judaists borrow from Jesus’ Word for their religion. This helps clarify a misconception. Often, we hear that Christianity was born out of Judaism, but this is not the case. Judaism was properly born as a response to Christianity.

The Old Testament is a Christian document that points to Jesus Christ who is the ultimate author of Scripture (Luke 24:27; John 5:46). Professor of Church History Dr. Phillip Schaff rightly states that the Old Testament Jewish religion “was the true religion before Christ but not perfect, or final.”9

Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

 

[Subduction Zone]

the New Testament has no errors. The Bible doesn't contradict itself. Jesus said in John 12;21 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is thatto thee? follow thou me. John 21:23 says Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

Here are just a few contradictions in the Bible:

Biblical Contradictions | American Atheists

Too bad that the BibViz page no longer works.

Oh wait! Good news. I found a working copy of it:

BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized

 

[Trailblazer]

I see the better arguments coming from Jews in regards to interpretations of the Old Testament. Christians have to regularly attempt to change the meaning of various verses. Did you forget our Isaiah 9 6 discussion? Christians changed the tense of the verbs in that verse to make an event that occurred in the past to be one that was to happen in the future.

I have had this discussion with Jews and Christians so I have both translations handy.
Why do you think this was an event that occurred in the past and what was that event?
Who do you believe that the child and the prince of peace were, in the past?

Jewish:
Isaiah 9:5 For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace." 6 To him who increases the authority, and for peace without end, on David's throne and on his kingdom, to establish it and to support it with justice and with righteousness; from now and to eternity, the zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall accomplish this.

Christian:
Isaiah 9:6-7 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

 

[Rival]

the New Testament has no errors. The Bible doesn't contradict itself. Jesus said in John 12;21 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is thatto thee? follow thou me. John 21:23 says Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

Acts 7 says that the Patriachs are buried in Shechem, whereas Genesis says they are buried in Hebron.

Gen 23,

And the field of Ephron which was in Machpelah, which was before Mamre, the field, and the cave which was therein, and all the trees that were in the field, that were in all the borders round about, were made sure unto Abraham for a possession in the presence of the children of Heth, before all that went in at the gate of his city.
And after this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah before Mamre: the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan.
And the field, and the cave that is therein, were made sure unto Abraham for a possession of a buryingplace by the sons of Heth.

Gen 50,
For his sons carried him into the land of Canaan, and buried him in the cave of the field of Machpelah, which Abraham bought with the field for a possession of a buryingplace of Ephron the Hittite, before Mamre.

Acts 7,
So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers,
And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem.

 

[Skywalker]

I see the better arguments coming from Jews in regards to interpretations of the Old Testament. Christians have to regularly attempt to change the meaning of various verses. Did you forget our Isaiah 9 6 discussion? Christians changed the tense of the verbs in that verse to make an event that occurred in the past to be one that was to happen in the future.

A Bible verse being written in past tense doesn't mean that it's discussing a past event. Answering Judaism: Examining Isaiah 9:6

Calling this an “exotic reconstruction”, rabbi Singer objects to the fact that the Christian translators use the future tense because it’s “a little annoying” to have it in the past tense. However, rabbi Singer makes one principle mistake. Just because something is written in past tense, doesn’t mean that it is actually talking about a past event. There are passages in the Bible that are in the past tense and are actual prophecies. One excellent example is Isaiah 53. Although the passage is written almost entirely in the past tense, surely no orthodox Jew will deny that Isaiah 53 is a prophecy rather than a description of a past event? In essence, this passage is so obviously messianic, that it has to be stripped of it’s messianic status in order to get the focus off of Yeshua and divert it to anyone else, in this case that would be Chizkuyahu. So if this is actually speaking of an event that happened in the past then it cannot in any way shape or form be messianic. So all the words that are in the past tense must and shall be understood to be about a past event. But if this entire passage is about an event that happened in the past, then why on earth are there sentences in the future tense? Yes, you are reading it correctly: rabbi Singer left all the future references completely untouched and focussed entirely on the past tenses:

8:21 And they shall pass this way that are sore bestead and hungry; and it shall come to pass that, when they shall be hungry, they shall fret themselves, and curse by their king and by their God, and, whether they turn their faces upward, 22 or look unto the earth, behold distress and darkness, the gloom of anguish, and outspread thick darkness. 23 For is there no gloom to her that was stedfast? Now the former has lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but the latter has dealt a more grievous blow by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, in the district of the nations. 9:1 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. 2 You have multiplied the nation, you have increased their joy; they joy before you according to the joy in harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil. 3 For the yoke of his burden, and the staff of his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, you have broken as in the day of Midian. 4 For every boot stamped with fierceness, and every cloak rolled in blood, shall even be for burning, for fuel of fire. 5 For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace; 6 That the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hostsshall perform this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Christianity did not arise from what rabbinic Judaism. Biblical Judaism believed that the Messiah was a Redeemer. What Are the Differences Between Judaism and Christianity?



Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

The problem is that Jesus does not fulfill the messianic prophecies. In fact those cited as such usually were not considered to be messianic prophecies by the Jews and they were almost always quoted out of context.

 

[Skywalker]

Here are just a few contradictions in the Bible:

Biblical Contradictions | American Atheists

Too bad that the BibViz page no longer works.

Oh wait! Good news. I found a working copy of it:

BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized

John 12:22 mentions the second coming of Jesus. Jesus mentioned his second coming. It's in the Bible. It's not a manmade doctrine. Indulgences is manmade doctrine. John 21:22

Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is thatto thee? follow thou me.

 

[Trailblazer]

the New Testament has no errors. The Bible doesn't contradict itself. Jesus said in John 12;21 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is thatto thee? follow thou me. John 21:23 says Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

We have covered this ground before. Look at the context. Jesus was not referring to coming back to Earth in that verse. Every time a Christian sees the word "come" they think it means Jesus is coming back, but Jesus is not coming back.
How many times do I have to keep posting the same verses, 100 times or 1000 times?

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A Bible verse being written in past tense doesn't mean that it's discussing a past event. Answering Judaism: Examining Isaiah 9:6

It pretty much does. Your source did not properly research his sources. In Isaiah 53 the "suffering servant" is Israel. It is hardly messianic.

 

[Trailblazer]

the New Testament has no errors.

Then that means that Jesus is not coming back to the world.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

John 12:22 mentions the second coming of Jesus. Jesus mentioned his second coming. It's in the Bible. It's not a manmade doctrine. Indulgences is manmade doctrine. John 21:22

Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is thatto thee? follow thou me.

No, it doesn't. You can read it in context here:

Bible Gateway passage: John 12 - New International Version

 

[Trailblazer]

In Isaiah 53 the "suffering servant" is Israel. It is hardly messianic.

That is what Jews believe but that does not make it true.
I believe the whole chapter is about the Messiah who the Jews have been waiting for.
Those prophecies have been fulfilled and that is the proof.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I guess that England came from the United States too.

LOLOL

 

[Skywalker]

Acts 7 says that the Patriachs are buried in Shechem, whereas Genesis says they are buried in Hebron.

Gen 23,

And the field of Ephron which was in Machpelah, which was before Mamre, the field, and the cave which was therein, and all the trees that were in the field, that were in all the borders round about, were made sure unto Abraham for a possession in the presence of the children of Heth, before all that went in at the gate of his city.
And after this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah before Mamre: the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan.
And the field, and the cave that is therein, were made sure unto Abraham for a possession of a buryingplace by the sons of Heth.

Gen 50,
For his sons carried him into the land of Canaan, and buried him in the cave of the field of Machpelah, which Abraham bought with the field for a possession of a buryingplace of Ephron the Hittite, before Mamre.

Acts 7,
So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers,
And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem.

If you study those verses in depth, you see that there is no contradiction. Does Acts 7:16 have a mistake?

Read the following excerpt from the Prophet Stephen’s sermon in Acts chapter 7: “[15] So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, [16] And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem.” Everything looks fine—until we check the Old Testament cross-references. Now, things get complex… and some poor, worried soul cries out, “Look, we have an error in the Bible!”

JACOB’S BURIAL: “For his [that is, Jacob’s] sons carried him into the land of Canaan, and buried him in the cave of the field of Machpelah, which Abraham bought with the field for a possession of a buryingplace of Ephron the Hittite, before Mamre” (Genesis 50:13). Jacob was entombed in the land of Machpelah. His grandfather Abraham bought that land from Ephron the Hittite: “And the field of Ephron which was in Machpelah, which was before Mamre, the field, and the cave which was therein, and all the trees that were in the field, that were in all the borders round about, were made sure Unto Abraham for a possession in the presence of the children of Heth, before all that went in at the gate of his city” (Genesis 23:17-18). Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 25:9-11), son Isaac (Genesis 35:27-29), and grandson Jacob (Genesis 50:13) were all buried here at Hebron.

JOSEPH’S BURIAL: According to Joshua 24:32, Joseph was buried in Shechem, what his father Jacob purchased from the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem: “And the bones of Joseph, which the children of Israel brought up out of Egypt, buried they in Shechem, in a parcel of ground which Jacob bought of the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem for an hundred pieces of silver: and it became the inheritance of the children of Joseph.”

Some argue Stephen in Acts chapter 7 condensed these two burial accounts into one. However, we do not believe Stephen was speaking of Jacob’s entombment at all. To demonstrate this, we simply read Acts again: “[15] So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, [16] And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem.” Who was “carried over into Sychem [Greek form of Hebrew “Shechem”]?” The verb in verse 16 is “were,” so the implied pronoun is plural (“they”) not “he” (singular). Far better off we would be to apply “were carried” to the preceding nouns “he [Joseph], and our fathers [Joseph’s brethren].” Remember, as Joshua 24:32 just informed us, Joseph was buried in Shechem. Presumably, as Stephen says, all of Joseph’s brethren were buried there too. Jacob’s burial plot—and Abraham’s land transaction here—is another matter entirely.

We do not have to contend with any discrepancy between Genesis 50:13 and Acts 7:15-16. On one hand, yes, Genesis speaks of Abraham buying land from Ephron the Hittite. This was the eventual cemetery for the corpses of Abraham, son Isaac, and grandson Jacob. On the other hand, indeed, Acts refers to Abraham purchasing land from the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem (Shechem). This area ultimately became the cemetery in which Joseph and his brethren were disposed. Eliminating Genesis 50:13 as a companion verse to Acts 7:16 makes the matter considerably easier to handle.

 

[Skywalker]

The problem is that Jesus does not fulfill the messianic prophecies. In fact those cited as such usually were not considered to be messianic prophecies by the Jews and they were almost always quoted out of context.

Isaiah 9:6 is a messianic prophecy. Something being written in past tense doesn't mean it's talking about a past event. Answering Judaism: Examining Isaiah 9:6

Calling this an “exotic reconstruction”, rabbi Singer objects to the fact that the Christian translators use the future tense because it’s “a little annoying” to have it in the past tense. However, rabbi Singer makes one principle mistake. Just because something is written in past tense, doesn’t mean that it is actually talking about a past event. There are passages in the Bible that are in the past tense and are actual prophecies. One excellent example is Isaiah 53. Although the passage is written almost entirely in the past tense, surely no orthodox Jew will deny that Isaiah 53 is a prophecy rather than a description of a past event? In essence, this passage is so obviously messianic, that it has to be stripped of it’s messianic status in order to get the focus off of Yeshua and divert it to anyone else, in this case that would be Chizkuyahu. So if this is actually speaking of an event that happened in the past then it cannot in any way shape or form be messianic. So all the words that are in the past tense must and shall be understood to be about a past event. But if this entire passage is about an event that happened in the past, then why on earth are there sentences in the future tense? Yes, you are reading it correctly: rabbi Singer left all the future references completely untouched and focussed entirely on the past tenses:

8:21 And they shall pass this way that are sore bestead and hungry; and it shall come to pass that, when they shall be hungry, they shall fret themselves, and curse by their king and by their God, and, whether they turn their faces upward, 22 or look unto the earth, behold distress and darkness, the gloom of anguish, and outspread thick darkness. 23 For is there no gloom to her that was stedfast? Now the former has lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but the latter has dealt a more grievous blow by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, in the district of the nations. 9:1 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. 2 You have multiplied the nation, you have increased their joy; they joy before you according to the joy in harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil. 3 For the yoke of his burden, and the staff of his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, you have broken as in the day of Midian. 4 For every boot stamped with fierceness, and every cloak rolled in blood, shall even be for burning, for fuel of fire. 5 For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace; 6 That the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hostsshall perform this.

Future events can be described in past tense, but past events cannot be described in future tense, unless it is a recap of a dialogue. Furthermore, rabbi Singer calls to witness Isaiah 10 and 37 to support his case, that these chapters are an elaboration of the events described in Isaiah 9, a past events that speaks of Chizkiyahu. Yet the text of Isaiah 10 is entirely written in the future tense:

20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant of Israel, and they that are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that smote them; but shall stay upon the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. 21 A remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto El Gibbor. 22 For though thy people, O Israel, be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them shall return; an extermination is determined, overflowing with righteousness. 23 For an extermination wholly determined shall the Lord, the GOD of hosts, make in the midst of all the earth. 24 Therefore thus says the Lord, the GOD of hosts: O My people that dwell in Zion, be not afraid of Asshur, though he smite you with the rod, and lift up his staff against thee, after the manner of Egypt. 25 For yet a very little while, and the indignation shall be accomplished, and My anger shall be to their destruction. 26 And the LORD of hosts shall stir up against him a scourge, as in the slaughter of Midian at the Rock of Oreb; and as His rod was over the sea, so shall He lift it up after the manner of Egypt. 27 And it shall come to pass in that day, that his burden shall depart from off your shoulder, and his yoke from off your neck, and the yoke shall be destroyed by reason of fatness.