How can a Jew reject Jesus as the Messiah?

[TrueBeliever37]

The two stories are not comaprable inless the verses in Kings say that anyone can perform the miracle.

Can we agree that Jesus added to the law?

John 6:52-59

What's prescribed here is not anywhere in the old testament. It's new law.

Your argument about not being comparable makes no sense.

Can we agree that there was to be a new covenant? Because that would imply new laws.

Actually you have detoured a bit. You are supposed to be providing evidence of something he prophesied that was false.

 

[Skywalker]

The two stories are not comaprable inless the verses in Kings say that anyone can perform the miracle.

Can we agree that Jesus added to the law?

John 6:52-59

What's prescribed here is not anywhere in the old testament. It's new law.

How does communion add to Old Testament law or contradict Jesus saying he didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it?

 

[dybmh]

How was it in the tanach that people attained to eternal life (not sure how much of a concept that is in Judaism) or at least being right with God?

I haven't found any promise for eternal life in Tanach. However to get right with God, I think Daniel 4:27 is good advice for anyone.

Sacrifices were part of that, and I believe Yeshua was foreshadowed in the pesach lamb.

The pascal lamb sacrifice wasn't for atonement. It's nation building (Exodus 12:43). I see the foreshadowing, but the message I get from it is that Jesus was creating a new religious movement, a new assembly, or a new congregation.

And also, I wonder, how do you think mankind well be reconciled to God and return to a pre-fallen state, as in the garden of Eden?

From my perspective, this isn't needed. Knowledge of good and evil was inevitable. At some point desire would be combined with self-delusion and commandments would be broken. Desire and delusion both existed in people before Eve and Adam ate the forbidden fruit. Desire was given when God commanded to be "fruitful"; delusion/imagination was given when God brought the animals to Adam to be named. So I don't see anything which should be reversed. The human traits which lead to the first sin were already part of the human soul. To the contrary knowing how imagination and desire can be formed into good or evil is useful knowledge.

 

[dybmh]

How does communion add to Old Testament law or contradict Jesus saying he didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it?

We're discussing Deuteronomy 18. @TrueBeliever37 is claiming that Jesus should be accepted, I'm saying he shouldn't be accepted based on that chapter. Overall, chapter 18 prohibits following a prophet who is promoting a new religion. The communion is an example of Jesus promoting a new religion.

 

[Skywalker]

We're discussing Deuteronomy 18. @TrueBeliever37 is claiming that Jesus should be accepted, I'm saying he shouldn't be accepted based on that chapter. Overall, chapter 18 prohibits following a prophet who is promoting a new religion. The communion is an example of Jesus promoting a new religion.

Believing in Jesus is about a relationship with God, not a religion. The early followers of Jesus followed Jesus somewhere in between Christianity and Judaism.

 

[Skywalker]

They already are:
Psalms137[5-6] If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
let my right hand wither!
[6] Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth,
if I do not remember you,
if I do not set Jerusalem
above my highest joy!

And "replacement theology" not only defies what's repeatedly stated in the Tanakh, it also has been the main source of so much persecution of the Jews over the centuries.

The church didn't replace Israel because the church and Israel are different. What is replacement theology / supersessionism? | GotQuestions.org

What is replacement theology / supersessionism?

Question: "What is replacement theology / supersessionism?"

Answer: Replacement theology (also known as supersessionism) essentially teaches that the church has replaced Israel in God’s plan. Adherents of replacement theology believe the Jews are no longer God’s chosen people, and God does not have specific future plans for the nation of Israel. Among the different views of the relationship between the church and Israel are the church has replaced Israel (replacement theology), the church is an expansion of Israel (covenant theology), or the church is completely different and distinct from Israel (dispensationalism/premillennialism).

Replacement theology teaches that the church is the replacement for Israel and that the many promises made to Israel in the Bible are fulfilled in the Christian church, not in Israel. The prophecies in Scripture concerning the blessing and restoration of Israel to the Promised Land are spiritualized or allegorized into promises of God’s blessing for the church. Major problems exist with this view, such as the continuing existence of the Jewish people throughout the centuries and especially with the revival of the modern state of Israel. If Israel has been condemned by God and there is no future for the Jewish nation, how do we explain the supernatural survival of the Jewish people over the past 2,000 years despite the many attempts to destroy them? How do we explain why and how Israel reappeared as a nation in the 20th century after not existing for 1,900 years?

The view that Israel and the church are different is clearly taught in the New Testament. Biblically speaking, the church is distinct from Israel, and the terms church and Israel are never to be confused or used interchangeably. We are taught from Scripture that the church is an entirely new creation that came into being on the day of Pentecost and will continue until it is taken to heaven at the rapture (Ephesians 1:9–11; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–17). The church has no relationship to the curses and blessings for Israel. The covenants, promises, and warnings of the Mosaic Covenant were valid only for Israel. Israel has been temporarily set aside in God’s program during these past 2,000 years of dispersion (see Romans 11).

Contrary to replacement theology, dispensationalism teaches that, after the rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:13–18), God will restore Israel as the primary focus of His plan. The first event at this time is the tribulation (Revelation chapters 6–19). The world will be judged for rejecting Christ, while Israel is prepared through the trials of the great tribulation for the second coming of the Messiah. Then, when Christ does return to the earth at the end of the tribulation, Israel will be ready to receive Him. The remnant of Israel who survive the tribulation will be saved, and the Lord will establish His kingdom on this earth with Jerusalem as its capital. With Christ reigning as King, Israel will be the leading nation, and representatives from all nations will come to Jerusalem to honor and worship the King—Jesus Christ. The church will return with Christ and will reign with Him for a literal thousand years (Revelation 20:1–5).

Both the Old Testament and the New Testament support a premillennial/dispensational understanding of God’s plan for Israel. The strongest support for premillennialism is found in the clear teaching of Revelation 20:1–7, where it says six times that Christ’s kingdom will last 1,000 years. After the tribulation the Lord will return and establish His kingdom with the nation of Israel, Christ will reign over the whole earth, and Israel will be the leader of the nations. The church will reign with Him for a literal thousand years. The church has not replaced Israel in God’s plan. While God may be focusing His attention primarily on the church in this dispensation of grace, God has not forgotten Israel and will one day restore Israel to His intended role as the nation He has chosen (Romans 11).

 

[Skywalker]

Maybe check this out: Who is God's Suffering Servant? The Rabbinic Interpretation of Isaiah 53 | Outreach Judaism

As a Christian, which I also am, one should be willing to admit that your interpretation is clearly not correct for a variety of reasons, but even with this being the case Jesus still can be believed in as a Messiah. Therefore, in no way does this diminish Jesus, what he was and still is, nor lessen the importance of what he taught.

Isaiah clearly is about the Babylonian exile and the return to Israel, and we know this because of names and places, some that changed names over the centuries, plus how the Law [the 613 Commandments] are integral to the text, which rather clearly does not and cannot apply to Christianity. Probably most Catholic and mainline Protestant theologians know this because of their rather intense training in both Jewish and Christian theology, but I have found many fundamentalist Protestant theologians not being as well theologically astute, and this includes the church I grew up in btw, or they feel they have to spout the "company line" or possibly lose their jobs. Tolerance of opinions is not a fundamentalist virtue, let me tell ya.

Anyhow, ...

Isaiah 42:1–7 talks about the Messiah being a light to the nations. Israel played a part in that by being the nation that God used to send the Messiah through, but ultimately it was the Messiah who would be a light to the nations.

 

[Skywalker]

We're discussing Deuteronomy 18. @TrueBeliever37 is claiming that Jesus should be accepted, I'm saying he shouldn't be accepted based on that chapter. Overall, chapter 18 prohibits following a prophet who is promoting a new religion. The communion is an example of Jesus promoting a new religion.

Knowledge of God being spread throughout the earth during his reign on earth shows that the Messiah would have teachings. That verse doesn't say he will create two religions.

Habakkuk 2:14

For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

 

[metis]

The Jews having their own separate covenant with God is not mentioned in the Bible.

What are you talking about? There are more than just one covenant found in the scriptures.

 

[metis]

Isaiah 42:1–7 talks about the Messiah being a light to the nations. Israel played a part in that by being the nation that God used to send the Messiah through, but ultimately it was the Messiah who would be a light to the nations.

Again, you have managed to miss the point, plus you ignore what I posted in terms of Israel also being a "light unto the nations". Here:

Light unto the nations - Wikipedia.

 

[metis]

The church didn't replace Israel because the church and Israel are different. What is replacement theology / supersessionism? | GotQuestions.org

Then logically Israel must still be "a light unto the nations". Maybe actually read your own link next time.

 

[Skywalker]

Then logically Israel must still be "a light unto the nations". Maybe actually read your own link next time.

That would still support the Bible saying that the Messiah is a light to the nations.

 

[Skywalker]

Again, you have managed to miss the point, plus you ignore what I posted in terms of Israel also being a "light unto the nations". Here:

Light unto the nations - Wikipedia.

The term light unto the nations has a connection to salvation.

The term originated from verses in the Book of Isaiah:

"Yea, He saith, 'It is too light a thing for you to be My servant, to establish the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the scions of Israel, and I shall submit you as a light unto the nations, to be My salvation until the end of the earth' Isaiah 49:6

 

[Skywalker]

What are you talking about? There are more than just one covenant found in the scriptures.

Dual covenant theology isn't about the Old and New Covenant. Dual-covenant theology - Wikipedia

Dual-covenant or two-covenant theology is a school of thought in Christianity regarding the relevance of the Hebrew Bible, which Christians call the Old Testament.

Most Christians hold that the Old Testament has been superseded or abrogated and replaced with the New Covenant, which is the only one of the biblical covenants that remains valid today. Dual-covenant theology is unique in holding that the Old Covenant or the Law of Moses remains valid for Jewswhile the New Covenant only applies to non-Jews or gentiles.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

We're discussing Deuteronomy 18. @TrueBeliever37 is claiming that Jesus should be accepted, I'm saying he shouldn't be accepted based on that chapter. Overall, chapter 18 prohibits following a prophet who is promoting a new religion. The communion is an example of Jesus promoting a new religion.

Deuteronomy 18:18-22 - tells you that YHWH was going to raise up a prophet, and that whoever doesn't listen to that prophet, YHWH will require it of him. But you are not to listen to a false prophet. It then tells you how to tell if the prophet is false - which is if he prophecies something that doesn't follow or come to pass it was not from YHWH.

 

[dybmh]

Deuteronomy 18:18-22 - tells you that YHWH was going to raise up a prophet, and that whoever doesn't listen to that prophet, YHWH will require it of him. But you are not to listen to a false prophet. It then tells you how to tell if the prophet is false - which is if he prophecies something that doesn't follow or come to pass it was not from YHWH.

I think verses 9 and forward should be included in the determination whether or not a prophet is legitimate. That means no sorcery, witchcraft, divining, sooth saying, etc... No adopting the practices of the other nations...

Can we agree that the prophet described in verse 15 would not promote or engage in any of these things?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I think verses 9 and forward should be included in the determination whether or not a prophet is legitimate. That means no sorcery, witchcraft, divining, sooth saying, etc... No adopting the practices of the other nations...

Can we agree that the prophet described in verse 15 would not promote or engage in any of these things?

The Messiah never engaged in any of those things, and he adopted no abominations of the other nations.

 

[Skywalker]

I think verses 9 and forward should be included in the determination whether or not a prophet is legitimate. That means no sorcery, witchcraft, divining, sooth saying, etc... No adopting the practices of the other nations...

Can we agree that the prophet described in verse 15 would not promote or engage in any of these things?

Jesus being a sorcerer is not a belief that has evidence in the Bible supports. The Talmud mentions it but that isn't a firsthand account like the New Testament.

 

[dybmh]

The Messiah never engaged in any of those things, and he adopted no abominations of the other nations.

So where did the communion come from? From my research it's an occult practice.

Cursing a fig tree? What does that sound like to you?

 

[dybmh]

Jesus being a sorcerer is not a belief that has evidence in the Bible supports. The Talmud mentions it but that isn't a firsthand account like the New Testament.

Cursing the fig tree sounds like sorcery to me.

Also, indwelling... it's a form of spirit possession. It's practiced in daoism.