How can a Jew reject Jesus as the Messiah?

[rosends]

The Tanakh mentions there being echad not yachid, in Genesis 1:26.

I know I promised I would ignore you and I will go back to ignoring you in a moment, but I wanted to drop in and say that this reaches new heights of JPF (just plain funny).

Echad and yachid are two different words. They mean different things. They aren't the same. The word yachid is found three times in tanach (with no prefixes or suffixes) such as Jeremiah 26:6.

And now, back to ignoring!

 

[rosends]

I DONT KNOW,

I honestly would like to know the opinion of an informed and open minded Jew………..the only argument against the resurrection that I have heard is that “miracles don’t happen” (which would work for an atheist) but a Jew should be open to miracles.

I don't know what Jew would use that as an answer other than an atheist who then isn't really answering as a Jew. The tanach, itself, mentions resurrections and miracles. Judaism has loads of miracles. The question of the historicity of the resurrection is suspect and more a matter of faith. If I don't see the gospels as being historically accurate or authoritative then I won't see the account of a resurrection as persuasive.

 

[Skywalker]

I know I promised I would ignore you and I will go back to ignoring you in a moment, but I wanted to drop in and say that this reaches new heights of JPF (just plain funny).

Echad and yachid are two different words. They mean different things. They aren't the same. The word yachid is found three times in tanach (with no prefixes or suffixes) such as Jeremiah 26:6.

And now, back to ignoring!

That's why the term echad being used for God supports that God is triune.

 

[Batya]

That's why the term echad being used for God supports that God is triune.

What are you saying you think echad means?

 

[rosends]

That's why the term echad being used for God supports that God is triune.

Um, no. First, Gen 1:26 does not have the word "echad" in it so I don't know why you would cite it and therefore any conclusion based on the error of connecting "echad" to God in that verse is destroyed.

Next, using the word echad to describe God, if it happens, only supports that God is one. Are you saying that any use of the word "echad" indicates a triune nature? The word appears over 200 times. Should I start listing them and you can explain how, for example, in Gen 40:5, the word echad means anything triune? Come on...
--------------

If all you are going to do is find some other website which you clearly haven't read and don't understand and append it to another nonsensical claim, then you can expect no response from me.

 

[Skywalker]

I don't know what Jew would use that as an answer other than an atheist who then isn't really answering as a Jew. The tanach, itself, mentions resurrections and miracles. Judaism has loads of miracles. The question of the historicity of the resurrection is suspect and more a matter of faith. If I don't see the gospels as being historically accurate or authoritative then I won't see the account of a resurrection as persuasive.

Jesus is consistent with that aspect of Judaism.

 

[Skywalker]

What are you saying you think echad means?

The term echad is used to describe a husband and wife being one flesh, and a husband and wife are different people.

 

[Skywalker]

I don't know what Jew would use that as an answer other than an atheist who then isn't really answering as a Jew. The tanach, itself, mentions resurrections and miracles. Judaism has loads of miracles. The question of the historicity of the resurrection is suspect and more a matter of faith. If I don't see the gospels as being historically accurate or authoritative then I won't see the account of a resurrection as persuasive.

The Apostles had nothing to gain by preaching their faith in Jesus and they could have recanted when they were executed for their faith but they didn't.

 

[rosends]

The Apostles had nothing to gain by preaching their faith in Jesus and they could have recanted when they were executed for their faith but they didn't.

This is another illogical statement. Not only doesn't it address anything I said, but it equates "dying for a belief" with "the belief must be true" which would mean that any religious person who died rather than recanting a belief (Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim) proves the accuracy of the text upon which the belief is based. If all you want to do is make more illogical and unrelated statements, I feel good in having ignored you.

When you are ready to discuss ideas and not random and illogical soundbites, just say so.

 

[Skywalker]

This is another illogical statement. Not only doesn't it address anything I said, but it equates "dying for a belief" with "the belief must be true" which would mean that any religious person who died rather than recanting a belief (Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim) proves the accuracy of the text upon which the belief is based. If all you want to do is make more illogical and unrelated statements, I feel good in having ignored you.

When you are ready to discuss ideas and not random and illogical soundbites, just say so.

The difference between the early Christians who died for their faith and other belief systems who may have had similar situations was that they believed that they saw the risen Christ. It couldn't have been a hallucination because hundreds of people couldn't have seen the same thing. Did The Disciples Hallucinate? A Historical Inquiry | Reasons for Jesus

That Jesus is said to appear to 500 people at once is another detail that is in need of explanations for those who hold to the HH. The mentioning of Jesus’ appearances to the 500 is found within a creed that is dated to within three to five years of his death. It is also universally seen as authentic, Campenhausen explains that “This account meets all the demands of historical reliability that could possibly be made of such a text” (16).

However, Ludemann having noted the authenticity of the creed tries to explain away the appearances to the 500 as “mass hysteria” (17). However, this fails on several grounds.

Firstly, former militant atheist, turned Christian, Lee Strobel, in the midst of his investigation of the resurrection, asked a medical expert on the possibility of 500 people witnessing the risen Jesus. This expert said that for a group of 500 people to witness the exact same hallucination of a raised Jesus would “be a bigger miracle than the resurrection itself!” (18).

 

[Skywalker]

Um, no. First, Gen 1:26 does not have the word "echad" in it so I don't know why you would cite it and therefore any conclusion based on the error of connecting "echad" to God in that verse is destroyed.

Next, using the word echad to describe God, if it happens, only supports that God is one. Are you saying that any use of the word "echad" indicates a triune nature? The word appears over 200 times. Should I start listing them and you can explain how, for example, in Gen 40:5, the word echad means anything triune? Come on...
--------------

If all you are going to do is find some other website which you clearly haven't read and don't understand and append it to another nonsensical claim, then you can expect no response from me.

A husband and wife are described as echad in the verse about one flesh. That supports the belief that they are three persons of the same essence.

The Hebrew word for 'one' (`echadh) and the uniqueness of God.

Question: I have a question for you about the Hebrew word "echad." Now, I know it means numerically "one" and "each" and so on, but can't it also mean "united, composite one"? Strong's has it as one of its meanings. Somebody once told me that that is its main meaning, but it seems to me, that simply "one" is its main meaning, but "united one" is certainly within its semantic realm, as in "the man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall be echad flesh.". Could you please elucidate? Thanks, and God bless you.

Response: Indeed, `echadh (אחד) is the Hebrew word for "one", that is, the cardinal numeral "1". That is its main meaning. The semantic field is often expanded (as is the case in the English word "one"); you use the example "one flesh" in Genesis 2:24, and I think its clear that this meaning of unity (i.e., no more separate parts) is inherent in both English and Hebrew to a virtually equivalent degree. Having said this, there are a few places where we get an indication that in Hebrew the unity, or rather the uniquenessaspect of the unity of "one", is more pronounced and more significant than in English. For example, in Genesis 1:5 the "first" day is, literally from the Hebrew, "day one" (i.e., a really special day as the first one in the sequence), although the remaining days do have the ordinal numerals (second, third, fourth, etc.; this happens frequently in the O.T. with the number "one"). While this is not generally recognized today, this deference to "one" over "first" in such cases was clearly understood throughout scripture, for we find John in Revelation's account of the seven seals speaking of "seal one" instead of "the first seal" (whereas the remainder are again ordinals: second, third, fourth, etc.). And both Greek and Hebrew do have heavily used ordinals for "first" (protos [πρῶτος] and rishon [ראשון] respectively), so that there is a clear choice being made here, undoubtedly for emphasis.

 

[Batya]

The difference between the early Christians who died for their faith and other belief systems who may have had similar situations was that they believed that they saw the risen Christ. It couldn't have been a hallucination because hundreds of people couldn't have seen the same thing. Did The Disciples Hallucinate? A Historical Inquiry | Reasons for Jesus

Yes, but just because they believed it and died on account of that doesn't automatically make it true. There are people in other religions who have suffered and died because they would not recant their beliefs. You know I agree with you that Yeshua is the messiah, but this isn't really the best way to make that case in my opinion. I think it would be more meaningful if you made your case from the scriptures rather than pulling from articles. Anyone can find an article that agrees with them.

 

[Skywalker]

Yes, but just because they believed it and died on account of that doesn't automatically make it true. There are people in other religions who have suffered and died because they would not recant their beliefs. You know I agree with you that Yeshua is the messiah, but this isn't really the best way to make that case in my opinion. I think it would be more meaningful if you made your case from the scriptures rather than pulling from articles. Anyone can find an article that agrees with them.

They didn't just believe in the resurrection of Jesus and die for it, but making up a story that included women seeing Jesus first isn't something that someone would make up, because it wouldn't help to make their case more credible. 10 Reasons To Accept The Resurrection Of Jesus As A Fact | Reasons for Jesus

1) The First Eyewitnesses were Women

The first eyewitnesses of the resurrection were women. All the Gospels note that the first individuals to discover the tomb empty were women. Matthew notes that “After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to view the tomb…The angel told the women, ‘Don’t be afraid, because I know you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here. For he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the play where he lay” (Matthew 28:1, 5-6).[1]

Women were not held in high esteem. In Greco-Roman culture, a woman’s testimony was not admissible in court. In Jewish circles, it took the testimony of two women to equate that of one man. If one were to invent a story, the last people one would place as the first witnesses would have been women, unless it were otherwise true.

 

[Batya]

They didn't just believe in the resurrection of Jesus and die for it, but making up a story that included women seeing Jesus first isn't something that someone would make up, because it wouldn't help to make their case more credible. 10 Reasons To Accept The Resurrection Of Jesus As A Fact | Reasons for Jesus

Yes, I didn't say I thought they were making it up, I was just saying you have a weightier argument if you debate using scripture and your own thoughts, rather than someone else's.

 

[Skywalker]

Yes, I didn't say I thought they were making it up, I was just saying you have a weightier argument if you debate using scripture and your own thoughts, rather than someone else's.

I think the circumstances surrounding the apostles seeing Jesus is evidence that what they saw was real. Did The Disciples Hallucinate? A Historical Inquiry | Reasons for Jesus

A further detail that demands an explanation is the transformation of the lives of the disciples, Peter, Paul, and James. No rational minded person willingly suffers, and ends up martyred, for a hallucination. Like William Craig already explained that if the disciples, Peter, Paul and James had, via some very unlikely means, all hallucinated a risen Jesus this would have confirm for them that he had actually died and ascended to heaven.

NO SANE PERSON SUFFERS AND WILLINGLY DIES FOR A HALLUCINATION.

The timeframe of the hallucinations. If the disciples, Peter, Paul and James, as well as the 500, all had hallucinations of the risen Jesus then why did it only last 40 days? Why did the resurrection “hallucinations” only occur in that time and not afterwards? Why didn’t these hallucinations continue to spread to other believers?

 

[rational experiences]

A human can claim actually it is a miracle I am still alive.

After assessing why they believed they would die.

Involved in earth God change life witnessed phenomena sacrificed it is believable.

Just check all phenomena attacks and you might agree. Not agree? Only because you are not a victim.

If a human says we lost ground water mass split by two lifted off. And survived you would claim it a miracle of God. We are mainly a bio water form.

Science human reasonings said O God earth entity created spirit heavens gas. God by teaching owns spirits.

God spirits

So we thank god for existing as spirit.

If jesus said our parents came from spirit originally to discuss why time shifting thesis was imposed. A human motivated reasoned self choice. As his brothers historic wanted to go back just to spirit form. Then he proved his teachings.

Thesis to return physical presence back to spirit form.

In science spirit is a gas.

We never converted into a gas. We proved originally we came from real spirit not science gas spirit.

Thesis human embodied thinker did not time shift self.

The proof.

We said no man is God as a healer spiritual medical aware realisation. Proof to its best ability seeing we were sent out of eternal spirit as the parents....human.

Every one of us is reliving the parent memories.

 

[Skywalker]

That's nonsense. For example, there is nothing convenient about my belief that God has given my people 613 laws that he expects us to obey.

Even though not everyone who believes in Jesus has a conviction to follow Jewish law, it's not incompatible with following Jesus and isn't the reason that I believe people reject Jesus. I believe that people reject Jesus because believing that we need a Savior isn't an easy truth.

 

[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.

Communion has nothing to do with what can be interpreted as a new religion because the term Christian is only used three times in the New Testament.

 

[metis]

the term Christian is only used three times in the New Testament.

Many theologians believe that it was first used as a sarcastic reference to the Church by outsiders, thus not used by the Church as a reference to itself until into the 2nd century.

 

[dybmh]

Communion has nothing to do with what can be interpreted as a new religion because the term Christian is only used three times in the New Testament.

The term Christian is irrelevant.

From my perspective, now, in 2021, when I read about communion, it sounds like a different religious practice. I haven't encountered anything like it in modern Judaism or Tanach. Even if I look at it symbolically, there is nothing comparable.

And, as I said, when I look for comparable practices, I find them in other religions. Indwelling with Dionysus can involve drinking blood or wine.

Because of this, I cannot accept a Jewish prophet who adovactes for this literal or metaphorical practice without something from a Jewish source which gives it credibility.