How can a Jew reject Jesus as the Messiah?

[RestlessSoul]

Salvation comes from merit not grace.

Does it? Haven’t there always been gifts of undeserved grace?

 

[Tzephanyahu]

Why would the High Priest take interest in them? There were far more Qumranians, far far more Pharisees at the time. Christians were small fries. Seriously. Why send a special enforcer all the way there, and not even one from your own sect?

Firstly, Paul approached the High Priest for this mission. The High Priest didn't approach Paul - so your premise is incorrect.

Secondly, I already stated that Damascus could have well been the Qumran community. It's likely Paul would have had knowledge of them and they were in close proximity of course. They were known for their stance as the "sons of light" against the "sons of darkness" (Pharisees) and opinion on Messiah, with Yochanan the Immerser being potential major proponent of their community. This would also make Paul's subsequent trip into Arabia straightforward.

But even if it were Syria, so what? Even if it were a small community, so what? Because you don't understand it that means it didn't happen? Paul was a zealous man, and whilst I think the Damascus mentioned was Qumran, I could believe he travelled as far as Syria to stop the Gospel spreading further into the Diaspora. Paul was recorded as a man who was not afraid to travel great distances for his goals.

Were they really an enemy? Really really? Like, so much worse than the Romans or other sects who were equally heretical? Because if so, why was the decision to kick them out of synagogue (though not physically, it was a psychological technique) only made in the time of Rabban Gamliel the younger, circa the 90s-100s? Are you certain that the Christians posed such a huge threat to the rest of the Jews at the time?

Is this a really serious question? Or should I say "Really really"? Do I need to explain why Paul taking on Rome wasn't a feasible option? Or perhaps why taking out peaceful Christians would have been easier than the Zealots? I am amazed at the questions you ask sometime my friend

The Way was indeed problematic to Jewish authorities. They were proclaiming there was another King besides Caesar. The Sadducees were terrified of losing the Temple to the Rome who could easily tighten their grip of Judea, as they were tiring of the various uprisings, and The Way looked like another. The Pharisees, in general, were effectively demoted in the laymen's eyes as Yahushua exposed their hypocrisy and self-righteous attitude. No longer were they praised in the streets and synagogues, but the lay folk were connecting to Elohim and following Tanakh sans their oral traditions. The accusations against the Jewish authorities being responsible for crucifying the Son of Elohim would have been whispered softly and protested aloud from disciples and the rabble. So, sociologically speaking, The Way posed real problems.

It's likely Paul thought that this is an "internal problem" which could be dealt with swiftly, without any Roman intervention being imposed on them and the Jews potentially losing further power in Jerusalem. He then carried out illegal acts in his great zeal to snuff out The Way.

"I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death" - The author of Acts's words, not mine.

Yes, and the illegal stoning of Stephen is one such example. But there is a great difference between authorising one's death, overseeing it and even helping to stone someone than being an assassin. Surely you must be able to see the difference. If you can't,I dread to think who else you class as an assassin in the Tanakh.

Because the High Priest was a Sadducee heretic.

Well, this wasn't the state of Paul's heart, and quite rightly so. The High Priest is the High Priest - even if you don't like him. Have you not learned this in how David respected Saul, though he sought to kill him, because he was YHWH's anointed? You don't have to appreciate the man or even agree with Elohim's choice, but you must respect the position.

"Then Paul said, “I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’ ” - Acts 23:5

Paul, being the zealous Pharisee that he supposedly was, having gotten close enough to the High Priest, should've totally knifed him in the gut. Either Paul wasn't really a zealous Pharisee or he was never sent by the High Priest anywhere. Or both. Probably the third option.

Haha, okay. This is getting ridiculous now. Bye bye reason, hello fantasy land.

But how do you know that kosher meat marts, who follow traditional Jewish standards, are in level with your standards?

Yes, I realise you might be bound up with such questions and concerns. But thankfully for me it's a lot simpler. Clean animal, no blood = Bible standard, my standard. I appreciate the dedication of Kosher Meat Marts, and it's handy they exist of course. However, I also see them as unlike anything possible in the wilderness or by a prophet living in the wild. I guess Elohim had to wait until the Kosher Meat Marts were around before His people ate clean though...

Cut off your foreskin, which is the layer of skin above the male private part. He came to him and told him to cut off his Orlah. Now, Orlah is a word that means several things - it's a homonym, like "bark", "pen", "book", and so forth. And God didn't refer to any part of the body. In fact, it is never stated in Tanach what the Orlah is, in any context. So how would you know what Orlah God was referring to?

Shock, horror! So for all this time billions of people have been cutting the foreskin when Elohim actually meant cut the bark of a tree! Oye vey, what a mistake to make!

So, I guess in Genesis 34 the men of Shechem were all in pain for three days because they cut... a bark/pen/book, right? Seriously, some of things you come out with man... so weird.

then I guess there's really nothing more to talk about.

Yes, I think this has run it's course. The conversation has had its highs and lows but it seems that we're basically just saying the same things in different ways now

Thank you for your time anyway and I mean that. I realise as a Staff Member you must have your hands full, even on quiet days. So thank you again.

I'll leave you to have the last word - though I'm sure I'll bump into you on another post in the future.

Peace.

 

[Skywalker]

Which bible? The Sacred Namer bible of Yisrayl Hawkins, the bible of the Hebrew Roots Movement, the bible of the Catholics, the bible of Coptics, the Pesheeta, the Pesheeto, the KJV, the NIV, the JW bible, the Morom bible, the Ebionites (Which only had matthew), the bible of the Marcionites (Luke, Acts, some of Paul's writings), the Volgate, etc.

Which Christians and which version accurately potray the historical Jesus? Prove which one please.

The Ebionites were a cult. They rejected that Jesus is a Creator and Savior. Ebionites - Wikipedia

The Ebionites embraced an adoptionist Christology, thus understanding Jesus of Nazareth as a mere man who, by virtue of hisrighteousness, was chosen by God to be the last true prophet who heralds the coming Kingdom of God on Earth. A majority of the Ebionites rejected asheresies the proto-orthodox Christian beliefs in Jesus's divinity and virgin birth.[3]They maintained that Jesus was the natural son of Joseph and Mary who became the Messiah because he obeyed the Jewish law.[1]

 

[Ehav4Ever]

The Ebionites were a cult. They rejected that Jesus is a Creator and Savior. Ebionites - Wikipedia

Oh. So the Ebionites were a cult. They rejected certain central tenants of Christianity and thus were on the wrong path. Got it. That is how Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews define Christianity for similar reasons that you use to define the Ebionites as a cult.

So, in other words Christians do have standards of what is considered acceptable forms of Christianity and there are negative designations for those Jesus beleivers who were/are not following your standards of Christianity. You have thus proven the OP. I think we are finished now.

 

[Skywalker]

True, but Christianity has become a Roman Anglo-Saxon religion since.

Someone can follow Jesus and keep their culture and the two go beautifully together. Is Christianity a white man’s religion? | GotQuestions.org

Question: "Is Christianity a white man’s religion?"

Answer: The charge is sometimes leveled that Christianity is a “white man’s religion,” due to the historical connections that Christianity had with the rise of European nations and the founding of the United States. This is complicated by the fact that, during the era of the African slave trade, many white slave owners claimed to be Christians and tried to use the Bible to justify their actions. Acceptance of the idea that Christianity is a white man’s religion causes some people of color to embrace non-Christian religions such as Islam, animism, and Rastafarianism.

Regardless of world history since the reign of Charlemagne, Christianity was never intended for white people only. The Bible teaches that all people are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). The first Christians were all Semitic in ethnicity and likely had light- to dark-brown skin. Christianity having been predominantly a white religion in recent centuries has nothing to do with the message of Christianity. Rather, it is due to the failure of Christians to take the gospel of Jesus Christ to the ends of the world (Matthew 28:19–20; Acts 1:8). Jesus Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the entire world—all races and nationalities (see 1 John 2:2). Spiritually, men of all races are in need of the Savior because of their shared sinful condition (Romans 5:12).

 

[Skywalker]

Oh. So the Ebionites were a cult. They rejected certain central tenants of Christianity and thus were on the wrong path. Got it. That is how Torath Mosheh and Orthodox Jews define Christianity for similar reasons that you use to define the Ebionites as a cult.

So, in other words Christians do have standards of what is considered acceptable forms of Christianity and there are negative designations for those Jesus beleivers who were/are not following your standards of Christianity. You have thus proven the OP. I think we are finished now.

The Ebionites rejected the Messiah and followed the law. They believed in Jesus, but even Satan and the demons believe. James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Jesus— Man but not God? The Ebionite Heresy | Theology | Today in the Word

The Scriptures declare that there is one mediator between God and men, “the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). Many who heard the gospel in the first century had no trouble accepting this. For them, the major stumbling block to the gospel was the church’s insistence that Jesus Christ was also God (John 1:1; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1). This prompted some to accept that Jesus was a human messiah but to reject His claim to deity.

The Ebionite doctrine, one of the earliest heresies of the church, arose within early Jewish Christianity. The name by which this group was known may have been derived from its founder. Others have suggested that it alluded to the group’s ascetic tendencies. Some Ebionite groups were friendly towards Gentile Christians while others were hostile.

Interestingly, Ebionism may have been prompted by good motives: a desire to safeguard the foundational affirmation of Judaism that God is one (Deut. 6:4; cf. Mark 12:29, 32; James 2:19). The Ebionites believed that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary and was elected to be the son of God. They emphasized strict obedience to the Mosaic Law and preached a gospel of human effort.

 

[Skywalker]

Let me repeat: If having a p.c. belief about Jesus is mandatory for salvation, what about all the people who existed before Jesus was even born? What about those who came after Jesus but never heard of him? What about those who may have heard of him but with only limited information. IOW, what about probably 99+% of all the people in the world?

And what about the indigenous people of the Americas prior to the Europeans? Didn't God care about them? or indigenous Aussies? or eastern Asians? or Pacific Islanders?

Everyone will have an opportunity to know God.

 

[metis]

Everyone will have an opportunity to know God.

Or maybe they already do if they "tap into" God.

 

[Skywalker]

Or maybe they already do if they "tap into" God.

Jeremiah 29:13 says that those who seek God will find Him. And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

 

[metis]

Jeremiah 29:13 says that those who seek God will find Him. And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Yep.

 

[Skywalker]

Yep.

If someone in a tribe looked around wondered who made this, God would send them a missionary to give them the gospel.

 

[metis]

If someone in a tribe looked around wondered who made this, God would send them a missionary to give them the gospel.

Nope.

Instead, one may be able to perceive God in Nature, but one may especially also be able to perceive the Love that we need to live out with each other.

 

[Skywalker]

Nope.

Instead, one may be able to perceive God in Nature, but one may especially also be able to perceive the Love that we need to live out with each other.

People turn away from God's clear revelation to make other gods for themselves. What about the Unreached? - USA Mobilizing Office

1) All people know God the Father – Romans 1:18-21.

God has made revelation of himself continually and clearly known to all people. Every single man in the African jungle, every single woman in an Asian village, the Eskimo in the forgotten tundra, everybody has knowledge of God the Father; everybody in all history knows God. Paul says, “For although they knew God…”

2) All people reject true knowledge of God – Romans 1:18-21.

We all have an inherently sinful nature that is prone to worship creation rather than the Creator. Now, this is a fundamental truth in Scripture, but I think it’s often overlooked when it comes to this question of what happens to people who never hear about Jesus. “What about an Indian tribe who was here long before we were, and they didn’t have knowledge of the gospel, but they had an innate desire to worship something. They didn’t have knowledge of what that something was, and so they did the best they could with what they had. Maybe they worshipped the sun god, but that’s the best they could with what they have. Isn’t God pleased with that?”

What Paul is saying very clearly in Romans 1 is you don’t worship the sun and call it “God,” and that becomes pleasing to the God who is worthy of all worship. That’s idolatry. This is not an indictment of that Indian tribe. It’s not an indictment of any tribe in Africa or people in Asia. It’s an indictment of every single one of us. We are all prone to worship creation rather than the Creator, who alone is worthy of all praise. We worship ourselves, worship things, worship idols, whatever it is, we have rejected true knowledge of God.

 

[metis]

People turn away from God's clear revelation to make other gods for themselves. What about the Unreached? - USA Mobilizing Office

That has literally nothing to refute nor even directly deal with what I had posted.

 

[Skywalker]

Let me repeat: If having a p.c. belief about Jesus is mandatory for salvation, what about all the people who existed before Jesus was even born? What about those who came after Jesus but never heard of him? What about those who may have heard of him but with only limited information. IOW, what about probably 99+% of all the people in the world?

And what about the indigenous people of the Americas prior to the Europeans? Didn't God care about them? or indigenous Aussies? or eastern Asians? or Pacific Islanders?

God made himself available to all. Titus 2:11-14

For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.

The Grace of God Has Appeared - Plain Bible Teaching

This grace has been extended to “all men” (Titus 2:11). Jesus died for all, not just for a few. “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Peter explained God’s impartiality in this regard when he spoke to the household of Cornelius: “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him” (Acts 10:34-35). God has not arbitrarily selected some to be saved and the rest to be lost – as the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement teaches – He offers salvation to everyone.

 

[Art1787]

How is this possible?

It isn't their fault. They've been taught from childhood to reject Jesus Christ as the Messiah. They do occasionally convert. One of my favorite bishops was a nice Jewish boy from Russia.

 

[Art1787]

1. He was not a King over Israel (by which is meant a real king, not a 'spiritual king').
2. He did not gather the lost tribes / exiles back to Eretz Israel.
3. He did not bring peace to Israel / vanquish Israel's enemies.
4. He was not from the lineage of King David / his lineage is suspect.
5. He did not have children and a long life.
6. He did not usher in a Messianic Era wherein knowledge of the True G-d is spread across the earth and folks from all nations will come to worship at Jerusalem, realising the wrongness of their old religions.

Give him time. I think he will come through.

 

[Rival]

Give him time. I think he will come through.

He needs to do it the first time.

 

[Harel13]

He needs to do it the first time.

Times like this, I wish I could give more than one "winner" frube.

 

[Skywalker]

He needs to do it the first time.

That's just an interpretation of the Bible it's not what the Bible says. Does the Bible teach that there would be two comings of the Messiah? | GotQuestions.org

When Jesus entered Jerusalem on that final trip, He was welcomed with shouts of “Hosanna” and the waving of palm branches. Palm branches were a national symbol of Israel, and this was a very nationalistic display. However, instead of going into Jerusalem and conquering the Romans, Jesus entered the temple and cleared out the money changers (Matthew 21:12–17). He also indicated that Israel (at least the current generation) will not inherit the kingdom (Matthew 21:33–43). He went on to say that people should pay their taxes to Caesar if they owe them (Matthew 22:15–22). Finally, He foretold the total destruction of the temple (Matthew 24). These are not the words and deeds of a Messiah sent to free Israel from Roman domination. He was concerned about other things.

It was only after the resurrection that the disciples began to understand what Jesus had been telling them (John 2:22). Even after the resurrection they did not understand about the second coming because they asked Him if now was the time that He would restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6). Jesus told them that they should not be concerned about the timing of the coming kingdom, but they should take the gospel to the whole world (Acts 1:8). Then He was taken up from them into heaven, and two angels came to them and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Here we finally have a clear indication that there will be a second coming after an undisclosed time period.

The Old Testament had several mysteries regarding the Messiah: would He be a divine figure or a human descendant of David? The New Testament gives the answer—both, because of the Incarnation. Would the Messiah be cut off or reign forever? The New Testament gives the answer—both, because of the Resurrection. Would the Messiah come to suffer or to reign? The New Testament once again gives the answer—both, because He would come twice.