How can the Jew reject, Jesus, Muhammad, Bab and Baha'u'llah?

[Skywalker]

That's true. Which really makes the world wonder why there are so many thousands of denominations, especially after the reformation.

Jesus by the way, didn't even try to start a new religion.

When Christianity spread to the Gentiles it became a new religion from Judaism. Most Gentiles wouldn't adapt to a Jewish way of life. Jesus came to save us and teach us how to live. Whether we became Jewish or not was a non issue.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

When Christianity spread to the Gentiles it became a new religion from Judaism. Most Gentiles wouldn't adapt to a Jewish way of life. Jesus came to save us and teach us how to live. Whether we became Jewish or not was a non issue.

It looks like we actually agree on this.

The churches the apostles first founded were filled with Jews who followed Judaism -- they were a Jewish sect, albeit a heretical one which was later kicked out of the synagogues.

Paul, however, very successfully turned that on its head, establishing the greater number of Gentile churches, who did not need to follow Jewish law. Their converts in the second century became anti-Judaism.

 

[Skywalker]

It looks like we actually agree on this.

The churches the apostles first founded were filled with Jews who followed Judaism -- they were a Jewish sect, albeit a heretical one which was later kicked out of the synagogues.

Paul, however, very successfully turned that on its head, establishing the greater number of Gentile churches, who did not need to follow Jewish law. Their converts in the second century became anti-Judaism.

Do you think Paul establishing gentile churches was wrong? Following Jewish law isn't for everyone. There are gentiles who keep kosher, but Paul said if you are gentile and follow Jesus don't become Jewish and if you are Jewish and follow Jesus, don't become gentile.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Do you think Paul establishing gentile churches was wrong? Following Jewish law isn't for everyone. There are gentiles who keep kosher, but Paul said if you are gentile and follow Jesus don't become Jewish and if you are Jewish and follow Jesus, don't become gentile.

Well, you have to understand that I'm coming from the viewpoint that the movement was a heretical Jewish sect in the firstplace and that they were justifiably kicked out of the synagogues. If you think for a second, you'll realize that from my POV you are asking me if I think Paul made a mistake by establishing the heresy among Gentiles. Basically, if it was a mistake for Jews to believe it, then it was a mistake for Gentiles to believe it too.

But lets look at it from the Christian perspective for a moment. Paul believed that Jesus' return was absolutely immanent. He did not envision a wait of 2000 years. He pursued a policy that was going to work in the short term, and he just didn't worry that it was going to be a terrible policy for the long term, because for him there wasn't going to be a long term.

What was the long term? The long term was that the church would lose its Jewish foundations, its Jerusalem centrality, and become a Gentile Church that was opposed to that which was Jewish. This was inevitable. But like I said, Paul didn't worry about the long term.

 

[Skywalker]

Well, you have to understand that I'm coming from the viewpoint that the movement was a heretical Jewish sect in the firstplace and that they were justifiably kicked out of the synagogues. If you think for a second, you'll realize that from my POV you are asking me if I think Paul made a mistake by establishing the heresy among Gentiles. Basically, if it was a mistake for Jews to believe it, then it was a mistake for Gentiles to believe it too.

But lets look at it from the Christian perspective for a moment. Paul believed that Jesus' return was absolutely immanent. He did not envision a wait of 2000 years. He pursued a policy that was going to work in the short term, and he just didn't worry that it was going to be a terrible policy for the long term, because for him there wasn't going to be a long term.

What was the long term? The long term was that the church would lose its Jewish foundations, its Jerusalem centrality, and become a Gentile Church that was opposed to that which was Jewish. This was inevitable. But like I said, Paul didn't worry about the long term.

I read in an encyclopedia that Christianity went from a Jewish sect to a world religion. Following Jesus was always about a relationship not a religion, whether it was practiced in a Jewish context or a Gentile context.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I read in an encyclopedia that Christianity went from a Jewish sect to a world religion. Following Jesus was always about a relationship not a religion, whether it was practiced in a Jewish context or a Gentile context.

Why do you think it is an either/or thing? In Judaism, we have a relationship with God, and our covenant can be described as a religion.

Same with Christianity. I believe that despite its many flaws of doctrine, Christians come to know God, yet it is the very definition of religion -- a deity, prayers, a sacred book, a moral code, religious rites such as communion and baptism, etc.

 

[Skywalker]

Why do you think it is an either/or thing? In Judaism, we have a relationship with God, and our covenant can be described as a religion.

Same with Christianity. I believe that despite its many flaws of doctrine, Christians come to know God, yet it is the very definition of religion -- a deity, prayers, a sacred book, a moral code, religious rites such as communion and baptism, etc.

I'm not religious. Religion does nothing but cause trouble.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I'm not religious. Religion does nothing but cause trouble.

I hate to break it to you my friend, but you are praying, worshiping, studying a religious text, following a religious creed, have probably been baptised and received communion, done all sorts of religious stuff.

 

[CG Didymus]

Do you think Paul establishing gentile churches was wrong? Following Jewish law isn't for everyone. There are gentiles who keep kosher, but Paul said if you are gentile and follow Jesus don't become Jewish and if you are Jewish and follow Jesus, don't become gentile.

Were gentiles Christians taught to read and believe in the Bible? And, until there was a NT, what else did they have? But they were taught not to follow the laws? The laws that supposedly came from God? Yet, Jesus expected his followers to follow his commandments, which, I'd imagine, some were the same as some of the Jewish laws. So there were just some laws done away with and some laws stayed in effect. And, which news laws did Jesus bring?

But this OP was started by a Baha'i. And he wanted to know why a Jew could reject, not only Christianity, but also Islam and the Baha'i Faith. Baha'is look at the past Holy Books similar to how Christians take the Bible. It was true... for a time, but now it has been updated and replaced with new information from God. And like how Jews reject the Christian NT, Christians reject the Quran and the Baha'i writings. And I think it is for the same reasons the Jews reject the NT. So why is it different for Christians when they say that those other Holy Books of Islam and the Baha'i Faith are not truly from God, yet when it comes to their book, the NT, that is different... that Jews should accept that as being true and from God?

 

[Skywalker]

Were gentiles Christians taught to read and believe in the Bible? And, until there was a NT, what else did they have? But they were taught not to follow the laws? The laws that supposedly came from God? Yet, Jesus expected his followers to follow his commandments, which, I'd imagine, some were the same as some of the Jewish laws. So there were just some laws done away with and some laws stayed in effect. And, which news laws did Jesus bring?

But this OP was started by a Baha'i. And he wanted to know why a Jew could reject, not only Christianity, but also Islam and the Baha'i Faith. Baha'is look at the past Holy Books similar to how Christians take the Bible. It was true... for a time, but now it has been updated and replaced with new information from God. And like how Jews reject the Christian NT, Christians reject the Quran and the Baha'i writings. And I think it is for the same reasons the Jews reject the NT. So why is it different for Christians when they say that those other Holy Books of Islam and the Baha'i Faith are not truly from God, yet when it comes to their book, the NT, that is different... that Jews should accept that as being true and from God?

The Apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:18

Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:18

Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

Okay, so circumcision becomes nothing. The Sabbath becomes nothing. What else? What was so important to God with the Israelites, even getting some of them stoned to death for disobeying, becomes not a concern for God later on with Christianity? So why do Christians reject Muhammad and Baha'u'llah? They are doing the same thing. Saying that God has again changed the laws.

 

[Skywalker]

Okay, so circumcision becomes nothing. The Sabbath becomes nothing. What else? What was so important to God with the Israelites, even getting some of them stoned to death for disobeying, becomes not a concern for God later on with Christianity? So why do Christians reject Muhammad and Baha'u'llah? They are doing the same thing. Saying that God has again changed the laws.

Messianic Jews celebrate Passover in ways that celebrate Christ being the Savior. They look back to the Messiah. The Jews in the Old Testament looked forward to the Messiah.

 

[Skywalker]

The only text from the OT that describes what the Messiah isn't (that I'm aware of) is in Deuteronomy 13 where a false prophet is described as a "test" for Jewish people.

Other than that, it's all interpretation. Even the word "Messiah" is interpretation.

"Making sense" is not, imho, the best metric for determining validity in religious matters. That said, for me, it doesn't make sense that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. The most objective reasons come from world history. Jesus did not herald the messianic era 2000 years ago per Isaiah's standards. (Isaiah 2:4 / Isaiah 11:6-9). Without that, it doesn't make sense to label anyone the Jewish Messiah.

There are plenty of places in the OT on how God will bring peace and order on earth to such degrees that even predatorian behavior will cease from existing and jews were waiting that and still waiting it. Jesus will bring that peace at his second coming. Does the Old Testament truly predict a second advent of the Messiah? | GotQuestions.org

Question: "Does the Old Testament truly predict a second advent of the Messiah?"

Answer: The Old Testament does prophesy the second coming of Christ, also referred to as the second advent of the Messiah. Some Old Testament prophecies concern the first advent, when Christ was born as a human being. Others concern the second advent, which is the ultimate triumph of this Messiah. It’s important to remember that prophecy does not describe the future in the same detail as history describes the past. So, while the prophecies of the Old Testament certainly describe both the first and second advents, most early interpretations of these prophecies melded them into a single event. Particularly during the years leading up to Jesus’ birth, it was assumed Messiah would be a political/military figure with an immediate worldly kingdom (Luke 19:11). In the light of Jesus’ ministry, it is possible to understand the true purpose of Christ and the real nature of His kingdom.

A careful look at Old Testament prophecies shows an underlying assumption of two advents. Micah 5:2 and Isaiah 7:14 predict the first advent. Separately, Isaiah 53:8–9 predicts a suffering and dying Messiah, who will be given life and greatness according to Isaiah 53:11–12. Daniel 9:26 describes the Messiah being killed after His appearance. At the same time, prophets such as Zechariah (Zechariah 12:10) say this same “pierced” Messiah will be seen again by His enemies. So the clues are there.

People misinterpret the prophecies about the Messiah bringing peace and order at his second coming because they want the Messiah to be a political figure and not a Savior because it's more convenient for our sinful nature to accept.

 

[dybmh]

A careful look at Old Testament prophecies shows an underlying assumption of two advents. Micah 5:2 and Isaiah 7:14 predict the first advent. Separately, Isaiah 53:8–9 predicts a suffering and dying Messiah, who will be given life and greatness according to Isaiah 53:11–12. Daniel 9:26 describes the Messiah being killed after His appearance. At the same time, prophets such as Zechariah (Zechariah 12:10) say this same “pierced” Messiah will be seen again by His enemies. So the clues are there.

Ignored - this is a repeat of previously refuted claims.

Isaiah - verse 10 is ignored
Daniel - is speaking about an annointed king
Zecharia - isn't talking about the messiah

That leaves 2 verses. Isaiah 7:14 and Micah 5:2.

 

[Skywalker]

Ignored - this is a repeat of previously refuted claims.

Isaiah - verse 10 is ignored
Daniel - is speaking about an annointed king
Zecharia - isn't talking about the messiah

That leaves 2 verses. Isaiah 7:14 and Micah 5:2.

The Hebrew term betulah doesn't exclusively mean virgin too. Almah meaning maiden doesn't mean that it can't also mean virgin. Objections to Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 9:6-7

C. The Hebrew hlwtb Bethuwlah does not exclusively apply to “virgin” either.

Jewish interpreters make the charge that the proper name for virgin is hlwtb Bethuwlah not Almah the word used in Isaiah 7:14. Dr. Michael Brown responds to the charge that Bethuwlah alone can exclusively mean Virgin in the Hebrew Bible.

Actually, there is no single word in biblical Hebrew that always and only means “virgin” (called in Latin virgo intacta). As for the Hebrew word betulah, while it often refers to a virgin in the Hebrew Scriptures, more often than not it has no reference to virginity but simply means “young woman, maiden.” In fact, out of the fifty times the word betulah occurs in the Tanakh, the NJPSV translates it as “maiden”—rather than “virgin”—thirty-one times! This means that more then three out of very five times thatbetulah occurs in the Hebrew Bible, it is translated as “maiden” rather then “virgin” by the most widely used Jewish translation of our day. Not only so, but the Stone edition of the Tanakh, reflecting traditional Orthodox scholarship, frequently translates betulahas “maiden” as well. Even in verses where the translation of “virgin” is appropriate for betulah, a qualifying phrase is sometimes added, as in Genesis 24:16: “The maiden (na’arah) was beautiful, a virgin (betulah) whom no man had known” Obviously, if betulah clearly and unequivocally meant “virgin” here, there would be no need to explain that this betulah never had intercourse with a man…. How redundant! What other kind of virgin is there?...

Even more clear is Isaiah 47:1, rendered in the NIV as, “Go down, sit in the dust, Virgin Daughter of Babylon; sit on the ground without a throne, Daughter of the Babylonians. No more will you be called tender or delicate.” Yet a few verses later we read that this “Virgin” will lose her husband and her children on the very same day!

 

[dybmh]

The Hebrew term betulah doesn't exclusively mean virgin too. Almah meaning maiden doesn't mean that it can't also mean virgin. Objections to Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 9:6-7

You can have Isaiah 7:14.

But Isaiah 9:6 is obviously not your messiah. He's not the prince of peace nor was he a leader in government.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government will be upon His shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Matthew 10:34 Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Luke 12:51 Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but division.

 

[Skywalker]

You can have Isaiah 7:14.

But Isaiah 9:6 is obviously not your messiah. He's not the prince of peace nor was he a leader in government.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government will be upon His shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Matthew 10:34 Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Luke 12:51 Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but division.

The context of Matthew 10:34 and Luke 12:51 is about how following Jesus can bring division and it isn't an easy choice. What did Jesus mean by coming to bring a sword in Matthew 10:34-36? | GotQuestions.org

Question: "What did Jesus mean by coming to bring a sword in Matthew 10:34-36?"

Answer: Matthew 10:34–36 describes Jesus telling the disciples that He came not to bring peace to the world, but a sword. Jesus’ sword was never a literal one. In fact, when Peter took up a sword to defend Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus rebuked him and told him to put away his sword, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Why then, did Jesus say, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” What kind of sword did Jesus come to bring?

Among the names of Jesus Christ is that of Prince of Peace. Such verses as Isaiah 9:6, Luke 2:14, and John 14:27 make it clear that Jesus came to bring peace, but that peace is between the man and God. Those who reject God and the only way of salvation through Jesus (John 14:6) will find themselves perpetually at war with God. But those who come to Him in repentance will find themselves at peace with God. Because of Christ’s sacrifice, we are restored to a relationship of peace with God (Romans 5:1).

Still, it is inevitable that there will be conflict between good and evil, the Christ and the antichrist, the light and the darkness, the children of God (believers) and the children of the devil (those who refuse Christ). Conflict must arise between the two groups, and this can and does happen within a family in which some are believers and others are not. We should seek to be at peace with all men but should never forget that Jesus warned we will be hated for His sake. Because those who reject Him hate Him, they will hate His followers as well (John 15:18).

 

[dybmh]

The context of Matthew 10:34 and Luke 12:51 is about how following Jesus can bring division and it isn't an easy choice.

Question: "What did Jesus mean by coming to bring a sword in Matthew 10:34-36?"

Answer: Matthew 10:34–36 describes Jesus telling the disciples that He came not to bring peace to the world, but a sword. Jesus’ sword was never a literal one. In fact, when Peter took up a sword to defend Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus rebuked him and told him to put away his sword, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Why then, did Jesus say, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” What kind of sword did Jesus come to bring?

Among the names of Jesus Christ is that of Prince of Peace. Such verses as Isaiah 9:6, Luke 2:14, and John 14:27 make it clear that Jesus came to bring peace, but that peace is between the man and God. Those who reject God and the only way of salvation through Jesus (John 14:6) will find themselves perpetually at war with God. But those who come to Him in repentance will find themselves at peace with God. Because of Christ’s sacrifice, we are restored to a relationship of peace with God (Romans 5:1).

Still, it is inevitable that there will be conflict between good and evil, the Christ and the antichrist, the light and the darkness, the children of God (believers) and the children of the devil (those who refuse Christ). Conflict must arise between the two groups, and this can and does happen within a family in which some are believers and others are not. We should seek to be at peace with all men but should never forget that Jesus warned we will be hated for His sake. Because those who reject Him hate Him, they will hate His followers as well (John 15:18).

Oh, he didn't say what he meant. Again. OK.

 

[Skywalker]

Oh, he didn't say what he meant. Again. OK.

Jesus was talking about how following Him can result in disagreements between family. That is the context of what he was talking about in Matthew 10:34 and Luke 12:51. To understand the Bible properly you have to understand context. When you read the Bible over and over again, you notice things that you didn't notice before.

 

[dybmh]

Jesus was talking about how following Him can result in disagreements between family. That is the context of what he was talking about in Matthew 10:34 and Luke 12:51. To understand the Bible properly you have to understand context. When you read the Bible over and over again, you notice things that you didn't notice before.

The verses quote him saying he is not a prince of peace. His teachings brought war and division.

Matthew 10:34 Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Luke 12:51 Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but division.

War - Spanish Inquisition - Wikipedia
Division - Nontrinitarianism - Wikipedia