What do Jews find strange about Christianity and why.

[TrueBeliever37]

Is the word of God, in this case in Hebrew? Are you talking about the words of the Torah?

Or is there other scripture which you believe to be the word of God?

I believe the New Testament to also be the word of God. However in these discussions I think I have just been referring to Old Testament passages. As I don't think most Jews would accept anything I referred to from the New Testament. I don't believe in a Trinity. I definitely understand why Jews would not accept that. But I do believe the Messiah has come. I was trying to show from the OT passages that the Messiah should already have come based on Daniel 2:40-44 and Daniel 9:24-27

The OT foretold that YHWH would come forth out of his place and come down and tread upon the high places of the earth. Micah 1:3 Then Micah 1:5 said - and what are the high places of Judah? are they not Jerusalem?

The Jews were expecting a majestic king. But Zechariah 9:9 lets us know he would be just, and lowly, and having salvation, riding on a donkey. If he is still to come, do you think he will be riding on a donkey in this day and age? Maybe they still do that in Israel, I don't know. It seems to me to be something from a past time that has happened.

I believe the Messiah was actually YHWH dwelling in a fleshly body. Not a 2nd person in the Godhead. If he had let them know who he was, they wouldn't have crucified him. Zechariah 12:10 said and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced (and it sounds like YHWH is doing the talking). God didn't have blood to shed. So he made himself a body to dwell in and sacrifice for man's sin. The eternal Spirit of God couldn't die, but the fleshly body he had robed himself in could die. Isaiah 9:6 foretold about the son that would be born. That his name would be called The mighty God, The everlasting Father.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Like Christianity? You seem to forgot about the OT.

I think the whole point is that Christianity sort of misappropriates the Tanakh. It is not actually theirs in the first place. It is the texts of the Jews, by the Jews, about the Jews, for the Jews, to be interpreted by the Jews. Christians have merely absconded with it, mistranslating it, reading it out of context, making up verses in it that don't exist, and having the chutzpah to say they understand it better than those in whose culture it came into being. Then they turn around and say that Mormons (who do the identical thing to the Christian Scriptures) don't know what they are talking about. It's the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

OK - Here are just a few.

He set up his kingdom (the church) during the days of the Roman Empire. Just like - Daniel 2:44 said.

He conquered death and then ascended and took the throne. Fulfilling the promise made to David, that one of his descendants would sit on the throne forever.

He made a way for me a Gentile to be one of his people also. Isaiah 42:6 and Isaiah 49:6

He shed his blood so that I could obtain forgiveness of my sins.

He has shown me thru the scriptures how I can have eternal life.

He has given me joy, peace, and happiness in this life.

He brought us the everlasting covenant. Isaiah 61:8

Read Isaiah 53: It will tell you a lot of things he did. Such as suffering for us.

Your interpetation of Daniel is based on a random pick of dates to begin the 70 weeks, and the idea that the weeks are centuries.

There is nothing, nothing, in the Tanakh that says the messiah will conquer death, shed his blood, forgive sins, etc.

Isaiah 53 is not a messianic passage. If you read all of Isaiah, you find that the suffering servant is clearly identified as Israel, not the messiah.

Your subjective experiences, such as getting joy, peace, and happiness, these come from God, knowing him and following his ways, despite your confusion over theology and misunderstanding of scripture.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

There's more ways to use a name other than saying it.

Let's say I agree with you. Do you acknowledge that this is one thing that God wants among many others? Is there any reason to focus more on this than, say... caring for the orphan and the widow?

Unification

I haven't said those things aren't important, but -

The scripture says and it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the name of YHWH shall be saved. Joel 2:32 That sounds very important to me.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I think the whole point is that Christianity sort of misappropriates the Tanakh. It is not actually theirs in the first place. It is the texts of the Jews, by the Jews, about the Jews, for the Jews, to be interpreted by the Jews. Christians have merely absconded with it, mistranslating it, reading it out of context, making up verses in it that don't exist, and having the chutzpah to say they understand it better than those in whose culture it came into being. Then they turn around and say that Mormons (who do the identical thing to the Christian Scriptures) don't know what they are talking about. It's the pot calling the kettle black.

I disagree with some of this. God speaks in the Old Testament about Gentiles also, and how we will be his people also. Some of us can see the fulfillment of things prophesied in the OT in the NT.

 

[Shad]

I think the whole point is that Christianity sort of misappropriates the Tanakh. It is not actually theirs in the first place.

The earliest Christians were Jews.

Do note Jews no longer kill birds for their blood for purification.Think about that when you complain about who changed what.

It is the texts of the Jews, by the Jews, about the Jews, for the Jews, to be interpreted by the Jews.

No it isn't. This is just supremacy babble.

Christians have merely absconded with it, mistranslating it, reading it out of context, making up verses in it that don't exist, and having the chutzpah to say they understand it better than those in whose culture it came into being.

Assertion

Then they turn around and say that Mormons (who do the identical thing to the Christian Scriptures) don't know what they are talking about. It's the pot calling the kettle black.

So? Christians can be hypocrites all they want.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I disagree with some of this. God speaks in the Old Testament about Gentiles also, and how we will be his people also. Some of us can see the fulfillment of things prophesied in the OT in the NT.

Oh, my friend, I would expect that you would disagree with all of it! You would have to. We shall have to disagree agreeably. If you accepted what I said, you could no longer remain a Christian, eh?

Remember, as I have said many times in here, that I argue for Judaism because this is a debate forum, where people enjoy hearing other points of view. I like it because it stretches my mind and makes me think. I hope that other will learn from me just as I will learn from them. But ultimately I don't think I'm going to cause any Christians to leave Christianity. And indeed I don't think they need to. You all love Hashem, and are good decent human beings. In my book that's quite good enough.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Your interpetation of Daniel is based on a random pick of dates to begin the 70 weeks, and the idea that the weeks are centuries.

There is nothing, nothing, in the Tanakh that says the messiah will conquer death, shed his blood, forgive sins, etc.

Isaiah 53 is not a messianic passage. If you read all of Isaiah, you find that the suffering servant is clearly identified as Israel, not the messiah.

Your subjective experiences, such as getting joy, peace, and happiness, these come from God, knowing him and following his ways, despite your confusion over theology and misunderstanding of scripture.

No I just realize it ended at 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. And that lets us know that it had to begin about 420 BCE.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The earliest Christians were Jews.

Do note Jews no longer kill birds for their blood for purification.Think about that when you complain about who changed what.



No it isn't. This is just supremacy babble.




Assertion



So? Christians can be hypocrites all they want.

The earliest Christians may have all been Jews, but today Jews make up about 0.02% of the church (IOW the proportion of Jews in the world, best case scenario -- I'm being generous). The Christian Church has been a Gentile institution since the second century.

Actually before Yom Kippur, Orthodox Jews still sacrifice chickens in the ritual of Kaporos. Furthermore, most religious Jews look forward to the building of the 3rd temple, where sacrifices will resume. Judaism functions "okay" without the temple, but it is incomplete, IMHO.

What I said was an assertion WITH evidence that I have supplied in numerous other threads.

No one should be a hypocrite, including Chrisitans. And since Jesus' main criticism of the Pharisees was against their hypocrisy, Christians have a double obligation to avoid hypocrisy.

What you call "Supremacy babble," is really simply an acknowledgment that Jews have a different mission. Not everyone has the same job. I don't think I'm better than you. I do think that I have different obligations than you. Israel has indeed been called out by God to have a covenant that the other nations of the world don't have. We are set apart as the priestly people of the world. It is our job to be a light to the nations, to bring the world into a consciousness that there is but one God, who calls us into a higher morality and holds us to it.

And indeed, since Mt Sinai, ethical monotheism has spread--Christianity, Islam, Baha'i... It has even had its impact on entrenched bases of polytheism such as Hinduism, where Brahman is now seen as the ultimate source of all that is and all the other gods are merely masks of Brahman. Yi Kwan Dao is the second largest religion in Taiwan, embracing one God...

 

[Shad]

The earliest Christians may have all been Jews, but today Jews make up about 0.02% of the church (IOW the proportion of Jews in the world, best case scenario -- I'm being generous). The Christian Church has been a Gentile institution since the second century.

Irrelevant.

Actually before Yom Kippur, Orthodox Jews still sacrifice chickens in the ritual of Kaporos. Furthermore, most religious Jews look forward to the building of the 3rd temple, where sacrifices will resume. Judaism functions "okay" without the temple, but it is incomplete, IMHO.

Ergo a change in doctrine. Funny how one group can change but another group is not allowed. More so you seem to not realize that there is disagreement regarding this by Jews themselves.

What I said was an assertion WITH evidence that I have supplied in numerous other threads.

No you didn't. You made assertions. You didn't provide examples. Look up what evidence means.

No one should be a hypocrite, including Chrisitans. And since Jesus' main criticism of the Pharisees was against their hypocrisy, Christians have a double obligation to avoid hypocrisy.

The Pharisees formed the core of modern Judaism. Think about that. One view happened to out live the others not via dialogue but Rome and rebellions. Being the lone survivor does not mean their views are accurate. You are merely assuming their views are correct because that is what you are told to think.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No I just realize it ended at 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. And that lets us know that it had to begin about 420 BCE.

Nothing ended in 70 AD. With the destruction of the Temple, Jews simply returned to what we had done when there was no Temple during the Babylonian captivity, which is what the prophet Hosea had instructed: "The words of our lips (prayers) shall be as bullocks (sacrifices)" Hosea 14:2

The groundwork of living out our covenant without the temple had already been laid. Synagogue life was entrenched. Study of the Torah by the common Jew had already become a common way of life thanks to the Pharisees. Thus, when the temple was destroyed, the framework for the continued existence of Judaism (even in exile) could simply carry on.

Is it ideal? No. It is "okay." It functions. One day, IMHO, the third temple will be rebuilt--Judaism does not really flow from the center, is not its whole self, without the temple. Somehow the world itself is missing something important without the temple of Hashem. But in the meantime, life does go on alright.

So again, there is no great terrible apocalypse in 70 AD. No ending of our covenant or whatnot.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Ergo a change in doctrine. Funny how one group can change but another group is not allowed. More so you seem to not realize that there is disagreement regarding this by Jews themselves.

We have the option of interpretation and reinterpretation per Deuteronomy 17:8-13.

And don't say silly things about me being unaware. This is my religion, my people, and I'm very conscious about what we agree on and what we disagree on. I often represent the views of my own group of Jews on the subject. It doesn't mean that there aren't other religious Jews (or secular Jews) that have a different opinion.

No you didn't. You made assertions. You didn't provide examples. Look up what evidence means.

I'm simply saying that while I may have only made the assertion in this particular post, it is not as if the evidence doesn't exist, nor does it mean that I haven't myself supplied the evidence in other posts. If you want to open up another sub-thread, just ask, and we'll go into it in greater detail. Of course, you'll have to supply your own evidences as well.

The Pharisees formed the core of modern Judaism. Think about that. One view happened to out live the others not via dialogue but Rome and rebellions. Being the lone survivor does not mean their views are accurate. You are merely assuming their views are correct because that is what you are told to think.

Yes, the Pharisees (who were the descendents of the judges) are the core of Rabbinical Judaism, what we have today. Since I have a favorable impression of the Pharisees, this is not a problem for me. The Pharisees preserved the Oral Torah. They were better at bringing Judaism to the far reaches of the Roman Empire and making converts, being a "light to the nations." And especially, they had the idea that Judaism shouldn't be a religion of the elite Levites, but rather one of the everyday Jew, who should study the Torah in the synagogues they built and obey the 613 laws. I like their non-elitist teachings.

Were they perfect? Surely not. I'm sure that Jesus held religious leaders to a much higher standard, and I'm sure he wasn't alone in this. He also taught the obedience of his followers needed to be above that of the Phariseees, so obviously he did think that they were not disobedient.

IOW the Pharisees were the good guys.

Nor were they inaccurate. Deuteronomy 17:8-13 gives them the right to interpret the law and not be questioned.

Furthermore, even Jesus taught his disciples to do and observe everything they taught. Matthew 23:1-3. That would include even the Oral Torah!!!! He wouldn't have taught this if they were wrong.

 

[wizanda]

Isaiah 53 is not a messianic passage. If you read all of Isaiah, you find that the suffering servant is clearly identified as Israel, not the messiah.

Isaiah 52:13-14 literally uses the word 'Anointed', not 'marred', and paraphrased King David as 'My Servant' in Psalms 89:19-21...

Thus we are told King David literally was 'anointed' as the Messiah, with the 'spirit of Salvation' placed into him (Isaiah 52:10); which is why he was then called Yehoshua, as a symbolic Branch, and root of Jesse.

To remove King David as Messiah as you don't like Christianity is stupid; Christianity was a fake Pharisaic cult made up on purpose by John, Paul, and Simon the stone (peter), which is all prophesied in the Tanakh as a purposeful deception (Isaiah 8:11-22).

In my opinion.

 

[rosends]

I think I am done. We are not getting anywhere. We just disagree with each other.

As far as the meaning of the name. I feel like I gave proof for what I said with p.221 in the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon.

But I pointed out that the claim of someone (even, gasp, a book writer) who isn't following textual precedents and has no proof for his position is not proof. You like what he says, so you see it as good enough. The text disagrees with him, and you.

I haven't seen proof of what you said other than just your say so.

But I showed you the text and other names and the limitations of trying to translated them, and be honest and consistent.

We discussed the 490 years in Daniel chapter 9. You referred me to a link, which I went to. I pointed out there seemed to be a problem with the math, and asked you to explain. You either couldn't or wouldn't explain. Because if it started at 586 BCE and ends at 70 AD. That is more than 490 years.

Well, you went to the link and said you tried to read it. The answer to the years is explained in that link. If you can't read all the way to the end, and then research basic topics in Jewish history, then you shouldn't be surprised that you come to different conclusions. It isn't arguing as much as it is your refusal to see beyond your limited position when confronted with other information.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Nothing ended in 70 AD. With the destruction of the Temple, Jews simply returned to what we had done when there was no Temple during the Babylonian captivity, which is what the prophet Hosea had instructed: "The words of our lips (prayers) shall be as bullocks (sacrifices)" Hosea 14:2

The groundwork of living out our covenant without the temple had already been laid. Synagogue life was entrenched. Study of the Torah by the common Jew had already become a common way of life thanks to the Pharisees. Thus, when the temple was destroyed, the framework for the continued existence of Judaism (even in exile) could simply carry on.

Is it ideal? No. It is "okay." It functions. One day, IMHO, the third temple will be rebuilt--Judaism does not really flow from the center, is not its whole self, without the temple. Somehow the world itself is missing something important without the temple of Hashem. But in the meantime, life does go on alright.

So again, there is no great terrible apocalypse in 70 AD. No ending of our covenant or whatnot.

I meant it was the end of the 70 weeks of years (490 yrs) prophesied about in Daniel 9:

 

[TrueBeliever37]

But I pointed out that the claim of someone (even, gasp, a book writer) who isn't following textual precedents and has no proof for his position is not proof. You like what he says, so you see it as good enough. The text disagrees with him, and you.
But I showed you the text and other names and the limitations of trying to translated them, and be honest and consistent.

Well, you went to the link and said you tried to read it. The answer to the years is explained in that link. If you can't read all the way to the end, and then research basic topics in Jewish history, then you shouldn't be surprised that you come to different conclusions. It isn't arguing as much as it is your refusal to see beyond your limited position when confronted with other information.

How did the text disagree with him?

I found what looks like a flaw in the math presented in the link. And you refuse to even look at the issue and explain what you think the explanation is.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

G-d's people are Israel, bless them.


It is about Israel.

Many scriptures let me know he is the God of the Gentiles also.
Isaiah 11:10
Isaiah 42:1-6
Isaiah 49:6
Malachi 1:11

How can the suffering servant in Isaiah 53:1-12 be Israel?

1. How was Israel wounded for our transgressions?

2. Why would YHWH lay the iniquity of us all on Israel?

3. Explain how Israel was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people.

4. In what way did Israel make his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death?

5. How was Israel numbered with the transgressors and bare the sins of many, and make intercession for the transgressors?

6. Is Israel a man as several of the verses say?

7. How did Israel pour out his soul unto death?

 

[rosends]

How did the text disagree with him?

Because the text showed what a name meant in certain cases, but never made that claim in this case, and, in fact, when it showed the meaning of a name in which God's name was inserted, the semantic construction does not follow the conclusion he drew in this case.

I found what looks like a flaw in the math presented in the link. And you refuse to even look at the issue and explain what you think the explanation is.

No, you found what looks like a flaw when you use the years you are using. The article resolves this by pointing out that the years you are using are wrong.

 

[rosends]

How can the suffering servant in Isaiah 53:1-12 be Israel?

1. How was Israel wounded for our transgressions?

2. Why would YHWH lay the iniquity of us all on Israel?

3. Explain how Israel was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people.

4. In what way did Israel make his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death?

5. How was Israel numbered with the transgressors and bare the sins of many, and make intercession for the transgressors?
6. Is Israel a man as several of the verses say?

This has been dealt with so often that it just seems easier to point to an entire treatment of it elsewhere.

The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 - Source Book

 

[dybmh]

I believe the New Testament to also be the word of God. However in these discussions I think I have just been referring to Old Testament passages. As I don't think most Jews would accept anything I referred to from the New Testament. I don't believe in a Trinity. I definitely understand why Jews would not accept that. But I do believe the Messiah has come. I was trying to show from the OT passages that the Messiah should already have come based on Daniel 2:40-44 and Daniel 9:24-27

The OT foretold that YHWH would come forth out of his place and come down and tread upon the high places of the earth. Micah 1:3 Then Micah 1:5 said - and what are the high places of Judah? are they not Jerusalem?

The Jews were expecting a majestic king. But Zechariah 9:9 lets us know he would be just, and lowly, and having salvation, riding on a donkey. If he is still to come, do you think he will be riding on a donkey in this day and age? Maybe they still do that in Israel, I don't know. It seems to me to be something from a past time that has happened.

I believe the Messiah was actually YHWH dwelling in a fleshly body. Not a 2nd person in the Godhead. If he had let them know who he was, they wouldn't have crucified him. Zechariah 12:10 said and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced (and it sounds like YHWH is doing the talking). God didn't have blood to shed. So he made himself a body to dwell in and sacrifice for man's sin. The eternal Spirit of God couldn't die, but the fleshly body he had robed himself in could die. Isaiah 9:6 foretold about the son that would be born. That his name would be called The mighty God, The everlasting Father.

Ok. So, is there something in the NT that describes the four letter Divine name? If not, then your POV on it comes from the OT ( not The Torah )?

The point I'm making is this:

You originally claimed that other people's opinion on the 4 letter Divine name are not useful to you because the word of God supercedes them? Do I have that correct?

My objection is that The OT **is** a person's opinion. It is a translation of The Hebrew of The Torah where words and passages are interpreted with the purpose of validating belief in Christ. Accepting The OT's opinion **is** a person's point of view. No matter what, if we analyze the underpinings of arguments that require English words in the OT, there will always be faith in a person's opinion .

Note: There's nothing wrong with this. Chemistry students trust their Chemistry teachers. Christians trust the people who translate and interpret The Torah.