What do Jews find strange about Christianity and why.

[rosends]

#1 The problem with this claim is that it's a promotion of a monopoly mindset. "We Jews own the Torah, and none of you can dispute it (even when parts of it OVERLAP the Bible)."

1. Yes, we have a monopoly. It was given to the Jews as were the rules for its understanding.
2. How can the torah overlap itself?

Ummmm, has it ever occurred to you that the OT is not substantially different from the Hebrew Tanakh? While yes, many of the extra-biblical stuff (Rabbinic teachings, lore and myth like the story of Lilith, Pseudopigrapha, and Apocrypha) is not known and yes, I will admit that the average non-Jew is unlikely to "know better than you." But the claim that no Christian can understand the Bible, is tantamount to saying that "only accountants can do taxes, not those who have spent years studying tax law, because credentials trump everything else." You have no idea how this sounds.

I will turn to an American legal scholar to discuss the US constitution, not to a Russian who learned about it later in life, doesn't life under it, has studied it in translation, and understands the entirety of lifestyle and existence through the lens of living under a different set of laws, especially if he also looks at a changed text of it (parts in different order, stuff added on). The "OT" is out of order with stuff added in and it is translated, taken out of the full context. You have no idea how silly it sounds for someone outside the system to claim an expertise over those inside the system. If some random guy says "I have studied taxes" I'll still go to an accountant.

Effectively, you are saying that devout Christians who study the Bible (pardon the expression) religiously automatically know less of the Bible than all Jews, including the non-observant simply because they are not Jewish. As a general rule like this, blanket statements including the word "all" are probably not so, but "some" knowing better than "some" Jews is accurate.

A devout Christian is already starting at a disadvantage, studied AS a devout Christian. That establishes a flawed lens, tainting most everything afterwards. If that works for you then have at it.

#2 I am not talking about the Jewish Law. Did you think I was? I mentioned specifically the false Jews, who don't understand the law. The law itself says, "And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God: I am the LORD." That is, nope to burning little kids. Same with the others.

Actually, you are, you just don't know Jewish law. And you are still stuck on that title of "false Jews" which impacts how you word everything else. The law says that the child, when it is still "part" of the mother, is not independent and if it dies in utero, is not a distinct life. Law also teaches the concept of a rodef. Before you decide what real Jews and "false" ones believe, you should study.

#3 Dude, do me a far and read about 612 or 613 (one of those Laws is to "know God exists" and I'm not sure how hard that is to keep) commandments. They in fact, teach being kind to strangers and making peace with neighbors, yes. Now notice the difference in treatment with the Jew and non-Jew. Just as an example, the non-Jew is lent to at interest, while the Jew is not given any interest.

Again, you take a very limited understanding of Jewish law. The 613 (many of which don't apply to everyone ever, and many more which don't apply these days, to me) are explained in a comprehensive body of law and legal discussion by actual experts. Do you live your life under the literal reading of the US Constitution or do you accept that there are lawyers who study and explain/apply it? (sorry if I'm being presumptuous assuming you live in the US. If you don't and don't understand the issues of constitutional law, please let me know). There are differences in how we treat Jews and non-Jews and how we relate to each. But banking laws don't have any impact on a notion of borders and immigration.

Conclusion? Despite treating outsiders well, the Law is careful to remind Jews that they ARE outsiders not Jews.

And it reminds us that we were and are outsiders and we should treat others as we want to be treated.

And there are numerous numerous passages where the Jews turned away from the worship of God, and other gods came into the land. Or God allowed other peoples to conquer Israel (or both).

Yes, and there are rules about the obligation to seek peace with neighbors and not wage war against them in many cases. So? When God wants to use invaders, he does so. When we deserve punishment, we are punished. But when that isn't the case, we have other commandments to follow which indicate a peaceful demeanor and a positive outcome.

but they are simply following in the footsteps of Pharisees.

The ones whose teachings Jesus said to follow...yeah...

As Jesus was pointing out, the Jews of his day were focused on the small laws (his disciples not washing their hands, associating with tax collectors or prostitutes, and not obeying Sabbath), while utterly and completely ignoring the weightier laws about mercy, justice, and how even the Sabbath came second to healing and saving lives.

We don't believe in the concept of small laws vs. big ones, and often, what looks like it isn't merciful or just, actually is, but outsiders who don't understand law get confused. And, of course, if you reject the historicity and accuracy of the gospels, all these points are useless.

he was still essentially a prophet

no...no, he wasn't.

that they decided to declare false and call the cops (the Romans) on)

That depends what version of the story you believe.

And all who deny Jesus to favor what sketchy Rabbis say of him, are essentially saying "Yes, I agree that the priests had the right to do this."

No, just saying "your story is suspect and useless".

#4 Hmmmm, that's interesting. Only I have a Complete Jewish Bible, a Jerusalem Bible, have studied the minor prophets in college, have studied theology, have studied world religions, and have studied some on Jewish mysticism. I may not know everything about Judaism, but I apparently understand more than you do on specifically the points I talked about. In fact, you kinda proved my point about false Jews.

I'm an Orthodox rabbi who has studied this stuff since the age of three in more schools and with more experts, and in more languages than you. You understand very little but have convinced yourself otherwise. But since you start with an agenda you only find and accept what supports your agenda. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong, but then go and tell the US Constitutional scholar that he's wrong because you studied the constitution in college and have a copy at home.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That would quite possibly be because of the bad wrap that Jesus gave the Jewish leaders about their interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. He said that they had invalidated the word of God because of their oral traditions, putting these in place of it....so perhaps Jesus did know the Hebrew Scriptures better than the Jewish leaders did. That is not hubris....it’s an uncomfortable truth that led those leaders to plot his death. You know that this was not an unusual position taken by the Jewish leadership down through history. What prophet did they ever listen to? Their track record is all recorded in those Jewish scriptures.....did the leopards change their spots? You tell me.....

There were times Israel was unfaithful, but there were also times Israel was faithful. Christians forget about the good times and the good kings. There were lots of times the prophets were listened to. Sheesh. This idea that Jews are all bad, and did nothing but rebel and kill the prophets, now THAT is a strange idea. Remember that in Christian theology, right up until the very moment that Jesus died, Judaism was the one true religion.

 

[wellwisher]

The main reason the Jews did not accept the teachings of Jesus was connected to racism. Before Jesus, being a Jew was connected to the materialist criteria of maternal bloodline. This meant the same thing as DNA in modern times. This bloodline defined one as part of the chosen race.

Jesus was teaching a doctrine that being a Jew was now connected to the inside of the man, and not the outside; faith instead of law and love instead of bloodline. Jesus was very accepting of anyone, from any bloodline, as long as they had faith. As King of the Jews he could potentially alter the status quo.

These teachings challenged the status quo, that was based on the chosen race being based on bloodline. It implied that anyone would be called a Jew; a chosen one, simply by having faith and believing in Jesus. If this had allowed it would mean that the title of chosen race would get watered down in terms of the original group. The Jews went on to maintain the bloodline criteria, which excluded most of Christianity. The more open criteria of Jesus allowed Christianity to grow.

The analogy is say someone was a white supremacist, who gains personal self esteem by resting his laurels on the collective works of special white people. Say someone comes along and says now anyone can be white, and rest their self esteem on the same laurels, if they have faith.

The original criteria of white is based on bloodline and DNA. This new approach is based on attitude apart from bloodline or DNA. This may not acceptable to the hard core white supremacists. That person may not accept the blacks, who are behaving likes whites, since they lack the skin pigment connected to a specific bloodline. Jesus was executed for being too ahead of his time.

 

[Harel13]

racism

Ahhhh, so that's it. I certainly feel very enlightened now.

Hey, does Jewish conversion also involve some tampering with your DNA and changing your blood?

 

[pearl]

Jesus was very accepting of anyone, from any bloodline, as long as they had faith. As King of the Jews he could potentially alter the status quo.

Then how do you explain Mt 7:6?
Dogs and swine were Jewish terms of contempt for gentiles.

 

[Harel13]

Before Jesus, being a Jew was connected to the materialist criteria of maternal bloodline. This meant the same thing as DNA in modern times. This bloodline defined one as part of the chosen race.

Jesus was teaching a doctrine that being a Jew was now connected to the inside of the man, and not the outside; faith instead of law and love instead of bloodline. Jesus was very accepting of anyone, from any bloodline, as long as they had faith. As King of the Jews he could potentially alter the status quo.

I wonder how Jesus, in your view, expected to be able to change the so-called Jewish maternal bloodline by becoming king if according to his maternal bloodline he wasn't descended from David? To break the system one must first be able to get inside it, and Jesus didn't have a free pass.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@Deeje

Okay, not all these things apply to all Christians, but most of these things are pretty common among Chrisitans.

STRANGE AND STRANGER:

The idea that God approves of human sacrifice, and in fact would demand it for the salvation of the world.

The ritual cannibalism of the Lord's Supper.

The idea that someone especially wicked can repent moments before his death and go straight to heaven, but his unbaptized victims will all go to hell.

The idea that we are saved by belief in the Messiah, even though this is never EVER mentioned in the Tanakh.

The idea that Jews are really "fake Jews," part of the "synagogue of Satan."

The idea that the outsiders of a group can fully understand the inner workings of a group, including our writings -- that Christians understand Judaism and the Tanakh better than Jews.

The idea that Sunday, the first day of the week, can somehow be the Sabbath (for those who follow the ten commandments).

The idea that a "second coming" somehow let's Jesus off the hook for not fulfilling the messianic prophecies.

The constant haranguing about Jews being a stiff necked people or prone to sin as if Chrisitans are any different.

The summing up of Jewish history as constant idolatry and rebellion, when in fact there were plenty of good kings and times of obedience (they just don't get a lot of attention in the Tanakh).

The unwillingness of Christians to see the Jesus supported Oral Law, according to their own Scriptures. IOW, the strange teaching that Jesus was anti-religious.

The blindness of Christians to contradictions within their own texts, misquotations from the Tanakh, quotations out of context, and even making up a prophetic quotation that doesn't exist.


That's off the top of my head, so I probably forgot bunch of stuff. But it will do.

 

[Spartan]

Okay, not all these things apply to all Christians, but most of these things are pretty common among Chrisitans.

STRANGE AND STRANGER:

The idea that God approves of human sacrifice, and in fact would demand it for the salvation of the world.

The ritual cannibalism of the Lord's Supper.

The idea that someone especially wicked can repent moments before his death and go straight to heaven, but his unbaptized victims will all go to hell.

The idea that we are saved by belief in the Messiah, even though this is never EVER mentioned in the Tanakh.

The idea that Jews are really "fake Jews," part of the "synagogue of Satan."

The idea that the outsiders of a group can fully understand the inner workings of a group, including our writings -- that Christians understand Judaism and the Tanakh better than Jews.

The idea that Sunday, the first day of the week, can somehow be the Sabbath (for those who follow the ten commandments).

The idea that a "second coming" somehow let's Jesus off the hook for not fulfilling the messianic prophecies.

The constant haranguing about Jews being a stiff necked people or prone to sin as if Chrisitans are any different.

The summing up of Jewish history as constant idolatry and rebellion, when in fact there were plenty of good kings and times of obedience (they just don't get a lot of attention in the Tanakh).

The unwillingness of Christians to see the Jesus supported Oral Law, according to their own Scriptures. IOW, the strange teaching that Jesus was anti-religious.

The blindness of Christians to contradictions within their own texts, misquotations from the Tanakh, quotations out of context, and even making up a prophetic quotation that doesn't exist.

That's off the top of my head, so I probably forgot bunch of stuff. But it will do.

There's a good number of errant suppositions in those. For instance, the Lord's Supper is not cannibalism. No one is eating real flesh. It's symbolic.

If the Messiah is God, then belief in him is required for righteousness. Righteousness was by faith in God in the Torah (Genesis 15:6).

Jesus was not on the "hook" for the partial completion of the Messianic prophecies. Those are expected to be fulfilled at the Second Coming. Daniel chapter 9 confirms the Messiah will be "cut off" (killed), and THEN war will continue until the end. How then does the Messiah in Daniel 9 usher in his millennial kingdom or time of peace when he was killed before he could? To do so demands a second coming. In Isaiah 53 - considered Messianic by numerous rabbis of old - the Messiah is sacrificed for the sins of others. Many rabbis considered the Messiah to also be divine. So a second coming is logical according to the Tanakh. Also, nowhere in the Tanakh does it say there will only be one appearance of the Messiah. Jews can't even decide between which Messiah they favor - Messiah ben David or Messiah ben Joseph. They can't reconcile the two. Christianity does.

There are stiff-necked Jews and Christians. God confirmed that in the Torah about stiff-necked Israelites. But certainly not all are stiff-necked.

The claim that Christians are blind to alleged contradictions, etc., when we answer those allegations constantly. Those claims are way overblown. Are the Jews blind to contradictions in their own Tanakh?? You think there aren't any? Why then get a pass to the same allegations you make towards Christianity?

Those off the top of my head.

 

[Harel13]

Jews can't even decide between which Messiah they favor - Messiah ben David or Messiah ben Joseph. They can't reconcile the two.

What.

What does that even mean?

 

[Spartan]

What.

What does that even mean?

There's the two faces of the Messiah in Judaism. Google Messiah ben Joseph (the Suffering Servant / Messiah) in Wikipedia. Also, Messiah ben David (the conquering king).

 

[rosends]

What.

What does that even mean?

It means someone hasn't studied the idea of MBY, the differences between the concepts of MBY and MBD, or R. Saadia's position (echoed in the Ohr Hachayim, "אם ישראל יהיו בגדר שיהיו נקראים יעקב לא יאיר להם אלא משיח בן דוד") on the MBY. It means that, again, someone outside the system, is telling those of us in the system that we don't know our own system. Sigh.

 

[dybmh]

Jewish conversion

That's what I was thinking to...

 

[dybmh]

not cannibalism. No one is eating real flesh. It's symbolic.

OK. but.... symbolic cannibalism is still strange.

 

[dybmh]

Messiah is God

Is this anywhere in Tanach? Messiah = God ?

 

[Spartan]

Is this anywhere in Tanach? Messiah = God ?

Yes. Certain rabbis contend the Messiah is divine. Part of that is found in commentary regarding Jeremiah 23:5-6. Examples in the link / article below.

http://menorah.org/Messiah to be Go...tDA3mzxUugseyekcJSB_oiTuJ07FyX29p4gWfMdxAOadU

 

[Harel13]

Certain rabbis

Yeah, messianic (=Christian) "rabbis". I have Google, you know. That's what menorah.org is, a messianic missionary site.

 

[dybmh]

Yeah, messianic (=Christian) "rabbis". I have Google, you know. That's what menorah.org is, a messianic missionary site.

I read the article from @Spartan . I wasn't bad. I didn't apply strict criticism to it; but, it seemed accurate and well footnoted.

However, it didn't exactly prove that Messiah = God. It said that Jeremiah 23 indicates that he has divine qualities.

 

[Harel13]

There's the two faces of the Messiah in Judaism. Google Messiah ben Joseph (the Suffering Servant / Messiah) in Wikipedia. Also, Messiah ben David (the conquering king).

I know what the two messiahs are. What you wrote was a bunch of nonsense that you assume about Jews and Judaism.

 

[Harel13]

I read the article from @Spartan . I wasn't bad. I didn't apply strict criticism to it; but, it seemed accurate and well footnoted.

However, it didn't exactly prove that Messiah = God. It said that Jeremiah 23 indicates that he has divine qualities.

He claimed some rabbis say X, so I wanted to first check who wrote the article before reading it. Now I'm not going to bother.

 

[dybmh]

He claimed some rabbis say X, so I wanted to first check who wrote the article before reading it. Now I'm not going to bother.

The largest inaccuracy is in the title of the article: "Messiah to be God-Divine". The evidence in the article that is Rabbinic doesn't actually strongly support this claim.