Why do you think the Jews rejected Jesus?

[rosends]

He did not get his theological training from Christians schools. How absurd. He started out in Jewish schools with the thought of becoming a rabbi.

Really? Maybe you missed this fact: " He went on to earn his Th.M. (1934) and Th.D. (1935) from Dallas Theological Seminary," The statement that he went to "Jewish schools" isn't borne out. Apparently he went to the Hebrew Institute of Pittsburgh which was a community school which was established "to make Jewish education a factor in young lives by teaching the Hebrew language and literature and by fostering knowledge of Jewish history and ethics." No mention of real theological training in 5th grade, I guess. Next?

You education in Hebrews does not even come close to His. Do you have a ThD? Do you know Semitics? Wound any university hire you to teach Hebrew?

I have rabbinic ordination which he never got. I pursued Hebrew in study and use beyond the 21 years he gave to it before he converted and was influenced by Christianity. Would a university hire me to teach Hebrew? Maybe not, though I can imagine that some would for basic Hebrew or biblical Hebrew. Most colleges teach modern conversational Hebrew and mine is passable. Fortunately, the word in question is a biblical term.

Meanwhile, have you checked any of his sources which prove his claim? Or are you swallowing what he says (though you have yet to attribute where he said it) and believing him because of his Christian degrees?

 

[rosends]

The Theological Word book of the O.T. Compiled by about 50 Hebrew scholars all who know Hebrew better than you do.
What are your qualifications? Are you afraid to ;post them? You accuse him of having an agenda, yet you don't know him and don't know his qualifications. That points to your agenda and it is covered with the sin of sins---PRIDE.

My qualifications? A whole bunch of degrees and a whole bunch of time studying. Of course, not in a Christian theological seminary...

I do know his qualifications. In fact, i copied and pasted some of them. His life changed when he was 21 and he converted and then studied what he did through the lens of Christianity.

You are the third Jew I have run into that thinks if someone disagrees with them, they don't know the language better than they do. Let me assure you there are many Gentiles who know Hebrew better than you do.

Not if someone disagrees with me, but if someone is wrong. You haven't given any actual evidence of his claim let alone of the substantiation for his claim. You can assure me of what you want if it makes you feel better. Why don't you try reading Klein's Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language, and pay careful attention to the right hand column of page 473. If you want Klein's qualifications, read page 6.

If you are having trouble with the viewer, here is the actual page, closer up:

 

[Hawkins]

Why do you think the Jews rejected Jesus? The new testament seems to suggest the jews who rejected Jesus were just arrogant but i'm not sure I buy that.

It's more about who is in power. Back in Jesus' time, Judaism was governed and enforced by the 6000 Pharisees. They were enforcing the 613 laws and influenced scribes and rabbis to get the whole religion under their control. Religiously speaking they are the only sect in power. Politically speaking they share power with the Sadducees who were basically the Levites, the priests in charge of rites, the politicians (besides the Herodians), and the rich. In a sense, they religiously owns the Jews in majority. A lot of them however were corrupted in that they demand others to abide by the laws but spared themselves from the strict rules. They felt superior than others and would retain that social status. Spiritually speaking, they thus lost connection with God. They no longer listen to what God says.That's they failed to reckon Jesus. Even good Pharisees such as Paul are under their influence to treat Jesus' followers as rebels of Judaism. Once those in Sanhedrin defined Jesus as an apostate, the Pharisees in majority will follow what they said about Jesus and his followers.

On the other hand and in areas outside Jerusalem there were actually large amount of Jewish converts. Because they are more diversified and less influenced by Sanhedrin and the Pharisees mostly living in Jerusalem. They included Jews who are Hellenistic and Jews from outside Palestine area. They actually gave Paul a hard time as some of them insisted that Jewish customs should be kept, such as circumcision, food law and such. They had a problem living with gentile Christians in the same church. Later on they all melt into gentile Christians as once they considered them as Christians, they and their descendants would gradually get rid of the Jewish influence, especially after the AD 70 siege. Only those still remained in Judaism would continue to call themselves Jews.

 

[Hawkins]

Really? Maybe you missed this fact: " He went on to earn his Th.M. (1934) and Th.D. (1935) from Dallas Theological Seminary," The statement that he went to "Jewish schools" isn't borne out. Apparently he went to the Hebrew Institute of Pittsburgh which was a community school which was established "to make Jewish education a factor in young lives by teaching the Hebrew language and literature and by fostering knowledge of Jewish history and ethics." No mention of real theological training in 5th grade, I guess. Next?

I have rabbinic ordination which he never got. I pursued Hebrew in study and use beyond the 21 years he gave to it before he converted and was influenced by Christianity. Would a university hire me to teach Hebrew? Maybe not, though I can imagine that some would for basic Hebrew or biblical Hebrew. Most colleges teach modern conversational Hebrew and mine is passable. Fortunately, the word in question is a biblical term.

Meanwhile, have you checked any of his sources which prove his claim? Or are you swallowing what he says (though you have yet to attribute where he said it) and believing him because of his Christian degrees?

First, today's Judaism is a remake some 200 more years after the AD 70 siege. Today's Jewish concepts are not the same as that of Jews in Jesus time. Second, today's Messianic concept is also not necessarily the same as 2000 years ago. Third, even Talmud is a remake (an attempt to make the Oral laws no longer oral) long after AD 70.

These are facts you may failed to realize. Biblical interpretation will inevitably depend on what kind of fundamental concepts you are upholding, say, in terms of immortal soul, eternal hell and so forth. You may interpret the OT very much differently if you don't have the same set of concepts as the Jews in majority once had back in Jesus time.

 

[rosends]

First, today's Judaism is a remake some 200 more years after the AD 70 siege. Today's Jewish concepts are not the same as that of Jews in Jesus time. Second, today's Messianic concept is also not necessarily the same as 2000 years ago. Third, even Talmud is a remake (an attempt to make the Oral laws no longer oral) long after AD 70.

These are certainly your claims. I would say that Judaism as recorded in the gospels is rife with inaccuracies (intentional or not) reflecting ignorance, and Christianity was invalid and void by the second century CE while the content written down in the Oral Law is accurate and authentic and that the development of Judaism from before the common era til now is a natural and logical progression based in the same texts and bedrock ideas. Go figure.

 

[Tumah]

First, today's Judaism is a remake some 200 more years after the AD 70 siege. Today's Jewish concepts are not the same as that of Jews in Jesus time.

Proof?

Second, today's Messianic concept is also not necessarily the same as 2000 years ago.

Proof?

Third, even Talmud is a remake (an attempt to make the Oral laws no longer oral) long after AD 70.

Proof?

These are facts you may failed to realize.

The words "fact" and "statement" are not synonymous.

 

[Repox]

Why do you think the Jews rejected Jesus? The new testament seems to suggest the jews who rejected Jesus were just arrogant but i'm not sure I buy that.

Based on the historical record, you cannot rely on the NT gospels as truthful. Therefore, we cannot say Jews rejected Jesus. What we know comes from NT gospel authors who were not Jewish, who had never visited the holy land, and who never even saw Jesus, and who were dedicated to establishing a new religion to contradict Judaism.

 

[Flankerl]

God did not approve of mixed marriages that is why He told them to get rid of the non-Jewish wives..

So... that Moses guy and his wife... where was she from again...

 

[Hawkins]

Proof?

Proof?

Proof?


The words "fact" and "statement" are not synonymous.

Why don't you just google it up such as Talmud.

Then read Josephus works to get a clue!

 

[Hawkins]

These are certainly your claims. I would say that Judaism as recorded in the gospels is rife with inaccuracies (intentional or not) reflecting ignorance, and Christianity was invalid and void by the second century CE while the content written down in the Oral Law is accurate and authentic and that the development of Judaism from before the common era til now is a natural and logical progression based in the same texts and bedrock ideas. Go figure.

Judaism is broken as a fact. It's revived (or attempted to revive) some several hundred years by rabbis coming from no where. Why don't you just read your own history. Since when oral laws became written and why?

Oral laws remain oral all the times from Moses down to AD 70. It was enforced by Pharisees back then in Jesus time. Jews almost lost everything after the AD 70 siege. The Sadducees are gone as a sect. The Pharisees are gone too. Rabbis only means teachers back then, they have no seat or place inside the Sanhedrin. It's them in the absence of the legitimate Saduccees and Pharisees, rewrote the Oral laws as an attempt to keep it because the legitimate keeper has been gone.

Back in Jesus time, Jews in majority adapted a set a Pharisaic concepts. It's the same set of concept as portrayed by the NT Bible. They believed in immortal soul and eternal hell. They strictly abide by the 613 laws as demanded and enforced by the Pharisees especially those having a seat inside Sanhedrin.

How about today's Jews?

 

[Tumah]

Why don't you just google it up such as Talmud.

You want me to find proof of your statements?

I don't think that's how it works...

 

[Hawkins]

You want me to find proof of your statements?

I don't think that's how it works...

Why should I care about your concern? If you have doubt about what I said, google it yourself. If you point out where I said wrong, I will proof you are just plainly wrong!

You are lazy in pointing out what's wrong and you are lazy in googling up if what I said is wrong. There's no point there to ask for proof.

 

[Tumah]

Why should I care about your concern? If you have doubt about what I said, google it yourself. If you point out where I said wrong, I will proof you are just plainly wrong!

You are lazy in pointing out what's wrong and you are lazy in googling up if what I said is wrong. There's no point there to ask for proof.

I didnt say you were wrong, I asked you to prove that your statements are factual. You made a bunch of claims. You didn't give any reason to accept them other than your say so.

 

[rosends]

Judaism is broken as a fact. It's revived (or attempted to revive) some several hundred years by rabbis coming from no where. Why don't you just read your own history. Since when oral laws became written and why?

Actually, this is just a claim. What makes you think I haven't read (in fact, read more than you) about my own history?

Oral laws remain oral all the times from Moses down to AD 70.

Not exactly but I'll let this one pass.

It was enforced by Pharisees back then in Jesus time. Jews almost lost everything after the AD 70 siege. The Sadducees are gone as a sect. The Pharisees are gone too. Rabbis only means teachers back then, they have no seat or place inside the Sanhedrin.

You were doing so well...then you veered off into pretend-land. If you want to discuss the origin of s'micha and its relationship to biblical and rabbinic times, there is much to speak of. But that rabbis had no seat or place in the sanhedrin? You would have to ask Rabbi Yehudah about that. He was president of the sanhedrin.

It's them in the absence of the legitimate Saduccees and Pharisees, rewrote the Oral laws as an attempt to keep it because the legitimate keeper has been gone.

More adorable invention. The prushim were a diverse group but were, in Masechet Kiddushin, (66a) identified with the sages from before the common era.

Back in Jesus time, Jews in majority adapted a set a Pharisaic concepts. It's the same set of concept as portrayed by the NT Bible. They believed in immortal soul and eternal hell. They strictly abide by the 613 laws as demanded and enforced by the Pharisees especially those having a seat inside Sanhedrin.

How about today's Jews?

In today's time, religious Jews still believe in an immortal soul. The idea of "hell" is not as you think it and never was. Our belief is the same as it was in Pharisaic time. That you think otherwise isn't on us, but on you.

 

[Ingledsva]

I don't read it the same.... On Isaiah 7:10, it starts a new paragraph, with the 'Moreover YHVH spake again'...

Isaiah 7:1-9 - a siege that shall not happen.
Isaiah 7:10-25 - are future events from the start time specified.

Isaiah 7:16 For before the child knows to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings you abhor shall be forsaken.

So this specifies it is after, when both Rezin and Remaliah have been forsaken.

Isaiah 8:4 For before the child knows how to say, ‘My father,’ and, ‘My mother,’ the riches of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried away by the king of Assyria.”

This is saying the Child is born after Israel is taken by Assyria, and as since Zechariah son of Berechiah is prophesied 500 years in the future within it, it is a different timeline.

She called him Yehoshua meaning the Lord Saves, as Angel Gabriel told her to....Emmanuel isn't a name it is a concept.

Good grief you guys will try anything. LOL!
It says - Isa 7:10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,...

In other words he was speaking to him and continued in the SAME conversation.

And as shown - we have the same war generals in later verses - after the birth.

This is NOT a future Jesus.

The Tanakh text says THE MOTHER will name him Immanuel.

Mary named her son Iesous. And obviously not Immanuel.

Matthew, believed to be written between AD 70 to 110, calls Jesus Immanuel.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

His name is Charles L Feinberg. He is dead. He had a ThD , was the former Dean and Professor Emeritus of Semitics and OT at Talbot Theological Seminary. Do you have a ThD? Do you really think you know the Language better than he does. Not likely.

Why would our Jewish friends here, want a ThD from a CHRISTIAN school?

Feinberg was an AMERICAN that went to an American Jewish school, and obviously had lots of contact with American Christians trying to convert him. He than gets his Christian religious education, and his Christian ThD from Dallas Theological Seminary.

Under those circumstances, - I'm guessing he DID NOT KNOW the language better.

*

 

[wizanda]

Good grief you guys will try anything.

Not a christian, and reading the Bible for myself...

Personally find it illogical to miss out two important time specifications, where the child is born after the kings are gone, and then after Israel is taken by Assyria.

 

[Ingledsva]

*

No "slight" about it. We have an almah/maiden turned into a bethulah/virgin in an attempt to make Jesus a miracle.

That is easily explained by a Jew who is an expert in Hebrew. He says, Alma refers to a young girl one of whose characteristic is a virgin. This is reinforced in Gen 24, where Rebekah is referred to as both and alma and a bethulah(24:16 & 24:43).

Not only that, God was going to choose Isaac's wife(Gen 24:14). It is highly unlikely God would choose a woman not a virgin.

Baloney. I'm guessing your Jew is the American Christian theologian you've been going on about. LOL!

Almah means a MAIDEN/young girl/woman = whom may or may not be a virgin. Bethulah = means a virgin.

It uses Almah, not the word for a virgin = Bethulah. The meaning is thus young woman.

We have a King of Babylon turned into Lucifer - which isn't even there, and then Christians deciding that those mistranslated words, - and not even a name, - is Satan.

To understand the Bible, one needs to understand figurative language. The king of Babylon being Satan is a metaphor. Satan being a serpent is a metaphor.

Again Baloney! It tells us this is the King of Babylon, and that he is a MAN, and that the worms eat this MAN.

Christians are the ones whom don't understand and try to turn this into a Satan verse.

You folks have tried to turn Sheol - into Hell - which it ISN'T!

Not true of conservative Christians. We know the difference better than you do.

The majority of conservative Christians use the HELL idea, which is not correct for Sheol.

It goes on-and-on!

You have only moved the needle on the ignorance meter, not on Christian knowledge meter.

LOL! In case you haven't noticed! YOU are the one having problems proving what you say, - not only with me, - but most of the other people you are debating with - as well. That speaks volumes as to whom is wrong.

Well isn't that just convenient for you folks? LOL! We must believe everything, - but some of it is just figurative, - BUT!!! YOU MUST BELIEVE IT - OR ELSE!!!

Only those ignorant of language do not recognize figurative language and the message is YOU MUST BELIEVE IT OR ELSE.

LOL! You obviously haven't recognized the Biblical figuratives in the debates you are having.

NO ONE survives three days in the belly of a giant fish - and survives.

If you will do a little googling you will find that that did happen.

LOL! I don't have to look it up. It is impossible. I'm guessing you read a story of some idiot accidently being sucked into the mouth of a baleen whale and being spit back out IMMEDIATLY, - as the baleen sifts plankton.

It is impossible for an air breathing human to survive three days in stomach acid, underwater.

I don't have to mock - it is ALL in there. It DOES read like a fairytale.

Some of it does, but that does not mean it is not true as reported.

It doesn't mean it is true.

We have Adam & Chav'vah, - talking snake, - talking donkey, - people surviving three days inside a giant fish, underwater, - birds taking care of a human's needs, - satyrs, - giants, - behemoth, - Leviathan, - evil spirits, - demons, - Magic, - Sorcerers, - magic wands and staffs, - witches, cockatrice, - dragon, - Golem, and on and on!

The God in your view is not omnipotent.

In my view - an omnipotent God would not need fairytale bull to get the message across.
Nor would he be handing out evil laws allowing his people to murder, rape, own women, own slaves, etc.
Nor would he be acting skitzo, paranoid, jealous, or murdering innocent babies for the crimes of adults.

Thus - this is not a God.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. What is you explanation of how the universe came into being?

Check out your friendly beginners science sites for the latest ideas.

Mt 19:26 - And looking at them Jesus said to them, "with people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.

See two up. "In my view ..."

PS - AGAIN - Stop replying with messed up formatting.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Not a christian, and reading the Bible for myself...

Personally find it illogical to miss out two important time specifications, where the child is born after the kings are gone, and then after Israel is taken by Assyria.

1. You believe in the Abrahamic religion's messiah. How - in reality - are you then not of the Abrahamic religion?

2. What are you talking about with - born after the Kings are gone?

Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

That "knowing the difference" would likely be the age of reason. So up to 12 years AFTER the birth, they are forsaken of both their Kings, in a war which says the people won't be broken for three score and five years.

Isa 7:17 The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of ASSYRIA. (In other words what happened before)

Isa 7:8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.

Isa 7:9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.

*

 

[wizanda]

You believe in the Abrahamic religion's messiah. How - in reality - are you then not of the Abrahamic religion?

Don't believe in a race specific God; know the real one.

Yeshua isn't only Hebraic.

Christianity means someone who follows Paul's, and Simon's ministry; which is heavily backed up by the fake Gospel of John.

I don't believe in the Messiah either, it is based on first hand experience, and then trying to work out what is really going on within all the books.

What are you talking about with - born after the Kings are gone?

Sorry, you're still reading it all as one paragraph, and it has multiple timelines within it.

'within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people. '

That is referring to the Assyrian destruction of Israel/Ephraim, not this imaginary 65 year war; which it says in the verse before, it shall not happen (7:7), as they shall be removed as a people.