Why Jews did not accept Jesus (pbuh)!

[Sabour]

Why would you ask a Jew to explain Christian scripture?

Because Paul lived in the first century and "ideally" he knew about the law which Jesus peace be upon him said he came to fulfill.

I am neither jewish nor a christian but yet quoting and providing my opinion.

After all I believe that Jesus peace be upon him was a prophet and he was not crucified. But I still find it interesting to engage in these conversations.

 

[Tumah]

Because Paul lived in the first century and "ideally" he knew about the law which Jesus peace be upon him said he came to fulfill.

I am neither jewish nor a christian but yet quoting and providing my opinion.

After all I believe that Jesus peace be upon him was a prophet and he was not crucified. But I still find it interesting to engage in these conversations.

There are actually a few times where I recall he makes a mistake about Jewish law. Such as the story about Jesus healing someone on the Sabbath. A Jew is not allowed to heal a non-life-threatening condition on the Sabbath by Rabbinical decree. This is to prevent transgressing a more serious Biblical prohibition where the actions may be similar and can result in un-knowledgeable people thinking that the more serious prohibition is not really prohibited. For instance, there is a prohibition to take medicine on the Sabbath because crushing the medicinal ingredients (as it was done in those days) is similar to the action for crushing ingredients for dyes (which is a Biblical prohibition) and someone may assume that the latter is permitted when he is really seeing the former.

However, that Rabbinical prohibition never extended to super-natural methods of healing and in fact amulets that are proven effective for healing may be used on the Sabbath. No one is going to confuse wearing an amulet with crushing dyes. However this distinction was apparently not known to the authors of the NT and so they fabricated a story about Jesus arguing with the Pharisees for healing a blind man on the Sabbath.

 

[rosends]

Because Paul lived in the first century and "ideally" he knew about the law which Jesus peace be upon him said he came to fulfill.

I am neither jewish nor a christian but yet quoting and providing my opinion.

After all I believe that Jesus peace be upon him was a prophet and he was not crucified. But I still find it interesting to engage in these conversations.

Hypothetically, if I quoted the book of Mormon to you and asked you to explain why some parts don't relate to you, because the author knows all about laws, would you feel that that makes any sense? What about Raelian texts? Are they relevant to you?

Just because there is a claim that someone was alive and wrote stuff doesn't make that person's view of another theology's texts and doctrines relevant.

 

[Sabour]

Hypothetically, if I quoted the book of Mormon to you and asked you to explain why some parts don't relate to you, because the author knows all about laws, would you feel that that makes any sense? What about Raelian texts? Are they relevant to you?

Just because there is a claim that someone was alive and wrote stuff doesn't make that person's view of another theology's texts and doctrines relevant.

If I am familiar with the book of Mormon and what it entails and I provided my opinion, it can be referenced even if I don't agree with it provided that I am giving my opinion bbased on knowledge. Whether you believe I am sincere or not would be a different discussion. If you believe that I am not honest, or I don't have a proper understanding of the topic, this would effectively end the discussion because my reference would be no longer valid as a point of discussion.

This is what happened actually if you follow the conversation between me and Tumah. What I quoted for him about the letter has no value for him and he considers it to be there for a purpose.

So maybe you were right to question me about asking a Jew about Paul's letter.

 

[Sabour]

There are actually a few times where I recall he makes a mistake about Jewish law. Such as the story about Jesus healing someone on the Sabbath. A Jew is not allowed to heal a non-life-threatening condition on the Sabbath by Rabbinical decree. This is to prevent transgressing a more serious Biblical prohibition where the actions may be similar and can result in un-knowledgeable people thinking that the more serious prohibition is not really prohibited. For instance, there is a prohibition to take medicine on the Sabbath because crushing the medicinal ingredients (as it was done in those days) is similar to the action for crushing ingredients for dyes (which is a Biblical prohibition) and someone may assume that the latter is permitted when he is really seeing the former.

However, that Rabbinical prohibition never extended to super-natural methods of healing and in fact amulets that are proven effective for healing may be used on the Sabbath. No one is going to confuse wearing an amulet with crushing dyes. However this distinction was apparently not known to the authors of the NT and so they fabricated a story about Jesus arguing with the Pharisees for healing a blind man on the Sabbath.

That's interesting to read. I am in no position to argue with the limited knowledge I have here.

Let me ask you, you previously said about that some things don't apply to all generations and were meant only for their time. How do you know which is eternal and which is meant only for a period of time. For example, why did you not have the assumption that the part I quoted in red was only for a period of time which was over ?

 

[Flankerl]

Even the Christians don't believe that God had sex with Mary!
Yes God did it,and He shows that He could creat "man" without nothing and without women and without man and with man and woman!
it's 4 not only 3.

4? So who was that?

So you want me to believe in your cute wondrous occurrence that never happened again or before. Cool but not going to happen because we Jews kinda believe that we Humans reproduce through biological means.
We are just weird that way.

They didn't realize that God's purpose for the Messiah, was on a much larger scale, to save mankind from sin and death, not just the Jews.

And ever since then we had more sin and more death.

Cool stuff.

Because Paul lived in the first century and "ideally" he knew about the law which Jesus peace be upon him said he came to fulfill.

So even Muslims believe in the ridiculousness of "fulfilling the law"? You are losing points for your Religion buddy.

 

[Godobeyer]

4? So who was that?

So you want me to believe in your cute wondrous occurrence that never happened again or before. Cool but not going to happen because we Jews kinda believe that we Humans reproduce through biological means.
We are just weird that way.

I don't want you to believe.

It's happened God created Adam (pbuh) without man or woman.
and it's happened God created Eve without woman.

So it's not biological means it's about power of God , He could created whatever He want by different ways.

 

[metis]

What is your point please ?

That the Dt. verse cannot refer to Jesus because he wasn't buried.

 

[Flankerl]

I don't want you to believe.

It's happened God created Adam (pbuh) without man or woman.
and it's happened God created Eve without woman.

So it's not biological means it's about power of God , He could created whatever He want by different ways.

So we both agree that Adam and Chava were created in quite the unusual way.

How come it didn't stay the norm? How come literally everyone after them was created by how we do till today?
But then God decides to do it again (except of course that it was sex between a God and a woman) and never ever told anyone beforehand? He tells us to write down whos son of son of son was but not that the Moshiach would be created in such a way.
No on the contrary the Moshiach is supposed to be from the House of David, which he can't be if his father is God.


But hey...

 

[Sabour]

That the Dt. verse cannot refer to Jesus because he wasn't buried.

On the contrary.

What I was trying to establish is that according to the law, whoever is hung on a tree is cursed by God.

The verse says "Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a pole is under God's curse". Meaning that if you don't bury the body and leave it hanging, this means that the person is cursed. That is the initial motive. It is hanging Jesus peace be upon him on the tree and not burying him to show that he was cursed by God and therefore not the Messiah

 

[metis]

On the contrary.

What I was trying to establish is that according to the law, whoever is hung on a tree is cursed by God.

The verse says "Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a pole is under God's curse". Meaning that if you don't bury the body and leave it hanging, this means that the person is cursed. That is the initial motive. It is hanging Jesus peace be upon him on the tree and not burying him to show that he was cursed by God and therefore not the Messiah

Again, according to the verse, the condemned referred to includes he be buried, and Jesus wasn't. All parts of a prophecy must be fulfilled if any particular interpretation is to possibly be correct.

 

[Sabour]

Again, according to the verse, the condemned referred to includes he be buried, and Jesus wasn't. All parts of a prophecy must be fulfilled if any particular interpretation is to possibly be correct.

Having reread the verse, I see what you are pointing at. I was interpreting the verse differently and I was coming up with the opposite meaning you illustrated here.

However, if the process was not complete, that doesn't rule out the intention in the first place. I still find the initial motive of disproving who the Messiah was to be valid.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The verse says "Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a pole is under God's curse". Meaning that if you don't bury the body and leave it hanging, this means that the person is cursed. That is the initial motive. It is hanging Jesus peace be upon him on the tree and not burying him to show that he was cursed by God and therefore not the Messiah

Nonsense. What the verse in fact says is:

23. you must not let his corpse remain on the stake overnight, but must bury him the same day. For an impaled body is an affront to God: you shall not defile the land that the Lord your God is giving you to posses. [emphasis added]​

Verse 23 is directed to those who effect the punishment. It states that for them to fail in their obligation to bury that corpse on the same day is to commit an affront to God and to defile the land that He has given. It has absolutely nothing to do with God (or anyone else) cursing the criminal.

Read the text instead of reading into the text.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I still find the initial motive of disproving who the Messiah was to be valid.

You find what you want (need?) to find, but you don't find it in Hebrew scripture.

 

[Sabour]

Nonsense. What the verse in fact says is:

23. you must not let his corpse remain on the stake overnight, but must bury him the same day. For an impaled body is an affront to God: you shall not defile the land that the Lord your God is giving you to posses. [emphasis added]​

Verse 23 is directed to those who effect the punishment. It states that for them to fail in their obligation to bury that corpse on the same day is to commit an affront to God and to defile the land that He has given. It has absolutely nothing to do with God (or anyone else) cursing the criminal.

Read the text instead of reading into the text.

This was clarified by Metis and now you. Thank you for that, I concede on this point.

 

[Tumah]

That's interesting to read. I am in no position to argue with the limited knowledge I have here.

Let me ask you, you previously said about that some things don't apply to all generations and were meant only for their time. How do you know which is eternal and which is meant only for a period of time. For example, why did you not have the assumption that the part I quoted in red was only for a period of time which was over ?

The context.
If you read the story, these are all prophecies about the destruction that will come at the end of the first Temple. No where is there any indication that these are Messianic prophecies or prophecies that extend beyond the time frame they are discussed in.
At the end of the previous chapter, the prophet is explaining that these punishments are coming for the idol worship in the kingdom of Judah. Then follows the punishments. In the verse you quoted, verse 8 (and 9), it talks about the scribes. The prophet calls them out for pretending they are doing the right thing, when they are really relying on books of lies (presumably in context, written by the priests of the idol worshipers). Then verse 10 mentions the punishment for having done this: their wives will be given to others, their fields etc. This has already occurred at the end of the first Temple. Then obviously today I am not worshiping idols, no one is building places in the valley of ben Hinnom to burn their suns and daughters, etc. So we see the verse is discussing a specific people and time: their actions and their punishment for it. There is no logical reason to assume this is a description of all Jews of all time.

 

[Godobeyer]

So we both agree that Adam and Chava were created in quite the unusual way.

See it's not about biology then

How come it didn't stay the norm? How come literally everyone after them was created by how we do till today?
But then God decides to do it again (except of course that it was sex between a God and a woman) and never ever told anyone beforehand? He tells us to write down whos son of son of son was but not that the Moshiach would be created in such a way.
No on the contrary the Moshiach is supposed to be from the House of David, which he can't be if his father is God.


But hey...

I believe Jesus (pbuh) was the missing cycle in human creation , the 4th different way of God (God could creat human without man).

I told you even the Christians don't believe that God made sex with Mary.

 

[Flankerl]

Good for you. As always your thread turns out the same way.

 

[Tumah]

See it's not about biology then


I believe Jesus (pbuh) was the missing cycle in human creation , the 4th different way of God (God could creat human without man).

I told you even the Christians don't believe that God made sex with Mary.

Considering that once G-d creates man from nothing, its becomes obvious that he could create man from either just a male or just a female, why do you think it was necessary to express this? Should G-d not also show that He can create man from crocodiles, just to show He can?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

All I was saying, was that it goes two ways and doesn't really lend your arguments any validity.
You have to be prepared to defend yourself when you make a statement here.

I can always support my statements with Scriptures, Tumah. And I accept both the Hebrew/Aramaic Scriptures and the Greek Scriptures, and see their harmony. But with this subject, I'd mostly have to use the Greek Scriptures, which I know you don't accept.

So we are at an impasse, already.

I could try to use the "OT", as it's called. I don't like calling it the Old Testament. (The reason is, it makes it sound like it's out of date (calling it Old), and nothing could be further from the truth!) But I will, for expediency's sake.

I can use the OT, but maybe not completely: I may have to refer to the NT.
So what exactly is our disagreement? Let's not argue, though. We can simply discuss the issues.