Why Jews don't believe in Jesus

[Betho_br]

You probably have heard of Bar Kochba. Many Jews thought he was the Messiah, but things didn't work out too well.
But getting back to the thread to an extent, I find it interesting that one professed Jew is saying that conservative and reform Jews are apostate. Thus who is telling the truth about why Jews do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah? And -- since many (Jews and non-Jews professing religion) do not really believe the Bible anyway, what's the point?

I understand that there are various messiahs with diverse christological missions. The mission of Jesus was specifically directed towards the lost sheep of the house of Israel, who were without a shepherd, with the intent of unifying all of Israel under divine guidance.

 

[Dimi95]

The gospels do claim that Jesus is the Messiah. But you are correct that the Christian understanding of Messiah is quite different from that in the Tanakh.

Your first sentence is absolutely fine.I would not add or remove anything from it.

You say that is 'quite different' from that in Tanakh.What is it that makes it so different?
The name 'Tanakh' means the same to me as "OT" for example.
They represents the Jewish History in two different belief groups and are just names to me , nothing more.

You again forget that 'Tanakh' was formulated by the Jewish community in post-Christ era.
So the events before that are very important.

You(not you personally) don't accept that He is He,we get that and nothing can be said further.
But just by saying that He is not He is not enough alone.

So what was Jewish then split in two ways.
-One remained in the corpus of traditional Jewish understanding , and the other one was something new - called Christianity.The writings in Acts say that people at first considered themselfs as Christians in the city of Antioch.That is only few years after the crucifixition.

What was considered as The Torah , Neviʾim, and Ketuvim continued to be 'The Tanakh' sometime after the fall of Jerusalem.

And we have evidence that suggest Acts were written before that.
The absence of Peter' and Paul' death in the whole NT is reason alone to belive that they were written earlier.
Because no one can agree what would be the reason about it.Why their death is not mentioned.
It could be anything else and the fact that their death is not mentioned it because they were still alive.
That is where the argument comes to its end.
Either there were really alive and that is how we can say that the events can be traced to that time.
The NT is not a book of guidence itself.It has two parts
In the first it speaks about the life of a Jewish man who was probably called Yeshu(a).In Galilean pronunciation, the most likely form would then be like the Syriac, but with slightly different vowels (as Galilean had one a-class vowel, and shwa intertwined with it with syllable forming rules) so I would wager /naṣəraya/.
This would bring it to /yešu(a) naṣəraya/ or /yešu(a) də-naṣəraya/ (the də- being a more explicit "of").

In the second it speaks about the life of the Apostoles and what was Jesus considered as - after his death.
'The Lord' associates with the name of God in Exodus.
The Lord is translated in Koine as Kyrios
about 700 times in New Testament and refered to Jesus.
YHWH is associated with the Son of Man in Daniel as "The Son of Man" is being worshiped in that vision and he is viewed as a human being.We know that worship back then was to God Alone.So we have the narrative of Daniel 7 who is telling us somehow that This "Son of Man" is subject to worship.
We know that God is not a man and you refered to it several times when we discussed.
We as Christians , we ourselfs have limited understanding of the Trinity.
When we are being confronted with the question "In what God do you belive , we say 'In the Father , in The Son , and in The Holy Spirit.'
I don't say 'the Christian God' , because it is wrong to say it like that.We have knowned him as the Holy one of Israel.

When i read "God is not a man" by that i mean Man as Man cannot be God.But he was not born like every man.
That's what the narrative is telling us.
That he was not an ordinary man.

There are two ways to reject Christ:
-By rejecting his Miraculous birth(existence).
-By rejecting his Miraculous Ressurection(divime existence).

The word 'Miraculous' itself requires only faith.Otherwise it won't be Miraculous in the first place.

When i say they were written i don't mean written as a Book.There were no Books at that time.There were manuscripts written on papyrus.

There is nothing indicating that the original Gospels are destroyed , it is considered that information regarding them was lost with time.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There are two ways to reject Christ:
-By rejecting his Miraculous birth(existence).
-By rejecting his Miraculous Ressurection(divime existence).

That's not "rejecting Christ" .. that's rejecting Orthodox Christianity.

 

[Betho_br]

Again, it is not really a question in the first place. The text starts with (לדוד מזמור) - translated this means that the this song is about David. David is not the one speaking it, one of his servants / subjects is. Other Jewish comments on this is that part of it is contrasting David to Avraham.

View attachment 94737

Thus, if the historical Jesus had asked someone this question it would have brought attention to Jesus not knowing Hebrew.

Christian perspective.

The interpretation of "לְדָוִד" (L'David) as "of David".


1. Use of the Preposition "לְ" (Le):
- The preposition "לְ" generally means "to," but in specific contexts, it can also indicate a relationship of possession or origin. For example, in some constructions, "לְ" can be used to indicate that something belongs to someone or is associated with someone.
- Example: In Genesis 24:36, the expression "לַאדֹנִי" (la'adoni) means "to my lord," but it can also be interpreted as "of my lord" in the sense that the action is performed in the name or under the authority of the lord.

2. Possessive Constructions:
- In Hebrew, possession is often expressed through prepositions or specific forms. The preposition "לְ" can be used in contexts where one wants to indicate that something is "of" someone, especially in poetry or more literary contexts.
- Example: In Psalm 23:1, "יְהוָה רֹעִי" (Adonai ro'i) means "The Lord is my shepherd." Here, the relationship of possession is clear, and the preposition "לְ" could be used in a similar context to indicate that something belongs to someone.

3. Poetic and Literary Context:
- Hebrew literature, especially the Psalms, often uses the third person to speak about the author or others. This is a literary technique that allows for deeper reflection on the message.
- Example: In Psalm 144:10, "הַמּוֹשִׁיעַ דָּוִד" (hamoshia David) means "the savior David." Here, the reference to David is made in the third person, but this does not prevent the psalm from also referring to him in a more personal way.

4. Reference to the Messiah:
- Both Jewish and Christian traditions recognize that many Psalms have a messianic significance. The idea that David, when writing the psalm, could be referring to a descendant or a future king is a common interpretation.
- Example: In Psalm 2:7, "בְּנִי אֲנִי הַיּוֹם יְלִדְתִּיךָ" (Beni ani hayom yelid'ticha) means "You are my Son; today I have begotten you." This verse is often interpreted as a reference to the Messiah, showing that poetic language can refer to future figures.

The interpretation of "לְדָוִד" as "of David" is viable within Hebrew grammar, especially considering the use of the preposition "לְ" in contexts that indicate possession or origin, the poetic structure of the Psalms, and the interpretive tradition that recognizes the messianic dimension of the text.

 

[Dimi95]

That's not "rejecting Christ" .. that's rejecting Orthodox Christianity.

You can reject Orthodox Christianity in many other ways as for example not being baptizied.
Baptism in the Orthodox Church follows the apostolic tradition of triple immersion.It is neccessary.
That's not charachteristic for branches in Protestantism for example.
But all of us would agree that is what rejecting Christ means.His existence and what he predicted.
That is why Jesus tells in each of the 'Synoptic' Gospels that the only blasphemy is against the Spirit.

In Matthew 12 we see
"Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come".

In Luke 12 we see
And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

In Mark 3 we see:
"Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.
He said this because they were saying, 'He has an impure spirit'."

 

[Betho_br]

I've seen this discussed here a bit and there is a lot of misinformation so here are some of the key (but not all) reasons Jews do not believe in Jesus.


The Messiah must rebuild the temple, the temple still stood when Jesus lived.

Revelation 21:3 King James Version
And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

John 14:23 New International Version
Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.

John 2:19-22 New International Version
Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

The perspective of Jesus is entirely different; indeed, the Qumran community anticipated a messianic king and also implied the expectation of another messianic priest, among other possibilities.

 

[YoursTrue]

I understand that there are various messiahs with diverse christological missions. The mission of Jesus was specifically directed towards the lost sheep of the house of Israel, who were without a shepherd, with the intent of unifying all of Israel under divine guidance.

He knew though the road leading to life was narrow. And few would find it. Matthew 7: "“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
He said also that yes, he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.
Matthew 15:24 "He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
But! obviously the word about Jesus went beyond.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have been studying sacred writings since the age of ten, and at first glance, without intending to disrespect, the presented interpretative framework seems to be an exegesis of an extremist proselyte of the pseudo-Pauline theology of false Hellenistic Christianity. Many speculative points contradict the clear statements made by Paul about the Law in his original letters. In any case, all that is new evokes many feelings and should be analyzed from an impartial perspective.

In agreement, although I respect you for your diligence in learning about the holy scriptures, the collecting of the writings was done by holy spirit. And Paul was certainly a zealous preacher of the good news of salvation and freedom.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Your first sentence is absolutely fine.I would not add or remove anything from it.

You say that is 'quite different' from that in Tanakh.What is it that makes it so different?

The Messiah of the Tanakh: simply a man who will rule Israel in the idyllic messianic era at the end of time.
The Messiah of Christianity the incarnate God who suffers and dies to save the world from their sins.

The name 'Tanakh' means the same to me as "OT" for example.

Well, certainly almost the same, with only a few differences.

One is superficial, which is the organization of the books. For example, 1 and 2 Kings is one book, and the minor prophets are all one book. Books like Joshua are grouped with the prophets, and Daniel is not grouped with the prophets. Probably the only grouping that I think is a significant difference is that in the OT, it ends with the prophet Malachi, with the christian view that the OT points to the coming of the Messiah. The Tanakh on the other hand ends with Chronicles, with the Jews triumphantly returning to the Land and rebuilding the Temple, a fitting end, not a cliffhanger.

The other difference is pretty significant. Jews only accept the Hebrew texts as being the Tanakh. While translations may be helpful for those who don't read Hebrew, these translations are not considered the Tanakh. This is because translations are simply inadequate, often obscuring the exact meaning of the text, as well as being unable to translate puns and the numerical values of words. I can tell you from personal experience with Spanish that when I read English translations of my favorite songs, I think they are horrible. I think people that speak English only have no clue just how insufficient any translation is.

You again forget that 'Tanakh' was formulated by the Jewish community in post-Christ era.

The formation of teh Jewish canon happened in steps. The Torah was accepted first. By Jesus day, the Prophets had also been accepted by the Pharisees, but not the Sadducees, and we can throw in the Psalms. It is only The Writings that were accepted as canon after the advent of Christianity.

The issue of how the Nazarenes (Jewish believers in Jesus as the Messiah who continued to practice Judaism, including making sacrifices) differentiated from the Gentile Christians who believed Jesus was God, is really a topic fit for an entirely new thread. If you want to discuss it, go ahead and start it, and do the @name to draw my attention to it.

And we have evidence that suggest Acts were written before that.

Most scholars date Acts to 80-90 CE, although some put the range at 70-110 CE. The council of Jamnia (Yevneh) was in 90 CE, but many scholars today believe that it was actually a series of councils that began in 70 CE rather than just the one where the Rabbis ironed out Jewish canon. It would obviously be premature to say that Acts was written before Jewish canon was formed.

The absence of Peter' and Paul' death in the whole NT is reason alone to belive that they were written earlier.
Because no one can agree what would be the reason about it.Why their death is not mentioned.
It could be anything else and the fact that their death is not mentioned it because they were still alive.
That is where the argument comes to its end.
Either there were really alive and that is how we can say that the events can be traced to that time.

You make a good point, but there are other factors that override it. Scholars have quite a number of different reasons for dating Acts later. The development of theology presented indicates it is closer to the end of the first century. Acts is also connected to the gospel of Luke, being the second text written by the same author/authors. Luke contains a reference to the destruction of the Temple, meaning it was written after that event, so we can conclude that Acts was similarly written after that event. There's more but I'm trying to be succinct.

The NT is not a book of guidence itself.It has two parts
In the first it speaks about the life of a Jewish man who was probably called Yeshu(a).In Galilean pronunciation, the most likely form would then be like the Syriac, but with slightly different vowels (as Galilean had one a-class vowel, and shwa intertwined with it with syllable forming rules) so I would wager /naṣəraya/.
This would bring it to /yešu(a) naṣəraya/ or /yešu(a) də-naṣəraya/ (the də- being a more explicit "of").

In the second it speaks about the life of the Apostoles and what was Jesus considered as - after his death.

The epistles of Paul were written first, and are clearly written to give advice to his Gentile churches.

Scholars divide Acts into two parts. The first part of Acts is basically a collection of legends that developed in the decades after Jesus' death, and is not a reliable source of historical information. The second part which reads like a travel journal of the missionary journeys of Paul, are considered a much more reliable source.

Revelation, the last to be written, was basically designed to give hope to the Chrsitians living through the two Roman-Jewish wars. It's message is simply, "These times are horrible, but if you pull back the curtain, God is in control."

'The Lord' associates with the name of God in Exodus.
The Lord is translated in Koine as Kyrios
about 700 times in New Testament and refered to Jesus.

That because the word Lord, in both hebrew and greek, can refer to anyone in a position of power. A king or aristocrat can be called a lord. We can even speak of the lord of the manor.

YHWH is associated with the Son of Man in Daniel as "The Son of Man" is being worshiped in that vision and he is viewed as a human being.We know that worship back then was to God Alone.So we have the narrative of Daniel 7 who is telling us somehow that This "Son of Man" is subject to worship.

A couple of important comments. Jews do not see the son of man in Daniel as referring to God, since the son of man APPROACHES the "ancient of days," aka God. But we don't even view the son of man as referring to the Messiah.

Consider this. The passage begins with all these different animals rising up out of the water, and each is a particular nation. The passage then ends with "one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven." In other words we have another country, but since a man would be superior to an animal, this country would be superior to the earlier countries. IOW the expression son of man in Daniel refers to Israel.

There are two ways to reject Christ:
-By rejecting his Miraculous birth(existence).
-By rejecting his Miraculous Ressurection(divime existence).

1. Miracles do not make anyone the messiah. We have the prophet Elijah doing miracles, including raising someone from the dead. It should also be mentioned that miracles happen in every religion. Miracles prove nothing.

2. While I would say that the resurrection never happened, this is not the common reason why Jews say Jesus doesn't cut the mustard to be the Messiah. Simply put, Jesus did not fulfill those prophecies about the Messiah. For example, the Messiah will usher in an era of worldwide peace. Jesus just simply didn't do that, so he is out of the running.

There is nothing indicating that the original Gospels are destroyed , it is considered that information regarding them was lost with time.

While there is no evidence that the original gospels were deliberately destroyed, it goes without saying that we no longer have those manuscripts. We also have evidence that they were edited in the early years, i.e. that the end of Mark and the story of the woman caught in adultery were added at a later time. It is also commonly understood among scholars that all the gospels are conglomerations of earlier texts, edited together by a later author.

 

[YoursTrue]

I understand that there are various messiahs with diverse christological missions. The mission of Jesus was specifically directed towards the lost sheep of the house of Israel, who were without a shepherd, with the intent of unifying all of Israel under divine guidance.

I'm assuming that you mean messianic mission when you say christological mission?

 

[YoursTrue]

@Eliana -- hi. I was just wondering, since you say the temple was still standing during Jesus lifetime if you actually think Jesus existed as written in the Bible.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But that's not all of it.
There are other things of importance regarding what is stated in your answer.
So for example all this later Jewish writings are post-Christ era.

Huh? Which books in the Tanakh do you think are written after the advent of Christianity? Or have I misunderstood you?

They just confirm what is written originally in The Septuagint , which is the oldest known Codex in Abrahamic religions.

I'm not sure why you think a codex is more significant than a scroll. I think is utterly insignificant. We have all sorts of fragments from the Torah, including an entire manuscript of Deuteronomy, all of which predate the LXX. And keep in mind that the LXX is a mere translation. It does not carry the authority of the Hebrew. It also contains books that are not in anyone's canon, such as 4 Maccabees. The LXX was never designed to be some sort of authoritative canon.

I don't doubt it for a second as a fact.

Well someone certainly translated the books. It is the consensus of scholars that the Torah was translated in the middle of teh 3rd century BCE by true scholars. However, the other books were translated later, and the quality of the translation is significantly lower. The idea that it was six scholars from each tribe and all all their translations miraculously matched is an obvious legend rather than history.

It is very possible also that The Septuagint is treated like that by Rabbinic Judaism

Rabbinic Judaism reject ALL translations.

The Jews never adopted The Septuagint so they had nothing from any Septuagint to reject.

Yeppers. We don't need a "rejection ceremony" when we have a general policy that only the Hebrew version is the Tanakh.

What about pre or Christ era itself?
Any mention of the Septuagint?

Some of the Tanakh quotes in books of the Christian scriptures are "copy and pasted" directly from the LXX. Other places, the authors translated from the Hebrew text themselves.

Many people make the mistake of thinking that Judaism at this time was some sort of monolith, that there was one thing called Judaism. In fact, Judaism in the first century AD was no more monolithic than modern Christianity is today.

I appreciate your point, but I would add that having the three forms of Judaism during Jesus' day can hardly be compared to the tens of thousands of Christian denominations today.

Where i come from we don't say Orthodox.We say "Православие" which means right-way of worship.

I believe you. However, in English we have two words: Orthodox (right belief) and Orthoprax (right behavior).

And traditional is Historically verifiable.
You are just uninformed about it.

I think, rather, that I just have higher standards for what I accept as evidence. I allow for logical arguments (no fallacies) and scientific method, including how science has impacted the work of linguists and historians. I do not accept religious texts as evidence, not even mine.

They had to reestablish the Jewish faith without the Temple worship.

I'm not sure "reestablish" is the right word. Judaism didn't stop and then restart. All the elements of Rabbinical Judaism were already in place before the destruction of the Temple, and Jews simply continued them when the Temple was gone. I'm speaking of i.e. the synagogues, the authority of the Rabbis, emphasis on obedience to Torah, the existence of Oral Torah, etc.

They agreed a canon with only the Hebrew books.

I would like to add that it wasn't just the Torah, but also the Oral Torah. Since the Sadducees and Essenes died out with the destruction of the Temple, only the Pharisees remained, and the Pharisees were very strong on Oral Torah.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Sure but Jesus raised the most. However, Jesus is the one set to return with a new heaven and new earth not Elijah.

Besides Lazarus, who did Jesus reputedly raise from the dead?

 

[Jimmy]

Besides Lazarus, who did Jesus reputedly raise from the dead?

I forgot

 

[Ebionite]

So, what you are basically saying is that if a child dies and is not baptized it is going to hell.

No, what I am saying is that the legal process used by the state is based on bad religious doctrine, and that process defrauds people of their rights.

 

[YoursTrue]

They can do what they want. They can't extinguish the light of God no matter how much they try.

I will say this: God Himself is the true Judge and He is set to make a judgment. How do you feel about that?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, what I am saying is that the legal process used by the state is based on bad religious doctrine, and that process defrauds people of their rights.

Question: who makes those legal rights you speak of?

 

[Ebionite]

But all of us would agree that is what rejecting Christ means.His existence and what he predicted

If you read between the lines of what he said in Luke, then he did not affirm the doctrine of the resurrection because of the lack of prophetic support for it.

Luk 24:44 - And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

 

[Ebionite]

Question: who makes those legal rights you speak of?

They are not legal rights, they are the natural rights described by Blackstone eg the natural right to life.

 

[Ebionite]

Paul was certainly a zealous preacher of the good news of salvation and freedom.

James and the prophets describe him as foolish and vain/proud.