Why Jews don't believe in Jesus

[Sgt. Pepper]

So allow me to reiterate your belief to firmly establish what your group of Jews believe and teach. You believe that reform and conservative Jews as some are here, are apostate Jews. That does not include Jews for Jesus or atheists born and possibly raised as Jews.

Pardon me for saying so, YoursTrue, but I'm not sure why you need to know her personal perspective on other Jews. Why is it important to you?

 

[YoursTrue]

Pardon me for saying so, YoursTrue, but I'm not sure why you need to know her personal perspective on other Jews. Why is it important to you?

It demonstrates a certain mindset. Since she is giving her opinions on a board with members of various beliefs it can be good to see how and why people form opinions. Thank you for your question.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Micah 5:2,start from there.

Micah 5:1 in the Jewish Tanakh, or Micah 5:2 in Christian Bibles:
And you, Bethlehem Ephrathah-you should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah-from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel; and his origin is from of old, from days of yore.

The fact that the text refers to Bethlehem as a one of the clans of Judah indicates it is referring to people rather than a city. The way Jews interpret this verse is that the Messiah comes from the line of David, not the city of Bethlehem.

In order to be of the line of David, Jesus would have had to have had a biological father that could paternally trace back to David. The line cannot go through his mother, or through a foster father. The problem here is that Christians claim Jesus had no biological father, that Mary conceived him without a man. Unless Christians let go of the virgin birth, they cannot even begin the process of arguing that Jesus was of the line of David.

Whz don't you let me tell what is what in Christianity and stick to Judaism.

Because I am educated about Christianity. I do not claim to be an expert--no PhD here. But I am far more informed about Christianity than the average Christian in this forum. It gives me as much of a right to share information about Christianity as anyone else in this forum.

I did not interfere within your belief and dogma and what you said it is,

I would hope that if I made the claim that Jews believe in Krishna, you would step in and correct me.

i accept your answers on the basis that you want them to be accepted.But i don't have to agree within belief , you understand that do you? Just as you do , i have the same right.

Of course. This is a mutual sharing of beliefs. Neither of us is obligated to accept the beliefs of the other, even if that other makes an extremely good argument.

But i think that you lack knowledge when you speak about the NT....
What of the Christian NT have you read untill now?

I have read the entire NT more than once in its entirety, and have studied some of the books in great depth, especially the gospels. Again, I don't claim to be an expert, just more knowledgeable than the typical Christian.

I have also read the Quran, the Book of Mormon, the Tao Te Ching, the Analects, and a good number of Buddhist sutras I'm a hopeless nerd, always with a book.

No i am saying the oposite.
Jewish canon already existed , they were religious group of people.I acknowledge that.

I'm a little confused given that you more than once have stated that the Tanakh was formed "post-Christ." However, since the above is meant to be a clarification, I will simply accept it as your position, and assume that we had a misunderstanding.

Define what do you mean by earlier manuscripts , define what is later.

An earlier manuscript is one that is written prior to another. Later refers to a manuscript written after another.

For example, Codex Sinaiticus, fourth century, does not contain Mark 16:9-20. The earliest manuscript that does is Codex Alexandrinus, fifth century.

Why are thr earlier more reliable then the later ones?

For the same reason that we know frosting is added after a cake is baked.

Are the basis of your opinions , limited to Scholars?

On academic topics when scholars have reached a consensus, yes. (If you are asking about my opinion on what type of pizza is best, no. ) On academic topics where there is clearly no consensus, sometimes I form an opinion after weighing what each group says, and other times I simply don't form an opinion.

There is nothinh scientific to talk about.

Modern historians commonly apply science in various fields, from genetics to radiometric dating. Textual critics use scientific method: they gather data, form hypotheses, test, analyze, and conclude. They also revise when new evidence comes up or improved methods are designed.

What should we talk about , miracles and how they happen? Do you think it is appropriate to communicate on such level?

I think we have very different ideas what a miracle is, so I rather suspect we would be unable to relate.

Did we already have this discussion? Or am I thinking of someone else?

I don't think God would go through all the trouble to design the laws of nature only to then violate them. This leaves three possibilities:

1. A miracle is something rare and astounding for which we do not yet have a scientific explanation. That doesn't mean there is no natural explanation, only that we have not found it yet.
2. The person claiming the miracle is lying, or at least embellishing.
3. The person making the claim does honestly think it is a miracle, but either doesn't know or simply dismisses a perfectly good natural explanation.

So Miracles don't happen in Jewish culture or what?

This is one of those many cases where it is two Jews, three opinions.

They make errors sometimes.

Of course. But if we reject the consensus of scholars out of hand, what are we left with? Basing our opinions on even less reliable sources, or simply believing what tickles our ears.

The language that i speak and the alphabet i use is derrived from Koine , i don't know what to say.

If we have a question about something written in Greek, I will defer to you knowing you are fluent in Greek.

Yes , but he is mentioned in the Epistiles of Ignatius of Antioch

We were discussing my remark that Jesus is irrelevant to Judaism. You replied with a wee bit of sarcasm saying, "He was so irrelevant that they needed to tell Pilate about his 'blasphemy'." Assuming that by "they" you meant Jews, I mentioned that his trial is not mentioned in the Talmud. Your response is to talk about Ignatius. Since Ignatius was a Christian and not a Jew, his remarks are irrelevant to the topic.

How do you mean refers to all humanity and not the messiah?

"זַֽרְעֲךָ֖" (zar'acha) translates to "your seed" or "your descendants" in English. The root word,"זֶרַע" (zera), in this context means an uncountable quantity of seeds, just as the word seed in English does. It is like when we speak of a farmer buying seed. Thus, it is not referring to just one of Eve's offspring, but to all her offspring. IOW the passage is talking about the special hatred humans have for snakes.

How would Jesus ideas would be mentioned if he was considered as apostate?

Who says he was apostate? Not me. He practiced second temple Judaism. He never converted to another religion. So he was not an apostate.

There are any number of rabbis quoted in the Talmud whose opinions were considered, rejected, and discarded. But Jesus is not even among THEM.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Before he was crucified?

No one before Jesus' crucifixion was telling the Romans that he was God or that he would die for their sins.

Individuals Romans may have heard rumors that Jesus was the messiah, just as they might have heard rumors of Theudus or Menahem ben Judah. But he likely didn't become a serious issue of Roman concern until he became violent in the temple at a time when the Romans were struggling to maintain order during the pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

But if you know Hebrew you would know why these translations are inadequate , and where is the issue?

If I were fluent in Hebrew, I would not use any translation at all. The problem only arises when someone is not Hebrew fluent and wishes to study the text.

Fine

Thanks

They were letters that had religiois purpose.

I think we are on the same page here. All the books of the NT, both letters and not, are designed to teach Christianity.

 

[YoursTrue]

@metis and @dybmh just to mention that my father in law claimed to have been a Levite. He hardly ever went to synagogue, from the time I knew him he did not go to synagogue even for what is referred to as the High Holidays. He couldn't read Hebrew. Did not keep kosher. But they swore he was a Levite. When I asked how he knew I was told it is a word of mouth thing, passed on. Then when I asked an Orthodox Jew how come there are no records he said there is a synagogue with records. We didn't talk very long so I guess it's a good question. My brother in law believes he is a Levite also and says he gets messages from God.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No… they are Jews believing in the Jewish Yeshua Hamashiach.

I realize you were responding to the word apostate, and you are correct that they were not apostates. An apostate is a Jew who converts to another religion. The Nazarenes at the beginning of acts continued to practice Second Temple Judaism, including sacrifices. What they actually were was heretics, meaning they believed things unacceptable in Judaism. That's why they were eventually kicked out of the synagogues.

 

[Ebionite]

I have no idea what you're talking about regarding Anglican Articles of Religion, they may be imposed in some ways, I don't know.

It's about religious prejudice against natural rights. Article 9 is imposed as part of canon law via the union of the church and state.

But how does Romans 3:4 misrepresent David's sin? Romans 3:4 says - (English Standard Version)
"By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, “That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged.”

The "it is written" refers to the Septuagint text of Psalm 51:4, which leads to David's sin involving Bathsheba:

(To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet came unto him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba.) Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.
Psalms 51:1

Nathan's parable of David's sin doesn't have any reference to lying, and yet Paul is using David's sin to support the idea that all men are liars.

 

[1213]

Me too. What's the Greek word translated as sin used in the Gospels?

For example in 1 John 3:7-10 word αμαρτια (hamartia) is translated sin. But, the meaning seems to be:

1a) to be without a share in
1b) to miss the mark
1c) to err, be mistaken
1d) to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong
1e) to wander from the law of God, violate God's law, sin
2) that which is done wrong, sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law in thought or in act
3) collectively, the complex or aggregate of sins committed either by a single person or by many

...Whoever is born of God doesn’t commit sin, because his seed remains in him, and he can’t sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn’t do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn’t love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

Miss the mark could be a good translation, but, it is not necessary clear what it means to miss the mark. I think it means to reject God, or to be apart from God, because as the 1 John 3:7-10 shows, "Whoever is born of God doesn’t commit sin, because his seed remains in him".

 

[1213]

The first thing that comes to mind is "issuhr" aramaic for "prohibition". It comes from the root for "bound", or "binding".
...

"Don't do it. It's a sin. It will hold you back. Tie you down. Saddle you with a burden. Lock you up in dungeon. You won't be free."

Thank you. Very interesting. I think this shows that the words should be understood in context. And often it would probably be better to use some other translation than "sin". And in any case, by what Jesus tells, people should be born anew from God and sin no more.

...Don’t marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born anew.’
John 3:3-7
But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to be-come God’s children, to those who believe in his name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:12-13
It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.
John 6:63
...Whoever is born of God doesn’t commit sin, because his seed remains in him, and he can’t sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn’t do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn’t love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

 

[Dimi95]

No, we don't agree. We are discussing the meaning of the word "book." It's an English word. Greek is irrelevant to the discussion.

I am not interested in discussing what is now , i am interested in discussing what was backthen.And nothing was a book back then

Every book in the New Testament is designed to teach Christianity.

Nothing has been designed by nobody.
They are eyewitness accounts.Althrough we don't have the originals , we have later fragments who suggest that.

All predictions of the future are based on intuition. Sometimes it is informed intuition, as with someone who has gathered a great deal of facts, and then projects based on those. Sometimes not. Some people have a better sense of intuition than others. But in all cases, intuition is notoriously unreliable. Nor do they allow us to intuit past a certain degree -- there are many things that happen that were inconceivable to people in the past.

Ok , thank you for calrifying tjat

Intuition should not be with imagination, though they are related. I can imagine a pink lunar elephant with green polka dots, but that is not an intuition, nor something I think likely.

Again thank you for clarying terms that are of no importance here.

Beliefs don't come out of nowhere. They are either based on one's own intuition, or by one's acceptance of another's intuition.

Belief in WHAT? No one in 33 CE could have envisioned the destruction of the Temple, just as no one in 1900 could have predicted the use of 3D printing to make guns.

Yes, various scholars have. It's not that Jesus predicting the destruction in advance is impossible, it's that it's less likely. Imagine we find a text depicting a person in 1960s making an accurate prediction about terrorists filying planes into the WTC and we don't know when the text was written. What's more likely? That this happens to be a record of one of those instances of accurate future prediction, or that the text was written post-2001? Even if we know there in fact were people who correctly predicted 9/11 in advance, it would still be more likely the latter is true.And this is compounded even more by the fact that by the 1st century, ex eventu prophecies became a staple of apocalyptic writing - it just was the case that when you wrote about the coming end of the age, you included what appeared to be accurate future predictions. Collin's The Apocalyptic Imagination has an overview of these texts which includes The Apocalypse of Abraham, 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, The Book of Jubilees, The Apocalypse of Weeks, The Anomal Apocalypse and The Book of Daniel.

So to build this insight into the hypothetical above, imagine we find the text and we know that it comes from a culture which loves to include accurate future prophecies in its stories. I'd say at that point, it becomes much more probable that this is what's going on in that text as well rather than that this is the one rare instance of someone happening to correctly predict it.

It is really a bad idea for you to make this assumption. You don't know me. The fact that I disagree with you is no reason for you to conclude that I am less educated.

No , i don't know you , but i suppose you are a good person at least.
Not less educated , less informed.
It's about the amount of info that we know.
I apologize if i said anything else,less informed is the exact word in this 'issue'.

I think we both hold scholars in esteem.

I juse check everything refered as evidence regarding the NT, no matter who , where and what.

I often get into trouble with others for saying that a person has no right to claim expertise if they haven't put in the time and effort to get an advanced degree. We get all sorts of armchair "experts" who are offended by that.

Good for them
The difference between me and them is a team.I don't work alone.
Do i need to present credentials or what?

What we are discussing here is how to date the book of Acts. That requires experts of historical criticism and textual criticism. I think we both agree we are not talking about theological experts who go to seminary and study the Christian teachings in the Bible.For example, someone with a PhD in Paleography gets to have a say in this matter.

D.Sc counts right?

Someone with a DD (doctorate of divinity) does not. Are we on the same page here?

Yes

Oy vey. Enough with the irrelevancies. I looked up Deut 10:21 and it has no relationship to our discussion.

You missed miracles , nevermind carry on.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I'm not interested in the opinion of a Muslim, or any non-Jew, on Jewish law.

It has nothing to do with Jewish law.

A Jew who believes that Jesus was/is a prophet and Messiah does not STOP being a Jew.

Jesus and his disciples used to worship alongside other Jews in the synagogues.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No one before Jesus' crucifixion was telling the Romans that he was God or that he would die for their sins..

Agreed upon.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Which God is that, iyo? Even among religious groups is a vast variety of "gods," or definitions of who/what God is...

I am not denying that there are many gods. The question is that there are all religions agree that there is one superior God which is impersonal, which has no form and which encompasses all civilizations. Below him there are a number of gods which can be considered as his manifestations. So, it is indeed possible that the lesser gods fight with each other, which would be same as various civilizations fighting with each other. But our ability lies in realizing that these smaller gods are only manifestations of the larger one God and focusing on that one god to resolve our internal differences.

 

[Eliana]

Apostate is a word with very strong connotations, and the way you weild it like a flamethrower makes people nervous..

It is what the Torah says and it's Jewish law, Halakha. Being offended doesn't have any affect on that and I do not have the option of picking and choosing what I follow. Asking me over and over is extremely irritating and will not make me alter my answer.

People quoting the words of former Jews who converted to Christianity or Jews who do not follow the Talmud has no meaning to me and I am upfront as to the reason why. What's comical to me is the people most offended aren't even Jewish, yet insist on telling me what is and isn't about Judaism.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I am not interested in discussing what is now , i am interested in discussing what was backthen.And nothing was a book back then

No one spoke English back then, so they never used the word book.

Nothing has been designed by nobody.

This is patently false. All compositions are designed.

They are eyewitness accounts.

There are no eyewitness accounts.

Yes, various scholars have.

Please give me a Jews scholar in the BCE years that said teh Temple would be destroyed. It would help if you would quote their remarks.

D.Sc counts right?

Oh absolutely. You have impressed me. May I ask which field your DSc is in?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Apostate is a word with very strong connotations, and the way you weild it like a flamethrower makes people nervous..

She uses it as a category, and apparently it makes some, mostly Christian, people nervous.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It is what the Torah says and it's Jewish law, Halakha..

What .. ignoring the opinions of other Jews who don't agree with you?
The Sanhedrin plotted against Jesus, and G-d in his wisdom 'took him out'.

Jesus will return as the Messiah, at a time appointed .. plenty of people will believe
him to be Messiah at that time.
Some won't, of course .. just as the last time he was here in this world.

 

[Dimi95]

Micah 5:1 in the Jewish Tanakh, or Micah 5:2 in Christian Bibles:
And you, Bethlehem Ephrathah-you should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah-from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel; and his origin is from of old, from days of yore.

The fact that the text refers to Bethlehem as a one of the clans of Judah indicates it is referring to people rather than a city.

It speaks about ruler , in singular form , not in plural.

The way Jews interpret this verse is that the Messiah comes from the line of David, not the city of Bethlehem.

In order to be of the line of David, Jesus would have had to have had a biological father that could paternally trace back to David. The line cannot go through his mother, or through a foster father. The problem here is that Christians claim Jesus had no biological father, that Mary conceived him without a man. Unless Christians let go of the virgin birth, they cannot even begin the process of arguing that Jesus was of the line of David.

The only problem is that Mary is the only woman in that line.

And Isaiah 66 talks about some woman.

"Before she goes into labor,she gives birth;before the pains come upon her,
she delivers a son.
Who has ever heard of such things?
Who has ever seen things like this?"

Because I am educated about Christianity. I do not claim to be an expert--no PhD here. But I am far more informed about Christianity than the average Christian in this forum.

Ok , you are correct here , i give you that.

It gives me as much of a right to share information about Christianity as anyone else in this forum.

I don't argue that you can't.
Please try not to circle out and do irrelevant points

I would hope that if I made the claim that Jews believe in Krishna, you would step in and correct me.

We can't agree for everything , it is normal to disagree.

Of course. This is a mutual sharing of beliefs. Neither of us is obligated to accept the beliefs of the other, even if that other makes an extremely good argument.

It is important to maintain this while discussing

I have read the entire NT more than once in its entirety, and have studied some of the books in great depth, especially the gospels. Again, I don't claim to be an expert, just more knowledgeable than the typical Christian.

They are just the minority of what is called the NT.
The NT means a lot of Church Father letters in the first 3 centuries before it was defined.It does not mean only the writings that were canonized.
The NT is not a organized set of Books.Well it is , techically , but what is important is that it represents a belief system that came out as a result of particular events.

I have also read the Quran, the Book of Mormon, the Tao Te Ching, the Analects, and a good number of Buddhist sutras I'm a hopeless nerd, always with a book.

Anyone can read the Quran , it's not so big.
Try reading Hadith and you will see the difference.

I'm a little confused given that you more than once have stated that the Tanakh was formed "post-Christ."

Please consider my answers.

Defined , not formed.
You can define what was previously there.

However, since the above is meant to be a clarification, I will simply accept it as your position, and assume that we had a misunderstanding.

Defined , that is my position and the explenation is in my previous answer.

An earlier manuscript is one that is written prior to another. Later refers to a manuscript written after another.

Fine

For example, Codex Sinaiticus, fourth century, does not contain Mark 16:9-20. The earliest manuscript that does is Codex Alexandrinus, fifth century.

Because it is later does not mean it is false.
All of the manuacripts of the Gospel of Mark have the same long ending.

 

[Dimi95]

For the same reason that we know frosting is added after a cake is baked.

That's a false analogy.

I will explain why,

If you've ever read through the Gospel of Mark, you may have come across an unusual note near the end of the book. For example, between 16:8 and 16:9, the ESV includes these words: 'Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9–20.' The NIV and CSB include similar notes at the same place. Although there aren't many places where such an intrusive note about several verses disrupts the text, this information can still be startling.
To put it in perspective, it’s important to know that including a note here is not a recent development in the history of the church.Christians have known for centuries that Mark 16:9–20 might not have originally been part of Mark's Gospel.A monk named Ephraim who lived in the 900s, wrote these words in a manuscipt of the Gospels between Mark 16:8 and 16:9: 'In some of the copies, the evangelist finishes here, up to which (point) also Eusebius of Pamphilus made canon sections. But in many the following is also contained.'

That's what the use of NIV,ESV,CCB is.
They tell us about important notes.
You should read literally everything to get a whole picture.

We know about Ephraim because we still have several manuscripts he made. Some still have his signature. We can identify others by his handwriting and craftsmanship. Ephraim wasn't the original author of these particular words. He regularly copied marginal notes that were already in the manuscripts he was using, and this note was one of them. And Ephraim's manuscript isn't the only copy of Mark that has this note between 16:8 and 16:9. There are at least 11 others in Greek. The note probably predates 10th-century Ephraim by a few hundred years.Ephraim’s approach to the ending of Mark was the same as that of modern translations and editions. The Tyndale House Greek New Testament even prints Ephraim's note as a word of caution that Mark 16:9–20 might not be original to Mark's Gospel. In my judgment, this is the best solution.
On academic topics when scholars have reached a consensus, yes. (If you are asking about my opinion on what type of pizza is best, no. ) On academic topics where there is clearly no consensus, sometimes I form an opinion after weighing what each group says, and other times I simply don't form an opinion.Modern historians commonly apply science in various fields, from genetics to radiometric dating. Textual critics use scientific method: they gather data, form hypotheses, test, analyze, and conclude.They also revise when new evidence comes up or improved methods are designed.

Evidence for including these verses is staggering. When we look at the manuscripts of Mark's Gospel that survive today, more than 99 percent contain Mark 16:9–20. This includes not only 1,600-plus Greek manuscripts, but most manuscripts of early translations of Mark as well.In light of all the evidence in support of Mark 16:9–20, why would anyone question its authenticity?
Moreover, by around AD 180, Irenaeus unambiguously quoted Mark 16:19 as Scripture in Against Heresies (3.10.6). Justin Martyr and Tatian likely knew the verses earlier in the second century as well. Undeniably, Mark 16:9–20 was considered by many Christians early on to be a part of Mark's Gospel.
Further, though more than 99 percent of manuscripts available to us now contain Mark 16:9–20, it may not always have been this way. A Christian named Marinus wrote to Eusebius (c. AD 265–339) to ask for help resolving a perceived contradiction between Matthew and Mark. Marinus asked why Matthew (28:1) says Jesus appeared 'late on the Sabbath,' but Mark (16:9) says Jesus appeared 'early on the first day of the week.'
So it is important what Eusebius says , but we may also comment.What Eusebius probably didn't know is that they could be both right.

Matthew 28:1
'After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.'

Mark 16:9
'When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons.'

What Marinus did was aples and oranges.And this is where you should note about the importance of 'early' and 'late'.
In the copying process, omissions were more likely than additions, but omissions are often short, often accidental, and there are many qualifications to this tendency. One such qualification is that material could be added when the change involved a harmonization to a parallel passage. In a broad sense, Mark 16:9–20 does just that; it takes the lone Gospel that lacks a post-resurrection appearance of Jesus and makes it like the other three.More than that, we know that at least once, someone added Mark 16:9–20 to a text that lacked it. The compiler of a commentary from the 500s, attributed to Victor of Antioch, admitted that most copies he knew of didn’t contain Mark 16:9–20. However, in his opinion (unlike Eusebius), the 'more carefully edited' ones did contain these verses, and as a result, he added 16:9–20 to his Gospel. Here is a place where one Christian didn’t accept the text he received—he added to it something he thought:
"Because Mark 16:9–20 is undeniably early, is present in 99 percent of manuscripts, and has traditionally been considered canonical, I recommend keeping it in the text. But it’s probably not from Mark."
Some have suggested that the verses might be apostolic, but not from Mark himself. The best solution in my judgment is that of Ephraim: include the verses, but with a word of caution explaining they may not be original and by that i mean by Mark.The argument that just because it is not Mark , it is false does not stand.
Mark was defined as a Gospel in the 4th century CE.Just because Mark is the earliest considered , it does not mean that it should be the most correct one.Because all 4 are considered as eye witness accounts and were preserved as best as they could have done in the next 3 to 4 generations.That's where the first copies came from , we see that and verify it with fragments like Papyrus P52.
It's within 3-4 generations after the events.Why do you think that it is hard to preserve the original sayings?

However , i will have to catch up a birthday and we will continue some other time

 

[Kenny]

The OP has her own personal beliefs and opinions about Jews for Jesus, just as you do, but I doubt you will ever agree on this matter.

I’m sure we wouldn’t… but look at the OP… “ Why Jews don't believe in Jesus” - my point is not that we will never agree about the Jewish Jesus but just that her point is wrong. Jews do believe in Jesus.

If she would say “Why most Jews don’t believe in Jesus” - I would wholeheartedly agree. There are Jews that don’t believe in God as there are probably Jews who are Buddhists.