Why Jews don't believe in Jesus

[Betho_br]

Someone here said that each 'godperson' was 1/3 of the godhead. 1/3+1/3+1/3=1 whole.
A "weird mathematics" of Pauline-Christendom, right, please?

Regards

Yes (Jesus), we must have unity among brothers and patience.

 

[Balthazzar]

Someone here said that each 'godperson' was 1/3 of the godhead. 1/3+1/3+1/3=1 whole.
A "weird mathematics" of Pauline-Christendom, right, please?

Regards

God persons are us x 2 = one, plus one = One too, right? Yes ... Please, right? That makes three, ok!

 

[Lisa Sims]

This is a more true biography and mission statement of Jesus than that contained in the Christian New Testament and will solve some of the objections. It also explains his true mission which was to teach men to be "re-born" (or to essentially undergo metamorphosis) in the Father's Love (Divine Nature) as he had been--the refusal of which was the sin of the first parents. It is fairly long and it is based on Jesus' Second Coming Message Series, 1914 to present. True Biography of Jesus of Nazareth

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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

If I make the statement, "Tom is involved with the Boy Scouts," Tom may be singular, but Boy Scouts is plural. In the same way, in this passage, Ruler may be singular, but Bethlehem clan is a collective noun, meaning it refers to a group.

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

It's irrelevant that she is the only woman in the genealogy. She is a woman, and the lineage cannot go through the mother.

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.

It could be that we are having a misunderstanding due to difference in culture and language. In English, the phrase "New Testament" refers only to those Christian books that were canonized. It doesn't include Ignatius' letter to the Smyrnaeans, or Clement's letter to the Corinthians. These other letters by various Church Fathers may have been significant to the formation of Christianity, but they are not considered part of the NT.

Because it is later does not mean it is false.

Because it is later, it means it was added.

 

[Betho_br]

Now rise up, go out, and speak to the heart of your servants, that in the Lord I swore that if you do not go out today, a man will surely stay with you this night, and you will know yourself, and this will be worse for you than all the evil that has come upon you from your youth until now. 2 Samuel 19:08 LXX

(Sl 108:13 [WHM 4.22])
(108:14) בֵּֽאלֹהִ֥ים נַעֲשֶׂה־חָ֑יִל וְ֝ה֗וּא יָב֥וּס צָרֵֽינוּ׃

In God we will do valiantly, and He will tread down our enemies.

2 Samuel 19:08 LXX, 1 Reis 1:17,30; 2:30, Salmos 17:30 LXX, 18:29 HEB; 44:9 HEB, 55:5 LLX, 56:5 HEB; 107:14 LXX, 108:13 HEB; Oséias 1:7; Habacuque 3:18, Zacarias 12:5


The phrase "in God we will do valiantly" (Psalm 108:13 LXX; 108:14 HEB) reflects a deep trust in divine assistance for victory and strength. In the context of the Old Testament and the Septuagint (LXX), this assertion often highlights reliance on God for military success and overcoming adversaries. This can be interpreted as a form of covenantal assurance where God's support is seen as crucial for achieving victory and success.

In the passage from 2 Samuel 19:8 LXX, the urgency and the warning given to the servant can be understood as a serious call to action, emphasizing the importance of obedience and prompt response. The implication is that failing to act might result in even greater consequences, which can be seen as a form of divine retribution or an example of the consequences of failing to heed God's instructions.

When considering the broader biblical context, the idea of acting "in God" or "through God" often involves a commitment to a higher mission or purpose, emphasizing faithfulness and reliance on divine power. This can be seen as a form of divine endorsement or empowerment, ensuring that the actions taken are aligned with God's will and will ultimately lead to success or deliverance.

In summary, "in God" in these passages implies a deep reliance on divine power and assurance, often tied to the fulfillment of a mission or the achievement of victory over adversaries. It can also represent a solemn commitment or oath involving divine support and intervention.

John 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

1 John 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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

I stand by what I said.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I've noticed that when online evangelists speak like this about "scholars", it's because:

Are you under the assumption that I'm here to evangelize? I'm really not interested in convincing anyone to become a Jew, because it is perfectly fine to be a non-Jew. I'm here because I find religion fascinating, and am interested in mutual sharing. These sorts of discussions help me clarify my own thinking, give me new ideas to mull over, and help me become a better neighbor to those around me.

The reason people like me defer to the consensus of scholars is because their studies have raised them to the level of expertise, and I'm no expert. If you had appendicitis, would you go to a board certified surgeon, or would you take out your own appendix?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes… even Kings left their Jewish heritage as the words penned by the prophet Ezekiel showed. But heaven and earth will pass away but his word will never pass away.

It's not a big deal, but since someone uploaded a video about Jews becoming Christians, I thought it appropriate to show that Christian Jews also return to Judaism.

 

[Betho_br]

Thank you for allowing me to participate in the forum. What I learned from this debate is that Jesus had a mission directed toward the lost sheep of Israel. He affirmed the observance of the commandments as a means to eternal life for the Jews, a concept that is rare in the Hebrew Bible. Jesus set an example as a Jew and did not live in the time of "New Testament grace." This means that matters such as tithes, offerings, and purifications are models only for Jews and should not be applied to Gentiles. The authority of Jesus (Elohim) was not recognized by the Jews, and this is also written in the Christian Bible; Jesus did everything to ensure this. However, this is significant for all those who were distant due to non-observance of the Torah, leading to a Christian understanding. There have been many exaggerations in the interpretation of what Jesus said, not to mention the variants and translations. I was very saddened to discover many things in history. A doctrine of common and peaceful unity is needed, akin to Noachide laws for our time.

 

[dybmh]

Are you under the assumption that I'm here to evangelize?

You sound like someone bowing to a Greek God named "scholarship". You don't know what you're talking about, but hide behind the word "scholar" like it's your divine savior on a white horse.

Scholars. Take it up with them.

I've noticed that when online evangelists speak like this about "scholars", it's because:

• They don't know the evidence the scholar is using
• They don't understand the reasons that the scholar is using to produce their conclusions
• They don't know the counter-arguments
• They are religiously devoted to "scholarship" as if it is a god. Like a greek god. Gnostia? Apollo?

 

[GoodAttention]

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

Thanks for mansplaining, which is brave since, in her opinion, you are also an apostate.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Thank you.. very well said and expressed perfectly.

You're welcome, Kenny.

It appears to me that some members of this forum believe that they can say whatever they want and ignore the rules without consequence for their misbehavior. But I'm confident that the forum staff upholds the rules equally and maintains a safe and welcoming online community for all members, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof. I commend them. I'm sure it can be a hard task at times, especially for something they volunteer for.

 

[Kenny]

It's not a big deal, but since someone uploaded a video about Jews becoming Christians, I thought it appropriate to show that Christian Jews also return to Judaism.

No doubt.

On a side note, it goes to show that just because you grew up with one religion, it doesn’t mean you are necessarily going to stay there.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thanks for mansplaining,

(yawn)

which is brave since, in her opinion, you are also an apostate.

I honestly have no clue what you're trying to suggest ...

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

No doubt.

On a side note, it goes to show that just because you grew up with one religion, it doesn’t mean you are necessarily going to stay there.

This is true. I grew up with one religion, Christianity, but I'm not a Christian now.

 

[GoodAttention]

(yawn)



I honestly have no clue what you're trying to suggest ...

Lol.

When you insist on dissecting scripture verses to find "meaning" I can understand 100% why you have no clue.

In any case, it is not for me to say you are an apostate.

 

[Eliana]

It was obviously a mistake to come here. This forum is hostile to Orthodox Jews and we don't belong here. I'm done.

I'd like this thread deleted.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You sound like someone bowing to a Greek God named "scholarship". You don't know what you're talking about, but hide behind the word "scholar" like it's your divine savior on a white horse.

I greatly value scientific method, logical reasoning, and scholarship. I worship only God. You will never hear me praying to Einstein.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No doubt.

On a side note, it goes to show that just because you grew up with one religion, it doesn’t mean you are necessarily going to stay there.

Absolutely. In rare cases, people will jump the fence. I have a lot of thoughts on that, but the conversion really deserves its own thread, so i won't go into it here.

If you would like to open a thread on the topic, just include a @name and I'll join you.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I imagine that anyone on this forum would encounter some pushback if they stated in their introductory thread that they can't stand specific religious sects, rudely stated that they don't care about what Muslims and others who don't adhere to their religious beliefs think about their religious beliefs, accused other people of their ethnicity of being apostates because they don't adhere to this member's preferred religious beliefs, and also were quite rude and demeaning when responding to others who disagreed with their religious beliefs. I wouldn't expect a person who behaves like this to come out of a heated debate unscathed and not get some pushback. Any Abrahamic theist who is familiar with the Bible should know about reaping what you sow.