Why Jews don't believe in Jesus

[Saint Frankenstein]

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 be from David's line and from the tribe of Judah, Jesus was not.
The Messiah must rebuild the temple, the temple still stood when Jesus lived.
The Messiah must reunite the Jews, the Jews were not even scattered when Jesus lived.
The Messiah must be Jewish... duh.
The Messiah will establish world peace and rule justly, Jesus did not do this.
The Messiah will rule when the Torah is written in everyone's heart and all people acknowledge Hashem as G-d, Jesus did not do this.

In addition Jews do not accept the notion of a trinity or original sin. We do not believe G-d will assume a human form. Nowhere in Messianic prophecy is the Messiah G-d in human form or otherwise. Jews also do not believe anyone can assume responsibility for the sins of another. G-d also calls human sacrifice an abomination and condemns it in the strongest possible terms. There is nothing in Messianic prophecy about the Messiah dying and coming back at a later date, it says he will finish the job.

There's more, but that's a primer for anyone interested.

Well, we've heard multiple times why Jews reject Jesus, why Christians accept him, etc. but I haven't seen an argument about why Gentiles should care about the issue or Jewish religious concepts in the first place. I'll keep worshipping the Gods of my actual ancestors.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

You stated that the Bible is a "tailored" translation of the Tanakh. Again I ask you. Is this the truth?

Yes. There are Christians translations that insert New Testament ideas into texts that have no context with the Greek New Testament, there are Christian translations that lack a knowledge of concepts from the region where ancient Hebrew as a language was spoken / written, and there are Christian translation that mangle the text because they have no conept of the Ta'amim system as a part of what one uses to translate the text.

Lastly, all forms of translation are a type of commentary. This is widely known in the field of translation.

Here is a video I did on the topic.

 

[Coder]

Thank you for the discussion.

I think what the intention of scripture is or isn't depends on a whole lot of determining factors dependent on who's doing the exegesis and interpretation.

Such varies with specific Scriptures. I see powerful wisdom in the Jewish Scriptures. But the details are often not of literal interest to me because I think that generally, the message is more important than the details (e.g. Genesis). The concept of a messiah? I honestly don't know what to make of that today.

...only David's matriarchal line can seat a King...

The book called "Matthew" failed then, true? As I say, this only shows me the artificiality of the attempt to "retrofit".

Perhaps circumcision, which goes back a long long way, has always been a subconscious presaging of the virgin conception and birth of the Savior of the world?

I think that and many Jewish laws are mainly based on experiences related to health. They probably have some good wisdom there that shouldn't be ignored but also practiced within "the spirit of the law", instead of religious perspective as detailed mandates of God.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

But when it comes the new testament, as you rightly said, the Jews do not engage. But Why not?

Because, it serves no purpose for a Jew to engage in it. The only time a Jew who keeps Torah would engage in it is when dealing with missionaries. I.e. missionaries who are trying trick Jews and missionaries who are Jews who were manipulated. The following may help in explaining my point.

 

[blü 2]

I believe:


Was the intention of the Scripture regarding Davidic line meant to include adoption?

I think that the main point is that the authors of the Christian Scriptures already had a theology based on a new vision of modern/reformed/unified religion in the Roman empire. Thus, the lineage etc. is merely an ingenuine "retrofit" attempt for the purposes. Much of Mark, Luke, John, Matthew has such Scriptures that are purposefully added to support a theology that had already been defined. E.g. Theologies that use Jesus to replace the practice of animal sacrifices, and theologies that use Jesus to substitute for the Greco-Roman human-like "gods" and "sons of gods" including the "divine" and "divi filius" "emperors".

So to debate a purpose that is artificial to begin with is useless. What's useful is to reject it for what it is. Animal sacrifices did end, that's a good thing. Polytheism sort-of ended (trinity). The methods that got people there are not to be taken seriously as objective reality today. Romans 3:7 "...if through my lie God 's truth abounds to his glory,..."

The important text here is

2 Samuel 7:12-16
12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.
13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. When he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men;
15 but I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you.
16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established for ever.'"​

I'd say verse 12 rules out adoption as an acceptable "descent" from the "body" of Samuel. (This is only a problem for the Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke. The Jesus of Mark is simply an ordinary Jewish male whom God adopts as [his] son, as [he][ had adopted David ((Psalm 2:7). The Jesuses of Paul and of John are said to be descendants of David with no further details, whereas had they been born by divine insemination it would surely have been worth a mention somewhere.)

And I'd say that the kingdom envisaged is a Hebrew kingdom for a Hebrew god, and will exist on earth with an earthly hereditary ruler.

And I'd thirdly say that anyone trying to fit Jesus into that mold is going to need fanciful inventions like "invisible kingdoms".

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I think engaging would be necessary to investigate these matters. If there has been an engagement and the Bible has been found wanting by the Jews on the basis of language, I'd say language alone is not enough, there is a lot more to be considered; The OT prophecies, God's promises to the Jews' fore fathers. The examination of truth when it comes to claims of Jesus.

We Jews have already been through all of that. For about 1,700 we Jews have had the very painful pleasure of having to examine the Christian claims, the new testament, and Christian sensabilities.

In fact, there are many times in history where Christian clergy forced Jews into the examination. In fact, there were times where Jews were forced to convert to Christianity w/o any examination at all. I.e. Inquisition.

Below are two versions of one such of these "examinations."

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Was he not a Jew who hated Christians for the same reason Jews do not engage with the New testament?

Paul, historically, is a very problematic character. I have found that the New Testament claims about Pual's history and background don't make sense and are highly dubious. More than likely Paul was a Hellonist who became Christian and who had his own agenda with the emerging Christian concepts. Also, he most likely had a good PR person trying to pump up his background. Thus, I can't agree to any relevance with Paul.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Which Part of the Bible stems from another tradition, from a foreign religion or belief in another God.

When speaking of the Christian Bible, the following parts.

1. The concept of calling the Tanakh and Old Testament.
2. The parts of the Christian Bible that were mistranslated due to trying to giver merit to certain New Testament ideas.
3. The New Testament parts.

All of the above are foreign to the Torah / Tanakh concepts in the Hebrew language.

 

[Coder]

I'd say verse 12 rules out adoption as an acceptable "descent" from the "body" of Samuel.

Yes, thank you!

(This is only a problem for the Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke.

Yes, I believe that much of the NT is artificial, based on a pre-conceived theology. So it's good that they "failed". (I wonder if they even did it on purpose, so that people could realize that it was just a charade for the Roman empire polytheists. I wonder that because otherwise they were sloppy.)

And I'd say that the kingdom envisaged is a Hebrew kingdom for a Hebrew god, and will exist on earth with an earthly hereditary ruler.

Yes a kingdom of the knowledge of God by the whole world, if I'm not mistaken. I believe in God. Judaism has generally not had a strong concept of heaven, although that seems to be changing. (To clarify, when I spoke of vision of new religion, I was referring to Christianity as an adaptation for the Romans, as opposed to a plan as presented in the Hebrew Scriptures.)

And I'd thirdly say that anyone trying to fit Jesus into that mold is going to need fanciful inventions like "invisible kingdoms".

Such as kingdom of heaven? Good point! I hadn't made that connection.

I do believe that, ironically, if one looks past all of the artificial surface things, some concepts are helpful. Such as how people treat each other can create a good "kingdom" on earth. And I do believe in God.

Thanks for great information!

 

[blü 2]

Paul, historically, is a very problematic character. I have found that the New Testament claims about Pual's history and background don't make sense and are highly dubious. More than likely Paul was a Hellonist who became Christian and who had his own agenda with the emerging Christian concepts. Also, he most likely he had a good PR person trying to pump up his background. Thus, I can agree any relevance with Paul.

Paul is indeed interesting. A decade or two back there was a movement among Dutch theologians claiming to show that Paul was invented by Marcion in his debate with the non-Gnostic Christians in the 2nd century. If so it was playwriting of highest class, to invent a dingbat like Paul from scratch. Nonetheless, Paul shares with the author of John several Gnostic views. The first is that God is infinitely remote and infinitely pure spirit, and it would never occur to [him] to devise anything material. Thus it fell to the God-created heavenly being Jesus to create the material universe (regardless of what Genesis says) AND to be the bridge between infinitely remote God and material humans. (John 17 gives you the outline.) The Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John are the only two Jesuses who pre-existed in heaven and who created the material universe.

I find a certain believablility in Paul's claim that he became a Christian because he had an epileptic-like fit which came with a vision. He has no interest the earthly ministry of Jesus later proposed by the author of Mark, never mentions Jesus' birth (or other arrival on earth) except to claim descent from David for him, and frankly and with only little exaggeration states in Galatians 1:11-12 that everything he tells about Jesus comes out of his own head. And like the other NT authors, he wrote in Greek, not Aramaic.

 

[GoodAttention]

Paul is indeed interesting. A decade or two back there was a movement among Dutch theologians claiming to show that Paul was invented by Marcion in his debate with the non-Gnostic Christians in the 2nd century. If so it was playwriting of highest class, to invent a dingbat like Paul from scratch. Nonetheless, Paul shares with the author of John several Gnostic views. The first is that God is infinitely remote and infinitely pure spirit, and it would never occur to [him] to devise anything material. Thus it fell to the God-created heavenly being Jesus to create the material universe (regardless of what Genesis says) AND to be the bridge between infinitely remote God and material humans. (John 17 gives you the outline.) The Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John are the only two Jesuses who pre-existed in heaven and who created the material universe.

I find a certain believablility in Paul's claim that he became a Christian because he had an epileptic-like fit which came with a vision. He has no interest the earthly ministry of Jesus later proposed by the author of Mark, never mentions Jesus' birth (or other arrival on earth) except to claim descent from David for him, and frankly and with only little exaggeration states in Galatians 1:11-12 that everything he tells about Jesus comes out of his own head. And like the other NT authors, he wrote in Greek, not Aramaic.

I thought Paul was Yosef ben Mattityahu's other, other alter ego?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Well, we've heard multiple times why Jews reject Jesus, why Christians accept him, etc. but I haven't seen an argument about why Gentiles should care about the issue or Jewish religious concepts in the first place. I'll keep worshipping the Gods of my actual ancestors.

I don't think anyone was trying to convince anyone to care about Jewish concepts. Jews don't have a conept of trying to convince anyone not Jewish to do or not to do what they do in life. Given that there is a large amount of missionary work to convince Jews to become Christians, and none in the other direction, it makes sense that such as thread as this would exist at some point. But don't worry, no one Jewish is trying to convince you of anything. Also, I don't think the OP was directed at you personally.

 

[Trailblazer]

Jesus established God's kingdom on earth, and there is nothing on earth that could destroy it or end its peace.

If Jesus established God's kingdom on earth, why did Jesus ask us to pray for God's kingdom to come to earth?

Matthew 6:9-13 English Standard Version 2016 (ESV)
Pray then like this: “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
Matthew 6:9-13 Share - Bible.com

If Jesus established God's kingdom on earth, why are Christians waiting for Jesus to return and establish the kingdom of God on earth?

Could it be that it is not entirely fulfilled yet?

The prophecies that the Jews await to be fulfilled are messianic age prophecies so they are going to be fulfilled during the messianic age, so they have yet to be fulfilled. I believe that age began when Christ returned in the person of Baha'u'llah in the mid-19th century, and will last no less than 1000 years, so it has a long way to go.

Jews believe that their messiah will fulfill all those prophecies during his lifetime, but it does not say that anywhere in the scriptures, so it is merely an assumption.

Does that mean it can't happen?

It means it won't happen unless the NT is in error, since Jesus said that He was no more in the world and His work was finished here.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

John 16:10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

 

[Trailblazer]

Jesus is the Son of God not the Jewish Messiah.

I believe that's true, and Jesus will never be the Jewish Messiah, since Jesus said that His work was finished here.
(John 14:19, John 16:10, John 17:4, John 17:11, John 19:30)

The Jewish Messiah is MIA.

I believe that's false, because I believe the Messiah has already come, not only for the Jewish people, but for the whole world.
The mistake the Jews make is in believing that the Messiah is 'just for them' but all religions have expectations of a Messiah.

All the major world religions are expecting a Messiah, a world redeemer, who will come in the End Times.
Below are two websites that cover the prophecies of the major religions and what they believe the Messiah will do.

Prophecy Fulfilled Webpage

Click on one of the following to

 

[RestlessSoul]

It's really too deep to go into, but let's just say it's more Greek mythology than Jewish, yet Jesus was a Jew.

Whatever it’s origins, Christianity is historically and culturally more Hellenic than Semitic, having spread rapidly throughout the Greco-Roman world.

The Gospels portray Jesus as, unequivocally, a practicing Jew though, and reference the Old Testament/Tanakh.

 

[paarsurrey]

Why Jews don't believe in Jesus

The Gospels portray Jesus as, unequivocally, a practicing Jew though, and reference the Old Testament/Tanakh.

No, never no; most certainly rather undoubtedly (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite was an Israelite, he was not from the descent of Juda, after whose names Jew/Judaism has been labeled , they preferred this name that in other words means that they relinquished the spiritual name Israelite- named by G-d; and adopted the worldly name after Judah, right, please?

Regards

 

[John D. Brey]

Thank you for the discussion.

It takes two to tango.

I see powerful wisdom in the Jewish Scriptures. But the details are often not of literal interest to me because I think that generally, the message is more important than the details (e.g. Genesis). The concept of a messiah? I honestly don't know what to make of that today.

It seems to me that the details are important so far as deciphering the message properly. Case in point, the concept of the messiah; it's dependent on a lot of small details that are extremely important to placing that idea into a modern, philosophical, historical, even scientific, framework.

The book called "Matthew" failed then, true? As I say, this only shows me the artificiality of the attempt to "retrofit".

I don't know the context for your claim Matthew failed?

But more importantly, perhaps, "retrofitting" the New Testament is not only legit, but it answers to the very name of this thread, "Why Jews don't believe in Jesus," since the Torah states that the decree of the red heifer isn't just a decree like all the other decrees, it's understood by most of the Jewish sages I've read, to be the transcendental signifier of the entire Tanakh. You have to know what the meaning, purpose, rationale, of the red heifer is, to unlock the meaning, purpose, and rationale of all the other decrees throughout the Tanakh.

Judaism concedes that Jews don't know the meaning, purpose, and rationale, for the decree of the red heifer (which is required to know the rationale for all the other decrees) and won't know that until Messiah arrives. When he rises, the meaning of the transendental signifier of the entire Tanakh (the rationale for the red heifer) will be revealed; which means you will have to then "retrofit" the rationale for the red heifer, given by Messiah, to all the other decrees given long before Messiah arrives. You'll have to retrofit the entire Tanakh to the meaning of the red heifer revealed by Messiah.

Messiah arrived. But because the strange nature of his first advent is hidden in decrees throughout the Tanakh, decrees whose meaning and rational require his arrival, Jews can't know that he's arrived, until they know he's arrived. And they can't know he's arrived until he reveals the meaning of the decrees, which he did, but Jews don't believe he did, because they don't believe he's arrived.

That's why Jews don't believe in Jesus and won't believe in Jesus until they know the rationales for the decrees in the Tanakh which require them knowing Messiah has arrived.



John

 

[paarsurrey]

Why Jews don't believe in Jesus

Judaism concedes that Jews don't know the meaning, purpose, and rationale, for the decree of the red heifer (which is required to know the rationale for all the other decrees) and won't know that until Messiah arrives. When he rises, the meaning of the transendental signifier of the entire Tanakh (the rationale for the red heifer) will be revealed; which means you will have to then "retrofit" the rationale for the red heifer, given by Messiah, to all the other decrees given long before Messiah arrives. You'll have to retrofit the entire Tanakh to the meaning of the red heifer revealed by Messiah.

the decree of the red heifer

Does one mean the following, please, right?
"Red heifer, in Jewish history, unblemished, never-before-yoked animal that was slaughtered and burned to restore ritual purity to those who had become unclean through contact with the dead (Numbers 19). Certain spoils of war and captives were also purified in this way.":

Britannica
https://www.britannica.com › ... › Religious Beliefs

Right?

Regards

 

[Coder]

It seems to me that the details are important so far as deciphering the message properly. Case in point, the concept of the messiah; it's dependent on a lot of small details that are extremely important to placing that idea into a modern, philosophical, historical, even scientific, framework.

Understood. Thank you. I think creation story details may be more of a "general idea" with some patterns that may have additional meaning. I don't view it as (fully) literal.

I don't know the context for your claim Matthew failed?

The book that was assigned the name Matthew, has lineage that includes Jeconiah.

Re: "retrofit", not legitimate if artificial/untrue. I think that Jewish people have good reason not to believe in Jesus as messiah. I respect the teachings that are ascribed to Jesus (the ones that I don't consider artificial for other purposes).

I don't believe in a messiah concept as described in Judaism, however I respect Judaism and love and respect the Jewish people. I'm open to understanding more about the messiah concept beyond the claims of Christians (I have a Christian background).

I also believe in God as one as in Judaism, I don't believe in a trinity. I think it's amazing what people will believe if raised a certain way and have a legacy of pressure from a Roman religious heritage. What happens is they often rebel in subtle ways later, not always specifically rejecting their religion, but losing interest. Not realizing that their loss of interest is subconsciously caused by logical deficiencies of an "all things to all people" religion.

You may find interesting:

The New Roman Religion - the End of Animal Sacrifices

I believe: The New Roman Religion - a Rabbi later declared Priest, and Messiah Substitutes for Animal Sacrifices Paul, and other educated Roman citizens who also believed in God, considered the religious sacrifice of animals to be obsolete. Circumcision was an obstacle to Roman unified...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[paarsurrey]

Why Jews don't believe in Jesus

until Messiah arrives. When he rises, the meaning of the transendental signifier of the entire Tanakh (the rationale for the red heifer) will be revealed; which means you will have to then "retrofit" the rationale for the red heifer, given by Messiah, to all the other decrees given long before Messiah arrives. You'll have to retrofit the entire Tanakh to the meaning of the red heifer revealed by Messiah.

The word "retrofit" was new to me, so I checked on the internet:

"Modifying our existing belief systems to accommodate new data points is known as “retrofitting,” and even the most rational among us do it all the time. "
"People are not computers, and our beliefs are not code. This makes us unpredictable. We may understand all about somebody’s belief systems–say, a therapist’s firm conviction about the importance of quiet reflection–but that person may need to adjust their beliefs when presented with new information–say, when quiet reflection leads to a negative outcome for a patient. "
"Retrofitting is not the same as hypocrisy. After all, belief systems are clunky, contradictory, incomplete–and essential for day-to-day life. Our therapist was able to incorporate new information without abandoning an important rule of thumb, i.e., prescribing quiet reflection. Given enough contradictory information, the therapist may change their belief, but it would likely be a painful process. Retrofitting avoids pain, keeps our belief system intact, and accounts for aberrant data points. "
And there is also a list of the "Retrofit Bias"-es at the end:-

What heuristics are similar to Retrofit Bias?​

Visualize it

• Ascription of Causality
  We tend to ascribe causation even when the evidence only suggests correlation. It is especially true in learning environments, among young or inexperienced people, and certainly when we already believe the conclusions based that are supposed to be drawn from the line of reasoning. Imagine one already believes A causes B, and they learn from the evidence that A is correlated with (or coincides with) B. They might draw the conclusion that the evidence shows "A causes B" when in fact it does not.
• Adaptive Bias
  Humans often times learn to reason adaptively rather than rationally in the face of uncertainty
• Mental Accounting
  We divide our money into different pots and then treat them all separately. When we make decisions, we quantify our self-image into mental "accounts." When we feel guilty about a product, we won't buy it; by assuaging brand guilt through pricing and sale adjustments, you can improve sales dramatically.
• Rule of Consistency
  People are driven to be consistent in all areas of life in their words, deeds, attitudes, opinions, beliefs, values, habits, and promises. Once a person makes a decision, they strive to make all future behavior match this past behavior.
• Peak-End Rule
  A tendency to judge our experiences almost entirely on how they were at their peak and how they ended, regardless of whether pleasant or unpleasant. Other information is not lost but not used. It includes net pleasantness or unpleasantness and how long the experience lasted.
• Self Fulfilling Prophecy
  Humans engage in behaviors that elicit results which will (consciously or not) confirm our beliefs
• Rosy Retrospection
  At the moment an event is filled with all sorts of stimuli that we are processing and weighing against each other. In retrospect, however, much of this noise disappears. Combined with our general tendency to be optimistic, it leads to focus on the good aspects of an experience-- often remembering it as better than it was.
• Outcome Bias
  Humans may judge a decision by its eventual outcome instead of by the quality of the decision at the time it was made
• Confirmation Bias
  The tendency to seek only information that will support rather than refute an initial hypothesis, or to selectively interpret information acquired after the hypothesis is formed in a way that supports it. The bias here is evident: a true hypothesis can withstand attempts to disprove it and should be subjected to such attempts. Confirmation bias is always an error, as it aims simply to avoid the cognitive effort required to revise an initial impression, regardless of whether or not the hypothesis is correct. We seek confirmation that we made a good decision.
• Recognition Heuristic
  If one of two objects is recognized and the other is not, then infer that the recognized object has the higher value concerning the criterion. Of course, if the recognized one is accompanied by a prior, negative association, the opposite will occur. Despite the particular value ascribed to it, a recognized option in a choice set will receive attention.
• Numerosity Effect
  When evaluating the difference between two attribute levels, more attention is paid to the number of units rather than the type of units. We like things that seem like they give us more-- despite common ambiguity in what "more" means and whether pursuing it might get us the best outcome overall.
• Comfort Zone Bias
  Humans tend to do what's comfortable rather than what's important.
• Belief Bias
  An effect where someone's evaluation of the logical strength of an argument is biased by the believability of the conclusion, even when the argument is logically invalid. We tend to buy into an argument if we believe that the outcome is possible. It should be the other way around as we should evaluate an argument comprehensively and then believe the outcome.
• Dunning Kruger Effect
  Humans incompetent on a task may fail to recognize their incompetence, since they lack the skill to distinguish it from competence ...
• Authority Bias
  We tend to thoughtlessly obey those we regard in positions of authority. We trust experts, therefore, we are more likely to obey experts. Often the appearance (symbols) of authority are enough, symbols such as titles (PhD, MD, Dr., etc.) and trappings (luxury cars, 'lifestyle', and designer clothes).
• Opportunity Cost Neglect
  The cost of a choice is the value of the best alternatives forgone when a choice needs to be made between several alternatives given...

Retrofit Bias

How Retrofit Bias influences decision-making when retrofitting information and twisting it to fit one's own belief system

newristics.com

Heuristic Encyclopedia Find everything you wanted to know about a heuristic.
Interesting read, right?

Regards