Why Jews don't believe in Jesus

[Jayhawker Soule]

Modern day Judaism isn't Abraham or Moses, it's Alexander and the Pharisees.

Well, so much for Rambam and ibn Ezra and Ramban and Rashi and Karo and the Baal Shem Tov and Geiger and Buber and Rosenzweig and ...

 

[dybmh]

Such a good reason you can't wait to not tell me?

Think about it. Why was the genealogy omitted from Mark if they had it? Why don't the genealogies match?

It's as if the Church fathers didn't even know that the Jewish Moshiach needed to be "the branch of Jesse". Then the missionaries went out with the first original Gospel of Mark, and no one bought it. The missionaries report back to HQ, "They need his lineage. Everyone's asking."
Then, in the next version of the Gospels which came out after Mark, they magically have the lineage. In Matthew it's right at the beginning. And most agree, Matthew is a book written to convince Jews.

That, to me, is plausible. The genealogies were added, not because they're true. They're added because no one would believe it otherwise.

 

[dybmh]

Why was Israel formed? The nation, its laws?

It's Yisrael.

Why? To reveal the wisdom of The Most High God by living a balanced life of inclusion, not exclusion. Doing so, all of us Jews, all at the same time will be a real and undeniable miracle. Thus proving God's existence once and for all.

Achieving this lofty ambition will require more than love. We Jews will struggle and suffer, but, we will eventually triumph, just as Jacob triumphed after battling all night with Esau's angel which is the origin story of our name: Yisrael.

 

[Betho_br]

It's Yisrael.

Why? To reveal the wisdom of The Most High God by living a balanced life of inclusion, not exclusion. Doing so, all of us Jews, all at the same time will be a real and undeniable miracle. Thus proving God's existence once and for all.

Achieving this lofty ambition will require more than love. We Jews will struggle and suffer, but, we will eventually triumph, just as Jacob triumphed after battling all night with Esau's angel which is the origin story of our name: Yisrael.

Thank you for your response. I encounter difficulties with these types of historical questions.

 

[dybmh]

Thank you for your response. I encounter difficulties with these types of historical questions.

You're very welcome.

 

[dybmh]

the Pharisees.

The one known as Paul was a pharisee. What's written in the epistles is from them. It's their secrets, particularly Phil 2, that eventually made their way into the Gospel of John. That's everyone's favorite.

 

[I Am Hugh]

The one known as Paul was a pharisee. What's written in the epistles is from them. It's their secrets, particularly Phil 2, that eventually made their way into the Gospel of John. That's everyone's favorite.

He was also a Jew, of course, and a Christian. Most of the early Christians were at least 2 of the 3.

 

[Spice]

The one known as Paul was a pharisee. What's written in the epistles is from them. It's their secrets, particularly Phil 2, that eventually made their way into the Gospel of John. That's everyone's favorite.

Not "everyone's." My least favorite Gospel and I'm not a big fan of Paul.

 

[dybmh]

Not "everyone's." My least favorite Gospel and I'm not a big fan of Paul.

Sorry for exaggerating. I did a poll here once and John was the favorite by far. Also in my conversations offline everyone seems to like it the most. But, I'll be more careful with those sort of statements. Sorry. I got carried away, in my enthusiasm.

 

[dybmh]

He was also a Jew, of course, and a Christian. Most of the early Christians were at least 2 of the 3.

Ok...

Modern day Judaism isn't Abraham or Moses, it's Alexander and the Pharisees

You're wrong about this. Modern Judaism has run away from the Pharisees, possibly to a fault. It's much more accurate to say that Christianity is the Pharisees because Christian theology comes from Paul the Pharisee who wrote the epistles.

If you have a problem with the Pharisees, you should have a problem with the Gospel of John and the epistles. So? Do you?

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

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.

The reasons that you have listed are all false. There is no reason why Messiah should be from David's line or from the tribe of Judah. Messiahs are not limited by human beings. So, what human beings think does not bind the Messiah's. Messiah's have to take their own call as to where they will come. Messiah must build the temple but your assumption that Messiah must rebuild the temple, he must unite the Jews, must be Jewish are all unfounded and hence your OP itself is based on very flimsy considerations.

 

[1213]

You have to drill down into what the verse references to see it.

God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
Romans 3:4

I think the point of Paul is to say that rather all people are liars than God would be a liar. I don't think he is saying that all people are liar, although it could be that all people have lied.

 

[1213]

Feel free to scan this if you wish, but the question is not relevant. We're not talking about my view of sin but about Christianity's concept of original sin and Judaism's rejection of that view.

I think it is relevant, because it is the only way to see is the Christian view really different. And it is interesting that many Christians say the same, "missing target".

But, because the word sin is vague, I think it would be better to speak about the meanings that are used. For example the case of A&E, Jews I assume accept the story in Genesis. In the story A&E rejects God. If that is called the original sin, the disagreement is only in how it is called, not in the action itself.

 

[Ebionite]

I think the point of Paul is to say that rather all people are liars than God would be a liar. I don't think he is saying that all people are liar, although it could be that all people have lied.

Romans 3 lays the groundwork for Paul's doctrine of original sin:

What then? are we better [than they]? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
Romans 3:9

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Romans 5:12

If your argument were correct, then why would Paul refer to Psalm 51 with 'it is written'?

 

[1213]

Romans 3 lays the groundwork for Paul's doctrine of original sin:

What then? are we better [than they]? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
Romans 3:9

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Romans 5:12

If your argument were correct, then why would Paul refer to Psalm 51 with 'it is written'?

Sorry, I don't understand why do you think he is referring to Psalm 51.

 

[RabbiO]

The reasons that you have listed are all false. There is no reason why Messiah should be from David's line or from the tribe of Judah. Messiahs are not limited by human beings. So, what human beings think does not bind the Messiah's. Messiah's have to take their own call as to where they will come. Messiah must build the temple but your assumption that Messiah must rebuild the temple, he must unite the Jews, must be Jewish are all unfounded and hence your OP itself is based on very flimsy considerations.

A little ways back, in another thread, I noted that from what you had presented on the forum you really are ignorant about Jews and Judaism. You referred me to an article that you thought might change my mind about your level of understanding. It did not and your comments here only cement my opinion.

 

[Betho_br]

The one known as Paul was a pharisee. What's written in the epistles is from them. It's their secrets, particularly Phil 2, that eventually made their way into the Gospel of John. That's everyone's favorite.

"Who, though He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped." Philippians 2:6

In the context of Philippi, a city experiencing a shift from Greek to Roman religious practices, this verse might have been understood in light of the evolving religious landscape....

 

[dybmh]

"Who, though He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped." Philippians 2:6

In the context of Philippi, a city experiencing a shift from Greek to Roman religious practices, this verse might have been understood in light of the evolving religious landscape....

It's truly-truly-true. It's true in multiple ways, and on multiple levels. Here on earth, and in the heavens.

 

[metis]

Romans 3 lays the groundwork for Paul's doctrine of original sin:

What then? are we better [than they]? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
Romans 3:9

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Romans 5:12

If your argument were correct, then why would Paul refer to Psalm 51 with 'it is written'?

"Original sin" has been very controversial since how could a newborn have "original sin" if it's never made immoral choices? There's a lot of Christian commentary with plenty of disagreement on this.

 

[metis]

But, because the word sin is vague, I think it would be better to speak about the meanings that are used. For example the case of A&E, Jews I assume accept the story in Genesis.

Many think the Creation and Fall narratives are myths for teaching purposes, thus not falsehoods.