Why Jews don't believe in Jesus

[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 reunite the Jews, the Jews were not even scattered when Jesus lived.

It has been explained that Jesus' mission was to the lost sheep of Israel and to gather them into one body. ( Acts 9:31, 21:20)

 

[Betho_br]

Are you even going to TRY to answer my question?

Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
John 3:10

 

[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 be Jewish... duh.

The first chapter of Matthew recounts the genealogy of Jesus in a very unusual, even disrespectful manner. The genealogy includes four Jewish matriarchs of "questionable" reputation, as women were not typically cited in genealogies. This reminds me of David's question about Bathsheba, which was answered as: "the wife of Uriah, your Hittite servant" (2 Samuel 11:3). It’s as if to say, "shame on you, while your people are fighting and you’re lounging in the palace desiring a married woman of your servant!" Similarly, these four women in the genealogy of Jesus serve to remind the Jews, since Matthew's letter was directed at them, that if they did not want to accept the virgin birth and the Holy Spirit of Jesus, at least they should respect Mary and Jesus's Jewish nationality. Note that there is even affront from 'Christians' in the translation of this chapter regarding the family of Jesus, but that is another matter.

 

[dybmh]

I think if the great Rebbe Zusche can learn from the Apikorsim, so can I.

Agreed.

t's like eating an orange. I suck out the juice, and spit out the pits.

Here, the Rebbe is practicing Judaism, because, he begins with the Torah which distinguishes between bitter ( the pits ) and sweet ( the juice ).

In regard to th Torah: @Jayhawker Soule only and always posts the pits ( Paganism / Division / Conflict / Criticism ) and attacks the sweet, neglects the sweet, denies the sweet ( Jewish monotheism ). And even if it's not religious content. Jay's posts are mean, vague, cold, name-calling, mockery, towards anyone who points out the faults in what was written. My reply was written to Jay. About Jay's lack of practice combined with his lack of belief.

It happens to almost anyone who is not practicing Judaism which is the method for reconciling seemingly contradictory concepts. This is precisely what is happening in the story of the Akeidah. But that lesson is erased and replaced if the reader splits the Torah into the product of separate sources with different Gods speaking to Abraham.

 

[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 will establish world peace and rule justly, Jesus did not do this.

Matthew 10:34 KJV
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

 

[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 will rule when the Torah is written in everyone's heart and all people acknowledge Hashem as G-d, Jesus did not do this.

Jesus did His part with the lost sheep of Israel (Acts 9:31, 21:20), and besides that, Jesus’ kingdom is metaphysical, not of this world.

It is evident that all the responses stem from a Christian Bible ("New Testament") scriptural perspective. I do not even say "Christian," and I have already expressed that I agree with the Jewish perspective of interpretation. However, in one case, there appears to be a clear extremity, but Psalm 110 is controversial.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In regard to th Torah: @Jayhawker Soule only and always posts the pits ( Paganism / Division / Conflict / Criticism ) and attacks the sweet, neglects the sweet, denies the sweet ( Jewish monotheism ). And even if it's not religious content. Jay's posts are mean, vague, cold, name-calling, mockery, towards anyone who points out the faults in what was written. My reply was written to Jay. About Jay's lack of practice combined with his lack of belief.

If only we could all be as loving as you.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

We see places in the Tanakh to say otherwise.

Can you give me some examples? We can move past Isaiah 53 since this passage is are not about the messiah.

That's how Jews interpret the Messianic figure , i understand that perfectly.I just don't agree with it.

Oh that's fine. I'm not really here to convince you or undermine your faith. I'm simply sharing my Jewish perspective.

If this was said by a Christian , it would be considered theologically wrong.

I'm not really sure what your religion is, but what I said was standard, mainstream Christian theology.

Jesus was not a Christian , he was a Jew.

Of course. Irrelevant. This is the first time in your post that you have responded to my text with a remark completely unrelated.

Jews considered that he was an apostate , but what does that mean?

Actually I don't consider him apostate at all. He was a Jew that practiced second temple Judaism. I see him as a fellow Jew like myself, brother J so to speak. I just don't see him as the messiah or God.

An apostate is a Jew who has converted to a foreign religion.

But these difference came up to be in post-Christ era.They were created after.

Erm, if we are comparing the Christian OT to the Jewish tanakh, of COURSE the Christian NT was created after the advent of Chrsitianity. I mean that is too obvious for words. Am I missing something? Is there a point in there somewhere?

That is what i am saying , the organization of books came up post-Christ era.

Do you mean the organization of the Tanakh? It is simply organized by which section was accepted as canon first. Thus, the Torah (the oldest section) is at the beginning. The prophets were accepted next, and are in the middle. And the Writings were accepted last, and are at the end.

The Works of Josephus
The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3

"3. (63) Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works-a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; (64) and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

We know that this passage was altered by Christians later in history. For example, Josephus never said that Jesus rose from the dead. Here is the original text as scholars have reconstructed it:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

Because they rejected Jesus as the Messiah and so they organized the Books according to their own interpretation.

I'm sorry, I really don't wish to be disrespectful to you. But that is just not the case. It may hurt your feelings a bit, but the truth is that Jesus was simply irrelevant to the Rabbis. Saying that Jews organized the books the way we did in order to deny that Jesus was the messiah is simply a narcissistic way of viewing things.

It doesnt matter who he is , what matters is that he confronted them , and they confronted him.

Are you referring to Jesus and the Pharisees? It is not clear.

It is part of Jewish tradition to debate the Law. Indeed among the Pharisees there were different schools that argued about how to interpret Torah. The teachings of Jesus are firmly in the camp of Hillel. The Sanhedrin at that time was governed by the school of Shammai. It is completely normal for Jesus to have had these debates. In fact, many such debates are recorded in the Talmud.

Neither your own sources?

Huh? I was talking about the inadequacy of translations and you bring up my "sources?" This is the second time in this post that you have replied to my comments with stuff that is entirely unrelated.

Yes , The Pharisees..

He argued the most with, corrected the most, and called out the Pharisees the most. He would not have done so if he didn't see them as the ones to minister to and correct. When the Temple was destroyed, the Sadducees were destroyed with it, and the Phrisees, no longer being 'separatists' (which is what Pharisee means,) became the Rabbis, and have remained so to this day.Jesus hardly bothered with the Saducees except on a couple of major occasions, mainly the resurrection of Lazarus (The sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead.)
He then harshly lampooned Caiaphas with the parable of the rich man. Caiaphas had 5 brothers in law, and everyone knew he was talking about the temple gate. 'Your brothers have the law; if they don't believe that, the dead rising sure won't convince them!' I suspect Jesus had his audience rolling on the floor laughing. They all knew what he was talking about.He also harshly shaded the Sadducees and gave tacit approval to the Essenes by getting baptized by John son of Zachariah, as the Essenes claimed legitimate priesthood-in-exile over the Sadducees who were installed by the Empire into the Temple. Jesus legitimized John the Baptist was the rightful Cohen, and having him administring the Baptism using, of all things, the Jordan, way out in the countryside, as his Mikvah, was a prophesy of doom against the Temple.
Jesus may not have been a lawyer of the Pharisees, and he hammered them for being bad guides to the laity, but he agreed with them on doctrine of the prophets' inspiration (the sadducees only acknowledged Torah), doing what he could to pry away their burdensome oral additions to it. (which would later become the Talmud.)

The Sadducees were destroyed with the Temple, and the Zealots, Sicarii and Essenes were snuffed out by the Empire. The Pharisees inherited what was left.

This is the third time that you have replied to my text with information that is unrelated. My comments were about how only the Writings were added to the Jewish canon after Jesus time, and instead of replying to that, you have waxed eloquent on the Pharisees etc.

Some events in Acts are dated very early.

Because it is not uncommon for someone to write about things in the past, even the distant past.

Acts is letters , it is not a Book.

No, it is not a letter. It is a narrative, a story. This narrative was written to Theophilus. That doesn't make it a letter.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Why would they not be letters if the events are dated that early?

Again, people commonly write about things in the past. Go to Amazon and you will find books written in the last couple years on the Kennedy assassination, the Civil War, and the Protestant Reformation.

They were persecuted group among Jews in that time.We can confirm that with Paul.

This is the fourth time you responded with something irrelevant to what I said.

The Bible is what came after , 3 centuries later.

We agree on this. It was three centuries later that these books were canonized. They were not written three centuries later.

Name what overrides it.

I gave you two examples. You are free to go back and read them again, and you are free to research further examples on your own.

Without knowing who are they , i can tell you they have all been answered.

I'm supposed to take this seriously?

Theology has nothing to do with dating of texts.

Yes, it does.

Kontex it what matters.
The events are described as eye-witness accounts.

None of the NT is eye witness accounts.

I repeat , they are not a Book , they are letters among the Early Church.

Any long written literary composition can be called a book, including long letters. It is standard English to refer to the epistles as books. You don't have to like ti.

Acts is considered sequel of Luke because of Acts 1

"In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen."

Paul arrived in Rome 58AD
Paul remained in custody for 2 more years (Acts 28:30) which brings us up to AD 60 for the end of the book of Acts.
Paul died 64/65 AD , Peter died 64 AD.
If their death is not mentioned then Acts was written as whole sonewhere between 60AD - 64 AD.
That is 4 year gap.
That alone tells that Luke is before that.
We can say for sure that Luke is written before 60AD.
That is what these 'schollars' don't tell ya all.

Again, you are not being rational. Just because Acts talks about the journeys of Paul doesn't mean it was written at the same time that Paul was alive.

Exactly , you see how you know,the second text.
I think you will understand now why Luke is dated before 60AD.

The book of Luke was written between 80 and 90 CE.

By far, Luke 21:5-33 clearly demonstrate that these verses, which parallel Matt. 24:4-35 and Mark 13:5-31, are prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple

They are not later writings.
They predict , which means before the destruction.

No one can predict future events. If the text references the destruction of the Temple, that is proof it was written after the fact.

Most scholars believe that Paul actually wrote seven of the thirteen Pauline epistles (Galatians, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philemon, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians), while three of the epistles in Paul's name are widely seen as pseudepigraphic (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus).
But this is just another b*****.
Paul does not have to write an epistile , they can be atributed to his name.

This is the fifth time you have replied to something I've said with information that is unrelated. Can you see why this tendency might drive me a little nuts?

Please give me reference link and i will read it

The outline of Acts can be roughly divided into two parts: the mission under Peter, centred in Jerusalem (chapters 1–12); and the missions to the Gentiles all the way to Rome (cf. chapter 1, verse 8), under the leadership of Paul (chapters 13–28).

Biblical literature - Acts, History, Christianity | Britannica

Biblical literature - Acts, History, Christianity: The outline of Acts can be roughly divided into two parts: the mission under Peter, centred in Jerusalem (chapters 1–12); and the missions to the Gentiles all the way to Rome (cf. chapter 1, verse 8), under the leadership of Paul (chapters...

www.britannica.com

Acts can be neatly divided into two sections, the first dealing primarily with the ministry of Peter in Jerusalem and Samaria (Acts 1–12) and the second following Paul on his missionary journeys throughout the Roman Empire (Acts 13–28).

Book of Acts Overview - Insight for Living Ministries

insight.org

Not a reliable source? Who says that and where is the evidence for that ?

It is the consensus of scholars. It is a topic too broad to go into detail here. I've read it in more than one book, but don't recall their titles (i've read a gazillion books in my life). If you are asking what the scholarly criteria for historical reliability is, I would say that a general rule of thumb is that miraculous stories are not accepted as history. Also, later writings that contradict earlier writings are viewed as unreliable.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..It's the 613 mitzvot, not the 613 suggestions. Once you start picking and choosing you may as well not bother at all.

Oh, really?
What's the point of taking heed of them, in the first place? For idle amusement?
I think you know well, that some sins are more serious than others.

..and yes .. my name is 'Muhammad Jesus' .. so don't be surprised with my stance on the subject.
You really should familiarize yourself with other major religions, and cease 'not caring'.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

YHWH is translated to Kyrios in Koine.

YHWH is a name. Lord is a title.

While the meaning of YHWH is not clear, scholars do say that it may mean "He will be." It certainly doesn't mean lord.

There is a Jewish tradition that when we read YHWH aloud, we used Adonai (lord) as a way to avoid careless using the divine name in a casual manner. Similarly, when we compose an English translation, we substitute the word Lord for the same reason.

Yes , that was decided in post-Christ era.

You are really stuck on that. It is not the case.

You seem to have this overarching Idea that Jews were freaked out by Christianity and so did all sorts of things from changing the order of books to composing whole new interpretations just to spite christian teachings. I'm sorry but that sort of depiction of Jews as being deceitful in this way is just mean spirited.

When i read Daniel i read something totally different from what you say.

I don't know what to tell you. It seems obvious at face value to me.

It's not miracle as miracle itself.
It was how he was born.
It was the eye-witnesses of the ressurection.
Luke' source was probably Marry.
It's all of that and more combined.

Luke didn't write the gospel of Luke. He compiled it from several different prior books.

You are obviously accepting the myths in Luke as history. I don't. No one is born of a virgin, and people don't come back from the dead.

If I showed you how we have manuscripts of pagan stories depicting virgin births, would you accept them as historical? Why not?

That's his ministry
His ministry was oriented towards world-wide peace.Except with evil , there is no peace with evil.
If we wait an era of world-wide peace , damned be we...

I'm sorry, but the prophecy is not about some sort of ministry towards peace. The prophecy is that the Messiah will actually bring about REAL worldwide peace. It is not some sort of spiritual peace. It is peace between the nations. Jesus didn't do it.

I you want to give the common Christian response that "Oh, but he will do it when he comes back," my response is, when that happens THEN you can tell me he is the messiah, but not before.

We say they were lost in the persecution of the earl Church , which is also highly probable.

No one says that. In a world where manuscripts were handwritten, copies were very few and far between, and usually got lost or accidently destroyed.

Not true

Listen , 18 minutes of your time.

Sorry, i don't have 18 minutes. I've already devoted almost two hours replying to two very very long posts by you. it's Sunday. In the future, I will likely no have the same time.

What are the names of these schollars?
Any published text?

Lots of them. Have you ever heard of google?

 

[YoursTrue]

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

Hello @Ebionite. Is that what you mean?

 

[Jimmy]

What an asinine statement. It's the 613 mitzvot, not the 613 suggestions. Once you start picking and choosing you may as well not bother at all.

You could use a little respect when talking to people. Real classy.

 

[YoursTrue]

Jesus did His part with the lost sheep of Israel (Acts 9:31, 21:20), and besides that, Jesus’ kingdom is metaphysical, not of this world.

It is evident that all the responses stem from a Christian Bible ("New Testament") scriptural perspective. I do not even say "Christian," and I have already expressed that I agree with the Jewish perspective of interpretation. However, in one case, there appears to be a clear extremity, but Psalm 110 is controversial.

Just to say, where I live there is a big picture of M. Schneerson, perhaps you know about him. How do you feel about him, and for @Eliana I have a question also -- are they still watching his gravesite to see if he'll come up out of the ground?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
John 3:10

Okay, i give up. It's apparently your thing to simply quote verses that have absolutely no relationship to the discussion. I'm moving on.

 

[Eliana]

The first chapter of Matthew...

What part of "I don't give a flying fig what the bible says" are you not computing?

 

[Eliana]

You could use a little respect when talking to people. Real classy.

I treat people as good as they treat me. Telling a religiously observant person, Jew or otherwise, that their religion has shortcomings and they don't need to 100% it is incredibly ignorant and not welcome. Neither HaShem nor his word have "shortcomings" and I take comments like that as denigration of the G-d and the Torah.

 

[Jimmy]

I treat people as good as they treat me. Telling a religiously observant person, Jew or otherwise, that their religion has shortcomings and they don't need to 100% it is incredibly ignorant and not welcome. Neither HaShem nor his word have "shortcomings" and I take comments like that as denigration of the G-d and the Torah.

Oh, I forgot to include in my opinion when I wrote that. I usually do that. If I had done that, would you still have been offended?

 

[Betho_br]

What part of "I don't give a flying fig what the bible says" are you not computing?

You mentioned several important aspects related to Jesus in your first message:

- Faith in Jesus
- The genealogical lineage of Jesus
- The life of Jesus
- The nationality of Jesus
- The mission of Jesus
- The government of Jesus

You posted your perspective, and I posted mine. The forum is public, as far as I know.

In addition to this, you gave a lesson on authentic Christianity, so your post is very antagonistic.

 

[Eliana]

Oh, I forgot to include in my opinion when I wrote that. I usually do that. If I had done that, would you still have been offended?

Look dude, I don't expect people to believe in Judaism, the Tanakh, the Talmud and so on. My late husband was a Christian and didn't believe in the Talmud either, but he was always respectful in that space and I in his. I don't care what the bible says, the Quran and so on and happily state that. What I don't do, at least not purposely, is denigrate those that do by saying their scriptures are lying or otherwise invalid (to them). Telling me my scriptures are flawed/invalid/whatever as if it was an undisputed fact absolutely honks me off.

They ARE invalid TO ME, and I have no problem saying such, but I understand they're important to those who do believe. I recognise I am snarky... usually when people don't respect my boundaries, ask me to repeat myself or act in a way I believe is dishonest.

I try hard to respect the person... I despise Messianic Judaism, Jews for Jesus, Islam, American Evangelical Christianity, but I don't despise the people. Someone can think the Talmud is total bunk and even tell me they think as such, and I'm not going to be offended as long as they aren't denigrating me, HaShem or his word as I believe it to be.

When I discuss my beliefs with Christians/Muslims you'll notice I never cite the Talmud to them... because they don't believe it or accept it ergo it's a waste of time. The only time I reference it is if I am speaking for my own beliefs and why. When people cite the bible to me I can't stand it because they already know I couldn't care less. I won't even debate the bible or the Quran except in comparison to the Tankah, because I don't believe them anyway ergo I have no personal stake. I won't debate if Jesus existed, if Muhammad really saw Gabriel or anything like that because it's moot to me.

People are people, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, pagans, whatever, and they deserve respect for their basic humanity and as children of G-d. That doesn't mean I'll put up with any of the pernicious behaviour noted above and I'll call it out as I see it.