Why Jews don't believe in Jesus

[Kenny]

I would actually argue that this statement is not really true. I would reword it in the following way.

Let's agree, that the Hebrew Tanakh of the Jews is considered scripture by Christians - that is by way of translation. The Tanakh: the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Ketuvim of the Jews is respected by Christians, BUT most Christians in the world are taught to engage the Tanakh by way of "tailored" Christian translations (commonly called the Bible) and also by using the exegesis of the New Testament. For Jews, there are a larger number of Jews who engage in the Tanakh in Hebrew, the language it was written in. Due to Jews, more than naught, having the ability to engage the Tanakh in the language it was written in and Jews being descedants of those mentioned in the texts as well as those Israelis / Jews who preserved it - Jews have the ability to engage the Tanakh in ways that most Christians have no access to.​

​

It is because of the above that the vast majority of Jews, throughout history, do not engage in the new testament in terms of study, belief, or even consideration of relevance. With this being said, most Jews do not have any concept of or interest in trying to convert Christians out of Christianity. Most Jews also have no concept of trying to convince Christians about anything.​

​

This, I think is a better summary.

I hope that helps.

There are, of course, exceptions but by and large, absolutely true!

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Totally! Would it be correct to see Ruth and Rahab as Jewish ?

After they converted to the Torah, yes.

Yet, you have to remember that during their time Ruth converted to the Torah and married Boaz who was from the tribe of Yehudah, so she would have been considered a Yisraeli who married among the tribe of Yehudah.

Rahav converted to the Torah and according to some sources, married Yehoshua bin-Nun (Joshua) and he was from the tribe of Ephrayim son of Yoseph (Joseph), for that generation she would have been a Yisraeli who married among the tribe of Ephrayim. In the Talmud, it is stated that a number of well known Israeli prophets descended from her.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

There are, of course, exceptions bu,t by and large, absolutely true!

This is true. Most of the exceptions, from the Christian side of things, would be Christians who either a) live here in Israel where Hebrew is the national language or b) a small number of Christian scholars / pastors who learn elements of the Tanakh in Hebrew.

 

[Kenny]

This is true. Most of the exceptions, from the Christian side of things, would be Christians who either a) live here in Israel where Hebrew is the national language or b) a small number of Christian scholars / pastors who learn elements of the Tanakh in Hebrew.

Along with those exceptions who are Jewish and have received Yeshua as their Messiah.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Along with those exceptions who are Jewish and have received Yeshua as their Messiah.

That is a very small number though, and those people by and large either a) come form questionable Jewish backgrounds or b) did not grow up in a Torah based environment.

In some ways, what ever "Jewish ancestry" they have (realistically or theoretically) doesn't have any bearing in them knowing Hebrew or knowing anything about Tanakh outside of what they received as a Christian by way of the Christian Bible.

 

[Coder]

Some Jewish people today, may see some rabbinic validity in teachings that Christians ascribe to Jesus. However, the influences of the Roman Empire and Greco-Roman adaptations in Christianity, are too far away from Jewish monotheism. This may be true for even the early Jewish followers of Jesus, who considered that this new religion is no longer a movement in monotheistic Judaism.

I wonder if a congregation of Jews that is from the original Jewish followers of Jesus, exists today? Unlikely, I imagine.

I accept the beauty and power of much of what I consider to be authentic teachings of Jesus.

However, as a post-trinitarian, I have much more in common with our Jewish friends, regarding monotheism. I encourage all Christians to reconsider whether they truly believe the trinity or believe it only because it was taught to them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I wonder if a congregation of Jews that is from the original Jewish followers of Jesus, exists today?

They would have to be very, very old.

 

[Brian2]

Some Jewish people today, may see some rabbinic validity in teachings that Christians ascribe to Jesus. However, the influences of the Roman Empire and Greco-Roman adaptations in Christianity, are too far away from Jewish monotheism. This may be true for even the early Jewish followers of Jesus, who considered that this new religion is no longer a movement in monotheistic Judaism.

I wonder if a congregation of Jews that is from the original Jewish followers of Jesus, exists today? Unlikely, I imagine.

I accept the beauty and power of much of what I consider to be authentic teachings of Jesus.

However, as a post-trinitarian, I have much more in common with our Jewish friends, regarding monotheism. I encourage all Christians to reconsider whether they truly believe the trinity or believe it only because it was taught to them.

What does a post-trinitarian say about Jesus?
Why do you accept as authentic only part of the teachings of Jesus?

 

[Coder]

Why do you accept as authentic only part of the teachings of Jesus?

These are ascribed to Jesus in the Christian Bible and are valid and holy rabbinic teachings:
"Love your enemies"
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Some other teachings fit adaptation narratives for Greco-Roman polytheists

Example: personification of "holy spirt" concept
Supports the resultant trinity explanation of Jesus as a form of "God".
Also fits Greco-Roman polytheistic "god" concepts.

"Although in Jewish scripture the Holy Spirit is never presented as a person..."

https://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01021998_p-24_en.html

Zoroastrianism: "Holy Spirt": "source of life", "emanates"
Roman Christianity: "Holy Spirt": "giver of life", "proceeds"

Example: "Our Father" prayer, "Father in Heaven", Jupiter ('pater', father) "Father in the Heavens" (Sky)
Jesus ascended into the "sky" to his Father (another Jupiter adaptation)

Some other teachings fit adaptation narratives for Roman religion unification of Greco-Roman polytheists and Judaism.
Example: Jesus is depicted as confirming Peter's declaration that Jesus is "son of God" and "Messiah"
"son of God" fits Greco-Roman "gods" and "sons of of gods" including emperors who were declared "divinity" and "divi filius"
"Messiah" fits Judaism needs
Tying both together in one, with Jesus as both, unites Greco-Roman and Jewish religion

 

[paarsurrey]

Why Jews don't believe in Jesus

post-trinitarian

Friend, I couldn't get what is a post-trinitarian v trinitarian , right, please??

Regards
________________

My English grammar voluntary "teacher" @IndigoChild5559 , please

 

[paarsurrey]

Why Jews don't believe in Jesus

This may be true for even the early Jewish followers of Jesus, who considered that this new religion is no longer, a movement in monotheistic Judaism.

When did they realize, right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Why Jews don't believe in Jesus

I accept the beauty and power of much of what I consider to be authentic teachings of Jesus.

I don't get any "authentic teachings of Jesus" in first person from him, all are third person narrations by anonymous narrators named after Matthew, Mark and John for credulity and others from the self-made apostle Saul aka Paul to deceive the simple minded followers* of (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah, (who never was a Zionist and or from the stock of Juda aka a Jew, right, please?
(Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah when migrated after the event of Crucifixion , secretly from Galilee to East where the diaspora lived, did not and could not take them along and they were left behind in a shock and frustrated, right, please?
Mary and most of the Twelve joined him later, however, right, please?

Regards

 

[Brian2]

Why Jews don't believe in Jesus

I don't get any "authentic teachings of Jesus" in first person from him, all are third person narrations by anonymous narrators named after Matthew, Mark and John for credulity and others from the self-made apostle Saul aka Paul to deceive the simple minded followers* of (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah, (who never was a Zionist and or from the stock of Juda aka a Jew, right, please?

And yet you keep wanting to see what Jesus said from a red letter Bible.

(Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah when migrated after the event of Crucifixion , secretly from Galilee to East where the diaspora lived, did not and could not take them along and they were left behind in a shock and frustrated, right, please?
Mary and most of the Twelve joined him later, however, right, please?

Regards

Even in a red letter Bible you reject what Jesus said and prefer to make up your own stories and believe them, or believe stories that others who have rejected the Jesus of the gospels have made up.

 

[JameScott]

I would actually argue that this statement is not really true. I would reword it in the following way.

Let's agree, that the Hebrew Tanakh of the Jews is considered scripture by Christians - that is by way of translation. The Tanakh: the Torah, the Nevi'im, and the Ketuvim of the Jews is respected by Christians, BUT most Christians in the world are taught to engage the Tanakh by way of "tailored" Christian translations (commonly called the Bible) and also by using the exegesis of the New Testament. For Jews, there are a larger number of Jews who engage in the Tanakh in Hebrew, the language it was written in. Due to Jews, more than naught, having the ability to engage the Tanakh in the language it was written in and Jews being descedants of those mentioned in the texts as well as those Israelis / Jews who preserved it - Jews have the ability to engage the Tanakh in ways that most Christians have no access to.​

​

It is because of the above that the vast majority of Jews, throughout history, do not engage in the new testament in terms of study, belief, or even consideration of relevance. With this being said, most Jews do not have any concept of or interest in trying to convert Christians out of Christianity. Most Jews also have no concept of trying to convince Christians about anything.​

​

This, I think is a better summary.

I hope that helps.

Thank you for your thoughts on this.; I need to respond to the gist of your reply. You state that the Bible (Christian translation) is a 'tailored' translation. You seem to assert that language is a point of divergence between the Jews and the Christian. You said, "Jews have the ability to engage the Tanakh in ways that most Christians have no access to". I ask you simply. Is this true? I don't think so. Here, you may have to clarify what you mean by Christian. If by Christian you mean Christianity as a religion including various denominations in this group, you have cast your net so far and wide, and missed what it means to be a Christian. Let me get back to this later.

You stated that the Bible is a "tailored" translation of the Tanakh. Again I ask you. Is this the truth? You may have to get into a deeper discussion to defend this point, but there is no need because we know what is in the Bible. We also know what is in the Tanakh. But when it comes the new testament, as you rightly said, the Jews do not engage. But Why not?

Which Part of the Bible stems from another tradition, from a foreign religion or belief in another God. Is the God of Abraham Isaac, and Jacob different from the one of the Bible, is the bible about another God the Christians do not know about? Is the God of the Old testament different from the one of the new?
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.

Back to the point of what it means to be Christian, The Christian faith, like the Jewish faith, is a more God-orchestrated concept than a man-made one. If this is true, then there is need to reconcile the two faiths, and the more reason for the Jews to engage with it to identify the truth of the matter.

Consider Paul, he wrote much of the new Testament. What is his story.
Was he not a Jew who hated Christians for the same reason Jews do not engage with the New testament?
Why did He change his mind?
What did he come to realise that made him change so radically to the point that he died for what he believed? I think there has got to be some truth to something if a man is willing to change his whole theology and be willing to die for it. I think it is important to consider what he says and examining his writings.

Why is conversion a concept in Christianity? One answer, love. If what Paul taught was true, then the neighbour principle is automatically triggered for the person who possess that knowledge.

This I believe responds to the matters you raised. Why your rewording of my statement needs further revision.

 

[John D. Brey]

The Messiah must be from David's line and from the tribe of Judah, Jesus was not.

If I'm not mistaken, inheritance can come through adoption (Jesus is adopted by Joseph). Nevertheless, if Jesus is born of a virgin, that situation is so unique that I wouldn't be too confident applying the rules for all we b--tards conceived through the original sin of phallic-sex to someone born in an utterly unique manner.

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.

All of these are addressed in the Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 2:4, 11:

The Rebbis say: This King Messiah, if he is from the living, his name is David. If he is from the dead, his name is David. Rebbi Tanḥuma said: I am declaring the reason (Ps. 18:51) “He gives kindness to His anointed, to David." ​

​

[Note given to the passage above in Sefaria]: The previous discussion ended with the verse from Hosea, which indicates that in Messianic times all twelve tribes will seek their king David; it is clear that Hosea talks about the Messiah and calls him David. This gives rise to an insertion about the Messiah in this and the next paragraph. The second argument is more explicit in the Babli, Sanhedrin 98b, where for the first case a verse in Jeremiah (30:9) is cited: “They shall serve the Eternal, their God, and their king David whom I shall raise for them” which also is written in the future tense. The second case, that the original David will be resurrected as Messiah, is based on a verse in Ezechiel (34:24) “I, the Eternal, shall be for them their God, and My servant David prince in their midst”, seems to refer to the historical David in Messianic times. The Babylonian Talmud points out that a prince is less than a king and, therefore, the new King Messiah will have the status of a Roman Augustus whereas the resurrected David will occupy the position of Caesar, or Crown Prince. In any case, the next paragraph makes is quite clear that the Messiah was born on the day of the destruction of the Temple and that, therefore, nobody with a recorded date of birth can ever be considered as Messiah. There is no reason to believe that the Babli would disagree with this conclusion. ​

In both Talmuds, and midrashim in general, it's taught that Messiah can be "raised" (Jeremiah 30:9) from a dead Jew. Ergo, Jesus may have performed certain aspects of Messiah (as son of Joseph) in his first advent, leaving the ones you list above (related to son of David) for when he takes on his post-resurrection mission.

In addition to the views in the Talmud affirming a potential Messiah in each generation, two Talmudic texts offer another possibility, one that expands the net of candidates to include the possibility that the Messiah will come from the dead. . . . On the basis of these passages, Don Isaac Abarbanel (fifteenth century) suggests that belief in a resurrected righteous person becoming Messiah is acceptable . . ..​

​

Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, Rebbe, p .419.​

Sanhedrin 98b, 15:

Rav Naḥman says: If the Messiah is among the living in this generation, he is a person such as me, who already has dominion over the Jewish people, as it is stated: “And their prince shall be of themselves, and their governor shall proceed from their midst” (Jeremiah 30:21), indicating that the redeemer is already in power. Rav says: If the Messiah is among the living in this generation, he is a person such as our saintly Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who was renowned for his sanctity, piety, and Torah knowledge. If the Messiah is among the dead he is a person such as Daniel, the beloved man.​

John

 

[Coder]

I believe:

If I'm not mistaken, inheritance can come through adoption (Jesus is adopted by Joseph).

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,..."

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Thank you for your thoughts on this.; I need to respond to the gist of your reply. You state that the Bible (Christian translation) is a 'tailored' translation. You seem to assert that language is a point of divergence between the Jews and the Christian.

Yes, the Hebrew text and what it means in its original language and context is different than what one gets out of a translation, especially since translation is a type of commentary and commentaries are only as good as the translators ability or desire to translate either a) word for word or b) attempting to convey both the meaning of words and the meaning of statements based on the people / culture the text is derived from.

When it comes to these matters, most Jews and Christians are on two different planets when it comes to this matter. Yet, for the most part Jews have no concept of trying to convince Christians to accept the Jewish Tanakh in Hebrew or even the transmission that has taken place for thousand of years within diaspora Jewish communities. The other added layer is that in all diaspora Jewish communities one can Jews who are direct descendants of the peoples mentioned in the Hebrew Tanakh, which is something one doesn't find for the most part in the Christian world.

 

[John D. Brey]

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

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. For instance, David's male line is contaminated with the Coniah curse so that Jesus' virgin birth kind of miraculously deals with the fact that only David's matriarchal line can seat a King so that he's not affected by Jeconiah and the curse come from him.

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".

My studies convince me that there has been a Gospel-like religion from the beginning of modern man (starting with Adam) and that the dynamics of the truth of this religion have gotten distorted through the ages and the separation of peoples. Yes Christianity is pagan to the core. Yes, peoples have circumcised themselves long before Abraham's day:

In their religions all peoples have several similarities which coincide, such as sacrifices, lights, incense, fastings, offertories and, among others, the condemnation of this act [that is, the act of sexual intercourse]. All their opinions come to it, not to mention the widespread practice of cutting off the foreskin which is a punishment for it.8​

​

Montaigne quoted in Shaye J. D. Cohen. Why Aren't Jewish Women Circumcised?: Gender and Covenant in Judaism (p. 6). Kindle Edition.​

Based on the words of Montaigne, is it so hard to imagine that sexual intercourse is the original sin, such that Abraham ritually removes the offending organ such that Jesus' conception without it has a light shown on it by Abraham's ritual? 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?



John

 

[Ehav4Ever]

You said, "Jews have the ability to engage the Tanakh in ways that most Christians have no access to". I ask you simply. Is this true?

Yes, it is true. All one has to do is survey how many Christians can read / understand / translate ancient Hebrew and Aramaic. Further, if one goes through Christian history for the last 2,000 years one can look and see how many Christians had the ability to read / understand / translate ancient Hebrew and Aramaic. Then one goes and does the same kind of survey among Jews. How many Jews, in any given city, can read / understand / translate ancient Hebrew and Aramaic and how many could do so for the last 3,000 + years. One finds that given that Hebrew and Aramaic are ancestral languages of Israelis / Jews and given that an entire country exists where Hebrew is the national language one finds a larger percentage of Jews with this kind of background.

The Christians who have this access are normally limited to a) Christian Biblical Scholars who only interact with the languages as a part of their occupation and within the limits of the contexts b) a minority of Christians who live in Israel and picked up the language due to the Jewish presence that made the language the national lanugage of the state of Israel or c) an even smaller number of Christian hobbiests.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Here, you may have to clarify what you mean by Christian. If by Christian you mean Christianity as a religion including various denominations in this group, you have cast your net so far and wide, and missed what it means to be a Christian.

I define Christian as anyone who defines themselves as a Christian.

If there is a Christian who doesn't consider someone who calls themselves a Christian to be a Christian, I have no stake in that matter. If someone is a Christian and they consider people who have never been Christian or do not define themselves as Christian be a Christian, well that is strange and I also have no stake in addressing such a person.