The jewish messiah

[kerwin]

Here is a English translation of the Great Isaiah Scroll version of Isaiah 53.

It is one of the earliest if not the earliest known manuscripts.

[gollamudi]

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 19 2009,20:30)

gollamudi, The deceptions of these false Jews you seem to locate boor me.  I would rather discus what you find in the Old Testament as regards the Anointed One as you false Jewish sources lack credibility.

Hi brother Kerwin,
I find you are so much against my posts. But you see the otherside of the truth. Even you preach Jesus is not God as well as never preexisted. So where do you find such material when many christians like WJ,Nick,T8 and others support most of such doctrines?

[kerwin]

Quote (gollamudi @ Nov. 21 2009,11:56)

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 19 2009,20:30) gollamudi, The deceptions of these false Jews you seem to locate boor me.  I would rather discus what you find in the Old Testament as regards the Anointed One as you false Jewish sources lack credibility. Hi brother Kerwin, I find you are so much against my posts. But you see the otherside of the truth. Even you preach Jesus is not God as well as never preexisted. So where do you find such material when many christians like WJ,Nick,T8 and others support most of such doctrines?

They are in the bible.  One just has to be guided by God to understand it correctly.  Too many seem to go on the traditions they have been taught.  I hope they win free.

I find the false Jewish sources you use are the same.  Satan is tricky in his schemes.

Have you considered the Gabriel Stone and how it speaks of the Messiah being a suffering servant even though it was engraved before the time of Jesus.  It was mistaken in its interpretation of prophecy as it believed the Messiah would be militant but look at how some represent the Anti Christ in the Jewish-Christian religion today.

[gollamudi]

I personally believe that the virgin birth problems are the biggest proofs against the idea that Jesus was “God in the flesh”, and in my opinion that idea disproves Jesus being the Messiah as well. BUT, there are plenty of other issues that I have with the whole concept of Jesus being God/Messiah, besides the virgin birth.

I have a couple of questions for all of you

1) If Jesus was born of a virgin, and not of Joseph, then how can you justify Jesus sitting on David’s throne, without being blood-related? (And if you believe THAT is metaphoric as well, then why was God so specific in the requirements He made for Israel’s kings??? And for that matter, the priesthood, which also required a SPECIFIC BLOODLINE?)

2) If Jesus was born of a virgin, then how can he be MARRIED in the Ezekiel passages that describe the “prince”, who is king of Israel, AND a high preist too?? (Presumably in the order of Melchizedek) Ezekiel 45:17-19, Ezekiel 46:16, Ezekiel 46:18 etc.

3) Lastly, if Jesus sacrifice was the FINAL attoning sacrifice for ALL sin, then in Ezekiel 45:17, why does he or WHOEVER, offer SIN SACRIFICES in the future temple, FOR ATTONEMENT?!!?

These are some of the stronger issues, though there are plenty of smaller ones.

[kerwin]

Quote (gollamudi @ Nov. 21 2009,14:44)

I personally believe that the virgin birth problems are the biggest proofs against the idea that Jesus was “God in the flesh”, and in my opinion that idea disproves Jesus being the Messiah as well.  BUT, there are plenty of other issues that I have with the whole concept of Jesus being God/Messiah, besides the virgin birth.   I have a couple of questions for all of you   1)  If Jesus was born of a virgin, and not of Joseph, then how can you justify Jesus sitting on David’s throne, without being blood-related?  (And if you believe THAT is metaphoric as well, then why was God so specific in the requirements He made for Israel’s kings???  And for that matter, the priesthood, which also required a SPECIFIC BLOODLINE?) 2)  If Jesus was born of a virgin, then how can he be MARRIED in the Ezekiel passages that describe the “prince”, who is king of Israel, AND a high preist too??  (Presumably in the order of Melchizedek)  Ezekiel 45:17-19, Ezekiel 46:16, Ezekiel 46:18 etc. 3)  Lastly, if Jesus sacrifice was the FINAL attoning sacrifice for ALL sin, then in Ezekiel 45:17, why does he or WHOEVER, offer SIN SACRIFICES in the future temple, FOR ATTONEMENT?!!? These are some of the stronger issues, though there are plenty of smaller ones.

I am not sure Ezekiel is speaking about the Anointed One as he mentions the “prince” doing daily sacrifices.  It is possible Ezekiel was addressing the second temple and the dethroned prince of Israel.  

Of course being a student this is my current understanding and therefore subject to change as I learn more.

The case of Jesus inheriting the throne through Mary's line is fairly clear cut.  It is my conjecture that Mary had no brothers and so in accordance married Joseph who was from her own tribe in order to keep the inheritance in the tribe.  I also presume that God took the throne from Salomon's line and gave it to Nathan's.  God did this previously when he took the throne from Saul's line and gave it to David.

Ezekiel is known to contain a lot of symbolic language that can be confusing.

[gollamudi]

Hi brother Kerwin,
How on earth you say God gave throne to Nathan from david?
You seem to ignore O.T fully where the son of Solomon (Rehoboam) took over the kingdom of David.

[gollamudi]

Now, when I mentioned this Virgin Birth issue, I certainly didn’t expect a bunch of Platos and Socrates type individuals to respond. Personally, I never did like Paul. However, since u many of you talked about Jesus’ lineage, and being on the throne of David, ok. I’m game. As it turns out, this is another very serious problem with Jesus being God, or the Messiah, or the next king. There are 2 places that really go into Jesus’ lineage- Matthew 1, again, and Luke 3. The first note, would be that both these lineages are vastly different, neither containes the same number of names, and each has many names the other does not have. That alone is a huge problem for consistency and trustworthyness. However, both lineages also have several names in common, and if you can sit down for several hours at a time, you can trace the lineage back to David, if you use both Matthew’s and Luke’s variations of the lineage as reference. So yes, according to other writings in the Bible, the lineage can be traced back to David. But there are TWO problems with this lineage.

The first, is that this is not Jesus’ lineage, but Joseph’s lineage. Unless you believe Joseph was the physical father of Jesus of course, which would be against the whole arguement in the first place, is Jesus God. It has to be noted, that this can only be Jesus’ lineage, by adoption. (If his dad was a holy ghost.) Therefore, Jesus, can NOT be a descendant of King David, nor the Messiah, nor can he at some point reign on David’s throne. That is the first problem.

The second problem, is a little more complex. In Matthew 1:11, depending on your translation, “Josiah begot Jeconiah…”.  This is actually very significant. Note that there is a number next to the name “Jeconiah”. Why? Because they want you to know that “Jeconiah” is another name for “Jehoiakin”. Now hold that for a moment. In Luke’s lineage, that name or a similar name is not given. Both lineages, though there are some similarities here and there, are different, in that Matthew’s version is through David, but descended from his son Solomon. In the Luke lineage, it is descended through Nathan instead of Solomon. I beleive that God made a promise that the kingship would always be descended from David through Solomon,  as per 2 Chro 7:17-18  God promised Solomon at one point that the line would also pass specifically through Solomon. If that is right, then the Luke lineage is invalid automatically. But here’s the kicker.

Jeconiah, aka Jehoiakin, is mentioned in another lineage. He is the only Jehoiakin descended through Solomon. The passage is: Jeremiah 22:18-30. Now, this begins with JehoiakiM, the father of JehoiakiN. (Emphasis mine.) It starts with a word from God about the father, then near the end God switches his disdain toward the son, and notice- concerning Jehoiakin/Jeconiah/Coniah- “No man of his seed shall ever reign on the throne of king David again!” Interestingly enough, I don’t remember whether it was his son or grandson, but Jehoiakin had one heir that was totally righteous, and God allowed him to rule Israel, but not as king, God told him that because of the sins of his father or grandfather, (whichever), he could only GOVERN Israel, and so it happened. So, God was serious about this particular curse upon this man. The point is, that since this lineage has “Jeconiah”, then if Jesus is Joseph’s literal son, Jesus can’t rule on the throne of David, proving false many a prophecy about Jesus. Likewise, if Jesus is using this lineage through adoption, which would be invalid anyway by Jewish standards, since “Jeconiah” is in the lineage at all, Jesus couldn’t rule on the throne of David, proving false many a prophecy about Jesus. OH! But there’s that Luke lineage- we’ll just reject Matthew’s, it must be wrong, and we can use Luke’s!! Then Jesus wins afterall!!! How conveniant. However, If I was correct about the lineage of David also travelling through Solomon, then that would not be an option either, so we’d have a lose, lose, lose situation for Jesus. What was it about three strikes?!?

[kerwin]

Quote (gollamudi @ Nov. 21 2009,15:23)

Hi brother Kerwin, How on earth you say God gave throne to Nathan from david? You seem to ignore O.T fully where the son of Solomon (Rehoboam) took over the kingdom of David.

Nathan is one of David's sons by Bathsheba.  If God chose to do that it would still be consistent with what the Old Testament states.  Solomon and his line received the throne with a condition they failed to meet.  Jesus meets that condition.

The new covenant as testified in the New Testament is consistent with it as prophesied in the Old Testament. Everything holds together logically and is based on the nature of God.

[gollamudi]

Quote (kerwin @ Nov. 19 2009,21:02)

Here is a English translation of the Great Isaiah Scroll version of Isaiah 53. It is one of the earliest if not the earliest known manuscripts.

Here is the Jewish interpretation on Isa 53 and Dan 9

Link: http://torahatlanta.com/article….09.html

[gollamudi]

why the Jew rejected Jesus as the messiah for over 2000 years ?

It is important to understand why Jews don't believe in Jesus as the messiah. The purpose is not to disparage other religions, but rather to clarify the Jewish position. The more data that's available, the better -informed choices people can make about their spiritual path.

Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? The Bible says that he will:

A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation” neither shall man learn war anymore.” (Isaiah 2:4)

D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: “God will being over all the world — on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One” (Zechariah 14:9)

The historical fact is that Jesus fulfilled none of these messianic prophecies. Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah fill fulfill the prophecies outright, and no concept of a second coming exists.

Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of Messiah

1. MESSIAH AS PROPHET
Jesus was not a prophet. Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry. During the time of Ezra (circa 300 BCE), when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets — Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. Jesus appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.

2. DESCENDENT OF DAVID
The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father — and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David!

3. TORAH OBSERVANCE
The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4) Throughout the New Testament, Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable.

4. MISTRANSLATED VERSES “REFERRING” TO JESUS
Biblical verses can only be understood by studying the original Hebrew text — which reveals many discrepancies in the Christian translation.

5. VIRGIN BIRTH
The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an “alma” as giving birth. The word “alma” has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as “virgin.” This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.

6. CRUCIFIXION
The verse in Psalms 22:17 reads: “Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet.” The Hebrew word ki-ari (like a lion) is grammatically similar to the word “gouged.” Thus Christianity reads the verse as a reference to crucifixion: “They pierced my hands and feet.”

7. SUFFERING SERVANT
Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the “suffering servant.” In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews (“Israel”) are regarded as one unit. The Torah is filled with examples of the Jewish nation referred to with a singular pronoun. Ironically, Isaiah's prophecies of persecution refer in part to the 11th century when Jews were tortured and killed by Crusaders who acted in the name of Jesus. From where did these mistranslations stem? St. Gregory, 4th century Bishop of Nanianzus, wrote: “A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire.”

Jewish belief is based solely on national revelation

Of the 15,000 religions in human history, only Judaism bases its belief on national revelation — i.e. God speaking to the entire nation, a historical event of a divine revelation.

Whereas all other religions bases itself on the prophetic claims of a single individual who subsequently convinced others to follow his ways. Any individual can claim that he received a great prophet or hade a divine dream; the great prophet cannot be proved or disproved.

Judaism is the only religion that states, “All 3 million Jews eye witnessed the revelation of God at Sinai” the witness generation all told the story to the next, leading us, in the current generation. It’s merely impossible to fake a mass public divine event, it's impossible to have all the witnesses lied to their own children, all you need is one witness to spill the beans. This historical event was never denied. Moses was obviously a true prophet as the Jewish people all saw God appointing him at the event.

Judaism, unique among all of the world's major religions, does not rely on “claims of miracles” as the basis for its religion. In fact, the Bible says that God sometimes grants the power of “miracles” to charlatans, in order to test Jewish loyalty to the Torah (Deut. 13:4) Maimonides (Foundations of Torah, ch. 8). The Jews did not believe in Moses, our teacher, because of the miracles he performed. Whenever anyone's belief is based on seeing miracles, he has lingering doubts, because it is possible the miracles were performed through magic or sorcery. All of the miracles performed by Moses in the desert were because they were necessary, and not as proof of his prophecy.

What then was the basis of [Jewish] belief? The Revelation at Mount Sinai, which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears, not dependent on the testimony of others… as it says, “Face to face, God spoke with you…” The Torah also states: “God did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us — who are all here alive today.” (Deut. 5:3)

Judaism is not miracles. It is the personal eyewitness experience of every man, woman and child, standing at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago.

Christianity contradicts Jewish theology
The following theological points apply primarily to the Roman Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination

A. GOD AS THREE
The Catholic idea of Trinity breaks God into three separate beings: The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19). Contrast this to the Shema, the basis of Jewish belief: “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE” (Deut. 6:4). Jews declare the Shema every day, while writing it on doorposts (Mezuzah), and binding it to the hand and head (Tefillin). This statement of God's Oneness is the first words a Jewish child is taught to say, and the last words uttered before a Jew dies.

In Jewish law, worship of a three-part god is considered idolatry — one of the three cardinal sins that a Jew should rather give up his life than transgress. This explains why during the Inquisitions and throughout history, Jews gave up their lives rather than convert.

B. MAN AS GOD?
Roman Catholics believe that God came down to earth in human form, as Jesus said: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). Maimonides devotes most of the “Guide for the Perplexed” to the fundamental idea that God is incorporeal, meaning that He assumes no physical form. God is Eternal, above time. He is Infinite, beyond space. He cannot be born, and cannot die. Saying that God assumes human form makes God small, diminishing both His unity and His divinity. As the Torah says: “God is not a mortal” (Numbers 23:19).

Judaism says that the Messiah will be born of human parents, and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will no
t be a demigod, and will not possess supernatural qualities. In fact, an individual is alive in every generation with the capacity to step into the role of the Messiah. (see Maimonides – Laws of Kings 11:3)

C. INTERMEDIARY FOR PRAYER?
The Catholic belief is that prayer must be directed through an intermediary — i.e. confessing one's sins to a priest. Jesus himself is an intermediary, as Jesus said: “No man cometh unto the Father but by me.”

In Judaism, prayer is a totally private matter, between each individual and God. As the Bible says: “God is near to all who call unto Him” (Psalms 145:18). Further, the Ten Commandments state: “You shall have no other gods BEFORE ME,” meaning that it is forbidden to set up a mediator between God and man. (See Maimonides – Laws of Idolatry ch. 1)

D. INVOLVEMENT IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD
Catholic doctrine often treats the physical world as an evil to be avoided. Mary, the holiest woman, is portrayed as a virgin. Priests and nuns are celibate. And monasteries are in remote, secluded locations.

By contrast, Judaism believes that God created the physical world not to frustrate us, but for our pleasure. Jewish spirituality comes through grappling with the mundane world in a way that uplifts and elevates. Sex in the proper context is one of the holiest acts we can perform.

The Talmud says if a person has the opportunity to taste a new fruit and refuses to do so, he will have to account for that in the World to Come. Jewish rabbinical schools teach how to live amidst the bustle of commercial activity. Jews don't retreat from life, we elevate it.

Jews and Gentiles

Judaism does not demand that everyone convert to the religion. The Torah of Moses is a truth for all humanity, whether Jewish or not. King Solomon asked God to heed the prayers of non-Jews who come to the Holy Temple (Kings I 8:41-43). The prophet Isaiah refers to the Temple as a “House for all nations.”

The Temple service during Sukkot featured 70 bull offerings, corresponding to the 70 nations of the world. The Talmud says that if the Romans would have realized how much benefit they were getting from the Temple, they'd never have destroyed it.

Jews have never actively sought converts to Judaism because the Torah prescribes a righteous path for gentiles to follow, known as the “Seven Laws of Noah.” Maimonides explains that any human being who faithfully observes these basic moral laws earns a proper place in heaven.

Bringing the Messiah

Maimonides states that the popularity of Christianity (and Islam) is part of God's plan to spread the ideals of Torah throughout the world. This moves society closer to a perfected state of morality and toward a greater understanding of God. All this is in preparation for the Messianic age.

Indeed, the world is in desperate need of Messianic redemption. War and pollution threaten our planet; ego and confusion erode family life. To the extent we are aware of the problems of society, is the extent we will yearn for redemption. As the Talmud says, one of the first questions a Jew is asked on Judgment Day is: “Did you yearn for the arrival of the Messiah?”

How can we hasten the coming of the Messiah? The best way is to love all humanity generously, to keep the mitzvot of the Torah (as best we can), and to encourage others to do so as well. Despite the gloom, the world does seem headed toward redemption. One apparent sign is that the Jewish people have returned to the Land of Israel and made it bloom again. Additionally, a major movement is afoot of young Jews returning to Torah tradition.

The Messiah can come at any moment, and it all depends on our actions. God is ready when we are. For as King David says: “Redemption will come today — if you hearken to His voice.” (For further study, read “The Real Messiah” by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan)

[kerwin]

gollamudi,

Your source reads:

Quote

1. MESSIAH AS PROPHET Jesus was not a prophet. Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry. During the time of Ezra (circa 300 BCE), when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets — Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. Jesus appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.

I sure do not remember scripture stating that prophecy ended upon the death of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.  Is this some modern Jewish myth or is that actually written in scripture.

[bodhitharta]

Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 01 2009,22:22)

gollamudi, Your source reads: Quote 1. MESSIAH AS PROPHET Jesus was not a prophet. Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry. During the time of Ezra (circa 300 BCE), when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets — Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. Jesus appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended. I sure do not remember scripture stating that prophecy ended upon the death of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.  Is this some modern Jewish myth or is that actually written in scripture.

So when did prophecy end?

[942767]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 02 2009,09:25)

Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 01 2009,22:22) gollamudi, Your source reads: Quote 1. MESSIAH AS PROPHET Jesus was not a prophet. Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry. During the time of Ezra (circa 300 BCE), when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets — Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. Jesus appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended. I sure do not remember scripture stating that prophecy ended upon the death of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.  Is this some modern Jewish myth or is that actually written in scripture. So when did prophecy end?

Hi BD:

God still speaks to humanity through prophets, and prophecy will not end until the Lord comes for the church.

The two witnesses for example will but have not yet appeared on the scene.

Quote

Rev 11:3 And I will give [power] unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred [and] threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

Love in Christ,
Marty

[kerwin]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 02 2009,04:25)

Quote (kerwin @ Dec. 01 2009,22:22) gollamudi, Your source reads: Quote 1. MESSIAH AS PROPHET Jesus was not a prophet. Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry. During the time of Ezra (circa 300 BCE), when the majority of Jews refused to move from Babylon to Israel, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets — Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. Jesus appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended. I sure do not remember scripture stating that prophecy ended upon the death of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.  Is this some modern Jewish myth or is that actually written in scripture. So when did prophecy end?

At a point after Jesus died on the cross.  I do not know the specifics though John prophesied the book of Revelations.  I do know scripture states this.

Zechariah 13:1-6 reads:

Quote

“On that day a fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity. “On that day, I will banish the names of the idols from the land, and they will be remembered no more,” declares the LORD Almighty. “I will remove both the prophets and the spirit of impurity from the land. And if anyone still prophesies, his father and mother, to whom he was born, will say to him, 'You must die, because you have told lies in the LORD's name.' When he prophesies, his own parents will stab him. “On that day every prophet will be ashamed of his prophetic vision. He will not put on a prophet's garment of hair in order to deceive. He will say, 'I am not a prophet. I am a farmer; the land has been my livelihood since my youth. ' If someone asks him, 'What are these wounds on your body ?' he will answer, 'The wounds I was given at the house of my friends.'

[gollamudi]

“Why Jews reject Jesus” by Yossi Ginzberg

Almost by definition, Judaism is a rejection of Jesus as anything more than another Jewish man, perhaps a nice one, but not in any way divine.

All traditional Jewish sources agree on several issues germane to this:
1) The Messiah will herald in an endless era of world peace. 2) God has no physical presence, and cannot “father” a child. 3) The Torah (Old Testament) cannot be changed or abrogated. 4) Deeds are as important, if not more so, than faith.

While virtually all of the codifiers of Jewish law through the ages agree on these issues, and thus cannot accept Jesus, there is an even more basic reason for this rejection: Had the Torah wanted man to change his beliefs, it would not have several times iterated that “these beliefs shall in no way ever be diminished or added to”. It is certainly at least logical to think that the Torah would have predicted that some day Jesus would be born, and therefore predicted his coming, yet it does not do so! (The attempts by the early Christians to claim the the sentence “behold a virgin”, etc. are based on the incorrect and either ignorant or disingenuous mistranslation of the Hebrew “Alma” (girl) to “betula” (virgin”.)

Added to this is the very obvious and distinctly visible failure of Jesus to usher in an era of world peace, most strongly noticed by Jews following the rise of Christianity, and especially so during the crusades, and closely followed by the inquisition. Matthew in chapter 11 quotes Jesus as saying, “I come not to send peace, but a sword”, anathema to Jewish belief.

More yet: Learning has always been an integral part of Judaism, and indeed the Torah itself commands one to study it every day and every night. Yet when the New Testament was written, several different sources attest that Jesus as well as the disciples prided themselves on their ignorance of Jewish law, this at a time when they were claiming to minister ONLY to the Jews! (See John 7, Acts 4, and many others) Incidentally, this also puts the lie to the common traditional claim that Jesus himself was a Rabbi.

Also, within Judaism there is no room for miracles contrary to nature, unless needed by many and witnessed by many, such as the plagues of Egypt or the parting of the Red sea. The Jewish Messiah, whoever he is, will be born of the natural union of a man and a woman, and there is no reason to be ashamed of that fact, for Judaism also rejects the concept of original sin, the belief that forced the church to conceive the Virgin birth in the first place.

Finally, and most important, every fiber of original Jewish belief demands that one be good, and kind, and charitable, and so on. Belief is good, too, but less important, and thus the entire concept of doing bad or sinning and later professing faith and being absolved by a “third party” (read priest) is anathema.

It is this set of beliefs that is so totally at odds with belief in Jesus that has led to the dramatic expulsion from the fold of any Jew who accepted Him. The same reaction is why virtually all Jews who know anything about their religion scoff at the concept of the Jews for Jesus groups, knowing that any Jews that are involved there are surely very ignorant of their Judaism.

My intention in this article is to simply articulate why belief in Jesus is incompatible with Judaism. I apologize in advance in case I have offended anyone unintentionally. Jewish beliefs prefer that non-Jews SHOULD believe in some form of monotheism, and while Jews don't proselytize, they encourage gentiles to believe and attend their churches.

Source: http://www.helium.com/items/653783-why-jews-reject-jesus

[kerwin]

Gollamudi,

“Why Jews reject Jesus” by Yossi Ginzberg reads:

Quote

All traditional Jewish sources agree on several issues germane to this: 1) The Messiah will herald in an endless era of world peace. 2) God has no physical presence, and cannot “father” a child. 3) The Torah (Old Testament) cannot be changed or abrogated. 4) Deeds are as important, if not more so, than faith.

I agree with points 1 through 3.     Point four is based on a misunderstanding of faith.  I believe James, a Jew, pointed out that people show their faith in their actions.  

In the book of Judges,  Jephthah was commended for sacrificing his daughter even though he blatantly disobeyed the law which forbid the sacrifice of one’s children.  Jephthah was commended for his faith and not for his knowledge of the law.  He did put his faith into action and God chose to suffer his ignorance.  Thus we have one example where faith trumped obedience to the law.

[terraricca]

hi Goll

All traditional Jewish sources agree on several issues germane to this:
1) The Messiah will herald in an endless era of world peace. 2) God has no physical presence, and cannot “father” a child. 3) The Torah (Old Testament) cannot be changed or abrogated. 4) Deeds are as important, if not more so, than faith.

your item 2 has a Jew it would never enter my mine to even think that it is so out of proportion.
item 4 how could you separate the two ,i would like to know.???

[gollamudi]

Hi brothers kerwin and Terraricca,
I appreciate your response on my post above. Yes James the Jew was the one who contradicted even Paul's doctrine of Faith without works. I hope you will appreciate a Jewish way of interpreting Faith. Please see other arguments of a Jew on Jesus.

Thanks and peace to you
Adam

[kerwin]

Quote (gollamudi @ Jan. 20 2010,13:13)

Hi brothers kerwin and Terraricca, I appreciate your response on my post above. Yes James the Jew was the one who contradicted even Paul's doctrine of Faith without works. I hope you will appreciate a Jewish way of interpreting Faith. Please see other arguments of a Jew on Jesus. Thanks and peace to you Adam

You wrong Paul.   Paul speaks of righteousness that is by faith.  In other words works of righteousness that come from faith and not an illusion of righteousness.  If you look at what Paul teaches about living according to the ways of the Spirit then you will also see he was teaching works.  

People get confused because Paul also taught that one cannot obtain righteousness through human effort but instead must accomplice it by living according to the Spirit of Holiness through faith.  

James, as does Peter in one of his letters, addresses those who misunderstood Paul.

terraricca may be a Jew.

[gollamudi]

Here is how the authenticity of 2 Peter is questioned.

The Second Epistle of Peter:

The second epistle of Peter is an even later document than I Peter. There are many proofs of this, all of which adds to a compelling case both for its lateness and non-Petrine authorship.
The first evidence involves the fact that it is later than I Peter for it calls itself the second epistle (II Peter 3:1).

Secondly, the epistle is very closely related, both in style and content to the epistle of Jude, in itself a very late work, definitely written during the second century CE (probably around 125 CE). [9]

A further evidence against Petrine authorship (and for its late date) is that the epistle refers to Paul's epistles as though they were already collected together and seems to consider them as scriptures (i.e., sacred writings):

II Peter 3:15-16
… our dear brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him … His letters contain certain things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Clearly the historical Peter could not have seen the collected letters of Paul and considered them in the same breath as the other Scriptures. [10]

Another indication of the lateness of II Peter was the fact that some of the readers of his epistles have grown impatient waiting for the second coming that was endlessly delayed. The early Christians certainly expected the second coming of Jesus Christ to happen during their lifetime. We find the author of this epistle twisting words out of their normal meanings to explain this delay: [11]

II Peter 3:8
… one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his coming, as some men count slackness…

Perhaps one of the strongest argument against Petrine authorship is that its authenticity was denied by many Christians down to the fourth century.[12]

Thus II Peter could not have been written by Peter for the following reasons:

•It was a later epistle than I Peter.
•It is very similar in style and content to Jude, a known second century document.
•It considered the Pauline epistles as scriptures, something that did not yet happened during Peter's lifetime.
•It tried to explain the delay of the second coming by postponing it indefinitely. Something which is in direct contradiction to the Christians during the lifetime of Peter, who expected the second coming very soon.
•The Petrine authorship was denied by Christians themselves until the fourth century.
The dating of II Peter is pretty uncertain business. Some scholars date it as early as around the last decade of the first century. However the balance of evidence seems to favor a later date. II Peter was written when Christians were beginning to accept a “New Testament” along with the Old which they considered to be sacred scriptures. As far as we know, this attitude started to take hold around 150 CE. II Peter, which accepts the Pauline epistles as scripture was very probably written around this date. The important thing to note is that all these dates, from the earliest (c95 CE) to the latest (c150 CE), excludes the idea of Petrine authorship for Peter died in around 64-67 CE. [13]

Clearly, the epistles of Peter could not have been written by the apostle himself. Such epistles, which pretend to be written by prophets or apostles, are called pseudepigrapha. They were written in such a way so as to give the epistles enhanced authority. Pseudepigrapha are very common in Judeo-Christian history. The correct modern name for pseudepigrapha is not ghost writers but impostors. Even the theologians Robert Davidson and A.R.C. Leaney referred to them (I & II Peter & Jude) as “fictitious testaments”. [14]

Source: http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/authorpeter.html

[Author]

Posts