Why Jews will never accept Jesus

Welcome back everyone.

Christians are frustrated. Of all the peoples on the earth, they would think that the Jews, to whom God has entrusted the oracles, would accept Jesus as the Messiah. But no. Jewish converts have been ultra few. By and large, more than any other people, Jews have been immune to the gospel. Why? I hope that this post will answer that question.

  1. God is ECHAD, one, not three in one. Christianity teaches Trinitarianism, which although it is monotheism, is a muddied monotheism. Judaism on the other hand teaches a pure and simple monotheism. Anything that comprises the oneness of God is unthinkable.
  2. God is not a man. This is the nature of God, and the nature of God is unchanging. It is stated three times in the Tanakh: twice in Numbers 23:19, and a third time in Job 9:32. For something to be reiterated three times -- it must be of great importance. Christianity on the other hand, claims that Jesus is "fully God and fully man," at least in the orthodox version. The two are absolutely incompatible. Christians try to claim that "let us create man in our own image" is a reference to the triune nature of God, but in reality it is God talking to the heavenly court. Similarly, the claims of Elohim being a plural are moot -- it is more similar to the royal "we" used by the Queen.
  3. The New Testament contradicts the teachings of the Tanakh/Torah. The Torah clearly teaches the following of the Law, in order to receive the blessings of prosperity and the land of Canaan. Psalm 19 states that the Law is "perfect....sweeter also than the honey and the honeycomb." Yet Paul teaches that the Law brings a curse. He teaches that circumcision is nothing and keeping the Sabbath is up to the individual, rather than being necessary for the Jew. These views, that of the Tanakh and those of Paul, are utterly incompatible. The Torah is agreed upon by both Christians and Jews to be the word of God, and is therefore the measuring reed to determine what else is orthodoxy -- and it therefore determines that the NT doesn't pass muster
  4. The New Testament quotes prophecy out of context (i.e. Hosea 11:1, which is about Israel, not the messiah), misquotes prophecy (i.e. Isaiah 7:14 which is rightly translated young maiden, not virgin), and even makes up prophecy out of whole cloth (such as Matthew 2:23, He shall be called a Nazarene aka someone from the city of Nazareth.)
  5. Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he simply did not fulfill messianic prophecy. It makes no sense to say, "He will fulfill the rest when he comes back again." After all, anyone can claim to be the messiah and say they will fulfill the prophecies the next time around. The only way we have of determining the messiah is if they fulfill the messianic claims, all of them, and quite frankly Jesus did not; thus he failed in his attempt to be the messiah. Here are just three examples:
    • The Messiah will usher in an era of worldwide peace between the nations. Jesus did not.​
    • The Messiah will rule from Jerusalem. Jesus did not.​
    • The Messiah will bring ALL Jews back to the Land of Israel. Jesus did not.​
 
Interesting points, Open Heart.

I'd like to address No. 4 - The New Testament quotes prophecy out of context. I don't think that's the case; I think it's more how people understand biblical prophecy as "telling the future". For instance, Matthew applies Hosea 11:1 to Jesus because Jesus recapitulates the mission of Israel in himself and so, like Israel, he is called out from Egypt (there is also Mosaic resonance here). As for Isa 7:14, it's interesting because the LXX has "virgin" and the earliest texts we have (from the LXX, not the MT) are virgin. Regardless, even if we understand "young maid" to be meant, it still works with the way Matthew uses prophecy: in Jesus, salvation is coming for his people (Israel) and his birth is a sign, just as it was with King Ahaz and his people being saved at the time of Isaiah.
 

sk0rpi0n

New member
Muslim here (been on the CARM forums since 2012).

I agree with 1 and 2. With 3, it was Paul who claimed the law was done with and a curse.

But why exactly is "he will fulfill the rest when he comes back again" an invalid argument? Jesus has not yet lived out his full life on earth. So he has the rest of his life left to accomplish whatever he's supposed to after he returns.

Simon Bar Kochba (d. 132 AD) was considered the "messiah" by the renowned sage Rabbi Akiva, even though he had not filled any of the messianic prophecies. So it's not as if a messiah candidate needs to fulfill everything before Jews acknowledge him as the messiah.
 

Algernon

New member
Welcome back everyone.

Christians are frustrated. Of all the peoples on the earth, they would think that the Jews, to whom God has entrusted the oracles, would accept Jesus as the Messiah. But no. Jewish converts have been ultra few. By and large, more than any other people, Jews have been immune to the gospel. Why? I hope that this post will answer that question.

  1. God is ECHAD, one, not three in one. Christianity teaches Trinitarianism, which although it is monotheism, is a muddied monotheism. Judaism on the other hand teaches a pure and simple monotheism. Anything that comprises the oneness of God is unthinkable.
  2. God is not a man. This is the nature of God, and the nature of God is unchanging. It is stated three times in the Tanakh: twice in Numbers 23:19, and a third time in Job 9:32. For something to be reiterated three times -- it must be of great importance. Christianity on the other hand, claims that Jesus is "fully God and fully man," at least in the orthodox version. The two are absolutely incompatible. Christians try to claim that "let us create man in our own image" is a reference to the triune nature of God, but in reality it is God talking to the heavenly court. Similarly, the claims of Elohim being a plural are moot -- it is more similar to the royal "we" used by the Queen.
  3. The New Testament contradicts the teachings of the Tanakh/Torah. The Torah clearly teaches the following of the Law, in order to receive the blessings of prosperity and the land of Canaan. Psalm 19 states that the Law is "perfect....sweeter also than the honey and the honeycomb." Yet Paul teaches that the Law brings a curse. He teaches that circumcision is nothing and keeping the Sabbath is up to the individual, rather than being necessary for the Jew. These views, that of the Tanakh and those of Paul, are utterly incompatible. The Torah is agreed upon by both Christians and Jews to be the word of God, and is therefore the measuring reed to determine what else is orthodoxy -- and it therefore determines that the NT doesn't pass muster
  4. The New Testament quotes prophecy out of context (i.e. Hosea 11:1, which is about Israel, not the messiah), misquotes prophecy (i.e. Isaiah 7:14 which is rightly translated young maiden, not virgin), and even makes up prophecy out of whole cloth (such as Matthew 2:23, He shall be called a Nazarene aka someone from the city of Nazareth.)
  5. Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he simply did not fulfill messianic prophecy. It makes no sense to say, "He will fulfill the rest when he comes back again." After all, anyone can claim to be the messiah and say they will fulfill the prophecies the next time around. The only way we have of determining the messiah is if they fulfill the messianic claims, all of them, and quite frankly Jesus did not; thus he failed in his attempt to be the messiah. Here are just three examples:
    • The Messiah will usher in an era of worldwide peace between the nations. Jesus did not.​
    • The Messiah will rule from Jerusalem. Jesus did not.​
    • The Messiah will bring ALL Jews back to the Land of Israel. Jesus did not.​
Hopefully you can clarify something for me. In Judaism is Isaiah 61:1 considered to be referring to "The Messiah"?
 
Interesting points, Open Heart.

I'd like to address No. 4 - The New Testament quotes prophecy out of context. I don't think that's the case; I think it's more how people understand biblical prophecy as "telling the future". For instance, Matthew applies Hosea 11:1 to Jesus because Jesus recapitulates the mission of Israel in himself and so, like Israel, he is called out from Egypt (there is also Mosaic resonance here). As for Isa 7:14, it's interesting because the LXX has "virgin" and the earliest texts we have (from the LXX, not the MT) are virgin. Regardless, even if we understand "young maid" to be meant, it still works with the way Matthew uses prophecy: in Jesus, salvation is coming for his people (Israel) and his birth is a sign, just as it was with King Ahaz and his people being saved at the time of Isaiah.
Hosea 11:1 CAN"T refer to the messiah because it already refers to Israel being delivered from Egypt.

The LXX may be older the the MT, but the LXX is a translation, and translations by nature are inferior to the original language text. Thus the MT is to be trusted where the two differ. The LXX copies that we have are from the second and third centuries, and corrupted by non-Jewish writers.

And no, a young maid is not the same thing as a virgin. Young maids get pregnant all the time. Virgins births dont happen. The sign for King Ahaz was as follows:
Clearly, the woman mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 and 8:3-4 are one and the same and that she is Isaiah’s wife. The real sign to King Ahaz is that Isaiah’s child will be born quickly and before he matures (knowing the difference between good and evil and father and mother) the nations who threaten the Kingdom of Judea will be defeated. Interestingly, Isaiah’s children are specifically referred to as a “signs” from God.
 
Muslim here (been on the CARM forums since 2012).

I agree with 1 and 2. With 3, it was Paul who claimed the law was done with and a curse.

But why exactly is "he will fulfill the rest when he comes back again" an invalid argument? Jesus has not yet lived out his full life on earth. So he has the rest of his life left to accomplish whatever he's supposed to after he returns.

Simon Bar Kochba (d. 132 AD) was considered the "messiah" by the renowned sage Rabbi Akiva, even though he had not filled any of the messianic prophecies. So it's not as if a messiah candidate needs to fulfill everything before Jews acknowledge him as the messiah.
Imagine if anyone could claim to be the messiah and say, "I'll fulfill the prophecies the next time I come." Why even I could do that. False messiahs would abound. No, the messiah must fulfill all the prophecies the one and only time he comes. That is, after all, how we will know him.

Rabbi Akiva made a terrible mistake, and Jews learned from this. We will not make the same mistake again.
 
Hosea 11:1 CAN"T refer to the messiah because it already refers to Israel being delivered from Egypt.

The LXX may be older the the MT, but the LXX is a translation, and translations by nature are inferior to the original language text. Thus the MT is to be trusted where the two differ. The LXX copies that we have are from the second and third centuries, and corrupted by non-Jewish writers.

And no, a young maid is not the same thing as a virgin. Young maids get pregnant all the time. Virgins births dont happen. The sign for King Ahaz was as follows:
Clearly, the woman mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 and 8:3-4 are one and the same and that she is Isaiah’s wife. The real sign to King Ahaz is that Isaiah’s child will be born quickly and before he matures (knowing the difference between good and evil and father and mother) the nations who threaten the Kingdom of Judea will be defeated. Interestingly, Isaiah’s children are specifically referred to as a “signs” from God.
Hi Open Heart, I know Hos 11:1 doesn't refer originally to the Messiah, that's not how Matthew is using it. He's using it typologically as Jesus assumes the role of Israel in himself.

As for the MT, I think its reliability varies depending on the books/verses in question with the LXX or Qumran. I'm quite open to accepting the MT but it is a very late production so it will depend on other sources for corroboration.

I didn't say that "young maid" and "virgin" are the same; I noted for Matthew (as in Isaiah), the young woman giving birth is a sign of salvation and this sign is applied to Jesus' birth.
 

SteveB

Active member
Welcome back everyone.

Christians are frustrated. Of all the peoples on the earth, they would think that the Jews, to whom God has entrusted the oracles, would accept Jesus as the Messiah. But no. Jewish converts have been ultra few. By and large, more than any other people, Jews have been immune to the gospel. Why? I hope that this post will answer that question.
You should spend time reading Romans 9-11, and the rest of the bible.
Here's a website published by Israeli Jews, who are followers of Jesus.
www.oneforisrael.org

I encourage you to actually watch their videos. All Jewish people, and a few arabs, who are following Jesus.
Then, there's Kehila News.

Kehila mean "community" or "congregation" or "assembly" or "church" in Hebrew.

Kehila.org is a community news & online information portal of the Messianic/Christian Community in Israel.

The vision of Kehila.org is to connect the millions of Christians around the world who love Israel with the Messianic community in Israel.



  1. God is ECHAD, one, not three in one. Christianity teaches Trinitarianism, which although it is monotheism, is a muddied monotheism. Judaism on the other hand teaches a pure and simple monotheism. Anything that comprises the oneness of God is unthinkable.

I'll let you read the article.
Man and woman being one.... Echad.
Yet we see a man, and we see a woman.... that's two, who shall be one.
then in genesis 11, with the tower of babel..... the people shall become as one, and nothing they do shall be prevented them.
Echad.
However, we see that there was a lot more than one person.....
I can go on for a while here, but the Shma says---
Shma Israel
YHVH Elohenu
YHVH Echad.

It does not say--- YHVH Yachid.



2. God is not a man. This is the nature of God, and the nature of God is unchanging. It is stated three times in the Tanakh: twice in Numbers 23:19, and a third time in Job 9:32. For something to be reiterated three times -- it must be of great importance. Christianity on the other hand, claims that Jesus is "fully God and fully man," at least in the orthodox version. The two are absolutely incompatible. Christians try to claim that "let us create man in our own image" is a reference to the triune nature of God, but in reality it is God talking to the heavenly court. Similarly, the claims of Elohim being a plural are moot -- it is more similar to the royal "we" used by the Queen.
I find it curious that you ignore so much of the bible.
What bible are you using? Do you really think that Job 9:32, and Numbers 23:19 is all there is in the bible? There are a total of 31,102 verses. This means that you're deliberately ignoring 31,100 other verses.


3. The New Testament contradicts the teachings of the Tanakh/Torah. The Torah clearly teaches the following of the Law, in order to receive the blessings of prosperity and the land of Canaan. Psalm 19 states that the Law is "perfect....sweeter also than the honey and the honeycomb." Yet Paul teaches that the Law brings a curse. He teaches that circumcision is nothing and keeping the Sabbath is up to the individual, rather than being necessary for the Jew. These views, that of the Tanakh and those of Paul, are utterly incompatible. The Torah is agreed upon by both Christians and Jews to be the word of God, and is therefore the measuring reed to determine what else is orthodoxy -- and it therefore determines that the NT doesn't pass muster
You haven't actually seen what Jesus said in Matthew 22:34-40, have you?
Or what Paul said in Romans 3:31, 8:4-7, and 13:8-10

34 But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”

37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’[fn] 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’[fn] 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.

8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,”[fn] “You shall not covet,”[fn] and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”[fn] 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

We who follow Jesus, and walk in the Spirit--- we fulfill the Law, by living a life of Love.

Just as described in Galatians 5

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”





4. The New Testament quotes prophecy out of context (i.e. Hosea 11:1, which is about Israel, not the messiah), misquotes prophecy (i.e. Isaiah 7:14 which is rightly translated young maiden, not virgin), and even makes up prophecy out of whole cloth (such as Matthew 2:23, He shall be called a Nazarene aka someone from the city of Nazareth.)
So.... the bible writers, who used the LXX, did not use the correct bible verses?
Seems to me that you need to take this up with the guys who wrote the NT, not people 1950 years later.



  1. Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he simply did not fulfill messianic prophecy. It makes no sense to say, "He will fulfill the rest when he comes back again." After all, anyone can claim to be the messiah and say they will fulfill the prophecies the next time around. The only way we have of determining the messiah is if they fulfill the messianic claims, all of them, and quite frankly Jesus did not; thus he failed in his attempt to be the messiah. Here are just three examples:
    • The Messiah will usher in an era of worldwide peace between the nations. Jesus did not.​
    • The Messiah will rule from Jerusalem. Jesus did not.​
    • The Messiah will bring ALL Jews back to the Land of Israel. Jesus did not.​
So, Daniel 9, where it's written that He came to

“Seventy weeks are determined
For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy.

And Isaiah 53 where it's written

3 He is despised and rejected by men, A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
4 Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; he chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

Again, seems to me that you need to take this up with Isaiah, and Daniel.
 

Algernon

New member
Isaiah 61:1 is Isaiah speaking (about himself).

Okay. Thanks.

When Jesus began His ministry he quoted from the Book of Isaiah:
Luke 4
16And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read. 17And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written,

18“THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME,
BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR.
HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES,
AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND,
TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED,

19TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD.”
20And He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. 21And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

Jesus saw himself as having been anointed by God to accomplish the following:
1) To preach His gospel - These are the words He spoke while preaching His gospel during His ministry.
2) To give sight to the blind - To open the eyes of those blind to the will of God which is contained in His gospel.
3) To set free the captives - To FREE those who abide in His word from the slavery of committing sin. To FREE those who abide in His gospel.

Jesus never claimed to be "The Messiah". The purpose for which he was anointed was limited to the above: none of which is referring to "The Messiah".

The idea that Jesus claimed to be "The Messiah" seems to be rooted in a semantic misunderstanding.
 
You should spend time reading Romans 9-11, and the rest of the bible.
Here's a website published by Israeli Jews, who are followers of Jesus.
www.oneforisrael.org

I encourage you to actually watch their videos. All Jewish people, and a few arabs, who are following Jesus.
Then, there's Kehila News.
[/QUOTE]
Since we are making recommendations for in depth study, I refer you to Rabbi Tovia Singer and his videos.

I'll let you read the article.
Man and woman being one.... Echad.
Yet we see a man, and we see a woman.... that's two, who shall be one.
then in genesis 11, with the tower of babel..... the people shall become as one, and nothing they do shall be prevented them.
Echad.
However, we see that there was a lot more than one person.....
I can go on for a while here, but the Shma says---
Shma Israel
YHVH Elohenu
YHVH Echad.

It does not say--- YHVH Yachid.
[/QUOTE]
Yachid means alone or only. Echad means one. Both terms describe Hashem. So when we say The LORD is Echad, it means God is ONE, not three in one.
I find it curious that you ignore so much of the bible.
What bible are you using? Do you really think that Job 9:32, and Numbers 23:19 is all there is in the bible? There are a total of 31,102 verses. This means that you're deliberately ignoring 31,100 other verses.
[/QUOTE]
There is NO verse in the Tanakh that says God is three in one. Not one verse.
You haven't actually seen what Jesus said in Matthew 22:34-40, have you?
Or what Paul said in Romans 3:31, 8:4-7, and 13:8-10

34 But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”

37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’[fn] 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’[fn] 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.

8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,”[fn] “You shall not covet,”[fn] and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”[fn] 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

We who follow Jesus, and walk in the Spirit--- we fulfill the Law, by living a life of Love.

Just as described in Galatians 5

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

[/QUOTE]
Actually, being a former Christian, not only have I read the NT many times, I have studied it in great depth. The problem is, having studied it, I have concluded that it is contrary to the Tanakh -- they cannot both be true.

The parts you have quoted simply quote from the Tanakh. I'm not saying every single verse is contrary. I'm saying that the over all message is contrary. Paul teaches that the Law brings a curse. He teaches that circumcision is irrelevant and that keeping the sabbath is up to individual discretion. In none of his letters to we hear him telling Jewish believers to keep the Torah. The book of Hebrews is worse, saying that the Torah is passing away, being flawed and replaced with the New Covenant.
So.... the bible writers, who used the LXX, did not use the correct bible verses?
Seems to me that you need to take this up with the guys who wrote the NT, not people 1950 years later.
Correct. The LXX is an inferior translation. All translations lose something. They are by nature inferior. Only the original language texts are the word of God, meaning that only the Tanakh in Hebrew is the word of God. Further, the only copies of the LXX that we have are second and third century copies, which have been tampered with by non-Jewish Christians who had their own agenda.

The "guys who wrote the NT" wrote things in conflict with the Tanakh. Since we know the Tanakh to be the word of God, it is the reed by which we measure all other writings as to whether they are of God or not. The New Testament simply fails the test.

So, Daniel 9, where it's written that He came to

“Seventy weeks are determined
For your people and for your holy city,
To finish the transgression,
To make an end of sins,
To make reconciliation for iniquity,
To bring in everlasting righteousness,
To seal up vision and prophecy,
And to anoint the Most Holy.
[/QUOTE]
This describes the messianic era, and things which are true of all people. In a word, people still sin (including Christians). The seventy weeks are figurative, seventy simply being a number indicating completeness.

And Isaiah 53 where it's written

3 He is despised and rejected by men, A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
4 Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; he chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
Isaiah 53 is not about the messiah. The suffering servant is about Israel -- the remnant of Israel suffers vicariously for the whole of Israel. This metaphor of the servant is used throughout the book of Isaiah and is identified as "my servant, Jacob." If you don't like what I'm saying, take it up with Isaiah.
 

SteveB

Active member
Since we are making recommendations for in depth study, I refer you to Rabbi Tovia Singer and his videos.
Ok.... please don't use extra quotes-- on a computer. This new version of the forum has auto-quoting built in.

An orthodox, anti-Christian rabbi.
What would you like me to see?


Yachid means alone or only. Echad means one. Both terms describe Hashem. So when we say The LORD is Echad, it means God is ONE, not three in one.
Yet, we never see YHVH referring to himself as yachid.
I never said anything about 3.
YHVH has clearly defined himself as Echad, being one.
We see in Genesis 2, the man and woman are Echad. We further see in Genesis 11 that the people who were building the towel at babel were one.



There is NO verse in the Tanakh that says God is three in one. Not one verse.
I don't see where I said there was.


Actually, being a former Christian, not only have I read the NT many times, I have studied it in great depth. The problem is, having studied it, I have concluded that it is contrary to the Tanakh -- they cannot both be true.
Really.....
So, why did you do what the writer of Hebrews said not to do?
There is no more sacrifice for sin. You cannot be right with YHVH through adherence to the law. Even Abraham was only made right with YHVH because he believed him. Genesis 15:6.
And according to the Law, Leviticus 17:11, without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sin.
So, just how do you think you're going to be made right with YHVH?
It's not by your deeds. According to Isaiah 64:6, our acts of righteousness are as filthy rags to him.
Then, according to Isaiah 54:17, the only righteousness we can obtain is that which YHVH himself gives.




The parts you have quoted simply quote from the Tanakh. I'm not saying every single verse is contrary. I'm saying that the over all message is contrary. Paul teaches that the Law brings a curse.
No. He said what the Law itself said--- whosoever does not continue in keeping the whole law, is under a curse.

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” (Deut 27:26) 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” (Hab. 2:4) 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.” (Lev. 18:5)

13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” (Deut 21:23)), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Even James, Jesus' brother said the same thing.

8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well; 9 but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.



Since the Temple no longer exists, you no longer have any means of offering a sacrifice to atone for your sin.





He teaches that circumcision is irrelevant and that keeping the sabbath is up to individual discretion. In none of his letters to we hear him telling Jewish believers to keep the Torah. The book of Hebrews is worse, saying that the Torah is passing away, being flawed and replaced with the New Covenant.
Nope. The circimcision simply will not make you right with God. Even the law says that we are to be circimcised in heart.

“Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer." Deut. 10:16

“And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. Deut 30:6.

So...... just how do you think you're going to be justified with YHVH when you've failed to understand what the circumcision is? It's not having the foreskin of your penis cut off. If it's not of the heart, it means nothing. This is Paul's point. Just having the foreskin of the penis removed will not make you right with God. It's a piece of flesh.
I'm curious--- are you already circimcised? I was, as a child.... it never made me right with YHVH. It wasn't until I came to faith in Jesus that I gained a right standing with YHVH. As is written in Habakkuk 2:4-- the just shall live by his faith. And Abraham was justified because he believed God's Word to him--- the promise of a son, and descendants as many as the sands of the seashore.



Correct. The LXX is an inferior translation. All translations lose something. They are by nature inferior. Only the original language texts are the word of God, meaning that only the Tanakh in Hebrew is the word of God. Further, the only copies of the LXX that we have are second and third century copies, which have been tampered with by non-Jewish Christians who had their own agenda.
The curious thing is---- the LXX was translated by 70 Hebrew Scholars. It's why it's called the Septuagint. For the 70 scholars.
These men were not inferior scholars either. So, the LXX was written for Hellenist Jews, scattered throughout the Greek speaking world as a result of the disapora, in Jeremiah, so they could have the scriptures. I'm guessing Rabbi Tovia never told you that?
This has been common knowledge for over 2 millennia.
The thing I find curious is that people have lost the awareness of that which has been known for a long, long time. Furthermore, that they think that because followers of Jesus began reading the LXX, it somehow corrupted the text, when it's just the greek version of what Jewish people all over the mediterranean read for quite a few centuries.

The "guys who wrote the NT" wrote things in conflict with the Tanakh. Since we know the Tanakh to be the word of God, it is the reed by which we measure all other writings as to whether they are of God or not. The New Testament simply fails the test.
they used the LXX because they were writing to Greek speaking Jews, and gentiles who were converts. It's written in Acts 17:11, that the people of Berea were more noble than the men of thessalonica, because they searched the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
Every city Paul preached in they preached out of the scriptures. Luke makes this statement several times in Acts.


This describes the messianic era, and things which are true of all people. In a word, people still sin (including Christians). The seventy weeks are figurative, seventy simply being a number indicating completeness.
Really? Because from what I see..... it took 62 weeks and then 7 weeks, and then there's one last week.
The 62 was the time from the issuing of the command to rebuild the city to the coming of the Anointed.
then 7, to the destruction of the city.

“Seventy weeks are determined

For your people and for your holy city,

To finish the transgression,

To make an end of sins,

To make reconciliation for iniquity,

To bring in everlasting righteousness,

To seal up vision and prophecy,

And to anoint the Most Holy.



25 “Know therefore and understand,

That from the going forth of the command

To restore and build Jerusalem

Until Messiah the Prince,

There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;

The street shall be built again, and the wall,

Even in troublesome times.



26 “And after the sixty-two weeks

Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself;

And the people of the prince who is to come

Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

The end of it shall be with a flood,

And till the end of the war desolations are determined.

27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;

But in the middle of the week

He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.

And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate,

Even until the consummation, which is determined,

Is poured out on the desolate.”
 

SteveB

Active member
Isaiah 53 is not about the messiah. The suffering servant is about Israel -- the remnant of Israel suffers vicariously for the whole of Israel. This metaphor of the servant is used throughout the book of Isaiah and is identified as "my servant, Jacob." If you don't like what I'm saying, take it up with Isaiah.

So, Israel, who was bound by its own iniquity, was the offering for sin of Israel? I find that interpretation curious...... Just how does a people whom all the prophets, Moses, and God all say are bound by their own iniquity, pay for their own sin?
Furthermore... I've never once seen any passages which refer to the nation/People of Israel, as YHVH's Arm. Do you have any? I did do a search, and found the following article.
It talks about God, and God alone being his own arm.


1 Who has believed our report?

And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2 For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, And as a root out of dry ground.

He has no form or comeliness; And when we see Him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him.

3 He is despised and rejected by men, A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.

And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

4 Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted.

5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.

6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, And as a sheep before its shearers is silent, So He opened not His mouth.

8 He was taken from prison and from judgment, And who will declare His generation?

For He was cut off from the land of the living; For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.

9 And they made His grave with the wicked— But with the rich at His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was any deceit in His mouth. (You're going to have to show me where Israel was innocent of deceit)

10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief.

When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.

11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.

By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great, And He shall divide the spoil with the strong, Because He poured out His soul unto death, And He was numbered with the transgressors, And He bore the sin of many, And made intercession for the transgressors.
 

Bob Carabbio

Active member
Christians are frustrated.
Nope, we're not. We're going about our business in FAITH, Spreading the Gospel to the world, fully aware that the Jewish folks (like most of the pagan "nations") will reject it, which is unimportant. JEsus remains the ONLY NAME by which a human can be justified, and Jesus SIN OFFERING is the only way a human can be CLEANSED of their SIN.

That you don't agree, and "think" you have Biblical reason to, will be that which condemns you when your life is over.
 

balshan

Active member
Welcome back everyone.

Christians are frustrated. Of all the peoples on the earth, they would think that the Jews, to whom God has entrusted the oracles, would accept Jesus as the Messiah. But no. Jewish converts have been ultra few. By and large, more than any other people, Jews have been immune to the gospel. Why? I hope that this post will answer that question.

  1. God is ECHAD, one, not three in one. Christianity teaches Trinitarianism, which although it is monotheism, is a muddied monotheism. Judaism on the other hand teaches a pure and simple monotheism. Anything that comprises the oneness of God is unthinkable.
  2. God is not a man. This is the nature of God, and the nature of God is unchanging. It is stated three times in the Tanakh: twice in Numbers 23:19, and a third time in Job 9:32. For something to be reiterated three times -- it must be of great importance. Christianity on the other hand, claims that Jesus is "fully God and fully man," at least in the orthodox version. The two are absolutely incompatible. Christians try to claim that "let us create man in our own image" is a reference to the triune nature of God, but in reality it is God talking to the heavenly court. Similarly, the claims of Elohim being a plural are moot -- it is more similar to the royal "we" used by the Queen.
  3. The New Testament contradicts the teachings of the Tanakh/Torah. The Torah clearly teaches the following of the Law, in order to receive the blessings of prosperity and the land of Canaan. Psalm 19 states that the Law is "perfect....sweeter also than the honey and the honeycomb." Yet Paul teaches that the Law brings a curse. He teaches that circumcision is nothing and keeping the Sabbath is up to the individual, rather than being necessary for the Jew. These views, that of the Tanakh and those of Paul, are utterly incompatible. The Torah is agreed upon by both Christians and Jews to be the word of God, and is therefore the measuring reed to determine what else is orthodoxy -- and it therefore determines that the NT doesn't pass muster
  4. The New Testament quotes prophecy out of context (i.e. Hosea 11:1, which is about Israel, not the messiah), misquotes prophecy (i.e. Isaiah 7:14 which is rightly translated young maiden, not virgin), and even makes up prophecy out of whole cloth (such as Matthew 2:23, He shall be called a Nazarene aka someone from the city of Nazareth.)
  5. Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he simply did not fulfill messianic prophecy. It makes no sense to say, "He will fulfill the rest when he comes back again." After all, anyone can claim to be the messiah and say they will fulfill the prophecies the next time around. The only way we have of determining the messiah is if they fulfill the messianic claims, all of them, and quite frankly Jesus did not; thus he failed in his attempt to be the messiah. Here are just three examples:
    • The Messiah will usher in an era of worldwide peace between the nations. Jesus did not.​
    • The Messiah will rule from Jerusalem. Jesus did not.​
    • The Messiah will bring ALL Jews back to the Land of Israel. Jesus did not.​
Open heart are you are not a Catholic?
 

balshan

Active member
Did he ever say that he was Catholic? He didn't say it in this thread and anyway he contradicts Catholicism when he says, "The New Testament contradicts the teachings of the Tanakh/Torah."
I am trying to work it out, in the old threads there was an open heart who was Catholic but was Jewish as well. She and it was she was very open about finding out she had a Jewish background but was Catholic. I was just wondering if it was the same person and had she turned back to Judaism. I have no problems with her views but like to clarify information.

You seem a wee bit defensive. It was just a question.
 
Top