Why Jews will never accept Jesus

Bonnie

Super Member
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.
I remember that person, too.
 

rakovsky

Active member
You seem a wee bit defensive. It was just a question.
Sometimes it's hard to tell what someone intends when they write in a forum because you don't get to hear intonation. So for instance the question "Did he ever say that he was Catholic?" can sound defensive depending on the intonation. In some languages, intonation changes can make even bigger differences. What is your native language?
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.
I considered that maybe he/she had said something like that on the forum before it went down and that this i what you are referring to.

On one hand, a reason why the Jewish religious community would tend to not accept Christianity would be that Jesus spoke very critically of the Pharisees. This set him up against the rabbinical establishment. So this would be like asking why the Protestant Church of England doesn't follow the teachings of English Catholics, or why Catholics follow the Pope instead of Martin Luther, or why Hinduism doesn't follow Buddhism. Even if you accept the Christian POV and all the Christian answers to the challenges that she posed in the OP, the "Pharisee v. Jesus" paradigm itself makes it hard to say that they would. Even Messianic Judaism doesn't resolve that paradigm.

What I just said about the Pharisees v. Jesus paradigm is a factor, but it's an oversimplification also. For instance, there WERE pharisees in the 1st Century who followed Jesus, and there ARE Jews today who consider themselves Christians, and over the centuries there were many Jews who converted to Christianity. In fact, it's hard to know what percent of Jews converted to Christianity or Islam over the centuries. Maybe most did.
 
Last edited:

rakovsky

Active member
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.
The term "one" can refer to something that is or is not homogenous.
In ancient thought, both in ancient Egyptian religion and in Hinduism for instance, there has been a concept that their gods are all "one".
So for instance in Hinduism, there is the god Trimurta, who is also three gods: Brahma ("Creator"), Vishnu, and Shiva. This doesn't necesarily equate to the Christian concept of three persons in one God, but my point is that "one" does not exclude "three of something in one".

In the Tanakh, the typical word for God is "Elohim", meaning "Gods" in Hebrew Grammar. Imagine if our English word for God wa literally "Gods".
So in Genesis 1, "Gods" says let us make Man in "Our" image, and uses the plural for "our" as well. Israelites thought of God a "one", but there is much evidence that they saw Him as a collective.
 

rakovsky

Active member
So in other words, many Jews have accepted Jesus over the years, but a major reason why it is hard for the establishment to accept him is because he was a dissident criticising the religious establishment.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
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.
They seem to have abandoned their Catholicism and become an orthodox Jew.

It seems to me that they never actually understood either.

Hebrews makes it really clear that if we abandon Jesus, there is no way to get right with God.
 

balshan

Well-known member
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.

"Actually, being a former Christian, not only have I read the NT many times, I have studied it in great depth." (Open Heart, Message #14 above)
Catholic =/= "Former Christian"
I noticed that later as well. I am hoping she is well, we had a lot in common.
 

balshan

Well-known member
So in other words, many Jews have accepted Jesus over the years, but a major reason why it is hard for the establishment to accept him is because he was a dissident criticising the religious establishment.
I understood what you were saying. But I think there are many understandable reasons as to why Jewish people are very cautious of Christianity. Now more Jewish people see Jesus as a righteous Jew but they see Christian belief of Him being God as impossible to swallow. They do not see Him as fulfilling the Messianic prophecies as well. They are still waiting for Mashiach to come.

In Jesus time they really wanted the King Mashiach to over turn the Romans. I do not thing it would worry them that he criticised the Pharisees as the various groups were critical of one another all the time. It was common.
 

balshan

Well-known 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 toes 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.​
I don't think Christians are frustrated by the Jewish people not coming to believe in Jesus as Messiah. I believe there is a growing number of Messianic Jewish people.

The NT does not contradict the teachings of the Tanakh. It teaches that following the law is not possible for any human being. Moshe and the other main prophets all failed to follow the law without misstep. The Tanakh itself teaches if you break one of the laws, you break them all. Therefore, the NT shows a way of staying in the kingdom, of how to be closer to the Lord.

Let us be honest Jesus summed up all the law in Matt 22:36-40

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

This is a quote from Deut 6:5

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

Lev 19:18

‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.
 

balshan

Well-known member
I don't think Christians are frustrated by the Jewish people not coming to believe in Jesus as Messiah. I believe there is a growing number of Messianic Jewish people.

The NT does not contradict the teachings of the Tanakh. It teaches that following the law is not possible for any human being. Moshe and the other main prophets all failed to follow the law without misstep. The Tanakh itself teaches if you break one of the laws, you break them all. Therefore, the NT shows a way of staying in the kingdom, of how to be closer to the Lord.

Let us be honest Jesus summed up all the law in Matt 22:36-40

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

This is a quote from Deut 6:5

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

Lev 19:18

‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.
I would also add that the way Jewish people have been treated and still are treated by others is a major cause of distrust of Jewish people. A lot of the hatred shown towards Jewish people has been by people who called themselves Christians.
 

rakovsky

Active member
I understood what you were saying. But I think there are many understandable reasons as to why Jewish people are very cautious of Christianity.
Well, frankly this developed in several steps, and Christ's criticisms of the pharisees must play a major role.

You are saying that
I do not thing it would worry them that he criticised the Pharisees as the various groups were critical of one another all the time. It was common.
But your answer seems to miss the problem somehow. OK, sure, the various groups- Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, non-Torah Jewish Hellenists, were fighting each other in polemics at the time.
So... how does the fact that fighting was common mean that fighting would not worry them?
In Protestant Europe, fighting of different groups was common too. The fact that Protestant fighting was common does not mean that the fighting does not bother them.

Jesus was not saying that he is just one pharisee disagreeing with one other pharisee of equal authority. In the Gospel story, Jesus is presenting himself as criticizing the Pharisees collectively. And depending on which Gospel you read, either Jesus criticized the Jewish community implicitly (eg. as the fig tree) or there was an explicitly conflict, like in John's Gospel.

If you want to come back and argue that other prophets in time criticized Israel and yet were still regarded, then I accept your point. I accept the point that Jesus' criticism does not necessarily make a final break or something, as if the pharisees have to reject Jesus. But in fact it is a factor nonetheless.

A second event was the Council of Jamnia and the Birkat Ha-Minim in 70 AD. I welcome you to look up that event. My point is that it developed in stages.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Well, frankly this developed in several steps, and Christ's criticisms of the pharisees must play a major role.

You are saying that
But your answer seems to miss the problem somehow. OK, sure, the various groups- Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, non-Torah Jewish Hellenists, were fighting each other in polemics at the time.
So... how does the fact that fighting was common mean that fighting would not worry them?
In Protestant Europe, fighting of different groups was common too. The fact that Protestant fighting was common does not mean that the fighting does not bother them.

Jesus was not saying that he is just one pharisee disagreeing with one other pharisee of equal authority. In the Gospel story, Jesus is presenting himself as criticizing the Pharisees collectively. And depending on which Gospel you read, either Jesus criticized the Jewish community implicitly (eg. as the fig tree) or there was an explicitly conflict, like in John's Gospel.

If you want to come back and argue that other prophets in time criticized Israel and yet were still regarded, then I accept your point. I accept the point that Jesus' criticism does not necessarily make a final break or something, as if the pharisees have to reject Jesus. But in fact it is a factor nonetheless.

A second event was the Council of Jamnia and the Birkat Ha-Minim in 70 AD. I welcome you to look up that event. My point is that it developed in stages.
I disagree that Jesus' criticisms of the pharisees was a big play only because their various sects still strongly criticise each other today. They criticise their beliefs and behaviours strongly today. I mean in a discussion with one rabbi, he said he landed in a pig style when he came to the group he was to join in this country. It took me as a non Jewish person awhile to realise that was a major insult. Jesus came from a pharisical background you can tell this by his beliefs, they are not in line with the Sadducees for example. Also, the non Jewish leaders of the day would have already noticed and been commenting on the hypocrisy of the leadership groups. We do this today as well.

I have looked up the council etc. In fact, we were not invited but would have loved to have attended a talk on false Messiah, and the Rabbi said Jesus was not the worse of the false Messiahs.

Ps sorry for the typo
 

rakovsky

Active member
I disagree that Jesus' criticisms of the pharisees was a big play only because their various sects still strongly criticise each other today. They criticise their beliefs and behaviours strongly today. I mean in a discussion with one rabbi, he said he landed in a pig style when he came to the group he was to join in this country. It took me as a non Jewish person awhile to realise that was a major insult. Jesus came from a pharisical background you can tell this by his beliefs, they are not in line with the Sadducees for example. Also, the non Jewish leaders of the day would have already noticed and been commenting on the hypocrisy of the leadership groups. We do this today as well.
Most people, Jews and Christians, are going to agree that the nature of Jesus' conflicts and criticisms with the pharisees is one early factor at an early stage in the division between followers of Jesus on one hand and the followers of the rabbinical establishment on the other.

I could make a whole separate thread about it, but I think that it's obvious enough that I don't need to.

Mark 7 has the story where Jesus rejects the common pharisaical/rabbinical hand washing practice:
4 And on returning from the market, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions for them to observe, including the washing of cups, pitchers, kettles, and couches for dining. 5 So the Pharisees and scribes questioned Jesus: “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders? Instead, they eat with defiled hands. 6 Jesus answered them, “Isaiah prophesied correctly about you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘These people honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me.
You can answer me back that the Karaites and non-observant Jews don't do those things either. But if that's your answer, then I can reply back that this then begs the question of why the Jewish community doesn't become Karaite or non-observant. And the answer is because there is a conflict in practice.

But Jesus was not just making a conflict in practice like handwashing, but also making polemics againstthe pharisees.


I have looked up the council etc. In fact, we were not invited but would have loved to have attended a talk on false Messiah, and the Rabbi said Jesus was not the worse of the false Messiahs.

Ps sorry for the typo

I don't know if you realize this but the Council I was talking about was 1950 years ago in 70 AD!!!!!!
 

e v e

Super Member
Christ (same Christ in Genesis 1) did not come for jews or any other ethnic group either, anyway.

Christ, Gods Son, came here came here to rescue us who are Judahite Hebrew Souls. God is only interested in Getting Back His Souls who left Eden, and restarting Eden. That is the point of all the prophets chapters.

He wants Eden back. Not this earth and its various ethnic types. This earth is an abomination to Him. God has no interested in an earthly government upon this earth.

This earth per prophets is to be destroyed both its earth and sky.
 
Last edited:

rakovsky

Active member
Balshan,

I am looking through the events of history to see how the division occurred.
The earliest Gospel is considered Mark. In Mark 1, Jesus gives instructions to a man whom he healed:
"See thou say nothing to any man: but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them."
So you can see that in a way, Jesus was acting within the bounds of the Jewish religious community in his time.

But then in later passages in the Gospels, you can see where he is having conflict with the pharisees and rabbis and with their decisions and rules. The conflicts that Jesus had with the religious establishment are one factor in why the religious community in the 1st-2nd century AD usually did not accept him. People listen to leaders often. If the leaders had done the opposite and said to listen to Jesus, it would be more likely that more people would obey and follow Jesus. But the Sanhedrin did not accept Jesus. Jesus was in conflict with the Sanhedrin. So that conflict affected people's views.

I am not saying that Jesus fighting with Pharisees was the one and only reason. But I would disagree that it was not important in affecting people's views.

You gave an example of a rabbi today referring to a "pig sty". Sure, depending on who he said it about and how much conflict that rabbi had, it could also be one factor in affecting how people view that rabbi today.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Most people, Jews and Christians, are going to agree that the nature of Jesus' conflicts and criticisms with the pharisees is one early factor at an early stage in the division between followers of Jesus on one hand and the followers of the rabbinical establishment on the other.

I could make a whole separate thread about it, but I think that it's obvious enough that I don't need to.

Mark 7 has the story where Jesus rejects the common pharisaical/rabbinical hand washing practice:

You can answer me back that the Karaites and non-observant Jews don't do those things either. But if that's your answer, then I can reply back that this then begs the question of why the Jewish community doesn't become Karaite or non-observant. And the answer is because there is a conflict in practice.

But Jesus was not just making a conflict in practice like handwashing, but also making polemics againstthe pharisees.




I don't know if you realize this but the Council I was talking about was 1950 years ago in 70 AD!!!!!!
I know when the council was you seem to assume you are the only one with knowledge.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Most people, Jews and Christians, are going to agree that the nature of Jesus' conflicts and criticisms with the pharisees is one early factor at an early stage in the division between followers of Jesus on one hand and the followers of the rabbinical establishment on the other.

I could make a whole separate thread about it, but I think that it's obvious enough that I don't need to.

Mark 7 has the story where Jesus rejects the common pharisaical/rabbinical hand washing practice:

You can answer me back that the Karaites and non-observant Jews don't do those things either. But if that's your answer, then I can reply back that this then begs the question of why the Jewish community doesn't become Karaite or non-observant. And the answer is because there is a conflict in practice.

But Jesus was not just making a conflict in practice like handwashing, but also making polemics againstthe pharisees.




I don't know if you realize this but the Council I was talking about was 1950 years ago in 70 AD!!!!!!
I see from this post. You just want to discuss things with yourself. I am happy for you to do so.
 
Last edited:

e v e

Super Member
The word Kosmon is addressing this cosmology as the sin realm. Mystery Babylon.

Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him
 
Top