Why Jews will never accept Jesus

The sacrifice the priest made once a year was intended to cover all the sins and is the foreshadow of the Messiah's sacrifice for all sins, detailed in Isaiah 53.
Once again you reference an asham which doesn't cover all sins. Stepping on poo again and again doesn't change the outcome.

God made His soul an offering for sin.
No where does Tanakh say that. Deut 32:6 says He can't take on sin. You're spewing falsehoods.
 
Which is false. You've been given other ways sins are forgiven.


Again, Jeremiah 33 and Ezekiel 37-45 show your words are incorrect.


Well, it's a wonder that Roman or Jewish sources don't mention it, the vail being rent, nor the 500 saints walking around.


As I said, memra is only the spoken word, not a person. You can fool yourself, but not me.


You're confused.
Well, as I said from the beginning you don't know how to co-ordinate scripture or you would understand. God's plan of redemption that He instigated in Eden, Isaiah 53, the tabernacle services are all related and designed to foreshadow the Messiah's sacrifice.
The people Jeremiah and Ezekiel were talking to still had to have their sins covered by blood atonement.
Roman or Jewish sources would not mention it because it would verify who Jesus was and show them guilty. There is no record in any of the Egyptian writings that show the Jews were ever in Egypt, for the same reason. The Jews were an embarrassment and they were stricken from the records, a common practice.
According to the Targums, the Mimra is treated as a person. The everlasting arms in Deuteronomy 33:27 are "the Mimra, through whom the world was created"(Onq). The "arm" of the Lord in other Old Covenant prophecies also refers to the Messiah.
You are confused because you have only been taught by man and haven't let the scriptures teach you.
 
Last edited:
Define the word anointed, mashiach?


There are several. Israel is called out as anointed.


Really? That's not in there.


Nope.
According to the prophets they only expected one mashiach, "Anointed One" to be the actual deliverer of mankind. Why don't you go through the scriptures and look for the actual references to that Messiah instead of just repeating what someone has told you to say?
Really? "The Lord whom you seek shall suddenly come to His temple, the messenger of the covenant." That would be the messenger of the New everlasting covenant. The Desire of the Ages. Now coordinate Malachi's prophecy with all the other prophets.
Yep. You just showed again that you haven't studied any of this on your own.
 
That's 3 spirits. You're confused.


Yeah. You tried this before and it didn't work.
That's only one Spirit. God is one. His Holy Spirit operates in the plural or as more than one because God is omnipresent. Soul and spirit are two completely different elements.
You are the one who doesn't work, you should be doing your own research.
 
Once again you reference an asham which doesn't cover all sins. Stepping on poo again and again doesn't change the outcome.


No where does Tanakh say that. Deut 32:6 says He can't take on sin. You're spewing falsehoods.
The sacrifice the priest made once a year in Moses day was designed to cover all the sins of the people. Present day Rabbis have changed the meaning.
Deut. 32:6? Check your reference. And read Isaiah 53:10 several times. The sins are placed on the Messiah's begotten soul which is distinct from God's Spirit.
 
You have done well to expose the difficulty Jews have had recognizing their own Messiah...Thank you for this post. I hope my response by the numbers helps:
Welcome back everyone.

Christians are frustrated.
Not so much. We're really not. For the most part, those I work with love the Jew in gratitude for the majesty of the Tenach, and the excellence of your stewardship. We're sympathetic with your misunderstanding. There is a lot of history between us...

...and none of us forget that Jesus and ALL his followers, with the only slightly possible exception of Luke the Hellenist, were Jews.

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.
Ahhhh....but without exception, it was the Jew to whom we owe the spread of the gospel throughout Europe, and by persuasion only, never by raising the sword. We owe you the example that only a Jew named Saul/Paul, trained at the feet of Gamaliel himself could have set.

And you're forgetting your own history: Isaiah wrote clearly of the hardening of the heart..."...lest they hear with their ears, and see with their eyes and turn, and I should heal them..." It took seventy years for you to return to your land the first time. It took two millennia for you to return to your land this time.

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.
Without the Trinity, God is incomprehensible. Look at the first verses of Genesis: In the beginning God (Elohim...plural and understood, as you say as echoed/one) created the heavens and the earth and the earth was tohu wa boho and darkness covered the surface of the deep, and reach Elohim was brooding over the waters. Then God said, "Light be..."

In the first verses of the Bible you have the trinity that the Christians worship, whether you like it or not. God the awesome will, God the excellent Spirit, and God the Word that reaches and touches the heart. Father, Spirit and Son. One. It's neither convoluted nor phantasmagorical...and man, created in His image and in His likeness, is likewise body, soul and spirit...And all of this would make several threads.

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.
This is good observation and correct...however, god is not created in man's image, however man IS created in God's image and His likeness...indistinguishable from Him at the beginning yet he fell.

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.
David called him "Lord" when he said, "The Lord said to My Lord, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool...". David was calling the Messiah, the Son of David, Lord. Go figure. Yours to understand. Christians have a handle on this.

Mary became pregnant by believing the Word that was spoken to her...by saying, as the great saints of old all did, "Be it done unto me according to your Word," to Gabriel, she received the Word...just the Word and the Promise...into her womb and made her womb the knitter of One unlike any other that had been born before. That same Word that brought light to the World, brought lite to a virgin's womb. Jesus was unlike any other, and there is no way for a Christian's description to fully describe the indescribable miracle that Isaiah foretold when he said the virgin will be with child...and you will call His name, Immanuel.

Why should a Jew or anyone find this easy to believe? If this were not predicted, foreseen and recorded history, I'd have a hard time believing it as well. I have not found an alternative to believing History. I don't think that's a problem.

End of part one
 
I had to carry this over to Part 2

Your next argument is so admirable, I have to break it into parts...Let me say, thank you for this excellent post.
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.
Paul, one of the most brilliant students Gamaliel ever had, sees the curse of Deuteronomy, as being two pages longer than the blessings of Deuteronomy. Paul's argument is clear...before Deuteronomy we would not have known the exigencies of the Law...but when your Law came, the curse also followed. Hence, an entire sacrificial system (which the Jew now, bereft of your temple, is forced to ignore) was put in place to activate the Grace and Mercy of God that involved the shedding of blood...and without the shedding of blood there is NO remission of sin, despite what your reassuring rabbis tell you. As it is written the nephesh/soul of the animal is in his blood, and soul must be given for soul. That's why Isaiah (53:10) says of Messiah, "...he made his soul an offering for sin...", and Messiah is shown as the perfect lamb. This is why no grave could hold him, and Adam's sin was forever forgiven. Saul/Paul is drawing from the promise you have always had...and sees in Christ the atonement Isaiah foresaw.

He teaches that circumcision is nothing and keeping the Sabbath is up to the individual, rather than being necessary for the Jew.
Saul, on the other hand, had the Hellenized Jew, Timothy, circumcised, because he never discounted the circumcision for the Jew. He did not extend that requirement of the Law to the gentile, because the unworkable requirement of your Law. and the curse that comes from breaking it, which, with terror, you must face daily, since you have been forced to ignore the requirements of the sacrificial system that brought you peace,

For Paul, every day had become a Sabbath, and his work became the work of the Messiah, having laid his own burden down, he took up the burden of God..."For the eyes of the Lord search the world to and fro to show Himself strong on behalf of the one whose heart is perfect toward Him." Paul was God's eyes and Messiah's hands and lips. Where the Law was but a shadow...a vehicle to God's love and mercy...the resurrection brought the realization. It's not days and months. It's not the circumcision of the flesh...It's what Moses and Jeremiah called us all to: the circumcision of the heart. That is the circumcision of the New Covenant.
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
Therefore you do ill to ignore it's most basic premise: Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.

How dare you emphasize a day of the week, or an act of the flesh, and ignore the requirements of the Law concerning your own sin and transgression? It's an omission of convenience, because, if the Jew were actually practicing the blood sacrifices required by Moses, the sensitivities of the New Millennium would rise up almost universally against the Jew.

But that hasn't even been an issue for two thousand years.

This next section is well-argued, so I want to make suggestions...certainly not corrections, as I've spent a few decades thinking the same things without the help of my Jewish friends, who are not as well versed as you in what is written:
4. The New Testament quotes prophecy out of context (i.e. Hosea 11:1, which is about Israel, not the messiah),
You are trying to concretize types and shadows. Matthew, a Jew, took the license...He says, "Out of Egypt I called my Son." That's indisputable. Jesus returned from Egypt...I'm ok with it, and your point is well taken.

misquotes prophecy (i.e. Isaiah 7:14 which is rightly translated young maiden, not virgin),
I've seen this one argued, and frankly, you fail. There's another word for a "young maiden" who is NOT a virgin: "stoned" and "dead." Your point is moot. A young Jewish maiden is a young virgin maiden. No one would have misunderstood, and that's why the LXX says "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.)
Yeah...this one is a total win for you...unless someone finds it in the missing books of prophecy, like the book of Jesher. I've never seen a good argument in defense of this point.

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."
Unless, in fact, there are two separate comings: How do you recognize Messiah of Isaiah 53 with Messiah coming to conquer?

The Jews, who had filtered the gnat, but swallowed the camel, had been big on restricting Sabbath travel to the number of steps, but had ignored the primary commandments of Scripture, "Love God; Love your neighbor," could not see the possibility that Redemption comes first, before the kingdom...and that the FAITH of Abraham, who heard God and took Him at His Word, must be restored to Israel. It was Abraham that set the example for you...not Aaron, who threw gold into a fire and out sprang a calf to worship.
After all, anyone can claim to be the messiah and say they will fulfill the prophecies the next time around.
Yeah...

...you're probably right.

...but, then, an empty tomb and a resurrection, His appearance among His disciples and to hundreds of others, buttresses His claim of an imminent return in a way far better than any false messiah I can think of.

You seek Christians are forced to look realistically at history, and at a demonstrably remarkable point in time, where the grave that held a dead man, crucified and run through sufficiently after his death for hemoglobin and plasma to have separated, was actually empty. If you ignore history, you can make all kinds of fruitless argument...even appear reasonable. But for the empty tomb, I'd be with you.

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.​
  • Yet...because the peace He offers you begins with an internal conquering...It's from the inside out...not top down theocracy...but an affair of the heart.
    [*]
    The Messiah will rule from Jerusalem. Jesus did not.​
    We agree. Yet...Not before He rules in the heart...
    [*]
    The Messiah will bring ALL Jews back to the Land of Israel. Jesus did not.​
    And yet...Paul makes a powerful point that..."They are not all Israel who are called Israel." I don't want to go into 20th century politics...but I could.

    "In returning and rest you shall be saved...but you would not." You taught us all that peace with God is an affair of the heart.


I'd love to know if you read this. Let me know if it helped.
 
Last edited:
Well, as I said from the beginning you don't know how to co-ordinate scripture or you would understand. God's plan of redemption that He instigated in Eden, Isaiah 53, the tabernacle services are all related and designed to foreshadow the Messiah's sacrifice.
The people Jeremiah and Ezekiel were talking to still had to have their sins covered by blood atonement.
Roman or Jewish sources would not mention it because it would verify who Jesus was and show them guilty. There is no record in any of the Egyptian writings that show the Jews were ever in Egypt, for the same reason. The Jews were an embarrassment and they were stricken from the records, a common practice.
According to the Targums, the Mimra is treated as a person. The everlasting arms in Deuteronomy 33:27 are "the Mimra, through whom the world was created"(Onq). The "arm" of the Lord in other Old Covenant prophecies also refers to the Messiah.
You are confused because you have only been taught by man and haven't let the scriptures teach you.
I've already answered. I'm done here.
 
According to the prophets they only expected one mashiach, "Anointed One" to be the actual deliverer of mankind. Why don't you go through the scriptures and look for the actual references to that Messiah instead of just repeating what someone has told you to say?
Really? "The Lord whom you seek shall suddenly come to His temple, the messenger of the covenant." That would be the messenger of the New everlasting covenant. The Desire of the Ages. Now coordinate Malachi's prophecy with all the other prophets.
Yep. You just showed again that you haven't studied any of this on your own.
I've already answered.
 
The sacrifice the priest made once a year in Moses day was designed to cover all the sins of the people. Present day Rabbis have changed the meaning.
Deut. 32:6? Check your reference. And read Isaiah 53:10 several times. The sins are placed on the Messiah's begotten soul which is distinct from God's Spirit.
I've already answered. I'm done here.
 
That's only one Spirit. God is one. His Holy Spirit operates in the plural or as more than one because God is omnipresent. Soul and spirit are two completely different elements.
You are the one who doesn't work, you should be doing your own research.
Rotfl... You're the Walmart greeter.

Anyway, I've already answered. I'm done here.
 
Well, as I said from the beginning you don't know how to co-ordinate scripture or you would understand. God's plan of redemption that He instigated in Eden, Isaiah 53, the tabernacle services are all related and designed to foreshadow the Messiah's sacrifice.
The people Jeremiah and Ezekiel were talking to still had to have their sins covered by blood atonement.
Roman or Jewish sources would not mention it because it would verify who Jesus was and show them guilty. There is no record in any of the Egyptian writings that show the Jews were ever in Egypt, for the same reason. The Jews were an embarrassment and they were stricken from the records, a common practice.
According to the Targums, the Mimra is treated as a person. The everlasting arms in Deuteronomy 33:27 are "the Mimra, through whom the world was created"(Onq). The "arm" of the Lord in other Old Covenant prophecies also refers to the Messiah.
You are confused because you have only been taught by man and haven't let the scriptures teach you.
I've already answered. I'm done here.
 
Leviticus states specifically that the blood makes atonement for the soul. That offering relates to the once a year sacrifice the priest made in the Holy of Holies, which was designed to be a foreshadow of the Messiah's sacrifice detailed in Isaiah 53. That is not the same as Yom Kippur which was an adaptation made by the Rabbis after the destruction of the second temple. There is no blood sacrifice made on Yom Kippur as they are not allowed outside the temple in Jerusalem. It was destroyed in 70AD because God was ending the old system and instigating the new through Jesus.
The sacrifice God made in Eden is a foreshadow of the Messiah's sacrifice and sets the precedent for atonement by sacrifice. The only sacrifice that God will accept is the plan of redemption He established for mankind in Eden. We cannot cover our own sins it has to be done by an act of God. The typology is consistent throughout the Old Testament.
The blood makes atonement for the soul, and all other forms of atonement make atonement for the soul. Nuff said.

There was no sacrifice made in Eden. Just because an animal is killed doesn't make it a sacrifice. You are simply adding to the text. Bad bad bad idea.
 
...and none of us forget that Jesus and ALL his followers, with the only slightly possible exception of Luke the Hellenist, were Jews.
First of all, it is nice to meet your acquaintance. Your responses are a cut above. We certainly have our disagreements, but that is what makes these forums fun and interesting. What I appreciate is that you are able to concede that I'm able to say things worth listening to (as are you). Not everyone in this forum is able to debate so objectively. There are some in here who think Jews have nothing of worth to say. So its a breath of fresh air to have someone actually say to me that I have argued a point well. I think we will enjoy each other's posts a great deal. Welcome to the forum.

Getting back to your comment, Christians seem to forget this all the time. They forget that Jesus practiced second Temple Judaism, that the earliest version of Christianity was that of a sect of Judaism that followed the 613 laws as well as oral torah.
We owe you the example that only a Jew named Saul/Paul, trained at the feet of Gamaliel himself could have set.
Paul makes this claim, but the evidence shows otherwise. Jewjitzu has contributed extensive posts giving the arguments against this.

And you're forgetting your own history: Isaiah wrote clearly of the hardening of the heart...
What is the significance of this? Sure, we Jews have our times of faithfulness an our times when we've fallen away. We have our faithful remnant, and we have Jews that are not observant. I see no connection between this and any of the arguments I gave for why Jews will never accept Jesus.

Without the Trinity, God is incomprehensible.
God IS incomprehensible, with or without the Trinity. He is infinite. How can the finite fathom the infinite?

David called him "Lord" when he said, "The Lord said to My Lord, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool...". David was calling the Messiah, the Son of David, Lord. Go figure. Yours to understand. Christians have a handle on this.
This is an example of Christians misunderstanding the text. The psalmist is writing about David. the LORD (God) said unto my Lord (David). It is not a messianic passage.

You then go on to preach a bunch of stuff about Mary and Jesus being the Word, all of which is irrelevant and utterly unmoving. Like I said in my OP, Jews will never accept Jesus. Your NT is not the word of God, and contains all sorts of falsehoods.

Moving on to your part 2.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top