Why Jews will never accept Jesus

[YeshuaFan]

The law says the same thing, given by God.

The Law could not bring spiritual life to sinners, as while the Law is good and perfect, we are sinful persons, and needed the Grace of the Cross in order to be reconciled back to God!

 

[Jewjitzu]

It might help if you actually studied the sages' texts that show otherwise.

They never say Messiah is God. You've failed consistently to prove otherwise.

 

[Jewjitzu]

The law and all the scriptures outline the plan of redemption that God ordained. The salvation of the soul can only be obtained through the sacrifice of the Messiah whose soul was made an offering for sin Isaiah 53:10.

Salvation wouldn't cover partial sins like an asham.

Christianity originated in the garden of Eden and is fulfilled by the Messiah Jesus.

False. It started up officially in the 3rd and 4th centuries based in the traditions of men.

There is no other Messiah appearing anywhere in scripture after the destruction of the temple in 70AD, except the Messiah's return in Zechariah 14.

The Messiah you're thinking of hasn't arrived. The world continues on its same course.

 

[Jewjitzu]

Another thought strikes me: Gamaliel was not necessarily the voice of the Pharisees in that day.

Unfortunately, you're off here. As the Nasi, Rav Gamaliel had tremendous influence and oversight of the Prushim, Pharisees.

If Paul had ambition, he’d be listening to the voice of Caiaphas or Annas, depending on which had the upper hand at the time.

Yep, which shows he was really a Sadducee. A Pharisee wouldn't follow a Sadducee.

Neither was well known for their tolerance. Caiaphas recognized the convenience that the death of one would bring “for the sake of the nation”.

Yep, a High Priest and Sadducee under the influence of Rome would make such a pitch.

The gospel accounts purposely confuse the factions.

 

[Jewjitzu]

The Law could not bring spiritual life to sinners, as while the Law is good and perfect, we are sinful persons, and needed the Grace of the Cross in order to be reconciled back to God!

The law has grace built it. No cross needed.

 

[Jewjitzu]

No it isn't. Paul, as an apostate, stood out. No one was more influential in his day...in all the known world. The risk, if deliberately associating him with the greatest teacher you boast, was incalculable.

The point is he's not mentioned as a student of Gamaliel, so Paul and the NT distort the facts.

Correct...even to the point of recognizing and responding to God Himself. The quest was to know God, not to pretend to know something. Following Gamaliel allowed him to be free to receive, when the Real became known.

But the real was revealed on Mt. Sinai, with the law as part of it. It doesn't get much more real than that. No pretend here.

The Sadducees aligned with Rome. The Hellenists aligned with conformity. The Herodians aligned with hedonism, and the three conspired as one together to bring Jesus to Pilate.

No doubt there were factions that wanted Jesus dead. But, he did want to die.

That's like Republicans and Democrats agreeing for anything.
Much less doubtful when you know the teacher. Paul spent time in the desert around Mt Sinai...he got taught what the apostles learned without the benefit of Jesus in tunic and sandals.

Paul learned on his own and had his own visions. Being from Tarsus, he was influenced by hellenism and had gnostic tendencies.

Gamaliel taught Paul how to think. The Holy Spirit taught him what to know.

I doubt Paul had the influence of the spirit of holiness as that leads to obedience to the law and teaching likewise, Zechariah 7:12, Ezekiel 36:26-27.

You're being obtuse to secure your point. There's no need for that: Moses iteration of the blessings and the curses in Deuteronomy is clear...and totally completes what little we learned in Eden.

Since Eden, there have been blessings and curses. That's just a fact.

Do you want me to ignore Abraham's encounter above Sodom then? Adam walking with God in the cool of the day?

I think you don't understand what happened.

The image of Adam...which is the image and likeness of God?

It's not a physical image. The ability to rule like God with reason, mercy, etc.

Until now. You surprise me...Adam was given dominion over the garden. The dust that was breathed on came from that garden. The description is accurate...and full of life.

Where's the man shaped hole?

Huh...When I lay down my soul for yours...it adds to your life. Your righteousness is another thing to work on, but you need life for that.

You can't lay down your soul for mine. Ezekiel 18 is clear on that.

Well...the skins that covered Adam and Eve's nakedness did come from somewhere. That was the first blood sacrifice.

There wasn't blood mentioned. You've assumed that.

Yes, actually...we do. But Jesus' blood was not sprinkled on the shadow...His was sprinkled on the heavenly tabernacle from which Moses' pattern was taken.

And nothing in Tanakh supports this view.

Don't try to convince me that a Goy wrote Hebrews. You do your own intelligence an injustice.

Do you have proof otherwise?

You could have written it. I never could have.

I wouldn't have written. It's quite blasphemous in places.

I'm not sure what your point is, but let's be deliberately real: Blood serves a single purpose. It cleanses the flesh. Spirit/breath refreshes and cleanses the blood. Salvation is from within, from a renewing of the blood by the breath. Biology itself argues the means and the working of salvation. Unclean breath taints the blood, and the body dies. The blood of the sacrifice can only truly cleanse the body if it's a cleansing from within. When the soul/blood has been cleansed, the whole body can be made whole.

So Jesus could never accomplish what your saying from a biological stance.

The sacrifice of Yom Kippur was for the atonement of the nation...and was good for a year. Jesus was led outside the camp and given to Azazel...What you do, now without blood and without the goat for Azazel, Jesus completed once and for all. Isaiah chose "asham", and made it for sins...I think your argument is weak, but you should take it up with him.

No, you're argument using Isaish 53 is weak using the asham.

I'm glad your argument satisfies you...It's not your best one.
You're ignoring other scripture that Christians always hammer...No one is righteous. No...Not one. Argue with David and God on this one, and tell Him you really are.

But then Ezekiel 18 says otherwise. You are arguing against your case for Jesus being righteous. The righteous fall 7 times...

When you tell me this, I'm only hearing the closing litany of Judges...there is no king in Israel, and everyone is doing what seems right in his own eyes. Please do not pretend that that is a defensible approach to the Holy One. I think we both agree that there is a higher calling.
...or perhaps the altar in the tabernacle from which that temple finds its pattern. Our contention is that this is a much higher sacrifice, and it was poured out on a much higher altar, once for all.
Death is not the end...it's the beginning. You have to deal with the terrors of Isaiah's last warning: there's a place where the worm never dies. This is where wisdom cries out for the fear of the Lord.

To comply with the law you must follow the law. This point is not satisfied with your argument.

Or that a sacrifice is sufficient. David never stopped sacrificing...

That doesn't mean a sacrifice isn't sufficient for an atonement. It's clearly said it is, as well as other means.

No...I've actually recognized the benefits and the call of rest: "And so I swore in my wrath, they shall not enter my rest..." What "rest" were they called to and failed to enter?

Not to your satisfaction...I have demonstrated effectively the effective claims of His first coming.

Doesn't work.

The Word was made flesh. And He did dwell among us. Personify the Tenach, and you have Jesus.

When God speaks, things materialize, come into fruition, flesh. That doesn't make His spoken word a god.

She didn't end up a Virgin, though, did she? Don't even mention this to Reuben and Simeon.

Then Parthenos isnt a good term for virgin.

OK...but we have what we have, and fodder for long, inspired and intriguing debates. And the account that Mary was betrothed, and not touched..."I've never known a man..."

Which is false as she conceived via sperm, tazria, Leviticus 12:1-8. Pregnancy outside of marriage makes Jesus a mamzer.

Something unprecedented happened because Mary believed God, like her father Abraham before her.

Abraham didn't have a child through a virgin.

Well...it's clear that someone is hung up on the term. Isaiah chose it. I get it...you seem to discard the significance. That's the nature of a debate. It's only a temporary problem. There is so much more to uncover.0

Not my problem. I don't find this as a debate.

Good idea. I agree. And I will, as I'm sure you are. May the Lord give clarity and wisdom!

Amen.

We don't disagree...but then...there's that pesky issue you have with the Trinity.

Then we disagree.

He did.

Haven't seen it.

But then...Jesus said he was...and He had the inside scoop. And then He also added that he "shall come"...adding to the enigma. I'd keep setting his place at the table if I were you.

I've been eating just fine.

I do not, and will not expect you to until you have adequate evidence. What would be the point of our discussion if you changed?

Ok.

Thanks again for your kindness and your patience.

No problem.

 

[YeshuaFan]

The law says the same thing, given by God.

The Law could not bring spiritual life to sinners, as while the Law is good and perfect, we are sinful persons, and needed the Grace of the Cross in order to be reconciled back to Giod!

Salvation wouldn't cover partial sins like an asham.


False. It started up officially in the 3rd and 4th centuries based in the traditions of men.


The Messiah you're thinking of hasn't arrived. The world continues on its same course.

Well, they were known as being Christians, in the first century, as they gathered and sang as unto Jesus being their Lord and God!

 

[Jewjitzu]

The Law could not bring spiritual life to sinners, as while the Law is good and perfect, we are sinful persons, and needed the Grace of the Cross in order to be reconciled back to Giod!

Nope, the law does that. The law is spiritual. From the spirit of God. Zechariah 7:12. Only false prophets have issues with it.

Well, they were known as being Christians, in the first century, as they gathered and sang as unto Jesus being their Lord and God!

Then they were apostates and idolaters.

 

[Biblican]

They never say Messiah is God. You've failed consistently to prove otherwise.

Have you read them? They associate the Messiah with the first light of creation and the spirit that moved upon the waters. In other words, they recognized that the Messiah would be God's Spirit.

 

[Biblican]

Salvation wouldn't cover partial sins like an asham.


False. It started up officially in the 3rd and 4th centuries based in the traditions of men.


The Messiah you're thinking of hasn't arrived. The world continues on its same course.

Salvation that that is foreshadowed in the Old Covenant and fulfilled in Jesus is designed to cover all sins. This is the New Everlasting Covenant that was promised to be given when the Jews were restored to their land after the captivity and was instigated by Jesus.

Christianity originated in Eden. The principle of salvation by grace is clearly illustrated. Something had to die in order for Adam and Eve to be covered. All the old leaves were replaced by something new that God did. That is Christianity. We cannot cover our own sins, we have to be covered by an act of God and that is what Jesus did. You need to be able to coordinate what happened in Eden with Isaiah 53, they are related.

You can teach Christianity without even going into the New Testament. I agree that Christianity or the church at that time was corrupted by the traditions of men, that's why there was a reformation.

The messiah you are looking for has not arrived and there is no evidence in the scriptures that he is ever going to apart from the character described in Daniel 11 that is operating just before the judgment.

 

[Biblican]

The law has grace built it. No cross needed.

Not true. If that was the case ther would have no need for God to establish the tabernacle where sins could be forgiven. The tabernacle in turn was designed to be a foreshadow of the last sacrifice instigated by Jesus.

 

[Jewjitzu]

Have you read them? They associate the Messiah with the first light of creation and the spirit that moved upon the waters. In other words, they recognized that the Messiah would be God's Spirit.

Where does it say Messiah is God? The spirit, which is the will, desire of God, is for Messiah to come. You misread everything you read in Jewish sources because you look with Christian glasses. That's your problem.

 

[Jewjitzu]

Salvation that that is foreshadowed in the Old Covenant and fulfilled in Jesus is designed to cover all sins. This is the New Everlasting Covenant that was promised to be given when the Jews were restored to their land after the captivity and was instigated by Jesus.

Christianity originated in Eden. The principle of salvation by grace is clearly illustrated. Something had to die in order for Adam and Eve to be covered. All the old leaves were replaced by something new that God did. That is Christianity. We cannot cover our own sins, we have to be covered by an act of God and that is what Jesus did. You need to be able to coordinate what happened in Eden with Isaiah 53, they are related.

You can teach Christianity without even going into the New Testament. I agree that Christianity or the church at that time was corrupted by the traditions of men, that's why there was a reformation.

The messiah you are looking for has not arrived and there is no evidence in the scriptures that he is ever going to apart from the character described in Daniel 11 that is operating just before the judgment.

Salvation of sins nowhere in Tanakh is based on Messiah. Salvation is exclusively of God's doing, not man's.

Psalm 146:3
Put not your trust in princes, Nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.

Micah 6:7-8
Would the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil?

Shall I present my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you but to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

A human sacrifice is not acceptable.

 

[Jewjitzu]

Not true. If that was the case ther would have no need for God to establish the tabernacle where sins could be forgiven.

And that's grace right there. God provided a means of atonement. He didn't have to. And all sins do not require an atonement.

If you were truly forgiven and debt paid by Jesus, you wouldn't die. And that's not the case.

The tabernacle in turn was designed to be a foreshadow of the last sacrifice instigated by Jesus.

Which is untrue. Again, Jesus' blood never made it to the altar per the commandments. Ezekiel 18 is clear a person's righteousness doesn't cover another.

 

[Open Heart]

How can you say that when I've quoted you Leviticus 17:11 so many times? Christianity originated from the Old Testament. It is the fulfillment of all the foreshadows and typologies that God planted in His word to illustrate the plan of redemption that He instigated in Eden. You can teach all of Christianity without even leaving the Old Testament. That's how I became anchored in my Christian faith.

I refer you to the new thread about blood atonement. I deal with your objection there.

 

[Open Heart]

There was nothing of the Sacrificial system that was not sanctified with the shedding of blood, from the tabernacle, to the utensils, to the garments of the priest, to the priest himself.

Actually there were plenty of non-blood sacrifices. Look up, i.e. grain offerings. Again, it is a case of both/and. Both blood and other can sanctify. The sabbath is sanctified with no offering at all.

I do not believe the sabbath was about slavery...but about imitating God Himself, who worked six days and rested the seventh. It was about rest, not slavery.

Deuteronomy 5
12 Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work. 14 But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you. 15 Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day.

I might disappoint you, but the principle of obedience, for the Christian, is an affair of the heart, not the letter of the Law, because the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.

The problem with this is that it doesn't work. Christians sin just like everyone else.

Obedience comes from within, and every Law hangs on this: Love God. Love your neighbor.

Well, I wouldn't say differently. For me, I obey God not for any want of heaven, but simply because God is God and deserving of my love and obedience. And as I said before, every rabbi I've known teaches that all of the law falls under loving God and loving neighbor. However, none of this means that obedience isn't an obligation. Again, you set up a false dichotomy.

And yet it was all the diaspora often had, as they lost their own native tongue. And the translation was made hundreds of years before the fulfillment of the promise in Bethlehem. The point is: A young Jewish woman is a virgin...or dead.

A young woman can be married.

Again, a please to discuss with you.

 

[Open Heart]

God sacrificed an animal for us.

No he didn't. There was no sacrifice in Eden. There was a practical killing of an animal for clothing. It's not the same thing.

 

[Biblican]

Where does it say Messiah is God? The spirit, which is the will, desire of God, is for Messiah to come. You misread everything you read in Jewish sources because you look with Christian glasses. That's your problem.

You misread everything in the Old Covenant because you have been preprogrammed against Jesus being the Messiah and you can't see it objectively. Your problem is you can't co-ordinate scripture and recognize the patterns that link Jesus to the atonement.

 

[Biblican]

No he didn't. There was no sacrifice in Eden. There was a practical killing of an animal for clothing. It's not the same thing.

This is a foreshadow or typology. God is setting the precedent for His plan of redemption. Something had to die in order for His children to be covered. It's no coincidence that the covering of the tabernacle was in ram's skins dyed red. That tabernacle was also the foreshadow of Jesus' final sacrifice. It's also no coincidence that God accepted Abel's offering of the lamb because it represented the sacrifice that clothed his parents. Cain's offering represented his own works, the fig leaves. The typology is consistent throughout the Old Testament.

 

[Biblican]

I refer you to the new thread about blood atonement. I deal with your objection there.

I don't have time. I can only do one thread at a time. I have dealt with the subject sufficiently here. If you can't see the correlation between Genesis 3:21 and Isaiah 53, then there's no point in discussing it any further. God ordained salvation to be through His plan of atonement and the reason for that is He is eliminating the spirit of pride from His kingdom. We have to do it His way, not ours. That's why Aaron's son's were fried and their corpses had to be dragged from the tabernacle. It has to be God's way or not at all, and His way is described in Isaiah 53.