Why Jews will never accept Jesus

I can't agree. Vessels of worship have never atoned.
The blood sanctified the vessels of worship that were used in all the practices of the Temple. This isn't that difficult. Directly or indirectly blood was involved in every aspect of atonement, worship, sacrifice, celebration, thanksgiving. Every aspect. Even unto total remission...And nothing was disconnected ultimately from the blood of the sacrifice.
 
They were compiled between 200 - 600 BCE? But the practices date back to before the 2nd temple.

Anyway, TBH, I'm done here.
My information says the Talmud was compiled hundreds of years AFTER Paul...if they were compiled BCE, they would not have included Gamaliel...or, obviously, Paul.

I suspect you're making stuff up. That's why I asked. Hundreds of years after Paul, there would be an interest in NOT including him in anything at all...the disdain you reflect in your posts would have reached a head by the time compilation was completed. That's the selective nature of deliberately edited history. We're doing it today with Critical Race theory....
 
I've had God speak to me this way also. Interestingly it has never been about doctrine or beliefs. It has always been about something deeper.
I'm not acquainted with much that goes deeper than doctrine and belief. I don't need anyone to divide the Scriptures for me...and too many teachers with whom I have become well acquainted believe it's their job to explain scripture away, and declare why this promise is not for us, not for you, not for today...or why our prayers are not answered.

NO ONE needs a teacher like that. In humility, the teacher goes last, and listens first to what has already been taught. He reviews, and mostly corroborates...God has even taught me precepts and principles before I knew it was written. He plays a very active role in teaching. The thumb in a tree teaching...Jeremiah, "I know the plans I have for you..." Psalms..."I am fearfully and wonderfully made." ...and I was just a lonely kid in a tree.
 
They were compiled between 200 - 600 BCE? But the practices date back to before the 2nd temple.

Anyway, TBH, I'm done here.
...and let me know how your conversation with Isaiah goes...I'll be interested to hear what he has to say, when he's told he did not see the Lord, whose train filled the temple that is not...for which there is no pattern that was given to Moses.

"In the year that the Melech Uziyah died, I saw Adonoi sitting upon a kisse, high and lifted up, and His robe filled the Heikhal. 2 Above Him stood ministering the [flaming] seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he did fly."

I wonder what Isaiah saw, if He was not sitting on a kisse.
 
You quote Paul like that adds weight to your argument. It doesn't.
I also quote you...same impact. You can both be right, like a broken clock, from time to time.
Two different concepts. Physical Israel by descent and child of God by obedience. You need both and the church doesn't have either.
Your concept of "obedience" is fascinating. Obedience to whose satisfaction? In the days of the Judges the people considered themselves "obedient"...in their own eyes.
The whole point of the gospel: What if, in God's purpose, He did all to break down the wall that has separated us?
So you're born again only to be lawless? You still don't know what it means... new heart and mind with the laws.
No...Born again unto obedience. It's you who clearly do not understand the implication..."I had fainted had I not believed that I would see the good things of the Lord in the LAND OF THE LIVING." What are those "good things" but peace with God, walking in all His ways according to His commandments all the days of my life? In His light alone I see light.
It's explained. You understand the concept of metaphors? Do you understand that panai in Hebrew means presence, face, blessings, curses, etc., and that we can't see God's presence? What's left that you can see?
Smoke by day and fire by night...and priests who cannot stand to minister in His presence. There is much that can be seen.
Yep, I don't see a hole in the ground or hands forming man. Dig a little deeper, no pun intended.
You don't see a man being formed from the dust either. You're stuck in an imaginary paradigm that you call "spiritual."
Yep, the problem is your stuck in a physical paradigm.
As I said.
Aren't words formed by speech and letters?
Your point? Man is the only of God's creation "formed from the dust, and breathed into."
I'm not worried. No hands are mentioned. That's your physical paradigm.
Not about worry. Obtuseness maybe. Recalcitrance, likely.
I'm done with these questions.
I'm glad...It makes for delightful rhetoric. Thank you for being so often done. ;)
 
My information says the Talmud was compiled hundreds of years AFTER Paul...if they were compiled BCE, they would not have included Gamaliel...or, obviously, Paul.
It was put into written form in the years I provided. It was practiced previously which is why it is referred to as the Oral law.

I suspect you're making stuff up. That's why I asked.
I haven't made up anything. But I understand this is a defense mechanism of yours.

Hundreds of years after Paul, there would be an interest in NOT including him in anything at all...the disdain you reflect in your posts would have reached a head by the time compilation was completed.
There are plenty of apostates mentioned in Talmud and great students of Gamaliel. Saul/Paul wasn't one of them.

That's the selective nature of deliberately edited history. We're doing it today with Critical Race theory....
You're speaking of the NT. If you knew anything about the middle ages, you'd know how the church burned thousands of manuscripts of the Talmud because of its negative references to the Notzrim, Christians, and Jesus.
 
I also quote you...same impact. You can both be right, like a broken clock, from time to time.
Rotfl... You sound wounded, TBH. I'll leave it at that.

Your concept of "obedience" is fascinating. Obedience to whose satisfaction? In the days of the Judges the people considered themselves "obedient"...in their own eyes.
The whole point of the gospel: What if, in God's purpose, He did all to break down the wall that has separated us?
No...Born again unto obedience. It's you who clearly do not understand the implication..."I had fainted had I not believed that I would see the good things of the Lord in the LAND OF THE LIVING." What are those "good things" but peace with God, walking in all His ways according to His commandments all the days of my life? In His light alone I see light.
Smoke by day and fire by night...and priests who cannot stand to minister in His presence. There is much that can be seen.
You don't see a man being formed from the dust either. You're stuck in an imaginary paradigm that you call "spiritual."
As I said.
Your point? Man is the only of God's creation "formed from the dust, and breathed into."
Not about worry. Obtuseness maybe. Recalcitrance, likely.

I'm glad...It makes for delightful rhetoric. Thank you for being so often done. ;)
 
...and let me know how your conversation with Isaiah goes...I'll be interested to hear what he has to say, when he's told he did not see the Lord, whose train filled the temple that is not...for which there is no pattern that was given to Moses.

"In the year that the Melech Uziyah died, I saw Adonoi sitting upon a kisse, high and lifted up, and His robe filled the Heikhal. 2 Above Him stood ministering the [flaming] seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he did fly."

I wonder what Isaiah saw, if He was not sitting on a kisse.
Isaiah saw a vision, not reality. The same prophet brings out that God has no physical likeness, blood, nor is a man, Isaiah 40:18,25; 46:5. If you'd study the Hebrew damah used for likeness, you might learn something.

Again, the revelation at Sinai showed God has no form, Deut 4:9,12,35. There's a reason why we are told to teach this to our children... because we were shown to know. And Moses wrote this. The greatest of all prophets.

All other prophets saw visions and riddles and dreams, Moses didnt.
 
It was put into written form in the years I provided. It was practiced previously which is why it is referred to as the Oral law.
I'm looking at resources that date the Talmud to 300 for the Jerusalem, and 500 for the Babylonian. I haven't found anything that predates Gamaliel...I have no idea where you're getting your yoma from, and where I can find the manuscripts.
I haven't made up anything. But I understand this is a defense mechanism of yours.
This is where your own pride is speaking? What do I need to defend in a debate? I haven't spoken disrespectfully or pressed you. This is the first time I've suspected your own tactics...You have made claims that I need to research...but if you refer to claims that dismiss Paul as a student of Gamaliel, and tell me your sources predate the crucifixion, you have issues of incompatibility.

Here's a news flash...if either one of us is wrong, he needs no defense. We're participating freely. I know I've been wrong before.''

I remember one time in 1958, around April...I forget what...but...I digress...
There are plenty of apostates mentioned in Talmud and great students of Gamaliel. Saul/Paul wasn't one of them.
You've said that. Here's a quiz: Do you remember my response? Or did you dismiss it?

History has a habit of rewriting itself, when the writer needs to cover for his mistakes. Paul whom you despise, is a more credible source than a disturbing number of "historians." Even your Eusebius does not boast the reputation Paul has.
You're speaking of the NT. If you knew anything about the middle ages, you'd know how the church burned thousands of manuscripts of the Talmud because of its negative references to the Notzrim, Christians, and Jesus.
The church was lost in those ages, and very few candles were lit. I will not forget the blood that was shed at her behest, nation against Christian nation, Catholic against Protestant...and then Inquisition after Inquisition. I can point to the precious few heroes that stand out through those ages, but nothing excuses the degradation.

As an aside...France boasts few heroes. I was a French teacher for forty years. The French Revolution had none. In WWII, there were real Christians in France who, like Bonhoeffer and Schindler of Germany, and Ten Boom of Holland, and Wallenberg of Sweden, stood up against the Evil. I used to teach of the rescue in Le Chambon Sur Lignon...and the Pastor, André Trocmé. Our history has no more to boast of than yours in terms of apostasy. And up until very recently in Turkey and Canada and elsewhere we've forgotten in our pride what it is like to be outcast and persecuted. I know that you've not enjoyed that luxury very much over the millennia. We bear much of the blame for that. Some seek to reestablish the peace we once had together...
 
Isaiah saw a vision, not reality. The same prophet brings out that God has no physical likeness, blood, nor is a man, Isaiah 40:18,25; 46:5. If you'd study the Hebrew damah used for likeness, you might learn something.
You're nitpicking again. What are you afraid of? Isaiah saw Him SITTING on a KISSE.

You keep doing this chapter and verse thing as if it seals the brilliance of your commentary: Isaiah wrote, "17All the nations are as nothing before Him; He regards them as nothingness and emptiness. 18To whom will you liken God? To what image will you compare Him? 19To an idol that a craftsman casts and a metalworker overlays with gold and fits with silver chains?…" He's the ONE who SAW that there was nothing to compare Him to! He saw HIM, High and seated. On a throne...to which there IS NO comparison.

Isaiah never took back what he said in the beginning...he made his comments based on his own experience.

Again, the revelation at Sinai showed God has no form, Deut 4:9,12,35. There's a reason why we are told to teach this to our children... because we were shown to know. And Moses wrote this. The greatest of all prophets.
Well...not the greatest...by Moses' standard. He spoke of one greater coming...around 30 CE

All other prophets saw visions and riddles and dreams, Moses didn't.
And he spoke of One coming greater. Think of that. You can meet Him, if you want to, and He'll confirm everything Moses said, saw...and explain it better than you even know.
 
I'm looking at resources that date the Talmud to 300 for the Jerusalem, and 500 for the Babylonian. I haven't found anything that predates Gamaliel...I have no idea where you're getting your yoma from, and where I can find the manuscripts.
You can find the Talmud online. Like I said, the Oral teachings predate anything written for the Talmud.

This is where your own pride is speaking? What do I need to defend in a debate? I haven't spoken disrespectfully or pressed you.
No pride on my part.

This is the first time I've suspected your own tactics...You have made claims that I need to research...but if you refer to claims that dismiss Paul as a student of Gamaliel, and tell me your sources predate the crucifixion, you have issues of incompatibility.
Did you look at Eusebius? Paul was known as an apostate for a reason.

Here's a news flash...if either one of us is wrong, he needs no defense. We're participating freely. I know I've been wrong before.''
Ok.

I remember one time in 1958, around April...I forget what...but...I digress...
You've said that. Here's a quiz: Do you remember my response? Or did you dismiss it?
What response?

History has a habit of rewriting itself, when the writer needs to cover for his mistakes. Paul whom you despise, is a more credible source than a disturbing number of "historians."
Not at all. I'd suggest reading James Tabor and Hyyam Maccoby on Paul.

Even your Eusebius does not boast the reputation Paul has.
Not in Jewish circles. Paul was just an apostate.

The church was lost in those ages, and very few candles were lit. I will not forget the blood that was shed at her behest, nation against Christian nation, Catholic against Protestant...and then Inquisition after Inquisition. I can point to the precious few heroes that stand out through those ages, but nothing excuses the degradation.
And it still happens.

As an aside...France boasts few heroes. I was a French teacher for forty years. The French Revolution had none. In WWII, there were real Christians in France who, like Bonhoeffer and Schindler of Germany, and Ten Boom of Holland, and Wallenberg of Sweden, stood up against the Evil. I used to teach of the rescue in Le Chambon Sur Lignon...and the Pastor, André Trocmé. Our history has no more to boast of than yours in terms of apostasy.
But the apostasy continues with Paul.

And up until very recently in Turkey and Canada and elsewhere we've forgotten in our pride what it is like to be outcast and persecuted. I know that you've not enjoyed that luxury very much over the millennia. We bear much of the blame for that. Some seek to reestablish the peace we once had together...
There was never true peace as the existence of the Jews today serve as a repudiation of the church and its teachings.
 
You're nitpicking again. What are you afraid of? Isaiah saw Him SITTING on a KISSE.
Not not picking, just facts and a balance of one verse with another.

You keep doing this chapter and verse thing as if it seals the brilliance of your commentary: Isaiah wrote, "17All the nations are as nothing before Him; He regards them as nothingness and emptiness. 18To whom will you liken God? To what image will you compare Him? 19To an idol that a craftsman casts and a metalworker overlays with gold and fits with silver chains?…" He's the ONE who SAW that there was nothing to compare Him to! He saw HIM, High and seated. On a throne...to which there IS NO comparison.
No physical likeness. Nothing like a man. That's the point.

Isaiah never took back what he said in the beginning...he made his comments based on his own experience.
Visions are just that. He clears up a lot later on.

Well...not the greatest...by Moses' standard. He spoke of one greater coming...around 30 CE
Like is not greater. One who abrogates Torah or teaches it is not like Moses.

And he spoke of One coming greater. Think of that. You can meet Him, if you want to, and He'll confirm everything Moses said, saw...and explain it better than you even know.
I have the prophets already.
 
You can find the Talmud online. Like I said, the Oral teachings predate anything written for the Talmud.
But you have no proof...Oral traditions are oral...and traditions. Not the stuff of scholarly claims.
No pride on my part.
Yet you speak of defensiveness...Why?
Did you look at Eusebius? Paul was known as an apostate for a reason.
Eusebiius...hundreds of years after Paul, and rife with his own woes with his critics, acknowledged Paul and his authority in every extract I could find. Quote your sources instead of just citing the author.
Good...No need to defend yourself...unless you equivocate.
What response?
The next sentence: History has a way of covering up truth, when the historian has an angle.
Not at all. I'd suggest reading James Tabor and Hyyam Maccoby on Paul.
Just quote them. And state their suggested authority. Paul has been a topic for critics for two thousand years.
Not in Jewish circles. Paul was just an apostate.
In scholarly circles, Paul is one to be reckoned with. Eusebius does not boast that high a reputation. Jews who dismiss Paul out of hand do themselves a disservice...if only for knowing their neighbors well.
And it still happens.
I know...not when I'm around...but it happens. We arm ourselves against that day. I hold my friendships dearer than a bank account.
But the apostasy continues with Paul.
...or ends. If I'm correct. I'm suggesting, of course, that the Talmud is not the perfect end of the Tenakh. Rabbis quoting rabbis in endless discussion is not like a revelation of God in the Holy Spirit. The prophets did not end with Malachi. I think you know that.
There was never true peace as the existence of the Jews today serve as a repudiation of the church and its teachings.
I see your point...and I'd say...they serve as a test...thankfully not always a repudiation. It's not without shame that I say that.
 
But you have no proof...Oral traditions are oral...and traditions. Not the stuff of scholarly claims.
And yet the bible you have in your hand is based on oral traditions. You wouldn't have the knowledge of what is an aleph, bet, etc., punctuations, the order of Tanakh either. And if you read carefully the Tanakh, you'll find evidence of the Oral tradition there.

Yet you speak of defensiveness...Why?
Maybe it's your Bozo comments and the like.

Eusebiius...hundreds of years after Paul, and rife with his own woes with his critics, acknowledged Paul and his authority in every extract I could find. Quote your sources instead of just citing the author.
E.H., III, xxvii, 2-6.

Good...No need to defend yourself...unless you equivocate.
I don't need to defend myself. That's your position to defend your replacement theology.

The next sentence: History has a way of covering up truth, when the historian has an angle.
Just quote them. And state their suggested authority. Paul has been a topic for critics for two thousand years.
Yes, and since the majority of the world has been non Jewish, of course the criticisms have been kept to a minimum regarding Paul and his church and religion.

In scholarly circles, Paul is one to be reckoned with.
Really? What scholars?

Eusebius does not boast that high a reputation. Jews who dismiss Paul out of hand do themselves a disservice...if only for knowing their neighbors well.
Actually, one needs to know where to look and read between the lines.

I know...not when I'm around...but it happens. We arm ourselves against that day. I hold my friendships dearer than a bank account.
...or ends. If I'm correct. I'm suggesting, of course, that the Talmud is not the perfect end of the Tenakh.
The Talmud, gives an understanding of many terms and how to interpret scriptures. Christians have their own approach to this with the ECFs.

Rabbis quoting rabbis in endless discussion is not like a revelation of God in the Holy Spirit. The prophets did not end with Malachi. I think you know that.
But the prophets dont circumvent Torah, Zechariah 7:12. That's how we know who is false.

I see your point...and I'd say...they serve as a test...thankfully not always a repudiation. It's not without shame that I say that.
Ok.
 
The blood sanctified the vessels of worship that were used in all the practices of the Temple. This isn't that difficult. Directly or indirectly blood was involved in every aspect of atonement, worship, sacrifice, celebration, thanksgiving. Every aspect. Even unto total remission...And nothing was disconnected ultimately from the blood of the sacrifice.
I'm just sorry, my friend. I don't think this is even complicated. It's downright obvious. It is the offering that atones, not the utensils.
 
We don't need to believe in Jesus. The new covenant is clear in Jeremiah 31:31-34 the law remains the same but written in the hearts and minds of the houses of Israel and Judah. The spirit convicts one to be obedient, Ezekiel 36:26-27.
1cor5:7...Jesus is the New Covenant Passover, Great High Priest,Prophet, and King.
You say you do not need to put the blood over your door post? Good luck with that🤔
 
Back
Top