Why Jews will never accept Jesus

[Jewjitzu]

1cor5:7...Jesus is the New Covenant Passover, Great High Priest,Prophet, and King.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 doesn't mention Jesus.

You say you do not need to put the blood over your door post? Good luck with that?

No, that was a onetime event.

 

[tbeachhead]

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.

You err in this: You cannot make an offering that atones in vessels that have not been ritually cleansed. Without the shedding of blood, the vessels cannot be used.

 

[Jewjitzu]

You err in this: You cannot make an offering that atones in vessels that have not been ritually cleansed. Without the shedding of blood, the vessels cannot be used.

I seem to recall anointing oil was used to consecrate vessels as well.

 

[tbeachhead]

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.

I'm surprised you make this fallacious claim. It's beneath you. The oldest extant portion we have of John's gospel is merely decades after the resurrection. Not one of the epistles of the NT is "oral tradition." These are documents as meticulously copied as the best of your manuscripts.

Maybe it's your Bozo comments and the like.

I apologize. It wasn't meant to put you on the defense, but an observation that you tend to return to the comment, "I learned nothing new...", as if conversations were more about learning new things than mutual encouragement.

E.H., III, xxvii, 2-6.

Meaningless...I repeat, "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." Citing chapter and verse is.not quoting, and it underscores in my mind a spurious claim. Eusebius is not claimed as authoritative by himself...for one thing, he "blamed" the Jews for fulfilling God's promise in Isaiah. God made of Jesus an offering for sin...

I don't need to defend myself. That's your position to defend your replacement theology.

First time you stepped off that clichéd cliff. "Replacement theology?" That's not me. You do not replace when you fulfill...you transform. Transformational theology is easy to follow from intent to promise to fulfillment.

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.

You think? Paul's critics outnumber his defenders, when you throw in Islamic critics and Jewish critics.

Really? What scholars?

Why on earth do you ask? Are you being glib? If anyone is going to criticize or extol Christianity in any scholarly work, he is not going to ignore two thirds of the New Testament.

Actually, one needs to know where to look and read between the lines.

In every endeavor...and reading the lines themselves is helpful. That's usually the best start. When one is intent on "reading between the lines" he usually sees a blank space and uses his imagination to fill it.

The Talmud, gives an understanding of many terms and how to interpret scriptures. Christians have their own approach to this with the ECFs.

I know few who have ever explored them...seriously. And when weight was given to traditions and doctrines of men, we wound up with the Roman oddity, that bears no resemblance at all to the primitive Church Jesus and the apostles planted. Because the Spirit Himself is given to interpret the scriptures, we do not need Rabbis arguing interminably with Rabbis. As He promised, God has undertaken to teach.

But the prophets don't circumvent Torah, Zechariah 7:12. That's how we know who is false.

It's interesting you cite this verse. Isaiah 6:10 gets quoted more than any other in the NT, "10Make the hearts of this people calloused; deafen their ears and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed," as more and more Jews turned away. It actually closes the book of Acts. It's not always good to read between the lines, when the lines themselves speak of the danger of turning away and hardening your heart today, when you hear his voice.

 

[tbeachhead]

I seem to recall anointing oil was used to consecrate vessels as well.

Yes...as well...neither blood nor oil was left out in consecrating the vessels, the garments, the tabernacle itself.

 

[Jewjitzu]

I'm surprised you make this fallacious claim. It's beneath you. The oldest extant portion we have of John's gospel is merely decades after the resurrection.

From my understanding, the current NT we have today is from the 3rd/4th century. There isn't whole from before this time frame but some fragments.

Not one of the epistles of the NT is "oral tradition." These are documents as meticulously copied as the best of your manuscripts.

See above. You do know there are thousands of variants of fragments of the NT?

I apologize. It wasn't meant to put you on the defense, but an observation that you tend to return to the comment, "I learned nothing new...", as if conversations were more about learning new things than mutual encouragement.

My desire is to learn, if I can. I'm not here to make friends.

Meaningless...I repeat, "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.

Which ones?

Quote your sources instead of just citing the author." Citing chapter and verse is.not quoting, and it underscores in my mind a spurious claim. Eusebius is not claimed as authoritative by himself...for one thing, he "blamed" the Jews for fulfilling God's promise in Isaiah.

I've given the reference to Ecclesiastical History previously.

God made of Jesus an offering for sin...

Not supported in Tanakh.

First time you stepped off that clichéd cliff. "Replacement theology?" That's not me. You do not replace when you fulfill...you transform. Transformational theology is easy to follow from intent to promise to fulfillment.

Jesus nor the church has fulfilled anything.

You think? Paul's critics outnumber his defenders, when you throw in Islamic critics and Jewish critics.
Why on earth do you ask? Are you being glib? If anyone is going to criticize or extol Christianity in any scholarly work, he is not going to ignore two thirds of the New Testament.

Like I said, looks at Paul with Christian glasses given him props. I don't and know better.

In every endeavor...and reading the lines themselves is helpful. That's usually the best start. When one is intent on "reading between the lines" he usually sees a blank space and uses his imagination to fill it.
I know few who have ever explored them...seriously. And when weight was given to traditions and doctrines of men, we wound up with the Roman oddity, that bears no resemblance at all to the primitive Church Jesus and the apostles planted.

Which would have been plain Judaism based on Acts 15.

Because the Spirit Himself is given to interpret the scriptures, we do not need Rabbis arguing interminably with Rabbis. As He promised, God has undertaken to teach.

Then scripture says keep Torah and the spirit confirms it, Zechariah 7:12, Ezekiel 36:26-27. Just like the Rabbis say.

It's interesting you cite this verse. Isaiah 6:10 gets quoted more than any other in the NT, "10Make the hearts of this people calloused; deafen their ears and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed," as more and more Jews turned away. It actually closes the book of Acts. It's not always good to read between the lines, when the lines themselves speak of the danger of turning away and hardening your heart today, when you hear his voice.

You need to look at context and the concern of the prophets with Israel not following the law. Surely Israel has had a history of blessings and curses. One could only imagine what it would be like to have God focus his attention on another nation.

Again, since Paul and others in the NT teach against following the law, you can see that he is a false teacher and an apostate. The evidence is clear.

 

[Jewjitzu]

Yes...as well...neither blood nor oil was left out in consecrating the vessels, the garments, the tabernacle itself.

So, some vessels didn't require blood. I believe you said all vessels required blood.

 

[tbeachhead]

So, some vessels didn't require blood. I believe you said all vessels required blood.

Which vessels used in the service of the tabernacle were not sprinkled with blood? What garments? What tables/altars? What cups, basins or bowls...

I can't find them. What am I missing?

 

[Jewjitzu]

Which vessels used in the service of the tabernacle were not sprinkled with blood? What garments? What tables/altars? What cups, basins or bowls...

I can't find them. What am I missing?

TBH, you made a broad claim so I'm asking you to support it.

I think you said all vessels used in worship?

 

[tbeachhead]

From my understanding, the current NT we have today is from the 3rd/4th century. There isn't whole from before this time frame but some fragments.

The two major MSS, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, with integral text, corroborate all fragments and quotes from the ECFs. The entire Bible, both Old and New, stands out as an anomaly in the history of literature for the weight of evidence that supports its authenticity. I think you know that. We don't have, yet, a Dead Sea scroll copy of Isaiah, but what we have suffices for textual critics to support its claims.

See above. You do know there are thousands of variants of fragments of the NT?

The variants are minimal...

My desire is to learn, if I can. I'm not here to make friends.

Has nothing to do with what I said...I'm sure you're used to hearing identical arguments coming from the same school. You've been at this clearly for a while...and you feel it's important to repeat that there's "nothing new." .

Which ones?

I've asked you to quote your sources, not to cite them. You won't. I've done the cursory sweep of websites on Eusebius, just to glean where you were coming from. I found no criticism of Eusebius.

I've given the reference to Ecclesiastical History previously.

...and no substantive quotes.

Not supported in Tanakh.

Since it's almost a direct quote, I think you're quite wrong. Some argue correctly, "Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush Him
"and to cause Him to suffer;
"and when His soul is made a guilt offering," is ample support. I'm one, in fact who makes that argument, and I find specious the arguments against it.

Jesus nor the church has fulfilled anything.

Again...not yet to your subjective satisfaction. When your own analysis begins by rejecting history, and denying the Resurrection for which there is ample evidence, your conclusion will only be as valid as the misinformation you base it on.

Like I said, looks at Paul with Christian glasses given him props. I don't and know better.

You missed my point while making it. You are a lucid critic, and your appeal to reject Christianity begins with and is largely based on your rejection of Paul. You cannot ignore Paul's influence in any discussion of Christian doctrine.

Which would have been plain Judaism based on Acts 15.

Huh? Acts 15, the First Council of Jerusalem, excused Gentile disciples from circumcision for one thing...and acknowledged the Resurrection before anything else, by virtue of the Holy Spirit coming on the Gentiles as He had on the Apostles on Shavuot. Hardly traditional Judaism.

Then scripture says keep Torah and the spirit confirms it, Zechariah 7:12, Ezekiel 36:26-27. Just like the Rabbis say.

So who teaches? This sounds like we agree...We abide in the Word, as Joshua exhorts us...it does not depart from our mouths, and the Spirit teaches.

You need to look at context and the concern of the prophets with Israel not following the law. Surely Israel has had a history of blessings and curses. One could only imagine what it would be like to have God focus his attention on another nation.

Agreed...It strikes me, however, that He was not particularly kind to Sodom...and Ezekiel explains why: They had pride, fulness of bread, abundance of idleness and they did not care for the poor and the needy. They made Sodom great again, they were obese, they binged on the Netflix of the day...and the poor, the widows and the fatherless were overlooked. And what nation has survived that boasts of Sodom's ills?

Again, since Paul and others in the NT teach against following the law, you can see that he is a false teacher and an apostate. The evidence is clear.

No one teaches against following the Law. Paul stepped away from temple sacrifices before you did, and he learned to eat with thanksgiving the food he was freely offered by those who were once divided from him, but now reconciled...and you blame him for that?

 

[tbeachhead]

TBH, you made a broad claim so I'm asking you to support it.

I think you said all vessels used in worship?

You do not have a list of the vessels used in worship that did not require sprinkling with blood? I read through the Torah six times a year...I can list the vessels sprinkled with blood as I come to them. I know of none that are not, and cannot think of any. Altars, bowls, lavers, tongs, tabernacle, ark, cherubim...Was the veil sprinkled with blood? I don't remember.

What utensils or garments do you know of the priests that were not sprinkled with blood before they were used in the service? You're making the claim that there were vessels of worship that were not first sanctified. I'm asking YOU to back up your claim.

I can say, I don't think the priests linen undergarments were first sprinkled with blood. I'd have to check...but I know the entire outfit was sprinkled upon the anointing of the priest...as was his thumb and earlobe.

 

[Jewjitzu]

The two major MSS, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, with integral text, corroborate all fragments and quotes from the ECFs.

How old are these sources and the fragments?

The entire Bible, both Old and New, stands out as an anomaly in the history of literature for the weight of evidence that supports its authenticity. I think you know that.

I agree with the Tanakh. BTW, when speaking to Jews, use the term Tanakh as OT was the term coined by Marcion, a church heretic.

We don't have, yet, a Dead Sea scroll copy of Isaiah, but what we have suffices for textual critics to support its claims.

You haven't heard of the great Isaiah scroll? I've seen it myself in Jerusalem.

The variants are minimal...
Has nothing to do with what I said...I'm sure you're used to hearing identical arguments coming from the same school. You've been at this clearly for a while...and you feel it's important to repeat that there's "nothing new." .

Yep, there isn't from your arguments.

I've asked you to quote your sources, not to cite them. You won't. I've done the cursory sweep of websites on Eusebius, just to glean where you were coming from. I found no criticism of Eusebius.

I gave them to you yesterday. I'd go back and look. It's also easy to search on Eusebius and Ebionites.

...and no substantive quotes.
Since it's almost a direct quote, I think you're quite wrong. Some argue correctly, "Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush Him
"and to cause Him to suffer;
"and when His soul is made a guilt offering," is ample support. I'm one, in fact who makes that argument, and I find specious the arguments against it.

Do you know an asham, guilt offering doesn't cover all sins?

Again...not yet to your subjective satisfaction. When your own analysis begins by rejecting history, and denying the Resurrection for which there is ample evidence, your conclusion will only be as valid as the misinformation you base it on.

History doesn't corroborate the resurrection, only the NT. The Talpiot tombs show Jesus with his family buried.

You missed my point while making it. You are a lucid critic, and your appeal to reject Christianity begins with and is largely based on your rejection of Paul. You cannot ignore Paul's influence in any discussion of Christian doctrine.

Not just Paul, but the abrogation of Torah in general is enough to render the NT and Christianity as false.

Huh? Acts 15, the First Council of Jerusalem, excused Gentile disciples from circumcision for one thing...and acknowledged the Resurrection before anything else, by virtue of the Holy Spirit coming on the Gentiles as He had on the Apostles on Shavuot.

Circumcision would be the last step of conversion, so it's understandable that it wasn't required upfront. That's why the mention of the Sabbath and the law of Moses is mentioned for Gentiles to strive for.

Hardly traditional Judaism.
So who teaches? This sounds like we agree...We abide in the Word, as Joshua exhorts us...it does not depart from our mouths, and the Spirit teaches.

The Spirit Spirit teaches obedience to the law. Is that the spirit you have?

Agreed...It strikes me, however, that He was not particularly kind to Sodom...and Ezekiel explains why: They had pride, fulness of bread, abundance of idleness and they did not care for the poor and the needy. They made Sodom great again, they were obese, they binged on the Netflix of the day...and the poor, the widows and the fatherless were overlooked. And what nation has survived that boasts of Sodom's ills?

Yep, none of this is right.

No one teaches against following the Law. Paul stepped away from temple sacrifices before you did, and he learned to eat with thanksgiving the food he was freely offered by those who were once divided from him, but now reconciled...and you blame him for that?

Then he was an apostate for doing and teaching so.

 

[Jewjitzu]

You do not have a list of the vessels used in worship that did not require sprinkling with blood? I read through the Torah six times a year...I can list the vessels sprinkled with blood as I come to them. I know of none that are not, and cannot think of any. Altars, bowls, lavers, tongs, tabernacle, ark, cherubim...Was the veil sprinkled with blood? I don't remember.

What utensils or garments do you know of the priests that were not sprinkled with blood before they were used in the service? You're making the claim that there were vessels of worship that were not first sanctified. I'm asking YOU to back up your claim.

I can say, I don't think the priests linen undergarments were first sprinkled with blood. I'd have to check...but I know the entire outfit was sprinkled upon the anointing of the priest...as was his thumb and earlobe.

What consecrated the vessels? Exodus 40.

Like I said, you made the claim. You should justify it.

 

[Biblican]

You know, antisemites say all sorts of horrible things about us. But one thing they never say is that we are stupid.

Explain the concept of takenot.

 

[Biblican]

Repeating poo doesn't help you.

Ignoring what the scriptures say is surely not going to help you.

 

[Biblican]

No, you just can't accept the actual context and simple reading.

Move on from your crayons.

The blessed dwell in God's simplicity. There's nothing wrong with crayons.

 

[Biblican]

You quoted the Rabbis and they said he hasn't come yet. You shot yourself in the foot.

When he comes, the whole world will know.

The early Rabbis expected the Messiah to come and the scriptures show that He came before the second temple was destroyed. Jesus will come again as shown in Zechariah 14. The whole world will know for sure then, but before that Israel gets invaded and goes through another captivity for her sins and her rejection of God. Right now the Lord is giving them and you a chance to repent and receive Him before its too late or you will die in your sins.

 

[Biblican]

Wrong, Ezekiel 36:26-27 destroys your argument. Obedience is evidence of the spirit.


Then your god is physical and created.


Wrong, and the references you gave say otherwise . Memra is just the spoken word, or wisdom.

Obedience is evidence of the spirit among believers in the Messiah Jesus. Under the old covenant obedience can obtain God's blessings, but rejecting the new covenant negates that.
The scriptures say that God has a soul and is spirit. Your god must not be the same one that the scriptures describe.
The memra according to the bulk of the writings about it is the Messiah who is also the word of God. You've never read them.

 

[Biblican]

And they say he hasn't come yet. You forget that. Rotfl...

You keep refusing to acknowledge the fact that He came before the second temple was destroyed. There is no other benevolent messiah appearing in scripture after that. The messiah you are waiting for is described in the second half of Daniel 11.

 

[Biblican]

Rotfl....

You can't even get by the clear wording in Jeremiah 31:31-34. You're not in it and Messiah isn't mentioned.

You just demonstrated again that you can't understand scripture. Jeremiah 31:31-34 has to be coordinated with all the other scriptures that relate to the atonement and its relationship to the new everlasting covenant. That covenant was instigated by Jesus and is only given to those who receive Him. Sorry buddy, you are excluded unless you repent.