Why Jews will never accept Jesus

[Open Heart]

My interpretation is that Matthew was seeing in the prophecy of Samson "He will be a Nazirite" and Isaiah 11, calling the Messiah a Netzer, Branch, as communicating that the Messiah will be a Nazarene (ie from the Jewish city of Natsrat).

I'm sorry, but this interpretation just doesn't hold water. First of all, Matthew was VERY clear that he was talking about Jesus coming from the city of Nazareth, not that he was a Nazarite. Secondly, Jesus was NOT a Nazarite. Thirdly, just because the two words are similar (both in Hebrew and in English) they still don't mean the same thing. Three strikes and you are out.

 

[rakovsky]

I have a better idea.
Since I'm so prone to confirmation bias, why don't you provide me the sources you want me to read, so I can see it from your perspective.

Because from what I read in the Law and Prophets, Israel has suffered for his own sin, and not the sins of others.
Even Isaiah 40 has said as much---- He's suffered double for his iniquity.

Steve,
This probably deserves its own thread. I am familiar with both sides of the debate, having studied it closely for a year and a half before concluding that the Christian interpretation was correct (ie. that the TaNaKh predicts the Messiah's killing and resurrection).

To answer your question, Open Heart pointed to Isaiah 41, which apparently does call the Israelite spiritual community God's "Servant". This makes sense because righteous people are God's Servant. You can read the chapter yourself.

One problem with using Isaiah 41 to interpret the Servant Isaiah 53 is that later in Isaiah 42-52, the identity of the Servant changes because it says that God's "Servant" gathers Israel and gives other such signs that Isaiah distinguishes God's Servant from Israel the community and nation.

Specifically, see Isaiah 49:

“And now the Lord says,
Who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant,
To bring Jacob back to Him,
So that Israel is [d]gathered to Him
(For I shall be glorious in the eyes of the Lord,
And My God shall be My strength),
6 Indeed He says,
‘It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant
To raise up the tribes of Jacob,
And to restore the preserved ones of Israel;
I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles,
That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.’ ”

Certainly in Isaiah 49, God distinguishes "My Servant" from Israel and Israel's remnant.
This is a reason why using the Servant in Isaiah 41 does not work to make the "Servant" in Isaiah 53 Israel or Israel's righteous.

 

[Open Heart]

well, at least you admit there are heavenly beings and angels. So other than angels, what other beings might there be in heaven??

So you say...

Not young Jewish maidens in Yeshua's day. And a maiden is a virgin, hence the term maidenhead.

Der...no...I'm saying translators did, but you knew that. You avoided every question I asked you with a quip rather than addressing them.

Sorry, but young Jewish women (maidens) get pregnant by normal means all the time. There is nothing miraculous about their conceiving.

You are saying that every translation of Matthew from the Greek to English is mistranslated? That the REAL translation should be "And he shall be called a Nazarite?" But Jesus wasn't a Nazarite!!!! Nor are the translations wrong.

 

[rakovsky]

I'm sorry, but this interpretation just doesn't hold water. First of all, Matthew was VERY clear that he was talking about Jesus coming from the city of Nazareth, not that he was a Nazarite. Secondly, Jesus was NOT a Nazarite. Thirdly, just because the two words are similar (both in Hebrew and in English) they still don't mean the same thing. Three strikes and you are out.

Matthew was clear that he was talking about Jesus coming from Nazareth (Natsrat), but Matthew was not clear whether he was pointing to a Biblical verse about being a Nazarite. The closest Biblical verse to what Matthew quoted is "He will be a Nazarite" (Judges 13:5).

This issue has stumped theologians since, but makes sense if one understands how rabbinical interpretation and commentary works. Rabbinical interpretation approaches says that there are four layers of meaning in verses. Rabbis saw the ancient verses saying things that were not explicitly there in the verses. The Talmud is full of this style of interpretation, particularly when it comes to ideas about the Messiah.

One example of this is when in the Talmud a rabbi said that the Messiah would be the "Leper scholar" because Isaiah 53 talks about the Messiah/Servant having Israel's sicknesses. Nowhere does the TaNaKh openly call the Messiah the Leper Scholar, but that is the interpretation that the rabbi made.

Matthew as a Gospel writer was very much in the Jewish religious tradition as scholars had commonly noted. So it makes sense that this is what Matthew was talking about, even if you don't agree with Matthew's interpretation.

 

[rakovsky]

Here are my notes on the etymological relationship:

Is the Nazirites' (Nazir) order related to Nazareth(Natzrat) or to the "Nazarenes"?
Father Childress replied to the question "What is the difference between a Nazarene and a Nazarite?" by writing:

The two words are possibly etymologically related, though (as Karl pointed out) Nazareth and Nazarene comes to us from Hebrew and Aramaic through Greek, whereas a Nazarite is an older Hebrew word. Both are possibly based on the root nasar, which means “set apart” or “consecrated.” But more likely they are unrelated and happen to sound similar, like “hole” and “whole” in English. The town of Nazareth is probably rooted in neser, which can mean to watch or keep; as it’s the name of a city that evolved over thousands of years, the original idea was probably “watch[-tower]” or “sentinel/guard”.

SOURCE: www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-Nazarene-and-a-Nazarite

In Matthew's Gospel, we read: "And he (Joseph) came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He (Jesus) shall be called a Nazarene (Matthew 2: 23)." The closest verse that I found in the TaNaKh to this one is the verse wherein Samson "shall be a Nazirite"(Judges 13:5-7).

Mercedes Moss writes in his article "Was Jesus A Nazarite? – The Nazareth and Priestly Connections"(March 27, 2012):

* Nazareth was home of the priests
Nazareth... was one of the home cities of the priests. Nazareth
…possessed a synagogue. Neubaurer (La géographie du Talmud, p. 190) quotes, moreover, an elegy on the destruction of Jerusalem, taken from ancient Midrashim now lost, and according to this document, Nazareth was a home for the priests who went by turns to Jerusalem, for service in the Temple (newadvent.org).

Is this significant? Yes. Scriptures indirectly reveal that the Priests were separated to God as Nazarites.

* The priest and his separation as a Nazarite (Compare Numbers 6 with Leviticus 10 & 21)

Mercedes Moss then goes on to compare numerous similarities between the rules for Nazirites and the rules for the Levitical priests.

The Torah

Class website sees Nazirite, Nazir, and Nazar as related terms both etymologically and functionally:

The Hebrew word that we translate as [Nazirite] is nazir. Since Hebrew is what is called a root-word language......that is, it takes a word and then by changing the vowel sounds, and sometimes adding or subtracting a consonant, it broadens or narrows the meaning of that word, we'll see several Hebrew word offshoots from nazir, and they are quite interesting in their use in the Bible.
The base root-word, nazir, most literally means "set-apart" or "pruned". So literally translated the person who takes the vow is... called a "set-apart person" or a "pruned away person). Whereas nazir...n-a-z-i-r is a positive term that indicates being specially consecrated for service to God, the [Nazirites] must also nazar......n-a-z-a-r, be separated, from grapes......separated in the negative sense of being prohibited from grapes.

Further there is the Hebrew word nezer ..... n-e-z-e-r, which literally means shoot or branch. It is the term used for the unpruned grapevine. But the term is also used to denote the High Priest's glorious headpiece (the one with the golden band around it), as well as the long hair of the Nazarite. So when reading these passages in Hebrew we see the obvious parallel between the High Priest's head covering (his special hat), and the Nazarite's head covering (his or her long hair). Nezer, Nazir, and Nazar.....you see how these Hebrew words all work together to help us understand the relationships between priests, grapevines, and Nazarites; and of the Nazarites' being consecrated....set-apart....for God.

SEE: www.torahclass.com/old-testament-studies-tc/37-old-testament-studies-numbers/202-lesson-8-numbers-6

The Torah Class article is theorizing that Hebrew takes root words like Nazir and then changes the vowels and consonants to make related words (allegedly Netser - a shoot/branch being one such word). It claims that Nazir is a set-apart/"pruned away" person, and that Netser is a shoot/"unpruned grapevine."
In accordance with the Torah Class article's theory of an association between Nazir (consecrated) and Netser (branch/shoot). the Abarim Publications entry on Nazar and Natsar notes two places in the Bible that associate Nazir (a consecrated one) with a shoot or vine:

In Genesis 49:26 Jacob compares his son Joseph to a fruitful plant whose branches (literally 'daughters') run over a wall, and calls him a nazir to his brothers. In Leviticus 25:5 and 25:11 the word nazir is applied to the vine, which was not to be pruned in the Sabbatical year, but it is unclear why this vine is so special (but see JOHN 15:5: "I am the vine, you are the branches").

On the Biblical Hebrew Forum, Prof. Isaac Fried wrote:

The Hebrew root נזר is a member of the root family נדר, נזר, נטר, נסר, נצר, נשר, נתר
of the common sense of 'separate, set aside, branch off', à peu près.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hebrew root נזר is is further related to
דר, זר, סר, צר, שר, תר
אדר, אזר, אסר, אצר, אשר, אתר
עדר, עזר, עטר, עצר, עשר, עתר
of the common meaning of 'enclose, surround, encompass, skirt, fringe, gird'

Is the "Nazirite" order (from "Nazir", consecrated) related to Natzrat (Nazareth)? - B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

bhebrew.biblicalhumanities.org

 

[Harel13]

Cute animated emoji. Whose idea was it to draw a Chanukkia, an object never referred to in the Torah, which is a central part of a holiday never explicitly referred to in the Torah, in a Torah scroll?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Jesus was NOT a Nazarite.

Absolutely true. Jesus did any number of things that "Nazarites" didn't.

 

[rakovsky]

Cute animated emoji. Whose idea was it to draw a Chanukkia, an object never referred to in the Torah, which is a central part of a holiday never explicitly referred to in the Torah, in a Torah scroll?

I found it on a Messianic Judaic Forum.

 

[Rachel Redux]

Sorry, but young Jewish women (maidens) get pregnant by normal means all the time. There is nothing miraculous about their conceiving.

Do you need to go back and re-read your own OP? You wanted to discuss this, right?
Nobody said maidens don't get pregnant by normal means. You said that Mary was a maiden, not a virgin. I'm telling you that they are the same thing.
I believe that Mary, the maiden/virgin was made pregnant by miraculous means. You can believe however you choose.

You are saying that every translation of Matthew from the Greek to English is mistranslated? That the REAL translation should be "And he shall be called a Nazarite?" But Jesus wasn't a Nazarite!!!! Nor are the translations wrong.

I said he was a netzer or branch. I think it was a play on words. I didn't use the word Nazarite anywhere.

 

[Harel13]

I found it on a Messianic Judaic Forum.

Honestly, unsurprising.

 

[Open Heart]

Do you need to go back and re-read your own OP? You wanted to discuss this, right?
Nobody said maidens don't get pregnant by normal means. You said that Mary was a maiden, not a virgin. I'm telling you that they are the same thing.
I believe that Mary, the maiden/virgin was made pregnant by miraculous means. You can believe however you choose.

I said he was a netzer or branch. I think it was a play on words. I didn't use the word Nazarite anywhere.

You are saying that Matthew is saying the messiah is to be a branch? That makes no sense. Plus the beginning part of the verse makes it clear he is talking about someone from Nazareth.

I never brought up Mary. My point was only that Christian Bibles mistranslate "a young woman has conceived" to be "a virgin shall conceive." They mess up the verb tense as well.

 

[Open Heart]

Here are my notes on the etymological relationship:

Is the Nazirites' (Nazir) order related to Nazareth(Natzrat) or to the "Nazarenes"?
Father Childress replied to the question "What is the difference between a Nazarene and a Nazarite?" by writing:


In Matthew's Gospel, we read: "And he (Joseph) came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He (Jesus) shall be called a Nazarene (Matthew 2: 23)." The closest verse that I found in the TaNaKh to this one is the verse wherein Samson "shall be a Nazirite"(Judges 13:5-7).

Mercedes Moss writes in his article "Was Jesus A Nazarite? – The Nazareth and Priestly Connections"(March 27, 2012):

Mercedes Moss then goes on to compare numerous similarities between the rules for Nazirites and the rules for the Levitical priests.

The Torah

Class website sees Nazirite, Nazir, and Nazar as related terms both etymologically and functionally:


The Torah Class article is theorizing that Hebrew takes root words like Nazir and then changes the vowels and consonants to make related words (allegedly Netser - a shoot/branch being one such word). It claims that Nazir is a set-apart/"pruned away" person, and that Netser is a shoot/"unpruned grapevine."
In accordance with the Torah Class article's theory of an association between Nazir (consecrated) and Netser (branch/shoot). the Abarim Publications entry on Nazar and Natsar notes two places in the Bible that associate Nazir (a consecrated one) with a shoot or vine:

On the Biblical Hebrew Forum, Prof. Isaac Fried wrote:

The fact two words may share a root word does NOT mean that they mean the same thing.

Again, there is NO PROPHECY in the Tanakh that the messiah will come from Nazareth.

 

[Rachel Redux]

You are saying that Matthew is saying the messiah is to be a branch? That makes no sense. Plus the beginning part of the verse makes it clear he is talking about someone from Nazareth.

OH, I don't think you're really interested in learning or hearing any view that validates New Testament scripture but for anyone else who might be interested, this helps explain the misunderstanding of Yeshua being a Nazarene.

A Branch From David - Israel Bible Weekly - Dr. Noel Rabinowitz

Jesus’ family settled in Nazareth, “in order that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, that he should be called a Nazarene.”

weekly.israelbiblecenter.com

I never brought up Mary. My point was only that Christian Bibles mistranslate "a young woman has conceived" to be "a virgin shall conceive." They mess up the verb tense as well.

 

[SteveB]

Based on my joy, my peace, my strength to resist temptation, and the overall quality of my spiritual life.

YOUR joy, YOUR peace. YOUR strength.....

It's interesting.

Jesus said that he would give us HIS Joy, HIS Peace, and we read in Nehemiah that it's the Joy OF THE LORD which is our Strength.

So..... why would YOUR joy, peace, and strength be a valid basis upon which to know that you have a right standing with God?

 

[rakovsky]

The fact two words may share a root word does NOT mean that they mean the same thing.

Again, there is NO PROPHECY in the Tanakh that the messiah will come from Nazareth.

Open Heart,
"The fact two words may share a root word does NOT mean that they mean the same thing", but in the rabbinical and to some extent Christian style of interpretation, the two words' sharing of a root word is a basis for perceiving a relationship between them. One well known example is how Jesus' name Yeshua is related etymologically to two other Hebrew terms or names, eg. Isaiah and Hosea, to the point where scholars even debate which is the source of the name Yeshua. A common idea is that it comes from Yehoshua, but there are other theories as well. Jesus gets his name because he will save his people. However, IIRC, Yeshuah (salvation) is a separate Hebrew word than Yeshua.

"See What's in a Word?" by Rabbi Klein:

The Torah reports that after Moshe ascended Mount Sinai to receive the Torah, he spent some time atop the mountain before returning to the Jewish People. In the meanwhile, the Jewish People grew impatient anticipating Moshe’s return, “And the Nation saw that Moshe delayed (boshesh)in descending from the mountain…” (Ex. 32:1). The Erev Rav’s response to this delay was to fashion a Golden Calf to lead the Jewish People instead of Moshe. Rashi explains that the word boshesh is an expression of ichur (“delay”), but he does not explain the difference between the two terms. In this essay we seek to understand the difference between boshesh/bosh and ichur/acheir, and in doing so can come to a better appreciation of why the Torah uses the word boshesh in this story instead of ichur. We will also touch on how boshesh is related to bushah (“embarrassment”), which will bring us to a clearer understanding of that word’s nuances.

The Midrash (Ber. Rabbah 18:6) interprets the word boshesh as a portmanteau of the phrase bau shesh shaot (“six hours have arrived”), explaining that the Jews decided that Moshe was late since it was already six hours into the day on which they expected him to return, and yet Moshe was nowhere to be seen. Rabbi Chanoch Zundel of Bialystok (d. 1867) in Eitz Yosef explains that the basis for this exegesis is the atypical appearance of the word boshesh in lieu of the expected ichur. To him, the fact that the Torah uses the word boshesh instead of ichur screams for further interpretation, and the Midrash fills in that lacuna.

by Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein

ohr.edu

So to conclude that two words are not the same exact thing and that therefore there is no prophetic relationship is to miss a Jewish method of text interpretation.

 

[Open Heart]

Open Heart,
"The fact two words may share a root word does NOT mean that they mean the same thing", but in the rabbinical and to some extent Christian style of interpretation, the two words' sharing of a root word is a basis for perceiving a relationship between them. One well known example is how Jesus' name Yeshua is related etymologically to two other Hebrew terms or names, eg. Isaiah and Hosea, to the point where scholars even debate which is the source of the name Yeshua. A common idea is that it comes from Yehoshua, but there are other theories as well. Jesus gets his name because he will save his people. However, IIRC, Yeshuah (salvation) is a separate Hebrew word than Yeshua.

"See What's in a Word?" by Rabbi Klein:


So to conclude that two words are not the same exact thing and that therefore there is no prophetic relationship is to miss a Jewish method of text interpretation.

There is NO prophecy in the Tanakh that the Messiah will live in nazareth.

 

[Open Heart]

YOUR joy, YOUR peace. YOUR strength.....

It's interesting.

Jesus said that he would give us HIS Joy, HIS Peace, and we read in Nehemiah that it's the Joy OF THE LORD which is our Strength.

So..... why would YOUR joy, peace, and strength be a valid basis upon which to know that you have a right standing with God?

My joy, my peace, my strength come for the LORD. Not from Jesus. Jesus was a nice Jewish man who is now dead.

 

[rakovsky]

There is NO prophecy in the Tanakh that the Messiah will live in nazareth.

This is like saying that there is no prophecy about the Messiah in the Book of Jonah.
Nowhere does the Book of Jonah openly refer to the Messiah.....
But here is similar challenge that I came across when talking with an Israeli skeptic of religion: Does the TaNaKh predict the Messiah in a obvious or open enough way that would convince a Skeptic who believes that the Messiah is not a concept in TaNaKh? The person who I wrote to said that nowhere does TaNaKh predict the Messiah at all. In his view, this was something that the rabbis thought up centuries later.

Spoiler: Zivan's messages

First of all, there is no "prophecy" of "Messiah". The idea of a "Messiah" (capital letter) is a post-Tanakh ("OT") idea, and is never referred to as "Messiah" in Tanakh. ...
"The Messiah" is a post-Tanakh concept. After the concept, that a future great king would arrive was formed, rabbis retconned the concept to find passages that fit. NOWHERE in Tanakh is the future king referred to as "Messiah/Mashiakh". ...
Hebrew is my first language.

• Rakovsky wrote that "In 2 Samuel 7 (12 - 16), the prophet Nathan gave a prediction to David about his descendant with an eternal dominion"

The verses you quoted refer to Solomon. Zedekiah was the last davidic king of judah 586 bce. There has been no davidic king in > 2400 years.

SOURCE: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=317428&page=2

I actually quoted Isaiah 11 and other places that are seen in Jewish tradition as Messianic. Isaiah 11 runs

And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him,

Zivan did not respond about Isaiah 11, but I suppose that he can just say that it is talking about different special Israelites, or that it is abstract, or that the wondrous attributes in it are literary metaphorical exaggerations.

 

[GeneZ]

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.

Jews who believed God have often times been very few. Look at the Exodus! They witnessed the miracles of the plagues. They saw the Red sea parting for them and then crushing the Egyptian army. They saw manna coming down from heaven. They saw many miracles!

Yet? Out of all the adults that left with Moses? How many really believed? Two families. Joshua and Caleb's.

It was the younger generation that listened to Moses in the wilderness. The adults hated him and many tried to find ways to kill him in their hearts.

It can be generational. For many more Jews than you expect today have believed in Jesus Christ.

Bob Dylan would agree with me possibly.

 

[Harel13]

Bob Dylan would agree with me possibly.

Ah, the great and exalted master sage, Bob Dylan! We are but mere worms at his feet, we are unworthy to even allow the consonants and vowels of his name brush our lips!