Why Jews will never accept Jesus

Newbirth

Well-known member
And how does this help you? Abraham received the covenant first before Ishmael.
How many times do I have to explain to you people that a covenant is an agreement... You make an agreement with the promise to keep it...The agreement with Ishmael is not the same as with Abraham. The agreement with Abraham is not the same as with Moses. You have no idea what a covenant is...
The only promise to gentiles was given to Noah not to flood the world again and the sign of the rainbow.
Then you are saying God made no promise to Abraham. Because Abraham was a gentile...
Abraham's promise was that the world would be blessed through his descendants, Israel.
Therefore Abraham was a Gentile...not a Jew...not a descendant of Israel
The law was given at Mt. Sinai. One law for the native and stranger.
the law was given to the Children of Israel...the law does not make a stranger an Israelite...What is your point here?
Christianity has nothing to do with the promise.
the Messiah does...
Yes, and his descendants.
Genesis 22:18
And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
Yes, but his descendants were. And they've blessed the world.
When and where have the Jews as a nation blessed the world...?https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/world/middleeast/israel-migrants-african.html
Ask the Palestinians if the Jews have been a blessing to them.

Again, you made a dunce of a mistake again. Reread Genesis 22:17-18. The seed are like stars in the sky, Israel. ;) Rotfl...
No, I didn't...you cannot use the same argument to mean seed as a nation and seed as one person from the loins of Abraham for the messiah....So which is it ? Does the messiah come from the seed of Abraham...Or is Israel the nation the Messiah?
Isaiah 42:1
Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

Isaiah 11:10
And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
Isaiah 42:6
I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
Who is the person God is giving for a covenant /agreement in Isaiah 49:8 Thus saith the Lord, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages;
Do you keep Acts 15.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

And a good one.
nope...
Judaism isn't based on following a man, but God.
Moses...did God appear to you personally and give you a law? If not you follow what Moses say...
So you can create your own religion without a basis in Tanakh, and you have.
and Tanakh is based on Moses writings
Following a monotheistic God is based on Judaism, as well as the ideas of moral laws and covenants.
No, it is based on Abraham... Islam believes in one God...Ishmael was before Israel...
Which he hasn't.
Then you are waiting for his appearance...what is the sign of his coming?
Daniel 9:25
Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

please explain to me what sanctuary Daniel is talking about that will be destroyed
Because is was written by Jews.
That is not a valid reason...The NT was also written by Jews
Remove from the bible what was written by Jews.
That does not solve your dilemma...The NT was written by Jews
Its a fact. Not a choice. The NT is not needed. You need the Tanakh. This is so funny.
The NT is about...this person who the nation of Israel abhorreth...
Isa 49
7 Thus saith the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the Lord that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.
8 Thus saith the Lord, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages;
9 That thou mayest say to the prisoners, Go forth; to them that are in darkness, Shew yourselves. They shall feed in the ways, and their pastures shall be in all high places.
See above.
So where is your messiah? is he late in coming...where is the sanctuary that will be destroyed?
I'm glad I didn't. It was easy. Why settle for 2nd place?
proverbs 16
5 Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
Open Heart didn't say anything differently. So why did you reply with a ridiculous response?
she says the standard is not perfection I am saying it is...do you agree with her...? Does God want you to be perfect or imperfect? Are you required to Keep all the law and be perfect or break some of the laws and be perfect...
 

Open Heart

Active member
without the suggestion, there would be no condemnation...You already conceded that the Jews had a part to play...They accused Jesus and suggested the punishment...You are arguing like a Trumpist...suggesting people go to the capitol building to "stop the steal" means that he is responsible for people going to the capitol building to "stop the steal".
This is just illogical reasoning. The district attorney can bring charges against a person and suggest to the judge and/or jury that the guy is guilty along with evidence. But ultimately the jury is responsible for the verdict, and the judge for the sentence.
 

Open Heart

Active member
those are your words...I quoted from Josephus...And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross;
You are in denial...lol...
I will no longer reply to posts where you shout at me. If you want to dialogue with me, you will have to treat me respectfully.
 

Open Heart

Active member
she says the standard is not perfection I am saying it is...do you agree with her...? Does God want you to be perfect or imperfect? Are you required to Keep all the law and be perfect or break some of the laws and be perfect...
Sure God would like us to be perfect. That's not the point. The point is that you can be less than perfect and still be righteous.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
Sure God would like us to be perfect. That's not the point. The point is that you can be less than perfect and still be righteous.
Actually, he demands that you be perfect...Deut 18:
13 Thou shalt be perfect with the Lord thy God.

but this is what you are...
Isa 64: 6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
I will no longer reply to posts where you shout at me. If you want to dialogue with me, you will have to treat me respectfully.
If you want to dialogue you will respond honestly...the post you responded to was at Jewjitzu...not you...
 
Last edited:

Newbirth

Well-known member
This is just illogical reasoning. The district attorney can bring charges against a person and suggest to the judge and/or jury that the guy is guilty along with evidence. But ultimately the jury is responsible for the verdict, and the judge for the sentence.
I don't see how that correlates to Jesus' position...The Jews brought the charges and suggested the punishment. Pilate simply said Ok to what the Jews wanted...
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
those are your words...I quoted from Josephus...And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross;
You are in denial...lol...
Yep, Pilate condemned. He had finally authority. The buck stops with Pilate.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Parenthetical comments are, by definition, asides of the writer... they express what an author (or in this case perhaps a later scribe copying the text) thinks, not what the character in the story thinks, much less what the historical figure behind him taught or did.
Is that really true?
You are welcome to belief, but I've seen no detailed counter argument to what I posted in rebuttal.
But, your argument is an opinion, correct? Or is it hard evidence and facts?

You've acknowledged that post-resurrection accounts show a definite abrogation of law, so why would Jesus change his stance?

You are the one making the claim that Jesus abrogated the Jewish dietary laws so the burden of proof is on you to bring the evidence for that to the discussion. If you have any other evidence, cite it specifically and we'll explore it... otherwise, you have not met an acceptable standard of proof for your position and you should consider seriously the alternative
The NT verses and versions given and his teaching to Paul, per NT accounts.

Keep in mind, I do not find the NT authoritative at all, so you won't find me changing my mind.

Luke understands Jesus as the Messiah in fulfillment of the Jewish sacred texts... references to these and characters therein are to be expected, regardless of who the intended audience was. Chief among them, I would point out, are Gentiles already familiar with and sympathetic to Jewish traditions... that is, the 'God fearers', and he includes a positive story of such an individual in each of his volumes (the centurion at Capernaum in the gospel and Cornelius in Acts). I would further point out that Luke, unlike Matthew, takes that genealogy back to 'Adam [son] of God' under the influence of Paul (his hero in the book of Acts) who views Jesus as a type of Adam (Rom 5:12-17; 1 Cor 15:20-22, 45-49) whose gift is for all humanity.
But, it's still a gentile account that Jews won't take seriously as he's not a valid witness.

See above as it regards 'son of Man'. With respect to 'son of God', the idea of divine men was widespread in the Graeco-Roman world and would resonate with Gentile readers, far more so even than with (alleged) Jewish readers.
Again, the opinions and witnesses of gentiles and apostates are not valid to Jews. I'm sorry, but this doesn't help the cause.

The comments to which you responded concerned Matthew, not Paul, whose allegory of the olive tree and branches is unique within the New Testament (Rom 11:17-24). One cannot draw these two writers into dialogue with each other without a good argument for doing so... as it stands, they represent two radically different 'gospels' and Paul aims harsh words at those who espouse the kind of Torah-observant 'gospel' that Matthew does (see Galatians). Even if one were to allow for Paul's allegory to find a place in Matthew's thought, I already noted that Matthew considers true Israel to be Christ-believing Jews; the apostates (ie. those Jews who reject Jesus as the Messiah) would be the branches snapped off, not the nourishing root to which the wild (ie. Gentile) branches are grafted.
Judaism nor Tanakh is a religious system based on the belief in a Messiah, but in God. So true Israel has nothing to do either with Matthew's thoughts.

This is precisely the model that Matthew has in mind... he and his community are Torah-observant Jews who accept Jesus as the Messiah and they expect any Gentiles who want to be a part of Israel to do so on the basis of embracing the covenant and its requirements. This is obviously not the model Paul embraces...
Then Paul is wrong and abrogated the law.

I've never expressed such expectations, nor am I here in any proselytizing capacity. My interjection was to challenge a point on which I believe you are factually incorrect... as for what people want to believe theologically (or not), I could care less so long as they don't harm anyone with those beliefs and concomitant practices.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
You can "believe" what you want.

All the best.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
she says the standard is not perfection I am saying it is...do you agree with her...? Does God want you to be perfect or imperfect? Are you required to Keep all the law and be perfect or break some of the laws and be perfect...
What's humanly possible. That's why within the law there is provision for sins, even unintentional sins. Did Daniel sin by not bringing sacrifices while in exile?

Like when Jesus sinned by being defiled from the dead in front of Pilate and not cleansing, his broken vow of abstaining from wine at the cross, etc.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
How many times do I have to explain to you people that a covenant is an agreement... You make an agreement with the promise to keep it...The agreement with Ishmael is not the same as with Abraham. The agreement with Abraham is not the same as with Moses. You have no idea what a covenant is...
I'm in one now, you're not.

Then you are saying God made no promise to Abraham. Because Abraham was a gentile...
Nope, never said that.

Therefore Abraham was a Gentile...not a Jew...not a descendant of Israel
I never said he gave birth to himself.
the law was given to the Children of Israel...the law does not make a stranger an Israelite...What is your point here?
A stranger becomes adopted into Israel. We've been thru this.

the Messiah does...
That's fine. That has nothing to do with the Tanakh.

Genesis 22:18
And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

When and where have the Jews as a nation blessed the world...?
Do you have a Bible? Compare the contributions to mankind based on %population to other people, and what do you find?

What has your country, race, or ethnicity contributed to mankind? Be specific.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/world/middleeast/israel-migrants-african.html
Ask the Palestinians if the Jews have been a blessing to them.
I really don't care about liberal opinions or Palestinians, which aren't really a people or nation.

The only democracy in the Middle East is the best thing going there. Ask the Palestinians what their leaders have accomplished besides terrorism and living on welfare.

Every country has a right to protect it's borders and limit immigration. Why doesn't your country take in the immigrants? Why don't you let them live in your house? Why don't you feed and clothes them too?

No, I didn't...you cannot use the same argument to mean seed as a nation and seed as one person from the loins of Abraham for the messiah....So which is it ?
Sure you can. It's based on the context. What a dunce answer you keep giving.

Does the messiah come from the seed of Abraham...Or is Israel the nation the Messiah?
Yes, Messiah comes from the physical loins of Abraham and David. Israel is called out as the servant in several places in Isaiah.

Isaiah 42:1
Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

Isaiah 11:10
And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
Yep, unbroken root, from the male. So, Jesus is out of the question.

Isaiah 42:6
I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
Who is the person God is giving for a covenant /agreement in Isaiah 49:8 Thus saith the Lord, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages;
Yep, to Israel.

10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
I asked you a question. Do you keep what the NT tells you too in Acts 15? It's a yes or no. The spirit said you should.

nope...

Moses...did God appear to you personally and give you a law? If not you follow what Moses say...
Uuuhh, God spoke to us and his prophet Moses.

and Tanakh is based on Moses writings
Given by God.

No, it is based on Abraham... Islam believes in one God...Ishmael was before Israel...
No, it's based on Judaism which wrote down the words for you.

Then you are waiting for his appearance...what is the sign of his coming?
Daniel 9:25
Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
So, you have two anointed above. One after 7 weeks, and another after 62 weeks.

please explain to me what sanctuary Daniel is talking about that will be destroyed
The 2nd.

That is not a valid reason...The NT was also written by Jews
Apostates. Their witness is not credible, as is that of gentiles.

That does not solve your dilemma...The NT was written by Jews
See above.

The NT is about...this person who the nation of Israel abhorreth...
Isa 49
7 Thus saith the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the Lord that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee.
8 Thus saith the Lord, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages;
9 That thou mayest say to the prisoners, Go forth; to them that are in darkness, Shew yourselves. They shall feed in the ways, and their pastures shall be in all high places.
Isaiah 63:16
Yet You are our Father,
though Abraham does not know us and Israel does not acknowledge us. You, O LORD, are our Father; our Redeemer from Everlasting is Your name.

So where is your messiah? is he late in coming...where is the sanctuary that will be destroyed?
When he comes, we'll know.

proverbs 16
5 Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord: though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished.
Proverbs 28:9
He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.
 
Last edited:

En Hakkore

Active member
Is that really true?
Yes. I have absolutely no idea why you would think otherwise.

But, your argument is an opinion, correct? Or is it hard evidence and facts?
My analysis focused on the text itself, which is hard evidence that you can examine and come to same sound conclusion unless you misread it. In the present case, the facts are these: (1) the abrogation of the Jewish dietary laws occurs within a parenthetical aside of the author (or it is an insertion of a later scribe) and (2) the context is about being defiled by eating food with unwashed hands rather than about eating prohibited foods. These are facts about the text that neither of us can change. Your conclusion that Jesus (whether the character in the gospel or the historical figure behind it) taught his disciples to ignore the Jewish dietary laws does not follow from this evidence.

You've acknowledged that post-resurrection accounts show a definite abrogation of law, so why would Jesus change his stance?
Jesus was crucified. He died. Neither of us believe he rose from the dead or speaks to people in visions so why are you framing a question to me that assumes this?

The NT verses and versions given and his teaching to Paul, per NT accounts.
Do you have anything specific to the life of Jesus? If so, present it and we'll explore it... otherwise, as I've noted, you have not supported your claim with evidence. Your example from Mark 7 has been refuted (see above analysis).

Keep in mind, I do not find the NT authoritative at all, so you won't find me changing my mind.
As I've already pointed out, my involvement here is unrelated to changing your religious views... what I am here for is to correct your erroneous claims about the New Testament documents. You are welcome to reject their authority as sacred texts, but do so for what they actually say, not for what you think they say.

But, it's still a gentile account that Jews won't take seriously as he's not a valid witness.
Irrelevant to properly understanding Luke's two-volume work (see above).

Again, the opinions and witnesses of gentiles and apostates are not valid to Jews. I'm sorry, but this doesn't help the cause.
Again, irrelevant to properly understanding the cultural background of the New Testament documents (see above)

Judaism nor Tanakh is a religious system based on the belief in a Messiah, but in God. So true Israel has nothing to do either with Matthew's thoughts.
Once again, irrelevant to properly understanding Matthew's position (see above).

Then Paul is wrong and abrogated the law.
I have no interest in evaluating whether Paul was right or wrong to do so, but we have finally come to a pertinent fact... namely that abrogation of the Jewish dietary food laws dates historically to the period of the early Christian church and the missions of Jesus' followers to Gentiles, which would include Paul as one such follower after his alleged visionary experience. This development postdates the historical Jesus, which has been my contention all along, supported by the evidence properly interpreted.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Yes. I have absolutely no idea why you would think otherwise.
So, Matthew or Mark, etc., would not have gotten this teaching directly from Jesus?

My analysis focused on the text itself, which is hard evidence that you can examine and come to same sound conclusion unless you misread it. In the present case, the facts are these: (1) the abrogation of the Jewish dietary laws occurs within a parenthetical aside of the author (or it is an insertion of a later scribe) and (2) the context is about being defiled by eating food with unwashed hands rather than about eating prohibited foods. These are facts about the text that neither of us can change. Your conclusion that Jesus (whether the character in the gospel or the historical figure behind it) taught his disciples to ignore the Jewish dietary laws does not follow from this evidence.
But, didn't you see the dietary laws in Leviticus 11? To say that nothing that enters a man can defile is not a true statement if we're just concerned about hand washing. It's true regardless.

Jesus was crucified. He died. Neither of us believe he rose from the dead or speaks to people in visions so why are you framing a question to me that assumes this?
Because Paul and the rest of the NT does. So you believe Paul abrogated the law and taught likewise?

Do you have anything specific to the life of Jesus? If so, present it and we'll explore it... otherwise, as I've noted, you have not supported your claim with evidence. Your example from Mark 7 has been refuted (see above analysis).
I don't think so, but I like your opinion.

As I've already pointed out, my involvement here is unrelated to changing your religious views... what I am here for is to correct your erroneous claims about the New Testament documents. You are welcome to reject their authority as sacred texts, but do so for what they actually say, not for what you think they say.
But you haven't done that.

Irrelevant to properly understanding Luke's two-volume work (see above).
That's your opinion.

Again, irrelevant to properly understanding the cultural background of the New Testament documents (see above)
That's your opinion.

Once again, irrelevant to properly understanding Matthew's position (see above).
See above.

I have no interest in evaluating whether Paul was right or wrong to do so, but we have finally come to a pertinent fact... namely that abrogation of the Jewish dietary food laws dates historically to the period of the early Christian church and the missions of Jesus' followers to Gentiles, which would include Paul as one such follower after his alleged visionary experience. This development postdates the historical Jesus, which has been my contention all along, supported by the evidence properly interpreted.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
So, the custom of abrogating laws would have come from who? Which Rabbi, Apostle, disciple, started this?
 
Top