Why Jews will never accept Jesus

[Jewjitzu]

Are you saying that your dogs can become humans? If Moabites can become Israelites then your dogs can become humans

You brought your dogs into the conversation. I didn't. It's part of your silliness.

So your dogs can become humans? Because you believe Moabites can become Israelites

See above.

nothing has changed You believe that Moabites can become Israelites...therefore dogs can become humans

See above.

It does not matter what you were talking about the same principle applies...If Moabites can become Israelites when adopted then dogs can become humans when adopted

No different principles. Show me a dog with adoption papers saying they are citizens of a nation, and that they are the subject of levitate marriage and has a kinsman redeemer.

which also means gentile... that makes you a gentile....You keep saying the same thing and expecting a different response...

Two different uses of the term. Just like the word see is used for physical sight or knowledge. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

You are also a goy in the goyim of Israel. It is applicable to Israel also...That is your claim.

Yes, a person in the nation. That's why the translations show a difference depending on context.

We have been over that many times, adoption does not change the makeup of the person a Moabite is still a Moabite...Can you become a Chinese?

They are a citizen of Israel, part of the people. That's why they are considered part of the congregation of Israel, Exodus 12:19.

I have been telling you that all along...She is still a Moabite not an Israelite...

But part of Israel. Israel 56:1-8. Don't worry, you'll never be part of us.

Don't try to conflate things again...The original citizens of what you call the US live on reservations... let's be clear about that. Unless you are saying the Palestinians living in Israel are Israelites.

I'm not conflating. Natives are also US citizens.

So called "Palestinians" are not part of the strangers in our gates.

BTW, you never answered, what contributions has your culture or country given the world?

 

[Jewjitzu]

and you don't evidence that she is...

There is none.

It does not help your case against Jesus linaege

Jesus has no legitimate lineage.

because they didn't change...

not once...

accept what?

X is not the issue because it does not have the capacity to make seeds...only Y does

A male passes an X to females and Y to males. So you're wrong. Mary would have inherited Adam's X which in turn she passed to Jesus.

Anyone normal would know that the NT is sacred and holy, authoritative.

Not at all. Even you've admitted problems with it.

It does exactly and you know it because you are trying to deny it...

Show your evidence where God passes seed to Mary. Be specific.

and the truth...

I called it that and you said that you stand by it...

where is your proof? you are asking for proof show yours..

I showed you in Luke only a dunce denied what it means

No, zero evidence of God giving Mary seed. Do you have another verse? It's obvious you're embarrassed by even presenting it here.

X is not the issue X cannot produce seed...

Sure it can. It produces a female with an X and an X, or a male with an X and a Y. And Mary got her X from Adam and passed it to Jesus.

 

[Newbirth]

You brought your dogs into the conversation. I didn't. It's part of your silliness.

it is an illustration to make a point...

See above.


See above.

all I see is that you have no understanding...

No different principles. Show me a dog with adoption papers saying they are citizens of a nation, and that they are the subject of levitate marriage and has a kinsman redeemer.

Ruth had no adoption papers, no one said she was a citizen of anywhere, except that she was a Moabitess. King Solomon had an Ammonite wife...And Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was forty and one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which the Lord did choose out of all the tribes of Israel, to put his name there. And his mother's name was Naamah an Ammonitess.
Deuteronomy 23:3
An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever:

Two different uses of the term. Just like the word see is used for physical sight or knowledge. I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

that does not help your argument ...you already said it means Israelites...are you saying that sometimes it does and sometimes not?

Yes, a person in the nation. That's why the translations show a difference depending on context.

you mean when you want it to mean what you want...

They are a citizen of Israel, part of the people. That's why they are considered part of the congregation of Israel, Exodus 12:19.

but they are not Israelites...I guess you already know this.

But part of Israel. Israel 56:1-8. Don't worry, you'll never be part of us.

you just defeated your own argument ...If converts become a part of Israel nothing can stop me from becoming a part of Israel...

I'm not conflating. Natives are also US citizens.

You are conflating...If for some reason I travel to Israel with my wife and we have a baby. You are saying that my baby automatically becomes an Israelite...what tribe would he be? Does that also mean my baby is born a Jew?

So called "Palestinians" are not part of the strangers in our gates.

Seems like you are making rules as you go along...You have to tell me if babies born in Israel by Palestinian parents are Israelites or not and if not why not...

BTW, you never answered, what contributions has your culture or country given the world?

nothing to do with the discussion just one of your rabbit trails to deflect when you can't deal with the truth...

 

[GeneZ]

it is an illustration to make a point...

all I see is that you have no understanding...

Ruth had no adoption papers, no one said she was a citizen of anywhere, except that she was a Moabitess. King Solomon had an Ammonite wife...And Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was forty and one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which the Lord did choose out of all the tribes of Israel, to put his name there. And his mother's name was Naamah an Ammonitess.
Deuteronomy 23:3
An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever:

that does not help your argument ...you already said it means Israelites...are you saying that sometimes it does and sometimes not?

you mean when you want it to mean what you want...

but they are not Israelites...I guess you already know this.

you just defeated your own argument ...If converts become a part of Israel nothing can stop me from becoming a part of Israel...

You are conflating...If for some reason I travel to Israel with my wife and we have a baby. You are saying that my baby automatically becomes an Israelite...what tribe would he be? Does that also mean my baby is born a Jew?

Seems like you are making rules as you go along...You have to tell me if babies born in Israel by Palestinian parents are Israelites or not and if not why not...

nothing to do with the discussion just one of your rabbit trails to deflect when you can't deal with the truth...

Careful now... When it gets to the subject of "circumcision," they tend to get a little "snippy."

 

[Newbirth]

There is none.

It is written Just as God made adam from the dust....

Jesus has no legitimate lineage.

where is your evidence?

A male passes an X to females and Y to males.

yes and only Y is able to produce seed...X does not

So you're wrong. Mary would have inherited Adam's X which in turn she passed to Jesus.

X does not produce seed only Y does

Not at all. Even you've admitted problems with it.

you are also admitting problems in the OT...Ruth the Moabite woman...Solomon and the Ammonite woman...

Show your evidence where God passes seed to Mary. Be specific.

Show evidence that God made Adam from the dust be specific...

No, zero evidence of God giving Mary seed. Do you have another verse? It's obvious you're embarrassed by even presenting it here.

No evidence of God making Adam from dust

Sure it can. It produces a female with an X and an X, or a male with an X and a Y. And Mary got her X from Adam and passed it to Jesus.

X does not produce seed...you still don't get it, do you? If you only have girl children that is the end of your line...The men they marry and have children with produce their own seed if they are boys. That is why God only count the males to carry the line. He proves to you that men are unable to provide a righteous specimen. He must begin a new creation in righteousness

 

[GeneZ]

It is written Just as God made adam from the dust....

where is your evidence?

yes and only Y is able to produce seed...X does not

X does not produce seed only Y does

you are also admitting problems in the OT...Ruth the Moabite woman...Solomon and the Ammonite woman...

Show evidence that God made Adam from the dust be specific...

No evidence of God making Adam from dust

X does not produce seed...you still don't get it, do you? If you only have girl children that is the end of your line...The men they marry and have children with produce their own seed if they are boys. That is why God only count the males to carry the line. He proves to you that men are unable to provide a righteous specimen. He must begin a new creation in righteousness

Why all this lingering? Chronic, I must argue syndrome?

Let him believe what he wants. Plenty of real Jews have found life in the Messiah Jesus. All this information followed after we were saved. How can he understand spiritual truths while remaining a soulish man? (natural man).

I did not understand what being a Jew meant until after the Spirit entered me. Suddenly I could identify with every OT prophet and hero. The OT is filled with born again hero Jews.

Born again is not for only the church. When Jesus told Nicodemus that he needed to be born again (spiritually)? Nicodemus was a Jew, and Jesus was speaking to him as a Jew. In the church, the only difference, is now we also receive the gift of the Holy Spirit in addition to becoming born again. The Spirit could not be given until after Jesus was glorified (John 7:39). Jesus was telling Nicodemus that he would not understand properly who Jesus is unless he became born again.

Jews were also born again in the OT. But, the indwelling Holy Spirit we now receive in addition was not added to the experience until after Jesus was glorified.

By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive.
Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.​

Moses was able to know God on the level he did because he was born again. They just did not define it as "born again" back then. You simply believed on the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - and the Holy Spirit did the rest. Just like He now does with Jews (and everyone) who believe in Jesus.

Leave him alone. He is like Nicodemus who could not understand. If the Lord finds him positive at some point in his life? He will get saved.

grace and peace..........

 

[Open Heart]

which is it ? are you Jewish or Taoists...because the God of the Jews does not tolerate other Gods in any way or form...and he is not the God Taoism...

I'm Jewish. Clearly, unequivically Jewish. I simply have an appreciation for Taoism, and am pointing out the similarities between "Tao" as the source and "God" as creator. CS Lewis used to write that Tao was Logos. I'm not the first person to make the connection between eastern and western thought. Sometimes when you learn enough that you speak both languages, you can do a better job of translating.

Let me guess. You don't know who CS Lewis is do you.

 

[Open Heart]

You do no credit to Judaism.

The trail of posts is here for anyone to read who may be interested in what was really said. Maybe you need to re-read them yourself!
You're talking about everything except your approval of false religions.

I'm telling no lies, but you most assuredly are.
Open Heart:
"Undecided about what? I'm not undecided about God -- I worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Great Spirit is simply the Lakota name for him. Jews recognize the righteous Gentile."
Lakota do not worship YHVH, the God of Abraham, unless they are Christians. Any Sioux will tell you that.

You are wrong. The Great Spirit is simply a way to refer to the Creator, and there is only one Creator, and that is the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.

I'm still waiting for the apology for your lie that I'm a Hindu. Have you no shame?

 

[Open Heart]

God is not going to change for you.

God is constantly changing me, as I cooperate with him, into a better version of the Person he has called me to be.

 

[Open Heart]

So basically you took one of the many Gods of Taoism and reject the others. The problem here is just because you reject them does not mean they are not part of the original religion.

No, basically I have nothing to do with Folk Toaism, and have an admration for philosophical Taoism. Is that so hard for you to understand?

The philosophy predates the folk version. For a change, why don't you do something educational, and read the Tao Te Ching. You'll find it doesn't talk about gods. Only Tao.

 

[Open Heart]

For the record please state clearly what religious teaching you follow...

I am a halakhic convert to Judaism. My training is in Orthodoxy, but I am more comfortable with Conservative Judaism. I do not consider myself denominational, however, and feel at home praying with any group of Jews. That should clear up all your confusion.

 

[Rachel Redux]

You are wrong. The Great Spirit is simply a way to refer to the Creator, and there is only one Creator, and that is the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.

No, hon, you are wrong.
The Sioux did hideous rituals to their "great spirit", such as the Sun Dance where they abused and tore their bodies to ribbons as they hung on poles by the flesh of their own chests.
That cut their bodies when they mourned their dead.
God called said to not learn or imitate the ways of the heathen. Lev. 19:28

Maybe you need to buy a better from which to learn about your pet religions .

I'm still waiting for the apology for your lie that I'm a Hindu. Have you no shame?

Ashamed of what??

 

[Newbirth]

Why all this lingering? Chronic, I must argue syndrome?

Let him believe what he wants. Plenty of real Jews have found life in the Messiah Jesus. All this information followed after we were saved. How can he understand spiritual truths while remaining a soulish man? (natural man).

I did not understand what being a Jew meant until after the Spirit entered me. Suddenly I could identify with every OT prophet and hero. The OT is filled with born again hero Jews.

Born again is not for only the church. When Jesus told Nicodemus that he needed to be born again (spiritually)? Nicodemus was a Jew, and Jesus was speaking to him as a Jew. In the church, the only difference, is now we also receive the gift of the Holy Spirit in addition to becoming born again. The Spirit could not be given until after Jesus was glorified (John 7:39). Jesus was telling Nicodemus that he would not understand properly who Jesus is unless he became born again.

Jews were also born again in the OT. But, the indwelling Holy Spirit we now receive in addition was not added to the experience until after Jesus was glorified.

By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive.
Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.​

Moses was able to know God on the level he did because he was born again. They just did not define it as "born again" back then. You simply believed on the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - and the Holy Spirit did the rest. Just like He now does with Jews (and everyone) who believe in Jesus.

Leave him alone. He is like Nicodemus who could not understand. If the Lord finds him positive at some point in his life? He will get saved.

grace and peace..........

good point...

 

[Newbirth]

I'm Jewish. Clearly, unequivically Jewish. I simply have an appreciation for Taoism, and am pointing out the similarities between "Tao" as the source and "God" as creator.

ou don't know what unequivocally means...since you accept Taoism...Jews believe YHWH is the source and creator of all things...here you are saying that Tao is the source, that is not a Jewish sentiment.

CS Lewis used to write that Tao was Logos.

CS Lewis is not a prophet of God...Unless you believe Narnia is a real place

I'm not the first person to make the connection between eastern and western thought.

obviously, and not the first to be wrong either.

Sometimes when you learn enough that you speak both languages, you can do a better job of translating.

but a very poor job of understanding because of preconceived notions

Let me guess. You don't know who CS Lewis is do you.

what is the value to me of knowing who he is?

 

[En Hakkore]

I haven't seen anything, but I'm interested to hear of you academic experience. I do hold graduate degrees in biblical studies, but I did not continue to be involved in academia afterward.

Thanks for this... there were a number of people I studied with who did not pursue academia further than their degrees, mostly because they became parents during the process and wanted to focus on their kids as soon as they graduated, others for different reasons, but all of whose decisions I highly respect --- each of us has our own unique journey in life.

Thanks also for your response... I want to read the article again, as well as the other citations you included, before replying in detail. I'm hoping to have a response posted by about the middle of the week. I appreciate your patience...

(3) I'm not understanding this point. Forgive me, this discussion is complex!

In the meantime I'll quickly expand on what I meant on this third point. I originally wrote: "(3) [Theodore] cannot make a simple deduction from reading the gospels in light of a tradition that the disciple John was the author of the gospel so attributed." In context this referred to Furlong's inferred position and my take is that Theodore could and did make this deduction. Here is what I was responding to in Furlong:

Thirdly, [Theodore] states that John ‘associated with the Lord from the beginning and that before Matthew’, which also finds no place in Eusebius. Papias, however, might have made such a statement in order to account for Mathew’s omission of the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. Matthew’s beginning was clearly superior to Mark’s, but it was inferior to John’s, who recorded those miracles done at the time of the baptism of John. (222)

Furlong infers that Theodore was incapable of deducing the part I have bolded independent of a source and since it is not found in Eusebius he supposes he got it from a Papian tradition. My objection to Furlong's position is that all Theodore had to do was (1) assume the tradition that John was the author of the fourth (in canonical order) gospel and (2) read the New Testament gospels (specifically Matthew and/or John) to write what he did. Matthew does not begin following Jesus until Matt 9:9 whereas John does so from 4:21-22... if John is the unnamed disciple who, along with Andrew, follows Jesus after John's testimony (John 1:35-37, 40) then this is from the very beginning. There is no need to postulate reliance on Papias for this since it can be extrapolated directly from a reading of these gospels presupposing the tradition of John's authorship of the gospel so named.

Hope this helps clarify...

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Newbirth]

No, basically I have nothing to do with Folk Toaism, and have an admration for philosophical Taoism. Is that so hard for you to understand?

very hard since they are both connected

The philosophy predates the folk version.

that would be backward-thinking...one has to study something first to come up with a philosophy

For a change, why don't you do something educational, and read the Tao Te Ching. You'll find it doesn't talk about gods. Only Tao.

Which by contrast is different from the Jewish scripture which speaks about gods...

 

[Newbirth]

I am a halakhic convert to Judaism.

more like a rolling stone, you said you were once a Christian, were you a Taoist at any point?

My training is in Orthodoxy, but I am more comfortable with Conservative Judaism.

so you are not comfortable with your training?

I do not consider myself denominational, however, and feel at home praying with any group of Jews.

That begs the question if what you consider yourself to be is what you really are.

That should clear up all your confusion.

Actually, it is more confusing

 

[Jewjitzu]

It is written Just as God made adam from the dust....

Yep, and you accept that, so that is not a point of contention. Jesus has no valid lineage in Matthew or Luke. They contradict each other, and Jesus doesn't descend from Joseph, so why be dishonest about it?

where is your evidence?

Your own NT.

yes and only Y is able to produce seed...X does not

That is false. Even the Tanakh shows women having seed as in Genesis 24:60. If you're talking biology, a man produces male offspring with an X and Y, and females with an X and x.

Show Jesus at a minimum is infected with Mary's X which she got from her father, which ultimately she got from Adam.

X does not produce seed only Y does

See above.

you are also admitting problems in the OT...Ruth the Moabite woman...Solomon and the Ammonite woman...

I've never admitted a problem.

Show evidence that God made Adam from the dust be specific...

It's in the Tanakh which you acknowledge as authoritative.

No evidence of God making Adam from dust

See above.

X does not produce seed...you still don't get it, do you? If you only have girl children that is the end of your line...The men they marry and have children with produce their own seed if they are boys. That is why God only count the males to carry the line. He proves to you that men are unable to provide a righteous specimen. He must begin a new creation in righteousness

Then you defeat yourself because Jesus doesn't descend from Joseph, which you have admitted. So, Jesus has no legitimate lineage to speak of.

If God wanted a new creation, he would not have involved Mary, a women who herself had sin, and carried this genetic trait from Adam. You're dead in the water.

 

[Jewjitzu]

it is an illustration to make a point...

It made zero point. It was quite ridiculous.

all I see is that you have no understanding...

You're the one that made the silly dog analogy which doesn't apply.

Ruth had no adoption papers, no one said she was a citizen of anywhere, except that she was a Moabitess. King Solomon had an Ammonite wife...And Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was forty and one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which the Lord did choose out of all the tribes of Israel, to put his name there. And his mother's name was Naamah an Ammonitess.

Her adoption is proven by her having a kinsman redeemer. It's a basic fact.

Deuteronomy 23:3
An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever:

Yep, males aren't allowed.

that does not help your argument ...you already said it means Israelites...are you saying that sometimes it does and sometimes not?

Of course it helps my argument. Context newbirth, context. Don't you argue that Jesus is not God even though the same Greek term for LORD is used for him? I know you're smarter than this and are just playing the wilfully ignorant.

you mean when you want it to mean what you want...

Know, I've proven my case.

but they are not Israelites...I guess you already know this.

But they are. That's why they are part of the congregation of Israel, Exodus 12:19. Why would they included in the congregation of Israel if they weren't included, adopted?

you just defeated your own argument ...If converts become a part of Israel nothing can stop me from becoming a part of Israel...

I never said you couldn't. I've shown you how, Isaiah 56:1-8. Go get yourself adopted, go before a Bet Din.

You are conflating...If for some reason I travel to Israel with my wife and we have a baby. You are saying that my baby automatically becomes an Israelite...what tribe would he be? Does that also mean my baby is born a Jew?

I never said that. You'd need to convert, become adopted. Your wife would have to be converted or Jewish as well. You know this already. Native Israelites are Jewish already.

Seems like you are making rules as you go along...You have to tell me if babies born in Israel by Palestinian parents are Israelites or not and if not why not...

Of course non-Jews born in Israel are not Jewish.

nothing to do with the discussion just one of your rabbit trails to deflect when you can't deal with the truth...

But you've never answered this. Why not?

 

[timtams]

Thanks for this... there were a number of people I studied with who did not pursue academia further than their degrees, mostly because they became parents during the process and wanted to focus on their kids as soon as they graduated, others for different reasons, but all of whose decisions I highly respect --- each of us has our own unique journey in life.

I did want to pursue a career in academia, but after my PhD I was getting nowhere with job applications and finding post doc opportunities. I got very discouraged, and when another opportunity came along, I was more than ready to forget academia and throw myself into it wholeheartedly. As often happens, I'm glad things worked out the way they did.

Thanks also for your response... I want to read the article again, as well as the other citations you included, before replying in detail. I'm hoping to have a response posted by about the middle of the week. I appreciate your patience...

Take your time, I look forward to hearing your responses.

In the meantime I'll quickly expand on what I meant on this third point. I originally wrote: "(3) [Theodore] cannot make a simple deduction from reading the gospels in light of a tradition that the disciple John was the author of the gospel so attributed." In context this referred to Furlong's inferred position and my take is that Theodore could and did make this deduction. Here is what I was responding to in Furlong:

Thirdly, [Theodore] states that John ‘associated with the Lord from the beginning and that before Matthew’, which also finds no place in Eusebius. Papias, however, might have made such a statement in order to account for Mathew’s omission of the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. Matthew’s beginning was clearly superior to Mark’s, but it was inferior to John’s, who recorded those miracles done at the time of the baptism of John. (222)

Furlong infers that Theodore was incapable of deducing the part I have bolded independent of a source and since it is not found in Eusebius he supposes he got it from a Papian tradition. My objection to Furlong's position is that all Theodore had to do was (1) assume the tradition that John was the author of the fourth (in canonical order) gospel and (2) read the New Testament gospels (specifically Matthew and/or John) to write what he did. Matthew does not begin following Jesus until Matt 9:9 whereas John does so from 4:21-22... if John is the unnamed disciple who, along with Andrew, follows Jesus after John's testimony (John 1:35-37, 40) then this is from the very beginning. There is no need to postulate reliance on Papias for this since it can be extrapolated directly from a reading of these gospels presupposing the tradition of John's authorship of the gospel so named.

I see your point now. That is definitely valid. As I understand the argument, it is that Papias was the one that had expressed an interest in Gospel beginnings and "arrangement," and therefore the fact that Theodore includes this theme with respect to Matthew, whereas Eusebius doesn't, is another indication that he borrowed directly from Papias independently of Eusebius. So yes, he could have derived that easily himself from the Gospels, but the fact that he brought it up seems to support a Papian rather than Eusebian context.