Why Jews will never accept Jesus

Good vs Evil. Identify who is the real evil before the war begins.
Welcome to the forum.

Dav T, as the the owner of the thread, I have to ask you to think, what does this have to do with the topic of the OP, or with what any particular person was discussing?

I am not trying to squelch your expressing yourself. I think perhaps you are new to forums. When a new topic is introduced, it is opened with a new thread.

As for me, I see no indication that we are in the last days, and I don't usually watch videos put into posts. I come here to have discussions with people. Please feel free to reply to any of the chats going on.
 
The Gentiles are drawn to the Messiah and receive God's word through Him and salvation through repentance.
The New Covenant is instigated by the Messiah according to the prophets and He was prophesied to come to the second temple which He did. Any Gentile who receives Jesus is under the New Covenant because there is no other Messiah prophesied in scripture after the destruction of the second temple.
You're repeating yourself. Jeremiah 31:31-34 is clear.
 
You are not very good at understanding biblical typology. Again, the New Covenant was prophesied to be instigated by the Messiah who was also prophesied to come to the second temple. That has to be Jesus. There is no other messiah showing up anywhere in scripture after the destruction of the second temple.
The 70 week prophecy has to do with bringing in the atonement. Read Daniel 9:24 slowly and carefully. The angel is being very specific that the seventy weeks are for the purpose of making "reconciliation for iniquity." Any relation to the Sabbatical years has to do with the rest that the Messiah Jesus brings. The Sabbath was mentioned by Moses in relation to the instigation of the tabernacle which was a foreshadow of the atonement of Jesus.
So long.
You're making up typologies, and its understandable why you need to.

Read Jeremiah 31:31-34 again and again.
 
I gave you the reference in the MIdrash that associates the Messiah with the Holy Spirit that moved upon the waters in Genesis.
It doesn't say the spirit is a person. If you understood Jewish thinking, you'd understand that the desire for Messiah was part of God's plan, as it was for Israel.

Aside from the references in the Rabbinical writings which you should study for yourself, the Arm of the Lord mentioned in Isaiah 53:1, is a distinct person - Isaiah 51:9, and viewed as an extension of God Himself in Isaiah 63:12,40:10,11,51:5,59:16.
There is no separate persons of God. You are seriously mistaken. Show where Messiah is the God in Rabbinical writings. You want find it because it doesn't exist.
 
God says that He will establish an everlasting covenant Jeremiah 32:40, Ezekiel 16:60. This covenant would restore their relationship with Him and it would be given after their captivity though the Messiah that would come to the new temple that was built when they returned to the Holy land. That Covenant was established by Jesus because there is no other benevolent Messiah appearing in scripture after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.
Sorry. No connection of the New Covenant to Messiah. I've explained Daniel 9 and given you the verses.
 
First, I apologize for the delay in my responses: a hectic schedule that includes a sudden return from retirement due to the death of a friend and colleague, and the wedding of my daughter...and a week of vacation with my best friend and wife precluded every effort to respond.
Unfortunately, you're off here. As the Nasi, Rav Gamaliel had tremendous influence and oversight of the Prushim, Pharisees.
I will acquiesce willingly to your superior knowledge, pointing out that your observation concerning his great influence is corroborated by his "cameo appearance" in the deliberations of the Sanhedrin that Luke brings us into in Acts 5. I will also note that tolerance was not always the order of the day for either party. Tell me if you agree that, if true, it is significant that the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Herodians and the Hellenists all called for the crucifixion of Jesus in an historically unusual display of unity.

And it is good to remember that Christian and Jew worshiped in peace in the temple for decades together, until we abandoned you and Jerusalem to the Romans, in what appeared an act of cowardice to you...but an act of foreknowledge and obedience to us. To me it seems that the differences that became so cruelly irreconcilable began there.
Yep, which shows he was really a Sadducee. A Pharisee wouldn't follow a Sadducee.
I understand your point...but hasten to point out that a student of Gamaliel is going to be, first, an original thinker...able to come to his own conclusions about matters. I say this, because I watch Paul's response to Stephen's testimony in chapter 7, and wonder how you would react. How would Gamaliel have reacted to Stephen's challenge? Was stoning above him, in such an extreme circumstance?
Yep, a High Priest and Sadducee under the influence of Rome would make such a pitch.
Understood.

The gospel accounts purposely confuse the factions.
I'm not sure it was purposeful...the writers did not take our ignorance into account. They took what was common knowledge for granted...to our detriment.

Yet, I wonder if there were not times where agreement between the factions made them...less factious, and easier to confuse. It does seem that there were times that there was strong agreement.
 
Thanks again for your response.
The point is he's not mentioned as a student of Gamaliel, so Paul and the NT distort the facts.
I'll only state that your argument from silence here might not be your strongest. And it's still very interesting to hear that there is a list of Gamaliel's disciples.

But the real was revealed on Mt. Sinai, with the law as part of it. It doesn't get much more real than that. No pretend here.
The "real" that Moses saw was passed down as a shadow. Moses alone saw the real on the Holy Mountain. It is our belief that it does get more real that continues to make this a conversation worth having.
No doubt there were factions that wanted Jesus dead. But, he did want to die.
This is a fascinating statement...It is written, "For the joy that was set before him [Jesus] endured the cross." I'd argue that, seeing you as the fruit of his sacrifice, he was willing. He was no masochist...no one would "want" to go through what He went through, but, the return made the investment possible.His overwhelming chesed love gave him the necessary strength to endure...and understanding the necessity of endurance in order to overcome death itself.
Paul learned on his own and had his own visions. Being from Tarsus, he was influenced by hellenism and had gnostic tendencies.
Paul's testimony, except for the gnostic claims, confirm your claim...He spent time in the desert, and came back with the same knowledge that the original apostles had received first hand at the feet of Jesus. Paul embodies the promise, "They shall all be taught of God." And, "No longer will each man teach his neighbor or his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquities and will remember their sins no more.” Gnosticism has always been a dangerous counterfeit of the Truth...close enough to appear true, yet false enough to destroy.

I doubt Paul had the influence of the spirit of holiness as that leads to obedience to the law and teaching likewise, Zechariah 7:12, Ezekiel 36:26-27.
Of course you do...otherwise you'd heed him. I'm convinced otherwise, hence this forum. He defends our view better than I ever could.
Since Eden, there have been blessings and curses. That's just a fact.
Yet the specifics iterated in Deuteronomy 28, to which I'm referring were not written until Sinai.
I think you don't understand what happened.
Abraham met with three...and these were One encounter. I'm pretty sure you do not understand what happened either...Who could? We're given very limited information, but enough to make this discussion valuable.
It's not a physical image. The ability to rule like God with reason, mercy, etc.
I don't think you understand to what extent "in our image and in our likeness" goes...yet the ability and authority you speak of comes from that image. God calls us sons in the psalms. What limits to you apply to that claim? And why?
Where's the man shaped hole?
You keep asking this: Verse 7 chapter two...God formed/fashioned man from the dust of the earth...From where that dust was taken, there would have been a hole...in the middle of the garden Man was given charge over.

That's where I got it from...poetic license? Maybe...Poetic, definitely. It's a powerful story of responsibility and shared stewardship.
You can't lay down your soul for mine. Ezekiel 18 is clear on that.
I think you're artificially limiting what love can do.
There wasn't blood mentioned. You've assumed that.
Pretty safe assumption, since the animals were no longer in the skins, and the souls of the animals were in the blood.
And nothing in Tanakh supports this view.
Forgive me, and I mean this...forgive me, but everything in the Tenakh supports this view, if Moses' tabernacle was, in fact, the prophetic shadow of the Heavenly Substance Moses saw. Even the Pesach itself was foreshadowing of the death on the cross on the Day: right down to the blood on the crosspiece and the two lintels of the door of every house.

Do you have proof otherwise?
Yes...your next response discourages me from thinking otherwise:
I wouldn't have written. It's quite blasphemous in places.
Only a Jew would understand that...without the death and resurrection highlighting what had been foreshadowed, no one could have understood the implications.

It would take another thread to discuss the Jewish nature of Hebrews, to adequately allow you to object. I'd be fascinated. But for me, the clincher came when the author put Abraham's sacrificing Isaac into perspective. For the Muslim, Abraham bravely offered his his firstborn son Ishmael. Correct me if I'm wrong: For the Jew, Abraham bravely offered the son of the promise, Isaac...but for the Christian, Abraham understood that through Isaac was the seed promised. Therefore Abraham bravely believed God, knowing that God would have to raise Isaac from the dead. It is impossible for God to lie. There would be no sacrifice...but the obedience that love requires. Therefore Abraham told the servants to wait until he and Isaac returned. Therefore Abraham told Isaac, God will provide.

What Goy thinks like that, if he hasn't been trained to think in righteousness? And who would believe God expected human sacrifice?
So Jesus could never accomplish what your saying from a biological stance.
So Jesus could only accomplish what I'm saying from this stance...Our spirit/breath is made alive when we are born again...our soul/blood is refreshed and restored...our flesh is redeemed and raised to newness of life. Biological is only temporal...spiritual is eternal.

No, you're argument using Isaish 53 is weak using the asham.
It has withstood the test of time...He made his soul a sacrifice...You do not accept the argument, but I notice you are unwilling to dismiss it. I think that's wise. It gets stronger, as you will notice, when you see the degree to which it is supported.
But then Ezekiel 18 says otherwise. You are arguing against your case for Jesus being righteous. The righteous fall 7 times...
Actually, you just argued in His favor. He was "tempted in every way, like as we, yet without sin..." We all need a redeemer. He does not. He has become the advocate Micah boasts of, when he stumbles...
"7But as for me, I will look to the LORD; I will wait for the God of my salvation. My God will hear me. 8Do not gloat over me, my enemy! Though I have fallen, I will arise; though I sit in darkness, the LORD will be my light. 9Because I have sinned against Him, I must endure the rage of the LORD, until He argues my case and executes justice for me. He will bring me into the light; I will see His righteousness.…" (I can't tell you how many times I've had to remember this promise.)

To comply with the law you must follow the law. This point is not satisfied with your argument.
Warnings were not written to satisfy arguments. There's a time where our own negligence becomes personal responsibility. That is the ultimate conclusion that comes from your first terrifying and true statement.
That doesn't mean a sacrifice isn't sufficient for an atonement. It's clearly said it is, as well as other means.
The point is, whatever the means...you have no "Once and for all." And only "alternate means" of atonement that had to replace the system handed down from Moses.
Doesn't work.
When God speaks, things materialize, come into fruition, flesh. That doesn't make His spoken word a god.
It's a pretty perfect representative of Him...and the best means we have to know Him...Our Psalm 119, the VERY long one, encourages me to think it does a good job representing Him well.
Then Parthenos isn't a good term for virgin.
It's adequate...coupled with the fact that Mary knew no man, then it's sufficient.
Which is false as she conceived via sperm, tazria, Leviticus 12:1-8. Pregnancy outside of marriage makes Jesus a mamzer.
This is a claim that has been made...However, no sperm was involved. The Word was spoken, and the Word was the seed which Mary believed. As the earth received God's Word in the beginning, the pregnancy that ensued became the Hope of Israel, and one of the greatest struggles worth debating.
Abraham didn't have a child through a virgin.
True...but he did take God at His Word. And Isaac was the fruit of years of hope inspired effort. Abraham believed the promise. Mary, too...but her pregnancy was from the moment she received the word.

Not my problem. I don't find this as a debate.
Amen.
Then we disagree.
Of course. That gives value to the discussion.

Thanks for your patience.
 
Actually there were plenty of non-blood sacrifices. Look up, i.e. grain offerings. Again, it is a case of both/and. Both blood and other can sanctify. The sabbath is sanctified with no offering at all.
You misunderstand me...Yes, the grain offerings...and yes, these offerings were not made on an altar that was not first sprinkled with blood. All the utensils of the system were first purged by the blood.
Deuteronomy 5
12 Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work. 14 But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you. 15 Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day.
This is a beginning...They were not allowed to rest in Egypt. God was restoring rest...even for the slave! And rest is the reward for obedience, "So I swore in my wrath, they shall not enter my rest..." The sabbath is an imitation of God Who rested, and that's the point.
The problem with this is that it doesn't work. Christians sin just like everyone else.
No doubt...And good people are notably good...The truth is, it worked: Jesus rose from the dead, and changed once and for all time the requisites of sin: now we must believe that atonement has been made, and we are no longer slaves to failure.

Christians and everyone else have to face this fact...some shine like the sun. All are offered the same gift.
Well, I wouldn't say differently. For me, I obey God not for any want of heaven, but simply because God is God and deserving of my love and obedience. And as I said before, every rabbi I've known teaches that all of the law falls under loving God and loving neighbor. However, none of this means that obedience isn't an obligation. Again, you set up a false dichotomy.
I'm not sure what the false dichotomy is...Your words express the heart and soul of those who fear God and seek to please Him for the pleasure of His company. The only part of the puzzle you will miss is the transaction of the cross, and the fulfillment of the resurrection. Life was given in exchange for redemption, and that's how the system has to work.
A young woman can be married.
My Hebrew and my knowledge of the Jewish culture of that day doesn't recommend in depth discussions. The fact remains, Mary believed what Gabriel said, and became pregnant with the Word of God.
Again, a please to discuss with you.
Thank you. Sincerely.
 
No, that is not honest. There was no sacrifice in Eden. Killing animals to make clothing is not the same thing as a sacrifice no matter how much you really, really, really, really want it to be.
An animal died in Eden so that God could make the coverings for Adam and Eve. This is a foreshadow of the atonement. Jesus died so are sins can be covered. The example in Eden is followed throughout the Old Testament typology relating to Jesus' death.
 
Well, personally, I wish you would quit this thread and move to the new one. This thread has simply become an endless repetition of the same stuff being said by you and Jewijitzu and me over and over again. It needs to be put to bed. I really am mostly interested in the newbies that come in and respond to the OP. As for me, I almost never actually read the thread itself. I respond to the alerts I get, and I usually get about a half dozen alerts. That's pretty easy to handle.
If you don't answer me, I won't answer you and that will end the thread. I am not interested in your new thread. When I have the time to participate in another thread I am going on the Trinity board to do a thread on the Trinity from Isaiah 42:1.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't say the spirit is a person. If you understood Jewish thinking, you'd understand that the desire for Messiah was part of God's plan, as it was for Israel.


There is no separate persons of God. You are seriously mistaken. Show where Messiah is the God in Rabbinical writings. You want find it because it doesn't exist.
The Spirit is not a person, the spirit has a person because God has designed His spirit to operate with the soul. Jesus' Spirit is God's Spirit.
God is one Spirit and He has a person, a soul, nephesh in the Hebrew. God is two without being more than one. That is what the Hebrew shows us. Because Jesus' Spirit is God's Spirit He is one with God and is God because God is in Him and they are one. Therefore Jesus is "God" because of His union with God, but He is not the Father's person.
The Talmud says that the name Metatron which is another name for the Messiah is equivalent to LORD and he sits in the Holiest of Holies and acts as God's emissary. Sanhedrin 38b, Hagigah 15a and Avoda Zara 3b.
 
You're making up typologies, and its understandable why you need to.

Read Jeremiah 31:31-34 again and again.
There is no other Messiah appearing in scripture after the destruction of the temple in 70AD. Read Daniel 9 again and again.
 
You misunderstand me...Yes, the grain offerings...and yes, these offerings were not made on an altar that was not first sprinkled with blood. All the utensils of the system were first purged by the blood.
I'm not sure what your point is. The blood used to purify the utensils is not used for any atonement sacrifice. It is irrelevant to the conversation.

This is a beginning...They were not allowed to rest in Egypt. God was restoring rest...even for the slave! And rest is the reward for obedience, "So I swore in my wrath, they shall not enter my rest..." The sabbath is an imitation of God Who rested, and that's the point.
No doubt, God resting is part of it. However, a reminder of being delivered from Egypt is just as much a part, as I showed you with scripture.

No doubt...And good people are notably good...The truth is, it worked: Jesus rose from the dead, and changed once and for all time the requisites of sin: now we must believe that atonement has been made, and we are no longer slaves to failure.

Christians and everyone else have to face this fact...some shine like the sun. All are offered the same gift.
My point is that there is no difference between Christians and those of other religions when the rubber meets the road. You have just as many good people, just as many bad people, and just as many stories of transformation. The fact that you have a story that explains it makes no difference. Other religions have their own stories as well.

I'm not sure what the false dichotomy is...Your words express the heart and soul of those who fear God and seek to please Him for the pleasure of His company. The only part of the puzzle you will miss is the transaction of the cross, and the fulfillment of the resurrection. Life was given in exchange for redemption, and that's how the system has to work.
My worldview doesn't contain the cross because the cross is unnecessary. Things work just as well without it.

Glad to have you back!
 
An animal died in Eden so that God could make the coverings for Adam and Eve. This is a foreshadow of the atonement. Jesus died so are sins can be covered. The example in Eden is followed throughout the Old Testament typology relating to Jesus' death.
It is not a sacrifice.
 
I'm not sure what your point is. The blood used to purify the utensils is not used for any atonement sacrifice. It is irrelevant to the conversation.
We were discussing what you considered a misconception from Hebrews, and I'm still suggesting that it's accurate...even to the utensils used. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission. You cannot sacrifice with unclean instruments.
No doubt, God resting is part of it. However, a reminder of being delivered from Egypt is just as much a part, as I showed you with scripture.
I think we're actually agreeing...rest was restored to Israel, who, in slavery in Egypt, knew no rest. You realize, I'm only trying to clarify...there is little I disagree with you on.
My point is that there is no difference between Christians and those of other religions when the rubber meets the road. You have just as many good people, just as many bad people, and just as many stories of transformation. The fact that you have a story that explains it makes no difference. Other religions have their own stories as well.
That might be...but there has only been one resurrection, that is history's defining moment...and momentous in all it's implications.
My worldview doesn't contain the cross because the cross is unnecessary. Things work just as well without it.
Some would suggest that things actually work because of it...it defines the extreme nature of a God Who is defined by Promise and Chesed love.

The resurrection is a canny reminder that the sting of death itself is limited, and God has set an end, even there.

I don't want to sound arrogant or boastful. I've read the works of great thinkers and sages, I've sat on a hillside on the West Bank, in Tubas, with one of the wisest Imams I've ever met. I've enjoyed the writings of the one called Baha'ullah...and I can point to their tombs. Only one has risen and has no tomb. That, to me, corroborates what he said, and adds value to His opinion.

Glad to have you back!
Thanks. This is bread for me. And an excellent serving.
 
We were discussing what you considered a misconception from Hebrews, and I'm still suggesting that it's accurate...even to the utensils used. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission. You cannot sacrifice with unclean instruments.
But don't you see that it is irrelevant, since the blood for purification is not an atonement sacrifice? Our discussion revolves around blood spilt for atonement. We need to limit it to that.

I think we're actually agreeing...rest was restored to Israel, who, in slavery in Egypt, knew no rest. You realize, I'm only trying to clarify...there is little I disagree with you on.
That is always nice, agreeing! :)

That might be...but there has only been one resurrection, that is history's defining moment...and momentous in all it's implications.
Some would suggest that things actually work because of it...it defines the extreme nature of a God Who is defined by Promise and Chesed love.
However, as I stated when our conversation first began, I do not think there has been a literal resurrection -- only a figurative one.

I don't want to sound arrogant or boastful. I've read the works of great thinkers and sages, I've sat on a hillside on the West Bank, in Tubas, with one of the wisest Imams I've ever met. I've enjoyed the writings of the one called Baha'ullah...and I can point to their tombs. Only one has risen and has no tomb. That, to me, corroborates what he said, and adds value to His opinion.
So you are saying that my spirituality (and that of others) works because of Jesus sacrifice, even though I am blind to it? Well I have to say that is a cut way above the theology of most Christians, because it accommodates the reality of the depth and goodness many in other religions have. Don't get me wrong, I still see the cross as completely unnecessary. But I am surprised and pleased with this turn of events.
 
Back
Top