Why Jews will never accept Jesus

Christians are not frustrated but rather sad to see people remain hardened by their sin and proud spirit.
I would like to see you repent and believe.
well, no one can deny that. How ever, Adam did the same thing and we are ALL from Adam.... We are told that " ALL have sinned no one is perfect all have come short of the glory of God... " all " and " no one ".. Even Moses and Abraham
I agree that we all sinned in Adam.
That is why God the Son took upon Himself a body of flesh,born of a virgin in order to be sinless as a lamb without spot or blemish.
He gives His perfect life as a perfect law keeper for all who believe.
 
Faith is: Heb 11:1
Faith comes: Rom 10:17
Faith applied: Mark 11:22-24
well things are much greater than 1 verse, seeing as how no ancient bible writer numbered their letters and or writings in the first place. Example, Hebrews 11, verse 1, this chapter has much more to say about faith than the 1 verse that you have cited,, please, I never thought of you as a "one verse wonder " like all the cults like to do and even the RCC.. the Bible is in fact the very Word of God and I do believe God and AL that He says to us.....
 
Christians are not frustrated but rather sad to see people remain hardened by their sin and proud spirit.
I would like to see you repent and believe.

I agree that we all sinned in Adam.
That is why God the Son took upon Himself a body of flesh,born of a virgin in order to be sinless as a lamb without spot or blemish.
He gives His perfect life as a perfect law keeper for all who believe.
actually who sinned " in " Adam ? Adam had it all, all was very perfect for Adam ( meaning ? he had no reason to complain to God, with whom he actually walked and spoke to face to face ). Adam disobeyed God and he was punished for his disobedience ( sin ).. This proved that if Adam sinned then what are we ???? Mankind has a sinful nature at heart... Read Matthew chapter 1 from verse 18 ( This is how the birth of the Messiah Yeshua came about. " Mary, a mortal woman destined form eternity, to be the mother of God flesh and blood son. She conceived in her womb her son by Gods Spirit.. Now just the for matter of reference, flash back to Isa 46:10+
 
well things are much greater than 1 verse, seeing as how no ancient bible writer numbered their letters and or writings in the first place. Example, Hebrews 11, verse 1, this chapter has much more to say about faith than the 1 verse that you have cited,
BUT - it establishes that in order to BE "Faith" it has to have SUBSTANCE. "Belief" doesn't have "Substance".

AND Faith has to be an EVIDENCE of what you don't see. "Belief isn't an "Evidence" of anything other than how you happen to feel at the time.

That's quite LOT of basic information, and revels why 90% of what religious folks CALL "Faith" isn't FAITH at all. And when you couple Heb 11:1 with Romans 10:17 - it becomes clear that Biblical FAITH is always a revelatory Gifting (as it was in the OLD Testament) like Abraham's case. His FAITH was solidly established as the result of the Word of God to him - personally. It's still the same now.
the Bible is in fact the very Word of God.
Agreed, BUT there's another dimension to it, when the Holy Spirit MAKES IT YOURS.

It's all well and good that you believe (by mental assent) that God HEALS, but it's quite another thing to KNOW that God WILL HEAL YOU - NOW.
 
actually who sinned " in " Adam ? Adam had it all, all was very perfect for Adam ( meaning ? he had no reason to complain to God, with whom he actually walked and spoke to face to face ). Adam disobeyed God and he was punished for his disobedience ( sin ).. This proved that if Adam sinned then what are we ???? Mankind has a sinful nature at heart... Read Matthew chapter 1 from verse 18 ( This is how the birth of the Messiah Yeshua came about. " Mary, a mortal woman destined form eternity, to be the mother of God flesh and blood son. She conceived in her womb her son by Gods Spirit.. Now just the for matter of reference, flash back to Isa 46:10+
Hello Rossh,
Isa46:9-11 is one of my favorite descriptive verses.

In Romans 3:23- The grammar states that all sinned, at one point in time, the fall into sin and death
Jesus is the last Adam.
First Adam=sin/death
Last Adam= life/peace
We have to move from the first Adam...to the last Adam...from death to life.
 
Jews have turned from the true God all through history. read psalm 78
Wrong. There have been times we have followed God and times we have turned away. More to the point, there are Jews that faithfully obey, and Jews that don't. Kind of like Christians.

You sound like you have nothing good to say about Jews.
 
where do you think it says that?
Deut 32:6
Is this the way you repay the LORD, you foolish and unwise people? Is he not your Father, your Creator, who made you and formed you?

Malachi 2:10
Do we not all have one Father? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our ancestors by being unfaithful to one another?

Isaiah 64:8
But now, O LORD, You are our Father; we are the clay, and You are the potter; we are all the work of Your hand.
 
Same Greek root used in John 13:30. He took the drink.
You're correct...buy buttressing your own error: lambano is not the same word as pino, which actually does mean to drink. Judas received the "sop" and left. Nothing says he ate or drank it. Interestingly enough...when you read the eyewitness accounts, Jesus used the verb pino, "I will not drink...", and then passed the Cup of Redemption...apparently without even drinking. Like I said.
Like I said, the NT confuses the groups.
I do know that you have claimed that the eyewitness accounts of the foibles of each group was misrepresented...and two thousand years later you have the better view. It's not a very strong claim, given the credibility of the eyewitness accounts. There may be some things that have been covered up over time.
Then your arguments against the Jews regarding why we don't rebuild the temple, lack of sacrifices doesn't stand, correct? In Jesus' case, his being a god and all, doesn't excuse him.
Now look who's playing God...You're not sitting in the right seat for this...first of all, you have to justify abrogating the Law...and not rebuilding the temple. That's the first thing that happened when the decree went out to return.
Then why did Jesus declare all foods clean, and Paul say he was taught by Jesus regarding this too, contrary to Torah?
Jesus explained the deeper meaning. Did you miss it? It's not what goes in that defiles, but what comes out. Out of the heart the mouth speaks, to justify or defile. Did you miss that? The food laws are good for the health, and no one denies the wholesomeness of Kosher. And the law addresses the condition of the heart.

As an aside, the epistle of Barnabas, one of the apocryphal writings contemporary with the NT, was written to explain this. I wonder if you've read it. I found it well reasoned, but...I'm goy.
The body was removed early in the morning. It isn't hard to bribe either way.
This is actually funny..."Removed" under the nose of the posted Roman guard? The soldiers are dead men. Nopers. The body was risen in the morning...The misguided conspirators had no choice but to bribe.
Just another mythological story want to believe in.
Too much evidence to the contrary to sustain your claim. You're desperate again.
How long was the girl dead?
Reasonable question...and my answer won't satisfy. I met them in 1985...and I remember the encounter much better than the details. You would have to accept that I am skeptical by nature...I just don't remember well enough.
I've had my own.
Actually, that's pretty clear. You've had experiences.
Ok. Oh, I have. He broke his vows.
Nope...You're clinging to rags.
For himself. Its pretty clear.
What's clear is your willingness to cling to misconception when they've been refuted. The language is very clear. Your guess is entirely out of the context of a very consistent narrative.
Unfortunately, its false.
Fortunately no claim to the contrary makes truth go away.
The spoken word comes from the Father, not a separate person. Your right, it shouldn't be hard to grasp.
What's funny to me is the "Spoken word from the Father" that personified dirt and fashioned into a Man...was not a person.

Your word is you...You're having difficulty with the nature of the God Who is perfectly united with His Word as to be inseparable.
 
There's no other way for a Jew to understand what your saying.
The shema has never been a paradox for the Jew, only gentiles. Only the unlearned would translate the way you do as it admits to polytheism.
Clearly...and when you read the Tenach, the Jews are not famous for their flawless understanding all the time.

Only the "unlearned" would see the plural and say, "That is plural..." And only the observant would see Genesis open and watch the Father, the Word and the Spirit create together, three and yet only One. And only John would reword Genesis 1 so clearly as to make the understanding possible even for the youngest child.
No, that's what you say.
Every time I quote directly...and I'm not alone, either.
He said he had visions, and only Moses saw clearly.
...ok...and? He SAW in His vision. I don't remember when Moses was even taken directly to where Isaiah SAW his vision. Your point is specious. I don't think you had a coherent conversation with Isaiah.
I accept what is written and balance all of Tanakh.
Unless it's inconvenient to do so. We've seen that. "The Word is not a person..." is something you have to say. It's still denial. You have no problem personifying dust and making it human...but you cannot see that the Word is What actually performed that act. Without the Word nothing was made that was made. Why is it beyond your understanding that the perfect outward expression of God is a person, one with Him?
The grammar shows exclusively one, and alone. You haven't understood the Hebrew.
I don't know...you could be right...Beyond "gods" how many times does Hebrew make plural singular. Being a linguist, I enjoy the grammar of the languages I delve into. But I'm an expert in French and English only, and conversant in Swedish. I won't boast beyond my own means.
Because the grammar doesn't support it. Nor is God made of parts.
Any description of God is inadequate...however, seeing the tripartite nature of man, and knowing I am a single and whole, it's easier to describe the "Trinity" on these terms. I do not like the word itself. But I acknowledge what I see...and the interaction of body and soul and spirit in the redemption of man is essential to understanding the extreme nature of Jesus' act of love.
Not supported.
Your claim. You cannot see the support...runs throughout both testaments.
Then created and not God. You can't be creator and created.
You have limited God...and He did what was required: The Word we SEE at the beginning was made flesh, and dwelt among us. This was the struggle of the early Christians...to understand the nature of the incarnation. You've just taken up one side of the debate.
History doesn't say that. Your NT does.
The NT, like your tenach, is an accurate historic document. That's why these are so daunting to secular historians. Fighting Truth is a vain battle.
Nope...Triune...Father, Word, spirit.
Life in the blood.
Nephesh in the blood. You're quibbling.
Exodus 34:6-7
Not sure what you've proven by this...He passed before him, as the cloud descended, declaring the Word...as all Three made His presence known. Echad.
Blood and body are physical. God isn't. Isaiah 40:18,25;46:5. You didn't study damah.
Not strong either...We're pressed into the temporal, and clothed with it. God transcends it...and as He is, we become.

Do you understand that God's call to Israel as His bride, and His overwhelming protection of Her is everything you're fighting against here? Why are you so averse to God loving Israel as a bride? He's pretty graphic in Micah as to His intent. Do you not see the fulfillment?
Yep.
It's adultery get pregnate with another not your husband.
No...It's adultery to lie with another. It's not to believe God, and receive His word, and to have His word clothed with life.

That's called the obedience of faith. Not adultery.
The NT isn't history.
The best historians say otherwise.
Yep the law is perfect and the truth. It perfects.
The Law is perfect. It perfects. That is truth. The Law exhorts. That is truth. And exhortation is an exhortation. That, too, is truth.
Sorry. No need for a 3rd or 2nd wheel.
Agreed. Jesus was neither second nor third. Just the Word made flesh...a need for all time. ;)
It doesn't say love Gods...
Nope...But it says, "Love elohim"...Hope that helps. What works for you in Hebrew will have to work for you in any other language, until you see this.
 
Rotfl... it's your desperation showing with your appeal to a Jewish concept. I'll give you credit for the try 😉
Thanks...and I will always give you credit for your wisdom.

Being a god, he would have known, could have refused, and requested water. Sour wine was the common drink of Roman soldiers.
Being God He could have called legions of angels, and stopped the deal...but there was Death to defeat, and life to restore, and relationship to seal forever. The promise had been made to Abraham when He walked between the carcasses...He could not back off. He became a curse that you should inherit the fullness according to the promise, and by this act, the wall that separated us was broken and the blessings of Abraham extended to the generations of Adam. This is how suzerainty treaties work.
Roman soldiers would be naive of what was occurring and of Jewish law. He broke his vow. This a very desperate cry on your part. ;)
It's clear that there's some desperation here. Not to worry. Drink is "pino". He took it in the face. It does not say he drank. And the Romans didn't give a whoop. They did this for a living, and, according to what I've read, when they cared, they gave the drink in advance to dull the pain. He never drank from this cup, because he was taking the cup of the wrath of God that He received in the garden.
 
So you saw a vision but not reality. Sounds like you had a biased experience based on visual indoctrination.
I saw a vision. What makes that not a reality? What Isaiah saw is very real. What Ezekiel saw is very real...and he watched the Spirit leave the temple in one of the most tragic, woeful scenes in the entire Tanakh. That, too, was real. Too real.
Ok. Visions are not reality.
Disagree...you're very western in your thought...That's not a compliment.
 
Thanks...and I will always give you credit for your wisdom.
Ok.

Being God He could have called legions of angels, and stopped the deal...but there was Death to defeat, and life to restore, and relationship to seal forever.
An assumption with zero evidence that a created man is the God, the Creator. In fact it's a contradiction.

Jesus never said he was God, but the contrary. Your comment above regarding calling the legions of angels was the Father providing that, not he himself. Quite a difference.

The promise had been made to Abraham when He walked between the carcasses...He could not back off.
Again, you mention things that have nothing to do with Jesus.

He became a curse that you should inherit the fullness according to the promise, and by this act, the wall that separated us was broken and the blessings of Abraham extended to the generations of Adam.
And yet Deuteronomy 32:6 says God has no sin so He doesn't take on sin, curses as you say.

This is how suzerainty treaties work.
Explain.

It's clear that there's some desperation here. Not to worry. Drink is "pino". He took it in the face. It does not say he drank.
There's no other understanding for it. One takes possession of a drink in the mouth.

And the Romans didn't give a whoop.
Of course not. But Jesus didn't make a request for water, as he wasn't knowledgeable of all things as God is.

They did this for a living, and, according to what I've read, when they cared, they gave the drink in advance to dull the pain. He never drank from this cup, because he was taking the cup of the wrath of God that He received in the garden.
He drank it. He couldn't take it by hand.
 
Last edited:
I saw a vision. What makes that not a reality? What Isaiah saw is very real. What Ezekiel saw is very real...and he watched the Spirit leave the temple in one of the most tragic, woeful scenes in the entire Tanakh. That, too, was real. Too real.
Unfortunately, you haven't studied or understood the Hebrew root damah used in Isaiah 40:18,25;46:5. God has no likeness to the physical, blood, or adam/man. We know that prophets, with the exception of Moses saw visions and riddles, but Moses saw clearly that God has no physical form, Deut 4:9,12,35.

Dreams, day dreams, visual imagination, etc., are not reality.

Disagree...you're very western in your thought...That's not a compliment.
On the contrary, but you really don't understand the above. BTW, don't worry BTH. Like I said before, nothing you've shared has provided any new insight. Nor do I hold your thoughts in high regard.
 
Last edited:
You're correct...buy buttressing your own error: lambano is not the same word as pino, which actually does mean to drink. Judas received the "sop" and left. Nothing says he ate or drank it. Interestingly enough...when you read the eyewitness accounts, Jesus used the verb pino, "I will not drink...", and then passed the Cup of Redemption...apparently without even drinking. Like I said.
None of this makes sense in the context of a Pesach seder. Jesus would have drunk the cups. Again, taking possession of a drink can only mean one thing, he drank it at the cross since he had no hands freely available.

I do know that you have claimed that the eyewitness accounts of the foibles of each group was misrepresented...and two thousand years later you have the better view. It's not a very strong claim, given the credibility of the eyewitness accounts.
We know the differences between the Sadducees and Pharisees, and can see errors in ideology being attributed to the wrong groups. Again, with Gamaliel and Pharisees being lenient towards Jesus and the Nazarenes, it's hard to believe the accounts.

There may be some things that have been covered up over time.
Now look who's playing God...You're not sitting in the right seat for this...first of all, you have to justify abrogating the Law...and not rebuilding the temple.
You just used the argument of pikuach nefesh for Jesus for breaking his vows. This normally applies in matters of life or death on the Sabbath but can be applied to rebuilding the temple in our times. But, since we know that Daniel's generation received atonement without the temple, your argument is mute.

That's the first thing that happened when the decree went out to return.
Jesus explained the deeper meaning. Did you miss it? It's not what goes in that defiles, but what comes out. Out of the heart the mouth speaks, to justify or defile. Did you miss that? The food laws are good for the health, and no one denies the wholesomeness of Kosher. And the law addresses the condition of the heart.
The kosher laws were given for a reason, and health isn't a reason given. But, neither Jesus or Paul has a reason to abrogate. That's the position of a false prophet, regardless of any miracles made by them.

As an aside, the epistle of Barnabas, one of the apocryphal writings contemporary with the NT, was written to explain this. I wonder if you've read it. I found it well reasoned, but...I'm goy.
I haven't read it.

This is actually funny..."Removed" under the nose of the posted Roman guard? The soldiers are dead men. Nopers. The body was risen in the morning...The misguided conspirators had no choice but to bribe.
Too much evidence to the contrary to sustain your claim. You're desperate again.
No, again with the evidence of Talpiot, its easy to see that events didn't happen as depicted. Nor the tombs bursting, etc.

Reasonable question...and my answer won't satisfy. I met them in 1985...and I remember the encounter much better than the details. You would have to accept that I am skeptical by nature...I just don't remember well enough.
So, you can understand why I don't accept this story. And again, even false prophets do miracles. Do you know how to identify a true prophet?

Actually, that's pretty clear. You've had experiences.
Nope...You're clinging to rags.
God's commandments aren't rags. It's clear he broke his vows. And he wasn't perfectly sinless.

What's clear is your willingness to cling to misconception when they've been refuted.
No, Hebrews 5:7 is clear he isn't praying for anyone but himself.

The language is very clear. Your guess is entirely out of the context of a very consistent narrative.Fortunately no claim to the contrary makes truth go away.
You haven't shown him praying for anyone else.

What's funny to me is the "Spoken word from the Father" that personified dirt and fashioned into a Man...was not a person.
Why is that funny? My word doesn't return void. A word isn't a person. Thing, yes, but not a person.

Your word is you...You're having difficulty with the nature of the God Who is perfectly united with His Word as to be inseparable.
No, my word is formed by me, and when spoken is not me. My word is not a person. Apply that to God.
 
Last edited:
I will not bow to an idol of flesh.
If the one you believe to be Messiah showed up today, would you bow the knee? When Yeshua returns to rule the kingdom his father gave him, you'll bow to him.
John 3: 35 The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand.
 
If the one you believe to be Messiah showed up today, would you bow the knee? When Yeshua returns to rule the kingdom his father gave him, you'll bow to him.
John 3: 35 The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand.
Bowing is not the issue as King David was bowed to as well as others. Worshipping a man as God would be the issue. Why bow to Jesus when he himself bowed, worshipped another with both of his natures?
 
Back
Top