How do Jews disagree with Jesus as the messiah?

[YKohen]

I forgot the “no” :doh2:

it of course needs to read

There’s no need for a Jew to embrace Jesus. There’s no need for a Christian to follow some of the Torah rules anymore

written with little time, and I just got back on here…

I agree 100%!

I know I owe you. Mea culpa.

 

[meltzerboy]

Again:

(44:1) “1 Yet now hear, O Jacob My servant, and Israel, whom I have chosen”
(44:2) “Fear not, O Jacob My servant, and thou, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen”
(49:3) "'Thou art My servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified."
(52:13) “Behold My servant shall prosper,”

I’m just quoting the verses verbatim- and they all are concerning the house of Jacob specifically- and to the exclusion of anyone else.

There are numerous times in the Torah where we are referred to in the singular. Like when we camped at Mt. Sinai (Exodux 19:2), it says: " וַיִּחַן-שָׁם יִשְׂרָאֵל, נֶגֶד הָהָר.": “and there Israel encamped before the mount.”

The word “vayichan” is the singular.

Same here, where it explicitly, and repeatedly, talks of the nation of Israel; G-d’s servant.

What does “for he bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors” mean? If Israel is the suffering servant, in the context of other verses from Isaiah, then Israel bore the sin of its people makes sense in that Israel was punished for its own transgressions. However, what then does “intercession for the transgressors” mean? Perhaps a contorted explanation can be used that G-d so loves His suffering servant (Israel) that he therefore showed mercy toward His people. Or might this signify that Israel bore the sins of the transgressors from other nations? How is all this interpreted based on the Hebrew language? Further, could Jesus be the human personnification and distillation of the suffering servant (Israel) according to this passage? Apart from the contextual evidence of the meaning of “suffering servant,” do Jewish Biblical scholars deal with the interpretation of this whole passage in any other way?

 

[InJesusItrust]

When I bring up the tradition, I mean that sometimes people are consumed by inertia itself. To convert would often bring shame to the family and separate an individual from his parents. Some people reason thus: if I was born in faith X would a loving God expect me to lose everything to convert to faith Y? The bible gives an answer: you must love God first, then everything else. My parents have no real understanding, but simply followed the traditions of their times.

Inertia prevented me from understanding who Jesus was. As an atheist nothing made sense to me, and I never read the bible with an open-heart and it seemed like a bunch of nonsense. It was only when I took seriously the idea that I might be wrong that I finally relented and understood. If you read the scriptures without a traditional Jewish mindset, do you see a pattern between the OT and the NT? They seem so intimately connected that it seems to me that Christian claims seem more self-evident.

I would like to learn more about your idea that Israel died for the sins of other nations. Most Jewish say that such an atonement is against the bible, so Jesus cant be the messiah, but now you are saying that such an atonement is possible for a whole nation!

Well then, have a blessed Sabbath. God bless you.

 

[YeshuaOrHaOlam]

I had used the same on another thread, until I learned that this phenomena did not soley occur during these forty years, but that it had occurred at other times prior. So, to be fair, it is not a proof.

I am more interested in knowing the commonality of our shared faiths, rather than trying to prove that Y’shua is the Messiah. They have already made it clear what they believe, so why persist?

shalom

micah

Shalom Micah;

Which phenomena specifically? I am aware that the crimson thread did not turn white every single year, before AD 30, but specifically, where else in the Talmud does it reference such things occurring for 40 straight years?

 

[joe370]

Again:

(44:1) “1 Yet now hear, O Jacob My servant, and Israel, whom I have chosen”
(44:2) “Fear not, O Jacob My servant, and thou, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen”
(49:3) "'Thou art My servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified."
(52:13) “Behold My servant shall prosper,”

I’m just quoting the verses verbatim- and they all are concerning the house of Jacob specifically- and to the exclusion of anyone else.

There are numerous times in the Torah where we are referred to in the singular. Like when we camped at Mt. Sinai (Exodux 19:2), it says: " וַיִּחַן-שָׁם יִשְׂרָאֵל, נֶגֶד הָהָר.": “and there Israel encamped before the mount.”

The word “vayichan” is the singular.

Same here, where it explicitly, and repeatedly, talks of the nation of Israel; G-d’s servant.

So, you read this as:

Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
Israel like a root out of dry ground.
Israel had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in Israel’s appearance that we should desire Israel.
Israel was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man (Israel) of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
Israel was despised, and we held Israel in low esteem.

Surely Israel took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered Israel punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
But Israel was pierced for our transgressions,
Israel was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on Israel,
and by Israels wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on Israel
the iniquity of **us all.
**
Israel was oppressed and afflicted,
yet Israel did not open his mouth;
Israel was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so Israel did not open his mouth.
By oppression and judgment Israel was taken away.
Yet who of Israel’s generation protested?
For Israel was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people Israel was punished. **Israel **
was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though Israel had done no violence,
**nor was any deceit in Israel’s mouth.
**
Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush Israel and cause Israel to suffer,
and though the Lord makes Israel’s life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
After Israel has suffered,
Israel will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by Israels’ knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and Israel will bear their iniquities.
Therefore I will give Israel a portion among the great, and Israel will
divide the spoils with the strong, because Israel poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For Israel bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

 

[mercytruth]

Shalom Micah;

Which phenomena specifically? I am aware that the crimson thread did not turn white every single year, before AD 30, but specifically, where else in the Talmud does it reference such things occurring for 40 straight years?

I was speaking of prior to AD 30, and yes we have no record of it being for 40 years straight. So, while that is a remarkable occurrence, can we actually say that is definitive proof?

There is one scripture above all else, that seems to be the most credible for showing the link that Y’shua is the Messiah. It is Lamentations 4:20. The Messiah that was taken…is the one under whose **shadow **the Jewish people dwelt among the nations.

The Spirit of Messiah under whose shadow the Jewish people dwell among the goyim, is either the Spirit of Y’shua, or the Spirit of the Messiah yet to be revealed to the Jewish people. I would not know any other way to understand Lamentations 4:20. A Jewish explanation of this scripture would be helpful.

Shalom

micah.

 

[YeshuaOrHaOlam]

I was speaking of prior to AD 30, and yes we have no record of it being for 40 years straight. So, while that is a remarkable occurrence, can we actually say that is definitive proof?

There is one scripture above all else, that seems to be the most credible for showing the link that Y’shua is the Messiah. It is Lamentations 4:20. The Messiah that was taken…is the one under whose **shadow **the Jewish people dwelt among the nations.

The Spirit of Messiah under whose shadow the Jewish people dwell among the goyim, is either the Spirit of Y’shua, or the Spirit of the Messiah yet to be revealed to the Jewish people. I would not know any other way to understand Lamentations 4:20. A Jewish explanation of this scripture would be helpful.

Shalom

micah.

Shalom Micah,

I did a search on the post of which you said you had used this Talmud passage as an example, and I believe I found it here;

I am resurrecting this post of mine as a humble apology to anyone of the Jewish faith for quoting the Babylonian Talmud out of context. (As Meltzerboy has clarified in another post regarding this portion of the Talmud in relation to the crimson strap as having not turned miraculously white previous to the crucifixion of our Lord Jesus Christ.)

If one would read Yoma 39a, the page prior to Yoma39b, one would learn that such non-occurrences happened many times before 30 AD, that is, before the crucifixion of our Lord. Especially, after the death of the High Priest Shimon HaTzaddik centuries earlier. I am posting this website article as reference in refuting the original statement that I had erroneously made.

outreachjudaism.org/articles/red-ribbon.html

I have seen this article by Rabbi Singer before, and in all honesty, it does nothing to nullify the compelling evidence of the passage in question. In fact, I would go so far as to say, he actually makes the case even stronger by referencing the “baseless hatred” which occurred at the time of these events. This is precisely what Yeshua declared, that they, “hated me without a cause.”

The fact that the crimson strap turned white only sparingly after Simon is of no consequence to the validity of the passage as it applies to Yeshua. This only illustrates the fact that the Nation was slowly moving towards a dark period in their history, where the sins of the people were so great that G-d would no longer make atonement for them.

After all is said and done, yes, this passage still retains a very strong, non biased, non biblical evidence for Yeshua as Mashiach.

It serves an important purpose; it helps to confirm the validity of Yeshua’s identity as one encounters him in the Brit Chadashah ( IE; an atoning sacrifice for sin, more than just a man, and, if taken further, his identity as Mashiach ). Of course it isn’t a direct mention, but that’s the whole point; through it’s indirect nature, it helps confirm the person of Yeshua as the One He was proclaimed to be.

As an aside, I do not feel this is the only “proof” for Yeshua as Mashiach, but it certainly is an intriguing, and hard to deny piece of evidence which fits very well with what we find concerning Him in the Brit Chadashah.

Shalom.

 

[joe370]

What does “for he bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors” mean? If Israel is the suffering servant, in the context of other verses from Isaiah, then Israel bore the sin of its people makes sense in that Israel was punished for its own transgressions. However, what then does “intercession for the transgressors” mean? Perhaps a contorted explanation can be used that G-d so loves His suffering servant (Israel) that he therefore showed mercy toward His people. Or might this signify that Israel bore the sins of the transgressors from other nations? How is all this interpreted based on the Hebrew language? Further, could Jesus be the human personnification and distillation of the suffering servant (Israel) according to this passage? Apart from the contextual evidence of the meaning of “suffering servant,” do Jewish Biblical scholars deal with the interpretation of this whole passage in any other way?

Let’s assume the man was in fact Israel:

He (Israel) was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he (Israel) did not open his mouth;
he (Israel) was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he (Israel) did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he (Israel) was taken away.
Yet who of his (Israel’s) generation protested?
For he (Israel) was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people (Israel) he (Israel) was punished.
9 He (Israel) was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his (Israel’s) death,
though he (Israel) had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his (Israel’s) mouth.

Was all of Israel assigned a grave with the wicked?

 

[mercytruth]

Shalom Micah,

I did a search on the post of which you said you had used this Talmud passage as an example, and I believe I found it here;

I have seen this article by Rabbi Singer before, and in all honesty, it does nothing to nullify the compelling evidence of the passage in question. In fact, I would go so far as to say, he actually makes the case even stronger by referencing the “baseless hatred” which occurred at the time of these events. This is precisely what Yeshua declared, that they, “hated me without a cause.”

The fact that the crimson strap turned white only sparingly after Simon is of no consequence to the validity of the passage as it applies to Yeshua. This only illustrates the fact that the Nation was slowly moving towards a dark period in their history, where the sins of the people were so great that G-d could no longer make atonement for them.

After all is said and done, yes, this passage still retains a very strong, non biased, non biblical evidence for Yeshua as Mashiach.

It serves an important purpose; it helps to confirm the validity of Yeshua’s identity as one encounters him in the Brit Chadashah ( IE; an atoning sacrifice for sin, more than just a man, and, if taken further, his identity as Mashiach ). Of course it isn’t a direct mention, but that’s the whole point; through it’s indirect nature, it helps confirm the person of Yeshua as the One He was proclaimed to be.

As an aside, I do not feel this is the only “proof” for Yeshua as Mashiach, but it certainly is an intriguing, and hard to deny piece of evidence which fits very well with what we find concerning Him in the Brit Chadashah.

Shalom.

Yes, this is the one. I would agree that it is very intriguing, but for someone who is already a believer in Y’shua. Scripture would seem to be more important. I did find something on Lamentations 4:20:

**“The breath of our nostrils, the LORD’S anointed, was captured in their pits, of whom we had said, ‘Under his shadow we shall live among the nations’” (Lamentations 4:20). When read at a literal level in the Hebrew “ruach appenu Mashiach YHVH” means the breath of our nostrils (nose)is the Messiah YHVH. Jewish mystical traditions associate these nostrils with the two cherubim on the ark (male and female) and also with the two poles of the Ark of the Covenant that poke out of the Holy of Holies. Breslov Hasidic tradition also associates them with the two missions of the Messiah- as Messiah son of Joseph and Messiah son of David. That the two nostrils are one nose reveals that these two Messiah’s are the one Messiah who has two missions -as Victim High Priest and Glorious King.

The phrase “was captured in their pits” alludes to the nostril or v shaped pits in the Temple that gathered the dew and thus forms as an atmospheric spring. One article on the Temple states: “…There was, however, another minor (though important) water source within the enclosure of Herod’s Temple where sanctified water of the purest kind could be collected and then used. It could be designated an “atmospheric spring.” The later Rabbis of the Talmudic period mention this “spring” in the Temple (and they accepted its designation as being properly called a “spring”). This is recorded in the Babylonian Talmud. A reference to this “water source” is also mentioned in the Mishnah (compiled about 200 C.E.). Where did the water originate? It came from a manufactured “spring” that brought forth very pure sanctified water. This type of “water source” for the Temple was situated in the area of the Holy of Holies. The source can be shown to be an engineering device manufactured within the architectural design of the Temple in order to create water from the evening and morning dew that is prominent in the Judean hill country in the late spring and early summer…This dew originated at an apparatus called an “atmospheric spring.” This was created by chiseling out of the stones on the outer sides of the northern, western and southern walls of the Inner Shrine a water channel that was shaped like the letter “V” (but lying on its side ninety degrees from being upright and with its tip pointing inward). The top part of this concave groove was a little over two feet high and its interior dimension was probably about two feet away from the outer face of the wall. A catchment area in the shape of a “U” was further cut into the bottom of this channel to receive water from dripping dew. The channel was designed with a slight decline westward to allow the trickles of water to flow toward a particular drainage area located on the backside (the west side) of the Inner Shrine…”. This again alludes to the concept of the breath or air in the nostrils becoming water. The dew of course is also linked to the concept of the Manna and thus to the Messiah as the Living Bread from Heaven. This water symbolises God’s mercy which is linked to the dew that manifests as the waters of mercy. Our Lady as the Well of Miriam is the Woman and Vessel of Mercy.**

aronbengilad.blogspot.com/2012_07_01_archive.html

I think that it is interesting that they have found some sort of V shaped carved markings in Jerusalem.

biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/news/strange-markings-puzzle-city-of-david-archaeologists/

shalom

micah

 

[YeshuaOrHaOlam]

Shalom Micah,

As a Talmid Ha Mashiach Yeshua, yes, I agree, the scriptures are the most important piece of evidence we have concerning Yeshua as Mashiach.

But you do see the importance of that Talmud passage for skeptics and non-believers?

Most of the objections to the Brit Chadashah regard it’s trustworthiness in it’s portrayal of Yeshua. Some scholars boldly assert that Yeshua was only a man, and that over time, the development of Messianic overtones, Son of G-d, Son of Man, Atonement for sins, and other characteristics were merely added to His person.

With the Talmud passage, we can, given an open mind, point a finger in the right direction to start trusting in the Brit Chadashah’s portrayal of Yeshua, and then subsequently, trusting in Yeshua Himself.

And because it isn’t found in the Brit Chadashah, but a Rabbinic source, we have a completely unbiased, non biblical, piece of evidence which we can use to validate Yeshua and His claims.

I have read those pieces on Lamentations, and find them very interesting as well. Anytime archaeology can shed light on something found in scripture, I can’t help but be amazed.

Shalom to you!

 

[mercytruth]

Shalom Micah,

As a Talmid Ha Mashiach Yeshua, yes, I agree, the scriptures are the most important piece of evidence we have concerning Yeshua as Mashiach.

But you do see the importance of that Talmud passage for skeptics and non-believers?

Most of the objections to the Brit Chadashah regard it’s trustworthiness in it’s portrayal of Yeshua. Some scholars boldly assert that Yeshua was only a man, and that over time, the development of Messianic overtones, Son of G-d, Son of Man, Atonement for sins, and other characteristics were merely added to His person.

With the Talmud passage, we can, given an open mind, point a finger in the right direction to start trusting in the Brit Chadashah’s portrayal of Yeshua, and then subsequently, trusting in Yeshua Himself.

And because it isn’t found in the Brit Chadashah, but a Rabbinic source, we have a completely unbiased, non biblical, piece of evidence which we can use to validate Yeshua and His claims.

I have read those pieces on Lamentations, and find them very interesting as well. Anytime archaeology can shed light on something found in scripture, I can’t help but be amazed.

Shalom to you!

Yes, the Brit Chadashah should not be our basis for showing a Jewish person why we believe Y’shua is the Messiah. They need to see it from the Tanakh, and secondarily from the Talmud.

The literal translation according to the Hebrew reading Catholic of Jewish descent is thus,
’the breath of our nostrils (nose) is the Messiah YHWH"

Any comments or corrections from our Hebrew scholars out there?

shalom

micah

 

[joe370]

I personally believe that we’re not even supposed to have unity amongst our religions, but to be different.

But what’s the reason behind prayers for unity?

The only reason people pray for unity is that we all just don’t seem to be able to get along. People don’t “happen” to be Jewish, or Christian, for that matter imo. You’re chosen to be Jewish, you’re called to the Church by G-d. There’s need for a Jew to embrace Jesus. There’s no need for a Christian to follow some of the Torah rules anymore. We all just ‘happen’ to have different missions. We’re all here for a reason, which is to bring justice and peace to this world, each one of us to their own and best abilities that were given to us by G-d.
You need diversity in this world in order to bring peace amongst each other in the first place. However, the biggest irony in human mankind since the beginning of Adam and Eve lies in the fact that we’re all called to love each other, and to not do unto others what we would not have done unto us, and yet we fight each other on a regular basis somewhere on the planet each day. And since we just can’t seem to get along, some pray for unity. I personally don’t think (as explained above) that that’s the solution.

Unity will one day occur:

"Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!

13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection brought reconciliation to the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches…5 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, 26 and in this way all Israel will be saved.

 

[joe370]

Because you’re looking at Isaiah 53…

Hey YKohen. The prophet Micah and Jewish commentators such as Rabbi David Kimchi believe that the Messiah, born in Bethlehem, will be of eternal origins and therefore is God; your thoughts:

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.” (Mic 5:2)

“It will be said in the Messianic age that his ‘origins are from old, from ancient time;’ ‘from Bethlehem’ means that he will be of the house of David, because there is a long period of time between David and the Messiah-King; and he is El (God), which is how he is ‘from old, from ancient times.’” Rabbi David Kimchi

The book of Daniel reveals “one like a son of man” who reigns over the whole world and whom all people serve. Do you believe that the following passage will refer to the Messiah? If so do you believe this “one like a son of man” who is given dominion and glory and kingdom so that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him will be a mere man, lacking divinity?
"…behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed." (Dan 7:13-14)

 

[Portofino]

How do Jews disagree with Jesus as the messiah?

Pardon me if this was mentioned already (this is a long thread and I haven’t read every post!) but, to understand why the Jews reject the Christian view of Jesus, it is necessary to go beyond the question of whether he was the Messiah.

As I understand it, there are two related reasons why the Jews could not accept Christianity:

Because Christians not only said that Jesus was the Messiah, but that Jesus is God ; rightly or wrongly, this must have sounded like a supremely blasphemous statement to the Jews; from perspective, it was the ultimate in idolatry, to worship God in the form of a man*

*Judaism (like Islam) cannot accept the Trinity, God in Three Persons; “Hear, O Israel – the Lord our God is One”; Moses taught one God and one God only, and the reveleation of God’s nature was complete, as far as the Jews were concerned; for them, One means One, as is enunciated in the First Commandment

What strikes me is that, viewed in this way, the Jews (sadly, from a Christian standpoint) were not even close to being able to accept that Jesus was God incarnate (not merely the Messiah), and that God was Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

What fascinates me, however, is that *Greek thought * provided fertile ground, intellectually, for accepting Christianity. As regards Jesus being God incarnate, they could accept that because their own gods (however false they may seem to Christians) often took human form. The Greek gods were imagined in human terms. Also, for the Greeks, the idea that things can transform, can change, was also something very familiar to them. Zeus could become swan, for example; or a beam of sunlight. He could change and take any form that was needed.

I mention this because it would have predisposed the Greeks to be capable of believing in the Trinity – in other words, that what appears to be many, is actually one; that it is three different manifestations of the same nature. Even in terms of their philosophy, the Greeks were familiar with the notion of Appearance versus Reality , so could accept that what appears to be three is actually one.

Finally, the Greeks had no prohibition against portraying their gods pictorially, through art. That Hebrew prohibition against images – against creating a pictorial representation of God–was not a stumbling block for the Greek mind. Yahweh could not be represented pictorially; but Zeus and Apollo, could. However much a Christian would not welcome a comparison between the anthropomorphic Greek gods, and Christ, I do think they predisposed the Greek mind to be open to the concept that God walked the earth as a human being.

Unfortunately, Hebrew thought would have had a fundamental antipathy to all of these things: God became a human being; God is three persons in one; God can be represented through images.

 

[YeshuaOrHaOlam]

Pardon me if this was mentioned already (this is a long thread and I haven’t read every post!) but, to understand why the Jews reject the Christian view of Jesus, it is necessary to go beyond the question of whether he was the Messiah.

As I understand it, there are two related reasons why the Jews could not accept Christianity:

Because Christians not only said that Jesus was the Messiah, but that Jesus is God ; rightly or wrongly, this must have sounded like a supremely blasphemous statement to the Jews; from perspective, it was the ultimate in idolatry, to worship God in the form of a man*

*Judaism (like Islam) cannot accept the Trinity, God in Three Persons; “Hear, O Israel – the Lord our God is One”; Moses taught one God and one God only, and the reveleation of God’s nature was complete, as far as the Jews were concerned; for them, One means One, as is enunciated in the First Commandment

What strikes me is that, viewed in this way, the Jews (sadly, from a Christian standpoint) were not even close to being able to accept that Jesus was God incarnate (not merely the Messiah), and that God was Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

What fascinates me, however, is that *Greek thought * provided fertile ground, intellectually, for accepting Christianity. As regards Jesus being God incarnate, they could accept that because their own gods (however false they may seem to Christians) often took human form. The Greek gods were imagined in human terms. Also, for the Greeks, the idea that things can transform, can change, was also something very familiar to them. Zeus could become swan, for example; or a beam of sunlight. He could change and take any form that was needed.

I mention this because it would have predisposed the Greeks to be capable of believing in the Trinity – in other words, that what appears to be many, is actually one; that it is three different manifestations of the same nature. Even in terms of their philosophy, the Greeks were familiar with the notion of Appearance versus Reality , so could accept that what appears to be three is actually one.

Finally, the Greeks had no prohibition against portraying their gods pictorially, through art. That Hebrew prohibition against images – against creating a pictorial representation of God–was not a stumbling block for the Greek mind. Yahweh could not be represented pictorially; but Zeus and Apollo, could. However much a Christian would not welcome a comparison between the anthropomorphic Greek gods, and Christ, I do think they predisposed the Greek mind to be open to the concept that God walked the earth as a human being.

Unfortunately, Hebrew thought would have had a fundamental antipathy to all of these things: God became a human being; God is three persons in one; God can be represented through images.

Shalom Portofino;

Good points; most of the time when dialoging with non believers of a Jewish background, I have found that the non-acceptance of Yeshua as Mashiach really comes down to these things; The Trinity, Yeshua as G-d Most High, and the concept of Hell.

Now, not being Catholic, I can say that I don’t believe in any of these things, as I don’t believe they can be supported by scripture. It is also my belief that the earliest talmidim of Yeshua did not hold these things as true either.

I think a Hebraic study of the Brit Chadashah reveals that;

1. There is no concept of Trinity, as modern Christians define it, 3 persons in 1.
2. Yeshua is always presented as following the Father’s will, not appropriating it himself, as if He were the Father.
3. Hell has been misrepresented, mistranslated, and misunderstood. See word studies on the Greek “aionion” which never meant “eternal” the way we understand it now.

It’s sad to see such confusion because, once my friends of Jewish background come to see these things, their distaste for Yeshua vanishes, and they actually show interest in learning more about Him.

Anyways, I’m rambling…

Shalom Aleichem!

 

[YeshuaOrHaOlam]

( As an aside; I by no means intend to disrespect the Catholic faith, or my Catholic brothers and sisters with that last post; it is merely my voicing of my position )

Shalom

 

[Portofino]

Shalom Portofino;

Good points; most of the time when dialoging with non believers of a Jewish background, I have found that the non-acceptance of Yeshua as Mashiach really comes down to these things; The Trinity, Yeshua as G-d Most High, and the concept of Hell.

Now, not being Catholic, I can say that I don’t believe in any of these things, as I don’t believe they can be supported by scripture. It is also my belief that the earliest talmidim of Yeshua did not hold these things as true either.

Shalom Aleichem!

Shalom, Yeshua You have a strong case, I think, in maintaining that Scripture alone is not sufficient for a fully-developed doctrine of the Trinity. Though I am a non-Catholic, I know that many Catholics would agree with this statement, pointing to the early church as having clarified the doctrine of G_d in Three Persons.

I personally agree with you on every point you raised (as did Faustus Socinus and the early Unitarians). In this respect, I am closer to the Jewish perspective. Not that there is no ambiguity or room for debate (far from it ) – for example, in the Gospels, Jesus says, “why do you call me good? Only G_d is good.” Yet he also says “I am the Father are One.”

But I think your impression is an accurate one, if I may so, regarding those aspects of Christianity that Jews who are open to Jesus–who love and honor Jesus, even–find most difficult to accept.

As I understand it, most Jews also do not accept the Christian concept of original sin–that is, as something inherited through Adam and needing to be “washed in the blood” of the Messiah (which is another debate, I suppose).

I recently discovered the medieval “Disputation of Barcelona”, where Rabbi Moses Nachmanides eloquently–and brilliantly–defended Judaism against Christianity, in the court of the King of Aragon. It was made into a wonderful film for British television, with Christopher Lee (of Dracula fame) playing the Spanish king. The Disputation of Barcelona represents the traditional Jewish perspective on Christianity quite well, I think.

Shalom Aleichem

 

[YeshuaOrHaOlam]

Shalom, Yeshua You have a strong case, I think, in maintaining that Scripture alone is not sufficient for a fully-developed doctrine of the Trinity. Though I am a non-Catholic, I know that many Catholics would agree with this statement, pointing to the early church as having clarified the doctrine of G_d in Three Persons.

I personally agree with you on every point you raised (as did Faustus Socinus and the early Unitarians). In this respect, I am closer to the Jewish perspective. Not that there is no ambiguity or room for debate (far from it ) – for example, in the Gospels, Jesus says, “why do you call me good? Only G_d is good.” Yet he also says “I am the Father are One.”

Shalom again Portofino,

Per Yeshua’s statement that He and The Father are one;

The Greek word “hen” is used here for “One.”

In Vincent’s Word Studies of the New Testament, the late Professor Vincent states that hen, the Greek word translated “one” in John 10:30, is “the neuter, not the masculine είς, one person” (p. 197, vol. II).

Regarding this statement by Yeshua, the Abingdon Bible Commentary says: " V. 30 does not affirm a metaphysical unity, but a moral, and we must not read the later creeds into the words" (p. 1079).

In A Commentary, Critical, Experimental, and Practical, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown write of this verse:

Our language admits not of the precision of the original in this great saying, 'We (two Persons) are One (Thing).' Perhaps 'one interest' expresses nearly, though not quite, the purport of the saying. (p. 414, vol. III, part I)

The word “hen” used elsewhere in scripture, was not assumed to mean part of a trinity, as, for example, we find in John 17:11;

"I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be ONE [hen] even as We are. (NASU)

The unity described here is one of mission, will, and love.

Anyways, thanks for your comments, I appreciate your kindness!

Shalom Aleichem

 

[meltzerboy]

Let’s assume the man was in fact Israel:

He (Israel) was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he (Israel) did not open his mouth;
he (Israel) was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he (Israel) did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he (Israel) was taken away.
Yet who of his (Israel’s) generation protested?
For he (Israel) was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people (Israel) he (Israel) was punished.
9 He (Israel) was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his (Israel’s) death,
though he (Israel) had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his (Israel’s) mouth.

Was all of Israel assigned a grave with the wicked?

Please re-read my post, joe. I’m not disagreeing with you, but rather asking YKohen for further clarification of the last verse.

 

[InJesusItrust]

If the Jews in their misguided zeal killed true prophets of God (stoning them or sawing them in half), is it to much of a stretch to say that they could have killed the messiah of God in their misguided zeal?

When the temple was destroyed sacrifice and atonement was replaced with repentance, prayer and good works. Could this Rabbinic perspective blind Jews to how Jesus fulfills scriptures?