How do Jews disagree with Jesus as the messiah?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PeterJohn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
chosen_people said:
The Gospel idea that Jesus was “god” (the trinity), he was betrayed (by Judas) and then killed raises interesting theological questions: What does it ultimately mean that “god” was killed? If Jesus was “god,” didn’t he have the power to prevent anyone from betraying and “killing” him? Did Jesus intentionally “die for our sins” or did Jesus die unintentionally, because he was “betrayed?” If his death was unintentional because he was “betrayed,” could he really have “died for our sins?”
God is omnipotent. If Jesus really was “god,” he could easily have prevented his “death.” Therefore Jesus died intentionally. But if Jesus died intentionally didn’t this constitute the sin of suicide? Further, from a Jewish perspective, “since God is “One,” Jesus was not really a distinct person, but God in another form. “As Christ’s human body was phantasm, his suffering and death were mere appearance. If he suffered he was not God. If he was God, he did not suffer.” (A History of Christianity, Paul Johnson, page 90). Do Christians really have compelling answers to these questions? (Asher Norman the inter-faith dialogs)
Click to expand...
See you need to actually address the CHristian faith for what it says. Christ is a distinct person from the father, but not a distinct person from God because God is comrpised of three person father son and spirit. But considering we have had two thousand years to define our position I would suggest the most compelling answers lie within the councils who gathered to answer serious questions on the nature of God. Chalcedon in this case would answer you, the hypostatic union. As a man he suffered, as the person Christ he suffered, though his divinity felt no pain, only the incarnate body of Christ felt pain. God became man so that we might become God, not on an ontological manner, that we could ever become exactly like God is silly, no but we partake in his essence because he has shown that huamnity is good enough that he himself took on our nature.
 
joe370 said:
Jesus had the correct genealogy by being descended from King David…
Click to expand...
In Judaism, geneology is only via the father. This is the case with the tribes, with the families within the tribes, etc. Same with the kings, etc. And same with the messiah. It is never via the mother. So even before the fact that he didn’t accomplish what the messiah must in order to be considered the messiah, his geneological background rules him out.
Jesus is the King of kings, of both Jew and Gentile
Click to expand...
When was he annointed king?
The heavenly Jerusalem…
Click to expand...
No. The real, physical, tangible city of Jerusalem; the one that is mentioned time and again throughout the Bible.
Jesus is the Temple in the Heavenly Jerusalem…
Click to expand...
Again, the real, physical, tangible Temple in the real, physical, tangible city of Jerusalem; the one that is mentioned time and again throughout the Bible.
eschatology…
Click to expand...
“Bring peace to the world and end all war” means exactly that. To date, NOBODY has done that.
Jesus dd…You forgot one; He must be God:
Click to expand...
Two different issues:
  1. We believe that the messiah will be a man, and he will accomplish all of these things.
  2. We believe that only G-d is G-d. G-d is incorporeal; indivisible.
Looks like we will have to all respectfully agree to disagree for now.
 
YKohen said:
In Judaism, geneology is only via the father. This is the case with the tribes, with the families within the tribes, etc. Same with the kings, etc. And same with the messiah. It is never via the mother. So even before the fact that he didn’t accomplish what the messiah must in order to be considered the messiah, his geneological background rules him out.

When was he annointed king?

No. The real, physical, tangible city of Jerusalem; the one that is mentioned time and again throughout the Bible.

Again, the real, physical, tangible Temple in the real, physical, tangible city of Jerusalem; the one that is mentioned time and again throughout the Bible.

“Bring peace to the world and end all war” means exactly that. To date, NOBODY has done that.

Two different issues:
  1. We believe that the messiah will be a man, and he will accomplish all of these things.
  2. We believe that only G-d is G-d. G-d is incorporeal; indivisible.
Looks like we will have to all respectfully agree to disagree for now.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you are set in your ways, and that’s cool; to each their own. By the way, is the following in the OT:

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Isaiah

If so do you believe that the long awaited Messiah will be both Man and God?
 
joe370 said:
It sounds like you are set in your ways, and that’s cool; to each their own. By the way, is the following in the OT:

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Isaiah

If so do you believe that the long awaited Messiah will be both Man and God?
Click to expand...
All these proof-texts from Isaiah have been interpreted in different ways by Christian and Jewish scholars. According to the Jewish interpretation of this passage, it does not refer to the Messiah at all but a present leader. Also, the tense has been changed, if I recall correctly, from “And he is called” to “And he will be called.” IOW, it describes a current individual in authority rather than a future Messiah. The context of the passage relative to what precedes it is what the interpretation is based on. Christian scholars have, of course, another interpretation.
 
meltzerboy said:
All these proof-texts from Isaiah have been interpreted in different ways by Christian and Jewish scholars. According to the Jewish interpretation of this passage, it does not refer to the Messiah at all but a present leader. Also, the tense has been changed, if I recall correctly, from “And he is called” to “And he will be called.” IOW, it describes a current individual in authority rather than a future Messiah. The context of the passage relative to what precedes it is what the interpretation is based on. Christian scholars have, of course, another interpretation.
Click to expand...
Name of leader that was considered God? 🙂
 
Other cases, we believe, are what you attribute to Jesus and what we believe are verses taken out of context. For instance, Isaiah 53 and the “suffering servant”. We already know what servant is being discussed because he was named just 4 chapters prior:

Isaiah 49:3 And He said unto me: ‘Thou art My servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.’
 
YKohen said:
No leader is- or was. It’s a mis-tranlation of the original Hebrew. There are many in your Bible.
Click to expand...
In all fairness, there are older copies of the Septuagint than the Masoretic text( I’m aware most Jews believe only the Torah was translated by jews but even scholar disagree with that).

When it’s all said and done, we both just simply interpret them differently and I don’t see what the the big deal is, to each his own. 🤷
 
CrazyCarolus said:
In all fairness, there are older copies of the Septuagint than the Masoretic text( I’m aware most Jews believe only the Torah was translated by jews but even scholar disagree with that).
Click to expand...
Any time a text is translated- any text, by anyone, there are linguistic nuances that can be missed or overlooked.
When it’s all said and done, we both just simply interpret them differently and I don’t see what the the big deal is, to each his own. 🤷
Click to expand...
We’re on the same page here. In general, I’m not a fan of this type of thread. Nobody will convince anyone else who is here, and IMHO, nothing good can come of it. I much prefer to discuss issues where there can be agreement, cooperation, and bridge-building.
 
How would you explain Daniel’s son of man coming on the clouds? Is God a man?

“As my vision continued that night, I saw someone like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, honor, and sovereignty over all the nations of the world, so that people of every race and nation and language worshiped him. His rule is eternal—it will never end. His kingdom will never be destroyed.” Daniel 7:13-14
 
chosen_people said:
The Gospel idea that Jesus was “god” (the trinity), he was betrayed (by Judas) and then killed raises interesting theological questions: What does it ultimately mean that “god” was killed? If Jesus was “god,” didn’t he have the power to prevent anyone from betraying and “killing” him? Did Jesus intentionally “die for our sins” or did Jesus die unintentionally, because he was “betrayed?” If his death was unintentional because he was “betrayed,” could he really have “died for our sins?”
God is omnipotent. If Jesus really was “god,” he could easily have prevented his “death.” Therefore Jesus died intentionally. But if Jesus died intentionally didn’t this constitute the sin of suicide? Further, from a Jewish perspective, “since God is “One,” Jesus was not really a distinct person, but God in another form. “As Christ’s human body was phantasm, his suffering and death were mere appearance. If he suffered he was not God. If he was God, he did not suffer.” (A History of Christianity, Paul Johnson, page 90). Do Christians really have compelling answers to these questions? (Asher Norman the inter-faith dialogs)
Click to expand...
Jesus does the will of his Father
(you said you are chosen people but
Moses also said you are stiff necked people)
 
YKohen said:
Any time a text is translated- any text, by anyone, there are linguistic nuances that can be missed or overlooked.

We’re on the same page here. In general, I’m not a fan of this type of thread. Nobody will convince anyone else who is here, and IMHO, nothing good can come of it. I much prefer to discuss issues where there can be agreement, cooperation, and bridge-building.
Click to expand...
I am definitely with you there. Would you care to comment on the concept and/or identity of Metatron?

shalom

micah
 
Why don’t you do a little reading on the subject from Judaism, and then tell us what you think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top