How to respond to jewish criticisms

[Tomdstone]

I don’t mean to overload you guys, but these ones are interesting as well.

1. CHRISTIANITY CONTRADICTS JEWISH THEOLOGY
   (back)

The following theological points apply primarily to the Roman Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination.

A. GOD AS THREE?
The Catholic idea of Trinity breaks God into three separate beings: The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19).

Contrast this to the Shema, the basis of Jewish belief: “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is ONE” (Deut. 6:4).

I can understand the reluctancy of Jews and Muslims to believe that Jesus is God. I would like to know how to respond to their criticisms. For example, God cannot change according to Catholic belief. God is unchangeable. Do I have that right? But before the Incarnation, God had not assumed a human form. Yet after the Incarnation, God had assumed a human form. Is this not a change?
Also, I read the following in Holy Scripture:
Mark 13:32:“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
But if Jesus is God, would He not know the hour?

John 14:28: “You heard me say,‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.”
I thought that the Persons of the Trinity were coequal.

“‘Of all the commandments, which is the most important?’ ‘The most important one,’ answered Jesus, ‘is this: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.
Mark 12:28-29
It does not say here that God is a Trinity, but that God is one.
“By myself I can do nothing…” (John 5:30)
But if Jesus is God, is He not all Powerful?
“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” (Luke 22:42).
If the will of the Father and the will of the Son were the same, would they not will the same thing?

 

[chosen_people]

Now the Jews on CAF have no incentive to try and convince Catholics that they are in any way wrong about their beliefs. Not only are we guests on this forum but Judaism teaches that it is easier for the Gentile to get to the World to Come as the Gentile has only to follow the seven Noahide commandments.

Talk of “conspiracy” invariably comes to somehow make it appear that Jews care about what Christians believe or are worried about what Christians believe. Our only concerns involve missionary activity among Jews or the promulgation and justification of acts that were perpetrated against Jews or the denial of such acts.

We will answer questions when asked. You should realize that there are things on this forum that are just as hard for us to fathom as some of our beliefs may be for you. A recurring example is the “paradox” that some Christians have about lying to a Nazi about the hiding places of Jews. No such paradox could ever exist in Judaism and to even talk of such a paradox is to deny the essence of Judaism and Torah. There are many other examples on this forum and it goes to show how incorrect it is to believe that Christianity is Judaism with Jesus.

The problem is that when you do give the Jewish perspective, it often only engenders antagonism and claims of being anti-Christian and is therefore counter productive. I’ll give an example of a post responding to Christian accusations of Jewish involvement in the execution of Jewish as an anti-Roman zealot. From the replies I understood that making the accusation against the Jews is merely stating a fact and therefore I had no business in responding: Here’s the post:

If Christians believe that the Christian leader had to die on the cross as a result of crucifixion to fulfill his mission, since the Jews did not employ this method of execution, it therefore follows that the Christian god had to ordain that this had to be carried out by Roman pagans.

Jesus was executed, as were thousands of other Jews in that time period, as an anti-Roman zealot leader (the Roman charges against the Christian leader are found in Luke 23:2).

While there is no Jewish trial of Jesus according to John 18:13-14, such a trial takes place according to Mark 14:61,64 and Matthew 26:63. so the first problem is whom are we supposed to believe? John according to which Jesus was only brought for a hearing before the High Priest or Mark and Matthew concerning a trial before the Sanhedrin?

Pontius Pilate was removed from office by the Romans themselves, for, among other things, indiscriminate crucifixion of thousands of Jews. So did the Romans have it right or is this the sort of person who is going to stand up in front of an angry mob and try and dissuade from him killing one more Jew?

Let’s see now: Was Jesus so popular and loved that he presented himself as a threat to the Romans and to the Jewish leadership, or was he was he so unknown that he had to be identified by Judas or was he so unpopular that everyone wanted him dead?

The Sadducees, not the Pharisees, were the group who controlled the High Priesthood, the Sanhedrin and who were in tight with the Romans.

Whoever wrote these two descriptions of the alleged trial, obviously did not have even a rudimentary knowledge of Jewish law. Every single procedural rule is wrong. How is it that on the one hand these very people are ridiculed in the Christian scriptures for being such sticklers to every aspect of the Law and on the other hand break every rule? How is it that the writers obviously know nothing of the Law?

However the epitome is in claiming that Jesus was found guilty of blasphemy. The crime of blasphemy is cursing God or His name (see Leviticus 24:10-16). Jesus allegedly said that he was “christ” (anointed) which in a Jewish messianic context means anointed king. In other words he was making a claim to the throne of King David. A claim to kingship is not blasphemy however it is sedition under Roman law. Jesus was tried and convicted by the Romans for claiming kingship, for sedition, and for telling Jews not to pay Roman taxes "And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king.” (Luke 23:2).

Now it is also alleged that Jesus claimed to be “son of God” or “son of the blessed”. This also is not blasphemy under Jewish law. In the Jewish scriptures God refers to the Jewish people as the “son of God”. The term “son of God” is also a royal title applied to every Jewish king of Israel descended from king David. In Psalm 2:7, David was anointed king and referred to as God’s “son” as an announcement of “adoption” by God. Subsequently, the second Psalm was recited at the coronation of every Jewish king descended from King David. As a result the term “son of God” became a royal title for kings of Israel.

However, if by the use of this term Jesus meant that he was a “deity” then this claim constituted idolatry under Jewish Law (see Talmud Moed Kattan 18a) and significantly Jesus was not accused of idolatry, he was accused of blasphemy.

Now why would any reader not accept the meaning of these terms as in Torah and in Talmud, and prefer the interpretation of Jewish law contrary to the accepted Jewish interpretation by non-Jews?

Lastly, there is no lack of evidence both in the Christian scriptures and in Josephus that the Sanhedrin could perform executions during the Roman occupation contradicting the claim in Mark and Matthew that the Sanhedrin turned Jesus over to the Romans because they wished to kill him but were prohibited from performing executions. Why then does the Christian scripture say that the Sanhedrin could not perform executions?

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic,
Why the rabbit trails leading us farther from the thread topic, which is how to respond to Jewish criticisms?

Anna

Pen Name Anna,

Do you consider competion of a thought and expansion of the original answer a rabbit trail…

What do you say when Jews say we believe they murdered Christ?

Answer
The Sanhedrin did it

or

The Sanhedrin declared Him to be blaspheming, this was because…

sound bites or complete thoughts

Do you consider a complete exposition and answer a rabbit trail?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Now the Jews on CAF have no incentive to try and convince Catholics that they are in any way wrong about their beliefs. Not only are we guests on this forum but Judaism teaches that it is easier for the Gentile to get to the World to Come as the Gentile has only to follow the seven Noahide commandments.

Talk of “conspiracy” invariably comes to somehow make it appear that Jews care about what Christians believe or are worried about what Christians believe. Our only concerns involve missionary activity among Jews or the promulgation and justification of acts that were perpetrated against Jews or the denial of such acts.

chosen people,

I really appreciate your taking the time to post these comments, which do help to better understand the Jewish perspective.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Now the Jews on CAF have no incentive to try and convince Catholics that they are in any way wrong about their beliefs. Not only are we guests on this forum but Judaism teaches that it is easier for the Gentile to get to the World to Come as the Gentile has only to follow the seven Noahide commandments.

chosen people,

Any comments on this passage in Numbers?

Numbers 23:
19 God is not man, that he should lie,
or a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Has he said, and will he not do it?
Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

Thanks,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I know that Christians and Jews have serious disagreements regarding Isaiah 7:14, known to Christians as the Virgin prophesy.

Apart from the issue of the word “virgin,” there is also the issue of context within Isaiah, and a time frame for the fulfillment of events.

A Jewish perspective:
Dual Prophecy’ and the Virgin Birth
". . .The Bible relates that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear. Accordingly, God sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand – the Almighty would protect him, the deliverance of his citizens was assured, and the formidable armies of Syria and the Northern Kingdom of Israel would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem, . .

**. . . it becomes clear that this prophecy was fulfilled contemporaneously, when both kings, Pekah and Retsin, were assassinated. **It is clear from the context of Isaiah’s seventh chapter that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not Jesus or any future virgin birth. Rather, it is referring to the divine protection that King Ahaz and his people would enjoy during the Syro-Ephraimite War."
© Copyright Tovia Singer 2011

---

Isaiah 7:
10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, saying, 11 Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven. 12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test. 13 Then Isaiahd] said: “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary mortals, that you weary my God also? ** 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young womane**] is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.f] 15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.

1**6 ****For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. ****

17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”**

18 On that day the Lord will whistle for the fly that is at the sources of the streams of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. 19 And they will all come and settle in the steep ravines, and in the clefts of the rocks, and on all the thornbushes, and on all the pastures. . . .

---

If the Isaiah prophesy was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus, when did the events described to King Ahaz happen?

Anna

 

[chosen_people]

chosen people,

Any comments on this passage in Numbers?

Numbers 23:
19 God is not man, that he should lie,
or a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Has he said, and will he not do it?
Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?

Thanks,
Anna

Well I would also add:

"The Eternal One of Israel does not lie and does not relent, for He is not a human that He should relent (! Samuel 15:29)

“…I will not carry out My wrath; I will not recant and destroy Ephraim, for I am God and not a man…” (Hosea 11:9)

“Do not rely on a son of man, in whom there is no salvation” (Psalm 146:3)

Time after time it is explained in the Jewish scriptures that God is not a man, nor the son of man.

Jesus was born, lived and died as a Jew. The original Christians, the Christians who had known Jesus, made up of his family and disciples, as Jews did not conceive and as Jews could not possibly have conceived that Jesus was a god. The Christianity of today derives not from Jesus but from Paul, a man who arrived on the scene 15 years after the execution of Jesus and who had never seen or met Jesus.

Time after time in the Jewish scriptures God emphasizes that He is alone and that there is no other. If God was really three, part of a trinity why didn’t He clearly say so?

see Deut. 4:39, Deut 32:39, 2 Kings 19:19, 1 Chronicles 17:20, Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 45:5,6

The prophet Isaiah clearly states that the Messiah ben David will fear God Isaiah 11;1-3
Logically God cannot fear Himself nor is it rational that God fears anything. Isaiah’s prophecy destroys the christian claim that Jesus is '‘god’.

 

[chosen_people]

I know that Christians and Jews have serious disagreements regarding Isaiah 7:14, known to Christians as the Virgin prophesy.

Apart from the issue of the word “virgin,” there is also the issue of context within Isaiah, and a time frame for the fulfillment of events.

A Jewish perspective:
Dual Prophecy’ and the Virgin Birth
". . .The Bible relates that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear. Accordingly, God sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand – the Almighty would protect him, the deliverance of his citizens was assured, and the formidable armies of Syria and the Northern Kingdom of Israel would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem, . .

**. . . it becomes clear that this prophecy was fulfilled contemporaneously, when both kings, Pekah and Retsin, were assassinated. **It is clear from the context of Isaiah’s seventh chapter that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not Jesus or any future virgin birth. Rather, it is referring to the divine protection that King Ahaz and his people would enjoy during the Syro-Ephraimite War."
© Copyright Tovia Singer 2011

---

Isaiah 7:
10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, saying, 11 Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven. 12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test. 13 Then Isaiahd] said: “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary mortals, that you weary my God also? ** 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young womane**] is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.f] 15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.

1**6 ****For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. ****

17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”**

18 On that day the Lord will whistle for the fly that is at the sources of the streams of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. 19 And they will all come and settle in the steep ravines, and in the clefts of the rocks, and on all the thornbushes, and on all the pastures. . . .

---

If the Isaiah prophesy was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus, when did the events described to King Ahaz happen?

Anna

Indeed Isaiah 7:14 is not a messianic prophecy. The context of Isaiah 7 is that the Jewish King Ahaz asked Isaiah to prophesize about the outcome of a threat to the Southern Jewish Kingdom (Judah). The Northern Jewish Kingdom (Israel) had been destroyed and King Ahaz feared that his Southern kingdom would meet the same fate by the Kings of Damascus and Samaria. Isaiah referred to the impending birth of the child by the (not “a”) young woman which meant a woman known to Isaiah and the King. Chapter 8 of Isaiah strongly implies that the young woman who was the subject prophesy was Isaiah’s own wife (this is Rashi’s opinion though Radak believes her to be the wife of Ahaz). The young wife will bear a son and through prophetic inspiration, will give him the name Emmanuel, which means “God is with Us”. thus in effect prophesying that Judah will be saved. King Ahaz question was will God protect us from the threat by Damascus and Samaria and the name of this particular child was Isaiah’s way of answering yes.

 

[CopticChristian]

Well I would also add:

"The Eternal One of Israel does not lie and does not relent, for He is not a human that He should relent (! Samuel 15:29)

“…I will not carry out My wrath; I will not recant and destroy Ephraim, for I am God and not a man…” (Hosea 11:9)

“Do not rely on a son of man, in whom there is no salvation” (Psalm 146:3)

Time after time it is explained in the Jewish scriptures that God is not a man, nor the son of man.

Jesus was born, lived and died as a Jew. The original Christians, the Christians who had known Jesus, made up of his family and disciples, as Jews did not conceive and as Jews could not possibly have conceived that Jesus was a god. The Christianity of today derives not from Jesus but from Paul, a man who arrived on the scene 15 years after the execution of Jesus and who had never seen or met Jesus.

Time after time in the Jewish scriptures God emphasizes that He is alone and that there is no other. If God was really three, part of a trinity why didn’t He clearly say so?
see Deut. 4:39, Deut 32:39, 2 Kings 19:19, 1 Chronicles 17:20, Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 45:5,6

The prophet Isaiah clearly states that the Messiah ben David will fear God Isaiah 11;1-3
Logically God cannot fear Himself nor is it rational that God fears anything. Isaiah’s prophecy destroys the christian claim that Jesus is '‘god’.

Chosen,

He did, some heard, some refused to hear, some failed to understand and He still speaks.

 

[brumano]

Christian author Michael Brown (Jewish by birth)
has written an excellent series of books on this subject…

by the way, did you know about God refusing the Jewish
sacrifices from death of Christ in 30 AD until they ceased
at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD ? Amazing,
and it’s right in the Jerusalem (and Babylonian) Talmuds.

aaronscopeland.com/bible_articles/history/bible_history_talmud.html
shatteredparadigm.blogspot.com/2008/12/extraordinary-extrabiblical-evidence.html
hissheep.org/special/hebrew/ancient_temple_signs_and_the_last_days.html

Fascinating, why does he say that God refused them rather than they just lost all intents and purposes and went into disuse out of apathy?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Well I would also add:

"The Eternal One of Israel does not lie and does not relent, for He is not a human that He should relent (! Samuel 15:29)

“…I will not carry out My wrath; I will not recant and destroy Ephraim, for I am God and not a man…” (Hosea 11:9)

“Do not rely on a son of man, in whom there is no salvation” (Psalm 146:3)

Time after time it is explained in the Jewish scriptures that God is not a man, nor the son of man.

Jesus was born, lived and died as a Jew. The original Christians, the Christians who had known Jesus, made up of his family and disciples, as Jews did not conceive and as Jews could not possibly have conceived that Jesus was a god. The Christianity of today derives not from Jesus but from Paul, a man who arrived on the scene 15 years after the execution of Jesus and who had never seen or met Jesus.

Time after time in the Jewish scriptures God emphasizes that He is alone and that there is no other. If God was really three, part of a trinity why didn’t He clearly say so?

see Deut. 4:39, Deut 32:39, 2 Kings 19:19, 1 Chronicles 17:20, Isaiah 44:6, Isaiah 45:5,6

The prophet Isaiah clearly states that the Messiah ben David will fear God Isaiah 11;1-3
Logically God cannot fear Himself nor is it rational that God fears anything. Isaiah’s prophecy destroys the christian claim that Jesus is '‘god’.

Chosen,

He did, some heard, some refused to hear, some failed to understand and He still speaks.

Coptic, Coptic, Coptic,

Dismissive, without actually responding to the prophesies/passages.

We can’t just throw our hands up and say, “you refused to hear and failed to understand.”

If you are the one who understands, then please give your understanding of the passages on the table.

Psalm 146:3-4

English Standard Version (ESV)

3 (A)Put not your trust in princes,
(**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm 146:3-4&version=ESV#cen-ESV-16345B”))in a son of man, in whom there is (C)no salvation.
4 When (D)his breath departs, he returns to the earth;
on that very day his plans perish.

Cross references:

1. 
   *]Psalm 146:3 : Ps. 118:9
   *]Psalm 146:3 : [Isa. 2:22; Jer. 17:5]
   *]Psalm 146:3 : Ps. 60:11; 108:12
   *]Psalm 146:4 : ; See Job 10:9; 34:14, 15
   
   Psalm 118:8
   
   English Standard Version (ESV)
   
   8 (A)It is better to take refuge in the Lord
   (**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps 118:8, Isa 2:22, Jer 17:5&version=ESV#cen-ESV-15878B”))than to trust in man.
   
   Cross references:
   
   1. 
      *]Psalm 118:8 : [Ps. 40:4; 62:8]
      *]Psalm 118:8 : Ps. 146:3
      
      Isaiah 2:22
      
      English Standard Version (ESV)
      
      22 (A)Stop regarding man
      (**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps 118:8, Isa 2:22, Jer 17:5&version=ESV#cen-ESV-17708B”))in whose nostrils is breath,
      for of what account is he?
      
      Cross references:
      
      1. 
         *]Isaiah 2:22 : Ps. 146:3
         *]Isaiah 2:22 : [James 4:14],
         
         “Pen Name Anna”

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic, Coptic, Coptic,

Dismissive, without actually responding to the prophesies/passages.

We can’t just throw our hands up and say, “you refused to hear and failed to understand.”

If you are the one who understands, then please give your understanding of the passages on the table.

Psalm 146:3-4

English Standard Version (ESV)

3 (A)Put not your trust in princes,
(**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm 146:3-4&version=ESV#cen-ESV-16345B”))in a son of man, in whom there is (C)no salvation.
4 When (D)his breath departs, he returns to the earth;
on that very day his plans perish.

Cross references:

1. 
   *]Psalm 146:3 : Ps. 118:9
   *]Psalm 146:3 : [Isa. 2:22; Jer. 17:5]
   *]Psalm 146:3 : Ps. 60:11; 108:12
   *]Psalm 146:4 : ; See Job 10:9; 34:14, 15
   
   Psalm 118:8
   
   English Standard Version (ESV)
   
   8 (A)It is better to take refuge in the Lord
   (**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps 118:8, Isa 2:22, Jer 17:5&version=ESV#cen-ESV-15878B”))than to trust in man.
   
   Cross references:
   
   1. 
      *]Psalm 118:8 : [Ps. 40:4; 62:8]
      *]Psalm 118:8 : Ps. 146:3
      
      Isaiah 2:22
      
      English Standard Version (ESV)
      
      22 (A)Stop regarding man
      (**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ps 118:8, Isa 2:22, Jer 17:5&version=ESV#cen-ESV-17708B”))in whose nostrils is breath,
      for of what account is he?
      
      Cross references:
      
      1. 
         *]Isaiah 2:22 : Ps. 146:3
         *]Isaiah 2:22 : [James 4:14],
         
         “Pen Name Anna”

1. 1. 1. 
         Pen Name Anna,
         
         The only way to look at this is to view what the council of Nicea used for the understanding. It isn’t what someone throws your way and says…see here I don’t see it…The Trinity was dialogued at Nicea and Athansius was the most prominent theologian. See what they say and what they used…that is the answer…ya hearin dat…?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Pen Name Anna,

The only way to look at this is to view what the council of Nicea used for the understanding. It isn’t what someone throws your way and says…see here I don’t see it…The Trinity was dialogued at Nicea and Athansius was the most prominent theologian. See what they say and what they used…that is the answer…ya hearin dat…?

Yes, I’m hearin dat, :takethat:

But you’re forgetting that the Jews measure all that Christians say/write against the written and oral TORAH along with the other Hebrew Scriptures, etc.

If you want to bring Nicea into the dialogue about Jewish objections/criticisms, then you need to explain how Nicea fits with the Hebrew Scriptures concerning the issues on the table (rather than diverting the discussion to whether or not the Bible was “created at Nicea”—the rabbit trail. )

 

[chosen_people]

Yes, I’m hearin dat, :takethat:

But you’re forgetting that the Jews measure all that Christians say/write against the written and oral TORAH along with the other Hebrew Scriptures, etc.

If you want to bring Nicea into the dialogue about Jewish objections/criticisms, then you need to explain how Nicea fits with the Hebrew Scriptures concerning the issues on the table (rather than diverting the discussion to whether or not the Bible was “created at Nicea”—the rabbit trail. )

Well if we put aside the implication that the Jews are too feeble minded to understand their own scriptures or that Jews are so character flawed that they unable or unwilling to acknowledge the obvious truth of Christian beliefs, where does that leave us? The Christian scriptures teaches that God judges the world through faith in Jesus who Christians believe is the Jewish Messiah ben David. However, there is not a single verse in the Jewish scriptures that mentions the concept of faith in the Messiah ben David for personal salvation. There is not a single verse in the Jewish scriptures that says or implies that belief or faith in the Messiah ben David will have any personal redemptive value whatsoever. The Jewish scriptures has no concept that the Messiah ben David is coming to die for our sins, to save us, or to do any of the things that Christians attribute to Jesus.

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes, I’m hearin dat, :takethat:

But you’re forgetting that the Jews measure all that Christians say/write against the written and oral TORAH along with the other Hebrew Scriptures, etc.

If you want to bring Nicea into the dialogue about Jewish objections/criticisms, then you need to explain how Nicea fits with the Hebrew Scriptures concerning the issues on the table (rather than diverting the discussion to whether or not the Bible was “created at Nicea”—the rabbit trail. )

Anna,

Have you looked at Nicea and seen what Scripture they appealed to including any OT writings?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Well if we put aside the implication that the Jews are too feeble minded to understand their own scriptures or that Jews are so character flawed that they unable or unwilling to acknowledge the obvious truth of Christian beliefs, where does that leave us? The Christian scriptures teaches that God judges the world through faith in Jesus who Christians believe is the Jewish Messiah ben David. However, there is not a single verse in the Jewish scriptures that mentions the concept of faith in the Messiah ben David for personal salvation. There is not a single verse in the Jewish scriptures that says or implies that belief or faith in the Messiah ben David will have any personal redemptive value whatsoever. The Jewish scriptures has no concept that the Messiah ben David is coming to die for our sins, to save us, or to do any of the things that Christians attribute to Jesus.

chosen people,

I don’t see the Jews as “too feeble minded to understand their own Scriptures.”

Actually, I’m frustrated that some Christians are so reluctant to engage in the specifics of the Jewish-Christian dialogue.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,

Have you looked at Nicea and seen what Scripture they appealed to including any OT writings?

Of course, Coptic :banghead:

—But is your contribution to the discussion with our Jewish brethren: “Go look up Nicaea?”

Pen

 

[CopticChristian]

Of course, Coptic :banghead:

—But is your contribution to the discussion with our Jewish brethren: “Go look up Nicaea?”

Pen

No. I am saying let’s all look at nicea. I could not find it in the time I had

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Wow, look where this thread went. Lemme see if I can answer some questions…

I can understand the reluctancy of Jews and Muslims to believe that Jesus is God. I would like to know how to respond to their criticisms. For example, God cannot change according to Catholic belief. God is unchangeable. Do I have that right? But before the Incarnation, God had not assumed a human form. Yet after the Incarnation, God had assumed a human form. Is this not a change?

No, because the very nature, design and intention of God did not change. When God the Son took human flesh, he maintained his deity and power, but humbled himself into human form, as Philippians 2 wonderfully explains. This is what is known in Christianity as the hypostatic union. When God the Son took on flesh, he did not transform from deity into humanity sans deity.

Also, I read the following in Holy Scripture:
Mark 13:32:“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
But if Jesus is God, would He not know the hour?

The Persons within the Trinity all have various roles and places in the act of salvation and their functions, in regards to eschatology (known among Eastern Fathers as the “monarchical” structure of the Trinity). Part of the role of God the Father, as the one who “sends out,” is to know the day and the hour.

John 14:28: “You heard me say,‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.”
I thought that the Persons of the Trinity were coequal.

Read the whole context, and understand what Christ is stating. He has just given clear Trinitarian language (v. 26 - God the Father will send God the Holy Spirit to remind the apostles of all God the Son has taught them) and is talking about his soon-to-be absence from them, which he knows will give them some grief and alarm. Albert Barnes explains it best:

The object of Jesus here is not to compare his nature with that of the Father, but his condition. Ye would rejoice that I am to leave this state of suffering and humiliation, and resume that glory which I had with the Father before the world was. You ought to rejoice at my exaltation to bliss and glory with the Father (Professor Stuart). The object of this expression is to console the disciples in view of his absence. This he does by saying that if he goes away, the Holy Spirit will descend, and great success will attend the preaching of the gospel, John 16:7-10. In the plan of salvation the Father is represented as giving the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the various blessings of the gospel. As the Appointer, the Giver, the Originator, he may be represented as in office superior to the Son and the Holy Spirit. The discourse has no reference, manifestly, to the nature of Christ, and cannot therefore be adduced to prove that he is not divine. Its whole connection demands that we interpret it as relating solely to the imparting of the blessings connected with redemption, in which the Son is represented all along as having been sent or given, and in this respect as sustaining a relation subordinate to the Father.

“‘Of all the commandments, which is the most important?’ ‘The most important one,’ answered Jesus, ‘is this: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.
Mark 12:28-29
It does not say here that God is a Trinity, but that God is one.

God is one in a Trinity. As stated earlier in the thread, Trinitarianism does not deny monotheism. The very word “trinity” is merely a combination of the words “tri” and “unity.”

“By myself I can do nothing…” (John 5:30)
But if Jesus is God, is He not all Powerful?

Ugh - sorry, bad flashbacks to Muslim threads. I would highly suggest reading the entire chapter - Christ equates himself on equal with the Father, and says they have equal powers in many regards. When he says “by myself I can do nothing,” he is not saying he’s useless by himself, but that he and the Father work together in what is clearly Trinitarian language.

“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” (Luke 22:42).
If the will of the Father and the will of the Son were the same, would they not will the same thing?

They did will the same thing, hence Christ says that the will of the Father should be what becomes the ultimate factor. Christ was fully man and fully God, and in the garden was experiencing human fear and worry about what was about to unfold. As a man, Christ endured every temptation one could feel, and that includes fear, worry and doubt, but as God, Christ submitted all to the divine plan for man’s salvation.

There have been wonderful Christian expositions about Christ’s prayer in the garden, and I would highly encourage reading many of them. The one by Fulton Sheen is one that comes to mind.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

And continuing on…

Time after time it is explained in the Jewish scriptures that God is not a man, nor the son of man.

There was a brief discussion on that in an earlier post (see here).

Jesus was born, lived and died as a Jew. The original Christians, the Christians who had known Jesus, made up of his family and disciples, as Jews did not conceive and as Jews could not possibly have conceived that Jesus was a god. The Christianity of today derives not from Jesus but from Paul, a man who arrived on the scene 15 years after the execution of Jesus and who had never seen or met Jesus.

Paul was called by Christ and accepted by the early Christians. There is no evidence to the contrary. If a person wants to try and say there was a conspiracy theory where Paul invented a divine Christ, they had best substantiate it from contemporary sources.

Time after time in the Jewish scriptures God emphasizes that He is alone and that there is no other. If God was really three, part of a trinity why didn’t He clearly say so?

As explained earlier in the thread, Trinitarianism does not deny or contradict monotheism. God is not “three” or “part of a trinity”, and is still one Being of God.

The prophet Isaiah clearly states that the Messiah ben David will fear God Isaiah 11;1-3
Logically God cannot fear Himself nor is it rational that God fears anything. Isaiah’s prophecy destroys the christian claim that Jesus is '‘god’.

In Unitarianism that might be impossible, but not in Trinitarianism, where God the Son, functioning as the perfect man, honors and fears the Lord. To argue as such is a bit like Muslims who ask who Christ was praying too if he was God - again, a presumption of Unitarianism.