Refuting Jewish objections to Jesus as the Messiah

  • Thread starter Thread starter DylanO
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jcrichton said:
You request Yahweh God to prove He is Yahweh God when Christians speak of Him while taking it for granted that He is Yahweh God when Judaism speaks of Him…
Click to expand...
Judaism did not use any extrabiblical method to “prove” Hashem. I merely used a point that Christians implicitly acknowledge (revelation at Sinai) when they take the OT as Scripture.

You mean you dispute the Jewish argument that God revealed Himself to the whole Jewish nation at Sinai? :eek:
 
Bean61 said:
Art can be beautiful, however, some of it can be awfull.

God is simple, however He still made the universe and everything in it. The Trinity has been revealed to man by God. It is not incomprehensible, it is a mystery. Mysteries can be studied and examined. If God was so easily understood by man, man would then believe that he is greater than God. This happens all the time. Look at Adam and Eve. They wanted to be like God. Look at any dictator and see the face of a pseudo-god.
Click to expand...
Ideas can be simple yet profound, for instance the idea of infinity. God is infinite. When Jews say God is infinite, it actually means what God is not.
The woman I used in the example explains very well that the Jews believe whatever they want to believe about God and about their Torah. There is no leader or organization that has authority in matters of Scripture. There is no unity in belief among the Jews. Again, it is up to the individual as to what is right and what is wrong.
Click to expand...
I think I should engage you in your own turf. Have you read Burroughs and the denominational theory of the church? 😃
You’re correct in that the Catholic Church binds it members to God given revelations, dogma, and many of its teachings. They do this because what they are binding us to is the truth. God does not want His people wandering all over Creation wondering what is proper and what is not.
Click to expand...
Judaism does not operate this way. In fact, Judaism categorically denies faith, that there should not be a leap in the dark for fundamental issues.
 
Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old received divine approval. By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.

By faith Abel offered a more acceptable sacrifice to God than Cain

By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death.

Without faith it is impossible to please God. Whoever would draw near God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him.

By faith Noah took heed and built an ark for the savings of his household.

By faith Abraham took his son for sacrifice.

All these died in faith not having received what was promised. God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared for them a city.

Faith is not a leap into the darkness.
 
How bold. You are comparing the present generation with the patriarchs and prophets? Did God speak to you like how He spoke to Abraham or Noah? :rolleyes:

How about the faith of Arius in teaching a heterodox view of the relationship of Jesus to God the Father? Perhaps you are right. He did not leap into the darkness. He leapt with his Bible. 😃
 
Icemoon,
Practically everything I wrote came from the Eleventh Chapter of the Book of Hebrews. New Testament.

It was written by a Jewish scholar, Paul.
 
Bean61 said:
Icemoon,
Practically everything I wrote came from the Eleventh Chapter of the Book of Hebrews. New Testament.

It was written by a Jewish scholar, Paul.
Click to expand...
I know, I read the New Testament too. 🙂

The authorship of Hebrews is disputed. I don’t think from textual analysis, you can argue the writing style is typical Pauline.
 
The Catholic Church does not dispute about who wrote the Book of Hebrews. It was Paul.
 
In general, the evidence against Pauline authorship is considered too solid for scholarly dispute. Donald Guthrie, in his New Testament Introduction (1976), commented that “most modern writers find more difficulty in imagining how this Epistle was ever attributed to Paul than in disposing of the theory.” Harold Attridge tells us that “it is certainly not a work of the apostle”; Daniel Wallace simply states, “the arguments against Pauline authorship, however, are conclusive.” As a result, few supporters of Pauline authorship remain.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Hebrews
 
THe Catholic Encyclopedia states that teh writer was most likely a pupil of Paul’s.
 
I believe it was Paul that wrote the Book of Hebrews. I have no other reason for that except that his name is at the top of the first page in my Bible.

If it wasn’t Paul that wrote the Book of Hebrews, what difference would it make? The Book of Hebrews was accepted into the canon of the Bible around the year AD 400. It is an excellent book with many references going back to the Old Testament. This book was accepted because of what was written within its pages. It tell a lot about the Jews and how they behaved. Maybe that’s why there are so many attempts at discrediting it.

For my part, the Book of Hebrews is not only in the canon of our Bible, it is an excellent Book.
 
Bean61 said:
I believe it was Paul that wrote the Book of Hebrews. I have no other reason for that except that his name is at the top of the first page in my Bible.
Click to expand...
It’s ok.

I’m just wondering whether you live up to the biblical dictum of “test everything; hold fast to what is good” from 1Thess 5. 🙂
 
Bean61 said:
J Crichton,

I have noticed that Jews will understand responses if they come from the Old Testament.

Protestants will understand responses taken from the Old and New Testaments.

Pagans will understand responses from their leaders.

Atheists will understand nothing from anyone.

Catholics will understand responses taken from the New and Old Testaments, Holy Tradition, The Doctors of the Church. Most of what is said by the Early Church Fathers, and 2000 years of popes and magisteriums.

The above may be key in any debates that are held with any of the above. 🙂
Click to expand...
My understanding is similar that’s why I suggested to the OP that I would assist him in getting answers on this forum but not venture into a Jewish site, and that it would be close to impossible to help non-Christian Jews understand beyond their group’s definition of the Holy Scriptures.

…even by using simple reason you can see from the statement he quoted that they argue both ends of Mary’s inability to be the Mother of the Messiah: first they state that there’s no way to trace her lineage, then they place a curse on her through an ancestor… it’s like betting on both teams on the supper bowl!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
DylanO said:
So far, from people I have contacted about this issue, I have come across two explanations; that the promise God made that the Messiah would be of Solomon was conditional if Solomon and his sons were obedient to God but, since Solomon wasn’t faithful that promise was revoked (and a similar case mentioned for Jechoniah, some say he repented in Babylon and the curse was lifted because one of his descendants, Zerubbabel, was later blessed by Haggai (2:20–24) and that Joseph passed his genealogy down to Jesus legally so that previous curse wouldn’t matter if it was lifted or if it wasn’t the curse wouldn’t matter because Jesus wasn’t Joseph’s biological son. And the other is that Jesus would be just a qualified to be the Messiah as a biological descendant of Nathan.

So, I think the issue of Jechoniah is resolved but, the issue of the Messiah being a biological of Solomon is still kind of confusing.

Does the Bible say the Messiah has to be just from David? I realize the Bible does teach a father can pass on his tribal line by adoption so, that would make Jesus a legal descendant of Solomon but, going biologically from Mary, who was a descendant of Nathan, would someone from the line of Nathan be just as legitimate for the title of Messiah as someone from the line of Solomon?
Click to expand...
The problem is that the issue is not Solomon…

Where in Scriptures have you heard Yahweh God speak of His servant Solomon as the one of the Promise?

The reference of the kingship always refers back to David!

Saul was rejected by God and He chose David, the youngest root of Jesse–we can see by Yahweh God’s choice that it is He who sets the standards; He rejected the first born of Jesse and chose David as His servant. We can pretend to be wiser than God or we can humble ourselves to Him and He will bring us to the Truth!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Icemoon said:
Judaism did not use any extrabiblical method to “prove” Hashem. I merely used a point that Christians implicitly acknowledge (revelation at Sinai) when they take the OT as Scripture.

You mean you dispute the Jewish argument that God revealed Himself to the whole Jewish nation at Sinai? :eek:
Click to expand...
I think that you’ve given yourself a reply: Christians explicitly and implicitly acknowledge God’s revelation at Mt. Sinai–the Jews reject His Revelation at Bethlehem–even in spite of the Old Testament Scriptures!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Icemoon said:
It’s ok.

I’m just wondering whether you live up to the biblical dictum of “test everything; hold fast to what is good” from 1Thess 5. 🙂
Click to expand...
…and what is wicked about the book of Hebrews?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top