Why didn't some Jews accept Jesus?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vic2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
maryj said:
Valke2, since you used my post to respond, I feel compelled to reply to yours. I am in no way criticizing how Jews arrive at any conclusion. I have no problem with the “royal we”, in fact I have never heard such an explanationa and am not really sure what it means. I am just trying to understand the Jewish point of view on why some didn’t accept Jesus. What better way than to ask a Jewish person. I apologize if I have insulted you, I have chosen my words very carefully as to avoid this very situation. Peace.
Click to expand...
I used your post to respond but I was responding to posts that I read after quoting you (I went back edited). None of the posts insulted me, so no apology necessary. I apologize for the tone of my post.
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
MJ:

One reason they did not accept Jesus, as i understand the writings of the ancient Jewish rabbis, is that many were looking for two messiahs (one who would be a military leader who would defeat their enemies but die, and one who would be made king after the death of the military leader and rule a world empire from Jerusalem). This might be one reason why John the Baptist, when he was in prison, sent his disciples to Jesus to ask, “Are you the one, or should we expect another?”

I believe it was not a lack of faith on John the Baptist’s part, but a lack of understanding. He, like other Jewish people of his time, did not understand how the messiah who would die would also be the messiah who would rule the earth. (Of course, we know how the two messiahs were actually one messiah (or Christ) because Jesus rose from the dead and will reign here on earth when He returns.)

If you want evidence from the writings of ancient Jewish rabbis regarding the fact that they had the misconception that the Torah (or Old Testament) teaches that there would be two messiahs, let me know and i’ll look up the quotes for you.
Click to expand...
there is the belief of a minor messiah, descending from the house of Joseph, who, if he comes, will die. But he’s not a pre-requisite for “The Messiah” – he may or may not come. And he’s not the military leader that we refer to when we talk about the Messiah. A military leader was a very big deal to 1st century Jews, given Rome’s actions toward the Jews. It would have been an issue that received more attention then.
 
Valke2 said:
there is the belief of a minor messiah, descending from the house of Joseph, who, if he comes, will die. But he’s not a pre-requisite for “The Messiah” – he may or may not come. And he’s not the military leader that we refer to when we talk about the Messiah. A military leader was a very big deal to 1st century Jews, given Rome’s actions toward the Jews. It would have been an issue that received more attention then.
Click to expand...
Fascinating! I have never had the privilege of speaking to a religious Jewish person. Are you Orthodox or something else, V2?
 
And would you V2 be willing to give your opinion on something Moses wrote to me?
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
Fascinating! I have never had the privilege of speaking to a religious Jewish person. Are you Orthodox or something else
Click to expand...
I’m a Conservative Jew. Our methods of how we determine Jewish law (halacha) differ from Orthodox community.
 
Valke2 said:
I realized as I was typing that my use of “doctors” was incorrect. But I figured no one would call me on it. 🙂

However, many illnesses were believed to be caused by demons during the time of Jesus (and for a good time afterward). And there were other cases of demons being “cast out” from other healers.

Even during Rashi’s time, (1200 CE?) Jews didn’t go out at night on certain weekdays because it was believed demons came out at that time, and Rabbis were believed to have certain protections from falling ill from demons because of their studying of Torah.
Click to expand...
I think that even nowadays there are people that look for healers, not always for doctors, probably in the subconscious they feel that the illness or stress has some spiritual base.🙂
Superstition and fear were playing a big game, I think, all over the world. Just think of witch hunt.
‘The Rabbi were probably thought to have some protection because they were studing the Torah’: probably their studying the Torah were making them ‘spiritual’ an thinking for good. We are what we think; our chain of thinking and aims contributus a lot to our well being, and the body well bying helps a good thinking (the romans were saying: ‘mens sana in copore sano’ you can reason properly if your body is helthy) If you add spirituality to a well look after body and to chains of thoughts exempt from selfishness and directed to God you start to discover where the truth is. It is the “vision” that Jesus tried to make us discover; discover faith is gaining spirituality, growing in the likeness of God as it was in the ‘beginning’ see the first and second narrative of creation in Genesis. 🙂
God bless
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
MJ:

One reason they did not accept Jesus, as i understand the writings of the ancient Jewish rabbis, is that many were looking for two messiahs (one who would be a military leader who would defeat their enemies but die, and one who would be made king after the death of the military leader and rule a world empire from Jerusalem). This might be one reason why John the Baptist, when he was in prison, sent his disciples to Jesus to ask, “Are you the one, or should we expect another?”

I believe it was not a lack of faith on John the Baptist’s part, but a lack of understanding. He, like other Jewish people of his time, did not understand how the messiah who would die would also be the messiah who would rule the earth. (Of course, we know how the two messiahs were actually one messiah (or Christ) because Jesus rose from the dead and will reign here on earth when He returns.)

If you want evidence from the writings of ancient Jewish rabbis regarding the fact that they had the misconception that the Torah (or Old Testament) teaches that there would be two messiahs, let me know and i’ll look up the quotes for you.
Click to expand...
Quotes please. One thought though “We know how the two Messiahs were actually one” I agree but I also know that Christ will not only reign here on earth when He returns but that He already reigns on earth through the Holy Eucharist.
 
Valke2 said:
I’m a Conservative Jew. Our methods of how we determine Jewish law (halacha) differ from Orthodox community.
Click to expand...
Hmm interesting. Just as there are Catholic Christians and non-catholic Christians whose methods differ in determining Christian laws. Very interesting. Is there the same kind of arguments (for the lack of a better term) between Conservative Jews and Orthodox Jews when it comes to interpretation of Scriptures? (not that I’m sure on the terminology of Conservative and Orthodox in this setting)
 
maryj said:
Hmm interesting. Just as there are Catholic Christians and non-catholic Christians whose methods differ in determining Christian laws. Very interesting. Is there the same kind of arguments (for the lack of a better term) between Conservative Jews and Orthodox Jews when it comes to interpretation of Scriptures? (not that I’m sure on the terminology of Conservative and Orthodox in this setting)
Click to expand...
Yes. Generally, when there are two opinions regarding the law, Conservative Judaism generally tends to adopt the more liberal of the opinions. Some of the major bones of contention between Orthodox and Conservative Jews tend to center around the role of women (Conservative Judaism ordains women rabbis, for example), homosexuality (Conservative Judaism is more liberal on relaxing the prohibition) and other issues.

Orthodox Jews tend to be well educated on the halacaha and scriptures but overly rigid in their application. Conservative Jews tend to have what I would consider a way of applying the halahca and scripture that is more in line with how it was traditionally meant to be done, but the average conservative jew is less educated in his religion.

That’s my broad generalization.
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
I guess there were a lot of Jewish people in ancient Judea, then, for after hearing St. Peter, 3,000 jumped into his “fishing” boat!

😃

With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
(Acts 2:40-41)
Click to expand...
This was at Pentecost and there were still many Jews in Jerusalem who had come to town for the Passover. Actually 3000 would probably be a small proportion of the number of folks present in town. Ya 3000 sounds like a lot, but actually only a few. Paul didn’t have much better luck in the synagogues of Asia Minor.
 
maryj said:
Quotes please. One thought though “We know how the two Messiahs were actually one” I agree but I also know that Christ will not only reign here on earth when He returns but that He already reigns on earth through the Holy Eucharist.
Click to expand...
I would be interested to know about those quotes of ancient Jewish rabbis about misconception of messiah.
Thanks
 
Harking back to the translated “us” in Genesis, I seem to recall that the Hebrew word Elohim is grammatically plural, bearing the collective plural ending found in “Hasidim,” “Sephardim,” “goyim,” etc.

Like modern Spanish, French, & Italian, Hebrew has two grammatical genders–masculine and feminine. Just as a Spanish-speaker would call a table (una mesa) “she”, so a Hebrew speaker’s choice of pronoun would refer to the referent’s grammatical properties, not its actual sex–or number. Could the OT “us” be referring to the conceptually singular, but grammatically plural word Elohim?

N.B.: Before anyone calls this a reach, there’s abundant precedent in several languages for a plural noun that denotes a singular object–“pants,” anybody?
 
Le_Cracquere said:
Harking back to the translated “us” in Genesis, I seem to recall that the Hebrew word Elohim is grammatically plural, bearing the collective plural ending found in “Hasidim,” “Sephardim,” “goyim,” etc.

Like modern Spanish, French, & Italian, Hebrew has two grammatical genders–masculine and feminine. Just as a Spanish-speaker would call a table (una mesa) “she”, so a Hebrew speaker’s choice of pronoun would refer to the referent’s grammatical properties, not its actual sex–or number. Could the OT “us” be referring to the conceptually singular, but grammatically plural word Elohim?

N.B.: Before anyone calls this a reach, there’s abundant precedent in several languages for a plural noun that denotes a singular object–“pants,” anybody?
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
 
Why didn’t some Jews accept Jesus?

Either they weren’t moved by the Holy Spirit, or, if they were moved by the Holy Spirit to accept Jesus, they refused.
 
Le_Cracquere said:
Harking back to the translated “us” in Genesis, I seem to recall that the Hebrew word Elohim is grammatically plural, bearing the collective plural ending found in “Hasidim,” “Sephardim,” “goyim,” etc.

Like modern Spanish, French, & Italian, Hebrew has two grammatical genders–masculine and feminine. Just as a Spanish-speaker would call a table (una mesa) “she”, so a Hebrew speaker’s choice of pronoun would refer to the referent’s grammatical properties, not its actual sex–or number. Could the OT “us” be referring to the conceptually singular, but grammatically plural word Elohim?

N.B.: Before anyone calls this a reach, there’s abundant precedent in several languages for a plural noun that denotes a singular object–“pants,” anybody?
Click to expand...
As in “Petros” or “kefas” when referring to Peter as the “Rock” Jesus used the masculine form. OOPPPSSS that’s off topic again. Can’t seem to help myself somedays.
 
Valke2 said:
-“And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.” (Isaiah 11:12)

11:4 clearly shows that evil and tyranny will fall when they face the Messiah. He will “smite the tyrant” (in Jesus’ time, this would have been Rome).

I think from these two verses, we conclude that among other things, he will be a military leader.
Click to expand...
I don’t see this at all as representing a military leader. He shall judge with justice, and slay the wicked with the breath of His lips. Doesn’t sound like a military leader to me. Any thing else?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top