Why do Christians accept Jesus

[Kaninchen]

But I will say, that it seems like your’re going to Munich in October to avoid the trap of drinking any beer.

Hey, I like the challenge of different outlooks - my liberalism is more challenged than my religion here at CAF actually - though not the ‘oh no, not Isaiah 53 yet, yet again’ type of challenge I must admit.

 

[Valke2]

Hello,

Yes, if you could. And also, if you could provide a biography of Bar Kokhba if it is not provided by the Talmud.

Thanks.

ok. Since I last offered I looked up the references to Bar Kokhba. They appear in about 8 places throughout the Talmud but each place is only a line or two, and they refer to the rebellion as often as they refer to the man. So it would seem that Jesus gets more Talmud play than other false messiahs (according to us).

Simeon Bar-Kokhba was the leader of a second century revolt against Rome. In retorspect, it was a revolt that was unnecessary, unwinnable and devasting to the Jews.
Some talmudic texts claim that the reason for the revolt was that the Romans had commenced a campaign to eradicate Judaism, by making circumcision and Torah study punishable by death… But this doesn’t make sense because: a. The Romans won and they didn’t eradicate Judaism; and b. The Galilee did not participate in the revolt. If the Romans were trying to eradicate Judaism, they surely would have.

So it is more likely that the revolt was the product of a desire for independence. WHen Rabbi Akiva (a biggie) came out and said he thought Bar-Kokhba was the Messiah, his standing shot way up.

10s of thousands of Jews joined him in the revolt. Early on, they inflicted heavy casualties on the Roman forces and took control of Jerusalem. This was big news because at the time, the Roman emperoro Hadrian was trying to turn Jerusalem into a pagan city.

In response the ROmans sent Julius Severus with a massive army. The strategy was to avoid fighting the jews face to face and to catch them in small groups with superior numbers. It was slow, but successful. Almost all the Jews were killed or sold into slavery. Fifty fortresses were destroyed and 985 settlements razed. 580,000 Jews were killed in battles and many others died from starvation, fire, and the sword.

Jewish soldiers did inflict heavy casualties on the Romans. A fact that is reflected in Hadrian’s victory message, which did not contain the traditionals “I and my troops are well.” opening. The revolt ended in the Temple being destoryed. By the time it was all done 50% of Judea’s population was dead. The majority of survivors sold into slavery, the women forced to become prostitutes.

It is often thought to have been the greatest disaster to befall the Jewish people until the HOlocaust./

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

This is how I see some things, from this Catholic’s point of view

First, we believe he will be a great leader, descended from King David. (Jer. 23:5).

Jesus was descended from King David, both through Saint Joseph (legally) and through the Theotokos (biologically).

He’ll be an observant Jew. (Isaiah 11:25).

In my Bible, Isaiah 11 only goes up to verse 25. But, Jesus observed and fulfilled the law perfectly.

He’ll be a great military leader, win battles and inspire others to follow his example. Jer. 33:15.

“and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land.” I don’t see that as being a military leader. Jesus is a just and merciful judge. I see this being completely fulfilled in the second coming of Jesus.

He’ll bring all the Jews back to Israel, and usher in our spiritual (and political) redemption. (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jer. 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5).

I see this in two ways. First, it is fulfilled on the Cross - for as Christ said “I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” (John 12:32). I also see this as being fulfilled in the second coming, when we shall all dwell in the new Jerusalem.

He’ll establish a government that will be the center for all world governments (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1).

I see this being completely fulfilled in the second coming.

He’ll rebuild the Temple (Jer. 33:18).

In this, I see that if the Messiah did not come before the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70, then God would not have fulfilled His promise, which is impossible. It says that Israel will never lack a Levitical priest (at least one), but there is no longer any Levitical priests. But, Jesus has become the one and eternal High Priest, thus fulfilling this.

He’ll restore the Sanhedrin (Jewish Court) and Jewish law shall be law of the land. (Jer. 33:15).

What does the Sanhedrin have to do with this?

After he arrives, the world will co-exist in peace. (Isaiah 2:4)
No more hatred, intolerance or war.

Again, I see this coming to complete fulfillment in the second coming.

The law of the Jubilee will be reinstated.

What is the law of the Jubilee?

The entire world will recognize our God as the only God. (Isaiah 2:3; 11:10; Micha 4:2-3, Zech 14:19). Some believe the Jewish religion will be recognized as the only true religion.

Once again, I see this being fulfilled in the second coming.

There will be no murder, jealousy, robbery. (Zech 3:13).

Again, fulfilled in the second coming. (Is there an echo in here? )

As for recognizing him, I believe it will be self evident without need of proof. The example I’ve used in the past is when I see a woman I know who is 8 months pregnant, I don’t need to ask her if she had the baby yet.

I honestly believe and hope that when Jesus comes back in glory - which will be very evident - then just as the Christians will have their fulfillment of the second coming of Christ, the Jews will finally acknowledge the coming of the Messiah.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

The revolt ended in the Temple being destoryed.

The Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. - the first century. You said this happened in the second century, which coincides with Hadrian’s imperial rule. So when was this? Was it the revolt that led to the Temple’s destruction or about a half century later during the rule of Hadrian?

 

[mercygate]

When I had posted similar threads a few months ago, some were very offended, so I’ll just add this postscript.

The Mishna, which is the earliest part of Talmud, makes almost no references to written scripture to back up its holdings. In other words, if the Mishna says that one is forbidden to ride a horse on shabbat, it does not refer to the verse in the Torah which it relies on to reach this conclusion. It was only when the written Talmud was added hundreds of years later that such references are made.

I believe these references to Jesus were put in in part because Christianity has grown by this time and the Jews felt that it was necessary to clarify things. It is in part, a reaction to Christianity’s success. So that while it is certainly not something that illicits a warm, fuzzy feeling in christians, it is at least evidence that Jews have traditionaly believed that Jesus the person existed, despite what many Jews (that I know) tend to say these days.

As for what I actually believe about Jesus and Mary… I believe Jesus was a person. I don’t believe he was divine or the messiah. I don’t really ever think about Mary (except for a few threads that I’ve participated on here), but I believe she had her children the way other mother’s have them, whether she was married to the father or not doesn’t really concern me. I assume she was.

Valke2 – you a wealth of information. Where can we find this stuff. Fascinating.

And Yes: Jesus is definitely dangerous to Judaism, AND heretical. I don’t think any Christian could deny that if they look through a first century Jewish lens. Those Jews who followed Jesus – especially the priests and scribes – had to do what converts have always had to do: put their faith on what they had seen and experienced: was it truth? If yes: then you have to say good bye to a great deal – family, connections, even oneself. Especially oneself. Many of us have done that. It’s worth it.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Here are some things (certainly not an exhaustive list) that convict me of my Catholic faith, and in particular that Jesus Christ is the Messiah awaited by the Jews and God Himself, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

First, it has been revealed to me by God Himself. Let’s face it, a certain amount of blind faith is required. There is absolutely nothing that can logically and scientifically prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus is Who the Catholic Church claims He is. But just as Jesus said to Peter “For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” (Mt. 16:17) and what is written in the Scriptures “no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.” (1 Cor. 12:3) But, without any merit on my part, my faith has been confirmed by God Himself.

Second, if the Apostles and the other Disciples were lying, surely at least one of them would have cracked under the pressure of torture. In fact, they didn’t even have to fully deny it, they only had to say that the Emperor was divine, too, and the Romans would have been o.k. with it - they were thrilled with the prospect of adding yet another god to the Pantheon. And they all died for their faith, except John who died naturally (though he was tortured and murder was attempted on him without success). But out of 13 Apostles, and upwards of 500 direct eyewitnesses of the Resurrection, not a one denied Christ after Pentecost.

Third, Jesus fulfilled the Scriptures. For instance, He was born of a virgin (Is. 17:14) in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2-4). He is from the line of David (Jer. 23:5) both legally (Matthew’s genealogy) and biologically (Luke’s genealogy). He is the incarnate Word of God (Is. 9:6; John 1:1) and equal to the Father (John 10:30). He is the Second Person of the Trinity (Gen. 1:1, 1:26, 18:1-2; Dt. 6:4-5). The Messiah was promised on the exact day of Jesus’ arrival into Jerusalem (Dan. 9:24-26). Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Suffering Servant (Is. 42:1-7, 49:1-6, 50:4-9, 52:13-53:12). These and many, many, many more bind me absolutely to the belief that Jesus fulfilled the Scriptures.

Fourth, Jesus fulfilled the Law and He fulfilled the feast days (Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits (all of them), Day of Antonement, etc.).

These and many more reasons find me resolute in my Catholic faith and in particular in my faith in Jesus Christ.

These are some things I find missing in Judaism, that should be present if they were still awaiting the Messiah:

1. Sacrifice in the the Temple
2. Knowledge of ancestry lines - this I am not certain of, but I don’t believe the Jews today can definitively trace their ancestry back to Abraham and in particular to the head of their Tribe. This is particularly bad, since the Messiah is to be of the House of David, how can you know if you can’t trace the ancestry back to David.
3. Lack of Prophets. Who was the last prophet in the eyes of Israel. Malachi is the last Old Testament prophet, and he wrote that a prophet with the spirit of Elijah would precede the Messiah. I don’t know if Jews accept John the Baptist as a true prophet.
4. Levitical Priesthood. How are the precepts of the Law carried out without a valid priesthood?

 

[exoflare]

These are some things I find missing in Judaism, that should be present if they were still awaiting the Messiah:

1. Sacrifice in the the Temple
2. Knowledge of ancestry lines - this I am not certain of, but I don’t believe the Jews today can definitively trace their ancestry back to Abraham and in particular to the head of their Tribe. This is particularly bad, since the Messiah is to be of the House of David, how can you know if you can’t trace the ancestry back to David.
3. Lack of Prophets. Who was the last prophet in the eyes of Israel. Malachi is the last Old Testament prophet, and he wrote that a prophet with the spirit of Elijah would precede the Messiah. I don’t know if Jews accept John the Baptist as a true prophet.
4. Levitical Priesthood. How are the precepts of the Law carried out without a valid priesthood?

Yeah I’ve wondered about these too. Thanks for reminding me…

 

[stignatius]

I also like this argument:
peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm

 

[Valke2]

Hello,

The Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. - the first century. You said this happened in the second century, which coincides with Hadrian’s imperial rule. So when was this? Was it the revolt that led to the Temple’s destruction or about a half century later during the rule of Hadrian?

Sorry. The revolt occurred after the Temple was destroyed. My mistake.

 

[Valke2]

Valke2 – you a wealth of information. Where can we find this stuff. Fascinating.

And Yes: Jesus is definitely dangerous to Judaism, AND heretical. I don’t think any Christian could deny that if they look through a first century Jewish lens. Those Jews who followed Jesus – especially the priests and scribes – had to do what converts have always had to do: put their faith on what they had seen and experienced: was it truth? If yes: then you have to say good bye to a great deal – family, connections, even oneself. Especially oneself. Many of us have done that. It’s worth it.

Thank you for the compliment. That post that you referred to comes (mostly) from my understanding of one of Heshel’s points he raises in “Heavenly Torah…” It is not a book that I"d recommend for general information on Judaism however. (It’s 900 pages, analyzies Torah through the perspective of Rabbis Akiva and Ishmael, costs $80 bucks, and assumes the reader has a fair amount of knowledge about Judaism). If you want a great book that addresses hundreds of topics about Jewish history in quick, easy to understand chapters, try Rabbi Joseph Telushkin’s “Jewish Literacy.” That’s where I got the info. on the Bar Kokhba rebellion (except for the error of saying it ended with the destruction of the Temple. That was all me).

 

[Valke2]

Hello,

Second, if the Apostles and the other Disciples were lying, surely at least one of them would have cracked under the pressure of torture. In fact, they didn’t even have to fully deny it, they only had to say that the Emperor was divine, too, and the Romans would have been o.k. with it - they were thrilled with the prospect of adding yet another god to the Pantheon.

Ok. But Again, 10s of thousands of Jews have died rather than admit the Emperor was divine or renounce their faith. How many muslims have died for their faith?

Third, Jesus fulfilled the Scriptures.

These arguments have been debated before. They only highlight the compeltely different way Jews and Christians interpet scripture. For many purposes, it is as if we are reading two different books.

Fourth, Jesus fulfilled the Law and He fulfilled the feast days (Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits (all of them), Day of Antonement, etc.).

I’m not sure what you mean by this. ARe you saying he was an observant Jew? How did he fullfill the law of First Fruits? Was he a farmer?

These are some things I find missing in Judaism, that should be present if they were still awaiting the Messiah:

1. Sacrifice in the the Temple

Why? things change. You think the Catholic Church has remained the same since 70 CE? Or Christanity in general?

1. Knowledge of ancestry lines - this I am not certain of, but I don’t believe the Jews today can definitively trace their ancestry back to Abraham and in particular to the head of their Tribe. This is particularly bad, since the Messiah is to be of the House of David, how can you know if you can’t trace the ancestry back to David.

Don’t worry. We’ll know.

1. Lack of Prophets. Who was the last prophet in the eyes of Israel. Malachi is the last Old Testament prophet, and he wrote that a prophet with the spirit of Elijah would precede the Messiah. I don’t know if Jews accept John the Baptist as a true prophet.

We don’t.

1. Levitical Priesthood. How are the precepts of the Law carried out without a valid priesthood?

The priests were responsible for carrying out certain Laws associated with the Temple. Not all of Jewish law. Rabbinic Judaism is respoinsible now.

 

[Larry1700]

Sometimes it’s the questions that need more care than the answers.

Sorry, but I can’t figure out any other way to ask the question. In one of your previous posts it sounded as if you were saying that you don’t believe the accounts of Jewish history in the Tanakh were true, so I was attempting to get clarification. I can’t ask the question any differently, and it appears you can’t answer it any differently, therefore we’re at an impasse. I’ll try to get my answer elsewhere, because I really want to know.

Consider the context behind what I had said. The question I’d set myself to address was what was the appeal of Christianity in the first place, not the finer points of Christian (particularly Catholic) apologetics. If I have to remember where ‘I am’, you should consider that, to me, Christianity is no more or less exotic/interesting than Islam or Buddhism - so, if I say that, to me, there is a drama behind Christianity that I think might appeal to certain people, or that there are elements in Christianity that would have found echoes in the ancient pagan mind, I’m an outsider talking about what I might describe as the Christian ‘interface’ at the time.

I visited a Jewish forum several years ago to learn more about Judaism. There were a great many posts complaining about Christians coming on the boards to proselytize. A great many of their posts were vehemently anti-Christian.

While I wasn’t surprised that they didn’t want Christians coming on their board to preach to them, I was surprised at how strongly anti-Christian their remarks were. However, I don’t know what kinds of Christian posts they had been subjected to in the past. Nevertheless, many of the posts I read weren’t responding to a Christian post, but were Jewish posters talking to Jewish posters. They have the right to do so, of course, because it is in fact, their forum.

When I made my posts on the Jewish forum, trying to find out more about Judaism, I tried to be very careful in my wording to avoid offending anyone there. All I was saying to you, is that there is a difference in coming to a Catholic forum to learn about Catholicism, sometimes (unfortunately) via heated debate, and making offensive remarks about our faith. I cannot speak for the others, but using terms like “marketing” and “it should be a drama played out instead of read” were offensive to me.

It has been my perception that, in your desire to tell me where I’m wrong, you’ve rather missed the context of my comments.

Perhaps, perhaps not. If so, I apologize. However, I couldn’t let the statements stand without a reply. It would be allowing you to make a statement based on a false premise. If I went to a Jewish forum, and said something like “It seems to me that Abraham felt the need to leave Ur and go sell this one-god idea he came up with in order to get more land and cattle,” I shouldn’t be surprised if someone quotes scriptures from the Tanakh, writings from the Talmud, etc., to prove that I was wrong. It would be Jewish apologetics, and it would be appropriate because of my posts.

 

[Kaninchen]

I’ll try to get my answer elsewhere, because I really want to know.

I wish you luck in your endeavors.

A great many of their posts were vehemently anti-Christian.

Sometimes it’s in the eye of the beholder, some people really do want to get upset. On the other hand, people can get very, very tired of others turning up and demanding that something is explained to them - especially as, more often than not, there’s an agenda behind the questions - when it’s been explained to their predecessors heaven knows how many times.

It’s the same on very many boards, I bet you can even find it here where a Protestant, say, may get upset about his/her treatment.

All I was saying to you, is that there is a difference in coming to a Catholic forum to learn about Catholicism, sometimes (unfortunately) via heated debate, and making offensive remarks about our faith. I cannot speak for the others, but using terms like “marketing” and “it should be a drama played out instead of read” were offensive to me.

Didn’t Paul say something about being a Jew amongst Jews and a Gentile amongst Gentiles? Isn’t that about dealing with a ‘market’?

Why are you upset at the idea that the message might have been delivered in a ‘drama’ rather than as a plain reading - don’t Catholics all over the world act out nativities and Passions today? Are people - generally - attracted to religions through years of thorough study of “Section X, subsection Y, paras 123b-456c” or because there’s some power in the message?

I think that Catholics are more interesting than Catholicism, by the way (you may substitute whatever groups you wish into that equation).

I shouldn’t be surprised if someone quotes scriptures from the Tanakh, writings from the Talmud, etc., to prove that I was wrong. It would be Jewish apologetics, and it would be appropriate because of my posts.

A dose of skepticism tends to be built-into intra-Jewish discussions, you might find yourself quite shocked.

 

[Larry1700]

Kannichen,

For some reason, you and I can’t seem to have a discussion. You believe I’m taking what you say out of context, and “some people just want to be upset.” I feel the same way about your posts. Consequently, I don’t feel like it would be beneficial or productive for either of us to continue replying to each other’s posts.

 

[wifrost]

Greetings all,

Quite a thread! I thought I’d just drop a reminder to everyone (christians and jews) that not all religious jews acknowledge the Talmud as equal to the Torah, or a “sure-fire” way to interpret it. I’m not talking about the liberal movements but rather the Karaites (no not the sadducees). There’s plenty on the web about them, and from them if you’re not all that familiar with their beliefs.

-Ryan

 

[believers]

It is odd to me that Christians would accept Jesus.

Sinners accept Jesus and become Christians

God had already told us He was not a man.

Yes, but the coming of Jesus was prophetically spoken in Genesis Chapter 3.

Gen 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The vast majority of Jews who were familiary with their own scripture did not accept Jesus as Messiah while he was alive or afterward. And we already had a system in place, that required teshuva as a form of repentence so that there was no need for any “god” to die for our sins.

The Levitical priesthood wasn’t getting the job done. We find that in the New Testament. Heb 7:11. I know that’s New Testament so I’ll try to stay out of the New Testament to explain.

It seems to me that this was all just a response to the gentile’s fear of circumcision. I just don’t get it.

Here’s what you as a Jew should have known about the Messiah. Jesus is the Messiah.

1. Messiah’s humanity (Genesis 3:15).
2. Messiah’s Jewishness (Genesis 12:1-3; 28:10-15).
3. Messiah’s tribe (Genesis 49:10).
4. Messiah’s family (2 Samuel 7:16; Jeremiah 23:5-6).
5. Messiah’s birthplace (Micah 5:2).
6. Messiah’s life, reception, and death (Isaiah 52:13; 53).
7. Chronology of Messiah’s appearing (Daniel 9:24-26).

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Ok. But when the Temple was destoryed, what over 1 million Jews were killed during the two revolts and the rest taken into slavery, forced to become prostitutes, and scattered through the world, Judaism did not fade into obscurity either.

Sorry for the delay in responding, but life challenges

As stated elsewhere, the majority of 1st century Jews lived outside of Judea–well outside. They were unaffected (mostly) by the revolts–the Romans, “practical” in their bloody minded repressive way, only had it in for the actual rebels and populations who directly supported them. The revolts destroyed “Temple Cult” judaism–but Pharisisee-Synagogue Judaism was well established in a diaspora before the Diaspora.

Christianity STARTS as a marginal movement of “hicks from the hills”, a murdered founder and scattered followers–who in a few days of the tragedy, are speaking in the teeth of offcial opposition. Nothing else like it before or since

 

[Valke2]

If we’re going to compare humble beginnings…

 

[Valke2]

Sinners accept Jesus and become Christians

Yes, but the coming of Jesus was prophetically spoken in Genesis Chapter 3.

Gen 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The Levitical priesthood wasn’t getting the job done. We find that in the New Testament. Heb 7:11. I know that’s New Testament so I’ll try to stay out of the New Testament to explain.

Here’s what you as a Jew should have known about the Messiah. Jesus is the Messiah.

1. Messiah’s humanity (Genesis 3:15).
2. Messiah’s Jewishness (Genesis 12:1-3; 28:10-15).
3. Messiah’s tribe (Genesis 49:10).
4. Messiah’s family (2 Samuel 7:16; Jeremiah 23:5-6).
5. Messiah’s birthplace (Micah 5:2).
6. Messiah’s life, reception, and death (Isaiah 52:13; 53).
7. Chronology of Messiah’s appearing (Daniel 9:24-26).

As a Jew, I immedieatly discount any references in Genesis as having anything to do with the Messiah. You can see what you want in the verses, of course. But I don’t feel any need to address them (again).

Isaiah 52 and 53 I’ve answered serveral times. I understand that you rely on them as prophecies of your Messiah. I assume you can understand why I do not.

As to Micah, it is referring the the Messiah. Its use of Bethlehem has to do with David, however. David came from there and the Messiah will be of his lineage. So while it is certainly possible that the Messiah will be from Bethlehem, the text is only implying that his family comes from there. i.e., David.

John was aware of this prophecy and yet does not say that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (as opposed to Matthew and Luke). Perhaps he did not agree that Jesus was born there.

But even assuming he was born in Bethlehem, that does not a Messiah make.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Ok. But Again, 10s of thousands of Jews have died rather than admit the Emperor was divine or renounce their faith. How many muslims have died for their faith?

There is a fundamental difference between those who weren’t around at the beginning and those who were. Those who were around would know if their story was a lie.

These arguments have been debated before. They only highlight the compeltely different way Jews and Christians interpet scripture. For many purposes, it is as if we are reading two different books.

I really like the analogy someone made on this thread about the Sixth Sense. The difference between Catholics and Jews is that we already know the ending.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. ARe you saying he was an observant Jew? How did he fullfill the law of First Fruits? Was he a farmer?

Yes, He was a completely observant Jew. Which feast of first fruits, there were two or three. The one I mentioned specifically was the one in the Pesach. He fulfilled it by being the first-fruit of man.

Why? things change. You think the Catholic Church has remained the same since 70 CE? Or Christanity in general?

But there is nothing fundamentally different about the Church. It is not like we’ve lost our Apostolic Succession, or no longer have Mass, etc.

Don’t worry. We’ll know.

How? Will he be a card carrying Messiah? How will you know?

We don’t.

Why not? I think I heard that at least some Jews do, so why don’t you?

The priests were responsible for carrying out certain Laws associated with the Temple. Not all of Jewish law. Rabbinic Judaism is respoinsible now.

Don’t you think that such a massive and fundamental shift in ritual and law should have been given by God through a prophet? (Of course, Catholics see Jesus as that prophet)