Why don't Jews believe in Jesus?

[Evan]

I highly doubt this, highly. The Jewish or Semitic population has always been quite small and to attest ancestry to everyone through them is way off. They have traditionally been a homogeneous ‘people’, who shunned relations with non-Jews. Intermingling surely occurred in their Exiles, especially in Babylon, but, mankind was already spread throughout the known world at those times and simply having SOME Semitic ancestry does not give you JEWISH heritage, they are NOT the only Semitic group in the middle east.

That is true for those who remained in the Jewish faith. But if one person was converted (say at pentecost) then he and all his decendents (after 60 generations that could exceed the population of the human race) would be ‘him and his children’

So even though a remnant may have intermarried, that remnant, given time, could bring the guilt on all mankind.

Unless you look at the phrase as a theological statement of Truth… then the guilt is on all mankind from Good Friday to this day.

 

[artist3189]

That is true for those who remained in the Jewish faith. But if one person was converted (say at pentecost) then he and all his decendents (after 60 generations that could exceed the population of the human race) would be ‘him and his children’

So even though a remnant may have intermarried, that remnant, given time, could bring the guilt on all mankind.

Unless you look at the phrase as a theological statement of Truth… then the guilt is on all mankind from Good Friday to this day.

Sorry, this is illogical and not possible. The population of the whole world at that time was already spread out, people had migrated long before Judaism even existed and Hebrew Semitic tribes are only one portion of the population that stayed in that region. And of all the Semitic Tribes, the Israelites were probably one of the smallest and least spread out. Plus 60 generations is probably a high number also. The majority of growth among early Christianity was with the gentiles in other religions, not in Palestine. Sorry, but we are not all descendants of Jewish Semites from 1st Century Palestine. And no matter how you try to work it, trying to make history and human development fit a personal theological idea to lend credence to it isn’t a good thing.

 

[Evan]

Sorry, this is illogical and not possible. The population of the whole world at that time was already spread out, people had migrated long before Judaism even existed and Hebrew Semitic tribes are only one portion of the population that stayed in that region. And of all the Semitic Tribes, the Israelites were probably one of the smallest and least spread out. Plus 60 generations is probably a high number also. The majority of growth among early Christianity was with the gentiles in other religions, not in Palestine. Sorry, but we are not all descendants of Jewish Semites from 1st Century Palestine. And no matter how you try to work it, trying to make history and human development fit a personal theological idea to lend credence to it isn’t a good thing.

Illogical, I’ll grant you that. Not possible, there you have failed to achieve mathematical clarity.

If marriage occurs around 16-22 yrs of age, each generation being 30 years is certainly possible, which gives 60 generations. How much older than you is your grandmother?

I don’t propose our guilt is through physical decent, rather we are the new israel, we are the ones who assume the guilt of the Jews for the crucifixion by not living as Christ intends us to live. We are guilty and physical decent is irrelevant.

BUT knowing I am a decendent of Abraham make the OT come alive
Knowing my people experienced the Volkevonderung of the Germanic tribes
Knowing my people wandered across asia and through the Americas before it was discovered
Knowing my people marched with the Roman Legions
Knowing my people first came to England in 1066 with William
Knowing my people came to Maine in the (not yet) USA in 1650
Knowing my people came across the Oregon Trail to settle in the Willamette valley

This makes history the story of my people.

Who are you to deny what weird twists history may have taken in your ancestry.

 

[artist3189]

Illogical, I’ll grant you that. Not possible, there you have failed to achieve mathematical clarity.

If marriage occurs around 16-22 yrs of age, each generation being 30 years is certainly possible, which gives 60 generations. How much older than you is your grandmother?

I don’t propose our guilt is through physical decent, rather we are the new israel, we are the ones who assume the guilt of the Jews for the crucifixion by not living as Christ intends us to live. We are guilty and physical decent is irrelevant.

BUT knowing I am a decendent of Abraham make the OT come alive
Knowing my people experienced the Volkevonderung of the Germanic tribes
Knowing my people wandered across asia and through the Americas before it was discovered
Knowing my people marched with the Roman Legions
Knowing my people first came to England in 1066 with William
Knowing my people came to Maine in the (not yet) USA in 1650
Knowing my people came across the Oregon Trail to settle in the Willamette valley

This makes history the story of my people.

Who are you to deny what weird twists history may have taken in your ancestry.

Evan, sorry, this doesn’t float, you need to do some research into the progression of human ancestry and especially in the Middle East. The ‘Guilt’ mentioned in the New Testament was meant for the Jewish faithful, the keepers of the OLD COVENANT, not everyone who every lived, anywhere from then till now… this sounds like you are attributing the ‘Curse’ as being akin to a ‘NEW’ Original Sin, this ‘guilt’ and ‘curse’ now meant for all mankind, that is heretical. I don’t mean that to be attacking you, more making a statement as far as it’s theology, because certainly mankind in general was not ‘Cursed’ from that time forward, by association or blood. It is a spiritual curse, strictly associated with the Old Covenant Jews and anyone who kept it afterward. If a Jew converts to Christianity, would you say that he is still ‘cursed’? That’s a heresy. Original sin is washed away by Baptism, and the point of conversion is to be able to receive the gift of the remission of all sins, gained by Christ on the Cross. We do not have a ‘curse’ placed upon all men everywhere, neither in spirit nor in human heredity. Just think about it for a while.

 

[Valke2]

What a coincidence, or is it? A result of Trad Catholic’s posts?

I just got this newsletter today in my email.

catholic.com/newsletters/kke_070206.asp

Interesting artilce. I just skimmed it and will give it a more focused reading later. THanks.

 

[Evan]

Evan, sorry, this doesn’t float, you need to do some research into the progression of human ancestry and especially in the Middle East.

Human ancestry is a statistical process. One person won’t make it in the progression. There’s always that kid who asks for his inheritance and goes to a distant land and settle down.

The ‘Guilt’ mentioned in the New Testament was meant for the Jewish faithful

Just for the faithful, Just for those who abide by the covenant between God and Israel, Just for those kept the Torah. Just for the people specially chosen by God as his children. Strange that you would put Guilt on those who God holds so dear to he heart.

the keepers of the OLD COVENANT

The old covenant is still in effect, God is not a liar. But I think there is enough Guilt to go around

‘Curse’ as being akin to a ‘NEW’ Original Sin, this ‘guilt’ and ‘curse’ now meant for all mankind, that is heretical.

I don’t remember anything about a Curse

It is a spiritual curse, strictly associated with the Old Covenant Jews and anyone who kept it afterward. If a Jew converts to Christianity, would you say that he is still ‘cursed’? That’s a heresy.

Who cursed them? Certainly not God. For salvation is open to all.

Original sin is washed away by Baptism, and the point of conversion is to be able to receive the gift of the remission of all sins, gained by Christ on the Cross. We do not have a ‘curse’ placed upon all men everywhere, neither in spirit nor in human heredity.

The Church teaches that the Guilt is not put on anyones child. All guilt that comes from an act falls on the ones who were involved. There is no Guilt from some ancient resident of palistine that falls on anyone alive today.

 

[artist3189]

---

That is true for those who remained in the Jewish faith. But if one person was converted (say at pentecost) then he and all his decendents (after 60 generations that could exceed the population of the human race) would be ‘him and his children’

So even though a remnant may have intermarried, that remnant, given time, could bring the guilt on all mankind.

***Unless you look at the phrase as a theological statement of Truth… then the guilt is on all mankind from Good Friday to ***this day.

This is what you said, it looks like you are trying to make a ‘physical’ connection to me, and having the ‘guilt’ ride along with it. Sorry, but your wrong, the Old Covenant was superseded by the New Covenant, it is wholly changed and fulfilled at the same time. Just because you decide to say soemthing doesn’t make it so. 'We do not assume the ‘guilt’ and I DID NOT ‘SAY IT’ NOR ASSIGN IT TO ANYONE. That, comes from the New Testament, not me. Your quote “Strange that you would put Guilt on those who God holds so dear to he heart.”
Don’t try to put a ‘blame’ on me to be dramatic or for emotional emphasis to defend a claim. If you need the verse, I’ll supply it for you, and *I make no claims *to understand how, where or when this is in affect, just that is was said, and that it is NOT transferred to us. The idea of it being ‘a curse’ is old theology, nothing new, since they said ‘let the guilt be on us and our descendants’. And again, I didn’t say this, nor do I assume to understand it, but I do know that it is not something WE have inherited, or can ‘retain’ later because we simply don’t follow Christ, that, is another problem unto itself. I guess we just disagree here.

 

[chosen_people]

Salvation from what?

The concept of salvation from sin as it is understood in Christianity has no equivalent in Judaism.

Salvation from sin is unnecessary in Judaism, because Judaism does not believe that mankind is inherently evil or sinful or in need of Divine Intervention in order to escape eternal damnation. In fact, Judaism does not even believe in eternal damnation.

Judaism recognizes that people have sinful impulses, but Judaism also recognizes that people have an inclination to do good and to be good, and that people are able to choose whether to follow the evil inclination or the good inclination.

It is within our ability to be righteous. The Torah itself says, " The word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it." (Deut. 30:14). And if we miss the mark, when we fail to fulfill the good laws that G-d has provided for us, then we can obtain forgiveness through prayer, repentence and good deeds.

When the Torah speaks of G-d as our Salvation or our Redeemer, it is not speaking of salvation or redemption from sin; rather, it speaks of salvation from the very concrete, day-to-day problems that we face, such as redemption from slavery in Egypt, or salvation from our enemies in war.

source:jewfaq.org/salvatn.htm

 

[ricmat]

Salvation from what?

The concept of salvation from sin as it is understood in Christianity has no equivalent in Judaism.

Salvation from sin is unnecessary in Judaism, because Judaism does not believe that mankind is inherently evil or sinful or in need of Divine Intervention in order to escape eternal damnation. In fact, Judaism does not even believe in eternal damnation.

Although I disagree with your conclusion, thank you for posting this. I’ve been assuming that there was a Jewish precedent for a need for salvation from sin. This clarifies things quite a bit.

I’d take a shot at trying to answer/comment on this, but it will take a while…and others who are more eloquent than me will probably do that anyway.

But…one question. The Jewish “Day of Atonement” – it was my understanding that the high priest would offer sacrifice, on behalf of all Israel, once per year for the atonement of Israel’s sins. Is this correct? And if it is, then is an animal sacrifice adequate from an atonement perspective - where the dignity of the person (God) sinned against is infinite?

.

 

[chosen_people]

Although I disagree with your conclusion, thank you for posting this. I’ve been assuming that there was a Jewish precedent for a need for salvation from sin. This clarifies things quite a bit.

I’d take a shot at trying to answer/comment on this, but it will take a while…and others who are more eloquent than me will probably do that anyway.

But…one question. The Jewish “Day of Atonement” – it was my understanding that the high priest would offer sacrifice, on behalf of all Israel, once per year for the atonement of Israel’s sins. Is this correct? And if it is, then is an animal sacrifice adequate from an atonement perspective - where the dignity of the person (God) sinned against is infinite?

.

Christians believe that there is no salvation from sin or any possibility of a personal relationship with G-d without belief in Jesus. Specifically with regard to Jews, their argument is that Jews have always needed animal blood sacrifices to rid themselves of sin. Since sacrifices were abolished after the destruction of the Temple, they claim that today Jews can find salvation from sin only by believing in Jesus.

First of all, the sin offering was intended only for unintentional sins, and served as a means of motivating individuals to true repentance. Numerous passages, including Hosea 14, tell us that today our prayers take the place of sacrifices. In addition, we read that

“The sacrifices of G-d are a broken spirit, and a broken and contrite heart” (Psalm 51:17) and “I desire kindness and not sacrifices, the knowledge of G-d more than burnt offerings.”
(Hosea 6:6)

Through repentance, prayer, fasting, and doing what is right, Judaism teaches that everyone has the ability to return to G-d directly.

This concept is beautifully illustrated in the Books of Jonah and Esther, when people (both Jewish and non-Jewish) repented, prayed to G-d and were forgiven for their sins without any sacrifices. As we are taught in Ezekiel 18:27, “When the wicked man turns away from his wickedness that he has committed, and does that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.” The personal relationship that the Jewish people have had with G-d has always allowed us to turn directly to Him at any time, as it says in Malachi 3:7: “Return to Me, and I shall return to you.”

source:jewsforjudaism.org/web/j4jlibrary/onewaystreet.html

for more information: judaism.about.com/od/abcsofjudaism/f/sacrifice_replc.htm

 

[Valke2]

I’d just add this, from an earlier thread entitled “Why Jews don’t need to be saved”:

There is a misconception among many people that Judaism teaches that we are redeemed by obeying the commandments – through our deeds and acts. But this is not the case.

We were redeemed at Mt. Sinai when God gave us the Torah. Our obeying the mitzvot/commandments through accepting Torah is our RESPONSE to the redemption. It is how we express our relationship with God.

When a missionary attempts to convince a Jew that he or she needs to accept Jesus in order to be saved, they are essentially offering us a gift we have already received. And they are asking us to give up our relationship with God, which we express through the obeying of His Commandments. Not a good deal for us.

 

[sterryfamily]

I’d just add this, from an earlier thread entitled “Why Jews don’t need to be saved”:

There is a misconception among many people that Judaism teaches that we are redeemed by obeying the commandments – through our deeds and acts. But this is not the case.

We were redeemed at Mt. Sinai when God gave us the Torah. Our obeying the mitzvot/commandments through accepting Torah is our RESPONSE to the redemption. It is how we express our relationship with God.

When a missionary attempts to convince a Jew that he or she needs to accept Jesus in order to be saved, they are essentially offering us a gift we have already received. And they are asking us to give up our relationship with God, which we express through the obeying of His Commandments. Not a good deal for us.

…of course that assumes rejections of Jesus as the promised Messiah and the New Covenant.

 

[ricmat]

Christians believe that there is no salvation from sin or any possibility of a personal relationship with G-d without belief in Jesus. Specifically with regard to Jews, their argument is that Jews have always needed animal blood sacrifices to rid themselves of sin. Since sacrifices were abolished after the destruction of the Temple, they claim that today Jews can find salvation from sin only by believing in Jesus.

First of all, the sin offering was intended only for unintentional sins, and served as a means of motivating individuals to true repentance. Numerous passages, including Hosea 14, tell us that today our prayers take the place of sacrifices. In addition, we read that

“The sacrifices of G-d are a broken spirit, and a broken and contrite heart” (Psalm 51:17) and “I desire kindness and not sacrifices, the knowledge of G-d more than burnt offerings.”
(Hosea 6:6)

Through repentance, prayer, fasting, and doing what is right, Judaism teaches that everyone has the ability to return to G-d directly.

This concept is beautifully illustrated in the Books of Jonah and Esther, when people (both Jewish and non-Jewish) repented, prayed to G-d and were forgiven for their sins without any sacrifices. As we are taught in Ezekiel 18:27, “When the wicked man turns away from his wickedness that he has committed, and does that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.” The personal relationship that the Jewish people have had with G-d has always allowed us to turn directly to Him at any time, as it says in Malachi 3:7: “Return to Me, and I shall return to you.”

Certainly, praying, fasting, repentance for sins, and doing what is right is also the Catholic way to be right with God (and to go to heaven).

And Catholics believe that Jesus re-opened the doors of heaven for all humanity, and gave us all an opportunity to choose to walk through (whether you know of Jesus in detail or not- but it helps!)

It seems a bit strange to me that Jews performed animal sacrifice for a very long time. Then the Romans come along and tear down the temple, and the response seems to be “Well, I guess we didn’t need sacrifice anyway. We’ll go with prayers instead.” Was there some other theological event that precipitated this change of thinking? Without such an event, it would seem to me a very illogical change to make.

.

 

[Valke2]

…of course that assumes rejections of Jesus as the promised Messiah and the New Covenant.

Not sure what you mean. Of course Jews reject the belief that Jesus was the Messiah or that he is God.

 

[Valke2]

Certainly, praying, fasting, repentance for sins, and doing what is right is also the Catholic way to be right with God (and to go to heaven).

And Catholics believe that Jesus re-opened the doors of heaven for all humanity, and gave us all an opportunity to choose to walk through (whether you know of Jesus in detail or not- but it helps!)

It seems a bit strange to me that Jews performed animal sacrifice for a very long time. Then the Romans come along and tear down the temple, and the response seems to be “Well, I guess we didn’t need sacrifice anyway. We’ll go with prayers instead.” Was there some other theological event that precipitated this change of thinking? Without such an event, it would seem to me a very illogical change to make.

.

THe use of prayer in lieu of sacrifice did not come about after the destruction of the Temple. It was always a means. As sacrifices were only done at the Temple, and as there were always Jews who could not make it to the Temple, prayer was used even during Temple times.Animal sacrifices were never the sole or even the preferred means for Jews to repent with God.

The commandment to engage in prayer is basic to TOrah.

Hoseah 14:3: “So let us render calves by our lips”. In other words, let’s us offer sacrifice to God through our words.

As Adin Steinsaltz says in his book “A Guide to Jewish Prayer”:

“The wish to perform an act of divine worship as though it were being conducted in teh Temple is not associated with the memory of its destruction; it is connected rather with the fact that even while the Temple was still standing, many people who lived a long distance away from that holy site, or who were not TEmple priests, wished to perfrm an act of worship wherever they were residing. Communal prayer, with its fixed formulations and regulated cermonials, served as a means of active participation in holy service.”

 

[ricmat]

THe use of prayer in lieu of sacrifice did not come about after the destruction of the Temple. It was always a means. As sacrifices were only done at the Temple, and as there were always Jews who could not make it to the Temple, prayer was used even during Temple times.Animal sacrifices were never the sole or even the preferred means for Jews to repent with God.

But the sacrifices in the Temple were on behalf of all Jews,not just those physically present, right?

Are you saying the Temple wasn’t really necessary?

 

[chosen_people]

Certainly, praying, fasting, repentance for sins, and doing what is right is also the Catholic way to be right with God (and to go to heaven).

And Catholics believe that Jesus re-opened the doors of heaven for all humanity, and gave us all an opportunity to choose to walk through (whether you know of Jesus in detail or not- but it helps!)

It seems a bit strange to me that Jews performed animal sacrifice for a very long time. Then the Romans come along and tear down the temple, and the response seems to be “Well, I guess we didn’t need sacrifice anyway. We’ll go with prayers instead.” Was there some other theological event that precipitated this change of thinking? Without such an event, it would seem to me a very illogical change to make.

.

Even in Biblical times when sacrifices were made, Jews saw repentance as the most important and sacrifice as the least important way to gain forgiveness from God.

Few sins required animal sacrifice. According to the Torah, forgiveness for an intentional sin could only be atoned for through repentance, not through an animal sacrifice (Psalms 32:5, 51:16-19).

Animal sacrifices were only prescribed for unintentional sins (Leviticus 4:2, 13, 22, 27; 5:5, 15 and Numbers 15:30). The one exception was when an individual who was accused of theft swore falsely in an effort to gain acquittal (Leviticus 5:24-26).

Furthermore, sacrifices could not make amends for a crime unless the person making the offering sincerely repented before making the sacrifice and made restitution to any person harmed by the sin.

In addition, sacrifices could only be made in the Temple, while prayers could be recited anywhere. Upon completion of the building of the Holy Temple, King Solomon asked that prayer be used by those away from the Temple to obtain forgiveness (I Kings 8:46-50). Even during the time of the Temple, synagogues were used for prayer.

Thus, even in Biblical times, prayer and repentance were important means to atonement. Today Jews no longer practice animal sacrifice, but they gain forgiveness from God via prayer, repentance and good deeds.

 

[Valke2]

But the sacrifices in the Temple were on behalf of all Jews,not just those physically present, right?

Are you saying the Temple wasn’t really necessary?

Some were on behalf of all Jews (not all). But that doesn’t mean that the individual Jew didn’t want to engage in divine worship. I edited the post that you quoted from to expand a bit on this idea.

 

[Valke2]

When the Jews were wandering in the desert, they would follow the glory of God in the form of a pillar of smoke. Wherever the smoke stopped, they would stop and camp for the night and set up the Aaron Kodesh. THe next daythe smoke would move and they would follow and wait for it to stop. This went on for 40 years.

There is a midrash which says that this was done to show that all places are holy and that God is found in all places.

 

[ricmat]

I ask again: What “event” made the Temple, and animal sacrifice no longer necessary? If it was so unimportant and secondary, why build a Temple at all? Why sacrifice at all?

So someone was reading Hosea and said “Hey, look at this, I found a loophole! We’ve built this expensive temple, and have been doing animal sacrifice all these 2000 years because we thought it was necessary, but we were wrong!” (No offense intended…but what was THE EVENT?)