Why Do Jews Reject Jesus?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
With Christians, otoh, the majority of Christians have been literate only in the past 200-300 years or so. Until then, they couldn't even read the bible in their native languages.

[/ QUOTE ]

So on the one hand, you say the reasons Christians dont truly understand the OT is because we arent familiar with the oral traditions of the Jewish faith but on the other hand, because many Christians werent literate and thus passed down their faith primarily through oral means that somehow it is less valid? That makes very little sense.

[ QUOTE ]
Even when they do read the Hebrew bible, they often read innacurate 'translations" that actally change the words, and they read the verses in light of the gt, with all their Christian beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Their are various translations of the Bible, several of which are very good and often include in footnotes words that could be translated in a different manner or even phrases in some cases. However you are absolutely correct in saying that Christians do read the OT in the light of the revelation of Jesus Christ. We believe that many parts of the OT are made much clearer in this way.

[ QUOTE ]
For example, in Hosea 11:1, the prophet clearly states that he is talking about ISRAEL, not the messiah. But Christians can somehow twist this is into being a messianic prophecy about Jesus.

[/ QUOTE ]

This what Christian theologians refer to as as typological fulfillment of a prophesy, in other words, a non literal but a symbolic fulfillment. So the debate at this point is you agree with literal intepretations of the prophecies and I believe in a symbolic fulfillment of those prophecies is possible and in fact happened in that way.

Now you may argue that it is a circular argument but it isnt. People go back and revise their understanding about past assumptions based on current evidence that is to the contrary.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, Christianity is a great emotional crutch, and very comforting to Christians, so they will just refuse to believe anything that contradicts their beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont be silly. I could substitute Judaism and Jews into your statement and be equally correct, although I disagree with the use of the term crutch, which implies that a believer is disabled in some way. And the fact is if you want to use this argument you might as well give up defending religion altogether because this is a common assertion of atheists who believe religion was something invented to help give us deal with things we didnt understand.

[IPSC]

[ QUOTE ]

obviously the translation of isaiah doesnt come out and directly say some of the things that this website translates, that is their own interpretation of isaiah. however, young women could easily be considered a virgin. either way, its really not necessary to depict all these things.


[/ QUOTE ]

However, there is a world of difference between "the virgin shall conceive and bear a son" and "the young women woman is with child and shall bear a son". The former directly posits a virgin birth, while the latter makes absolutely no mention of a virgin birth. This discrepancy is directly attributable to the compiler of Matthew using the Greek Septuagint, instead using the Hebrew scriptures. In the Hebrew, the relevant word is "almah", which can be translated into English as "young women" or "woman of ill repute." Typically, when the Old Testament scriptures use the word "almah", it is clear by context, that the word signifies "woman of ill repute", e.g., a harlot or prostitute. When the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek, the translators of the Septuagint translated "almah" into the Greek "parthenos", which means either "young women" or "virgin". The compiler of Matthew, in his haste to find a prophetic fulfillment in the virgin birth, poured through the Greek translation of the Old Testament scriptures, found a "parthenos" with child, and immediatly assumed that "parthenos" meant "virgin", and that the passage from Isaiah was a prophecy of Jesus' virgin birth. If he had only checked the Hebrew original, he would have immediatly seen that such an interpretation of Isaiah was impossible.

Since Matthew obviously never learned about proper documentation in college, I want to be sure that I everyone knows the above text is written by Jerald F. Dirks in his book The Cross & The Crescent. This is a great book that points out many errors in Christianity. Dirks was a former ordained minister in the United Methodist Church and a graduate of Harvard Divinity School. The only bad part out this book is that when Dirks realized the blatant errors of Christianity he turned to Islam. To bad he didn't become agnostic instead.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

obviously the translation of isaiah doesnt come out and directly say some of the things that this website translates, that is their own interpretation of isaiah. however, young women could easily be considered a virgin. either way, its really not necessary to depict all these things.


[/ QUOTE ]

However, there is a world of difference between "the virgin shall conceive and bear a son" and "the young women woman is with child and shall bear a son". The former directly posits a virgin birth, while the latter makes absolutely no mention of a virgin birth. This discrepancy is directly attributable to the compiler of Matthew using the Greek Septuagint, instead using the Hebrew scriptures. In the Hebrew, the relevant word is "almah", which can be translated into English as "young women" or "woman of ill repute." Typically, when the Old Testament scriptures use the word "almah", it is clear by context, that the word signifies "woman of ill repute", e.g., a harlot or prostitute. When the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek, the translators of the Septuagint translated "almah" into the Greek "parthenos", which means either "young women" or "virgin". The compiler of Matthew, in his haste to find a prophetic fulfillment in the virgin birth, poured through the Greek translation of the Old Testament scriptures, found a "parthenos" with child, and immediatly assumed that "parthenos" meant "virgin", and that the passage from Isaiah was a prophecy of Jesus' virgin birth. If he had only checked the Hebrew original, he would have immediatly seen that such an interpretation of Isaiah was impossible.

Since Matthew obviously never learned about proper documentation in college, I want to be sure that I everyone knows the above text is written by Jerald F. Dirks in his book The Cross & The Crescent. This is a great book that points out many errors in Christianity. Dirks was a former ordained minister in the United Methodist Church and a graduate of Harvard Divinity School. The only bad part out this book is that when Dirks realized the blatant errors of Christianity he turned to Islam. To bad he didn't become agnostic instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course this matter is no where near as clear cut as you make it out to be. It only appears 10 times in the Hebrew scriptures and in those cases denotes a woman old enough to be married but that isnt. This would seem to imply chastity given the cultural context. There are arguments for and against but it is no where near a cut and dried matter.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[To David Sklansky:]
A) Your books are good.

B) There are multiple forums of people still trying to interpret them.

[/ QUOTE ]
There should be no multiple interpretations of David's text. The interpretation of David's text does not depend on (should not vary with) every reader.

Words like "possibly", "in general", "uncertain" in David's text are not supposed to invite multiple interpretations, like the holy books to which you are alluding do; they opnely denote lack of certainty or the level of uncertainty in a poker situation. This should not be mistaken for a Delphic oracle.

(I do not mean that there are no poker books out there who are not ambiguous in the message they impart. Some of them do it deliberately, even.)

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
We Jews will always be G-d’s chosen people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the Jews' G-d told you so, right?

...Don't you find this, as a Jew, a little too convenient?

[DcifrThs]

i dont know.

but i do know this:

if there comes to be a messiah that we know 100% is the true messiah, we can easily ascertain whether his or her coming represents the vindication of jewish or christian dogma...one simply would ask of the messiah one question: "is this your first visit?"

-Barron

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With Christians, otoh, the majority of Christians have been literate only in the past 200-300 years or so. Until then, they couldn't even read the bible in their native languages.

[/ QUOTE ]

So on the one hand, you say the reasons Christians dont truly understand the OT is because we arent familiar with the oral traditions of the Jewish faith but on the other hand, because many Christians werent literate and thus passed down their faith primarily through oral means that somehow it is less valid? That makes very little sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have completely missed the point. You seem to be implying that because we Jews have an oral tradition, I should therefore accept the oral traditions of any illiterate people as equally valid. That is nonsense. The opinions of those who actually received and can read the Hebrew bible are certainly more valid than those who can't.

Unlike the Christians' beliefs from the gt, our Oral Torah doesn't contradict the written Torah. The point was that the Christians' beliefs are wrong because they contradict the Hebrew bible. The method of transmission is irrelevant as to whether or not the interpretations are valid. However, because the Christians couldn't even read the bible in any language throughout most of their history, that means that they couldn't see what the Hebrew bible really said, and how it completely contradicts everything that they were being taught. To have a valid interpretation about a written text, one needs to be able to read.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even when they do read the Hebrew bible, they often read innacurate 'translations" that actally change the words, and they read the verses in light of the gt, with all their Christian beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Their are various translations of the Bible, several of which are very good and often include in footnotes words that could be translated in a different manner or even phrases in some cases. However you are absolutely correct in saying that Christians do read the OT in the light of the revelation of Jesus Christ. We believe that many parts of the OT are made much clearer in this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that there are some valid translations, although it doesn't seem to make a difference in what Christians believe. For example, Christians who have a bible (like the New Revised Standard Version) that correctly translate Isaiah 7:14 as "the young woman is with child..." probably don't even notice this verse, and still believe in the virgin birth of jesus. It's a bit too late.

As to Christians' belief that the gt makes the bible clearer, I think I've shown that that's not true at all. On the contrary, their beliefs cloud their mind, blind them and make it impossible for them to understand the bible properly, in an objective, rational manner.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example, in Hosea 11:1, the prophet clearly states that he is talking about ISRAEL, not the messiah. But Christians can somehow twist this is into being a messianic prophecy about Jesus.

[/ QUOTE ]

This what Christian theologians refer to as as typological fulfillment of a prophesy, in other words, a non literal but a symbolic fulfillment. So the debate at this point is you agree with literal intepretations of the prophecies and I believe in a symbolic fulfillment of those prophecies is possible and in fact happened in that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

These verses written in the past or present tense (e.g. - Hosea 11:1, Isaiah 7:14) are not prophecies at all. Prophecies are about future events. So Christians can't even recongnize which verses are prophecies at all. As for "symbolic fulfillment" of Hosea 11:1 ("When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Israel I called my son"), that's just an example of how Christians just see jesus everywhere and completely ignore what the text actually says. It's the equivalent of claiming that "black" actually means "white". Any "interpretations" which completely ignore the context and the actual meanings of the words are just plain nonsense.

[ QUOTE ]
Now you may argue that it is a circular argument but it isnt. People go back and revise their understanding about past assumptions based on current evidence that is to the contrary.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue that it's irrational nonsense, because you haven't demonstrated how the verse relates to Jesus in any way.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, Christianity is a great emotional crutch, and very comforting to Christians, so they will just refuse to believe anything that contradicts their beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont be silly. I could substitute Judaism and Jews into your statement and be equally correct, although I disagree with the use of the term crutch, which implies that a believer is disabled in some way. And the fact is if you want to use this argument you might as well give up defending religion altogether because this is a common assertion of atheists who believe religion was something invented to help give us deal with things we didnt understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, your statement would not be equally correct, because we Jews simply don't view religion in the same way. It is part of our tradtion to question things, so we allow and aren't afraid of different interpretations. Since we don't believe that God condemns people who don't have the "correct" believes, being shown that we are wrong about something wouldn't be, and isn't, as traumatic as it would be for Christians.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We Jews will always be G-d’s chosen people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the Jews' G-d told you so, right?

...Don't you find this, as a Jew, a little too convenient?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just pointing out, for those whose believe in the Hebrew bible (as Christians claim to) that the Hebrew bible actually supports the Jewish positions and disagrees with the gt. So if the Hebrew bible is true, as Christians claim to believe, then the gt must be false, because two contradictory statements can't both be true. I haven't yet gotten into why one should believe in the Hebrew bible in the first place (although hopefully I will tomorrow).

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course this matter [the meaning of "alma"] is no where near as clear cut as you make it out to be. It only appears 10 times in the Hebrew scriptures and in those cases denotes a woman old enough to be married but that isnt. This would seem to imply chastity given the cultural context. There are arguments for and against but it is no where near a cut and dried matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the Hebrew orginal is quite clear. "Alma" means young woman , not virgin. Anyone who claims otherwise is just demonstrating his ignorance of Hebrew. The word "alma" doesn't even imply virginity, just like "young woman" tells us nothing about whether or not the woman is a virgin. Nor does it imply that she's single. Sure, the surrounding context may give a clue as to whether or not she's a virgin, but that's something else, not the world alma, that's giving us that information.

The reverse is also true. That is, the context may reveal that the woman is not a virgin. For example, if the text says that the alma is pregnant, then she's obviously not a virgin (and, given the cultural context, she's probably married).

Also, there is another example in the bible of where the alma is definitely not a virgin. It's in Proverbs 30:18, where alma refers to an adulterous wife.

[CallYNotRaise06]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi David:

End of Days prophecies associated with the Jewish messiah include:
4. No more war.
5. No more disease.
6. Israel becomes most important country in the world.
7. Recognition that the Jews had it right all along by kings of the nations.
8. City of Damascus is obliterated.
9. Resurrection of the dead.
10. Reconstruction of the Temple.


[/ QUOTE ]
See that is total bullcrap. Why would the messiah come down and ONLY SUPPORT THE JEWS? what about the rest of the world. thats pretty messed up.

4. No more war
Impossible. war is inevitable. as long there are humans on earth, theres going to be war.

5. No more disease.
very unlikely, im not saying impossible, but i dunno

6. Israel becomes most important country in the world.
Sounds like all the Jews want is power..?? why not peace w/everyone. Why should israel become the all powerfull country?

7. Recognition that the Jews had it right all along by kings of the nations

honestly these last 2 just make jews look like they want power and to be correct about everything...


8. City of Damascus is obliterated
So a city is destroyed because of something that happened thousands of years ago??? never heard of forgive and forget i guess...


9. Resurrection of the dead.
good luck w/ that

10. Reconstruction of the Temple.
only one that sounds slightly possible

im not trying to disrespect the jews, im catholic but i dont agree with alot of the stuff that the catholic chuch does. I believe in God, and Jesus, but alot of their rules are just retarded. No meat durring lent, cant eat anything before recieving communion. i just dont agree with any of that. If thats they type of stuff that decides whether you go to heaven or hell thats pretty bad.