Why Do Jews Reject Jesus?

[bossJJ]

I guess I'm not sure what you were really asking me. You mentioned the "chosen people" and later in the post asked, "A nation-specific god?" To me that implied that you thought that we Jews believed that God was our God alone, not the God of everybody. So those are the topics I addressed. Many people, not just Christians, have the mistaken belief that Jews believe that God is only for the Jews or saves only Jews. I was pointing out that that's not the case at all.

As I said before, I'm posting primarily to point out to Christians that the Hebrew bible supports the Jewish positions. Since I'm debating with those who already believe in the Hebrew bible, it is not necessary for me to prove that it's true. I do realize that it's not fact to many non-believers, and that quoting the bible doesn't prove anything to those who don't believe in it.

That being said, the bible says does say that God spoke to the entire Jewish nation (2-3 million peopel) when He gave us the Torah on Mount Sinai. Judaism is the only religion that claims a national revelation from God (as opposed to a personal relevation). I discussed in another post why I believe that it's impossible to fake a national revelation from God. For example, if someone said, "last night, everyone in the U.S. heard God speak to all the people and He said..." you would immediately know he was lying (assuming you are in the U.S.). The only way one could successfully claim a national revelation would be if it really happened.

Many secular historians acknowledge that the western world got its values and belief in God from the Jews. Most western civilization textbooks will say that the two main influences on western culture are the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian cultures. I don’t remember all the details, but the Roman contributions were things like language, laws and engineering. The Greeks’ were democracy and artistic stuff, while the Jews gave the world their values and beliefs, including monotheism. See, for example, “The Gifts of the Jews: How a Tribe Of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels,” by Thomas Cahill.

I'm not claiming that the Jews were the first or only monotheists in the ancient world, only that they were the ones who were able to pass their beliefs on to others. Before Christianity started, most of the major areas of the Roman Empire had already heard of God through the Jews.

[BluffTHIS!]

David, I did not say that God could/would "change his mind", but rather that He could/might "change the terms of the deal" that he previously offered. Despite the fact that the Jews were God's chosen people from the beginning, a reading of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible clearly shows that despite individuals who followed Him as He wished, that the Jewish people/nation as a whole was unfaithful repeatedly despite God sending them judges, kings and numerous prophets, and that He allowed their conquest and the destruction of the temple on more than one occasion in punishment. This central tendency of the Jewish response to God's providential plan, gives the lie to Boss' contention that the Old Covenant is not really that hard to keep. And thus God, as He had forseen would be necessary, gave a new covenant to replace the older one. God does not change His mind because he knows and forsees, but He does change His response, both to peoples and individuals, when a prior "deal" has been shown to be rejected repeatedly.

[bossJJ]

I originally said (in a post to NotReady):
[ QUOTE ]
Disagreeing with Jewish beliefs is not antisemitism. However, if someone persecutes Jews because He disagrees with those beliefs, then that is antisemitism.

[/ QUOTE ]

You replied:
[ QUOTE ]
No, it's not. The act (of persecution) is criminal, no mistake about it, but we must be consistent and robust in our terminology.
Anti-semitic is the person that persecutes and/or is prejudiced against people because they are semites. Not because they hold certain beliefs but because of their (assumed) race/origin. *

[/ QUOTE ]

I was not saying that only discrimination based on religion is antisemitism, only that it is antisemitism, that it's under the umbrella of "antisemitism" - I was not implying that religous antisemitism is the only type of antisemitism. It's just that's the type that was under discussion with NotReady. He was claiming that it wasn't antisemitsm because it was based on the Jews beliefs, not their race. You disagreed with me in your reply, claiming that it's only based on race, not religious beliefs.

[ QUOTE ]

I am making a very specific and highly necessary distinction between the event itself (hatred of Jews and all things Jewish) with the reason for the event itself (hatred of Jews and all things Jewish) with the reason for the event (see below). I even gave you some of the potential reasons for the sentiment!

But the reason is not the same as the event itself, i.e. the description of the reasons is different from the definition of the event. Suppose, for instance, Adolph hates Jews because they are inferior racially, Pat because they crucified Christ, John because he likes his golf club segregated and Bubba because he is nuts -- well, they are all anti-semites!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, now you are saying that they are all anti-semites, but you initially jumped into the discussion by disagreeing with my claim that antisemitism based on belief is antisemitism.

[ QUOTE ]
The reasons for each person's anti-semitism is a different matter. The fact is this -- and I will put it in bold so it jumps out clearly still:An anti-semite hates and/or persecutes Jews because they are Jews, and no more. You are focusing on the Jewish religion so much that you operate under the constant assumption it is the central and stronger component of anti-semitism; it might be, but anti-semitism is not supposed to be defined by its "root causes" nor its practitioners' "reasons" for it.


[/ QUOTE ]

You were the one who defined anti-semitism by it's "root causes", claiming that "Anti-semitic is the person that persecutes and/or is prejudiced against people because they are semites. Not because they hold certain beliefs but because of their (assumed) race/origin."

I know that there are different reasons for antisemitism, and I never claimed that antisemitism is based only or primarily on religion. I specifically said that nowadays it's usually not.

[bossJJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You put a definition (from Wikepedia) in bold...

[/ QUOTE ]
It was your link to Wikipedia which I used.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know it was my link. I was pointing out that it agrees with my definition because you claimed "You are offering me links to texts that actually refute your definition!" On the contrary, it agreed with my definition.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Now you are saying that they are all anti-semites, but you initially jumped into the discussion by disagreeing with my claim that antisemitism based on belief is antisemitism.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are saying that an anti-semite bases his anti-semitism on the semites' beliefs, then we disagree because you are deviating from the proper definition of anti-semitism, and bigotry in general. (Which is why I submit that the reasons for the anti-semite's hate are irrelevant when it comes to characterize him.)

I understand that you are not saying this but that anti-semitism can be also hatred based on the Jews' beliefs! Well, I hope you realize that this is still talking about the cause of the sentiment; and if NotReady does this, then it's his fault that he does not recognize prejudice.

If, on the other hand, you are saying that an anti-semite bases his anti-semitism on a certain belief (?) of his, then, we are probably close or saying the same thing, although you are not being precise, to put it mildly.

I have nothing else to contribute here as far as clarifying the definition of anti-semitism is concerned. I trust I have presented my position precisely enough.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I know it was my link. I was pointing out that it agrees with my definition because you claimed "You are offering me links to texts that actually refute your definition!" On the contrary, it agreed with my definition.

[/ QUOTE ]
You didn't get it, in time, but my time is up! (See above, "Roger 'n out".)

Here's the gist of it :

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bossJJ : "If someone persecutes Jews because he disagrees with those beliefs, then that is antisemitism."

[/ QUOTE ]

Cyrus : "No, it's not. Anti-semitic is the person that persecutes and/or is prejudiced against people because they are semites. Not because they hold certain beliefs but because of their (assumed) race/origin."

[/ QUOTE ]

Trivial example: Pablo Gonzalez, the Paraguayan dictator persecutes the Indians, the Jews and the albinos because of their system A of common beliefs (eg salary raises). Señor Gonzalez is NOT being an anti-semite.

Alternate scenario: Pablo Gonzalez, the Paraguayan dictator persecutes the Indians, the Jews and the albinos because each of those groups has a separate set of belief systems, respectively A, B, and C, all of which Gonzalez finds to be equivalent to insubordination, if not insurrection, so he orders all three groups persecuted. Señor Gonzalez is NOT being an anti-semite.

Aha!, you will say, wait a minute! What if the dictator persecutes only the Jews for a system of beliefs X that is strictly unrelated to Jewish identity (eg salary raises), what then? BZZZZT! Then, señor Gonzalez IS being an anti-semite. (I hope I don't have to explain why.)

Okay, you might say in yer last attempt to understand, then how about when Gonzalez persecutes the Jews precisely for Jewish-related beliefs, such as celebrating Yom Kippur?

<font color="white"> . </font>

...What, are you expecting me to sound the buzzer?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I'm not sure what you were really asking me. You mentioned the "chosen people" and later in the post asked, "A nation-specific god?" To me that implied that you thought that we Jews believed that God was our God alone, not the God of everybody.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I understood quite well what you are saying. You're saying not that the Jews' god is theirs alone, but that the Jews' god offered the path to knowledge, etc, only to the Jews. Which is where I came in - because I find this a little, well, suspect ! [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

...Seeing as this happens routinely in every goddamn religion on earth, I mean.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm posting primarily to point out to Christians that the Hebrew bible supports the Jewish positions. Since I'm debating with those who already believe in the Hebrew bible, it is not necessary for me to prove that it's true.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, absolutely! If Christians profess to accept the Holy Bible Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 equally, then they cannot dismiss the resulting discrepancies or antitheses. You are on the right track. I'd actually bet on you, even though it's not my type of sport.

[ QUOTE ]
Judaism is the only religion that claims a national revelation from God (as opposed to a personal relevation).

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, that's right. A god speaking exclusively to a specific nation. This, indeed, gives your folks a strong competitive advantage over the puny tenets of the other folks'm religions. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
It's impossible to fake a national revelation from God. For example, if someone said, "last night, everyone in the U.S. heard God speak to all the people and He said..." you would immediately know he was lying (assuming you are in the U.S.). The only way one could successfully claim a national revelation would be if it really happened.

[/ QUOTE ]
You have no proof that the presentation of god happened to a multitude of Jews (and at the same time, no less). In order to have this, you'd need more than a single person, eg Moses (or that stowaway Chaim) testifying that "God came last night to ALL of us Jews!"

Sorry but this is NOT how "historical facts" are made. You wanna talk Religion, keep on quoting the texts of the ancients/God Himself; you wanna talk History, you gotta change tack altogether.

[ QUOTE ]
Many secular historians acknowledge that the western world got its values and belief in God from the Jews.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its "values", no, sorry. (If by values we do not mean the religous-related stuff.) Its way of "believing in God", unfortunately (IMHO), yes, it did.

[ QUOTE ]
The Roman contributions were things like language, laws and engineering. The Greeks’ were democracy and artistic stuff, while the Jews gave the world their values and beliefs, including monotheism.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are badly underestimating the Greek influence. It lasted in some disciplines right up to two hundred years ago!

As to monotheism, it remains to be seen whether this is a blessing or a curse upon mankind. Give me the human-like Olympian twelve any time, if I must believe in something.

[ QUOTE ]
he two main influences on western culture are the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian cultures. I'm not claiming that the Jews were the first or only monotheists in the ancient world, only that they were the ones who were able to pass their beliefs on to others.

[/ QUOTE ]
The expansion of "Judaeo-Christian" ideas was made possible only because of Christianity. The "Judaeo-" part simply tagged along!

And this, as they say, is not a matter of debate but of historical fact.

And if it wasn't for Christianity, I'd speculate that there be would no Jewish religion, as such, at all, today.

[giddyup]

So, should I be under the impression that you also pick and choose what sects of religions are the best ones? Jesuits are the sects of the catholic church that concern themselves with education, which has been a threat to the catholic church and christianity since they have existed. Are you sure this is not why you feel this way about Jesuits? They seem like one of the most rational bunch out of all the religious sects I have encountered.

[giddyup]

I agree. Another thing to think about is whether an omnipotent god COULD change his mind about something. I mean, where is the perfection in that? We're all in for a lot of trouble if god does indeed exist and he changes his mind even a few more times.

[BluffTHIS!]

The Jesuits are not a sect, but an order of priests in the Catholic Church. And while their past is full of great scientists and educators, their example of the past 40 years has not been up to that level in those fields, nor in their primary task of being priests who are faithful to the teachings of the church.