Why Did the Jews Reject Christianity?

The Yeshiva.net ^ | 8/1/2010 | Rabbi Joseph Isaac Jacobson

[Phinneous]

A Jewish class on why Jews do not accept Christianity. I post for Jews to self-educate and for Christians to understand the Jewish point of view--not that it matters (that they do.)

[blasater1960]

וְקָרָאת שְׁמֹו עִמָּנוּ אֵֽל׃ And SHE WILL CALL his name Immanuel. Didnt happen. It is ridiculous to assert "G-d is with us" somehow masks the failure of Mary to call him Immanuel. Fail.

[TaraP]

There is a passage in the New testament when Jesus said
*It is Finished*

After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God.

Mark 16:19

The end of SIN through the sacrafice....Isn’t the point that the Levitical Priests never sit down because sin is never abolished?

The constant repetition of the daily and annual sacrifices proved that the Levitical sacrifices could not satisfy the righteousness of God or wouldn’t it be complete at some point?

[TaraP]

I agree with you, and I hope your SON will be blessed and healed with the Grace Mercy and healing hands of our Creator..

I see it this way:

Your Parents discipline you for dis-obedience and you can understand that because you understand that your parents love you, and that is why your punished..

However:
Say you do everything perfectly and your parents beat you to a pulp are you going to understand that?

G-d does not promise our life is going to be a walk in the park, bad things will happen, what he does promise is to never leave you alone in the storm... and that is *Faith* without it, no one can understand G-d they will feel like he has beaten them down for no reason.

[RaisingCain]

"Many..not all" --------------------------------------------------------------- Not everyone is a Christian. Though I'm glad you've accepted the fact that He is "baring" their sins. -- "and Jsus did NOT have prolonged days...did he. he died young." ------------------------------------------------------------- He rose again on the third day, ascended to the right hand of the Father, till all enemies are made His footstool, just as promised. Psa 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. -- "He did not have children...(hebrew word zerah ONLY means PHYSICAL children not spiritual).." ------------------------------------------------------------ Here is an example where the word zerah is used in the sense of raising up "seed" for someone other than yourself: Gen 38:8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. Zerah is also used when talking about "the seed of evildoers" or the "seed of" such and such. So the meaning, by use, refers also to the nature of people and not just to physical descendants of someone. The Bible also says that many nations would be joined to Him, and not just the Jews. Zec 2:10-11 Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD. (11) And many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto thee. --- "he was not killed with the rich and buried with the wicked....was he...no, Jesus was killed with the wicked and buried in a brand spanking new rich mans tomb." ------------------------------------------------------------- You didn't even read the scripture right: Isa 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. The words to not suggest sameness of place, but sameness in condition. Here is Barne's take on this: "Hengstenberg renders it, ‘They appointed him his grave with the wicked (but he was with a rich man after his death); although he had done nothing unrighteous, and there was no guile in his mouth.’ The sense, according to him, is, that not satisfied with his sufferings and death, they sought to insult him even in death, since they wished to bury his corpse among criminals. It is then incidentally remarked, that this object was not accomplished... ... They may be seen at length in Rosenmuller, Gesenius, and Hengstenberg. The word rendered ‘he made’ (נויתן vayitēn, from נתן nâthan) is a word of very frequent occurrence in the Scriptures. According to Gesenius, it means: 1. To give, as: (a) to give the hand to a victor; (b) to give into the hand of anyone, that is, the power; (c) to give, that is, to turn the back; (d) to give, that is, to yield fruit as a tree; (e) to give, that is, to show compassion: (f) to give honor, praise, etc.: (g) to give into prison, or into custody. 2. To sit, place, put, lay; (a) to set before anyone; (b) to set one over any person or thing; (c) to give one’s heart to anything; that is, to apply the mind, etc. 3. To make; (a) to make or constitute one as anything; (b) to make a thing as something else. The notion of giving, or giving over, is the essential idea of the word, and not that of making, as our translation would seem to imply; and the sense is, that he was given by design to the grave of the wicked, or it was intended that he should occupy such a grave. The meaning then would be: And his grave was appointed with the wicked; But he was with a rich man in his death - Although he had done no wrong, Neither was there any guile in his mouth" -- This was certainly fulfilled with Jesus being crucified between thieves, but buried in a rich man's tomb. -- "A plague befell THEM...how can Jesus be a them? Plural...the hebrew word there is L’amo....them. In all other places the KJV correctly translates Lamo as them...except here...that is deceitful." ------------------------------------------------------------- The word L'amo is also used in 44:15 as "it" due to the word pesel, which is the singular form for idol. Isa 44:15 Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto. Therefore, the subject determines if it is plural or not, at least the way Isaiah uses it. Since the subject starts off talking in the singular sense in Isaiah 53, it is read in the singular sense thereafter. The word "plague," by the way, can also refer to smote, striking, etc. Leaving a "mark" in other words of some kind. -- "The dramatic effect is in your mind...Just because you want a dramatic effect doesnt mean it is there. Asham is for LIMITED atonement. Sorry, if that is Jsus, that only covers about 6 intention sins...oops!" ------------------------------------------------------------- Every sacrifice in the old testament is a "limited atonement," insomuch that they must be performed over and over again. Nevertheless, the word is used in animal sacrifices for transgressions, and the context makes it clear it is no small matter in Isaiah 53. Just so you know, before about 1050 the ancient Jewish commentators generally applied Isaiah 53 to the Messiah. -- "An end to sin? Yeah, the church has done a great job of that right? " ------------------------------------------------------------ In the sense that my sins are forgiven perpetually and forever, they are not remembered any more, and I have a new nature that is permanently saved, I find the scripture fits. In the Jewish case though, there is no explanation for those scriptures. They pass over it, or they distort it, but they cannot answer them, since the 70 weeks of Daniel have long come and gone. -- "And as you did not address...Jsus blood was not sprinkled on the altar, his fat and ofal not burned. If, a Jew would have borrowed a roman cross, took it outside the city and nailed up a....lets say...a sheep. would that have been an acceptable sacrifice? of course not." ------------------------------------------------------------ If it was acceptable to God, it certainly was good enough. Isaiah 53 does not say that the servant is strapped to an altar and sacrificed "asham" which is the same word used for sacrificing animals for atonement. It says he was taken from judgment, delivered from prison to death. Nevertheless, He Himself makes His soul an offering for sin.

[RaisingCain]

REPOSTING SO THIS IS MORE LEGIBLE IN TWO DIFFERENT POSTS:

“Many..not all”

---

Not everyone is a Christian. Though I’m glad you’ve accepted the fact that He is “baring” their sins.

—
“and Jsus did NOT have prolonged days...did he. he died young.”

---

He rose again on the third day, ascended to the right hand of the Father, till all enemies are made His footstool, just as promised.

Psa 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

—
“He did not have children...(hebrew word zerah ONLY means PHYSICAL children not spiritual)..”

---

Here is an example where the word zerah is used in the sense of raising up “seed” for someone other than yourself:

Gen 38:8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

Zerah is also used when talking about “the seed of evildoers” or the “seed of” such and such. So the meaning, by use, refers also to the nature of people and not just to physical descendants of someone.

The Bible also says that many nations would be joined to Him, and not just the Jews.

Zec 2:10-11 Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD. (11) And many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto thee.

[RaisingCain]

--- "he was not killed with the rich and buried with the wicked....was he...no, Jesus was killed with the wicked and buried in a brand spanking new rich mans tomb." ------------------------------------------------------------- You didn't even read the scripture right: Isa 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. The words to not suggest sameness of place, but sameness in condition. Here is Barne's take on this: "Hengstenberg renders it, ‘They appointed him his grave with the wicked (but he was with a rich man after his death); although he had done nothing unrighteous, and there was no guile in his mouth.’ The sense, according to him, is, that not satisfied with his sufferings and death, they sought to insult him even in death, since they wished to bury his corpse among criminals. It is then incidentally remarked, that this object was not accomplished... ... They may be seen at length in Rosenmuller, Gesenius, and Hengstenberg. The word rendered ‘he made’ (נויתן vayitēn, from נתן nâthan) is a word of very frequent occurrence in the Scriptures. According to Gesenius, it means: 1. To give, as: (a) to give the hand to a victor; (b) to give into the hand of anyone, that is, the power; (c) to give, that is, to turn the back; (d) to give, that is, to yield fruit as a tree; (e) to give, that is, to show compassion: (f) to give honor, praise, etc.: (g) to give into prison, or into custody. 2. To sit, place, put, lay; (a) to set before anyone; (b) to set one over any person or thing; (c) to give one’s heart to anything; that is, to apply the mind, etc. 3. To make; (a) to make or constitute one as anything; (b) to make a thing as something else. The notion of giving, or giving over, is the essential idea of the word, and not that of making, as our translation would seem to imply; and the sense is, that he was given by design to the grave of the wicked, or it was intended that he should occupy such a grave. The meaning then would be: And his grave was appointed with the wicked; But he was with a rich man in his death - Although he had done no wrong, Neither was there any guile in his mouth" -- This was certainly fulfilled with Jesus being crucified between thieves, but buried in a rich man's tomb. -- "A plague befell THEM...how can Jesus be a them? Plural...the hebrew word there is L’amo....them. In all other places the KJV correctly translates Lamo as them...except here...that is deceitful." ------------------------------------------------------------- The word L'amo is also used in 44:15 as "it" due to the word pesel, which is the singular form for idol. Isa 44:15 Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto. Therefore, the subject determines if it is plural or not, at least the way Isaiah uses it. Since the subject starts off talking in the singular sense in Isaiah 53, it is read in the singular sense thereafter. The word "plague," by the way, can also refer to smote, striking, etc. Leaving a "mark" in other words of some kind.

[RaisingCain]

“The dramatic effect is in your mind...Just because you want a dramatic effect doesnt mean it is there. Asham is for LIMITED atonement. Sorry, if that is Jsus, that only covers about 6 intention sins...oops!”

---

Every sacrifice in the old testament is a “limited atonement,” insomuch that they must be performed over and over again. Nevertheless, the word is used in animal sacrifices for transgressions, and the context makes it clear it is no small matter in Isaiah 53.

Just so you know, before about 1050 the ancient Jewish commentators generally applied Isaiah 53 to the Messiah.

—
“An end to sin? Yeah, the church has done a great job of that right? “

---

In the sense that my sins are forgiven perpetually and forever, they are not remembered any more, and I have a new nature that is permanently saved, I find the scripture fits. In the Jewish case though, there is no explanation for those scriptures. They pass over it, or they distort it, but they cannot answer them, since the 70 weeks of Daniel have long come and gone.

—
“And as you did not address...Jsus blood was not sprinkled on the altar, his fat and ofal not burned. If, a Jew would have borrowed a roman cross, took it outside the city and nailed up a....lets say...a sheep. would that have been an acceptable sacrifice? of course not.”

---

If it was acceptable to God, it certainly was good enough. Isaiah 53 does not say that the servant is strapped to an altar and sacrificed “asham” which is the same word used for sacrificing animals for atonement. It says he was taken from judgment, delivered from prison to death. Nevertheless, He Himself makes His soul an offering for sin.

[RaisingCain]

“And come on....Jeremiahs ENEMIES wanted to cut-off Jeremiah because they wanted to get rid of him. You have to pay attention to WHO is speaking.”and let us cut him off” And what happened to them? G-d took them out! G-d did not not allow Jeremiah to get murdered...did he.”

---

You don’t know what you’re talking about. Jeremiah was himself speaking, and talking about what they wanted to do to him. It is illogical to think that if the word implied inherent evil in the person being cut off, that he would use it on himself even when describing what others wanted to do with him. You also have not answered any of my other objections. The word has no such meaning as you continue to assert over and over again.

[Phinneous]

“As to why Jews today reject Jesus as Messiah, I think it is partly due to the anti-Jewish persecution perpetrated on the Jews by so-called “Christian” leaders and governments throughout the past 1500 years. I think there is also this cultural/family/historical Jewish foundational rejection of Christianity that makes it very difficult for Jews to accept Jesus as Messiah - this would, in their minds, deny their heritage and people.”
_______________________________________
Hi. Nope. Listen to the class or read a summary: Any would-be prophet or miracle worker (even one who rises from the dead...and by the way, all non-Jews, note well-— ALMOST ALL of the rabbis of the Mishnaic and Talmudic era (1st-7th centuries) could raise the dead-— (see Talmud tractate Avodah Zara, an excerpt: A secret cave led from the palace of Antoninus to the house of Rabbi Yehudah. Daily Antoninus would visit Rabbi Yehudah and study Torah with him, but he wanted this to be secret. He would bring two servants with him, killing one at the entrance to the house of Rabbi Yehudah, and another on return. Antoninus told Rabbi Yehudah that nobody should be present at their meeting, but one day Rabbi Chanina bar Chama was there.

Antoninus was upset, but Rabbi Yehudah told Antoninus, “It is not a man, but an angel.” To verify this, Antoninus told Rabbi Chanina, “Go and wake my servant, sleeping at the door.” Rabbi Chanina found the servant dead. Not wanting to either come back with the bad news, or to flee, Rabbi Chanina revived the servant. Antoninus said, “I know that the least among you can resurrect the dead, but please next time nobody should be with you.”

.... Jews don’t care about miracles if the performer of the miracles purports to change the Torah. We are so stubborn now and they were stubborn then when the “least amoung us could resurrect the dead...”

I will tell you this, Christianity is ‘easier’ than the (heavy yoke of the laws of) Judaism (/sarc) so sure, with centuries of exile and horrific persecution one can win a few converts.

Jews ask nothing of non-Jews but to obey the 7 laws that G-d obliges them to follow. You don’t know (most Jews don’t) that in our code of Jewish law it’s an OBLIGATION to promote these laws (http://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/62221/jewish/Universal-Morality.htm) when one’s life wouldn’t be rubbed out by a Cossack by doing so.

The Jewish version of Hell isn’t fire and brimstone, that is actually lifted from Kabbalistic sources of Jewish ‘purgatory.’ The real Hell is knowing that one had the chance to connect with one’s Creator and failed to do so. There is nothing better than objective commandments. We love it. (we have 613 of them, positive and negative, and their offshoots. You have 7...)

Sorry I chose your post to free-style a little bit. I’ve been popping in and out all day and still see only one response from someone who listened to the class.

Furthermore, lest anyone would think otherwise, Jews don’t hate non-Jews, G-d forbid. We are all created by G-d in his image. And to challenge yourselves with more mistranslations, go read what it means to be (as Ezekiel reports) “...This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. ...” What the heck is the appearance of a likeness of glory? It means nothing in English! And how do you have a form or figure of the formless/figureless G-d? And how do Jews accept this prophecy but not a man-god?! Because we do. You have to learn all our sources and traditions before bringing any other proof. And if you have a few thousand/million converts from the faith... see my point above. It’s hard to be a Jew.

Final point of the rant. “It’s hard to be a Jew” was the mantra of new immigrants to their assimilating children. These children said, “If it’s hard...then I’ll do something easier!” The Chassidic outlook on Judaism, and indeed, every Jew’s outlook, is that it’s GREAT to be a Jew. We don’t only call ourselves chosen...we call ourselves the only son born to parents in their old age. So when our Father in Heaven gives us a Torah and commandments to follow, we love them. In fact, if He says, “dig me a hole then refill it” we dance for joy at having been commanded by our Father and King.

Seriously, I should set up a separate rant. Whoever posted about “Jewish worship through academics” or something like that...would you read my rant-blog if I set it up? ;)

[blasater1960]

“I am not trying to be confrontational, just trying to understand.”

Awesome..nice change of pace...

You are right...withing each of us in Jewish teaching is the yetzer hara and the yetzer tov. Yetzer hara means , loosely, evil inclination. So, conversely we have a inclination to good, the “tov”. So, the basics of it all would be something like this.

We are constantly “at war” so to speak with our evil inclination...when we serve G-d, through acts of kindness, mercy and so on, we are putting down the yetzer hara and that brings us close to G-d. Not out of burden do we do these commandments, but out of love for G-d. When we sin, we fall but we get back up, repent, turn away from the sin and keep trying. It is a process. My model is King David, read Psalm 119...176 verses...the longest in the bible, the topic? His love of the law. This is how David maintained a relationship with G-d. As, I mentioned earlier...

18. For You do not wish a sacrifice, or I should give it; You do not desire a burnt offering.
19. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; O God, You will not despise a broken and crushed heart.

Notice one thing...in all of the Tanakh (OT) there is not a single case...not one...where David...or Joe..or anyone is shown sinning and then taking an animal off to the temple for a sacrifice. Isnt that odd? If sacrifice is SO central to a relationship with G-d?

But what do we see CONSTANTLY requested of us by G-d? Do and obey...rend your hearts...not your garments...or this.

6. With what shall I come before the Lord, bow before the Most High God? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with yearling calves?
7. Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with myriad streams of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
8. He has told you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord demands of you; but to do justice, to love loving-kindness, and to walk discreetly with your God.

So, in other words, do the commandments out of love. And when you do, you will care for your fellow man, love your neighbor as yourself (That is OT!), care for the widow and orphan, treat each other with justice.

The constant need for sacrifices were because the the temple was Holy. And there was a need to keep it that way. That is why nearly all sacrifices were for UNintentional sin...not intentional. Keep in mind G-ds presence was there, so we had to be very careful. And there were sacrifices that didnt have anything to do with sin. This was also a source of food for the poor and the people in general. There was a certain BBQ aspect to some of it. The food did not go to waste.

Also, there are deeper levels of spirituality when you do have to take an animal, it is not easy to do. Animals were costly and if you were attached to them...very difficult.

So, to sum up. G-d gives us means of atonement with and without a temple. Having a temple means greater levels of observance. But we primarily have a relationship with G-d by doing what he asks out of love and when we blow it...we pray..repent..give to charity...fast..and keep moving ahead. The more yetzer tov a person can manage, the more the yetzer hara is minimized and the deeper the relationship with G-d. And there are lots of biblical verses to back all this up also!

[RaisingCain]

"וְקָרָאת שְׁמֹו עִמָּנוּ אֵֽל׃ And SHE WILL CALL his name Immanuel. Didnt happen. It is ridiculous to assert "G-d is with us" somehow masks the failure of Mary to call him Immanuel. Fail." --------------------------------------------------------------- The real fail is that you haven't even checked to see how Isaiah uses the phrase. For example: Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. But, just a few chapters ago, it was to be called Immanuel. Here are further examples to confirm the pattern: Isa 61:6 But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves. Isa 62:4 Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the LORD delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married. It is not so much that they are named that, but that they ARE that. It refers to both a title and their true nature that men would call them so many different things. The Gospel of Matthew specifically quotes the Immanuel prophecy, even as he details the virgin birth and Christ's name. The ancients understood Isaiah better than you. Well, that's not difficult though.

[blasater1960]

“Every sacrifice in the old testament is a “limited atonement,” insomuch that they must be performed over and over again.”

Exactly...so show me ONE verse in Tanakh that changes that to a “one size fits all forever” sacrifice. Not there..is it.

” Just so you know, before about 1050 the ancient Jewish commentators generally applied Isaiah 53 to the Messiah”

Heard it all before...not true. Not even close.

“does not say that the servant is strapped to an altar and sacrificed “

Exactly....then he obviously isnt “the slain lamb that takes away the sin of the world” then is he. And Isaiah NEVER uses the word messiah either...does he. Just an oversight?

Here is the correct view of Dan 9

http://www.judaismsanswer.com/Daniel%209%20Chronology.pdf

[Kudsman]

Thank you. I will continue reading. The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know.

[RaisingCain]

“Exactly...so show me ONE verse in Tanakh that changes that to a “one size fits all forever” sacrifice. Not there..is it.”

---

Almost the entire chapter 9 of Daniel, which states that at the end of the 70 weeks “reconciliation” would be made, an end to sin, a sealing (fulfilling) of prophecy, etc etc would be done. And it ends with the destruction of the Jewish temple. That can only mean the Temple standing wouldn’t be necessary for the reconciliation.

[blasater1960]

"The Gospel of Matthew specifically quotes the Immanuel prophecy" uh, yeah, he quotes it wrong lol...oops. “ BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” They? no, SHE WILL CALL him Immanuel. Not so inspired eh?

[blasater1960]

Sure thing..no problem!

[aruanan]

Any would-be prophet or miracle worker (even one who rises from the dead...and by the way, all non-Jews, note well-— ALMOST ALL of the rabbis of the Mishnaic and Talmudic era (1st-7th centuries) could raise the dead-—

You don't see the origin of this in the effort of first century Jews to redefine their system in reaction to nascent Christianity. "Oh, yeah? He can raise the dead? Big deal, we can all do that!" Since the first century there has been Christianity and there has been hopelessly reactionary Judaism ("Hey, first off, we are NOT that thing over there!" The shema, "Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One" has inevitably carried the subtext, "And there's no way in the world that it's Jesus!"). Of the Judaism that existed prior to the first century, there remains but a long and sad echo.

[Cvengr]

The existence of spiritual life in any one believer disproves your point.

[blasater1960]

“Almost the entire chapter 9 of Daniel,”

You’re kidding right? No where does it say that messiah will kill himself to put an end to sin. This is the hight of circular reasoning and eisegesis.

If your eisegesis were true...Christians would not sin...well we know that isnt true. For most of the last 2000 years, a rather bloody bunch. And again, your counting of the 70 weeks is wayyyy off. It is bad math. Look, Daniel was a Jew, I would advise listening to the Jewish Rabbi’s exposit this Jewish text and not attempt to shoe-horn the man from Nazareth into Daniel. It doesnt work. He doesnt fit.

[blasater1960]

“The existence of spiritual life in any one believer disproves your point.”

What about spiritual Mormons? Buddists? Muslims? Acting spiritually, while better than not, obviously, is no indicator of truth.