Reasons Jews Reject Jesus

[Matthias]

“The rabbis failed to recognize one other possibility - that the Messiah was to atone for the sins of the people first and then return as the Exalted One to establish his kingdom. This view, of course, inevitably leads to Yeshua as the Messiah, a truth that escaped the rabbis of past and present. Supported by the Tanach, this view resolves the dilemma faced by most Talmudic rabbis.

The rabbis strove to resolve the two distinct threads of prophecies in the Tanach. As a man standing afar off looking at two mountain peaks in direct line, they were unable to discern the ‘time gulf’ that existed between those peaks. With the hindsight of a ‘quarterback,’ and the additional revelation of the Brit Hadasha (New Covenant) the theory which best resolves the paradox is that the one Messiah was to come in two different eras for two distinct purposes. He was to come first as the Suffering Savior to atone for the sins of the people and to bring peace to those who repented and received the atonement in faith. He is to come next as Exalted King to reign judgment upon the unjust and to establish his Messianic Kingdom forever.”

(Ibid., p. 8)

 

[Eliyahu613]

I take that as a “I don’t want to see that in scripture”.

Bs"d

If you have proof from Isaiah or the rest of the Tanach that Isaiah 53 speaks about the messiah, then please share that with me.

You don't want to let your fellow man burn in hell forever and ever now, do you?

 

[Eliyahu613]

“The rabbis also were aware the Tanach predicted that Messiah would be both humiliated and exalted. They tried to resolve this apparent contradiction in three different ways.

Bs"d

I don't do predictions of the rabbi's, I go by the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, a.k.a the Tanach.

 

[Eliyahu613]

I understand your sentiment but that’s not how I take his comment. I think he genuinely doesn’t see it in scripture.

I know this will be hard for you to do, but try for a moment: throw away the New Testament. Pretend for a moment that it doesn’t exist and never did. If we can do that, we can place ourselves where he, essentially, is now.

If it helps, turn back the clock in your mind - to, say, 100 BC. and think of yourself living at that time. In that setting, read Isaiah 53.

Is Isaiah speaking about a person or a people? He says a people. What do you say? Can you read the text without any thought about Jesus (which is what he is doing) and understand that Isaiah isn’t speaking about a person? To believe what he believes about Isaiah 53, that’s what you would have to be able to do.

I’ve spoken with Jews who were not able to read Isaiah 53 as he does. They understood Isaiah to have been speaking about a person, even the messiah, but were not able to agree with those Jews who lived in NT times and applied what is written in Isaiah to Jesus.

The first hurdle that has to be cleared is that Isaiah is speaking about a specific person. Until a Jew is able to clear that hurdle, there is nothing we can say to persuade a person to believe that Isaiah 53 has anything to do with the messiah.

I like @Eliyahu613 (and I agree with him on some key points and issues) but we have to recognize that he hasn’t yet cleared that hurdle. But not only that. It isn’t that he doesn’t want to; it’s that he can’t with a clear conscience.

Bs"d

You make some good points.

The whole point is; first you have to be a Christian, first you have to believe in a suffering and dying messiah, who dies for the sins of all mankind, and only after you believe all that, only then can you see the messiah in Isaiah 53.

But when you realize that there is no suffering and dying messiah to be found in the Tanach, when you understand that no messiah who dies for the sins of all mankind is to be found in the Tanach, and when you then look at Isaiah 53 objectively, and in its context, then you understand that there is no messiah in Isaiah 53.

But it looks like it is clear now that nobody can bring any proof from the Tanach that Isaiah 53 speaks about the messiah. And that's a good start.

 

[Eliyahu613]

I’d like to get to know and understand you better. Were you a denominational or nondenominational Christian? If denominational, which one?

Bs"d

Seventh day adventist.

 

[Matthias]

Bs"d

If you have proof from Isaiah or the rest of the Tanach that Isaiah 53 speaks about the messiah, then please share that with me.

I’ve shared with you how the 1st century Jews who believed Jesus is the messiah interpreted scripture.

It has to do with their view of the unnamed coming messiah as the ideal representative of Israel. With that hermeneutic in mind, they saw in the life of one of their contemporaries a man who fit the hermeneutic.

You don't want to let your fellow man burn in hell forever and ever now, do you?

I think you’re forgetting that there are few Christians who believe what I believe.

I don’t believe my fellow man will burn in hell forever and ever. You mentioned that you were a Seventh Day Adventist before converting to Orthodox Judaism. Do you by chance recall an SDA named LeRoy Froom? Or perhaps an SDA named Edward Fudge?

I don’t believe my fellow man will burn in hell forever and ever. I believe in conditional immortality and the destruction of the wicked in the lake of fire.

“Let my fellow man” is an interesting phrase. I don’t have the power to let my fellowman do anything, nor the power to prevent my fellow man from doing anything. What my fellow man does or doesn’t do is on my fellow man.

 

[Matthias]

Bs"d

You make some good points.

The whole point is; first you have to be a Christian, first you have to believe in a suffering and dying messiah, who dies for the sins of all mankind, and only after you believe all that, only then can you see the messiah in Isaiah 53.

Thanks. I don’t agree with your “whole point.“ People are converted to Christianity. The unconverted sometimes see it for themselves when reading Isaiah 53; others are taught about Isaiah 53 before they become Christians.

I’ve spoken with some Jews who have told me they see the messiah in Isaiah 53 but don’t believe Jesus is him. They weren’t Christians and, to the best of my knowledge, didn’t become Christians.

But when you realize that there is no suffering and dying messiah to be found in the Tanach, when you understand that no messiah who dies for the sins of all mankind is to be found in the Tanach, and when you then look at Isaiah 53 objectively, and in its context, then you understand that there is no messiah in Isaiah 53.

I think you speak for the majority in Judaism but you don’t speak for all in Judaism.

But it looks like it is clear now that nobody can bring any proof from the Tanach that Isaiah 53 speaks about the messiah. And that's a good start.

The proof for me is the New Testament Jewish (and non-Jewish) believers in Jesus.

 

[Matthias]

Bs"d

I don't do predictions of the rabbi's, I go by the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, a.k.a the Tanach.

Are you saying that the rabbis, with their various views, didn’t go by the prophets?

 

[Eliyahu613]

The proof for me is the New Testament Jewish (and non-Jewish) believers in Jesus.

Bs"d

And that proof is even as strong as the proof of a Muslim, who believes that the suffering servant is Muhammed, and who thinks his fellow believers in de Quran are proof for him.

In other words: No proof.

 

[Matthias]

Bs"d

And that proof is even as strong as the proof of a Muslim, who believes that the suffering servant is Muhammed, and who thinks his fellow believers in de Quran are proof for him.

In other words: No proof.

No one should believe something they aren’t persuaded is true.

”but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the messiah, the son of God; and that believing you may have life in his name.”

(John 20:31)

I’m fully persuaded that the witness is true.

Everyone must decide for themselves whether or not they are persuaded by the witness.

 

[Matthias]

But it looks like it is clear now that nobody can bring any proof from the Tanach that Isaiah 53 speaks about the messiah.

You haven’t proved the NT witness is false. All you’ve done is rejected it.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Bs"d

If you have proof from Isaiah or the rest of the Tanach that Isaiah 53 speaks about the messiah, then please share that with me.

You don't want to let your fellow man burn in hell forever and ever now, do you?

Acts 8:28-35

If you don’t accept that one piece of evidence then it’s your loss.

 

[Matthias]

Acts 8:28-35

If you don’t accept that one piece of evidence then it’s your loss.

Philip is a Jew who believed Isaiah was speaking prophetically about the messiah (and that Jesus of Nazareth is the messiah.) @Eliyahu613 is a Jew who doesn’t believe Philip, and the reason he doesn’t believe him is because he doesn’t believe Isaiah is even speaking about the messiah to begin with.

***

The question isn’t what Philip believed Isaiah is talking about but rather why Philip believes Isaiah is talking about the messiah.

Why does Philip believe Isaiah is speaking about the messiah in that passage?

There’s no reason in the Old Testament that Philip (or anyone else) should believe Isaiah is talking about the messiah, is the objection.

Until that is answered to his satisfaction, it doesn’t matter to him that Philip also believed Jesus is the messiah.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

it doesn’t matter to him that Philip also believed Jesus is the messiah.

“And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying…” (Acts 8:26)

Then he’s a fool to reject the belief of a New Testament saint who was directly spoken to by the angel of the Lord.

 

[NayborBear]

Bs"d

I take that as a "no".

Anybody else maybe who can give some proof from Isaiah or the rest of the Tanach that Isaiah 53 speaks about the messiah?

Isaiah 53:
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

 

[Matthias]

“And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying…” (Acts 8:26)

You’re relying on the NT witness, as am I. @Eliyahu613 isn’t.

Then he’s a fool to reject the belief of a New Testament saint who was directly spoken to by the angel of the Lord.

You believe Philip was spoken directly to by the angel and I believe Philip was spoken directly to by the angel. We accept the NT witness. He doesn’t accept the NT witness.

I suppose he might say something like Philip can assert that an angel spoke directly to him but that doesn’t mean that it’s true.

Your approach resonates with me but it doesn’t address his objection: what is the Old Testament reason, or proof, why anyone should think Isaiah was dven speaking about the messiah?

 

[Matthias]

Isaiah 53:
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

The issue is that @Eliyahu613 doesn’t believe Isaiah is even speaking about the messiah in this passage. Bolding the text won’t cause him to change his mind. The text is speaking about Israel corporately being despised and rejected, is his argument.

In other words, ”He” isn’t the messiah. “He” is the people of Israel.

 

[JohnD]

The Hebrew Tanakh are the scriptures that prophesied Yeshua HaMoshiakh...
351 Old Testament Prophecies Jesus fulfilled

Furthermore I have gone toe to toe over Jeremiah 31:31-34 (Yirimyahu 31:30-33) citing the New Covenant with Judah and Israel that is entirely unlike the Old Covenant made at Mount Sinai. Establishing a distinction between Old Covenant Law and the New Covenant Law of Christ which the Apostle Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 9:21.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

He doesn’t accept the NT witness.

And to him I say (with our Lord Jesus Christ):

“…O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken..:” (Luke 24:25)

 

[Eliyahu613]

You haven’t proved the NT witness is false. All you’ve done is rejected it.

Bs"d

You are doing the same with the Quran.