Reasons Jews Reject Jesus

[Mr E]

And now, I take my leave and bow out of the thread. I began earnestly in conversation specifically with @Wrangler in response to his OP and stated effort. Now, I find that start to be a little disingenuous. Like many here, he starts with a question they don't really want answered or even explored, what they want is to expound their own opinions and perspectives-- which is fine, by the way. They should just say that, and not pretend to be launching an honest inquiry.

A bridge-builder who sets aflame before he makes it across, the proposal he offers is to say to the Jews-- I understand how you feel-- you're just wrong.

That's a fine bridge. Maybe you could sell it to someone, just not the Jews. In the past, people had very little understanding of genetics, and their genealogy was limited to a recording of who begat whom. Believers today have no such escape hatch. We do understand how biology works and how genes (DNA) get passed down through descendants from parents (two of them) to their fruit (offspring). We have no excuse to feign ignorance.

I'll take up the topic in a separate (unorthodox) thread if anyone is interested and leave this one in peace.

 

[Mr E]

 

[Johann]

Is everything you post a cut and paste effort? Do you have any original thoughts of your own that you aren't simply regurgitating from some other source? I do appreciate your diligence to cite sources, but your posts become tiresome in that you link lengthy articles, multiples of such, sometimes hours-long videos and so forth. Are you capable of having an actual conversation?

I didn't intend to be mean-spirited in calling you 'Sherlock' --it was at best a flippant remark and I apologize for offending you. What I mean with that moniker is directly related to your posts, like this above- in addition to your earlier attempts to somehow 'expose' my motives and/or beliefs as something nefarious. God examines the heart.

I see you grasping at straws. Like Sherlock Holmes, you are suggesting that everything must be deduced, and the clues must be followed to get beyond the evidence. I disagree. I think the evidence should certainly be examined and understood, not ignored or 'staged' somehow in order to support whatever case you are trying to make.

I'll offer an example. No where does Luke (or anyone in scripture) say that the genealogy he records is that of Mary, the mother of Jesus. You throw that out there as many do, as an idea to be considered. There's some good evidence of that, but it's nowhere stated. However, following that trail of clues to a logical conclusion, you would still be left with the 'monumental problem' (as Singer calls it) of Joseph not being a biological father, and thus Jesus, though the son of Mary, NOT being the actual son of Joseph and having no blood trail back to David. Jesus wouldn't be from David's seed, having received no Y chromosome (Mary doesn't have one to offer- she is XX) from a father in that dynastic line. The second problem is that, even if Joseph was adopted (again- never even inferred in scripture) by Mary's father Heli, the direct seed is not passed down through adoption. Lastly, and fatally to the idea-- is that the line recorded in Luke doesn't trace back to David through Solomon, rather it follows back to David's son Nathan. The Davidic line is firmly established in scripture as descending from David to and through his son Solomon.

Interesting, I would rather prefer to "copy and paste" the resources, as written by the author, and not use my opinions and philosophies.

Like you, I have listened extensively, for years, the debates from Singer and Scobac and have yet to witness a Christian apologist coming close to win a debate against any rabbi, or debates against Immams.
But the Lord is raising up an apologist that can stand his own--

R. L. Solberg analyzes Rabbi Michael Skobac's cross-examination of Colossians chapter 2 and provides a defense of the Christian truth claims.

I also have a debate between Brown and Singer where the rabbi was at a loss of words. Make no mistake, I appreciate Singer and Jews for Judaism, but they are in error as they say we [Christians] are in error and need to embrace Hashem.

The Shema

Yisroel Adonoi Eloheinu Adonoi Echad.
And thou shalt love Hashem Eloheicha b'chol l'vavcha u'vchol nafshcha uvechol modecha.
And these devarim, which I command thee today, shall be in thine lev;
And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy banim, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine bais, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

You said Michael Brown don't have the answers, and I disagree--have you read his 4 volume refutations against rabbi's?

My apologies for upsetting you with my "copy and paste" or to "expose" your motifs and beliefs as nefarious since that is not my intention--just concerned.

But, like you said, I am barking up the wrong tree or "grasping at straws" so I'll just sit back and see how you and @Wrangler, knowing the Jewish mindset, go to work with the Scriptures, without using other sources [rabbinical] such as the Talmud, Midrash, Mishna and other available sources and just philosophize--you are an intelligent man, I am just an Afrikaner, English not my mother tongue.

Floor is yours brother, I won't interject or upset you again since I am tired of fighting.
J.

 

[Lizbeth]

You completely miss my point. I'm arguing that Jesus WAS a direct descendant of David in the most natural and biblical way.

All those verses you reference say the same thing. Descendant, from the ROOT of David, a branch of David's tree. Just read the record-- Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham.... and it begins---- Abraham, the father of, the father of, the father of- right up to AND INCLUDING Joseph.

There is just so much speculation involved to be able to insist otherwise. You might believe otherwise, but you can't honestly insist. You can't say "I'm sure" as you claim. There are many who insist that Mary was a Levite, and not even from the tribe of Judah- which would deflate your theory instantly. Elizabeth-- Mary's cousin was a Levite- a descendant of Aaron.... it's therefore at least 50% likely that Mary too was a Levite. You only have a 1/12 probability that she was from the tribe of Judah- because it's unknown. We know her cousin's line-- that's 100% more evidence than you can offer.

Look.... I know this is a difficult, uncomfortable conversation. But seed means one thing only. The messiah had to come from David's nutsack. That's scripture. The seed (semen) or Y chromosome or manhood is only passed from father to son. That's biology. It's also scripture. The two are in agreement. It matters nothing to me that you are not in agreement with either.

I entered the discussion reluctantly. It only gets more difficult from here. Maybe it's not for you. Maybe you should sit this one out.

There's no need to be crude, you really should edit that.

I gather you are denying a virgin birth took place? or did they have the know-how to do artificial insemination back then? What is your explanation if there was no virgin birth...you would have to deny the word of the God.

Mary wasn't a Levite, though she had some relatives who were.....in her genealogy she is descended from Judah.....Aaron is not mentioned in her genealogy, though he may have been in a branch offshoot somewhere (though that wouldn't make her a Levite). And that genealogy in Luke 3 has to be her genealogy, there is no other explanation, apart from saying the word of God is mistaken or lying, since the Matthew and Luke genealogies don't match.

Jesus was certainly counted to be from Judah.....Hebrews says a change of the law necessitated a change of the priesthood, so under the new covenant the priesthood is now from the tribe of Judah, no longer from tribe of Levi. (Jesus being our High Priest)

Once again, Mary being female doesn't mean she wasn't a descendant from the loins of David. Since a biological father can pass either x or y chromosome to descendants, not just y only. It's the father who determines the gender of the child this way. I had two great great great great grandfathers who presumably were alive at one time and I am their biological descendant aren't I?

You would need proof that what was prophesied to David necessitated a lineage that totally excludes female descendants. I just dont' see that it was necessary at all, unless I'm missing something here. David had biological sons, who had sons and daughters, who had sons and daughters.....etc...until you get to Mary.....all originating from David.

1st question: Was Jesus Genealogy Traced Through Mary - Rabbi TOVIA SINGER - 1442

Listen to this--and after that, never listen to any rabbi @Lizbeth


Counter rebuttal [Hebrew Roots Movement--but an excellent rebuttal]

Stay strong.
J.

Thanks brother, I'll certainly give them a listen.

 

[Wrangler]

And now, I take my leave and bow out of the thread. Now, I find that start to be a little disingenuous.

How so?

A bridge-builder who sets aflame before he makes it across, the proposal he offers is to say to the Jews-- I understand how you feel-- you're just wrong.

Strawman. I am an Apologist, after all, posting in the Apologetics thread.

I am reminded of the quip by Luther at his trial, Here I stand. I can do no other. Not sure how you expect entrenched debates in your build bridging metaphor to go?

I can and do concede points irrelevant to Jesus being the Messiah. However, I reject false standards designed to disqualify our lord.

Perhaps we disagree that if 1 valid reason holds, then it means the Messiah has yet to come. Carry on.

 

[Johann]

There's no need to be crude, you really should edit that.

I gather you are denying a virgin birth took place? or did they have the know-how to do artificial insemination back then? What is your explanation if there was no virgin birth...you would have to deny the word of the God.

Mary wasn't a Levite, though she had some relatives who were.....in her genealogy she is descended from Judah.....Aaron is not mentioned in her genealogy, though he may have been in a branch offshoot somewhere (though that wouldn't make her a Levite). And that genealogy in Luke 3 has to be her genealogy, there is no other explanation, apart from saying the word of God is mistaken or lying, since the Matthew and Luke genealogies don't match.

Jesus was certainly counted to be from Judah.....Hebrews says a change of the law necessitated a change of the priesthood, so under the new covenant the priesthood is now from the tribe of Judah, no longer from tribe of Levi. (Jesus being our High Priest)

Once again, Mary being female doesn't mean she wasn't a descendant from the loins of David. Since a biological father can pass either x or y chromosome to descendants, not just y only. It's the father who determines the gender of the child this way. I had two great great great great grandfathers who presumably were alive at one time and I am their biological descendant aren't I?

You would need proof that what was prophesied to David necessitated a lineage that totally excludes female descendants. I just dont' see that it was necessary at all, unless I'm missing something here. David had biological sons, who had sons and daughters, who had sons and daughters.....etc...until you get to Mary.....all originating from David.

Thanks brother, I'll certainly give them a listen.

Seems I could learn a lot from you @Lizbeth

 

[Lizbeth]

Interesting, I would rather prefer to "copy and paste" the resources, as written by the author, and not use my opinions and philosophies.

Like you, I have listened extensively, for years, the debates from Singer and Scobac and have yet to witness a Christian apologist coming close to win a debate against any rabbi, or debates against Immams.
But the Lord is raising up an apologist that can stand his own--

R. L. Solberg analyzes Rabbi Michael Skobac's cross-examination of Colossians chapter 2 and provides a defense of the Christian truth claims.

I also have a debate between Brown and Singer where the rabbi was at a loss of words. Make no mistake, I appreciate Singer and Jews for Judaism, but they are in error as they say we [Christians] are in error and need to embrace Hashem.

The Shema

Yisroel Adonoi Eloheinu Adonoi Echad.
And thou shalt love Hashem Eloheicha b'chol l'vavcha u'vchol nafshcha uvechol modecha.
And these devarim, which I command thee today, shall be in thine lev;
And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy banim, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine bais, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

You said Michael Brown don't have the answers, and I disagree--have you read his 4 volume refutations against rabbi's?

My apologies for upsetting you with my "copy and paste" or to "expose" your motifs and beliefs as nefarious since that is not my intention--just concerned.

But, like you said, I am barking up the wrong tree or "grasping at straws" so I'll just sit back and see how you and @Wrangler, knowing the Jewish mindset, go to work with the Scriptures, without using other sources [rabbinical] such as the Talmud, Midrash, Mishna and other available sources and just philosophize--you are an intelligent man, I am just an Afrikaner, English not my mother tongue.

Floor is yours brother, I won't interject or upset you again since I am tired of fighting.
J.

Your hard work is appreciated brother. I'm sure it takes more 'grey matter' to be conversant with so many writings of others, than it does to only be conversant with one's own thoughts. More humility too. I wish more Christian men would take the time and make the effort to become familiar with how to refute the arguments of the anti-missionary Jews and help the body of Christ to be prepared to meet this attack on the faith.

 

[Johann]

Your hard work is appreciated brother. I'm sure it takes more 'grey matter' to be conversant with so many writings of others, than it does to only be conversant with one's own thoughts. More humility too. I wish more Christian men would take the time and make the effort to become familiar with how to refute the arguments of the anti-missionary Jews and help the body of Christ to be prepared to meet this attack on the faith.

I really appreciate this, coming from you @Lizbeth
Shalom to you and precious family
J.

 

[Johann]

Your hard work is appreciated brother. I'm sure it takes more 'grey matter' to be conversant with so many writings of others, than it does to only be conversant with one's own thoughts. More humility too. I wish more Christian men would take the time and make the effort to become familiar with how to refute the arguments of the anti-missionary Jews and help the body of Christ to be prepared to meet this attack on the faith.

Don't sell yourself short sister, you have taught me a lot in these couple of days since I met you and appreciate your pathos for our Lord Jesus Christ.
J.

 

[Adam]

So why not start another thread?

What I am saying is a direct response to the question of how Jesus is descended from David given the broken patrilineal chain.

David is Jesus' lord and Jesus is David's lord. That is the riddle Jesus posed when specifically asked about the afterlife.

Either: Jesus is David's lord spiritually but son in the flesh - false because Jesus is not David's physical son. And neither would this be relevant to the subject of the afterlife, it would make Jesus' riddle a nonsequitur to the topic he had been discussing.

Or Jesus and David are coequal and bound to eachother in some way related to the afterlife. Figure out which way that is and you will have the answer to OP's first question.

My solution: Jesus is David's son and also his lord because he is who David becomes.

 

[Waiting on him]

There's no need to be crude, you really should edit that.

I gather you are denying a virgin birth took place? or did they have the know-how to do artificial insemination back then? What is your explanation if there was no virgin birth...you would have to deny the word of the God.

Mary wasn't a Levite, though she had some relatives who were.....in her genealogy she is descended from Judah.....Aaron is not mentioned in her genealogy, though he may have been in a branch offshoot somewhere (though that wouldn't make her a Levite). And that genealogy in Luke 3 has to be her genealogy, there is no other explanation, apart from saying the word of God is mistaken or lying, since the Matthew and Luke genealogies don't match.

Jesus was certainly counted to be from Judah.....Hebrews says a change of the law necessitated a change of the priesthood, so under the new covenant the priesthood is now from the tribe of Judah, no longer from tribe of Levi. (Jesus being our High Priest)

Once again, Mary being female doesn't mean she wasn't a descendant from the loins of David. Since a biological father can pass either x or y chromosome to descendants, not just y only. It's the father who determines the gender of the child this way. I had two great great great great grandfathers who presumably were alive at one time and I am their biological descendant aren't I?

You would need proof that what was prophesied to David necessitated a lineage that totally excludes female descendants. I just dont' see that it was necessary at all, unless I'm missing something here. David had biological sons, who had sons and daughters, who had sons and daughters.....etc...until you get to Mary.....all originating from David.

Thanks brother, I'll certainly give them a listen.

We should probably heed Paul’s warning, and not give any attention to fables and genealogies?

 

[Waiting on him]

Hebrews 7:9-10 KJV
[9] And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. [10] For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

 

[Lizbeth]

We should probably heed Paul’s warning, and not give any attention to fables and genealogies?

Hi, I agree that as believers we're aware that "now we know no man after the flesh", and "the flesh profits nothing", so in one sense we pay genealogies no heed. But since there are these genealogies in the gospels, surrounding Jesus' lineage, they must be there for a reason and not something we should skip over in reading/learning/teaching in the church.

And since there are those who seek to undermine our faith in Jesus as Messiah, we especially need to arm ourselves to be able to stand against that onslaught. Christians are losing their faith and being taken captive to this.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

I gather you are denying a virgin birth took place?

Only sharing an opinion (not especially to you but to the debates over a virgin birth, and messianic verses.)

Early someone had said “virgin” was and is not there but there is a deception notion to “virgin” that I’ve fell for without much reasoning or thought.

In regards to “a virgin birth” to me it isn’t someone convincing me whether the word “virgin” is there or not …but it is removing what “a virgin birth” reveals. For example when Paul said “present you a chase virgin unto Christ.”. Even further …to remove “a virgin birth” is to remove “a new birth from above” or to remove “a virgin birth” is to remove “New Jerusalem from above and the mother of us all” to me it is like saying “no. No. It never spoke of New Jerusalem which is free where nothing uncircumcised or unclean comes into her.” It speaks of an adulterous woman instead. “It never said she would be a virgin”. To me that is like attacking the entire Arc of the whole word of God. Simply to try to disprove a mortal woman, Mary, virgin miraculous conception. Same as trying to disprove any miraculous conception from above. Point is, is that even what it is about or a miraculous birth given from above? Out from New Jerusalem where “New” is what?…adulterous or “virgin”? “I make all things New again” …fighting for whether or not “virgin” is in one verse or deceptive is for me like saying “no. No. How can that which is born from my mother be made New and born again? It is impossible.”

Same as arguing and debating “messianic”verses in the OT. Saying “nah. That isn’t about Christ. Somebody made that up and twisted it to be Messianic.” If Christ is removed …then they are not Messianic. To be Messianic Christ has to be in them. To be “Virgin”; born “Anew of God” has to be in them. That is what removing “a virgin birth” is; like removing Christ from Messianic word…

If “virgin” is removed might as well remove also “New” as offensive
Is “Messianic” is removed might as well remove Christ as offensive

I’m not meaning this to you Lizbeth but your post was the first I could find to quote that spoke about virgin birth.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Only sharing an opinion (not especially to you but to the debates over a virgin birth, and messianic verses.)

Early someone had said “virgin” was and is not there but there is a deception notion to “virgin” that I’ve fell for without much reasoning or thought.

In regards to “a virgin birth” to me it isn’t someone convincing me whether the word “virgin” is there or not …but it is removing what “a virgin birth” reveals. For example when Paul said “present you a chase virgin unto Christ.”. Even further …to remove “a virgin birth” is to remove “a new birth from above” or to remove “a virgin birth” is to remove “New Jerusalem from above and the mother of us all” to me it is like saying “no. No. It never spoke of New Jerusalem which is free where nothing uncircumcised or unclean comes into her.” It speaks of an adulterous woman instead. “It never said she would be a virgin”. To me that is like attacking the entire Arc of the whole word of God. Simply to try to disprove a mortal woman, Mary, virgin miraculous conception. Same as trying to disprove any miraculous conception from above. Point is, is that even what it is about or a miraculous birth given from above? Out from New Jerusalem where “New” is what?…adulterous or “virgin”? “I make all things New again” …fighting for whether or not “virgin” is in one verse or deceptive is for me like saying “no. No. How can that which is born from my mother be made New and born again? It is impossible.”

Same as arguing and debating “messianic”verses in the OT. Saying “nah. That isn’t about Christ. Somebody made that up and twisted it to be Messianic.” If Christ is removed …then they are not Messianic. To be Messianic Christ has to be in them. To be “Virgin”; born “Anew of God” has to be in them. That is what removing “a virgin birth” is; like removing Christ from Messianic word…

Numbers 5:28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.
…and shall conceive seed
Prophetic?
Messianic? Christ in it?
Galatians 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

 

[MatthewG]

The conclusion that comes to me, is their envious attitude toward Jesus Christ and his perfection, which his flesh was able to obtain having been the Word of God born, by the Holy Spirit, and the flesh of Mary.

Matthew 27:18 For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.

 

[Mr E]

What I am saying is a direct response to the question of how Jesus is descended from David given the broken patrilineal chain.

David is Jesus' lord and Jesus is David's lord. That is the riddle Jesus posed when specifically asked about the afterlife.

Either: Jesus is David's lord spiritually but son in the flesh - false because Jesus is not David's physical son. And neither would this be relevant to the subject of the afterlife, it would make Jesus' riddle a nonsequitur to the topic he had been discussing.

Or Jesus and David are coequal and bound to eachother in some way related to the afterlife. Figure out which way that is and you will have the answer to OP's first question.

My solution: Jesus is David's son and also his lord because he is who David becomes.

Needs work.

There is no broken chain.

 

[Jim B]

I am a Jew and I have accepted Jesus as my Savior. So the OP's premise is false.

 

[amigo de christo]

Don't sell yourself short sister, you have taught me a lot in these couple of days since I met you and appreciate your pathos for our Lord Jesus Christ.
J.

A dear old lady lie dying in her bed
with many friends , much family surrounding her
the news as well .
The anchor told her , Ye have done well in this life . You gave much to the poor
ye loved much and told all that every path was fine
The untold millions you gave , billions you gave over your life to the poor
will be remembered .
TO which the lady said , Yes i did . I had hopsitals and orphanges opened
I gave much to the less fortunate . And though i was a christain
i always loved and told others YE dont have to believe , just do good , lets be all inclusive for the LOVE of
GOD is very broad and the way to him is through this inclusive love .
Another lady lay dying , surrounded by only a few .
And when compared to the other rich lady she could not compete with her works . For she was poor in this life .
YET her faith IN JESUS was strong .
Both died . The well loved rich lady was in torments of hells fire
Yet the poor lady whose faith was in CHRIST alone was now comforted and in the midst of all lambs and OF GOD .
The rich lady said , ALAS i gave far more than that wretched fundamental thing did .
TO which she was told , YEAH , BUT THAT fundamental JESUS CHRIST ONLY lady , DID WHAT WAS REQUIRED
to enter into everlasting life , WHEREAS YOU taught others they didnt need to do such a thing

 

[amigo de christo]

I am a Jew and I have accepted Jesus as my Savior. So the OP's premise is false.

A dear old lady lie dying in her bed
with many friends , much family surrounding her
the news as well .
The anchor told her , Ye have done well in this life . You gave much to the poor
ye loved much and told all that every path was fine
The untold millions you gave , billions you gave over your life to the poor
will be remembered .
TO which the lady said , Yes i did . I had hopsitals and orphanges opened
I gave much to the less fortunate . And though i was a christain
i always loved and told others YE dont have to believe , just do good , lets be all inclusive for the LOVE of
GOD is very broad and the way to him is through this inclusive love .
Another lady lay dying , surrounded by only a few .
And when compared to the other rich lady she could not compete with her works . For she was poor in this life .
YET her faith IN JESUS was strong .
Both died . The well loved rich lady was in torments of hells fire
Yet the poor lady whose faith was in CHRIST alone was now comforted and in the midst of all lambs and OF GOD .
The rich lady said , ALAS i gave far more than that wretched fundamental thing did .
TO which she was told , YEAH , BUT THAT fundamental JESUS CHRIST ONLY lady , DID WHAT WAS REQUIRED
to enter into everlasting life , WHEREAS YOU taught others they didnt need to do such a thing