Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus (prophets, worship, pray, Satan)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not sure whether Muslims or Jews even recognise Jesus as "A" Messiah. Anyone anointed as ruler or High Priest was a 'Messiah'
In Judaism, the word root is m-sh-ch, meaning anointed. High Priests and kings were anointed with a particular oil and were called then "anointed ones". The notion of a future "anointed one" is because he will be anointed as a king. In the text there is one situation (IIRC) where a person is referred to as an anointed one even when he was not actually anointed with the oil, but that's because he was approved of in the position of king by divine decree and the term is used as a figure of speech and not literal, requiring oil.
Jesus was not qualified to be either a priest or king and was never anointed or appointed as anything so he wasn't "an anointed one" and therefore, not a "messiah." Whether he was a "messianic figure" to some looser understanding of the word, especially in the eyes of a non-Jewish world, is a separate issue. Islam (AFAIK) sees him as a prophet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
And, no. It WAS the Romans killed Jesus, not the Jews. Obviously the Romans. Even if the Sanhedrin had been involved it was as part of the Roman administration. Caiaphas was High Priest all the time Pilate was Procurator (1). He and his Sadducee party were effectively collaborating with the Romans in their occupation of Judea. This cannot be used to switch the blame for the crucifixion of Jesus from Rome to the Jews (2) , which is clearly what the Gospel -writers were at pains to do. Matthew even adding that infamous passage (unknown to any other gospel -writer) that has the Jews eagerly accepting the blame for the crucifixion on themselves and for all their descendants.
I am always confused when people try to lay the blame of the crucifixion on the Jews. Ignoring the whole "Sadducee and not Pharisee" issue, there is the fact that under Jewish law, crucifixion cannot be used as a death sentence (and that the details of the "trial" do not conform to the requirements under Jewish law).
Thank you. I was minded to point out that if the Jews really had executed Jesus "According to their law" he would have been stoned - never, never, crucified. Even though (as Gospel apologists sometimes point out,) Hasmonean king Alexander Jannaeus had hundreds of Pharisees crucified as rebels. But then, this wasn't a Roman punishment at that time but a Persian one, and the Jews rather liked the Persians who had freed them from Exile.
I might also point out that the Blasphemy charge is nonsensical from the Jewish point of view - then and now. Claiming to be 'Son of God' (in this context Masiach) was not blasphemy. It is Only blasphemy for a man to claim to be God, which is what Jesus was doing - but only from the point of view of Christianity. They were translating 'Messiah' as 'Being God'.
This is just one of the many clues that the whole Sanhedrin -hearing, trial and crucifixion is - even if based on fact - a huge Christian rewrite.
Don't even get me started on the 'Passover release custom' .
Thank you. I was minded to point out that if the Jews really had executed Jesus "According to their law" he would have been stoned - never, never, crucified. Even though (as Gospel apologists sometimes point out,) Hasmonean king Alexander Jannaeus had hundreds of Pharisees crucified as rebels. But then, this wasn't a Roman punishment at that time but a Persian one, and the Jews rather liked the Persians who had freed them from Exile.
I might also point out that the Blasphemy charge is nonsensical from the Jewish point of view - then and now. Claiming to be 'Son of God' (in this context Masiach) was not blasphemy. It is Only blasphemy for a man to claim to be God, which is what Jesus was doing - but only from the point of view of Christianity. They were translating 'Messiah' as 'Being God'.
This is just one of the many clues that the whole Sanhedrin -hearing, trial and crucifixion is - even if based on fact - a huge Christian rewrite.
Don't even get me started on the 'Passover release custom' .
Much also relies on trusting the (various and possibly contradictory) gospel accounts as accurate. Jews generally don't walk around saying "I'm the son of God" even though there are verses which point to the Children of Israel as "sons of God" (Ex 4:22, Hosea 11:1). There is nothing in Jewish theology which has any place for a human claiming to "be" God aside from our acknowledging that mental illness is a thing.
Quite. There's a lot of discussion -room, as to whether Jesus meant by 'son of God' (though it tended to be what others called him) that he was one of the Chosen - a Jew, but as to whether anybody ever said so (I don't take a single reported speech by anybody in the gospels as reliable) or the idea is a Gentile -Greek one turning their new religious icon into a demigod like the Graeco Roman demigods they were used to.
Jesus is rather shown as calling himself "Son of man" which I believe is a Pauline idea , his theory being that the 'spirit' that inhabited Jesus (at the baptism) was the spirit of Adam wiping out Adam's disobedience by obedience, all the way to the cross.
Quite. There's a lot of discussion -room, as to whether Jesus meant by 'son of God' (though it tended to be what others called him) that he was one of the Chosen - a Jew, but as to whether anybody ever said so (I don't take a single reported speech by anybody in the gospels as reliable) or the idea is a Gentile -Greek one turning their new religious icon into a demigod like the Graeco Roman demigods they were used to.
Jesus is rather shown as calling himself "Son of man" which I believe is a Pauline idea , his theory being that the 'spirit' that inhabited Jesus (at the baptism) was the spirit of Adam wiping out Adam's disobedience by obedience, all the way to the cross.
The Hebrew for "son of man" (Ben Adam) appears in the tanach close to 56 times, with almost all (90+%) being in Ezekiel. There is one in Psalms, one in Daniel and 4 in Jeremiah.
In the plural, b'nei adam - sons of man, you have 19 or so uses, with one in Deut, then into Sam, a whole bunch in Psalms, a couple in Proverbs and one in Daniel.
That made me laugh. 'Anyone can get information off the Internet' has become a bit of a joke in the religion debate.
It made me smile too, as it misrepresented what I had said. I even told Oberon before he made his straw man that I was working with what the Christians wrote, and not simply repeating what "some website has already done".
Because Oberon has repeated Christian arguments rather than research for himself. Which is why Oberon needs to call relevant rebuttals irrelevant, straw man what people say, and change arguments about the Chinese as if we were talking about the Mongols. Because he has no actual arguments.
I am always confused when people try to lay the blame of the crucifixion on the Jews. Ignoring the whole "Sadducee and not Pharisee" issue, there is the fact that under Jewish law, crucifixion cannot be used as a death sentence (and that the details of the "trial" do not conform to the requirements under Jewish law).
It did not stop Alexander Jannaeus, who crucified 800 Pharisees.
Otherwise yes, it would not make sense for the Jews to crucify Jesus in Jerusalem as for them it would lay a curse on Jerusalem.
A dead body of a criminal may be hung on a tree as a warning, but according to the laws of that time, it must be removed before night to avoid the place being cursed.
Acknowledging Jesus would mean they have to accept Christianity as a religion, because Jesus is the central figure in that religion. Likewise, Christians acknowledging Muhammad means they have to accept Islam as a religion, because Muhammad is the central figure in that religion. To do any of these things is to acknowledge that these religions serve the same God, and that can't happen because...religion.
treemoni, that is not correct.
it is inaccurate and just plain wrong.
Jews acknowledge that everyone has access to God, regardless of a person's religion or path.
Jews acknowledge that one Creator made us all.
there are many paths to God. no religion has exclusive access to God. Judaism has always recognized this. it is why Judaism does not proselytize and does not seek converts.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-23-2018 at 10:23 AM..
treemoni, that is not correct.
it is inaccurate and just plain wrong.
Jews acknowledge that everyone has access to God, regardless of a person's religion or path.
Jews acknowledge that one Creator made us all.
there are many paths to God. no religion has exclusive access to God. Judaism has always recognized this. it is why Judaism does not proselytize and does not seek converts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It WAS the Romans killed Jesus, not the Jews. Obviously the Romans. Even if the Sanhedrin had been involved it was as part of the Roman administration. Caiaphas was High Priest all the time Pilate was Procurator (1). He and his Sadducee party were effectively collaborating with the Romans in their occupation of Judea. This cannot be used to switch the blame for the crucifixion of Jesus from Rome to the Jews (2) , which is clearly what the Gospel -writers were at pains to do. Matthew even adding that infamous passage (unknown to any other gospel -writer) that has the Jews eagerly accepting the blame for the crucifixion on themselves and for all their descendants.
