Why Jews don't believe in Jesus

Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus recorded information pertaining to jesus, THUS REMOVING THE ONLY SUPPORTING SOURCE FOR HIS EXISTANCE AS BEING IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. It is believed by some scholars that Tactius gained his information about Christ from official records, perhaps actual reports written by Pilate. Tactius also wrote about the burning of the Jerusalem temple by the Romans in 70 A.D. The Christians are mentioned as a group that were connected with these events.
Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, a member of a priestly family and who became a Pharisee at the age of 19, became the court historian for Emperor Vespasian. In the Antiquities, he wrote about many persons and events of first century Palestine. He makes two references to Jesus. The First reference is believed associated with the Apostle James. "...he brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." He also wrote,"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. AND MANY PEOPLE FROM AMONG THE JEWS AND OTHER NATIONS BECAME HIS DISCIPLES. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive, accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." These historical writings predated the Old Testament. Josephus died in 97 A.D.
Before Tacitus, Suetonius or Josephus, Thallus wrote about the crucifixion of Jesus. His writing date to circa 52 A.D. and the passage on Jesus was contained in Thallus" work on the Eastern Mediterrancan world from the Trojan War to 52 A.D. Thallus noted that darkness fell on the land at the time of the crucifixion. He wrote that such a phenomenon was caused by an eclipse. Though Christ was not proclaimed a deity until the fourth century,

 

Sorry you are a million miles off on that.
There are no less than four jewish accounts of Jesus life and ministry.
Matt,
Mark,
Luke,
John.
As well as Paul, James, Peter and Im sure Im forgetting someone.
So yes, jewish sources of the time most definately do mention him.

There is no mythology needed because several jewish authors wrote detailed accounts of the life of Jesus.
As for Christianity, whether or not you believe its the 'correct' way to understand the Old Testament or not - Christians would not need any Paganism at all in order to come up with what they have from Jewish theologies.
They certainly make a point of going on and on about how everythign they are doing comes (in their mind) from the Old Testament.

They are filled with 'accuracies' and in many cases have been a good way of understanding the way things are.
This is demonstrated through archeology which can reliably use them as a source many times.

You are confused by a false dichotemy.
Its entirely possible to be a jew and a christian and of course this whole thing depends on what side you view things from.

Here:
From JfF point of view they are well aware they are practicing proper and complete Judaism.
'Real Judaism' is being done right by them.
From this perspective then someone like you is not a properly practicing jew.

There:
You would be sure that you in fact are properly practicing Judaism and they are not 'real jews'.

Of course we dont put it that way because we are all trying to get along but that would be the difference of course.

Of course Im pretty concerned that you are using words like 'targeting' Jews and somehow manipulating them into becoming Christian Jews?
Is it because you believe these 'Jews of Jesus' are stupid sorts of people who are not able to think for themselves?
Easily manipulated and not able to understand the truth like you obviously can?
I mean, what exactly is it about these Jews that makes them so vulnerable and weak?

After all it cannot possibly be because they know something you dont right?

 

I compared HaSatan to a prosecutor and to someone who runs sting operations, as well as someone who tests, but you ignored the full way that I defined him.

You've just given a reason to test Job. Thus you've already defeated your argument. But also, if Job never suffered, Job never would have had that experience of being tested and staying with God. Nor would his friends have had the same interactions with him. Being tested gave Job the opportunity for rightousness.

And yet according to the text he's not opposing God. If God really opposed it he would have said, "Sorry, not gonna happen."

Well I don't think run down is the right term, but test yes, and how about the Book of Job? How can man grow without being tested?

You keep talking like something sinister went down. It all went according to God's will.

If something has free will and has to ask permission, then it's not free will. We don't have to ask God permission to act. We can act against God's will. Angels, lacking that ability, act only according to God's will. Now of course God wills that we should be able to act in this way, but being granted with this gift, we can now act in ways that God does not desire.

I would love to know what type of access the Church had to the writings of Cornelius Tacitus, as it is well-known that they tampered with the writings of Josephus, editing in references to Jesus. This is known because another copy of Josephus was found that the Church did not have access to and it did not contain the same references.

Josephus is not much of a Jewish historian, if you're trying to make a connection there, and for that matter not much of a historian. He was very self-serving. Although his writings are valuable, they shouldn't be taken as authoritative.

I would also be suspicious of Thallus for the same reason as stated above.

Ikdenk,

THose are not Jewish sources. Those are the writings of Christian communities at a later time. Please do not confuse one religion with another. That would be like a Muslim claiming Muslim writings are Christian because one of the sources for Islam is Christianity. What are your feelings about LDS?

Christians read pagan myth and theology, for example that of the dying god, or of a trinity, or of the sinfulness of man, into Jewish sources. But these sources themselves do not mention such things and are best understood in the way the nation that created them does. It is important for them to make a point of going on and on in such a way, but a claim is not a proof.

No, they contain some accuracies because they were written in the context of the time they were written. Yet they are also filled with many, many inaccuracies about the things the authors didn't know much about, like for example the legal practices of the Sanhedrin.

No, it's because Jews for Jesus is an evangelical organization. It is funded by evangelicals. It was started by evangelicals. And its theology is evangelical. There are other christians who practice "messianic judaism" (it's really a misnomer) who do not have the same manipulative practices, who are more about gettting back to their roots, in touch with the historical Jesus, and I have no problem with that. But Jews for Jesus is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

It is not. If a Jew becomes a Christian, they become kareit. All of the denominations of the Jewish community are in agreement on this. When a Jew becomes a Christian they have cut themselves off.

If a group of Hindus decide to call themselves native americans and start taking on native american practices but holding to mostly the same beliefs, and they declare they really are native americans, that doesn't make them native americans. If they try to convince some disconnected native americans that their hinduism disguised as native american religion is really authentic, and in fact more the right way, and some of them join them, that doesn't make it a native american religion either.

Now, let's stop talking about Jews for Jesus. Let's say a group of Jews actually did get together and start practicing something along the lines of what Jews for Jesus does on their own. That wouldn't make it Jewish either. There is a group of chabadniks who think that their dead rebbe is the messiah, but that does not make it Jewish either, and certainly not more correct.

Dauer

 

Yes they certainly are Jewish sources but I see here you have a conspiracy theory instead.
While the text most clearly present themselves as being Jews writing about Judea and other jews - you have decided they are not.
Interesting.
I think at this point it would be up to you to justify that.
Meanwhile, the responsible thing to do is take the text for what it is and note where it can be validated as well.
Examples: The authors accurately describe jewish names, places, practices and these square with external sources, archeology, etc.

As for LDS.
Thats what you have just done.
You just made up a story that gentiles from another time wrote as jews from a previous time.
You and Joseph Smith are perfect together its seems.

The Messiah is straight out of Judaism and you full well know that.
Sinfullness of man is so directly out of the OT its not even funny.

Again I dont know what to do here because you have a conspiracy theory that apparently you just 'know' somehow.

Meanwhile, the point would stand that Christians (agree or not) dont need anything but Judaism to find their ideas from.
Again - you are surely free to suggest they got those wrong (example John the Baptist being 'Elijah),
but,
They sure as heck can find that themselves out of Judaism with no need whatsoever for anything else.

Its probably a big dilema for you because much of what you know about ancient israel and its practices comes from/through Christian sources.

I suppose I would be interested in what Sanhedrin inaccuracies you think are found in the New Testament.. as long as this isnt another one of your conspiracy stories which somehow only you know from some special source nobody else knows about?

I honestly do not know much about that specific organisation (Jews for Jesus) but my understanding is that its made up of Jews?
If it was started by gentiles then I would still not see a big problem there other than an odd choice in namesake thats for sure.
Im still not sure what you are saying about Jews who are part of that organisation?
Are you saying they dont understand what they have converted to?
They were somehow tricked or mislead into it or what?

Here is the rub: Jews who become Christians dont agree with that and in fact would understand they are practicing proper Judaism - not you or those who appoint themselves spokespeople for Jews.

Right but here is what you need to look at and its a big but important 'If'.
If Jesus is in fact the King of the Jews then all those Jews who know that - they are in fact practicing real, full on, 100% Judaism.

If its true that Jesus was indeed false... 'not the messiah', then yes it would be true that they were no longer practicing proper judaism anymore.

Likewise, If the chabadnik raibbi was indeed the Messiah - they they are the proper jews.
They would then be the ones practicing it correctly and properly and not you who would be rejecting judaism in this case.

btw.. I have noticed a canard going on when it comes to external sources up there.
All sources can be attributed 'suspicion' but this does not 'cancel them out' as is wrongly being attempted on just the Christian sources I notice.

Example:
Josephus having an interpolation in a copy of his reference to Jesus doesnt 'cancel out' that he does indeed refer to Jesus.
Or,
Suggesting that Josephus might have been scared by Romans doesnt mean that the reference to Jesus now 'ceases to exist'.
Indeed, we are not even interested in these problem because all we do need to know is that the reference is there.

I noticed this alot on the internet and its actualy really annoying and its somthing that would NOT fly in the real world.
The idea that you just line up the external references.
Ok,,
now take that name... simply 'call a question' and voila.. off the list.
People doing this imagine themselves easily 'cancelling out' one by one.
No.
It doesnt work that way unless you want to immediately abandon all history for good.
Just throw it all out because I got news for you - ALL ancient texts get the same exact 'questions'.

In another issue, people are mistakenly believing that indirect witness equals 'cancelling out'.
Example: Pliny and Trajan talking all about Christians.
Well its a fact they themselves are not writing 'first hand accounts' like Matthew or Mark etc.
So that 'cancels out' this as a historical record of Jesus right?
wrong.
In reality and by any historians standards this is golden evidence to confirm a real historical figure.
If we found a document written by two persians just 50 years later talking about Alexander the greats followers -
Historians would WET THEIR PANTS with what would be as good as 'proof' that Alexander the Great was a real historical person living in a real historical time.
I mean seriously.. just pissing their pants and declaring it all but as good as having his bones and tombstone.

So yeah, you know it gets back to the conspiracy theory when you want to say that Pliny is not evidence because now you really have to make up a much wilder and unlikely story to explain your 'negative'.
Why would there be this group of people some 50 years later dedicated to following an imaginary Jesus who never existed?
That story becomes far more unlikely than simply taking the text for what it implies in the first place.

But hey... all i would ask is that the same standards by which you want to 'cancel out' Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Thallus - I dare you to apply that to everyone else then.
Apply that across the board and not just to the one single historical figure you DONT want to see validated.
Then what?

 

Err, no. They are not Jewish sources. They are early Christian sources that in fact incorporate a large amount of pagan myth and theology. As you are the one going against the standard classification of the texts, the burden of proof in fact lies on you. Any text can purport to be whatever it wants. That doesn't make it so. A claim isn't proof.

For inaccuries, errors, etc, start here:

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

It's a personal page, but I cite this particular one because it lists 1001 errors and numbers them.

Catholics also find errors:

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christian_Credibility.htm

Now of course there's the issue of all the pagan myth:

http://altreligion.about.com/library/weekly/aa052902a.htm

And there are links there to more on that. That's enough for now.

No, it's not a story I made up. Do a little reading. Scholars make the claim that the gospels are actually pseudepigraphic material written by the early Christian communities. On the other hand, the claims of Christianity are to Judaism much as the claims of LDS are to Christianity. The difference is that LDS actually does hold to more of the fundamental Christian beliefs than Christianity is in line with Jewish beliefs.

Not the Christian messiah. The person of the Christian messiah and the person of the Jewish messiah are very very different. Now I've had this conversation many many times and I'm getting a bit tired of repeating myself, so I am providing you with this link. It describes the Jewish messiah in detail. Jewish understandings of the messiah can vary a little, generally depending on whether the individual is more rationalist or more mystical, but what you see here is pretty much what you get everywhere else:

http://www.kesser.org/moshiach/rambam.html

Now you're making some sense. Yep, I'll bet you can find it in the OT, which is a christian text, interpreted in a Christian way. But you won't find any such mention in the Tanach.

It's not a conspiracy theory. You're simply one of many who assume that because you know Christianity that you know Judaism, or that what you were taught in Church about Jews and Judaism is true, instead of going and having those conversations with Jews yourself. But now you're having that conversation and learning the differences, which is a good thing imo. In pirkei avot it says, "Who is wise? He who learns from everyone." I quote that far too much but I do think it's good advice.

I don't think so. Otherwise there would be no reason for conservative christians to have to say, "Oh, those other dying gods were really just to prepare people so they could accept Jesus." Such a statement is an admittance of the similarities, and the similarities are really more indicative of influence than anything else, especially since such ideas are foreign to Judaism.

Not at all. The Tanach, and by that I mean the masoretic text, is a Jewish text. The Talmud is also a Jewish text. This simply reveals your ignorance of Judaism.

No special source nobody else knows about. Simply Jewish sources, which would be the place to turn to learn about Jewish practices. There's a whole tractate in the Talmud called Sanhedrin that goes over laws surrounding the sanhedrin. This page mentions some of them as well as other factual issues with the trial:

http://jdstone.org/cr/files/barabbasjewishandromanlaw.html

Well, essentially the group is a Christian mission that intentionally called itself Judaism and adopted Jewish practices in order to try and attract Jews, particularly those who are less educated or connected with the community, to Christianity. It's something some Christian groups have even spoke out against. There are other messianic groups that do nothing of the sort and are really Christians just trying to understand the origins of their religion and make sense of it themselves. But this particular group was doing it as a way to target people and abuse their lack of knowledge by feeding them misinformation. I really would suggest learning about groups before defending them next time.

But they don't get to decide anymore than Jews who decide that they are god incarnate or Jews who decide God's really an alien from another planet. If a Christian becomes a Sikh giving up central Christian beliefs and says now they're a complete Christian, that doesn't make it true either. It would be silly.

We don't have to go by any "spokespeople" of the Jewish community in order to get an answer. We can simply go by community consensus. We can even go by global consensus. You get the same answer. A Jew is a member of the Jewish religion. A Christian is not a Jew, and neither is an australian aborigine.

That's a big if given he doesn't fit the bill for the Jewish messiah and is part of a religion that drifted from its Jewish roots closer to pagan ideas and beliefs.

The problem here, as above, is they are both dead. If somebody's dead and haven't fulfilled all of the prophecies that's it. There's no mention in the Tanach of anything otherwise.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. Fact is that the texts that were in the hands of the Church have references to Jesus. There's another text the Church never got its hands on that has no references at all because it was discovered much later and without the references to Jesus it reads more smoothly. But you're welcome to believe what you want.

No, not at all. Expand your studies beyond those of Conservative Christians and I think you'll be surprised to find some serious and less biased scholarship suggesting the gospels are not first hand accounts.

Hey, I never said Jesus existed. I said we can't verify much of anything about who he was. But the possibility is also there, although slight, Jesus didn't exist at all. And with all your huffing and puffing, need I remind you history is not a hard science? Doesn't matter that historians would take it as hard evidence of a person if it's from 50 years after the fact. Doesn't make it so.

Now of course we're not talking about any regular Joe anyway. According to Christianity Jesus has gotta be some really big incredible guy. So if all we get from that is 50 years later some groups wrote some texts down that mention him, I'm sorry, it's not enough to validate any of the Christian claims.

I do apply it across the board to all myth and legend, because it is immediately suspect, as well as any text that appears too biased. That goes for Judaism as well. However I generally choose to meet people at the level at which they meet me. When I am presented with someone who's into absolutes and literalism, and trying to hang that over my head, I greet them with the same absolutes. There's really no other easy way to communicate. It's unfortunate that so many conservative christians deem it necessary to trample over this lovely garden instead of frollicking in their own, or coming here with the understanding that they are guests.

 

Listen I can be screwing around with you on this so try and get this straight - When you find a jewish text (like the gospels) you start by classifying it as what it does indeed claim to be.
UNLESS
You can find enough reasons to believe otherwise.

Im not 'asking' if this is how it should be because in fact you yourself know this is the case and would do so accordingly.
So do historians.

If you dont understand this then try all you want to imagine how fucked up the world would be if you did this your backwards way:
Assume its something besides what it presents itself as until proven otherwise.

Anyways, reality check in mind: Jews in Judea writing about jews doing things in Judaism.

1001 quibbles, comparitive studies and disagreements between jewish scholars about jewish texts and jewish authors.
One jewish geneology spells omits a name that the other jewish geneology kept or spelled wrong.

I mean honestly, you cant see why that is about 1001 reasons why these are jewish texts.
Because thats what it just demonstrated.
Of course I understand that it assumes that any pro-jesus jewish authors must have it wrong while all others must be authoritive.
Thats a sort of 'reverse faith' i suppose.

Dude, please.
Im not some dupe easy gentile and it will help your cause if you at least give me that benefit of the doubt on that.

'Scholars claim Gospels are pseudoscriptura' in the same way that 'Scholars claim that the moon landing was a hoax'.

This gets back to your same backwards precedent that suggest that you start by giving the 'conspiracy theory' the floor until you can 'disprove' it otherwise.

I suppose you can just find some scholar who says the Gospels are a hoax and like our 'moon landing nutters' he can just say thats the case for the landing.
And,
In their case and yours assert that it is a hoax until you can prove it is not.
Wow.
Scholars alright.

What Im telling you (and you seem to be sidestepping) is that the 'Jesus is Messiah' jews and gentiles were entirely able to get their idea from Judaism.

NOTE: I understand that you believe they got it wrong. Fine. Thats not the point here though.
Here its being demonstrated that (however wrong or right) they certainly took jewish ideas of a Messiah and attributed them to Jesus.
They did not need Dyonessus or Hercules to do this.

We are not actually debating whether or not John the Baptist (for example) was the Spirit of Elijah or not.
We are establishing that early Christians (jew or gentile) were able to get that idea from Jewish sources alone.

Good news you gotta be kidding me.
Your playing games surely.
Sorry but I cant get past Genesis without hearing about Sin and I cant even open Leviticus without a non-stop Sin, Sinfulness, Sin penalty, Sin explosion going on.

I suppose what you really mean to say is that the concept the sinful nature is presented differently by Jesus and his Apostles.
But say that then.

In a way you are right because I do look to Jesus as the ultimate authority on Judaism. Literally the King of the Jews.
So I do learn from that Jew I hope.
As well I listen to Paul alot as well as John.

No thats not cool.
You dont take goofy think-alouds as being some sort of good reverse-fitting argument.
These are not 'conservative christians' whatever thats supposed to mean.

Look, there are about elevteen million different versions of messiahs, prophets, demigods and gods throughout history.
As many have 'similarities' to your brand of Judaism as they do actually anything else.
Further to that you have a whole pile of mystery cults running around who actually make a very point and purpose out of mix-matching shit into a new thing.
Including jewish rituals and including the christian ones.

But seriously, this is as bad an argument as citing naive christians who someone once heard say 'satan put fossils in the ground to test our faith'.

Seriously though, an early church father once 'speculated out loud' that themes of the coming Messiah are revealed throughout the worlds cultures even if not articulated.

Thank God for Archeology or you would still be relying on Christians to carry Judaism for you.

The Gospel accounts in no way whatsoever imply the trial was just or proper and pretty much go to listing the very things which were not proper or just about the trial.

A little off topic but I notice Gibson communicates that impression in his 'Passion' as the 'just leaders' demand to know why the trial is being held at night and that this is unlawful.

The unjust leaders continue with an improper series of events.

Thats all I wanted to hear.
Just wanted you to come clean is all.
After all, it couldnt possibly be because they are just as educated as you are.

I know this is a real stumbling block for you to get your mind around but Im going to try anways...

.. In any of these other examples a person would have to 'change' world views.
Sihkism and Christianity could not 'both be true' so you are right to say one must leave one for the other.
You couldnt be a Muslim and a Buddhist at the same time.
(well i suppose many mix and synth things but that digresses the point)

Not the case with Judaism to Christianity.
At no point would a believing jew need to lose or change ANY of their judaism in order to convert to Christianity.
Not at all.
In fact it would undoubtedly give them a huge advantage in accepting Christianity.
At no point whatsoever did our man Cohen need to deny ANY of his Judaism to become a Christian and in fact he is confirming his Judaism entirely when doing so.

Again, I realise that you think they are misunderstanding judaism but they certainly do not believe they are.
They do not deny anything of the tanach.

You really need to kind of absorb that for a while and just try and get your mind around that.
It will make sense eventually i promise.

ahhhh.. no, no.. stop putting the 'Sihk to Christian' thing up in your way because I guarantee you that is what keeps stopping you on this.

Im not sure but someone might do a survey one day showing there are now more Christian jews than ones who reject Jesus as Messiah.
If so, will that conconcenus rule the day?

Its an enormous God-sized 'If' alright.

Again you are suggesting (or something) that an interpolation in the churchs copy 'cancels out' the main point of this being a reference to an 'external' historical jesus.

Expand what.. all i freaking see year after year, discovery channel after Newsweek after liberal Uni course after documentary after Davinci code is the so-called 'liberal scholars' and the schools of 'higher criticism'.

What I did was expand my studies away from those fringe scholars (and they are a fringe group) to moderate and realistic studies.
There you do not find idiotic 'moon landing' theories about Gospels written 100s of year later and this conspiracy crap.

Apply your exact same standards and criticism to Moses now.
No?

Err.. Oops!
Actually, Jesus runs a fairly humble (most times) local ministry but the whole Ressurection thing was pretty big and incredible.
50 years later and the Romans are very concerned about a movement called Christianity.
It spreads like wildfire over the empire and at that point is already well on its way all over Asia Minor.

So yeah, I agree... if Jesus was something special you certainly should see a whole lotta excitement, converts and movements,
and you do.
It grows exponentially and to this day is regarded as nothing short of one of histories greatest phenoms.

I would never set my default to 'hoax first' and then proceed to demand proof otherwise.
Yes, of course I understand what you are getting at but if I take the Koran for example.
I dont start by presuming it was written by someone else besides Mohammed and I dont assume Muhammed is a fictional character either.
I didnt do that with the Gospels either.
To me, you can cheat yourself by starting with a hoax theory first and then trying to work backwards.

 

HaSatan mocked God when he told God He didn't know what He was talking about when it came to Jobs faithfulness. This should be obvious to anyone.

So Job had to have his entire family killed off just to have an opportunity to show God his rightousness. WOW.

God did not oppose HaSatan just as He did not oppose him when He allowed Hitler to kill 6 million Jews in the camps during World War II. God gives HaSatan a lot of room to work his evil. God could stop all of that killing to, yet God allowed it. God did not support it, yet He allowed it.

Anytime you allow someone to murder your family, the term run down does not seem to out of line.

And you believe God was all for HaSatan killing Jobs family. Nothing sinister in that? God and HaSatan just haveing a good old time. I wonder if they ate popcorn together. WOW, the lengths you will go to make HaSatan look like a good old boy.

HaSatan is Evil, and God does not find joy in the murder of His people, nor does He support it, yet He does allow it.

 

Either you're very dense or your beliefs just really cloud your ability to see from other perspectives. The gospels are not Jewish texts. Historians agree. They are early Christian texts written by early Christians, not Jews. And please stop creating straw men out of my arguments. It hardly makes you seem intelligent. Clearly we should not just take texts as what they claim to be. Because texts can claim to be whatever they'd like. We must examine the texts in the context of the time in which they were created and look at potential influences from surrounding cultures, political motivations, etc. Otherwise we get to some Greek texts and say, "Oh okay. I guess there really were lots of gods back then. This book says so."

Uh... no. It shows why it is a flawed text, and why it has pagan influences. But you've already demonstrated that you are the textbook definition of blind faith.

I thought you're educated on religion. I never once said the gospels are pseudoscriptura. I said they are pseudepigraphic material. Before you go throwing stones, pick up a dictionary.

I'm not presenting conspiracy theory. It's what those of us looking at things from a modern perspective would consider fairly normative. If you prefer your Conservative Christian perspective, the Christian board is down the hall.

The problems with bold assertions like this are that, given your admittance to absolutism based on the teachings of the Greek Testament, it all falls flat. Clearly you won't accept anything that challenges what you yourself "know" to be true. You won't even give it a place on the floor. Rather than dialogue about the issues, you try to drown them out and make them sound smaller by calling them nonsense. You don't have to prove yourself to me or anyone else. But you ought respect the place you are visiting.

They did not though. I've linked you to Jewish ideas about the messiah. They read pagan ideas into a Jewish text. It's not a hard thing to do, read ideas into a text, especially when you're able to alter key words in the translation you're using.

But you haven't established that the christian representation of the messiah can be found in jewish texts alone. Something else against you, besides the fact that these were ideas prevalent in pagan cultures, is that there are places where Christian translations intentionally mistranslate in order to make it seem more like prophecy. So what do you have against you?

1. Prevalence of Jesus-like motifs in pagan myth that are not plainly represented in Jewish myth.

2. Prevalence of pagan concepts about the world that are not found plainly stated in Jewish texts.

3. Images of Jesus nearly identical to those of other pagan dying gods.

4. Christians intentionally mistranslate to attempt to create further plausibility.

And maybe more that we've not yet uncovered.

You said man is sinful and you knew exactly what you meant, but we don't find this relationship between man's nature and sin in the Tanach. That's plain and simple. I don't know how much clearer it can get. Are there places people sin? Sure. But nowhere is the generalization that man is sinful. Remember, sin creeps at the door, but you can conquer it. That is the message of Genesis.

In which case you have completely shut your eyes and ears to learning about Judaism.

Indeed they are. And it is an argument I have heard before, not just a goofy think-aloud. Or are you the type to say that only your specific kind of Christianity is correct and anyone who is diverging will burn in hell?

We're not discussing the origins of the biblical prophecies. If we were i'd agree with you. Everything has influences. And the influences for Christianity are clearly more largely those of the pagan religions surrounding it than of Judaism.

With Christianity doing pretty much the same thing. Hmm...

Didn't you just call that a silly think-aloud argument earlier?

Maybe you didn't read my message, so let me paste it again. "Not at all. The Tanach, and by that I mean the masoretic text, is a Jewish text. The Talmud is also a Jewish text. This simply reveals your ignorance of Judaism." This is again a sign of your ignorance. We've never lost any of these texts. We've always had them.

I think you missed the point of the article. The point is that the portrayal in your scripture shows a lack of knowledge of the rules regarding the operation of the sanhedrin, even very basic things like not meeting on a holiday.

No, they're not as educated as me about Judaism. This is fact. Education has been a big issue in the Jewish community. Because of all of the persecution, for a few generations a lot of people just wanted to be like everyone else, and this meant playing down the Jewish part of their identity, or disregarding it altogether. In our current generation, among all populations and not just Jewish, there's more of an idea that being different is good and we should take pride in our heritage and our roots and learn about that, that having a unique identity is more important than blending in. So now there's a lot more education going on, but there are still a lot of people out there it's not yet reached.

This is complete and utter nonsense. A Jew cannot be a Christian. The beliefs of Christianity violate central beliefs of Judaism and furthermore holding certain of those beliefs would render one kareit, cut-off from the Jewish community.

It's not about what they believe. It's about Judaism. And they are violating the Tanach.

Do not missionize on this board. It is unwelcome. If you want to missionize go over to the Christianity board where you can be with your buddies in the "everyone else is doomed to hell" club. Why don't you, instead of insisting everyone else wrap their mind around your own narrow world-view, do a little reading on what other people actually believe? A Jew cannot be a Christian anymore than a Christian can be a worshipper of Baal.

No because by becoming Christians they have rendered themselves kareit.

No, this isn't about cancelling out the historical Jesus. This is about you proving the mythical Jesus. The texts you have presented as proof of the historical "not mythical" are not proof for the reasons I have stated.

Again, you can call a rose a turd as much as you'd like, but you're still dealing with real, respected scholars, who are not really fringe, doing what scholars do best.

You see this is what separates you and I, one of the things. I am not an absolutist. And I hold even the existence of a historical Moses suspect. I think it's plausible there was one given what a primary role he plays in the Torah and its structure, but I'm much less optimistic about the historical existence of earlier figures like Abraham.

You mean like claiming to be God's only son and that the only to God is through him? Or like his public and foul-mouthed attacked on his neighbors?

I think you're missing the point with the examples you're presenting. What you're presenting has more to do with the movement than the individual. Really you don't even need a real person to found a movement, if you can attribute some teachings and legends to them. The problem is that he didn't get the press he should've gotten if he was such a big deal. No histrians reporting water into wine, or any of that. Not outside those in the hands of the Church, whose hand in their editing is most likely. You also see no mention of him in Jewish sources like the gemara, which does bother to mention a false messiah from around his time who made a real splash on the local scene, bar kokhba.

It's not a "hoax first" approach. It's a "take everything into account" approach, instead of relying on the text alone, because historical texts are often biased, especially if we're dealing with something like religion.

campbell,

Mine citing your sources so we can be on the same page? Makes things easier.

Life isn't fair. The rightous suffer. It's a fact of life. But got makes peace AND creates evil. He is the source of all things, right? So ultimately you have to ask, what is the purpose of the suffering of the rightous? You also might ask, what happens to his family after they die? And what were they working through in suffering through their deaths? How were these experiences significant for their neshamot?

God's the source of everything, even the Holocaust. The question of evil and suffering is a big one in most religions, and no less true for judaism. Lots written on it.

From your limited human perspective, maybe, but from God's perspective it serves a purpose.

Now you're creating a straw man. I never said they were having a good time. I even said HaSatan gets one of the dirty jobs. He's filling a role that is necessary. Could you imagine life without suffering? Without death? Without evil in the world? We could not grow. And the ability to grow is what separates us from the angels, who lacking free will, cannot.

I agree. He probably doesn't. But just like a mother teaching a child, sometimes it requires tough love.

 

Early Christian Jews yes.
You may have noticed (if you ever read a Gospel) they are jews in judea who practiced judaism and how they followed a jewish rabbi who was teaching judaism and so on.
Surprise!

What you are doing is manipulating the way this will be perceived by the masses.
Select the fringe group of 'liberal' scholars (incredibly this is a school of thought that was pre-nazi germanys specialty but thats another topic) and what you do is present that 'as if' thats now the 'new middle'.
Which,
Is to also push what was once moderate over into the 'conservative margin'.
Obvious to me but most of the 'cattle' who read these boards will accept what they see - 'Jesus seminar' as the 'normative level of scholarship'.

Hey you know what else you should do - push that 'Literalist' term in there too.
Talk as if 'some 'literalist christians' believe in a 'literal' new testament.
Thats effective.

Ya i have bad news but 'The Davinci Code' is a fictional novel although I guess this will get you squared up against whoever wrote the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
BTW... thats not intended to be an 'instructional guide' which your actually supposed to follow you know?

Try reading carefully before going off again - the Gospel accounts are NOT ATTEMPTING TO BE anything more than an account of 'what happened'.
NOT what was 'supposed to happen'
or
What 'should' happen IF the rules were being followed as they traditionally were.
Let me give you an example:
In the Gospel account there are some Roman Soldiers who fall asleep.
This would be totally illegal in the Roman Army - you could actually be executed for that.
But,
The account is describing what happened regardless.

Anyways, dont talk about this anymore till you can get it together before going off half-cocked. (no pun intended).

No of course not.
After all, there is no way you can be wrong on all this stuff.
Thats established right.
So,
The only possible explanation left simply 'must' be that these people are not 'educated'.

I have bad news for you.
You are the one who is cut-off.
I hate to break it to you but as long as you reject the jewish messiah who is Jesus then you are failing to practice proper judaism in its entirety.

Look at it his way, if you want to get married its certainly good to be engaged first.
Yes, thats good you bought the engagement ring and put it on her finger and even set a wedding date.
Ok.
But you have to actually go through and accept the wedding vows and ceremony before you are now 'properly married'.

Thats you right now.
Your running around saying 'You cant be engaged and married at the same time!'
Then going around claiming being engaged is all you need to do and anyone married cant call themselves engaged anymore.

But look, the married couple is actually the ones who fulfilled the engagement properly.
not you by refusing to carry out all of the deal and its intentions.

Christianity is fulfilled Judaism.
Properly fulfilled Judaism.

The Tanach is fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth.
No other.

Its a forum.
We are talking about Judaism in a comparative study.

See previous about pushing the fringe into the middle and the moderate into the margin.

Theres alot of things in todays Media that you wouldnt think existed at all and then would be stunned to find out.
Just saying.

 

Well it's obvious your idea of God and mine are different. You believe that God supports a person like HaSatan to go about killing and destroying lives just to prove a point? If that is the case, you truly believe in a God who He Himself would have an evil nature. Tough love is only employed when you have a child who is overly disobedient, this was not the case for Job. The question for evil still remains a question for you, because you donot understand how God can support such atrocities. We Christians know that He doesen't. God did not have six million Jews killed in Hitlers camps just to prove some kind of idiotic point. What you donot understand, is the evil in this world is not inspired by God, and much of it is not just man alone. You honestly think that people are being murdered everyday, and God is doing this just to prove points. What kind of God do you believe in.

 

If a text makes a claim that does not make it true. As I said it's pseudepigraphic material.

I am doing nothing of the sort. You on the other hand are schewing all of the facts to make it appear that conservative scholars have more clout. If you detached yourself from your Absolutist worldview for a little bit, you might find there really aren't so many answers, but on the other hand, many questions.

You've already shown yourself to be quite the literalist. Maybe there is some exception to that but I've yet to see it.

Ignorance from you again? This has nothing to do with the DaVinci Code. I never even read the book or saw the movie, and was aware of the pagan ideas and myths before then. I'd connect a link to you, but based on the way you talk now I can only guess you've already disregarded earlier links. I guess what you don't know can't harm you. Right?

Right, and I'm saying they're not an accurate account based on what we know about the Jewish legal system as it operated in those days, of which there is a wealth of information. I'm not saying that if the event actually happened it went down exactly as the other sources describe it, but it gets basic rules of the way in which the court operates wrong. Let's say for example, that I too wrote a pseudo-historical account of a trial. Takes place in America. Now let's say I said the judge was yelling and being rude. That would be potentially more legitimate. But let's say I said the judge made us go two days without a break, and to get order when things got rowdy, would take a rock in his hand and bang it against a metal plate. That just wouldn't jive with what we know about the American court system.

Oh really, so you have proof of this or is this another absolutist claim based on your faith in the supreme infallibility of one particular text?

No, they are absolutely going against judaism, because what they are saying goes against torah, and goes against gemara. The statements that I made about the Jewish population are factual, whether or not you wish to accept them as so. Do you want to know why they are wrong? Have a look here:

http://www.kosherjudaism.com/elohimacharim.html

But I know it's unlikely you'll go check, because you don't want to learn about other people's beliefs. You are so convinced that you have the only truth. So I will copy a little here:

Exodus:

20:3 - There shall not be for you Elohim Acharim before me.

23:13 - The names of the Elohim Acharim you shall not mention nor heard through your mouth.

Deuteronomy:

5:7 - There shall not be for you Elohim Acharim before me.

6:14 - You shall not follow after the Elohim Acharim of the deities of the nations who are around you.

7:3 - You will not intermarry with them. You will not give your daughter to his son, and you shall not take his daughter for your son, for he will turn your child away from following Me and [the child] will serve Elohim Acharim.

8:19 - If you forget that HaShem is your [only] G-d and go after the Elohim Acharim, and worship them, and prostrate yourself to them, I testify against you today that you shall surely perish.

11:16 - Beware for yourselves so your heart is not seduced, turning you away and serving Elohim Acharim and prostrating yourself to them.

11:28 - And the curse is if you do not hear/accept the mitzvot of HaShem and you stray from the path that I command you today, to follow the Elohim Acharim that you did not know.

13:2 ? If there should stand up in your midst a ñprophetî or dreamer of a dream, and he will give you a sign or wonder, and the sign or the wonder happens [as he said, and] he says to you "let us follow the Elohim Acharim that you did not know and worship them", do not listen to/accept the words of that prophet or to that person who dreamed a vision.

13:7 - If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife you are close to or your friend who is like your own soul will entice you saying, "Let's go serve Elohim Acharim, that you did not know, you or your fathers, from the deities of the [non-Jewish] nations around you, those [nations] near to you or those far from you, from the end of the earth to the end of the earth. [In such a case], you shall not desire nor listen to him. Your eye shall not take pity on him. You shall not be compassionate nor shall you cover up for him. Rather, you will kill him. You hand shall be the first against him to put him to death and the hand of the entire people afterward.

13:13 - If in one of your cities that HaShem your G-d give you to dwell there, you hear [people] saying, ñMen, sons of criminals, have emerged from your midst, and they have caused the residents of their city to go astray, saying, "Let's go and serve Elohim Acharim, that you have not known" you are to find, look for, and fully investigate. And behold, if itÍs true, if the accusation is correct, if this abomination is in your midst, SMITE! You shall smite the inhabitants of the city with the edge of the sword. Lay it to waste and everything in it, and its animals with the edge of the sword. You are then to gather together all of its possessions, bring it to the midst of the open square, and you shall burn the entire city and all itÍs contents and possessions for HaShem, your G-d.

17:2 - If there be found among you, in one of your cities, which HaShem, your G-d, gives you, a man or a woman who commits what is evil in the eyes of HaShem your G-d, by violating his covenant, and he/she goes and serves the Elohim Acharim, and prostrates himself before themƒ you shall pelt them with stones so that they will die.

18:20 - ...[the prophet] who speaks in the name of an Elohim Acharim, that prophet shall die.

28:14 - And do not turn away from any words that I command you this day, right or left, to follow Elohim Acharim, to serve them. But if you do not listen to the voice of HaShem...cursed will you be in the city and fields, cursed shall you be...

28:36 - ƒ[curses continue] And there you will work for the Elohim Acharim of wood and stone... all these curses shall come upon you...

28:64 - HaShem will scatter you...and there you will serve the Elohim Acharim, whom you did not know, you or your fathers, of wood and stone.

29:25 - [Why will HaShem punish us?] They went and served the Elohim Acharim and bowed to them, deities that they did not know.

30:17 - But if...you prostrate yourself to Elohim Acharim and serve them...you will be lost.

31:18 - But I will have surely hidden my face on that day because of all the evil that it did, for it had turned to the Elohim Acharim.

31:20 - I shall bring them to the land that I swore...and they shall serve the Elohim Acharim and serve them, and they will anger Me and annul my covenant [of the land]."

"An Elohim can be either physical or metaphysical. An Elohim is perceived as having the ability to render a judgment of life and death over someone. When this homonym is used in the context of speaking of the Source of the Universe, we are speaking of Him and assigning a title that expresses His middot, his outward expression, as we perceive it. This certainly does not mean that there is HaShem and another deity called an Elohim, but it is a title that we assign to the One for our human perception so that we can relate to Him on that level...

"But what is ñAcharimî?

ñAcharimî is a plural form of the word achar. Achar is sometimes translated to as ñotherî, but its meaning needs a bit more explaining. Achar always implies a separation, and a distancing. In the Torah we see it used to indicate a delay [7] , being backward [8] , being behind [9] , being after [10] , being in the past [11] and even in the future [12] . We even have an example of using it to describe a person who severed his connection with Torah"

No, they are the ones worshipping an elohim acharim. The things that must happen in the lifetime of the moshiach are very clear and it's not a matter of belief. If it happened, we would know that person was the moshiach. They are not supposed to happen 100s or thousands of years later. This is not supposed to be a supernatural mangod or someone to remove sin. None of that is required. Just to accomplish these tasks:

Isaiah 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. (KJV)

11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. (KJV)

Even if these verses are not taken literally, we do not yet have world peace.

Isaiah 26:19 Thy dead [men] shall live, [together with] my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew [is as] the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead. (KJV)

Ezekiel 37:12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord G-D; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. [13] And ye shall know that I [am] the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, [14] And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken [it], and performed [it], saith the LORD. (KJV)


The dead are not walking among us, last I checked.

Isaiah 11:11 And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. [12] And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. (KJV)

There are still Jews all over the world. In fact there are about the same number of Jews in the United States as there are in Israel, and it's been that way for quite some time.

Ezekiel 37:26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. [27] My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their G-d, and they shall be my people. [28] And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore. (KJV)

The beit hamikdash is still in ruins.

Now as a Christian you might claim there will be a second coming, but this is not mentioned in the Tanach, and even your own Greek Testament seems to say Jesus is coming within the next generation or so, and not the distant future. For example,

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: [30] And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. [31] And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. [32] Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer [is] nigh: [33] So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, [even] at the doors. [34] Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. (KJV)

And also:

Also,

Sounds like they got their timing wrong, and we know what the Torah says about that:

Now as far as your claim about Elijah the Prophet, your Greek Testament answers that too:

This is again an example of your ignorance. Judaism sees itself as God's partner. Not for a little while, not incompletely, but in full. A better way of describing it would be to say that a person who is a Jew and gets involved in Christianity is involved with someone, and yet then they go on and cheat on them.

There is a difference between talking comparatively and missionizing and you know it, and it also becomes less of a comparative study when one of the members is unwilling to learn what the other believes, but instead just wishes to force their view on the individual.

No, Christianity is to Judaism as Sikhism is to Islam. It is a separate religion that formed by combining.

Aha! But here there is a difference, depending on the type of media of course and how much it was actually investigative. You are talking about, essentially a historical novel. Maybe Jules Verne, something that goes beyond the way things really are. Whereas I am referring to hard media.

 

Campbell,

A point? It's a little deeper than that. It's the way we grow. We can't grow without tragedy. Can you explain to me how "not stopping" your understanding of Satan, which in this case really is an absolute evil, and not just something humanity might consider bad, makes God any less responsible? It sounds like a worse situation, given that in yours Satan really is truly evil, and it's something that God ultimately wouldn't want happening to his people.

No, God does not have an evil nature. However, as Isaiah states, he makes peace and creates evil.

No, not only. What about when a bird knows its chick needs to fly, and the only way to do so is to push it out of the nest? It's hardly fair pushing a chick out of the nest, but its experiences would be so limited otherwise, and eventually it would die without learning what it had to.

No, the question of evil is not a question for me at all. I see evil as a projection of mankind of some sort of badness onto things that go wrong in life and the world due both to nature and to the actions of humans according to their genes and experiences up to this point, instead of accepting them as a part of life, that we need not dwell on or worry about.

I thought I said it before, but if I didn't, I'm an agnostic panentheist. Although subjectively for me God is everything, and goes beyond everything, I do not believe that subjective experience really can confirm absolutes, because, after all, it is subjective. Even when a situation happens that most people don't have conflicting subjective experiences about, we are still viewing from the limited lense of humans. It may be possible to find absolute truth, but if we ever found it, I do not believe there would be any way to verify. However personal truth I am quite sure of.. There can be things that are true for me, or true for you, and on some level all of our experiences are real, because they are real for us. And this includes the hallucinations of those who are mentally ill. That does not mean that those experiences necessarily have an effect on the reality around us. They are just the way we experience the world.

 

Im going to let Campbell go squirrelly nuts on you with the clearly fulfilled propecies by Jesus which demonstrate he is your Messiah.
In the mean time, I wonder if you realise that the God of the Christians is the God of the Jews.
Jesus for example is the King of the Jews and you never (absolutely never) will be 'switching or adding' any other Gods when you accept Christianity.
The 'Trinity' is the same Elohim found in the Garden of Eden, the same God of Abraham and the God of Moses.
Absolutely nothing changes there.
Now having said that - you can choose to worship a different god if you so choose to reject this one.
It seems like you have (so far) but hopefully there is still hope here.

Also, Im sorry that Im 'forcing' you to start converting by talking about this.
I didnt realise that reading words made you 'convert' against your own free will.
I personally dont have that problem.

Just so you know I was refering to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and pointing out it was not intended as an instructional manual jewish people should actually try and follow.
I hope you agree:
http://www.radioislam.org/protocols/indexen.htm

 

ok you guys are way too long winded for your own good. i mean this is ridiculous.

as a christian, I see Jesus as the son of God, not God himself. If he was God himself, then why would he pray? Also exactly who did he ask to take his life when he was on the cross? himself? no he was not God in any means, he was his Son. That being said, why does it even matter? All that really matters is love and peace, so why is this such a heated argument? This is what turns me off from Judaism, how everyone breaks everything down into the tinest most literal form possible. Don't read for the prose, read for the message.....

 

Jews don't believe in Jesus. They liked him in the beginning, because they thought he was going to lead a revolt against the Romans. After that fell apart, he was regarded as just another holy fool.

Some Jews make a very good living off the Christian pilgrims that flock to Israel however.

Always been good money in "God".



x