The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

I was raised a Christian and have always belived that Jesus was the son of god but I have also wondered what the jews of the past and present believe about him. I recently found a link that seems to explain what they think and why. I have some of my own ideas about this but the author seems to know alot more about the bible than I do. I need help from someone on the Christian side of the issue to make a case against it.

http://www.geocities.com/Metzad/

please follow the link and if you have any insight or opinions lets discuss them.

Corey,
Keep in mind that there is no one "jewish" belief. They are even more fragmented than
Christians and rely heavily on individual Rabbis (sound familiar:-). Most Jews are not Religious! They may be token Jews for holidays and weddings ( much like token "Christians") but the Die hard ultra-orthodox right wingers are in the minority outside of Israel and New York.

I scanned your link and it was typical all over the place. It was actually mild compared to some of the forums I have read. That they used the KJV was a nice touch. They (Orthodox) often claim that Mary was a prostitute, and adulteress; Jesus was somehow not really a jew-- being fathered by a Roman soldier named "Panther" and they display a thinly veiled hatred of Christianity. This IS NOT represenative of most Jews, who are secular or very close to it. The only person they truly hate is Paul, who they consider a traitor.... Muslims don't reject Jesus, they just don't believe he was God. If you come across it, never confuse hate writings as being representive of most Jewish people. I grew up in a heavily jewish area and went to school with many. Unlike the Rabbis who run Israel, they were not in the least bit anti-Christian. Also, there are many Israelis who are appalled by their governments arrogance. The US is largely responsible for this, IMHO.


The most vocal Jews are not even Jews at all, they are Christian Zionists.

S

_________________
Behold, now is "THE ACCEPTABLE TIME,"
behold, now is "THE DAY OF SALVATION" --
The apostle Paul, NASB

_________________
The proof of love is in the works. Where love exists, it works great things. But when it ceases to act, it ceases to exist.

Better now, DailyBread?

I understand how hard it is to edit typos when the edit function closes you out - so sometimes thread topics and so on remain with the typo - until a moderator gets time and inclination at the same time to do the number of edits it requires!

_________________
Avid Reader

“Lord, in my zeal for love of truth, let me not forget the truth about love.” - Thomas Aquinas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forum Code of Conduct
Forum Statement of Beliefs

Corey,

To refute the entire site would take an awful long time so I'l just refute a small portion and allow others to chime in.



The author quotes what Jews commmonly know as the "Shema" which is memorized by every orthodox Jew. The Hebrew word for one ('echad) contextually emphasizes unity rather than singularity. You can find a form of this verb used as a noun in the "cluster" of grapes brought from the Valley of Eshcol in Numbers 13:23. The differance between the KJV and what the author argues as "correct" is minimal and does not prove his point assuming that the verb ('echad) emphasizes unity.



Interesting that the name "Jesus" is the Greek rendering of "Joshua" or " 'Y-shua" in the Hebrew.The meaning of the name is "Y-H-W-H himself saves!" So if the Jew himself cannot pronounce the name "Jesus" he also cannot pronounce "Joshua" and so on. IMHO this is nonsensical. (BTW he cannot pronounce it but he obviously can type it! )

His arguments regarding the geneology is a 21st century understanding rather than a first century understanding of how Jewish writers could list geneologies. A 1st centurey Jew would never, and thus has never, produces such an argument. It also is, for that time, nonsense as well.



He CLEARLY takes Paul's quotes here out of context.



Interesting that he does not mention that the LXX or Septuigint (a Greek translation of the Hebrew Torah which appears roughly 500 yrs before Christ) translates the same word to a specific Greek word for "virgin". The LXX was translated by Hebrew religious scholars. So Jewish readers well before the first century would not have understood his argument made above.

His misquotes and misapplications continue. I'm sure others will chime in.

Blessings,
Randy

(underlining mine for emphasis)

IMHO this (especially the portion I underlined) misrepresents the Jewish mindset. Jewishness, for the most part, is a birth-right. You are either in the family of Abraham (and thus "chosen" of God) or you are not. Though there are provisions for proselytes the mindset generally remains. Both in the 1st century and today, the mindset has little to do with "religion" and more to do with physical descent and, of course, circumcision. Paul covers this in Romans 9-11 and Galatians as well.



Perhaps a discussion for another thread but...
In the first place, Rabbi's do not run Israel. Secondly the last part of the above is confusing. How is the US responsible for the Israeli Gov't?



Another statement that makes no sense to me.

Blessings,
Randy

Randy,
I could debate you but the Christian Zionism fad is almost an article of faith among many evangelicals and I don't want to unduly upset my friends. Just one or two
comments: Don't you think it highly presumtuous to speak
of "the Jewish mindset" in the 21st century? I would never go there. For starters it's arrogant. It's also likely to be seen as offensive by your object. It's almost as silly as talking about an imaginary "Christian" mindset, as if modern Christianity is monolithic and can be understood by an outsider.

You are right that the US funding and sponsorship of Zionism is a political argument.
I could really hang you here, but everyone, including myself,
will end up in flames. Pass. Israel is a Democratic Theocracy in practice. I hope this answers your questions. I have no more to add on this subject.
Peace,
S

_________________
Behold, now is "THE ACCEPTABLE TIME,"
behold, now is "THE DAY OF SALVATION" --
The apostle Paul, NASB

Serendipity,

Perhaps you should open a thread and discuss this topic of "Christian Zionism". I would suggest you supply a definition of it since at least one term is, for the most part, a product of much propaganda from the muslim perspective.

Again, this makes no sense to me. A Jew is a descendant of Abraham by birth. There are some Christians who are Jews (Some call themselves "Messianic Jews"). For the most part Jews cover a range of religions (as you pointed out) but IMO most are either practicing Judaists or inactive participants (though this perspective promotes a common misunderstanding of which I'll not try to explain at the moiment.)


No.



Seems to me you did.



Of course you didn't say "thier mindset is..." but you certainly gave an opinion based upon what you percieve to be thier mindset. I disagree about it being arrogant but if it applies to my post then it is certainly no more arrogant than your post.



No one has explained or implied that Judaism (or Christianity for that matter) is "monolithic". There is however a general "worldview" or "mindset" which generally applies to a majority of Jews who BTW affirm some form (orthodox or otherwise) of Judaism. Just as there is a general "worldview" or "mindset" for the everyday Christian.

As I understand the terms "democracy" and "theocracy" this is an oxymoronic statement.

to be clear of my meaning and to preclude the former from being taken personally please read the following definition by Merriam-webster online,


Furthur discussion along these lines should be done elsewhere (either another thread or PM) as it is a digression from the main point and is off-topic.

Blessings,
Randy

Thanks for fixing my misspelling. in the thread title

I wish this thread hadn't turned into a disagreement between Christians, seems silly to me.

The angel goes on quoting the prophet Isaiah saying: "And they shall call his name Immanuel". But this is not what is written in Isaiah 7:14; there it clearly says in the Hebrew and in the King James translation, that she, the mother, shall call his name Immanuel. This prophecy is never fulfilled in Jesus, he is never named Immanuel, instead his name was Jesus.

Its my understanding that the Word Immanuel means God with us. Did marry never recognize and call her son God among us? Wouldnt that be a good enough fullfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah? I dont understand what a jewish person invisions the comming messiah to be. A Millitary leader called God among us without really being or claiming to be God among us, but as long as he Kills alot of enemies he is worthy of being called messiah? On a scale of certainty ranging from -10 to 10 I'm only at about a 8 as to whether or not Jesus was God but I believe at an absolute 10 that he was the messiah and worthy of praise and worship. When I pray I pray to the father, never to Jesus. I thank him for his son and pray in his sons name but I have no problem in recognizing the father as
head honcho.



This kind of disturbs me. I wouldnt say it shakes my faith to the core but because I'm willing to accept this as an honest mistake due to the falliblity of man but it is a pretty big mistake. Its points like this that I was hoping to get assistance with from you all with.

p.s. I watched just about all of the 258 theology questions answered videos on bible.org and thoroughly enjoyed them. Does anyone know if those guys (Michael and Rome) ever post to these forums?

The Bible states that Terah lived 70 years and had Abram, Nahor, and Haran. First we don't know his exact age when he had his sons. Second, we can be pretty sure that the sons were not triplets so we can assume there was at least 9 months (likely at least a year) between the boys. We cannot be sure however, when Terah had his sons. In the wording it is possible for Terah to have had his sons either before he was 70 or after. It really depends upon how you translate the Hebrew here. To be clear Stephen was stoned for his conclusion which was,

His blasphemacy was stating the truth. Ironic isn't it?



Again, a minor discrepancy which flows from how one counts the house of Joseph. Was Joseph's house considered already in Egypt or not? the scholars of the LXX (Septuigint) translated this as 75 and is probably the source for Stephen's information here. Again, those scholars who translated the LXX were faithful orthodox Jews who were better trained at ancient Hebrew than our more modern counterparts. At the very least, they were somewhere around 2,500 years closer to it than are we. Not to mention that the spoken Hebrew language was lost for a period of time in our recent history. This was not so for these seventy scholars who lived about 500 bc.




You should read carefully John 1:1-15 and pay particular attention to vs. 14. Also Read Colossians 1 and Hebrews 1. as a matter of fact the book of Hebrews is a pretty good refutation of the website you referance all by itself!
Ooops out of time and Gotta go!

Blessings,
Randy

Ok I do agree. Jesus was god, its just hard to understand the entire nature of the trinity

Corey

as someone has said ... "if we could understand Him, He wouldn't be God!"

and this is precisely why we need revelation ... we really have no other way of knowing God.

in Christ

Dinah

_________________
Forum Code of Conduct
Forum Statement of Beliefs

COREY,

To answer your question: Michael Patton maintains an active blog that can be accessed through the main page menus. His blog implies that he reads this forum. I don't know if he posts here. I have no idea what Rohm is up to. Let me know if you find out. Here is a shortcut:

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/

S

_________________
Behold, now is "THE ACCEPTABLE TIME,"
behold, now is "THE DAY OF SALVATION" --
The apostle Paul, NASB

_________________
The proof of love is in the works. Where love exists, it works great things. But when it ceases to act, it ceases to exist.