Why majority Jews reject Jesus as Son of God ?

Every beast has a name.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be the suitable partner for the man"

This is a christan belief.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Christian belief?

That is my belief, but I'm not Xian. This belief is held by many non-Xians.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

in Hebrews god clearly states for the record that jesus is nothing more than a priest for eternity. Many others also shared that role but jesus was lucky enough to live forever and thus was given that "office" by god. Do not think the ability to live forever makes someone a god, because in doing so you would also have to accept melchizedek as a god.

Yes, jesus deserves a greater glory than moses, as the bible says, but that doesnt make him a god.

Furthermore we're told countless times that we must go through jesus to get to god. Again, that doesn't make jesus anything near being a god- just he is the mediator priest that people see before getting to god.

Furthermore god said you'd know the true messiah by fulfillment of certain prophecies. jesus has not to date fulfilled those prophecies and so can only, as god says, be looked upon as a false prophet.

p.s: There is a group called jews for jesus.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Christianity is fake, full of lies, and its theology has too many deadlocks that can not be logically solved,

it is principally a superstitious religion that squeeze money from people's pockets.

Goddam .

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The priest role is to glorify God. As Isaiah prophesied
Isaiah 60:9b "In the name of the LORD, your God, the Holy One of Israel has glorified you." Now we know that Christ said that he does nothing for his own glory but only the glory of his Father in heaven. And we also know that John says that the Holy One Jesus.

 

Ok okinrus, but that doesn't argue the point that jesus is not and never has been a "god".

Furthermore, you didn't tell me why he's anything other than a false prophet. He did not fulfil the prophecies etc etc etc.... why not answer it?

 

God told Isaiah that the Messiah would come soon. That was around 600BC so soon for God is not in human understanding.

 

That doesn't bear relevance to anything i said. try again.

 

Without the specific prophesies I'm not really sure what your talking about. The prophesies concerning the end of the world have not come true yet?

 

OT Prophesies fulfilled by Jesus

 

???
The holy crusades?
the spanish inquisition?
Salem which trials?
Islamic Jihad?

If those aren't examples of religion 'advocating' greed, a desire to control, and to state superiority, what the hell are they??

 

Prophesy #1: Micah 5:2 - Wrong!

Jenyar, these laundry lists are a joke, reflecting bad translations, forced interpretations, or both.

 

That's a pretty broad condemnation. I can understand that some of them might be cryptic, but translation is not the problem.

On what information do you dismiss the Micah prophesy - that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the town of David?

Prophesies aren't really in our culture anymore, so we aren't familiar with their use and interpretation. Because of their nature, you can't really know whether a prophesy is supposed to be literal or not, or even if it applies to the Messiah or not, except by faith. And that is where we lose each other, I guess.

 

This is classic hijacking of a religion, but it seems you're not subtle enough to understand the deeper meaning of things.

 

Translation is not the problem? Excellent! You will, therefore, have no problem whatsoever with the following:

Your "prophesy" refers, not to a city, but to the clan of Efratah, son of Caleb's second wife. Once again, Matthew blew it.

 

Well first off, I can't relly see what subtlety has to do with understanding.
Secondly it isn't hijacking religions. People did what they did in the name of god. True, these people may not have always have spoken for the majority. But in the case of the inquisitions, where it was not only authorized by the pope, but created by the pope, I don't see how that isn't a religion backing some very cruel ideas. Because the pope said it, it does go for the whole religion:

"the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church ..."
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm)

See I personally don't have a problem with any religion, and no I'm not atheist. I just thinkits laughable when people assume all religions are nice, happy things can't be blamed for anything bad. The crusades? Yeah, it was people, not the religion. Why did they do it? For religion. Once again iit was the catholic church.

"All crusades were announced by preaching. After pronouncing a solemn vow, each warrior received a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a soldier of the Church. Crusaders were also granted indulgences and temporal privileges, such as exemption from civil jurisdiction, inviolability of persons or lands, etc."
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04543c.htm)

Hell, that just the newer religions. Lets not get into the ones that called for human sacrifice.

Perhaps you ment the tenants of no modern religions support those ideas. Even then, you would be wrong. Look into religions like satanism and the church of satan (actually two different ideas). Or, perhaps you are just really didn't think about what you were saying. There are alot of religions out there. A few do advocate greed, controlling others and stating superiority.

Don't make broad blanket statements when they aren't true as such.

inquisition:
http://es.rice.edu/ES/humsoc/Galileo/Student_Work/Trial96/loftis/overview.html

 

Genesis 35:19
So Rachel died and was buried on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem)

Bethlehem Ephratah (Micah 5:2), is also known as Bethlehem-Judah (1 Samuel 17:12), destinguishing the tribe (clan) who associated with it, and maybe even the town itself, since there was another Bethlehem in Galilee. Note that the name of the town itself means "House of Lehem". So it actually reads: "the minor clan of Ephrath from the House of Lehem will bear a ruler":

People who came from Bethlehem, among them King David and his father, were called Ephathrites (Ruth 1:2). The clan was descendent of the Moabite Ruth, who was precluded from converting to Judaism (Deut. 23:4), but followed the God of her mother-in-law Naomi anyway (Ruth 1:16), 'adopting' her religion, and 'being adopted' by God. From her line David was born - the King of the Jews - and God turned the curse into a blessing (Neh. 13:1-2).

So, yes, the passage says that from the clan of Ephrata there will come a ruler, but specifically from the town of Bethlehem. A town itself cannot produce a human being, only human beings do. I also do not think it is a coincidence that the town and the clan has the same denominator Ephrath, though I don't know how significant it is. There is a lot of history to that verse, and it is not only what is written in that line which makes it Messianic.

And if some of the most prominent Jews themselves interpreted it as a Messianic Prophesy, who are we to argue?

"Although thou art little among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall come forth unto me a Judge to be Ruler in Israel, and this is the King Messiah. "
- Rabbi David Kimchi (also known as Redak or Radak)

" The King Messiah... from where does he come forth? From the royal city of Bethlehem in Judah. "
- Jerusalem Talmud, Berakoth 5a

 

Now, all you need to do is

1. prove that Jesus was from the clan of Ephrata
2. prove that someone named Jesus was, in fact, born in Bethlehem as asserted in gMat
3. explain the embarrassing lack of Assyrians
4. and show why the whole thing is not better explained as another Matthean attempt at reverse engineering a prophecy

Good luck.

 

Aramaic is an assyrian language.

 

Thanks for sharing ...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

... and for avoiding the questions.