Why majority Jews reject Jesus as Son of God ?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Saint, Jun 18, 2003.

  1. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,669
    That is not what my translation says.
    Micah 5:4-5
    If Assyria invades our country and treads upon our land, We shall raise against it seven shepherds, eight men of royal rank; And they shall tend the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod with the drawn sword; And we shall be delivered from Assyria, if it invades our land and treads upon our borders."

    footnotes
    5,4f This passage, expressing confidence in Judah's ability to deliver itself from Assyria, is in contrast with the preceding messianic oracle, which ascribes deliverance to the Lord and his agent. Some believe that here the prophet is quoting the words of the defiant men of Judah. The shepherds and men of royal rank are one and the same:warriors capable of routing Assyria. The smae kind of numerical progression is used by Amos(1, 3), and elsewhere in the Bible.

    5,5 Nimrod: the legendary ancestor of the Mesopotamians; Gn 10,10ff
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    1)Through the ancestry of Jesse and David, who were both from Bethlehem, and Ephrathites, as I have said. "A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a branch will bear fruit" (Is. 11:1). Incidentally, Ephrath means "to bear fruit".

    2)Other witnesses include: Mary, Joseph, and Luke, The Magi from the East found him there, and the priests whom Herod consulted pointed him to Bethlehem: "And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea", and the shepherds (tending a sacrificial flock, by the way) who heard: "Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord." Interesting that shepherds should be mentioned (and not by Matthew)...

    And where else would Joseph have gone? "And Joseph, also, went up from Galilee (far north), out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea (Herod's southern jurisdiction), unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; because he was of the house and lineage of David(Tribe of Judah)"

    3)The Assyrians did attack, and their capital was destroyed (The Fall of Nineveh). The prophecy was that Assyria would not rule over Jersualem, but instead fall under the rule of others, and it came true. They were replaced by the Babylonians, who took the Israelites into custody. Another prophecy that came true. The Babylonians were overthrown by the Persians (another...), and the Persians by Alexander the Great and his generals, and eventually the Romans. And still no Davidic messiah was evident. The Jews are still waiting for him.

    You'll see that both Nineveh and Babylon featured heavily in prophecies. Jesus mentioned the sign of Jonah... where was Jonah sent? To Nineveh, to warn them of their destruction. Babylon is mentioned more in relation to the end-times. As enemies, they equalled the Assyrians, although it is now more a spiritual enemy than a physical one. Although the prophecy was fulfilled, it is still a valid prophecy, and we are still expecting the overthrow of "Babylon".

    4)Another? Care to indicate what you base his supposed bias on?
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2003
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ConsequentAtheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579
    First of all, well done. I appreciate your efforts ...
    1. Please trace Jesus ancestry back to "Beit-Lechem Efratah, Being small among the clans of Yehudah"
    2. Referring to "Mary, Joseph, and Luke, The Magi from the East " as credible witneses is a bit like pointing to Toto, the Lion, the Tin Man, and the Scarecrow as credible witnesses to the Munchkins. Luke relies on Matthew, and the rest are simpy part of the story - a story apparently unknown to Mark.
    3. So? What does this have to do with the end of the 2nd Temple Period?
    4. Yes, another: he was equally sloppy with the Virgin Birth, the Nazarene, and the suicide, but let's stick with Micah for now. As to why, I haven't the foggiest idea. Why Koresh supporters?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    ConsequentAtheist,
    Don't get me wrong, I like doing all the research, but before I get lost in the intricacies of the synoptic problem, Jewish cultural history, translation and other biblical details, I would like to know:
    Would proving all this convince you of sin and salvation?
     
  8. Mucker Great View! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    758
    I think there is more to it. Someone once posted how Jesus was some kind of 'scapegoat'. If the religions before Christianity really did have a leader born of God (immaculate conception), or whatever, then I can see no reason why Jesus would have taken some sort of blame, and died so that this other leader may live. Jesus therefore dies for out sins, if what is written here is true.
     
  9. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    While we're still on the subject... I came across these very comprehensive notes on Micah 5:2-4, specifically regarding the context and translation. I haven't read it in full yet, but it might be of interest.

    Exegetical notes on Micah 5:2-4

    Mucker,
    It's not clear from exactly what you mean. Do you propose Jesus died so that the messiah could live? It's an interesting view, but I would like you to elaborate a little. From my perspective it seems to say that Jesus died so that Jesus could live - which sound right enough, since Jesus died so that God could restore him as King over death, but it could lead to problems if you take it much further. The very term "scapegoat" is an originally biblical one, by the way.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2003
  10. Mucker Great View! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    758
    Thank you Jenyar!! 'The very term "scapegoat" is an originally biblical one, by the way.' I didn't know this! In what sense was it introduced?

    'Do you propose Jesus died so that the messiah could live?', yes, this is what I meant.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    Mucker,
    The scapegoat is a recurring theme of Jewish history. The Jewish holiday "Yom Kippur" celebrates this "day of atonement". In biblical times, it was a real goat upon which the Jewish high priest cast all the sins of the people:

    Leviticus 16
    7 Then he is to take the two goats and present them before the LORD at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 8 He is to cast lots for the two goats-one lot for the LORD and the other for the scapegoat. [Hebrew azazel the "goat of removal"] 9 Aaron shall bring the goat whose lot falls to the LORD and sacrifice it for a sin offering. 10 But the goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the LORD to be used for making atonement by sending it into the desert as a scapegoat.


    Take note that the goat was to be presented alive. This is where many critics say that Jesus was not a valid sacrifice for our sins. But they forget that these sacrifices were provided by God in the first place for a reason: that they were necessary. A goat alone in the desert is totally dependent on sustenance, and since it is presented to God, by faith these people would have trusted God to take care of it. By all other expectations it would die a natural death, and their sins would die with it. You can see this was just a temporary solution.
    Another typology for Christ was the Passover lamb:

    Exodus 12
    27 then tell them, 'It is the Passover sacrifice to the LORD, who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt and spared our homes when he struck down the Egyptians.'


    The lamb without defect (sinless) was sacrificed (killed) as a perfect sacrifice, so that God's people would be spared (they would eat it and use the blood on their doors - this became the Christian holy communion). This time as a sacrifice of redemption. However, God did not let Jesus die, but raised him up to live, so that he would be the ever-living atonement for our sins. So Jesus was presented dead to us, and alive to God. Through Jesus we have inherited life with God, and escaped death because of sin.

    The reason for all these things, and indeed most religious activity, is necessity. Our position before God is one of separation, and we are guilty of all kinds of independance from God. The purpose of sacrifice, and ultimately salvation, is to restore that relationship by removeing the obstacles (sin) and escaping the consequence of separation from God (eternal death). God rectified both these problems through Jesus - not just as a man, but as someone with the full authority of God himself.

    It's an action of "saving" (salvation) "taking back" (redemption) and "keeping" (atonement). (This action is mimicked by baptism.)
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2003
  12. Mucker Great View! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    758
    So people (and animals), as nothing more than carrier's and purponents of values, who follow 'God's word', should eventually produce what? An equal for God?! But why would 'he' need this? He can produce and re-produce on his own (by the looks of it) *looks around* Surely none of us can be an equal for God anyway!
     
  13. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    All of creation belongs to God, since He created it. No, these are symbols in essence saying: "take note". Nothing drives home a message like a visible demonstration. You could take Kung Fu as an example - you take 'time' and 'energy' and develop a 'system of application' known as martial arts. The parallel to such a 'system' is the way of life according to God's will, while staying aware of what leads us away from that system of practice.

    The New Testament uses the example of the Law (essentially Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy and Leviticus) that was given to expose wrongdoings and illustrate God's will. By doing nothing and sitting on a spot, you can't break any laws, right? But in God's law, this is would be an unproductive life, and would lead to your own demise (we see it as 'psychological' and 'social' regression). On the other hand, getting off your behind and doing something requires a code of ethics. A way of doing what needs to be done. This is the narrow road the Bible talks about. There are no clear edges, only the ones in your mind (we tend to call them 'morals') - but again, all the time we need to keep God's will in mind. Incidentally, this is also the reason for the Sabbath law: that we should not become addicted to work and forget God's will.

    I'm probably rambling a bit, sorry. There's an infinite amount of things to say about the subject

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    What I was aiming at is an anwer to your question:
    What it produces is not an equal for God, but a life for God. God does not need this, He expects this! Before you jump on your horse about God being an autocratic dictator - it is our lives we are talking about here! This is at the same time the purpose of our lives and an indication of the inadequacy of our powers. If it were a road, we would never reach the destination. The purpose of God's laws are to 1)make us aware 2)direct our thoughts 3)give us hope that there can be salvation, redemption and atonement!

    It is this hope that Christ embodies. He has demonstrated his own equality with God, and made it possible for us to be reuited with God. Take for example the hope that "suffering will end". What have we learned? 1)There is a way to end it 2)We have to work towards that purpose 3)We don't have the power to end it on our own - but God has made it possible. He has shown and asked it. Suddenly our suffering has a perspective - we can place ourselves on the map: we are suffering just as Christ suffered, but instead of dying on a heap of sin and guilt, we are dying to sin every day while we 'remain in Him'. We can wake up every morning with the knowledge that He has atoned for our sins (been the scapegoat) and live our day walking on that same narrow path... making a difference.
     
  14. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    How was he from the lineage of david?
     
  15. ConsequentAtheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579
    Depending on the definition, I require very little to convince me of sin. The rest would greatly depend on the quality of the proof.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    Through his legal father, Joseph. And God adopted David as his son (Ps. 2:7), so through the Spirit, Jesus and David had the same Holy Father.
     
  17. ConsequentAtheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579
    And his relation to the clan of Ephrata?
     
  18. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    Remember, I am only exploring the idea that Ephrata is referring to a human (clan) in this passage, as per your interpretation, while I think it is only implied indirectly. But the conclusion is the same: Neither interpretation precludes Bethlehem from being prophetic.

    The original contention is that both words "Bethlehem Ephrata" refer to the town of Bethlehem - known as Ephrata - in the land of Judah, in a usage similar to 1 Chronicles 2:24: "After Hezron died in Caleb Ephrathah"). The town is 'personified' in Micah 5:2 as the hometown and representative of the specific Calebite clan, the Ephrathites. (1Chronicles 2:19)*

    From Matthew 1 (and you can verify it in Chronicles if you have the time):
    Abraham -> Isaac -> Jacob -> Judah -> Perez -> Hezron ->
    Caleb marries Ephrath -> Hur --> Salma, founder of Bethlehem, (1 Chron.2:51) called Ephrata (after his grandmother?) and his clan and the inhabitants are called Ephathrites.

    ...until --> Boaz marries Ruth (a Moabite, who were precluded from converting to Judaism (Deut. 23:4)) --> Jesse -> David

    1 Samuel 17:12
    Now David was the son of an Ephrathite named Jesse, who was from Bethlehem in Judah.

    Unfortunatey I can't prove that Joseph was a Jew from the line of David any better than Matthew and Luke tries to do it. All I can say is that Joseph would not have gone to Bethlehem if he wasn't.

    I must say I have learned a lot by doing this. Hope it's of high enough quality?

    *CALEBITES:
    ...The narratives in Josh. xv. 14 et seq. and Judges i. 12 et seq. were composed to establish the claim of certain Calebite clans to particular localities (see Achsa and Othniel). It appears from I Chron. ii. 18 et seq. that the pre-exilian territory of the Calebites included Ziph and Mareshah and other towns in the extreme south of Judah; while another list in the same chapter (verses 46 et seq.), by representing certain personified towns as sons of Caleb's concubines, among which is Bethlehem, indicates that after the Exile the clan was pushed farther north. This was doubtless due to the occupation of the south by Edomites.

    ***
    PS. I found another interesting fact: the first mention of Ephrata in the Bible is as the place where Rachel (the wife of Jacob) died. The first mention of Joseph in the Bible is... Rachel's first-born son. (As you know, that Joseph was called the 'dreamer', one of the youngest and least favoured of Jacob's sons, sold as a slave, who later became chief counsellor to the Pharoah).

    1 Chronicles 5:2
    ...and though Judah was the strongest of his brothers and a ruler came from him, the rights of the firstborn belonged to Joseph.

    And 'Joseph' is the only name that appears three times. (Juda appears two times and once as Judah). Also Zechariah mentions four of the names included in Luke's genealogy of Joseph, in the correct order, 500 years before Jesus:
    Zechariah 12
    12 The land will mourn, each clan by itself, with their wives by themselves: the clan of the house of David and their wives, the clan of the house of Nathan and their wives, 13 the clan of the house of Levi and their wives, the clan of Shimei and their wives.

    Coincidence?
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2003
  19. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    Lol. Dude, you make me laugh. I'll reply later.
     
  20. ConsequentAtheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579
    My interpretation? On the contrary, I've demonstrated it to be a well established interpretation, and you've concurred that "translation is not the problem."

    Explain to me again how Jesus came to belong to this tribe, and why Matthew felt it necesssar for him to be born in Bethlemem in order to fulfill the "prophecy".
     
  21. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    ???

    And to quote myself again:
    "Through the ancestry of Jesse and David, who were both from Bethlehem, and Ephrathites, as I have said. "A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a branch will bear fruit" (Is. 11:1)"

    This "branch" is the Messiah. Which is why it was significant that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and why Matthew and Luke mentioned it.
     
  22. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,346
    Jesus died (or did he?)

    Very interesting question! There were two Jesuses in question here. One was of the virgin birth fame, "Jesus, Son of God," and the other was a common criminal by the name of "Jesus Barabbas." Both of them were to be crucified at the same time. Pilate offered to let one of them go. He asked the crowd who they wanted to be let go. The crowd alledgedly said, "Let Barabbas go." And so he did.

    My disbelief in the crucifixion and death of Jesus, Son of God, is this: Both men (if they actually ever existed0 were named Jesus. Jesus Barabbas in Aramaic means "Jesus, Son of the Father." He was the one Pilate let go. Therefore, there was no crucifixion and no death to Jesus, Son of God or Jesus, Son of the Father. Same person. Same thing.

    Besides, the Messiah is not simply one person. The Messiah is the cumulative Spirit of God in Man (the human race).

    Medicine*Woman
     
  23. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    Jesus was a common name (although calling Barabbas 'Jesus' could have been a scribe's error since it only exists in Matthew). It could be a tradition that arose because Jesus "was crucified so that a sinner could have life". One Man for another. Jesus was Son of God, chosen by God, we are sons ('children') of God - as created by Him. The 'created' was replaced by the 'chosen', the natural was replaced by the choice. The crucifiction marked a change in who we are under God. Whether Barabbas existed or not - he is a type for all humanity, and Jesus certainly did exist.

    Not by any definition of 'messiah' that ever existed. Did you make this up? The Biblical mossiach ('anointed (Christos in Greek)) is one man, a descendent of David.

    The Spirit you might have in mind is the Spirit given to us by Jesus - the Holy Spirit of God. He is only in those who believe in God or those whom He chooses.
     

Share This Page