Why don’t Jews Believe Jesus was a Messiah?? Dr. Brown vs. Rabbi Frietag

a reply to: whereislogic

Brilliant post's.

Thank you for making them.

originally posted by: Deetermined
You sound like the one with the inferiority complex. God's only "absentee" to those who ignore and reject Him.

Just like the Snuffleupagus.

a reply to: whereislogic

Anointed one doesn’t mean “son of god” or divine being..

A) It just means anointed with oil.. just like lots of priests and Kings..like Cyrus the great is also anointed..


B) “I have become your father.”

Sounds like he was not born that way to me...

The Jews however refer to god as their father and them as his sons. If you watch any Rabbi today they will refer to god as their father, but in a different tone than Christians.. a more familiar tone like literal son to father..

I bet that isn’t even remotely the only time god referred to a human prophet in those terms..

. so it stil doesn’t work either way..

C) when did jesus break the kingdoms of man with his scepter???? This guy is supposed to do that right??


D) Matthew is NT.. we are talking the Hebrew Torah.. using the NT written after the crusifiction is proof of nothing prophecy wise..


E) This is what isiah chapter 9, 7 actually says...

“7 The Lord has sent a word against Jacob, and it has fallen in Israel.”

www.chabad.org...

So you can verify it..

Funny how the Christian OT is supposed to be an exact copy of the Torah right???


Well I really thank you for showing me just the most obvious but of forgery ever..


Imho that really should make the whole point by itself..

The Torah version in that chapter is NOTHING like what Christianity claims, and Christianity’s claim is just way to lengthy to have been a mistranslation...










D

a reply to: whereislogic

Man look at this Contrast..

Just to make sure you don’t miss this at the end of my last post...

7 Let me proclaim the decree of Jehovah; He said to me: “You are my son; Today I have become your father.

Ok so that is the Christian OT “translation of that verse..


Here is the Torah’s version....

7 The Lord has sent a word against Jacob, and it has fallen in Israe

Where the hell did they supposedly get the “father and son” part out of that?!?!?

That isn’t a simple difference of translation or context. There are not even the same word count at all!!!



www.chabad.org...

Here is so you can verify I didn’t cut it..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Let's see, Jewish Scholars have agreed the Torah has actually accrued errors over the ages and of course Christian Scholars believe the Bible has as well.
Meaning they estimate that perhaps 5 percent of the book of genesis is actually wrong and up to 20 or 30 percent in book's such as Samuel and Jeremiah.

Sorry this page has advert's but it is worth reading.
forward.com...

This is actually surprising considering the painstaking purification rabbi's have to go through when copying an earlier scroll and the fact they are never supposed to deviate by even a single word or the whole scroll is then classed as worthless because it has become in error and yet it seem's to have been what happened, perhaps it is actually less surprising when you consider the pogrom's and persecution's that must have meant at time's the scroll's had to then be recreated from memory when they were lost which I would assume happened a great many time's though they would then have tried to find intact and perfect copy's, still over time differences did arise.

You are using the Chabad and perhaps the Yemeni version to justify yourself but were they original?.
What happened in the intervening 1200 and more years before they were written.
And then you even have Rabbi's whom seem to believe they knew better than Gd and forbade certain features so they perhaps even edited them out in later scroll's as mentioned in this account of a possibly 850 year or even older Torah Scroll found in a library in Italy.
www.bbc.co.uk...
en.wikipedia.org...

And of course you DO realize that the Septuagint was actually based on OLDER Torah's that were much closer to the expulsion from the holy land in time and likely also MORE accurate.

Of course over time from that first Greek Translation of the Torah the christian bible has also accumulated error's mostly through translation and through interpretation but what you are suggesting is perhaps not correct but then again it is correct to some degree for both faith's.

a reply to: andy06shake

It gets trickier than that. When I was young it was pedaled by Christian's that they worshiped the same god. Whilst all 3 faiths stem supposedly from the tribes of Abraham their Supreme deity has different Characteristics.

christinprophecy.org...

This week, I interviewed a Jewish rabbi, a Muslim imam and scholar, and a Methodist minister about this question: "Do Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God?" All three said, "yes … basically they do." (Not all representatives of these three traditions would agree, of course, but these three -- all veterans of the interfaith movement -- said yes right away.) Now, they recognized some complications, like the Christian belief in the Trinity and that Jesus is called the "Son of God," but they still came away affirming that God is basically one and the same for all three traditions.


It's not often that such a theological dispute makes news, but this one has. And it's not often that the Catholic church is quite progressive in its approach, as my guests were pleased to note.

In fact, this dispute raised up for me the teaching of the Second Vatican Council which affirmed that Muslims "adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet

If you want to know why the world is the way it - and why its stays the same I suggest you study the Gods Of Eden by William Bramley.

for a review
www.amazon.com...

or a thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: ketsuko

But the omniscient being might have a change of mind and give a pass like when it decided to not be omniscient in the Garden and allowed the serpent a free day pass to play with Eve's mind.

Hang on - doesn't it say not to judge others...Kets are you judging? ( I know you better than that so I don't think you are )

a reply to: Deetermined

Without getting into predestination because volumes have been written on it; explain how people that have never opened a Bible are given a chance of everlasting life.

There have been countless people who have lived and died without ever hearing of "the Bible"; are they in the Catholics Purgatory? hehe

www.crossroadsinitiative.com...

So does God want some people to go to hell and so withhold this grace of faith? The Catholic Church on numerous occasions has clearly said no, in fidelity to the Scriptures. Paul, in 1 Timothy 2:4, says this: “God wants all to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” So the Church has always believed that God gives to each person, at least atone time in their life, sufficient grace to be saved.

a reply to: Seede

Paul was also chosen as the thirteenth apostle by Jesus

By Jesus?
Really...
Not quite........

www.judaismvschristianity.com...

His apostleship was unrecognized by others. Of the 22 times in the Bible where Paul is referred to as an "apostle", only twice is he referred to as an apostle by someone other than himself! These two instances came from the same person. Not from Yeshua, or any of the original apostles, but from Paul's close traveling companion and personal press secretary Luke. Both accounts are found in Luke's record of the Acts of the Apostles, (chapter 14:4,14). Here Paul is referred to as an apostle along with Barnabas. By this time in the story, Luke would have been very accustomed to Paul calling himself an apostle, and he would no doubt have been in agreement with Paul's assessment of himself. By these statistics alone, it is evident that Paul is by far his own biggest fan... and his side kick Luke was his number two fan. This leaves no one else anywhere in the Bible going on record recognizing his apostleship!

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

The deity portrayed in the old testament doesn't even resemble the one in the new.

Let's face it, the God in the old book seems to display some really nasty tendencies towards mass genocide, filicide, obedience and wrath whilst the God in the new testament is all about unconditional love and sending his only son to save and/or redeem our souls.

Ile give "Gods Of Eden" a go as i am looking for something interesting to read right now, but i take it, sounding by its premise, its about fallen Angels/Nephilim/ancient astronauts descending to Earth and messing around/teaching Humanity about science and ethics?

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

The story of Jesus saving him and converting him was when Jesus chose him, the other apostles did not and that page you have published is only ONE School of thought on the matter, he worked signs' in the name of Christ and even the other apostles could not stop him so who do you think was moving in him if not the holy ghost, it was certainly NOT Satan because the other apostles would have simply cast it out by the power of the Holy Ghost which had come upon them and his ministry would have ended there and then, Jesus sent him, a former servant of the Sanhedrin and former devout anti Jesus Jew to convert people to the way and his testimony was and remain's powerful to this very day.

Of course the devil hate's him for saving so many by bringing them to Jesus which is why he put's so much hatred for him in the world even today.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: whereislogic

Man look at this Contrast..

Just to make sure you don’t miss this at the end of my last post...

7 Let me proclaim the decree of Jehovah; He said to me: “You are my son; Today I have become your father.

Ok so that is the Christian OT “translation of that verse..

Here is the Torah’s version....

7 The Lord has sent a word against Jacob, and it has fallen in Israe

You are responding with Isaiah 9:8 to Psalm 2:7. I think you're getting a bit confused here, also because the verse numbering is a little different in the translation you're using. Originally, there were no verse numbers, people added those later for easy reference (which of course doesn't help much if 2 translations are using a different numbering system). On top of that, the whole Hebrew word for "lord" does not appear in that sentence in the original Hebrew, it still has God's name there. In both verses.

Psalm 2:7 from your link:

I will tell of the decree; The Lord said to me, "You are My son; this day have I begotten you.

Still not honest about "The Lord" because the original Hebrew has God's name there and not the Hebrew word for "lord" (adonai), but the rest is pretty much the same (of course that won't stop people from making Hebrew bible copies that don't stay true to the original or older manuscripts and replace God's name with the Hebrew word for "lord" or some other word to give people the impression that that's what the Hebrew says). Especially once you look up in the dictionary what "begotten" means. If you compare all the bible translations listed on biblehub, you will see that some translations will say "begotten thee" (KJV for example) and some translations will render it as "I have become your father." (NIV for example). The keypoint behind my reason for quoting that verse, "my son" (which was a response to your comment about a "son of God") is the same.

Isaiah 9:5 from your link (which is verse 6 in my earlier quotation):

For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."

Nice subtle change in the order of those words to pretend that it's not:

His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

Funny how only a Jewish translation does it that way and every other translation I'm seeing on biblehub has some rendering of "and called" "his name" in front of the list that includes "Mighty God" as it does in the Hebrew. The Hebrew words that mean "and called" "his name" according to the biblehub tab for the Hebrew linked above, apply to the entire list. Why won't the Jewish translators of the source you used be honest about that fact/certainty/truth/reality? Perhaps Jesus made a good point regarding the answer to that question (see comment below).

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: whereislogic

Anointed one doesn’t mean “son of god” or divine being..

...

Irrelevant, since I never said it did.

The Jews however refer to god as their father and them as his sons. If you watch any Rabbi today they will refer to god as their father, but in a different tone than Christians.. a more familiar tone like literal son to father..

As they did in Jesus' time, still doesn't mean that Jehovah God is their real spiritual father or that they will be more honest in translation.

John 8:38-48

38 I speak the things I have seen while with my Father, but you do the things you have heard from your father.” 39 In answer they said to him: “Our father is Abraham.” Jesus said to them: “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works of Abraham. 40 But now you are seeking to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do this. 41 You are doing the works of your father.” They said to him: “We were not born from immorality; we have one Father, God.”

42 Jesus said to them: “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I have not come of my own initiative, but that One sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because you cannot listen to my word. 44 You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a murderer when he began,* [Or “from the beginning.”] and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie. 45 Because I, on the other hand, tell you the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Who of you convicts me of sin? If I speak truth, why is it that you do not believe me? 47 The one who is from God listens to the sayings of God. This is why you do not listen, because you are not from God.”

48 In answer the Jews said to him: “Are we not right in saying, ‘You are a Sa·marʹi·tan+ and have a demon’?” 49 Jesus answered: “I do not have a demon, but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me. 50 But I am not seeking glory for myself; there is One who is seeking and judging.

Jesus always spoke of Jehovah as someone else, he always gave all credit to Jehovah as well for his teachings which he was taught by his Father. Jesus worshipped the same God that the Jewish religious leaders and rabbis falsely claimed to have as a father.

a reply to: andy06shake

its about fallen Angels/Nephilim/ancient astronauts descending to Earth and messing around/teaching Humanity about science and ethics

It goes into the monetary system and amongst other topics how throughout the ages there is a hidden hand that benefits from blood shed.

a reply to: whereislogic

I’m now wasting my time reading anything from the NT...


It is irrelevant to the conversation...

Assuming I notice your reply, I will reply to anything concerning the Torah, since it predates jesus.

That is like proving Joseph smith met an angle by pointing to the Book of Mormon and assuming it is all true..



I’m pretty sure most agree the Jewish Torah is unchanged since before jesus.. the NT cannot even make the claim it is unchanged the last century..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I get so irritated when people say that Jesus is God. The Teacher you all know as Jesus never once in his life tried to equate himself with God, but the exact opposite, he equated himself with the dust that is on the ground, and gave God all the praise, while giving himself no praise at all.

And if all you Christians do not understand that value of the Savior's teaching, all of you should drop your beliefs and do some major soul searching because when you venture onto the next world you will for sure without a doubt in the world REGRET YOUR DECISION MAKING. You will certainly acknowledge yourself as a gullible fool who was determined to reject the gospel of the very Master that you claim to worship, arousing his disappointment and causing yourself to repent as to why you did not LISTEN to his teaching and why you chose to believe every other fool instead of doing the proper research to understand the gospel that He Spoke.

Here is what I read this morning which made me come here-

There is no indication that he followed Jesus at all during Jesus' earthly lifetime. After the resurrection, however, he is one of the leading figures in the church.

I suppose this makes sense. After all, it would be hard for any of us to be convinced that our big brother is the creator of the world.

Ever Since Paul - A World Of Liars and Blasphemous Culprits have Stolen the Christian Religion and have been Perpetrating It Ongoing Since Paul.

The fact that IDIOT Leaders Teach the Masses THIS Bull Crap makes me so mad, how can you get history completely wrong when you are teaching the world population what happened???

Not Once Did Christ Ever Make Clear That He Assumed Himself As The Creator Of Heaven And Earth!!!

And the fact that so many of you (maybe not on this site but out in the world) believe such horrible brainwashing lies, makes me even more mad at how completely foolish and gullible people are.

a reply to: LABTECH767

And yet isnt it more logical that from his background Paul subverted the early community to transform it Romes will?

www.quora.com...

Question: How can St. Paul have been an apostle if he never was Jesus's disciple?

Apostle means “sent” or “messenger”. According to the early church, you had to have seen Jesus in order to be an apostle, and seeing Him in a visit or vision (as Saul did on the road)as well as in the Arabian desert for 3 years (see Gal 1:18), he apparently saw and met Jesus. He calls this out often as he sends letters confirming his credentials in the first part of each epistle, almost.

There is no need for anybody to be saved - saying the devil hates him for his success in creating an all inclusive sect of Judaism that not teaches false teaching to a large part of the population is nonsense.

If you cant see that needing his blood to be spilled (Jesus) is no different than pagan and old Testament blood sacrifices that are anathema to a Creator I cant really help you. The JHVH like the demiurge is not mans friend.

a reply to: JoshuaCox
Even the JPS Tanakh 1917 (JPS = Jewish Publication Society) has the following at Isaiah 9:6:

For a child is born unto us, A son is given unto us; And the government is upon his shoulder; And his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;

The entire list after "his name is called". I'm calling intentional deception on your preferred source of translation of the Hebrew Scriptures in switching the wording there and pretending that "his name is called" doesn't apply to "Mighty God" (Hebrew: ʼEl Gib·bohrʹ) by changing it to:

For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."

Pretending it says something else and only "the prince of peace" counts as part of "called his name".

a reply to: whereislogic

To the previous post..

A apologize for the mix up...

So I went and researched the Jewish interpretation of the psalms verse.


A) there is a very good argument, it is god talking to David. David fill filled all the check marks apparently.

He was at war with multiple nations that he beat and he is believed to be the autor. So it would make sense that is from his personal bio.

B) it is talking about their version of a (human) messiah and Jesus still doesn’t check any boxes..

B1) Jesus did not go to war with multiple nations and win.

B2) god refers to “ my son” as a possessive.. not a singluar(??? I’m winging it on grammar terminology lol) or first person..

I don’t know how the hell you word “my son who is also me”... but imho you would think it would be different from just the Normal “my son”..



C) I know you are just going to say that Jesus will check those boxes when he comes back, BUT YOU CANT USE WHAT HASNT HAPPENED YET AS PROOF..


I could literally say that..

“I will fulfill all the phrophecies about my comming, only later.. maybe even after I die.. WAY after I die.. like 2000+ years after I die.. “



I would be suprised if the Christian bibles had the closer correct translation..

The fact that 20 Christian translations say X, And only the Torah says Y is not proof the Christian one is more accurate.. there is only one Torah right?

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: whereislogic

A) there is a very good argument, it is god talking to David. David fill filled all the check marks apparently.

I prefer to call it convenient rather than "good". Convenient for those who want to deny this is about Jesus (a cop-out). Regardless, it's talking about a son of God. Which was the only thing you made a claim about. David was not begotten by Jehovah, David was begotten by his human parents. And since this is not the only text about a special son of God, it's also a bit of a cop-out to ignore the others and twist them 1 at a time. Is the other one from Isaiah 9:6 also about David? Or is there another cop-out available for that one that is inconsistent with the cop-out excuse for Psalm 2:7?

You said:

To them, the Bible says nothing about a “son of god” , ...

Them = jews

That's because just like you, they don't want to hear or admit it. And if God describes someone as "my son", then He is talking about a son of God. Both verses clearly show that the bible is talking about a specific singular son of God. So if your statement is true, then they're just sticking their heads in the sand and trying to interpret it away. In your case and regarding what you said, without addressing the usage of the word "son". Regardless of who this particular son of God is. Even if it is David, the bible still says something about a son of God. So it's a falsehood to believe that the bible says nothing about a son of God.