Jewish testimonies (I absolutely love these)

[buttercup]

Signs are always imminent, this one was his son who'd be king and have
"God with him" in defeating Assyria thus called a father figure and prince of peace. Jesus' thousands of wars and over 50 million murders in his name does not make a prince of peace, just the opposite, the fallen one brought a scattering and slaughter of his people and to the CONFUSED world.

First of all, "religious wars" were just that - merely religious, and that has nothing to do with Jesus. Jesus taught to love one's neighbor and not only that but to love even one's enemies, and to pray for those who persecute you. Jesus had the harshest criticism for those who were "religious" but did not have God and did not value the important things like mercy, true justice, love, etc.

Secondly, you make the mistake of thinking that the Messiah came to bring peace in the first coming. No, the bible speaks of BOTH the suffering servant and the Messianic king. The first coming he was to suffer and die (this can all be backed up scripturally) but when the Messiah returns, He will bring redemption and peace to the whole world. (Hebrews 9:28). Obviously that has not come yet.

Now, Isaiah 53, is about Israel, past plural context being about Israel mentioned 14 times as the servant.

Yes, I know that's what rabbis say these days. Of course they would.

However, early rabbis said something different. The early sages agreed that it clearly speaks of God’s Anointed One, the Messiah. It wasn't until the Middle Ages that a different view was presented, and that is not surprising, I think it's obvious that the rabbis do not want the Jewish people to read it and see that it's Yeshua /Jesus, that's the last thing they want.

The words speak for themselves. Every single line is corroborated by the life of Jesus, some in very, very specific ways, and that is backed up scripturally.

Jesus was popular according to the NT therefore can't be despised without saying the NT lies.

He was clearly despised by His own people. Namely the religious types who felt threatened by Him, so much so, that they dismissed or ignored His miracles. And not only that, but according to the book of John, there was even a plot to kill Lazarus, to hide the evidence of Jesus' amazing miracle. (John 12:9-11)

AFTER the life, death, resurrection of Jesus is when Jesus' popularity grew rapidly, but during His time walking the earth He was hated by many, primarily by His own people, for His astonishing claims that they considered blasphemy.

3)Jesus is served by humanity while Moshiach serves humanity according to elsewhere in Isaiah.
4)so popular served Jesus can't be the suffering servant and of course since the chapter is not messianic it's all a mute point anyway.

You are mixing things up. Yes, of course the scriptures say that the Messiah serves, and that is precisely what Jesus did while He walked this earth.

Jesus came to serve, He taught servanthood, He washed people's feet, He taught the importance of humility and serving others, there are tons of scriptures to back that up. The entire New Testament is Jesus serving, teaching, healing, doing things for people. Even though in His nature He was a king, he set that aside and taught others how to live and love and serve others.

Yes, NOW, thousands of years later, people serve Him, but the fact remains that in Jesus' first coming, He served, even to the point of giving His life so that all of humanity can be reconciled to God.

Btw, Isaiah 53 is just one prophetic passage, there are HUNDREDS that clearly describe the coming Messiah, and it is truly amazing that Jesus fulfilled all of them, and some of them in such specific, down to the tiniest detail ways. But if your eyes are closed and your heart is hardened, then I guess it's understandable that you won't see it.

 

[Andylusion]

#####Jesus was popular according to the NT therefore can't be despised without saying the NT lies.####

good point The sunday school version is that THE "RULING JEWS" hated
Jesus but the masses loved him. Somehow the masses gathered at the crucifixion
hill and formed a cheering line chanting "crucify him..." as if they were romans watching Christians getting eaten by lions. <<< this is one of the parts of the NT
that made me a bit suspicious of it. IT IS SO ROMAN ----poor innocent Pontius Pilate (who HISTORICALLY crucified something like 20,000 jews in his 10
year tenure as defacto ruler of Judea) "didn't really want to do it---DA JOOOS
FORCED HIM" The NT does not lie-------it is most likely that Jesus was
a very popular itinerant Pharisee agitator--------an enemy of the Sadducean shills---
one of thousands (for the record---in my childhood---I had no "religion" education
other than attending a protestant sunday school a few dozen times----I colored cartoons of Jesus carrying a lamb----got that pic????)

I carried a lot of lamb myself...

That is some good stuff right there.

Unfortunately I have zero cooking ability.

 

[Andylusion]

By the way, these are testimonies of Jewish professionals… Many of them are doctors, lawyers, highly educated people.

Irrelevant.
How many (if any) of them were religious Jews?

I'm not sure what that would be relevant, since all according to the testimonies I watched, indicated a clear Jewish up bringing.

Now I will grant you that having a strict and consistent practicing Jew convert, is more difficult than a more secular Jew.

However.... if you want an example of a clear orthodox Jew converting:



This guy not only grew up in the synagogue, he was president of the synagogue, when he turned to Jesus Christ the Lord.

 

[fncceo]

One of the things I like about xtians is their ability to distance themselves from co-believers who commit heinous acts.

Slaughter a village of men women and children in the name of Jesus ... not a true xtian.

Shoot up a school ... not a true xtian.

Blow up a federal building ... not a true xtian.

When Europe decided to eradicate its Jewish populations (as it attempted to do many times in the past 1,000 years), they didn't stop to ask, "Are these true Jews we're killing?". "Do they follow all the rules of Judaism? Do they pray as Jews? " Nope, they just decided to take anyone they thought was a Jew and put them to the sword.

When a xtian commits a heinous act, he's not a true xtian. When a Jew jaywalks across the street, he's a Jewish Jaywalker.

 

[Andylusion]

I was looking at a few more testimonies, and I came across this on the same channel, something entirely different.

My first thought was... irosie91? fncceo? Is this you?

This is a MUST- see. The amazing thing is, to this day, more than 2000 years later, Jesus STILL evokes so much outrage and hatred, just like it was way back then. That in and of itself is very telling.

Btw, this type of reaction precisely corroborates what the bible prophesied, in Isaiah and other prophetic scriptures ("he was despised, and we esteemed him not")




"Seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand"
Matthew 13:13

Placement of the idol into Isaiah is a fallacious attempt to fulfill him into the OT even though they use non messianic verses that have nothing to do with a Moshiach.
Isaiah 7&9 in context is about Ahaz's son King Hezekiah as the sign given Ahaz in his day and age not 600 years later which does him no good. Signs are always imminent, this one was his son who'd be king and have
"God with him" in defeating Assyria thus called a father figure and prince of peace. Jesus' thousands of wars and over 50 million murders in his name does not make a prince of peace, just the opposite, the fallen one brought a scattering and slaughter of his people and to the CONFUSED world.
Now, Isaiah 53, is about Israel, past plural context being about Israel mentioned 14 times as the servant.
Jesus was popular according to the NT therefore can't be despised without saying the NT lies.
Israel is/was despised, Israel is deformed in borders and in descriptions of the suffering over ages in being despised.
Another note on Isaiah context;
1)ISAIAH mentions Michael as the liberator "redeemer" (HaSheva) the commentary for this is in the scrolls.
2)one day does not a sufferer make, try suffering the pride and predjudices and racism for ages upon ages then tell Israel your suffering matters more then a nation.
3)Jesus is served by humanity while Moshiach serves humanity according to elsewhere in Isaiah.
4)so popular served Jesus can't be the suffering servant and of course since the chapter is not messianic it's all a mute point anyway.
Sources:In "Isaiah Commentary": (IQSb,v 20-29) is a Blessing of the Prince of the Congregation (Archangel Michael), referring to the Triumphant Davidic Messiah as the same. Also regarding Michael as liberator:
"He’ll Proclaim liberty to the captives" (Isaiah lxi,I)
Ezra 1 and Isaiah 44-45 the redeemer is the one who battles with the Persian prince and King Cyrus' heart to do the right thing in gathering the Jews and rebuilding the Temple and Dan 10 tells you who that redeemer is by first & last name.
Jeremiah 23:5-6, Isaiah 51:9, Isaiah 59;19, Is.11:4, Isaiah 25:8
The Nations will end up recognizing the wrongs they did Israel(Is.52:13-53:12 combined with Dan 12:1-4)

Jesus was popular according to the NT therefore can't be despised without saying the NT lies.

Are you really sure about that? Did you really think that through? Can I challenge that statement with just a few names?

Hillary. Trump. Obama. Reagan.

Are you absolutely sure you can't say someone is somewhat, or even very popular, at the same time they are despised?

 

[fncceo]

The most telling artifact of Jesus' popularity among 1st Century Jews is the fact that there are no Hebrew or Aramaic gospels. All the xtian gospels were originally written in Greek, the language of non-Jews.

The reasons the message attributed to the historic Jesus didn't resonate with Jews is simple. Judaism is a strictly monotheistic religion. There are no gods, there is only G-d.

The idea that a human claimed to be G-d, or a part of G-d, or a relative of G-d is the greatest form of heresy to Jews.

Part men-part gods however were quite well-accepted in the pagan religion of the Roman Empire and others. It was natural for them to accept this where Jews could not.

 

[Andylusion]

One of the things I like about xtians is their ability to distance themselves from co-believers who commit heinous acts.

Slaughter a village of men women and children in the name of Jesus ... not a true xtian.

Shoot up a school ... not a true xtian.

Blow up a federal building ... not a true xtian.

When Europe decided to eradicate its Jewish populations (as it attempted to do many times in the past 1,000 years), they didn't stop to ask, "Are these true Jews we're killing?". "Do they follow all the rules of Judaism? Do they pray as Jews? " Nope, they just decided to take anyone they thought was a Jew and put them to the sword.

When a xtian commits a heinous act, he's not a true xtian. When a Jew jaywalks across the street, he's a Jewish Jaywalker.

Well.... yes. First, Jew is an ethnicity. I'm German. If I jaywalk, I'm a German jaywalker.

Now I get it that, stupid people would focus on your ethnic identity, ridiculously, but that's because we have morons around the world.

Other than the Bible saying openly the Jews will be hated by all people, I have no logical reason or explanation to understand why anyone cares if so-and-so is of Jewish decent.

However, as it relates to your post... yes, you are Jewish, if you are Jewish. You can't just change who your parents were to cease being Jewish. Whether you commit a crime or not, or do something good or bad, doesn't matter.

However, being a Christian is a different thing. Being a Christian means following a certain set of moral values, and doctrinal code of conduct.

No one is 'born' a Christian. Christian is not a blood line that can be verified with a DNA test.

Being a Christian, is somewhat comparable to being a Vegan. Vegans have a code of moral conduct they agree to. If they refuse to follow that conduct, you don't claim to be a bad Vegan... you are just.... not a Vegan.

If I join the International Vegan society, and then I post on Facebook, me at Longhorn Steak House, chowing down on steak.... you wouldn't say "Wow those Vegans are open minded!" No, you would say "That guy isn't a Vegan", and they would likely kick me out of the group.

Similarly, if a person joins the Communist Part USA, demands to have private property, and private business.... you would not conclude they are brilliant communists, or open minded communists, or even just a bad communist..... you would just conclude that guy isn't a Communist.

Do you see my point? You are not what you say you are. You are what you live out.

Sitting in my garage doesn't make me a Tesla Roadster, and sitting in a pew doesn't make me a Christian.

You are a Christian, when you live out, and abide by, the teachings of Jesus Christ.

So unless you can point to a verse that says go slaughter other Christians, or somehow explain away all the verses saying not to murder people and so on.........

Then those people who do insane things that are directly contrary to the teachings in the Bible.... are simply not Christian.

 

[Andylusion]

The most telling artifact of Jesus' popularity among 1st Century Jews is the fact that there are no Hebrew or Aramaic gospels. All the xtian gospels were originally written in Greek, the language of non-Jews.

The reasons the message attributed to the historic Jesus didn't resonate with Jews is simple. Judaism is a strictly monotheistic religion. There are no gods, there is only G-d.

The idea that a human claimed to be G-d, or a part of G-d, or a relative of G-d is the greatest form of heresy to Jews.

Part men-part gods however were quite well-accepted in the pagan religion of the Roman Empire and others. It was natural for them to accept this where Jews could not.

I don't know that this claim of yours is true.

It could be, however that is not established fact.

The Church historically has said that at least for certain, the Book of Matthew was written in Hebrew.

A Christian writer named Papias, in 120 AD, wrote that Matthew was written in "in the Hebrew tongue". Now that statement is mildly ambiguous, because Hebrew and Aramaic were common to the "hebrew tongue". But it is considered highly likely that Matthew, was not written in Greek.

If you wish to consider this more....

https://www.amazon.com/Birth-Synoptic-Gospels-Jean-Carmignac/dp/0819908878&tag=ff0d01-20

https://www.amazon.com/Hebrew-Chris...t&qid=1575585388&s=books&sr=1-1&tag=ff0d01-20

Both go into detail more.

Regardless, I was not even aware of the claims that all the Gospels were written in Greek. It appears this is a fairly recent view (recent relative to the last 2,000 years), and now is dying off.

 

[buttercup]

One of the things I like about xtians is their ability to distance themselves from co-believers who commit heinous acts.

Slaughter a village of men women and children in the name of Jesus ... not a true xtian.

Shoot up a school ... not a true xtian.

Blow up a federal building ... not a true xtian.

When Europe decided to eradicate its Jewish populations (as it attempted to do many times in the past 1,000 years), they didn't stop to ask, "Are these true Jews we're killing?". "Do they follow all the rules of Judaism? Do they pray as Jews? " Nope, they just decided to take anyone they thought was a Jew and put them to the sword.

When a xtian commits a heinous act, he's not a true xtian. When a Jew jaywalks across the street, he's a Jewish Jaywalker.

Well.... yes. First, Jew is an ethnicity. I'm German. If I jaywalk, I'm a German jaywalker.

Now I get it that, stupid people would focus on your ethnic identity, ridiculously, but that's because we have morons around the world.

Other than the Bible saying openly the Jews will be hated by all people, I have no logical reason or explanation to understand why anyone cares if so-and-so is of Jewish decent.

However, as it relates to your post... yes, you are Jewish, if you are Jewish. You can't just change who your parents were to cease being Jewish. Whether you commit a crime or not, or do something good or bad, doesn't matter.

However, being a Christian is a different thing. Being a Christian means following a certain set of moral values, and doctrinal code of conduct.

No one is 'born' a Christian. Christian is not a blood line that can be verified with a DNA test.

Being a Christian, is somewhat comparable to being a Vegan. Vegans have a code of moral conduct they agree to. If they refuse to follow that conduct, you don't claim to be a bad Vegan... you are just.... not a Vegan.

If I join the International Vegan society, and then I post on Facebook, me at Longhorn Steak House, chowing down on steak.... you wouldn't say "Wow those Vegans are open minded!" No, you would say "That guy isn't a Vegan", and they would likely kick me out of the group.

Similarly, if a person joins the Communist Part USA, demands to have private property, and private business.... you would not conclude they are brilliant communists, or open minded communists, or even just a bad communist..... you would just conclude that guy isn't a Communist.

Do you see my point? You are not what you say you are. You are what you live out.

Sitting in my garage doesn't make me a Tesla Roadster, and sitting in a pew doesn't make me a Christian.

You are a Christian, when you live out, and abide by, the teachings of Jesus Christ.

So unless you can point to a verse that says go slaughter other Christians, or somehow explain away all the verses saying not to murder people and so on.........

Then those people who do insane things that are directly contrary to the teachings in the Bible.... are simply not Christian.

Very well-stated and explained.

The only thing I would add is that if we're talking about what it means to be a true Christian, rather than a cultural Christian, or Christian in name only.... Jesus was very clear and emphatic that one must be born again.

So, spiritual birth is absolutely essential, and if that has not taken place, then that person who claims to be a Christian may believe in certain aspects of Christianity, but they are not saved, or spiritual regenerated, they are still in their natural state.

Why do I bring this up? Because what non-christians like fnecco, and nonbelievers do not understand is that when you are born spiritually, you CHANGE, your very nature changes, and you are simply not the person you used to be. You become a new creation, literally. And when that happens, transformation occurs in one's life. Sometimes slowly, sometimes not so slowly, but one of the sure signs of salvation is transformation. Like a new seed that grows and blossoms, over the years that person grows and matures spiritually.

Getting back to why this was brought up in the first place - anyone who is out there doing terrible things, like killing people or other corrupt, evil things, CLEARLY is not a child of God, they never went through spiritual birth and the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.

If anything, a person like that is being led by the lowercase "god of this world", if you know what I mean.

 

[fncceo]

when you are born spiritually, you CHANGE, your very nature changes, and you are simply not the person you used to be

Can't even imagine what they were like before.

 

[fncceo]

Regardless, I was not even aware of the claims that all the Gospels were written in Greek. It appears this is a fairly recent view (recent relative to the last 2,000 years), and now is dying off.

You're gonna have to update the Wikipedia entry.

The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70,Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses. Like the rest of the New Testament, they were written in Greek.

 

[Andylusion]

Regardless, I was not even aware of the claims that all the Gospels were written in Greek. It appears this is a fairly recent view (recent relative to the last 2,000 years), and now is dying off.

You're gonna have to update the Wikipedia entry.

The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70,Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses. Like the rest of the New Testament, they were written in Greek.

That's why I posted from actual scholars. Jean Carmignac not only was a scholar, but he translated his own copy of the book of Matthew, specifically to compare and study how translating it would compare to the Dead Sea Scrolls.

In his book... he wrote this:

``I had imagined that this translation would be difficult because of considerable differences between Semitic thought and Greek thought, but I was absolutely dumbfounded to discover that this translation was, on the contrary, extremely easy. Around the middle of April 1963, after only one day of work, I was convinced that the Greek text of Mark could not have been redacted directly in Greek and that it was in reality only the Greek translation of an original Hebrew. The enormous difficulties which I had envisioned for myself had all been resolved by the Hebrew-Greek translator, who had transposed word for word and who had even preserved in Greek the order of the words preferred by Hebrew grammar'' (The Birth of the Synoptics, page 1).​

To boil that down.... the ways of thinking and writing in typical Greek and typical Hebrew, are entirely different. Translating one to the other should be exceptionally hard.

Instead, the translation was easy. For example, in Hebrew certain words are ordered according to preferred Hebrew convention. The Greek had that done in it, in a way that matched the Hebrew.

If the Gospels had been written in Greek, there would have been no ordering of words, to match a Hebrew convention.

Again... most of the early Church all maintained that at least specifically with Matthew, that it was written in Hebrew originally.

Origen from about 200 AD, said the following:

First to be written was by Matthew, who was once a tax collector but later an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it in Hebrew for Jewish believers."​

So, Wiki article notwithstanding.... there is much evidence to indicate that at least one, if not several of the gospels were in fact in Hebrew.

 

[fncceo]

Regardless, I was not even aware of the claims that all the Gospels were written in Greek. It appears this is a fairly recent view (recent relative to the last 2,000 years), and now is dying off.

You're gonna have to update the Wikipedia entry.

The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70,Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses. Like the rest of the New Testament, they were written in Greek.

That's why I posted from actual scholars. Jean Carmignac not only was a scholar, but he translated his own copy of the book of Matthew, specifically to compare and study how translating it would compare to the Dead Sea Scrolls.

In his book... he wrote this:

``I had imagined that this translation would be difficult because of considerable differences between Semitic thought and Greek thought, but I was absolutely dumbfounded to discover that this translation was, on the contrary, extremely easy. Around the middle of April 1963, after only one day of work, I was convinced that the Greek text of Mark could not have been redacted directly in Greek and that it was in reality only the Greek translation of an original Hebrew. The enormous difficulties which I had envisioned for myself had all been resolved by the Hebrew-Greek translator, who had transposed word for word and who had even preserved in Greek the order of the words preferred by Hebrew grammar'' (The Birth of the Synoptics, page 1).​

To boil that down.... the ways of thinking and writing in typical Greek and typical Hebrew, are entirely different. Translating one to the other should be exceptionally hard.

Instead, the translation was easy. For example, in Hebrew certain words are ordered according to preferred Hebrew convention. The Greek had that done in it, in a way that matched the Hebrew.

If the Gospels had been written in Greek, there would have been no ordering of words, to match a Hebrew convention.

Again... most of the early Church all maintained that at least specifically with Matthew, that it was written in Hebrew originally.

Origen from about 200 AD, said the following:

First to be written was by Matthew, who was once a tax collector but later an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it in Hebrew for Jewish believers."​

So, Wiki article notwithstanding.... there is much evidence to indicate that at least one, if not several of the gospels were in fact in Hebrew.

I can see how you would want this to be true, that a Frenchman with no formal training in 1st Century Greek or Hebrew would somehow be better informed than everyone else.

But, the bulk of persons educated on the subject disagree with you.

I'm sure that at some point, the Greek gospels would be translated into Hebrew. It's common for propaganda to be translated into the language of those it's meant to target.

 

[Meriweather]

Some believed in God and came from religious families, others grew up in families that went to Synagogue but it was more of a cultural or tradition thing. Most of the ones who grew up going to Synagogue said that it felt empty, they could not feel God's presence and power, it was more like people going through the motions.

I have been to Synagogue(s) and would like to note there was no problem feeling God's presence and power--not to mention feeling the worship and adoration of His people. They were uplifting and moving experiences--God with His people; people with God.

 

[Meriweather]

PS---I do not believe that the historic Jesus said that

No one claimed that Jesus said that. It isn't the words of Jesus. It is a prophetic passage, Isaiah 53, and I think the words speak for themselves on who it is about. I'll go ahead and post it, just in case anyone here has never read it. (I added the bold)

Who has believed what we have heard?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or comeliness that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him.

He was despised and rejected by men;
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.

But he was wounded for our transgressions,
he was bruised for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that made us whole,
and with his stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned every one to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is dumb,
so he opened not his mouth.
By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?

And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.

Yet it was the will of the Lord to bruise him;
he has put him to grief;
when he makes himself an offering for sin,
he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days;
the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand;
he shall see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous;
and he shall bear their iniquities.

Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;
because he poured out his soul to death,
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.​

We should also keep in mind that people of the Jewish faith see this passage as being about Israel as a whole. Israel was wounded for their transgressions (speaking of current events of Isaiah's day).

 

[Meriweather]

The most telling artifact of Jesus' popularity among 1st Century Jews is the fact that there are no Hebrew or Aramaic gospels. All the xtian gospels were originally written in Greek, the language of non-Jews.

The reasons the message attributed to the historic Jesus didn't resonate with Jews is simple. Judaism is a strictly monotheistic religion. There are no gods, there is only G-d.

The idea that a human claimed to be G-d, or a part of G-d, or a relative of G-d is the greatest form of heresy to Jews.

I tend to agree with this, but with the caveat that some of the Gospels or early Christian writings may have been in Hebrew and/or Aramaic but did not survive the ravages of time. I understand that early on, Jews may have continued worshiping as always, but also gathered to commemorate the life of Jesus and pass on his message of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[fncceo]

The most telling artifact of Jesus' popularity among 1st Century Jews is the fact that there are no Hebrew or Aramaic gospels. All the xtian gospels were originally written in Greek, the language of non-Jews.

The reasons the message attributed to the historic Jesus didn't resonate with Jews is simple. Judaism is a strictly monotheistic religion. There are no gods, there is only G-d.

The idea that a human claimed to be G-d, or a part of G-d, or a relative of G-d is the greatest form of heresy to Jews.

I tend to agree with this, but with the caveat that some of the Gospels or early Christian writings may have been in Hebrew and/or Aramaic but did not survive the ravages of time. I understand that early on, Jews may have continued worshiping as always, but also gathered to commemorate the life of Jesus and pass on his message of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Repentance and forgiveness for sin is not a concept unknown to Judaism. It didn't start with Jesus, it was the corner stone of the Jewish faith two thousand years before Jesus was even born.

One of the many things that separate Judaism from xtianity is that it doesn't condemn the sinful to an eternity of pain and torture for a single transgression or a mistaken belief.

 

[Meriweather]

Repentance for sin is not a concept unknown to Judaism. It didn't start with Jesus, it was the corner stone of the Jewish faith two thousand years before Jesus was even born.

Absolutely. Hosea 6:6 - For I desire mercy not sacrifice...

Jesus lived in an unusual time. Rome had take over most of the land, and so many in Israel were very poor. At the same time, the Temple had been rebuilt, and many took this as a sign of the coming Messiah. Annas and Caiaphas were not a great example of Jewish leadership, and the Temple tax or making it felt that people should offer sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins was encouraged, probably urged. This being the case, people of every age, can admire Jesus for standing firmly (and proclaiming) it was repentance (not sacrifice) for the forgiveness of sins.

People were no different in that day--anything that would cut into the revenue of the powerful was a risky thing to do. The Gospels describe how some Temple officials had a habit of keeping an eye on Jesus, most likely for this very reason.

I can understand why people of the Jewish faith will not/cannon consider Jesus as one with God. I simply don't understand why they do not see how he risked, and finally gave his life, for the true tenets of Judaism.

 

[buttercup]

Some believed in God and came from religious families, others grew up in families that went to Synagogue but it was more of a cultural or tradition thing. Most of the ones who grew up going to Synagogue said that it felt empty, they could not feel God's presence and power, it was more like people going through the motions.

I have been to Synagogue(s) and would like to note there was no problem feeling God's presence and power--not to mention feeling the worship and adoration of His people. They were uplifting and moving experiences--God with His people; people with God.

I was merely relaying what THEY said. Several of them said that. Respectfully, what you personally experienced is not the issue, it is what these people experienced in their life before they came to Christ.

BTW, I don’t have that much time right now but I just wanted to add, you do know that the Bible says you cannot get to the Father without the son, right? “No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.” Jesus and the father are one.

 

[Meriweather]

I was merely relaying what THEY said. Several of them said that. Respectfully, what you personally experienced is not the issue, it is what these people experienced in their life before they came to Christ.

I understand, but I also understand some Christians who converted to Judaism also felt they had never felt the presence of God until then. It is not a unique experience just for those converting to Christianity.