Why Jews don't believe in jesus (Page 4)

Zanjan
Zanjan: OK, here's the thing:

The topic reads: "Why Jews don't believe in Jesus". Not, "Why don't Jews believe in Jesus?"

Do you see the difference?

There's no room for conversation because you've decided why and that's all there is to it. You don't want a non-Jewish opinion. I'll just wait until a card-carrying Jew disagrees with you, thanks.

By the way, there's a Jewish group called "Jews for Jesus"...maybe YOU can comment on that, if you don't think it's a badger hole.
(Edited by Zanjan)
4 years ago Report
0
DontNeedChrist
DontNeedChrist: You have a fondness for semantics and word play.

I can play too.

I never said "badger hole." I said "rabbit trail."

Do you see the difference?
4 years ago Report
1
Zanjan
Zanjan: Yes, it was me who said "badger hole"; everybody knows what that means.

Unfortunately, you've strayed far off the topic by contesting Wire's documentation of your previous posts. Ergo, you'll have to remove yourself from this thread.Checkmate.

(Edited by Zanjan)
4 years ago Report
0
DontNeedChrist
DontNeedChrist: LOL, checkmate, you also have a fondness for playing games. I don't however.

Also, you may have hurt yourself by patting yourself on the back so much. Get that checked.

Last post to you. This has gone off the rails long enough. Go troll someone else's thread please.
4 years ago Report
1
chloedrinkwater
chloedrinkwater: Jews made up Jesus to justify their bad actions, orgies, murder, the idea they were better then others all was against their religion.

There are three strands of mythicism, including the view that there may have been a historical Jesus, who lived in a dimly remembered past and was fused with the mythological Christ of Paul. A second stance is that there was never a historical Jesus, only a mythological character, later historicized in the Gospels. A third view is that no conclusion can be made about a historical Jesus, and if there was one, nothing can be known about him.

they note the lack of information on Jesus in non-Christian sources from the first and early second centuries; and they argue that early Christianity had syncretistic and mythological origins, as reflected in both the Pauline epistles and the gospels. Therefore, Christianity was not founded on the shared memories of a man, but rather a shared mytheme.

Departing from mainstream scholarship, mythicists argue that the accounts of Jesus are mostly, or completely, of a mythical nature, questioning the mainstream paradigm of a historical Jesus at the beginning of the 1st century who was deified. Most mythicists, like mainstream scholarship, note that Christianity developed within Hellenistic Judaism, which was influenced by Hellenism. Early Christianity and the accounts of Jesus are to be understood in this context. Yet, where contemporary New Testament scholarship has introduced several criteria to evaluate the historicity of New Testament passages and sayings, most Christ myth theorists have relied on comparisons of Christian mythemes with contemporary religious traditions, emphasizing the mythological nature of the Bible accounts.

Some moderate authors, most notably Wells, have argued that there may have been a historical Jesus, but that this historical Jesus was fused with another Jesus-tradition, namely the mythological Christ of Paul. The most radical mythicists hold, in terms given by Price, the "Jesus atheism" viewpoint, that is, there never was a historical Jesus, only a mythological character, and the mytheme of his incarnation, death, and exaltation. This character developed out of a syncretistic fusion of Jewish, Hellenistic and Middle Eastern religious thought; was put forward by Paul; and historicized in the Gospels, which are also syncretistic. Notable "atheists" are Paul-Louis Couchoud, Earl Doherty.

Some other authors argue for the Jesus agnosticism viewpoint. That is, we cannot conclude if there was a historical Jesus. And if there was a historical Jesus, close to nothing can be known about him.

Paul's epistles lack detailed biographical information – most mythicists argue that the Pauline epistles are older than the gospels but, aside from a few passages which may have been interpolations, there is a complete absence of any detailed biographical information such as might be expected if Jesus had been a contemporary of Paul. nor do they cite any sayings from Jesus, the so-called argument from silence. Some mythicists have argued that the Pauline Epistles are from a later date than usually assumed, and therefore not a reliable source on the life of Jesus. And some mythicists have argued that Paul may refer to a historical person who may have lived in a dim past, long before the beginnings of the Common Era.

The Gospels are not historical records, but a fictitious historical narrative – mythicists argue that although the Gospels seem to present a historical framework, they are not historical records, but theological writings, myth or legendary fiction resembling the Hero archetype. They impose "a fictitious historical narrative" on a "mythical cosmic savior figure," weaving together various pseudo-historical Jesus traditions, though there may have been a real historical person, of whom close to nothing can be known.

There are no independent eyewitness accounts – No independent eyewitness accounts survive, in spite of the fact that many authors were writing at that time. Early second-century Roman accounts contain very little evidence and may depend on Christian sources.

Christianity had syncretistic and mythological origins – early Christianity was widely diverse and syncretistic, sharing common philosophical and religious ideas with other religions of the time. It arose in the Greco-Roman world of the first and second century AD, synthesizing Greek Stoicism and Neoplatonism with Jewish Old Testament writings and the exegetical methods of Philo, creating the mythological figure of Jesus. Paul refers to Jesus as an exalted being and is probably writing about either a mythical or supernatural entity, a celestial deity," a savior figure patterned after similar figures within ancient mystery religions." named Jesus. Parallels with other religions include the ideas of personified aspects of God, proto-Gnostic ideas, and salvation figures featured in mystery religions, which were often (but not always) a dying-and-rising god.

Pauline epistles
The mainstream view is that the seven undisputed Pauline epistles considered by scholarly consensus to be genuine epistles are generally dated to AD 50–60 and are the earliest surviving Christian texts that include information about Jesus. Most scholars view the Pauline letters as essential elements in the study of the historical Jesus and the development of early Christianity. Yet, scholars have also argued that Paul was a "mythmaker," who gave his own divergent interpretation of the meaning of Jesus, building a bridge between the Jewish and Hellenistic world, thereby creating the faith that became Christianity.

4 years ago Report
1
Jaguar Essence
Jaguar Essence: LOL
"Jews made up Jesus to justify their bad actions, orgies, murder, the idea they were better then others all was against their religion."

From where is this sewer rat (Chloedrinkwater) crawling out from with this ideas of Jews and Judaism?
4 years ago Report
1
DontNeedChrist
DontNeedChrist: The title of this thread is "Why DON'T Jews believe in jesus" yet chloedrinkwater states Jews "made up jesus." Makes perfect sense. This was obviously cut and pasted from some anti Jewish website. Nice try chloe. Try sticking to the subject matter.
4 years ago Report
1
chloedrinkwater
(Post deleted by DontNeedChrist 4 years ago)
chloedrinkwater
(Post deleted by DontNeedChrist 4 years ago)
Jaguar Essence
Jaguar Essence: Woman, you don't make sense at all.
4 years ago Report
2
DontNeedChrist
DontNeedChrist: I'm going to continue to delete most of chloe's posts until she types something that has some shred of logic and relevance to this thread.
(Edited by DontNeedChrist)
4 years ago Report
1
butttler
(Post deleted by DontNeedChrist 4 years ago)
butttler
butttler: dnc..here is clear prophecy of Jesus Christ the Messiah --

Isaiah 53:4-6

Surely He has borne our]griefs
And carried our [h]sorrows;
Yet we [i]esteemed Him stricken,
[j]Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded[k] for our transgressions,
He was [l]bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes[m] we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the Lord [n]has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

also Daniel 9:24-27another clear prophecy of Jesus Christ

i realize many Jewish people will just say...these are not about Jesus Christ...but the truth is no matter how much wishful thinking Jewish people might have it wont make Jesus Christ the
sin bearing Messiah go away...oh by the way...when dr Michael Brown and rabbi Tovia singer
debated...an orthodox jewish woman listened to it and she immediately gave her life to Jesus Christ and now serves as a missionary in Africa...she said what profoundly changed her mind after listening to the debate was listening to rabbi Tovia Singer...i found that interesting
4 years ago Report
0
Billie Ingle
(Post deleted by DontNeedChrist 4 years ago)
DontNeedChrist
DontNeedChrist: Butttler, the thread is about why Jews don’t believe in jesus, not how christians twist Hebrew scripture to fit their christian agenda. Apples and oranges.
4 years ago Report
1
Billie Ingle
(Post deleted by DontNeedChrist 4 years ago)
Billie Ingle
Billie Ingle: He was not descended from the House of David. According to Jewish law, tribal identification comes from the father's side, being Jewish, from the mother's side. According to Matthew 1, Joseph was descended from David Although there are many contradictions between his genealogy there and that listed in Luke, however according to the same text, Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary, therefore Jesus was not related to Joseph, and not a descendant of King David.

Three answers to this problem are given in classic Christian sources:

The genealogy is that of Mary - This is inadequate since if he is claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, and according to Jewish tradition he must be descended on his father's side, Mary's genealogy is irrelevant.


He was adopted by Joseph -According to Jewish law, adoption does not change the status of the child. If an Israelite is adopted by a Cohen, A descendant of Aaron the High Priest), the child does not become a Cohen, likewise, if a descendant of David, adopts someone who is not, he does not become of the tribe of Judah and a descendant of David


It doesn't matter, he was a spiritual inheritor of King David - If it doesn't matter, why do Christian scriptures spend time establishing his genealogical pedigree? And if he is claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, then according to Jewish tradition it does matter!
4 years ago Report
1
DontNeedChrist
DontNeedChrist: All valid and excellent points Billie.
4 years ago Report
1
Zanjan
Zanjan: God doesn't follow traditions. Mary was descended from King David and Jesus inherited her genetic material. They were all descended from Abraham, as were all the prophets.

THAT was the original lineage prophecy, which was followed by numerous other ones. All Revelators have ensured their family trees are preserved without any gaps. Very important.

Jesus was the *spiritual* inheritor of Moses, not King David.........David wasn't a Revelator.
(Edited by Zanjan)
4 years ago Report
0
DontNeedChrist
DontNeedChrist: WRONG. G-d promised the throne would only be occupied by the tribe of Judah. The tribe is BIOLOGICALLY transmitted through the father. The mother only makes the child Jewish. There is no such thing as a “spiritual inheritor." That’s christianity’s desperate attempt to force their man/god into the narrative.
(Edited by DontNeedChrist)
4 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: Try science.

A tribe doesn't occupy a throne. Which throne are you talking about - temporal or spiritual? Was Moses not a spiritual king? If it's temporal kingship, the Jews lost that millennia ago. There is no defense for that.

Absolutely, there are spiritual inheritors - sometimes it skips a generation or so; in the case of Revelators, it skips many generations. To ensure the Revelator's gene marker was passed forward in a cluster, they married closely. There was no other way to make it work.
(Edited by Zanjan)
4 years ago Report
0
Jaguar Essence
Jaguar Essence: Zanjan, what you're purposely forgetting is, that you are IGNORANT about Judaic sources of knowledge, and you're biasedly applying your religion's ideology to interpret our sources of knowledge and that's NOT how it works.

If I want to see what the Hindus are seeing in the Vedas I have to discard ALL preconceptualized ideas and learn as a Hindu not as a Jew. Buddhist eloquently said, that "In order to know Buddah, one must become Buddha," meaning attain his thoughts, ideas, views, perspectives, and interpretation of his correlation between himself and reality to experience what he was experiencing; then, and ONLY then, you'll know Buddah.

So this is basic rationalization and logical thinking 101, EDUCATE yourself in Judaic sources of knowledge as a Jew to KNOW what Jews are saying.
4 years ago Report
1
Zanjan
Zanjan: The Judaic source of knowledge is Moses, Who got it from God.

The Judaic source of prophecies are the Lesser Prophets of the House of Israel - they got their visions from God as well.
Those mean nothing to Jews who don't believe any of them have been fulfilled; in effect, they have no proof that their own prophets were anything but fakes. Who would seek those eyes?

Jews, like any other humans, became more enlightened over the eons - not because of man, but because of God and the light shed by His next Revelators on all mankind.

Where would I get pre-conceptualized ideas except from the Jews, themselves?? Is the question about the Jewish lifestyle or about their knowledge of reality? Reality is One. God is One.

Yes, it's true that it takes one to know one - what Buddhist has been so great as Siddhartha Gautama as to really know Him? Who makes this claim? Who, among the Jews have claimed to be as great as Moses to really know Him?? Name him.

"this is basic rationalization and logical thinking 101,.." " KNOW what Jews are saying."

If I want to know what Jews are thinking, I have only to look at their actions, not words - actions are the test of truth. History confirms it. That's how it works.
(Edited by Zanjan)
4 years ago Report
0
Jaguar Essence
Jaguar Essence: Zanjan, I was going to educate you from where and since when the Judaic sources of knowledge started, when realized it wasn't my job; every single one of us is responsible and accountable for one's creation, knowledge and ignorance

Zanjan, your BIASED ethical DISHONESTY as usual shows in your word salad to extend and perpetuate your lack of knowledge, by adding things that weren't said and twisting facts. Your arrogance in not accepting your limited understanding, knowledge, and experience; as well your need to be validated shows you're talking the walk not walking it.

Regardless you still IGNORISTAN on Judaic sources of knowledge.
4 years ago Report
1
Zanjan
Zanjan: Unless everyone posting here is an official religious professional, it's not likely you know what those ethics are, much less mine. That you're posing as a psychoanalyst doesn't help your case.

I'm hard -pressed to locate any actual "facts" in most of the posts in this topic. Plenty of opinions though. The Judaic writers continue to write; other than the Holy Ones, they're a gaggle of philosophers, attempting to understand the Old Testament in a setting that's far too remote from our time. None are prophets.

What I've learned directly from the Jews is the FACT that they're NOT united. To wit, the many types of Jews and denominations of Judaism. That only comes out of exclusion, separation, disagreement and misunderstanding.

There's nothing to be gained by an US and THEM attitude - that's just not civilized.
(Edited by Zanjan)
4 years ago Report
0