Why don't Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah?

Being willing to die for your beliefs is evidence only of the strength of the conviction in which you hold the belief. It doesn't prove that the underlying beliefs or assertions or true. It only proves that the person dying for the belief really believed it. I am not saying either way that their beliefs were right or wrong. I just need more evidence and proof than just people willing to die for their beliefs. Under that logic, I would ask you why you don't accept Judaism instead of Christianity as a large amount of Jews were killed during the Spanish Inquisition because they wouldn't renounce Judaism and convert to Christianity. These Jews were just as willing to die for their faith as the early Christians.

 

There's a difference between the apostles dying for their beliefs and jews durring the inquisition. The difference is that the apostles and authors of the NT claimed to *see* Jesus alive *after* his death. They built their faith on actually *seeing* this happen. And they went to their death claiming this. Now you only have 3 choices. They were crazy. Or, they were Evil, choosing to die to spread a lie. Or, they were right.

 

Remember, we're not talking about a cult of 20 followers or so, we're talking about thousands of people from the area Jesus supposedly existed. And unlike with Jim Jones, their finances were'nt all tied up with Jesus, a poor carpenter. And He wasn't threatening the lives of those who turn away.

The same could be said of any major religion. I do not see why this is relevant only in proving this religion right?

Also, what evidence/proof did those thousands of people have? Did that many people see both the crucifixion and the resurrection? Did they take it from a book? From word of mouth? It is not like they had today?s distribution of information back then, so what did they base their faith on?

EDIT: You said Well, for one thing, during this time the word of mouth system was popular, and was no small thing. I'm sure some things could have been twisted, but at the same time, they would most likely have been as careful about this as anything else.

The problem with word of mouth is that others will start telling what the first ones said. And as the story spreads, people will change or make up parts, wrongly answer questions, and mess the story up a lot. Maybe that is why someone sat down and wrote out the Bible, so the message would not get messed up like that (or maybe it was getting messed up and they wanted to bring it back to their original story?).

Not to mention that if I believe in God because you tell me He is real, I have faith in YOU, NOT GOD! That is not a good thing at all, especially with Christianity.

Also, what is the evidence that the apostles died for their faith? I am not insinuating that there is none, I just wonder what it is. Also, if they were preaching anything that the Romans didn't like, they would be killed anyway. For all we know, they cracked and it was never recorded, or they died preaching something that was eventually called Christianity.

Look, I am not disagreeing that they died, I am arguing how well can we trust anything that specific, Bible, history, or otherwise?

Also, remember what I exactly said. ...the NT is probably very accurate to what was originally recorded by its authors. I tried to be clear that I do not know if the NT is accurate to what actually happened. All I said was that what the authors wrote in the NT is what we have now. I said nothing as to how accurate their recordings were to actual events.

Given that I can barely remember what I ate for breakfast a year ago, I have a hard time believing that every sermon, every quote, every event would be accurate in a persons memory after even as 'short' a time as 20 years. Not to mention that if you believe or know that you are right, and you are writing a book about what is right, wouldn't it be natural to expand and embellish a little or a lot?

My comments about the OT being accurate, I just want to know what you have to back it up besides the NT.

Also, I do not like trying to speculate reasons why the apostils would want to make up stuff. I ask questions about the mind of God, and I am told we can't understand the mind of God. When someone is friendly enough to answer, I can poke some holes in it easily. Same can be done of anything we come up with for the apostles. Not to mention that they simply could have been mistaken of something making no logical reason in hindsight.

EDIT: Lots of them, didn't read some things (replied to one thing which was debated farther down the page...)

 

SLR-
Being willing to die for your beliefs is evidence only of the strength of the conviction in which you hold the belief. It doesn't prove that the underlying beliefs or assertions or true. It only proves that the person dying for the belief really believed it. I am not saying either way that their beliefs were right or wrong. I just need more evidence and proof than just people willing to die for their beliefs. Under that logic, I would ask you why you don't accept Judaism instead of Christianity as a large amount of Jews were killed during the Spanish Inquisition because they wouldn't renounce Judaism and convert to Christianity. These Jews were just as willing to die for their faith as the early Christians.

Well, my assertion that this was evidence was in response to Dani's argument that perhaps the apostles made up the stuff about Jesus. Certainly, many people are willing to die for things they believe in. But how many people are willing to die for things they made up?

Enforcer-
The same could be said of any major religion. I do not see why this is relevant?

The relevance is in the fact that, as Rhysode said, the apostles died for the claim that Jesus really taught everything they said He taught, and did everything they claimed He did. They were either there and saw everything, or they made everything up. If they made everything up, then they had to have been pretty messed up in the head to die for it. What's more is that they couldn't have gained that many followers from the area they got them in if a good amount of those people had not themselves come into contact with Jesus and listened to Him preach and watched Him perform miracles.

Also, what evidence/proof did those thousands of people have? Did that many people see both the crucifixion and the resurrection? Did they take it from a book? From word of mouth? It is not like they had today?s distribution of information back then, so what did they base their faith on?

I'm sure many of them were witnesses to Christ's ministry, as I said above, but probably a lot of them heard rumors from others, and converted due to the apostles preaching. Now, the followers I'm talking about were the first followers from Judea (and yes, we have records of these people being persecuted for their faith). The whole world wasn't witness to Jesus' ministry, and most of Christendom came to believe due to the testimony of the earliest followers and the Holy Spirit's guidance. So I'm not saying this is conclusive proof of Jesus; just that it is good evidence.

Also, what evidence is there that the apostles died for their faith? I am not insinuating that there is none, I just wonder what it is.

I'm afraid I couldn't tell you. I'm no historian, but the records ARE out there. You might try Tacitus or Joesephus.

Given that I can barely remember what I ate for breakfast a year ago, I have a hard time believing that every sermon, every quote, every event would be accurate in a persons memory after even as 'short' a time as 20 years. Not to mention that if you believe or know that you are right, and you are writing a book about what is right, wouldn't it be natural to expand and embellish a little or a lot?

The book of John is the most detailed of the four canonical Gospel accounts, and at the end, John makes it clear that there was so much more that Jesus did and said that he didn't record. I'm sure He forgot the details of some of it (heck, he most likely borrowed from Mark or on of the other two).

Even so, this Man changed the apostles' lives comepletely. He pulled them out of a very strict religion that everyone was taught from birth in that area, and basically said that He was the fulfillment of all that they had learned. This was their God. You think the teachings of Jesus, which they had heard again and again, would be forgotten, even after a lifetime of not writing it down? Remember, they preached this long before the Gospel accounts were ever written. Otherwise they wouldn't have had the amount of follower

 

What's more is that they couldn't have gained that many followers from the area they got them in if a good amount of those people had not themselves come into contact with Jesus and listened to Him preach and watched Him perform miracles.

I don't want to take this thread too far off track, but this has reminded me of something that I've wondered about for a while - the whole faith thing. We all know where the term "doubting Thomas" comes from... my question is simply, why is faith the requirement today, when it wasn't for those at the time of Jesus' life? The apostles themselves required evidence, and Jesus (and therefore God) was standing right in front of them! How come they got to be sceptical, and actually had God reassure them with miracles? Why can't that be done today for somebody like me?

 

We all know where the term "doubting Thomas" comes from... my question is simply, why is faith the requirement today, when it wasn't for those at the time of Jesus' life? The apostles themselves required evidence, and Jesus (and therefore God) was standing right in front of them!

The point of the "doubting Thomas" thing is that, while the other apostles heard that Jesus was seen alive (as most of us have, cuz we've all heard the story) and believed, Thomas refused to believe *until* he saw the evidence first hand, and therefore Jesus called him "Ye of little faith." Definatly not the kinda thing you wanna hear from your God. It's obvious that God required faith from people back then as well as now. Jesus didn't give Thomas the benefit of the doubt just because he hadn't seen it first hand, because Jesus had told them before he was killed that he'd return. And besides that, *Christian* faith is more than just *knowing* that Jesus died and came back, but it's also trusting him to forgive you sins. I happen to think that's the bigger part of faith.

EDIT: in responce to Enforcer

iGiven that I can barely remember what I ate for breakfast a year ago, I have a hard time believing that every sermon, every quote, every event would be accurate in a persons memory after even as 'short' a time as 20 years. Not to mention that if you believe or know that you are right, and you are writing a book about what is right, wouldn't it be natural to expand and embellish a little or a lot?

Not to take any value away from your breakfast or anything, but I imagine that the events of the NT, had they really occured, would be of a much higher order of importance than breakfast a year ago. Plus, these are the event that the Apostles centered their lives around. I don't think it would be that easy to forget, at the least, the important stuff. Plus, the discrepances between the gospils actually account for the changes that bad memory can cause, but the main points of Christianity still make their way through in all of them. The fact that all these different authors remembered and forgot a few small details, but all recall the same death and resurection, I believe, gives the resurrection story some credence.

 

But then what was the point of Jesus doing miracles at all? (Seriously curious, not trying to trick you or anything)

 

God never has required blind faith, and He never will. If that were the case, as you said, Jesus wouldn't have performed any miracles. He wouldn't have even had 12 guys following Him around to witness His actions and teachings. What's more, nothing in the Old Testament would ever have happened. God wouldn't have talked to people, and had prophets write down things that He would do in the future.

The point of faith is not to blindly follow one man's word; instead, we are to have faith that God is who He says He is, and that He can and will do what He says He can and will do. I have faith in God in the same manner I have faith in my mother. Except in God, I can have faith that He'll never leave me. I know one day my mother will die, and that day could be any day (God forbid it be any time soon).

 

But then what was the point of Jesus doing miracles at all? (Seriously curious, not trying to trick you or anything)

To help people. But in some cases, in the gospels, sometimes Jesus would refuse to do a miracle because that person or situation lacked faith.

 

I wasn't trying to assert that you would believe blindly (Which I would define as without question or reason). More to the point, that some are given the benefit of the doubt. Some got to see Jesus feeding the 5000 and partake in the event, while others are born in Saudi Arabia - a country that forbids the teaching of Christianity. If salvation is at stake, it just doesn't seem right somehow.

 

Some got to see Jesus feeding the 5000 and partake in the event, while others are born in Saudi Arabia - a country that forbids the teaching of Christianity. If salvation is at stake, it just doesn't seem right somehow.

There was a passage (that I tried to find, but I can't yet) where Jesus was questioned by teachers of the law. They basically(i cant remember exactly) asked what would happen if a man went to do his sacrifice to clean him of his sins and he died and his blood mixed with that of the sacrifice. Basically, what they were asking was, what happenes to a man that dies before they have a chance to repent. Jesus answered with something along the lines of "don't worry about those that can't save themselves, worry about your own soul because you see, and yet you still don't believe."(not a direct quote) So the only responce I have to you is, worry about your own soul for now, and if then you still don't like it that arabian children haven't heard the gospil, then dont hesitate to be a missionary because Jesus also said to go into the world and teach what you have learned. I dont at all mean that in a harsh tone, even if it sounds like that.

 

The teachers of the law, or I should say, Jewish Pharisees were always bent on tricking Jesus by asking him tricky questions in which Jesus always replied with a even yet trickier reply. I think I know what passage your talking about, he told the Pharisees straight out that they were basically "sons of hell", that was basically in his own words because of their hypocrisy, and that tax collectors and prostitutes will probably enter the kingdom of heaven before them because they repent with their hearts and not with their words. All throughout the gospels the Pharisees often praised God with the words they speak, but not with truthly with their hearts. That's what Jesus was condemning. It's says somewhere "it's not offering and sacrafices I want, but a broken heart". So I think whether or not someone dies before they sacrafice an animal (in those days) it all depended on what your heart says.

 

So I think whether or not someone dies before they sacrafice an animal (in those days) it all depended on what your heart says.

This happens to be my personal belief as well. But it's also no excuse for accepting Christ given the chance. And I emphasize the "personal." I've heard many Christians that agree, but I hesitate to claim it is the belief of the Church.

 

You might find this passage somewhat interesting, Dani:

Acts 17
22 So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects.
23 "For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.' Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.
24 "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;
25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things;
26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,
27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;
28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.'
29 "Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.
30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,
31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."

I don't know if it answers your question or not, but I used to feel God was somehow unjust for putting people in places where they'd never get a chance to hear and repent. Then one day I was shown this, and it eased my worries a bit.

 

The_Fireman wrote: The point of faith is not to blindly follow one man's word; instead, we are to have faith that God is who He says He is, and that He can and will do what He says He can and will do.

I am an atheist born in a Christian family, and I have NEVER had anybody besides people tell me about god. I have NEVER heard God say who he says he is. Actually, I have never heard God say anything for that matter. All claims made about Jesus, as far as I can tell, are made by men. Jewish people have as hard a time believing Christians say Jesus is God as they have believing Scientologists claiming L. Ron Hubbard visited Venus.

And please don't give me that bull that "I haven't been listening for God", or whatever. All organized religion is nothing more than following some other person's word. When an actual god decides to speak, I will be the first to listen. Until then, I am happy to claim there is no such thing as god.

 

I won't give you that bull. I just think God never spoke to you. And if He did, you didn't hear Him (which may or may not mean you "weren't listening"; that's beside the point, really).

Why do you assume God must speak audibly to you? Would that not, in your mind, be more evidence for insanity than the supernatural? Further, why should God answer to US? Why should He do what you expect Him to? Wouldn't that make YOU God instead of Him?

Perhaps it never occured to you that even if God hasn't spoken to you or you haven't heard Him that SEVERAL others throughout time HAVE heard Him?

 

You know what? I have a tendency to treat all person's claims with skepticism. Call me callous or whatever you want, but you can't argue the fact that people make things up, often just for the hell of it. If someone tells me they heard god's voice or felt something strange, I tend automatically to question their sanity.

I believe if there is a god (or more than one god) I would honestly believe it independent of what another source says, and I would be informed by Mr. Big himself. God would have that power and ability. So far in my lifetime I see no difference between Santa and the Christian god, except one is aimed at giving hope to children, the other to children and adults.

 

But how many people are willing to die for things they made up?

By this argument, you must wholeheartedly accept the religious beliefs of the 9/11 pilots.

They were either there and saw everything, or they made everything up.

Or they didn't exist, and later stories accreted mythological tales. Or they believed things that were untrue, which is exactly what you are saying the Jews did.

...the first followers from Judea (and yes, we have records of these people being persecuted for their faith).

And these records are where?

You might try Tacitus or Joesephus.

These two barely make mention of Jesus. And both of these sources have reliability problems. Too many Christians just toss out these names. Tacitus wrote in Rome at about 115. Many scholars think he was just repeating what Christians in Rome told him. He's not "independent evidence". Josephus wrote from about 75 to 95. There is much debate about whether the Josephus entries are authentic or later Christian interpolations.

What is startling is the severe lack of historical documentation of these supposed remarkable events. As just one example, Herod's infamous slaughter of the innocents is no where mentioned by any other source, including those that discuss his reign.

The earliest writings available, from Paul, do not focus on historical events (Paul may even have had a completely spiritual vision of "Christ", nothing "real" about it). Only the later Gospels start talking about a man of history. That man may or may not have existed.

 

Back to the subject of the post.......


Luke?s account in the gospels indicates that many Jews were anxiously expecting the Messiah to appear at the particular time Jesus was on earth.
Simeon and other Jews were ?waiting for Israel?s consolation? and ?Jerusalem?s deliverance? when the babe Jesus was brought to the temple. (Lu 2:25, 38) During the ministry of John the Baptizer, the people ?were in expectation? about the Christ, or Messiah. (Lu 3:15)

Many, though, expected the Messiah to meet their preconceived notions. The prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures showed the Messiah as coming in two different roles.
One was ?humble, and riding upon an ass,? whereas the other was ?with the clouds of the heavens? to annihilate opposers and have all rulerships serve him.
(Zec 9:9; Da 7:13)

The Jews failed to appreciate the fact that these prophecies related to two distinct appearances of the Messiah, these appearances occurring at widely separated times.

 

The Jews failed to appreciate the fact that these prophecies related to two distinct appearances of the Messiah, these appearances occurring at widely separated times.

Where in Jewish texts does it say that there would be two distinct appearences? Why shouldn't they have expected it to happen at the same time?




SCREW CHIVALRY!

 

Where in Jewish texts does it say that there would be two distinct appearences?

darthOB1 gave the scriptual references to 2 examples. Though there is no clear cut "messaiah's coming twice guys, be ready" type text,I believe it can be reasonably deduced from what we have.

 

Obviously, he has entered Jerusalum on an asses back, but he obvioulsy has not done the annaliting of the opposers!

 

Darth_Zidious makes important points. Plus I would say that the fact that Christianity sprang up in Rome in the second century rather than Jerusalem at the turn of the millennium is the main reason it didn't appeal to Jews. The Jews had never heard of him. They didn't know he existed. As far as they were concerned he was a fabrication of Roman cultists who conveniently placed Jesus's existence in the Middle East in a previous century to avoid having to answer any uncomfortable questions.

 

Thats just not true!

MANY Jews living today accept as fact that a man by the name of Jesus lived in the first century C.E. Even the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1904 identifies Jesus as the ?Founder of Christianity? and places the time of his birth at about 2 B.C.E.
Nevertheless, comparatively few Jews believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah or Christ. To some the very thought of becoming a member of a church of Christendom is repulsive.

Could it be that the churches bear some or much of the blame for this?

Food for thought!

 

Darth_Zidious-
"But how many people are willing to die for things they made up?"

By this argument, you must wholeheartedly accept the religious beliefs of the 9/11 pilots.

Perhaps you misunderstood me when I said "die for things they made up". Did the 9/11 pilots invent Islam (or the interpretation taught to them for that matter)? No. They believed it to be true with all their hearts, and that gave them reason to die. Would they have gone to such lengths had the concocted the religion themselves? Doubtful.

"They were either there and saw everything, or they made everything up."

Or they didn't exist, and later stories accreted mythological tales. Or they believed things that were untrue, which is exactly what you are saying the Jews did.

See below.

"...the first followers from Judea (and yes, we have records of these people being persecuted for their faith)."

And these records are where?

Like I said, Tacitus and Joesephus, most likely, but I think there are other records. And if you can't believe the two historians on these accounts, why on EARTH do you believe them on anything? Yes, Tacitus was most likely forged in an area, but only in describing the deity of Christ. There is reason to believe among historians and scholars that not all of the stuff he said about Jesus and Christians was forged.

JFT-
"The Jews failed to appreciate the fact that these prophecies related to two distinct appearances of the Messiah, these appearances occurring at widely separated times."

Where in Jewish texts does it say that there would be two distinct appearences? Why shouldn't they have expected it to happen at the same time?

As Rhysode and OB1 have eluded to, there is evidence (not proof!) for two comings in the OT. I present two passages both prophesying Messiah's coming to earth.

His first coming:

Isaiah 53


The Suffering Servant

1
Who has believed our message?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2
For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot,
And like a root out of parched ground;
He has no stately form or majesty
That we should look upon Him,
Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.
3
He was despised and forsaken of men,
A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
And like one from whom men hide their face
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
4
Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
5
But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
6
All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.
7
He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He did not open His mouth;
Like a lamb that is led to slaughter,
And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,
So He did not open His mouth.
8
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
For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?
9
His grave was assigned with wicked men,
Yet He was with a rich man in His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.
10
But the LORD was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper