Why don't Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah?

But, what's the difference between writing GOD and writing G-D? I mean, both are human inventions for God.

So when you write G-d on a piece of paper, you are still taking the lord's name in vain. Get it?

 

yeah I see your point, too

 

So when you write G-d on a piece of paper, you are still taking the lord's name in vain. Get it?

It's a very old tradition and custom that's meant for respect.

 

Abba[/u]

Which MEANS father in Hebrew.

 

Because God doesn't change. That's in the Bible too.

Yes he does, in the Bible God changes his mind a few times, between Jesus Christ and God himself.

Also, in the Old Testament, it's implied that G-d evolves. He sometimes seems to be a child who is developing and learning right along with humanity. G-d does not notice the tower of Babel or the Golden Calf before the people have started building them, whereas later on in the book it's implied that G-d can see into people's minds and knows everything they do in advance. You could either interpret this as G-d changing or as the humans who wrote the Bible changing their ideas of what G-d was like.

So when you write G-d on a piece of paper, you are still taking the lord's name in vain.

I disagree. By making the effort to perform that formality, one is showing they are at least trying to respect G-d's name as much as possible.

 

"G-d does not notice the tower of Babel or the Golden Calf before the people have started building them, whereas later on in the book it's implied that G-d can see into people's minds and knows everything they do in advance."


Or maybe He noticed, but allowed them to build it. Nowhere does it say in the Bible that He didn't see what they were doing. God knows everything, this is stated in several places. Doesn't mean things don't happen that go against His desires.

 

Exactly, to you, what does it mean to take God's name in vain? I sincerely doubt most people know the real meaning of it.

And btw, God's name isn't what you call him, because I sincerely doubt God speaks in any particular language, thus, any name given to him would be rather earthly and mortal.

-GAT

 

I sincerely doubt God speaks in any particular language,

What, you mean God doesn't speak in North American English?

E_S

 

My interpretation is that the tower of Babel story gets to the heart of the idea of "taking the Lord's name in vain."

God punished the people because, by trying to build a tower to the heavens, they were trying to appropriate the name of God for themselves (take on Godlike power). God punished us by scattering us linguistically, so we could never again appropriate his name.

The irony is that by scattering us physically and linguistically to the four winds, deliberately promoting confusion of meaning, God ensured that humans would never again find agreement on the meaning of the word of God.

So, the tower of Babel incident basically puts the blame for a failure to achieve a global unanimity of religious belief squarely on God's shoulders. Different languges = different meanings = different beliefs. Oops.

 

I love topics like this. But to get back on the subject "why don't jews accept Christ?". A lot of jews aren't even waiting for a Messiah anymore, and some have never even heard about a Messiah. Not trying to undermine anybody, but I am often amazed at how many people don't know their own faith. The same goes for Christianity. And for those that do know about the Messiah, I guess the easy answer is that Jesus is a fictional character, or just a good prophet (or in another scenario, a false prophet). I'd like to hope that at least people will study different faiths contrary to their own to find out the answers that will appease their own minds. After much study in college, I chose Christianity.

 

I'd be willing to bet that the number one reason someone converts from one religion to another is to get laid. I know Christians who have converted to Judaism for love, protestants who have converted to catholocism, catholics who have become protestants, christians who have joined the Bahai Faith.

In every single case it was because religion was more important to one person in the relationship than the other, and the person who cared about it least caved.

Sex. That's what it's all about.

 

Back to that Tower of Babel thing, it's prophesied that it will happen again. We WILL find a way to agree on who God is, an all-encompassing religion. The world will be joined with one government, and the man who leads that government will be the Antichrist.

 

Regarding the parts of this discussion that talk about God being just a "teacher" or a "nice guy", I am reminded of what a prominant Christian author, C.S. Lewis, brought up, which was expanded upon by Josh McDowell in "Evidence that Demands a Verdict." Here are Lewis' most famous words:

"You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

For more on this, check out this link.

 

Ah, good point. Jesus was either insane, a liar, or God.

 

First of all, I think taking someone's name in vain is an intention, not just the writing or saying of the name. Also, God is not God's name. So I can't be taking His name in vain by saying it, can I? Especially if it is not my intention.

Secondly, God has given us free choice. Because God is omnipotent and omniscient, doesn't mean that He interfers with our free choice.

Thirdly, what does this have to do with the topic of the thread?

 

Secondly, God has given us free choice. Because God is omnipotent and omniscient, doesn't mean that He interfers with our free choice.

This of this as a parent-child relationship. A mom knows that her child is taking a cookie from the cookie jar, but does that necessarily mean she stops the kid? no.

 

C.S. Lewis often wroete nicely-phrased essays that, when read closely, made no sense.

What's patronizing about calling Jesus a great human teacher? If you take everything Jesus said as representated in the King James version of the new testament, and divide it into two piles - the stuff about living a moral life and the stuff about his own divinity, and throw out all the stuff about his own divinity, then the moral lessons are still appealing. That makes him a great human teacher.

C.S. Lewis's essays often carry a whiff of desperation to convince himsef.

 

I have heard the claim, once or twice, that Lewis is a bit lacking in the logic department. I didn't hold my breath then, waiting on any actual evidence, and I won't do so now.

As for this "whiff of desparation," I frankly don't see it. He's too intellectually thorough. And I think a person is himself desparate if he criticizes Lewis' style rather than his arguments.


The thing is, Jabbadabbado, that it's difficult (perhaps impossible) to neatly divide what Jesus said* into "Jesus' moral teachings" and "Jesus' claims of divinity."

The reason? His teachings are often intertwined with His claims of divinity.

For instance:

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. - Matthew 5:43-45

Did you miss it? Jesus, in using the phrase, "I say to you," does not take on the role of a teacher and interpreter of the law -- but as the very Maker of the law.

There is the assumption of absolute authority even in Jesus' moral teachings. He never acts as if He's making an educated guess; He acts as if He Himself is the Author of the moral law.



* - Or, if we're going to split hairs, "the Bible's record of what Jesus said." As we have no other record that comes close in terms of reliability (i.e., number and age of manuscripts), we have but two choices: rely on the Bible as a reasonably accurate record of what Jesus said, or give up the hope to know what Jesus said as a lost cause.

 

What's patronizing about calling Jesus a great human teacher?

It's patronizing to say he was just a "great human teacher" and nothing more.

And I think a person is himself desparate if he criticizes Lewis' style rather than his arguments.

how true.

He never acts as if He's making an educated guess; He acts as if He Himself is the Author of the moral law.
great point.

 

Also, God is not God's name. So I can't be taking His name in vain by saying it, can I?

It's the corresponding English term to the four-letter Hebrew name G-d gives in the Old Testament. Arguing over what language it's in is semantics because most westerners don't speak Hebrew, so they happen to use a name that's easier for them.

I agree that depending on your point of view, it may not necessarily be disrespectful to call G-d by a direct name, but spelling out the English word isn't that different from spelling out the Hebrew word. And Hebrew also has euphemisms it sometimes employs in place of G-d's name.

 

"Ah, good point. Jesus was either insane, a liar, or God."

I'll take the first choice. I think he was a bit of a nut. But remember that coming from me, that's not always a negative.

 

No, Dark Lady Mara. One of GOD's names is GOD. Therefore you would be using his name in vain. The one true GOD goes by many names. This is the supreme being should they go by any less?

 

<< It's patronizing to say he was just a "great human teacher" and nothing more. >>

That's silly. I don't believe in Jesus as the son of g-d, because I'm Jewish, so you expect me to say he was something more than a great rabbi?

No.

By saying so, you are putting down every other religion that is not Christianity. In other words, the rest of us are just patronizing according to you.

 

By saying so, you are putting down every other religion that is not Christianity. In other words, the rest of us are just patronizing according to you.

If you were to go back and look, you would see that I only used the word "patronizing" for dramatic effect, because the person I was responding to have used it. Please think through your accusations more carefully.

 

Dramatic effect or not, you still used it.

What I said still stands.