Statement On Why Jews Disbelieve

[David Sklansky]

I came across this and skimmed it. Personally the subject doesn't interest me. But debates do. And a cursory reading indicated that his arguments, given God exists at all, might be strong. One reason being he not only gives his side, but also gives the other, followed by a rebuttal.

So what is the re rebuttal?

Dear Rabbi,
Why don't Jews believe in Jesus? Doesn't it say in the Psalms, "They pierced my hands and feet"? Doesn't Isaiah say, "Behold a virgin shall give birth"?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scriptural References
In order to understand anything in the Torah one must look at the original Hebrew. You will see that the Christians distorted, changed and misinterpreted many of the Hebrew words in order to fit things into their beliefs. The two places that you mentioned are good examples. In Psalm 22:17 the Hebrew states "hikifuni ca'ari yaday veraglay" which means "they bound me (hikifuni) like a lion (ca-like ari-lion), my hands (yaday) and my feet (ve-and raglay-my feet). The Christians translate this as "they pierced my hands and feet". Nowhere in the entire Torah, Prophets and Writings do the words ca'ari or hikifuny mean anything remotely resembling "pierce".

In Isaiah 7:14 the Hebrew states "hinei ha'almah harah veyoledet ben" "behold (hineih) the young woman (ha - the almah- young woman) is pregnant (harah) and shall give birth (ve-and yoledet-shall give birth) to a son (ben)". The Christians translate this as "behold a virgin shall give birth." They have made two mistakes (probably deliberate) in the one verse. They mistranslate "ha" as "a" instead of "the". They mistranslate "almah" as "virgin", when in fact the Hebrew word for virgin is "betulah". Aside from the fact that if you read the context of that prediction you will see clearly that it is predicting an event that was supposed to happen and be seen by king Achaz who lived 700 years before Jesus!


Genealogy
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!

Messianic Predictions
The main predictions concerning the Messiah are that he will bring peace to the world, gather the Jewish people from their exile to the land of Israel and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. After Jesus' appearance, the Temple was destroyed, the Jews were exiled all over the world and we have not even had one day of peace in the past 2,000 years. (Many of the wars in fact were started and fought by followers of Jesus) These events are enough to show that he was not the messiah.

The main Christian responses to these objections are:


The Second Coming - First of all, we find this to be a contrived answer, since there is no mention of a second coming in the Jewish Bible. Second, why couldn't G-d accomplish His goals the first time round. Most importantly, the second coming idea is just an attempt at answering an obvious question but it certainly does not constitute proof of messianic claims.

There is peace within his followers hearts - That is wonderful for them, but does that help the victims of the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Hundred Years War, the First World War, the Second World War etc. In each of the events that I mentioned most if not all the combatants, the violent oppressors and torturers where people who claimed to be followers of Jesus. And is peace in the heart a fulfillment of "swords into plowshares etc."

Messiah's Qualifications
Messiah is a prophet, a scholar and a pious king. Jesus made a prediction that "The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand." (Mark 1:15) That was 2000 years ago, has the kingdom of God come? Do you call the holocaust, Pol Pot and Stalin a world in which the kingdom of God has come? Jesus was not a great scholar - one of the requirements of the Messiah. Was Jesus a king? He was not anointed as king by a prophet (as was the rule in Jewish kings), he was not appointed by any judicial body as a leader and he did not rule over the Jewish people nor was he accepted by them. He was arrested, tortured and killed by the Romans like a common criminal. He had no army or government. The answer to my question is an obvious, "no."

The Trinity
The Christian idea of a trinity contradicts the most basic tenet of Judaism - that G-d is One. Jews have declared their belief in a single unified G-d twice daily ever since the giving of the Torah at Sinai - almost two thousand years before Christianity.

The trinity suggests a three part deity: The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19).

In Jewish law, worship of a three-part god is considered idolatry; one of the three cardinal sins for which a person should rather give up his life than transgress. The idea of the trinity is absolutely incompatible with Judaism.


Physical Manifestation
Christianity believes that G-d came down to earth in human form, as Jesus said: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).

The Torah states that G-d cannot not take any form.:

"You will not be able to see My face, for no human can see my face and live" (Exodus 33:18-20)

"You did not see any form on the day G-d spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of fire" (Deuteronomy 4:15)

As little as we may know about G-d's nature, Judaism has always believed that G-d is Incorporeal, meaning that He assumes no physical form. G-d is Eternal, He is Infinite; above time and beyond space. He cannot be born, and cannot die.

Christianity denies the eternal relevance of Torah Law, basing the concept of the New Testament on a mistranslation of a verse in Jeremia.
In Jeremia 31:30 the Hebrew states: "Henei yamim baim Neum Hashem VeCharati Brit Chadash" They translate: "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new Testament with the house of Israel "

"Brit" does not mean Testament. Throughout Scripture "Brit" means covenant. See for example Genesis 17:2, 15:18 Exodus 24:8, Leviticus 26:42, Numbers 25:12.

It is a fundamental principle of Judaism that the Torah received at Sinai will never be changed nor become obsolete. This concept is mentioned in the Torah no less than 24 times, with the words:

"This is an eternal law for all generations"

(Exodus 12:14, 12:17, 12:43, 27:21, 28:43, Leviticus 3:17, 7:36, 10:9, 16:29, 16:31, 16:34, 17:7, 23:14, 23:21, 23:31, 23:41, 24:3, Numbers 10:8, 15:15, 19:10, 19:21, 18:23, 35:29, Deuteronomy29:28)

It is absurd to accept the Divine origin of the Torah yet deny it's eternal relevance. Judaism is a religion of action; it has always taught that through performance of the commandments one declares the belief of the heart. To dispense with the legal body of the Torah and reduce it to a book of morals would cut it down to less than half it's size. Can this really be the meaning of those words an eternal law for all generations?

For a lengthier discussion on this subject I suggest the books, "The Real Messiah," by Aryeh Kaplan, "Faith Strengthened" by Isaac Troki, "You Take Jesus, I'll Take God"and "Their Hollow Inheritance" by Michoel Drazin. (available at Jewish bookstores everywhere)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2000 Ohr Somayach International

[whiskeytown]

I am not Jewish or anywhere near close - I am a Biblical Studies Minor so I did spend a couple yrs in the book -

I've got other very close references that state they Pinned his hands and feet is the closest to the true Hebrew - this is in English, translated by hundreds of biblical experts - of course, that will mean nothing to a student that only wants the Torah for his justification - no biggie to me.

from www.bible.org -

--------------
22:16 Yes, wild dogs surround me –
a gang of evil men crowd around me;
like a lion they pin my hands and feet

like a lion, my hands and my feet.” This reading is often emended because it is grammatically awkward, but perhaps its awkwardness is by rhetorical design. Its broken syntax may be intended to convey the panic and terror felt by the psalmist. The psalmist may envision a lion pinning the hands and feet of its victim to the ground with its paws (a scene depicted in ancient Near Eastern art), or a lion biting the hands and feet. The line has been traditionally translated, “they pierce my hands and feet,” and then taken as foreshadowing the crucifixion of Christ. Though Jesus does appropriate the language of this psalm while on the cross (compare v. 1 with Matt 27:46 and Mark 15:34), the NT does not cite this verse in describing the death of Jesus. (It does refer to vv. 7-8 and 18, however. See Matt 27:35, 39, 43; Mark 15:24, 29; Luke 23:34; John 19:23-24.) If one were to insist on an emendation of (ka’ariy, “like a lion”) to a verb, the most likely verbal root would be (karah, “dig”; see the LXX). In this context this verb could refer to the gnawing and tearing of wild dogs (cf. NCV, TEV, CEV). The ancient Greek version produced by Symmachus reads “bind” here, perhaps understanding a verbal root , which is attested in later Hebrew and Aramaic and means “to encircle, entwine, embrace” (see HALOT 497-98 s.v. and Jastrow 668 s.v. ). Neither one of these proposed verbs can yield a meaning “bore, pierce.”
----------------------------------
there is a segment of the Jewish Population that does believe Jesus was the Messiah - they keep pretty quiet tho - except for plagerizing Jackie Mason's name for a pamphlet here and there -

the NT suggested that Jesus didn't come just to be the messiah for the Jews, but the entire world - They still get favored nation status in the eyes of the OT - but I don't think they like their religion being "co-opted" and redone - but the NT states that that gospel message is for everyone who wants it - that can be offensive to a religion that could be easily classified as xenophobic during that time.

RB

[MidGe]

I am not sure where that comes from:

[ QUOTE ]
when Jesus was on earth, he predicted that the Jews would be scattered and their grand temple would be torn down completely - 30 yrs after he was gone - blammo -

that wasn't in the OT either. Maybe it didn't happen...

[/ QUOTE ]

But that make it happen before the NT was written... easy, in retrospect.

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure where that comes from:

[ QUOTE ]
when Jesus was on earth, he predicted that the Jews would be scattered and their grand temple would be torn down completely - 30 yrs after he was gone - blammo -

that wasn't in the OT either. Maybe it didn't happen...

[/ QUOTE ]

But that make it happen before the NT was written... easy, in retrospect.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, some books of the NT are believed to be pre-destruction of the temple - I pulled that quote out of there - too much of a tangent and I realized it..

We could have theological arguments about it for yrs - to some people even Jesus didn't exist - LOL - we're dealing with documented accounts by eyewitnesses and men who researched it by talking to the Apostles -

I'll believe it.

RB

[MidGe]

You can believe whatver you want, flying pigs and unicorns included.

Here is a failed prophecy from the NT:
"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." (Matthew 24: 34)
This prophecy is repeated in Mark 13 and in Luke 21.
It is clear by now that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. by the Roman General Titus. And, it is clear that Jesus has not come 2000 years later and none of the generation that witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem is still alive.

[Shadowrun]

[ QUOTE ]
I came across this and skimmed it. Personally the subject doesn't interest me. But debates do. And a cursory reading indicated that his arguments, given God exists at all, might be strong. One reason being he not only gives his side, but also gives the other, followed by a rebuttal.

So what is the re rebuttal?

Dear Rabbi,
Why don't Jews believe in Jesus? Doesn't it say in the Psalms, "They pierced my hands and feet"? Doesn't Isaiah say, "Behold a virgin shall give birth"?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scriptural References
In order to understand anything in the Torah one must look at the original Hebrew. You will see that the Christians distorted, changed and misinterpreted many of the Hebrew words in order to fit things into their beliefs. The two places that you mentioned are good examples. In Psalm 22:17 the Hebrew states "hikifuni ca'ari yaday veraglay" which means "they bound me (hikifuni) like a lion (ca-like ari-lion), my hands (yaday) and my feet (ve-and raglay-my feet). The Christians translate this as "they pierced my hands and feet". Nowhere in the entire Torah, Prophets and Writings do the words ca'ari or hikifuny mean anything remotely resembling "pierce".

In Isaiah 7:14 the Hebrew states "hinei ha'almah harah veyoledet ben" "behold (hineih) the young woman (ha - the almah- young woman) is pregnant (harah) and shall give birth (ve-and yoledet-shall give birth) to a son (ben)". The Christians translate this as "behold a virgin shall give birth." They have made two mistakes (probably deliberate) in the one verse. They mistranslate "ha" as "a" instead of "the". They mistranslate "almah" as "virgin", when in fact the Hebrew word for virgin is "betulah". Aside from the fact that if you read the context of that prediction you will see clearly that it is predicting an event that was supposed to happen and be seen by king Achaz who lived 700 years before Jesus!


Genealogy
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!

Messianic Predictions
The main predictions concerning the Messiah are that he will bring peace to the world, gather the Jewish people from their exile to the land of Israel and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. After Jesus' appearance, the Temple was destroyed, the Jews were exiled all over the world and we have not even had one day of peace in the past 2,000 years. (Many of the wars in fact were started and fought by followers of Jesus) These events are enough to show that he was not the messiah.

The main Christian responses to these objections are:


The Second Coming - First of all, we find this to be a contrived answer, since there is no mention of a second coming in the Jewish Bible. Second, why couldn't G-d accomplish His goals the first time round. Most importantly, the second coming idea is just an attempt at answering an obvious question but it certainly does not constitute proof of messianic claims.

There is peace within his followers hearts - That is wonderful for them, but does that help the victims of the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Hundred Years War, the First World War, the Second World War etc. In each of the events that I mentioned most if not all the combatants, the violent oppressors and torturers where people who claimed to be followers of Jesus. And is peace in the heart a fulfillment of "swords into plowshares etc."

Messiah's Qualifications
Messiah is a prophet, a scholar and a pious king. Jesus made a prediction that "The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand." (Mark 1:15) That was 2000 years ago, has the kingdom of God come? Do you call the holocaust, Pol Pot and Stalin a world in which the kingdom of God has come? Jesus was not a great scholar - one of the requirements of the Messiah. Was Jesus a king? He was not anointed as king by a prophet (as was the rule in Jewish kings), he was not appointed by any judicial body as a leader and he did not rule over the Jewish people nor was he accepted by them. He was arrested, tortured and killed by the Romans like a common criminal. He had no army or government. The answer to my question is an obvious, "no."

The Trinity
The Christian idea of a trinity contradicts the most basic tenet of Judaism - that G-d is One. Jews have declared their belief in a single unified G-d twice daily ever since the giving of the Torah at Sinai - almost two thousand years before Christianity.

The trinity suggests a three part deity: The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19).

In Jewish law, worship of a three-part god is considered idolatry; one of the three cardinal sins for which a person should rather give up his life than transgress. The idea of the trinity is absolutely incompatible with Judaism.


Physical Manifestation
Christianity believes that G-d came down to earth in human form, as Jesus said: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).

The Torah states that G-d cannot not take any form.:

"You will not be able to see My face, for no human can see my face and live" (Exodus 33:18-20)

"You did not see any form on the day G-d spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of fire" (Deuteronomy 4:15)

As little as we may know about G-d's nature, Judaism has always believed that G-d is Incorporeal, meaning that He assumes no physical form. G-d is Eternal, He is Infinite; above time and beyond space. He cannot be born, and cannot die.

Christianity denies the eternal relevance of Torah Law, basing the concept of the New Testament on a mistranslation of a verse in Jeremia.
In Jeremia 31:30 the Hebrew states: "Henei yamim baim Neum Hashem VeCharati Brit Chadash" They translate: "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new Testament with the house of Israel "

"Brit" does not mean Testament. Throughout Scripture "Brit" means covenant. See for example Genesis 17:2, 15:18 Exodus 24:8, Leviticus 26:42, Numbers 25:12.

It is a fundamental principle of Judaism that the Torah received at Sinai will never be changed nor become obsolete. This concept is mentioned in the Torah no less than 24 times, with the words:

"This is an eternal law for all generations"

(Exodus 12:14, 12:17, 12:43, 27:21, 28:43, Leviticus 3:17, 7:36, 10:9, 16:29, 16:31, 16:34, 17:7, 23:14, 23:21, 23:31, 23:41, 24:3, Numbers 10:8, 15:15, 19:10, 19:21, 18:23, 35:29, Deuteronomy29:28)

It is absurd to accept the Divine origin of the Torah yet deny it's eternal relevance. Judaism is a religion of action; it has always taught that through performance of the commandments one declares the belief of the heart. To dispense with the legal body of the Torah and reduce it to a book of morals would cut it down to less than half it's size. Can this really be the meaning of those words an eternal law for all generations?

For a lengthier discussion on this subject I suggest the books, "The Real Messiah," by Aryeh Kaplan, "Faith Strengthened" by Isaac Troki, "You Take Jesus, I'll Take God"and "Their Hollow Inheritance" by Michoel Drazin. (available at Jewish bookstores everywhere)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2000 Ohr Somayach International

[/ QUOTE ]

Very intresting author.
By the way it is only fair to say that Ohr Somayach is a Yeshivah (Jewish religious school) in Isreal (they may have branches in the US) that is well known for the non religious jews that go there and then they end up being quite religious a lot of the time.

[whiskeytown]

[ QUOTE ]
You can believe whatver you want, flying pigs and unicorns included.

Here is a failed prophecy from the NT:
"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." (Matthew 24: 34)
This prophecy is repeated in Mark 13 and in Luke 21.
It is clear by now that Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. by the Roman General Titus. And, it is clear that Jesus has not come 2000 years later and none of the generation that witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem is still alive.

[/ QUOTE ]

out of context without a study of the word "Generation", your claim is almost true....

but you have neither right context nor study of the word - so yes I will continue to believe what I wish.

the verse is a reference to the end times, in fact, each chapter is a whole exposition on the end of the world and before that verse in each reference is discussion of what the people in the end times will see and the generation is also translated as the generation that sees the end times - basic english really if you put a couple lines in front of that.

the destruction will be so bad folks will believe that no one will survive - he assures them some will.

Generation has additional meanings in the light of the word as "nation" though some greek translators disagree-

but "this generation" isn't the audience - it's the one he's describing will be around in the end times.

so no, if the last days have not occured, then the prophecy is still open to be fulfilled.

rb

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So what is the re rebuttal?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm only going to do one. Feel free to google the rest. Oh yeah, you aren't really interested.

This is a short excerpt from a long article about Psalm 22:16:

[ QUOTE ]

So, where does this leave us on what the 'original' or 'furthest back' reading was?

1. "Like a lion" is rejected for a number of reasons by scholars: makes no sense, MT manuscript evidence against it, all the earliest translations (not interpretive paraphrases) reject it, its highly unusual form (for the 'like a lion' expression), the conclusive existence of the verb reading at Qumran, and even ancient rabbinic rejection of the meaning.


2. The textual witnesses line up historically like this:

* The earliest is the LXX, which has "they pierced"
* The next witness is Qumran, which has "they pierced"
* The next witness is Aquila's first edition, which is best explained as a transposition of letters from "they pierced"
* The next witness is the Peshitta, which has "they pierced"
* The next witnesses are A2/S/J, which have "they tied", which can be seen as a 'reasonable' mis-understanding from "they pierced"
* We don't get "like a lion" for centuries after these witnesses, and even then there are MT variants representing "they pierced"
* Later Jewish writers (e.g., Rashi) follow the MT (surprise, surprise), but one or two midrashic writers understand this as a verb, instead of "like a lion"

This sequence alone would make a strong case for "they pierced"


[/ QUOTE ]

The article can be found here.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. No only this book, but even the Law itself, the Prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little when read in the original."

[/ QUOTE ]

I love this.. David's original post and notready's response... more proof that the Bible is flawed, versions differ and the translations are suspect.