Reasons Jews Reject Jesus

[Matthias]

You presented your idea of a superb translation, the Geneva Bible. Here is your understanding of Jesus, Who is described as the WORD.

That‘s not my understanding of Jesus. That‘s not the Geneva Bible’s presentation of Jesus.

"All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and that life was the light of men. And that light shineth in the darkenesse, and the darkenesse comprehended it not."

Compare with the Tyndale Bible and all other English translations published prior to 1611. Have you done that? I don’t think you have.

So in essence Jesus, Who is God is referred to as "it".

That’s not correct. ”It” is not referring to Jesus. Everything preexisted in the mind of God before he brought it into literal existence. God spoke and what he had planned and purposed was brought into being. See Genesis 1.

How anyone could think the Protestant Reformers believed John was saying in his prologue that Jesus was an “it” really is beyond me.

Then I brought to Col. 1:16-17 _ in your Geneva Bible _

It isn’t my Geneva Bible. It is the Geneva Bible; the Bible of the Protestant Reformation. See post #994. See also other sources of Information on the translation. Read what people of your faith tradition say about it.

and you declined to accept that Jesus is described here perfectly as the CREATOR.

I referred you to other translations where the Greek is rendered by the trinitarian translators as “in him” rather than “by him”. What does “in him” mean? Why did they make the decision to translate the Greek that way?

So you pick and choose scriptures and translations that work for you and discard what doesn't.

Have you ever compared translations? I’m confident that you have. Have you ever rejected some translations in preference of others? Yes. That’s what you’re doing with the Geneva Bible. You compared it with the King James Bible and rejected the translation of John’s prologue in the Geneva Bible, in favor of the KJV. That’s what you‘re doing when you compare the translation of the Geneva Bible translation with the other English translations of Colossians 1:15 and reject them, in favor of the Geneva Bible.

Liberals do this all the time.

I’m not a liberal. Are you?

You can't even take a stand on your claim.

I did what you asserted that I can’t. As I demonstrated, you’re doing the same thing that I’m doing. Therefore, apply your standard to yourself.

Your view of Jesus is a dishonor, degrading Him of being lesser than Who is really is.

You haven’t demonstrated that you understand my view about Jesus. From your summary, it’s obvious that you don’t.

But I think He is merciful in that He might forgive you for that since Jesus,
"who, as He already existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself by taking the form of a bond-servant and being born in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death: death on a cross." Phil. 2:6-8
People back then did not grasp this concept, He didn't expect them to and obviously you don't!

You‘re as inept in your thinking about “people back then” as you are in your thinking about me.

>Just be careful that you do not blaspheme the Holy Spirit. That won't be forgiven.

Agreed.

I'm not sure if whatever superb version of the Bible you choose refers to Him as "it", would he considered blasphemy?

I directed your attention in an earlier post to church history. Did you follow up on it? Have you read what Gregory of Nazianzus wrote concerning what the wise among the church leaders believed about the Holy Spirit in 380 AD? Do you know who Gregory of Nazianzus is? Are you aware of his significance in the post-biblical development of trinitarian dogma?

 

[Matthias]

There’s no coming back from blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. I wouldn’t say it’s the answer to anything but a way to lose everything.

“Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit has to do with accusing Jesus Christ of being demon- possessed instead of Spirit-filled.”

What is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? | GotQuestions.org

What is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Can the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit take place today?

www.gotquestions.org

I agree with that statement. If I remember correctly, we previously discussed the passages of scripture in Matthew and Mark describing the incident and were in agreement about it.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

2nd, What this son is like is told in v3, the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature. Again, the son has the glory OF - not is, he has the imprint O - not is.

Jesus IS the exact radiance of God's glory in the full. You can't being exactly like God unless you are God.

Here are 33 English translations that make that claim:
"The Son is the radiance of God’s glory"
NIV, ESV, NASB, LSB, AMP, CSB, Holman, NET, WEB, EHV, ESV, HCSB, MEV, MOUNCE, NIRV

"Who being the brightness of his glory,"
KJV, NKJV, LSV, YLT, BRG, DLNT,
DRA, GNV, JUB , LSB, NMB, RGB

"The Son is the light of His Glory"
CEB
"The Son is the radiance of His Sh'khinah"
CJB,
"Who being the Shechinah zohar (brilliance) of Hashem"
OJB

"GOD'S Son has all the brightness of His glory."
CEV

"who being [the] effulgence of his glory"
DARBY, NABRE

Jesus IS THE LIGHT.
HE IS THE TRUTH
HE IS THE SOURCE OF LIFE

Wrangle your way out of that.

 

[Matthias]

>Just be careful that you do not blaspheme the Holy Spirit. That won't be forgiven. I'm not sure if whatever superb version of the Bible you choose refers to Him as "it", would he considered blasphemy?

“Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.”

(Romans 8:26, KJV)

”Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what to pray as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh request for us with sighs, which cannot be expressed.”

(Geneva Bible)

Test your uncertainty. Will you do to the (trinitarian) translators of the King James Bible that which you did to the (trinitarian) translators of the Geneva Bible?

Will you reject those translations of this passage of scripture in preference for some other translation of this passage of scripture? Perhaps NKJV? -

”… but the Spirit Himself …”

 

[Wrangler]

Jesus,
"who, as He already existed in the form of God,

People back then did not grasp this concept,

If the world could implode due to irony ...

"In the form of" ≠ is

Language usage. When anyone says "In the form of" it is the dead give away that the thing IS NOT what it is "in the form of." If I stored my money in a pig, I would just simply say that. Instead people say my home safe is "in the form of" a pig, a piggy bank" because it is not an actual pig.

If my halloween costume is in the form of Joe Biden, that does not make me POTUS and it does not make my Halloween costume POTUS.

 

[Wrangler]

Here are 33 English translations that make that claim

All the claims are not what you suppose that the son IS his God but reflections, images, etc. My mirror contains my image when I am in front of it. Yet, the mirror is not me, yes?

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit has to do with accusing Jesus Christ of being demon- possessed instead of Spirit-filled.”

Slippery. Avoiding the person, Himself. But Who or what is the Holy Spirit to you? God, a person, distinct from Jesus and the Father or just an impersonal force/power of God, and if so could be referred to as "it"?
It is possible that the error of not acknowledging the the Holy Spirit as a person, Who lives in the born again Christian, Who is God, Who teaches, guides, counsels, less, gives truth, bears witness to Christ, is wise, gives gifts, baptizes us, makes promises, loves us, fellowships with us, sanctified us, justifies us, convicts us of sin and edifices us, may be equivalent to blasphemy. ?? Seems like it would be an insult.

 

[RLT63]

If the world could implode due to irony ...

"In the form of" ≠ is

Language usage. When anyone says "In the form of" it is the dead give away that the thing IS NOT what it is "in the form of." If I stored my money in a pig, I would just simply say that. Instead people say my home safe is "in the form of" a pig, a piggy bank" because it is not an actual pig.

If my halloween costume is in the form of Joe Biden, that does not make me POTUS and it does not make my Halloween costume POTUS.

Phl 2:7 - But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made-in the likeness of men
So was Jesus not a man, just in the likeness of a man?
It’s my likeness in a mirror but the mirror is not me. Or in a picture

 

[Matthias]

Slippery. Avoiding the person, Himself.

In your opinion, why would a trinitarian do that?

But Who or what is the Holy Spirit to you? God, a person, distinct from Jesus and the Father or just an impersonal force/power of God, and if so could be referred to as "it"?

Spirit is personal, not impersonal. Mine is. Yours is. God’s is. The Messiah’s is. Everyone’s is.

It is possible that the error of not acknowledging the the Holy Spirit as a person, Who lives in the born again Christian, Who is God, Who teaches, guides, counsels, less, gives truth, bears witness to Christ, is wise, gives gifts, baptizes us, makes promises, loves us, fellowships with us, sanctified us, justifies us, convicts us of sin and edifices us, may be equivalent to blasphemy. ?? Seems like it would be an insult.

Did you read Gregory of Nazianzus?

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

“Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.”

(Romans 8:26, KJV)

”Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what to pray as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh request for us with sighs, which cannot be expressed.”

(Geneva Bible)

Test your uncertainty. Will you do to the (trinitarian) translators of the King James Bible that which you did to the (trinitarian) translators of the Geneva Bible?

Will you reject those translations of this passage of scripture in preference for some other translation of this passage of scripture? Perhaps NKJV? -

”… but the Spirit Himself …”

No, I don't see a problem with those translations, just with the Geneva translation of John 1:3-4
I reference about eight translations, because none are perfect. I do have my favorites. But if they mess with specific essential doctrines, I won't use them at all. But in your case, I did to prove a point that you flip flopped on the Geneva translation of Col. 1:16-17 ( which had it right), claiming Jesus (His pre-incarnate Spirit, Who existed with the Father AND the Holy Spirit), is the Creator. You reject that.
Your choice.

 

[Matthias]

No, I don't see a problem with those translations, just with the Geneva translation of John 1:3-4
I reference about eight translations, because none are perfect. I do have my favorites.

So you allow for yourself what you won’t allow for others.

But if they mess with specific essential doctrines, I won't use them at all. But in your case, I did to prove a point that you flip flopped on the Geneva translation of Col. 1:16-17 ( which had it right), claiming Jesus (His pre-incarnate Spirit, Who existed with the Father AND the Holy Spirit), is the Creator. You reject that.
Your choice.

My choice is to go with translations which are in agreement with the Apostles’ Creed.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

All the claims are not what you suppose that the son IS his God but reflections, images, etc. My mirror contains my image when I am in front of it. Yet, the mirror is not me, yes?

God became flesh and dwelt among us! ( John 1:14) The Word is God. Jesus is the Word. It is cut and dry, a child can get it.
Jesus is the Light, not a reflection of it. Your analogy is flawed, leaning on your own understanding. But keep looking at yourself in the mirror. You will change over time.
God has not changed. From the beginning, before time, Jesus was with the Father and the Spirit. We are to be baptized in the name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Matthias]

I was thinking this morning about our conversation last night concerning messianic Jews @Jim B. I’m very familiar with Jews for Jesus, as you are. As I’m sure you must know, Rachmiel Frydland (now deceased) is one of the more famous persons associated with that organization.

Have you read Frydland’s book, What the Rabbis Know About the Messiah?

I read it last year, along with his autobiography, When Being Jewish Was A Crime.

Both books are excellent. If you haven’t read them, I highly recommend both.

If I were a Jew who doesn’t believe that Jesus is the messiah and read that book, what he wrote would have changed my mind. His book never even so much as mentions the subject which must never be discussed on Christianity Board. His book demonstrates that there is no need to.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

@Matthias @Wrangler,
There is an impenetrable wall between us. Our conversations are futile and I knew that long ago, but carried on for the sake of others reading through this thread.
So I must bid you farewell, God Bless.
No hard feelings I hope.

 

[Mr E]

Functionally equal. God put his words in Moses’ mouth. When Pharoah saw and heard Moses he saw and heard God in Moses.

Let’s substitute “Jesus” for “Moses” and “mankind” for “Pharaoh”.

Did God put his words in the mouth of Jesus?

When we see and hear Jesus do we see and hear God in Messiah?

Not even close. No, Moses was not functionally equal with God. Neither was Jesus. In fact, Jesus wasn't even functionally equal with Moses. That's one of the biggest reasons why Jews reject him, even today.

If God speaks to you and you speak His word to me-- do you really think that would make you functionally equal to Him?

That's some serious hubris. That might make you a lot like Moses, but it won't make you anything like God.

 

[Matthias]

@Matthias @Wrangler,
There is an impenetrable wall between us.

I don’t believe that to be the case.

I asked you previously to comment about how long you thought it would take for someone to change their mind. You rightly stated that the time varies from person to person, sometimes taking many years.

We’ve spoken with one another for only a few minutes. You haven’t given me much time to change my mind, nor have you provided me with any new information to help me re-examine and reconsider what I believe.

From what little you’ve written to me, it appears that I already know more about the subject than you do. Having been raised trinitarian, I’ve been in your shoes. I‘ve taught your theology at a couple of colleges as an adjunct professor. I’ve taught your theology in churches as a pastor. I’m amenable to the possibility that I may have overlooked or misunderstood something and, therefore, open to the possibility of changing my mind. With no disrespect intended or implied, and not doubting your genuine sincerity, I don’t think you’re sufficiently knowledgeable on the subject, nor temperamentally suited to aid me in that effort.

Our conversations are futile …

Once I again, I respect your opinion about our conversations but I don’t agree with it.

… and I knew that long ago…

So you knew from “long ago” that you weren’t writing for my benefit. I’m disappointed to hear that.

…but carried on for the sake of others reading through this thread.

That’s commendable.

I carried on for your sake, for my sake, and for the sake of others reading through this thread.

So I must bid you farewell, God Bless.

Do what you think best. If you change your mind, I would welcome further conversation with you.

No hard feelings I hope.

I have no hard feelings toward you.

 

[Mr E]

No, I would not argue with God but your blatantly incorrect take on Hebrews 1:8, especially given v 5 where God called Jesus his son and referenced the day he created his son.

Hebrews 1:5 is quoting David from Ps 2 regarding being declared the son of God in the first instance, and 2 Samuel 7, where the word of God comes to Nathan the prophet, which he delivers to King David regarding his son in the second instance. Neither apply to Jesus except by inference, which the writer of Hebrews makes.

In Heb 1:8 the passage goes on to speak of this son--- once again quoting a Psalm of David, where David is referring to himself, as this one whom has been declared God's son.

In reality- David recognizes what few do. That he is anointed by God through the sending of His son to David-- the spirit within him and the one David calls Lord.

 

[Matthias]

Not even close. No, Moses was not functionally equal with God. Neither was Jesus. In fact, Jesus wasn't even functionally equal with Moses. That's one of the biggest reasons why Jews reject him, even today.

If God speaks to you and you speak His word to me-- do you really think that would make you functionally equal to Him?

That's some serious hubris. That might make you a lot like Moses, but it won't make you anything like God.

What I say to you I say to all: if you aren’t persuaded that something is true then don’t believe it.

You asked me about what I believed. (Thank you.) I told you what I believe and why I believe it.

 

[Mr E]

Jesus relinquished His glory temporarily while He emptied Himself into a human vessel. He came as a humble servant to be the sacrificial lamb, obedient and submissive to the Father as an example for us to follow. Then when He accomplished His task, His glory was returned to Him. The Father said that Jesus was greater than the angels and addressed Him as God in Hebrews 1:8.
Would you argue with your Father? No, likely you will misinterpret the scripture.

It wasn't "Jesus" who emptied himself. Jesus was born a tiny little baby in a tiny little town. He wasn't a person up in Heaven. You are mixing up and fixating on an idea in your head that there was a man who became a baby and entered into Mary's womb--- the very thing that Jesus explained to Nicodemus was a misunderstanding of the concept.

The son of God is spirit. The Father is Spirit. The union that produces the son of God from the Father's seed is conceived in spirit and it is a spiritual son that is sent to the world to save it. This spiritual son is sent to MAN and this seed, or word, or understanding-- whatever you want to call it, is what a man is anointed with--- becoming a messiah. That's what happened to Jesus. And not just him.

 

[Mr E]

What I say to you I say to all: if you aren’t persuaded that something is true then don’t believe it.

You asked me about what I believed. (Thank you.) I told you what I believe and why I believe it.

Of course. And I'm telling you that you haven't thought it all through well enough. No one says you can't believe what you want to believe. You can. Everybody does. It just doesn't make what you believe true, simply by believing it, -and this, you know.