Why don't the Jewish people recognize the New Testament?

[skeptruth]

For almost 2000 years the Jewish people have not recognized the New Testament, although all those who contributed to the New Testament were Jewish. All the writers of the New Testament were Jewish, but nevertheless the Jewish people reject that which 1,000,000,000 people consider to be the word of God.

Excerpts:

In the genealogy in the Book of Matthew we are missing four names that are clearly listed in the Hebrew Bible. So according to the Holy Old Testament there are 18 generations between King David and the Babylonian exile, whereas the New Testament claims that there are 14.

If the New Testament is the divinely inspired word of God, then how can such a mistake appear in it?

In this context it is also interesting to look at the book of Luke, chapter 3, from verse 23. Here Luke also gives the genealogy of Jesus, but a brief reading is enough to show you that this genealogy is completely different from Matthew’s genealogy. In the book of Matthew the father of Joseph is Jacob, whose father is Matthan, whose father is Eleazar. In the book of Luke the father of Joseph is Heli, whose father is Matthat, whose father is Levi.

How can this be?.. Was Mary married to two Josephs?

The Virgin birth:

In Matthew 1:18 we read: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise; When his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy ghost.” When Joseph wanted to leave her, because she was pregnant with somebody else, an angel came to him (verse 20) and said: “That what is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” It is clearly written here, and firmly believed by Christianity, that Joseph was not the father of Jesus.

Then what is the point of trying to prove that Jesus descended from King David (Matthew 1:1) by giving the genealogy of Joseph who was not his father?

The angel tells Joseph (Matthew 1:22-23) that this is done in order to fulfill the word of the prophet: “Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel.” This prophecy is recorded in Isaiah 7:14. There it says: “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bare a son and shall call his name Emmanuel.” But for the Jewish reader who knows Hebrew, this also raises problems. The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 that the king James translation translates as virgin is almah. In Hebrew almah means girl, young woman, that can be, or not, a virgin. Therefore the word virgin in Isaiah 7:14 is a wrong translation. The Hebrew word for virgin is betulah, that word is used for instance when the Holy Torah speaks about Rebecca in Genesis 24:16: “…a virgin, neither had any man known her”

…This fact is recognized by many Christian Bible translators, for instance “The New English Bible”, “The Good News Bible”, and “The Revised Standard Version” have translated this verse in the right way, and not as virgin. .

-----The King James translation recognizes this fact too. When we look for instance at Exodus 2:8, and at Proverbs 30:19, there the Hebrew text also uses the word almah, and there the King James translates it with maid, which is a girl or young woman, whose state of virginity is unspecified. And in psalm 68:25 the King James translates almah as damsel, whose meaning is similar as maid.

So the New Testament is here misquoting the Old Testament.
by Eliyahu Silver

To be continued… Any answers ?

[Ben_Wood]

All the writers of the New Testament were Jewish,

Not so, Luke and Acts was likely to have been written by a Greco-Roman Christian based on analysis of the text. Luke focuses on Jesus message among the Gentiles and shows immense knowledge of pagan philosophy. The Person that wrote John’s Gospel was clearly a Greek and it is questionable that he was Jewish based on the highly anti-semetic tone of his Gospel. The Gospel of Matthew was probably for a Jewish Christianity because of many cultural references to Jewish law, custom and practice. Matthew’s presentation of Jesus is clearly influenced by an intimate knowledge of Judaism; something Luke and John seem to lack. The Gospel of Mark, (the earliest gospel to be written) shows a clear knowledge of Judaism and Jesus’ original context. It was probably written by an Aramaic speaker, than badly translated into Greek. I could go on…but clearly not all the NT was writtwn by Jews.

but nevertheless the Jewish people reject that which 1,000,000,000 people consider to be the word of God.

Does the number of people that believe something automatically determine it’s truth or falsehood? Capernicus was of the minority that the earth revolved around the sun, while the tyranic majority insisted on the reverse?

If the New Testament is the divinely inspired word of God, then how can such a mistake appear in it?

Because it is not. Jews do not believe because Jesus does not fulfill the Messianic prophecies while he is on earth. Christians believe Jesus is God as part of three persons, this is blasphemy based on the Jewish Shema- “Hear oh Isreal your God is one”. In some ways Jesus taught against the Jewish Law- for Jews the Messiah could never do such a thing. Jesus may have been a great teacher but Jews definately could not see him as the Son of God. Beyond this the contradictions you mention also serve to somewhat de-value the text.

[skeptruth]

Hi, Ben, I quoted my posting from this page:

harrington-sites.com/Jewish.htm

You are probably right and I appreciate your input on the matter:

Not so, Luke and Acts was likely to have been written by a Greco-Roman Christian based on analysis of the text. Luke focuses on Jesus message among the Gentiles and shows immense knowledge of pagan philosophy. The Person that wrote John’s Gospel was clearly a Greek and it is questionable that he was Jewish based on the highly anti-semetic tone of his Gospel. The Gospel of Matthew was probably for a Jewish Christianity because of many cultural references to Jewish law, custom and practice. Matthew’s presentation of Jesus is clearly influenced by an intimate knowledge of Judaism; something Luke and John seem to lack. The Gospel of Mark, (the earliest gospel to be written) shows a clear knowledge of Judaism and Jesus’ original context. It was probably written by an Aramaic speaker, than badly translated into Greek. I could go on…but clearly not all the NT was writtwn by Jews.

My agenda is this: I disagree with the highly bias antisemitic propaganda created by the Roman Catholic Church by “fixing” the canonical gospels to blame the Jewish people for Jesus’s crucifixion.

When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!” All the people answered, “Let his blood be on us and on our children!”
( Matthew 27:24-25)

This is one of the many Roman Catholic fixings that created antisemitism till this day. Pilate didn’t need Jewish “permission” per se, to crucify anyone. He was ruthless and enjoyed doing it and without a trial !! History backs my statement:

The fiction of the weak and/or semi-heroic Pilate standing up to the blood hungry Jews is highly unlikely. To Pilatus, Yeshua was yet another in a long line of Galilean fanatics - he had crucified plenty like him before and he would not have hesitated for a second in crucifying this one. The mocking inscription on his cross, ‘Jesus of Nazareth - King of the Jews’, indicates both the nature of his crime from Pilatus’ perspective (sedition against the Emperor Tiberius, not blasphemy) and Pilatus’ attitude to the Galilean. He would have marched back to Ceasarea a couple of weeks later satisfied that he had dealt with another rioter and rebel and cut off a rebellion before it began. He would have felt he had done his job - keeping the peace in a land constantly on the brink of war.
In later centuries though, the consequences of the way the author of Mark’s gospel presented Pilatus were to have profound effects. The fiction of Pilate washing his hands of guilt over Jesus’ death, and of ‘the Jews’ shouting ‘let his blood be on us and on our children’ was to be a seed for centuries of anti-Semitism. One of the Nazis’ justifications of their persecution of Jews was that they were ‘Christ killers’ - the Holocaust was just one of a long line of atrocities which were justified with reference to the Gospel of Mark. Still, as the Nazis later said, he was just obeying orders Copyright T.C. O’Neill Feb 2000.

More on the subject: jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp? … rch=Pilate

[Ned_Flanders]

@skeptruth

My agenda is this: I disagree with the highly bias antisemitic propaganda created by the Roman Catholic Church by “fixing” the canonical gospels to blame the Jewish people for Jesus’s crucifixion.

So I guess when they were “fixing” the gospels they forgot about this one…

Luke 23
34Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
[/quote]

[Ben_Wood]

Hey skeptruth

Thanks for clarifying your position fella, I agree with what you say about the ant-semitism in the New Testament. I always remember that line from Matthew, “Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children”- one addition among many to point the finger at the Jews. It is interesting what you say about Pilate. In the NT Pilate seems to get good press, but the Pilate of history is less flattering, the accoount left by the Jewish Historian Josephus is highly damning.

[thirst4metal]

Hello F(r)iends,

“his blood be on us, and on our children”

It is accepted by many biblical scholars that the message in the canonical gospels is pretty clear in terms of who is guilty about the death of Jesus: everyone. Furthermore, the comments made by the Jewish crowd were not intended to reflect poorly on the Jews but rather they were meant to warn anyone that rejected Jesus.

At least, that’s one plausibility.

-Thirst