Jews Rejected God's Offer

In the thread History Buffs, Come Help Me With Jesus Phatboy stated that the Gentiles were given the same option that the Jews rejected.

I have heard this phrase or variations of it before, but no one has been able to tell me clearly what the offer was or where it is written. No one has been able to show me where any clear option was presented to the Jewish Community by God and where the Jewish Community clearly rejected an offer from God.

Show me where God made a clear offer to the Jewish Community, as a whole, and what that specific offer was!

Show me where the Jewish Community, as a whole, clearly rejected a specific offer from God.

NOTE to Admin: I would like this in the Accuracy and Inerrancy forum if possible.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Excellent!

Thanks

May I also request that when pointing out these alleged offers from God, that the Tankah is referenced, not Christian scriptures. After all, the Jews do not accept Christian scriptures as being from God, but only written by man.

I would agree since during the time of the supposed offer and rejection the NT didn't exist, so a Jew before or soon after the crucifixion would only have the Jewish documents to verify what they were being told.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

ramoss writes: May I also request that when pointing out these alleged offers from God, that the Tankah is referenced, not Christian scriptures. After all, the Jews do not accept Christian scriptures as being from God, but only written by man.

I am not talking only to Jews here, so I will not limit my references to the Tanach.
We could examine the prophecies concerning the Messiah, but that would involve a new thread. My references are all N.T. and all written by men. As to the inspiration or lack thereof, THAT is a matter of ones personal belief. Start by reading this webpage. I found it and see that their information is most of what I have been taught concerning the revelation of the mystery.

http://home.flash.net/~saints/mystery.htm

This is where Paul first mentions the switch:

NIV writes: Acts 28:23-28 They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. From morning till evening he explained and declared to them the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets. Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe. They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: "The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet: "'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.' "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"

Paul was thought of as a misguided Jew, as was Jesus, by many Jews. The Christian answer is that these Jews were unwilling to see the Messiah for who He is. Again, a matter of opinion and belief.

NIV writes: Rom 11:7-21 What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day." And David says: "May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them. May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever." Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring! I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches. If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

Even Jesus knew that He initially was to come for the Jews.

Matt 15:21-28=Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession." Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." "Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

Again, I must emphasize: The Jews individually each had a chance to accept the Messiah, and, many did. As a nation, however, they were cut off after they rejected, as a nation, the Messiah.

Dispensational theology sees the Bible as encompassing different timeframes, or dispensations:

Currently, we are in the Church Age...#6. The book of Revelation is written for the Jews, #7. This belief presumes a pre trib rapture.

This message has been edited by Phatboy, 11-21-2004 11:01 PM

I am not talking only to Jews here, so I will not limit my references to the Tanach.

well, i'm not talking to only christians here, so i will not limit my references to the new testament. here's some from the qu'ran that pretty clearly says that you're a devil worshipper.

quote:

---

4:48 Lo! Allah forgiveth not that a partner should be ascribed unto Him. He forgiveth (all) save that to whom He will. Whoso ascribeth partners to Allah, he hath indeed invented a tremendous sin.

---

quote:

---

4:116 Lo! Allah pardoneth not that partners should be ascribed unto Him. He pardoneth all save that to whom He will. Whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah hath wandered far astray.

---

quote:

---

4:60 Hast thou not seen those who pretend that they believe in that which is revealed unto thee and that which was revealed before thee, how they would go for judgment (in their disputes) to false deities when they have been ordered to abjure them ? Satan would mislead them far astray.

---

now, do you believe any of this? do you even care? giving jewish people christians texts is just SILLY. most of them so full of distortions of the judaic faith that it's plainly apparent how full of bs it all is.

the jews are waiting for a messiah. he is to be a man from the family of david (ben'david) not just any son of man (ben'adam) and not a son of god (ben'eloyhim). he will sit on the throne of a unified KINGDOM of israel and judah, and he will rebuild the temple of solomon and reinstitute sacrifices.

they've been waiting for this messiah for more than 2000 years, and jesus did not fit the bill. it's plainly clear that christian gospel aimed at jews (matthew) misunderstood most of the jewish texts it references, picking invalid messianic prophesies, exchanging family names for places, using the wrong names, misunderstanding parrellisms in jewish poetry, etc.

the jewish people have a covenant... a legally binding contract with god. they are the chosen people, and their promise from god has been fulfilled. there was no offer of any kind, they are bound to the law because god rescued them from the hands of the egyptians. and they were chosen for some reason that god only knows.

did god change his mind? you can't claim to believe the bible, and not believe these things.

the jews are waiting for a messiah. he is to be a man from the family of david (ben'david) not just any son of man (ben'adam)

Like Jesus was.

and not a son of god (ben'eloyhim).

Not true. "And His name shall be Emmanuel (translated 'God with us')."

he will sit on the throne of a unified KINGDOM of israel and judah

And He will.

and he will rebuild the temple of solomon and reinstitute sacrifices.

Now you're refrencing the Talmud, which is not true Jewish scripture (and, yes, I know that a Jew would disagree, but history is not with him).

they've been waiting for this messiah for more than 2000 years, and jesus did not fit the bill. it's plainly clear that christian gospel aimed at jews (matthew) misunderstood most of the jewish texts it references, picking invalid messianic prophesies, exchanging family names for places, using the wrong names, misunderstanding parrellisms in jewish poetry, etc.

No, it was the traditional interpretation that was flawed, just like the traditional interpretation of many Christian doctrines today is flawed. You can't just say "no, that's wrong, because the majority disagrees with it"

This "new" member has been banned

If you are actually new you may email the director and see about reinstatment.

This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 11-22-2004 03:06 AM

the jews are waiting for a messiah. he is to be a man from the family of david (ben'david) not just any son of man (ben'adam) Like Jesus was.

jesus called himself the son of man, which generally meant prophet, but held messianic connotations. however, the messiah must be descended from david, on the father's side. if jesus is literally the son of god, then he is not literally the son of david. you can't have both, and the messiah has to be a literal KING in house of david.

and not a son of god (ben'eloyhim). Not true. "And His name shall be Emmanuel (translated 'God with us')."

but jesus's name was yehoshua, not immanuel. immanuel does mean "god is with us" but it's not implication that the man called immanuel IS god. it's not uncommon to have a hebrew name that says something about god in the bible.

the immanuel prophesy was indeed messianic, but did jesus liberate israel from the assyrians? no, he was several hundred years after that. the prophesy is not talking about him.

he will sit on the throne of a unified KINGDOM of israel and judah And He will.

but this is a requirement the jews are looking for in a messiah. jesus was not a king, he never sat on a throne. rather, he was a lowly carpenter, and religious reformist. he's more inline with say, amos, than david.

and he will rebuild the temple of solomon and reinstitute sacrifices. Now you're refrencing the Talmud, which is not true Jewish scripture (and, yes, I know that a Jew would disagree, but history is not with him).

well, yes. if you've read the new testament you know that the (second) temple existed in jesus's day. applying this standard to him is a little unfair, but he did promise to destroy it and rebuild it in a day. he was most likely speaking metaphorically.

the temple was destroyed again in ad 70, and has not succesfully been rebuilt to this day. it extends beyond the talmud, it's in the dialy prayers of every orthodox jew. it's something the coming messiah will do.

they've been waiting for this messiah for more than 2000 years, and jesus did not fit the bill. it's plainly clear that christian gospel aimed at jews (matthew) misunderstood most of the jewish texts it references, picking invalid messianic prophesies, exchanging family names for places, using the wrong names, misunderstanding parrellisms in jewish poetry, etc. No, it was the traditional interpretation that was flawed, just like the traditional interpretation of many Christian doctrines today is flawed. You can't just say "no, that's wrong, because the majority disagrees with it"

uh, no. that's not what i said.

here's one i used in another thread.

quote:

---

Zechariah 9:9

Rejoice greatly, Fair Zion;
Raise a shout Fair Jerusalem!
Lo, your king is coming to you
He is victorius, triumphant,
Yet humble, riding on an ass,
On a donkey foaled by a she-ass.

---

now, this doesn't pair off perfectly like traditional jewish poetry, but look at it for a second. rejoice greatly = raise a shout. fair zion = fair jerusalem. this is a pattern easily observed in many, many passages in the bible. it's called parellelism. and so when zechariah says "riding on an ass, on a donkey" he doesn't mean two animals. he's just repeating himself, poetically.

but the author of matthew aimed the gospel at jews, and based as much as he could on jewish texts. but he CLEARLY did not understand the texts, because he read it as two different animals. indeed, in matthew, christ rides into jerusalem on two animals.

quote:

---

Matthew 21:2-7

Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose [them], and bring [them] unto me. And if any [man] say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them. All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, "Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass." And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them, And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set [him] thereon.

---

wanna explain that one to me, apologist? how did jesus ride into jerusalem on two animals at once? isn't it more likely that author misunderstood poetry.

here's the next verse of the prophesy

quote:

---

Zechariah 9:10

He shall banish chariots from Ephraim
And horses from Jerusalem;
The warrior's bow shall be banished.
He shall call on the nations to surrender,
And his rule shall extend from sea to sea
And from ocean to ocean.

---

notice the continuation of the parallelisms. but did jesus do those things? did he sit on a throne that rules the entire earth? is there still war under his rule?

this not a majority disagrees problem. i've read a good section of the bible and understand it.

jesus called himself the son of man, which generally meant prophet, but held messianic connotations. however, the messiah must be descended from david, on the father's side. if jesus is literally the son of god, then he is not literally the son of david. you can't have both, and the messiah has to be a literal KING in house of david.

Christ is of David's blood line. He is a son of David. To suggest that it makes a difference whether he's descended from his mother or father's line seems odd.

but jesus's name was yehoshua, not immanuel.

Of course, they weren't speaking about literal name......

immanuel does mean "god is with us" but it's not implication that the man called immanuel IS god.

I've also been led to believe differently. Please supply proof for this claim.

it's not uncommon to have a hebrew name that says something about god in the bible.

But not "Immanuel".......that is the name of God incarnate and God incarnate alone.

the immanuel prophesy was indeed messianic, but did jesus liberate israel from the assyrians? no, he was several hundred years after that. the prophesy is not talking about him.

I don't understand what the physical liberation from the Assyrians has to do with anything.

but this is a requirement the jews are looking for in a messiah. jesus was not a king, he never sat on a throne.

But, again, He will.

applying this standard to him is a little unfair, but he did promise to destroy it and rebuild it in a day. he was most likely speaking metaphorically.

Three days, if I remember.......and he did. He was speaking of his own ressurection.

the temple was destroyed again in ad 70, and has not succesfully been rebuilt to this day. it extends beyond the talmud, it's in the dialy prayers of every orthodox jew. it's something the coming messiah will do.

It's in the prayers of every orthodox Jew.......who are all influenced by the Talmud. This whole "Messiah will raise the temple" thing was really basically an excuse for not having to do this themselves........because the Romans would have annhilated them if they had tried.

notice the continuation of the parallelisms. but did jesus do those things?

No......but, again, he will.

wanna explain that one to me, apologist? how did jesus ride into jerusalem on two animals at once? isn't it more likely that author misunderstood poetry.

Or he sat on one while the other was led........I don't see the relevance, either way.

So, basically, Arach, your argument that only misinterpretation could lead to seeing Christ as Messiah is based on facts such as there being one donkey too many when he entered Jerusalem.......

Christ is of David's blood line. He is a son of David. To suggest that it makes a difference whether he's descended from his mother or father's line seems odd.

because the line of kings is patriarchal. it's through the father. this is the reason matthew has a line of kings for jesus's lineage, but luke does not. the jews are looking for a KING.

Of course, they weren't speaking about literal name......

yes. they were. it says a young girl still in her father's house will concieve a child and name him immanuel, and that this child will become a messiah against the assyrians. the focus of the verse is not the virginity of the mother (indeed, the hebrew word only strongly implies virginity, not specifically states it), but the name of the child.

your logic is strange. it seems to say that ANYONE called god IS god according to this prophesy. alright, fine. adminnosy is god with us. is he the messiah? since i just called him by that name, he's been called that more times than jesus ever was in the bible. even the verse in matthew says that they called him jesus, and the name is never mentioned again.

it's matthew nodding to isaiah, and reading the verse wrong, just as you are. for some reasons the literalists seems to read isaiah metaphorically.

I've also been led to believe differently. Please supply proof for this claim.

But not "Immanuel".......that is the name of God incarnate and God incarnate alone.

my bible says "with us is God." it's just what the name means. lots of biblical names have god in it: israel, elijah, etc. joshua even contains the proper name of god. these are all names that describe qualities or actions of god, not

to think that because it contains the a name for god means that bearer IS god is silly.

I don't understand what the physical liberation from the Assyrians has to do with anything.

because isaiah chapters 7-12 is one long rant and prophesy against the assyrians. after that, it's the babylonians. these are people who LITERALLY oppressed the judeans and the israelites. the child that would be a harbinger of their downfall would be LITERAL.

But, again, He will.

that's nice, but during his life, he was never king of israel and judah. he's not now. maybe he will be at one point. buth currently, he's not the messiah the jews are looking for.

Three days, if I remember.......and he did. He was speaking of his own ressurection.

sort of, yes. he was speaking of tearing down the organization. he was of the mindset that we shouldn't need a church to come between us and our god.

It's in the prayers of every orthodox Jew.......who are all influenced by the Talmud. This whole "Messiah will raise the temple" thing was really basically an excuse for not having to do this themselves........because the Romans would have annhilated them if they had tried.

actually, a roman emporer sponsered an attempt to rebuilt the temple around ad 300.

No......but, again, he will.

maybe the messiah the jews are looking for is the second coming of christ. but he sure wasn't the first. as it stands now, jesus is not that messiah.

Or he sat on one while the other was led........I don't see the relevance, either way.

it says he rode in on both, in order to fulfil prophesy. i think the evidence is pretty clear that matthew misunderstood the prophetic poetry. zechariah refers to one animal, twice. matthew refers to two animals, once.

because the line of kings is patriarchal. it's through the father.

The Bible never states that Messiah would be the rightful heir to David's throne via heredity, just that he'd be of David's bloodline.

yes. they were. it says a young girl still in her father's house will concieve a child and name him immanuel

I doubt this, as there have been a number of though-to-be Messiahs over the course of Jewish history, and I don't recall them all being named Immanuel. After all, a mother would be accused of blasphemy simply by naming her child Immanuel and claiming that he was the Messiah (as Jesus was accused of blasphemy for claiming the same thing).

my bible says "with us is God." it's just what the name means. lots of biblical names have god in it: israel, elijah, etc. joshua even contains the proper name of god. these are all names that describe qualities or actions of god, not to think that because it contains the a name for god means that bearer IS god is silly.

My Bible says "God with us", and I've always been taught by every source that it was a name specifically suggesting the divinity of Messiah........I may have been taught incorrectly, but I'd need some proof of that.

BTW, if I'm not mistaken, there are other prophecies suggesting the divinity of Messiah.......such as that he'd live forever and his kingdom would never end.

these are people who LITERALLY oppressed the judeans and the israelites. the child that would be a harbinger of their downfall would be LITERAL.

Revelations speaks of Jesus conquering Babylon........does that mean when Jesus returns, he's gonna literally conquer Iraq? Because I think Dubbya beat him to it........

that's nice, but during his life, he was never king of israel and judah. he's not now. maybe he will be at one point. buth currently, he's not the messiah the jews are looking for.

That's because the Jews misinterpret scripture by being too literal......

actually, a roman emporer sponsered an attempt to rebuilt the temple around ad 300.

I don't know anything about this, but I'm pretty sure that was after large portions of the Talmud were already taken as Canon.

maybe the messiah the jews are looking for is the second coming of christ.

If you admit this, then you admit that there is no obstacle in the OT to Jesus being the Messiah.

What you just seem to have a hard time understanding is that Jesus is the Christ NOW........Jesus was Christ before the creation of the world.........not all prophecy has been fulfilled, but Jesus is Christ, and God is God, always has been, is, and forever more He will be.

it says he rode in on both, in order to fulfil prophesy.

This is obviously impossible........do you think Matthew was too dim to understand this?

So, basically, Arach, your argument that only misinterpretation could lead to seeing Christ as Messiah is based on facts such as there being one donkey too many when he entered Jerusalem.......

no my argument is nothing. i'm trying to explain why the jews don't see jesus as a messiah.

i'm also arguing that matthew is grossly misinterpretting verses out of context from the tanakh.

for instance:

quote:

---

Matthew 2:15

And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

---

quote:

---

Hosea 11:1

I fell in love with Israel
When he was still a child;
And I have called [him] My son
Ever since Egypt.

---

now hosea IS speaking metaphorically. israel is not jacob or jesus, it's israel the nation. he's refering to the exodus, and then refers to the assyrian captivity a few verses later.

here's another doozie.

quote:

---

Matehew 12:17,18

That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, "Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles."

---

quote:

---

Isaiah 42:1-3

This is My servant, whom I uphold,
My chosen one, in whom i delight.
I have put My spirit upon him,
He shall teach the true way to the nations.
He shall not cry out or shout aloud,
Or make his voice heard in the streets.
[He shall not break even a bruised reed,
Or snuff out even a dim wick]
He shall bring forth the true way.
He shall not grow dim of be bruised
Till he has established the true way on earth;
And the coastlands shall await his teaching.

---

now, the part in can also be read "a bruised reed, he shall no be broken; / a dim wick, he shall not be snuffed out." is either talking about jesus? he was bruised, indeed BROKEN long before he ruled any kingdom, and long before his teaching covered the world. and "bring judgement to the gentiles?" that's a BAD thing for the gentiles. they're talking about ruling, literally.

if you want to discuss more, i suggest starting a new thread. some of the prophesies in matthew appear to be in books we don't have. and some are really bad.