Jews Rejected God's Offer

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.

Well, for Jesus to be the seed of david, he would have to be from the direct unbroken MALE line, decended from Solomon. Since Jesus was
not Joesphes son, that disqalifies him there. (see e.g., 2 Sam 7:12-16; Is 11:1; Jer 23:5, 30:9, 33:15; Ezek 34:23-24, 37:24))Next, assuming he WAS Josephs son, he would STILL not qualify, since the two conflicting genologies were not of the proper Davidic line.Second of all, the line 'He will be called Emanual' is a quote taken out of context, and is not anything to do with the Messiah. And, for that matter, Jesus was not called 'Emanual' in his lifetime.. strike two.As for sitting on the throne of a unified Israel and Juddah, he hasn't. The Jewish messiah will be known by what he has DONE, not
by promises of what he will do.Next, as far as can be determined, Jesus was not married, and did not have children (see Ezek 46:16-17). Thus he is disqualified that way too.Also, the disporia has not ended. All the jews have not returned to
Israel (see (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5).)

But the point is that is not what the Jewish people are looking for. That is what the CHristans are TELLING the Jewish people they are looking for.

What Romans says is irrelavent to the Jews. As for as the Jewish people are concerned, the book of Romans is a book written by a man, who wants to drive them away from the true way of worshipping god.

You do realise that there are certain things that Greenleaf was assuming that was proven NOT to be true. For one, the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, so it is all hersay to begin with.Second of all, the gospels make extrodinary claims. Such claims would not meet the standard for evidence in more modern courtrooms.. particuarly since it is hearsay.

Well, it looks like Paul made the claim that he spoke for God.Which, of course, differnet than actually speaking for God.

Doesn't matter. His name was not Immanual. Immanual is just a name. My grandfathers name was Immanual too, so what?And, you are wrong. My references were what the JEWISH religion concsider messanic references.As far as the reference to Immanual in Isaiah, that was not refering to someone who was to be born 600 years later. That particular passage was talking about Isaiah's own son. It wouldn't do King Ahaz much good for
for a sign to be fullfilled 600 years in the future. The sign was that before this baby was old enough to know right and wrong, the King
of Assyria would no longer be a threat to Ahaz. In other words, it was
the time period for a woman who WAS pregnant to have a child that was old enough to know what right and wrong was. Isaiah 8.4 shows how Isaiah made sure it would happen (He went to the prophetess and INSURED she conceived.. )It had nothing to do with some son of god born 700 years later.

You do realise that the Gospel of John was a psuedograhical work that was written between 80 and 125 C.E???That makes it entirely hersay.

Why, I am reading conservative Christian scholars on that. You know, people like Raymond Edward Brown, and the commentary in the ANchor Bible.I would hardly classify them as atheists.Why don't you read Raymond Edward Browns 'Introduction to the New Testament', or 'An Introduction to the Gospel of John', by Dr Brown
and Francis Molony?These are not athiests. They are very mainstream conservative biblical scholars. They just so happen to go with the evidence, and not with wishful thinking like your sources.

You have to remember several things.1) When was the book of Genesis written down? After the fact writing of
something of course is not a prophecy.
2) There is no archelogical evidence that there WAS an Exodus, although I am sure there were Cannanites in Egypt, and familar with Egypt.This message has been edited by ramoss, 11-25-2004 11:54 AM

However, people have been trying for over 100 years to find traces of it in the desert where it is claimed the Israeli's wandered. When you have searched enough, the absense of evidence IS indeed evidence of absense.

No.. hardly a conspiracy theory. Anytime there is two cultures that are sitting side by side, of COURSE they inflence each other. DOH...

And one point you did not bring up , the concept of 'SALVATION' in the Jewish religion is not the same as the Christian religion. The concept of SALVATION is for THIS life, not for a hypothetical next one. So attempting to use the term 'salvation' in the tanakh to mean the same thing as what Christians refer to is the logical fallacy known as 'equivocation'.The term just does not mean the same thing in the Tankah. It does not have the same connotations.

Salvation, actually, doesn't mean much in the Jewish religion, period.The term as used just means in the Tanakh just means they were saved from that particular situation, or for a bad sitation.You see, the term SALVATION implies a focus on the afterlife, and that just plain isn't important in Judaism. The concept of HELL as the Christians understand it does not exist either. You see, having the
reward and punishment concept for doing bad/good taints the concept that you should be good for it's own sake, rather than doing good for some selfish reason (you want to get to heaven.)So, the question you have basically means nothing.As for Elijah and enoch, the idea that they were taken to heaven alive
is not true. In other words, when they were 'taken', they died.

As far as I am concerned, all of the new testament is just books written by man, not inspired by God at all. What is written in the so called 'New' testament is irrelavent to the jewish faith.