Atheist Think Tank

Back

Why Jews Don't Believe in Jesus

The short answer is, “because he didn't meet ANY of the requirements”. To start to explain, I will list what the requirements are.

The requirements for the messiah are as follows (per the Jewish bible.) I use either the Stone edition or JPS. They are pretty identical and most Jews I know accept either edition as accurate.

He must be from the seed of David through Solomon
He will be anointed King of Israel (the word messiah means anointed, nothing more and nothing less)
He will return the Jewish people to Israel
He will rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem
He will bring peace to the world and end all war
He will bring knowledge of god and his commandments to the world

Jewish interpretation claims that any prophecy is empirically verifiable. All the world will be able to witness and verify the prophecies of the Tanach (Old Testament). Revelations from god are not given to a few. They are given to the whole nation as happened on Sinai. All are able to witness the fulfillment of prophesy. Jesus revealed only to a select few and often in secrecy. This is in complete contrast to all the prophesy of the OT.

To note: some things he will not be:

He will not be a deity
He will not need 2 visits to accomplish his mission
He will not die for our sins
He will not be pierced ( in reference to the mistranslation of Psalm 22 (17) explained below)

None of the above statements are to be found in the Old Testament and never would the Jews of the time accepted that any of those qualities were even desired in a Messiah. The thought of a man also being a deity goes against Gods own statements.

About Jewish tribal law:

If your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish
If your father was a Kohen (Priest), you are a priest (birth only, no adoption allowed)
If your father was from the tribe of Judah, you are from the tribe of Judah (birth only, no adoption allowed)

Either Jesus was conceived by Joseph, in which case he is not divine, or he was conceived by god and is not the prophesied messiah as stated clearly in the Old Testament. Christians have been trying to have their way with this inherent conflict for 2000 years. It is one or the other.

Sources for the messianic criteria are from Isaiah 11:6, Talmud Yad, Melachim 11:4, Num 24:17, Deut 17:15 Lev 24:10 Ezra 10:2,3 Gen 49;10 Num 1:18-44 24:14 and Lev 24:10. No sources for the "nots" as these are absent from the Jewish OT.

From Psalm 22 (17 in the Jewish bible) for my reference to the messiah not needing to be pierced:

"Dogs have compassed me; the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me; they pierced my hands and my feet." KJV

"Dogs have encompassed me. A company of evildoers has enclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet." JPS

This translation even makes more sense with continuing the theme of wild animals encroaching on someone. The Hebrew word for pierced and lion-like are very similar in Hebrew. Newer versions of Christian Bibles are now adding the alternate and correct translation.

Christian's claim of the miraculous virgin-birth of Jesus as foretold in Isaiah is easily dismissed by Jews. Besides there being no need or prophesy of a virgin-birth, (the Gentiles seemed to require it, however) the Songs of Isaiah passage from where it came is a mistranslation of the Greek from Hebrew and is not considered to be a messianic passage. When the full text is included, it can even be argued to rule out Jesus.

From Rabbi Toviah Singer:

"Isaiah 7:14 does not support Matthew's claim that Isaiah is referring to Jesus' virgin birth, they often argue that Isaiah 7:14 is a dual prophecy. In order to fully understand what Christians mean by a dual prophecy, let me first explain why the context of Isaiah 7:14 does not support Matthew's use of this verse as a proof-text of his virgin-birth story."

It should be said at the outset that the word "virgin" does not appear in the seventh chapter of Isaiah. The author of the first Gospel deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word ha'almah as "a virgin." This Hebrew word ha'almah does not mean "a virgin." It means "the young woman," with no implication of virginity. Most modern Christian Bibles have corrected this erroneous translation, and their Bibles now correctly translate this Hebrew word as "the young woman." If Isaiah had wanted to specifically say virgin, he would have used betulah, a common word used in other areas of the OT that only means virgin. Isaiah 7:14.

The seventh chapter of the Book of Isaiah begins by describing the military crisis that was confronting King Ahaz of the Kingdom of Judah. In about the year 732 B.C.E. the House of David was facing imminent destruction at the hands of two warring kingdoms: the northern Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Syria. These two armies had laid siege to Jerusalem. The Bible relates that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear. Chapter seven relates how God sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand. The Almighty would protect him, their deliverance was assured, and these two hostile armies would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem. In Isaiah 7 we read,

"Let us go up against Judah and provoke it, and annex it to us; and let us crown a king in its midst, one who is good for us." So said the Lord God, "Neither shall it succeed, nor shall it come to pass . . . ." ' " The Lord continued to speak to Ahaz, saying, "Ask for yourself a sign from the Lord, your God; ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above." Ahaz said, "I will not ask, and I will not test the Lord." Then he said, "Listen now, O House of David, is it little for you to weary men, that you weary my God as well? Therefore the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign: Behold the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good; for, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."

It is clear from this chapter that Issiah's declaration was a prophecy of the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the two armies of the Kingdoms of Israel and Syria, not a virgin birth more than 700 years later. If we interpret this chapter as referring to Jesus' birth, what possible comfort and assurance would Ahaz, who was surrounded by two overwhelming military enemies, have found in the birth of a child seven centuries later? Both he and his people would have been long dead and buried. Such a sign would make no sense.

We see, in II Kings 15-16, that this prophecy was fulfilled when these two kings were suddenly assassinated. With an understanding of the context of Isaiah 7:14 alone, it is evident that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not referring to Jesus or to any future virgin birth. Rather, it is referring to the divine protection that Ahaz and his people would enjoy from their impending destruction at the hands of these two enemies, the northern Kingdom of Israel and Syria.

Some Christians argue that this is a double prophecy. That it was fulfilled twice, once as I stated but again 700 years later with Jesus. If Christians argue that the word ha'almah means a "virgin," and, as they insist, Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled twice, who was the first virgin to conceive in Ahaz's time? Were there two virgin births? That is to say, if these Christians claim that the virgin birth of Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled twice, who then was the first virgin having a baby boy in 732 B.C.E.? Bear in mind that Christians insist that the word ha'almah can only mean virgin. Are they claiming that Mary was not the first and only virgin to conceive and give birth to a child?

Finally, if Isaiah's words are the substance of a dual prophecy, at what age did the baby Jesus mature? Which were the two kingdoms during Jesus' lifetime that were abandoned? Who dreaded the Kingdom of Israel during the first century when there had not been a Kingdom of Israel in existence since the seventh century B.C.E.? When did Jesus eat cream and honey? Why wasn't Jesus named Immanuel? Does any of this make any sense? It doesn't because this argument of a dual prophecy was born out of the desperation of Christians and essentially makes a mockery out of the book of Isaiah.

These are two examples of ignoring the clear meaning of the texts and viewing them from a position of already believing that Jesus is God. There is a reason that Christianity teaches its faith from the New Testament first then blends it with the Old Testament. When the OT is read alone, it stands alone. It leaves no room for belief in a savior Messiah, born of a virgin who shed blood for our sins but did not bring the Jews back to Israel, lead a nation or bring about world peace. Quite the opposite actually happened. Jerusalem was destroyed, the Temple along with it, the Jews were dispersed and peace did not come. The idea of a second visit relating to the Messiah is nowhere in the OT and is strictly an invention of early Christianity to explain the absence of the fulfillment of the Messianic predictions. Jesus declared, “truly, I say to you, there are some standing here that will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” (implying the kingdom would appear during the lifetime of the listeners and happen here, on earth).

To the Jews of the first century CE to Jews today, nothing claimed in the New Testament fulfills the clear prophecies of the Old. The prophecies that Christians claim Jesus fulfills must be taken out of context and read from a position of belief in Jesus first in order to have them make sense. Christians read verses in the OT and “see” Jesus everywhere. Jews read the same text and “see” Jesus nowhere. A clear reading of the OT text leads one away from the Jesus story. The very idea of the Jesus story is repugnant to the OT's view of God and thus, the Jewish view. God is non-corporeal and infinite. He can not be finite. He can not be a man and a man can not be a god. He is indivisible and is not three in one. He is ONE. Jews proclaim this statement every day and have for over 3000 years.

By Pattylt

If you wish to discuss this article, please join the forum