One More Time: Why Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah

[cnorman18]

From some recent threads, it appears that its time to repost this yet again -- as usual, as an informational piece only. It first appeared, in a slightly different form, in late 2007. It was among my very first posts to this forum.

My usual caveats before I begin:

This post is NOT an attack on Christianity.

This post is intended to EXPLAIN some things that very many non-Jews, including many Christians but also including many others, apparently do not understand.

Jews, as a rule, do not comment on the truth or falsehood of any other faith, and that includes the Christian faith; we have no right. We only claim to know how, in the words of our tradition, God chose to speak to US. If He chose to speak to another people in another manner, that is no business of ours, and we have no warrant to say that He did not.

Asserting a belief in one tradition is NOT, in our view, a negation of all others, no matter how passionately others try to put those words in our mouths. We go our own way, and others may go theirs; we do not believe ours to be "the only true religion," as some others do, nor do we believe that one must be Jewish to be "saved." We truly have no such concept anyway, as will be seen presently.

This post is also not addressed to atheists. I have spoken on the radically different theology (insofar as it exists) of the Jewish religion elsewhere, and at length, and have many times noted the fact that very many Jews ARE atheists; but all of those issues, and the debates and discussions connected thereto, are not for this thread, and I will not be dealing with them here.

This post is on the rather more limited topic of why the Jews did not, and do not, and will not, accept Jesus as our Messiah.

That some few have, and do, does not matter, any more than the fact that very many Christians have converted to Judaism as well (I am one of them). People may choose to believe as they like; but that is not relevant here. The fact is that there are reasons why very few Jews who are familiar with and committed to their faith and tradition ever have, or ever will, believe in Jesus. This post is an effort to explain some of the most important of those reasons. If you do not agree with them, that is your right, but these matters are not, for Jews, open to debate or argument.

The core of this problem is that the office of Messiah, to Jews, and that of the Christ, to Christians, are two very different and virtually mutually exclusive things.

To begin, then: Jesus, to put it plainly, simply did not perform the very specific actions that the Messiah was expected to do. There can be no "wiggle room" here; the tradition has been constant for, quite literally, thousands of years, and it has not changed. It is true that most modern Jews are no longer much interested in the figure of the Messiah, and his importance has rather sunk into the background in recent centuries; but the concept, and the office, remains the same.

The issue was never that there were certain "prophecies" that the Messiah had to "fulfill," as many seem to think. Most of the prophecies which it is claimed that Jesus fulfilled were never considered prophecies by Jews in the first place, a fact which is easily confirmed by any good book on Judaism. The very term prophecy has a different meaning in the Jewish religion anyway; there, it is only occasionally related to foretelling the future, and even then generally only in the short term.

The Messiah was never to be identified by prophecy; he was to be identified by the PERFORMANCE of certain concrete, real-world actions. To do them was to be the Messiah, and the meaning of the word "Messiah" was "the man who does these things."

Jesus did not do them. He was not the Messiah. There is no "therefore," because the phrases are synonymous.

Jesus fulfilled one and only one attribute of the Messiah; he was of the tribe of Judah. Much is made of this in two of the Gospels, Matthew and Luke, with elaborate genealogies given for Mary, and, oddly, for Joseph.

Other than that, St. Paul and the Gospels to the contrary, Jesus did nothing expected of the Messiah. Three such expectations will suffice for our purposes:

The Messiah was to be a military and/or a political leader, an actual, rightful King who would restore the line of David to the throne of Israel and reign in Jerusalem as the actual, literal earthly monarch of the Jewish nation.

He would restore the political independence of the land of Israel and free it from foreign rule.

Most importantly, his coming would coincide with the beginning of a time of perfect peace, justice, liberty and piety that would shortly extend over all the earth -- in THIS world and THIS life, and not in a "symbolic" or spiritual way, but in literal, present human history. Whether he himself would bring about this "Messianic Age," or whether he would arrive after we humans ourselves have achieved it by our own efforts, has been a bone of contention among Jews for centuries. I, myself, do not claim to know.

This last is, as I say, the most important signifier of all; the Messiah would arrive with the Messianic Age. He was named for it, and it was named for him. The two would come together, or not at all. They were, and remain, one.

It seems rather clear that none of these occurred, and most glaringly the last, which was and has always been the most important sign and task of the Messiah. The short answer, for many Jews, to the question "Why don't you believe in Jesus?" is "Oy! Look around!" The world is not at peace; ergo, Messiah has not come. That's an end to the "debate," for most Jews.

And now we come to the nature of the Christian Christ, and the enormous differences between what is said of Jesus and the attributes of the Jewish Messiah.

Put simply: Jesus claimed (or it was claimed for him) that he had power and authority that no Jew could or would claim for any man, and power and authority far beyond any that were ever attributed to the coming Messiah. These claims were, and remain, alien to Judaism and are in fact often blasphemous from a Jewish point of view.

First, It was claimed that Jesus was God incarnate; that he, a human being, was, in fact and truth, God Almighty Himself in the flesh.

It would be hard to think of an idea more repugnant to Jews, then or now. The oldest and most fundamental and nonnegotiable tenet of Judaism is that God is One, which means a good deal more than "one God." Among other things, it means that God is unique and indivisible, and shares His Essence and Being with no one and nothing. He is Alone. He is One.

It was, therefore, and will remain, impossible for Jews to accept the claim that a man could be, in any sense, God. The Messiah was never conceived to be anything other than an ordinary mortal man; anointed by God, to be sure, but no more a God himself than King David was, the paradigmatic King in Jewish history and tradition. There is no hint of such a thing as a Divine Man anywhere in Jewish tradition, teaching or literature; it is about as likely as the High Priest carving a stone idol and placing it in the Holy of Holies. It was, and remains, quite literally unthinkable.

The one -- count em, ONE -- verse from Scripture (Isaiah 9:6) that is commonly given as proof that this notion DID have a part in Jewish tradition is, without apology, a gross misreading and mistranslation of the passage in question; and it is also, just as importantly, unique. The idea that such a radical departure from the ancient tenets of the Jewish religion would not be known and even heavily emphasized throughout Jewish teachings over the centuries, as opposed to appearing in one and only one verse of the Bible, is more than a little ludicrous. Basing the practice of snake-handling on one verse in Mark is positively reasonable and credible in comparison.

Second, Jesus was said to be the literal son of God. This was way beyond bizarre. The idea that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Moses and Sinai, could or would come down to earth and father a human child on a human woman is as foreign to Judaism as temple prostitution. That is a Greek idea, not a Jewish one -- consider Zeus and Hercules -- and it may be no coincidence that Paul was speaking to Greeks, not Jews, when he formulated it. There has never been anything within a light-year of that idea anywhere in all the enormous tradition and long history of the Jewish people. It is, once again, unthinkable:

Third, Jesus claimed the power and authority to forgive sins.

All sins.

It may be more difficult to see why this is such a problem for Jews, because this is not widely known: In the Jewish religion, sins can only be forgiven by the person being sinned against. That means, among other things, that God Himself cannot forgive all sins. If I punch you in the nose, who is God to forgive me? That sin must be forgiven by you, and only you, or it is not to be forgiven at all. No one else has the right. God can forgive sins against Himself -- failures to honor vows, ritual "sins," and so on -- but not personal sins against other people.

This is why Jews do not generally respond to the observation that the Holocaust should be "forgiven." We, the Jews of the present day, have no right. As Elie Wiesel, himself a Holocaust survivor, once said: "Ask the six million for forgiveness."

By the same token, even Christians, I think, often feel a certain revulsion when some convicted murderer taunts his victim's family with "God has forgiven me; why can't you?" I think most people instinctively feel that claim to be fraudulent and self-serving, not to mention hypocritical, even if they dont share our belief.

By claiming the authority to forgive ALL sins, Jesus was not claiming to be coequal with God; he was claiming to be greater than God. No wonder some tore their robes and cried Blasphemy! when they heard him speak.

Fourth, as if all this were not enough: It was claimed that Jesus took on a role that had never been contemplated by any Jew from Abraham onward, a role that was not necessary and was, again, alien to the whole of Jewish teachings and traditions from the beginning to the present day; That role was that of Savior. it is claimed that Jesus was the sacrifice that saves all men from their sins, and that this salvation is accessed by believing in him, and nothing more.

This seems simple; but for Jews, there are no less than six separate problems here.

First, the idea that people need to be saved from their sins in the first place. Jews have never believed in "Original Sin," nor that all people are born sinful. We believe that everyone has an impulse to do good, and an impulse to do evil, and that these remain with us all our lives; our job is to follow the first and resist (or redirect) the second to the best of our ability.

Second, St. Paul to the contrary, Jews have never taught, nor do we believe, that we are obligated to fulfill "the whole of the Law" or face eternal damnation. We believe that, since God made us, He knows our imperfection and our weakness, and does not demand that we be perfect and without fault or flaw. That would be the act of an unjust God, and we do not believe that God is unjust.

Third, Jews do not believe that any human can bear the sins of another. That principle is underlined in the Torah over and over again. Each man bears his own sins, and that cannot be changed. Sins are forgiven through prayer, repentance, and deeds of lovingkindness. No blood is necessary.

Fourth, we do not believe that a "sacrifice" is necessary to obtain forgiveness for sins, whether animal or human (and the idea of a human sacrifice is so far from any Jewish belief or practice that it is barely comprehensible that anyone would even propose it as a possibility). It is true that animal sacrifices were performed in the Tabernacle and later in the Temple, but it is clear throughout the Torah and the Prophets that the sacrifice itself was meaningless without the repentance and devotion of the individual human heart.

Fifth, in Judaism, "belief" accomplishes precisely nothing by itself. There is no Creed in Judaism, no specified set of acceptable beliefs. What one "believes" is all but insignificant next to what one does, and no amount of "belief" cancels or ameliorates the results of one's actions. Believing the proper "doctrines" in Judaism is utterly irrelevant to anything at all.

A concrete example, put simply: if I am in need, what do I care what you "believe"? Will you help me, or not? Nothing else matters.

Sixth, Jews are not even certain that there is a Heaven at all. Judaism has rather little concern with the afterlife; it is not mentioned in the Torah, and belief in it seems to have been entirely absent from its teachings in the early years of our religion. Even those Jews who do believe in Heaven spend little time or energy thinking and talking about it -- and there is no belief in an eternal fiery Hell at all, anywhere in all of Jewish history or tradition. The focus of the Jewish religion is THIS life, in THIS world. The next, we leave to God. Salvation, in the Christian sense of going to Heaven, is a non-issue for Jews. It is not even a peripheral interest, let alone a central principle.

As you can see, though Judaism and Christianity share an ethic, basic values, and many religious practices, as well as (in part) common literature, our views of the nature and structure of the relationship between God and man, the nature and importance of sin and the means of its forgiveness, the significance of the afterlife, and many other matters, are so profoundly different that they really do constitute two entirely separate religions.

That one was derived from the other, and that we share a large body of Scripture, no longer matters. We stand beside each other as brothers; but we have long since taken separate paths. We ought to respect one another and work together where our ideals and ethics converge in the real world -- which is almost everywhere. Where our beliefs differ, we should agree to disagree and leave each other alone, because there can be no reconciliation there.

One more note: It is wholly illegitimate and improper for a follower of any faith to attempt to dictate to a follower of another what his beliefs OUGHT to be, then castigate him because they do not follow his prescription. No one has any warrant to point out passages of "prophecy" in our own Scriptures that we do not, and have never, read as such, and overrule the traditions and beliefs that we have held for more than three thousand years--and tell us what we ought to think and believe. No one has that right; not you, not your Church, not Jesus himself.

To Christians: This caveat applies in both directions. We have no warrant to tell YOU how to read the Bible, either; you may read the Hebrew Bible, which you have adopted as your Old Testament, in any way you choose. We also have no warrant to deny that Jesus is your Savior, or to deny that, for you, any belief you may hold about him is true. That is between you and God, and is none of our business; for all any Jew knows, those beliefs are true and correct for Christians and God will honor them. Jesus may very well be YOUR Messiah, even though he is not ours. That is not for us to say.

But in the same way, it is not your right to insist that we abandon our own beliefs and convictions in favor of an understanding of our own Scriptures that we have never held. As I say; this matter is not open to debate. This determination was made by my people two thousand years ago, and it has been reaffirmed in every generation.

If anybody is planning to post a point-by-point attempt at refuting all this, complete with a whole raft of "proof texts" from the Bible -- Old OR New Testament -- it will be a waste of your time. It won't be a waste of mine, because I've seen them all before, and I'll be declining to "debate." Others may choose to respond, which is fine, but for my part, I'll just refer you to this website, where you will find all the information you need.

If anyone wishes to DISCUSS these things, on the other hand, I'd be glad to participate. But don't try to convince me, as so many have, that Judaism actually, really does teach that Jesus was the true Messiah. That argument entails one of two, and only two, corollaries, you see; (1) that Jews are too stupid to understand their own religion and have been for 2,000 years, or (2) that we all secretly know that Jesus was our Messiah and have simply been lying about it. Both of those claims are insulting, demeaning, and grossly offensive to Jews, and are therefore by definition antisemitic. Don't go there.

I'll close with a saying from the Talmud that, I would hope, indicates a way to peace. When the sages of old disagreed and could find no way to reconcile their differences, they would often allow both rulings to stand as equally acceptable options in Jewish law. When asked how this was possible, it was said that "When Elijah comes, he will explain which of us was right -- or why we both were."

In that spirit, I'll offer this: I have said for many years that, when (if) the Messiah finally comes, the Jews will look up and say, Youre here! the Christians will look up and say, Youre back! -- and then well all hug each other and laugh about it.

Peace to all.

[McCulloch]

PLEASE NOTICE how I do NOT call yours a false religion or a wrong path or anything else of the kind, as you imply with every line of every post about mine.
[...]
Somehow, I seem to be able to follow my religion without demanding that you agree with it and alter your own beliefs. Why cannot you extend that same basic courtesy and freedom of thought to me?

The problem is, and it is their problem, not yours, is that an essential part of the Christian religion depends on their definition of what it means to be a Jew. If the Jewish religion is valid, then by implication, the Christian religion is not. If the Christian religion is true, then the Jewish religion has been superseded. Christians cannot remain true to their own teachings and at the same time recognize the validity of the Jewish religion. It is not logically possible. But neither is Trinity, so there is hope.

[Duvduv]

[Replying to cnorman18]

One does not have to *claim* that Jesus never existed but simply point out that there is NO corroborative evidence from any non-Church sources to his existence in the first century, especially and specifically corroborative/anecdotal evidence in ancient Talmudic and midrashic sources.
None, zippo, nada.
The only references are to someone in the 1st century BCE who practiced magic and misled Jews by the name of Yeshu son of Pandera, who is apparently the model for the NT person.
Had the rabbis wanted to parody or take a swipe at the NT character they could have done a clearer job of it, at least to portray him as a false messiah, which they did not. And of course they could have produced a "Paul" who was as important to Christianity as Jesus. But they didn't.
Of course there is no non-Church corroborative evidence for the existence of a Paul either.

[cnorman18]

[Replying to Duvduv]

You obviously haven't bothered to look at the link I provided.

I don't think I care to converse with a person who ignores and dismisses evidence in favor of his pet theories, on no account other than that he doesn't like it.

Have a nice day. I doubt we'll be interacting again, except when I feel like demonstrating the truth of what I just said; and, as in this case, I will have little to no interest in your "responses."

[Duvduv]

I already know the link, so what? In any case, do you know what "evidence" is? Empirical evidence is physical evidence especially reproduceable evidence. Anecdotal evidence isn't enough. But if you want documentary "evidence" then you have to rely on the claims of the Church, don't you? On the other hand, since "Jesus" had something to do with the Jews in the 1st century, it must give you pause that nothing in the Jewish texts I mentioned made any comments about Jesus, Paul or Christians. Period.

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 24 by Duvduv]

You very obviously have not even bothered to glance at the link.

Repeating an egregious error doesn't make it magically true. Jesus IS alluded to in the Talmud, and clearly so. Like I said -- dismissing evidence because you don't like it.

Phffft..

[Duvduv]

WHICH references in which tractates are you referring to, Norm?
After all, you know that the only we this "alludes" to Jesus of the NT is if you ASSUME it is, since you have no evidence. There is no proof that the story of Yeshu is based ON the NT character at all. It is only your hypothesis.
And if it WERE him, don't you think there would be more details resembling the NT story AND Paul? But there isn't. You and I both know that.

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 26 by Duvduv]

No reply to any of the information at the link, I see. Only more of your pet theory, which no reputable historian on Earth subscribes to -- Christian, Jewish or secular.

You haven't convinced me, and I'm a Jew; I don't even CARE if Jesus existed or not. Good luck with your futile and meaningless crusade.

You know, this is totally offtopic on this thread. Why don't you start a new one and watch me not participate in it there?

[YahDough]

On their first encounter with their own Messiah most of them rejected Him.
I can tell you why if you are interested.

Oh, I might be interested in your opinion, but it wouldnt have anything to do with US; I am curious about YOUR approach. Ive only seen a few, so let me save you some time; Were we (a) too stupid to recognize him, or were we (b) too evil and too dedicated to selfish sin and rebellion? Or is it that we (c) really did recognize him and have just been LYING about it for 2,000 years?

Those reasons might have some validity but they were not mine.

My reasons:
1. The Jews are/were looking for a Messiah that will/would free them from earthly oppression.
2. The religious leaders are/were jealous of Jesus and do/did not want to lose power by submitting to His doctrine of love. They preferred the Law.
3. It was God's plan that through the disbelief of the Jews, the door of salvation through Christ would be opened to the Gentiles.

If theres another explanation -- I gather you dont think much of Pauls in Romans 11, because if you did you wouldnt be bothering with this conversation at all -- Id love to hear your take on it.

That was precisely one of the reasons. GOD opened the door of salvation to the Gentiles through the rejection of the Messiah by the Jews. But the Jews were the first to have the opportunity of salvation.

Its interesting just how much of my posts you delete and ignore, and how many of my questions you choose to leave unanswered. Its ESPECIALLY interesting that you not have responded to a single one of my arguments establishing that Jesus was not the Messiah of Jewish tradition or teaching. Not one. Why is that?

Because Christ Jesus was, is and will be the Messiah of the Jews. It seems "tradition and teaching" have thwarted the truth. Who do you suppose Isaiah was prophesying about in the 53rd chapter of his book?

Here is a pretty essential question that you didnt even have the courtesy to acknowledge being asked. Ill ask it again:

Somehow, I seem to be able to follow my religion without demanding that you agree with it and alter your own beliefs. Why cannot you extend that same basic courtesy and freedom of thought to me?

I cannot "demand" you agree with me. But this is a debate forum. I see some clear problems with your OP. I have made an effort to show them. Are we not suppose to be arguing for the truth? I believe there is only One Truth.

[Duvduv]

[Replying to cnorman18]
I have no pet theory. I am simply pointing out that no evidence exists that the references to Yeshu ben Pandera in the Talmud refer to at all to the character of the New Testament. If scholars wish to accept the Christian narrative of 1st century history, it is certainly their privilege, but NOT on the basis of the original statements in the Talmudic tractates.

[cnorman18]

This post is a response to McCulloch's observation, but in a way it is a response to all who have posted on this thread. It is also the last I shall make, unless and until someone attempts to answer MY questions -- something which has not yet happened here.

PLEASE NOTICE how I do NOT call yours a false religion or a wrong path or anything else of the kind, as you imply with every line of every post about mine.
[...]
Somehow, I seem to be able to follow my religion without demanding that you agree with it and alter your own beliefs. Why cannot you extend that same basic courtesy and freedom of thought to me?

The problem is, and it is their problem, not yours, is that an essential part of the Christian religion depends on their definition of what it means to be a Jew. If the Jewish religion is valid, then by implication, the Christian religion is not. If the Christian religion is true, then the Jewish religion has been superseded. Christians cannot remain true to their own teachings and at the same time recognize the validity of the Jewish religion. It is not logically possible. But neither is Trinity, so there is hope.

I think that this, once again, is a Fundamentalist problem, and not -- or at least not necessarily -- a problem that is endemic to Christianity per se. Not all Christian denominations preach "Replacement Theology," which is so prominently displayed in this thread and others.

E.g.:

The Roman Catholic Church changed its tune during the Vatican II council with the document entitled Nostra Aetate, the English text of which can be found here. Here is the relevant section, in its entirety (note added emphasis):

4. As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham's stock.

Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God's saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham's sons according to faith (6)-are included in the same Patriarch's call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people's exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles.(7) Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.(8)

The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people.

As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(10) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and "serve him shoulder to shoulder" (Soph. 3:9).(12)

Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.

True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.

Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden of the Church's preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God's all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows.

Vatican II has, as we have seen on these pages, outraged some Catholics, as if allowing anyone else into their Heaven will somehow diminish their own salvation. Nevertheless, Nostra Aetate remains binding Church doctrine today. Interestingly, at that link it is also unambiguously explained that "...the negation of the Shoah (the Holocaust)... is a position that has no place in the Catholic Church. It is very clear.... there is no place for [Holocaust] deniers in the Catholic Church."

Some Jews were also annoyed at Vatican II as well, not because of Nostra Aetate, but because that document did not go far enough. The Church still has not explicitly confessed and repented of its role in actively promoting antisemitism through the centuries (though this was inconsistent and sporadic; many Popes spoke out against it, but still, those teachings continued at the local level for most of two millennia).

The United Methodist Church (my old outfit) went a good deal farther in 1996, in a document called "Building New Bridges in Hope." I find this document remarkable, and wholly praiseworthy, in very many ways. First, re the current conversation, we find this:

We believe that just as God is steadfastly faithful to the biblical covenant in Jesus Christ, likewise God is steadfastly faithful to the biblical covenant with the Jewish people. The covenant God established with the Jewish people through Abraham, Moses, and others continues because it is an eternal covenant. Paul proclaims that the gift and call of God to the Jews is irrevocable (Romans 11:29). Thus, we believe that the Jewish people continue in covenantal relationship with God.

Both Jews and Christians are bound to God in covenant, with no covenantal relationship invalidated by any other. Though Christians and Jews have different understandings of the covenant of faith, we are mysteriously bound to one another through our covenantal relationships with the one God and Creator of us all.

And then, going rather farther than even Vatican II, we find this:

As followers of Jesus Christ, we deeply repent of the complicity of the church and the participation of many Christians in the long history of persecution of the Jewish people.

The Christian church has a profound obligation to correct historical and theological teachings that have led to false and pejorative perceptions of Judaism and contributed to persecution and hatred of Jews. It is our responsibility as Christians to oppose anti-Semitism whenever and wherever it occurs.

We recognize with profound sorrow that repeatedly and often in the last 2,000 years, the worship, preaching, and teaching of the Christian church has allowed and sometimes even incited and directed persecution against Jews.

The church today carries grave responsibility to counter the evil done by Christians to Jews in the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the pogroms of Eastern Europe and elsewhere, carried out in the name of Jesus Christ. In the twentieth century there is the particular shame in the failure of most of the church to challenge the policies of governments that were responsible for the unspeakable atrocities of the Holocaust.

Historically and today, both the selective use and the misuse of Scripture have fostered negative attitudes toward and actions against Jews. Use of New Testament passages that blame the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus has throughout history been the basis of many acts of discrimination against Jews, frequently involving physical violence. There is no doubt that traditional and often officially sanctioned and promulgated Christian teachings, including the uncritical use of anti-Jewish New Testament writings, have caused untold misery and form the basis of modern anti-Semitism.

Misinterpretations and misunderstanding of historical and contemporary Judaism continue, including the mistaken belief that Judaism is a religion solely of law and judgment while Christianity is a religion of love and grace. The characterizations of God in the Hebrew Bible (called the Old Testament by Christians) are rich and diverse; strong images of a caring, compassionate, and loving deity are dominant for Jews as well as for Christians. Further, there are parallels between New Testament Christian understandings of the spirit of the law and contemporaneous theological developments in first-century Jewish theology.

The church has an obligation to correct erroneous and harmful past teachings and to ensure that the use of Scripture, as well as the preparation, selection, and use of liturgical and educational resources, does not perpetuate misleading interpretations and misunderstanding of Judaism.

It is also essential for Christians to oppose forcefully anti-Jewish acts and rhetoric that persist in the present time in many places. We must be zealous in challenging overt and subtle anti-Semitic stereotypes and bigoted attitudes that ultimately made the Holocaust possible, and which stubbornly and insidiously continue today. These lingering patterns are a call to Christians for ever-new educational efforts and continued vigilance, so that we, remembering and honoring the cries of the tortured and the dead, can claim with Jews around the world to be faithful to the post-Holocaust cry of Never Again.

There is much more at the site, but these sections seem especially on point in the current conversation.

Other denominations? Sure. The Lutheran churches worldwide have expressed repentance and regret in the strongest terms for Martin Luthers scurrilous book of 1543, On the Jews and Their Lies:

Because Luther believed so boldly that Christ died for all of sinful humanity, and how obvious that truth became to him in his reading of scripture, he could not understand why people could not believe it. It became a personal affront to him, and in his view, an affront to the church and society. In this regard Luther became hostile toward the Jewish people, writing horrible things in a tract titled, "On the Jews and Their Lies (1543)." Centuries later, the Nazi regime in Germany would use Luther's popularity along with this tract to attempt to legitimize persecution, violence, and mass murder of the Holocaust.

It takes courage to admit wrongdoing, humility to ask for forgiveness, and faithfulness to move forward. Lutherans since the end of the Second World War have denounced Luther's views against the Jewish people. Remembering the past while renewing relationships continues into the future.

"Contemporary Lutheranism has distanced itself from Luther's unfortunate legacy in many ways. Memorials to the Holocaust are found throughout Germany, signaling a more positive course for Jewish-Lutheran relations. The Lutheran World Federation, speaking for the global communion, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America have spoken in words that now conclude a multimedia presentation on anti-Semitism and the Holocaust at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. These words clearly reject Luther's position, deplore any use of Luther's words to support anti-Semitism, express repentance, and commit Lutherans to positive relationships with the Jewish community. Though some Lutherans still affirm evangelism efforts directed specifically at the Jews, [which clearly implies that many, if not most, do not] one discerns increasing rapprochement among Jews and Lutherans." [1]

From Guidelines for Christian-Jewish Relations for Use in the Episcopal Church:

From the early days of the Church, many Christian interpreters saw the Church replacing Israel as God's people. The destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem was understood as a warrant for this claim. The Covenant of God with the people of Israel was seen only as a preparation for the coming of Jesus. As a consequence, the Covenant with Israel was considered to be abrogated.
This theological perspective has had fateful consequences. As Christians understood themselves to replace the Jews as God's people, they often denigrated the Judaism that survived as a fossilized religion of legalism. The Pharisees were thought to represent the height of that legalism; Jews and Jewish groups were portrayed as negative models; and the truth and beauty of Christianity were thought to be enhanced by setting up Judaism as false and ugly. Unfortunately, many of the early Church fathers defamed the Jewish people.
Through a renewed study of Judaism and in dialogue with Jews, Christians have become aware that Judaism in the time of Jesus was in but an early stage of its long life. Under the leadership of the Pharisees, the Jewish people began a spiritual revival of remarkable power, which gave them the vitality capable of surviving the catastrophe of the loss of the Temple. It gave birth to Rabbinic Judaism, which produced the Talmud, and built the structures for a strong and creative life through the centuries....

Christians believe that God's self-revelation is given in history. In the Covenant with the Jewish people at Mt. Sinai, the sacred law became part of our religious heritage. Christians see that same God embodied in the person of Jesus Christ, to whom The Church must bear witness by word and deed among all peoples. It would be false to its deepest commitment if the Church were to deny this mission. The Christian witness toward Jews, however, has been distorted by coercive proselytism, conscious and unconscious, overt and subtle. The Joint Working Group of the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches has stated: "Proselytism embraces whatever violates the right of the human person, Christian or non-Christian, to be free from external coercion in religious matters" (Ecumenical Review, 1/1971, p. 11).

Even Baptists? Sure.

From the Statement on Baptist-Jewish Relations:

It is in recognition of a past and present among Baptists that is complicit in perpetuating negative stereotypes and myths concerning Jews, that we, the Alliance of Baptists meeting in convocation on March 4, 1995, at Vienna Baptist Church, Vienna, Virginia,
Confess our sin of complicity.
Confess our sin of silence.
Confess our sin of interpreting our sacred writings in such a way that we have created enemies of the Jewish people.
Confess our sin of indifference and inaction to the horrors of the Holocaust.
Confess our sins against the Jewish people.
Offer this confession with humility and with hope for reconciliation between Christians and Jews.

We call upon all Baptists to join us in
Affirming the teaching of the Christian Scriptures that God has not rejected the community of Israel, God's covenant people (Romans 11:1-2), since "the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" (Romans 11:29);
Renouncing interpretations of Scripture which foster religious stereotyping and prejudice against the Jewish people and their faith;
Seeking genuine dialogue with the broader Jewish community, a dialogue built on mutual respect and the integrity of each other's faith;
Lifting our voices quickly and boldly against all expressions of anti-Semitism;
Educating ourselves and others on the history of Jewish-Christian relations from the first century to the present, so as to understand our present by learning from our past.

There are other such statements, from other denominations, and they are not hard to find. The POINT of all this, of course, is that it is NOT incumbent upon Christians to maintain that God has rejected the Jews and that we are all doomed to Hell if we do not accept Jesus -- particularly since the chief Apostle, Paul, has explicitly contradicted that false teaching in Romans 11, a FACT to which many of the above statements, and many others, have referred directly.

It is a continuing irritation to Christians, it seems, that we Jews continue to say that we dont need Jesus and we dont need to become Christians. Christianity is a fine, ancient and honorable religion; but it is not our religion, and no matter how loudly and insistently others try to convince us that Jesus really was our Messiah, were not buying it, and we wont.

In all the arguments here, Ive seen the usual suspects -- even tired old Isaiah 53, in which the Suffering Servant is, in Jewish teaching, the Jewish people as a whole, as is well known to anyone who has ever consulted a Jewish commentary or study Bible. The Servant could hardly be Jesus, since in v. 10 the Servant shall see his offspring, and shall prolong his days. Jesus died around age 33, and without children. Ive seen the usual blatant attempts to redefine, negate, and deny the validity and truth of the Jewish religion -- which were, as usual, utterly oblivious and unconscious of their extreme and offensive arrogance. Ive even seen long, bizarre, and totally irrelevant and offtopic rants about how Jesus never existed at all, as if that even mattered in this context.

But what have I NOT seen? I've seen no hint of acknowledgement of the century upon century of HARM that Christian teachings about Jews have inflicted upon my people, as confessed and renounced in the quotes I have posted above. Here, on this thread and on this forum, two millennia of BLATANT and EGREGIOUS EVIL is simply ignored and not even mentioned as having anything whatever to do with the reluctance of Jews to abandon our religion in favor of the religion of our persecutors. Want to talk about "persecution," Christians? We've got more than a few hundred years of experience at it -- at your hands. That ought to be at least acknowledged in this debate, as it has been by whole Christian denominations, before you arrogantly declare that God has turned His back on us. That is why Isaiah 53 is about the Jews, because this didn't begin with WWII or even the fall of the Temple.

More to the point of this thread: In all this, Ive not yet seen a single response to my post even attempting to address the points I posted in my OP. No attempts, not one, to explain why we Jews never, in all our history, ever taught or thought or believed that the Messiah (1) would be God Himself Incarnate, which is counter to the oldest and most basic of Jewish beliefs; (2) would be a literal Son of God, which is a Greek idea and was never a Jewish one; (3) would be a Savior from sin, which we have never held to be necessary; (4) would die and be resurrected, which is mentioned nowhere in the Hebrew Bible; and (5) why God would renege on his promises to the Patriarchs and prove Himself a LIAR, in that He told us, over and over, that His covenants with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses were eternal and everlasting?

Until someone has the intellectual honesty and the moral courage, not to mention the humility, to stop arrogantly imposing THEIR ideas on Jews and to address THESE issues -- which have been on the table from Page 1 -- I think Ill have nothing more to say here.