Christians: why do you think Jews don’t accept the Christian Testament?

[Avoice]

Why do you think Jews reject the teachings of the church?

If you could pick one passage to convince them to believe Jesus is their anointed one (messiah) what would it be?

[Miles]

Why do you think Jews reject the teachings of the church?

It tells tall tales, and even lies about Jesus.

"The rejection of Jesus as Messiah has never been a theological issue for Judaism because Jewish eschatology holds that the coming of the Jewish Messiah will be associated with events that had not occurred at the time of Jesus, such as the rebuilding of The Temple, a Messianic Age of peace, and the ingathering of Jews to their homeland. Historically, some Jewish writers and scholars have considered Jesus as the most damaging "false prophet", and traditional views of Jesus have been mostly negative, . . . "
source: Wikipedia

If you could pick one passage to convince them to believe Jesus is their anointed one (messiah) what would it be?

Taint any.

,

[JehovahsWitness]

If you could pick one passage to convince them to believe Jesus is their anointed one (messiah) what would it be?

I don't think its reasonable to choose one passage since the entire Hebrew bible was effectively given to help the Jews identify their Messiah. That said Daniel's 69 week prophecy places the appearance of the Messiah before the destruction of the Jewish temple. It also alludes to "the suffering Messiah" .



1 "week" = 7 years
69 "weeks" (7 x 69) = 483 years

JW

To learn more please go to other posts related to ...

JESUS , MESSIANIC PROPHECY and ... DANIEL'S PROPHECIES

[JehovahsWitness]

WHEN WAS ARTAXERXES DECREE?

Evidence from Greek sources.

• An event in Greek history can help us determine when Artaxerxes began ruling. Greek statesman and military hero Themistocles fell into disfavor with his countrymen and fled for safety to Persia. According to Greek historian Thucydides (I, CXXXVII, 3), who has gained fame for his accuracy, at that time Themistocles sent on a letter to King Artaxerxes son of Xerxes, who had lately come to the throne. Plutarch’s Lives (Themistocles, XXVII, 1) gives the information that Thucydides and Charon of Lampsacus relate that Xerxes was dead, and that it was his son Artaxerxes with whom Themistocles had his interview.Charon was a Persian subject who lived through the change of rulership from Xerxes to Artaxerxes. From the testimonies of Thucydides and of Charon of Lampsacus, we can see that when Themistocles arrived in Persia, Artaxerxes had recently begun ruling.
  
  We can establish the time when Artaxerxes began ruling by calculating back from when Themistocles died. Not all reference books give the same date for his death. However, historian Diodorus Siculus (Diodorus of Sicily, XI, 54, 1; XI, 58, 3) relates his death in an account of things that happened “when Praxiergus was archon in Athens. Praxiergus was archon in Athens in 471/470 B.C.E. (Greek and Roman Chronology, by Alan E. Samuel, Munich, 1972, p. 206) According to Thucydides, Themistocles arrival in Persia was followed by a year of language study in preparation for an audience with Artaxerxes. Thereafter the king granted him settlement in Persia with many honors. If Themistocles died in 471/470 B.C.E., his settlement in Persia must have been not later than 472 B.C.E. and his arrival a year earlier, in 473 B.C.E. At that time Artaxerxes “had lately come to the throne
  
  Concerning the time when Xerxes died and Artaxerxes ascended the throne, M. de Koutorga wrote: “We have seen that, according to the chronology of Thucydides, Xerxes died towards the end of the year 475 B.C.E., and that, according to the same historian, Themistocles arrived in Asia Minor shortly after the coming to the throne of Artaxerxes Longimanus. Acadamie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres de l’Institut Imperial de France, first series, Vol. VI, second part, Paris, 1864, p. 147.
  
  As further support of this, E. Levesque noted the following: Therefore it is necessary, according to the Alexandrian Chronicle, to place Xerxes death in 475 B.C.E., after eleven years of reign. The historian Justin, III, 1, confirms this chronicle and the assertions of Thucydides. According to him, at the time of Xerxes murder, Artaxerxes, his son, was but a child, puer [a boy], which is true if Xerxes died in 475. Artaxerxes was then 16 years old, whereas in 465 he would have been twenty-six years old, which would not justify anymore Justin's expression. According to this chronology, since Artaxerxes began to reign in 475, the 20th year of his reign proves to be in 455 and not in 445 as it is said quite commonly.”Revue apologetique, Paris, Vol. 68, 1939, p. 94.
  
  If Darius died in 486 B.C.E. and Xerxes died in 475 B.C.E., how could it be explained that some ancient documents allot to Xerxes a reign of 21 years? It is well known that a king and his son might rule together in a double kingship, or coregency. If this was the case with Darius and Xerxes, historians could count the years of Xerxes reign either from the start of a coregency with his father or from his father's death. If Xerxes ruled 10 years with his father and 11 years by himself, some sources could attribute to him 21 years of rulership, while others might give him 11 years.
  
  There is solid evidence for a coregency of Xerxes with his father Darius. The Greek historian Herodotus (VII, 3) says: Darius judged his [Xerxes’] plea [for kingship] to be just and declared him king. But to my thinking Xerxes would have been made king even without this advice. This indicates that Xerxes was made king during the reign of his father Darius.

Evidence from Persian sources.

• A coregency of Xerxes with Darius can be seen especially from Persian bas-reliefs that have come to light. In Persepolis several bas-reliefs have been found that represent Xerxes standing behind his father’s throne, dressed in clothing identical to his father's and with his head on the same level. This is unusual, since ordinarily the king’s head would be higher than all others. In A New Inscription of Xerxes From Persepolis (by Ernst E. Herzfeld, 1932) it is noted that both inscriptions and buildings found in Persepolis imply a coregency of Xerxes with his father Darius. On page 8 of his work Herzfeld wrote: “The peculiar tenor of Xerxes’ inscriptions at Persepolis, most of which do not distinguish between his own activity and that of his father, and the relation, just as peculiar, of their buildings, which it is impossible to allocate to either Darius or Xerxes individually, have always implied a kind of coregency of Xerxes. Moreover, two sculptures at Persepolis illustrate that relation. With reference to one of these sculptures, Herzfeld pointed out: “Darius is represented, wearing all the royal attributes, enthroned on a high couch-platform supported by representatives of the various nations of his empire. Behind him in the relief, that is, in reality at his right, stands Xerxes with the same royal attributes, his left hand resting on the high back of the throne. That is a gesture that speaks clearly of more than mere successorship; it means coregency.
  
  As to a date for reliefs depicting Darius and Xerxes in that way, in Achaemenid Sculpture (Istanbul, 1974, p. 53), Ann Farkas states that “the reliefs might have been installed in the Treasury sometime during the building of the first addition, 494/493–492/491 B.C.; this certainly would have been the most convenient time to move such unwieldy pieces of stone. But whatever their date of removal to the Treasury, the sculptures were perhaps carved in the 490

Evidence from Babylonian sources.

• Evidence for Xerxes beginning a coregency with his father during the 490’s B.C.E. has been found at Babylon. Excavations there have unearthed a palace for Xerxes completed in 496 B.C.E. In this regard, A. T. Olmstead wrote in History of the Persian Empire (p. 215): “By October 23, 498, we learn that the house of the king’s son [that is, of Darius’ son, Xerxes] was in process of erection at Babylon; no doubt this is the Darius palace in the central section that we have already described. Two years later [in 496 B.C.E.], in a business document from near-by Borsippa, we have reference to the ‘new palace’ as already completed.
  
  Two unusual clay tablets may bear additional testimony to the coregency of Xerxes with Darius. One is a business text about hire of a building in the accession year of Xerxes. The tablet is dated in the first month of the year, Nisan. (A Catalogue of the Late Babylonian Tablets in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, by R. Campbell Thompson, London, 1927, p. 13, tablet designated A. 124) Another tablet bears the date month of Ab(?), accession year of Xerxes. Remarkably, this latter tablet does not attribute to Xerxes the title “king of Babylon, king of lands, which was usual at that time. Neubabylonische Rechts- und Verwaltungsurkunden übersetzt und erläutert, by M. San Nicolò and A. Ungnad, Leipzig, 1934, Vol. I, part 4, p. 544, tablet No. 634, designated VAT 4397.
  
  These two tablets are puzzling. Ordinarily a king’s accession year begins after the death of his predecessor. However, there is evidence that Xerxes’ predecessor (Darius) lived until the seventh month of his final year, whereas these two documents from the accession year of Xerxes bear dates prior to the seventh month (one has the first month, the other the fifth). Therefore these documents do not relate to an accession period of Xerxes following the death of his father but indicate an accession year during his coregency with Darius. If that accession year was in 496 B.C.E., when the palace at Babylon for Xerxes had been completed, his first year as coregent would begin the following Nisan, in 495 B.C.E., and his 21st and final year would start in 475 B.C.E. In that case, Xerxes reign included 10 years of rule with Darius (from 496 to 486 B.C.E.) and 11 years of kingship by himself (from 486 to 475 B.C.E.).
  
  On the other hand, historians are unanimous that the first regnal year of Darius II began in spring of 423 B.C.E. One Babylonian tablet indicates that in his accession year Darius II was already on the throne by the 4th day of the 11th month, that is, February 13, 423 B.C.E. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 18) However, two tablets show that Artaxerxes continued to rule after the 11th month, the 4th day, of his 41st year. One is dated to the 11th month, the 17th day, of his 41st year. (p. 18) The other one is dated to the 12th month of his 41st year. (Old Testament and Semitic Studies, edited by Harper, Brown, and Moore, 1908, Vol. 1, p. 304, tablet No. 12, designated CBM, 5505) Therefore Artaxerxes was not succeeded in his 41st regnal year but ruled through its entirety. This indicates that Artaxerxes must have ruled more than 41 years and that his first regnal year therefore should not be counted as beginning in 464 B.C.E.
  
  Evidence that Artaxerxes Longimanus ruled beyond his 41st year is found in a business document from Borsippa that is dated to the 50th year of Artaxerxes. (Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Vol. VII: Tablets From Sippar 2, by E. Leichty and A. K. Grayson, 1987, p. 153; tablet designated B. M. 65494) One of the tablets connecting the end of Artaxerxes reign and the beginning of the reign of Darius II has the following date: “51st year, accession year, 12th month, day 20, Darius, king of lands. (The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series A: Cuneiform Texts, Vol. VIII, Part I, by Albert T. Clay, 1908, pp. 34, 83, and Plate 57, Tablet No. 127, designated CBM 12803) Since the first regnal year of Darius II was in 423 B.C.E., it means that the 51st year of Artaxerxes was in 424 B.C.E. and his first regnal year was in 474 B.C.E.

SOURCE Insight on The Scriptures Vol II p. 614
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003447#h=21

Therefore, testimonies from Greek, Persian, and Babylonian sources agree that Artaxerxes’ accession year was 475 B.C.E. and his first regnal year was 474 B.C.E. That places the 20th year of Artaxerxes, [...] in 455 B.C.E.

[1213]

Why do you think Jews reject the teachings of the church?

If you could pick one passage to convince them to believe Jesus is their anointed one (messiah) what would it be?

I believe there can be many reasons. One of the best reasons to reject Church doctrine is that it goes against what Jesus says in the Bible.

And I think best reason to think Jesus is the anointed one is that things go as he told.

[onewithhim]

If you could pick one passage to convince them to believe Jesus is their anointed one (messiah) what would it be?

I don't think its reasonable to choose one passage since the entire Hebrew bible was effectively given to help the Jews identify their Messiah. That said Daniel's 69 week prophecy places the appearance of the Messiah before the destruction of the Jewish temple. It also alludes to "the suffering Messiah" .



1 "week" = 7 years
69 "weeks" (7 x 69) = 483 years

JW

To learn more please go to other posts related to ...

JESUS , MESSIANIC PROPHECY and ... DANIEL'S PROPHECIES

Jews don't accept Christianity because their religious leaders haven't taught them to do so. It is clear in the Scriptures that Jesus is the Messiah and even when he would appear. That is swept under the rug by Jewish leaders.

[Miles]

Jews don't accept Christianity because their religious leaders haven't taught them to do so. It is clear in the Scriptures that Jesus is the Messiah and even when he would appear. That is swept under the rug by Jewish leaders.

And you don't think Christians sweep things under the rug? Just consider:

Matthew 16:28
28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. [Did any of them die before the Son of man came with his kingdom? YOU BETCHA! ALL OF THEM DID.]

Mark 1:15
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. [Was god's kingdom near? HARDLY!]

.

[onewithhim]

Jews don't accept Christianity because their religious leaders haven't taught them to do so. It is clear in the Scriptures that Jesus is the Messiah and even when he would appear. That is swept under the rug by Jewish leaders.

And you don't think Christians sweep things under the rug? Just consider:

Matthew 16:28
28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. [Did any of them die before the Son of man came with his kingdom? YOU BETCHA! ALL OF THEM DID.]

Mark 1:15
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. [Was god's kingdom near? HARDLY!]

.

So-called Christians aren't taught what those verses are really saying. As stated before, more than once, Jesus was talking about the vision of his transfiguration on the mountain with Peter, James and John. They saw him "coming in his Kingdom" by way of the brightness of his glory there before them.

Mark 1:15 shows that the Kingdom was near by way of the presence of Jesus there among them. He is the King designate and could be said to represent the Kingdom here on Earth. So this King was near to them all and would fulfill what the verse indicated, as being "at hand."

Can you take these comments as answers to your questions and don't keep asking the same things over and over? Thank you

[Miles]

Jews don't accept Christianity because their religious leaders haven't taught them to do so. It is clear in the Scriptures that Jesus is the Messiah and even when he would appear. That is swept under the rug by Jewish leaders.

And you don't think Christians sweep things under the rug? Just consider:

Matthew 16:28
28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. [Did any of them die before the Son of man came with his kingdom? YOU BETCHA! ALL OF THEM DID.]

Mark 1:15
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. [Was god's kingdom near? HARDLY!]

.

So-called Christians aren't taught what those verses are really saying. As stated before, more than once, Jesus was talking about the vision of his transfiguration on the mountain with Peter, James and John. They saw him "coming in his Kingdom" by way of the brightness of his glory there before them.

Mark 1:15 shows that the Kingdom was near by way of the presence of Jesus there among them. He is the King designate and could be said to represent the Kingdom here on Earth. So this King was near to them all and would fulfill what the verse indicated, as being "at hand."

Can you take these comments as answers to your questions and don't keep asking the same things over and over? Thank you

This is like complaining about the fact that the guy on the other side of the net doesn't let your shot go by unchallenged, but returns it with a shot of his own. Don't like comments about X then stop bringing up X. .... And believe it or not, but questions asked and answered, such as [Did any of them die before the Son of man came with his kingdom? YOU BETCHA! ALL OF THEM DID.] and [Was god's kingdom near? HARDLY!] don't expect or require an answer.

.

[onewithhim]

Jews don't accept Christianity because their religious leaders haven't taught them to do so. It is clear in the Scriptures that Jesus is the Messiah and even when he would appear. That is swept under the rug by Jewish leaders.

And you don't think Christians sweep things under the rug? Just consider:

Matthew 16:28
28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. [Did any of them die before the Son of man came with his kingdom? YOU BETCHA! ALL OF THEM DID.]

Mark 1:15
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. [Was god's kingdom near? HARDLY!]

.

So-called Christians aren't taught what those verses are really saying. As stated before, more than once, Jesus was talking about the vision of his transfiguration on the mountain with Peter, James and John. They saw him "coming in his Kingdom" by way of the brightness of his glory there before them.

Mark 1:15 shows that the Kingdom was near by way of the presence of Jesus there among them. He is the King designate and could be said to represent the Kingdom here on Earth. So this King was near to them all and would fulfill what the verse indicated, as being "at hand."

Can you take these comments as answers to your questions and don't keep asking the same things over and over? Thank you

This is like complaining about the fact that the guy on the other side of the net doesn't let your shot go by unchallenged, but returns it with a shot of his own. Don't like comments about X then stop bringing up X. .... And believe it or not, but questions asked and answered, such as [Did any of them die before the Son of man came with his kingdom? YOU BETCHA! ALL OF THEM DID.] and [Was god's kingdom near? HARDLY!] don't expect or require an answer.

.

I commented on your post, feeling that I answered your objections. Can you comment on what I posted in my last attempt (post #8) at saying something that has been said many times before.