Why should I believe in Jesus and the NT?

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

Well, there isn't much, really, anybody can say to give you a reason, beyond the words of the books themselves. If you are not desirous of reading the NT to find out for yourself, no one will be able to convince you. If you have read the NT and can think of no reason to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, then nobody will be able to give you a reason to convince you.

Fair enough but it doesn't really keep me from inquiring from others why I should.

I must add, however, that your statement that Jesus didn't say much different from what His rabbis taught is in error.

How so? Name one teaching that was "new" that the Pharisees didnt discuss or teach. My reading of the NT doesn't show a divergent Jesus. IMO he was an observant Jew.

Jesus totally obliterated the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants, and He obliterated the Pharisees' works-based and oppressive religion.

Can you cite where Jesus said he obliterated the mosaic covenant? As far is I can tell he said he "did not come to destroy the law or the prophets but to fulfill." Nothing about "obliterating" here. In fact, he said the opposite. His later followers, I.E. Paul, did teach what you are saying.

So, the things He said were new and "anti-establishment", if I may say so. That is why the Pharisees continually tried to kill him, and they finally succeeded.

Can you cite the number of times along with their verses in The NT that shows that the Pharisees tried to kill him on numerous occasions? I am only finding the high priests, temple guards, and chief priests on the repetition of people who wanted to kill Jesus. Maybe you can help me out here since the NT is not exactly my religious writing.

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

Yes, of course, but not all Israelites are Judeans, depending upon the usage of the word Ἰουδαῖος, ἀνὴρ ἐξ Ιουδα, etc.

Yet the other Israelites identify by way of Judaism.

If you accept a role of the high priest and the temple soldiers, how can you be so sure that there were no pharisees involved from the local Jerusalem sanhedrin?

Assuming the text of the NT is accurate does the NT text say the Pharisees were present?

I think you mean shtuyot (שטויות), correct? Why would I want that?

Yes I did mean that. I have a tendency to transpose letters sometimes when typing fast. I also think you understand my point.

For some, what is learned may be surprising, a discovery in that sense. I like to be open to surprises, to learning new things.

I am never opposed to learning new things.

[robrecht]

Yet the other Israelites identify by way of Judaism.

But we should not read our understanding of Judaism and Jewish identity into New Testament and other contemporary texts that speak of Judaens/Jews.

Assuming the text of the NT is accurate does the NT text say the Pharisees were present?

The New Testament does not say who the members of the local Jerusalem sanhedrin were.

Yes I did mean that. I have a tendency to transpose letters sometimes when typing fast. I also think you understand my point.

I am never opposed to learning new things.

And those new things may not be שטויות.

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

But we should not read our understanding of Judaism and Jewish identity into New Testament and other contemporary texts that speak of Judaens/Jews.

Possibly. Although Mordechai, a benjaminite, was also called a יהודי in Ester.

The New Testament does not say who the members of the local Jerusalem sanhedrin were.

The Sanhedrin was composed of many sects at the time. Pharisaic and sadducean.

However as for who was responsible each of the gospels give differing lists the only constants are chief priests, temple guards, and elders. As for Elders it is hard to say what is meant here. Saduccees and Pharisees made up "elders" at that time.

And those new things may not be שטויות.

I'm not going to speculate on this.

[robrecht]

Possibly. Although Mordechai, a benjaminite, was also called a יהודי in Ester.

Recall, that I said Judaen/Jews; I did not say that the word could never mean Jew.

The Sanhedrin was composed of many sects at the time. Pharisaic and sadducean.

However as for who was responsible each of the gospels give differing lists the only constants are chief priests, temple guards, and elders. As for Elders it is hard to say what is meant here. Saduccees and Pharisees made up "elders" at that time.

I'm not going to speculate on this.

Why speculate that no pharisees were among the sanhedrin members or elders that may have been involved in the judgment or execution of Jesus? We simply do not know.

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

Recall, that I said Judaen/Jews; I did not say that the word could never mean Jew.

You did indeed.

Why speculate that no pharisees were among the sanhedrin members or elders that may have been involved in the judgment or execution of Jesus? We simply do not know.

I didn't say that some were not involved. I merely made note that the Pharisees aren't mentioned. We don't have to speculate about who was there. They are listed to varying accounts. We have to speculate as to the extent that in named parties are involved. That is assuming the NT account is accurate of course.

[robrecht]

You did indeed.

I didn't say that some were not involved. I merely made note that the Pharisees aren't mentioned. We don't have to speculate about who was there. They are listed to varying accounts. We have to speculate as to the extent that in named parties are involved. That is assuming the NT account is accurate of course.

Actually, the gospel of Mark does claim that the chief priests, scribes and elders had involved some pharisees in their attempts to challenge Jesus' authority (11,27 12,12-13; cf already Mt 21,45; 22,15) and attributes to some Pharisees a desire to destroy Jesus as early as Mk 3,6 (also Mt 12,24), while Luke, on the other hand, mentions that some Pharisees tried to protect him from Herod (13,31). Matthew even places some Pharisees with the chief priests going to see Pilate (27,62) and John places some Pharisees with Caiaphas and the chief priests at a sanredrin judging it expedient to put Jesus to death (11,47-57). I view these texts only as a direct historical source for the beliefs within the evangelists' communities and of the dynamics with other sects and parties of the various Judaisms that were contemporary to the evangelists. I do think it is plausible that some Pharisees numbered among Jesus' followers and others opposed him, as we see disagreements among the schools of Shammmai and Hillel. But something more serious than that would be needed to plausibly explain Jesus' execution. It's a very interesting historical question to pursue.

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

Actually, the gospel of Mark does claim that the chief priests, scribes and elders had involved some pharisees in their attempts to challenge Jesus' authority (11,27 12,12-13; cf already Mt 21,45; 22,15) and attributes to some Pharisees a desire to destroy Jesus as early as Mk 3,6 (also Mt 12,24), while Luke, on the other hand, mentions that some Pharisees tried to protect him from Herod (13,31). Matthew even places some Pharisees with the chief priests going to see Pilate (27,62) and John places some Pharisees with Caiaphas and the chief priests at a sanredrin judging it expedient to put Jesus to death (11,47-57). I view these texts only as a direct historical source for the beliefs within the evangelists' communities and of the dynamics with other sects and parties of the various Judaisms that were contemporary to the evangelists. I do think it is plausible that some Pharisees numbered among Jesus' followers and others opposed him, as we see disagreements among the schools of Shammmai and Hillel. But something more serious than that would be needed to plausibly explain Jesus' execution. It's a very interesting historical question to pursue.

You raise a good point. However I have to ask the question regarding the accounts. Some verses explicitly name the groups who wanted Jesus tried and executed.

Luke 22:52

1.chief priests
2. Temple guards
3. Elders

Matthew 27:20

1. Chief priests
2. Elders

John 19:6

1. Chief priests
2. Temple guards

Mark 14:53-54

1. High priest
2. Chief priests
3. Temple guards
4. Elders
5. Scribes

So which account are we going with? The only ones that repeat in the theme narrative are Chief priests, temple guards, and Elders. Could some Pharisees have been there, sure it's possible but, the text indicates explicitly who and which groups by a vast majority wanted him tried and executed.

I agree it is an interesting historical question to ponder on. Many scholars, I believe, are still trying to piece it all together and get a full sense of what may have happened.

[robrecht]

You raise a good point. However I have to ask the question regarding the accounts. Some verses explicitly name the groups who wanted Jesus tried and executed.

Luke 22:52

1.chief priests
2. Temple guards
3. Elders

Matthew 27:20

1. Chief priests
2. Elders

John 19:6

1. Chief priests
2. Temple guards

Mark 14:53-54

1. High priest
2. Chief priests
3. Temple guards
4. Elders
5. Scribes

So which account are we going with? The only ones that repeat in the theme narrative are Chief priests, temple guards, and Elders. Could some Pharisees have been there, sure it's possible but, the text indicates explicitly who and which groups by a vast majority wanted him tried and executed.

I agree it is an interesting historical question to ponder on. Many scholars, I believe, are still trying to piece it all together and get a full sense of what may have happened.

From an historical point of view, I don't think we should go with any single account, and various historical reconstructions are plausible. I think his teachings made some people angry, his view of the forgiveness of sins and practice of eating with tax collectors and sinners didn't help. The accusation of his being a glutton and drunkard might reflect this ministry to sinners and perhaps a lax approach to purity laws. It is more politically correct these days to see Jesus and all of his early followers as strictly orthodox, but I have never found this persuasive, as it does not help explain the very early mission to the Gentiles and the disputes about circumcision and food offered to idols. Was Jesus lawless enough to incite some very zealous types to violence? Perhaps if he had enough of a following. Or perhaps his preaching of the nearness of the Kingdom of God was perceived as a political threat by the sanhedrin in Jerusalem and Pilate. Perhaps some combination of these two components. I don't think we will know until we all meet again in the world to come and work out all our differences or at least learn to understand and appreciate our different perspectives. I try to get started on this task sooner rather than later. If not now, when?

[Soyeong]

Why should I believe in Jesus and the NT?

Because the OT testifies of him.

http://www.letusreason.org/juda13.htm

How so? Name one teaching that was "new" that the Pharisees didnt discuss or teach. My reading of the NT doesn't show a divergent Jesus. IMO he was an observant Jew.

I agree that Jesus was an observant Jew. He didn't teach a lot that was new, but rather he focused on correcting wrong interpretations of the Torah. Many of his parables used elements and styles that are found in other Jewish teachings. The significance was more about who he was and what he accomplished.

Can you cite where Jesus said he obliterated the mosaic covenant? As far is I can tell he said he "did not come to destroy the law or the prophets but to fulfill." Nothing about "obliterating" here. In fact, he said the opposite. His later followers, I.E. Paul, did teach what you are saying.

There is a difference between the laws of the Torah and the Mosaic covenant. Jesus brought a new covenant, but did not destroy the law. I think Paul was Torah observant his entire life and never taught against keeping it.

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

Because the OT testifies of him.

http://www.letusreason.org/juda13.htm

The Tanakh talks about a lot of things. Can you be more specific as to what you mean by this.

I agree that Jesus was an observant Jew. He didn't teach a lot that was new, but rather he focused on correcting wrong interpretations of the Torah.

The Talmud is replete with Rabbis arguing and correcting each other over interpretation of the Torah. Each pointing the finger at the other for being incorrect in their interpretation. This is nothing new and not exactly a revolutionary focus on the Torah. As for the rest I agree.

The significance was more about who he was and what he accomplished.

I know who you claim he was but what are you claiming he accomplished beyond getting himself killed?

There is a difference between the laws of the Torah and the Mosaic covenant.

That is patently false. The Torah is the covenant with Moshe Rabbeynu. You can't just separate the two with a blanket statement and hope I accept your premise. Please prove your assertion here with some credible evidence from the Torah.

Jesus brought a new covenant, but did not destroy the law.

So which part of Jeremiah 31:30-35 did Jesus bring? This is the only explicit description of the New covenant that I can think of in the Tanakh. Please enlighten me.

I think Paul was Torah observant his entire life and never taught against keeping it.

His observance is debatable given his own life narrative. That being said can you explain Galatians 3. He seems to take a lovely tone towards the Torah in this chapter.

[Soyeong]

The Tanakh talks about a lot of things. Can you be more specific as to what you mean by this.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xi.html

The Talmud is replete with Rabbis arguing and correcting each other over interpretation of the Torah. Each pointing the finger at the other for being incorrect in their interpretation. This is nothing new and not exactly a revolutionary focus on the Torah. As for the rest I agree.

I know who you claim he was but what are you claiming he accomplished beyond getting himself killed?

[b] and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.[c]

He died in our place:

Isaiah 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.

That is patently false. The Torah is the covenant with Moshe Rabbeynu. You can't just separate the two with a blanket statement and hope I accept your premise. Please prove your assertion here with some credible evidence from the Torah.

The Torah contains several covenants, such as with Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses. It also contains many things that aren't covenants, such as the story of Joseph and the exodus from Egypt.

So which part of Jeremiah 31:30-35 did Jesus bring? This is the only explicit description of the New covenant that I can think of in the Tanakh. Please enlighten me.

The main difference between these covenants is that Jesus is a far superior mediator.

His observance is debatable given his own life narrative. That being said can you explain Galatians 3. He seems to take a lovely tone towards the Torah in this chapter.

The majority of Christians would disagree with me on that point, so I agree it's debatable, but over the past few years I've come to appreciate just how thoroughly Jewish the NT is. I think this article does a good job of explaining Galatians:

https://www.eliyah.com/galatianskjv.html

[Avraham Ibn Ezra]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xi.html

I shortened this here but left the link to save space and allow for me to post information also.

This was a cute posting from the website but what I would be looking for is something in te Hebrew bible that says something about Jesus. Can you provide that?

The Torah contains several covenants, such as with Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses. It also contains many things that aren't covenants, such as the story of Joseph and the exodus from Egypt.

So what if it tells us about prior covenants. That still doesn't negate what I stated.

The main difference between these covenants is that Jesus is a far superior mediator.

Where is that in Jeremiah 31:30-35 again? Please copy, paste and highlight where this is found in that text.

The majority of Christians would disagree with me on that point, so I agree it's debatable, but over the past few years I've come to appreciate just how thoroughly Jewish the NT is. I think this article does a good job of explaining Galatians:

https://www.eliyah.com/galatianskjv.html

Are you seriously making a point via website? Please break down a synopsis in The thread.

[Omniskeptical]

I didn't say that some were not involved. I merely made note that the Pharisees aren't mentioned. We don't have to speculate about who was there. They are listed to varying accounts. We have to speculate as to the extent that in named parties are involved. That is assuming the NT account is accurate of course.

Elders are mentioned. The Elders are likely the Sanhedrin.

[JohnnyP]

I'm not sure if this thread is still active but as to the point of compelling all nations to serve God:

Isaiah 11:10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

I think there's something to be said about over half the world believing in the God of Israel AND in Jesus, albeit with different views in Islam and in Christianity.

Versus according to some statistics, .2% of the world being Jews not believing in Jesus and of them, perhaps over half not even believing in the God of Israel, identifying as Jews ethnically not religiously.

What is it about Jesus that causes such great belief in the God of Israel, and being without Jesus causes disbelief?

I'm one of those who don't see Jesus, Paul, or anyone in the NT abolishing Torah for Jews. Jesus said it stands until heaven and earth pass, which according to Revelation happens at Judgment when death is no more, indicating that at least some of the Laws regarding the death penalty are no longer relevant.

That perception exists mainly because Paul is such a primary character in the NT and his mission was to Gentiles who aren't compelled to observe all Torah either in Christianity or Judaism, a rough sketch of Noahide being found in Acts 15.

I'm not certain any Messianic prophecies claim that all Jews must first be united under God, then come all the Gentiles to belief, especially since things have moved in an opposite direction to that on a global basis.

I think my post in the virgin birth thread also gives some compelling reasons, and overall questions the idea that if one is killed he can't be Messiah, since this dismisses the possibility of resurrection to complete the mission. I'm not aware of any prophecy restricting that, or any time limit imposed as to whether it should take 2 or 2000 years. Some Jews are certainly waiting for Elijah to return to complete his mission, for example.

I'll offer those two topics to start.