Why don't the Jews accept Jesus as their Messiah? After all, since the Jews started this religion and invented the deity Yahweh, they should know the criteria for their messiah, right?

As Paine said: "The best surviving evidence we now have respecting this affair is the Jews. They are regularly descended from the people who lived in the time this resurrection and ascension is said to have happened, and they say 'it is not true.'"

I know this question may seem a bit theological for an atheist mb, but I do think it's an important point to bring up while debating theists of the Christian variety. "Why should I accept the claims of Christianity if a majority of Jesus' contemporaries didn't?"

(I'm not counting the Southern Baptist-funded Jews for Jesus.)

I think this is a good point. I wonder why no Christian apologist has bothered to offer a comment.

rodahi

It's in Paul. Read the Bible. Jesus' crucifiction was considered a "stumbling block" to the Jews. Jesus met prophecies, but not in the way that they expected the Messiah. Nonetheless, some Jews did see. The early church was Jewish for those who didn't know.

Ish

Toto

And how is rising from the dead supposed to be a stumbling block?

Jews aren't big on idolatry, polytheism or the repudiation of Jewish law. Hence Jews tend to remain Jewish and not Christian. The Hebrew Scriptures do not prophecy unambiguously Jesus' life, death, resurrection, or alleged Third Coming. Mind you, an infinite number of possible events are ambiguously prophesied in these Scriptures as well as in any single sufficiently complex library. Needless to say, ambiguous "fulfillment" of a prediction is non-miraculous.

The jews rejected Jesus because he "wasn't what they expected."
Okay..so what were their "expectations" about the Messiah and why did they have these particular expectations? Did they form these expectations on the basis of their holy scriptures? If they *did* form these expectations on the basis of their holy scriptures (or, for those who couldn't read, what they were told were holy scriptures), were those expectations reasonable?

Hubzilla:
This question is a bit silly really: The whole Christian movement was founded by Jews.
Those of Jewish faith today are by definition of Jewish faith (rather than Christian) because they reject Jesus. The fact that not all Jews were converted to Christianity by the early Church doesn't really prove anything.

"Why should I accept the claims of Christianity if a majority of Jesus' contemporaries didn't?"
I'm just wondering about this: Do we have any evidence as to what proportion of the Jews were Christian by about 60AD?

As for Jewish Messianic expectations:
The Jews expected a great military leader who would throw off the Roman yoke and become a great Jewish king. Jesus obviously didn't do this.
One of the features of the Jewish Messianic prophesies is that they are strangely dualistic. Some prophesy a dying servant whilst others prophesy a great leader. Of course the Jews have fun running around in circles trying combine the two somehow. (think "Fundamentalists" if it helps) But in the day of Jesus the Jews were hoping for God to send them a saviour from the evil Romans and so read this into the bits of the prophesies for a great Messiah to lead them.
Whereas what they got was the suffering servant Messiah who promised to come back later as a great leader Messiah. (Why has Earl said "Third Coming" rather than 2nd?) Of course this fits the prophesies much better, but understandably some were a little dissapointed.
I hope that answers your questions Echo.

No, the question isn't silly. Indeed, the argument is quite valid as a refutation of the more inerrant interpretations of the Gospels. If Jesus really was publicly executed, then disappeared from his tomb, people would have noticed.

Likewise, the fact that the Gospel writers have Jesus slinking around after the resurrection appearing only to his disciples. Could've happened that way, but mighty suspicious. Sounds like "the dog ate my homework."

Finally, the Jewishness of early Christianity is easily overemphasized. After all, it was based on "inspired" reinterpretations of scriptures to find hidden meanings. Of course it bore no resemblance to orthodoxy. But the point remains that had its proponents been able to point to an empty tomb, it should've been easy to sell. Curious that it only sold well in places where there were no witnesses.

TERCEL: Why has Earl said "Third Coming" rather than 2nd?

EARL: Because Jesus already got a second shot during the period between his death and ascension when he was supposedly alive. Were Jesus to return again, that would be his third life on Earth not his second. Third time's the charm, eh?

Here is the Jewish perspective:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Brid...9/Notstmnt.htm