Letter to Ya’acov

I wish to explain why Judaism rejected Jesus as being ‘Messiah’. This is not designed to denounce anyone’s belief but rather to explain some, if not all, the reasons why the Jews rejected Jesus. The biblical passages are not taken from any particular translation of the Bible, but are just quoted to show how the Christians ‘link’ the pieces to Jesus Christ, or Jesus Son of Joseph. So here we go. Please listen with an open mind.

For two thousand years Christianity has been trying to convince the world that Jesus was the Messiah. But you will see some of the glaring faults of Christianity, which make it impossible for Jesus to be the ‘Messiah’.

First of all there is the so-called ‘Trinity’ which is to say, that God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost (some Bibles use ‘Holy Spirit’) being of the same essence. But in Exodus 33:20 God said to Moses, ‘No man can see my face and live’.

Matthew 6, says ‘OUR Father who art in heaven, let YOUR name be sanctified, let YOUR will be done on earth as it is Heaven’.

Mark 13:32 says ‘There are some things which neither the Son knows, nor the angels know, but only God knows’.

In John 20:7and 17:3 Jesus refers to God as his God, and his Father as our Father. 1 Corinthians 11:3 states, ‘The head of a woman is a man, the head of man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God’.

John 4:23 tells Christians to worship God in spirit and Truth.

So with these scriptures, and there are others, how can the Trinitarian doctrine be supported? The whole idea of a trinity is from ancient Babylon. The ancient Babylonians worshipped more than one triad of gods.

Then we see Christianity using the idea of ‘baptisms’. The idea of this is from the Jewish mystical teachings known as the Kabbala. The apostles, along with Jesus son of Joseph (known as Jesus Christ), were in fact Nazarenes. The Nazarenes were a group of Essenes and Jesus son of Joseph, was an Essene.

Certain people have started up groups of Jews who believe Jesus was the ‘Messiah’ and still remain Jewish and, to some degree, that have succeeded because those Jews are ignorant of the real essence of Judaism. But let us carry on with some further aspects of what the Christians believe in, and I use ‘Christians’ in a broad sense, but emphasise that not all branches of Christianity believe these things.

Firstly, was Jesus son of Joseph executed on the ‘cross’? The simple answer is that he wasn’t. The New Testament actually mentions that he was hung on a ‘tree’ (see Galatians 3:13). Here the word ‘tree’ is translated from the Greek word xylon. The rest of the New Testament uses the word stauros which actually means a ‘tree’ or ‘stake’. So where does the idea of a cross come from? Again, from ancient Babylon. When Nimrod died he was turned into the god Tammuz, and all the pagans did was to drop the bar on the ‘T’. The cross was in fact used some 1,500 years before the birth of Jesus son of Joseph.

How about ‘Easter’, which is supposed to represent Jesus’ death, and resurrection? It is true that there is a direct commandment to Christians to celebrate his death, but not in the way that Easter is set out. The whole idea of Easter is pagan. When Nimrod’s wife died she became the goddess Astarte, Ishtar etc., and she was a fertility goddess, hence the idea of eggs, bunny rabbits, etc. Some Christian scholars argue that Easter is mentioned in the Bible in the King James translation at Acts 12:4, but the original Greek, and that is translated from Hebrew, is in fact ‘Passover’. Most Bibles use this and, again, honest Christian scholars have admitted this is a pious fraud.

The biggest festival after Easter, which the Christians have, is the so-called Christmas festival, which is supposed to be a celebration of Jesus’ birth. But was he born in December? It is highly unlikely! If he was executed on 14th Nisan 33 CE [Common Era], and his ministry was thirty-three-and-a-half years, and Nisan usually falls in April, what is half a year either side of April? October!

The idea of Christmas is, in fact, the youngest of the pagan ideas. It stems from the festival of Saturnalia, which was to celebrate the winter solstice. In 354 CE Bishop Liberius of Rome decreed that the festival of Saturnalia would be celebrated on 25th December and has been going on ever since.

How about the ‘immortality of the soul’? Here we need to establish just what God meant by this term in Genesis where it is said, ‘And God breathed life into man and he became a living soul’. At this point we read the word neshamot, from the root word nefesh. This word when correctly translated means ‘to breathe’. Does this mean that man was given an ‘immortal soul’?. Obviously not. Further on we read in the same book, ‘from dust you are and to dust you will return’. Clearly man was not given an ‘immortal soul’. At Ezekiel 18:4 we read ‘the soul that sins it will die’. If we have an ‘immortal soul’ we wouldn’t die.

You may have seen Bishops and Archbishops wearing a Mitre. This is actually ancient fish-worship which came from the Philistines who were a sea-faring nation. Their ‘god’ was Dagon(See Judges 16) who was a fish-god. If you look at a Mitre you’ll see that the top is an open fish’s mouth, and the tail goes at the back.

You have seen Churches with a spire on top. In recent years none have had these, but those that have are, in fact, indulging in ancient sex-worship. The spire is a phallic symbol. It is the same with the holy and the ivy which is associated with Saturnalia. You see people hanging balls around the Christmas tree. This has the same significance. In fact Saturnalia began in Ancient Iran and was called Mithra. All that happened was the Bishops in Rome changed the name from Mithra to Christ in the 4th Century. The kissing under the mistletoe may have something to do with ancient sex-worship. Easter has similar overtones attached to it.

Then we have many Christians who claim to ‘speak in tongues’, which to some extent did have a biblical basis at the time of the first century Christian congregations, but does it today? Highly unlikely. Ask yourself the question, can you miraculously speak and understand a language in about 10 seconds flat? Probably not. At 1 Corinthians 13:8 Paul argues that miraculous gifts will cease. However, many charismatic churches reckon that ANYONE can have ‘the gift of the Holy Spirit’ and be able to ‘speak in tongues’, but is this backed by God? Probably not. In 2 Corinthians 12 it says that, ‘Satan can transform himself into an angel of light’. So do these ‘Christians’ have God’s approval? Today, everyone who needs to communicate with his fellow man must have a tutor to be able to go to that person’s country and converse. It is a well-known fact that the people who ‘speak in tongues’ actually curse God, and do not praise him, thereby contradicting John 4:23.

We also have the Catholic Nuns, Bishops, and even the ‘Pope’, who believe that they must live a celibate life. Is this scriptural? The answer is no. It is true that celibacy is allowed but only if you voluntarily agree. Very few people can live without a partner so the Nuns, Bishops, and the ‘Pope’ himself, can marry. After that, if you both want to abstain from marital relations for awhile, and you both agree, then it is perfectly acceptable. Enforced celibacy is totally wrong and unscriptural.

Catholics believe that James and Jude, the two half brothers to Jesus were his ‘cousins’ The Greek word used is adelphoi meaning ‘brothers’ and not ‘syngesis’ meaning ‘cousins’ or ‘relations’. The apocryphal Acts of Paul and Acts of Peter urge people to abstain from any contact with women, and even urge the apostles to divorce their wives, thus contradicting Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7. Nuns believe that they are married to Jesus, which is a total misconception of what the Jerusalem and Douay versions of the Bible say. Believe it or not, ‘Popes’ and ‘Nuns’ are pagan ideas. Read the book The Two Babylons by A E Hislop.

Here are twenty-plus things that Messiah will do, which Jesus never did.

End all wars

Families to live in perfect harmony

Wild animals will be docile

No more illnesses

No more sorrow

No more death

All Jews returned to their homeland

To include the lost tribes

The graves to give up their dead

All nations to be gathered for judgement

No more sin found amongst Israel

The cities of Israel to be built of precious stone, including Sodom and Gomorrah (at present at the bottom of the Dead Sea)

The divine presence to return to Israel

Joy and peace to return to Jerusalem

All Jews to keep the law

Sacrifices again to be offered up in the Temple

There will be no more idolatry

God’s Kingdom will be established

All nations will worship the true God

The Temple will be rebuilt

The Messiah will be a ruler in Israel.

Missionaries will show numerous passages which are supposed to be ‘linked’ to Jesus, but as you go through the passages, you see that they have nothing whatever to do with him. When you ask the missionaries just what went wrong with the pieces, they’ll either change the subject or they’ll hide behind the so-called ‘second coming’. If Jesus failed in his first attempt why should he be given a second or subsequent attempt?

How will we recognise the Messiah? One comment made by the Rambam (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon) in his Hilchot Melachim chapter 11, states that if a King should arise from the house of David and then go and fight the Torah, he is likely to be the Messiah. Even the Old Testament assures us that all Jews will be back in their homeland one day.

So how can you avoid being converted to Christianity? Read Deuteronomy 10:12-13. Quite a lot of Jews have rarely experienced the real essence of Judaism. Judaism is actually living the Torah, in particular the holidays, and the Sabbath. Zohar 63b says, ‘all the days of the week draw their blessings from the Sabbath’. Jews who are ignorant of Jewish law have been ‘brainwashed’ into accepting that Jesus is really the ‘Messiah’.

According to the Apostle Paul in his writings to the Romans 7:6 and Ephesians 2:15, Jesus freed everyone from the law, but Jesus stated that the law was to time indefinite. If this is so, how could Paul argue that the law is no longer applicable? A quick look at the beginning of Christianity shows that after King Herod the Jews were left under Roman rule. Then, in 70 C.E, there was a rebellion against Rome which led to the destruction of the temple and the Jews went into a long night of exile. Up until 33 C.E. the law was certainly kept, but the Apostles put forward such a good argument that Jesus was Messiah that the law eventually went. Christianity would argue that nine of the Ten Commandments are still applicable, but if that be so why don’t they keep the rest of the law?

According to the Talmud Ha’Yerushalmi [Jerusalem Talmud] there were several groups of Essenes, each one believing that their interpretation of the Bible was right. We have the Qurams, which are known from the Dead Sea scrolls. There were the Nazarenes, which can be read about in the New Testament. The Qurams had ‘tribal heads’ (1Q Samuel 1:27-2:1), and also ‘elders’. They were forever arguing with the Sadducees, and were looking for a military ruler. However, the only branch of the Essenes that seemed to have got anywhere was the Nazarenes, whose leader was Jesus son of Joseph. He later became, according to Christianity, Jesus Christ, or Jesus the Messiah. He became the founder of the Christians today.

There was conflicting hatred amongst the various branches of the Essenes. The Qurams did teach love for everyone according to his light, unlike the Christians who, according to Matthew, are to, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’. How many Christians do you know today who live by that philosophy? The Qurams did also teach love for everyone according to God’s design (see The Dead Sea Scrolls in English by Geza Vermes, Penguin Books, 1971). The Nazarenes did their share of hating. You only have to look at Matthew 10:34 to see one of the most vindictive statements ever! The Nazarenes interpreted the law their way and the Jews of that time were never impressed (cf. Mark 7:1-3, Matthew 12:11, 19:19). They even had their own calendar, which meant that the holidays were observed a lot earlier. For example, the last supper was observed a day earlier than anyone else, why? (See Matthew 26:17-20, Luke 22:7-13, John 19:14).

Many sects had their own leader. The Sadducees had Zadok and the Nazarenes took their title from the town their leader came from. The Zealots believed that their leader was the Messiah. He was Menachem of Galilee. Of course, we know which ‘Messiah’ won. Each one believed that they would win new converts and, in the case of the Nazarenes, they actually won. Some 35% of the world’s population belong to this sect in one form or another. They spend millions of pounds every year promoting Jesus Christ, yet there are too many faults from Jewish and historical points of view to make it possible for him to be the Moshiach (Messiah).

Let’s consider who wrote most of the New Testament. Paul, who was originally Saul of Tarsus, had a predominantly Greek upbringing, yet he claimed to be a student of Rabbi Gamliel. He surpassed all Jews by his ancestral traditions (Galatians 1:14). He was bought up as Pharisee, so can we accept these writings? All those who have accepted Jesus as the Moshiach (Messiah) would. But could a Pharisee be bought up in a Hellenistic City? Rabbi Ishmael comments on this in the Talmud in ‘Avodah Zerah’ 8a, by saying the Israelites who dwell outside the city, commit idol worship unwittingly.

According to Paul (Romans 7:9), he never lived by the law. He was far more conversant with Greek and showed this through his writings that he had a full Greek upbringing. It is highly unlikely that a Pharisee would bring up his children this way. The Talmudic book Bava Kama 82b states, ‘Cursed be the man who teaches his son Greek’. Paul claimed to be a student of Rabbi Gamliel yet, when he quotes from scripture, it is from Greek because, in fact, he knew very little Hebrew. It is absurd to think that a rabbi would let a student who couldn’t speak Hebrew into his academy. So how could Paul justify that he was a student of this rabbi? He claims to be a Jew trying to win Jews (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:20; Acts 28:28).

What can we conclude about this character Paul? He was obviously looking for the truth and read the scriptures widely in Greek. You’ll find Greek translations of the Bible totally inconsistent with Hebrew translations. Greek-speaking Jews had trouble with the Hebrew scriptures but they came to terms with that. Paul pointed out that although the law had God’s gracious mercy, it need not be kept (Romans 4:1-5:7). This isn’t a logical reason, but it didn’t bother Paul. Paul couldn’t deny that the law existed, because he stated in his book to the Romans that he would never sin if were not for the law. However, he said that the law was only a temporary arrangement and that Jesus son of Joseph had fulfilled it. According to the apocryphal book Barnabas (9:4), Satan had blinded the Jews in keeping the law and God had never intended for the law to be kept. Paul retains the principles of the law that suited the Hellenistic thinkers of the day but not, of course, the Hebrew scholars. Paul also says that Abraham never kept the law (Romans 4:13), yet Genesis 26:5 says otherwise. Paul also argues that the law bought man into awareness of sin and that man can’t achieve his objectives through the law. If you look at Psalms 119; 18; 47; 92; 97; 142 and Ecclesiastes 12:13 you will see that this isn’t so. Paul argues that the law is an imprisonment and a curse (Romans 7:7-9; 9:31-10:4; Galatians 3:10,22,23).

Certain groups have started up organisations like ‘Jews for Jesus’ which seek to entice Jewish people to believe that Jesus ben Yosef is the Moshiach (Messiah). In fact, in certain areas they dress as Chassidim, and have their own meeting places. If we haven’t accepted Jesus for so long why should we accept him now? Clearly the answer to accepting him must be a resounding, ‘NO’. The missionaries will argue that we need his ransom sacrifice to atone for our sins.

Firstly, why should his blood be any different to anyone else’s, and there again the Mosaic law was in force at that time, and therefore we need to ask the question, where did the High Priest offer up HUMAN sacrifices in the Temple? On top of which, Christians have the biggest pagan belief anywhere, based on John 4:13. In Matthew 1:1 we see that Jesus was born of some supernatural power but later on you’ll see that he was born from an adulterous affair. Also, Matthew’s account gives an angel foretelling his birth. Then we have Luke’s account (1:31) of him being born in a different way. Does this mean that he was born twice? The whole idea is based on Graeco-Roman mythology. In fact both Dionysus and Hercules were born from ‘gods’ to earthly mothers. Why should mankind have to go through Jesus ben Yosef to reach God, when Deuteronomy 4:39 says otherwise. Clearly anyone doing the opposite must be guilty of idol worship.

The whole concept of the Messiah has been going on for the last 4,500 years or so, in fact ever since the first exile in Babylon, and possibly beyond. Along with the biblical pieces which are supposed to be ‘linked’ to Jesus, and if they are read properly, you’ll clearly see that they are not.

JEREMIAH 31:31-34 From this the missionaries claim that the old covenant was abolished, and a new one given. If this is so, why do Christians still use 66 books of the Bible? Many would say that the Old Testament is for the historical background, which seems somewhat hypocritical, to say the least. It couldn’t have been a new covenant because verse 34 says that ‘they will all know me’, i.e. the true God. Everyone knows that the world is far from worshipping the true God, so what went wrong with the Christian interpretation of the whole thing? Christians say that verse 34 will be fulfilled when Jesus comes a second time. Clearly, the ‘second coming’ is borne out of desperation by the Christians, and they had to invent it, because of their errors. If Jesus was a failure the first time, why should he be given a second or subsequent chance? The Old Testament does not back up the so-called ‘second coming’. We can disregard Jesus from this verse.

ISAIAH 53. This is supposed to be ‘linked’ with Matthew 26 and 27. I doubt if it does, as many commentators feel that it has a far greater chance of referring to the Jews who suffered at the hands of the Crusaders or the Nazis centuries later. If you read the whole passage in Hebrew, you’ll see that it has nothing to do with the Messiah whatsoever. Therefore we can disregard Jesus from this passage.

DANIEL 9:24-27. This is probably the most quoted piece by Christians to link it with Jesus. Artaxerxes rose to power in 475 BCE (see Nehemiah 2:1). The commandment to rebuild Jerusalem was 20 years later, 455 BCE. The Christians multiply this by 360, then divide it by 365.25, and end up with 32 CE. There is just one problem. Jesus was executed 14th Nisan 33 CE, so where has the missing ‘week’ gone? Christians say that it will be fulfilled when Jesus comes a second time but, as I’ve already explained, the Old Testament doesn’t back the ‘second coming’. This is why the Jews were never impressed by the Christian interpretation of this piece. If you read the whole piece without the twists the Christians put in, you’ll see that Jerusalem was to be laid waste in 70 CE some many weeks off. The Hebrew Calendar exceeds the Gregorian calendar by 30 days every three years or so. If you look at a Hebrew Bible you’ll see that Daniel was referring to King Cyrus (see Ezra 1:1, 7:1; Isaiah 45:1 and Daniel 1:1-6). Daniel was using the Hebrew word ‘Moshiach’, which means ‘anointed’ and not, as the Christians think, ‘Messiah’. If Jesus was Moshiach why was it that in Luke 8:40-55 he raised a girl from the dead, and told only a few? Surely Messiah is for EVERYONE. Why the obscurities? Clearly he isn’t the subject of this piece.

PSALM 22. Jesus did call out ‘Eli Lama sabachthani’ when he was being executed (Matthew 27:46) but many commentators feel that it was referring to the Jews being executed centuries later rather than to Jesus ben Yosef. In fact verse 17 refers to the millions of people who are starving today. The Christians have put in a word which doesn’t exist in Hebrew, ‘ka’ari’ which is supposed to mean ‘pierced’. If you read the whole thing in Hebrew, you’ll see that it has nothing to do with Jesus.

Micah 5:1,2. There were thousands of children born in Bethlehem at that time. Micah also says ‘but for you shall go forth’, and Christians say that Jesus existed before Adam. It is far better to say that it refers back to Samuel 17:12. In Matthew and Luke we have two genealogies, and Christians state that the Messiah had to come BEFORE 70 CE to prove his lineage, but anyone around at that time could have done the same thing. Therefore Yehoshuah isn’t the subject here.

DEUTERONOMY 18:15-18. Jesus never communicated directly with God as Moses did. It says that the prophet will die and, true, Jesus did die, but not for the reasons which Deuteronomy states. In Acts 3:22-24 it mentions that Samuel was a Prophet. You have to remember that Christians don’t keep the law, because their ‘Messiah’ abolished the law according to Paul’s writings at Ephesians 2:14,15 Therefore he isn’t the subject here.

PSALM 110. Christians say that this is definitely to do with Jesus, because he sits at God’s right hand and is called ‘Lord’. There are several things to highlight here. Firstly, the Angels who visited Abraham were also called ‘Lord’. Next it says, ‘A Psalm of David’, so who was David’s master? Jesus son of Joseph? Considering that Jesus came centuries after David, it is highly unlikely that this is so. The Hebrew text uses ‘L’Adonai’, meaning ‘my master’ and, considering Jesus came centuries later, he is not the subject here. The Talmud comments on this by saying that the Psalm is referring to the father of the Jews, Abraham. The psalm is also referring to Melchizedek (see Genesis 14:18). Overall, we can disregard Jesus from this piece.

ISAIAH 7:14. Here we go with the ‘Virgin Birth Theory’. Firstly, nowhere did virgins give birth to children. The Hebrew word used in Isaiah is ‘alma’ meaning a young girl or maiden. Secondly if that sort of thing is going to be allowed, what is the point of men, and why didn’t God abrogate ALL the laws? In fact, he strictly prohibited fornication and adultery. Isaiah mentions that the child’s name would be called ‘Immanuel’, so why was it changed to Jesus? The sign was given to King Ahaz telling him not to worry about the invading armies, and that his son would be called ‘Immanuel’. Why did Christians ‘invent’ the virgin birth theory? The probable answer is that the pagan gentile nations were about to reject Jesus when Paul put forward such a good argument that they changed their minds. Therefore Jesus isn’t the subject here. Honest Christian scholars have now admitted that at Isaiah 7:14 is a pious fraud, and have corrected the idea.

ISAIAH 46:6. Christians say from this verse that man is condemned to sin and can only be redeemed by the blood of Jesus son of Joseph. Firstly, the law was still in force at his time. Then again the high priest never ever offered up HUMAN sacrifices to God. Only animal sacrifices were offered up in the Temple. If he was guilty of some crime, why then wasn’t he tried according to Jewish law, rather than the Temple officials? The timing of his death is out, because the Temple didn’t fall until 70 CE, and everyone agrees that he was dead anyway. If we are like ‘filthy rags’ we only have to read Deuteronomy 30.8:14 to see that we can obtain forgiveness. Learn your Hebrew, and you’ll have fun with those who try to convert you!

PSALM 2:7. Clearly, God was referring to David who wrote the Psalm. Not all the Psalms were written in Hebrew. Quite a lot were written in Aramaic. In fact, God was referring to David in a metaphorical sense. This psalm parallels Psalm 89:2-8 which says that ‘he will have control over the heathen’, but the Romans had control over Jesus.

ISAIAH 11:1,2. Missionaries will argue that verses 1-5 are to do with Yehoshuah, and the rest will come about at his second coming, which we have seen isn’t justified. It says that the ‘wolf will dwell with the lamb’, but this hasn’t come about at all. If Jesus was a failure the first time, why then should he be given a second or subsequent attempt? Clearly Jesus isn’t the subject here.

JEREMIAH 23:5. Jesus isn’t the subject there, because it mentions King David and, according to John 3:16, God is suppose to be Jesus’ father and God doesn’t come from any tribe. Jeremiah states that Judah will be saved and that Messiah will be called ‘the Lord our righteous’. As Yehoshua didn’t do any of these, we can disregard him from this piece.

ZECHARIAH 9:9. Missionaries argue that this is definitely to with Jesus. But there were thousands of people riding into Jerusalem at that time. It is far better to say that this piece is referring to the people thousands of years later.

ISAIAH 9:6. This is supposed to be linked with John 10:22-38, 5:16-26, Matthew 16:13-17 etc. Isaiah states that the Messiah will be called ‘wonderful counsellor, mighty ruler, prince of peace’ but you only have to look at Matthew 10:34, to see the most vindictive statement ever. Jesus was never ever any of these. Isaiah 7:14 says that Messiah will be called ‘Immanuel’, so why was his name changed to Jesus? Jesus never claimed to be a ‘god’ or his own father. Jesus never bought peace to the world.

PSALM 11:22. Missionaries argue that Jesus became the ‘refused stone’ and ‘the head’ of their religion. The psalm is a letter of thanks and not a messianic prophecy. Could it be a reference to King David (see 1 Samuel 16:1-12) or some in the future figure like Hitler? Either way it has nothing to do with Jesus.

PSALM 69:21. Missionaries see this as definitely to with Jesus, as this is what they gave him to drink on the stake. It would be far better to say that the Psalm is referring to the starving people of today, rather than Jesus. If Jesus was guiltless, how could it be referring to him? The Psalm isn’t messianic at all.

GENESIS 49:10. According to the Christians, Jesus is the only one who claimed to be ‘Messiah’ before 70 CE, and the sceptre was removed before the kings of Yehudah [Judah] ended with the destruction of the Temple in 586 BCE (see 2 Kings 24:12-20; 25:1-11). Since the second temple we haven’t had any kings. We had the high priests, then the Maccabees, then Herod, who wasn’t a Jew at all. Isn’t it somewhat stupid that Jesus should claim to be ‘Messiah’ thousands of years after the sceptre had departed from Yehudah? The sceptre had to be given to the tribe of Yehudah. So Yehoshuah isn’t the subject here.

HOSEA 11:1 This is supposed to be when Jesus was taken into Egypt and called out from there. However verse 2 refers to idol worship. If you accept the Talmud, which believers in Jesus don’t, then verse 2 is applicable. However as Jesus didn’t commit any ‘idol worship’ as the Missionaries believe, then we can disregard him from this piece.

ISAIAH 61:1,2 Again Jesus doesn’t fit the bill here either. It says ‘The prisoners will be released from captivity’ and the like. Jesus never released anyone from any prison. So he can be disregarded here as well.

ISAIAH 9:1,2. Isaiah mentions ‘joy’, etc. If he was ‘Messiah’ which so far he hasn’t been, where then is the ‘joy’ in the world. After all only about 35% of the world believed he was ‘Messiah’. So he doesn’t fit in here either.

PSALM 69:9. This doesn’t ‘link’ to Jesus either. Firstly David wrote the Psalm and, secondly, it says ‘I became a stranger to my brothers’. Everyone at the time of Jesus knew him. It also says that he bore ‘Insults’. As far as anyone can ascertain, no one ever insulted Jesus at all. Therefore he isn’t the subject here.

CHRONICLES 17:11-14. Jesus was never a King in Israel. Verse 10 mentions about ‘subduing your enemies’. Jesus never did this either. It goes on to say about ‘establishing his Kingdom’ (See Daniel 2:44). Clearly Jesus never did this.

I now come to the Talmudic commentaries on Jesus son of Joseph, or Jesus Christ, depending on what you like to call him. The Talmud comments on the fact that Mary (Miriam), the mother of this guy, had an adulterous affair with a Roman soldier, but the New Testament states God was his father. Why then would God want to abrogate his laws to suit the teachings of the Christians? Sanhedrin 99a and Shabbat 63b both comment by saying that ‘the messianic era is only different now in respect of the servitude of Israel to the kingdoms’. Also, God will redeem all Jews from persecution, and return them to their homeland. What about the ‘birth pangs’ of Messiah? Both Amos and Isaiah comment that there will be total anarchy when Messiah arrives. Sanhedrin 97a states, ‘with the footsteps of the Messiah, insolence increases, and death will reach a new height’. The Jerusalem Talmud states, ‘In his time, the holy one, blessed be he, will bring the evil inclination on and slaughter the righteous ones, and the wicked ones. To the righteous ones he will be a towering mountain, and to the wicked ones like a strand of hair’. The Gemara makes many comments about those who want to calculate the time of Messiah’s arrival.

I now come to the Talmudic and Mishnaic commentaries on Jesus Christ. The so-called New Testament says Mary had a ‘Virgin Birth’, but in the book of Matthew, 1:19 it is stated that her husband Joseph suspected her of adultery, because he wanted to divorce her. Matthew credits God with being the father of Jesus, which is why Christians lean on Isaiah 7:14.

If the complete life story of Jesus was put into the New Testament, Christianity would fall flat on its face. Sanhedrin 103a says, ‘may we not produce the pupil who disgraces himself like Jesus Christ’.

Now you have the facts. The choice is yours. I have attempted to show that Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah. I emphasise that this was written to not to denounce Christianity in any way, and to keep the missionaries away from those who don’t wish to believe in Jesus. There is nothing wrong with Christians, but Jews don’t want Jesus rammed down their throats.