I had a Jewish friend say this to me and I have written this article in response to his objections..

++++++++++++++++++

 I believe that the biggest difference is that the Christians believe that God was made incarnate in man. For us as Jews, the concept of God
"becoming" a man or having a son through a virgin by the Holy Spirit are concepts that are totally alien and foreign to us. A divine Messiah is never mentioned in the Tanakh. What we pray for is an earthly human being descended from David ha-Melekh who will be chosen by God Almighty as the "Mashiah" (or as you spell it according to the Ashkenazi (east European Jewish) way "Moshiach").
+++++++++++++++++

Theological objections to Jesus by Rabbinical authorities have so repeatedly attacked the same areas as to become stereotyped. These will usually center on the question of virgin birth, the claim of Yahshua (Messiah) to be the Son of God, and the fact that the Jews cannot believe that a man can become God.

This Messiahship of Yahshua is judged purely based on ***Modern Judaism***, most Jewish Rabbis will say Yahshua could not be the Messiah since Judaism does not recognize a Son of God to begin with.

It would be more honest to say Judaism as the Rabbis know it today rather than Biblical Judaism. In the case of Reform Judaism, there would be no Messiah to begin with. The Rabbis mislead simple people into believing there is no divine messiah when for centuries theological Jewish treatments that certainly believe the Messiah to be a Son of God. Had the Rabbis taken an early exposition of Psalm 2 and it's rabbinic interpretation then they would have not made such a rash statement.

The old testament which is a basis of Biblical Judaism , did teach that God would have a Son. That Son is the Messiah himself. The issue is not whether the Bible teaches it, and the Tenach certainly teaches it loud and clear.

And of course, Jews cannot believe that any man could become God and that is why they cannot accept Yahshua of Nazareth as Messiah. This is heresy! This goes contrary to Judaism of any form: Biblical, rabbinic or otherwise, and it also goes contrary to Christian faith. Neither the New Testament nor Yahshua ever taught that there was a man who became God.

The New Testament (New covenant) claims the reverse: It was God who became a man in the person of Yahshua of Nazareth. If God became a man, this man would certainly be superior to other men. He would now be God-Man. Certainly Biblical Judaism does not dare claim that God can not become a man if he wanted to. The God of Biblical Judaism is all powerful: God can do anything he wants to. If there is anything God cannot do, he is less than God.

So the real question is "Did God choose to become a man?" Not, "Can He?". The claim is that God became a man. It is amazing how so many rabbinic writings about Yahshua refuse to discuss this very point and insist on discussing how a man can become God.

Other common objections also miss the real point. One such objection is the fact that Yahshua forgave sins, which is something only God can do. Again this is true - only God can forgive sins. But if Jesus is the God-Man, God who became a man, the forgiving of sins would be part of the authority of this God-Man.

Another objection of this nature centres around the fact that Jesus performed His miracles in His own name. This objection, as voiced by one Jewish writer, runs as follows:

The Hebrew prophets too, performed miracles; but they stressed that they did so as God's instruments. When Elijah revived the son of the widow, he did not say that he had wrought that miracles as Yahshua did on similar occasion.

First of all, it might be said that many times Yahshua claimed that He was doing His miracles by the power and authority of the spirit of God. It is true that the prophets did miracles and gave God the credit, but again, Messiah was not going to be just another man or just another prophet. Rabbinic theories taught that the Messiah, because He had the name of God himself, will be able to do things in His own name.

That is why the Messiah kept playing such a prominent role in Rabbinic theology. This is why the Jewish people throughout the centuries before modern liberalism crept into Judaism, continually looked forward to the coming of the Jewish Messiah. The Messiah would have such authority and such power that He would be able to accomplish great things in His own name. Yahshua no doubt did accomplish great things in his own Name. By do so in His own name, he substantiates his Messiahship rather then disproving it.

Let's now look at the fist prophesy of the Messiah in Gen 3:15:

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel."

Messianic prophecy begins as early as the third chapter of the book of Genesis. It is no surprise that the very first Messianic prophecy should occur with in the context of the fall. If sin had not entered the world, there would never have been a need for a redeeming Messiah.

The seed of the woman refers to Christ (the Messiah), and the seed of the Serpent will be the Anti-Christ.

This first Messianic prophecy, declares that the Messiah's descent or genealogy will be reckoned after a woman, not a man. This immediately runs contrary to Biblical norm. There are many genealogies in scripture: beginning with the earliest in Genesis five and ten, through the first nine chapters of 1 chronicles, to Matthew one and Luke three (among many others), virtually all of them are lists of men's names.

Legal descent, national and tribal identity, were always taken from the father, never from the mother (The sole exception to this is found in Ezra 2:61 and Nehemiah 7:63).

It is very rare that a woman's name would be included at all unless she figured very prominently in Jewish history, and even then she would warrant only a passing reference. 

The fact that Moses traced this genealogy through the woman tells us that there will be something very different about the Messiah, something that necessitates tracing his ancestry through his mother, not his father. Moses gives no explanation here, and none will be given for several centuries until the time prophet Isaiah - When he will prophesy (in chapter 7) that Messiah is to be born of a virgin and have no human father.

Genesis 3:15 states that Messiah will crush the head of the Serpent, that is, Satan (Revelation 12:9, 15; 20:2). In the process Satan will manage to wound the heel of Messiah, but will be unable to prevent his own destruction . The bruising of Messiah's heel took place at Yahshua's crucifixion - painful but, in the eternal sense, not fatal. The crushing of the Serpent's head began with Yahshua's death and resurrection, a point made in Hebrews 2:14-18. Romans 16:20 sees the crushing Satan's head as still future and, so, his final destruction will not come until he is thrown into the Lake of Fire, as described in Revelation 20:10.

As well as hinting of the Virgin birth, this verse also emphasizes the humanity of the Messiah. Messiah, the redeemer, will not be angelic nor simply divine, but will be a man. It also lays the groundwork for the Messiah to be the God-Man.

Let's have a look at one such prophecy:

Genesis 4:1
And the man knew Eve his wife, she conceived and bare Cain and said "I have gotten a man: Jehovah".

This is exactly the same sentence construction as the next verse "Again she bare his brother Abel".

Few Bible translators really understand what Eve is saying here, which is why our English translations do not read as given above. Eve has clearly understood from God's word in Genesis 3:15 that the Serpent will be defeated by a God-Man. She obviously thinks that Cain is Yahweh. Her basic theology is correct: Messiah would be both Man and God. Her mistake is in her application of that theology and the timing of it.

She has assumed that Cain, her first child, was the promised God-Man. That she quickly realized her mistake is evident at the birth of Cain's brother whom she names Abel, meaning "Vanity."

It is interesting to note how different Scholars have dealt with this verse at different times. Most English translations read, "I have gotten a man with the help of Jehovah". The words "with the help of" were added by the translators to avoid giving a reading which was unacceptable to them. But the Hebrew does literally read, "I have gotten a man: Yahweh." This is actually the same construction as the Hebrew for the Immediately preceding words, "and she bare: Cain." 

The common English is not based on the Hebrew text but on the Greek Septuagint which reads "through God". This was followed by the Latin Vulgate which also reads "through God".

The Jerusalem Targum, an Aramaic translation, reads, "I have gotten a man: the angel of Jehovah." The rabbis gave a reading which is much closer to the original Hebrew text. The Targum Pseudo-Jonathan reads, "I have gotten for a man the angel of the Lord." Another Aramaic translation is the Targum Onkqelos which says "from before the Lord". 

These Aramaic translations are paraphrases are seeing what the Hebrew is saying and the supernatural implications of it. In Christian theology the Angel of Yahweh is seen as the second person of the triune God.

The Midrash Rabbah (on Genesis 22:2), the Rabbinic commentary on Gen 4:1 "with the help of the Lord".

Rabbi Ishmael asked Rabbi Akiba, "Since you have served Nahum of Gimzo for 22 years and he taught that every ach and rach is a limitation but every et and gam is an extension, tell me what is the purpose of the et here." He replied, "if it is said 'I have gotten a man: the Lord' it would have been difficult to interpret, hence et with the help of the Lord is required. The footnote on page 181 of this Midrash says "it might imply that she had begotten the Lord". 

The Rabbis clearly understood the implications of the construction and so had to make the necessary adjustments in their translation. This shows that attempts are made to get around the obvious.

Abrahamic Faith