Jews for Jesus

[The Mad Monk]

CyberShy: Those passages have Jesus claiming to be the Son of God. The bible refers many times to Sons of God who are not God. Jesus was the 'Son of God' in the same way you or I am.

Please provide examples.

[Seeker]

Please read the examples from the links I have posted so I don't have to cut and paste.

You won't agree regardless of what examples I provide, because people tend to believe what they wish were true (it's called 'faith' in prettier language), so I don't see the point in wasting a lot of energy.

[The Mad Monk]

I have read all three of the links you refered to, and looked at other links on that site that I thought would provide some insight to what you said; nowhere can I find the claim that the Bible refers many times to Sons of God who are not God. Neither can I find any such statement in your previous posts in this thread. Are you perhaps refering to some other thread? If so, please link to it, as I haven't even looked at a religious debate here for quite some time.

[Seeker]

For Starters:
Genesis 6:2 there are Sons of God

2 Corinthians 6:18 those who obey the lord are sons of god

In the first example there are many possible senses. This could mean many demigods, or space aliens, or angels. In my opinion, it refers to those of God's people who follow his commands, or simply to Gods people.

The second example can be interpreted in a few ways. In one sense, all mankind are the children of god. In another sense it could refer to JCs promise that his followers would rule jointly with him in Heaven (i.e. 'Know ye not that ye are Gods?') Again, I believe it means 'those who obey the Lord' (are the lords sons)

When Jesus says it, son of God, he could very easily mean that he is a man who has not broken the law of God. (Anyone who obeys the law is a Son of God).
Yes, it is true that he could also mean that he is literally God's only son, and is in fact a God incarnate, walking around in the flesh, but as Rabbi Singer goes on at some length, Jesus never actually makes this claim.

Well there you go, 2 Bible quotes I got in 1 minute, and a link I already gave. Please do your own research if you don't trust me.

[Robert]

Natan:

Christianity is the belief that salvation comes only from belief in Jesus. Judaism is the belief in the truth of the Torah and Talmud. I'd say the Jews for Jesus are way, way, closer to the former than the latter.

Jer 31:31-33:
"31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."

THIS is a part of the judaistic religion. And we, christians and 'Jews for Jesus' believe that this new convenant has created by the coming of Jesus and his final sacrifice. That's thus as close to the Thora / Prophets as possible. The Talmut is NOT a part of the original judaistic religion.

The Messiah was supposed to bring world peace and to refound the Davidic kingdom; Jesus didn't.

He will bring world peace at his 2nd coming
He did refound the kingdom of David, but you expect this kingdom on earth. Of course God's Kingdom is more valuable than David's one. Or do you expect God to be equal to David ?

A true prophet is not supposed to recommend heresy, but Jesus claimed to be a human and God, which is contrary to the teaching of the OT.

explain and quote biblical paragraph

But the prophecies of Isaiah were not fulfilled.

much will be fulfilled at his 2nd coming.
Much others of the prophecies have been fullfilled. Most famous one is Isaiah 53 (a part that most jews have no [good] explanation for)

verse 3-5:
"3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."

The bible, in Deuteronomy, clearly states that the Sages and Priests have the right to interpret these laws, and that whoever opposes the interpretation they decide on is wrong.

the Torah appeared after the destruction of the Temple.
It must be clear that no priest has has been a part of the Torah for that reason. The priests have the right to interpret the laws, but non of the religious leaders at the present of Jesus' life was one of them.

Mostly Isaiah, also, the passage in the Torah "God is not a man . . ." etc.

God is NOT a man, That's right.
But God can take the body of a man.
Like God did when he fought with Jacob, remember....?

Key words "according to the Christians." These are clearly two separate religions, so why pretend otherwise?

that's the keyword indeed.
In the eyes of christians jews are stucked in the first testament and are they blind to the new testament. Same religion though.
I know that the jews think different.

but they've not "always been there" there was a 1500 year or more gap.

that's right.

Firstly, the vital parts of the Talmud were written at the same time or before the Early Christians, and secondly, as I said, deuteronomy clearly gives the sages the right to interpret the law.

I already replied to this. But I forgot to ask the biblical reference, so I can try to go even deeper into this.

The OT gave the Pharisees the right to interpert.

no, it did not. And if it did, did it give the Sadusees this same right ? In that case, how can two groups of people who got the right to interpert the bible contradict each other ?
Both Pharisees as Sadusees were sect and didn't got any right ot interpet the laws of God. Said that, they got for super sure no right to add laws to the laws of God.

Right, in fact, they don't talk about him at all, because he's not the Messiah.

Isaiah 53 seems to be talking about him.
At least I'm sure Isaiah isn't talking about the Messiah you expect to come.

How? He was neither King nor High Priest.

he IS the King of the earth. And he is the great priest, since he brought the final offer. Pherhaps it's not a king or priest in the way you expect a king or a priest. Pherhaps God provides more than your human expections might even think about.........
What else do you expect ? That the Messiah would come and do nothing more but brining offers like all the priests have done all those centuries ? What makes the Messiah more than all those other priests in that case ?

Um, the King is supposed to be from the House of David, the High Priest from the House of Aaron, both use patrilineal descent, so how can you be both? Besides, nowhere in the bible do we see a King who is also a priest, rather, they are always separate positions.

Mary comes from both David and Aaron.
Melchisedek was king and priest at the same time.

The crucifixtion didn't meet any of the standards for the temple sacrifices and besides

Would God need to follow these 'standards' as well ?
You think to tiny about God.

sacrifices were supposed to be continuous - if the prophets had meant that the Messiah would end the sacrifices, they'd have said so, but they meant that he would start them up again, whcih Jesus didn't.

I could reply to this, but I think it's better if you firstly provide the biblical paragaph so I can formulate a better answer (or agree with you if you're right )

So what you're saying is that the evidence that Jesus was the Messiah isn't here yet. Well that's really convincing.

Yes, some prophecies done in the OT are about his 2nd coming. (much of those are repeated in the NT, ie revelations)
Others are about his first appearance, hence Isaiah 53, Micha

The ancient Hebrews always traced descent through the father for tribe/clan purposes - see the episode in Numbers with the son of the Egyptian man and the Israelite woman.

it doesn't say anywhere that this has to be the case.
I just didn't happen in the OT. (it did happen, but it wasn't written down)

Take Paul, he got a roman father and a jewish mother.
He was considered to be a jew among the jews (he even was a pharisee at one moment) while the romans concidered him to be a roman.

Even nowdays, people are concidered to be a jew by the jews if they have at least a jewish mother. Only a jewish father doesn't count.

Zealot

I want to reply to your message, but I don't understand your point of view.

Before I answer, can you please make clear to me:
1. do you think Christ is the Messiah ?
2. do you think Christ is a son of God
3. do you think Christ is The Son of God
4. do you think Christ is God
5. do you think there is a Holy Spirit
6. do you think The Holy Spirit is God

Can I ask you what your religious view is ? You sound like a Jehova witness. You are ? Or are you an atheist, jew, christian ?
You confused me

CyberShy: Those passages have Jesus claiming to be the Son of God. The bible refers many times to Sons of God who are not God. Jesus was the 'Son of God' in the same way you or I am.

John 20:28-29:
"28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed."

Jesus says that everybody who believes that He is their Lord and their God are blessed

[Az]

He did refound the kingdom of David, but you expect this kingdom on earth. Of course God's Kingdom is more valuable than David's one. Or do you expect God to be equal to David ?

well , I really can't say anything about this.

the Torah appeared after the destruction of the Temple.
It must be clear that no priest has has been a part of the Torah for that reason. The priests have the right to interpret the laws, but non of the religious leaders at the present of Jesus' life was one of them.

The Torah appeared before the destruction of the temple . The last part of the Torah dates to around 700 BC . If you mean the old testament, it's still before the destruction of the 2nd temple , at around 200 BC , IIRC, During the Hashmonaim Dynasty , and the alliance with Rome . (yes , who would believe that we were allied to those backstabbing bastards .... )

God is NOT a man, That's right.
But God can take the body of a man.
Like God did when he fought with Jacob, remember....?

errmmm.... that was an angel .oh wait ... Genesis 32 .... the man is right ! It clearly states that Jacob called the place " Pneiel " , "The face of God " , as he believed to see the face of god. ( still it says that a man wrestled all night long with him... on the other hand , that man did say that Jacob battled and won over gods and men alike , but .... , I dunno really.... )

In the eyes of christians jews are stucked in the first testament and are they blind to the new testament. Same religion though.
I know that the jews think different.

errmm , putting my whole "god doesn't exist" belief , I could quite clearly say that Paul has changed a lot of the story .

[The Mad Monk]

You sound like a Jehova witness.

That is my assesment.

Dalgetti, a question:
In your opinion, what part(s) of the story did Paul change?

[Robert]

when I said:

the Torah appeared after the destruction of the Temple.
It must be clear that no priest has has been a part of the Torah for that reason. The priests have the right to interpret the laws, but non of the religious leaders at the present of Jesus' life was one of them

I meant of course 'Talmut' everytime I said Torah.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Zealot

I want to reply to your message, but I don't understand your point of view.

Before I answer, can you please make clear to me:
1. do you think Christ is the Messiah ?
2. do you think Christ is a son of God
3. do you think Christ is The Son of God
4. do you think Christ is God
5. do you think there is a Holy Spirit
6. do you think The Holy Spirit is God

Can I ask you what your religious view is ? You sound like a Jehova witness. You are ? Or are you an atheist, jew, christian ?
You confused me

1. Yep
2. Yep
3. Yep
4. Nop
5. Yep
6. Nop


Well, I was going to, but seeing Monk's post made me think wether I'm been given too much attention or not. Speculation has started, and next flame wars might begin. I don't want that. I'm not here to convert anyone. I don't like to be ignored, but I don't want anyone here to think that I'm being told to say these things or any nonsence like that. So I won't say if I'm in those options.

Switching to PM mode.

BTW, did any of you read Proverbs 8:22 to the end of the chapter like I told to?

[Robert]

4. Jesus (Christ) is God:

John 20:28-29:
"28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed."

Jesus says that everybody who believes that He is their Lord and their God are blessed.

I have to lookup for phrases that make clear that the Holy Spirit is God.

CyberShy

Ps. About your pm...... that survey is exactly what I needed to know from you. Thanks. (you're a jehova witness ?)

[Robert]

The Holy Spirit is God:

Hbr 10:15-16
"Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; "

Acts 5:3-4 ..."you have lied to the Holy Spirit...you have not lied to man but to God."

[Az]

The Mad Monk:

The whole Pauline story seems to target the Jewish religious establishment , while sometimes there is nothing to explain it .

for example , the story generally says that it was the Sanhedrin that sentenced Jesus to death , while Pilat , is described as quite humane , even trying to save Jesus , and only caving in to pressure by the "crowd", in my opinion to try and get the roman population closer to christianity.

if the Sanhedrin would sentence him to death , he would be stoned , that was the capital punishment those days by hebrew law. Crucifiction was clearly a Roman punishment.

also Jesus was supposedly taken off the cross . This is also contradictible to logic since the whole purpose of crucifiction was to let the man die a terrible death , only to be eaten by animals and rot later. This was clearly a prelude to the story of the revival of Jesus.

There are plenty more examples , I can't remember now.

[Robert]

the story generally says that it was the Sanhedrin that sentenced Jesus to death , while Pilat , is described as quite humane , even trying to save Jesus , and only caving in to pressure by the "crowd", in my opinion to try and get the roman population closer to christianity.

if the Sanhedrin would sentence him to death , he would be stoned , that was the capital punishment those days by hebrew law. Crucifiction was clearly a Roman punishment.

I think it's pretty cruel to allow someone innocent to be crucified while you're sure he's innocent ! This shows that Pilatus only had one goad: saving his image among the jews, so the emperor would hear how satisfied the jews were with their prefect.
I really can't find any positive spot about Pilatus. Of course he didn't concider Jesus to be guilty. He didn't care about the jewish religion, and didn't find anything else that would require such a punishment. But eventhough he couldn't come up with any reason to crucify Jesus, he gave Him over to be crusified anyway. And you concider that to be 'humane' ??

The Sanhedrin did sentence Jesus to death, but since the jews weren't allowed to punish people with death they had to consult the Roman prefect. It was a roman punishment indeed for that reason.

also Jesus was supposedly taken off the cross . This is also contradictible to logic since the whole purpose of crucifiction was to let the man die a terrible death , only to be eaten by animals and rot later.

as you can read in the bible, the jewish leaders asked for the bodies to be removed because of the most important religious day the day after. Pilatus again wanted to satisfy the jews, thus he agreed. In fact he couldn't care less what happened with Jesus (and the others) but if he could satisfy the public opinion....... oh well, no problem.

It's a big example of the corrupt roman prefects during the Roman ages.

There are plenty more examples , I can't remember now.

Try to remember

CyberShy

[Zealot]

Originally posted by CyberShy
4. Jesus (Christ) is God:

John 20:28-29:
"28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed [are] they that have not seen, and [yet] have believed."

Jesus says that everybody who believes that He is their Lord and their God are blessed.

No, He doesn't! How can you distort such thing?!? Jesus says that who believes that He ressurected without seeing it with their own eyes will be blessed! And don't forget that I never said that Jesus wasn't created like a God.

Originally posted by CyberShy
Ps. About your pm...... that survey is exactly what I needed to know from you. Thanks. (you're a jehova witness ?)

Are you trolling me, Cyber?
You say that you already know exactly what you want from me, and then you ask me if I'm a member of a certain religion...
What I'm about to do is just to show with Biblic excerpts why is wrong to think that Christ is the same as God. FROM the BIBLE, not learned at church or anything.

Originally posted by CyberShy
Hbr 10:15-16
"Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; "

Riiiiiight...

How convenient! Gee Cyber, why did you "forget" to paste verses 10 to 14, so that people can understand the context?
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

When God's Kingdom on Earth is reestablished, Jesus will be this new people's king, and these people are willing to follow God's laws. The Holy Ghost (the word of God, or maybe in this case, the angels) will be his witness that this will occur.

Originally posted by CyberShy
Acts 5:3-4 ..."you have lied to the Holy Spirit...you have not lied to man but to God."

When you lie to an "emissary" or messenger, you're in fact just lying to the "sender", aren't you?


Look Cyber, let me get a little more objective, in order not to make any mess in your mind. I will paste two excerpts from the Bible, and I think that they prove beyond doubt that there is the Al-mighty God, creator of the universe, and His powerful helper, considered by God His son.
Look at Philippians 2:

3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

I think that this excerpt is pretty clear, and shows how much Jesus is powerful, and that He has sovereignty upon us, but it does not say that He always had this exaltation, but it was provided upon Him by the Father! And, more importantly, there's nowhere in the Bible that Jesus should worshipped/glorified. Only the Father.


Now this excerpt of Proverbs 8:

22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:
26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;
31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.
32 Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways.
33 Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.
34 Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors.
35 For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD.
36 But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.

Can you possibly not say that this is God's first Creation speaking?

Sorry for this long post, but it seems that nobody is really willing to go read in his own Bible, so I better paste it. This way if someone ignores what I wrote, I'll just ignore what he posts!

And I really want to bail out of this thread. It far too time-consuming. "PM me" if you want anything from me, ok?


Edit: Hum, let me add this one before I go:
John 3:

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

[Natan]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Natan:
Jer 31:31-33:
"31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

First objection: Jesus did not make a covenant with the Jews, he just preached to everyone.

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

It could just as well be said that this was fulfilled by Ezra as by Jesus. See Ezra chapter 10

33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."

Not yet fulfilled.

THIS is a part of the judaistic religion. And we, christians and 'Jews for Jesus' believe that this new convenant has created by the coming of Jesus and his final sacrifice.

This is where you start to differ from Judaism. Furthermore, you do not follow the laws of the Torah, whose observance was always encouraged by these same prophets who you claim fortold the coming of Jesus who abrogated the law.

That's thus as close to the Thora / Prophets as possible. The Talmut is NOT a part of the original judaistic religion.

It's a whole lot closer then the NT.

He will bring world peace at his 2nd coming

So what you're saying is that he is the Messiah but there is no proof of it.

He did refound the kingdom of David, but you expect this kingdom on earth. Of course God's Kingdom is more valuable than David's one. Or do you expect God to be equal to David ?

If God meant "I won't set up David's Kingdom again, but I'll do some other cool stuff" he'd have said it, but in fact he said he would refound David's kingdom and reunite the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin with the 10 lost tribes. (Ezekiel 37)

explain and quote biblical paragraph

Deuteronomy 13 - one who recommends the worship of foriegn gods is not a true prophet - yet Jesus claims to be God.

much will be fulfilled at his 2nd coming.
Much others of the prophecies have been fullfilled. Most famous one is Isaiah 53 (a part that most jews have no [good] explanation for)

verse 3-5:
"3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were [our] faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."

If you look at the context and read closely, this is clearly reffering to the people of Israel, not to Jesus - this passage is setup by reffering to “my servant”(and not “myself”), and indeed, many of the passages make no sense in terms of Jesus - in the same chapter, this man is promised long life, which would be absurd since Jesus had a short life, and besides, why should God promise himself anything?
Chapter 53 is clearly divided into two sections, the first spoken by a group, and the second, beginning around verse 9 or 10, spoken by God. There is no reason to assume that the first is spoken by the Jews reffering to Jesus rather than the nations of the world refering to Israel - especially since Jacob/Israel (they’re the same guy) is often called “my servant” in the bible.

the Torah appeared after the destruction of the Temple.

And that’s why they explicitly state that Moses wrote them?

It must be clear that no priest has has been a part of the Torah for that reason.

Why? I refer you to Deuteronomy chapter 17, verses 8-11 - the Priests are clearly given the right to intepret the Torah.

The priests have the right to interpret the laws, but non of the religious leaders at the present of Jesus' life was one of them.

Firstly, the teacher’s of the law are given the same right, and furthermore, the Priests were very much there - the sons of Aaron and identifiable to this day through a genetic marker, and in fact, they were still offering sacrifices in the Temple in Jesus’s time.

God is NOT a man, That's right.
But God can take the body of a man.
Like God did when he fought with Jacob, remember....?

Where does Genesis say that Jacob fought with God and not an angel? And isn’t it your belief that Jesus combined divine and human nature?

no, it did not. And if it did, did it give the Sadusees this same right ? In that case, how can two groups of people who got the right to interpert the bible contradict each other ?

The Saducees had already lost their right to interpret the law by rejecting previous judgements of the sages. In cases of legitimate disagreement, the majority was to decide, as it did in the Sanhedrin for centuries.

Both Pharisees as Sadusees were sect and didn't got any right ot interpet the laws of God. Said that, they got for super sure no right to add laws to the laws of God.

They didn’t, they just created certain extra rules which they clearly distinguished from the Torah rules.

Isaiah 53 seems to be talking about him.
At least I'm sure Isaiah isn't talking about the Messiah you expect to come.

As I said, Isaiah is talking about the Jews in general, personified by Israel their father.

he IS the King of the earth. And he is the great priest, since he brought the final offer.

He wasn’t annointed as either, and he did not fill either position. In fact, he ended the animal sacrifices, while the prophets speak of contuing these sacrifices.

Pherhaps it's not a king or priest in the way you expect a king or a priest. Pherhaps God provides more than your human expections might even think about.........
What else do you expect ? That the Messiah would come and do nothing more but brining offers like all the priests have done all those centuries ? What makes the Messiah more than all those other priests in that case ?

The Messiah is supposed to perfect the world and bring eternal peace. Part of that is obedience to God’s laws, including the sacrifices.

Mary comes from both David and Aaron.

1) How is she descended from Aaron?
2) Priesthood was clearly derived from the paternal line(Numbers 27), and no man could be of two tribes - both Levi and Judah.

Melchisedek was king and priest at the same time.

He was neither King nor Priest of Israel, since the nation did not yet then exist and the Torah had not yet been given. Assuming that you are reffering to the Melchizedek of Genesis here.

Would God need to follow these 'standards' as well ?
You think to tiny about God.

Numbers 23: “God is not a man, that he should lie, nor the son of man, that he should repent. When he has said, will he not do? When he has spoken, will he not fulfill?”

I could reply to this, but I think it's better if you firstly provide the biblical paragaph so I can formulate a better answer (or agree with you if you're right )

See Ezekiel Chapter forty and on - he foresaw a rebuilt temple.

it doesn't say anywhere that this has to be the case.
I just didn't happen in the OT. (it did happen, but it wasn't written down)

No you see the importance of the Talmud to supplement the OT.
But it is written down - In Numbers 2, and throughout the Torah, the Jews are counted “by their father’s houses.” This is also the reason converts are distinguished from native Jews in the OT but not in modern times - since inheritance went through the father, the descendants of a male convert would always be landless. Another proof: Jacob had 12 sons and a daughter, and each son has at least one tribe (in Joseph’s case two) sons descended from him and named after him, while no tribe is associated with his daughter Dina.

Take Paul, he got a roman father and a jewish mother.
He was considered to be a jew among the jews (he even was a pharisee at one moment) while the romans concidered him to be a roman.

That’s not so surprising. The Romans did not use the Torah system of inheritance. So what?

Even nowdays, people are concidered to be a jew by the jews if they have at least a jewish mother. Only a jewish father doesn't count.

Right, but for tribe purposes, the reverse was true.