Part of this blindness is our fault; centuries of persecution have a way of making a person reject another's truth-claim out of hand.
I don't believe this blind-spot means the Jews are always wrong regarding their interpretation of the Tanakh, and I do in fact believe that the rabbis have uncovered many truths that we've overlooked. That's why I like to read them. But tell me, if the Jewish people are pure and have an unblemished record in understanding their own Scriptures, why was Isaiah 53 universally attributed by the rabbis to the Messiah until the Middle Ages, when suddenly they changed the interpretation to make it less Christian? (And if you don't believe me on that one, go do some homework and see if you can disprove that from a primary source.)
Both sides are guilty of missing the point, more often than not. Both sides have spent centuries defining themselves by what the other is not rather than what is written in Scripture. Both sides have been guilty of annuling the Word of God by their human traditions. And in case you hadn't noticed, I go after my Christian brothers far more often than I do my Jewish ones--because I believe in cleaning one's own house up before condemning another's.
With all respect, I think the real thing which bothers you is that you personally abandoned Yeshua for the teachings of the rabbis, and it makes you uncomfortable to see Him in the Torah and the oldest traditions of the Jewish people.
Your argument by outrage rings hollow, because there is no substance to it. If there is something specific which I have written that is incorrect--for example, if you thought me incorrect that the Talmud predicts the coming of the Messiah on Rosh Hashanah--then you are welcome to point that out and present your counter-argument and evidence. But simply saying that I'm wrong because you don't personally like my conclusions or going the, "How dare you say the Jews are wrong about anything!" route proves nothing and does not further the discussion in any way.
And finally, you're playing the hypocrite. You run around calling Christianity a Mithraic cult, but get all offended if someone offers the least criticism of modern Judaism. Don't dish out what you can't take.
I like you, Invinc, I really do. I consider you a brother, though I know you don't feel the same about me. And I've appreciated your jumping in on my side of a number of threads. And I also appreciate your sensitivity on Jewish issues--God knows that the Jews historically have enough reasons to be suspcious of Christians. But getting offended at someone who is showing why Jews who happen to believe that Yeshua is the Messiah should stay Jews and why the Gentiles should rejoice in the Torah instead of despising it is just plain silly, and amounts to cutting off your nose to spite your face.
L'shanah tova tikatevu.
For the Noahide; animals, birds, and fish may be killed for food in any way that man deems to be efficient and it should be done as humanely as possible. For the Noahide, the non-Jewish believer, slaughtering of animals or birds does not have to be in a ritual manner as with Jews. But this was a Commandment which had to be enforced and taken up by the non-Jews voluntarily if the Jew was to partake of the food at any table fellowship with non-Jews. Again this was voluntary and is a perfect example of “choosing those things that please God” as instructed of non-Jews in Isaiah 56. The non-Jews might not have been given such a commandment but if they were to share table fellowship with Jews then it was up to them to voluntarily take upon themselves those commandments requiring ritual slaughter if fellowship with their Jewish brethren was to ensue. Remember that such table fellowship is the example and rehearsal of the Marriage Supper where both peoples of God; both Jew and non-Jew share in the “supper” of God!
This is where we begin to encounter problems in the Antioch incident and why the men from James began to rebuke Paul for the manner of table fellowship which was being practiced in his congregation. The Jews had no options: either be excluded or compromise their Covenant and Commandments and sin! The men from James discerned that the table fare, which had come from the Gentile market-place had not been prepared, ritually slaughtered, drained of all blood, and most likely not tithed of, which was required by the Covenant and Laws of Moses. Even Peter and Barnabas and other Jews in the congregation had been misled by such practices as condoned under the auspices of being "in Christ" and "becoming all things to all men that they might win some". There were certain procedures involved in the killing of the animal which was commanded to be done in as merciful a manner as possible before the animal was considered "kosher" for consumption by the Jew. The practice of such relaxation of such commandments was not acceptable to the men from Jerusalem and nor it should be.
Lol. I'm sure its more settling for you to assume this. Yet if I could, as you do, see him in the Torah. (seeing him in the oldest Jewish traditions is your leap of faith) why would I have abandoned belief in his deity? Oh ya thats right if I'm not blinded and deaf there must be something sinister afloat. There's an attitude that's brand new. /sarcasm. You may parade around these thread in front of Protestants and Catholics wearing your Kepha but your attitude toward Jews is in reality not much different at all.