Another major problem with Christianity from a Jewish perspective is the claim that the Tanakh predicted jesus through prophecies that, when read in their actual context, do not say what Christianity claims they say. Take Isaiah 7:14 the passage concerns a sign given to King Ahaz in the context of a political crisis during his own lifetime, and the Hebrew word almah means a young woman, not specifically a virgin. In fact, Isaiah goes on to actually use the word virgin twice after this, yet uses ha almah meaning the woman present at that moment was pregnant. The passage does not explicitly predict a virgin birth centuries later when ahaz wouldn't be alive to witness the sign. Then there's Hosea 11:1, where HaShem says"Out of Egypt I called My son." Read the context Hosea is talking about Israel's exodus from Egypt, not predicting a future messiah returning from Egypt as a child. Christians apply these passages to jesus, but that application is not what the original passages explicitly say. The same issue arises with Psalm 22: the suffering described in the psalm does not explicitly identify jesus or announce that the messiah will be crucified. And nowhere does the Tanakh lay out the Christian doctrine that the Messiah must die, rise from the dead three days later, and thereby establish a new religion. These are central Christian beliefs, but the question is whether they are actually stated in the Tanakh or read back into it through the New Testament. From a Jewish perspective, a later interpretation cannot automatically turn a passage about Israel, a historical king, or the suffering of a righteous person into a prophecy about jesus. If Christianity claims its foundations were already written in the Tanakh, then those claims should stand on the Hebrew text in its original context, not depend on interpretations that only make sense after accepting Christianity. One more important point The original Hebrew text uses the four-letter Divine Name (the Tetragrammaton) which Jewish tradition treats with great reverence and commonly refers to as HaShem, meaning "The Name" English translations often render this Name as "the LORD" while Christian translations and teaching sometimes read passages containing it through the theological framework of jesus and the Trinity. That distinction matters: the Hebrew text's use of the Divine Name does not, by itself, identify jesus as HaShem or establish the trinity. Those are theological interpretations, not the literal meaning of the Name. Replacing the Divine Name with a translation is not automatically deceptive, but using a translation or later interpretation to imply that the Hebrew text explicitly teaches a doctrine it never states is something readers should examine carefully.

Vote Republican to make sure America stays America.