"Jesus was a Jew"

[Thomas123]

"Jesus was a Jew"

Isaiah 63:16 "Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting."

Yahweh

The Jesus scriptures rest under the shade of this judaic overlord. Like Isaiah before him, Jesus's reported supplications are made to this focal entity within Judaism. Jesus must therefore be considered as Jewish, not simply by birthright but more fundamentally in both intellectual and outlook conditioning.

"Jesus was a Jew." Please Debate

[Red Wolf]

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'?

Wouldn't a Jew have said.... "Is it not written in OUR Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'?

[Thomas123]

Much has been made of John's use of the term, ' the Jews'.Apparently he uses it 71 times and usually with various degrees of hostility. The same phrase appears much less in the other gospels. Again there is a wealth of written opinion on this matter.

From a personal point of view ,I lay little stock in this disjointed narrative. It is a mixture of miracles and rhetoric and confrontation ending in an escape from a mob bent on stoning the Jesus figure for blasphemy..I cannot extract logic from these writings. Why the depiction of hostility and difference between Jesus and the Jews is a subject for study regarding the John gospel as an entity in itself.

[Thomas123]

Much has been made of John's use of the term, ' the Jews'.Apparently he uses it 71 times and usually with various degrees of hostility. The same phrase appears much less in the other gospels. Again there is a wealth of written opinion on this matter.

From a personal point of view ,I lay little stock in this disjointed narrative. It is a mixture of miracles and rhetoric and confrontation ending in an escape from a mob bent on stoning the Jesus figure for blasphemy..I cannot extract logic from these writings. Why the depiction of hostility and difference between Jesus and the Jews is a subject for study regarding the John gospel as an entity in itself.

[Thomas123]

I would like to repeat the following, in an effort to move towards acceptance of the arguement as stated in the opening post.

The Jesus people were Israelites, if we can agree on this. I do not want to split hairs . They were devout followers of the Yahweh God of the Old Testament.

I welcome further discussion on this subject.

[Thomas123]

I have used the John Gospel myself on this topic, thus leaving myself open to the accusation of cherry picking for convenience which would be a valid point. Let me replace the Samaritan woman reference with this from Matthew 21,when Jesus enters the house of Yahweh to pray.
When the Jesus writings mention God ,they mean,Yahweh, the God of Moses and the God of the Temple in Jerusalem. The simple narrative states that the figure Jesus was overcome with rage at the defilement being done by the sellers.

13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

[FWI]

John didn't mention either Joseph or Mary's lineage, but only that they were from Nazareth.

This isn't quite correct…So, the first thing that needs to be established is the recorded lineage of Joseph and Mary. This is outlined in Matthew and Luke, but specifically (for Joseph) in Matt. 1:20, Luke 1:27 and 2:4. And, specifically (for Mary) through her "relative" Elisabeth in Luke 1:5 and verses 34-38. Hence, it is clearly established that Joseph and Mary were Israelites and not Samaritans! We also can review the words and actions of Pilate in John 19:19: Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews…Where, most know that an Israelite king must be from the tribe of Judah and lineage of King David to be the rightfully appointed king…Interesting though, is the attempt by the chief priests to have this writing changed, but Pilate would have nothing to do with it (verses 20-22)…

Without turning the debate to his actual lineage, it's at the very least possible that the Pharisees didn't know that Jesus was descended of one of the tribes of Judah.

Well, I think the topic introduced and being debated is about the lineage of the Christ…Yet, in John 6:42 it is claimed that Jesus' legal parents (Joseph and Mary) were known by the Jews. We can review John 1:45-49, which is related to the same point. It also must be realized that the Christ enter the Temple of the God in Jerusalem many times and debated the religious leaders concerning several issues. This would not have been permitted of a Samaritan! Which, by the way, had their own temple on Mount Gerizim. So, where is it recorded that the Christ entered that temple?

They may have also been suggesting that being from Nazareth, Jesus was in actual fact a Samaritan.

No! This also isn't true. Nazareth was not in Samaria, but in Galilee (Matt. 21:11, Mark 1:9, Luke 1:26-27 and several verses in John, which reference Nazareth…We also must accept that the bible claims Jesus was born in Bethlehem, thus the birth records would have been recorded there, not in Nazareth. So, the truth is that Mary was from Nazareth, but Joseph was from Bethlehem. This is outlined in Luke 2:1-7.

Therefore, there is no way around the fact that the Christ was born in Bethlehem, resided in Nazareth and other towns in the Galilee region and was the legal son of Joseph and Mary (who were from the tribe of Judah). And, that there is no way he was known as a Samarian, except by the frustrated Jewish religious leaders, who would do anything to try and discredit the Christ among the peoples…Which, is still occurring today.

[Yahwehismywitness]

John didn't mention either Joseph or Mary's lineage, but only that they were from Nazareth.

This isn't quite correct…So, the first thing that needs to be established is the recorded lineage of Joseph and Mary. This is outlined in Matthew and Luke, but specifically (for Joseph) in Matt. 1:20, Luke 1:27 and 2:4. And, specifically (for Mary) through her "relative" Elisabeth in Luke 1:5 and verses 34-38. Hence, it is clearly established that Joseph and Mary were Israelites and not Samaritans! We also can review the words and actions of Pilate in John 19:19: Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews…Where, most know that an Israelite king must be from the tribe of Judah and lineage of King David to be the rightfully appointed king…Interesting though, is the attempt by the chief priests to have this writing changed, but Pilate would have nothing to do with it (verses 20-22)…

Without turning the debate to his actual lineage, it's at the very least possible that the Pharisees didn't know that Jesus was descended of one of the tribes of Judah.

Well, I think the topic introduced and being debated is about the lineage of the Christ…Yet, in John 6:42 it is claimed that Jesus' legal parents (Joseph and Mary) were known by the Jews. We can review John 1:45-49, which is related to the same point. It also must be realized that the Christ enter the Temple of the God in Jerusalem many times and debated the religious leaders concerning several issues. This would not have been permitted of a Samaritan! Which, by the way, had their own temple on Mount Gerizim. So, where is it recorded that the Christ entered that temple?

They may have also been suggesting that being from Nazareth, Jesus was in actual fact a Samaritan.

No! This also isn't true. Nazareth was not in Samaria, but in Galilee (Matt. 21:11, Mark 1:9, Luke 1:26-27 and several verses in John, which reference Nazareth…We also must accept that the bible claims Jesus was born in Bethlehem, thus the birth records would have been recorded there, not in Nazareth. So, the truth is that Mary was from Nazareth, but Joseph was from Bethlehem. This is outlined in Luke 2:1-7.

Therefore, there is no way around the fact that the Christ was born in Bethlehem, resided in Nazareth and other towns in the Galilee region and was the legal son of Joseph and Mary (who were from the tribe of Judah). And, that there is no way he was known as a Samarian, except by the frustrated Jewish religious leaders, who would do anything to try and discredit the Christ among the peoples…Which, is still occurring today.

Here is a clue from the Romans:
Domitian (81-96)
Trajan (98-117)
Vespasian ( 69–79)

All have something in common with Herod:

Gave orders to search be made for all of descendants of David and terminate, should be slain. Domitian despising them. Page 643-644 James the brother of Jesus Robert Eiseman

If he was not from tribe of Judah why would they be trying to kill David's line?

[Difflugia]

John didn't mention either Joseph or Mary's lineage, but only that they were from Nazareth.

This isn't quite correct…So, the first thing that needs to be established is the recorded lineage of Joseph and Mary. This is outlined in Matthew and Luke, but specifically (for Joseph) in Matt. 1:20, Luke 1:27 and 2:4. And, specifically (for Mary) through her "relative" Elisabeth in Luke 1:5 and verses 34-38. Hence, it is clearly established that Joseph and Mary were Israelites and not Samaritans!

You said it's not quite true that John didn't mention Joseph or Mary's lineage. You found such mentions in Matthew and Luke. If it's not quite true, where's one for John?

We also can review the words and actions of Pilate in John 19:19: Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews…Where, most know that an Israelite king must be from the tribe of Judah and lineage of King David to be the rightfully appointed king…Interesting though, is the attempt by the chief priests to have this writing changed, but Pilate would have nothing to do with it (verses 20-22)…

I'm pretty sure Pilate's comments had little to do with the details of Jewish apocalyptic theology.

They may have also been suggesting that being from Nazareth, Jesus was in actual fact a Samaritan.

No! This also isn't true. Nazareth was not in Samaria, but in Galilee...

Samaria was (likely) named after the Samaritans and not the other way around. The Samaritans were the remaining population of the northern kingdom (which included Galilee) following the Assyrian deportation.

We also must accept that the bible claims Jesus was born in Bethlehem, thus the birth records would have been recorded there, not in Nazareth.

We must, but the Pharisees weren't so bound.

So, the truth is that Mary was from Nazareth, but Joseph was from Bethlehem. This is outlined in Luke 2:1-7.

Which I explicitly declined to dispute.

Therefore, there is no way around the fact that the Christ was born in Bethlehem, resided in Nazareth and other towns in the Galilee region and was the legal son of Joseph and Mary (who were from the tribe of Judah).

Even biblical hindsight is 20/20.

And, that there is no way he was known as a Samarian, except by the frustrated Jewish religious leaders, who would do anything to try and discredit the Christ among the peoples…Which, is still occurring today.

And there's no doctrinal reason that the Pharisees had to share the Bible's hindsight (or yours).

[brianbbs67]

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'?

Wouldn't a Jew have said.... "Is it not written in OUR Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'?

Maybe, but he spoke this way to them often.

[brianbbs67]

Thank You brianbbs67,for bringing our attention back to Psalm 82.This may or may not be a response to an earlier underlined question of mine.If so then I must refer back to my point about a 'twisting of things'during the New Testament Jesus narrative.Please compare these two passages,
First Psalm 82
3-7 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

And now The Apostle's Creed of Catholicism

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son Our Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate,

One passage alludes to a metaphorical Jewish relationship to Yahweh, as offspring would have with their Father., The other is more of a Greek/Roman mytological accession thing.

The first two lines of the Psalm clearly illustrate that the call to aid the disenfranchised, within,Judaism,is not a new 'Jesus' introduction. This religion with a Fatherly/Lordly protector grew from persecution and hardship.The Jewish model shows great empathy with the afflicted and marginalised. Let us be definite here and say,

The Jesus phenomena was a very devout Jewish revivalist movement, led and sustained by people who were intelligent and resourceful in their use of Jewish collected wisdom dating back through Isaiah, David and beyond.Jesus was,if he was anything, a devout Jew teaching a revamped version of Judaism.

I welcome any considerations on this matter.

In its beginning, "he came only to the lost sheep of Israel". It wasn't revamped, but a call to repentance and the law of God. So many "fences"(man made laws) interfered with following God as He instructed.

Yeshua taught strict Torah obedience without the traditions of men which caused people to not be able to do as God instructed. They had fine ways of doing this.