"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

[Thomas123]

..brianbbs67:"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."

The Jesus writings are characterised by a' version of Torah, emphasizing a purity of approach in dealing with our relationship with Yahweh that is strict and that is why I referred to this movement previously as a revivalist movement. What is New in the Jesus movement is that this is being revamped as an offering to the Gentiles.

The New Testament then becomes posthumously, to the events of Jesus, an advertising campaign for same. The rock has been rejected, it becomes the cornerstone of a new beginning, ie Christianity, Peter is the rock on which Jesus will build his church, etc, etc, all appears as self fulfilling narrative to all but the most devout followers of scripture.

Personally, I think there is little more than ' a coat of paint' between us here, brianbbs67

[brianbbs67]

..brianbbs67:"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."

The Jesus writings are characterised by a' version of Torah, emphasizing a purity of approach in dealing with our relationship with Yahweh that is strict and that is why I referred to this movement previously as a revivalist movement. What is New in the Jesus movement is that this is being revamped as an offering to the Gentiles.

The New Testament then becomes posthumously, to the events of Jesus, an advertising campaign for same. The rock has been rejected, it becomes the cornerstone of a new beginning, ie Christianity, Peter is the rock on which Jesus will build his church, etc, etc, all appears as self fulfilling narrative to all but the most devout followers of scripture.

Personally, I think there is little more than ' a coat of paint' between us here, brianbbs67

There may be more. That's ok. I'm on a learning mission from God. BTW, Christ was talking to Peter about the stone the builders reject, are we sure it was Peter? Not, Joshua(Yeshua/Iesous), himself?

[Thomas123]

The rock metaphor was used many times to allude to the foundations of the new church.it was applied to the Jesus figure when he spoke to the priests, it was applied to Peter and it was applied in the Sermon on Mount, to building the Kingdom of God, both on earth and within you. There are probably many other rocks lying around. These things appear to carry significance for the people of Israel as the most suitable foundations for larger buildings like the Temple of Jerusalem. Moses extracted life giving water by hitting the Rock of Yahweh.

[Overcomer]

Thomas wrote:

The Jesus movement of the New Testament was advancing the Jewish/Yahweh franchise into areas of society which had previously been marked as inappropriate.

If you're saying that Yahweh was, in the Old Testament, for the Jews only, you are incorrect. Consider Jonah who witnessed to the people of Nineveh.

Israel was special in that God chose it as the nation through which he implemented his plan of salvation in the person of Jesus Christ who was both a Jewish man AND God Incarnate. But God never turned his back on non-Jews. Pagans simply had a tendency to turn their backs on him.

Thomas wrote:

The Jesus writings display a very devout and motivated movement who courageously attempt to share the 'Good News', that comes from a life of love living under a God of Love, such as Yahweh.

The Good News is that Jesus atoned for our sins with his death and resurrection and we have union and communion with God through him by the power of the Holy Spirit if we accept his gift of salvation in faith. Living a life of love can only truly and thoroughly be done in the power of that same Holy Spirit.

[Tcg]

But God never turned his back on non-Jews.

Deuteronomy 7 contradicts your claim:

• 1 “When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and mightier than you, 2 and when the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction. You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them.

There are other examples, but it only takes one to show your universal claim invalid.


Tcg

[Eloi]

Jesus was a Jew, and he was a Jehovah's worshiper:

John 4:19 The woman said to him: “Sir, I see that you are a prophet. 20 Our forefathers worshipped on this mountain, but you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where people must worship.� 21 Jesus said to her: “Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation begins with the Jews. 23 Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth.� 25 The woman said to him: “I know that Mes·siʹah is coming, who is called Christ. Whenever that one comes, he will declare all things to us openly.� 26 Jesus said to her: “I am he, the one speaking to you.�

[FWI]

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?

It's not quite true, because the author of the fourth gospel didn't deem it necessary to record what Matthew and Luke had already supplied. But, the bible is clear that (2) witnesses are adequate enough for a matter to be reliable, unless possible errors have occurred in translation. However, John 1:45 and 6:42 are clearly referring to lineage, as well as, John 19:19! It doesn't matter how or where the source for support comes from, it only matters that there is support…

Yet, using the support of John 8:48 to claim that the Christ was a Samaritan is inadequate! Because, the other three gospels and the rest of the N.T. do not record or suggest this…Thus, the law of (2) witnesses is not met in this case. Hence, the suggestion that the Christ was a Samaritan is invalid…

[Difflugia]

First, I think you're responding to an argument that I wasn't making. I'm saying that the Pharisees were implying that Jesus was a Pharisee, not that Jesus was one. One of the earlier arguments that the Pharisees were only being ironically insulting was that they knew that Jesus was descended of David. In John, the parents of Jesus were Joseph and Mary, but that's all John says about them. The Nazareth locals accepted them as local Jews, but all anyone in Jerusalem knew was that he came from Nazareth in Galilee. In fact, John 7:42 shows that "some of the multitude" thought that he was neither a descendent of David nor born in Bethlehem.

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?

It's not quite true, because the author of the fourth gospel didn't deem it necessary to record what Matthew and Luke had already supplied.

Then what I said is true. You don't have to agree with the implications about what John thought or meant, but one cannot infer from John alone that Jesus, Mary, or Joseph was a descendent of either David or of any particular tribe.

But, the bible is clear that (2) witnesses are adequate enough for a matter to be reliable, unless possible errors have occurred in translation.

The Bible says none of that. The Bible says that legal cases involving either the death penalty (Dt. 7) or "any iniquity" (Dt. 19; the Bible apparently included two slightly different traditions) require two witnesses and the three New Testament references affirm the sense of establishing iniquity (1 Tim. 5:19 and Heb 10:28 directly, 2 Cor. 13:1 as part of Paul's "case" against the Corinthian church).

Whether or not it's a theologically valid defense of your particular form of literalist inerrancy, it's at best an oversimplification to say that such an interpretation is "clear."

However, John 1:45 and 6:42 are clearly referring to lineage...

These passage support that the parents of Jesus were Joseph and Mary. That wasn't in dispute in any of my posts.

...as well as, John 19:19! It doesn't matter how or where the source for support comes from, it only matters that there is support…

Pilate's mocking label of "King of the Jews" isn't much support for a genealogy of Jesus.

Yet, using the support of John 8:48 to claim that the Christ was a Samaritan is inadequate! Because, the other three gospels and the rest of the N.T. do not record or suggest this…Thus, the law of (2) witnesses is not met in this case. Hence, the suggestion that the Christ was a Samaritan is invalid…

Even if that were my argument, that itself is a pretty feeble refutation. One of John's theological points is that the Messiahship of Jesus is ordained solely by God and doesn't depend on the earthly, human details of the man-god Jesus including human (and potentially flawed) interpretation of prophecy. A pharisaic suggestion that Jesus might be descended of Samaritans is not out of line with John's message and could, in fact, be seen to support it. That Matthew and Luke have different theological agendas say nothing about John's or of his presentation of history.

[FWI]

First, I think you're responding to an argument that I wasn't making. I'm saying that the Pharisees were implying that Jesus was a Pharisee, not that Jesus was one. One of the earlier arguments that the Pharisees were only being ironically insulting was that they knew that Jesus was descended of David. In John, the parents of Jesus were Joseph and Mary, but that's all John says about them. The Nazareth locals accepted them as local Jews, but all anyone in Jerusalem knew was that he came from Nazareth in Galilee. In fact, John 7:42 shows that "some of the multitude" thought that he was neither a descendent of David nor born in Bethlehem.

Sorry, but reviewing your previous comments didn't reveal you suggesting that the Pharisees thought that Jesus was a Pharisee, which he wasn't…So, it is obvious that I wasn't responding to an argument you didn't make, until now! Hence, what was the argument you weren't making that I addressed earlier? Also, it seems reasonable that the Pharisees knew that Jesus was a descended of King David, because they would have had access to the birth records of all who were born in Bethlehem (Judea). However, it is clear that you are still trying to suggest otherwise…Yet, knowing the birth place of a fellow Israelite wasn't a top priority to the general public. But, asking someone about where they were (presently) from wouldn't be unusual…Therefore, the assumed issue in John 7:42 is irrelevant, as related to the positive claims that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, was a prophet and was the Messiah.

Then what I said is true. You don't have to agree with the implications about what John thought or meant, but one cannot infer from John alone that Jesus, Mary, or Joseph was a descendent of either David or of any particular tribe.

No, it isn't true…Because, the writer of the fourth gospel records all the necessary proof that Jesus was the Christ (or the Anointed Messiah-John 1:17-18 and verses 37-41). This would be from the witness of John the Baptist, Andrew and Peter. Thus, the book of John clearly acknowledges Jesus as the Messiah! Nathanael is quoted as saying that Jesus is the King of Israel (John 1:49). It is also recorded in John 12:12-13 that a great multitude of Israelites cried out to Jesus: Hosanna, The King of Israel! And, in John 7:42 it is outlined that the Messiah will come from the seed of David and from the town of Bethlehem, where the scripture mentioned in verse 42 is Micah 5:2. Therefore, since the records (in the gospel called John) clearly states that Jesus was the Messiah, from the seed of David and a king, there can be no legitimate dispute that Jesus' legal parents weren't also from the seed of David…Because, the facts supplied in support of Jesus being from the seed of David would undoubtedly apply to the parents as well…Jesus' parents were also known by Philip, Nathanael, the Jews and others (John 1:45 and 6:42).

But, the bible is clear that (2) witnesses are adequate enough for a matter to be reliable, unless possible errors have occurred in translation.

The Bible says none of that. The Bible says that legal cases involving either the death penalty (Dt. 7) or "any iniquity" (Dt. 19; the Bible apparently included two slightly different traditions) require two witnesses and the three New Testament references affirm the sense of establishing iniquity (1 Tim. 5:19 and Heb 10:28 directly, 2 Cor. 13:1 as part of Paul's "case" against the Corinthian church).

In the topic you and I are debating, it surely does…In post 11, you stated: John didn't mention either Joseph or Mary's lineage. I disagree. Thus, an "iniquity" can simply be something that is unjust or harmful. So, for those who may claim something that could be used as harmful or an unjustly critique of someone's writings or words, the principle of Deut. 19:15, 2 Cor. 13:1 and 1 Tim. 5:19 applies. Therefore, the introduction of proof or witnesses surely is required, either to support the unjust or harmful matter or discredit it!

Hence, the claim that the bible doesn’t address these type of issues is incorrect and you have supplied the proof yourself…Therefore, it is a theological or religious truth for me to apply the principle of 2 or 3 witnesses into our debate. That's why I did it.

Pilate's mocking label of "King of the Jews" isn't much support for a genealogy of Jesus.

Well, even Pilate's soldiers (plural) made the same claim (John 19:2-3). So, where is your support (in the book of John) that states Pilate and his soldiers were mocking the Christ? We really can't be sure of such a claim, unless the book of John says so! Right?

[onewithhim]

"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

I have no problem believing that Jesus was a Jew. He followed the Law to the letter, but differed greatly from the religious leaders because they ignored the spirit of the Law and added a tremendous amount of man-made doctrines to the pure Law, which caused much pain and suffering to the people. Their own rules, that is, caused much of a burden to the people. Those Pharisees and Sadducees had departed from the pure worship of God Almighty, and Jesus told them straight out that they were children of snakes and hypocrites. He exposed them for what they were, and they hated him for it. Jesus was a real, God-worshiping Jew. The religious leaders were corrupt and not true sons of Abraham.