Jesus was a Jew. When did his followers stop being Jews?

[oldbadger]

Well, you believe more about it than me. I believe that jesus is a fictional character. I don't draw any meaning from the stories written about this character. They just portray a criminal.

Hi.....
Well, the authorities would have looked upon him as criminal, yes.
I think that he was a real person, as was John the Baptist, but my belief ends at the point of his entombment.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You are wrong because in each case GOD made the line about the MOTHER also. With Abraham, his eldest son of Ishmael but Hagar was not chosen to be the mother of the chosen son.
Sarah was made the promise by God that she would be the mother of many nations and of Kings.
So the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is clearly through the line of Sarah as Mother too. Like Abram his name changed to Abraham so Sara became Sarah.

So the line had to be through both Father and Mother.
In the case of Aaron and Elisheba the high priesthood is descended from both the royal tribe of Judah and the Priestly tribes. She is the mother of the priesthood.
As God chose Mary and ensured both Mother and Father of Jesus Christ were the descendant of the tribe of Judah. Then her line does count has God has always made the matrilineal line of major importance. Isaac had to be born of Elizabeth to be the child of the covenant.

In fact you had to be born of a Jewess to be a Jew. But what is important is any woman born of a line of Jewesses are classed as a Jew. Even today they cannot go into the synagogues
inner most chambers for men only if visiting with schools etc.





The law at that time said : Any child born of the wife is the child of the Husband. Isaac and Jesus were both born because of Gods promise. Not the will of the flesh but the power of God to the chosen Mothers and Fathers. You cannot deny that the priestly line of Aaron is from both the tribe of Judah and Priestly tribes.

I'm talking about matriarchal lines as it applies to Jewish law in regards to messiahship.

Show me where exactly where the matriarchal lines apply here. Again the woman's side is irrevelant in this case. Key word being seed of David. Seed refers to the patriarchal line by which Jesus is not a part of.

Your evading while thinking for one reason or another that the matriarchal line is a somehow a valid factor here as a rebuttal. It simply just isn't if Jesus was being regarded as a messiah under Jewish law as provided through God.

Even new testament accounts reflect Joseph as the father among the genealogy.
Impossible concidering there was a virgin birth. Virgin, as in not being Joseph's seed. Kind of shoots you squarely in the foot. Twice.

You won't find Mary anywhere in the entire bible where Mary is officially listed as being the seed of Christ. I challenge you to find any such reference in any bibical geneology provided spanning the entirety of the Old and new Testaments narratives and prove me completely wrong here. Anywhere, anybody, where matriarchal lines are refrenced as seeds among geneological lineages.

Joseph simply isn't the father of Jesus regardless of Mary's side so any additional son he consequently produces biologicaly thereafter would apply. Not a son through adoption.

Your still clearly using Roman adoption law and ignoring that there was no Jewish adoption provisions as it applies to heirs, much less any prophetic qualifications layed out for messiaship and thinking it somehow applies. It just simply dosent.

Unless of course your centered on Roman law and not Jewish law which seems to be the case here.

 

[Brickjectivity]

What d'ya think? Any good?..... or rubbish?

Not its not rubbish. By-the-way we say 'Trash' here. Nobody says rubbish unless they've just finished watching BBC. Just kiddin' ! BBC is where I go for news the most.

You very naughty member! (Oopps!....... he's staff!!! )

Well, Sir, if you believe absolutely that all the writings in the NT are the Divine Words of God as passed down in writing through his Ordained Apostles and Prophets, you're not allowed to guesstimate about what the writings might mean. One of the biggest problems (imo) is folks telling the World what the scriptures mean!
1Cor 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and [to] Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think above that which is written, .........................
or...................Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.

What d'ya think? Any good?..... or rubbish?

Good one, and its even better in NIV which I call the "Nivvy." You may call it that, too, if you like.

Ah ha! I've been listening to Christians arguing amongst each other...... there seems to be a number of differing basic tenets, each one telling all the others that they are doomed!
Salvation through Faith and good actions.

As the Americans possibly used to say "Its big-heap trouble." This is causing much trouble and makes us all vulnerable to con artists. Anybody with a fat mouth can make a million bucks off of us.

 

[oldbadger]

Not its not rubbish. By-the-way we say 'Trash' here. Nobody says rubbish unless they've just finished watching BBC. Just kiddin' ! BBC is where I go for news the most.

Yeah..... but 'rubbish' does sound like domestic refuse. 'Trash' sounds like an insult to some group or another.

Good one, and its even better in NIV which I call the "Nivvy." You may call it that, too, if you like.

Well, I need to tie down some Christians who hop about the laws, cherry-pickin' here 'n there as they please. It's just not cricket, you know.

As the Americans possibly used to say "Its big-heap trouble." This is causing much trouble and makes us all vulnerable to con artists. Anybody with a fat mouth can make a million bucks off of us.

We are all sinners...... bless your hearts, but I have been sent to bring you the message of Salvation. Please make out your cheques (not checks, you lot!) to O.L.D.Badger. Bless you all.

 

[Evie]

We

Not its not rubbish. By-the-way we say 'Trash' here. Nobody says rubbish unless they've just finished watching BBC. Just kiddin' ! BBC is where I go for news the most.

Good one, and its even better in NIV which I call the "Nivvy." You may call it that, too, if you like.

As the Americans possibly used to say "Its big-heap trouble." This is causing much trouble and makes us all vulnerable to con artists. Anybody with a fat mouth can make a million bucks off of us.

Well said.

 

[Tumah]

I found that the God of Jesus was the God of the Jews, but I believe that the Jews have lost sight of him, staying bogged down in laws and rituals that no longer have relevance.

The reason you believe Jewish law no longer has relevance is because you believe in Jesus. You aren't discarding Judaism on its own merits. So you kind of came back to the Christian path because you never left it.

 

[roger1440]

Therefore, are Christians allowed to call ourselves Jews?

Conversion to Judaism - Wikipedia

 

[Tumah]

Jesus was a Jew. When did his followers stop being Jews?

Probably when they were excommunicated from the Synagogue and cursed as heretics.
"May the minim [heretics] perish in an instant; may they be effaced from the book of life and not be counted among the Just."

I don't think there is any formal excommunication of the heretics recorded anywhere. As you can see, that blessing was simply asking G-d to get rid of them. Nothing about excommunication.

 

[Tumah]

I know. They reject Him because He did not fulfill some Messianic prophecies.

All, not some.

The don't accept that He is coming again.

True.

Then He will fulfill the one not fulfilled at His first coming.

Then there's nothing to talk about until then.

They also reject him because their theology says the Messiah can't die.

I know ofno such Jewish theological stance. There is a general concept of death ending during the Messianic Age per Isa. 25:8 but that's not strictly the messiah but everyone. And that might only begin after he already died.

Isa 53 is clearly Messianic and it says He will die.

There is a difference between messianic prophecies about the Messiah and messianic prophecies about the Messianic Age. Isa. 53 falls into the latter.

 

[Tumah]

There are so many mistakes here I'm not surehow to unravel them all.

I

First let me ask you this. Why did Jesus walk on water and float up in the air? Certainly not to 'show off'.

No, not to show off. The NT authors seemed to be trying to one up the Jonah story there.

In doing so He defied the law of gravity. But the law of gravity remained in existence. Otherwise everything on earth free standing would have flown off into space. Now, no laws put in place by God can be transgressed, but, Jesus demonstrated that He could transcend the law without displacing it.

You seem to have forgotten that there were a number of prophets who performed miracles. Beong able to transcend the laws of nature doesn't give one permission to disobey G-d. Reference the prophets.

And that would apply to all laws implemented by God. All in place forever.

By your logic, G-d's Laws are still in place to be followed by mankind just as Jesus allegedly transcending gravity didn't cause other people to start floating.

So how was corrupted mankind going to be able to cope with the utterly impossible task of keeping the 10 commandments.

Mankind wasn't given the 10 commandments, the Jews were.
And they're not impossible to keep, we've been doing it for thousands of years.
And there aren't 10 commandments there are hundreds.

By providing a way to do so without displacing any of His laws. Even God would not transgress His own laws.

This is very twisted. I have to say. G-d gave a Law Jesus saysyou don't need to follow it. If the person follows what Jesus says, they aren't following what G-d said. A law is not an independant existence. If no one keeps it, its not the law.

The way for any corrupt human being( and ALL are corrupt by nature),

G-d forbid. There are many righteous people.

to be righteous in God's eyes, that being to obey every command unfailingly, was by substitution.

Proverbs 24:16 disagrees with you.

By Jesus being the righteous one. And only by belief in Jesus and all He did can we be seen as righteous in God's eyes.

I trust Moses over John.

And the 10 commandments are continually in existence but because He was perfect in God's eyes not having broken any of God's commandments, so are we.

Well. I mean he seems to have broken the second one about idolatry. And the one about honoring parents. And the one about keeping the Sabbath. Possibly the one about bearing false witness. I'm not so familiar with the NT, but I wouldn't be surprised if taking G-d's Name in vain should be on this list too.

This is of course according to the NT's narrative.

Jesus did not go back to the days of the OT He. ascended into Heaven and sits at the right Hand of God. So neither should we go back and live in the days of the OT BEFORE Jesus did all that He did to free us from the impossible. We will always fail, our corrupt nature will cause us to fail, but we can be genuinely remorseful and ask Jesus for forgiveness, which He will always do. But genuine repentance brings with it the desire to not repeat wrongs. Jesus knows true repentance in a person.

If you believe repentance works than Jesus becomes unnecessary in your theology. Anyone who transgresses G-d's Law could just repent and be righteous.

 

[Tumah]

Mary is born of the priestly line as Elizabeth her cousin. They are descendants of Aaron.
Aarons wife Elisheba/ Elisheva was from the Tribe of Judah. Both Mary and Elizabeth were from a priestly family.

23 And Aaron took him Elisheba, daughter of Amminadab, sister of Naashon, to wife; and she bare him Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.

Both Mary and Elizabeth are born of the tribe of Judah through Aaron and Elisheba.

Rabbis list Elisheba daughter of Amminadab among the important people and officials that were born to this tribe and call her “the mother of the priesthood” (Gen. Rabbah 97:8).
So not only did Mary count as the Tribe of Judah being married to Joseph but her line was also of the tribe of Judah.

By this logic, there should no longer be a priestly class. Being from the tribe of Judah does not grant her children lineage to the tribe of Judah otherwise she would be called "the mother of the Judeans". There was over a thousand years between when Elisheba lived and the Jesus narrative. There were probably many other women from other tribes who married priests (and men from other tribes). And vis versa. That doesn't mean that all Jews have lineage to all tribes. We stricly look to the mother to determine Jewishness and we strictly look to the father to determine tribe.

 

[Tumah]

With all respect,
let me say that according to Jesus the Jews of his time have changed the original Jewish teachings, and revolted against God..
So he dissociated himself from them and called for the public to revolt against the Jewish system of his time..

That is why I won't call Jesus a Jew, but rather a caller for the Jews to repent..

This doesn't follow. Being Jewish is a matter of ethnicity not religion.

 

[Tumah]

Joseph's blood lineage would be the only one concidered as valid. Jesus was born before joseph consummated the marriage, so Jesus was clearly not from the seed of David via the fathers side.

Having a child out of wedlock wouldn't prevent inheritance of tribe. So if Joseph was the biological father, even if they were not married the child would be from his tribe.

 

[Tumah]

You are wrong because in each case GOD made the line about the MOTHER also. With Abraham, his eldest son of Ishmael but Hagar was not chosen to be the mother of the chosen son.
Sarah was made the promise by God that she would be the mother of many nations and of Kings.
So the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is clearly through the line of Sarah as Mother too. Like Abram his name changed to Abraham so Sara became Sarah.

So the line had to be through both Father and Mother.
In the case of Aaron and Elisheba the high priesthood is descended from both the royal tribe of Judah and the Priestly tribes. She is the mother of the priesthood.

You are half right. The mother determines whether the child is Jewish. But its the father who determines tribal affiliation.
So a child born from a Jewish mother and non-Jewish father is a Jew without any tribal affiliation.
A child born from a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother is a non-Jew.
A child born from a Reubenite mother and Zebulunite father is a Zebulunite.
A child born of a priestess and a Judahite is a Judahite.

Bringing examples of the patriarchs and matriarchs are irrelevant because they were not bound by Torah Law as it was given much later.

 

[Tumah]

Some are unique to Jesus (addressing God as Abba),

This is not unique. The phrases Father and Father in Heaven are found in Jewish sources. Which I think is natural since G-d calls Israel His son.

 

[roger1440]

First let me ask you this. Why did Jesus walk on water and float up in the air?

Many of the stories and concepts in the Gospels are derived from Jewish scripture. The Gospels are a retelling of Jewish scripture. A good example of this is the fulfillments found in Matthew’s Gospel. These fulfillments are not prophecies. They are reenactments or accomplishments, much like when one fulfills the American dream. The Gospels are a type of anthropomorphism of God. Other examples of anthropomorphism are: Father Time, Mother Nature and Uncle Sam. The point the Gospels are making is that if God can claim a storm so can Jesus. Why? Simple, Jesus makes God known.
Anthropomorphism - Wikipedia

“You rule over the surging sea; when its waves mount up, you still them.” (Psalm 89:9)
“Who stills the roaring of the seas, The roaring of their waves, And the tumult of the peoples.” (Psalm 65:7)
“He caused the storm to be still, So that the waves of the sea were hushed.” (Psalm 107:29)


Take the time and read this short article.

Anthropomorphism of God in the Torah
“…Does God have hands? Does He sit on a throne? Does He enjoy the aroma of sacrifices? Those of us asked such questions in the 21st century would most definitely answer, “No, of course not” but such was not always the case. Based on a literal reading of the Torah and other books of Tanach (the Jewish Bible), one could certainly draw the conclusion that God has a body and behaves like a human being, despite all evidence to the contrary. But these are mere metaphors. The Midrash tells us (Sifre 112) that “the Torah speaks the language of man.”…”
1. Anthropomorphism of God in the Torah - OU Torah

 

[pearl]

This is not unique. The phrases Father and Father in Heaven are found in Jewish sources. Which I think is natural since G-d calls Israel His son.

Its not the Father that is unique, it is the Abba that is unique with Jesus in referring to God as his father.

 

[omega2xx]

All, not some.

He fulfilled more than He left unfilled.

True.

Then there's nothing to talk about until then.

I need refernce to be able tgo answser this.


I know of no such Jewish theological stance. There is a general concept of death ending during the Messianic Age per Isa. 25:8 but that's not strictly the messiah but everyone. And that might only begin after he already died.

There is a difference between messianic prophecies about the Messiah and messianic prophecies about the Messianic Age. Isa. 53 falls into the latter.[/QUOTE]

All, not some.

True.

Then there's nothing to talk about until then.

I know of no such Jewish theological stance. There is a general concept of death ending during the Messianic Age per Isa. 25:8 but that's not strictly the messiah but everyone. And that might only begin after he already died.

That was told to me by Jews. I have no idea if it is general Jewish theology.

There is a difference between messianic prophecies about the Messiah and messianic prophecies about the Messianic Age. Isa. 53 falls into the latter.

It does not. In the Messianic age, there will be no offering for sin. There will be no more sin.

 

[roger1440]

Today we might refer to that as 'poetic license'. One of the greater difficulties for scholars is discerning which are the words of Jesus and which are of the church placed on his lips. Some are unique to Jesus (addressing God as Abba), and some possibly of the church (baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit). Some of the debates between the Pharisees, Sadducees and Jesus are artificial to promote Jesus' teachings and differences. Because they may be a construction by the evangelists does not make them 'untrue' to Jesus teachings.

"...The Dialogue with Trypho, along with the First and Second Apologies, is a second-century Christian apologetic text, documenting the attempts by theologian Justin Martyr to show that Christianity is the new law for all men, and to prove from Scripture that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.[1]..."

"...scholars say that Trypho is a fictional character invented by Justin for his literary goals.[2][3]Setzer's book further claims that, whether a character on which Trypho was based existed or not, one can generally assume that Trypho's words are "largely put in his mouth by Justin".[4]..."
Dialogue with Trypho - Wikipedia

 

[Tumah]

Its not the Father that is unique, it is the Abba that is unique with Jesus in referring to God as his father.

I don't understand what you're saying. Earlier you said Jesus was unique in that he called G-d "Father". I pointed out that this was/is a Jewish custom. What are you replying?