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

[RESOLUTION]

The whole point of being Christian is accepting that We are unable to do what is right. Our corrupt bodies deem it that we will always do wrong.

So the body commits the sin not the person? See it doesn't work using that understanding.
As Christ said you cannot put new wine into old skins they will burst.

Paul said 'when will I be rid of this body if death. What I don't want to do I do and what I want to do I don't do.' And this was Paul speaking.

King James Bible
I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.


As such, our only righteousness can ever be one of accepting the righteousness of Jesus. That gift is there as a result of all He suffered and did. We can try to do what is right, but to believe we attain even a speck of righteousness in the effort is a form of self delusion. Our corrupt nature deems that even our so- called good behaviour reeks with the essence of corruption.[/QUOTE]

The whole point of being Christian is accepting that We are unable to do what is right. Our corrupt bodies deem it that we will always do wrong. Paul said 'when will I be rid of this body if death. What I don't want to do I do and what I want to do I don't do.' And this was Paul speaking. As such, our only righteousness can ever be one of accepting the righteousness of Jesus. That gift is there as a result of all He suffered and did. We can try to do what is right, but to believe we attain even a speck of righteousness in the effort is a form of self delusion. Our corrupt nature deems that even our so- called good behaviour reeks with the essence of corruption.

King James Bible
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

The Wise virgins who trimmed their lamps and replenished their oil. When a believer you walk after the Spirit not the flesh,
It is an ongoing process of ridding of sin getting rid of the old and the new person being born in the Spirit.


King James Bible
This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

I am the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. We have no righteousness of our own. And because we are guilty of sin we cannot make ourselves righteous by the law. Abraham believed God and he accounted this to him as righteousness. For God so loved the world he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have eternal life.

So whilst we are still capable of sin, we are forgiven and we do not walk according to the flesh but in the power of Gods Holy Spirit.

 

[Evie]

E

So the body commits the sin not the person? See it doesn't work using that understanding.
As Christ said you cannot put new wine into old skins they will burst.



King James Bible
I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.


As such, our only righteousness can ever be one of accepting the righteousness of Jesus. That gift is there as a result of all He suffered and did. We can try to do what is right, but to believe we attain even a speck of righteousness in the effort is a form of self delusion. Our corrupt nature deems that even our so- called good behaviour reeks with the essence of corruption.

King James Bible
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

The Wise virgins who trimmed their lamps and replenished their oil. When a believer you walk after the Spirit not the flesh,
It is an ongoing process of ridding of sin getting rid of the old and the new person being born in the Spirit.


King James Bible
This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

I am the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. We have no righteousness of our own. And because we are guilty of sin we cannot make ourselves righteous by the law. Abraham believed God and he accounted this to him as righteousness. For God so loved the world he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have eternal life.

So whilst we are still capable of sin, we are forgiven and we do not walk according to the flesh but in the power of Gods Holy Spirit.



[/QUOTE]
Exactly. The Word of God is true. He asks us to only believe. Those two words appear twice in the NT.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

Recognition as a heir or messiah wouldn't ever come from Mary's side as it still begs a question as to weither Mary was regarded as Judain or a Levite as the tribe of Levi is regarded as being the priests of Israel.

More pertaint than that, and worth pointing out would be there were no Jewish adoption laws to speak of in fact for which Mary's lineage would even count as validation as elaborated through the legal metaphors outlined in the Epistles on such matters.
(Slaves, sons, citizens etc. )

If a man expired without first bearing a son, it was then consummated through the closest male relative impregnating and subsequently producing a heir. Being that is not the case with Joseph, for whom consummation came after Christ's birth would effectively throw eligibility right out the window not to mention the facts indicating that he was still living.

It seems in this case and very likely, Roman adoption laws instead were used to supersede Judaic law "validating" Christ's eligibility as being the Jewish messiah when in fact the Jews themselves rejected Jesus outright. It's not hard to see why.

To put into perspective, Roman law unlike Jewish law, has provisioned eligibility for an outsider to legally become an heir, and be henceforth recognised as such.

I suppose that's when Jesus's followers stopped being Jews as queried by the OP and became Christians.

 

[Evie]

T

Recognition as a heir or messiah wouldn't ever come from Mary's side as it still begs a question as to weither Mary was regarded as Judain or a Levite as the tribe of Levi is regarded as being the priests of Israel.

More pertaint than that, and worth pointing out would be there were no Jewish adoption laws to speak of in fact for which Mary's lineage would even count as validation as elaborated through the legal metaphors outlined in the Epistles on such matters.
(Slaves, sons, citizens etc. )

If a man expired without first bearing a son, it was then consummated through the closest male relative impregnating and subsequently producing a heir. Being that is not the case with Joseph, for whom consummation came after Christ's birth would effectively throw eligibility right out the window not to mention the facts indicating that he was still living.

It seems in this case and very likely, Roman adoption laws instead were used to supersede Judaic law "validating" Christ's eligibility as being the Jewish messiah when in fact the Jews themselves rejected Jesus outright. It's not hard to see why.

To put into perspective, Roman law unlike Jewish law, has provisioned eligibility for an outsider to legally become an heir, and be henceforth recognised as such.

I suppose that's when Jesus's followers stopped being Jews as queried by the OP and became Christians.

The whole Legacy of the Gospel of Christ rests on Faith. Belief. Not facts and figures.

 

[Twilight Hue]

T

The whole Legacy of the Gospel of Christ rests on Faith. Belief. Not facts and figures.

True enough. I have opinions on the charactors portrayed throughout the gospels as it pertains to faith and belief, but that's for another debate, another thread. :0)

 

[Evie]

O

True enough. I have opinions on the charactors portrayed throughout the gospels as it pertains to faith and belief, but that's for another debate, another thread. :0)

ok

 

[Shia Islam]

Jesus was a Jew teaching his followers. I have heard Jews refer to him as a Rabbi.
He said that he didn't come to destroy the (Mosaic) Law, but to fulfill it. (Matt 5:17-20)
Therefore, are Christians allowed to call ourselves Jews?

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..

 

[omega2xx]

I don't know-- I wasn't there. However, let me just say that I have very strong doubts he did either. We should always remember that when we're reading scripture, we're reading very subjective accounts, not objective history.

Evidence that liberals do not take all of the Bible as God's word, which you have denied.

Also saying it is subjective, not objective is another nail in the coffin of liberal theology. You have no evidence to support that liberal theology.

Thank you.

 

[omega2xx]

I a

I am NOT of Bahai belief, whatever it is . I have asked the forum staff to adjust my profile but so far it has not been done.

Good, I will try to remember that.

I am a believer in God the Creator and His Word.

Is all of God's word, inspired, inerrant and infallible?

 

[RESOLUTION]

Recognition as a heir or messiah wouldn't ever come from Mary's side as it still begs a question as to weither Mary was regarded as Judain or a Levite as the tribe of Levi is regarded as being the priests of Israel.

Wrong on many accounts because the descendant of Abraham the Son of the Promise was born through both parents being named as the Father and Mother of many nations.
God said of Sarah:-
15 And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.

16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.

God clearly chose the parenting line of the descendant of Abraham through both Abraham and Sarah. Abraham and Sarah were half brother and sister born of the same line.
Isaac was the chosen son and not Abrahams eldest son Ishmael born to Hagar who was Sarah servant girl.

So both Joseph and Mary born of the tribe of Judah. Mary also the priestly line which would make Christ born of a priestly line and Judah through David.

More pertaint than that, and worth pointing out would be there were no Jewish adoption laws to speak of in fact for which Mary's lineage would even count as validation as elaborated through the legal metaphors outlined in the Epistles on such matters.
(Slaves, sons, citizens etc. )

If a man expired without first bearing a son, it was then consummated through the closest male relative impregnating and subsequently producing a heir. Being that is not the case with Joseph, for whom consummation came after Christ's birth would effectively throw eligibility right out the window not to mention the facts indicating that he was still living.

The next son would take his dead brothers wife as his wife and the child she bore would be called the dead brothers child. Both brothers born of the same line.
Under Jewish law at the time any child born to a mans wife would be classed as that mans child. The first Adam was not born of the line of Abraham he like Jesus was born of God.
But all who are born of God which includes all flesh are Gods creation. As John warned the descendants of Abraham; God could turn stones into descendants of Abraham.

In this case both Joseph and Mary descendants of the line of Judah.

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.

In this case Elisheba was from the tribe of Judah an called the Mother of the Priesthood.


Jesus followers never stopped being Jews.

 

[Evie]

Good, I will try to remember that.




Is all of God's word, inspired, inerrant and infallible?

I believe it is.

 

[omega2xx]

I believe it is.

Good for you. I am going to enter your name for membership; in the "fundamentalist club."

 

[oldbadger]

I agree with quotes from Romans and Galations.

Do you disagree with quotes from the other books in the New Testament?

 

[Evie]

I

Do you disagree with quotes from the other books in the New Testament?

I agree with God's Written Word in total.

 

[oldbadger]

What do you suppose Jesus meant by 'to fulfil it'. Remember Jesus said that though you were told in the Mosaic Law an eye for an eye, I now tell you to turn the other cheek. I think it was from The Sermon on The Mount. Not sure where

Eye for eye and tooth for tooth...... where is that in the Mosiac law, please?

 

[oldbadger]

Since Jesus had no father thru a bloodline when Joseph married Mary he would become legally Joseph son and of the line of David.

I believe that the Galileans converted to Judaism at the time of Babylon.
I cannot understand how a Galilean peasant's bloodline fetches back to a Judean King's.
I cannot understand how a Galilean peasant's bloodline could be retained by oral tradition back to a Judean King.

These questions, added to Luke's twisted and distorted timeline and Matthew's nativity contentions against Luke lead me to believe that the entire nativity tale is a complete Christian contrivance.

This is a pity because it leads a lot of folks to mistrust the whole story of Jesus.

 

[oldbadger]

I

I agree with God's Written Word in total.

That is more clear to me, then.
And so, you believe that everything written in the New Testament (and the Old, I'm guessing) is the Divine Word of God as delivered through the writings of His Ordained New Testament Prophets and Apostles............... Is that exactly correct?

 

[Evie]

Eye for eye and tooth for tooth...... where is that in the Mosiac law, please?

St Matthew 5: 38. Read what Jesus said.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Wrong on many accounts because the descendant of Abraham the Son of the Promise was born through both parents being named as the Father and Mother of many nations.
God said of Sarah:-
15 And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.

16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.

God clearly chose the parenting line of the descendant of Abraham through both Abraham and Sarah. Abraham and Sarah were half brother and sister born of the same line.
Isaac was the chosen son and not Abrahams eldest son Ishmael born to Hagar who was Sarah servant girl.

So both Joseph and Mary born of the tribe of Judah. Mary also the priestly line which would make Christ born of a priestly line and Judah through David.




The next son would take his dead brothers wife as his wife and the child she bore would be called the dead brothers child. Both brothers born of the same line.
Under Jewish law at the time any child born to a mans wife would be classed as that mans child. The first Adam was not born of the line of Abraham he like Jesus was born of God.
But all who are born of God which includes all flesh are Gods creation. As John warned the descendants of Abraham; God could turn stones into descendants of Abraham.

In this case both Joseph and Mary descendants of the line of Judah.

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.

In this case Elisheba was from the tribe of Judah an called the Mother of the Priesthood.


Jesus followers never stopped being Jews.

Again your ignoring that Mary's lineage is irrelevant under Jewish law. There was no adoption provision. Show me any Jewish source that recognises matriarchal bloodlines with an adopted father as valid heirs. You won't find any. Check any Jewish source. I did. Not even in the New Testament is Mary regarded as being the seed anywhere.

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. A virgin birth would be irreconcilable under Jewish law as Joseph wasn't the biological father that would fulfil the messianic requirements of Judaism as spelled out in Jewish prophecy.

 

[oldbadger]

Jews who are still under the Law are non- believers of Jesus. Paul explains it. ........................

So....... none of the Old Testament laws are 'in force' for Christians unless enforced again in the New Testament. Correct?