Flavius Josephus is not a good source of information on Jewish law and doctrine. Maimonides is.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus was a Jew. When did his followers stop being Jews?
- Thread starter GeelongFams4WldPeace
- Start date
Maimonides can't stand witnessing for what is the concept back in Jesus time. Your mentioning of Maimonides itself is a deception as he has nothing to do with the original Jewish concept back in Jesus time.
Josephus on the other hand can get closer to it because he is a Jewish historian witnessed the AD 70 Jerusalem siege! His concepts are closer to the Jewish original concepts back in Jesus time!
What actually alerts me is the deception in the various dialogues I had with the different Jews!
I forgot the topic of this thread. I guess that is why you brought Josephus up. While he is considered a source, going to Josephus for advice on law and doctrine, over Maimonides, is ridiculous. Josephus may have had some strange ideas about hell and so forth (he seems to be anti-Pharisee as well, and the Christians maybe borrowed from him), but so did the Saducees, who denied the immortal soul, the resurrection and so on. These beliefs are no longer with us and the Pharisaic ones persisted. We believe it persisted per G-d, because it is the correct view.
BlaznFattyz
Member
They never stopped being Jews. In simple terms they graduated high school and went on to college, so they never stopped being a student. If that helps it make sense. What makes you think they stopped or why the question?
rosends
Well-Known Member
The oral law is the Pharisaic set of doctrines passed from Sinai and codified in the talmud, and driven by a set of explicatory rules adhered to by the Pharisees. Jesus makes reference to a number of talmudic ideas and endorses the Pharisaic system which is significantly more than just "immortality". Today's Judaism is the continuation of the beliefs and practices of the Pharisees. I trust the talmud on this one.
Wiki:
Archaeologists have uncovered evidence relating to religious rituals and practices current, prior to the codification of the Mishnah, from which it can be inferred that Judah HaNasi and his contemporaries recorded, rather than innovated, normative Judaism as authentically practiced during the 1st century CE and prior. For example, excavations at Qumran have yielded specimens of tefillin and parchment scrolls.[10] Likewise, the structure and placement of Mikvah ritual baths at the Judean fortress of Masada (see Map) appears to be consistent with the rabbinic requirements per the Mishnaic tractate Mikvaot, but was constructed approximately 120 years before the Mishnah was compiled.[11] A clay seal discovered in Jerusalem in 2011 is consistent with the tradition recorded in tractate Shekalim chapter 5.[12]
Original sources:
Mikveh: Southern Mikveh on Masada
Tefillin: https://dailydaf.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/teffilin-from-qumran-yigal-yadin.pdf
Last edited:
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
"Jew" is from the name of Judah -and once was used to specify the house of Judah as opposed to the house of Israel when the twelve tribes split into the two warring houses. (For example.... when "the Jews' "feast of tabernacles is mentioned in the New Testament, it does not mean Israel as a whole, but that of the house of Judah).
One can be an Israelite, but not necessarily a "Jew".
Over time, The house of Judah retained its language and identity -as well as beliefs and practices, but the house of Israel (sometimes referred to as the lost ten tribes) lost its language and identity as it was sifted "as corn through a sieve" through other nations as was prophesied.
Eventually, "Jew" came to refer to a practitioner of Judaism -or the beliefs and practices of Judah/Jews in general as opposed to that of "Christians".
However.... Christ, all of the apostles AND the New Testament church all kept the observances now considered "Jewish" -as evidenced by the New Testament.
There was no difference in the sabbath or holy days observed.
Those changes happened after Christ, the apostles and the New Testament church were persecuted to near non-existence. (Sunday observance -declaring sabbath-keepers anathema from Christ, Xmas, Easter[Ishtar], etc.)
The entire world is prophesied to eventually keep the feast of tabernacles (etc.) when Christ returns -or the nations which do not will receive no rain -so the holy days, etc., are definitely still important.
According to scripture, anyone who keeps the righteousness of the law is a spiritual "Jew" -but many "Christians" are confused about the law -or believe it is not necessary to keep it.
Some judgments under the law were changed by Christ -stoning/execution/eye for eye, etc. -but all Ten Commandments are still in effect -including the seventh day sabbath and the biblical holy days. Sincerity and intent are important, but keeping the law specifically is also important. The holy days of the bible actually teach God's plan -which very few really understand these days. Understanding the law -and that keeping it is important -also helps in understanding prophecy -which can help avoid unfortunate circumstances.
Last edited:
That's not what supersessionism is. In the proper understanding of it, the Jews are on an equal footing with the rest of humanity and are called to the Church like all humanity is, since the New Covenant is for all humanity.
Dan Hopkins
New Member
Jesus tells the Samaritan women at the well '" for salvation is from The Jews" but what import did the label " Jew" have? Jesus is said to be a descendent of DAVID, or DA-VID "The-Woden" or The-Odin. Sir William Jones was first to identify ODIN as BUDHA ( Egyptian PTAH). This etymology is confirmed because David is said to be from NAHUSH, the Sanskrit NAGA ( genetive NAGAS) who were DRAVIDIANS ( Prakrit DAVIDIANS ) . Philologists have also shown how the name JOSAPHAT is a rendering of Prakrit BOSAT ( BODHISATTVA). The ETHIOP'ian's were said to have been expelled from India and Alexander The Great met with the tribe of IZOP'ians in Buddhist Afghanistan ( Gandhara) aligned with the NYSOI ( NICCHAVIS / LICHAVIS) who came to India with the Syrian NISIBIS. One Clearcus of Soli is recorded to have said Aristotle was told that the Syrian Jews followed an Indian doctrine.
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
NO!
No matter which side of the debate - here presented, - most Christians could never be considered Jews.
According to the Christian texts themselves, - Jesus taught Jewish Law, - and even spoke in the Temples.
This would NEVER have been allowed if he was spouting such heresy, as the Jewish ONE God-being a trinity, and that he himself was God!
In other words, - he DIDN'T teach that bull.
He was claiming to be the awaited Jewish Messiah, and nothing more.
The God/trinity idea was added later, after his death, with silencing of challenges, and editing, and reinterpreting of, allowed text.
"Most" Christians today believe he is God as part of a trinity, - that absolutely bars them from any Jewish connection.
*
psychoslice
Veteran Member
I believe its a metaphor, that we are all One, what we believe ourselves to be isn't that, Jew, gentile, whatever, that is only a label, we are not the label, we are One in the Source of all.
Isn't it amazing that only a relative "few" of the Jews responded to Jesus' criticism of the Jewish religious leaders of the day as being correct? (Matthew 23:13-36) They could clearly see it and had experienced the condescension of those negligent 'shepherds' as "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" to whom Jesus was sent. Unlike the Pharisees, Jesus presented a way to God that was not burdensome...his "load was kindly and his load was light". This is why they felt refreshed, rather than judged and loaded down.
It was prophesied that only a "remnant" of the fleshly Jews would return to true worship. (Isaiah 10:22; Romans 9:27)
Their history was recounted by Jesus in Matthew 23:37-39. There was nothing new or unusual about their behavior. They were incorrigible. Once God had fulfilled his obligation to Israel, and they had his son put to death, their behavior warranted a 'divorce'. God has not blessed their nation because they have refused to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ, finding every excuse not to.
The key word is Law, singular.
Also, if you didn't notice he was mostly at odds with other Jews; especially the Sadducees and Pharisees.
Shem Ben Noah
INACTIVE
Josephus was a traitor and total Roman lackey. Slanted everything against the Jews.
"Author Joseph Raymond calls Josephus 'the Jewish Benedict Arnold' for betraying his own troops at Jotapata"
Shem Ben Noah
INACTIVE
Romans put him to death.
Also, please produce the 'Get'.
Jesus said that heaven & earth will pass away before even a dot of an i is changed in Torah.
The Roman Governor found him innocent and wanted to release him. Only when the Jews threatened to report him for treason (which carried the death penalty) did he authorize the execution and even had Jesus flogged to appease them. If you remember, Pilate washed his hands of the blood of Jesus before handing him over.
When Jesus asked his Father to "forgive them for they know not what they do"....he was not talking about the Jews.
??? Sorry don't know what this means. "Get" what?
Jesus also said that the law was now reduced down to just two. He said....."On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets". (Matthew 22:35-40) Love of God and neighbor prevents a Christians from breaking any of God's laws. Think about it....
Shem Ben Noah
INACTIVE
According to the ROMAN account. The victors always write the history skewed in their favor.
Get is Jewish divorce document.
There is only 1 Bible. It has 2 testaments. Both were inspired by God. Both are for Christians. Which one establishes the law is irrelevant, it is established.
Excuse me? Who are you to tell the Jewish people what their Bible is?
This is your belief. It is certainly not mine or Tarheeler's.
I did not mention the Jews and the OT is as much for Christians as it is for the Jews.
When either one of you become omniscient get back to me.