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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The problem can be described as owning the interpretation. Religions tend to prefer interpretations that give them more status, so they interpret terms that are used to identify their members expansively. Originally being called a Christian was an insult, but as the Hellenised disciples gained influence the term was used to describe anyone with Messianic beliefs.
I agree with the above especially Christianity becoming a Hellenist Roman Religion. Yes the connotation of names changes with time, but from the objective today the names people use to describe their beliefs is simply that.
Kodesh is the Hebrew word for holiness, and it means set aside for God's purposes. For example, if I set aside the seventh day from the other six days to make it a day to rest from labor and devote my thoughts and actions to God, it makes that day holy.
Qodesh is a transliteration of קדש
The original argument involved how the name of Christian was used in Paul's day. Using the modern meaning meaning of the word obscures the difference between Hellenised Messianics and the nationalistic ones who were aligned with James the Just. James the Just was written out of the early account in Acts and in the gospel of Mark is called James the less.
I would argue that since Jesus complained WHILE ALIVE that his disciples didn’t understand his message, he wasn’t doing all that well either.
Doesn't one's definition make Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israeli Messiah, a non-Christian, please, right?
I believe there is not shred of evidence to support that view.
I believe you are consistent and consistently wrong.I rated our friend @Ebionite's post as winner for the above sentence, Paul never became a follower of the truthful Israelite Messiah, as I understand, instead he tried and converted the credulous to his religion of Hellenism- who already believed "dying, rising and atoning deity" just using the nomenclature of "Christ" and "Christianity", I understand, please, right?
Regards
_______________
"A dying-and-rising, death-rebirth, or resurrection deity is a religious motif in which a god or goddess dies and is resurrected.[1][2][3][4] Examples of gods who die and later return to life are most often cited from the religions of the ancient Near East. "
Dying-and-rising god - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Actually, Gamaliel, the head of the Sanhedrin and top Pharisee, actually said to leave the Christians alone.
The Christians were associated with Hellenised religion, while Galilee was known for it's nationalism. Likewise Paul associated Roman rule with deity but Yeshua made a distinction between these two. It was this issue which was a the centre of the trap that was set for him:
I'd like to say something here. It is true that some say that Luke was not a Jew, and they base this mainly on Colossians 4:11 and 14.
Interesting that you say that because I was watching Jewish TV here (that's one of the channels along with other religious stations) and they broadcast a recount of a Pew analysis, stating that about 1/3 of the Jews did not believe the Torah while a great majority of those in non-Jewish religions do. Many Jews are Jewish by birth and do not go to synagogue or do more than profess a bond with the culture if that much.
That makes sense to me. Of course the aftermath needs to follow that, but that scripture sure makes sense to me.
Greek
That is correct. Just as someone who is Navajo may or may not follow Navajo religion, someone who is a Jew may or may not follow Judaism.