Posted on 11/06/2001 10:13:10 AM PST by JMJ333
*I know this is an extremely old article [I dug it out of the back of my closet} but it is well worth the read.
Jesus was a committed Jew of his day. And to truly understand Jesus, we need a solid background in Jewish religious, social, and political history.
Jesus, a rural Jew, lived in Galilee, in the northern part of Palestine. And in Jesus day, Galilee was divided into an upper and lower region. The lower region, where Jesus lived was a rich valley that stretched from the Mediterranean to the sea of Galilee, a distance of about 25 miles.
As far as we know, in Jesus' time there were four principle Jewish sects: The Essenes, the Zealots, the Sadducees, and the Pharisees.
The Essenes, whose name may come from an Arabaic word meaning "pious," had already withdrawn from Jerusalem and Temple participation by the time of Jesus. In isolated monastic communities established in the Judean wilderness, they studied scriptures and developed a rule of life. Essenes were known for their piety--daily prayer, prayer before and after meals, strict observation of the Sabbath, daily ritual bathing, emphasis on chastity and celibacy, wearing white robes as a symbol of spiritual purity, and sharing communal meals and property. Nowhere in the Gospels, however, is Jesus presented as adhering to the Essenes way of life.
Jesus was not a zealot either. Zealots were Jews who vehemently opposed the Roman occupation of Palestine. But there is no evidence in any of Jesus' teachings that he encouraged revolt against Rome.
Jesus also was clearly set apart from the Sadducees, whose name in Hebrew means "Righteous ones." These Jews believed in a strict interpretation of the Torah and did not believe in life after death. Jesus, of course believed in bodily resurrection (Mark 12:18-27)
Contrary to common understanding, Jesus may well have been close to the Pharisees, even if he did debate them vigorously. Many of Jesus' teachings and much of his style was similar to theirs. To understand this, we need to compare the central teachings of the Pharisees to Jesus' teachings.
The Pharisees were a lay reform group within Judaism. The name Pharisee itself means "separate ones" in Hebrew, which refers to a ritual observance of purity and tithing; the word Pharisee can also be translated as "The interpreter," referring to this group's unique interpretation of Hebrew scripture.
As reformers, the Pharisees did not oppose Roman occupation; rather their focus was on reforming the temple, especially with respect to its liturgical practices and priests. And the Pharisees turned their attention toward strengthening Jewish devotion to the Torah, which, they said, had to be continually readjusted within the framework of the contemporary Jewish community. While the Pharisees insisted that the 613 commandments found in the written Torah remained in effect, the commandments had to be carefully rethought in light of new human needs.
The temple priests, though, looked upon the precepts of the Torah more literally and primarily in terms of sacrificial observances at the Temple. The Pharisees, on the other hand, taught that every ordinary human action could become sacred--an act of worship. Doing a "good deed" for another human, a "mitzvah" in Hebrew, was accorded a status that in some ways, surpassed Temple worship. This was truly a revolution in religious thinking.
In addition, a new religious figure in Judaism--the teacher--or Rabbi--emerged within the Pharisaic movement. For their part, rabbis fulfilled a twofold role in the community: They served as interpreters of the Torah and, more importantly, they helped make its teachings relevant. Their principle task was instructional, not liturgical.
From the Pharisaic reform emerged what was later called the synagogue ("assembly of people"). The synagogue became the center of this movement, which quickly spread throughout Palestine and the cities of Jewish Diaspora. Unlike the Jerusalem Temple, the synagogues were not places where priests presided and sacrifices were offered; rather they were places where the Torah was studied, rabbis offered interpretations, and prayers were said. Thus, synagogues became not merely "houses of God" but far more "houses of the people of God."
The Pharisee also emphasized table fellowship--a way of strengthening relationships within a community. In the eyes of the Pharisees, the Temple altar in Jerusalem could be replicated at every table in the household of Israel. A quiet but far reaching reform was at hand. There was no longer any basis for assigning to the priestly class a unique level of authority.
The Pharisees saw God not only as creator, giver of the Covenant, and much more, but in a special way, as the Parent of each individual. Everyone had the right to address God in a direct and personal way, not simply through the temple sacrifices offered by the priests.
The Pharisees also believed in resurrection. Those whose lives were marked by justice would rise once the Messiah had come. Then they would enjoy perpetual union with God.
There is little doubt, then, that Jesus and the Pharisees shared many central convictions. The first was their basic approach to God as a parent figure. In story after story in the Gospels, Jesus addresses God in this way. And Jesus' central prayer begins by invoking God as "Our Father" (Matt. 6: 9-13). The effect of this emphasis was fundamentally the same for Jesus as for the Pharisees (although Jesus had a unique position as God's "Only begotten Son"). More than anything, this approach led to both an enhanced appreciation of the dignity of every person and ultimately to the notion of resurrection--and perpetual union with God.
Jesus' own public stance closely paralleled the evolving role of the Pharisaic teacher. Jesus on a number of occasions in the Gospels are filled with examples of Jesus teaching in synagogues.
Jesus clearly picked up on another central feature of Pharisaism as well, that of the oral Torah, which refers to interpretations given by the Pharisees to various Torah texts. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus offers interpretations of Scripture quite similar to those of the Pharisees.
Finally, Jesus also embraced the table fellowship notion of Pharisaism. The meal narratives in the New Testament are an example of this. In the end, He selected table fellowship for a critical of his ministry, the celebration of the first Eucharist.
Then why, in the Gospels, do the Pharisees appear as the archenemies of Jesus? Here is gets complicated. For one thing, some Pharisees were praised by Jesus (for example the scribe of Mark 12:32). And we know that Jesus ate with Pharisees (Luke 7:36; 14:1).
But there was still conflict between the Pharisees and Jesus, nevertheless. And here scholarship offers three possible explanations.
The first sees Jesus and his teachings as quite similar to the Pharisees. The animosity in the Gospel results from subsequent interpretations of Jesus' action. For example, Jesus' practicing healing on the Sabbath or his disciples picking grain in the holy day were actions clearly not supported by the Pharisees.
Another possible explanation results from our enhanced understanding of the Talmud, the collected teachings of the Pharisees and their rabbinic heirs. In the Talmud are references to some seven categories of Pharisees, which clearly shows that the Pharisaical movement encompassed a wide range of viewpoints and, more important, that internal disputes, often of the heated variety, were quite common. The Gospel portraits of Jesus disputing with the "Pharisees" were examples of "hot debates" that were common in the Pharisaic circles rather than examples of Jesus condemning the Pharisees.
A third scholarly approach stresses positive connection between Jesus' central teachings and those of the Pharisees. In light of these, one becomes suspicious about the so-called texts of conflict. Surely Jesus would not denounce a movement with which he had so much in common.
Hence, either Jesus was speaking in a very limited context, or what are commonly called "the conflict stories" represent religious tensions existing in the latter part of the first century when the gospels were written. The Christian community--now formally expelled from the synagogues--was engaged in intense competition for Jewish converts. The New Testament statements about conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees may reflect that competition.
Regardless, one fact remains. Jesus' own Bible was the Hebrew Scriptures. His attitude toward the sacred writings is summed up in the assertion "Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish the Law but fulfill (Matt. 5:17).
On the whole, Jesus' teachings were wither literally biblical or filtered through the Pharisaic use of the scripture, or both.
The way the Pharisee and Jesus used the Hebrew Scriptures becomes more clear when Jesus argues his position by using so-called "proof-texts." Here, Jesus quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures to prove a point or refute a critic (See the Sermon on the Mount Matt 5, 6, & 7). In such instances, Jesus was drawing on a technique used by the Pharisees in trying to make a point.
The "Proof-Texting" that Jesus used did, at times, pit him against the Pharisees--such as when He challenged certain claims they made about the unwritten law and called them hypocrites for placing higher value on teachings of humans than of God (Matt. 23: 1-36).; such as when He used scripture to refute the Pharisaic teachings about plucking grain on the Sabbath (Matt 12: 1-8). or unwashed hands (Matt. 15:20).
At other times though, Jesus' "proof-texting" placed him on the side of the Pharisees. Once in an impressive debate with the Saduccees, He used Hebrew scripture to reinforce his belief, and that oft he Pharisees, in an afterlife. Jesus was so impressive he won the Pharisees' applause (Matt. 22: 23-33).
Possibly the best example we have of Jesus' use of Hebrew Scriptures is his teaching on love. "Teacher," one Pharisee asked, "which commandment is greatest?" And Jesus responded by quoting Deuteronamy 6:5, "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment" (Matt. 22: 36-39). Them Jesus went on quoting Leviticus 19:18, "The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself." In brief, Jesus was proof-texting his answer.
Jesus' use of the Hebrew Scriptures, therefore, was unabashedly Jewish. And it was similar to that of his contemporaries, particularly the philosophy of the Pharisees.
Knowing and appreciating the Jewish origins has at least three advantages: First, it helps us revise negative understandings of the Pharisees. It also helps us to avoid anti-Semitism. Finally, it allows us to better appreciate the Jewish roots of Christianity. Ultimately, understanding Jesus as a Jew will help us to better understand both our own faith and that of the contemporary Jews.
Thank you LL! Coming from someone raised in Orthodox Judaism, this means a lot to this tinok shenishba.
There are two extremes, both false. The one is to picture Jesus as a blond, blue-eyed surfer-type who dropped onto the earth from outer space and spoke without any cultural context whatever. (Yes, I wince and cringe a bit at pictures of Jesus as an American boy. He wasn't. He was Jewish.)
The other extreme is that of reductionism. It is to say that Jesus was just a Jew, and to reduce everything He was to human terms — picking what school He fit Himself into, making everything cultural and customary.
The truth is that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, He was God incarnate, God in human flesh — and the flesh that He became (John 1:14) was in fact Jewish flesh..
So when the author says, "Let's see which Jewish school of thought Jesus was a member of; well, looks like the Pharisees," he's not speaking from all of the evidence. They both cited Scripture, so that proves that Jesus was a Pharisee? How silly! Anyone who believes that the Bible is God's Word (as Jesus certainly did) is going to cite it as his authority. That Jesus and the Pharisees both did so is simply because both affirmed the authority of the Word; it isn't that Jesus agreed with the Pharisees, it is that the Pharisees were right on this point, and thus affirmed the same thing Jesus did.
I cite Scripture, too. Am I a member of the Pharisees' party?
You say you don't want to argue, so let me make this point and trust you not to turn it into an argument. Suppose a hundred years from now someone is studing my thinking. (Won't happen, that's not the point.) He sees in my Statement of Faith that I affirm the doctrine of the Trinity. Then he notes that the Roman Catholic Church affirmed a similar doctrine. And he concludes that I was a Roman Catholic on that basis.
Of course, that would be nonsense, as you well know. If (I say "if") I affirm the same thing that the RCC affirms on this point, it would be because the RCC affirms something that the Bible teaches, which is in fact my source for the doctrine. You see my point?
And so, because they affirmed the authority of Scripture, there were numerous areas where the Pharisees would teach things that Jesus would also teach. But He did not teach them because they taught them; he taught the same thing they did becaue they were both going to the same source, and the P's, like broken clocks, were sometimes right. Jesus, by contrast, was always right.
But He had numerous differences with them, though sometimes they got the theory right. Hence His remark: "... whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do" (Matthew 23:3).
And then again, the author simply ignores areas where Jesus stood all by Himself. The article cites Jesus' use of "our Father," which was relatively infrequent. What he ignores is Jesus' very frequent recorded reference to God as "My Father." The evidence we have indicates that, in this, He was unique -- because He had a unique relationship to God. Again, in the doubled amen amen ("Verily, verily"; "truly, truly") Jesus gave His pronouncements a unique authority and solemnity — contrasted to the more rabbinic method of "Rabbi ____ said...."
His portrait of Jesus does not really explain why "when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His teaching, for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes" (Matthew 7:28, 29).
But that's what you get when you don't just build your portrait of Jesus from the excellent documents we have. As I argue, by means of satire, in How to Make Your Very Own Jesus.
Dan
There were two types of Pharisaism in the days of Jesus; one of which he ascribed and supported, and another to which he rebukes in Matt. 23. But by no means, was Jesus rebuking and calling for the abolition of all Pharisees in his day. Jesus did not stand against the Written Law or Oral Law, nor even Pharisaism, but only against the elevation of the letter of the Law above the spirit of the Law.
There are two types of 'Oral' Law. Moral and ceremonial laws (the moral in every case taking precedence over the ceremonial laws).
The Oral Law detailed the many conditions that allowed for the breaking of the Sabbath. Grace was provided by G-d for those who needed to break the Sabbath for a higher ethic and moral law. For example, the Rabbis of the Hillel School of Pharisaism declared that is was permissible to violate the Sabbath to preserve life, that in doing so you violate a Sabbath to ensure the observance of future Sabbaths. This was accepted interpretation by the Hillel Pharisees (of which Jesus belonged), but not to the Shammai Pharisees or the Sadducees who were ultra-strict, always adhering to the letter of the Law over the spirit of the Law (Oral Law).
Luke 11:42 "But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."
"these (least commandments) you ought to have done, without neglecting the others (grave-weightier commandments)." Jesus was saying "these (ceremonial laws) you ought to have done!"
Jesus' intention was to separate morality from the strict interpretation of Laws of the Old Testament as held by one of the two major branches of Pharisees (Shammai school). Although those Pharisees were resentful of this, the majority never desired to be rid of Jesus or to kill him. It would be the chief Priests and their scribes (Sadducees) who would be responsible for handing Jesus over to the Romans. These were Sadducees and not Pharisees. Any hostility between Jesus and the Pharisees are due to differences of interpretation of Law (school of Hillel against the school of Shammai).
Oh, I see. Your interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures is correct. The Jew's interpretation of their own scriptures is incorrect. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is 'unspiritual'.
Sorry, but your argument just doesn't hold water. God made His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their descendants. The word frequently used translates as "seed", meaning biological descendants. You can try to 'spiritualize' this all you want, but it doesn't change what the Torah actually says.
Those Jews who were faithful became Christians.
What a ridiculous statement! The Jews who are faithful cleave to the Law. Read Deuteronomy 13.
How many punishments in the old law call for the offender to be cut off?
About as many times as God says He will forgive when we repent and turn back to him.
Yes. Jesus came to FULFILL the Law, not to break or eliminate it.
How anyone who believes Christ is the Saviour can then turn and say he was not Jewish is beyond me. And in my own searchings/readings about the Jewish faith and (forgive me if I reference something heretical here...I have not had the opportunity to talk with someone Jewish who could give me the finer points of Jewish mysticism) the Kabbalah, I have been inspired to a greater appreciation, even fondness and love for the Jewish faith.
I will not argue with them about not accepting Jesus as their Messiah. It is not for me to judge them. However, I am happy to follow their example of faith and commitment and devotion to God..and that is where ALL our paths lead...is it not?
The truth is that you believe that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. Jews of course do not.
Perhaps because they KNEW their scriptures regarding the archtypes of enemies of God?
They must have recalled what was said in Jeremiah 22:24
"As I live, saith the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence; And I will give thee into the hand of them that seek thy life, and into the hand of them whose face thou fearest, even into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, and into the hand of the Chaldeans. And I will cast thee out, and thy mother that bare thee, into another country, where ye were not born; and there shall ye die. But to the land whereunto they desire to return, thither shall they not return. Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.
I'm not sure Jesus should have declared himself God. See, from the above verse no man of his seed shall sit upon the throne of David, or rule in Judah. It just happens that Matthew lists Jesus' lineage through the cursed branch of kings. Matthew either intentionally or unintentionally omits king Jehoiakim in the list, which may confuse some people. But Jehoiakim (not Jeconiah) is undeniably the son of Josiah, and Jeconiah is the son of Jehoiakim.
Matthew 1:10-12 "And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon: And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
1 Chronicles 3:15-17 "And the sons of Josiah were, the firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum. And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son. And the sons of Jeconiah; Assir, Salathiel his son,"
Isaiah speaks of the cursed branch too.
Isaiah 14:18-19 "All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house. But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet."
Jesus wound up missing from his grave... he had been pierced with a sword....
Isaiah 14:12 "How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!" Revelation 22:16 "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."
Why do most Bibles translate heylel as "Morning Star", while others translate it as "Shining", and still a few translate it as "Lucifer"?
In the Isaiah verse the king of Babylon is made to seem like a fallen celestial being and Christian doctrine speaks of Satan as a fallen angel. So, why does Jesus use morning star??
Isaiah 14:12-16 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit. Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: "Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble,"
Matthew 26:64 "Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."
Matthew 27:50-51 "Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;"
John 19:37 "And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced."
Too bad John didn't tell them the rest of THAT scripture!!
How about some Ezekiel speaking of Tyre?, (another 'enemy')
Ezekiel 32:7-8 "And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light. All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over thee, and set darkness upon thy land, saith the Lord GOD."
Luke 23:44-45 "And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst."
Ezekiel 28:9-10 "Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am God? but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth thee. Thou shalt die the deaths of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD."
The word "uncircumcised" refers to Gentiles -- which the Romans were. The crucifiction punishment that followed Jesus's claim to GOD-hood was indeed the "death of the uncircumcised" (the Roman execution method), a punishment issued by Romans and typically reserved only for enemies of their state.
Why are there so many parallels with Babylon, Pharoah, Tyre, even Satan and Jesus???
At the time of Jesus, the only 'scripture' in existance was the Old Testament (Tanakh). Since there are quite a few verses from the OT that speak of God's enemies, and these same verses matched up with Jesus, is this why so many Jews were opposed to Jesus as the messiah? Because he fit so many of the verses speaking of God's enemies?
That isn't my contention, it is what Paul said. Because you make no claim to being a Christian, there is no reason for you to believe what Paul said. But those who claim to be Christians have no defense.
Of course, you as a Jew could search out what the old testament really says concerning the Messiah. But simply disbelieving scriptures you don't like is hardly limited to Jews.
Sorry, but your argument just doesn't hold water. God made His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their descendants. The word frequently used translates as "seed", meaning biological descendants. You can try to 'spiritualize' this all you want, but it doesn't change what the Torah actually says.
The old covenant was broken by the Jews, and fulfilled in Jesus. All you have to do is search your own scriptures. In fact, I must confess that any Christian who has not studied the Law and the prophets has an incomplete understanding of Christ.
What a ridiculous statement! The Jews who are faithful cleave to the Law. Read Deuteronomy 13.
Jesus said that if you were faithful to the Law, you would know and believe Him. It isn't just Jesus you reject. It is your own Law and your own prophets you reject. But then, that has always been the case as evidenced by the blood of the prophets shed by their own people.
"Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, Saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.
For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, Greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, 'Rabbi, Rabbi.'
But you, do not be called 'Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.
But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.
But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long rayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obliged to perform it.' Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifies the gold? And, 'Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.' Fools and blind! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift? Therefore he who swears by the altar, swears by it and by all things on it. He who swears by the temple, swears by it and by Him who dwells in it. And he who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits on it.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone. Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, And say, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.' Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers' guilt. Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?
Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, That on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate; For I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, 'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!' " "
Jews in fact do. What do you think the apostles were? Who wrote almost all of the books of the NT?
Perhaps you meant to say "Some Jews." But how is that worth saying? Some Jews don't accept Moses as the Lawgiver, either.
Dan
Yes, and this prophecy, Jeremiah 22, rather drives a stake (one of many) through the heart of Christian premellenialism. The kingdom of Christ is not over the physical Judah or physical Israel.
For the rest of your post, you are just figurizing where it suits you. Too bad you don't read the rest of the prophecies of Isaiah concerning Jesus.
I was hoping that you would 'suggest' this!! What you are saying is the its okay for YOU to takes verses out of Isaiah and attribute them to Jesus (even when they actually refer to Ahaz), but ignore other verses because it doesn't suit your purpose! You can't have it both ways by the way. You can't just pick and choose which prophecies from the same book, you want to attribute to Jesus and just pretend the others that really DO fit, don't exist! lol
Well, then, there is your assignment.
Did you know they have the skull of Magdalene in France?
If you read the Great Commission, you'll find that it's the other way around. Jews should embrace Jesus and be on the forefront of spreading Christianity! The whole reason that God raised up the Jews was as a beacon of 'light unto the nations.'
Today, most Jews seem to think that Judaism is less a religion than an 'ethnic' identification. They remember the part about being the 'Chosen People' -- but they forget what they were chosen for.
"Magi" is perhaps an arcane and unfamiliar term to most English speakers. But, if you look in the dictionary, the word "magi" means sorcerers, wise men, MAGIcians, star-gazers, or astrologers. For what it is worth, you might be interested to know that "wizard", literally from the Old English "wise-ard", means "wise man". In Biblical times, magi (typically from the lands, such as Babylon, to the east of Israel) supposedly conjured the powers of the stars, sought guidance and prescience from them, and followed them. They monitored and interpreted the signs of the stars, predicted abnormal events, told fortunes, channeled deities, and were believed to tap unearthy powers.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I knew from the start. My bible teacher is Jewish.
The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. (Psalm 51:17)
You keep shooting yourself in the foot. Let's continue...
Psa 51:18 Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem.
Psa 51:19 Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar.
Without the shedding of blood, there is no atonement for sin.
So I ask you once again, produce ONE verse that shows how the OT sacrificial system has been changed, or been done away with ? Rabbi's have tried, but to no avail.
Lev 16:34 And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the LORD commanded Moses.
Exo 30:10 And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements: once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations: it is most holy unto the LORD.
Hosea 6:5-6 "Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth: and thy judgments are as the light that goeth forth. For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.