Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jesus the Jew
March issue, 1995 pages 1-6 [I typed it in.] | Arthur Zamboni----Catholic Digest--condensed from Catholic Update

Posted on 11/06/2001 10:13:10 AM PST by JMJ333

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 301-303 next last
To: madrussian
Aw shucks! Do I hafta? :)
161 posted on 11/06/2001 9:16:36 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Starrgaizr
Yep, you got that right.

And I see you are new to FR, too. Welcome aboard!

162 posted on 11/06/2001 9:18:56 PM PST by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Nephi
>Actually, Jews were one tribe of the (Christian) House of Israel

Uhmmm, I believe the Jews were actually part of the House of Judah, from whence came the name Jew. The House of Israel was long since (~721 BC) removed from the scene, to become the "10 lost tribes of Israel". But that's another story...

163 posted on 11/06/2001 9:42:49 PM PST by skraeling
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
Yes, I read the article. I don't find the superficial similarity between Christ's methods of teaching and the Pharisees' methods all that surprising. In a way the Pharisees were the liberals of the day, reinterpreting the commandments. Christ freed his followers from the Law altogether, even though he is quoted as saying otherwise, replacing them with the new Covenant, so, no, he was not a Pharisee, he went way beyond.

The Pharisees said everyone has the right to address God directly. Christ said no one comes to God except through him.

164 posted on 11/06/2001 9:53:11 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: madrussian
I think we agree on the attempted conversion of the Jews. They probably appreciate the support more than the attention.
165 posted on 11/06/2001 9:56:57 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: angelo
As I mentioned above, we have a new Covenant based on the resurrection, not on the deliverance from Egypt.
166 posted on 11/06/2001 9:59:22 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: angelo
Paul was wrong. Can you even tell me what passage from Genesis Paul was referring to in Galatians 3:16?

Gen Chap 12, & 17. Then your argument is with Paul.

So Abraham really didn't need to circumcise himself and his sons, did he? Nor did he have to follow the commands given to Noah.

Abraham's faith produced his obedience, not tablets of stone. (Gen 26:5). Abraham didn't circumcise himself into the Levitcal (Aaron) priesthood, but rather into the Melchisedec (Heb 7).

How, exactly, do you think that Israel obtained forgiveness for sin in the time between the first and second temples?

Why worry about about temporal forgiveness when there is eternal forgiveness. The blood of bulls & goats was just a covering, and did not take away sin (Heb 10:4)

You really have no understanding of the Jewish concept of qorbanot (sacrifice), what its purpose was, and what it accomplished.

With your demeanor, this comment does not suprise me.

167 posted on 11/06/2001 10:02:42 PM PST by Dallas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
. I think the case is well made that Jesus indeed was unabashedly Jewish and respected his roots and Law.

Of course He did. His sole purpose was to fulfill (obey) the law perfectly. He didn't have to redeem gentiles who weren't under the law (except the few who were circumcised).

He was the Messiah that was promised solely to the Jews.

168 posted on 11/06/2001 10:15:55 PM PST by Dallas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
I don't find the superficial similarity between Christ's methods of teaching and the Pharisees' methods all that surprising.

Well I disagree. I don't find anything superficial about the similarities at all. And I would add that if the Father considered the Jews to be so horrible he wouldn't have sent the Messiah [his son] through Abraham's line. You can say whatever you like, but you haven't refuted the New or Old testament here today.

The Pharisees said everyone has the right to address God directly. Christ said no one comes to God except through him.

Apples and oranges. The first part is a reference to how only the priests were allowed to address God directly, not saying that anyone could get to heaven through any path. What the Pharisees did was personalize the relationship with God--one on one--and that is directly how it is with Christ also. Ever heard the phrase "Personal relationship with Christ?"

169 posted on 11/06/2001 10:35:12 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Dallas
Well, it may be late but I feel like I have no idea which direction this discussion is taking. I thought we were talking about moral obligations to Israel--and that this article outlined why I felt it was our duty to stand up for them.
170 posted on 11/06/2001 10:37:42 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Dallas
Gen Chap 12, & 17. Then your argument is with Paul.

Can you narrow it down to a verse or two please? I want to look at the Hebrew to see where Paul finds a 'singular' 'offspring'. My argument may be with Paul, but you are the one repeating his argument here and now.

Abraham's faith produced his obedience, not tablets of stone.

So Abram went, as the LORD had told him (Genesis 12:4)

You cannot separate out Abraham's faith from his obedience. It was his obedience to God which demonstrated his faith.

Why worry about about temporal forgiveness when there is eternal forgiveness.

Jews have eternal forgiveness, and always have had, when they repent from sin and turn to God for forgiveness.

The blood of bulls & goats was just a covering, and did not take away sin (Heb 10:4)

Wrong. The Hebrew scriptures repeatedly describe sin as being "washed away", "blotted away", "remembered no more" etc. You have been misinformed.

And all its fat he shall burn on the altar, like the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings; so the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin, and he shall be forgiven. (Leviticus 4:26)

I, I am He who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins. (Isaiah 43:25)

None of the sins that he has committed shall be remembered against him (Ezekiel 33:16)

I have swept away your transgressions like a cloud, and your sins like mist; return to me, for I have redeemed you. (Isaiah 44:22)

With your demeanor, this comment does not suprise me.

And this refutes my point how? Perhaps you would like to explain to me your understanding of the purpose and function of the Jewish sacrificial system.

171 posted on 11/06/2001 10:39:11 PM PST by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: angelo
My argument may be with Paul, but you are the one repeating his argument here and now.

You're taking yourself too seriously. It wouldn't matter what evidence was produced, you've proved you'll argue with anybody in the bible who refutes your beliefs. (i.e. "Paul was wrong").

You cannot separate out Abraham's faith from his obedience. It was his obedience to God which demonstrated his faith.

You're splitting syntax hairs....

Jews have eternal forgiveness, and always have had, when they repent from sin and turn to God for forgiveness.

Got a passage that supports that ?

Wrong. The Hebrew scriptures repeatedly describe sin as being "washed away", "blotted away", "remembered no more" etc. You have been misinformed.

Talk about me being "wrong", and "misinformed". I can't find any of those terms you placed in quotes in the OT. Got a verse ?

I have a feeling you're flying by the seat of your pants in this exchange. The verses you quoted in no way support your premise. You're confusing temporal with eternal...

172 posted on 11/07/2001 12:04:08 AM PST by Dallas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: JMJ333
I would hope the U.S. never abandons Israel, but it appears that in the endtimes Israel will stand alone against the nations.

God alone will destroy Israel's enemies, and I don't see how America has any part in it..

173 posted on 11/07/2001 12:18:39 AM PST by Dallas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
I don't see anything in your post that refutes Jesus being a Jew. Interesting, but it doesn't support your assertion.

There are also a set of minor characters in the Gospels that I have been wondering about. They include Lazarus, Salome, John the Baptist, Magdalene, and Simon Magus.

I wouldn't call John the Baptist a 'minor' character. But if you're wondering about them, why don't you read the Bible again to find out more about them?

Also, what was Peter's problem with Magdalene?

If you knew the answer, would it make any difference?

Don't forget the 3 wise men whom some claim to be Persian but could just as easily be Egyptian.

There's nothing in the Bible that says there were three wise men; only that there were wise men from the East, countries not specified. Tradition gives a name to three men, probably because they were bearing three gifts; gold, frankincense and myrrh. But the Bible mentions only wise men from the East.

Where did the multitude that Jesus fed come from just after John's death?

They came from their homes. (Ask a silly question.....)

There are a lot of hints and gaps, which is probably what Mohammed seized upon to promulgate his own version of religion, not to mention the Cathars, Manichaeans, and who knows what other heresies and Gnostics.

There is a big problem these days, and we better get our Christianity straight or this Pagan religion of bin Laden is going to be in our face for some time to come.

There is a big problem these days, but the problem isn't with 'hints and gaps'. It is with unbelief in God and people thinking they know more than God how the world should work. You seem to think that if Christianity made more intellectual sense, it would hold up better against Islam. You could poke just as many, if not more, holes in Islamic theology and history as you could Christianity and Judaism.

174 posted on 11/07/2001 4:07:18 AM PST by wimpycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: madrussian
The Jews didn't follow Jesus, and aren't going to. In fact, they take offence at the conversion attempts and are actively opposing it and assimilation. What Jesus hoped would be continuation of the Jewish Law, didn't come to be.

You make it sound like Jesus failed in some way. And he didn't come to continue the law, or to refute it in any way, but to fulfill it. I agree with our Catholic host on this one. Don't forget, it ain't over yet.....:)

175 posted on 11/07/2001 4:13:19 AM PST by wimpycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Dallas
I'm sorry, but dispensationalism is an idea that doesn't make sense to me.

How strange.....

Yeah, life's funny that way, full of little surprises.

176 posted on 11/07/2001 4:17:39 AM PST by wimpycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Dallas
You're taking yourself too seriously. It wouldn't matter what evidence was produced, you've proved you'll argue with anybody in the bible who refutes your beliefs. (i.e. "Paul was wrong").

I'll let you in on a little secret: Paul's letters are not in my bible. Jews do not consider the gospels and epistles to be part of scripture. Do you have a verse for me yet, or can't you find the source of Paul's assertion? Doesn't it bother you at all that you cannot find the reference in Genesis that Paul is supposedly quoting?

You're splitting syntax hairs....

You said that "Abraham was justified solely by his faith", and I provided evidence that this is not accurate. Thus I am 'splitting syntax hairs'. A nice way to try to dismiss my point, but it doesn't address what I said.

Got a passage that supports that

The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. (Psalm 51:17)

Talk about me being "wrong", and "misinformed". I can't find any of those terms you placed in quotes in the OT. Got a verse ?

Uh, I gave you the verses. Did you read them?

The verses you quoted in no way support your premise. You're confusing temporal with eternal...

What makes you think there is any distinction between temporal and eternal in these passages? Sin is sin. It is forgiven or it is not. If it is forgiven, it is wiped away completely (as my citations illustrated). If it is "forgiven...wiped away...not remembered...swept away..." then it is not counted against us either temporally or eternally. What makes you think otherwise?

177 posted on 11/07/2001 4:21:50 AM PST by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: wimpycat
You could poke just as many, if not more, holes in Islamic theology and history as you could Christianity and Judaism.

The difference, of course, being that the Christians and Jews won't issue a fatwa against you.

178 posted on 11/07/2001 4:23:16 AM PST by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: angelo
God said that His covenant with Israel would be EVERLASTING. Is God a liar?

God's covenant with Israel is a spiritual thing and it is with the spiritual Israel. Unspiritual people just can't see or appreciate it so they have to apply it to anything called Israel.

They would claim God had a covenant with a ham sandwich if you named it Israel.

Those Jews who were faithful became Christians. Together with the Gentile Christians, they are Israel. The rest rebelled against God and broke the covenant.

How many punishments in the old law call for the offender to be cut off?

Unfortunately, Hal Lindsey and his ilk have made a living telling sensational stories and deceiving people.

But we were warned about that too.

179 posted on 11/07/2001 5:50:30 AM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: angelo
Angelo,

Thanks for posting your #131, an excellent summary of Jewish doctrines not well understood by non-Jews (or, for that matter, by many Jews).

180 posted on 11/07/2001 6:14:07 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 301-303 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson