Zone1 If Jesus Was A Jew

[zaangalewa]

... But it would ruin the whole script if that emerged .

Don't fear it will ruin the anti-Christian messages of your master Putin when you will tell him to stop his totally stupid, senseless and criminal war on Europe in the Ukraine by leaving the Ukraine with all of his soldiers yesterday, Russian and/or slave of Putin.

 

[irosie91]

Besides what we believe this only means he had not been a Roman citizen. The crucifixion was a racist form of capital punishment.

Capital punishment for CRIME AGAINST THE ROMAN EMPIRE, generally
sedition. It was not employed for "common criminals" and CERTAINLY not for "jewish crime" ie crime against jewish authority or religious law

 

[Lisa558]

the "new church" was built by constantine

Constantine lived hundreds of years after Jesus. The new religion was started by Paul.

 

[irosie91]

Constantine lived hundreds of years after Jesus. The new religion was started by Paul.

the cult was established as THE STATE RELIGION OF ROME---by Constantine who put HIS SPIN ON IT thru the book HE SPONSORED---to wit, the "NEW"
Testament. He also declared the LAWS that inspired both the Inquisition and
the 1933 Nuremburg code (also influenced Shariah)

 

[Lisa558]

the cult was established as THE STATE RELIGION OF ROME---by Constantine who put HIS SPIN ON IT thru the book HE SPONSORED---to wit, the "NEW"
Testament. He also declared the LAWS that inspired both the Inquisition and
the 1933 Nuremburg code (also influenced Shariah)

That’s different than saying Christianity started under Constantine. He certainly furthered it, but it started with the 1st century Jewish apostates - led by Paul. He was the troublemaker.

 

[irosie91]

That’s different than saying Christianity started under Constantine. He certainly furthered it, but it started with the 1st century Jewish apostates - led by Paul. He was the troublemaker.

IMO---Paul was a custodian of unintended consequences. He was not
all that "jewish" as he claimed----in fact his parents were Hellenist converts---
a kind of form of hippyism for Greeks at that time----same was true for
Luke. IMO they were as jewish as were the "HARI KRISHNAH" gangs of
the 1960s were Hindu. It was a hippy cult that Constantine USED as a support for his unbridled IMPERIALISM. He didn't even like it for himself. AS to Paul----even he got shoved thru Constantine's Nicean council

 

[Lisa558]

IMO---Paul was a custodian of unintended consequences. He was not
all that "jewish" as he claimed----in fact his parents were Hellenist converts---
a kind of form of hippyism for Greeks at that time----same was true for
Luke. IMO they were as jewish as were the "HARI KRISHNAH" gangs of
the 1960s were Hindu. It was a hippy cult that Constantine USED as a support for his unbridled IMPERIALISM. He didn't even like it for himself.

Have you read any of Paul’s writings? He was a self-loathing liberal Jew.

(Fast-forward 2000 years, and we STILL have self-loathing liberal Jews.)

 

[irosie91]

Have you read any of Paul’s writings? He was a self-loathing liberal Jew.

(Fast-forward 2000 years, and we STILL have self-loathing liberal Jews.)

as far as I know---none of Paul's writings are actually extant----we got the
Nicean Council version---as far as I know----but it seems to me that he was
adamant about making Judaism PALATABLE to the Greek and Roman
masses

 

[Lisa558]

as far as I know---none of Paul's writings are actually extant----we got the
Nicean Council version---as far as I know----but it seems to me that he was
adamant about making Judaism PALATABLE to the Greek and Roman
masses

No, we have some of Paul’s writings. He really demonized Jews who would not adopt the Jesus-worship.

 

[LibertyKid]

Then why aren't Christians Jewish? I don't get it.

Many were 'messianic jews' and many were not. Those Gentiles that were converted, we converted by Saul/Paul. Paul recognized that the old covenant that was between God and the Jews was now over and that god no longer held a national covenant with a people, but is a personal relationship. That is why Paul and Peter quarreled over certain traditions. This is why Paul didn't force gentiles into the same jewish box. If anyone understood how for centuries Israel miss identified the characteristics of God and understood that Jesus was God in flesh, it was Paul. If anyone understood that the old covenant was broken and new covenant existed it was Paul. Thus Paul took that gospel on his various missionary journeys and spread the gospel converting Gentiles. If it was up to the Jews, they would have probably held onto their customs and kept Jesus in their little jewish theological boxes.

 

[Meriweather]

the "new church" was built by constantine

The Church existed long before Constantine. He halted the persecution and also insisted peace among Church factions. Constantine was a man of politics, which by definition means power, control, wealth. He saw the value of gaining support from a group of thus untapped political allies.

First...the different factions had to coalesce and settle internal differences. Constantine brought them together and then pretty much let them be. He had an empire to run. His personal religious beliefs are still open to question. He could have given the Sun God more allegiance than Christianity--or vice-versa. He may have heard Paul's letter saying he was everything to everyone and decided it was good advice.

 

[Meriweather]

the most compelling evidence that Jesus was a pharisee jew is the fact
that the Romans crucified him

Except...the Roman crucifixion of Pharisees happened over seventy years before Jesus was born.

 

[Meriweather]

Constantine lived hundreds of years after Jesus. The new religion was started by Paul.

No, the new religion was started by Jesus, through the Holy Spirit. It was Jesus who taught the Apostles; Jesus whose last command to them was to go throughout the world spreading the Gospel message. He gave them the heads up that doing this would not bring peace among the people but a sword--just as his message had not brought peace to his life but the cross. Jesus' message was that of God's love and goodness--that God forgives sins, faults, shortcoming, etc.

This was not a new message--it can be found throughout the Old Testament, nurtured in a select/chosen group of people, but with Jesus was ready to be announced and proclaimed all over the world. Paul was only one of many who became one who spread this message. His letters survived.

 

[Clyde 154]

Exactly .
You are talking about the Israelis and the IDF .
Who then practise their usual Victim propaganda, always blaming others for the tactics and crimes they use and invariably start .
This has been an integral ruse practised by Deep State ( the Jewish elite) from the very beginning .

They even used Mossad in Ukraine to create the same type of False Flags and Fake incidents .
Most notably in Bucha which turned out to be 100% Fake but which Deep State asset Wikipedia still shows as the " Bucha Massacre".
Standard Deep State ( Mossad ) Fakery .

The evidence can't be denied............who failed to protect the children, whose protection where they under? As far as the rest of your diatribe, its based upon nothing but dog's barking, noise,..........PROVE your accusations, or don't. Priceless, you present PROPAGANDA in order to accuse others of .........P R O P A G A N D A?

 

[Lisa558]

No, the new religion was started by Jesus, through the Holy Spirit. It was Jesus who taught the Apostles; Jesus whose last command to them was to go throughout the world spreading the Gospel message. He gave them the heads up that doing this would not bring peace among the people but a sword--just as his message had not brought peace to his life but the cross. Jesus' message was that of God's love and goodness--that God forgives sins, faults, shortcoming, etc.

This was not a new message--it can be found throughout the Old Testament, nurtured in a select/chosen group of people, but with Jesus was ready to be announced and proclaimed all over the world. Paul was only one of many who became one who spread this message. His letters survived.

No, that is just what Christian’s believe. Jews believe it was started by Paul, as no observant Jew would want to abandon Judaism and start a religion in defiance of its key tenants.

As far as the OT, Christians went back and interpreted it in such a way that Jesus is the Messiah. In OT teachings, it is clear that Jesus was not the Messiah - one of the main ones being that the Messiah would be human, descended from David on his father’s side.

I know you think differently. That is why Christianity diverged from Judaism.

 

[Meriweather]

No, that is just what Christian’s believe. Jews believe it was started by Paul, as no observant Jew would want to abandon Judaism and start a religion in defiance of its key tenants.

As far as the OT, Christians went back and interpreted it in such a way that Jesus is the Messiah. In OT teachings, it is clear that Jesus was not the Messiah - one of the main ones being that the Messiah would be human, descended from David on his father’s side.

I know you think differently. That is why Christianity diverged from Judaism.

Where the Jewish explanation of "No observant Jew would want to abandon Judaism and start a religion in defiance of its key tenants," is that Paul--like Jesus--was not only an observant Jew, in the beginning he would have fit the description of "observant Jew" even more closely than Jesus.

For those who have studied journalism (and possibly philosophy and psychology) if one wants to attack another's position, don't go after the key figure, which in this case is Jesus, and begin by distracting them with a less important figure. It seems Jews and atheist favor redirecting attention to Paul and/or Constantine; Non-Catholic Christians usually favor Constantine.

Jews and Catholics disagree over Jesus' being One with God--God's very Word. Trying to move that disagreement and blame Paul (or Constantine) is attempting a poorly executed end run. Worse, it is conceding--and Judaism is finer than that. Judaism faces opposition squarely--as it should.

 

[luiza]

The evidence can't be denied............who failed to protect the children, whose protection where they under? As far as the rest of your diatribe, its based upon nothing but dog's barking, noise,..........PROVE your accusations, or don't. Priceless, you present PROPAGANDA in order to accuse others of .........P R O P A G A N D A?

What;'s your problem?
Do you miss the news because you watch MSNBC.?

Follow my posts and you might learn more than you can cope with .
Deep State love people like you -- the Sheeple Gullibles is how they refer to you .

 

[Clyde 154]

No, that is just what Christian’s believe. Jews believe it was started by Paul, as no observant Jew would want to abandon Judaism and start a religion in defiance of its key tenants.

As far as the OT, Christians went back and interpreted it in such a way that Jesus is the Messiah. In OT teachings, it is clear that Jesus was not the Messiah - one of the main ones being that the Messiah would be human, descended from David on his father’s side.

I know you think differently. That is why Christianity diverged from Judaism.

Jesus was human......descended from David both on His father's side and His mothers side. The scriptures provide the lineage of Jesus through both Mary and Joseph. Mary's lineage uses the first male descendant on her side, the father of Mary. Joseph was "supposedly" father of Jesus through with the lineage going through "Eli" (Luke 3:23) Legal Adoption, since Mary and Joseph was married before the birth of Jesus, Jesus then became the legal heir to the lineage of His adopted father..........Joseph, as was the Jewish custom.
Jesus lineage is traced all the way back to Adam going through King David by 2 different sons. Jesus legal lineage is traced through Mary and Joseph. Matthew's line goes through Joseph. Luke's line goes through Mary's male family. (Luke 3:23-38)

Your argument.....being ignorant of your own Jewish history as recorded in scripture is that Jesus is somehow disqualified from David's throne because He was not descendant through the proper Jewish Tribe. Scriptural Facts: Its true that Jesus was not the literal physical son of Joseph.......yet the scriptures declare He was the carpenters son (Joseph) -- Matt. 13:55. It was the fathers right to name his son, which Joseph did after an angel of the Lord visited him in a dream.........Joseph named his legally adopted Son, Jesus (Matt. 1:24-25) Mary refers to Joseph as the Jesus' father (Luke 2:48). The scriptures never declare that Joseph literally begat Jesus.......Jesus was counted as the legal heir of Joseph through adoption.......and the line goes through Joseph's father Matthew 1:16 (Matt. 1:1-17)

The legal right of an adopted Son to trace his line through the adopted father (Joseph) is recorded in Luke 3:23-31. The Talmudic teaches that the adopted child is considered the same as a child that is physically begat.

Adoption in Judaism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Lisa558]

Jesus was human......descended from David both on His father's side and His mothers side. The scriptures provide the lineage of Jesus through both Mary and Joseph. Mary's lineage uses the first male descendant on her side, the father of Mary. Joseph was "supposedly" father of Jesus through with the lineage going through "Eli" (Luke 3:23) Legal Adoption, since Mary and Joseph was married before the birth of Jesus, Jesus then became the legal heir to the lineage of His adopted father..........Joseph, as was the Jewish custom.
Jesus lineage is traced all the way back to Adam going through King David by 2 different sons.

Your argument.....being ignorant of your own Jewish history as recorded in scripture is that Jesus is somehow disqualified from David's throne because He was not descendant through the proper Jewish Tribe. Scriptural Facts: Its true that Jesus was not the literal physical son of Joseph.......yet the scriptures declare He was the carpenters son (Joseph) -- Matt. 13:55. It was the fathers right to name his son, which Joseph did after an angel of the Lord visited him in a dream.........Joseph named his legally adopted Son, Jesus (Matt. 1:24-25) Mary refers to Joseph as the Jesus' father (Luke 2:48). The scriptures never declare that Joseph literally begat Jesus.......Jesus was counted as the legal heir of Joseph through adoption.......and the line goes through Joseph's father Matthew 1:16

The legal right of an adopted Son to trace his line through the adopted father (Joseph) is recorded in Luke 3:23-31.

No, Christians don’t think Jesus was human. They think he was the son of Gd. Never heard a Christian say that Gd adopted Jesus. LOL.

 

[Lisa558]

Jesus was human......descended from David both on His father's side and His mothers side. The scriptures provide the lineage of Jesus through both Mary and Joseph. Mary's lineage uses the first male descendant on her side, the father of Mary. Joseph was "supposedly" father of Jesus through with the lineage going through "Eli" (Luke 3:23) Legal Adoption, since Mary and Joseph was married before the birth of Jesus, Jesus then became the legal heir to the lineage of His adopted father..........Joseph, as was the Jewish custom.
Jesus lineage is traced all the way back to Adam going through King David by 2 different sons.

Your argument.....being ignorant of your own Jewish history as recorded in scripture is that Jesus is somehow disqualified from David's throne because He was not descendant through the proper Jewish Tribe. Scriptural Facts: Its true that Jesus was not the literal physical son of Joseph.......yet the scriptures declare He was the carpenters son (Joseph) -- Matt. 13:55. It was the fathers right to name his son, which Joseph did after an angel of the Lord visited him in a dream.........Joseph named his legally adopted Son, Jesus (Matt. 1:24-25) Mary refers to Joseph as the Jesus' father (Luke 2:48). The scriptures never declare that Joseph literally begat Jesus.......Jesus was counted as the legal heir of Joseph through adoption.......and the line goes through Joseph's father Matthew 1:16

The legal right of an adopted Son to trace his line through the adopted father (Joseph) is recorded in Luke 3:23-31. The Talmudic teaches that the adopted child is considered the same as a child that is physically begat.

Adoption in Judaism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

P.S. So you’re saying that Mary was NOT a virgin, and that she and Joseph did the nasty before they were married?

P.P.S. Your quotes from Matthew and Luke to “prove” your case are meaningless to a Jew. Those writings are done after Jesus was killed to come up with how Jesus could have been adopted. It’s not in the Hebrew Bible.