Why is jesus not a jew in churches?

[editec]

If Jesus was born in Jeruselem then he is Jewish right? But, in every church I have visited both Black and White he is not as the bible describes: woolly hair, brown skin. Instead he is a White man. Why is that?

Photography wasn't very good 2100 years ago, would be my guess.

 

[Gadawg73]

yeah, cause the tea party people want to kill people

come on Jill, you're smarter than that

you think jesus would have approved of them saying "cut off unemployment insurance because it makes people lazy"?

you think jesus ever said a thing about gays?

no. he said 'judge not'.

the exact opposite of tea partiy types.

jesus was a radical, not a reactionary.

read the posts of the people on this board. they don't all approach things rationally. no?

actually, Jesus wouldnt have had a problem with the government not paying unemployment benefits
nor would he be in favor of gay marriage
and while he did say "judge not" it was followed with "lest ye be judged, by what judgement ye judge ye shall be judged"
not quite the "do not judge" that so many want to make it, now was it?

The unemployment benefit thing is out there and I agree with you.
Jesus didn't comment or care about gay folks. He rebeled against the authority in the church that did in his time.

 

[Granny]

I've always been amused by how people take that out of context. Especially since he specifically commands those that follow Him to make righteous judgments. I've only ever seen two responses when that is pointed out:

1) They ignore it
2) They argue that it's impossible for us to judge righteously so we can't judge. Which is a ridiculous argument. The Lord does not give us any commandment which cannot be done.

It was never Jesus' intent that *man* judge other men. I'm not talking about when laws against theft and murder are broken... those are clearly society's laws to enforce. But I'm talking moral judgments that *don't* injure anyone else but the person in question. So, yes, he said live righteously... but he never said some old busy body should be deiciding who is and who isn't righteous.

How many admonitions did Jesus give to take care of the poor?

Try reading the Ten Commandments.

 

[Ozmar]

Jesus doesn't care how you help the poor...he only cares that you do it.

he cares that YOU do it
not that you push it off on someone else

So are you saying that because Jesus wants me to help the poor, he wants me and only me to help the poor? I forget the verse in the Bible says "and only ye shall help the poor, and if the government plays the role of good Samaritan, may it be condemned, for I'm that selective on who helps the poor."

Seems kind of obtuse to me; Jesus only wants individuals from pews at his churches to write checks to the homeless. I think Jesus' message was to help the homeless. Not to be greedy and petty about who does it.

 

[Granny]

Jesus doesn't care how you help the poor...he only cares that you do it.

he cares that YOU do it
not that you push it off on someone else

So are you saying that because Jesus wants me to help the poor, he wants me and only me to help the poor? I forget the verse in the Bible says "and only ye shall help the poor, and if the government plays the role of good Samaritan, may it be condemned, for I'm that selective on who helps the poor."

Seems kind of obtuse to me; Jesus only wants individuals from pews at his churches to write checks to the homeless. I think Jesus' message was to help the homeless. Not to be greedy and petty about who does it.

"You" is not always singular, sometimes it's plural - which was the case in DiveCon's post. He also said it doesn't matter how one helps so long as it's done - and that could exclude writing checks. One could take their laundry home and wash it - and it would be helping, one can volunteer at a shelter and that would be helping. It's not always about money.

 

[SFC Ollie]

All this talk about Jesus telling us to help the poor. Did he not also say that "the poor will be with you always"? And damned if he wasn't right. They are still out there after 2000 years. I guess we must be doing something wrong.

 

[Ravi]

All this talk about Jesus telling us to help the poor. Did he not also say that "the poor will be with you always"? And damned if he wasn't right. They are still out there after 2000 years. I guess we must be doing something wrong.

Maybe they exist to make us better people.

 

[Cecilie1200]

YES
how things were done was extremely important

and the give unto Caesar part only further clarifies that he WASN'T telling the government to do it

well, i might have missed something in my readings (though i don't think so). but certainly, i'm no theologian, just a hobbyist.

what do you think backs up your belief that jesus would have been offended by government helping the poor?

First of all, the idea that God subscribes to the theory of "the end justifies the means" is ludicrous. Second of all, God is much more concerned with the state of our souls than He is with the condition of our bodies. So to suggest that He would approve of any method of caring for those bodies in a way that breaks down the fiber of our characters and makes us less as human beings is also ludicrous.

 

[Foxfyre]

You won't find any case where Jesus or any other Christian leader in the Bible commanded that anybody forcibly confiscate property from one person and give that to another. In ALL cases, charity was the responsibility of the individual to give voluntarily from the heart or out of their conviction that it was the right thing to do.

Jesus had a problem with "Mr. Pharisee" who pointed fingers at others and criticized or condemned them but did not see the 'log in his own eye.' And at no time did he criticize the government for not doing what a person should do himself or herself.

You will have a hard time making any kind of case that Jesus would approve your feeling righteous when another person has property confiscated on behalf of the 'poor'.

 

[Nosmo King]

Jesus was a semetic person, aka arabic.

That's like saying "George Bush is Caucasian, AKA German. " Surely you're not that ******* retarded.

You understand the difference between nationality and race, don't you?

You understand the definition in the context here of "caucasian" and "semetic", right?

Somehow, from your respsonse: That's like saying "George Bush is Caucasian, AKA German. ", I'm not sure you do understand the meaning of those words.

 

[Ozmar]

Jesus was a semetic person, aka arabic.

That's like saying "George Bush is Caucasian, AKA German. " Surely you're not that ******* retarded.

You understand the difference between nationality and race, don't you?

You understand the definition in the context here of "caucasian" and "semetic", right?

Somehow, from your respsonse: That's like saying "George Bush is Caucasian, AKA German. ", I'm not sure you do understand the meaning of those words.

Somehow you don't understand my analogy. I'll break it down in simple terms for your simple mind:

All Arabs are Semites, but not all Semites are Arabs.
All (white) Germans are Caucasians, but not all Caucasians are (white) Germans.
All A's are B's, but not all B's are A's.

Have you ever taken basic logic?

So in stating "Jesus was a Semite, AKA Arab," one is making a completely illogical statement. Do you understand now, numbskull?

 

[Ravi]

You won't find any case where Jesus or any other Christian leader in the Bible commanded that anybody forcibly confiscate property from one person and give that to another. In ALL cases, charity was the responsibility of the individual to give voluntarily from the heart or out of their conviction that it was the right thing to do.

Jesus had a problem with "Mr. Pharisee" who pointed fingers at others and criticized or condemned them but did not see the 'log in his own eye.' And at no time did he criticize the government for not doing what a person should do himself or herself.

You will have a hard time making any kind of case that Jesus would approve your feeling righteous when another person has property confiscated on behalf of the 'poor'.

God destroyed Sodom in part because of how the city treated the poor...so your comments are irrelevant.

 

[Foxfyre]

You won't find any case where Jesus or any other Christian leader in the Bible commanded that anybody forcibly confiscate property from one person and give that to another. In ALL cases, charity was the responsibility of the individual to give voluntarily from the heart or out of their conviction that it was the right thing to do.

Jesus had a problem with "Mr. Pharisee" who pointed fingers at others and criticized or condemned them but did not see the 'log in his own eye.' And at no time did he criticize the government for not doing what a person should do himself or herself.

You will have a hard time making any kind of case that Jesus would approve your feeling righteous when another person has property confiscated on behalf of the 'poor'.

God destroyed Sodom in part because of how the city treated the poor...so your comments are irrelevant.

There is no mention in Scripture that Sodom 'mistreated the poor'. Using various texts Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed for their great wickedness and immorality--not even ten righteous men could be found there--and as an example to others of what their fate would be if they did not repent. That was the perception of those who wrote of the event whether or not it was accurately perceived.

And since the destruction of Sodom is dated up to and/or more than 2000 years prior to the birth of Jesus, and the written acounts of the Old Testament were completed many hundreds of years before any New Testament writings were produced, I think your remarks are much more irrelevent than mine.

 

[Ravi]

You won't find any case where Jesus or any other Christian leader in the Bible commanded that anybody forcibly confiscate property from one person and give that to another. In ALL cases, charity was the responsibility of the individual to give voluntarily from the heart or out of their conviction that it was the right thing to do.

Jesus had a problem with "Mr. Pharisee" who pointed fingers at others and criticized or condemned them but did not see the 'log in his own eye.' And at no time did he criticize the government for not doing what a person should do himself or herself.

You will have a hard time making any kind of case that Jesus would approve your feeling righteous when another person has property confiscated on behalf of the 'poor'.

God destroyed Sodom in part because of how the city treated the poor...so your comments are irrelevant.

There is no mention in Scripture that Sodom 'mistreated the poor'. Using various texts Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed for their great wickedness and immorality--not even ten righteous men could be found there--and as an example to others of what their fate would be if they did not repent. That was the perception of those who wrote of the event whether or not it was accurately perceived.

And since the destruction of Sodom is dated up to and/or more than 2000 years prior to the birth of Jesus, and the written acounts of the Old Testament were completed many hundreds of years before any New Testament writings were produced, I think your remarks are much more irrelevent than mine.

Again,

49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

God directly mentions that the city of Sodom not helping the poor and needy was part of the "sin" that led to their destruction.

If you want to make the case that Jesus doesn't agree with God on this matter, go for it.

 

[amrchaos]

Jesus was a semetic person, aka arabic.

The "pictures" that portray him as a blond blue eyed white man are example of how wrong religion is and the racism and arrogance of humans in their worship of their gods.

I got a whipping for asking about this in sunday school one time.
Question nothing in church is how I was raised.
btw it is the same denomination as Palin belongs to.

Actually, the Blond-blue eyed Jesus is not racism, but identification with Jesus as a member of the group praising him. There are other versions of Jesus such as African, East Asian, and even Indian!!

This is really (benign!!) propaganda to bring people closer to Jesus and his message. It is not to seperate or raise the group to "chosen" status. Chosen status belongs to the Jews!

 

[Avatar4321]

and how many of those admonitions did he say to lobby the government to do it, and how many were for YOU to do it yourself?

do you think he'd have cared *how* it was done? it's not like people doing it themselves ended poverty. but before social security 50% of senior citizens lived below the poverty line. now it's far less and we have far more elderly b/c of greater longevity. so the program was more successful than even the numbers imply

jesus said give unto caesar what is caesar's.

he was a pretty smart guy.

Yes. I do think he cared how it was done. I don't think he wanted people committing legalized robbery to take care of the person. He was our perfect example in all things. He showed us that we have the responsibility as individuals to lift one another and take care of one another.

He also said give unto God what is made in God's image.

 

[Avatar4321]

Jesus doesn't care how you help the poor...he only cares that you do it.

The ends never justify the means. The means are what's important. Not the ends.

You honestly telling us you dont think that Jesus would have a problem with you creating a ponzi scheme and destroying thousands of people's 401ks if you gave the money to the poor?

 

[Avatar4321]

Jesus doesn't care how you help the poor...he only cares that you do it.

he cares that YOU do it
not that you push it off on someone else

Belonging to a society that helps the poor would not be frowned on by Jesus.

How have you helped the poor?

It's not society's job. It's yours

 

[DiveCon]

God destroyed Sodom in part because of how the city treated the poor...so your comments are irrelevant.

There is no mention in Scripture that Sodom 'mistreated the poor'. Using various texts Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed for their great wickedness and immorality--not even ten righteous men could be found there--and as an example to others of what their fate would be if they did not repent. That was the perception of those who wrote of the event whether or not it was accurately perceived.

And since the destruction of Sodom is dated up to and/or more than 2000 years prior to the birth of Jesus, and the written acounts of the Old Testament were completed many hundreds of years before any New Testament writings were produced, I think your remarks are much more irrelevent than mine.

Again,

49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

God directly mentions that the city of Sodom not helping the poor and needy was part of the "sin" that led to their destruction.

If you want to make the case that Jesus doesn't agree with God on this matter, go for it.

book and chapter for that please?

 

[Avatar4321]

All this talk about Jesus telling us to help the poor. Did he not also say that "the poor will be with you always"? And damned if he wasn't right. They are still out there after 2000 years. I guess we must be doing something wrong.

Maybe they exist to make us better people.

How do they make you better people when you put your responsibility for them on others?