Why is jesus not a jew in churches?

[CMike]

To a Jew Rabbi means teacher as to a Christian Reverend means teacher.
Guess what they are a teacher of?
Their religion.
Jesus was a Rabbi and the Bible states it many times. Many Christians dispute that but the fact remains Jesus was a Rabbi. A Jewish Rabbi teaches the Jewish religion the same as a Christian Reverend teaches the Christian religion.
The claims that Jesus was NOT a Rabbi and was not Jewish are from Christians that refuse to admit Jesus WAS a Jew.
Guess why?

Whose bible says so? Certainly not the jewish bible.

Someone who teaches that a jew can only reach G-D by going through him is not teaching judaism. In fact, he is teaching the furthest thing from judaism. It's called idol worship.

Once again, his followers may call him King of Israel , that doesn't mean he actually was a king of Israel or the jews. It's all in the mind of his followers.

So, you say this, yet at the same time you refute that the Jews had anything to do with his death? They had every reason to want Him gone exactly because of the discord and strife that he was causing by what he was preaching. You acknowledge that they had every motive, yet say they had nothing to do with his being crucified?

Yup. They had no power at the time.

There was no jewish court in session.

The romans were brutal dictators. They didn't ask for approval from the jews nor seek their input on decisions.

 

[CMike]

You are making it up. Once again, you are trying to tell a jew, who their leaders are. And you are doing it wrongly.

A rabbi is an ordained teacher of jewish law. Period.

You can also be a rabbi with authority such as sitting on a jewish court or whatever.

However, a rabbi has a clear definition, which I posted.

I am not making it up.
Where have I told a Jew who their leaders are?
Jesus was a Rabbi in the tradition of the hasidim and not the post 70 AD midrash rabbis of today.
Now we have BOTH Christians and Jews denying historical fact because it does not match their ideology.
No wonder folks run from religion these days.
The historical use of the word "orthodox" in referring to the Jewish religion is not analogous to it's modern use. Jesus would not have been allowed to preach in any of the communities or allowed to teach in the synagogues of the Galilee region if he were not a practicing orthodox practicing Jew of his time.

I believe that he believes that the Bible is complete fiction, and he does not take anything that they say about Jesus as fact. That is where the disconnect is, the Bible clearly states Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi and preached in synagogues. I'm guessing he refutes that.

Your bible, not my bible.

 

[Newby]

I am not making it up.
Where have I told a Jew who their leaders are?
Jesus was a Rabbi in the tradition of the hasidim and not the post 70 AD midrash rabbis of today.
Now we have BOTH Christians and Jews denying historical fact because it does not match their ideology.
No wonder folks run from religion these days.
The historical use of the word "orthodox" in referring to the Jewish religion is not analogous to it's modern use. Jesus would not have been allowed to preach in any of the communities or allowed to teach in the synagogues of the Galilee region if he were not a practicing orthodox practicing Jew of his time.

I believe that he believes that the Bible is complete fiction, and he does not take anything that they say about Jesus as fact. That is where the disconnect is, the Bible clearly states Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi and preached in synagogues. I'm guessing he refutes that.

Your bible, not my bible.

Over half of our Bible is the same.

So, what do you think were the point of the laws if there were no repercussions for not following them?

 

[Newby]

Whose bible says so? Certainly not the jewish bible.

Someone who teaches that a jew can only reach G-D by going through him is not teaching judaism. In fact, he is teaching the furthest thing from judaism. It's called idol worship.

Once again, his followers may call him King of Israel , that doesn't mean he actually was a king of Israel or the jews. It's all in the mind of his followers.

So, you say this, yet at the same time you refute that the Jews had anything to do with his death? They had every reason to want Him gone exactly because of the discord and strife that he was causing by what he was preaching. You acknowledge that they had every motive, yet say they had nothing to do with his being crucified?

Yup. They had no power at the time.

There was no jewish court in session.

The romans were brutal dictators. They didn't ask for approval from the jews nor seek their input on decisions.

Just because they didn't have the final power doesn't mean they had nothing to do with it. What did the Romans have against him? The Jews had much more against him than the Romans did.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Got news for all of you..........Yeshua didn't come here for those of the Jewish faith.

He came for everyone else.

 

[Foxfyre]

So, you say this, yet at the same time you refute that the Jews had anything to do with his death? They had every reason to want Him gone exactly because of the discord and strife that he was causing by what he was preaching. You acknowledge that they had every motive, yet say they had nothing to do with his being crucified?

Yup. They had no power at the time.

There was no jewish court in session.

The romans were brutal dictators. They didn't ask for approval from the jews nor seek their input on decisions.

Just because they didn't have the final power doesn't mean they had nothing to do with it. What did the Romans have against him? The Jews had much more against him than the Romans did.

This is true. In First Century Palestine, under Roman rule, the Jews were allowed some privileges re their religion that nobody else was allowed simply to keep the peace. For instance the Jews were not required to pay homage to Roman gods--most would accept death before they would do that--so they were given an exemption. The Jews then as now were a hard working prosperous bunch and dutiful tax payers and the Romans saw no advantage to killing them all off.

However, though the Jews were allowed certain privileges in the practice of their religion, they were not allowed to carry out capital punishment So when, in their view, Jesus committed the ultimate blasphemy in claiming to be God, he by Jewish law must be condemned to death. The Jewish religious leaders condemned him, but they then had to petition the Roman government to carry out the execution which it reluctantly did as they had no beef with Jesus.

At the same time Jesus himself was a Jew, as were the Apostles and all of his other followers/disciples as was the Apostle Paul and all those who assisted him in his ministry, all who have been revered and afforded sainthood in the Christian Church.

The New Testament clearly illustrates the divide among the Jews who were there: those who defended the Jewish beliefs and who despised Jesus for seeming to violate them and lead other astray. . . .

And those who believed Jesus, tried to save him, and put their own lives at risk to carry out his teachings and commandments.

That is hardly a 'hate message' against the Jews.

 

[CMike]

He was probably a threat to them.

It doesn't matter the Jews had no power.

 

[CMike]

Fox you show no understanding of Jews or Jewish law.

That the romans killed your god reluctantly is rather funny.

The Romans could care less about what the Jews wanted.

The fable just illustrates hatred among Christians toward Jews.

Any Jew who knows Jewish law can easily see how absurd the tale is.

 

[Foxfyre]

Fox you show no understanding of Jews or Jewish law.

That the romans killed your god reluctantly is rather funny.

The Romans could care less about what the Jews wanted.

The fable just illustrates hatred among Christians toward Jews.

Any Jew who knows Jewish law can easily see how absurd the tale is.

I respect your beliefs CMike no matter how wrong I think you are. I don't know for sure, but I suspect I have a better grounding in the history of that time than you do. For me, not wanting to believe something is simply not sufficient to not believe it. So unless you can prove that your point of view is correct and that all my sources are wrong, I will go with a live and let live principle here.

I won't fight about religion with you or anybody.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yup. They had no power at the time.

There was no jewish court in session.

The romans were brutal dictators. They didn't ask for approval from the jews nor seek their input on decisions.

Just because they didn't have the final power doesn't mean they had nothing to do with it. What did the Romans have against him? The Jews had much more against him than the Romans did.

This is true. In First Century Palestine, under Roman rule, the Jews were allowed some privileges re their religion that nobody else was allowed simply to keep the peace. For instance the Jews were not required to pay homage to Roman gods--most would accept death before they would do that--so they were given an exemption. The Jews then as now were a hard working prosperous bunch and dutiful tax payers and the Romans saw no advantage to killing them all off.

However, though the Jews were allowed certain privileges in the practice of their religion, they were not allowed to carry out capital punishment So when, in their view, Jesus committed the ultimate blasphemy in claiming to be God, he by Jewish law must be condemned to death. The Jewish religious leaders condemned him, but they then had to petition the Roman government to carry out the execution which it reluctantly did as they had no beef with Jesus.

At the same time Jesus himself was a Jew, as were the Apostles and all of his other followers/disciples as was the Apostle Paul and all those who assisted him in his ministry, all who have been revered and afforded sainthood in the Christian Church.

The New Testament clearly illustrates the divide among the Jews who were there: those who defended the Jewish beliefs and who despised Jesus for seeming to violate them and lead other astray. . . .

And those who believed Jesus, tried to save him, and put their own lives at risk to carry out his teachings and commandments.

That is hardly a 'hate message' against the Jews.

As if stating simple historical fact could ever be a "hate message". That's like saying that pointing out that the Romans conquered and subjugated the world from Spain to Iraq is a "hate message" against Italians.

 

[amrchaos]

But--Why wouldn't the Romans want to kill Jesus based on the fact that he had a very large following. Such movements would not have gone unnoticed by the conquering Romans. That "following" could easily turn into a rebel army.

Just pointing out that the Romans wanting Jesus dead is not a far-fetched idea. Come to think about it, it makes perfect sense to enlist the Pharissees since Jesus was supposed to be a rabbi and preached in their synagogue. Everything coud still play out as it was said in the Bible, with Roman conspiracy being hidden from the witness of Jesus.

Maybe the Jews were a scapegoat. Considering that the Romans did not want their hand revealed due to the possibility of the masses becoming angry, having Jesus condemned by Jews before killing him does have a plausible ring to it. Just saying..

 

[JenT]

He was probably a threat to them.

It doesn't matter the Jews had no power.

They had no power to put a man to death, legally. That's why they took Him to Herod and made sure, by threat of riot, that they obtained it.

But I think you're right, the Jews didn't kill Jesus.

"I lay down My life that I may take it again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." (John 10)

Christ voluntarily laid His life down and picked it up again for our sins. It's our sins, all of us, that killed Jesus, but He conquered it, and takes those that receive Him with Him in victory

 

[JenT]

Fox you show no understanding of Jews or Jewish law.

That the romans killed your god reluctantly is rather funny.

The Romans could care less about what the Jews wanted.

The fable just illustrates hatred among Christians toward Jews.

Any Jew who knows Jewish law can easily see how absurd the tale is.

CMike, did it take much for a man like Pontius Pilate to be killed for failing at his job?

(answer: no)

Was there unrest and threat of uprising at the time?

(answer: yes)

Did people who reject Jesus Christ try to claim there is no historical record of Pontius Pilate and therefore the whole thing about Christ bogis?

(answer: yes)

Did they say a whole lot when proof of Pontius Pilate was found?

(answer: nope)

Do they still make up claims about that time in efforts to disprove Christ?

(answer....obviously)

Good to see ya CMike!

 

[Foxfyre]

But--Why wouldn't the Romans want to kill Jesus based on the fact that he had a very large following. Such movements would not have gone unnoticed by the conquering Romans. That "following" could easily turn into a rebel army.

Just pointing out that the Romans wanting Jesus dead is not a far-fetched idea. Come to think about it, it makes perfect sense to enlist the Pharissees since Jesus was supposed to be a rabbi and preached in their synagogue. Everything coud still play out as it was said in the Bible, with Roman conspiracy being hidden from the witness of Jesus.

Maybe the Jews were a scapegoat. Considering that the Romans did not want their hand revealed due to the possibility of the masses becoming angry, having Jesus condemned by Jews before killing him does have a plausible ring to it. Just saying..

There is zero evidence, however, that the Romans were concerned about Jesus. He wasn't violating any of their laws or encouraging anybody to do so. He wasn't stirring up the passions or inciting to riot. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all differ in some of the less important details of Jesus's hearing before Pilate, but all agree that Pilate was uninterested and/or reluctant to sentence Jesus to death and in fact found him guilty of nothing. But he had nothing to lose and risked a riot if he refused, so he gave the order to crucify Jesus.

 

[DiveCon]

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?

Jesus is described with brown skin? I didn't know that, where is that?

I've seen descriptions of His hair whilte like wool, is that where you're getting that?

Isaiah said 2 He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him.

3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from Him; He was despised, and we esteemed Him not. (53)

I think we've been wrong to try to paint pictures of Him. Just my .02, oh, and it says something like that in the commandments...

the "white like wool" is actually describing the COLOR of his hair at that time(post resurrection) not the texture
but, it really doesnt matter in the larger scope

 

[AllieBaba]

Whose bible says so? Certainly not the jewish bible.

Someone who teaches that a jew can only reach G-D by going through him is not teaching judaism. In fact, he is teaching the furthest thing from judaism. It's called idol worship.

Once again, his followers may call him King of Israel , that doesn't mean he actually was a king of Israel or the jews. It's all in the mind of his followers.

So, you say this, yet at the same time you refute that the Jews had anything to do with his death? They had every reason to want Him gone exactly because of the discord and strife that he was causing by what he was preaching. You acknowledge that they had every motive, yet say they had nothing to do with his being crucified?

Yup. They had no power at the time.

There was no jewish court in session.

The romans were brutal dictators. They didn't ask for approval from the jews nor seek their input on decisions.

Actually, that's not true. The Jews did have input with a huge population that the Romans certainly kept an ear to.

 

[CMike]

Fox you show no understanding of Jews or Jewish law.

That the romans killed your god reluctantly is rather funny.

The Romans could care

I respect your beliefs CMike no matter how wrong I think you are. I don't know for sure, but I suspect I have a better grounding in the history of that time than you do. For me, not wanting to believe something is simply not sufficient to not believe it. So unless you can prove that your point of view is correct and that all my sources are wrong, I will go with a live and let live principle here.

I won't fight about religion with you or anybody.

You are contradicting yourself.

You wish to believe the nt fictional story despite the facts.

The facts are:

There was no Jewish court at that time

Even if there was the punishment of death criteria was so high that made it impossible to carry out. That also makes the adulteress and stoning fable rediculous too.

Jews were under a brutal dictatorship

The Romans didn't care about Jewish opinion

What's silly is that if your god supposedly sacrificed himself you should be happy the romans killed him

Yet, despite all this reality the nt has so much hatred for Jews that it gives the Roman dictatorship a pass and blames it on the Jews.

Jesus was a rebel and thus a threat to the Romans .

You believe this because you want to despite the facts.

 

[Newby]

But--Why wouldn't the Romans want to kill Jesus based on the fact that he had a very large following. Such movements would not have gone unnoticed by the conquering Romans. That "following" could easily turn into a rebel army.

Just pointing out that the Romans wanting Jesus dead is not a far-fetched idea. Come to think about it, it makes perfect sense to enlist the Pharissees since Jesus was supposed to be a rabbi and preached in their synagogue. Everything coud still play out as it was said in the Bible, with Roman conspiracy being hidden from the witness of Jesus.

Maybe the Jews were a scapegoat. Considering that the Romans did not want their hand revealed due to the possibility of the masses becoming angry, having Jesus condemned by Jews before killing him does have a plausible ring to it. Just saying..

There is zero evidence, however, that the Romans were concerned about Jesus. He wasn't violating any of their laws or encouraging anybody to do so. He wasn't stirring up the passions or inciting to riot. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all differ in some of the less important details of Jesus's hearing before Pilate, but all agree that Pilate was uninterested and/or reluctant to sentence Jesus to death and in fact found him guilty of nothing. But he had nothing to lose and risked a riot if he refused, so he gave the order to crucify Jesus.

Excellent as usual Fox. I agree, and I'd say it was a little of both, the Romans saw Jesus as causing unrest, and the Jews wanted Him gone, so they both were benefiting from his death.

 

[CMike]

But--Why wouldn't the Romans want to kill Jesus based on the fact that he had a very large following. Such movements would not have gone unnoticed by the conquering Romans. That "following" could easily

Maybe the Jews were a scapegoat. Considering that the Romans did not want their hand revealed due to the possibility

There is zero evidence, however, that the Romans were concerned about Jesus. He wasn't violating any of their laws or encouraging anybody to do so. He wasn't stirring up the passions or inciting to riot. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all differ in some of the less important details of Jesus's hearing before Pilate, but all agree that Pilate was uninterested and/or reluctant to sentence Jesus to death and in fact found him guilty of nothing. But he had nothing to lose and risked a riot if he refused, so he gave the order to crucify Jesus.

I gotta admire your creativity and ability to spin.

Anyone who has a following is a threat to roman total control .

 

[Foxfyre]

But--Why wouldn't the Romans want to kill Jesus based on the fact that he had a very large following. Such movements would not have gone unnoticed by the conquering Romans. That "following" could easily turn into a rebel army.

Just pointing out that the Romans wanting Jesus dead is not a far-fetched idea. Come to think about it, it makes perfect sense to enlist the Pharissees since Jesus was supposed to be a rabbi and preached in their synagogue. Everything coud still play out as it was said in the Bible, with Roman conspiracy being hidden from the witness of Jesus.

Maybe the Jews were a scapegoat. Considering that the Romans did not want their hand revealed due to the possibility of the masses becoming angry, having Jesus condemned by Jews before killing him does have a plausible ring to it. Just saying..

There is zero evidence, however, that the Romans were concerned about Jesus. He wasn't violating any of their laws or encouraging anybody to do so. He wasn't stirring up the passions or inciting to riot. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all differ in some of the less important details of Jesus's hearing before Pilate, but all agree that Pilate was uninterested and/or reluctant to sentence Jesus to death and in fact found him guilty of nothing. But he had nothing to lose and risked a riot if he refused, so he gave the order to crucify Jesus.

Excellent as usual Fox. I agree, and I'd say it was a little of both, the Romans saw Jesus as causing unrest, and the Jews wanted Him gone, so they both were benefiting from his death.

Yes. There was incentive for Pilate to keep the Jews complacent and not stir up trouble.

But I think the evidence is pretty clear that had not the Jewish religious leaders demanded Jesus's death, the Romans would have had no interest in him.