Why is jesus not a jew in churches?

[Foxfyre]

Bottom line, there is no evidence that Jesus was anything other than a descendent of Hebrews aka Jews and that he was born in northern Israel and there is a good chance he looked like most of the indigenous populations of that area--not really fair skinned but not really dark--racially ambiguous actually. He almost certainly was a compelling figure personality or he wouldn't have been invited to so many dinners and parties and wouldn't have been able to draw the crowds he drew. He was fully human as Jesus of Nazareth, he suffered, was tempted, hungered, thirsted, became weary, felt pressured, hurt, and bled, and suffered like any other human. And that's all we really need to know about his person.

He stated rather emphatically that he did not come to do away with Old Testament law but rather he came to fulfill it, pay the full price for breaking it then, now, and in the future, and He gave them a whole new concept to go forward with.

In Jesus world charity was something to be given out of one's own pocket and from the goodness of one's own heart and conscience. He did not consider charity to be Ravi giving Divecon's money to some homeless guy on the street.

 

[Valerie]

In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

 

[Ravi]

Bottom line, there is no evidence that Jesus was anything other than a descendent of Hebrews aka Jews and that he was born in northern Israel and there is a good chance he looked like most of the indigenous populations of that area--not really fair skinned but not really dark--racially ambiguous actually. He almost certainly was a compelling figure personality or he wouldn't have been invited to so many dinners and parties and wouldn't have been able to draw the crowds he drew. He was fully human as Jesus of Nazareth, he suffered, was tempted, hungered, thirsted, became weary, felt pressured, hurt, and bled, and suffered like any other human. And that's all we really need to know about his person.

He stated rather emphatically that he did not come to do away with Old Testament law but rather he came to fulfill it, pay the full price for breaking it then, now, and in the future, and He gave them a whole new concept to go forward with.

In Jesus world charity was something to be given out of one's own pocket and from the goodness of one's own heart and conscience. He did not consider charity to be Ravi giving Divecon's money to some homeless guy on the street.

Nice that you are brave enough to speak for God.

I think he would give dcon credit for willingly belonging to a society that allowed him to donate part of his earnings to care for the poor in his community.

 

[Foxfyre]

In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

And it is important to note that the Samaritan did not attempt to lay a guilt trip on the Innkeeper or anybody else that it was 'their' duty to take care of the injured man. He took the responsibility himself. He didn't try to pass it off to the government or other people to do and then feel righteous that the poor were being taken care of.

 

[DiveCon]

Bottom line, there is no evidence that Jesus was anything other than a descendent of Hebrews aka Jews and that he was born in northern Israel and there is a good chance he looked like most of the indigenous populations of that area--not really fair skinned but not really dark--racially ambiguous actually. He almost certainly was a compelling figure personality or he wouldn't have been invited to so many dinners and parties and wouldn't have been able to draw the crowds he drew. He was fully human as Jesus of Nazareth, he suffered, was tempted, hungered, thirsted, became weary, felt pressured, hurt, and bled, and suffered like any other human. And that's all we really need to know about his person.

He stated rather emphatically that he did not come to do away with Old Testament law but rather he came to fulfill it, pay the full price for breaking it then, now, and in the future, and He gave them a whole new concept to go forward with.

In Jesus world charity was something to be given out of one's own pocket and from the goodness of one's own heart and conscience. He did not consider charity to be Ravi giving Divecon's money to some homeless guy on the street.

Nice that you are brave enough to speak for God.

I think he would give dcon credit for willingly belonging to a society that allowed him to donate part of his earnings to care for the poor in his community.

so taxes are now donations

 

[Foxfyre]

Bottom line, there is no evidence that Jesus was anything other than a descendent of Hebrews aka Jews and that he was born in northern Israel and there is a good chance he looked like most of the indigenous populations of that area--not really fair skinned but not really dark--racially ambiguous actually. He almost certainly was a compelling figure personality or he wouldn't have been invited to so many dinners and parties and wouldn't have been able to draw the crowds he drew. He was fully human as Jesus of Nazareth, he suffered, was tempted, hungered, thirsted, became weary, felt pressured, hurt, and bled, and suffered like any other human. And that's all we really need to know about his person.

He stated rather emphatically that he did not come to do away with Old Testament law but rather he came to fulfill it, pay the full price for breaking it then, now, and in the future, and He gave them a whole new concept to go forward with.

In Jesus world charity was something to be given out of one's own pocket and from the goodness of one's own heart and conscience. He did not consider charity to be Ravi giving Divecon's money to some homeless guy on the street.

Nice that you are brave enough to speak for God.

I think he would give dcon credit for willingly belonging to a society that allowed him to donate part of his earnings to care for the poor in his community.

I'm not speaking for God. I am quoting God straight out of the Bible, except I'm using the literal translation instead of the translation I might wish was there. You seem to prefer your own interpretation and so far have blown off any efforts to describe the literal translation from the original Hebrew. There are many words/phrases for the 'poor' and 'needy' in the ancient Hebrew and Aramaic just as there are at least five words for 'love' in the New Testament Greek. If you haven't done some dedicated Bible study in that regard and simply read the words with 21st century ordinary meanings alone, you're going to get some of it wrong.

You presume to say that Jesus would agree with the God of Sodom's time or Ezekial's time. And refused to see what was actually being said at that time.

Yet you seem to reject what Jesus said in the more modern Greek of the New Testament.

He was pretty explicit in his condemnation of the Pharisees who presumed to dictate morality to other people while not demonstrating it themselves. I think he would think it fine to voluntarily contribute anything to anybody to help out somebody else. I am pretty sure he was smart enough to know that paying one's taxes as required by the government did not constitute charity in any form, however, and would be pretty adament that you would be a hypocrite to feel righteous and think you had done your duty for the poor because you paid your taxes.

And he would REALLY call it hypocritical for feeling righteous that other people had their property forcibly confiscated on 'behalf of the poor' and thinking that absolved you of any further responsibility.

 

[Ravi]

Bottom line, there is no evidence that Jesus was anything other than a descendent of Hebrews aka Jews and that he was born in northern Israel and there is a good chance he looked like most of the indigenous populations of that area--not really fair skinned but not really dark--racially ambiguous actually. He almost certainly was a compelling figure personality or he wouldn't have been invited to so many dinners and parties and wouldn't have been able to draw the crowds he drew. He was fully human as Jesus of Nazareth, he suffered, was tempted, hungered, thirsted, became weary, felt pressured, hurt, and bled, and suffered like any other human. And that's all we really need to know about his person.

He stated rather emphatically that he did not come to do away with Old Testament law but rather he came to fulfill it, pay the full price for breaking it then, now, and in the future, and He gave them a whole new concept to go forward with.

In Jesus world charity was something to be given out of one's own pocket and from the goodness of one's own heart and conscience. He did not consider charity to be Ravi giving Divecon's money to some homeless guy on the street.

Nice that you are brave enough to speak for God.

I think he would give dcon credit for willingly belonging to a society that allowed him to donate part of his earnings to care for the poor in his community.

so taxes are now donations

Yes, in a way they are a donation. A donation to the community at large that also happen to benefit the donor.

 

[DiveCon]

btw, what ever happened to the "separation of church and state" that liberals are so fond of

 

[DiveCon]

Nice that you are brave enough to speak for God.

I think he would give dcon credit for willingly belonging to a society that allowed him to donate part of his earnings to care for the poor in his community.

so taxes are now donations

Yes, in a way they are a donation. A donation to the community at large that also happen to benefit the donor.

sorry, but a "donation" is not done by force of LAW

 

[Ravi]

Bottom line, there is no evidence that Jesus was anything other than a descendent of Hebrews aka Jews and that he was born in northern Israel and there is a good chance he looked like most of the indigenous populations of that area--not really fair skinned but not really dark--racially ambiguous actually. He almost certainly was a compelling figure personality or he wouldn't have been invited to so many dinners and parties and wouldn't have been able to draw the crowds he drew. He was fully human as Jesus of Nazareth, he suffered, was tempted, hungered, thirsted, became weary, felt pressured, hurt, and bled, and suffered like any other human. And that's all we really need to know about his person.

He stated rather emphatically that he did not come to do away with Old Testament law but rather he came to fulfill it, pay the full price for breaking it then, now, and in the future, and He gave them a whole new concept to go forward with.

In Jesus world charity was something to be given out of one's own pocket and from the goodness of one's own heart and conscience. He did not consider charity to be Ravi giving Divecon's money to some homeless guy on the street.

Nice that you are brave enough to speak for God.

I think he would give dcon credit for willingly belonging to a society that allowed him to donate part of his earnings to care for the poor in his community.

I'm not speaking for God. I am quoting God straight out of the Bible, except I'm using the literal translation instead of the translation I might wish was there. You seem to prefer your own interpretation and so far have blown off any efforts to describe the literal translation from the original Hebrew. There are many words/phrases for the 'poor' and 'needy' in the ancient Hebrew and Aramaic just as there are at least five words for 'love' in the New Testament Greek. If you haven't done some dedicated Bible study in that regard and simply read the words with 21st century ordinary meanings alone, you're going to get some of it wrong.

You presume to say that Jesus would agree with the God of Sodom's time or Ezekial's time. And refused to see what was actually being said at that time.

Yet you seem to reject what Jesus said in the more modern Greek of the New Testament.

He was pretty explicit in his condemnation of the Pharisees who presumed to dictate morality to other people while not demonstrating it themselves. I think he would think it fine to voluntarily contribute anything to anybody to help out somebody else. I am pretty sure he was smart enough to know that paying one's taxes as required by the government did not constitute charity in any form, however, and would be pretty adament that you would be a hypocrite to feel righteous and think you had done your duty for the poor because you paid your taxes.

And he would REALLY call it hypocritical for feel righteous that other people had their property forcibly confiscated on 'behalf of the poor' and thinking that absolved you of any further responsibility.

There you go again, speaking for God. Incorrectly, I might add, as usual.

btw Jesus = God and God = Jesus so there is no old God and new God. My goodness, what a twisted path you take to justify your own version of God's word.

< Jesus wept.

 

[Ravi]

btw, what ever happened to the "separation of church and state" that liberals are so fond of

I wondered when someone would bring that up. Immaterial, though, in regards to the topic at hand.

 

[Ravi]

so taxes are now donations

Yes, in a way they are a donation. A donation to the community at large that also happen to benefit the donor.

sorry, but a "donation" is not done by force of LAW

You can opt out of society and choose not to earn income or benefit from being an American.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well obviously you aren't going to read what I say honestly any more than you have quoted the Bible honestly, Ravi, and you refuse to address any rebuttal, so I'll thank you for the work out and move on. Do have a good day.

(.....wanders off repeating yet again: "I will not feel the trolls (no Ravi is not a troll); I will not argue with idiots (no Ravi is not an idiot); and I will not engage in exercises of futility. . . . .)

 

[DiveCon]

Yes, in a way they are a donation. A donation to the community at large that also happen to benefit the donor.

sorry, but a "donation" is not done by force of LAW

You can opt out of society and choose not to earn income or benefit from being an American.

ah yes
let freedom ring

 

[ABikerSailor]

The Church my family attended when I was a child had a huge crucifixion with the INRI sign over Jesus' head. I remember during Sunday school class I raised my hand and asked what that sign meant. The priest explained they were mocking Jesus as "King of the Jews". They also taught us how he studied with the elders at the Temple and had a Bar Mitzvah when he came of age...

The letters “INRI” are initials for the Latin title that Pontius Pilate had written over the head of Jesus Christ on the cross (John 19:19). Latin was the official language of the Roman Empire.

The words were "Iesvs Nazarenvs Rex Ivdaeorvm." Latin uses “I” instead of the English “J”, and “V” instead of “U” (i.e., Jesus Nazarenus Rex Judaeorum). The English translation is "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."

Artist's impression of Christ on the cross. The Early Church adopted the first letters of each word of this inscription “INRI” as a symbol. Throughout the centuries INRI has appeared in many paintings of the crucifixion.

By the way, Pilate's title for Christ was actually written in three languages.

And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, "Write not, 'The King of the Jews;' but that he said, 'I am King of the Jews'." Pilate answered, "What I have written I have written."
-John 19:19-22 (KJV)

What do the letters ?INRI? on the crucifix mean? - ChristianAnswers.Net

You know..........again I ask this question.........

Why is it that most Christians prefer to worship Yeshua on a cross, nailed to it in obvious pain, with a plaque above His head making fun of Him?

Don't you think that's probably not right? I mean........why not show Him healing people, teaching the children and alla that? Or at least, if you're so enamored with the idea of crucifixion, why not show Him AFTER He rose from the dead?

 

[Foxfyre]

The Church my family attended when I was a child had a huge crucifixion with the INRI sign over Jesus' head. I remember during Sunday school class I raised my hand and asked what that sign meant. The priest explained they were mocking Jesus as "King of the Jews". They also taught us how he studied with the elders at the Temple and had a Bar Mitzvah when he came of age...

The letters &#8220;INRI&#8221; are initials for the Latin title that Pontius Pilate had written over the head of Jesus Christ on the cross (John 19:19). Latin was the official language of the Roman Empire.

The words were "Iesvs Nazarenvs Rex Ivdaeorvm." Latin uses &#8220;I&#8221; instead of the English &#8220;J&#8221;, and &#8220;V&#8221; instead of &#8220;U&#8221; (i.e., Jesus Nazarenus Rex Judaeorum). The English translation is "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."

Artist's impression of Christ on the cross. The Early Church adopted the first letters of each word of this inscription &#8220;INRI&#8221; as a symbol. Throughout the centuries INRI has appeared in many paintings of the crucifixion.

By the way, Pilate's title for Christ was actually written in three languages.

And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, "Write not, 'The King of the Jews;' but that he said, 'I am King of the Jews'." Pilate answered, "What I have written I have written."
-John 19:19-22 (KJV)

What do the letters ?INRI? on the crucifix mean? - ChristianAnswers.Net

You know..........again I ask this question.........

Why is it that most Christians prefer to worship Yeshua on a cross, nailed to it in obvious pain, with a plaque above His head making fun of Him?

Don't you think that's probably not right? I mean........why not show Him healing people, teaching the children and alla that? Or at least, if you're so enamored with the idea of crucifixion, why not show Him AFTER He rose from the dead?

I think most Christians don't prefer that. I've never known a Christian who preferred to worship Jesus in that way. My life choices have made me a very ecumenical Christian worshipping with the most fundamentalist holy rollers to the most high church traditions, and I have yet to meet anybody who even suggested that. But there would be no Christianity at all without the cross and resurrection. And to exclude that from the history and liturgy would strip Christianity of all its power just as removing Christmas--the Christ mass-- from this season strips Christmas of all meaning entirely.

 

[CMike]

if the messiah had already come, the prophesies would have been fulfilled.

i have no doubt jesus was a good jew but he was also a rabble rouser who tried to get people to stand up to the san hedrin and the priests.

i'd have liked him. he believed in fighting authority and taking care of the poor. a great liberal.

it's what some do in his name that is the problem.

Fighting authority is not the exclusive domain of the left....as the Tea Party has shown us.

Jesus was Conservative as you can get. He just wasn't heartless like liberals always claim Conservatives are.

jesus was a radical.

a "conservative" would have let them stone the woman saying she needed to "take personal responsibility".

you might not want to mention the "tea party" in the same breath as you mention jesus. i have more respect for him than that.

I don't. That was a fictional event. At that time there was no jewish court.

On what basis was he a good jew? Telling jews that they need him to worship G-D was the same thing as trying to get them to perform idol worship.

 

[CMike]

You might be right.

But if Jesus is the son of God, which to Christians he is, it seems pretty silly to argue that he's supposed to look like a rabbi.

The Jewish people worship the same God as I. I'm not quite sure what type of theology you practice, but in mine, the God of Abraham is the God of St. Peter/St. Paul and Father of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus was a rabbi. He was Jewish in every meaning of the word. So what's so silly?

As illustrated by passages in the New Testament Jesus was respected by his contemporaries as a trained rabbi most likely from someone in Galilee.

Very good.

No he wasn't. He was a person who tried to turn jews away from their G-d.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The Church my family attended when I was a child had a huge crucifixion with the INRI sign over Jesus' head. I remember during Sunday school class I raised my hand and asked what that sign meant. The priest explained they were mocking Jesus as "King of the Jews". They also taught us how he studied with the elders at the Temple and had a Bar Mitzvah when he came of age...

You know..........again I ask this question.........

Why is it that most Christians prefer to worship Yeshua on a cross, nailed to it in obvious pain, with a plaque above His head making fun of Him?

Don't you think that's probably not right? I mean........why not show Him healing people, teaching the children and alla that? Or at least, if you're so enamored with the idea of crucifixion, why not show Him AFTER He rose from the dead?

I think most Christians don't prefer that. I've never known a Christian who preferred to worship Jesus in that way. My life choices have made me a very ecumenical Christian worshipping with the most fundamentalist holy rollers to the most high church traditions, and I have yet to meet anybody who even suggested that. But there would be no Christianity at all without the cross and resurrection. And to exclude that from the history and liturgy would strip Christianity of all its power just as removing Christmas--the Christ mass-- from this season strips Christmas of all meaning entirely.

Wait a minute.......you say "most" Christians don't prefer that. Then please explain why there are so few statues of Christ showing Him not crucified? Most every church that I've ever been in has had a crucified man on the cross.

And by the way........the Catholics stripped Christmas already. Yeshua (Jesus) was actually born in late October, but the Romans wanted to include the pagan citizens in their church, so they switched the date to December 25th, just before the Winter Solstice.

By the way..........don't Christians believe in the 10 Commandments? The reason that I ask, is one of 'em is "thou shalt not bear false witness". Celebrating Christmas on any day OTHER than the actual date of His birth is bearing false witness.

Oh yeah........they did the same thing with His death, because the whole Yeshua story is about His rising from the dead, and they caught Him in Jerusalem because He was there to celebrate Judaic holidays.

But explain to me something........why is it that some years Passover comes AFTER Easter. Did He have a time machine?

 

[CMike]

It's silly to believe that the son of God should look like any particular ethnicity.

I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from Me there is no God. ...so that from the rising of the Sun to the place of its setting men may know there is none besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other. (Isaiah, 45:5-6)

...I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me. (Isaiah, 46:9)

... so that all the peoples of the Earth may know that the Lord is God and that there is no other. (1 Kings, 8:60)

Turn to Me and be saved, all you ends of the Earth; for I am God, and there is no other. (Isaiah, 45:22)

This is what the Lord says…"Surely God is with you, and there is no other; there is no other God." (Isaiah, 45:14)

...The Lord our God, the Lord is one. (Deuteronomy, 6:4)