Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J842P · 08-16-2008, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Right. Reasons to believe that he was not Jewish.

And there are none, aside from question-begging racist assumptions of the sort referenced earlier in this thread.

Speculations about hypothetical possibilities based on what the gospels do not say about him or his parents are worthless as evidence. What the gospels do say makes it very clear that if the man really existed, then he certainly was a Jew. There is no other reasonable way to construe the narratives, assuming that they have any basis at all in historical fact.

But, for the purpose of the OP as suggested by the moderator, it is assumed that the NT is historical, that is, whatever it states with respect to Jesus is historical.

So, Matthew 1.18 or Luke 1.35 are historical or any other event in the NT.

Clearly Joseph, then, is not the father of Jesus, the genealogies of Joseph are irrelevant.

There are no genealogies for Mary, clearly it is not known if Mary is a Jew.

And, further if the NT is assumed historical, Jesus of the NT was not a chief priest, a member of the Sanhedrin, a Pharisee, a Saducee, an Essene or a member of any traditional group regarded as fundamentally Jewish.

If the NT is assumed historical, the nationality of Jesus is unknown.

No, Joseph's genealogy is extremely relevant. Jews married Jews.

Littlejohn · 08-16-2008, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adonael

I got into a discussion today with a non-Christian about whether Jesus was a Jew or not. They could not provide any reasons for believing so other than what some "scholars" had reported to her in passing. I believe that I soundly confuted her, but I am now suspicious whether there are grounds to believe otherwise.

Help?

Hi Adonael.

Sorry, but I did not understand it if the person with whom you had a dialogue (a woman it seem me I have understood) was convinced that Jesus was not a jew or that it was. However, according to the results of my research, I can tell you that at least the 50% Jesus was not jew, having been his father (and, of course, that of his twin Judas Thomas) a Roman legionnaire.

There are very high probability that the tomb discovered in an archaeological area of the southern Rhineland (Germany) may have been the father of Jesus one. On the tombstone are numerous written, including the name of legionnaire: Tiberius Iulius Abdes Panthera. The other present elements they comfort the thesis that may have been really the tomb of the father of Jesus. Probably the historic core of high Vatican "purpleds", who handed down by almost 19 centuries the burning secrets that lay behind the Catholic worship, have not doubts about!

For the other 50% can not say a prior that has been blood Jew, given the multiplicity of ethnic groups present in Judea at the time of Roman domination. However, always from my researches, there are indications that they bring towards the thesis "not Jewish."

Mi best

Littlejohn
.

storytime · 08-16-2008, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There are people who will argue that Jesus was not a "Jew" because there were no Jews by the modern definition at the time. But clearly the Jesus depicted in the gospels was part of the Judean society that evolved into modern rabbinical Judaism.

If you Google "Jesus was not a Jew" you find a lot of anti-Semitic and racialist crap. Hitler claimed that Jesus was not a Jew (see

Race_of_Jesus) based on some of the thinking of German scholars, who theorized that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier. After the Holocaust, some Christians responded by emphasizing the Jewishness of Jesus. Others haven't gotten the message.

E.g. - Jesus was not a Jew (warning - bizarre racialist theories based on the Bible.)

Now, what made a person a Jew in the first century? Was it just being circumcised? Or was it related to ancestry,parentage or genealogy?

If, for the sake of argument, the NT is regarded as historical, it will be noticed that it is not known if the so-called Mary was a Jew.

Again, if for argument sake the NT is regarded as historical, then the father of Jesus is as gMatthew or gLuke described, the God of the Jews, or if gMatthew or Luke are rejected, then the father of Jesus is unknown.

From the NT, it cannot really be determined if Jesus was a Jew through genealogy, ancestry or parentage.

In the so called "Pauline" epistles, there are persons who were circumcised who were not described as Jews, therefore circumcision does not make a person a Jew.

Even if the NT is regarded as historical, there is actually no information to confirm that Jesus of the NT was a Jew.

"therefore circumcision does not make a person a Jew." Maybe not, but what circumcision did was identify those people in the House of Abraham, their father. A required protocol for sons of Jacob.

aa5874 · 08-16-2008, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

In effect, what tribe was Jesus from? Does the NT directly link Jesus to one of the twelve tribes?

I'm referring to Judaism in the religious sense, which is what I believe the OP refers to. I am unaware of any ancient tradition that forbade non-racial Jews from being religious Jews, so the point about who his parents were, or his blood heritage, is irrelevant.

OF course it is extremely relevant. Two genealogies for Joseph were produced, and he was not even the father of Jesus.

And, this may also be an indication that Mary was not a Jew, since it would have far simpler just to use the genealogy of Mary, if she was a Jew, to directly link Jesus to one of the tribes.

And, if it is assumed the NT is historical, based on your logics, it would have been irrelevant for Paul to claim he was of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews to indentify himself as a Jew.

Again, if it is assumed the NT is historical, Jesus have CONFUTED the Pharisees, they always thought, like many today, he was the son of David, a Jew.

Matthew 22.45-46

Quote:

If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

And NO man was able to answer him a word,

Neither durst any man from that day forth ask him ANYMORE questions.

They were completely CONFUTED.

If it is assumed the NT is historical, Jesus was a God living on earth, not a Jew.

John 1.1

Quote:

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.......and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father....

John 10.30

Quote:

I and my Father are one.

Littlejohn · 08-16-2008, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is unknown or uncertain from which tribe Jesus belongs, no-one could answer him.

The nationality of Jesus is not really known if the NT is assumed historical.

According to some Jewish traditions, they presents in some rabbinical writings, it would seem that Jesus was of the tribe of Esau.

Of course, this goes for the mother, since his father was not Palestinian.

Littlejohn
.

storytime · 08-16-2008, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Jeffrey:

Of course, Paul is directing his comments toward Gentile converts to his brand of Judaism, and he does preach to Gentiles whom he hopes to convert. But he clearly understands himself to be preaching Judaism, a new universalist Judaism, Judaism for non-Jews.

I see Paul as trying to convince Gentiles that they are equal to the Jews, but not trying to convert them to Judaism. His strategy being to give hope to the Gentiles that they are acceptable to the Jewish god without circumcision or law of Moses. And this flys in the face of the OT God, for the OT God required both observance in circumcision and law keeping in order for people to be called "my people".

What purpose would Paul have had in giving a false hope to Gentiles knowing that they could never be equal to Jews?

Jeffrey Gibson · 08-16-2008, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Jeffrey:

Of course, Paul is directing his comments toward Gentile converts to his brand of Judaism, and he does preach to Gentiles whom he hopes to convert. But he clearly understands himself to be preaching Judaism, a new universalist Judaism, Judaism for non-Jews.

Yes, but this is quite a different claim than the one you made here -- and then curiously tried to defend here with inapt quotes from Galatians and the Corinthian Correspondence -- about how "The entire New Testament was created ...for ... Jews" (let alone your claim that the entire NT is "about Jews" [Philemon?].

BTW, was the person to whom Luke dedicated his bipartite work a Jew? Is Romans 10-11 addressed to Jews?

Jeffrey

Littlejohn · 08-16-2008, 08:49 AM

Quote:

BTW, was the person to whom Luke dedicated his bipartite work a Jew? Is Romans 10-11 addressed to Jews?

Jeffrey

To understand who is addressed the 'Epistle to the Romans' you must read very carefully Josephus. Of course, only a very small part of the letter can be credited to its alleged author.

The original letter, which contained this part, was probably written between 35 and 40 AD.

Greetings

Littlejohn
.

Jeffrey Gibson · 08-16-2008, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If it is assumed the NT is historical, Jesus was a God living on earth, not a Jew.

John 1.1

Assuming that John 1:1 is about Jesus rather than God's purpose, your claim that the author of the Gospel of John did not think Jesus was a Jew is contradicted both by his statement in Jn 1:11 that the Logos "He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him, by his having a Samaritan woman recognize Jesus as a Jew (cf. Jn 4:9, "The Samaritan woman said to him, "You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?"), and by his following editorial comment upon the woman's remarks that "... Jews do not associate with Samaritans" which would have no force if he didn't think the remark that he places on the Samaritan woman's lips was to be taken as true.

Jeffrey

No Robots · 08-16-2008, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Yes, but this is quite a different claim than the one you made here -- and then curiously tried to defend here with inapt quotes from Galatians and the Corinthian Correspondence -- about how "The entire New Testament was created ...for ... Jews" (let alone your claim that the entire NT is "about Jews" [Philemon?].

Not at all. It is your persistent but incorrect assumption that all references to Jews is to ethnic Jews that led you to misinterpret what I say.

Quote:

BTW, was the person to whom Luke dedicated his bipartite work a Jew? Is Romans 10-11 addressed to Jews?

Again, my contention is that everything in the NT is directed toward the community of Christians, which all the writers understood to be within Judaism.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.