Jehanne

how many of the religious nuts like Jesus ended-up being executed?

Chili

But I understand that. The Law was given for the conviction of sin and not just a make belief ideology for a group of pretenters. It requires enforcement for without enforcement the concept sin is death while it is needed to convict the flesh (which is real) of its enslavement to original sin from which the inner man must be delivered. If original sin (that caused our banishment from Eden) was not a reality but also a concept like the rest of them the final conviction and subsequent crucifixion would not be required.

The words "it is finished" are in agreement with the events that led to the crucifixion of Jesus the Jew that was actually provoked by the insight of Jesus the Christ with Mary and JohnB as his chief informers.

Sheshbazzar

Then you understand that he was guilty of committing sin? ( not with respect to being a partaker of an alleged "original sin",) but that in the flesh, he being "tempted" to the sins of rebellion and heresy, did in willful violation of the Law, commit these sins?

Chili

No, I don't think so. The moment Christ was born he, Joseph, was a new creation and no longer a Jew and therefore not even subject to their laws . . . which is why he was called Jesus the son of Joseph who traced his lineage back to God instead of David (in Luke).

Each of the Gospels show that Jesus was a new creation: in Matthew 'the devil' failed even after Jesus had no enterprising thoughts for 40 days despite the fact that he was empowered by the Lord God and free to do as he pleased . . . but against which Jesus said "you shall not put the Lord your God to the test" (which was a good move on his part but easy to make since the desert parable is the flip side of the wedding in Cana).

In John he was entertained at the wedding in Cana where the better wine was promised to be the second half of his life (the first six were involutional and the second six would be evolutional). This change of perception was evidence that Jesus was set free from slavery and on into the freedom of Isreal he went.

That he denounced Judaism is also clear from the temple ruckus, his proclamations from the precinct instead of from inside the temple, and further that Peter could denounce him tree times. How about "get thee behind me satan" in Mat.16:23?

Sheshbazzar

Then it is clear that contrary to your assertion "But I understand that,"

That you do NOT understand the premise, his alleged conduct and speech, as it is recorded in the N.T. was an open affront and insult both to god of Israel, and to the inspired words, commandments and institutions which that god had spoken, enacted and gave His divine sanction to.
If he was not subject to the Law, he was in sin, for in Israel there was ONE manner of Law, both for him of Israel, born a Jew, and also for the stranger within the gates.

Chili

Yes I do understand and lets just say that Jews do not understand or they would have never condemned him to be crucified. I do not disagree with Judaism and its divine institutions but if a Jew ever wants to get to Israel he must [involuntarily] leave Judaism behind because there are no temples in the New Jerusalem. The real message here is that the very religion that should have brought life brought death and out of this death eternal life was gained which in Judaism is called Israel instead of heaven.

Israel is a state of mind wherein we are one with God and is not a closed system like Judaism.

Anyway, that's how I see it as an NT person.

Sheshbazzar

So Chili, if Mary was "non-Jewish" , what she doing observing the Jewish law of ritual purification following childbirth. (Lu.2:22)? and offering "sacrifice according to that which is said in the Law",(Lu.2:24)? and having her son circumcised at the accomplishment of eight days as required by Jewish Law,(Lu.2:21) which circumcision was, and is a "sign of the Covenant betwixt Me and you..." (Gen.17:9-14, Ex.12:48-49 and Lev.12:3)? And for what reason was this "non-Jewish" Mary, every year going up to Jerusalem at the Feast of the Passover, (Lu.2:41-42)?
Methinks that if you were able to confront her with the drivel you have been posting here about her being "non-Jewish" she would spit in your face first, then deliver you over to the Sanhedrin for judgment.

Sheshbazzar

Are you by any chance a Neo-Nazi, a member of the Ku-Klux-Klan, or The Aryan Nation? because your anti-Jewish, anti-Semitic polemic is hanging out for everyone to see.

Toto

Sheshbazzar: I don't think that Chili is anti-Semitic, although I have never quite understood him. He has a private mystical code or interprestation of what words from the Bible mean.

Chili

Because Mary was betrothed to Joseph the Jew and actually was the "woman that was taken from her man" to become the womb of man for the sole purpose of rebirth later in life. In case you forget, this is a rebirth story, which was real nonetheless but not a physical birth story as what you may be thinking of.

Passover? Jesus was the living proof of the passover event and therefore did not go, or at least not yet to show that he was son of God first and foremost and Jew as the reborn Joseph.