Dogfish

:rolling::rolling::rolling:

You're hopeless! How does it feel to have to babble the most ridiculous tripe just so you can hold on to your irrational beliefs?

WVIncagold

Take a look at that statement and what is possibly wrong with it? Being Jewish is a belief. Being a Christian is a belief. The Proper sentence would have been the first Christians were people who Left the Jewish religion. You cant be both. Your either a Christian or a Jew no matter how you want to try and say "well they thought of races different back then" its not a race. It determines a tribe mentality only. they left their tribe to join another. As soon as you believe in the messiah Jesus your no longer Jewish. Being Jewish is an accident of birth same ans any other religion and because you can convert your simply a member of a religious community. It is really that simple and thank you for proving my point. Jews who no longer wish to worship their religion took the Jewish god and added a fake Messiah. They took another religions car put new paint on it changed the emblems from Honda to Chevy but left the Honda engine claimed it as their own thereby taking another's property.

WVIncagold

Sure did it didn't fulfill one prophecy but hey why let that stop you when your making up a new god to create a empire. Surprise

I love that Jewish Christians like I can be a Caucasian Mongoloid. or an Up Down.

Well one thing is that early religions not everyone got a free ticket to the kingdom of god. In most it was based on valor or deeds you did, some it was by sacrifice animal and human. When Paul instituted the religion we now know as Christianity he was quite clever. he endowed his new religion so that everyone can get into the pearly gates all they have to do is believe in his fake messiah and give a tithing to the church and one in a while partake in cannibalistic and vampire tendencies. But Everyone got in. this was a unique concept for the time.

yinyang

Caucasian Mongoloid?

Jane H

It’s taken us some way from the OP. However…

My comment was in response to the suggestion in post 84 that Paul had “attempted to redefine believing gentiles as qualifying for the promises given to the chosen people of God.” The idea that Gentiles were to benefit from the Jews was, as I indicated, always part of the OT message. As to whether it was Paul or Jesus who introduced the change in purity codes…well that is a substantial debate.

Both the messianic expectations, and the nature of the way the gentiles would benefit from the Jews, were certainly vague enough to include what actually happened. So vague that, for example, the Scrolls believe there would be two Messiahs. How it all happened certainly wasn’t how C1 Jews thought it would happen (which is one of my key points!), but that was a matter of interpretation rather than contradiction. Remember this is Jewish ‘apocalyptic’ language, which is a genre of its own, and any discussion of interpretation of prophecy needs to reflect that. Throw in the use of representation, and it all turns into “That’s what it turned out to mean” rather than “That was wrong”.

Converts to what? A fake religion that betrayed his heritage, his race and his God? Motivation? To get beaten up in the most horrendous ways and ultimately killed for this fake religion? Even if you can get past that, you’ve still got the disciples who could, and would, have stopped Paul from all this gentile loving betrayal nonsense.

A number did- even if you see Acts as spin there must have been a thriving C1 Jewish Christian community for some of the things Paul wrote about to make sense. As for the rest- they had a perfectly good religion of their own, and weren’t about to follow a dead man they had barely, or never, known. The shock was that any of the gentile communities bought into a Jewish based religion based around the (to them) dirtily obscene idea of a resurrection.


No, because they were making that declaration decades before it was destroyed.

WishboneDawn

Can you tell me what the Christian belief, as you imagine it, was for those earliest Christian Jews?

Do you imagine there was some fully formed Christian religion they abandoned Judaism for?

Of course you can, that's why they're reffered to as Christian jews.

Race? WTF?

Yes, NOW. Because we've had 2000 years to determine what being Christian and Jewish mean in relation to each other. See, the first ones didn't have that advantage. They just knew they were Jews and here was this guy who seemed to be the messiah they were waiting for.

Look, this is ridiculous. Historians use the term Christian Jews because it's a truer description than Christians, because those people were practicing their Jewish faith. Can you point to any sources (other then some Jewish friends. I know some Christian folk who claim demonic possessions are a verified fact but just because they say it don't mean it's so) that I can read that might support your case or make a better argument for this POV?

aa5874

In which cenrury? There is no credible evidence that Jews , up to 92 CE, ever heard about Jesus Christ, the Lord and Saviour, son of God who was crucified. Neither Philo nor Josephus wrote about such a figure and there are no non-apologetic extant records of Jews who were followers of Jesus the Christ in the first century by those authors. And in addition the information in the NT appears to be incredible .

JohnG

Sorry to interject without adding anything useful, but I have to say after reading many posts from the first few pages here:

If I was a serious theist, I would REALLY be studying Latin or Hebrew so I KNEW EXACTLY what the bible was saying without interpretive confusion. People argue over the tiniest of possible metaphoric nuances.

If you honestly believed in eternal salvation, wouldn't it be wise to dedicate this blink-of-an-eye of a life to getting it right so your not standing there on judgment day saying " well I THOUGHT you meant..."

I mean...it's eternity....that's a long time


I'm 100% serious. I wouldn't waste a minute of time on an english bible.

carry on...

Amaleq13

Not really. There is little support from the Gospels for the notion that Jesus preached any such thing to gentiles but Paul claimed he obtained it from the risen Christ.

Nonsense. There is nothing "vague" about the clear failure of Jesus to fulfill the very specific messianic expectations nor is there any room for a crucifixion victim. Gentiles were expected to fully convert in order to fully benefit.

Who, together, fulfilled the traditional expectations.

Yes, one can reword one's description of the theft to make it seem less like robbery.

Paul's gospel.

Sheshbazzar

Way back in my youth, I was also 100% serious, so much so that I devoted many years to the study of Hebrew. Got to where I can read it well enough.
Problem is, a hokey, fantastic, and contradictory tale, whether it is read in Hebrew, or in Greek, or in the English, still comes out being a hokey, fantastic, and contradictory tale. :huh: