Amaleq13

That wasn't what you were told and you know it. Making demonstrably false statements is not good for your credibility.

You showed nothing but your inability to deal with the slightest nuance.

Aristilus

Reading this thread, I think there is a consensus that Jesus was, in fact Jewish. Going on from that, it goes against everything he would have believed to have offered his body and blood for consumption by his disciples. I know it was "symbolic", but even the slightest hint of that would have been totally abhorrant to devout Jews.
I will be interested to here any opinions on the subject.

DCHindley

Probably the best thing to do is to question the common assumption that the "Christians" who wrote the books of the NT were in fact Jews. NT theology/dogma would be easier to understand if it were assumed that it was the product of Gentiles who had a rather close, yet still alien, understanding of the Jewish God, the history of the Jews, and their sacred writings.

Without question they were more than familiar with Jewish scripture (in Greek translation), but ideas such as the body & blood seems alien to it, and reflects gentile influence (probably through rites like those of the mystery religions in the example cited). Familiarity with Jewish scripture does not equate with Jewish ethnicity. It could also be due to conversion (accepting circumcision and the yoke of the law, and the associated self-identification) or a certain degree of close association with their beliefs and traditions (as gentile God-fearers, etc).

While it is more than politically incorrect to suggest it nowadays, NT Christianity seems to reflect a belief that "gentiles" (meaning the type of "Christianity" from which the gospel writers sprang) had somehow shown greater understanding of, and fidelity to, the will of the God the Jews worshipped, to the extent that that God had rewarded them by transferring his blessings from the Jewish people to them.

In short, "replacement theology". Horrors!!! My philosophy, though, is to accept it for what it is, without value judgment, or concern for how that understanding might affect modern interpretations of the Christian and Jewish faiths. Religious beliefs have an amazing ability to adopt and adapt over time, then as well as now.

Our response, I would think, should be to try and determine (and comprehend) the significance of the conditions that caused that body of gentile "Christians" to develop as it did. That is not easy to do, as it involves a certain ability to "think outside the box."

DCH

aa5874

Please deal with the OP. What exactly is your position? Was Jesus a Jew or not, if the NT is assumed historical, or at least in part?

I can say the same about you, but I won't waste my time.

aa5874

A consensus is not what we are after, the OP wanted reasons to believe that Jesus was not a Jew.

Again, an abondoned child from Egypt living with adopted parents who were Jews could appear to be Jewish but is actually an Egyptian.

Moses grew up in Egypt after being abandoned. Moses may have appeared to be Egyptian, but he was Hebrew. See Exodus 2.

Amaleq13

I've already provided my views in the posts you've been ignoring.

You could but you would be lying.

aa5874

Please, deal with the OP.

What is your position? Can you provide any reasons for the poster to believe Jesus was not a Jew, if the NT is assumed historical, or at least in part.

I can accuse you of lying, but I won't waste my time.

spamandham

The Gospel stories syncretize multiple different beliefs. Whether or not first century Jews would find the idea of ritual consumption of a god to be abhorrent or not I don't know, but it doesn't matter, because the stories were not written for the purpose of recording history.

The last supper is there to justify contemporary practices among (ast least some) early Christians, not because it represents actual history.

aa5874

Could you name some of these mutiple different beliefs that were syncretised by the Gospels?

The Gospels fundamentally only deals with the Jewish belief. I cannot find any other beliefs with respect to Paganism being syncretised by the Gospels stories.

GakuseiDon

Not sure if someone has posted this list before, but I can't see it in this thread:

There were 3 good arguments that Jesus was Black:

1. He called everyone brother.
2. He liked Gospel.
3. He didn't get a fair trial.

But then there were 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Jewish:

1. He went into His Father's business.
2. He lived at home until he was 33.
3. He was sure his Mother was a virgin and his Mother was sure He was God.

But then there were 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Italian:

1. He talked with His hands.
2. He had wine with His meals.
3. He used olive oil

But then there were 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was a Californian :

1. He never cut His hair.
2. He walked around barefoot all the time.
3. He started a new religion.

But then there were 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was an American Indian :

1. He was at peace with nature.
2. He ate a lot of fish.
3. He talked about the Great Spirit.

But then there were 3 equally good arguments that Jesus was Irish:

1. He never got married.
2. He was always telling stories.
3. He loved green pastures.

But the most compelling evidence of all - 3 proofs that Jesus was a woman:

1. He fed a crowd at a moment's notice when there was virtually no food.
2. He kept trying to get a message across to a bunch of men who just didn't get it.
3. And even when He was dead, He had to get up because there was still work to do.