Jeffrey Gibson

Given how much time you spend<edit> playing your broken record over and over in almost every thread on BC&H, you could have fooled us!

Jeffrey

andrewcriddle

Judah see Hebrews 7:14

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

Hebrews 7.14 Now where is that evidence? Do you have a genealogy for Jesus of Juda.

The Pharisees, if gMatthew is assumed historical, thought Jesus was the son of David and Jesus challenged them. Jesus asked how is he the son of David and no-one could answer him.

So I ask you, "How is Jesus from the tribe of Juda"?


The author of Mark gave no conception or birth stories. This author gave no name for an earthly father or genealogy and this is how Jesus is introduced, for the first time, in gMark by John the Baptist, if gMark is assumed historical.

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

No Robots

Your initial question had nothing at all about specifically ethnic Jews.

Jeffrey Gibson

to be more specific, a Galilean who is, and was recognized as and declared to be, a Jew - - note John 1:11 and Jn. 4. See too how in Mark (and Luke and Matthew) he is classified, despite, and even because of, his Galilean origin, by Roman soldiers and Pilate as a Jew. See the story of the Cannanite woman in Matthew.

Are you speaking of the Greek of Mark? If so, is it really the case that Mark's Greek is bad, let alone very bad? Compared to what? Have you yourself actually studied Mark's Greek or looked at recent studies of it?

And what's this nonsense about the Greek speaking audience of the story of Jesus having no other choice than to be satisfied with that story being told in bad Greek? They had Luke, didn't they? And Matthew. And John. They Has portions of the story told by the author of Hebrews. Was Luke's Greek bad? Was Matthew's? Was John's? Was that of Hebrews? How on god's green earth would you know, Pete?


Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

I suggest you read it again. Given it's context, what else could it have been about?

Moreover, if it wasn't clear that my use of the term Jews there meant "ethnic Jews" (does anyone else here besides "No Robots" think it didn't), I certainly made it plain that I was speaking about ethinc identity of the Galatian and Corinthian congregations in my next post to you.

In any case, it can hardly be denied that the quotes you adduced in post 5504463 were entirely inapt if they were intended to show that Paul thought the members of the Galatian and Corinthian communities were Jews even in an attenuated sense. How could they? The first two are about Paul's ethnic origins, and the third has nothing to do with either the Galatians or the Corinthians. And whatever that third one might say about the Thessalonians, it does not say that they were Jews, ethnically or otherwise, especially in the light not only of 1:19 but of the second portion of 1 Thess. 2:14 which you neglected to adduce. (Indeed, if Caroline Johnson Hodge's thesis set out in her If Sons then Heirs [see here] is correct, and Jewish Pauline scholar Mark Nanos thinks she is, Paul would never say such a thing). At best, all it could be pressed to say is that they were members of the new people of God in which being a Jew or a Greek confers no advantage of one over the other.

Now I know that you'll claim that that's what you were saying from the get go. But there is a tremendous difference between saying that "The entire New Testament was created by, for and about Jews" and that "The entire New Testament was created by "Jews" (i.e. not necessarily ethnic Jews), for "Jews" (i.e, people who are honorary, but not ethnically, Jews) and about Gentiles who Paul, using a definition of being a Jew that non Christian -- and even some early Christian Jews" -- would not accept as legitimate, thought of as "Jews" even though ethically they weren't.

Jeffrey

arnoldo

Earlier you claimed that if the NT is assumed historical then Jesus was from another world and now you claim Jesus was not a Jew according to the NT. However the NT claims that the non-believing Jews believed neither of your propositions, rather they believed Jesus was a Samaritan.

spamandham

If you can show that only those who were racial Jews could be religious Jews, then you would have a point. Otherwise, you don't. Jesus, as depicted in the Gospels, is a Jew, in spite of whether he is the half son of a ghost, and in spite of inconsistent Genealogies.

There's no assumption like that being made. This is a literary analysis just as easily applied to Tom Sawyer, or the Night Before Christmas.


...are you actually trying to claim it's impossible to analyze the Gospels from a literary perspective!?

Adonael

To be clear: the question I asked is not to debate whether Jesus was a Jew; and thus there is no task for me or any person here to argue or present evidence that Jesus was a Jew. In sharp contrast, I am looking for positive reasons to believe that Jesus was not a Jew. And, FYI, a lack of evidence that Jesus was a Jew is not evidence that Jesus was not a Jew.

aa5874,

I have found your contributions within this thread to be annoyingly intrusive rather than even the slightest bit useful.

aa5874

You need to develop your proposition. You have found a passage where Jews implied Jesus was a Samaritan, now continue reading the same chapter and read verse 58 aloud.

John 8.58 Jesus was a God living on earth, not a Jew, if the NT is assumed historical.