Chili

No I am not and I have a great respect for Judaism and probably understand it better than you ever will. Do you see the problem?

Chili

Not so, in perverting my posts you have shown the world that you never really have learned to walk upright.

Toto

Please refrain from inpugning other poster's intelligence or motives if you want this thread to stay here and/or stay open.

Sheshbazzar

What "Jewish law"? do you mean that He was not subject to "The Law of Yahweh" His Father? For one not subject to that Law, He sure spent a lot of His time in quoting it, and in invoking it, and in declaring its permanence.
But you, by your doctrine would have Him to be a KING, that lived and taught in an arrogant manner in violation of That Law which Yahweh His Father gave to Him, and to us, in Deut. 17:19-20.

Sheshbazzar

I just want to have a clear understanding of what you are intending to say here, Are you stating that it is your belief that the birth story recorded in Luke 2:1-39 did not actually physically take place?

Not intending any insult, but your posts usually consist of several obscure and unsupported statements, which virtually no known Christian denominations or organizations would be willing to claim as an integral part of their teachings or doctrines.
Because you string and/or interweave your statements with obscure self-realized perceptions, and peculiar interpretations, you leave no way to phrase a concise reply without breaking out and separating these individual statements for examination and understanding.

Sheshbazzar

Chili, you have referred to 'Jesus' as the "ex Jew", and in another place you said "that makes Mary non-Jewish and Jesus the Christ who was born of God not subject to Jewish law."
This causes me to wonder what you believe, for the seeming implication of your statements is that Mary was a non-Jew BEFORE His birth, and therefore, from birth Jesus himself was also non-Jewish? Yet you refer to him as an "ex Jew" who was set free from Judiasim..."
So what do you mean? That He was a "Jew" BEFORE He was conceived? and an "ex Jew" AFTER He was conceived, but BEFORE He was born? and that because of this 'non-Jewishness' from BEFORE birth, He was not subject to 'Jewish' (that is to Yahweh-His Fathers) Laws?
At what point do you believe He became an "ex Jew" ? Please explain how he was a "Jew" before He was conceived.

Non-believer

According to the New Testament Jesus was subject to the law.

Chili

Yes, the Law of Yahweh who was the Father and became His Father after Joseph gave birth to the son of the Father which happened in the mind of the same Joseph who was therefore an "upright Jew."

Jesus fulfilled the Law and never came to abolish it because the law is the heart of the mythology that is needed for the inner man to convict the outer man of sin and while doing this will redeem and set free the inner man. In Judaism the inner man is called the Messiah later called Christ in the NT. This means that the Law fulfilled its purpose and must now be brought to understanding and this happens in the Gospels.

Joseph was the KING and he built his little kingdom depicted as a enterprising carpenter. This accumilation Joseph's richess became a liability (tower of Babel) wherefore he went to Bethlehem to give an account of himself and there was reborn later to be called Jesus who now had to abolish kingdom of Joseph and raise it again into the other side of his mind where life is eternal.

The reason the richess of Joseph became a liability is that they were made upon the initiative of the Mornig star while inspired by Yaweh.

I must go and will return tonight.

Sheshbazzar

While you and I and most other rational persons would understand the phrase "born under the law" to indicate that He was 'subject' to said law, Chili obviously thinks otherwise, as his posts make Him an "ex Jew" from prior to His birth!

Non-believer

The law of Moses was never supposed to be fulfilled. The law of Moses was "perfect" (Psalm 19:8), and it "stands in the heavens" forever (Psalm 119:89).

In the Jewish Scriptures the word "messiah" is never mentioned, nor are the names: Jesus, Mary, Nazarene, or Nazareth. The word "christ" is the greek word for "messiah." Matthew claimed that "He shall be called a Nazarene," was "spoken through the prophets" (2:23). However, no such statement is made in the Jewish Scriptures. One might argue that it was spoken and not written, but Matthew used the term "spoken through the prophet(s)" in the previous passages to indicate that a statement was written and not literally spoken.

This is in reference to an actual quote from the Jewish Scriptures (Jer. 31:15). Matthew never used the term "spoken through the prophet(s)" to imply that a statement was literally spoken.

The writer of Hebrews states that there would be no need to replace the law if the law was faultless. Well, according to the Jewish Scriptures the law was faultless. Chilli needs to explain to everyone how something can be "more excellent" and "better" than that which is "perfect."