show_no_mercy

Assuming that the gospel of John has historical information about Jesus, does it present Jesus as not being a Jew?

Jesus is quoting Psalm 82:6. But the Psalms aren't part of the Law. And why does Jesus say "your law"? Isn't it his law too, being Jewish?

bacht

And there's this passage:

"Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad."
The Jews then said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?"
Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."
So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple.

ch 8.56-59

But in chapter 1 it seems clear:

The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. And he found Philip and said to him, "Follow me."
Now Philip was from Beth-sa'ida, the city of Andrew and Peter.
Philip found Nathan'a-el, and said to him, "We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."
Nathan'a-el said to him, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Philip said to him, "Come and see."

v 43-46

So the Christ only appeared to be a Jew?

IamJoseph

I see these marks as subtle pointers these are Romans writing these documents. Other instances include disdain terms such as 'THESE JEWS' - inferring an arms length premise.

IamJoseph

How absurd that anyone would believe a Jew named Peter would condone another Jew claiming to transcend Abraham or any other prophet! Its a total mockery.

bacht

Possible, or Hellenistic gentiles. Given the Romans' history it wouldn't be surprising if a Greek invented the idea and the Romans implemented it.

Or, the gnostics were the source of this gospel, and later hands "improved it" for catholic use.

jakejonesiv

"It is about the Marcionite sect. Marcion proposes to the Christians to reject all that is Jewish: the Christ of Israel, God of Israel, the Old Testament, and to adore a God foreign to the world, revealed for the first time by Jesus. Its doctrines were spread in Asia and penetrated in Rome. Condemned on his extreme theses in 144 CE, Marcion exerted nevertheless a decisive influence on Christian theology. Thanks to skilful preparings, many writings of Marcionite tendency, to start with the Fourth Gospel, contributed to form the New Testament. It is in a Marcionite medium, or premarcionite, that is best understood the development of a Jesus Son of the Father, opposed to the Jesus Messiah of Israel."

Jesus Barabbas by P. - L COUCHOUD AND R. STAHL, Page 20

Jake Jones IV

show_no_mercy

Another intersting thing from that document:

What if this entire Passion sequence was initially a play? A lot of the "prophesies" fulfilled in the PN are actually from the Psalms, which were meant to be songs. Meaning the episode was midrashed from the Psalms not "predicted". And of course the interplay between Jesus and "BarAbba" reflecting the scapegoat ceremony of Leviticus 16.

Juststeve

Jesus is also revealed as not knowing his Bible in Mark 2, 22-26 where he misnames the High Priest in the case of David eating the Shewbread as Abiathar when any learned Jew know the H.P. was Ahimelech, 1 Sam 21. The living God on earth should be more familiar with his own scripture.

Steve

ElectEngr

:Cheeky::Cheeky:

[POE mode - aka Screammin' Fundi Mode]

There is no contradiction here...Christ Jesus was correcting the scribe of 1 Sam 21, who got the name wrong. It really was Abiathar. Jesus knew the correct name, the scribe didn't...When the word of Christ Jesus is different from the Old Testiment, always go with Jesus.

[/POE mode - aka Screammin' Fundi Mode]

:Cheeky::Cheeky:
Am I close?

Later,
ElectEngr

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Amazing. Rather than spend five minutes checking and learning...

John 10:34
Jesus answered them,
Is it not written in your law,
I said, Ye are gods?

As often, John Gill knows the Hebraics unknown by the skeptic contingent.
(Maybe some day these folks will think to check the Hebraics first !)

John Gill
In the law which was given unto them, of which they boasted, and pretended to understand, and interpret, even in

Psalms 82:6
I have said, Ye are gods;
and all of you are children of the most High.

for the law includes not only the Pentateuch, but all the books of the Old Testament: it is an observation of one of the Jewish doctors (Azarias in Meor Enayim, c. 7. fol. 47. 1.), that

``with the wise men of blessed memory, it is found in many places that the word law comprehends the Prophets and the Hagiographa.''

Among which last stands the book of Psalms; and this may be confirmed by a passage out of the Talmud T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 91. 2. ; it is asked,

``from whence does the resurrection of the dead appear, (hrwth Nm) , "out of the law?"''

It is answered,

``as it is said in (Psalms 84:4) : "Blessed are they that dwell in thy house, they will still praise thee, Selah; they do praise thee", it is not said, but "they will praise thee"; from hence is a proof of the resurrection of the dead, "out of the law".''

The same question is again put, and then (Isaiah 52:8) is cited, and the like observation made upon it. Moreover, this is a way of speaking used by the Jews, when they introduce another citing a passage of Scripture thus T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 32. 2 (Mktrwtb bytk alh) , "is it not written in your law", (Deuteronomy 4:9) , "only take heed to thyself"… so here the Scripture follows,

This is why one of the posters here tries to diss John Gill. Overall, his writings are simply the most informative and knowledgeable on the Hebraics that relate to NT (and Tanach) verses, of anyone. This can upset a skeptic.

Shalom,
Steven