Chili

First, the very word splendid belongs to the imagination and that was crucified in Paul. Next, Jesus was not a Jew but only the sin nature of Jesus was Jewish and that is beyond the persecution of Paul who was not a Galilean for that reason.

You are looking for sensations and these had been pierced in Paul.

TedM

Why was Jesus not a Jew, in contradiction to what Paul and everyone else who wrote on the subject back then said?

Chili

Because Jesus was the name given to the son of a mother who is free. The son of man is not Jewish but is a son of God as it is shown in the lineage of Jesus in Luke that goes past David to Adam to God.

Now I can certainly see why Jesus can be called a Jew since he had a dual nature wherein he was both son of man and son of Joseph the Jew. It is for this reason that the recorded lineage of Jesus in Matthew takes us back to Jesus being the son of David and coming to a full stop at Abraham.

My reason for saying that Jesus was not a Jew is because it was only "supposed" that Jesus was the son of Joseph (Luke 3:23) while in fact his lineage tells us that he was the son of God and that the son of Joseph was the fictional Jesus to be crucified here.

TedM

?

?

?

How about the idea that Joseph was "supposed" to be the father because his wife was pregnant?

?

TIA,

ted

Chili

Thanks for the attention.

TedM

Believe me, I tried to figure out what in the world you are talking about and couldn't. So I simply put in a ?. It is my honest response and inquiry.

ted

Chili

Hello Ted, if you can accept that Jesus had two natures it would follow that one of them was Jewish and the other was from God. The lineage of Jesus in Matthew is from records and they tell us that Joseph was from the line of David. This makes Joseph a Jew and since Jews are sinners the inherited Jewish identity of Jesus is not the God identity of Jesus.

This same cannot be said about the line of Mary who was from Nazareth. Now Nazareth is the city of God in Galilee where all women are virgin to bear the firstborn of the man to whom they are betrothed, once and once only, but that is enough to add the God identity to Joseph to whom Mary was betrothed. Joseph was to call this child Jesus who "shall be called a Nazorean" and therefore was not a Jew.

Now I know that this is a tremendous jump-shift for you to comprehend but that is what the bible tells us.

Moreover, if Jesus was a Jew in the Gospels he would be subject to the law
and that would qualify him as sinner . . . which he was not -- while yet he stood convicted as sinner for the sins of his world and these he bore as the cross whereby he was convicted and whereon he was crucified as Jew only.

In addition, Mary was sinless which is made known by "how can this be since I do not know man" which would be the humanity of man wherein only man is the pretender of which Marcion spoke. This notion is confirmed in Matthew where "he had no relations with her at anytime before she bore a son, which he called Jesus."

So yes, why don't you want to accept that Mary, the non-Jewish virgin, is the mother of God? It is a major tribute to Judaism, you know, since "Jerusalem on high" is also theirs but for any Jews to arrive there they must be born of a woman who is free. Here's your tribute to Judaism by Paul:

"Rejoice you barren one who bears no children;
break into song, you stranger in the pains of childbirth!
For many are the children of the wife deserted--
far more than of her who has a husband!" (cited in Gal.4:27).

The emphasis is mine to identify the many Jews that have entered upon the New Jerusalem.

TedM

Thanks for the explanation.

Ok so far.

How does being a virgin give a woman "the God identity"? Doesn't that mean many women had the God identity? Does having the God identity suddenly make someone born of Jewish parents a Gentile? How does marrying a virgin "add the God identity" to the husband? Doesn't that mean millions of men have the "God identity"? Were Jews not allowed in Nazareth? If the answer is "no they were allowed" then how does calling one a "Nazorean" require that one not be a Jew also?


Are you not letting this interpretation (which is questionable--where is the definition of a sinner?) drive your thinking regarding Mary and Nazoreans? If so, isn't that irrational?


Virgins can sin too.

While I find your reasoning quite curious, I appreciate your taking the time. If you want to defend your views, great. If you prefer not to, I have no problem with that, as it is very unlikely that I will be able to stretch enough to see the logic in your viewpoint.

ted

Chili

Virgin is used as a metaphor for purity and we are going to identify the purity of man in the image of God (yes, this includes you and me) wherein the woman was "taken from man" to be the womb of man in the image of God.
This is the woman who was preserved for the sole purpose of rebirth and she was protected by the integrity of Joseph who is therefore called an "upright" man as Jew.

Let's face it Ted, we all have an integrity of which the aim is to protect our inner sanctum wherein we are 'who' we are and this is equal to the woman or womb of man out of which we must be reborn in the image of God as son of man. So we are not dealing with a physical birth but with a rebirth . . . or that which is called a rebirth. Therefore also the term "free born" or from "upon high" and so forth.

So we are not talking about a female with genitals but about Maria who thusly became our Perpetual Virgin.I do not know your definition of Gentile (or maybe I do but resent being stuck on definitions), but yes, the woman has the God identity because she is 'our ideal' image of God that we protect as human. She is us and she is us in our entirety to which we add with our human condition while in search for happiness (we do this along the road dust of the sun where are comforted by her presence -but don't let this distract you).

So yes, we are man first and Jew second.

The marriage is a marriage of the mind wherein the two become one in the convergence of the twain mind that exists in each of us. So yes, we all have our own God identity that is later called the Alpha. This convergence is forshadowed in Gen.2:24.

No, no Jews in Nazareth which is the city of God. Jews are sinners (bless them all) and sin does not belong in the city of God. That would be equal to the rape of Mary and leaves a mark on our integrity (in the physical world this is the basis for and purpose of virginity in marriage for both males and females -- but that is not part of the argument here).

I do not know if Nazareth actually existed but if it did it should not have existed, just as Israel should not be a nation except in our own mind. It means "one with God" after having completed the journey of life and arrive once again in the land between the Tigris and Euphrates (as foreshadowed in Gen.2:10-14).Yes I told you a jump-shift is needed to accept it but that is no different than accepting the pivotal speech made by Marc Anthony in "Julius Caesar" (III.i.184-210).

To be sinner is to be human and this Mary was not. Mary was woman and therefore not human and is called most blessed among women to identify the pure form of woman-ity in man -- including females who have a better sense of self for that reason (or at least did at one time). Yes and we love 'm for that. Such is the nature of us humans.

TedM

Thanks Chili. You definitely see things in a unique way. You find allegorical and metaphorical meaning where most people just see things literally.

take care,

ted