The Jewish Jesus

[Your closest friendnt]

18 minutes ago, AFlameOfFire said:

Tribe of Israel? What's that?

Paul said he was circumcised the eighth day and of the stock of Israel,  but more specifically of the tribe of Benjamin.

There were various tribes 

Of Jesus it says,

Hebrews 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

And in the book of Revelation it says

Rev 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
 

It does say he was of the tribe of Judah

It's up to you to take take what Paul said out of the context of the thoughts of Paul who was speaking to people who wanted to hear that Jesus was the seed of David as it was foretold to eliminate the seed of any other tribe of Israel. (When I said earlier from the tribe of Israel you should understand that it was supposed to say from one of the tribe of Israel.) 

I hope that we said enough and two pages are more than enough and while it was good we should pause to leave room for someone else to get involved with another issue or the same issue at hand. It was a good discussion. God bless. 

Edited November 6, 2023 by Your closest friendnt

[Michael37]

44 minutes ago, Your closest friendnt said:

It's up to you to take take what Paul said out of the context of the thoughts of Paul who was speaking to people who wanted to hear that Jesus was the seed of David as it was foretold to eliminate the seed of any other tribe of Israel. (When I said earlier from the tribe of Israel you should understand that it was supposed to say from one of the tribe of Israel.) 

I hope that we said enough and two pages are more than enough and while it was good we should pause to leave room for someone else to get involved with another issue or the same issue at hand. It was a good discussion. God bless. 

From my BingChat search:

The phrase “Lion of the Tribe of Judah” is used to describe Jesus in the Bible. According to the book of Revelation, one of the elders said to John, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals” ¹. The tribe of Judah is a reference to the human or natural lineage of Christ. Jesus was a descendant of Judah, which also included David, Solomon, and eventually making its way all the way down to Joseph, Jesus’ earthly father (actually stepfather if you want to be technical) ¹. The other mention of the lion happens in Genesis 49. In this occasion, Jacob calls his sons together and tells them what will happen to each of them in the days to come. Clearly Jacob is speaking with prophetic language. When he gets to his son Judah here is what he proclaims: “Judah, your brothers will praise you; your hand will be on the neck of your enemies; your father’s sons will bow down to you. You are a lion’s cub, Judah; you return from the prey, my son. Like a lion he crouches and lies down, like a lioness—who dares to rouse him? The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he to whom it belongs shall come and the obedience of the nations shall be his. He will tether his donkey to a vine, his colt to the choicest branch; he will wash his garments in wine, his robes in the blood of grapes. His eyes will be darker than wine, his teeth whiter than milk” ( Genesis 49:8-12 ) ¹. When you consider these verses, then a reference to the Lion of the tribe of Judah points to the conquering, victorious king that would descend from Judah’s lineage. We know that this lion was pointing to only one person, Jesus himself, God in human form, who is the lion of the tribe of Judah. This truth is important because it fulfills the promise and prophecy of God’s word ¹.

 

[AnOrangeCat]

10 hours ago, Starise said:

It's a real conundrum to western sensitivities and minds.  Yes, we are no longer under mosaic law, however if God never changes, why are these laws on the books? 

Honestly I want to be upset that this is in the text at all because it's a big rock to crawl out from under. It would be much less severe and even explain many things if these laws were not atributed to God but to men which makes a lot more sense. TBH they look more like laws men would make.

My theory is that, as you pointed out, there may well be some translation issues in play muddying the waters. But I also suspect that it's intended to show a sense of progress and to deal with the realities of the day. There are elements in the OT law that are strikingly similar to Hammurabi's Code, one of the most ancient legal texts around and one that was known in the ancient world. The often cited "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is from Hammurabi, except Hammurabi brings social class into the picture. "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth if you're equals, but if you're of higher standing than the guy you hurt you'll get off the hook with a fine." is the gist of it.

So what I get from it is that God didn't expect people living the harsh life of desert dwellers in the ancient world to drastically and instantly change. But He did show them a better way with how OT law improves upon Hammurabi. Later on down the line Jesus cited an eye for an eye and went "Here's an even better way.", moving us toward forgiveness and mercy over retribution.

11 hours ago, Starise said:

The argument is there are no rights for the poor woman involved. In the first example the rapist can make things right with 50 shekels. I believe we are missing something in the cuture and text.

Yeah, this does seem pretty bad to our modern western sensibilities, but considering the era I think it's part deterrent, part recompense, and part making something of a bad situation. IIRC at the time 10 shekels was about the equivalent of a year's wages so the fine is nothing to sneeze at. Second, it forced the offender to take responsibility for his actions. On top of the fine he'd be obligated to take care of her and any children produced instead of playing the burden entirely on her family. To the people of the era I think it made sense. There was definitely some cultural value placed on a woman's virginity. Without that she may well have been seen as damaged/used goods and undesirable as a marriage partner. Was it ideal? Certainly not, but we don't get perfection here on Earth.

[Dennis1209]

16 hours ago, Starise said:

Lets look at a few of these deal breakers. Cosmology, evolution to name a few. The earth should never have had water on it at that stage of creation ( in the very beginning ) because you need stars to have water. Closer examination shows there were stars, but they will try to say it could not have worked which topples the rest of the bible for them. If you can't get Genesis right, why bother with the rest?

You bring up a good point. In the Genesis creation account, everything created is accounted for: dry earth (land), vegetation, sea and land animals, humans, the cosmos, the atmosphere, and man, except for one other vital ingredient that supports all life: water.

On which day of the six-day creation account was water created?

[Starise]

5 hours ago, AnOrangeCat said:

My theory is that, as you pointed out, there may well be some translation issues in play muddying the waters. But I also suspect that it's intended to show a sense of progress and to deal with the realities of the day. There are elements in the OT law that are strikingly similar to Hammurabi's Code, one of the most ancient legal texts around and one that was known in the ancient world. The often cited "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is from Hammurabi, except Hammurabi brings social class into the picture. "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth if you're equals, but if you're of higher standing than the guy you hurt you'll get off the hook with a fine." is the gist of it.

So what I get from it is that God didn't expect people living the harsh life of desert dwellers in the ancient world to drastically and instantly change. But He did show them a better way with how OT law improves upon Hammurabi. Later on down the line Jesus cited an eye for an eye and went "Here's an even better way.", moving us toward forgiveness and mercy over retribution.

Yeah, this does seem pretty bad to our modern western sensibilities, but considering the era I think it's part deterrent, part recompense, and part making something of a bad situation. IIRC at the time 10 shekels was about the equivalent of a year's wages so the fine is nothing to sneeze at. Second, it forced the offender to take responsibility for his actions. On top of the fine he'd be obligated to take care of her and any children produced instead of playing the burden entirely on her family. To the people of the era I think it made sense. There was definitely some cultural value placed on a woman's virginity. Without that she may well have been seen as damaged/used goods and undesirable as a marriage partner. Was it ideal? Certainly not, but we don't get perfection here on Earth.

Thanks for your comments. Though these laws give me great uneasiness, it is what it is. That they were superceeded gives some comfort. It isn't the kind of an answer a western mind wants to hear.

41 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

You bring up a good point. In the Genesis creation account, everything created is accounted for: dry earth (land), vegetation, sea and land animals, humans, the cosmos, the atmosphere, and man, except for one other vital ingredient that supports all life: water.

On which day of the six-day creation account was water created?

If looking strictly at the order of the text in Gen 1:1, I think we have the answer which does not need to be overthought.

[Know Jah]

the statement that the God of OT is different than God of NT is puzzeling because of whats stated at Heb 13:8 that God don't change.

[AnOrangeCat]

1 hour ago, Starise said:

Thanks for your comments. Though these laws give me great uneasiness, it is what it is. That they were superceeded gives some comfort. It isn't the kind of an answer a western mind wants to hear.

Completely hear you that it's not something a western mind wants to hear. Slavery is a touchy subject and tends to be regarded as universally evil, but at the time the elements of recompense and deterrent was present. Without it someone could "borrow" money with no intention of paying it back. Imprisonment wasn't so much a thing back then and both it or something like a beating would leave the lender without compensation. The OT also seems to have made a distinction between those who were slaves due to circumstances and those who were forced into it in the way we think of slavery through a modern lens. Exodus 21:16: "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death."

 

[Your closest friendnt]

38 minutes ago, Know Jah said:

the statement that the God of OT is different than God of NT is puzzeling because of whats stated at Heb 13:8 that God don't change.

This is the relevant scripture. Hebrews 13:8 

KJV

8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

ESV

8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

NLT

8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

 

What do you want to say about that? 

The author of Hebrews said that Jesus is the Christ of God and he will always be the Christ of God and he will never fail to be the Christ of God...the author wants to emphasize that because we are saved in him, in Jesus Christ we will always remain saved in him. Because we are in Jesus Christ and the Heavenly Father accepts us because we are in Jesus Christ and that will never change as to be secured in Jesus Christ for all eternity. 

 

That also takes the mind of the listeners who were mostly Jews or were under the Covenant of Sinai and had their sins forgiven in the way of the Covenant of Sinai and when the Covenant of Sinai was set aside by God with the beginning of the new Covenant the people who had the forgiveness of their sins in the Old Covenant found themselves to be in their sins and the need to have their sins forgiven by Jesus Christ. That's why the thousands of Jews believe in the day of Pentecost because they wanted to have their sins forgiven by the Atonement of Jesus Christ on the Cross. 

This dramatic change took place for the people who were under the old Covenant but a similar situation will never happen in the New Covenant we will always have our sins forgiven in Jesus Christ, that will never change. 

In the Old they were warned by God that the change will take place as to include all the Nations of the world in the Messiah and to also include the Heavenly Inheritance to anyone who has his sins forgiven in Jesus Christ.  

In the New we are never told that the New Covenant will change but only that will never change and for ever will remain the same as to live without the fear of any change...to have peace of mind in this matter. 

Edited November 6, 2023 by Your closest friendnt

[Mr. M]

2 hours ago, Starise said:

Thanks for your comments. Though these laws give me great uneasiness, it is what it is. That they were superceeded gives some comfort. It isn't the kind of an answer a western mind wants to hear.

To understand the difference between the OT and NT, it helps to be reminded that the NT is to establish individuals in righteousness and holiness through their relationship with the Father, by way of the Son as Mediator, and the Holy Spirit as personal Lord.

The OT Law existed to maintain the holiness of the Promised Land. Even if someone was identified as "blameless by the Law", they had not attained the righteousness of God by faith, for righteousness could not be attained by Law.

For Example:

Deuteronomy 4:1 Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I teach you to observe, that you may live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord God of your fathers is giving you.

Numbers 35:

33 So you shall not pollute the land where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it. 

34 Therefore do not defile the land which you inhabit, in the midst of which I dwell; for I the Lord dwell among the children of Israel.

Leviticus 18:

26 You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, either any of your own nation or any stranger who dwells among you 

27 for all these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and thus the land is defiled), 

28 lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

Therefore, the Law acknowledges the ways of man, and sets forth statutes by which they could continue in the land and enjoy the Presence of the Lord.

So there are statutes with regards to slavery, this is not an endorsement of slavery, but the regulations prove to be very compassionate, with restrictions on the abuse of the practice. One must understand that this was the means that someone was required to make good on debt, as acknowledged in the NT.

Matthew 18:

24 And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 

25 But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made.

Furthermore, in our present times, many Christians carry a heavy debt burden, and even many churches are significant borrowers for the purchase of land and property, using their enrollment and tithing history to support the loan. Does the Bible have anything to say on this?

Proverbs 22:7 The rich rules over the poor,
And the borrower is servant to the lender.

So many in the Body of Christ, are trying to serve the Lord, and serve mammon, which the Lord forbids. 

Matthew 6:24 No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

You cannot turn an economic issue into a moral one, unless it is abusive and becomes immoral. Everyone must live with the decisions they make, and be accountable. The Law was exceptionally fair in comparison to all other nations.

[Starise]

1 hour ago, Know Jah said:

the statement that the God of OT is different than God of NT is puzzeling because of whats stated at Heb 13:8 that God don't change.

The way I see it God is never different, but God is complex and best described by a father son relationship along with the Spirit. For me it has been best understood by looking at "them" like the "Godhead". The Son is a part of the Father, so the only similarity there is to an earthly Father and Son would be that A. Sons obey fathers and B. They share very close genetics.

In the Godhead we have the head of the Godhead, the Father and the subordinate, the Son who is intrinsically tied to the Father in much closer ways than the earthly examples. On earth fathers and sons are very seperate but share common traits. In the heavenly version of Jesus and God Almighty. Jesus was a part of the Father long before He was born and was likely who Adam walked with in the garden. In any case, they are a very tight integrated team and described in most theology as "one" The Son ALWAYS follows the will of the Father and they are closely tied, so that Godhead is one. The "Holy Ghost" is also a part of that bunch, so there are three of them

The Father never came here to be crucified, He sent the Son Jesus, and as God in a human body, He allowed himself to experience being human while still being God.

God doesn't change. The same today, yesterday and forever. Due to the different covenants and ways God has dealt with mankind, this has been progressive over time, so the same God moving in linear fashion through the time He made to accomplish His plans.In the OT the Son was still with the Father for the most part, so we don't read about anyone else making the decisions. In the NT, Jesus was given supreme rule over everything by the Father and the way we come to the throne.