The Jewishness of Jesus and the Loss of the Sacred Writings

[systemstrike_7]

Peter's word?

No if it is in scripture it is the Word of God. The New Testament the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the fulfillment and very reason for the Old Testament, all of it leads to one place and that is the cross of Christ. The entire purpose of the Jewish people and Israel was for the revelation of Christ, and of course what could be more important!

But for example we know from Galatians that gentiles do not and should not seek circumcision to try to please God (we can certainly be circumcised for health reasons). We are also told how to think about new moons and Sabbath's and diet. Christ Himself was hated and killed for blaspheme, for claiming to be God, this very thing, this claim of the divinity of Christ, that Christ is one with God, IS God is the stumbling block laid in Zion. Of course this utterly blaspheme to a person who is practicing Judaism today as it was then, the only way it would not be blaspheme would be if it were true.

You act as if God spoke those words that Peter spoke. It may be in the Bible, but Peter still spoke the words. I have a hard time believing God would have wanted a completely different religion, separate from Judaism. He was much too Jealous of a God for that.

And we also know from Galatians that Paul was not a big fan of the Jerusalem Church; the church led by James, Jesus' brother.

[Smalcald]

Peter's word?

No if it is in scripture it is the Word of God. The New Testament the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the fulfillment and very reason for the Old Testament, all of it leads to one place and that is the cross of Christ. The entire purpose of the Jewish people and Israel was for the revelation of Christ, and of course what could be more important!

But for example we know from Galatians that gentiles do not and should not seek circumcision to try to please God (we can certainly be circumcised for health reasons). We are also told how to think about new moons and Sabbath's and diet. Christ Himself was hated and killed for blaspheme, for claiming to be God, this very thing, this claim of the divinity of Christ, that Christ is one with God, IS God is the stumbling block laid in Zion. Of course this utterly blaspheme to a person who is practicing Judaism today as it was then, the only way it would not be blaspheme would be if it were true.

You act as if God spoke those words that Peter spoke. It may be in the Bible, but Peter still spoke the words. I have a hard time believing God would have wanted a completely different religion, separate from Judaism. He was much too Jealous of a God for that.

And we also know from Galatians that Paul was not a big fan of the Jerusalem Church; the church led by James, Jesus' brother.

The individual author's of the Bible are not relevant God Himself inspired every word there regardless of who wrote those words.

Galatians and James are in agreement with each other. God really does not want religion at all, He wants us to worship and love Him, and that means worshipping His Son as a part of the eternal Trinity. Certainly God wanted all of the Jews to come to faith in Christ, the fulfillment of their historic worship, but most did not, only a remnent did, and we can thank God for that remnent.

But read Galatians, read Romans, and if you still feel that gentiles are required to keep all of the dietary restrictions, the New Moons, the Sabbath's, the circumcision, etc, than I would certainly not want to stop you from doing that. But remember that those who do those things trying to earn something from God, as Paul says, have fallen from grace. Out of love yes I think it would be wonderful to follow those things, as long as they do not become a yoke and burden which hides what is really important to salvation and that is faith in Christ as God.

[Guest shiloh357]

You act as if God spoke those words that Peter spoke. It may be in the Bible, but Peter still spoke the words. I have a hard time believing God would have wanted a completely different religion, separate from Judaism. He was much too Jealous of a God for that.

And we also know from Galatians that Paul was not a big fan of the Jerusalem Church; the church led by James, Jesus' brother.

Well System, you are making a mistake by not reading the text of Peter's words and the words of the Jerusalem council, because if you did, you would notice that their response in Acts 15 was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which means it was not THEIR words.

Furthermore, what you fail to understand is that God did not intend for everyone to everything the Jews did. The Festivals, the sacrifices, the priesthood, everything that God gave to the children of Israel was to separate them from the nations, to make them distinctive from the other surrounding cultures.

The things God gave to Israel are to be object lessons for us, not necessarily a matter practice where the rituals and ceremonies are concerned. It is just not as simply a picking any verse in the Bible and try to make it applicable to you. That can create some really messed up theology, let me tell you.

While the moral/ethical aspects of the Law are universal, the entire law is not universal and it is incorrect, theologically, to make them such.

Secondly as far as creating a separate religion from Judaism is concerned... What you need to learn is that the religion of the Old Testament was not Judaism which we are familiar with. Judaism, as we know it, is an adjustment to the destruction of the Temple. Judaism did not exist as a religion prior to 70 A.D. Neither Jesus nor Paul practiced Judaism as we know it today. While many of the traditions still exist, the religion of Old Testament Israel until 70 A.D. centered around the Temple.

[Smalcald]

You act as if God spoke those words that Peter spoke. It may be in the Bible, but Peter still spoke the words. I have a hard time believing God would have wanted a completely different religion, separate from Judaism. He was much too Jealous of a God for that.

And we also know from Galatians that Paul was not a big fan of the Jerusalem Church; the church led by James, Jesus' brother.

Well System, you are making a mistake by not reading the text of Peter's words and the words of the Jerusalem council, because if you did, you would notice that their response in Acts 15 was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which means it was not THEIR words.

Furthermore, what you fail to understand is that God did not intend for everyone to everything the Jews did. The Festivals, the sacrifices, the priesthood, everything that God gave to the children of Israel was to separate them from the nations, to make them distinctive from the other surrounding cultures.

The things God gave to Israel are to be object lessons for us, not necessarily a matter practice where the rituals and ceremonies are concerned. It is just not as simply a picking any verse in the Bible and try to make it applicable to you. That can create some really messed up theology, let me tell you.

While the moral/ethical aspects of the Law are universal, the entire law is not universal and it is incorrect, theologically, to make them such.

Secondly as far as creating a separate religion from Judaism is concerned... What you need to learn is that the religion of the Old Testament was not Judaism which we are familiar with. Judaism, as we know it, is an adjustment to the destruction of the Temple. Judaism did not exist as a religion prior to 70 A.D. Neither Jesus nor Paul practiced Judaism as we know it today. While many of the traditions still exist, the religion of Old Testament Israel until 70 A.D. centered around the Temple.

[mr1975]

I am gone see if I can explain this right. Christ was nither christan, nor Jewish, Christ was the Son of God, he was above such titles. You have to understand the Jews were Gods choosen people, it was them who were supposed to teach the word of God to the Gentiles. Christ went around teaching to the Jewish people about faith, about the kingdom of heaven, etc etc. While he did teach to Gentiles and healed them both physically, Spiritually, and mentally, his primary task, his main focus was on Jewish people.

Read Matthew 15:21-28

Here was a gentile women who was seeking christ help, and christ tells here I was sent here to the lost sheep of Israel, now in this statment he is telling her that his primary focus was on the Jewish, now this didn't stop him from help the women. It is in this passage that we understand that God and choosen the Jewish people to continue his works after he was gone, it was Jewish people who were to take his teachings and to pass them on to the rest of the world.

We and that includes both gentiles and Jewish people are no longer under the Moseic (sorry if I spelled that wrong) Law but under the laws of Christ. We are supposed to follow his teachings, he is the Messiah are Savior. We are to uphold the Christ teachings not the old laws, the old laws no longer applied. Think about this under the old law in order to ask forgiveness you had to make a sacrifice. However because christ died on the cross for are sins and rose three days later (thus defeating death) we are no longer under that law. Are sins are forgiven through repentance and are faith in Christ.

(now I want to point out something before I continue on further. I have study bible that...well breaks the passages of the bible down and explains them. I just bought this bible and so I started with Matthew. I haven't gotten past the Gospels of Jesus Christ.)

Now from Acts all the way through Jude it is my understand that these books go in to a lot more detail of how to follow christ, it deals with every thing from the difference between Judism and Gentiles and what not. Now as I pointed out I haven't gotten that far yet and it will be a while cause I'm taking my time with each of the books.

Now you have to understand that the bible wheather it be New King James version or New International version, I actually have both NKV and NIV, these books are accurate and are the word of god.

[Grungekid]

As far Jesus being a Pharisee, why were the people amazed that an unlearned man, this Jesus, could teach, if Jesus was a Pharisee? Were Pharisee

[Guest shiloh357]

As far Jesus being a Pharisee, why were the people amazed that an unlearned man, this Jesus, could teach, if Jesus was a Pharisee? Were Pharisee

[systemstrike_7]

You act as if God spoke those words that Peter spoke. It may be in the Bible, but Peter still spoke the words. I have a hard time believing God would have wanted a completely different religion, separate from Judaism. He was much too Jealous of a God for that.

And we also know from Galatians that Paul was not a big fan of the Jerusalem Church; the church led by James, Jesus' brother.

Well System, you are making a mistake by not reading the text of Peter's words and the words of the Jerusalem council, because if you did, you would notice that their response in Acts 15 was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which means it was not THEIR words.

Furthermore, what you fail to understand is that God did not intend for everyone to everything the Jews did. The Festivals, the sacrifices, the priesthood, everything that God gave to the children of Israel was to separate them from the nations, to make them distinctive from the other surrounding cultures.

The things God gave to Israel are to be object lessons for us, not necessarily a matter practice where the rituals and ceremonies are concerned. It is just not as simply a picking any verse in the Bible and try to make it applicable to you. That can create some really messed up theology, let me tell you.

While the moral/ethical aspects of the Law are universal, the entire law is not universal and it is incorrect, theologically, to make them such.

Secondly as far as creating a separate religion from Judaism is concerned... What you need to learn is that the religion of the Old Testament was not Judaism which we are familiar with. Judaism, as we know it, is an adjustment to the destruction of the Temple. Judaism did not exist as a religion prior to 70 A.D. Neither Jesus nor Paul practiced Judaism as we know it today. While many of the traditions still exist, the religion of Old Testament Israel until 70 A.D. centered around the Temple.

Please show me a verse where either God or Jesus tells us that obedience to the entire Torah is not necessary for Salvation? Even Jesus was hesitant to preach His message to the Gentiles.

It is still very suspect as to the historicity of Luke's accounts. He wasn't an eye witness for the majority of Acts. You will tell me that God inspired the New Testament, but I am a skeptic by nature and I know how difficult it would have been for Luke to correctly record all that truly happened. There was much controversy in the early church, and we have failed to see that.

And I believe there was much more animosity between Paul and the Jerusalem Church than we actually think. And lastly, Yahweh was hardly a theological God such as this "God the Father" we find in the New Testament. He was very objective and very certain about His decisions, except maybe the whole creating humans business; He wasn't too happy with Himself for that one...

[systemstrike_7]

As far Jesus being a Pharisee, why were the people amazed that an unlearned man, this Jesus, could teach, if Jesus was a Pharisee? Were Pharisee

[Guest shiloh357]

Please show me a verse where either God or Jesus tells us that obedience to the entire Torah is not necessary for Salvation?

The Bible NEVER says that obedience to the Torah is necessary for salvation. The burden of proof is on you to prove that Torah observance is salvific. You won't be able to, because it is not there.

Even Jesus was hesitant to preach His message to the Gentiles.

Yes, but not for the reasons you seem to suggest.

It is still very suspect as to the historicity of Luke's accounts.

And you are qualified to make that judgment based on... what?

He wasn't an eye witness for the majority of Acts.

Lot's of modern historians are not eyewitnesses to the history they write about, but that alone does not serve to disqualify them as credible and authoritative sources for research. In short your "eyewitness" assertion is irrelevant and immaterial to the issue. He did interview eyewitnesses, though.

You will tell me that God inspired the New Testament, but I am a skeptic by nature and I know how difficult it would have been for Luke to correctly record all that truly happened.

You "know" how difficult it would be?? How do you "know?" Would be any more difficult for modern historians to write historical accounts based upon research who don't have eyewitnesses to interview?

There was much controversy in the early church, and we have failed to see that.

So what?

And I believe there was much more animosity between Paul and the Jerusalem Church than we actually think.

Based on what source information?

Yahweh was hardly a theological God such as this "God the Father" we find in the New Testament. He was very objective and very certain about His decisions, except maybe the whole creating humans business; He wasn't too happy with Himself for that one...

Ha!! You are really reaching on that one.