If Jesus was a Jew shouldn't we all be jews?

MongOrgyInferno

its a question that has bugged me for a while now, anyone care to explain why Jewishness isn't the 1 true religion?

chozometroid

We are all spiritual Jews who accept Christ as our Savior, in the same way that we are all the spiritual seed of Abraham.

dlofnep

Judaism and Christianity are two different faiths. And Jesus obviously wasn't a Jew, if he subscribed to his own faith.

Fanny Cradock

Well, there are Messianic Jews - for example, Jews for Jesus, who attempt to bridge certain traditions of Judaism with the belief that Jesus was was divine and was resurrected. I'm these people want to hold onto their Jewishness and traditions, I'm still happy to have them aboard.

Despite the fundamental heritage that Christianity shares with Judaism - something to be acknowledged and celebrated - I would think the main difference between Judaism and Christianity is quite obvious. While Christianity grew out of Judaism, it also radically departed from it with the life and resurrection of Jesus.

So, if your question is "why aren't Christians Jews?", I would say that some are. I'm happy for Messianic Jews to not eating shellfish or whatever if they feel it is necessary. But I'm also of the opinion that such things are abolished in the NT, which is more the pity for that crab I ate last night.

sold

dlofnep wrote: »

Judaism and Christianity are two different faiths. And Jesus obviously wasn't a Jew, if he subscribed to his own faith.

Jesus most certainly was a Jew.

dlofnep

sold wrote: »

Jesus most certainly was a Jew.

How so if he did not subscribe to the Jewish faith?

crotalus667

dlofnep wrote: »

How so if he did not subscribe to the Jewish faith?

He did subscribe to the Jewish faith :rolleyes: ,he thought he was the Jewish messiah

dlofnep

crotalus667 wrote: »

He did subscribe to the Jewish faith :rolleyes: ,he thought he was the Jewish messiah

But Judaism does not accept him as the messiah, so his beliefs were not compatible with Judaism and hence, he was not a Jew.

wolfsbane

dlofnep wrote: »

But Judaism does not accept him as the messiah, so his beliefs were not compatible with Judaism and hence, he was not a Jew.

Jesus's doctrine is compatible with the Old Testament Scriptures, but the Judaism of His day gave only lip-service to Moses, so they also rejected the One of whom Moses foretold.

Anyway, one can be a Jew in the ethnic sense and believe anything. Israel is full of Jewish atheists, for example. Jesus was certainly a Jew in the ethnic sense.

But He was also a Jew in the religious sense - the God He revealed was the God Abraham, Isaac and Jacob worshipped.

In that sense, the Jews who reject Jesus as Messiah are not true Jews - they do not have the faith Abraham had. And Gentiles who believe in Jesus the messiah are true Jews, as they share Abraham's faith.

The apostle Paul puts it this way:
Romans 2:28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

Galatians3:7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham...
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Fanny Cradock

crotalus667 wrote: »

He did subscribe to the Jewish faith :rolleyes: ,he thought he was the Jewish messiah

Actually, he claimed to be the Messiah for both Jews and Gentiles - for all of us, in other words.

OK, I've been giving the initial question a little more thought. It might be useful to draw a distinction between Judaism - a religion - and a Judean - a person from Judea. For the purposes of this thread, I'm assuming that the word Jew as used in the title is synonymous with Judaism, rather than an ethnic sense.

It's fair to say that Jesus, although immersed in Judaism, stood very much over against the Judaic beliefs of the Sadducees and the Pharisees. For example, N.T. Wright is of the opinion that earliest Christianity radically differed from Jewish views on resurrection - which varied from not believing that such things happened to the belief that it was a one-off event at the end of time - in seven ways.

While one can't deny Jesus' Jewish heritage, there are simply too many points of divergence between early Christianity (inseparable from Jesus and the belief that he was divine and was resurrected) and Judaism to confuse the two.

In short, the question, "If Jesus was a Jew shouldn't we all be jews?" is based on a false premise. Jesus wasn't a Jew, he was a Judean who acknowledged his Jewish heritage, but then went on to make some radical claims that if true would superseded Judaism.

me_right_one

MongOrgyInferno wrote: »

its a question that has bugged me for a while now, anyone care to explain why Jewishness isn't the 1 true religion?

OP, here is the answer to your question: Jesus was an ethnic and religious Jew - Until it came time for him to leave his job in construction with aul Joe, and wander the middle east with his buddies (ancient version of headin off to Australia for a year).

Jesus was God in person. But because God is supernatural, by definition Jesus wasn't God in his usual form. God told the Jews thousands of years before he appeared as Jesus, "Lads, someday I'll come down from heaven and appear to yiz all and we can all be happy". That was the whole point of Jewishness. When God arrived, that was supposed to be the end goal of Jewishness, and instead of waiting for God and praying to this invisible spaghetti monster in the sky, you could actually see him and shake hands with him and say things like "Ya made a grand job of the universe there God".

But it didnt work out like that. Seeing as God had to appear as a man to be not-supernatural, he needed a mother, a father, a house, a job etc. When he grew up, he said to everybody, "Here I am! It's me, God! I told you I'd come! But seeing as I'm not in supernatural mode, I look just like you's. Think of me as the metaphorical SON of God". The people said "Fcuk off, your not God, your Jesus from that one-horse-town of Nazereth! Hows yer ma (sniggering)", and then they executed him.

Then religion split in two. There were those who thought Jesus was NOT God, and just continued the religion they always had, waiting for a king-like God (ie. Jews), and there were those who believed Jesus when he told them HE was God. These new followers of Jesus were the first Catholics. They believed in the same God, but they thought he had been and tragically gone. While Jesus was here, he said "Scrap the old testament, I dont want yiz to follow that eye-for-an-eye type stuff anymore. No more stoning the whores and gays. Its all love and forgiveness and kindness from now on". So the new Christians, while still keeping the old testament on record, also compiled a new testament based on Jesus' teachings while he was here, at his behest. And they followed THAT, cos he told them to.

So yes, Jesus was a Jew, but he ordered everybody to do things differently. Some people didnt like it and had him killed. Those who did things the old way were known as Jews, and those who chose to do what God told them to do were known as Christians.

And it continues. In the 1600's, a lad in Germany called Martin Luther said "Fcuk the new testament, I want to pick out the bits I like, and scrap the bits I dont like. I want divorce, and more than one wife, and I dont care what God said, but I'll still lick his arse on Sundays". But because Christianity was already there, he needed a new name - Protestantism, cos he was protesting against what was now considered traditional Christianity. Hence, original Christians were given the name Catholics, and this new fangled luxury version of Christianity was known as protestantism.

Pompey Magnus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's fair to say that Jesus, although immersed in Judaism, stood very much over against the Judaic beliefs of the Sadducees and the Pharisees.

Can you explain this claim a bit more? It seems pretty clear that the disagreements between Jesus and the Pharisees and Sadducees was no more heated than debates between Pharisees and Sadducees or indeed internal debates between Pharisees and Pharisees. Judaism was extremely varied at this time, it was a very wide spectrum of beliefs and the claims Jesus made, especially in the synoptic Gospels, fitted nicely within this spectrum. For example he held the belief in resurrection and afterlife that the Pharisees held, he also held the Saddusaic belief that strict observence of the Torah was not an essential requirement of God for the Jews and he held the Essene belief that the Apocalypse was immenent and people should be prepared.

Twin-go

There is evidence in the bible that Jesus was a Jew and quite a sectarian one at that. In Mathew Ch15 vs 21 - 28, Jesus refuses to help a Caininite who wishes for an exorcisim. He says, "He would not waste his energy on a non Jew"

JimiTime

Twin-go wrote: »

There is evidence in the bible that Jesus was a Jew and quite a sectarian one at that. In Mathew Ch15 vs 21 - 28, Jesus refuses to help a Caininite who wishes for an exorcisim. He says, "He would not waste his energy on a non Jew"

And yet her daughter was healed. That passage is a great lesson in Faith being what saves us.

JimiTime

me_right_one wrote: »

OP, here is the answer to your question: Jesus was an ethnic and religious Jew - Until it came time for him to leave his job in construction with aul Joe, and wander the middle east with his buddies (ancient version of headin off to Australia for a year).

Jesus was God in person. But because God is supernatural, by definition Jesus wasn't God in his usual form. God told the Jews thousands of years before he appeared as Jesus, "Lads, someday I'll come down from heaven and appear to yiz all and we can all be happy". That was the whole point of Jewishness. When God arrived, that was supposed to be the end goal of Jewishness, and instead of waiting for God and praying to this invisible spaghetti monster in the sky, you could actually see him and shake hands with him and say things like "Ya made a grand job of the universe there God".

But it didnt work out like that. Seeing as God had to appear as a man to be not-supernatural, he needed a mother, a father, a house, a job etc. When he grew up, he said to everybody, "Here I am! It's me, God! I told you I'd come! But seeing as I'm not in supernatural mode, I look just like you's. Think of me as the metaphorical SON of God". The people said "Fcuk off, your not God, your Jesus from that one-horse-town of Nazereth! Hows yer ma (sniggering)", and then they executed him.

Then religion split in two. There were those who thought Jesus was NOT God, and just continued the religion they always had, waiting for a king-like God (ie. Jews), and there were those who believed Jesus when he told them HE was God. These new followers of Jesus were the first Catholics. They believed in the same God, but they thought he had been and tragically gone. While Jesus was here, he said "Scrap the old testament, I dont want yiz to follow that eye-for-an-eye type stuff anymore. No more stoning the whores and gays. Its all love and forgiveness and kindness from now on". So the new Christians, while still keeping the old testament on record, also compiled a new testament based on Jesus' teachings while he was here, at his behest. And they followed THAT, cos he told them to.

So yes, Jesus was a Jew, but he ordered everybody to do things differently. Some people didnt like it and had him killed. Those who did things the old way were known as Jews, and those who chose to do what God told them to do were known as Christians.

And it continues. In the 1600's, a lad in Germany called Martin Luther said "Fcuk the new testament, I want to pick out the bits I like, and scrap the bits I dont like. I want divorce, and more than one wife, and I dont care what God said, but I'll still lick his arse on Sundays". But because Christianity was already there, he needed a new name - Protestantism, cos he was protesting against what was now considered traditional Christianity. Hence, original Christians were given the name Catholics, and this new fangled luxury version of Christianity was known as protestantism.

If this is not a wind up, you need to hammer out some of your quite bleightant ignorance.

me_right_one

JimiTime wrote: »

If this is not a wind up, you need to hammer out some of your quite bleightant ignorance.

And you need to learn how to spell.

wolfsbane

Despite his profanity, I'll respond to me_right_one's post:

OP, here is the answer to your question: Jesus was an ethnic and religious Jew - Until it came time for him to leave his job in construction with aul Joe, and wander the middle east with his buddies (ancient version of headin off to Australia for a year).

Jesus continued to be an ethnic and religious Jew all His life. He perfectly fulfilled the Law of Moses.

Jesus was God in person.

Correct.

Correct.

God told the Jews thousands of years before he appeared as Jesus, "Lads, someday I'll come down from heaven and appear to yiz all and we can all be happy". That was the whole point of Jewishness. When God arrived, that was supposed to be the end goal of Jewishness, and instead of waiting for God and praying to this invisible spaghetti monster in the sky, you could actually see him and shake hands with him and say things like "Ya made a grand job of the universe there God".

A profane paraphrase, but basically correct.

But it didnt work out like that. Seeing as God had to appear as a man to be not-supernatural, he needed a mother, a father, a house, a job etc. When he grew up, he said to everybody, "Here I am! It's me, God! I told you I'd come! But seeing as I'm not in supernatural mode, I look just like you's. Think of me as the metaphorical SON of God". The people said "Fcuk off, your not God, your Jesus from that one-horse-town of Nazereth! Hows yer ma (sniggering)", and then they executed him.

Profanity aside, you missed the supernatural signs He did that confirmed His Messiahship. The Jews rejected Him in spite of the evidence, not due to lack of it.

Then religion split in two. There were those who thought Jesus was NOT God, and just continued the religion they always had, waiting for a king-like God (ie. Jews), and there were those who believed Jesus when he told them HE was God.

Correct.

These new followers of Jesus were the first Catholics.

Wrong. They were the first Christians.

They believed in the same God, but they thought he had been and tragically gone.

Can't understand this sentence.

While Jesus was here, he said "Scrap the old testament, I dont want yiz to follow that eye-for-an-eye type stuff anymore. No more stoning the whores and gays. Its all love and forgiveness and kindness from now on".

The Old Testament (Covenant) was scrapped, but not the Old Testament Scriptures. The believers were no longer a nation state, exercising civil government, but a band of brothers who exercised discipline by rebuke or excommunication - not imprisonment, flogging or death.

So the new Christians, while still keeping the old testament on record, also compiled a new testament based on Jesus' teachings while he was here, at his behest. And they followed THAT, cos he told them to.

Correct.

So yes, Jesus was a Jew, but he ordered everybody to do things differently. Some people didnt like it and had him killed. Those who did things the old way were known as Jews, and those who chose to do what God told them to do were known as Christians.

Correct - except that a Christian could also be an ethnic Jew.

And it continues. In the 1600's, a lad in Germany called Martin Luther said "Fcuk the new testament, I want to pick out the bits I like, and scrap the bits I dont like. I want divorce, and more than one wife, and I dont care what God said, but I'll still lick his arse on Sundays".

Not only profane but also totally untrue. Luther's commitment was to the NT. He understood parts of it differently from the Roman Catholic Church. The question is, who was rightly interpreting the Word?

But because Christianity was already there, he needed a new name - Protestantism,

Wrong. He never rejected the label Christianity. He affirmed it. Protestantism describes an understanding of what true Christianity means, as distinct from Roman Catholic and Orthodox.

cos he was protesting against what was now considered traditional Christianity.

It was considered so by Roman Catholics. Not the Orthodox, not the Anabaptists, and now not the Protestants.

Hence, original Christians were given the name Catholics, and this new fangled luxury version of Christianity was known as protestantism.

The test is to compare the truly original Christians - the ones found in the NT - with the later versions and see which are the best match.

JimiTime

me_right_one wrote: »

And you need to learn how to spell.

My spelling is awful, I don't really mind once its understood. The fact that you identified the word I was intending to use, I take it you understood the message. So yeah, If its a wind up, so be it. If not, have a slice of humble pie and hammer out that ignorance.

Fanny Cradock

Charco wrote: »

Can you explain this claim a bit more? It seems pretty clear that the disagreements between Jesus and the Pharisees and Sadducees was no more heated than debates between Pharisees and Sadducees or indeed internal debates between Pharisees and Pharisees. Judaism was extremely varied at this time, it was a very wide spectrum of beliefs and the claims Jesus made, especially in the synoptic Gospels, fitted nicely within this spectrum. For example he held the belief in resurrection and afterlife that the Pharisees held, he also held the Saddusaic belief that strict observence of the Torah was not an essential requirement of God for the Jews and he held the Essene belief that the Apocalypse was immenent and people should be prepared.

Let me try and explain with a body of readily available passages.

Matt 19, Matt 21: 12 -17, Matt 22: 15 - 22, Mark 7: 1 -20, Mark 10: 1 - 10, Mark 11: 12 - 19, Mark 12: 13 - 24, Luke 11: 37 - 53, Luke 14: 1 - 12 ...and I there are number of other obvious moments of heated opposition between the Jewish religious authorities (mostly Pharisees but also Sadducees) and Jesus listed in Luke, John and Acts. (It gets tedious hotlinking them, so maybe you can look yourself.) When all theses accounts of scheming on one hand and public rebukes on the other (which comprise a surprisingly large part of the gospel accounts) are combined with the Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus and his eventual crucifixion, it leads me to believe that describing the relationship between Jesus and the religious authorities as heated is an understatement.

In terms of theology, while there might have been points of commonality between both parties, what Jesus was claiming was totally incompatible with certain Saddusaic beliefs. Points of tension surely arouse over matters of resurrection, angels (Acts 23:8) and the soul. All of which were denied by the Sadducees (schisms aside) and were heartily affirmed by Jesus.

With regards to the Pharisees, for all their points of agreement with Jesus on matters of souls and angels (Acts 23:6 - 8), the elephant in the room (apart from the obvious blasphemy of claiming to be divine) was the claim that there was a to be a first resurrection prior to the main event, so to speak, and that Jesus - this Johnny-come-lately who was suffering serious delusions of grandeur - was to be the pivoting point upon which new creation would turn. (I believe that the synopsis of Wright's words outlines more about this in the link previously provided.)

As for Essene beliefs, I'm not overly familiar with them. But then again is anyone? I also think it is a stretch to claim that Jesus preached the end was imminent. I guess, though, that we are just going to have to disagree about that and the meaning behind Matt 24.

Twin-go wrote: »

There is evidence in the bible that Jesus was a Jew and quite a sectarian one at that. In Mathew Ch15 vs 21 - 28, Jesus refuses to help a Caininite who wishes for an exorcisim. He says, "He would not waste his energy on a non Jew"

Absolute rubbish. Matthew 15 says nothing of the sort.

Slav

MongOrgyInferno wrote: »

its a question that has bugged me for a while now, anyone care to explain why Jewishness isn't the 1 true religion?

One can say that the modern Judaism is very different to the Judaism of the Second Temple times.

Obviously this is something that religious Jew would now disagree with.

At the same time Christians might say that Christianity is much closer to that 2000 years old Judaism then Talmudic Judaism not to mention Kabbalah.

And Muslims would disagree with both of them claiming that the true Abrahamic faith is only preserved in Islam.

So among these 3 religions each group is claiming to be the only true "Judaism".

Jari

me_right_one wrote: »

Jesus was God in person. But because God is supernatural, by definition Jesus wasn't God in his usual form. God told the Jews thousands of years before he appeared as Jesus, "Lads, someday I'll come down from heaven and appear to yiz all and we can all be happy". That was the whole point of Jewishness. When God arrived, that was supposed to be the end goal of Jewishness, and instead of waiting for God and praying to this invisible spaghetti monster in the sky, you could actually see him and shake hands with him and say things like "Ya made a grand job of the universe there God".

can you please show me where in the bible Jesus said i am god. why he was not mentioned in old testament that he is god

Pompey Magnus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

When all theses accounts of scheming on one hand and public rebukes on the other (which comprise a surprisingly large part of the gospel accounts) are combined with the Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus and his eventual crucifixion, it leads me to believe that describing the relationship between Jesus and the religious authorities as heated is an understatement.

You seem to miss the point that the quarrels present in the ministry of Jesus were commonplace in first century Judaism. There were serious conflicts between differing sects of Judaism and this sometimes lead to violent reactions and attacks. This does not mean that one or other sect was not considered Jewish, rather that each side considered the other to have a mistaken view on the religion. Just as how there has been violent repression of contrary internal views among Christians does not mean that we today regard one or other side to not have held Christian beliefs so to just because of the fact that Jesus was executed and his early followers persecuted by the Jewish leaders does not mean we should jump to the conclusion that Jesus was not regarded by them as being Jewish also.

In terms of theology, while there might have been points of commonality between both parties, what Jesus was claiming was totally incompatible with certain Saddusaic beliefs. Points of tension surely arouse over matters of resurrection, angels (Acts 23:8) and the soul. All of which were denied by the Sadducees (schisms aside) and were heartily affirmed by Jesus.

This very argument could be made for the differences between Pharisees and Sadducees. Both held points in common and both held beliefs completely incompatable beliefs. Both were Jewish and neither side rejected the other as not being Jewish because of the differences.

With regards to the Pharisees, for all their points of agreement with Jesus on matters of souls and angels (Acts 23:6 - 8), the elephant in the room (apart from the obvious blasphemy of claiming to be divine) was the claim that there was a to be a first resurrection prior to the main event, so to speak, and that Jesus - this Johnny-come-lately who was suffering serious delusions of grandeur - was to be the pivoting point upon which new creation would turn. (I believe that the synopsis of Wright's words outlines more about this in the link previously provided.)

To start with I should point out that I do not believe that Jesus actually claimed to be divine, I believe that to be a Johannine invention as I believe it a bit of a stretch that our other sources would neglect to mention it. That said of course you do believe he said it so I won't argue the point further as it won't get anywhere.

However to answer your main point I believe you are making a mountain out of a molehill relatively speaking with the disagreements between Jesus and the Pharisees relating to the resurrection. The fact is that both sides did believe in a coming resurrection, the Sadducees did not. The Pharisees did not regard the Sadducees as not being Jewish simply because they rejected the idea of a resurrection or vice versa so to suggest that the Pharisees would not have recognised Jesus' Jewishness whilst holding a belief which was close to theirs and only differing in the finer details is ridiculous.

I also think it is a stretch to claim that Jesus preached the end was imminent. I guess, though, that we are just going to have to disagree about that and the meaning behind Matt 24.

It is far from a stretch to make this claim. In fact it is a stretch to claim the opposite. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of Jesus being a first century apocalyptic prophet.

- Apocalypticism was common in first century Judaism, with jewish apocalyptic prophets proclaiming the immenent end of the supremecy of the powers of evil in the world.

-Prior to his ministry he associated with the most famous apocalyptic prophet of his day, John the Baptist.

-The earliest historical sources are filled with apocalyptic teachings.

-The very first recorded saying that we have of Jesus, found in Mark, is of him proclaiming an immenent end.

-His earliest followers including Paul expected an immenent end to the existing world.

-His execution makes best sense when Jesus is understood as someone preaching the immenent overthrowing of the forces currently in power i.e. the Sadducees and Romans.

-The later sources are nowhere near as apocalyptic as the earlier sources, if the earlier belief was of some coming end in the far distant future there would be the expectation that there should be a continuation along the same lines as future generations would have nothing to be embarressed about in terms of failed predictions as the end obviously hadn't occured. However we don't see a continuation, we see plain evidence for a deapocalypticising of the earlier sources indicating that they understood the earlier beliefs to have been incorrect and thus altered their teachings to suit the reality that Jesus wasn't coming back in their lifetimes.

So, in sum, our evidence is that Jesus was a man who associated with an apocalyptic prophet before his ministry, when he preached he used the same language as other apocalypticists used, his execution makes best sense when he is understood as an apocalypticist, his earlier followers were apocalypticists and his later followers were not apocalypticist once it was clear that the end was not immenent.

In what way is it a stretch to disagree with the view that Jesus did not believe the end was immenent, because since Albert Schweitzer first suggested this almost 100 years ago it has become increasingly recognised among genuine scholars and academics as making the most sense given the context and the evidence provided in our sources.

Fanny Cradock

Charco wrote: »

You seem to miss the point that the quarrels present in the ministry of Jesus were commonplace in first century Judaism. There were serious conflicts between differing sects of Judaism and this sometimes lead to violent reactions and attacks. This does not mean that one or other sect was not considered Jewish, rather that each side considered the other to have a mistaken view on the religion. Just as how there has been violent repression of contrary internal views among Christians does not mean that we today regard one or other side to not have held Christian beliefs so to just because of the fact that Jesus was executed and his early followers persecuted by the Jewish leaders does not mean we should jump to the conclusion that Jesus was not regarded by them as being Jewish also.

I'm not missing the point. But you are misunderstand me. Perhaps this is my fault.

I didn't say that Jesus was not regarded by them [Sadducees and Pharisees] as being Jewish - this is your erroneous conclusion about my position. I actually said that if Jesus' words were true (or even believed to be true) they superseded the traditional forms of Judaism that both sects promoted. This religious off-shoot from the traditional forms of Judaism was to become known as Christianity. The differences still apply no matter how many points of agreement there were between Jesus and the Pharisees (which is to say nothing of the points of agreement between Jesus and the Sadducees because there weren't many).

Similarly I didn't deny that heated arguments were commonplace between both sects, but there are a couple of important considerations to be made before drawing parallels with their inter-religious conflicts on one hand and their conflict with Jesus on the other. Firstly, arguments between the Sadducees and Pharisees were disputes between two long established, powerful and influential ruling sects. In comparison, with Jesus we have one man publicly criticising the Sadducees for not knowing their scriptures (Mark 12:24) and accusing certain members of the Pharisees (as opposed to their beliefs, which he didn't seem to have a problem with) of hypocrisy (Matt 23:2-3). One man criticising two powerful ruling sects is not equal to the heated debates between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The whole point of the Gospel stories I linked to is to highlight that the Sadducees and Pharisees spent an inordinate amount of effort in trying to counter one man's rebukes and accusations. Secondly, the enemies of Jesus ended their dispute with Jesus not with heated words or crushingly superior debate, they ended it with his execution.

Charco wrote: »

This very argument could be made for the differences between Pharisees and Sadducees. Both held points in common and both held beliefs completely incompatable beliefs. Both were Jewish and neither side rejected the other as not being Jewish because of the differences.

The average Jew had very little respect for either the power or the teachings of the Sadducees. Indeed, it was in 70AD with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem - not 40 years after Jesus was crucified - that they ceased to exist as a socially or religiously relevant force. But as I'm not claiming that either sect operated under the notion that the other wasn't Jewish (or that they didn't consider Jesus Jewish), I don't feel I have to debate this point.

Charco wrote: »

However to answer your main point I believe you are making a mountain out of a molehill relatively speaking with the disagreements between Jesus and the Pharisees relating to the resurrection. The fact is that both sides did believe in a coming resurrection, the Sadducees did not. The Pharisees did not regard the Sadducees as not being Jewish simply because they rejected the idea of a resurrection or vice versa so to suggest that the Pharisees would not have recognised Jesus' Jewishness whilst holding a belief which was close to theirs and only differing in the finer details is ridiculous.

Again, I'm not sure where you are getting this from. I'm not saying that they didn't operate under the assumption that Jesus was Jewish - he certainly agreed with the teachings of Pharisaism, if not the teachers (again, see Matt 23: 2-3). Echoing my opening paragraph, what I am saying is that Jesus' claims (and I realise that we probably wont agree on what these were, so I'll offer a fig leaf and say "the claims of the early Church") were ultimately incompatible with the Judaism of either the Sadducees or Pharisees. This is why I said that Jesus was immersed in Judaism (to the point of affirming it) but he also moved beyond it. If you happen to think these differences as merely finer points of contention, then it is probably a function of you not believing in Jesus' claims to divinity.

Pompey Magnus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Echoing my opening paragraph, what I am saying is that Jesus' claims (and I realise that we probably wont agree on what these were, so I'll offer a fig leaf and say "the claims of the early Church") were ultimately incompatible with the Judaism of either the Sadducees or Pharisees.

Okay, well I certainly wouldn't disagree with the claim that at some stage in the early Church the claims of Christianity became incompatible with Judaism. I believe this was not an immediate event based on any original Christian understanding of Jesus but rather, like almost everything else with Christianity, developed over time as external forces pushed the evolution of the Christian faith and forced a re-evaluation of the teachings of Jesus based on the context of the new situation in which the early Church found itself.

For example the Johannine community are understood to have been happy enough to remain synagogue worshipping Jewish Christians until they were forced out of the synagogue by the local Jewish leaders, thus shaping the community's understanding of their faith and their increased anti-Jewishness. The point here being that in this instance it was not an internal cause that forced the divergence from Judaism, for example it wasn't any teaching of Jesus that caused the Johannine Christians to abandon Judaism, instead it was forced upon them. There is no reason to assume that left to their own devices this community would ever have stopped attending the synagogue and maintaining their Jewish identity. Their "realisation" that Christianity and Judaism were in some way different was an outcome of their being forced out from the synagogue, not a cause of it.

Similar external forces continued to push the wedge deeper between Christians and Jews, forcing the two faiths apart. A major force being antiquity's opposition to new religions. Christianity was a very new faith and growing among gentile communities, out of necessity it was forced to claim distinction from Judaism whilst at the same time also to be the heir to the ancient religion of Israel in order to give itself credibiity. By the early second century Christians were more or less forced, by the logic of their own position, to go on the attack against non Christian Jews to show these Jews were apostates from the true faith, thus culminating in the anti-semitic language of Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis and the epistle of Barnabas.

Fanny Cradock

Ah, been boning up on Bart lately? For an interesting counter-perspective to the notion that individual communities grew around separate Gospels, you might be interested in reading The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. You can read a limited section of Chapter 9 here on google books.

Still, we digress!

Twin-go

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Absolute rubbish. Matthew 15 says nothing of the sort.

It really does.....

21Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."

23Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."
24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
25The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.
26He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." 27"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.".

Fanny Cradock

Twin-go wrote: »

It really does.....

Where in that does it mention "He would not waste his energy on a non Jew"? You should also read verse 28.

Twin-go

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Where in that does it mention "He would not waste his energy on a non Jew"? You should also read verse 28.

He says, He was only sent to the lost sheep of Isreal, ie only Jewish people.

hivizman

In his commentary Matthew for Everyone, Tom Wright states that the story of the Canaanite Woman is, at first sight, "quite shocking. It looks as though Jesus, to begin with, is refusing to help someone in need just because she's from the wrong race." Wright refers back to Matthew 10:5-7, when Jesus instructs the twelve disciples: "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. As you go, proclaim the good news, 'The kingdom of heaven has come near'."

Wright explains these passages in terms of priorities. The Jews (the house of Israel) are God's Chosen People, and Jesus, as the Messiah, is how God is fulfilling His covenant with the Jews. However, a covenant is a two-sided agreement, and this means that the Jews need to fulfil their side by repenting and returning to the Law. Yes, the mission of Jesus is universal, but it is directed first of all to the Jews. Wright suggests that, despite the initial focus on the "lost sheep of the house of Israel", the universal nature of the mission keeps breaking in, and he notes that what makes Jesus particularly receptive to the Canaanite woman is that he perceives her as someone of "great faith" (Matthew 15:28). Here Jesus is anticipating, almost despite himself, the fundamental teaching of Christianity that it is not membership of a particular group of people that leads to salvation, but rather it is one's faith.