Posted on 11/06/2001 10:13:10 AM PST by JMJ333
Judaism is definately a religion of love [See I am not the only one who thinks that!] I thought the article did a good job of outlining why. Second, that this article supports the fact that Jesus most certainly considered himself Jewish in every sense of the word.
I enjoyed the article immensely. I have learned a few things differently, but the gist of the article is sound. In addition, the chief evangelist of the first century was a self proclamed Pharisee (Hebrews 3:5) and zealous for the Law.
As to the quote above, I have always believed it was because the Pharisees had such a high calling and had still failed. They were supposed to bring G-d near and had lead the people away from Him (Matthew 23:15). Jesus was much like the Pharisees of His day, and many modern Jewish scholars look at Jesus of the Gospels as a prime example of first century Pharisaic life. But He had given much to the Pharisees and had demanded much in return. They did not deliver.
Still, His desire was to save them, not to condemn them. His harsh words were to bring them to the light, not drive them into outer darkness. Witness His relationship with the Pharisee in John 3.
Shalom.
They were the ones who needed to be redeemed from the curse of the law.
Gentiles were a non-issue during His ministry.
I guess I miss the purpose of the article...
And yep, we're Episcopalians.... one of my favorite bumper stickers is
"My Boss is a Jewish carpenter...."
I posted it because of a debate I've been having with another poster, and I wanted to show that Judaism is indeed a religion of love and that Christians do have an obligation toward Jews and Israel.
Not exactly. Remember the Centurion.
So goes the catechism. How do they know that? Circumstantial evidence indicates he might not have been Jewish. Who would know? The early Christians were Jewish, no doubt.
Then why, in the Gospels, do the Pharisees appear as the archenemies of Jesus?
My answer to this question is the fact that Jesus told ALL the Jews that he WAS the Messiah. Most of the Jewish elite either didn't believe he was but thought that HE did believe this to be true or thought he was lying for his own gain.
This is what made most of the Jewish elite his archenemies.
So goes the catechism. How do they know that?
I thought the article did a good job of outlining why it was fairly possible of his Pharasiacal roots. It is long, but if you get a chance to read through the entire article I think you will find it interesting.
Circumstantial evidence indicates he might not have been Jewish.
Which circumstancial evidence would that be? I think the article outlines in detail exactly where his teachings came from.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.