The first Christian Church was Jewish

[PetrChelcicky]

I don't think that the bible, as a whole, CAN be the foundation of any religion. You cannot copy all role models at the same time. The book developed over nearly thousand years.

[PetrChelcicky]

The interesting thing is in my eyes the upcoming of Phariseeism (the church as a community of the just or saint people) and, as its counterpart, the Jesus movement (the church as a community of sinners). That is a division which needs to be kept up, even if it is uncomfortable for Anabaptists.

[barnhart]

PetrC, I appreciate both of those points. Well said.

With a few qualifiers, Christianity is built on Christ, I don't mind using the word "founded" or "foundation" in reference to Moses and the prophets since the New Testament does, but it is built on belief in Jesus as the Christ.

Secondly the church must maintain outsider "sinner" status in relation to power and rule and it must be a friend of sinners as Jesus was.

[JohnHurt]

So please, do not call Christ a "Jew".

You have already discarded much of the New Testament and at least the Book of Esther from your Bible. Do you want to discard parts of the Gospels as well?

The Bible calls Jesus the "son of David, the son of Abraham" and devotes quite a few verses to describing his Jewish lineage in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. Here's how Matthew 1 describes it:

This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:

2 Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,

God chose to have his son born in Bethlehem, to a Jewish couple. Jesus was baptized by that very Jewish prophet John the Baptist. Every one of his disciples was Jewish.

In Matthew 15:24, Jesus says:

I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.

Matthew and Luke each describe very Jewish genealogy of Jesus, starting with Abraham.

Matthew tells us that the Jews are "his people":

20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”

Clearly, "his people" refers to the Jews.

Need I go on?

Yes, you are right, Christ was an Israelite, but He never followed the Talmud or Tradition of the Elders, so Christ was never a "Jew".

Hebrews 7:(14) For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda;

Yes, our Lord came from the Tribe of Judah.

But where does it say that our Lord followed the Talmud, or "Tradition of the Elders." Rather, Matthew 15 says that He opposed it.

Here is where you can read that the Talmud is the Tradition of the Elders.

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/15-2.htm

Pulpit Commentary
Verse 2. - Thy disciples. They had watched our Lord and his followers partaking of some meal, and doubtless Christ had acted in the same manner as his disciples. Open houses and food partaken of in public allowed this close observation without any infringement of Eastern courtesy. They come to Christ with the insidious question, because they consider him answerable for his disciples' doings (comp. Matthew 9:14; Matthew 12:2). They imply that his teaching has led to thee transgression on which they animadvert. Doubtless the apostles, from Christ's instruction and example, were learning to free themselves from the endless rules and restrictions which were no help to religion, and to attend more to the great realities of vital piety and holiness. The omission of the outward acts, rabbinically enjoined, was readily marked and censured.

The tradition. This formed a vast collection of additions, explanations, etc., of the original Law, partly, as was affirmed, delivered orally by Moses, and handed down from generation to generation; and partly accumulated by successive expounders. St. Paul refers to this when he speaks of himself before his conversion as being "exceedingly jealous for the tradition or my fathers" (Galatians 1:14). From it, in the course of time. was formed the Talmud, with its text (Mishna) and its commentary (Gemara). It was not put into writing till after our Lord's time (hence called ἄγραφος διδασκαλία), but was taught authoritatively by accredited teachers who, while retaining the letter of the Law abrogated its spirit, nullifying the broad line of God's commandments by enforcing minute observances and puerile restrictions which were a burden and impediment to purity and devotion, rather than an aid and encouragement.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Transgress the tradition of the elders - The world "elders" literally means "old men." Here it means the "ancients," or their "ancestors." The "tradition of the elders" meant something handed down from one to another by memory; some precept or custom not commanded in the written law, but which scribes and Pharisees held themselves bound to observe.
They supposed that when Moses was on Mount Sinai two sets of laws were delivered to him: one, they said, was recorded, and is that contained in the Old Testament; the other was handed down from father to son, and kept uncorrupted to their day. They believed that Moses, before he died, delivered this law to Joshua; he to the Judges; they to the prophets; so that it was kept pure until it was recorded in the Talmuds. In these books these pretended laws are now contained. They are exceedingly numerous and very trifling. They are, however, regarded by the Jews as more important than either Moses or the prophets.

One point in which the Pharisees differed from the Sadducees was in holding to these traditions. It seems, however, that in the particular traditions mentioned here, all the Jews were united; for Mark adds Mark 7:3 that "the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders." Mark has also added that this custom of washing extended not merely to their hands before eating, but in coming from the market; and also to cups, and pots, and brass vessels, and tables, Mark 7:3-4. They did this professedly for the sake of cleanliness. So far it was well. But they also made it a matter of superstition. They regarded external purity as of much more importance than the purity of the heart. They had many foolish rules about it respecting the quantity of water that was to be used, the way in which it should be applied, the number of times it should be changed, the number of those that might wash at a time, etc. Our Saviour did not think it proper to regard these rules, and this was the reason why they "found fault" with him.

The Talmud was codified from the Oral Law, or "Tradition of the Elders" that Christ denounced in Matthew 15. The Pharisees concocted the Tradition of the Elders after they returned with Israel from Babylon. There were a lot of Jews in Babylon creating the Talmud, which is why it is called "The Babylonian Talmud".

What Judaism wants us to believe, is that God gave Moses one set of laws on Mount Sinai, and then gave the "Seventy" (Num 11:16) an entirely different set of laws that contradicts and abrogates the laws God gave to Moses.

The Talmud, which consists of the Mishneh, Gemara, and other books - is much larger than 3-4 sets of encylopedias. It will fill up a 2-3 bookcases of this literature.

The Jews tell us that this Talmud, or "Tradition of the Elders" was given to the Seventy in 1500 BC, and transmitted orally from one generation to the next, and then codified 200 AD - and kept perfect, all through memory. They also have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

The Jews of today were never considered a "race" until the rise of Zionism and the teaching of Theodor Herzl in 1890. Many Jews considered their religion to be cultural for all races, and opposed racism. Here is an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ ... or_Judaism

The scourge of Zionism has taken over Christianity as well, and all Christians must now believe that Judaism is a "race" and not cultural.

And that is our problem here. Christ was of the Tribe of Judah, but He opposed the Tradition of the Elders (Matt 15) and so could not be called a "Jew" in the modern sense of someone who follows the Talmud.

The other problem with considering the "Jews" to be the "race" of Israel, it that it makes the Bible into a lie. The Bible promises that Christ "shall rule his people Israel" (Matt 2:6, Micah 5:2) Christ does not rule the Jews. If the Jews are Israel, then the Bible is a lie.

The New Covenant is made with Israel:

Hebrews 8:(8) For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

The Jews of today are not under the New Covenant. The Jews are not racially Israelites, else this promise of God is a lie.

Churchianity has been taken over by Zionism, and tells us that the "House of Judah" in Hebrews 8:8 are the Jews (who don't want the New Covenant under Christ), and the House of Israel are the 10 "Lost Tribes of Israel" that have "disappeared".

A Covenant is a contract.

If you were trying to sell your house, and two people sent you a contract to purchase your home, but one of them did not want the home, and the other one "disappeared", would you have a contract or covenant? No.

Likewise, if the Jews are racially Israel, then there is no New Covenant.

Racism causes a LOT of problems. Jewish racism is the reason for the murder of the Palestinian people in Gaza, and all throughout Palestine since 1948.

Zionism believes that the Jews are a "Chosen Race" and have the right to put racial inferiors in camps, and attack any country on their borders.

Hmmm. Wasn't there another country in the 20th century that was founded on race, believed they were a superior race, put people in camps, and attacked every country on their borders?

Can you see that racism "just might be a problem"?

So, yes, Judaism is a religion, not a race. Our Lord never participated in the religion of the Jewish Talmud, so He was never a Jew.

[Soloist]

So please, do not call Christ a "Jew".

Thanks.

John Hurt

Did Jesus consider HIMSELF a Jew?

Yes he did.

I'll go with his word over yours.

Scripture?

Joh 4:9  Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.

Joh 4:22  Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
Joh 4:23  But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

Wife: All the other references don’t come from Jesus’ mouth himself, but he also does not correct them or seem to mind being called one. He was called king of the Jews in all four gospels, whether the Pharisees wanted him to be or not. Besides, he was born in Judea, practiced Jewish customs (not Talmud or Targum), and was a descendent of the tribe of Judah.

[Bootstrap]

PetrC, I appreciate both of those points. Well said.

With a few qualifiers, Christianity is built on Christ, I don't mind using the word "founded" or "foundation" in reference to Moses and the prophets since the New Testament does, but it is built on belief in Jesus as the Christ.

Secondly the church must maintain outsider "sinner" status in relation to power and rule and it must be a friend of sinners as Jesus was.

Amen.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says this:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.

The Sermon on the Mount itself is the best explanation of what he meant by that.

[Bootstrap]

Yes, you are right, Christ was an Israelite, but He never followed the Talmud or Tradition of the Elders, so Christ was never a "Jew".

Can you please show me where that is a commonly used definition of the word "Jew"? When we discuss Jews here on MN, is that the definition you are using?

We have seen plenty of people in the Gospels who call Jesus a Jew. What definition do you think they were using?

[Josh]

Yes, you are right, Christ was an Israelite, but He never followed the Talmud or Tradition of the Elders, so Christ was never a "Jew".

Can you please show me where that is a commonly used definition of the word "Jew"? When we discuss Jews here on MN, is that the definition you are using?

We have seen plenty of people in the Gospels who call Jesus a Jew. What definition do you think they were using?

The NT seems to have quite a few different meanings of this. It could mean "one who is sincerely following God", and not be an ethnic marker at all (i.e. it includes proselytes); it could mean those who are of the circumcision sect; it could mean the leaders of the existing power hierarchy in second-temple Judaism.

The modern-day meaning of the term is quite different.

[JohnHurt]

Did Jesus consider HIMSELF a Jew?

Yes he did.

I'll go with his word over yours.

Scripture?

Joh 4:9  Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.

Joh 4:22  Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
Joh 4:23  But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

Wife: All the other references don’t come from Jesus’ mouth himself, but he also does not correct them or seem to mind being called one. He was called king of the Jews in all four gospels, whether the Pharisees wanted him to be or not. Besides, he was born in Judea, practiced Jewish customs (not Talmud or Targum), and was a descendent of the tribe of Judah.

I agree with your wife. "Jew" in this context means "Judean", it is cultural.

What is interesting is the response of the "Samaritan" woman, who claims to be descended from Jacob/Israel, that is, she is an Israelite just like our Lord, and Christ does not refute this either:

John 4:(12) Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?

So "Jew" must be cultural, not racial in this passage. They are both Israelites descended from Jacob, and one is called a "Jew" and one "Samaritan".

And your wife is correct, Christ never practiced the Talmud, only the Pharisees did that.
The best I can tell, Christ was Essene, as there were Essene groups at Qumran where John the Baptist lived, and on Mt. Carmel, which is near or included Nazareth.

So you can be a "Jew" culturally at the time of Christ, and not practice the Tradition of the Elders. That is very interesting. The Pharisees were not the dominant group in "Judaism" the 1st Century like they are today.

Thanks, you made some good points.

John

[Josh]

The Pharisees didn't practice the Talmud either, because it didn't exist. In fact, they are portrayed as having the right doctrines - Jesus' criticism of them was that they didn't obey their doctrines and teachings.