One of my favorites.
Mine too.
I believe the title ‘King of the Jews’ (if the Biblical account is to be believed*) wasn’t actually claimed by Jesus either.
(*and if the Biblical acount is to be discarded, then there’s nothing to discuss here)
No it doesn’t. Just as Jew <> Israeli, Judaist <> Jew. And anyway, history is replete with examples of monarchs who are not the same original nationality as their subjects.
Do Jews get baptized? Jesus did.
Then what was John the Baptist doing?
The translation of the previously quoted passage varies, but it reads like jesus was equivocating. Pilate asks him if he is the king of the jews to which he replies something like “So you say”, or “You have said it”, kind of the equivalent of “I didn’t say it, but I’m not gonna argue with you.” Some translations, of course, render the answer as more direct, probably because those would qualify more as interpretations than true translations.
Of course, “King” does not always carry a constitutional requirement of NBC or specific ethnicity: jesus logically could have been king of the jews without being a jew himself, in theory at least, not sure what jewish law was at the time.
There is a rather interesting side question here: if Pilate conducted an official inquiry or hearing on the jesus thing, of which this interview was a part, would it by Roman law have to be carried out in Latin? As a Roman subject, would jesus have to be at least passably bilingual? And how would the translation of the interview from Latin into Aramaic and/or Koine have distorted its meaning?
While he was dying on the cross or before, did Jesus ask himself into his life?
But then again he is not God, he is just Allah’s Prophet.
On the other side of the street if YHWH is not a Jew, Allah is not a Muslim, then the Trinity is not a Christian. And if we’re to use the small-o orthodox theology of the overwhelming majority of Christianity across history and today, then Jesus is one with God the Father. In his lifetime he did act like someone who worships the Father, but once Risen, need he worship himself?
If the gospel is to be relied upon, Jesus *as a man *lived and died as a dissident-fringe Jew and his followership did not start moving away from Jewish ritual observance until Paul showed up and pointed out that Risen Jesus would be above that.
Saving oneself sounds a lot like masturbation to me.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
He died King of the Jews.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, that’s what the *Romans *dubbed him sarcastically. I don’t think he made the claim himself.
And if the Bible is to be believed, then he can’t have been (at least not by legalistic, feudal meanings of the word “king”), since for all the time the New Testament spends on begats ; Jesus still demonstrably couldn’t be of David’s lineage, what with him being the son of God and of virgin birthed :).
Wasn’t Jesus buried in the Jewish tradition?
He turned in his grave.
Jesus died a Jew,and the first Christians were Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah. The Jews do not believe that Jesus filled the prophies!
The actual king of Judea at the time was Herod, who IIRC was Roman, not Jewish, although he followed some Jewish customs to try to win the favor of his subjects.
Well if the Bible is to believed, two different gospels take pains to trace Jesus’ lineage back to King David. (Of course, they contradict each other; but still, the claim that he was of the royal family is there).
There is a small logical flaw there: the lineage is patrilineal – the holy cuckold was a direct descendant of King David. How is that supposed to work?
Mary was descended from David. In Judaism, I believe it descends through the mother, doesn’t it? (As in if your mother is Jewish, that’s what counts, not your father. At least, in Orthodox and more stricter sects of Conservative)
Herod wasn’t Roman, though he courted the favour of influential Romans. He was an Idumaean, and religiously Jewish - though Idumaeans were considered a distinct ethnicity. His family had allegedly converted to Judaism in the prevous century.
As the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus is God and by extension, omniscient. Omniscients have no practical use for beliefs as they already know the truth about everything. Hence, Jesus cannot be a “Christian” since the term describes someone who subscribes to a certain belief. On the other hand, the person of Jesus was born an ethnic Jew and is biologically locked into that state for the rest of eternity.
Jesus was not omniscient as a man though, surely? Didn’t he question a few things? I seem to remember a slight “Do I have to?” attitude to the whole crucifixion thing.