Jesus, Pork and Buddha

[Diceman]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Early Christians were far more succesful at evangelizing gentiles than Jews and the elimination of kosher restrictions (as well as circumcision) were indeed concessions to make evangelization easier. It was rationalized by the declaration that the crucifixion had eliminated the “Old Covenant” and that Mosaic law was no longer binding.

That’s a bit too cynical. (And yeah, I see your user name ) Gentiles were never bound by the Old Covenant to begin with. Their ancestors didn’t promise God anything.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Diceman

That’s a bit too cynical. (And yeah, I see your user name ) Gentiles were never bound by the Old Covenant to begin with. Their ancestors didn’t promise God anything.

Of course not, but those first Christians did not initially see themselves as being a new religion, they saw themselves as Jews. So bringing gentiles into the movement was seen as bringing them into Judaism. That sparked the debate about whether converted gentiles should be bound by Mosaic law. Acts describes the conflict between Paul and the Jerusalem cult led by Peter and James over this issue. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE pretty much eradicated any political strength of the Jerusalem movement and left Christianity as a de facto gentile religion but even for Jewish Christians after the diaspora, the Pauline redefinition of the “covenant” still obtained.

[rfgdxm]

@Diogenes the Cynic

It is highly debatable whether Jesus ever claimed to be the Messiah but even if he did, there were far better reasons to reject him as such than whether or not he correctly observed the Sabbath. It’s not even accurate to say that a would-be Messiah is “rejected” so much as that the burden is on them to prove it. Jesus failed to fulfill any of the Jewish expectations of the Messiah so, by definition, he was not the Jewish Messiah. It’s not a question of faith or belief, “accepting” or “rejecting” have nothing to do with it. A guy either fulfills the expectations or he doesn’t. Jesus didn’t.

The Christian answer would be that Jesus will fulfill the expectations of the Jewish Messiah in the second coming. Of course the Jewish response would be until Jesus comes back and fulfills the prophecies, they won’t consider him the Messiah.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@rfgdxm

The Christian answer would be that Jesus will fulfill the expectations of the Jewish Messiah in the second coming. Of course the Jewish response would be until Jesus comes back and fulfills the prophecies, they won’t consider him the Messiah.

Exactly. As soon as he pulls the sword from the stone he’ll prove he’s King Arthur.

[Walloon]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Jesus failed to fulfill any of the Jewish expectations of the Messiah so, by definition, he was not the Jewish Messiah.

Any? Isaiah foresaw the Messiah as

despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. . . . Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows . . . he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities . . . and with his stripes [wounds] we are healed. The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all. . . . He was taken from prison and from judgment, and was cut out of the land of the living. . . . . He bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

And whether true or not, Matthew and Luke also claimed that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and was descended from the house of David, as Jewish prophecy required.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Walloon

Any? Isaiah foresaw the Messiah asAnd whether true or not, Matthew and Luke also claimed that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and was descended from the house of David, as Jewish prophecy required.

The “suffering servant” in Isaiah is a poetic personification of Israel. It is not a Messiabnic prophecy.

Luke and Matthew set fictionalized nativities in Bethlehem in order to fullfil an expectation that the Messiah would be born in the same place as David, but they are obvious fictions and the Gospel of John not only says that Jesys was from Nazareth but sees it as a problem.

Furthermore, being born in Bethlehem, in itself, is not a Messianic act. Jesus did not not do any of the deeds that the Messiah was supposed to do.

[rfgdxm]

@Walloon

Any? Isaiah foresaw the Messiah asAnd whether true or not, Matthew and Luke also claimed that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and was descended from the house of David, as Jewish prophecy required.

There presumably were many descendants of Kind David around 2,000 years ago, and likely many around today. For all I know I could be a descendant of David. However, that alone wouldn’t make me the Messiah.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Actually, neither Matthew nor Luke claims that Jesus was descended from David. They claim that Joseph was (via contradictory geneologies) but they also claim that Joseph was not Jesus’ natural father.

[FriarTed]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Actually, neither Matthew nor Luke claims that Jesus was descended from David. They claim that Joseph was (via contradictory geneologies) but they also claim that Joseph was not Jesus’ natural father.

WIthout having my Bible handy, I believe Luke does indeed have Mary as being of the House of David.

[smiling_bandit]

Jesus failed to fulfill any of the Jewish expectations of the Messiah so, by definition, he was not the Jewish Messiah.

And we Christians would say that Jesus did, in fact, fulfill what was required; that the Jews of his day had the wrong idea about what was required isn’t God’s problem. Indeed, it wasn’t that he wasn’t accepted as the Jewish Mesiah, but that he wasn’t accepted by most mainstream Jews as the Messiah.

[Walloon]

Luke 1:26-27

. . . Gabriel was sent . . . To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.

Some interpret the phrase “of the house of David” to refer to Mary rather than Joseph, or to both. While others interpret it to mean only Joseph.

[zev_steinhardt]

@smiling bandit

And we Christians would say that Jesus did, in fact, fulfill what was required;

Swords > Plowshares ?
The entire world worshipping God?

Did I miss something in the last 2000 years?

Zev Steinhardt

[rfgdxm]

@zev_steinhardt

Swords > Plowshares ?
The entire world worshipping God?

Did I miss something in the last 2000 years?

Zev Steinhardt

Indeed. And Christians don’t hold that Jesus has fulfilled what was required. That is why they are waiting for the second coming.

[JRDelirious]

@x-ray vision

As Padeye mentioned, Jesus was specifically saying its okay to not wash your hands before you eat. It sounds like alot of Christians out there are using a loophole to eat pork, shellfish, etc.

Your Christian friends may believe that direct appeal-to-Jesus will trump anything. But as mentioned elsewhere, the Book of Acts elaborates further on it – already mentioned is that vision by Peter in Acts 9, 10-16; Acts also specifically reports a Council of the Apostles in which it is concluded that not-ethnically-Jewish Christians need not keep all of Jewish ritual law. Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 15
(BTW that is also how come evangelical Christians claim that it is OK to wear blended-fabric clothes and shave their sideburns, but still not OK to be gay – they lump it under “fornication”)

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@FriarTed

WIthout having my Bible handy, I believe Luke does indeed have Mary as being of the House of David.

Not true. He specifically identifies Joseph as being of the House of David.

Luke 2:4-5)
So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.

There is no such identification for Mary.

@Walloon

Some interpret the phrase “of the house of David” to refer to Mary rather than Joseph, or to both. While others interpret it to mean only Joseph.

Such an interpretation is completely unsupported by the text. Furthermore, a matrilineal lineage to David means nothing. It has to be a patrilineal descendancy in order for the heir to be legitimate. The Jewish Messiah must be a direct descendant od David through his father. Matrilineal lines had no significance and were never even traced.

[Walloon]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Such an interpretation is completely unsupported by the text. Furthermore, a matrilineal lineage to David means nothing. It has to be a patrilineal descendancy in order for the heir to be legitimate.

Is that supported by the text?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Walloon

Is that supported by the text?

It’s explicit in Jewish laws of succession. Matrilinear succession meant nothing under Jewish law.

[John_Kentzel-Griffin]

We’ve exhausted the factual aspect of this topic. We’ve moved into Debate and witnessing.

So, off to Great Debates.

DrMatrix - GQ Moderator

[cmkeller]

Walloon:

Matthew and Luke also claimed that Jesus was born in Bethlehem…as Jewish prophecy required.

Jewish prophecy does not require that the Messiah actually be born in Bethlehem, references to a Bethlehem origin are meant to refer to the Messiah’s Davidic (who was from Bethlehem) descent.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

More on the problem of claiming Davidic heritage for Jesus through Mary.

([url=http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/general-messiah-jewishresponse.htmlFrom Jews For Judaism)
To answer this difficult problem, apologists claim that Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary, who allegedly descends from David, as shown in the third chapter of Luke. There are four basic problems with this claim:

a] There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph’s genealogy, not Mary’s.

b] Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn’t help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Num. 1:18; Ezra 2:59.

c] Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (II Sam. 7:14;

I Chron. 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6) The third chapter of Luke is useless because it goes through David’s son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31)

d] Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.