I also saw that in John 10, Jesus says Your Law, Not God’s
I hope this is not off topic.
John is particularly late, and by his time (kind of circular here), by him, the Jews were harshly identified as absolutely separate and as enemies. Their sin would never be erased.
It has been called, when looked at this way, the most pernicious and founding document of Jew-hatred in the West.
Moderator Note
Leo Bloom, in the interest of keeping this thread on track, let’s refrain from remarks like this.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Well, he sure laid an egg on that one.
But you make an excellent point. All of the prophecies that Matthew labored so hard to find (or invent) were supposed to establish Jesus’ bona fides as the Messiah, not as the Son of God, let alone some aspect of God himself. Seems like if he couldn’t get the small stuff done, he should be ineligible to run for King of the Universe.
The point I was trying to make before my edit window expired is that maybe the early Christian leaders started de-emphasizing the Jewish aspects of their faith because Jesus hadn’t done anything the Messiah was supposed to do (except maybe suffer, but there was no shortage of people who could do that), and it seemed less and less likely that he would be returning soon to rectify that situation.
Then again, they did choose Matthew for their canon, so as usual, I’m totally confused.
Interesting. Impressive idea, pretty radical notion back then, if true, right?
Did you come up with the interpretation, or are you working off of someone(s)?
/ not sarcasm this entire post, and it’s a drag I have to write that, but I’ve been snarky before so I have to
Wonder how the fall of the Temple factors into this.
Depends on what you deem as being “Jewish beliefs”…if you are talking about the Law of Moses, it is because the Law was originally designed as a blueprint to right standing, or “righteousness”, with God. But when Jesus came along, he fulfilled all the requirements of the Law, which no human being had ever done to that point, nor ever would be able to do, and created a “New Covenant” in which all you had to do to obtain right standing with God was trust in the sacrifice of Jesus to make you righteous.
Too many people consider that way to easy to get in good with the Big Guy but that’s the way it is.
Possibly, but then again Jesus himself taught stuff that was 180° from previous Jewish law and he himself underlined the fact that yup, shit got done changed up, starting now. E.g. “You may have been told an eye for an eye, but I tell you to turn the other cheek instead” (Matthew 5:38-39, paraphrased).
A propos of nothing, while researching the exact chapter and verse of the previous J-quote I also happened to learn that, apparently, well-informed sources state that calling someone an idiot is a ticket straight to hellfire (Matthew 5:22). I guess that’s why we call it The Pit, huh ?
Are any of you watching the Frontline documentary on the early church? I’d be interested to know if you think they’re getting it right. It discusses everything you’ve been talking about.
There was never a stoning of a prostitute… :dubious:
It was “a woman taken in adultery,” but I think the point stands.
Read Aslan’s recent book “Zealot”. There were a plethora of messiahs wandering the Jewish countryside. A new one popped up every few years. Most were bandits/guerilla fighters, seeking to throw off the latest occupiers, the Romans, in the tradition of liberation from oppressors going back to Babylonian times and before.
Jesus learned at the feet of John the Baptist, probably more mystical than guerilla-like. He wandered down the valley from Galilee then up to Jerusalem, gathering followers and preaching. He entered Jerusalem in triumph to cheering crowds, scaring the pants (if they had them) off the Temple hierarchy. He then proceeded to trash the commercial aspects of the temple, overturning the trading tables, releasing the offering animals, basically sowing chaos and disrupting cozy arrangements that kept the high priests in riches and influence.
As a result, they accused him of being a pretender to the throne of David, and had him executed as a seditionist by the Romans.
I kind of disagree with Aslan’s premise to some extent. He must have been different from various preachers like John, and very different from the purely guerilla messiahs before him, if his followers spent the next decades hanging around the temple, preaching his message and waiting for his return. (And were somewhat tolerated for doing so).
The point too is that Paul made up a completely different message about Jesus and his preachings; then got into a major huff with the official keepers of the truth back in Jerusalem - and was told to keep his message to gentiles, not to corrupt Jews with it. Fortunately for him there were a LOT more gentiles, and the Jewish side of the church suffered a major blow with the destruction of Jerusalem. A lot of what we see as Christianity is Paul’s concoction, later redacted and spliced into the existing gospels to make them agree with orthodoxy of later church.