Is Jewish Jesus and Christian Christ the same person?

[dio9]

Is Jewish Jesus and Christian Christ the same person?

Point being, Jesus did not fulfill the Jewish expectation for the Messiah. The Christian Christ fulfilled a different role as the sacrificial savior. How do we bridge our Christian Christ with Jewish Jesus?

Do you think Jesus thought of himself as the Divine second person of the holy trinity?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 42 by dio9]

Dio, sometimes great questions lead to great conclusions!
Thank you-

Hmmmm.
0. The Jews don't have and never will have a messiah, I think that is obvious by now. The line of David is ended.

1. So, to politely answer a question with a question, "Is God a racist?"
What was so important about Mary that any woman in the world couldn't be knocked up and through the required divine manipulation, produce a savior of any kind?

Of, course, it further begs the question: Why go through such silly extremes to produce a savior, when there are infinite number of more effective ways to produce the same result.

Based on scripture (viewtopic.php?t=32002), I believe that Jesus was a bit of Roman propaganda designed to get the multitudes to obey Roma and pay its tithes.

2. But back to your intriguing point: What about a divine messiah needs to be Jewish? As I am fond of pointing out, Caesar Augusts' grandmother was a Jewess, perhaps in the line of David - he fulfilled the prophesy of Isaiah EXACTLY, why couldn't he have been the savior?

But generalizing, even with the prophesy, and genetics, how would one know that a person was or wasn't Jewish? God certainly can perceive what properties make a savior, and that Jewish blood-line, may not be a Jew.

So, even were Jesus a Native American, God could make him the Jewish savior.

3. One the other hand, yes, according to any other way you want to interpret scripture, Jesus was not Jewish...

How can one say?

Is God a racist that something unprovable about a line makes one a savior?

[ttruscott]

how about this ; the kingdom of God is the place where the sons and daughters of God live.

I don't think of it as a place but as a reference to the Unity of communion*, a fully loving and holy telepathic communication and emotional communion as close to the Unity of the Trinity itself as humanly possible. It is called heaven, the kingdom and the heavenly Marriage.

Such an emotional and communicative bond, the epitomé of a personal bonding in communion would be felt across all space, covering all of the physical universe far outside of place considerations.

Laws are for sinners to convict them of their sin. Anyone who is perfectly bonded with Christ or GOD like the angels needs no government but by nature does righteousness and is fully loving to everyone all the time. A Kingdom is that place which is under the influence and power, authority and control of the King...if that is all achieved by Spiritually covering all of the Universe in the bonds of love and an unbreakable commitment to Holiness rather than authority then the heavenly state, the Kingdom and the Marriage are all fulfilled by the communion of Saints in the Marriage of the Lamb. Christians celebrate communion, not the law as the Jews do.

In my personal and Christian opinion, of course...

*Communion: the realization of a spiritual union between Christ and communicant, intimate fellowship or rapport

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 51 by Willum]

0. The Jews don't have and never will have a messiah, I think that is obvious by now. The line of David is ended.

" Will never. "

What an odd thing to say.
It's almost as if you know everything that's going to happen in the future.
Do you?

[Willum]

[Replying to Blastcat]

Wait and see.

But it is pretty obvious now, that not only was there no messiah in Jesus, but God allowing such a phenomena, discounts the concept.
In fact, in hindsight, reviewing the OT, it is very clear that the messiah phenomenon, originating in modern-day Syria, was itself propaganda, made up to persuade and deceive the farmers of goats.

[dio9]

how about this ; the kingdom of God is the place where the sons and daughters of God live.

I don't think of it as a place but as a reference to the Unity of communion*, a fully loving and holy telepathic communication and emotional communion as close to the Unity of the Trinity itself as humanly possible. It is called heaven, the kingdom and the heavenly Marriage.

Such an emotional and communicative bond, the epitomé of a personal bonding in communion would be felt across all space, covering all of the physical universe far outside of place considerations.

Laws are for sinners to convict them of their sin. Anyone who is perfectly bonded with Christ or GOD like the angels needs no government but by nature does righteousness and is fully loving to everyone all the time. A Kingdom is that place which is under the influence and power, authority and control of the King...if that is all achieved by Spiritually covering all of the Universe in the bonds of love and an unbreakable commitment to Holiness rather than authority then the heavenly state, the Kingdom and the Marriage are all fulfilled by the communion of Saints in the Marriage of the Lamb. Christians celebrate communion, not the law as the Jews do.

In my personal and Christian opinion, of course...

*Communion: the realization of a spiritual union between Christ and communicant, intimate fellowship or rapport

What you write could very well be the spiritual kingdom of heaven, I believe Jesus corrected the division between heaven and earth. Heaven is meant to start here.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 54 by Willum]

Wait and see.

I think that's the general idea.

But it is pretty obvious now, that not only was there no messiah in Jesus, but God allowing such a phenomena, discounts the concept.

It seems to be pretty obvious to you, maybe.

In fact, in hindsight, reviewing the OT, it is very clear that the messiah phenomenon, originating in modern-day Syria, was itself propaganda, made up to persuade and deceive the farmers of goats.

Well, goats ARE cuddly.

But the problem I'm having with your posts right now is that you presume to speak for all of us. It's the language. You write "it's very clear" when you might be meaning "it's very clear to ME"... and that makes a lot of difference.

The way you put it, it's as if you could read all of our minds, and KNOW that it's all so very clear to us. I can appreciate that you see your own ideas very clearly. What is NOT so clear is why. And please, don't speak for cats.

You are mostly going to be wrong unless you are talking about kibbles..

[Willum]

[Replying to post 56 by Blastcat]

Sure, buddy, ask me anything.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 57 by Willum]

Sure, buddy, ask me anything.

But I really don't have to ask you what I think.
I already know.

[Pierac]

Is Jewish Jesus and Christian Christ the same person?

Point being, Jesus did not fulfill the Jewish expectation for the Messiah. The Christian Christ fulfilled a different role as the sacrificial savior. How do we bridge our Christian Christ with Jewish Jesus?

Do you think Jesus thought of himself as the Divine second person of the holy trinity?

Dr. Hugh Schonfield, in his book the Passover Plot. Reported that many Christians he spoke with were not even aware that the term "Christ" was simply a Greek translation of the Hebrew title Messiah, and thought somehow that it referred to the Second Person of the Trinity. "So connected had the word ‘Christ’ become with the idea of Jesus as God incarnate that the title ‘Messiah’ was treated as something curiously Jewish and not associated.�

N.T. Write, the Bishop of Litchfield, agrees: “One of the most persistent mistakes throughout the literature on Jesus and the last hundred years is to use the word ‘Christ,’ which simply means ‘Messiah’, as though it was a ‘divine’ title.� Who was Jesus? p.57.

According to its OT usage, the term Messiah, the Anointed One, indicates a call to office. Most certainly, it was not the title of an aspect of the Godhead. This is a later Gentile invention that came about by ignoring Jesus’ Jewish context and inventing a doctrine called the Incarnation- the idea that a second member of the Trinity, God the son, became a human being. As Lockhart says, in Jesus the Heretic, p.137. “Christianity ignored the ‘Messiah’ and theologically worked the ‘Christ’ up into the ‘God-Man.’ Jesus as the ‘Messiah’ is a human being; Jesus as the ‘Christ’ is something entirely different.�

Jesus calls himself "a man" (John 8:40) "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do. and the apostles call him "a man" (Acts 2: 22; 1 Tim. 2:5). Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God
performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, He is constantly contrasted with and distinguished from God, his Father.

The Hebrew Bible or OT, predicted Jesus would be a man (Is.53:3). But never does the scriptures use the term "God-Man" to tell us who Jesus is. The Greek language of the day had a perfectly good word for “God-Man� (theios aner) but it never appears in the New Testament. So why do we persist with these extra-biblical terms? Why do we continue to employ non-biblical (i.e. unbiblical) language to describe Jesus?

The Bible verse saying is true which says that we are very quick to spot the speck in the eye of another's theology, but how blind we are to the beam in our own. Mary is not the mother of God, according to the scriptures. And neither is Jesus God the Son, nor is he the "God-Man" according to the Bible. And he is nowhere called "God of from God" as the later Nicene Creed called him. Protestants, people of the Bible ought to know that the contentious extra-biblical word used at Nicea, homoousios, meaning ‘of equal substance,’ “did not come from Scripture but, of all things, from Gnostic systems.� Quote from Born Before All-Time? p. 500. Kuschel.

The result was that such terminology introduced alien notions into Christian understanding of God. In other words, "an epoch-making paradigm shift has taken place between Scriptures and Nicea.� Born Before All-Time? p. 503. Kuschel

To the Jewish mind, accustomed to Old Testament teaching on the principles of agency and representation by which God appoints a man to speak or act on his behalf, such a concept was both familiar and acceptable. Whilst it is true that some of Christ's enemies believed him to be usurping or laying claim unlawfully to certain Divine rights or powers, not a single Jew ever thought that the miracles performed by Christ proved that he was a Divine being, and the gospel record indicates that many recognised that he was a man Divinely appointed to exercise power and authority on God's behalf.

Joh 3:1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, "Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him."
Nicodemus never believed Jesus was God... even after seeing all those miracles... Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know--



Paul

[Willum]

[Replying to post 42 by dio9]

So I did more research on matrilineality, it seems there is no real rule about matrilineality in all the works.
It has flip-flopped several times, and is really more about the mother or father following law, and not any kind of genealogy. Just another thing about Juedo-Christianity that, when examined, disappears.