Question about Jews

[Holyspirit213]

Who is the messiah? Isn't it true that Jesus Christ claimed to be a messiah?

[cnorman18]

The name of the tribe of Judah is merely the source of the word; and the actual word "Jew" may in fact have more to do with the name of the Roman province of Judea. Whatever the truth of the origin of the word, there is no text anywhere were "Jew" was unambiguously used to mean "member of the tribe of Judah." When the NT refers to "Jews," it is often speaking of Levites and priests, who were not Judahites either.

If I may interject, a lot of this confusion is resolved if one remembers that the Davidic Kingdom split into two kingdoms after the reign of Solomon. The two rival kingdoms were often referred to in the bible as "houses."
There was the house of David largely comprised of the tribes of Judah, Levi, and Benjamin; the same later comprised the region of Judea. The rest of the tribes comprised the house of Israel, the same whom Jesus referred to as "the lost sheep of Israel" who tended to reside in the outlying regions to the north of Judea.
The bible typically distinguishes between Jews, i.e. the tribes within Judea, and Israelites, i.e. those tribes who tended to reside outside of Judea

I disagree, and with good reason. The first appearance of the word Yehudim (Jews) in the Bible is in the book of Esther, where it is already being applied both to ethnic Jews and to converts, without regard to which tribe they belong to (converts, of course, belong to no tribe). Here is the Wikipedia entry on the word "Jew."

A quote:

After the splitting of the united Kingdom of Israel, the name Yehudi was used for the southern kingdom of Judah, containing not only the land of the tribe of Judah but also that of Benjamin and Simeon, along with some of the cities of the Levites. With the destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel, the kingdom of Judah became the sole Jewish state and the term y'hudi (יהודי) was applied to all Israelites. When the word makes its first appearance in writing (in the book of Esther) its meaning has already expanded to include converts to the Jewish religion as well as descendants of Israelites.

Note the bolding. "Jew," today, simply means "Jew." Descent from a particular tribe is irrelevant, and has been since the fall of the Northern Kingdom.

[Tex]

ThatGirlAgain:

The details of the Sanhedrin trial are clearly fictitious. One possibility is that the trial did not take place when stated but at another time. The Gospels inherited the Passover Seder trope from Paul, IMO part of his strategy to make an execution into a sin

Tex: And how do you know this? Where you there?
We have all four gospel witnessing to a trial. But 2000 years later you guys know the truth.
Give me a break!!

Because we have what the laws concerning the Jewish trials were during that time frame.. and the account of the trial violates quite a number of them. Not only that, but it violates the High Holy days.. .. and the 'give me a break' is quite a valid response to saying that you could get a bunch of priests (who made up a lot of the Sanhedrin) to violate a high holy day to run a trial of someone.

Tex: And this makes perfect sense!!!! Because it was done in secret.
If this was done before the people, they would have hated the priest even more.

To believe that these priest were perfect is stupid. They where run by the Romans.
They were breaking every law according to God.

Then to say that Saint Paul only started preaching "decades" after. Is even more.... made up garbage on your behalf. Did you ever read Acts.

You people cannot be trusted.

[cnorman18]

You people cannot be trusted.

Who, exactly, do you mean by "you people"?

[99percentatheism]

You people cannot be trusted.

Who, exactly, do you mean by "you people"?

You know, "you people". The Jews. The people that make the society in whcih they move to more beautiful, prosperous and civil for ALL the people.

[Tex]

You people cannot be trusted.

Who, exactly, do you mean by "you people"?

Tex: Mostly, does who preach against the Lord Jesus.

[99percentatheism]

You people cannot be trusted.

Who, exactly, do you mean by "you people"?

Tex: Mostly, does who preach against the Lord Jesus.

Jesus never cared and never let it bother him. And said we shouldn't either.

Read the Gospels. Go ahead.

You do know Jesus is a Jew right?

[cnorman18]

You people cannot be trusted.

Who, exactly, do you mean by "you people"?

Tex: Mostly, does who preach against the Lord Jesus.

Jesus never cared and never let it bother him. And said we shouldn't either.

Read the Gospels. Go ahead.

You do know Jesus is a Jew right?

LOL! Well said!

[Tex]

You people cannot be trusted.

Who, exactly, do you mean by "you people"?

Tex: Mostly, does who preach against the Lord Jesus.

Jesus never cared and never let it bother him. And said we shouldn't either.

Read the Gospels. Go ahead.

You do know Jesus is a Jew right?

Tex: I believe you are wrong. The Lord did have a problem with "blind guides".

As for the LOrd being born to Jews. No I didn't know....I always thought he was a Roman.

[Goat]

Tex: And this makes perfect sense!!!! Because it was done in secret.
If this was done before the people, they would have hated the priest even more.

To believe that these priest were perfect is stupid. They where run by the Romans.
They were breaking every law according to God.

Then to say that Saint Paul only started preaching "decades" after. Is even more.... made up garbage on your behalf. Did you ever read Acts.

You people cannot be trusted.

Who is 'you people"???

Now, if it was 'secret' how come only the writers of the Gospels, knew about it and wrote it down, despite the fact there had to be over 70 people in on a this trial that violated the High holy days?? Doesn't make sense to me.

And then' 'you people can not be trusted'.. that sounds bigoted to me.

Now, you do realize that Act was written at least 30 years, if not more after Paul died, don't you? Why would I think that Acts would be accurate about what Paul said or did?

[Autodidact]

How come Jews didn't see him as messiah when the Torah says the messiah is both wolf and a sheep. It is somewhat appealing to me to see the "wolf" who is the crucified one on the left cursing Christ and gets pecked and the one on the right who asks him for his protection on the right and the middle being Christ of course.

Jews do not see Yeshua as the messiah because He did not meet the definition of the messiah, and did not fulfill the prophecies of the messiah.

Would you please take your transparent proselytizing somewhere else? Having been the victims of proselytizing at the point of Christian swords for centuries, Jews tend to object to it.

I do nto see how this is "transparent proselytizing". It is simply presenting imagery the poster sees and a comment on it. If someone is converted based on such minimal information, that one is hardly being "proselytized". It might have been better to ask for the source of the "wolf" and "sheep" imagery, so that it could be examined for it's validity.

By the way, had you not said anything, that post would probably gone unnoticed. As it is, it has now been repeated three times. So, much for countering proselytization. Also, what is wrong with proselytizing? It appears that you have taken great pains to encourage me to change my views on other threads. Is that not proselytizing?

No, it's debating, which is quite different. the poster is approaching a specific group, Jews, not the forum in general. Jews, of all people, have been the victims of violent proselytizing more than any other religious group. He's not debating, really, just goading. It's annoying.