Koldo
Outstanding Member
The law and the prophets.
If he wasn't talking about the jewish prophets, who are these prophets?
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do all roads lead to God?
- Thread starter kjw47
- Start date
The law and the prophets.
If he wasn't talking about the jewish prophets, who are these prophets?
I think that is the point, it doesn't really specify. It could have been Hebrew prophets among others. Besides much of the Bible is not really prophecy. A lot of it is history, maybe pseudo history. Wisdom from different Hebrew leaders like David and Solomon. Songs/praises. Civil laws.
By Christians it is usually taken that Jesus was referring to fulfilling true prophecy. Not Jewish civil/traditional laws. I've heard some say that the Judaen people were chosen to preserve the prophecy of the coming of Jesus, not necessarily understand it.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
It is well known that:
1) christianity was built upon jewish scriptures ( which doesn't mean it uses only jewish scriptures ).
2) Jesus was a jew.
To say that Jesus wasn't talking about jewish prophets, one would have to disregard both of these things. And if this wasn't enough, it would entail that the entire OT is not part of christianity.
What do you mean by Jew?
Koldo
Outstanding Member
A member of the people and cultural community whose traditional religion is Judaism and who trace their origins through the ancient Hebrew people of Israel to Abraham.
Ok Judaism meaning what? Pharisee? Sadducee? Gnostic? Samaritan? Essene? Zealot perhaps?
Any genealogy is likely more mythical then actual. For example my grandfather was a "Jew". So maybe I could make a claim of a blood line back to one of the original tribes. Maybe many family lines could since they had been dispersed. However there are a lot of other bloodlines in there. Any actual dna connection would be minute if at all. So Jesus could have had Judean dna along with greek, roman, persian, samaritan, egyptian... etc.
I could call myself Jewish, Scottish, German, English, American. What I trace my origins through doesn't necessarily have any significance.
Good points. It's pretty obvious that he was talking about the prophets of Judaism.
The Jewish scriptures, the Tanakh, which is what Jesus was talking about anytime he mentioned "scriptures", were/are composed of 3 subdivisions:
Torah (Law)
Nevi'im (Prophets)
Ketuvim Ketuvim (Writings)
So anywhere where Jesus uses the terms "The Law and the Prophets", he's talking about Jewish Scripture, and so, Judaism.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Aren't these different sects?
I have no information over this so i would like to know: Did they believe in different gods and prophets? Wasn''t there any common ground between beliefs on which men were prophets?
Jesus' genealogy is described in Luke 3:2338 and Matthew 1:117.
So, it is at very least claimed by early christians that Jesus possesses the proper lineage of a jew.
Plus, he lived in Nazareth ( which is a jewish city ), he quoted jewish scriptures when teaching, and in John 4:22, Jesus says : '22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know;(S) we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.(T) ' - NIV. ( Just to cite a few )
kjw47
Well-Known Member
Yes they were jewish prophets-- the prophets arent the religion as a whole.
The israelites fell away from Gods grace over and over again, the prophets turned them back over and over again. The israelites were expecting the Messiah when Jesus popped on the scene--They rejected him because he was a carpenters son, and not the powerful king they thought would do away with roman rule instantly. The israelite leaders looked down on the flocks--calling them Amharets( meaning giving table scraps to the dogs) in this instance spiritual table scraps. Upon the rejection of Gods son and turning him over to be killed--God rejected them forever--a new religion had to form. The mention of israel after that is referring to spiritual israel( Gods chosen ) The writers didnt have a clue as to what the religion would be called in the last days so it was referred to as israel( spiritual).not literal.
None of which even sort -of addresses the point.
I love your style, kjw47: someone blows your premises out of the water, you just change the subject and pretend we were talking about something else all along.
Either that or you ignore it altogether: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3016231-post98.html
Doesn't look like you're traveling on any kind of road at all to me. Just looks like you've managed to carve yourself out a nice, comfortable, circular cul de sac.
kjw47
Well-Known Member
If one googles attack on Jerusalem 66- 70 ce--- it sends them to many spots with the info of what occurred, even eye witness accounts.
Then you should be able to provide at least one link verifying what you were saying in your previous post.
I'll be more than happy to supple a link or two to back up my rebutals.
Last edited:
That's a good a fair question.
I wish I had a good an honest answer ready for you.
I've never gotten to this point were someone asked that question. I thought I had answers, I kind of know, but to back it up with references...
I wouldn't expect you to accept claims without something to back them up. So I have to research a little deeper because of your question.
Hopefully if this point comes up again I'll be a little better prepared to answer.
I don't trust the claim. Especially Matthew goes out of its way to promote Jesus as the Messiah of the Talmud. But again the point, so what. Maybe Jesus could trace a linage back to David. However there was likely a lot of other linage/dna. Greek, Persian, Roman that could have been the ancestry of Jesus as well. Beside that's the linage of Joseph who wasn't even the Father of Jesus, according to the Bible.
I'd rule out Samaritans, Pharisee and Sadducee. Gnostics had a lot of Greek influence. Essene maybe or Therapute which I forgot to mention. A group of religious healers out of Egypt.
But again, Jewish city, Jews. Were are back to the original question. A Jew was what?... I think it is a mistake to assume significant connections to a modern understanding of What a Jew is.
And no offense to those who consider themselves Jews but those whom I ask today what a Jew is I don't get a simple answer.
I don't think saying Jesus was a Jew has any definitive meaning.
So I'm not really sure what the saying "Jesus was a Jew" means exactly.
It means, among other things, that he was a follower of the Judaism of his day. The different sects had, to a large extent, different interpretations of the meaning of the scriptures, and at least one sect, the Essenes, included writings in their canon that the others didn't, but the theology and doctrine of all the sects were based in the Tanakh.
Therefore, when any 1st Century Jew said "the Law and the Prophets" he was talking about the Jewish scriptures.
What "the" Jewish scripture?
All of it? Some of it?
In John a few a times when speaking to Pharisee Jesus refers to "your law" as if seeing the laws of the Pharisee as not being God's law.
So I don't think we really know how much or how little of the Jewish scripture Jesus accepted as God's law and actual prophecy.
Again: the Tanakh. Tanakh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And in other places he just refers to it as "The Law". Regardless of whether or not he personally believed it to be God's law, he's still obviously talking about the Law of the Torah.
Doesn't matter (although considering that the Gospels have him quoting it repeatedly and claiming that he and his followers were witnessing the fulfillment of it's prophecies, I would guess that he accepted all of it as scriptural).
Whether he believed it all or not, the point is, we know which Law and which Prophets he was talking about.
Ok, well I respectively disagree. Not that your assumptions are not reasonable. In fact it's assumptions that most would normally make. However they remain assumptions IMO.
What are yours?
My assumption are we don't have enough knowledge to make any definite claims.
What I'd like to be able to prove? What I suspect?
That Christian originated as much or perhaps more so from the Greeks then the Hebrews. The Greeks had been running the place for hundreds of years. They integrated themselves and their beliefs in the Judea population. So I think by the time of Jesus it was as much a part of Judean belief as anything else.
The Greeks came in took over and saw the Religion of Judea as barbaric and uncivilized. The Greeks introduced what they saw as a more civilized religious belief which was accepted by a large population of the people living in Judea.
These Hellenized Judeans This was their religion. The older Hebrew belief was on it's way out. About a hundred yes prior to Jesus the Maccabees fought a civil war for freedom to practice the old Hebrew beliefs. They won that freedom however there were plenty of Hellenized Judeans around at the time of Jesus. So this Greek/Hebrew hybrid was as much a Judean religious ideology as any other sect. So I suspect Jesus was influence by this hybrid belief system. Which by the time of Jesus was as Judean as anything else.
Jesus could have had Greek/Roman lineage along with Hebrew. His religion could have derived from the Greeks as much as the Hebrew. I think it is a mistake to make assumptions without taking these things into consideration.
So Jesus' linage could have been partially Greek. Some at least of his beliefs could have originated with the Greeks. None of which stops him from being a Jew.
