Jesus was a Jew. When did his followers stop being Jews?

[rosends]

Are you saying that Jesus was not a Jew and was not classed as Jospehs son under the law?
I do explain how a brother can bear a son with the widow of his brother and the child becomes the dead mans son.

Maybe I missed something but as far as I know, unless you are making the claim that Joseph's brother died after having been married to Mary so the marriage between them was a Levirate one, the child cannot be considered Joseph's unless he is the full biological father. And if his "brother" is the one who died then Joseph and his brother would share a tribal lineage so the tribal affiliation would not be in question. Also, if Mary was Jewish then Jesus was Jewish but that has no bearing regarding the paternity and tribal affiliation.

 

[RESOLUTION]

Maybe I missed something but as far as I know, unless you are making the claim that Joseph's brother died after having been married to Mary so the marriage between them was a Levirate one, the child cannot be considered Joseph's unless he is the full biological father. And if his "brother" is the one who died then Joseph and his brother would share a tribal lineage so the tribal affiliation would not be in question. Also, if Mary was Jewish then Jesus was Jewish but that has no bearing regarding the paternity and tribal affiliation.

My previous posts were clear.If you do not understand the bible then read it. It will save you time from writing such errors.
Plus read all the posts.

 

[rosends]

My previous posts were clear.If you do not understand the bible then read it. It will save you time from writing such errors.
Plus read all the posts.

Nothing I said was an error. If you don't like being challenged or corrected, just say so.

 

[RESOLUTION]

Nothing I said was an error. If you don't like being challenged or corrected, just say so.

Nothing like excuses the fact is your post shows you had not read the previous posts which meant you would not have asked what you did. As for challenging or correcting, what chance is there when you cannot show any understanding or take time to read the thread posts? NONE!

 

[rosends]

Nothing like excuses the fact is your post shows you had not read the previous posts which meant you would not have asked what you did. As for challenging or correcting, what chance is there when you cannot show any understanding or take time to read the thread posts? NONE!

I asked a question because the logical conclusion you drew was in error. I'll lay it out for you so you can see your error more clearly:

1. Tumah said, "So a child born from a Jewish mother and non-Jewish father is a Jew without any tribal affiliation."

2. You responded with "Are you saying that Jesus was not a Jew and was not classed as Jospehs son under the law?
I do explain how a brother can bear a son with the widow of his brother and the child becomes the dead mans
son."

Your response injects the question of Jesus' Judaism when Tumah's point had to do with tribal affiliation through the father. Then you refer back to your earlier statement,
3. "We know if a man died without a descendant that the next brother married the wife of the dead brother and the child born became descendant
of the dead brother."

This statement is only relevant if one is dealing with a Levirate marriage between brothers, so I asked for clarification because as far as I know, there is no discussion of Joseph's brother having died. And because you make your response #2 to a statement about tribal affiliation, I pointed out that in the case of a Levirate marriage, both the man and his brother are from the same tribe so if the father-role is assigned the late brother, the tribal affiliation is identical to what it would be through the biological father.

So your response was off-point, irrelevant and in serious need of clarification. It is sad that you can't see the shortcomings of your post and then learn to provide any context or explanation/amplification which might make it useful. You miss an opportunity to refine your position and instead descend into vitriol which only compounds your error.

Care to try again and deal with the substance or will there be another course of the lashing out and thrashing about?

 

[VioletVortex]

Religiously, as soon as Christianity was officiated as a religion, they stopped being Jewish. However, they were still Jews as they were part of the Jewish Semitic tribe. Of course, Europeans who were converted were never Jews, obviously.

 

[Tumah]

You do not know?

I do not.

Why are the angels called sons of God?

2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Who told you that this refers to angels? Where is Adam called an angel that this should even be relevant?

Adams Father and creator was God. Adam is therefore a son of God.

Where is G-d called Adam's father?

Being first born does not make you the inheritor of the promises of God.

I never claimed it did...

Ishmael has no claim as far as the promises of God,

Firstborn is defined by the mother not the father. In Biblical language, "opens the womb". See Num. 8:16-17. Abraham technically has two or three first-born children.
Also see Gen. 17:20

Being born of Abraham his Father did not make him the inheritor of Abrahams wealth and status as leader.

Let's say that's true even though I don't see any evidence that Ishmael didn't inherit any wealth or status from Abraham.

Makes every sense when we look at how God decides who are his people.

No, that doesn't help it make sense at all.

You referred to the LAW.

Yes, I did. But that Law doesn't state that any child born in a marriage belongs to the husband.

Are you saying that Jesus was not a Jew and was not classed as Jospehs son under the law?

No, I'm saying he was Jewish because his mother was Jewish. But his tribal affiliation remains unknown until we can find his father.

I do explain how a brother can bear a son with the widow of his brother and the child becomes the dead mans son.

There is no where in Tanach where it says that the child born through levirate marriage becomes the dead man's son.

 

[MJFlores]

Jesus was a Jew teaching his followers. I have heard Jews refer to him as a Rabbi.
He said that he didn't come to destroy the (Mosaic) Law, but to fulfill it. (Matt 5:17-20)
Therefore, are Christians allowed to call ourselves Jews?

I think - Jews are Jews [exclusively for Israelites]

During the time of the prophet Jeremiah, God promised a new covenant.

“The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. Jeremiah 31:31

My Lord Jesus was called Rabbi because he lived under the Law:

But when the right time came, God sent his Son, who was born from a woman and lived under the law. Galatians 4:4

It is true that my Lord Jesus, as you quote it, didn't come to destroy the (Mosaic) Law, but to fulfill it. (Matt 5:17-20) - but his mission was to seal God's new covenant which was promised.

And in doing so, he built his church (Matt 16:18) that is when his followers stop being Jews and started being Christians.

So I tell you, you are Peter. And I will build my church on this rock. The power of death will not be able to defeat my church. Matthew 16:18

The new covenant is in the blood of my Lord Jesus Christ:
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. Luke 22:20

The disciples are not called Jews after Christ died on the cross and after God raised him from the dead. In fact they were called Christians.

and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. Acts 11:26

The Jews in fact, persecuted the first Christians and Saul (who became apostle Paul) testifies to this:

Galatians 1:13 New Life Version (NLV)

You have heard of my old life when I followed the Jewish religion. I made it as hard as I could for the Christians and did everything I could to destroy the Christian church.

 

[12jtartar]

Jesus was a Jew teaching his followers. I have heard Jews refer to him as a Rabbi.
He said that he didn't come to destroy the (Mosaic) Law, but to fulfill it. (Matt 5:17-20)
Therefore, are Christians allowed to call ourselves Jews?

GeelongFams4WldPeace,
The truth is Jews are still Jews when they become Christians, but they are then, Spiritual Jews, just as Gentile Christians are also Spiritual Jews, Romans 2:28,29.
The actual time this started was on Pentacost of 33CE. This was when the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Jews, and received the Holy Spirit, and started peaking in tongues, Acts 2:1-21. The way into the Christian Congregation was only for the Jews on this day and for 31/2 years more. This is made clear from a prophecy recorded by Daniel, at Daniel 9:24-27. That prophecy was about the date of the coming of the Messiah, Christ, his death t the middle of the week, then the prophecy would extend on for another 3 1/2 years. The end of that last week of years, the Gentiles would then we able to be part ofthe Christian Congregation. The first gentile was Cornelius, a Roman centurion, Acts 10:1-48.
Jesus gave Peter the authority to allow the Jews first, then the Samaritans, then the Gentiles. That is what the Keys of the Kingdom were that Jesus meant when he was telling Peter that on him, Jesus the Petra, Rockmass, on which he would build his church, or congregation, Matthew 16:18,19, Acts 1:8.
Of course Jesus followers were first called Christians at Antioch, a little later, and were then new creatures, The Israel of God, Galatians 6:15,16, 2Corinthians 5:17.

 

[Muffled]

First of all, the "you" is used generically, thus without reference to any particular person or organized group or groups, and secondly note that it deals with actions and not a p.c. belief.

It is Paul that seems more in tune with a more narrow vision of salvation, and yet even he seems to hedge on that. For example, he says that "there's faith, hope, and love, but the greatest of these is ___". Please note that the Koine Greek word for "love" is "agape", and unlike the same word in English, it connotes action. IOW, one just doesn't have agape-- one lives a life of agape.

And when Paul goes to Corinth, he praises a group about they having a strong faith, and yet they had not yet been converted.

Again, I do think it's best to leave the judging to God-- even if it's just to be on the safe side.

I believe however that actions were based on PC. If the Jewish leadership thought Jesus was the Messiah they wouldn't have tried to kill him but the PC belief was that everyone claiming to be the Messiah must be a false one.

I believe that is where it is. God in me judges.

 

[Muffled]

He was speaking directly to the faces of the Jewish leaders who were speaking to him There was nothing generic about it

I believe we can question how Jewish they were considering that they were appointed by the Romans. Their first allegiance was to Rome and then to God.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus was a Jew. When did his followers stop being Jews?

Probably when they were excommunicated from the Synagogue and cursed as heretics.
"May the minim [heretics] perish in an instant; may they be effaced from the book of life and not be counted among the Just."

I believe it makes no sense to say that a bunch of misinformed godless people could decide that someone wasn't Jewish.

 

[pearl]

I believe it makes no sense to say that a bunch of misinformed godless people could decide that someone wasn't Jewish.

The Jews were not 'godless' people. They did not believe Jesus a messiah. The first Christians, who were Jews, continued to attend the synagogue for prayers and the reading of Scripture and celebrate Eucharist together in homes.

 

[metis]

I believe however that actions were based on PC. If the Jewish leadership thought Jesus was the Messiah they wouldn't have tried to kill him but the PC belief was that everyone claiming to be the Messiah must be a false one.

We're talking about two different things here as mine was in reference to being "saved". The issue of "the Messiah" is not the same thing even though there is a hypothetical connection between the two.