Agricola aka Pam34
B'net refugee
hmm... this is an interesting topic. I have always been taught that Jesus was a jew - his mother and adoptive father were jews. The thing that confuses me is
The religion (jewish) different or the same as the cultural background (jew).
As I am sure Jews (as in religion jewish) DONT believe that Jesus was the son of God but a messenger? (correct me if I am wrong please!), yet Jesus was a Jew (so I am hoping the two are distinct and not the same as jesus himself would be saying he wasnt the son of God).
If they are different, why didnt they call the Jewish religion something else to make it less complicated and confusing?
Ok - Jesus was a Jew. Not a big issue really.
Next - let's see - Judaism does not separate 'religion' from 'cultural background'. A Jew is a Jew and a Jew practices Judaism. Judaism is 'living like a Jew'. Your confusion is common enough, because the western world separates religion and culture. Judaism doesn't. Judaism is not 'just' a religion, it is a way of life and it is the way of life/belief/behavior of the Jewish people.
Jews do not believe Jesus was the 'son of God'. That's a nonsense phrase in Judaism - or at least, a phrase that needs a lot of explanation - a 'son of God' would be someone who does everything God wants of a person. It doesn't, didn't and can't mean a 'literal son'. That isn't within the bounds of possibility to Judaism.
Jews do not believe Jesus was a 'messenger' (Islam teaches that Jesus was a messenger (prophet) but Judaism doesn't). Judaism teaches nothing about Jesus, because Jesus is nothing to us. Or nothing beyond some Jewish guy that got executed by the Romans. Nothing against the guy - he just had no impact on Judaism and Jewish practice or Jewish life or whatever you want to bring up.
We don't call it 'Judaism' or at least, we didn't call it that for centuries. We just call it 'halakha' which means 'the way'. Judaism is our Way - the Jewish Way. Other people have other ways. It's all okay.
However - on the 'blood lineage' thing.
there are two different lists of ancestors given in the NT that are supposed to be Jesus' line. Christians generally explain that they are different because one is Mary and the other is Joseph.
Fine - I don't really care, because it doesn't matter.
Yes, 'being Jewish' passes through the mother - NOW, but it is possible or likely that it was more patrilineal in the distant past. It doesn't matter in any case, because although 'Jewishness' comes from the mother, TRIBAL MEMBERSHIP passes through the father.
So May's genealogy is irrelevant for 'inheriting the kingdom from David'. She's a woman. She can't pass along tribal membership in Judah. She can't pass along 'the royal line'. It simply won't go there.
And if it is 'Joseph's line', then Christians are going to have to drop the 'son of God' deal and say that Jesus is a real physical son of Joseph. There are other reasons that won't work, and one of them is that the purported line of Joseph's lineage passes through a son of David who is specifically BARRED from passing on the inheritance to the throne.
Also - sorry, but I have to bust this bubble in yet another fashion - EVEN IF Joseph qualified, as long as you say he is Jesus' adoptive father, then JESUS doesn't qualify, because (unlike us today) adoption DOES NOT CONVEY blood line lineage. Which is WHY you have levirite marriage in the first place - to preserve the lineal inheritance within the tribe. Adopted children do not, in Jewish law, take on the tribal membership or status of the adoptive father. Period.
Basically, Jesus doesn't qualify as 'messiah' based on blood line, because his doesn't fit the requirements in any permutation.
(He also fails on every other measure of being the messiah, but that's one).