There you go again conflating modern rabbinic judaism with 2nd temple religious practice. Never mind that there were five main sects then the temple was destroyed, one of which was Christianity, and that the foundational documents of rabbinic judaism were written by pharasees. Nah, keep conflating the Messiah with the people who explicitly reject Him.
I'm usually pretty good about those distinctions you mention. How does a "people" "explicitly reject" another person? That could only happen by delegated authority, could it not? You do realize that "Peter I" explicitly said that hundreds of those who called for Jesus's death were among the first 5,000 Orthodox Christians, Acts 3-4? Kind of takes the burden off the collective and puts it on the unrepentant.
Jesus didn't hate "the Jews", he revealed wrath upon that segment of Jews that continued to reject him, most all the Sadducees and Herodians and a hefty group of Pharisees. Essenes and Zealots faded of their own, and there were smaller sects too. And it wasn't "the Jews" collectively who repurposed the temple, it was a handful of bankster Jews who had forgotten how Nehemiah kicked Geshem the Arab out of the temple. We could name the six children of Annas, all six of whom were in the high priest's office (Mrs. Caiaphas by marriage), who were intimately connected with approving merch kiosks for the few unscrupulous. The people (i.e. "the Jews") loved Jesus, shown by approbation, and would have proclaimed him Messiah-King immediately if he had permitted.
So via 70 the ethnic Jews found themselves in the two main branches, the Messianics who were one with the Christians and mostly faded ethnically among them, and the Pharisees who became Amoraim (Rabbinicals). In every century there are individual Jews who affirm and join the Messianic portion of the Jewish heritage. I really don't see how your mostly correct observations discount anything I said. Maybe you're alluding to some "Jesus wasn't Jewish" line that isn't obvious on its face, but I don't think so.
I like to be thorough. Most of my stuff I write fresh, like this, but I do point people to postings I've already made. I agreed with you except for where you said your conclusions disagree with mine. I asked what you meant and you didn't answer. Since you stepped in to "correct" my statement to another, and you decline to elaborate further, I continue to commend my respect to Belisarius and to leave it there.
It's not rocket science, dude. You said, "Jesus was jewish" without any acknowledgement in that post of how vastly different the modern people claiming that label are from 1st century Judeans. People who don't know their history are going to see that and think it means Christ is the same as Christ-deniers like Netanyahu.
There you go again conflating modern rabbinic judaism with 2nd temple religious practice. Never mind that there were five main sects then the temple was destroyed, one of which was Christianity, and that the foundational documents of rabbinic judaism were written by pharasees. Nah, keep conflating the Messiah with the people who explicitly reject Him.
I'm usually pretty good about those distinctions you mention. How does a "people" "explicitly reject" another person? That could only happen by delegated authority, could it not? You do realize that "Peter I" explicitly said that hundreds of those who called for Jesus's death were among the first 5,000 Orthodox Christians, Acts 3-4? Kind of takes the burden off the collective and puts it on the unrepentant.
Jesus didn't hate "the Jews", he revealed wrath upon that segment of Jews that continued to reject him, most all the Sadducees and Herodians and a hefty group of Pharisees. Essenes and Zealots faded of their own, and there were smaller sects too. And it wasn't "the Jews" collectively who repurposed the temple, it was a handful of bankster Jews who had forgotten how Nehemiah kicked Geshem the Arab out of the temple. We could name the six children of Annas, all six of whom were in the high priest's office (Mrs. Caiaphas by marriage), who were intimately connected with approving merch kiosks for the few unscrupulous. The people (i.e. "the Jews") loved Jesus, shown by approbation, and would have proclaimed him Messiah-King immediately if he had permitted.
So via 70 the ethnic Jews found themselves in the two main branches, the Messianics who were one with the Christians and mostly faded ethnically among them, and the Pharisees who became Amoraim (Rabbinicals). In every century there are individual Jews who affirm and join the Messianic portion of the Jewish heritage. I really don't see how your mostly correct observations discount anything I said. Maybe you're alluding to some "Jesus wasn't Jewish" line that isn't obvious on its face, but I don't think so.
And here comes the wall of sophistry. Do you keep txt files full of pre-written heathen apologetics ready on your desktop or something?
I like to be thorough. Most of my stuff I write fresh, like this, but I do point people to postings I've already made. I agreed with you except for where you said your conclusions disagree with mine. I asked what you meant and you didn't answer. Since you stepped in to "correct" my statement to another, and you decline to elaborate further, I continue to commend my respect to Belisarius and to leave it there.
It's not rocket science, dude. You said, "Jesus was jewish" without any acknowledgement in that post of how vastly different the modern people claiming that label are from 1st century Judeans. People who don't know their history are going to see that and think it means Christ is the same as Christ-deniers like Netanyahu.