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.
Um, the Jewish people since Judah have had the right to determine who is ethnically Jewish, just like white people who is white. The idea that some external council has sat and stripped the Jewish people rightly of their claims to being Jewish and awarded them to someone else assumes facts not in evidence. It's obvious that when we refer to something continuous we're referring to the phase of it from the local context and not some other phase and no disclaimer should be needed. If our race doesn't want to be othered, we don't get to do it to a separate race. What gives us the right to say we know, and Netanyahu doesn't, that he couldn't possibly descend from Judah or Jacob in any line, or in fact that he denies Jesus whom he speaks highly of?
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.
Um, the Jewish people since Judah have had the right to determine who is ethnically Jewish, just like white people who is white. The idea that some external council has sat and stripped the Jewish people rightly of their claims to being Jewish and awarded them to someone else assumes facts not in evidence. It's obvious that when we refer to something continuous we're referring to the phase of it from the local context and not some other phase and no disclaimer should be needed. If our race doesn't want to be othered, we don't get to do it to a separate race. What gives us the right to say we know, and Netanyahu doesn't, that he couldn't possibly descend from Judah or Jacob in any line, or in fact that he denies Jesus whom he speaks highly of?