"Yeah, of course, in a few senses, He was; "in others, He wasn't."A
"few"? The word implies a majority in which Jesus
wasn't Jewish.
List them.
In WHAT ways
wasn't Jesus Jewish? You made the claim and, as usual, you didn't supply any evidence supporting it.
"but to a comment down here that says that Jesus is of a certain ethnic group."Are you claiming Jesus
isn't of a certain ethnic group, specifically the
Jewish ethnic group?
If so, state which ethnic group you believe Jesus belongs to and show proof for your claim.
This a consistent problem of yours. Your implications have no support and neither do your claims.
I blame your profession. You fancy yourself a "profesor", an
educator, and perhaps you are. If so, you're a classic BAD "profesor". You are opinionated and vindictive. Students in classes taught by "profesors" like you learn only two things.
They learn how to 1.) stroke your ego and 2.) never ask any questions that contradict 1.)
They do not want you giving them a bad grade when they force you to support your stupid, asinine claims with facts because you,
profesor, do not have any to give.
If they want a good grade, all they have to do is smear their exam papers with whatever manure you spread all over the chalk-board. It does not matter if you are right or wrong. All that matters is
you are happy sitting in a pile of the same dung you presented as "education".
But this leads you, the "profesor" into a very bad habit of believing everything you say is fact BECAUSE you, "el gran profesor" said it.
This is not so. The only people you can punish for making you look stupid are your
students. The rest of the world is not frightened of your grade-book.
So you need to start showing facts for your claims. When
I say Jesus was a Jew, ethnically, I can back it up. Like so:
In Judaism,
Jewish ethnicity is matrilineal. Jesus' mother, the Blessed Mother, was a Jewess. Nothing in the patrilineage listed in Matthew or Luke contradicts that point.
Therefore, Jesus was a Jew, ethnically, according to
traditional Jewish Law.
That is irrefutable. Even under the more relaxed standards of "Reform" Judaism which allow "Jewish" ethnicity, from either parent, Jesus would still be Jewish -via Mary.
When
I say Jesus was raised as a Jew, in the Jewish faith, I can back that up as well. I
already have.
As I already showed in my last comment, as an infant, Jesus was circumcised and presented in the Temple in accordance to Jewish law. This shows Jesus was raised as a Jew. The event is memorialized as the Fourth Joyful Mystery of the Rosary.
Luke's Gospel states Jesus'
"parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover." (Luke 2: 41) So Jesus' parents were devout Jews and it stands to reason devout Jews would raise their Son accordingly.
Further, the next passage in Luke shows they did.
"And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast." (Luke 2: 42)
The remainder of the "finding of Jesus at the Temple (the Jewish Temple) describes, of course, how Jesus had already mastered Judaism so thoroughly,
"all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers."This event is the Fifth Joyful Mystery of the Rosary, which is as Catholic as it gets.
:DSo the young Jesus was
born a Jew
ethnically, from a Jewish mother. He was
raised a Jew
religiously, and was already capable of astonishing adult Jewish scholars with His understanding of Judaism at the age of
twelve.
So on every point in Jesus' life thus far, Jesus was a Jew.
He was born a Jew. He was raised a Jew, He understood the Jewish faith and could impress (astonish) the best Jewish scholars of His time with His knowledge of Judaism.
That leaves only one part of Jesus' life: his adult ministry and you're
still out of luck..
Jesus Himself contradicts you in Matthew 5:17.
"Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."The law and the prophets of course, being
Jewish law and
Jewish prophets.
In a word, you need to supply an enormous number of examples to show that only "
in a few senses, He was; "in others, He wasn't"Jesus was a Jew in more than just "a few senses" Jesus was a Jew in nearly
every sense that mattered at the time and His own words show he is the
fulfillment of Judaism.
You don't know what you're talking about,
enemacasanova.
Your understanding of your Catholic faith is as empty as your understanding of your own Latin Ameircan history.
;-)"The charge of antisemitism is pure evil especially when directed at Christians."That simply isn't true,
F M Shanky-Wanky A charge of "antisemitism" is like any other charge or accusation. It is either
true or it is
false, nothing more.
It seems you define "good" vs. "evil"
not in terms of "truth" vs. "falsehood". Rather... whether something is
embarrassing.
That's morally-bankrupt way of looking at the world. Given your background, I'm not in least bit surprised.
If a Christian today truly
is anti-Semitic and someone accuses that Chrisitan of "antisemitism", then the charge isn't "evil", it's the truth.
Now the truth of that charge might expose the
Christian to well-deserved embarrassment and contempt, but that's what the
truth does sometimes. ;-)
The truth isn't like, say,
a point of law a clever attorney can twist in his client's favor in an appeal.
;-)So, no, charge isn't "epecially" anything when it is made against a Christian. It either applies or it does not.
The same is true for
any accusation.
For example, criminal charges made against a Christian aren't "pure evil" if there is
evidence supporting those charges. That's the basis of any charge .made in law. If a man beats his wife, the bruises on her neck support the accusation of domestic violence/ spousal abuse/ etc.
The
truth is he assaulted his wife. That remains true regardless of how the law addresses the truth.
This isn't an
entirely hypothetical example, is it?
;-)"the ones of whom Jesus said they claimed to be Jews but were not, belonging to the Synagogue of Satan,"Somebody's re-wording Scripture for his own purposes and shoving his invention into Jesus' mouth.