Who is Jesus Christ to you?

I wouldn't call Christianity a Jewish sect, despite Christianity's desperate attempts to presume the connection. Christianity is a radical departure from just about everything Jewish.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

If one asked would Jesus have ever said he was anything but a Jew?

---

I'm thinking he would have said something like "I am the son of my father" and then would have strolled away feeling very mysterious.He almost certainly would have been Jewish by descent, at least through Mary, and that would have made him officially Jewish by Jewish law. But it doesn't really follow that the religion he founded automatically, therefore, is a Jewish sect. A sect, by pretty common definition, is a branch group seperated from related groups and/or a larger umbrella group, by relatively minor doctrinal differences. Christianity tends to call its sects 'denominations' -- Methodist vs. Lutheran, or Catholic vs. Protestant. Jesus, or at least the authors of the NT, quite enthusiastically gutted Judaism-- all the while calling it 'fulfilling prophecy' of course. As I see it, there is a point at which one can no longer consider a sect to be a branch of its parent religion or a branch of the native religion of its founder.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

It may well do, but I dont understand a word of it!

---

LOL.... welcome to Brad.Believe it or not, if you swim through the jargon and wierd syntax -- gives me a headache but sometimes I try anyway-- Brad can come up with some interesting points.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I would, but haven't you already bailed on a topic or two where you were trying to provide that evidence? I believe I even started a topic based on your list of fulfilled prophecies.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Thanks...... just making sure you don't forget. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

My point was that the ancient Jews did NOT trace descent through the mother (but I could be wrong).

---

You are wrong, kinda. Whether one is born a Jew or not depends upon whether the mother is a Jew. So 'Jew-ness' is passed along the female line. Everything else is figured along male lines-- property, ancestry, etc...------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

What is your evidence for such a matrilineal tradition before Ezra?

---

Well, this discussion got kicking back in post # 62, which was a reply to my post #33 and which concerns Jesus, who lived some 450 years after Ezra. I don't really need to go further back for my statement to stand.At any rate, Lev. 24:10 hints at matrilineal descent by refering to the son of an egyptian man and an Isrealite woman as being among the community of Israel-- ie. Jewish.The Talmud derives the practice from Deut. 7:4, for what that is worth. It could be a justification for the practice or it could be a reflection of older tradition.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Your response dealt with the traditions of "ancient Jews".

---

Bloody hell!My comment was about Jesus. The response was that this was not correct-- the ancient Jews did not trace descent through the mother. See for yourself...

quote:

---

John: He almost certainly would have been Jewish by descent, at least through Mary, and that would have made him officially Jewish by Jewish law.

​

Actually, this is not correct.

​

Ancient Jews did not trace descent thrugh the mother - this is a modern idea - the human egg was only discovered in the 19th century.

---

This exchange sets the timeline. Your conception of what is and isn't 'ancient' is irrelevant.

quote:

---

So, what is your evidence for matrilinear descent?

---

Did you miss that we are talking about circa 1 AD, plus or minus? See, the funny thing is that we both agree that the tradition of matrilineal descent was in effect at the time of Christ.

quote:

---

Derives or justifies?

---

Read carefully.

quote:

---

I noticed that you chose not to address either of my references

---

Yes, the ones that place the origin of the tradition of matrilineal descent well before the time of Christ-- which, may I remind you, is the time in question. See above. In other words, I didn't comment on your references because I have no reason to comment. Nothing I have said is contradicted by said references.

quote:

---

relying instead on hints and 2nd century CE apologetics.

---

Relying? No, just pointing them out. What I am relying on is that matrilineal descent was practiced by the Jews around the time of Christ. Do you have an objection to that?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 07-05-2003]

We have now. Of course!!! The passage very much implies matrilocality, at least, and that puts a bias toward the mother's lineage. Why didn't you think of that?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com