Something to rattle our brains.

Yes, Jesus was nominally Jewish, but he was a rather unorthodox Jew: his spiritual movement was all-inclusive.

So why aren't we an all-inclusive, spiritual movement?

I would not say Jesus was nominally Jewish. I would say that is a christianization that has happend over time to Jesus.

If we look at Christian Scriptures, the Newer Testament, we see a Jewish Jesus. A Jewish Jesus who is more, to me,  than nominally Jewish.  Jesus studied Torah from childhood. Jesus taught that Torah laws should be preserved. Jesus taught Torah. Jesus simply did not see the law as at odds with grace. If you look at Matthew 23:23 some will see scribe and Pharisee and see Jesus set apart. I do not see such as based on their religion. I see that Jesus is saying they neglect the heavy stuff of the faith and of the law (chesed-kindness, justice, mercy, wisdom, understanding...) to worry about tithing spices.

I, personally,  do not see Jesus breaking Sabbath to abolish it. I read Matthew 12 that Jesus upheld Torah, that even David ate... that hunger and compassion trump rules, not because of anything but "because Torah says so" or "because it is what God intended" or "God understands". After all, it was ok with David.  The same with Mark 3, Luke 13 &14... I see Jesus saying that it is not breaking Sabbath to do good. That Sabbath is to be kept holy and turn attention to God and healing, feeding, being compassionate IS holy and IS focused on God.

I see Jesus keeping the festivals and more. He went to temple and upheld the sanctity of temple. In Luke 5, it is recorded that he sent the leper to the priests. He knew there would be an inspection and then a sacrifice. Matthew 5 is full of stuff about sacrifices and not abolishing them, but them being meaningful to God.

I see a ministry by Jews aimed at Jews. For me, it is after Jesus' execution that it changed.

It was an offence that Isreal was occupied by Rome.

Jesus tried to explain to the reliigious right why they were occupied, & they didn't like much of what He had to say.

This made Him political in a world of politics, where as He came as a representation of perfect Nobility, & Divinity, in a world unlike we knew, at that time.

God's message to mankind was alway an inclusive one, we ended up taking law into consideration with this standard, & it divided mankind.

If the law can be twisted, & corrupted by man, what good is it?

Jesus came to shine a light on the letter of the law to expose it's flaws, but the religious right would have non of that, for it was a threat to their power & authority they had, under a tyranny of an Empire of infidels, in their midst.

Pride once again prevails over the religious right.

& that is something that is still evident today.

Bolt

The book How Jesus Became Christian, written by Barrie Wilson, presents an excellent analysis of the history and issues related to this question.

thanks, stevie, for saying it all so well.  I agree completely.

As to the question, "why was Jesus born Jewish?" -- it seems like a weird question.  It's like asking why was Muhammad born an Arab?  Why was I born Canadian?  It is what it is -- God is at work in the world, in different countries and in different cultures and communities, calling people into relationship, working for transformation and justice. 

Jesus was called to minister first to his own community, and then his understanding (and/or our understanding, it really doesn' t matter to me) of his calling is that it expanded to draw those outside of the Jewish covenant into relationship with God.  As followers of Jesus continued his ministry to outsiders, they came to understand that folks didn't need to convert to Judaism to have this relationship with God.  This was not to undermine Judaism, but to open up another way for those outside of the Jewish family.

I am not threatened, but in awe, of how God keeps reaching beyond our artificial borders to seek relationship with us.  Thank God for Moses, for Jesus, for Mohammad, for every prophet and portal that enables one more child of God to enter into the light of God's love.

shalom

Yeah, Christ was never meant to undermine the law, but to reveal the purpose of the law, & take into account personal revelation, through realationship, as opposed to religious oppression.

Bolt

 I think we are not Jewish because of the ministry of Paul.  Paul's religion is primarily about the dying/rising Christ, not Jesus' own teachings, as has been well documented by the book already mentioned by Barrie Wilson.  

Jesus' followers, those who knew him before he died, continued to carry on His Jewish traditions.

Exactly oui!  When James, the brother of Jesus was running the new "Christian" church out of the Temple in Jerusalem you had to become Jewish before you could become Christian.

My question is quite naieve I guess. Why wouldn't Jesus have worked throught the Jewish faith and changed that to bring about God's kingdom?

I have to disagree.

Did Jesus himself actually expand Judaism to outsiders, or throw away Torah?

As previously noted, Paul and his followers, not Jesus, brought about the dismissal of conversion to Judaism.

I can't agree with this either. I think Paul's movement greatly undermined Judaism, over time by not insisting on following Torah, and the Jewish people have suffered at the hands of "christians" ever since.

Barrie Wilson's book details the surprising differences recorded in the NT, between what Jesus taught and what Paul taught.  He feels they are 2 entirely different religions.

Hi crazyheart!

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Why wouldn't Jesus have worked throught the Jewish faith and changed that to bring about God's kingdom?""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

What was it Jesus said? - something like "only God knows the hour."   Who knows?  I've read where some folks claim that It was Jesus' purpose to bring Light to the planet during a very dark period.  Could it be as simple as that?

A lot of folks are looking to 2012 with anticipation of a major change in consciousness.  Fingers crossed!

I don't think that Jesus was interested in changing his religion.  Secondly, he died very young. The Buddha lived to be 80 years old, he travelled and taught for decades.  Jesus never had that chance.

In his paper, "What's a Messiah to Do?"  Barrie Wilson writes:

"Model #3: The Human Eschatological Catalyst

The Messiah is a Davidic king who assists God in bringing about world transformation in eschatological times.

Specifically this individual must

* be the Davidic king of an independent Jewish state, having eliminated foreign domination judge humanity, rewarding the righteous and eliminating the unrighteous

* help usher in an era of universal peace reflecting the universal rule of God

* During this time exiles will return from the Diaspora and the righteous dead will be restored to life.

At the time of Jesus, Model #3 predominated. The messiah would be a human political leader who would emerge at the time of God’s transforming the world. The world after the appearance of the messiah will differ vastly from the world before. It was

not part of the expectation that the messiah would be an incarnate deity who has a special birth and exceptional death. The focus is not on who the messiah is but on what the messiah must do."

The jewish community saw Christ as Messiah without reservations, they probably wouldn't have accepted a samarian or anyone from an outside culture.

The jewish religious right, were the ones that were not convinced.

When Jesus was led through Jerusalem he was praised as Messiah, Emmanuel.

Bolt

I think that was what Jesus intended. He, like all of us, lost control of the situation on his death.

He was one prophet of many.  As his message was primarily about the Kingdom of God, I think  - given more time - the inclusive nature that that phrase denotes would have been all the focus. In that sense, the title isn't important.

Hi boltupright!

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""When Jesus was led through Jerusalem he was praised as Messiah, Emmanuel.""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Whether that happened or not I cannot say but there is tons of archeological evidence as to the conditions the Jews lived under during Roman occupation.  There were tens of thousands of Jews crucified during the Roman occupation for starters.  Exorbitant taxes - sigh - I could go on and on.  These people were desperate for a messiah.  Hope springs eternal?

& they got One.

Bolt

As usual stevie gives a nice overview - to add - Jesus was a Jew and died  a jew.  In those times there was a lot of seeking go on - gentiles joining the judaism of the time which had been reformed by the Pharisees.  He attracked some outside and the early church even more.  There was also the break within Judaism and the christians were thrown out.  This lead to some changes that made it easier for gentiles to join.  There were also many groups, like funeral groups, that gentiles had formed and Paul used to connect with them.  Paul noticed the christians were doing better than rabbis like himself at gathering gentiles, so changed his position on some of the rites.  In one sense it was the fall of Jerusalem and the decision of the priestly caste that meant christians went off on their own and the gospels reflect the gentile church not the jewish christian church - but you do get hints in Matthew.

From a process theology view it is a question of incarnation - the lure of God is found in the experience with Jesus and there were systems in place to carry the energing church- in one sense it is a sociological outcome - using forms in place as places to gather.  As well the early church cared for the outcast and offered a new 'family'.

I think Paul takes a real bad rap from some people. People use the Bible, and even that selectively, as the only account of the first century. Wasn't it Peter when Cornelius was saved? Isn't the book, Acts/Acts of the Apostles, usually attributed to Luke?

Let me say, I do not like importing from word, but it is something I can kinda do---unlike quoting....

Wow, you shure know your jewish history, & the different sects of Judaism.

It's quite interesting how divided the early sects of religious thought & expression in Judaism, & how it eventually branched out into the early Christian church.

Bolt

I would highly recommend an Ontario UCC sponsored event coming up in Orillia at St. Paul's United Church, 62 Peter St. N.  on  Friday March 26-Sunday March 28, 2010 where you can hear Amy Jill Levine speak on a Jewish Jesus. It is one of the reasons I adore the UCC.

Can't make it? Orillia too far away? Get her book The Misunderstood Jew.

Who is Dr. Levine? A Jew who teaches New Testament in a Protestant divinity school. No joke. She is a New Testament scholar and the E. Rhodes and Leona B. Carpenter professor of New Testament Studies at Vanderbilt University Divinity School in Nashville, Tenn.

Thanks Stevie...and in answer to all of your "did we know" queries...no, I didn't know any of them

Sounds like a great place to find such information.

Thanks for the heads up, but the book will have to do, I'll see about this as this is something I find of interest.

Bolt

Nothing to add to this except to second that I don't think Jesus himself intended to create a religion *outside* of Judaism; whether we blame or give credit (depending on your point of view) to Paul and/or the other Gospel writers for this, or it is just something that has evolved over time, I don't think the religion we practice as Christianity today is what Jesus envisioned when he began his ministry. Where I differ, though, and this isn't just a 'parrot' post of something everyone's already sort of agreed on, is I don't see why this is necessarily a bad or a good thing - I absolutely believe Paul contributed to the spreading of Christian belief outside of the Jewish circle; however, I don't necessarily believe that that is a bad thing. If there is a powerful and important message (whether the more fundamentalist view of salvation, or the more humanistic view of social justice, the least coming first, the POLITICAL message involved in occupied Israel) to be gotten out, I don't necessarily think 'expanding the base' is such a bad deal. Where we have erred, is in the mistreatment of that base; in order to appeal to wider masses, unfortunately historically the group from whence this all came has been maligned and demonized.

Dr. Levine preached at our church last year. She sure knew her stuff.

We're now getting more speakers here in Oz - I hope they're coming for more reasons than escaping the cold weather!

I would be very interested in hearing Barrie Wilson and Dr. Levine discuss this matter. Both seem to have researched the subject thoroughly and have come up with divergent theories.

Motherofive

The net is chock full of Amy Levine. Perhaps you can find something of interest in this link or  in the videos.  My opinion?  The lady is smashing, simply smashing, extraordinary. She serves up meat and potatoes, lots for us to think about!  I know I get carried away and overwhelm people with my findings  .....too much too soon, but I do recommend that everyone who has a few minutes to spare check her out. I read some of Barrie Wilson's  writings before but maybe I'll dig him up tomorrow!   I didn't take time to watch the videos I've posted. I read all of the first long article, the musings about the book and of course it is the opinions of the blogger.

Reassessing Jewish Christian Relations - Amy Levine video

 

 

http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=5577

 

 

Teaching the kingdom - Amy Levine podcast

 

 

http://philwilson.podomatic.com/entry/2006-06-08T08_37_14-07_00

 

 

Innoculating against hate - 7 min. video - Amy Levine

 

 

 

 

Caren Goldman talks with Amy Levine

 

 

http://www.explorefaith.org/resources/books/author_interviews/an_interview_with_amy-jill_levine.php

 

 

The Great Lecture Library - Amy Levine

 

 

http://www.thegreatlecturelibrary.com/index.php?select=speaker&data=197

 

 

the story of Jesus is the Christianising of Judaism. That means evolution from Judaism into eccumenism, ceasing the isolating exlusivity which marks so many cult religions. 

Of course, many people who practice Judaism exclisively find the term " transcend" or "evolve" to be arrogant and for sure lots of xians are  but arrogance seems to follow exclusionism - so it is often the most exclusivist of any group which resents the exclusivism of others.  As far as the UC is concerned we struggle to remain eccumenist as a principal lived and taught by Jesus. 

I generally try to ignore Paulinism.  I understand its importance to eccumenism but because he feels he has to transform himself in every way to what he believes is xian, the story fails to encompas the larger picture that formed Jesus.  For some reason we can have Paul but not Thomas, etc.  This would not really be the meaning of Christ's philosophy of listening and hearing.

Messiainic Jews are self-professed Jews who recognize Christ, but observe Jewish rites and customs.

As Stevie outlines let us stop beating up on Paul.   There is such a rich history of the intertestment times and the early church and judaism and the many different trajectories - in one sense what happens is the early church fathers give some wheels for the church to continue - another good book is Butler Bass a People's history of christianity.

Our tradition is multifacet and evolving. The theological turn is whether there is a core or substance unchanging, which is the philosophical foundation of beating up of Paul or seeing only one trajectory.  If one begins with becoming then this evolution is natural and is always reflective of shifting time and space.

In the later philosophical foundation it changes the question - from why was Jesus born in Judaism to of course since Judaism was an everchanging religion.  Further the lure of God is always contextual and historical and Jesus andPaul and the rest were natural outcomes of the times and the impact of Judaism.

The only question is why are we not Jews- and I don't mean that in the Jews for Jesus sense by why the split and Stevie gives us some of the historical changes that made a new trajectory called Christianity.

This latter point has always made me a theist who happens historically to be in the Christian trajectory.

I would very much like to attend this event and learn. 
Does it cost anything???
What time does it start??
I assume I would be welcome???
Thank you StevieG for telling us about this.
And  thank you to the rest of you .... I really appreciate reading your discussions.
Rita

Christianity emerged from Judaism similar to the way Buddhism emerged from Hinduism. Although Buddhism is now on its own trajectory, many Hindus profess to be Buddhists as well, and vice versa.

In Japan, where the indigenous religion of Shintoism predominates, but the upper class became Budhhist, many people profess to be Buddhists as well as Shintoists, and some profess to be Taoists as well. It is similar elsewhere in Asia. Far Eastern religions are more inclusive and tolerant of each other than Western or Mid-Eastern religions.

If someone wants to be both Christian and Jewish, I think they could, and should.

bumping ......

The event information is posted online at

http://www.vicu.utoronto.ca/emmanuel/coned/Amy-Jill_Levine_Event.htm

Cost breakdown and registration info is at

http://www.vicu.utoronto.ca/Assets/Emmanuel/Con+Ed/Registration+Package.pdf

This is also a United in Learning Event.  That means that those who come as a group and plan to meet to continue learning following the event may be eligible for a bursary.  The details of which and an application is available at

http://www.united-in-learning.com/index.php?option=com_attend_events&Itemid=102&task=view&id=21

bumping again...I recommended this thread so I hope it doesn't slip away too fast

I also do not want this buried too quickly amongst all our banter. I hope some will see this opportunity that had not been aware of it. I am actually IN the same presbytery as this Orillia church, Muskoka Presbytery, and only found out due to checking a website about courses in Toronto. We do not get info out very well at times.

As I glanced at a timeline the other day I realized how stuff blends to the point it seems like it all happened at once or that we forget some events to make others more prominant in our memory. In all honesty, is hard reading the books out of chronological order, at least for me. 

I learned much about the history of the interstestamental period. It was the rabbinical history forming, so it was deemed important.

StevieG

Great stuff although I haven't half finished  reading /listening to  what I found on the net about Amy Levine's opinions and books. I'll pick up the book sometime.

Have you ever heard the saying "If you ever intend to break a law, you must first know exactly why it is in place"?

Perhaps this could be juxtaposed with Jesus.

As-salaamu alaikum

-Omni

The fascinating thing about the movement around John the Baptist and Jesus was that these people, although most of them Jewish, were baptised into something other than Judaism. 

Jesus, appearantly a learned Jew already at age 12, was baptised as an adult by John the Baptist. Not into Judaism, and not into Christianity; people of various faiths were baptised into something that is not clearly defined. And their faith—or lack thereof—prior to baptism didn't matter.

So what were they baptised into?

The kingdom?

I would say yes. The kingdom of heaven, kingdom of God or kingdom within, and enacting the kingdom, appears to have been Jesus' foremost message. I think the baptism was an initiation into the kingdom.

And what might the kingdom have been?

I think it was an experience of at-one-ment, of unity and unitive love. Jesus, as the charismatic leader of the movement, inspired and mesmerized his followers into experiencing the kingdom. And the baptism was the initiation rite into the kingdom.

Seek ye first the kingdom. 

Arminius: your quote:

The fascinating thing about the movement around John the Baptist and Jesus was that these people, although most of them Jewish, were baptised into something other than Judaism. 

Quote:

Although Christian Baptism may perhaps be regarded as having originated with John The Baptist, baptism by immersion in water ("baptize," whether in its original Hebrew or Greek forms, literally means to immerse in water) did not originate with Christians, or with John the Baptist. Jews practiced baptism as a traditional act of purification and initiation long before the coming of the Messiah. As a Jew (a Levite actually, John was the son of a Levite priest, Zechariah i.e. Luke 1:5, and John's mother Elizabeth, also a Levite, was a relative of Mary), the man who came to be known as John the Baptist would have been well familiar with the practice before he was sent, by some unidentified individual (John 1:33), who also may have been the one who baptized John himself (there is no Biblical record of John's own baptism) to baptize, proclaiming "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matthew 3:2 RSV).

( I think the basic idea around it was the Jewish ritual bath called the mikvah. It was practiced  especially before Yom Kippur or the day of atonement.  It didn't have to do with getting one's body clean. The body had to be perfectly clean before entering the mikvah. It had to do with the soul, the spirit ,or the idea of a new birth among other things.)

The Origin of Baptism

The ancient Levite priests (see Levites) were commanded to perform a symbolic cleansing in water (as described below, it wasn't simply taking a bath) before, and while, performing their priestly duties:

"But thus shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young bull for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. He shall put on the holy Linen coat, and shall have the linen breeches on his body, be girded with the linen girdle, and wear the linen turban; these are the holy garments. He shall bathe his body in water, and then put them on ... Then Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting, and shall put off the linen garments which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there; and he shall bathe his body in water in a holy place, and put on his garments, and come forth, and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people, and make atonement for himself and for the people." (Leviticus 16:3-4,23-24 RSV)

In the Mishnah, following on from a discussion about Yom Kippur, immersion in a Mikveh is compared by Rabbi Akiva with the relationship between G-d and Israel. Akiva refers to the description in the Book of Jeremiah of G-d as the Mikveh of Israel, and argues that just as a mikveh purifies the contaminated, so does the holy one, blessed is he, purify Israel.^[

Hi stardust, thanks for the info.

You are a wealth of information, as usual.

I believe it a disservice to say people were not who or what they said they were or that they weren't because it does not fit our idea of something or that something evolved later.

It is like saying that Sicilians are not Sicilians because prehistorically Siciliy was attached to the mainland or that Itlaians should be deemed Austrian, Spanish, French... depending on who occupied them...

John and Jesus were Jews. John baptised in accordance with Jewish law about initiation and purification and moving water (mikvah is living or moving water). One needs look no further than Naaman the Syrian and Elisha to hear about cleansing in the Jordan.

Hi Stevie:

I don't disagree with what you say, and I appreciate your knowledge and wisdom.

I'm not making any absolute statements and I have no absolute beliefs. I just throw out possibilties to stimulate discussion. Midrash, eh?

Yes, sir. I get that about you.

There are others though who have already concreted those ideas in and so I chip a bit so the Light can shine through. =)

Wow this is an incredible topic. Should we be more Jewish and less Christian?? I think in all cases, Jesus challenged us to think more about why we believed and not what we believed. He never challenged the Torah only the interpretation of the book.

When Jesus “worked” on the Sabbath he was not challenging the principal, he was no more working than a priest would be doing God’s work. I think that it was important for him to make a point.

When he was asked about which commandment he thought was the most important he gave an answer that summed up all of them as if to say that no one was more important than the other.

I think that Jesus loved his Jewish faith so much that it made him angry when people “owned” his belief and put their own spin on it. He was pushed over the edge when he thought that his father’s church was being overrun with hypocrisy, wealth and power. That is why he was so upset with the money changers in the temple. He was not that angry with the Roman with their idles in and around the temple, he was angry with his people.

Matthew and Jesus’ family were from very powerful and influential Jewish family lines and I don’t think for a second that they would consider themselves less than 100% Jewish. I think that historically Jesus and his followers were well aware of the prophecies of the coming of the messiah and there were a lot of Jews that consider themselves to be following the torah. To them it was the other non believers that had split off from them.

I think we can point fingers at Paul’s ministry but I think we have to look at all of the other authors of the New Testament too. Remember that the Jews and Christians were cast out of the holy land and living together in small communities must of made it easy to create a rift in them getting along. The new Christians would have been treated as outcasts from their Jewish neighbours and persecuted for their beliefs.

Don’t get me wrong, I think that Paul’s Ministry was an important step to Christianity because it helped to spread the word and became what it is today. However I do think we should sit back and think on this dilemma some more and make sure that we are indeed going in the proper direction.

It is funny how much we try to separate ourselves from the Jewish people. We changes the Sabbath from sundown Friday –sundown Saturday to Sunday and we stopped celebrating all of their old testament traditions. Constantine even moved Christmas to conflict with Hanukkah, in-between the winter solstice and the end of the calendar year so that it didn’t conflict with the Easter and Passover celebrations.

I think that we should think more about the message of Jesus and start to look at our own Christian faith as well as some of the other religions and find out all of the good things that they all have in common.

Sorry to write a book..

Hi AOTS:

As Stevie and Pan pointed out in previous posts, we can't blame it all on Paul. The de-judaification of early Christianity probably was a process in which many others were involved, and was, perhaps, necessary to make this new religion palatable to a Roman audience.

My granddaughter just wrote an interesting paper in which she says that Paul tailored his letters to the audience he spoke to. She said that he particularly tried to appeal to the Stoics, who were quite numerous among the educated Romans of his day, and sympathetic to Christianity, and that he himself may have been a Stoic before his conversion experience which, as many people say, was the seminal event for the emergence of Christianity as a distinct religion.

I find it a really interesting topic.

The more I read the more I want to learn of the historical Jesus and the birth of Christianity. I find the more I learn the stronger my faith becomes. I guess in a sort of Gnostic way. Know all.

I t is also interesting how similar Jesus teachings were with the teachings of Buddha. Someone told me that many similarities in Jesus’ quotes were direct translations of Buddha. A religion that would have been known to the people at that time. Both Jesus and Buddha advocated radical alterations in the common religious practices of the day.

I am not sure if this kind of talk makes me a good Christen though.