Do Christians Worship a Jew?

Ransom said:
Nothing needs clearing up.

"And Jesse [was] the father of David the king. And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah... And Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ" (Matt. 1:6-16).

Both Luke and Matthew affirm that Jesus was a descendant of King David. He was a member of the tribe of Judah. A literal ethnic Jew.
Click to expand...
Right...after the flesh, by which we know him no longer.

It was in the Spirit that David called Him Lord.

He was made like us, in the likeness of sinful flesh, so He could make us like Him now glorified.

We do not worship a Jew, and His priesthood is not a Jewish priesthood.

This is pretty basic stuff.
 
Ekklesian said:
Right...after the flesh, by which we know him no longer.

It was in the Spirit that David called Him Lord.

He was made like us, in the likeness of sinful flesh, so He could make us like Him now glorified.

We do not worship a Jew, and His priesthood is not a Jewish priesthood.

This is pretty basic stuff.
Click to expand...
Do you worship God, or do you worship God through Jesus?
 
Ekklesian said:
Right...after the flesh, by which we know him no longer.
Click to expand...

By the same verse, we know no man after the flesh, so either Paul isn't making the point you're making, or you don't know what point you're trying to make.
 
The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. (Matthew 1:1)​

Right off the bat, Matthew's Gospel gives Jesus the epithet "Son of David"--one that is repeated another nine times throughout the book (as well as in a few parallel passages in Mark and Luke).

In Jesus's day, Judaea was ruled by Caesar, but he was a Roman conqueror. Judaea and Galilee were ruled by the Herodian tetrarchy, but they weren't Jewish--they were Idumean, and client kings of Caesar. By contrast, in Matthew, Jesus is the "King of the Jews" (Matt. 2:2) from the Judaic line of David that Scripture promises would be on the throne in perpetuity--their true king, not a pagan emperor or his puppet ruler.

Matthew's purpose for writing his Gospel is to show that Jesus is the Messiah the Jews have been waiting for. Was he regarding Jesus "after the flesh" when he called him the "Son of David" repeatedly? Were Mark and Luke? When Paul testified to the synagogue in Antioch that that David's offspring, Jesus, was Israel's Saviour, was he regarding Jesus "after the flesh"? Did he have some mistaken Dispensationalist notion of Zionism?

Obviously not.
 
See how easy it is to unthinkingly flip back and forth between the spiritual and ethnic uses of the word 'Jew?' (Zionists rely on that dynamic in their rhetoric.) What does anything you said above have to do with being Hebrew? Was Esau any less Hebrew than Jacob?

You were arguing that Jesus is still a Hebrew because His old Hebrew body was raised. You're proceeding on the notion that our ethnic identity is maintained in the Resurrection, despite the fact that we're told explicitly that flesh and blood will not inherit the Kingdom, that the body sown is not the body that shall be, but God will give it a body as He pleases. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. This corruption must put on incorruption, that in Christ there is no Hebrew or non-Hebrew, that we which are alive and remain at the time of His coming will be changed, that Christ at one time was made like us, in the likeness of sinful flesh, but when we see Him now glorified, we will be like Him, because we will see Him as He is, the Son of God, not as He was the son of Mary.

Earthly ties are dissolved.

He was buried a child of Abraham, He was raised the Son of God. If the Lord tarries, we will all die as So and So's descendants, but we will all be raised, the sons of God. Not sons of God like angels, but sons of God like Him. We will judge...that is, rule over...angels.

You've argued that the wounds in His hands and side are still visible because it was his injured body that was raised, despite of all that we've been explicitly told about the Resurrection, and of the fact that there is no mention of His stripes, or His bruises, or the marks of the thorns on His brow.

Now you are arguing that His role as Messiah is because of His lineage, when His role is because He is the Son of God Who entered through David's line. Does David call Him, son? Or does David call Him, Lord? Is He Messiah because He was born of a virgin, or is He Messiah because He is the eternal Son of God? Does Mary call Him, son? Or does Mary call Him, Lord?

These are all merely signs. Now that the thing signified has come, the signs have passed away.

This is what Paul meant when he said we do not know Christ after the flesh. And we know no one who is in Him after the flesh, because in Him we are new creatures, neither jew nor gentile. We are the offspring of God.

We do not worship a Jew. And the Hebrew thing has passed away too.
 
Ekklesian said:
Is DNA a thing in the Resurrection? Do you think your lineage here in the earth has anything to do with your identity in Heaven?

In Christ there is no jew or gentile.

No. We do not worship a Jew.
Click to expand...
Ekklesian said:
But now we know Him as the Son of God. And David is not God's father. Neither is Mary his mother.

We do not worship a Jew.
Click to expand...

But Paul told Timothy, "Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel," 2 Timothy 2:8.

It sounds like Jesus was still of the "seed of David," that is to say, He was Jewish, even after being resurrected in His glorified body. If Jesus was no longer Jewish after His resurrection, why would Paul ask Timothy to remember that Jesus was Jewish?

"For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda," Hebrews 7:14. This is stated in the context of a passage justifying the status of Jesus as being a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Why would the apostle bring up the Jewishness of Jesus to justify His being qualified to be a high priest, if Jesus was no longer Jewish?
 
illinoisguy said:
"For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda," Hebrews 7:14. This is stated in the context of a passage justifying the status of Jesus as being a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Why would the apostle bring up the Jewishness of Jesus to justify His being qualified to be a high priest, if Jesus was no longer Jewish?
Click to expand...
His ethnicity was cited to show that He could not serve as high priest as long as the OT stood, not being descended from Levi.

His qualification to the priesthood comes from the power of His endless life, His Deity, not his flesh.

And His priesthood is not a Jewish priesthood, which had a beginning and an end. His priesthood is an eternal priesthood, which has no beginning of days or end of life.

A son of David has a beginning of days, and an end of life, the Son of God does not.

Anything Jewish was only a picture of the real things.
 
Ekklesian said:
Is, or was?

Paul says 'was,' and I agree. We don't know Him after the flesh any longer. Is DNA a thing in the Resurrection? Do you think your lineage here in the earth has anything to do with your identity in Heaven?

In Christ there is no jew or gentile.

No. We do not worship a Jew.
Click to expand...
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male man and female woman, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

According to your logic after one becomes a Christian, women no longer exist. They are simply “birthing people.” Becoming a member of the body of Christ by the new birth doesn’t change reality. One can disagree with “Dispensationalism” which is nothing more than progressive revelation or the dispensing of divine truth. Adam was not given the same instructions as Moses. John the Baptist did not preach the gospel of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ because it hadn’t happened yet. The Church did not come about until after the crucifixion and resurrection and yet the Bible makes it clear that in all dispensations men and women (who still exist) are saved by faith (Romans chapter 4). The apostle Paul acknowledged that Jews still existed after the resurrection in many passages.

Galations 3:28 does not deny that God has designed racial, social, and sexual distinctions among Christians. Spiritual equality does not mean sameness.

2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

 
Last edited:
biscuit1953 said:
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male man and female woman, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

According to your logic after one becomes a Christian, women no longer exist. They are simply “birthing people.” Becoming a member of the body of Christ by the new birth doesn’t change reality. One can disagree with “Dispensationalism” which is nothing more than progressive revelation or the dispensing of divine truth. Adam was not given the same instructions as Moses. John the Baptist did not preach the gospel of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ because it hadn’t happened yet. The Church did not come about until after the crucifixion and resurrection and yet the Bible makes it clear that in all dispensations men and women (who still exist) are saved by faith (Romans chapter 4). The apostle Paul acknowledged that Jews still existed after the resurrection in many passages.

Galations 3:28 does not deny that God has designed racial, social, and sexual distinctions among Christians. Spiritual equality does not mean sameness.

2Pe 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
2Pe 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Click to expand...
Man was made male and female for the cause of marriage. Matt. 19:5

But there's no marriage in heaven, dude, Matt. 22:30, because we will be like the angels of God there.
 
Ekklesian said:
Right...after the flesh, by which we know him no longer.

It was in the Spirit that David called Him Lord.

He was made like us, in the likeness of sinful flesh, so He could make us like Him now glorified.

We do not worship a Jew, and His priesthood is not a Jewish priesthood.

This is pretty basic stuff.
Click to expand...
If it's so "basic", why did you ask the question?
 
Galatians 3:28 is about male and female, Jew and Gentile, etc. having equal standing in Christ. That's the very point of the book.

Paul is not saying that those physcal distinctions between individuals don't exist or get erased.

And Jesus did not go back in time and alter his ancestry--that is an absurdity--nor did he change his mind about the Judaism he practiced while on earth, which would be the heresy of denying his omniscience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top