Who did Jesus come for?

[Hope]

I have intentionally started this thread in ther Jewish Topic, as several here have, over the months, tried to argue that Jesus came for and to the Jews.

The question I'd like to pose is 'Why?'  What was the purpose of his coming?

Second to that would be 'what was the purpose that the Jews were chosen for in the first place?'

[floo]

I have intentionally started this thread in ther Jewish Topic, as several here have, over the months, tried to argue that Jesus came for and to the Jews.

The question I'd like to pose is 'Why?'  What was the purpose of his coming?

Second to that would be 'what was the purpose that the Jews were chosen for in the first place?'

The only reason Jesus came was because his mother and a human male had sexual intercourse, and she got pregnant.

The Jews were no more 'chosen' than any other race on earth.

[Hope]

The only reason Jesus came was because his mother and a human male had sexual intercourse, and she got pregnant.

The Jews were no more 'chosen' than any other race on earth.

So, if "the Jews were no more chosen than any other race on earth", why are the Hebrew Scriptures so full of the concept - and of stories of what God allowed to happen to the people when they failed to fulfil the concept?

[floo]

So, if "the Jews were no more chosen than any other race on earth", why are the Hebrew Scriptures so full of the concept - and of stories of what God allowed to happen to the people when they failed to fulfil the concept?

Because that was what they wanted to believe, not because it is true!

[Hope]

Because that was what they wanted to believe, not because it is true!

OK, what - in your view - was their belief?  Check that it matches what their Scriptures say before rushing into an answer.

[floo]

OK, what - in your view - was their belief?  Check that it matches what their Scriptures say before rushing into an answer.

Does it matter what they say, it is only a belief with nothing to verify it?

[Brownie]

Floo, you will have no Jewish response as there are no Jewish people here as far as I can tell.  It isn't like the Jewish Topic on the BBC where there were several lively Jewish posters who posted on a regular basis.
I really think this is a question for Christians anyway as Jewish people do not recognise Jesus as the Messiah, so don't believe he 'came' for them.

However here is a link which may be of interest as it gives several reasons:
https://carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/what-did-jesus-come-do

[floo]

Floo, you will have no Jewish response as there are no Jewish people here as far as I can tell.  It isn't like the Jewish Topic on the BBC where there were several lively Jewish posters who posted on a regular basis.
I really think this is a question for Christians anyway as Jewish people do not recognise Jesus as the Messiah, so don't believe he 'came' for them.

However here is a link which may be of interest as it gives several reasons:
https://carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/what-did-jesus-come-do

I agree the question should be aimed at Christians as most Jews are still waiting for their version of the messiah to put in an appearance.

Carm are evangelicals so they are naturally going to give the Christian response from their POV.

[Hope]

Floo, the reason that I have put this here is that authors such as Geza Vermes have been quoted on this board as suggesting that Jesus only cam to the Jews, not to anyone else.  Jewish writers have been trying to 'repatriate' Jesus for many years. Whether or not the Jews believe that Jesus was the Messiah or not, I would like people here to think about why he would have come to the Jewish people.  To say

Does it matter what they say, it is only a belief with nothing to verify it?

misses the point.  If these Jewish and other other scholars are trying to argue that he is 'the Jews'' what was his message?  After all, this is a discussion board, and it is interesting to know why people argue for this or that understanding of anything.

[trippymonkey]

Wasn't Jesus, according t'ut Bible, accosted by a Gentile & admonished her but had to concede 'defeat' when she questioned his attitude to NON-Jews?

Nick

[Hope]

Wasn't Jesus, according t'ut Bible, accosted by a Gentile & admonished her but had to concede 'defeat' when she questioned his attitude to NON-Jews?

Nick

Was he - I suspect you are referring to the Samaritan woman; read the passage again and then ask that question again if you still need to.

[Brownie]

Indeed, Jesus did not only speak to fellow-Jews (or those who were Jewish, which they prefer to be described as), which shows that his ministry was for everyone

[Hope]

Was he - I suspect you are referring to the Samaritan woman; read the passage again and then ask that question again if you still need to.

If not the Samaritan woman, would it have been the Canaanite woman - Matthew 15?  That story can either be read in the way that you interpret it, or as Jesus testing her faith. 

[Ricky Spanish]

"My general reaction to Gospel stories was one of familiarity.

Jesus meets a woman at a well and concerns about marriage emerge, just as with Abraham’s servant and Rebekah, Jacob and Rachel, Moses and Zipporah. Jesus is a good shepherd, just like David. Jesus fusses at priests, just like Amos. Jesus tells parables, just like the prophet Nathan and a number of rabbis whose stories appear in postbiblical Jewish sources. Jesus heals and raises the dead; so to Elijah and Elisha. Jesus survives when children around him are slaughtered, just like Moses. I didn’t have to read Matthew 2–7 to know that the rescued baby would take a trip to Egypt, cross water in a life-changing experience, face temptation in the wilderness, ascend a mountain, and deliver comments on the Law—the pattern was already established in Shemot, the book of Exodus.

Nor was the cross strange. The story resembled that of the deaths of the Maccabean martyrs, the mother and her seven sons, whom we recall at Hanukkah. Making the connection even closer, these Jewish martyrs also anticipated vindication and resurrection. Second Maccabees states, “The King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life because we have died for his Laws” (7:9). Written by Greek-speaking Jews, the books of the Maccabees were preserved by the church; they are found today in the collection known either as the Deuterocanonical Writings (the Catholic designation) or the Old Testament Apocrypha (the Protestant designation). Later Jewish texts would retell the stories of the Maccabees, and the synagogue would continue to celebrate the holiday of Hanukkah; both church and synagogue recognise the exemplary mother and her seven sons. The irony is we Jews celebrate the holiday of Hanukkah, but the church preserved the earliest records of the events that form the basis for the holiday.

The description of Jesus’s suffering recalled for me the accounts in the Yom Kippur martyrology of the rabbis executed in the second revolt against Rome (132–35 CE ). They also faced the power of the empire and did not falter in their faith. The death of the innocent was, moreover, part of my understanding of the Shoah, the deaths of millions of Jews at the hands of the Nazis. Jesus even complains about those who want the best seats in the synagogue (Matt. 23:6)—I have been known to do the same."

Amy-Jill Levine.

[Hope]

"My general reaction to Gospel stories was one of familiarity.  ..."

Amy-Jill Levine.

And the point you are trying to make is ..., Thrud?  Perhaps its that the expected resurrection of the Maccabean martyrs nevr came about to anyone's knowledge - they certainly aren't recorded in Jewish annals that I know of - thus making jesus' resurrection something out of that 'league'?  Remember that the Jews generally believed that if resurrection was going to happen, it would have been at the end of time.

[Ricky Spanish]

You asked for a Jewish perspective.. I gave you one!!

[Ricky Spanish]

I can give you several other Jewish perspectives if you so desire!!

[Ricky Spanish]

If you decide to read them and understand them from a Jewish perspective is totally up to you.. but remember Jesus was a 1st century Jew..  his ideology differs from yours!!

[Ricky Spanish]

To understand who "Jesus" came for, you have to first understand who the Baptist came for.. What was "John" the Jews message?

[Hope]

If you decide to read them and understand them from a Jewish perspective is totally up to you.. but remember Jesus was a 1st century Jew..  his ideology differs from yours!!

Oddly enough, Thrud, my ideology is one that stems from the teachings of a 1st Century Jew as recorded, in most part, by other 1st Century Jews.

As for your so-called Jewish perspective, it is not surprising that Levine's general reaction to Gospel stories was familiarity; Jesus taught from the perspective of Jewish thinking and practice.  The reason I asked what your point was, and also noted that there seems to be a difference between the Maccabean martyrs and Jesus is that there is no recorded resurrection story for the former, was that you had made no point in your post.  All you did was quote a Jewish author with no attempt to extrapolate anything from that.

[Hope]

To understand who "Jesus" came for, you have to first understand who the Baptist came for.

Why?  Unexplained comments like this don't actually move the conversation on.

[Bubbles]

I have intentionally started this thread in ther Jewish Topic, as several here have, over the months, tried to argue that Jesus came for and to the Jews.

The question I'd like to pose is 'Why?'  What was the purpose of his coming?

Second to that would be 'what was the purpose that the Jews were chosen for in the first place?'

I think he thought the Jews had a superior moral and ethical code to the Gentiles around them, so that's why he thought his message was to the Jews first.

Hence the Gentiles having the crumbs under the table etc.

(
Scripture:   The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs." "Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." Matthew 15:26-27
)

His teachings built on the already existing moral and ethical teachings of the Jews.

(Just like the founder of a New Christian type movement usually targets existing believers, because they are already half way there.)

He seemed to respect Gentiles and others  who had the faith in the Jewish moral and ethical code.

IMO that's what the bread signified....... A metaphor for the code. ( his teachings)

Of course some areas of Christianity have made it a bit odd and OTT.

The wine signified spirituality (taken from the idea of how it makes you feel ).
IMO the bread and wine of the last supper was to remind his followers of this.

 

[Hope]

I think he thought the Jews had a superior moral and ethical code to the Gentiles around them, so that's why he thought his message was to the Jews first.

If that's the case, why did he lambast the Jewish religious leaders so much, describing them as whitened sepulchres, etc.?  Why did he challenge so many of the Jewish ways of thinking?

His teachings built on the already existing moral and ethical teachings of the Jews.

I'd agree with that, but why start with them if he regarded some of the ethical and moral teachings of the religious leaders as so unacceptable?

He seemed to respect Gentiles and others  who had the faith in the Jewish moral and ethical code.

Not to mention the likes of the Samaritan woman who clearly didn't have that fiath in them.

IMO that's what the bread signified....... A metaphor for the code. ( his teachings)
The wine signified spirituality (taken from the idea of how it makes you feel ).
IMO the bread and wine of the last supper was to remind his followers of this.

If that's the case, why was he so specific in his description of the bread and the wine in very different terms?

Of course some areas of Christianity have made it a bit odd and OTT.

Whilst I can see where you're coming from, I'd argue that too many Christians take the Lord's Supper, and all it stands for, rather too glibly.  In its regularity, we can overlook its message all to easily.

[Bubbles]

If that's the case, why did he lambast the Jewish religious leaders so much, describing them as whitened sepulchres, etc.?  Why did he challenge so many of the Jewish ways of thinking?

Jews are not perfect either. Some of them  obviously didn't follow it in the way he thought they should.  He didn't challenge the Jewish way of thinking. This is some nonsense invented by Christians to suit themselves.  Jesus was Jewish and like many rabbis past and present had ideas based on Jewish teachings and was critical of other interpretations. Jesus taught Judaism, and like many of the teachers of the day criticised the leadership when they did things they didn't agree with.
It wasn't a criticism of Judaism, but of various leaders.

Jesus never criticised the Jewish way of thinking, that's something added by later generations of Christians as the Christian church became more gentile and anti semitic .

I'd agree with that, but why start with them if he regarded some of the ethical and moral teachings of the religious leaders as so unacceptable?

Because those leaders were open to criticism for their interpretation of the law, lots of rabbis and teachers of the time criticised them too.
Jesus wasn't criticising Judaism, he was criticising individuals at the top.

Like we criticise politicians, it doesn't mean we don't agree with democracy.

The Jews at the top, did things others didn't agree with and got criticised for it. It's a part of Judaism, they don't have a dogma. Later Christians twisted this with antisemitism and taught that
Jesus criticised Judaism,  he didn't.

He just criticised some of the leaders.

Not to mention the likes of the Samaritan woman who clearly didn't have that fiath in them.

Actually she did, she just had a different interpretation of them, which some other Jews had an issue with, Jesus obviously saw this and wasn't as severe as some of his peers

If that's the case, why was he so specific in his description of the bread and the wine in very different terms?

He wasn't. Not sure what you mean by that. Care to elaborate?

Whilst I can see where you're coming from, I'd argue that too many Christians take the Lord's Supper, and all it stands for, rather too glibly.  In its regularity, we can overlook its message all to easily.

It's message isn't the one Christians have made it out to be.

It's been twisted to fit the thoughts of the creators of Christianity who, in a large part have been hateful of Jews.

When you look at Judaism, with an open mind, you can see how Christianity has twisted it in their ( Christians) own minds, to suit their purposes.

What was a criticism of aspects of leaderships then becomes a criticism of Judaism as a whole.

Catholics criticise the behaviour or interpretation of various priests, it's not a criticism of Catholicism.

Jesus wasn't criticising Judaism, he was criticising the behaviour and interpretation of various religious leaders.

More so because Judaism doesn't have a dogma like Catholics.

Much of Christian interpretation of Judaism is wrong and warped, through years of hateful antisemitism.

Therefore how can they possibly understand Jesus, who was a Jew?

If Jesus was God, and he was so critical of the Jews, why not take a shortcut and go straight to the Gentiles? He could have chosen someone else.

I suspect Jesus actually thought Judaism held some ultimate truth, goodness only knows what he would have thought about the various groups of Christians and others who have built up all sorts of theories in his name.

Christians in the past have been so fearful of other Christians looking at Judaism with an open mind, that they persecuted them and they were known as judacisers.

That's because, if you look at Judaism with an open mind, Christianity starts to look ridiculous.

Not that I believe every man has to be circumcised to follow Jesus teachings.

I think whoever that person was in the NT, he valued kindness over ritual. ( which is also in Judaism in places, like breaking the sabbath to save a life).

It's just the lengths some Christians have gone to to deny anything Judaism 

Basically the " evil grasping Jew" is a Christian invention 

No wonder some Christians don't understand why Jesus "chose" to come via the Jews.

That's because their dogma has twisted so much it no longer makes sense.

[Hope]

It wasn't a criticism of Judaism, but of various leaders.

Could there be a lesson here?  Rather than lambasting a religion because of what some of its leaders (and therefore some of its adherents) teach or do - something very common on this board - one looks at the source teachings?

Jesus never criticised the Jewish way of thinking, that's something added by later generations of Christians as the Christian church became more gentile and anti semantic.

I'm not sure that I'd call the likes of Peter, Paul and Matthew 'later generations', Rose.  Nor were that being anti-semitic in what they said.  I'd agree, however, that the church did become more anti-semitic in later centuries - and not necessarily because of its becoming more and more 'gentile' as you put it.

Because those leaders were open to criticism for their interpretation of the law, lots of rabbis and teachers of the time criticised them too.

'Lots'?  Yes, there was Hillel, but how many others?  Remember that Jesus not only criticised the leaders, he also dramatically re-orientated several core understandings - such as those on adultery, murder, centuries-old thinking about the Sabbath, attitudes to the Gentiles and the Jewish responsibility for witnessing to them, etc.  This was no mere criticism; it was a major realignment to ideas and purposes that are there in the earlier Old Testament writings if one looks for them.  They aren't all that hidden either.

Actually she did, she just had a different interpretation of them, which some other Jews had an issue with, Jesus obviously saw this and wasn't as severe as some of his peers

The problem with this analysis is that history suggests that Samaritans separated from Judaism, not the other way round; so to say that 'other Jews had an issue with' would be incorrect.  As for Jesus, he was , in his own way, pretty severe.

He wasn't. Not sure what you mean by that. Care to elaborate?

Look at the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper.  He makes the linkage very clear.  Have to be off to work soon so don't have time for an 'in-depth' at this point.

It's message isn't the one Christians have made it out to be.

It's been twisted to fit the thoughts of the creators of Christianity who, in a large part have been hateful of Jews.

As you've previously pointed out, the creators of Christianity were Jews, so are you suggesting that they hated themselves?  Are you suggesting that this group of Jews hated their own race and religion so much that they they used that same faith as the basis of their new understanding?  I think that you are creating ideas which don't fit the reality of either Judaism or Christianity.  Sorry not to have time to deal with the rest of your post.