>read pic related
>haha another funny 4chan schizo... but wait...
>look into the relevant passage in the gospel of matthew
>he really does say that
>no way...
>read pauline epistles
>he mentiones jesus's teachings like twice in his entire bibliography
>when he talks about jesus' brother, he's almost embarassed to have met him, like they disagreed on most points
>this can't be
>entire letter written by said brother of jesus that calls out paul on his bullshit out there

what the fuck, is this actually true? Can someone into biblical scholarship weigh in on this? Was Jesus really telling people to follow jewish law?

>>24584306 (OP)
Basically. Paul invented Christianity as a revenge LARP against both Rome and the pharisees for killing his fren, ironically against the teachings of Jesus.

>>24584306 (OP)
The Pauline letters don't dispute the law of Moses they just clarify theology. But yes you should follow the Commandments. The only real difference is that now there's a path to forgiveness

>>24584407
>The Pauline letters don't dispute the law of Moses they just clarify theology.
wrong, paul thinks that non-jews who convert to christianity don't have to follow jewish laws, that's what he means when he says "works of the law don't bring salvation"

>>24584306 (OP)
>Religions are... le fake?
No shit, sherlock

>>24584496
they would hang you for saying this in most countries

>>24584306 (OP)
Did Jesus Christ or St. Paul say the following?
>And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

>>24584525
Jesus iirc

>>24584306 (OP)
So original Christianity is just an even more degraded form of Judaism

>>24584532
What gave it away? The fact it’s centered around a dead rabbi?

>>24584525
>(Thus he declared all foods clean.)
he was actually talking about washing your hands before eating THOUGH, why did you feel the need to lie here?
who said the following, jesus or paul:
>‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter,[a] not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks[b] one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

>>24584511
Only in brown countries

>>24584545
Jesus wasn't a rabbi. Rabbinic Judaism didn't exist until about a generation or so after Christ's death.

>>24584553
they would kill you by firing squad in russia, life imprisonment and then shanked by an inmate (no consequences) if you get a good lawyer
try again

>>24584556
>>24584545
rabbi means tacher
when people approach jesus in the bible, they adress him as "teacher" or "oh great teacher", like the rich man that gets told to sell his posessions

the position of rabbi as we know it today was only formalised later, but in the same way a protestant with or without a decent education can just declare himself a pastor without an authority giving him an okay like in the catholic church, so did jesus and john the baptist declared themselves rabbis

>>24584545
The interpretation of Jesus as a universal salvific figure who pulls the rug out from under Mosaic law obviously marks a sharp break from anything prior

>>24584568
People did that outside of Judaism too. So every spiritual person who ever called themselves, or was called teacher by others in a spiritual context, is a rabbi?

>>24584575
no retard, but every jew that calls themselves a "teacher" while preaching an interpretation of scripture, who's entire life seemingly revolves around their ministry, is indeed a rabbi.
the only reason the bible doesn't literally say "rabbi" here is because the gospels were written in greek

>>24584568
>the position of rabbi as we know it today was only formalised later
>jesus and john the baptist declared themselves rabbis
Your own fanfic doesn’t even make sense. Please stop talking about my religion and history to me catholic retard rabbis existed thousands of years before jesus and he was a rabbi

>>24584583
You’re completely wrong and no jew says that. Love to see goys make up things to be angry about in other religions that have nothing to do with them. Fuck off, you’re the ones obsessed with our dead rabbi.

>>24584583
No, that's not true. The pharisees didn't call themselves rabbis, and Jesus broke primarily from them. So no, unfortunately, what you're saying is wrong.

>>24584594
this isn't contradictory to what i said though

Paul never said that you don't have to do anything & that you just need to believe in Jesus to be saved. What he actually said is that gentiles didn't need to convert to Judaism first in order to become Christians. That you don't have to get circumcised and stop eating pork.
The people who thought he said that were these renaissance retards like Luther who didn't have the context or the intelligence to be able to tell that Paul was criticizing the Judaizers.

>>24584599
>You’re completely wrong and no jew says that.
pic related
>>24584605
>and Jesus broke primarily from them
jesus didn't "break" from the pharisees, he was never one of them to begin with, he was a follower of john the baptist and hijacked his movement.
if a protestant goes around preaching and calls himself "priest", will you go and say hurr durr actually he didnt go to seminary?

>>24584611
It is doe but you need to know history to know that though but you dont because if you did you wouldn’t make that mistake or however the pope commands or something

>>24584556
His followers literally call him "rabbi" in the Bible, nigger.

>>24584614
>Paul never said that you don't have to do anything & that you just need to believe in Jesus to be saved.
then why does the Epistle of James specifically call out paul for saying exactly that?

>>24584619
how are those things contradictory?
it's also accurate to call early christian leaders "priests" even though formalising what that meant only came later

>>24584614
Paul was critiquing the Jewish aristocracy, but it is funny how it all played out. Jesus was doing the same thing, but Jesus was a Jew. So when Jesus did it, he was criticizing his own people, and censuring them to be less bigoted toward gentiles, and to recognize that this type of attitude didn't align with the will of G-d. That pride over their adherence was itself a sin, and blocked the spread of G-ds will on Earth.
Paul was a Roman, and a murderer, who heard Christ's words as "all you've done is forgiven, Paulie," then fell in gay tutor love with him, then when he was killed by Roman's and Jews, Paul turned Christianity into a smug and thinly veiled resentment cult, declaring war on pagans and Jews for killing his friend Jesus who told him the Truth, which is that he was great.
It's an interesting era. Jesus is the only person at the time acting in good faith.

>>24584599
Jews hate their history and base every decision around hiding from their own past. So if none of them talk about it, it's definitely true.

You know who does conflate words from other languages and turns them into personifications or individuals based on their own ignorance? Christians. That's how the general Jewish word for adversary became the name of the guy who rules over the lake of fire. So that's interesting that you're so autistically assmad/confused about the word for teacher having a... history. Showing... change, over time.
Maybe act a little less like a Christcuck for me, "Shlomo," and I'll believe a fuckin word you say

>>24584618
>if a protestant goes around preaching and calls himself "priest", will you go and say hurr durr actually he didnt go to seminary?
Yes
When I said "break from," I'd meant that Christ's teachings were just Judaism, with some points where he broke. This is a large part of why the pharisees hated him, they saw him as a heretic.
Rabbinic Judaism, where the Jewish equivalent of community leaders and priests became officially recognized as Rabbis, a title in their religion, emerged about a generation after Christ's death. 40 years or so.

>>24584635
oh so you're telling me that "the position of rabbi as we know it today was only formalised later, but in the same way a protestant with or without a decent education can just declare himself a pastor without an authority giving him an okay like in the catholic church, so did jesus and john the baptist declared themselves rabbis"?
glad you agree with me then

>>24584625
No one cares about christian “priests” the very concept of priesthood is lost on you goys, you think priesthood is memorizing words and literally disobeying God by vowing yourself to celibacy KEK. Truly subhuman golems, it’s repulsive to hear a goy desecrate such a sacred historical role.

>>24584635
What if seminary was heretical, would you still say "Go reject God's message so a bunch of flawed humans can give you the message they approve of?"

>>24584638
Who in Judea or Rome was calling Jesus "rabbi?" Roman's didn't even use the term, and thats most of Christ's ministry.

>>24584647
honestly 0 clue as to what you're trying to say here
do you think jesus travelled to rome or something??

>>24584647
He wasn't Rabbi, he was a rabbi

>>24584652
Jesus existed at the fringes of the Roman empire, every Gentile he interacted with was a Roman citizen, slave or resident, for the most part. Even the Jews of his time were, many just weren't assimilating.

>>24584647
The other Jewish rabbis who expelled him for no longer being a rabbi you stupid retard

>>24584647
according to every gospel, jesus preached around his local rural shithole of galilee, travelled to jerusalem and was promptly killed
both of those locations are overwhelmingly majority jewish

>>24584306 (OP)
Bart Erhmaniggas be like

>>24584659
Where?

>>24584668
Ancient Rome

>>24584657
>every Gentile he interacted with was a Roman citizen, slave or resident
i'm confused, you're describing literally every rank of society?
that's like saying every american i've ever interacted with was either rich, poor or middle class. you're saying exactly nothing.

>>24584668
Jerusalem bitch

>>24584667
has he ever been wrong? the man made career out of writing about academic consensus for the general audience, he's only controversial because he doesn't try to hide what the text says

>>24584670
No, it's like saying every American you interact with is American

>>24584685

>>24584685
that's... also saying nothing..?
is this the kind of headspace you need to be in to be a christian? just spouting words that don't mean anything and being pleased with yourself?

The point is, Roman Jews called Jesus "teacher," the same way the Buddha was called a teacher or Mani was called a teacher...teacher as a term for a spiritual leader is common, and the herbew word for teacher is literally rabbi.

No one was calling Jesus a Rabbi in the way that that would mean today. The original claim that Jesus was a "Jewish rabbi" is loaded, as if Jesus was of the cloth in contemporary Jewish tradition. He wasn't, if anything he was a heretic and/or a rebel and was hated for it by the Judaic religious elite -- who later became the Rabbinate.
Saying "well yeah it's based on a dead rabbi" is meant to evoke something that is not a true characterization. They may as well have been saying "my sage" or "wiseman."

>>24584697
Saying nothing? You were confused. I clarified. If you're reading any extra meaning in it, that's your choice lol

>>24584697
I am not a Christian.

>>24584711
okay let's plug in your clarification into yhe original post then
>Jesus existed at the fringes of the Roman empire, every Gentile he interacted with was a Roman, Roman or Roman, for the most part. Even the Jews of his time were, many just weren't assimilating.
wow, such a profound statement!

>>24584723
Yeah I was just wrong about that. Most of Jesus's ministry was to Jews living in Roman Judea. I was also wrong about him never being called a rabbi, his disciples called him that a few times. But my main point stands, it was basically like calling him a wise man.
Jesus was not aligned with the teachings of the two major Jewish movements at the time, Pharisees and Saducees, so saying "what gave it away? It's a dead rabbi" etc
Is misleading, Jesus was not considered a "rabbi" by most Jews. It was an honorific mostly used by his disciples.

>>24584734
this post was written by AI

>>24584742
I am not an artificial intelligence LLM.

>>24584723
You're conflating two things now. I wasn't clarifying the OP, I was clarifying an exchange several posts down the page. I just got here and I have a better grasp on the situation than you, who have been in the thread all along. How is that?

>>24584746
Than you, who has been in*
The anonymous thing fucks with me, I always want to address anons as plural in case I've assumed two posters are the same guy

>>24584734
>Jesus was not considered a "rabbi" by most Jews. It was an honorific mostly used by his disciples.
jesus was a rabbi with hot takes that went against the majority opinion.
if your definition requires the majority of a given religion to agree with you, then there isn't a single person in the christian world who can be called "priest", "revenant", "father" or any variation of that, since there is no christian denomination that holds a majority.

>>24584734
okay, so you know those jews that are against israel? they're a minority among jews, and most jews are actively against them, and yet some of them call themselves rabbis. if you asked natanyahu or the chief rabbis of israel, they would probably call them fake rabbis or something like that.
in your mind, does that actually invalidate their status as a rabbi, making it no longer accurate to call them "pro-palestinain rabbis", even though they are called that by their followers, have a congregation and do everything rabbis do, just with an interpretation of scripture that emphasises not committing war crimes?

>>24584754
>>24584769
The reason I'm saying any of it is to dispel the notion that Christianity is "Judaism for goys." Christ's teachings broke from traditional Judaism in concrete ways, and became a new form of doctrine. This idea that gentiles are worshipping a "rabbi" is misleading. That's why I said any of it.

>>24584754
Actually all the Jews are wrong because they weren't following laws God introduced later

>>24584769
>>24584754
these are good takes, i am convinced jesus awas a rabbi, by every definition that's not the absolute strictest, which was invented later anyway

christ is king of the jews!

>>24584769
He’s a cucklick, their doctrines of salvation change every hundred years kek

>>24584769
No, because they're still within the tradition begun by the Pharisees circa ~70 AD. They are literally rabbinic jews.

>>24584798
I am not a Christian

>>24584812
Yes I said that

>>24584788
>Christ's teachings broke from traditional Judaism in concrete ways
yes, by emphasising even stricter adherence to the laws!
you have to understand that the interpretation of the law that jesus tought isn't "different", it's merely his own interpretation that is in his mind, strictly following the laws by getting to the heart of the message.

For example
>You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not murder”; and “whoever murders shall be liable to judgement.” 22 But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister,[e] you will be liable to judgement; and if you insult[f] a brother or sister,[g] you will be liable to the council;
>You have heard that it was said, “You shall not commit adultery.” 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
>It was also said, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.” 32 But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
>Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.” 34 But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let your word be “Yes, Yes” or “No, No”; anything more than this comes from the evil one.[n]
>‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” 39 But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40 and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well;

Jesus never *contradicts* the law, he simply makes it more strict by getting to the heart of it.
If a law says "the punishment should fit the crime", he sees that as a call for mercy, and therefore you need to go the extra mile and show EXTREME mercy, not resisting evildoers at all.
If a law says don't divorce, you need to take it to the extreme and not even plan to have a divorce, nor should you associate with divorced women at all.
And so on and so on.


The confusion comes from the fact that I am talking about the religion (rabbi) JESUS tought. You're talking about "christianity", which in the modern sense is the religion PAUL tought. See the Opening Post for more information on why those two are different.

>>24584806
first you're talking about how it's important jews AT THE TIME wouldn't call him rabbi (except his followers, who seem like the most important jews in this situation to me) but now you're talking about how jews 70 years later wouldn't call him rabbi, which is not the same thing.

>>24584806
actually, let me put it in terms you'll understand:

if you were to travel back in time, go to the area where jesus was ministering, and ask around for "rabbi yeshu", they would know who you were talking about and point you in the right direction, maybe call you a retard for following an apocalyptic cult leader to boot, much in the same way if you were to say "reverant Jim Jones" people would know who you were talking about
the fact that a bunch of christians would say he isn't a "real reverant" doesn't matter

>>24584862
I agree with that.

>>24584846
>stricter law
>you are free from all Jewish laws and circumcision if you worship me as literally god on earth
Erm

>>24584877
okay, so you think what constitutes a rabbi is a matter of popularity? because if you were to take the gospels as accurate, then jesus preaches to "the multitudes", sermon on the mount was supposed to be packed, so if you are a christian and it's as you say just a dumb popularity contest, he would've been considered a rabbi when he was still alive

>>24584886
>>you are free from all Jewish laws and circumcision if you worship me as literally god on earth
are you actually retarded?
did you read what i said?

>The confusion comes from the fact that I am talking about the religion (rabbi) JESUS tought. You're talking about "christianity", which in the modern sense is the religion PAUL tought. See the Opening Post for more information on why those two are different.

JESUS never thoght that, JESUS said you need to follow the law and adhere to it strictly (according to the gospels), it was PAUL who said his teachings didn't really matter and all you need is blind worship. In fact, Jesus never claimed to be god, that idea is only found in John.

You are a complete fucking idiot with zero reading comprehension, the fact that you can't grasp a 4chan post but are posting on a LITERATURE board is a travesty.

>>24584895
I'm the original anon you were arguing with about the term rabbi, to be clear, not this one you're replying to in this post.
This was also my understanding, that Jesus broke from original Jewish teachings, which were legalistic, by emphasizing the "spirit" of these laws. Whether or not it is read as taken them further I would say is less certain, but it was definitely a reading of them that emphasized something like intent (be kind, be forgiving) over legalism (these are the laws and punishments, never waver from the code as written.)
This was why i went down the path of disputing the rabbi label to begin with. I was overzealous there, my point was to say what you're saying, Jesus was not a Rabbi in the sense that rabbis in rabbinic Judaism are rabbis, because that tradition stemmed from the pharisees who's ideas Jesus contravened or in your view, took to extremes.
But you are arguing that, today, if a rabbi from rabbinic Judaisms offshoots disagrees with say, the issues in Gaza, are they not rabbis? And if they are, is it just because of their post 70 AD cultural mesh?
Which I understand.
I don't like it when people say christ was a rabbi therefore Christianity is jew worship, I think that's misleading, because in context, Jesus taught something much different from the majority of Jews. Today, a rabbi protesting Gaza is doing a similar thing in spirit, but nobody's worshipping them as a messiah, and there's no major world religion dedicated to what they're saying.

>>24584895

jesus break the law multiple times said the law is made for men not men for the law and when asked what are the greast precepts he only says to love god and love others and all the law is contained in those two precepts.
don't act you know ,judaisers can't just cope with the fact jesus is god and made a new testament with humanity that didn't involve useless laws and that jesus calls men's precepts on the contrary of god precepts.
know your NT before cherry pick what you want,there's a reason christians never followed the 613 laws for 1500 years before prots came and went full retard with the OT because they were spoonfed with anti-roman propaganda

>>24584911
>This was also my understanding, that Jesus broke from original Jewish teachings, which were legalistic, by emphasizing the "spirit" of these laws. Whether or not it is read as taken them further I would say is less certain, but it was definitely a reading of them that emphasized something like intent (be kind, be forgiving) over legalism (these are the laws and punishments, never waver from the code as written.)
I think you're looking at it the wrong way, Jesus is not just emphesisint the "spirit" or "vibes" of the law, he is making it stricter than the literal, legalistic interpretation. What you're missing is that what Jesus asks of you wholly encompases what the law "legalistically" says, and goes beyond it. The law says "don't murder", jesus says "don't even get angry in the first place". The logic is that if you don't get angry, you don't plan to murder, and so you don't do it. Not murdering is wholly contained in what jesus teaches, he just asks you to separate yourself sevaral degrees from the act, so you don't even come close.

How do I know this? He says so.
>‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter,[a] not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks[b] one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
In several places actually.
>As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, ‘Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ 18 Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. 19 You know the commandments: “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honour your father and mother.”’ 20 He said to him, ‘Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.’ 21 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, ‘You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money[a] to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.’

A man comes up to Jesus and asks "what should I be doing in order to be saved", the first thing Jesus says? "follow the law".

Teacher = Rabbi, by the way

>>24584921
see above

breaking the law is what the pharsees accuse him of doing, and he says he isn't. Feel free to call Jesus a liar if you'd like, but i'm pretty sure that'd be blasphamy.

>>24584911
>>24584921
>>24584886
>Therefore, whoever breaks[a] one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
According to rabbi yeshu, Paul will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. Or i guess would have been, past tense, since he meant a kingdom on earth...

>>24584945
breaking the law is what the pharsees accuse him of doing, and he says he isn't. Feel free to call Jesus a liar if you'd like, but i'm pretty sure that'd be blasphamy.

it's not and it's
yeah sure if you consider all the laws that you encounter in the OT that are called tradition of men by jesus
so he does from a litterary point of view if you follow judaism but he's not if it's just about the decalogue and the two laws jesus gave us.
jesus knows what is the law and said the law is only two precept
jesus also doesn't strictly respected shabbat,didn't respected the law of death punishment for adultery.
So God who said he's here to fulfill the law ,give us two laws that contain all the law then break those minors tiny little things considered the law by jews/pharisians but not by god itself ?
so what's the law if God says he doesn't break it and you should follow it and at the same time breaks what jews/pharisians consider it's the law.
Who would you follow?

Does anyone ITT even believe in the Resurrection?

>>24584974
your post is geniuenly incomprehensible
write a second draft if you want me to reply to it in detail because I honestly can only guess as to what the fuck you're talking about
"it's not and it's" is just straight up not a valid sentence in english, you're incomprehensible

I am GUESSING you're saying that when Jesus was confronted by people accusing him of teaching people to break the law, he said "i'm not", but afterwards he thouhgt (because most of what you consider the law actually isn't law at all but some made up bullshit), making him in essence a liar since he knew what they meant when they said that. Again, I'm GUESSING you said this, because you're doing the literary equivalent of mumbling nonsense under your breath.

IF that is what you are saying, then that WOULD make jesus a liar here, because he would have understood what they meant by the question, and instead of actually answering the question that was asked, he made up a different question in his head and vocalised an answer to that one instead.

If a police man asked me "did you steal this chocolate bar" and I answered "no", if i actually did it then that would be considered lying in court, regardless if i later go "well actually i don't consider reposessing from large corprations to be "theft" because you can't really inflict personal damage on a large corporation..."

For the record, I don't think jesus lied like that, I think Jesus meant it when he said he isn't contradicting the law, in fact he himself says "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the law of Moses.[a] 3 So practice and obey whatever they tell you, but don’t follow their example. For they don’t practice what they teach. 4 "
Jesus says to do what they say you should do, and more, his problem with them is that they don't practice what they preach.
>>24584987
I don't. I'm also the only one from whom you will get an honest answer out of ITT, everyone else will ignore your post or at best give a vague non-answer because they are afraid.