Jesus wasn’t Jewish: the proof

In the the “Old” Testament the heart is not merely the seat of the feelings but also of thought. In Deuteronomy 6:5 we read: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. The Greek of the New Testament distinguishes heart from mind: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart (kardia), and with all thy soul (psyche), and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind (dianoia)… (Luke 10:27). Jesus is speaking. Here is the context in Luke 10:

25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”

A Jew might say that because Jesus was Jewish he wouldn’t have said “and with your mind” because for a Jew the heart includes the mind. Rather, Jesus should have quoted Deuteronomy 6:5: “And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.” This anomaly, a Jew – for that matter many “Messianic Jews” – could very well argue, proves that Luke made the verse up and/or he was definitely not Jewish but a Greek. Wait, Just because Luke was very good at Greek, this doesn’t mean he wasn’t Jewish. (See Was Luke of the New Testament not Jewish just because he was good at Greek?). 

And Matthew? He is definitely Jewish, and he quoted Jesus saying the same words recorded in Luke: 

Matthew 22:36-40

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” 

Et tu Matthew, you brute, did the Greeks get to tu too! 

As far as Jesus’ words and actions are concerned, the Jews of his time heard much worse; that is why his own siblings said he was out of his mind; and the Jewish leaders called him a son of the devil and had him killed. 

Listen: Jesus created Greek, so if he wants to be Greek for a mo, who are you o man to talk back to GOD!

You asked me, “what have you proved with all this meshugas.” Isn’t it obvious: Jesus – that’s Greek ain’t it – wasn’t Jewish.

Related post: See God seems distant in the midst of personal loss and suffering: When suffering comes to a head, strengthen it

Advertisements

30 thoughts on “Jesus wasn’t Jewish: the proof

  1. My Hebrew translations of the Shema inter-changably have “mind” and “might”—I took that to mean “free will/ intentions” so this could even mean “Love the Lord your G-d with all your possessions” as we have around us manifestations of our will (not exclusively but to some degree).

    I LOVE that the Jewish concept of heart and mind go together–my favorite! For me as an intuitive artist/author–the mind and the heart are ONE. But why do you think some of my literature (Jewish) has “mind” and or “might” both?

    • Elaine, your “why do you think some of my literature (Jewish) has “mind” and or “might” both?”

      Which literature would that be? The Hebrew of Deut 6:5 is clear, “heart, soul and strength.”

      • I will now write obvious things but obviously we have to be remind of them.
        Very good….I agree to a large extent. If Jesus were only Jew He would not have been so perfect as He was and He had perfect knowledge of everything that was supposed to be known as God did. He knew that the mind is part of our being and since it is usually connected to a separate biological part of our being we are supposed to love God with our ‘brain’ too. The brain is an organ with specific cells that today has been even reproduced in a lab ( a small human brain). But since it is made of cells…cells come from somewhere. They came from the human dna and more specifically from a certain dna background. The brain of Christ to be human it had to have this dna background. The mind as reason is universal but the brain as organ is more specific. We have to love God with our reason that resides supposedly in our brain and the brain of Christ was genetically Jewish. God knew that an important part of our humanity resides in our brain…an organ quite misleading too since when it is sick we can’t understand reality at all. To love God with our brain is essential because it is part of our wiliness to love him. As another reader wrote…to love with your mind you have to decide to love with your brain. It is where our willpower resides and in fact when the brain is sick for example with depression doesn’t have anymore intact willpower etc. God is not only Jewish but He also is a God who wants us to choose…and you don’t like this. Also He wants us to understand how beautiful is the ‘Brain’ who made the universe so complex and so simple. It is for His glory that the mind does have to love God because it is through reason that we recognize it too and through reason that we also refuse willfully Him as instead we intuitively and passionately accept Him with our heart. Jesus is a God genetically Jewish from the mother side and you don’t like too much this mother’s side of the story either :-). He didn’t have siblings but perhaps cousins of siblings , adoptive or natural,l from Joseph’s side who was much older than Mary. If you were to venerate Mary you would understand that Jesus is also Jewish and the mind and the heart cooperate to choose God as Mary did when she freely accepted also with her mind (to say yes you have to think about what you are saying yes to… otherwise it is not a fully said yes) the conception of a human, also Jewish incarnate God.

        • Maria, yours in inverted commas.

          “If Jesus were only Jew He would not have been so perfect as He was and He had perfect knowledge of everything that was supposed to be known as God did.”

          Maria, sorry if I was too obtuse. Jesus, in the flesh, was Jewish, naturally; and the Son of God. He was a person in heaven with a divine nature, then took on a human nature, to become the G0d-man.

          “He knew that the mind is part of our being and since it is usually connected to a separate biological part of our being we are supposed to love God with our ‘brain’ too.”

          As you know, at the time of Jesus, the Jews had been living in a Greek culture for centuries. For the Greeks there was a distinction between “heart” and “mind.” So the Jews used Greeks distinctions. That is not to say that the Jews never had words related to thought!

          “The mind as reason is universal but the brain as organ is more specific.”

          There’re also cultural and environmental influences on the mind-brain.

          “We have to love God with our reason that resides supposedly in our brain…”

          In the Jewish Bible, reason resided in the heart; feelings in the kidneys (KJV “reins,” (sola plexus?) from French for “kidneys.” Now we know more about the brain, we can say that thinking takes place there (perhaps not all there; sometimes elsewhere – tee hee).

          “the brain of Christ was genetically Jewish.”

          DNA is a component of every cell of the body. Some use the term “DNA” metaphorically, for example, “She has Jewish DNA; she loves chopped herring and bagels, and dancing the hora.”

          “God knew that an important part of our humanity resides in our brain.”

          The creator knows a lot.

          “To love God with our brain is essential because it is part of our willingness to love him.”

          Are you saying that the brain-mind is part of our wills?

          “As another reader wrote…to love with your mind you have to decide to love with your brain.”

          The brainless mind decides to use the brain?

          “God is not only Jewish but He also is a God.”

          You believe in the Trinity, I’m sure. So, since the incarnation, the Son of God, in his human nature is Jewish, but the Father and the Holy Spirit, Jewish? Youwish?

          “who wants us to choose…and you don’t like this.”

          Are you calling me a horrible Calvinist? (I’m determined to say) you misunderstand Calvinism, if that is what you’re getting at.

          “Jesus is a God genetically Jewish from the mother side and you don’t like too much this mother’s side of the story either.”

          What do ya mean? I love the mother’s side of the story. I just don’t see her as the Queen of heaven and the mediatrix between the Mediator and God.

          “He didn’t have siblings but perhaps cousins of siblings , adoptive or natural,l from Joseph’s side who was much older than Mary.”

          That’s Roman Catholic tradition to preserve the sinlessness and virginity of Mary. It’s not in the Bible.

          “If you were to venerate Mary you would understand that Jesus is also Jewish and the mind and the heart cooperate to choose God as Mary did when she freely accepted also with her mind… the conception of a human, also Jewish incarnate God.”

          If by “venerate” you mean deep respect, yes. I don’t need to exalt the mother of Jesus as Queen of heaven and “mother of all graces” to know that Jesus (in his human nature) had a Jewish brain-mind.

  2. I want neither to dumb down or create the impression that I consider anyone dumber than I (am). As far as my little piece above, it’s a spoof on those who reject anything Greek- language or thought – in God’s revelation. For example, some “Messianic Jews” say Jesus’ name was Yeshua not Jesus. And Solomon is Shlomo, and Saul is Shaul. So what.

    • I don’t want to play yourself down either…I understood what it was about….but when you post something you are responsible for what you say….for everybody to understand. If your words were the only ones read by someone who didn’t know better…well it would become a issue. “ I read that Jesus was not a Jew” …it is not what we want to convey ultimately 🙂

      • So glad that you understood my “proof” as a spoof. Hey, remember, I’m a Calvinist, so how can moi, a robot, be responsible, or understand anything, never mind try to get the free to understand me.

        • yes, you jest being a Calvinist robot also. On that point, I have never seen Molinism (Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig)successfully refuted. Could it be a viable alternative to hard determinism?

          • Squeaky, what’s the difference between “hard” determinism and determinism pure and simple (but hardly simplistic)?

            To use biblical terms, what is the difference between predestination (which means predetermined, nothing less), which Craig and Plantinga surely accept – because they accept the Bible – and hard determinism.

            As you probably know, Molinism (Middle knowledge) a la Craig says that God looks into the future to see all the possible permutations of 1. who will choose to believe in Christ as their saviour, and 2. who will not fall away. God then chooses to create the world in which he can save the largest number. Something like this:

            The Father to the Son in eternity:
            Let’s look down the corridors of time and see how many want to believe. I’ll take one gazillion and you take the other gazillion universes to see which gives the richest returns.

            The Son: It’s done; this one.

            The Father: How on earth, I mean, in heaven, did you do it so timeously?

            The Son: Timeously. I thought where we are there’s no time.

            The Father: I see. That’s why you managed to do it in no time. I’ve learnt something.

            The Son: I thought fathers are meant to teach their sons, mostly.

            The Father: We’re omniscient, remember, so we don’t learn anything.

            The Son: Then why are we looking down the corridors of time to learn if our plan of redemption is worth it? And if you’re omniscient, why did you say you learnt something?

            The Father: You’re right. I’ve learnt my lesson.

            • well, not quite like your caricature at all since you have separated the Father from the Son ala a human father and son where little unity exists unlike the oneness of God.

              maybe like Ecclesiastes says: humans don’t fully know the what, how, when, extent, or why of the things of Earth even though some will come along and say they know, they really don’t know.

              • Squeaky

                As you know, the three persons of the trinity have different roles in redemption: the Father initiates the plan, the son carries it out, and the Holy Spirits consolidates it.

                You say I separated the Father from the Son – in their intentions, of course, not in their being (Deity). I don’t seriously believe that the intentions of the Father are different from the Son, so why did I write this caricature?

                I think you, as an Arminian, believe that the Father wants to save every single individual and so sends the Son to TRY his best to fulfil the Father’s wish – which is also the Son’s wish, of course.

                The Son takes on flesh and the rest is Gospel. Christ (and through his missionaries) will knock and knock and knock at the door of people’s hearts. Some will invite Christ in, most will not.

                Allow me to write another little scenario:

                End of the world. In heaven.

                The Father: I wanted to save everybody.
                The Son: I tried and tried every which way, but you know that we decided that we would sovereignly not touch people’s free will, even though they were dead in sin. Let’s face it, if they were completely dead in sin, they couldn’t open their hearts.
                The Father: Yes, we should have told Rabbi Paul to say deadish in sin; it’s also closer to the Hebrew dead ISH (man).

                The Son: But what about what we told Isaiah to write:

                Ch. 46
                8 “Remember this, keep it in mind,
                take it to heart, you rebels.
                9 Remember the former things, those of long ago;
                I am God, and there is no other;
                I am God, and there is none like me.
                10 I make known the end from the beginning,
                from ancient times, what is still to come.
                I say, ‘My purpose will stand,
                and I will do all that I please.’

                The Father: Yes, but that’s scripture. What people need as preparation is some philosophy, otherwise they won’t be able to make head or tale of scripture.

                The Son: That is why we predestined mediators like Luis de Molina, Alvin Plantinga and Bill Craig to be born and to bear this middle responsibility.

                Arminian Fly on heaven’s wall: Ah, now I see what predestination was all about.

                • Do I waver on what is known as a Calvinistic Soteriology? yes, sometimes when a possible logical formulation might be plausible.

                  I am not bothered by labels and with Paul: it is a small matter for me to be judged by you or any court, the One who judges me is God.

                  At the end of the day what prevents me from the 5 points is ‘particular redemption’. I am unsure, from the scriptures that Christ didn’t die for the whole world (limited atonement) when the scriptures seem to say he did without making the inference that it means ‘all the world of the elect’.

                  I’ll keep knock, knock, knocking on heart’s doors knowing He elected some for salvation.

                  • “Waver” is, in my biblical book, better than waving goodbye.

                    “Do I waver on what is known as a Calvinistic Soteriology? yes, sometimes when a possible logical formulation might be plausible.”

                    Why is your (and Craig’s) view logical while Calvinism’s is illogical?
                    Calvinism’s base premise is that man is dead in sin, not deadish in sin, so not really dead, which means that he can love Christ if he wants – with some help from God called “prevenient grace” given to all. I think you agree that everyone deserves damnation, and that God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, which means to me that he will save whom he wants to save; in other words, he fulfill his purpose, as we read in Isaiah 46 quoted in my previous comment. So, I think we agree that we can’t tell God that he is not fair (Romans 9).

                    You believe that God will respect your free will to believe. By free will I think you mean a person is free to follow his heart, correct?. That is what I mean. We both know, however, that the natural man hates the things of the spirit; he hates Jesus Christ – because he is spiritually dead, stone dead! Not dead to the lovey dovey Jesus but the Jesus who said that those who do not believe in him as Messiah and Lord of their lives will be damned eternally.

                    “I am not bothered by labels and with Paul: it is a small matter for me to be judged by you or any court, the One who judges me is God.”

                    Many are bothered by labels, but we shouldn’t. But what has that got to do with the price of pork?

                    “At the end of the day what prevents me from the 5 points is ‘particular redemption’. I am unsure, from the scriptures that Christ didn’t die for the whole world (limited atonement) when the scriptures seem to say he did without making the inference that it means ‘all the world of the elect’.”

                    As you might be aware, “world” has up to ten different meanings in the NT. If Christ redeemed everybody then everybody is saved. That is what redeemed means – saved. Ask any freed American slave.

                    “I’ll keep knock, knock, knocking on heart’s doors knowing He elected some for salvation.”

                    Good, you keep knocking, because, as we Calvinists believe very strongly what Romans 10 says:

                    8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” 14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”

                    My point is that God doesn’t knock on coffin lids, which he says WE must do (Romans 10 above). What God does is open the coffin lids of those he chooses to have mercy on (his elect) and regenerates them, that is, raises them from the dead – part of which is their wills to freely accept him, and gives them a new nature.

                    For most, all this is hard to accept/grasp: “It’s not fair,” Enter Middle knowledge.

                    • about labels: you said I was “Arminian”. it doesn’t bother me. I do not believe in prevenient grace but saving grace. so Plantiga and Craig are Arminians also?

                      we are elect according to foreknowledge. my former professor said that this knowledge carries the idea of ‘love’ as similar to “Jacob ‘knew’ his wife” so that foreknowledge really meant “forelove”. so far so good on that thought but others smarter than I don’t totally buy it, and, how can it be proved?

                      all in all, I choose to hold Calvinism loosely.

                    • about labels: you said I was “Arminian”.

                      “Label” used in this way carries the feel of “inaccurate description.”

                      “Trinitarian,” “theist,” “Christian” are descriptions of concepts, “labels” in a good sense.

                      An “Arminian” is someone who believes that God needs a sinner’s permission to raise him to life.

                      “I do not believe in prevenient grace but saving grace.”

                      You are right, there is only one kind of grace in the Bible, saving grace.

                      “so Plantiga and Craig are Arminians also?”

                      All Arminians believe in “prevenient grace.” it is the latter that distinguishes Arminians from Pelagianism, which says that we don’t need any help (prevenient grace) in coming to faith. So, in this respect, you’re not an Arminian. Ergo, you must be a (semi) Pelagian.

                      “we are elect according to foreknowledge.” my former professor said that this knowledge carries the idea of ‘love’ as similar to “Jacob ‘knew’ his wife” so that foreknowledge really meant “forelove”. so far so good on that thought but others smarter than I don’t totally buy it, and, how can it be proved?”

                      Before I say more on this one, I ask: 1. do you believe that if you can will yourself to be saved, you can will yourself to become unsaved again, and 2. does God foreknow everything?

                      “all in all, I choose to hold Calvinism loosely.”

                      You’re a hypoCalvinist.

                      Loose Calvinists are loose canons (tee hee).

                    • “Before I say more on this one, I ask: do you believe that if you can will yourself to be saved, you can will yourself to become unsaved again?”

                      no. “of His doing you are in Christ Jesus”

                      this is my last comment so you can have the last word. it disturbs me to see some Calvinists take things logically past what scripture affirms. do not get me wrong: we are to make valid inferences and realize implications of revealed truth.

                      it seems some concepts need to be held in a sort of ‘tension’ with each other and for us to wait until heaven to know the answer.

                      I would like your thoughts on “foreknowledge.”

                    • About foreknowledge, would you say that God foreknows everything? If this is true, do you notice something odd in Romans 8:29?

                      “those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren.”

                    • Squeaky what is your view of this excerpt from William Cunningham, “The Arminian controversy”?
                      “Of course an election founded upon a foresight of the faith, holiness, and perseverance of particular persons is not an election at all, but a mere recognition of the future existence of certain qualities found in certain men, though God has neither produced, nor decreed to produce, them.”

                    • Bo,

                      your last posting is not showing up in your blog but I got the email notification.

                      anyway, William Cunningham has a point and I want to be quick to concede instead of being stubborn. I wonder how someone like Plantiga would view this argument.

                      usually if I put quote makes on a phrase not used in the thread, then I am quoting Scripture. I cannot discuss the point now as I have a project today that will last into the night.

                      anyway, I have been a Calvinist for 40 years but reading the aforementioned authors left me wondering if a more logical theory about soteriology could be found.

                    • James White’s Blog has the show “Radio free Geneva.” It always starts of with a few quips from Arminians like Geisler and Craig. I find it very funny. One of the quips is “those who were elected were selected.” The meaning is that (s)election is based on your decision to let Jesus into your heart. This, of course, is human philosophy not willing (sic) to accept, among other things, the PRE in predestination, indeed, to accept the radical corruption of natural man.

                      There’s much more that is wrong with Arminianism, as you know.

                    • Squeaky

                      I asked: do you believe that if you can will yourself to be saved, you can will yourself to become unsaved again?”

                      You answered: “no. “of His doing you are in Christ Jesus.”

                      I infer by “his doing” you mean “all” his doing. This is the Calvinist position, namely, that man’s will is so corrupt that he will not, cannot open himself to Christ. Thus regeneration comes before a person can believe in Christ as saviour. The Arminian position is that your faith in Christ brings about your regeneration.

                      Many Arminians maintain that you are free to open the door to Jesus but not free to throw him out. Now, that is what is certainly illogical.

            • you have really gone too far toward the “Greek side” in thinking about “returns”, utility, efficiency.

              after all God said: “the day you eat thereof, you will surely die.” this includes all Adamites after the original couple. yet God provides earthly goodness for the most part to all humanity while they go about and kill each other and commit other evils.

              the imagery of one of the faces in Ezekiel’s vision of Cherubim was a bull: I believe sacrificial love is what this suggests. also, the lamb of God, again expresses the love of God. ultimately, it is not all about humanity as if God was limited by His creation (if saving humanity is efficient with a high return, then that defines me as successful). No, saving humanity expresses God’s love for His creatures.

              about ultimately knowing or not per my previous comment on Ecclesiastes: I do not think an good alternative is mysticism which permeates both R. Catholic and Jewish thought. I think humans are given enough revealed truth to satisfy cognitive needs.

              • Really? What is enough cognitive thoughts? On which planet are you living or better on which level of reality are you living? There is no enough of cognitive thoughts ever…not even presumably. This is where the protestant churches are big failures…they substitute real mysticism with a veneration of the persona of the preacher; so many of them and so wild in their own personal very personal ways. At least we have only one ….a qualified one 🙂 in the Pope…And then…there is the feeling of Paradise for some to such a large extent that science and reason have to humbly admit that there are inexplicable levels of reality…what is in comparison this supposed ‘enough cognitive thoughts’? Today version of whitewashed tombs? Where religion is left to die without possibility of evolution…because there are the Scriptures…how boring is supposed to be considered this God who spoke once and for all until the end of time.  As God…I would like to become acquainted with different kind of human beings…and let them operate as my messengers in miracles…real ones not the ones given by the pastors of enough cognitive thoughts…how embarrassing they are when they go not toward cognitive thoughts but pure folly 🙂 By the way R. Catholic Church is not mystical in thoughts…but in historical and geographical places all over the world. There is a map of it…everywhere you go. It is not abstract thoughts mister. The places of mystical venerations have names facts dates. They are real not mere ‘thoughts’…of brainy foggy inconsistency…we have bodies, bones, paintings that are not considered paintings as with the Virgin of Guadalupe, bread that has been found to be flesh etc… …etc…R. Catholic Church’ mysticism is magnificent mysticism for the heart the brain/the mind, the eyes, the tongue, the total body with flesh/ blood soul mind and divinity of Christ…this for me is to be considered ‘enough’…meaning the totality of all possibilities.

                • Dear MariaMaria3,

                  Please allow me to explain myself because I admit to be deficient in expressing myself clearly sometimes.

                  Please note though that I said “cognitive needs” and that enough revealed truth is available to satisfy them. I was referring to “ultimate knowledge” and I thought the problem was not using what we have. Christians don’t read enough of the Bible and meditate on it which is what we are instructed to do.

                  I do not venerate anyone’s persona but will agree with you that this notion afflicts much of protestantism. As the Apostle Paul said: we preach not ourselves but Jesus Christ as Lord.

                  My point about God not being defined by His creation could also be written better. Just because God doesn’t save everyone does not make Him any less good. We all deserve condemnation since we have violated God’s holy, righteous, and good Law. That God has mercy on some is love. He expressed His love by dying on the cross as a sacrificial atonement.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s