Was it the translators?

[danny ski]

So now the gospel came from outside sources...??

and why not? The Gospels are full of "the Jews" in a negative context.

 

[CherubRam]

and why not? The Gospels are full of "the Jews" in a negative context.

The translators chose to translate the word Judean with the short form Jew.

 

[Dave-W]

Occam's razor. Neither the writer nor his audience were Jewish. Simple.

So Occam is growing a beard?

 

[visionary]

and why not? The Gospels are full of "the Jews" in a negative context.

Why would the "jew" writers do that to themselves? why a negative context??

 

[danny ski]

Why would the "jew" writers do that to themselves? why a negative context??

Because those writers were not Jewish. Or they were "Jews" on the outs. I've seen this, BTW, with the converts in my youth and heard about this from my grandparents. Talking disparaging about own heritage, acting superior toward the backward Yids, especially among the Hasidic apostates. There even used to be a Yiddish saying about birds defecting into its own nest.

 

[visionary]

Because those writers were not Jewish. Or they were "Jews" on the outs. I've seen this, BTW, with the converts in my youth and heard about this from my grandparents. Talking disparaging about own heritage, acting superior toward the backward Yids, especially among the Hasidic apostates. There even used to be a Yiddish saying about birds defecting into its own nest.

So the apostles chosen by Yeshua to write the gospel, hated their own? These same apostles make disparaging remarks about the Lord's appointed times by calling it the Jew's Feasts or feast of the Jews?

 

[danny ski]

So the apostles chosen by Yeshua to write the gospel, hated their own? These same apostles make disparaging remarks about the Lord's appointed times by calling it the Jew's Feasts or feast of the Jews?

No one can be sure, but I'm almost certain that whoever wrote the Gospels were not eye witnesses, probably not even Jewish.

 

[ChavaK]

No one can be sure, but I'm almost certain that whoever wrote the Gospels were not eye witnesses, probably not even Jewish.

The only thing that makes sense is if they were not Jewish. Otherwise why "the Jews this, and the Jews that"?

 

[Open Heart]

The only thing that makes sense is if they were not Jewish. Otherwise why "the Jews this, and the Jews that"?

I've discussed this with other Messianic Jews, and it really is quite baffling that John does this, especially since so many of his references to "the Jews" are negative. It's rather a betrayal. The best we've been able to reason it out is this. During the period that John wrote, which was the late first century, there was a lot of Jewish unrest among the zealots, and much of it was connected to messianic movements. Christians were getting thrown into the same basket by the Romans, despite the fact that they were not challenging the Roman authorities. For this reason, John wrote in a way to separate the new faith from Jews and Judaism, so to help minimize persecution from the Romans. Just our best guess.

 

[AbbaLove]

No one can be sure, but I'm almost certain that whoever wrote the Gospels were not eye witnesses, probably not even Jewish.

The only thing that makes sense is if they were not Jewish. Otherwise why "the Jews this, and the Jews that"?

Correct! They were Hebrew not Jews; however, even Chabad's "Complete Jewish Bible" of the complete Tanach, with Rashi's commentary ... The Complete Tanach with Rashi's Commentary - English translation with Rashi's commentary ... is actually Hebrew (not Jewish). That said your faith icon "Judaism"(Jewish) represents what is accepted today within Rabbinic Judaism

Philippians 2:3-7 (NASB)
3 for circumcision, worship in the Spirit of God and Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,
4 although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more:
5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee;
6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.
7 But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ.
​

When word spread that the once Pharisee, Sha'ul ha-Tarsi‎ became known as Paul the Apostle he was persecuted as a "Christian" by his own Hebrew brethren. As a "Christian" he was no longer considered a Pharisee (or Jewish) by the Pharisees. So from your persuasion it would make sense that you would no longer consider any of the writers of the Gospels to be Jewish (being a misnomer).

Likewise, it might be expected that even today Rabbinic Judaism would also go so far as to agree with you that ... "I'm almost certain that whoever wrote the Gospels were not eye witnesses" ... in their attempt to discredit the writers of the first three Gospels and the fourth Gospel of the Apostle John as well as the Letters of the Apostle Paul. So from the perspective of orthodox "Judaism" you would not be wrong, faulty or incorrect in your take that it's only natural that the Gospels are not revered, honored or esteemed by orthodox Judaism.​

 

[Open Heart]

They were Hebrew not Jews

Hebrews = Israelites = Jews

We were called Hebrews from Abraham until the Exodus.
We were called Israelites from the Exodus until the Babylonian Captivity
We are called Jews from the Babylonian Captivity until the present.

 

[JackRT]

Quote: JESUS of NAZARETH: HIS LIFE, TIMES AND TEACHING ( 1925 ) by Joseph Klausner:

"In his ethical code there is a sublimity, distinctiveness and originality in form unparalleled in any other Hebrew ethical code; neither is there any parallel to the remarkable art of his parables. The shrewdness and sharpness of his proverbs and his forcible epigrams serve, in an exceptional degree, to make ethical ideas a popular possession. If ever the day should come and this ethical code be stripped of it's wrappings of miracle and mysticism, the Book of the Ethics of Jesus will be one of the choicest treasures in the literature of Israel for all time."

 

[AbbaLove]

Hebrews = Israelites = Jews

We were called Hebrews from Abraham until the Exodus.
We were called Israelites from the Exodus until the Babylonian Captivity
We are called Jews from the Babylonian Captivity until the present.​

Try telling that to Sha'ul ha-Tarsi‎ ... If you don't believe me read his translated words straight from your Catholic New Jerusalem Bible (published in 1985) as well as other translations. The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) version is translated "directly from the Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic."

​

Philippians 3:5 (New Jerusalem Bible)
5 Circumcised on the eighth day of my life, I was born of the race of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrew parents. In the matter of the Law, I was a Pharisee;
Philippians 3:5 (Hebraic Roots Bible)
5 For I was circumcised on the eighth day, being of the race of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; according to the Torah, a Pharisee;
Philippians 3:5 (Complete Jewish Bible)

• 5 b’rit-milah on the eighth day,
• by birth belonging to the people of Isra’el,
• from the tribe of Binyamin,
• a Hebrew-speaker, with Hebrew-speaking parents,
• in regard to the Torah, a Parush,

(Note: Paul doesn't say a Jewish-speaker, with Jewish-speaking parents)​

 

[Open Heart]

Try telling that to Sha'ul ha-Tarsi‎ ... If you don't believe me read his translated words straight from your Catholic New Jerusalem Bible (published in 1985) as well as other translations. The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) version is translated "directly from the Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic."

That's referring to the Hebrew LANGUAGE. We are talking about the people.

 

[Heber Book List]

There were different groups of Jews, holding their own Feasts, according to Geza Vermes, the logic of which is easy to see.

For example: the Samaritans and Essenes held their own Feast days, albeit at the same time as the Jews, but those groups would not align themselves with Temple worship, for different reasons, and may well not have been classed as 'Jews' by the majority of 'regular' Jews ( 'regular' for want of a better term).

Using the description 'the Jews' clearly refers to the majority who went up to the Temple for the Feasts, as distinct from the breakaway groups.

 

[AbbaLove]

That's referring to the Hebrew LANGUAGE. We are talking about the people.

The Catholic New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) is translated "directly from the Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic." If for some reason you don't prefer the NJB translation of "Hebrew of Hebrews" (as a people group) is there any other translation that reads, "Jew of Jews" instead of "Hebrew of Hebrews" (people) or "Jewish-speaking" instead of "Hebrew-speaking" people (Philippians 3:5)?

Do you not yet agree that the name "Jews" is a corrupted slang word for Judaeans that was first introduced by gentiles and further perpetuated by gentiles (see poster below). The various Israelite peoples that journeyed to Jerusalem at least three times a year to celebrate the appointed Festivals of the LORD (during the time of Sha'ul of Tarsus) never referred to themselves as "Jews".

​

Philippians 3:5 (New Jerusalem Bible)
5 Circumcised on the eighth day of my life, I was born of the race of Israel (peope), of the tribe of Benjamin (peope), a Hebrew born of Hebrew parents (people). In the matter of the Law, I was a Pharisee;​

Your avatar change from "Messianic Hebrew Catholic" to "Messianic Jewish Catholic" is more representative from both a historical and contemporary Catholic perspective
​

 

[tampasteve]

​

Philippians 3:5 (New Jerusalem Bible)
5 Circumcised on the eighth day of my life, I was born of the race of Israel (peope), of the tribe of Benjamin (peope), a Hebrew born of Hebrew parents (people). In the matter of the Law, I was a Pharisee;​

​

Not saying I disagree necessarily, but the Complete Jewish Bible translates it a little differently:
5 b’rit-milah on the eighth day, by birth belonging to the people of Isra’el, from the tribe of Binyamin,a Hebrew-speaker, with Hebrew-speaking parents, in regard to the Torah, a Parush.

 

[AbbaLove]

Not saying I disagree necessarily, but the Complete Jewish Bible translates it a little differently:
5 b’rit-milah on the eighth day, by birth belonging to the people of Isra’el, from the tribe of Binyamin,a Hebrew-speaker, with Hebrew-speaking parents, in regard to the Torah, a Parush.

See my post #33 where i also included the following CJB translation ...

Philippians 3:5 (Complete Jewish Bible)

• 5 b’rit-milah on the eighth day,
• by birth belonging to the people of Isra’el,
• from the tribe of Binyamin,
• a Hebrew-speaker, with Hebrew-speaking parents,
• in regard to the Torah, a Parush,

(Note: Paul doesn't say a Jewish-speaker, with Jewish-speaking parents)

We are called Jews from the Babylonian Captivity until the present.

That should not be taken to mean that just because pagan gentiles referred to the Judeans and Israelites as "Jews" that they also referred to themselves as "Jews" (during the time of the Apostle Paul) or that Yeshua referred to Himself as a "Jew".

​

 

[Open Heart]

If for some reason you don't prefer the NJB translation of "Hebrew of Hebrews"

Hebrew of Hebrews is a translation of Phil 3:5 which is from the GREEK, not the Hebrew or Aramaic or whatnot. GREEK.

A Hebrew is an Israelite is a Jew, as I said already in my post to you. I stand by that.

 

[AbbaLove]

A Hebrew is an Israelite is a Jew, as I said already in my post to you. I stand by that.

Not all Israelites are from the tribe of Judah. However, I would agree with you that as a "Messianic Jewish Catholic" it would seem more in accord with the RCC to refer to yourself as a "Messianic Jewish Catholic" than your previous avatar as a "Messianic Hebrew Catholic". That said the NJB stands by its translation of "a Hebrew born of Hebrew parents" as do all other translations ...

Philippians 3:5 (New Jerusalem Bible)
5 Circumcised on the eighth day of my life, I was born of the race of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrew parents. In the matter of the Law, I was a Pharisee;​