I am surprised...

[Bill the Cat]

They have the same exact proof as you have. Their interpretation of the Bible. I didn't dodge anything, you just don't like the answer.

You've refused to identify "they" so we can address their claims.

[Gondwanaland]

You've refused to identify "they" so we can address their claims.

Every other Christian denominations that differs in view with you and considers you a heretic just like you consider them heretics. How is this hard to follow?

[Cow Poke]

Every other Christian denominations that differs in view with you and considers you a heretic just like you consider them heretics. How is this hard to follow?

I don't know many Southern Baptists who believe that Methodists or Lutherans are heretics. Now, Mormons? That's a horse of a different color.

[tabibito]

Philip F Esler. Identity Matters: Judean Ethnic Identity In The First Century CE.

1/ The key issue is to get right the identity of the people referred to in our sources as Ioudaioi (in Greek) or Judaei (in Latin). Rather than seeing them as “Jews” who were adherents of the religion “Judaism,” they are, in my view, best viewed as the members of an ethnic group originating in Judea most appropriately called “Judeans.”

2/ To translate Ioudaios as “Jew” or “Jewish” means giving them a name of a sort that is unique for first-century ethnic groups. Such exceptionalism rests uncomfortably with a desire for historical accuracy which, since identity matters, must entail doing justice to the sense of self possessed by the ancient peoples we are investigating. It is no defense to this to assert that “Jew” or “Jewish” today cover a wide range of aspects of identity since those words lack the explicit territorial connection that typified the names of all ethnic groups in the first century CE.

3/ It is also better to speak of Jesus as a “Judean” and not a “Jew.”

1/ So - ιουδαιος could not identify a person as "Jewish" by its contemporary definition. The term encompassed Samaritans and Galileans, or anyone with ancestral roots in Judaea.
2/ The current definition of "Jew" is misleading when applied to 1st century writings.
3/ ?? Jesus was of the tribe of Judah.

[Bill the Cat]

Every other Christian denominations that differs in view with you and considers you a heretic just like you consider them heretics. How is this hard to follow?

Again, which ones? Who considers me a heretic? And what you call a "denomination" isn't how we define denomination.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

They have the same exact proof as you have. Their interpretation of the Bible. I didn't dodge anything, you just don't like the answer.

Remember the notion of "true" Christians! All the rest are heretics!

[Gondwanaland]

Again, which ones? Who considers me a heretic?

The ones you pompously declared heretics.

And what you call a "denomination" isn't how we define denomination.

It most certainly is, son.

[rogue06]

I don't know many Southern Baptists who believe that Methodists or Lutherans are heretics. Now, Mormons? That's a horse of a different color.

Heck we even accept [*looks both ways to see who might be listening*] smiley whisper-secret.gif^{Episcopalians} as brothers and sisters in Christ.











Apologies to any Episcopalians for any offence given

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Because it doesn't mean he wasn't a Jew.

And I have acknowledged that possibility in previous exchanges with you on this matter and also earlier in this thread.

He may have been a Jew but he never uses the word Ἰουδαῖος to describe himself. He does use other broader phrases and terms. You also have bear in mind the history of the region and certainly from the second century BCE.

[rogue06]

And I have acknowledged that possibility in previous exchanges with you on this matter and also earlier in this thread.

He may have been a Jew but he never uses the word Ἰουδαῖος to describe himself. He does use other broader phrases and terms. You also have bear in mind the history of the region and certainly from the second century BCE.

And since neither Christ nor an of the other Apostles seem to have explicitly referred to themselves as being a Jew or Jewish, this means that it is likely none of them were Jewish

[Bill the Cat]

The ones you pompously declared heretics.

You mean like the polytheistic Mormons? Or the "Jesus is just an angel" Jehovah's Witnesses? Again, they have ZERO backing from the early church for their heresies.

It most certainly is, son.

Then give the definition WITH EXAMPLES if you are so confident. And I'm not your son.

[Cow Poke]

Heck we even accept [*looks both ways to see who might be listening*] smiley whisper-secret.gif^{Episcopalians} as brothers and sisters in Christ.











Apologies to any Episcopalians for any offence given

I don't consider them heretics - I just consider them part of the "sick, the afflicted and the backslid" crowd.

[tabibito]

And I have acknowledged that possibility in previous exchanges with you on this matter and also earlier in this thread.

He may have been a Jew but he never uses the word Ἰουδαῖος to describe himself. He does use other broader phrases and terms. You also have bear in mind the history of the region and certainly from the second century BCE.

Maybe the fact that he wasn't from Judaea had something to do with that.

[Mountain Man]

And since neither Christ nor an of the other Apostles seem to have explicitly referred to themselves as being a Jew or Jewish, this means that it is likely none of them were Jewish

That's probably because Jesus and the apostles were Southern Baptists.

[Sparko]

And I have acknowledged that possibility in previous exchanges with you on this matter and also earlier in this thread.

He may have been a Jew but he never uses the word Ἰουδαῖος to describe himself. He does use other broader phrases and terms. You also have bear in mind the history of the region and certainly from the second century BCE.

Your point has no meaning. What do you hope to gain by pointing out he never actually wrote the words "I am a Jew?"

It is obvious that he was one.

You can't use something someone didn't say to claim that it means that what they didn't say is true about them. That is an argument from silence. You need positive evidence to make such a claim, such as Paul claiming to NOT be a Jew. Otherwise your argument is meaningless. He didn't deny being a Jew either, so by that I could claim it means he was a Jew.

Your argument is like you claiming Paul had no legs because he never specifically mentioned having them.