Question for Christians about "the Jews" (those whose ethnicity is "Jewish")

Question deleted due to incorrect information.

 

Why not?

 

The Jews were calling themselves Jews for a long time before there were any Christians, and that's how they were known in the Roman Empire. At the time Paul wrote those words, most Christians were also calling themselves Jews. In fact, at the time Paul wrote those words that you quoted, the dominant group of Christians in Jerusalem were taking the position that in order to be a Christian, a person first had to become a Jew--including circumcision for males and keeping kosher. It was a big issue between Paul's followers and the other Christians, who accused Paul of being a false Christian, and in the passage you quoted Paul is expressing his side of the argument. His "Judaizer" opponents were caught up in the uprisings against the Romans in Jerusalem within the next decade and were pretty much annihilated, leaving Paul's faction the dominant one. I suppose the short answer to your question is that after most of the Christian "circumcision faction" was wiped out, the matter was considered pretty much moot. Paul was also dead, and Christians had moved on and had become predominantly Gentile, for whom regarding themselves as true Jews was not a deal. They were now calling themselves Christians and were calling the Jews a lot of really bad names and wanted to distinguish themselves from them.

 

Peace Asmodean,

I have to correct myself. Paul referred to the ethnic group as "the Jews."

Peace.

 

Are you sure calling ethnic jews Jews is what is causing that?

It appears what Paul said does not really matter that much to christians in general. Another reason to still call ethnic jews jews is simply to acknowledge there ethnicity, for this there has to be no specific christian reason at all. Another reason to call jews jews is when those jews are religious jews of course.

Why are you asking this? Seems like a nonissue to me.

 

They call themselves Jews - what else would you rather have us call them?

 

I have to correct myself. Paul did refer to the ethnic group as "the Jews." So much confusion in religion is a reason why I am an agnostic.

Peace.

 

I asked because at the time I thought that there should not be an ethnic group called, "the Jews."

Peace,
nunnies

 

I retract the question due to incorrect information.

 

They're my opinions based on what I think are reasonable inferences from some historical evidence--i.e., Jewish and Christian history and the writings of Paul. I'm not invoking some supernatural theory about who is the true Jew. I'm explaining what I think Paul was getting at in his letter, and why Christians haven't made a bigger deal about it. It's an issue for you because you're going by literal language in a letter that Christians later adopted as canonical. But the fact is, as you've noted, Christians didn't take the ball and run with it. Because soon after Paul wrote those words it became a non-issue. He was executed a few years later. His "Judaizer" opponents in the Christian church in Jerusalem were largely wiped out about the same time. And the breach between Jews and Romans became a chasm after the Romans destroyed the Temple in the same uprising. No Christians after that time wanted to be called any kind of Jew, true of false, since most Christians by then were converted Gentiles and "Jew" had become a dirty word to them. I submit that that's a more plausible answer than anything having to do with what was or was not written millenia before scripture in some metaphysical realm. It may not be true, but it's plausible and simple.

 

I retract the question due to incorrect information.

 

...

 

I thought it brought out an issue some folks including Christians are unfamiliar with. When Paul took Christianity on the road, he got most of his following from Jewish wannabes, or "Godfearers"--Gentiles who were fascinated with Judaism and attended synagogue services, but were reluctant to become circumcised and observe Jewish dietary and other rules. Paul argued that they could become full-fledged heirs to the Jewish tradition without doing those things, and that, as you said, they would be the "true" followers of the God of Israel. It was that change that was the big selling point--bridging the gap between Jew and Gentile, and eventually making Christianity the #1 world religion. The Ebionite Christians who said people had to become Jews first before they became Christians, and observe all of the features of Jewish Law, lost out, by process of natural selection. Evolution in action!

 

Can I ask, what do you mean by "heirs to the Jewish tradition?" If Paul said that the crucifixion of Jesus was a stumblingblock to the Jews, how is "the Jewish tradition" any good to a Christian?

Thank you,
nunnies

 

Paul and other Christians claimed that Jesus was the Messiah, fulfilling Jewish prophecy. Those were the Jewish traditions I was talking about. Crucifixion was a big stumbling block to winning over Jews, since the Jews expected a triumphal Messiah, and the OT said that anyone who hung from a tree was cursed. Christians tried to get around that by portraying Jesus as the Suffering Servant of Second Isaiah and by the doctrine of the Resurrection. Most Jews weren't convinced.

 

Thank you, Sir or Ma'am.

 

answer deleted due to stupid answer

 

LOLOL. That wasn't very nice lolol.

I ask because though I am not Jewish, religion interests me.

Peace.

 

I answered that way because there are 7 billion religions and in any packaged and branded form of religion or of god the actual religion is the part you use, not the baggage. And each uses religion differently. With the minority using religion for seeking truth. Most use religion for commonality and acceptance and power. Also given Jewish persecution singling Jews out is tantamount to being on the verge of prejudice.

Also, you cannot answer questions about fictions and expect anything but a fictitious answer. That's where the stupid part comes in. Moreover you were asking for an answer which couldn't be anything but ad hominem.