J
Jim_Baur
Guest
Was Jesus considered a Samaritan by the His fellow Jews?
Was Jesus considered a Samaritan in the Early Church?
Thanks!
Was Jesus considered a Samaritan in the Early Church?
Thanks!
- Status
M
Mintaka
Guest
No, the Samaritans are a very specific tribe of people with their own religious beliefs. They still exist. They still worship and sacrifice on Mount Gerazim. They only believe in certain books of the Hebrew Bible.
No, Jesus was from Galilee, not Samaria. All his non-Jewish ancestors converted to normal Judaism. He was of the House of David. He didn’t worship on Mount Gerazim.
I’m puzzled by your question. What brought this on?
No, Jesus was from Galilee, not Samaria. All his non-Jewish ancestors converted to normal Judaism. He was of the House of David. He didn’t worship on Mount Gerazim.
I’m puzzled by your question. What brought this on?
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
Thanks!
I know that we are clearly taught Jesus was a Jew from Galilee.
I was not sure if the average Jew of Jesus’ time considered the people from the north as Samaritans.
The further reasoning is that some, I do not know the percentage, Early Church Fathers considered Jesus the Samaritan in His parable about the Samaritan.
Origen’s commentary on the Song of Songs sees the parable in the spiritual light.
St. Paul said PUT ON kindness, compassion,and over all of these put on love.
Origen would have the man being stripped of kindness, compassion and love.
Then the Samaritan, being Jesus, went to the sinner (man stripped) and helped the sinner. We should do help sinners, if they want help. I know that I as a sinner have received a great deal of help.
Origen also points out–they were headed down from the Holy City to Sin City–from Jerusalem to Jericho.
But Origen would say, do not miss how one inherits eternal life–love!
I thank you for your answer. I have to run. Thanks and God bless.
I know that we are clearly taught Jesus was a Jew from Galilee.
I was not sure if the average Jew of Jesus’ time considered the people from the north as Samaritans.
The further reasoning is that some, I do not know the percentage, Early Church Fathers considered Jesus the Samaritan in His parable about the Samaritan.
Origen’s commentary on the Song of Songs sees the parable in the spiritual light.
St. Paul said PUT ON kindness, compassion,and over all of these put on love.
Origen would have the man being stripped of kindness, compassion and love.
Then the Samaritan, being Jesus, went to the sinner (man stripped) and helped the sinner. We should do help sinners, if they want help. I know that I as a sinner have received a great deal of help.
Origen also points out–they were headed down from the Holy City to Sin City–from Jerusalem to Jericho.
But Origen would say, do not miss how one inherits eternal life–love!
I thank you for your answer. I have to run. Thanks and God bless.
P
patrick457
Guest
Hey, congratulations on your 2000th post (by the time I’m posting this)!
No, aside from that little slur against Jesus by the ‘Judaeans’ that He was a Samaritan and a demoniac among of other things (John 8:48), it’s pretty much agreed that Jesus is a Jew, more specifically, a Galilean, because He hails from Nazareth in the Galilee.
N
NHInsider
Guest
I don’t think there is any indication that any of His contemporaries considered Jesus to be a Samaritan (which would surely have been utilized as a useful slur against Him. . … )
If anything He would have been considered (like St. Paul) to have been a Pharisee in that He believed in life after death . . .
If anything He would have been considered (like St. Paul) to have been a Pharisee in that He believed in life after death . . .
P
patrick457
Guest
Doctrinally, Jesus WAS indeed quite close to the Pharisees: really the only main divide between Him and them is over the interpretation of certain ethical practices. That, and the apparent hypocrisy of some Pharisees. In fact Jesus, before launching into the chapter-long woes against the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23, first tells people that because they have authority (they “sit on the seat of Moses”), whatever they teach should thus be observed. But He then warns that one must not act like like them, “for they say, and do not.”
But beyond that, Jesus did have His own differences and similarities with the various forms of Judaism we know of that we can’t really fit Him in satisfactorily with one group; He is really a separate category on His own.
And yes, Jesus was once accused of being a Samaritan as I mentioned, but that’s a single instance. Not to mention that the accusation is questionable given the context.
B
brb3
Guest
The Pharisees and Scribes did view Jesus as an outsider, one of illegitimate birth.
Jesus often sided/supported the lower class and downtrodden in his parables, which found fault/guilt with those of noble Jewish birthright.
Christ taught that all who would follow him had to foresake their birthrights & family ties … and take up their Crosses & learn to suffer/forgive all others. We inherit eternal life via second birth, not our first. Origen deciphered the Parable, and expressed it as Christ intended.
P
patrick457
Guest
Well, historically many of the Pharisees - which attracted people from various social statuses, from the rich to the poor - are known to come from the lower working classes as well (the two famous rabbis, Hillel and Shammai, were actually a woodcutter/manual laborer and a building contractor/construction worker, respectively), so there wouldn’t have been much of a difference between Jesus and many of them status-wise. Besides, both were courting the same segment of society (the lower class - which in those days was the majority of the population), which may partly be the reason why the two parties frequently clashed with one another. I think your picture fits more the upper echelons of the Temple priesthood and the Sadducees, whose membership indeed mainly comprised the ruling native aristocracy (and perhaps their cronies) and leading citizens of the region.
Besides, at the time of Jesus the Sadducees were the ones who had political clout because of their collaboration with Rome; their Pharisaic rivals (who did have power during the Hasmonean period in 164-37 BC), aside from some prominent ones, generally exercised power only by virtue of their broad appeal to the common people.
T
TimothyH
Guest
One would do well to pay attention to Patricks’ posts. He is quite knowledgeable on matters of Jewish history and culture at the time of Jesus and the social and class structure of the day.
-Tim-
-Tim-
P
patrick457
Guest
Oh no, you’re being too kind. I merely have an interest in these things is all.
B
brb3
Guest
While the average 1st Century Jew shared more in common with the Pharisees than Sadducees … Christ had many harsh words for the legalistic Pharisees, and promised they would not inherit the Kingdom w/o repentance and taking on sincere righteousness.
Christ was the enemy of both mainline groups … and both conspired to entrap and kill him. Nevertheless, neither could obtain their endgame … w/o Christ giving himself into their hands. Forty years later, both groups were judged and executed … by the Romans.
It is wrong to blame the Romans for Christ’s death. Pilate washed his hands of the judgment the Jews demanded. Christ chose Rome, as the pre-eminent, visible city for his new Christian Church & Kingdom. Paul, the Pharisee, converted by divine revelation …and sent to Rome to leave his mark on Christianity 4-ever.
The irony of it all is amazing and inexplicable … except for divine intervention and hand of God at work, accomplishing His will in world events/history.
P
patrick457
Guest
I’ve come under some flak for this recently, so I’ll try to keep things balanced.
Yes, many a deprecation did Jesus have for the practices of a number of Pharisees, but in the historical context such was really not out of the ordinary. Debate was part of the standard repertory of Jewish teachers: they frequently clashed against and criticized each other, sometimes vociferously (Middle Easterners apparently use strong, colorful language that would be seen as harsh by Westerners in such situations), over the interpretation of the Law. In fact, the Pharisees LOVED debate, thinking that in Heaven, God and the heavenly host themselves hold Torah study and debate about the same issues. It was not seen as something divisive, but as a way to grasp God’s will.
(Continued)
P
patrick457
Guest
Only, the Pharisees managed to survive and go on to found Rabbinic Judaism. The Sadducees…well, since the Temple (which was crucial to their beliefs) was destroyed and the Romans had turned against their people, thus stripping them of their status there was apparently no longer any reason for them to exist, and vanish they did.
I would respectfully disagree here. Both Jews AND Romans have their share of the crime. Pilate did try to shift the blame but he still put Jesus to death, all in the name of duty of keeping ‘peace’ and political expediency.
P
patrick457
Guest
Well, two things:
1.) The region of Samaria is actually located within the Roman province of Iudaea, formed in AD 6 by merging the regions of Samaria, Judaea proper and Idumaea. The Galilee was a separate region by itself, ruled by Herod Antipas the tetrarch.
2.) I don’t think we should literally interpret Christ as a Samaritan, any more than we should actually imagine Him as being a literal gate or a walking, talking loaf of bread (hey, He did say “I am the gate” and “I am the bread of life”
).
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
patrick457
Thanks!
My question is: did some of the Jews in Jerusalem consider Jesus a Samaritan?
I know that Origen claims that the Samaritan was a figure for Jesus in the parable in Luke 10.
You have answered my question and I thank you–thanks!
You are a saint.
Thanks!
My question is: did some of the Jews in Jerusalem consider Jesus a Samaritan?
I know that Origen claims that the Samaritan was a figure for Jesus in the parable in Luke 10.
You have answered my question and I thank you–thanks!
You are a saint.
P
patrick457
Guest
I’m absolutely not, but I’ll try hard to be one.
- Status