If you read it again, it sounds like the priest was whinging about everything wrong in the world. This sort of ‘complaining’ is very self-serving, it doesn’t make for an effective and actionable homily. He painted a hopeless view of the world, while Christ is all about hope.Thank you for clarifying your position. I think the priest in the OP was doing just what you say. And I hope you will be equally critical of any priest who uses the pulpit to promote his right-wing platform.
Jesus is 100% God and 100% human,YOu subscribe to the Pauline view of Yeshua. Paul never knew Yeshua during his lifetime and you never answered my claim that other followers of Jesus did not agree his Paul’s interpretation of Jesus life. Matthew was a Jew but the translation of his Gospel that survives was a Greek copy of the original Aramaic. John wrote his Gospel in Greek for a Greek audience incorporating into it the Greek concept of the Divine Logos hardly a Jewish idea. It is my belief based on my reading of the early groups of Yeshua followers that the faith created was more Greek and Roman than Jewish.
As for the Law Jesus did not abolish the moral and ethical laws that had been in effect from the time of Moses. He affirmed and expanded upon those principles, but He said obedience must be from the heart (attitudes and intentions) rather than just technical observance of the letter of the law (Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-42, 43-44, etc.).not just one quote.
However, Jesus and His disciples did not observe the strict scribal ritual rules like ritual washing before eating. Therefore, Jesus may have been specifically teaching that the moral and ethical laws in the Scripture would endure until the end of time. That would be consistent with His actions and other teachings. However, we only hear Jesus through copies of original Gospels. Scholars recognise that the early faith was more Jewish than the Christian faith taught today. The whole thrust of his Ministry is to proclaim the coming of God’s Kingdom and sharing the gifts of God’s earth. Very Jewish ideas. Jesus was and is still a Jew - the Messiah who taught in synagogue and Temple, who told the rich to give to the poor, the strong to protect the weak, an inclusive faith were women and children were as valuable as men. He did not preach personal salvation, but collective salvation. Personal salvation comes from the writings of Paul and a mistranslation in the Bible of the Aramaic “among” for “within”. I am quite at ease with my Messianic Yeshua and his teachings. However, I have also included the growing number of lost texts in my studies which the Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox class as “heresies”. I firmly believe in Yeshua(Jesus) as the Messiah - the anointed one of God but not in the Greco-Roman add-ons to an essentially Jewish faith.
If Paul’s Christianity consumed the true Christianity then the gates of hell prevailed against the Church.Yeshua (Jesus) was 100% Jew 100% the Messiah - Let us agree to differ just as some of Yeshua’s disciples did with Paul.
You believe in Jesus do you not? So it is your problem. Jesus is the Son of God. So if Paul took over true Christianity, then Jesus is not God or the Anointed One.I’m afraid that your problem not mine Shalom
The synoptics present Jesus as the Son of God-meaning the only-begotten Son of God and the anointed. If Jesus’ ministry was basically a social ministry, it failed horribly. However it was not. Jesus came to establish the kingdom of God with his victory over sin and death.Illogical -the synoptic gospels describe Jesus (yeshua) a number of ways including the Messiah - the Son of God - the Son of Man. If I accept Jesus (Yeshua) as the Messiah - which has specific Jewish connotations and you think otherwise we are both within the Gospel tradition. To reject the Pauline analysis is not to reject Jesus as the Messiah; the anointed one of God.
Jesus’s whole purpose was individual salvation for those who believed in Him. Christianity is the fufillment of Judaisim, not a break from it. John 3:16-20That is one interpretation based on a translation of the Latin which was a translation of the Greek and in the case of Matthews Gospel a translation of the original Aramaic. Also we know that many early Christian/Nazarene texts were lost. What we have is a selected text which has survived the 1st and 2nd centuries. As I have said many times the early followers of Jesus were not so agreed on his ministry as you appear to be. There were and still are many who see Jesus as the Messiah with a messianic mission to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth. Nowhere will you find Jesus focusing as Paul does on personal salvation, but collective salvation through carrying out the correct focus of God’s Laws. I do not accept Pauline teaching but I do except Yeshua as the anointed one of God. As I say we can never agree on the Jewishness of Jesus and his faith but tell me Was Jesus ever a Christian and can you guarantee at the Second Coming he will not return as a Jew ?
You forget Jesus was rejected by the leaders of his time and said that a prophet was not accepted in his native place. The Hebrews were his people but they did not accept Him as Messiah.I think we have chewed over our differences enough. Clearly we take differing views about Pauline Christianity and the Greek gospels as against Yeshua’s Hebrew/Aramaic background,
Try reading William W Simpson’s “Jewish Payer and Worship” An introduction for Christians" You will see just how much Jesus (Yeshua) teaching was essentially Jewish.
The few that did were ostracized from their communities and the crowds followed because of what they thought He would be, not for who He really was. They turned on Him once He didn’t fit their expectations. It was no accident that it was only a Roman governor who proclaimed Him innocent. It was no accident that a Roman officer’s faith was greater than those in Israel. And it was no accident that the first people to proclaim His divinity were His executioners. Didn’t the Messiah go to the Samaritans? Didn’t He go to the Ten Cities? Didn’t He go to Tyre and Sidon? The religious leaders not only feared Him because of His teachings but for the fact that He proclaimed that He was the I AM.Really the Hebrews did not accept Jesus - Who then were Mary and Joseph, Simon Peter and the other 11 disciples ?? And the crowds that followed him ? Chinese ? Americans, British ? And who crucified him ? The Jews or the Romans ? I think you should rethink your history. Jesus was a Jew, his followers were Jews, the crowds that he taught were mostly Jewish. He was crucified by the Romans probably with the blessing of Jesus Jewish critics who feared his social teaching. A bit like today.
Thomas was the same guy who called Jesus Lord and God. This was recorded by a Jew.Remember the Gospels are second hand copies of originals and therefore ( not being a Protestant ) one has to take the thrust of their accounts of Jesus life and tease out the later add ons by Pauline Christians of the Greco-Roman faction. To fully understand how the two views of Jesus diverged we have to go back to historians and textual criticism. There you will find the sainthood of Doubting Thomas of value.
What is your proof? What would John have gained? What would Matthew have gained? Paul’s revelation given to him by Christ was given the approval of the leadership of the Church, namely Peter and James. Even James argued against the prostelyzation of Gentiles. You consider him your founding father. Why not follow his example? And it was the Jews who yelled “Crucify Him!” in Pilate’s presence.We only have doctored versions of the Gospels to prove that - Just as for centuries Christians blamed “the Jews” for Yeshua’s death was an appeasement of Rome.
Are the Nazarenes descendants of those who escaped across the Jordan, prior to the destruction of Jerusalem?We only have doctored versions of the Gospels to prove that - Just as for centuries Christians blamed “the Jews” for Yeshua’s death was an appeasement of Rome.