What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Was Jesus Christ a Jew by Blood ?

S

savedbygrace57

Guest
Many today believe Jesus Christ is or was a Jew by Blood, however that is impossible !

You see, Jesus was not born by blood, and Jn 1:13 can also apply to Him Jn 1:13

13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

He did not have Joseph's Blood, for he was not the natural father of Jesus Christ; nor did He have mary's blood, but He generated His own Blood while in the womb of the virgin.

Acts 20:28

28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Jesus Christ was a Jew in the Truest sense Rom 2:28-29

28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

His Praise was not of men, but of God.

It was written of some ethnic jews this Jn 12:43

For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

So ethnic jews by blood have no claim on Jesus Christ, none whatsoever, but only Jews that have circumcision of heart, who are inwardly jews, and whose praise is not of men, but of God !
 
Jesus was fully man, he was born into the house of David, the genealogies in the gospels indicate that he has claim to be blood related to this family tree, otherwise it would not have included them,

He was/is part of Gods chosen people, as well as being Rabbi.

He was Jewish.

I think you have read more into Jn.1:13than is being implied:

very rough wooden Greek translation of the verse
The not in(to) of blood (ones) nor in(to) will flesh nor in(to) will man but in(to) of God (you(plural)) were begated

better ordered as:

-(passive, 3rd person, Plural)- were begated
not of the blood, flesh, or will of man
But into God.

those of you who know Greek grammar, there is no direct object in this verse alone, for those who don't know Greek I challenge you to make sense of this verse alone.

This verse NEEDS to be read with the verse before it and shares the same direct object (nominative)

The direct object in this case are all those who have received him. Him being Christ.

Jesus cannot be the direct object and the direct subject.

Therefore there is no grounds to say that this verse applies to Jesus.


(I apologies if this doesn't make sense, I'm tired and busy)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
wool

He was Jewish.
Click to expand...

Not by Blood ! He did not have Joseph's Blood, neither mary's blood, for He generated His own Blood Acts 20:28

28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
 
next,

Acts 20:28 does not refer to the blood being unique or different, it is demonstrating that the blood being sold was owned by Jesus, the emphais is not on the uniquness of the blood but that this particular blood had an owner.

Romans 2:28 is not talking about Jesus at all, it is talking about the outward signs of faith, and then to declare that therefore no ethnic Jew has a claim on Jesus is rediculously far fetched.


Im sorry, but you are emphasising all the wrong points and deriving meanings that simply isnt there, as far as I can tell
 
savedbygrace57 said:
wool



Not by Blood ! He did not have Joseph's Blood, neither mary's blood, for He generated His own Blood Acts 20:28

28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Click to expand...



see above, this verse does not indicate the uniquness of jesus' blood. it does not tell us that Jesus created his own blood, but rather that God (refering to the divine nature of Jesus) was the owner of the blood in question. (blood being the direct subject of the indirect object of this sentence)


Im not really attacking the thought you have, I need to ponder that a bit more, Im just pointing out the exegest is horrible
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Christ's Blood was generated by a being who was God and Man to constitute it with a efficacy that would pay the penalty for the sins of His People, and ethnicity, the flesh, had nothing to do with it. He generated the Blood of God, not jewish blood. I do believe if we could do DNA on His Blood, it would not prove Him to be Mary's Biological Son, but in the case of you and your children it would !

You see, Christ's seed would be Spiritual Children Isa 53:10

10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

As far as the physical jews were concerned, He died without a seed to continue His Generation.
 
savedbygrace57 said:
Christ's Blood was generated by a being who was God and Man to constitute it with a efficacy that would pay the penalty for the sins of His People, and ethnicity, the flesh, had nothing to do with it. He generated the Blood of God, not jewish blood. I do believe if we could do DNA on His Blood, it would not prove Him to be Mary's Biological Son, but in the case of you and your children it would !

You see, Christ's seed would be Spiritual Children Isa 53:10

10Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

As far as the physical jews were concerned, He died without a seed to continue His Generation.
Click to expand...
All speculation. There is nothing in Scripture to indicate that Mary was not the biological mother of Jesus.
 
The promise was to the seed of Eve, the seed of Abraham, the seed of David. Did God break His promise? The Word was made flesh. His name is Jesus.

Christ's Blood was generated by a being who was God and Man to constitute it with a efficacy that would pay the penalty for the sins of His People, and ethnicity, the flesh, had nothing to do with it. He generated the Blood of God, not jewish blood. I do believe if we could do DNA on His Blood, it would not prove Him to be Mary's Biological Son, but in the case of you and your children it would !
Click to expand...

Saying that the flesh had nothing to do with is is getting dangerously close to denying that Jesus came in the flesh.
 
savedbygrace57 said:
Christ's Blood was generated by a being who was God and Man to constitute it with a efficacy that would pay the penalty for the sins of His People, and ethnicity, the flesh, had nothing to do with it. He generated the Blood of God, not jewish blood. I do believe if we could do DNA on His Blood, it would not prove Him to be Mary's Biological Son, but in the case of you and your children it would !
Click to expand...
I try real hard to respect and even consider all the various beliefs in the church today, but this one to me is totally ridiculous. There's no valuable reason whatsoever to come up with a way to show that Jesus was somehow not Jewish.
 
The story of Joseph revealing himself to his brothers after they rejected his prophecy of him being head over them and then them plotting to kill him and selling him for silver has no meaning as a picture of Jesus' treatment at the hand of his own brethren and revealing himself to his fellow Israelites if Jesus is not Jewish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top