did Jesus die a Jew?

[© tweed]

did Jesus die a Jew?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Depends what you mean by 'Jew.'  What Jesus practiced was pure Judaism, in that he highly revered and followed Mosaic law, but he established a new church (Matthew 16:18–19) when he appointed Peter as the first Pope.  He never rejected Judaism as a religion.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Depends what you mean by 'Jew.'  What Jesus practiced was pure Judaism, in that he highly revered and followed mosaic law, but he established a new church (Matthew 16:18–19) when he appointed Peter as the first Pope.  He never rejected Judaism as a religion.

Sort of surprised to see a Protestant accept Petrine supremacy.  I agree with those who see the rock that Jesus refers to with his pun there as referring to the faith that Peter had just displayed and not the person of Peter himself.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Depends what you mean by 'Jew.'  What Jesus practiced was pure Judaism, in that he highly revered and followed mosaic law, but he established a new church (Matthew 16:18–19) when he appointed Peter as the first Pope.  He never rejected Judaism as a religion.

Sort of surprised to see a Protestant accept Petrine supremacy.  I agree with those who see the rock that Jesus refers to with his pun there as referring to the faith that Peter had just displayed and not the person of Peter himself.

I wasn't endorsing Petrine supremacy, but I understand the passage as the establishment of a new church/religion/movement/whathaveyou.  I don't see how it could be interpreted otherwise.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Depends what you mean by 'Jew.'  What Jesus practiced was pure Judaism, in that he highly revered and followed mosaic law, but he established a new church (Matthew 16:18–19) when he appointed Peter as the first Pope.  He never rejected Judaism as a religion.

Sort of surprised to see a Protestant accept Petrine supremacy.  I agree with those who see the rock that Jesus refers to with his pun there as referring to the faith that Peter had just displayed and not the person of Peter himself.

I wasn't endorsing Petrine supremacy, but I understand the passage as the establishment of a new church/religion/movement/whathaveyou.  I don't see how it could be interpreted otherwise.

The two statements contradict each other.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Depends what you mean by 'Jew.'  What Jesus practiced was pure Judaism, in that he highly revered and followed mosaic law, but he established a new church (Matthew 16:18–19) when he appointed Peter as the first Pope.  He never rejected Judaism as a religion.

Sort of surprised to see a Protestant accept Petrine supremacy.  I agree with those who see the rock that Jesus refers to with his pun there as referring to the faith that Peter had just displayed and not the person of Peter himself.

I wasn't endorsing Petrine supremacy, but I understand the passage as the establishment of a new church/religion/movement/whathaveyou.  I don't see how it could be interpreted otherwise.

The two statements contradict each other.

Oh, sorry, I was thinking of papal supremacy.  But yes, I don't see how that passage could be interpreted as anything other than the appointment of Peter to the head of some religious foundation, even if we accept that authority is not exclusive to Peter and the popes.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Depends what you mean by 'Jew.'  What Jesus practiced was pure Judaism, in that he highly revered and followed mosaic law, but he established a new church (Matthew 16:18–19) when he appointed Peter as the first Pope.  He never rejected Judaism as a religion.

Sort of surprised to see a Protestant accept Petrine supremacy.  I agree with those who see the rock that Jesus refers to with his pun there as referring to the faith that Peter had just displayed and not the person of Peter himself.

I wasn't endorsing Petrine supremacy, but I understand the passage as the establishment of a new church/religion/movement/whathaveyou.  I don't see how it could be interpreted otherwise.

The two statements contradict each other.

Oh, sorry, I was thinking of papal supremacy.  But yes, I don't see how that passage could be interpreted as anything other than the appointment of Peter to the head of some religious foundation, even if we accept that authority is not exclusive to Peter and the popes.

As I said, I see the rock that passage referring to not the person Peter, but the faith that Peter had displayed in Matthew 16:16.  With sufficient faith, we can move both earth and heaven as is mentioned not only in Matthew 16:19 but also in Matthew 18:18 and in the latter verse it is clear that Jesus is speaking to all the disciples, not just Peter.

Peter certainly did command respect among the disciples, but to say that he was appointed by Jesus as his successor as head of the earthly church is stretching things.  At most, because Peter was the first of the disciples to exhibit such faith (tho that faith wavered at times) he was the first to receive the authority that was given equally to all of the disciples in Matthew 18:18.