How much Jewish involvement was there in the creation of the New Testament?

The Genealogy of Jesus of a pretty jewish thing. Think some of the other apostles tried to turn away from it.

Thanks. There's a lot of reading up I have to do, but this seems to corroborate what I thought.

Sinners suffer?

>possibly Paul
Paul continued to follow Jewish law and sacrifice at the temple until the day he died.

>Paul continued to follow Jewish law
Bullshit. We see him violating Jewish law in the NT itself, like that whole "Get a commission from the High Priest to go persecute Christians despite the fact that the High Priest has no police powers and a Pharisee ought to know that".

Matthew, of the 12 Apostles
>Matthew

Mark, of the 70 Apostles
>Mark

Luke, of the 70 Apostles
>Luke
>Acts

John, of the 12 Apostles
>John
>1 John
>2 John
>3 John
>Revelation

Paul the Apostle
>Romans
>1 Corinthians
>2 Corinthians
>Galatians
>Ephesians
>Philippians
>Colossians
>1 Thessalonians
>2 Thessalonians
>1 Timothy
>2 Timothy
>Titus
>Philemon

James, of the 70 Apostles, and brother of Jesus
>James

Peter, of the 12 Apostles
>1 Peter
>2 Peter

Jude, of the 70 Apostles, and brother of Jesus
>Jude

Timothy, of the 70 Apostles
>Hebrews

To be fair, I'm not a barely literate jewish merchant in the year 25 either.

100% or 0, depending on your understanding of what a new creation in Christ Jesus is.

Paul confirmed as tribe of Benjamin, and you confirmed as idiotic anti-Jew Jew.

Tell me, Jew, when the Hebrews put the lamb's blood on their doors in Egypt, did the Angel of Death pass them over, or not? Is that not Passover?

Is that not a shadow of the things to come?

>100% or 0
>Christ Jesus

Purposely inverse and secretive; ellaborate what you mean, or get behind me, satan.

I'd only give credit to Peter for the Gospel according to Mark, as Mark was writing down what Peter told him.

I'm curious why you think Timothy wrote Hebrews. I had heard different names, Barnabus, Apollus, etc., but it was typically referred to as Paul's epistle to the Hebrews for a very long time.

I can't know that for sure now can I?

There is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ Jesus; all are new creations in Christ Jesus.

If you think you have authority over me in the name of satan, you're kind of delusional.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

You do not think God can make himself known, decisively, if he chooses to?

>Paul confirmed as tribe of Benjamin,

No, he claims to be that, with no actual corroboration.

>Tell me, Jew, when the Hebrews put the lamb's blood on their doors in Egypt, did the Angel of Death pass them over, or not

Yes.

>Is that not Passover?

No. It is part of Passover, but not the totality of Passover.

>Is that not a shadow of the things to come?

Of course not. It is a national declaration, a standing apart as a new people/nation/ethnicity and away from everything that Egypt stood for. By sacrificing an animal sacred to the Egyptians and very publicly displaying that they had done so, they were advertising that they were breaking away from the Egyptian ethos, now and forever. (Or at least in theory, there seems to have been considerable backsliding in the desert) The reason it spared the Jews is because by performing this sacrifice, it showed that the Jews who did it were NOT like the Egyptians, and thus should not be killed. It has nothing to do with a shadow of things to come, or with sin or forgiveness from it, which is why the sacrifice itself resembles a thanksgiving offering, not a sin offering.

Let's look at the authors of the New Testament.

Matthew - Jew
Mark - Jew
Luke - Jew
John - Jew
Paul - Jew
James - Jew
Peter - Jew
Jude - Jew

>brother of Jesus

Hi Dan Brown.

Ah, so you're just an idiot.

Got it.

Carry on with your no covenant, no God, no temple, no high priest, no animal sacrifice, no proper Passover, no proper festival, no atonement for your sins Jew self.

James and Jude were Jesus' half-brothers, both younger than he obviously.

I think OP means religiously jewish, not ethnically

why are you so rude?

>Ah, so you're just an idiot.

Pot, meet kettle.

>Carry on with your no covenant,

Pretty sure God said it was eternal in Deuteronomy. You calling God a liar?

>no God,

No, One God.

> no temple, no high priest, no animal sacrifice,

None of which are essential, although they would be nice to restore.

>no proper Passover

Much like the Jews in the desert!

> no proper festival,

Plenty of proper festivals. You should come by on Sukkos.

>no atonement for your sins

Actually, quite a bit. But of course, if you bothered to read Samuel, you'd know that sacrifice is not in fact necessary for remission of sin. Paul, despite being an "expert Pharisee", is clearly unfamiliar with the actual basic text, and of course missed this. You should really stop listening to him.

No, I meant I can't know for sure that you aren't a barely literate Jewish merchant in the year 25.

He's either a super fundie ameircan prottie type, and thus thinks everyone who isn't like himself is an evil spawn of Satan, or he's a caricature trying to portray himself as one. I'm not really sure, to be honest.

Either way, politeness to someone spouting Jewish theology or really any nuanced reading of the Bible is anathema.

What part of that post was rude?

Oh, I had to clarify.

You personally have no covenant with God.
You personally have no God.
You personally have no temple.
You personally have no high priest.
You personally have no animal sacrifices.
You personally have no proper Passover.
You personally have no proper festivals.
You personally have no atonement for your sins.

That you think the shedding of blood is not necessary for the remission of sins makes my judgment of you as an idiot perfect.

Paul is a far greater Jew than you can ever imagine yourself being, and he counted it all as loss.

St. Paul at least new enough about theology to get the Pharisee and sadducee to squabble amongst themselves.

That would also be a rather obvious thing to be certain of.

please stop being rude

Which part of that post is rude?

every Christian was a jew for like 100 years, it was considered by the Romans to be just another sect or cult of judaism. Later the jews would even argue whether or not gentiles should be allowed to become christians, and eventually the ones arguing for the inclusion of gentiles won out. The fact that this issue existed shows that the first "act" of Christianity is a play with entirely jewish actors and we didn't see nonjews become Christians until much later.

The Gospels. Assembling it? Christians and Councils.

Jews btfo lol.

(I pity you all, I don't scoff).

>nonjews become Christians until much later
What about the Roman centurion? What about all the Greek and Macedonian converts of Saint Paul?

Why would you ask Veeky Forums, home of heretics and athiests?

Paul was that guy.

And Peter was the one who discovered that Gentiles could be saved; he witnessed Cornelius and his house saved and full of the Holy Spirit, and doing the same signs and wonders that the saved Jews were doing.

Pretty sure they all viewed Jesus as the promised disciple and in their minds they were simply continuing Judaism rather than creating a new religion.

It's home to a lot of Christians too.

Where else would you suggest? Reddit?

Paul didnt appear on the scene till years after J-Dogg was crucified.

Roman Centurion was not a Christian, strictly speaking.

Can you imagine taking your 60 month car loan papers and changing the $500 per month to $5 per month, payable for 2 months, and then the car is yours free and clear?

That's exactly what the Jews did, or at least tried to do.

fuck off back to /utg/, you gay guinea anal homo fag millennial SJW nigger-nazi. kill yourself. cuck. kike. fag. jew. kill yourself.

You realize that Paul spent years with Jesus after the resurrection, yes?

What's the weather like in Malaysia this time of year?

Oh, and the first one wasn't me. You're slipping.

...

But I do have the things I claimed, and don't the ones I dismissed. And no, the shedding of blood is not necessary for the remission of sins, which is why you will find nothing claiming that in the Tanach, it's why you won't hear God telling Cain to go cut up a goat or something after killing Abel. It's why Eli says what he does to Hannah.

>Paul is a far greater Jew than you can ever imagine yourself being, and he counted it all as loss.

Paul didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. He's also dead, so the present tense usage is a bit weird. Again, why does a supposedly knowledgeable Jew follow the High Priest in something that he ought to know is wrong, given that the High Priest had no police power.

They'd been squabbling among themselves for ages before he came along. I mean hell, the whole division into the two parties was started over whether or not a priestly family should be sitting on the throne, which was like 150-200 years before Paul.

It was much sooner than that. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, and getting a lot of gentile converts, probably more than the Jewish ones, and by 70ish they were definitely the majority within the movement, although no doubt at least part of that was due to the big revolt and its suppression. That's like 40 years to a majority at most, and possibly less.

“The very reason God gave for calling his people out of Egypt was to offer sacrifices to him.”7 He adds, “A careful study of the Five Books of Moses indicates that more chapters are devoted to the subject of sacrifices and offerings than to the subjects of Sabbath observance, high holy days, idolatry, adultery, murder, and theft combined.”8 Indeed, Moses explicitly states that the blood offering was necessary to cover or atone for sins (Lev. 17:11). Sacrifice was never optional. When the Angel of Death destroyed the firstborn from the land of Egypt, he passed over and spared those Israelite homes that had the blood of the offering on them (Exod. 12:23). Any firstborn without the blood on his doorposts would have been killed. Blood was also required to cover all the sins of Israel (Lev. 16:21–22) in accordance with the New Testament (Heb. 9:22).

you are a pathetic degenerate idiot samefag homosex millennial cuck. die in a bus fire. die in a river. fuck off back to /utg/ forever.

>And no, the shedding of blood is not necessary for the remission of sins
God literally told Cain that a sin offering was at his door, and submissive to him, and that he could kill it just like Abel had and be forgiven.

Holy shit you don't know the torah at all, and call yourself a Jew?

...

>High Priest had no police power.

Wow, you really do not understand the Old Covenant at all, do you. Your High Priest stands in your stead before God.

You have no High Priest.

Jesus and the ancient Hebrews was black.
You are fake news

Where is /utg/, Malasiafag? How much can I pay you to go there and stay there?

Non-Jews are dogs, is what he's saying.
But he is Jesus so he wanted to soften the insult by saying "little" dogs

>Luke - Jew
No. He was a Greek.

So am I

I am a Greek

Ask an Orthodox Priest. They are the Church, and assembled the Biblical canon, after all.

>There are sacrifices!
True
>ALL SACRIFICES WERE ABOUT SIN!
Obviously false.

>”8 Indeed, Moses explicitly states that the blood offering was necessary to cover or atone for sins (Lev. 17:11).

Really, than explain Leviticus 5:11-13. If you can't even afford a pair of birds, you can make a sin offering with flour and oil. No blood. And that is fine.

> Sacrifice was never optional.

Nobody said it wasn't. Sacrifice, however, is not essential for the remission of sin. When Jonah goes to talk to the people of Nineveh, there's no mention of sacrifices, but God sees their repentance and spares them. There is also the rather large issue of all the other reasons you might want to bring a sacrifice, which Paul seems to be completely unfamiliar with.

Go back to /int/

Good call.

>Explain the Law to a Jew.

I'd rather practice dentistry on myself.

>Fuck the poor, they go to hell for being unable to buy birds.

Typical Jew.

No.

The Ninevites merely bought themselves another 40 years of existence; they were not turned into Jews or saved as righteous gentiles. They merely postponed their judgment day.

It's like you know nothing about the tanakh either.

not an argument

Then you should avail yourself of knowledge that can be found by reading the books and letters Paul wrote.

I don't argue, I just post the truth.

Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.

Hey, besides Paul, guess who else is Jewish?

Jesus! Yehoshua in Hebrew, Yeshua in Aramaic, and YOUR Messiah!

kill yourself, gay homo /utg/ millennial cuck. kill yourself. cuck. kike. cuck. kike. cuck. kike. cuck. kike. cuck. kike. fag. jew. millennial. cuck. kike. kill yourself, and then permanently fuck off back to /utg/

I'm admittedly rusty but I don't remember even anything remotely resembling this. Except if you're talking about the Revelation on the road to Damascus.

Or unless you're referring to some apocrypha

Puberty hits some people so much harder than others.

>literally illiterate.

Three little vereses. Leviticus 5:11-13.

Hell, I'll even put up the KJV version of them for you.

>But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering.

>Then shall he bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it, even a memorial thereof, and burn it on the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the Lord: it is a sin offering.

>And the priest shall make an atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in one of these, and it shall be forgiven him: and the remnant shall be the priest's, as a meat offering.

They were forgiven. God turned away from what He was going to do to them. That they later went ahead and screwed up again isn't relevant; they repented, were forgiven, without sacrificing a single animal.

What about Isaiah, who had his sins removed by a prophetic vision of a Seraph touching a coal to his lips? (Isaiah 6:6-7) Why does Numbers chapter 5 talk about the necessity of making confession for intentional sins, and restitution to other people damaged by it? Why does 2 Chronicles7:14 say

>if My people, upon whom My name is called, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their evil ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Why do you know nothing about any of this? Don't you read?

Too bad Jesus didn't write any part of the New Testament.

And you know, someone who is the Messiah really ought to fulfill messianic prohpecy. I must have missed the restored cities of Zion and the ingathering of the lost tribes that happened under Jesus's watch.

Galatians 1
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

Then after three years

I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days.

...

For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 3
For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles— if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

it obviously hit you with gay judeo-cuckoldian degeneracy and anal sex with islamo-niggergoidal bulls, you /utg/ millennial cuck kike. kill yourself. fuck off back to /utg/. kill yourself. fuck off back to /utg/.

Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins.

If you're literally too poor to bring something to me that can bleed, here, do this instead.

God's mercy makes God's justice errant? Are you sure, Jew?

Have you even brought forth that offering to God, and given it to His priest, who burned it on the altar?

No?

Then how are you doing anything but practicing lawlessness?

If God forgave them, they would not have been judged 40 years later. You obviously have no idea what forgiveness is. I'll give you a hint. Forgive and forget.

Why is the Old Covenant different from the New Covenant?

Is that the line of your idiotic questioning?

Did your people do that, and God fail to respond? Are you sure? (They failed to do that.)

OMFG THIS.

>nb4 some Christian tripe about metaphor and some Spider-Man tier (mental) gymnastics

He did, actually, unless you want to try to put a space between Jesus and the Holy Spirit, Who inspired the bible en toto.

Jesus fulfilled all of the ripe messianic prophecies.

Some are not yet ripe.

When they are ripe, he will fulfill them too.

I love this Jewish bullshit though. Messiah shows up, you reject him, reject his Kingdom, and murder him.

Then you kvetch about his not bringing in the Kingdom you rejected after you murdered him.

None needed. He's still the Messiah, still alive, and will continue to do the things the Messiah will do.

We call it the Millennial Kingdom. That's what Isaiah was talking about.

Jews take the OT literal. christians don't. Zion is the Church. Read origen

Origen was a heretic

whew! So glad I got in before the talk of metaphor and Spider-Man tier mental gymnastics.

that was a close call

No he wasn't.

>Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins.

Except that isn't true and I've demonstrated it with numerous examples, and your only counterexample is a verse that's telling you not to drink blood and has nothing to do with what you think it does.

>God's mercy makes God's justice errant? Are you sure, Jew?

I thought the Christian position was that the Old Covenant was having none of that wishy-washy God's mercy. If it did, what do you even need Jesus for?

>Then how are you doing anything but practicing lawlessness?

By fulfilling the law, which you clearly don't understand.

>If God forgave them, they would not have been judged 40 years later.

What on earth makes you think that? They oculd have easily done other stuff, like, you know that whole Assyrian genocide mode they were constantly in, and got nailed for that.

>Why is the Old Covenant different from the New Covenant?

Because the first is from God and the second one is made up by Paul.

>Is that the line of your idiotic questioning?

Nope. I'm asking why, if Paul's reasoning is correct, why do we have all these examples IN THE OLD COVENANT of people being forgiven of sins without making any sacrifices at all, let alone sacrifices of blood.

>Jesus fulfilled all of the ripe messianic prophecies.

Yeah, Jewish bullshit. You know what's some prime bullshit? Hey, we have a guy who didn't fulfill Messianic prohpecy, why are you not believing he's the messiah!

>Then you kvetch about his not bringing in the Kingdom you rejected after you murdered him.

You think that a bunch of Jews could affect God's plans? Don't they even have someone saying that in Acts somewhere, that it would be impossible to interfere with the Christians if they were really agents of God?

even Origin didn't take the entire OT as allegorical, only the parts he subjectively deemed silly

>Jews take the OT literal. christians don't

Actually we don't. Maimonides even says that someone who views every part of the Tanach as literal is stupid and should have a keeper.

That isn't to say there aren't parts that shouldn't be taken literally, but no, Jews do not believe that when "God stretched forth his hand to smite Egypt" there was a giant hand punching the country.

>By fulfilling the law, which you clearly don't understand.

If you think you fulfill the Law, you do not understand the Law at all.

Everyone in the OT who is forgiven their sins has righteousness imputed to them by their faith in the coming messiah.

As Jesus said, anyone who believed Moses and the prophets believes in Jesus, because Moses and the prophets were speaking of Jesus.

Which is how I know you do not believe in Moses and the prophets.

Jesus fulfilled hundreds of messianic prophecies; all of them that were ripe at the time. Including ones that were time dependent.

Yes, by rejecting and murdering the Messiah, it was revealed that the original intent all along was to offer salvation to whoever believes in the Messiah, in Jesus Christ.

Salvation was never just for the Jew.

That was Jewish conceit.

Similes and metaphors make something not literally true. God did not stretch forth his strong right hand to free the Hebrews from the Egyptians, says you.

kek

>Which is how I know you do not believe in Moses and the prophets.

I wrote that before I saw your post where you posted that you do not believe Moses and the prophets.

((()))

youtu.be/uI86VRC5z1s

He was a subordinationist. There's a reason they never made him a saint.