Is the Background of God's Word Greek or Jewish?

[jeremiah1five]

Your comments expose your profound ignorance of Jewish history: the OT strongly opposed intermarriage precisely because covenant identity cannot be not casually “mixed” or diluted (Ezra 9–10; Neh 13). That makes your appeal to “mixed-race Jews” an anachronistic projection rather than a historical reality. By reducing Jewish identity to a vague hybrid category and imputing covenantal ignorance to those outside Judea, you demonstrate unfamiliarity with how Jews themselves understood lineage, Torah, and communal continuity—so much so that one reasonably doubts if you are speaking from within Jewish tradition at all. In any case, Scripture decisively affirms that the covenant is not transmitted by blood purity but by God’s calling and instruction, and Gentile believers were never intruders but intentional heirs by faith, while Jewish believers—whether in Jerusalem or Rome—remained Jews, not racial composites invented to prop up a theory the text and history simply do not support.

First, nowhere in the Abraham, Mosaic, and New Covenants does God require faith as His terms in each of these covenants where these covenants are recorded.

Second, the Scripture is clear that God's covenant with Abram the Hebrew is biological for He declares this in Genesis 17:7.

7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. Genesis 17:6–7.

As far as Hebrew/Jews marrying non-Hebrews there is a difference and distinction between national origin and religious practice. In the Old Testament, the primary concern was not "race" in a modern sense, but rather the protection of the Israelites' spiritual devotion to God. The core commandment against intermarrying with certain Gentile groups is found in the Torah. The concern was that foreign spouses would introduce the worship of other gods into Israel.

1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.
6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:
8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Deuteronomy 7:1–8.

The key verse in which Moses tells the Israelites to not marry [the] the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites is followed up with the reason not to marry these non-Hebrew Gentiles:

"For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods"

God does not make race as His reason for intermarriages but religious practice. If you're going to claim that RACE is your reason and interpretation for God prohibiting intermarriage of Jews and non-Hebrew Gentiles and that such unions are sin (transgressing) the Law, then these marriages in the birth of Jesus is and was sin:

Rahab was a Canaanite woman from the city of Jericho. She is famous for hiding the Israelite spies and expressing faith in the Lord’s power. After the fall of Jericho, she dwelt among the Israelites and eventually married Salmon.

4 and Naasson begat Salmon; 5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab Matthew 1:4–5.

And there is Ruth. Ruth was a Moabitess who returned to Bethlehem with her mother-in-law, Naomi. Despite her heritage, she famously swore her allegiance to the God of Israel. She married Boaz, a wealthy Israelite of the tribe of Judah, and they became the great-grandparents of King David.

In the interpretation you are trying to push Jesus was born in sin for the two male Israelites marrying non-Hebrew Gentile women.

THAT is what you are saying.

However, these marriages did not "turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods."

The prohibition had to do with religious practice (serve other gods) not with race.

Nice try, though.

 

[jeremiah1five]

I'm criticizing you for your unfounded personal attacks on her. Are you a Jew masquerading as a Gentile fundamentalist Christian? You need to keep your personal snarky remarks to yourself, or you maybe put on ignore.
Shalom

Are you a Karen being offended for someone else?

She claims to be a follower of Christ then let her stand or fall to her Lord. The one thing being a disciple of Jesus Christ includes is standing up to the truth of the Word of God. And the Word of God is for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. NOTE the words "reproof" and "correction." Saul stood up against Peter because "he was to be blamed." If a so-called Christian does not allow the Scripture to "reprove" and "correct" them then maybe she's not a true born-of-God Christian.
The Lord is in the business of giving His people spines so that they may endure all things especially testing for the things they believe the Bible says. She must always be ready to give an answer to those that ask of the hope in then with meekness and fear. But you interfere with the dynamic going on between us and you violate the Lord's instruction to allow these things to play out so that others may learn.

17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 1 Corinthians 11:17–19.

Whenever there are contentions or controversies among "brethren" witnesses are instructed to allow them to play out and not interfere because this is how they are resolved. This is how truth is maintained in Christianity. This is how "schism" and "heresies" are confronted so that the Word of God is manifest in the one possessed of the truth.
Then "all" may know which is "manifest" and "approved" of God.

 

[JesusFan]

Luke was not Jewish!

Doug

Answer to Op would be Ot was Hebrew background, NT Koine Greek background, as those were the languages used for inspiration by the Holy Spirit

 

[koverbd]

Are you a Karen being offended for someone else?

She claims to be a follower of Christ then let her stand or fall to her Lord. The one thing being a disciple of Jesus Christ includes is standing up to the truth of the Word of God. And the Word of God is for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. NOTE the words "reproof" and "correction." Saul stood up against Peter because "he was to be blamed." If a so-called Christian does not allow the Scripture to "reprove" and "correct" them then maybe she's not a true born-of-God Christian.
The Lord is in the business of giving His people spines so that they may endure all things especially testing for the things they believe the Bible says. She must always be ready to give an answer to those that ask of the hope in then with meekness and fear. But you interfere with the dynamic going on between us and you violate the Lord's instruction to allow these things to play out so that others may learn.

17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 1 Corinthians 11:17–19.

Whenever there are contentions or controversies among "brethren" witnesses are instructed to allow them to play out and not interfere because this is how they are resolved. This is how truth is maintained in Christianity. This is how "schism" and "heresies" are confronted so that the Word of God is manifest in the one possessed of the truth.
Then "all" may know which is "manifest" and "approved" of God.

You must be a "woke" Christian that I need to put on ignore. It's people like you with phony interpretation of Scripture that gives your Christian religion a black eye. Your not in any position to be handing out biblical advise. Your a bully, why not pick on me rather than a woman?
Shalom

 

[Studyman]

WOW... Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I did know some of this but have learned enough today to be shocked at the Councils.

And shocked even more as the "Christian" if I can call it that, church did not defend everything we know of the Messiah who walked among us that is talked of in the Holy Bible. It is as if they have forgotten who the Chosen originally were, and the importance of Jesus' bloodline back to David which actually traces from both Mary as well as Jesus' stepdad, Joseph.

But Wowzers ...
I have always been appalled that the KJV used “Easter” instead of Passover in Acts 12:4, when every Greek manuscript says πάσχα (pascha) = Passover.


But what is even worse is that the very week of the Crucifixion .....Passover week .....was then further compromised by insisting Jesus died on Friday, when an honest study of Scripture shows the Crucifixion had to be Wednesday to fulfill “three days and three nights.”


This was not accidental. It was part of the church’s effort to distance itself from the Jews and from Passover, replacing biblical fulfillment with Roman tradition.
That is not faith , that is tradition overriding Scripture.

Boy, to be a fly on the wall to explain that to our Heavenly Father on their judgement days.

Thanks again

It's worse than that, they imply in the same tradition that the Word of God that was God didn't know what day He would raise from the dead when He sanctified and made Holy His Sabbath at creation. And yet in all 4 Gospels when Mary got to the grave after the Sabbath, He was already risen.

But it's important to remember that the Pharisees had already defiled the Feasts of the Lord, and had already polluted Gods Sabbath's and had already full well rejected God's Commandments that they might live by their own religious tradition.

And yet every week they would gather and offer the blood of an innocent being, as per the Law, to justify their wickedness.

Isaiah speaks to this in Isaiah chapter 1. This is where Paul got the teaching " no flesh is justified by works of the law".

I think Jesus warns us not to be snared by the same religion that comes in His Name, and transgresses Gods Commandments by their own traditions, yet gather each week to offer to God the Blood of perfectly innocent Lamb of God to justify their wickedness, as per the Law.

It's a great study, but a sobering one for sure.

 

[koverbd]

Typical Jewish-centered double standards. You judge Christianity almost exclusively through Jewish suffering while granting Judaism a moral exemption from the same historical analysis. If silence during genocide is the metric, then the charge cuts both ways. During the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire—an actual holocaust carried out in full view of the Jewish communities of Anatolia, Palestine, and the broader diaspora—there was no unified Jewish outcry, no sustained communal resistance, no theological reckoning comparable to what is now demanded of Christians. That does not indict Jews uniquely; it simply exposes the fallacy of weaponizing Jewish suffering as a one-directional judgment. Moral failure during atrocity is a human problem, not an exclusively Christian one.

Moreover, your argument is again steeped in anachronism and caricature. The Decalogue does not label Shabbat as the “third commandment” in any universal ordering. Second Temple Judaism itself did not practice Shabbat, tithing, priesthood, or sacrifice uniformly, and the Apostles—Jews themselves—reinterpreted all of these in light of Christ’s resurrection without ceasing to be Jewish. To frame Sunday worship as “pagan Shabbat” is historically illiterate; it emerged from the resurrection event, not sun-cult borrowing. Likewise, railing against modern Christian abuses proves nothing about apostolic Christianity, just as corrupt rabbis would not invalidate the Torah. Invoking Luther’s antisemitism while ignoring rabbinic polemics against Gentiles is prejudistic at best.

Finally, the claim that the Bible is “a Jewish book, not a Christian one” blows up the moment you realize that it was Christianized Jews themselves who wrote most of the New Testament and proclaimed Israel’s Messiah to the known world. The term “Christian” may postdate the resurrection, but so do many theological labels both Jews and Messianics happily use today—including “Messianic Judaism” itself. What you're displaying here is not fidelity to Scripture but a hybrid identity that wants Jewish moral authority, Christian vocabulary, and exemption from accountability to either tradition. That position satisfies no one—and reality cannot support it.

You are so ignorant of Jewish law, Jewish culture, Jewish history and Jewish traditions. You peddle your easy believism doctrine coupled with a "get out of Hell free" card makes you look some what foolish. You are wrong on all accounts in your previous post.
Judaism has made a great deal out of the Sabbath. Before A.D. 70, the Temple was the most important element in Judaism,
but once the Temple was destroyed, the Sabbath took priority. The major concept of the Sabbath in Judaism is that of
menuchah in Judaism includes the rest of the body, the mind, and the spirit. On this day, work is banished and replaced
by menuchah: rest.
In Judaism, the Sabbath has three age-long functions. First, it enables one to devote himself fully, one day of the week, to
the task of becoming "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" and, in that way, beautifying one's life. Second it prevents
one from becoming enslaved to secular activities, showing freedom from enslavement to Egypt. And third, it proves one's
trust in God: that He will provide even without the material gain of working on the Sabbath.
Messianic Jewish believers have historically honored and observed the Sabbath as a day of rest and worship.
For Messianic believers, the Sabbath is foundational for understanding all of God's appointed times and festivals.
On Friday night there is often a Sabbath meal, challah, Sabbath prayers and blessings, all common to the Jewish
experience. On Saturday, there are Torah services, reading from the Tanakh and the New Covenant, a sermon and
times of fellowship. For Messianic believers these celebrations and observances are made even more meaningful
by the work of Yeshua, in light of the rest He provides through His life and sacrifice.
Central to showing Yeshua's Torah-observant life is an understanding of his observance of the Sabbath (see Exod. 20:8;
23:12-13; Lev. 23:3). Sabbath observance was considered a prime duty and crucial mitzvah in the Second Temple era.
Whatever particular wing of Judaism a person may have adhered to in this period, all Jewry looked upon the keeping
of the Sabbath as extremely important.
In Exodus 20:11 is that only now is the Hebrew word Shabbat applied to the seventh day of Genesis 2:2-3. Again, this
does not mean that the Sabbath of the seventh day of Genesis 2 had already been set aside for humanity. The word
wherefore in Hebrew is al kein, which means that the present command was based on a previous event. The previous
event was the fact that God rested on the seventh day, but it does not mean the command itself was previously in
force at the time of the event. The construction causally connects the event of the past with a situation or command
in the present.
In conclusion, the evidence shows that Yeshua fervently contended for the Sabbath to be observed correctly.In his
teaching and practice of the Sabbath, he strove for an understanding of the correct priorities. He observed the
Sabbath with the same desire to fulfill this mitzvah as any religious leader of his time. In short Yeshua's attitude
toward keeping the Sabbath reflects his attitude toward the Torah---one of respect and reverence with a passion
to fulfill it. This is entirely consistent with what he taught in Matthew 5:17-18.

Shabbat Shalom

 

[koverbd]

Your comments expose your profound ignorance of Jewish history: the OT strongly opposed intermarriage precisely because covenant identity cannot be not casually “mixed” or diluted (Ezra 9–10; Neh 13). That makes your appeal to “mixed-race Jews” an anachronistic projection rather than a historical reality. By reducing Jewish identity to a vague hybrid category and imputing covenantal ignorance to those outside Judea, you demonstrate unfamiliarity with how Jews themselves understood lineage, Torah, and communal continuity—so much so that one reasonably doubts if you are speaking from within Jewish tradition at all. In any case, Scripture decisively affirms that the covenant is not transmitted by blood purity but by God’s calling and instruction, and Gentile believers were never intruders but intentional heirs by faith, while Jewish believers—whether in Jerusalem or Rome—remained Jews, not racial composites invented to prop up a theory the text and history simply do not support.

Here again you do not know what you are talking about, because you are not educated in Jewish law, Jewish history,
and Jewish culture. Oh I forgot your a 'woke' Christian.
You shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters
for your sons. Deuteronomy 7:3
Much like the command to kill off the seven nations and show no mercy to idol worshippers, this law prohibited
Israel from intermarrying with the pagan nations around them. The account of King Solomon shows the consequences
of disobedience to this command.. Despite his wisdom, Solomon loved many foreign women from nations with whom
the Lord had warned the Israelites not to associate. These woman led Solomon's heart astray, turning him to other gods.
As he aged, Solomon was not wholly devoted to the Most High as his father, David, had been. He went after Ashtoreth,
the goddess of the Sidonians, and Milcom, the detestable idol of Ammonites, doing evil in the sight of the Lord. God
was angry with Solomon as a result and declared that the kingdom would be torn from him and given to his servant.
(see I Kings 11:1-6, 9, 11.)
Even today, within Orthodox Judaism, marrying a non-Jew is deeply frowned upon, and in some situations the offender
is effectively cut off from the Orthodox community. Although rates of intermarriage (Jews marrying non-Jews) have
sharply risen in recent decades, Orthodox Rabbis will not officiate an interfaith wedding. The reason for this goes back
to this commandment in Deuteronomy 7:3, which was given to protect Israel from assimilation and idol-worship, and
to ensure their exclusive devotion to the God of Israel.
The principle, of not forming intimate relationships with those who are not in a covenant relationship with the God of
Israel, who is the God and Father of Yeshua the Messiah, is reiterated in the New Testament. Paul addressed this directly
in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18.
Just as ancient Israel was commanded to form no marital bonds with idol worshippers (Deut. 7:3) to preserve their
faith, so too are believers today called to separate ourselves from relationships that could compromise our spiritual
integrity. If you are single, it is crucial to decide not to enter an intimate relationship with an unbeliever.

Shabbat Shalom

 

[jeremiah1five]

Luke was not Jewish!

Doug

At best Luke was like Saul, a Jew born in Gentile land. He is possibly the man from Macedonia. Acts 16: 8-10.
Maybe even mixed-race Jew.

 

[jeremiah1five]

You must be a "woke" Christian that I need to put on ignore. It's people like you with phony interpretation of Scripture that gives your Christian religion a black eye. Your not in any position to be handing out biblical advise. Your a bully, why not pick on me rather than a woman?
Shalom

Really? And I offended you how that you choose to reject Christ in me? Sounds like another poster telling me that's a "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" to act and say those things.
As a person who is bought with a price you don't have any rights or compunction to tell me in certain words "because you are not the eye you are not of the body of Christ."
Your schism and heresy speaks for itself. God says:

24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:
25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
1 Co 12:24–25.

And here you are wanting to create schism.

Good Christian.

 

[koverbd]

At best Luke was like Saul, a Jew born in Gentile land. He is possibly the man from Macedonia. Acts 16: 8-10.
Maybe even mixed-race Jew.

Luke was not like Saul. Saul was Jewish and from Rabbinical sources Luke was a convert to Judaism being a non Jew.
Shabbat Shalom

 

[koverbd]

Really? And I offended you how that you choose to reject Christ in me? Sounds like another poster telling me that's a "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" to act and say those things.
As a person who is bought with a price you don't have any rights or compunction to tell me in certain words "because you are not the eye you are not of the body of Christ."
Your schism and heresy speaks for itself. God says:

24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:
25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
1 Co 12:24–25.

And here you are wanting to create schism.

Good Christian.

I am a Messianic Jew not a Christian. You don't offend me I have dealt with your kind before. You did offend a Christian woman on here with your unkind and snarky behavior and words. Eat your ham sandwich and read your Quran
Shabbat Shalom