> he is supposedly the completion of their culture in fulfillment of their messianic prophecies. that's one interpretation but not mine. jesus fulfills their prophecies to unmistakably signify that he's the authority on religious law and then he proceeds to throw out and replace large parts of it much to the dislike of the jews. he makes their torah obsolete and speaks of a new law. > they have organizations like jews for jesus and work hand in hand with christians to steal land from palestinians. > jews decieve to garner support and sympathy wow, shocking.    > only a sinless person could cast the stone and he very obviously didn't cast the stone himself could, not must. his command to him without sin to cast the stone is directed at the crowd of humans present. they wanted to stone the woman, jesus did not want to stone her. to assert himself over those men he told them, basically, "if you're without sin you can have it your way and dictate your morals but since you're not without sin we're doing it my way and don't stone her".  jesus was without sin, that's a major part of his characterization.  > it was a statement about how sinners have no business fatally judging other sinners. yes, yet jesus made judgement over life and death of humans all the time. he heals or rejects to heal by his own volition since he's without sin and thus capable to judge all those sinners. > has to pretend like the new testament means anything without the cultural context of the old testament. you're pilpuling. i said i reject the old testament and the jewish culture, not that you can't or shouldn't read about it to understand context. > no, it is the rejection of the divinity of and imminent return of jesus it's also the rejection of his teachings, which i follow. they reject him in that way, i could've been more precise in my statement.  > worldview depends entire on the jewish culture i reject jewish culture, i'm not circumsized, don't follow the torah nor the talmud
Germany