Bishop Marx affords the following enormousness:

Gläubig?

„We cannot understand Jesus, without looking on the history of the people of God, without understanding that he was a creditor Jew. “The explained archbishop of Munich and Freising, Mons. Reinhard Marx, in its lecture at the Palmsonntag. Therefore the Jews remained our older brothers and sisters - in such a way archbishop Marx.
In order to understand, why Jesus was not a Jew, one must hold oneself before eyes that descriptors we Romans, Greek, Jew etc. the human persons to concern and not human nature. That again will be able to understand nobody, nature and person equates. To the material distinction all reason natures creative by nature and person with I refer Thomismus to the Dogmatik of Diekamp and also to the book by David Berger, „“.

Briefly said, it goes being therefore that person and nature are just as material distinctive, like natureness and existence, power and act, possible and be real.

If I say thus of someone, he is Romans, then I make a statement its person, not its human nature, which he has together with all humans.

If thus someone of Jesus says, he was Jew, then he states also that Jesus has allegedly a creative human existence and a creative substantial mode. The son of God accepted no concrete humans in the people becoming however, but human nature. „And for this reason it cannot be said in the actual sense that the son accepted humans, due to the fact that it gives in Christ only a Suppositum and a Hypostase “. (S.Th. III. q.4 a.4)

Since thus the Hypostase of Christ is the eternal and ungeschaffene son, also no attributes can come to this person, which belong to creative persons normally. One can say at the most that the son of God in the people of the old person of federation wanted to accept meat.

Only quite it is scandalous and almost häretisch, the person of Christ the virtue of the faith anzudichten.

The statement, Jesus was Jew, is in view of a ontologischen view of the person of Christ, whose existence is alone divine, an absurdity. Ontologi reason of the unit of the person Jesu, is onlyness of their ungeschaffenen existence, which takes up human nature to itself.

Marcelus: @GerdEric: Jesus Christ is since the first moment of its existence true God,

a nature with God in the sky.
Wasn't Jesus taken up according to Christian definition only after its human death by God to „the equalness “(before anyhow not)? Christ was only accepted after his physical resurrection by God father to the glory of the sky,
in order to already govern in the sky as a king.
It is in its divine nature always true God,
but in its human nature smaller than God.

if Jesus were not at all humans, then it can have felt also not human suffering, then all what says the Christianity about it, is regarding its human suffering way, nonsense Jesus Christ was however always also true humans,
and this remained also after its resurrection.

Marcelus: @K. Murx: Christ had naturally an official religion confession,

which still none is „virtue of the faith “.

The son of God the virtue of the faith to subordinate,… is a smooth Häresie!

The mankind of Christ could have the virtue of hope, nor that of the faith because of the hypostatischen union neither.
Christ mankind had to believe thus not in God, but knew about God,
as all humans in the other world.

Christ could have thus no hope?
Why it has then prayed „father, takes this cup of me, if it is possible for you “,
if he had not hoped at least that another way would be possible not nevertheless?

GerdEric: Ups, which misses?

if Jesus were not at all humans, then it can have felt also not human suffering, then all what says the Christianity about it, is regarding its human suffering way, nonsense.
Wasn't Jesus taken up according to Christian definition only after its human death by God to „the equalness “(before anyhow not)?

Karl Murx: To subordinate the son of God the virtue of the faith,…

… is a smooth Häresie!

The mankind of Christ could have the virtue of hope, nor that of the faith because of the hypostatischen union neither.

It a Schwätzer, Marcelus.

Marcelus: Jesus Christ was Jewish religion

ProFideCatholica
Completely surely Thomas's would have sets like „Jesus was rejected however probably creditor Jew “, because this could be interpreted only as a reference to one its person coming incompleteness…!
This sentence would have hl. Thomas's v. Aquin probably hardly rejected, but rather another diction served, e.g. „Jesus was Jewish mosaischer religion denomination “, and certainly Jesus was also a creditor of the Jewish religion.
The statement, Jesus „was creditor Jew “is therefore also correct.
Only additionally that Jesus changed the Jewish religion substantially, there it as God son and promised Messiah (Christ) is added more highly than the founder of the mosaischen law stands.
Also after the messianischen reformation of the Judentums Jesus remains creditor of the Jewish religion - however messianisch reforms, and no longer mosaisch lawly-abiding.

sullivan: Sullivan@Berger, Thomismus

oh from there it the wind blows