Jesus was not a Christian

[paarsurrey1]

Jesus was a Jew and he did not start a new religion called Christianity. Christianity was started by Paul and the Church. Right, please?
Regards

[marco]

That doesn't mean that we should accept everything from narrators, scribes/clergy/church on blind-faith. Their descriptions must be open for investigation and scrutiny. Only that what is supported by reason and or Revelation is accepted to be truthful.

Reason is certainly helpful. I hope you apply the same liberal criticism to what is written about Mohammad in the Hadith. In fact we know of Christ's miracles ONLY through narrators, who were possibly not present. And we have no reason to believe Muhammad heard an angel in a cave, since we have only his account, with no rational explanation. As you say, when reason advises us to disbelieve, we should disbelieve. I agree with your counsel. Go well.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 105 by paarsurrey1]

Yes, I agree, they are less likely to misconstrue his actions than words.

Do I need to cite the portion of this OP that I wish you to answer again?

So, please answer my challenge, or say, "You're right, excellent points, I hadn't thought of that..."

One may, please
Regards

Please address:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 756#882756

[William]

[Replying to post 98 by Willum]

But then what was he, we've shown he wasn't Jewish by any stretch of the imagination.

What was he then?

According to Jews, there are many things which identify one as a Jew. One of those things is if your mother was a Jew.

Unless you have shown that Jesus mother was not a Jew, then you have not shown that Jesus was not a Jew.

If by saying he wasn't 'Jewish' you are saying he wasn't a Jew, then you may be mistaken.

There seems to be a lot of confusion even among Jews as to what actually constitutes being a Jew, Judaism has been described as a religion, a race, a culture, a nation, and an extended family, so if being a Jew means not only does your mother have to be a Jew, but you also have to practice the religion of Judaism, then you can perhaps argue that Jesus was only a Jew by heritage, but not by practicing Judaism, so it becomes a matter of what? He was or was not a Jew?

Then one could argue that Jesus did practice Judaism in the spirit of what Judaism is supposed to represent, which was not what the two major different sects identifying themselves as of Judaism where doing, according to the ideas Jesus was promoting and the resistance to those ideas coming from a large section of the authorities within those sects. Jesus claimed they had wandered from their true religion. If the claim is true, then one cannot say Jesus was not a Jew, but one could say that those in the positions of authority were not really practicing Jews.

(So then we also have the phrases, practicing and non practicing Jews, in relation to the religion)

And of course, that argument is ongoing from then until now and has not been resolved.

Indeed, some Jews think he wasn't a Jew, while others think that he was, while still others think he was the Messiah,and still others think he didn't even historically exist.

So in that, nothing is demonstrated beyond any doubt that Jesus was not a Jew.

Some even say he was the first Jewish Christian.

Can it really be demonstrated that Jesus belonged to any religion? Is there any record of him saying he was a Jew or a Christian?

Indeed, Is there any record of Jesus self identifying as anything religious, and would it not at least be fair to look at anything Jesus said in which he does self identify with and from that, conclude that Jesus at least thought of himself as that, and so then we should at least go along with what he self identified with rather than presume upon him identities to which he has not self identified with?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 113 by William]

According to Jews, there are many things which identify one as a Jew. One of those things is if your mother was a Jew.

Egad, another one who won't read a post or history!
Sometimes, in history that is true, sometimes it is not, as it happens when Jesus was born patrilineality was on the father's side. (I suppose I will have to look that up AGAIN, right?) The point is that convention is a convenient human one. Matrilineality is not written anywhere in the Bible.
HOWEVER, clearly if perception of the society changes lineage, it is not a divine rule, or anything other than a social convenience.
Which brings us the Deuteronomy 23:2, which says

A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

Jesus was never able to convince the Jews he was divinely born. If he was unable to convince them, anyone outside that time and place would be foolish to believe he was. According to the Jews of the time, his father was Tiberius Panderia, (and I suppose I will have to look that up for you as well, and again dismiss fatuous and obvious denials?)

Unless you have shown that Jesus mother was not a Jew, then you have not shown that Jesus was not a Jew.

So, a unlawful child of a Jewish mother is not a Jew. It is shown, again.

Indeed, IF God were the father, what makes you think that Jewish genes are more dominant that God's genes. That is a ridiculous assumption. Surely God would control any character of Jesus' genetics, and could have had the mother be of any genealogy to produce a saviour.

Leaving you with a prophesy that says the saviour will be Jewish because the Bible says so. A silly constraint, vainglorious to the Jewish culture, and therefor suspicious.

If by saying he wasn't 'Jewish' you are saying he wasn't a Jew, then you may be mistaken.

If by repeating the same stale arguments everyone else has been saying, without refuting their counter, you are mistaken.

There seems to be a lot of confusion even among Jews as to what actually constitutes being a Jew...

Exactly, Jews don't dictate divine will, so some vague set of criteria defeat the argument, not strengthen it.
If you say Jesus was Jew by diet - no, he dismissed that rule.
By following Jewish law, no, he effectively dismissed Adultery as being unlawful, ignored ignored the graven images and other gods Commandments, etc..
If you say by culture, Christianity is more similar to many other cultures than Judaism.
etc...

And of course, that argument is ongoing from then until now and has not been resolved.

Since presumably God makes the rules and not bickering humans, it has been resolved.

So in that, nothing is demonstrated beyond any doubt that Jesus was not a Jew.

Deuteronomy says he wasn't a Jew.
or, if he was the son of God, then genetics say he wasn't a Jew.

Why is it so important that the Christian saviour be Jewish?
To fulfill a Jewish prophecy?

That does nothing to credibility at all.
You may as well be waiting for the second coming of Balder.

Waiting for your replies.

[William]

[Replying to post 114 by Willum]

Since presumably God makes the rules and not bickering humans, it has been resolved.

Are you making the claims on behalf of GOD, and following GODs rules regarding your assertions here, or are you focused upon just one particular sect of bickering humans which happens to best exemplify your particular personal view on how to best identify what Jesus was, because it is unclear in regard to what you have offered up as evidence as to whether the evidence itself is truth, or just another fiction from some bickering sect or another to which you most agree with.
Where are you getting these 'presumed rules of GOD' from - that is a good question and why are you supporting them?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 115 by William]

No, but that is an amusing and ineffective deflection, I take it, not having anything better, you concede? Jesus was not remotely Jewish?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 113 by William]

Can it really be demonstrated that Jesus belonged to any religion? Is there any record of him saying he was a Jew or a Christian?

Historical analysis has rules. Explanations of historical data need to have explanatory scope and power, plausibility at the very least, probability more important, and simplicity (minimal ad hoc assumptions).

All the data testifies to him being Jewish and revering the O.T.

The theory that explains this in a way satisfying the above criteria is, he was a Jew and believed that he worshiped the same God as Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah and all the rest.

Was he a Christian? That depends on much. If the definition of Christian is belief that Jesus was raised from the dead, then clearly he could not have been a Christian prior to the crucifixion. If Jesus was in fact raised from the dead, then he obviously believed so, and yes, that would make him a Christian based on the above definition.

[William]

[Replying to post 117 by liamconnor]

Was he a Christian? That depends on much. If the definition of Christian is belief that Jesus was raised from the dead, then clearly he could not have been a Christian prior to the crucifixion. If Jesus was in fact raised from the dead, then he obviously believed so, and yes, that would make him a Christian based on the above definition.

So yes, it is really about how individual choose to interpret and that can be affected by personal bias.
For me at least, when it comes to how to identify that character Jesus from the story, I think the best option is to simply refer to him as he referred to himself, as per the story.

That is the respectful thing to do. After all, how we each self identify and make that public knowledge should at the very least be respected by others. If you call yourself a Christian, I can respect that and refer to you as one. Same applies to the sub-groups of atheism.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 117 by liamconnor]

And another one with a non-substantiated proclamation.

Any time you, or anyone else would like to back anything up with something other than jingoism, I am all ears.

No data testifies to him being Jewish:
His father was either God or a Roman soldier.
If God, God's genes trump Jewish genes.
If Roman, then, during that time period patrilineality was the rule AND a convention does not determine God's will.
If Roman, then being born unlawfully curses him under Deuteronomy.

Indeed, NOWHERE in the Bible is lineage defined.

As for Jesus following the Bible:
He pardoned an adulteress, in conflict with the commandment against adultery.
He condoned the use of graven idols to Roman gods.
He condoned the veneration of the man-god Caesar.

Lot's a problems with your likely fictitious man JeZeus, and his papa Jove, pronounced phonetically Gee oh v ah.

I look forward to your response.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 98 by Willum]

But then what was he, we've shown he wasn't Jewish by any stretch of the imagination.

What was he then?

According to Jews, there are many things which identify one as a Jew. One of those things is if your mother was a Jew.

Unless you have shown that Jesus mother was not a Jew, then you have not shown that Jesus was not a Jew.

If by saying he wasn't 'Jewish' you are saying he wasn't a Jew, then you may be mistaken.

There seems to be a lot of confusion even among Jews as to what actually constitutes being a Jew, Judaism has been described as a religion, a race, a culture, a nation, and an extended family, so if being a Jew means not only does your mother have to be a Jew, but you also have to practice the religion of Judaism, then you can perhaps argue that Jesus was only a Jew by heritage, but not by practicing Judaism, so it becomes a matter of what? He was or was not a Jew?

Then one could argue that Jesus did practice Judaism in the spirit of what Judaism is supposed to represent, which was not what the two major different sects identifying themselves as of Judaism where doing, according to the ideas Jesus was promoting and the resistance to those ideas coming from a large section of the authorities within those sects. Jesus claimed they had wandered from their true religion. If the claim is true, then one cannot say Jesus was not a Jew, but one could say that those in the positions of authority were not really practicing Jews.

(So then we also have the phrases, practicing and non practicing Jews, in relation to the religion)

And of course, that argument is ongoing from then until now and has not been resolved.

Indeed, some Jews think he wasn't a Jew, while others think that he was, while still others think he was the Messiah,and still others think he didn't even historically exist.

So in that, nothing is demonstrated beyond any doubt that Jesus was not a Jew.

Some even say he was the first Jewish Christian.

Can it really be demonstrated that Jesus belonged to any religion? Is there any record of him saying he was a Jew or a Christian?

Indeed, Is there any record of Jesus self identifying as anything religious, and would it not at least be fair to look at anything Jesus said in which he does self identify with and from that, conclude that Jesus at least thought of himself as that, and so then we should at least go along with what he self identified with rather than presume upon him identities to which he has not self identified with?

Unless you have shown that Jesus mother was not a Jew, then you have not shown that Jesus was not a Jew.
If by saying he wasn't 'Jewish' you are saying he wasn't a Jew, then you may be mistaken.

I agree with one on the above.
And Jesus was not a Christian for sure. In Jesus time, Paul never met Jesus, and it is Paul who named his own creeds as "Christianity".
Regards