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

[Willum]

[Replying to post 29 by paarsurrey1]

Talk is cheap, statements are easy.
Prove your statements, or refute mine.

Thanks,

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 31 by Willum]

Jesus never said that he was a Christian. John the Baptist belonged to the Jewish faith and was a messenger/prophet of God. Jesus got baptized to the faith that John the Baptist believed in, that makes it evident that Jesus was a Jew, neither a Christian nor a Paulian ever. They both believed in Oneness of God as per the Torah, and not in the Trinity. Please
Regards

[Willum]

[Replying to post 32 by paarsurrey1]

Jesus name was Christ, it would be awkward for his to claim to be himself.
Christians are baptized, in the same tradition, but this makes them Christian, you should ask them.
Of course he believed in the trinity - he was a member of it, again, awkward to speak about.
So did he ascribe to the tenants of Christianity? Yes.
Did he ignore many tenants of Judaism? Yes.
A Jew he was not.

If you believe that Jesus father was human, Jewish lineage is not necessarily passed down by mother, that is a very modern convention: If his father were the Greek, Tiberius Panthera, he was Greek.
If his father were human, he was the product of a sinful union, and the Bible states children of unholy unions are unclean to ten generations.

If you believe his father were God, than he was not genetically Jewish, as we may well presume that God's DNA overwhelmed Mary's.

Further he did not obey the commandments.

So, he is proscribed from the OT from being Jewish, therefore he could only be Christian.

[William]

[Replying to post 24 by William]

I think we come to accord if you answer the question - was Mao a Maoist? Or was he identically: Was Mao a Chinese Communist?

Was Christ a Christian, or identically: Was Jesus a practitioner of Christianity?

If not, how was he not?

Your reasoning is faulty.

1: Jesus was never recorded as self identifying as being a 'Christian'. That's a big clue. (and one I have already mentioned but you have somehow chosen for now to ignore).

2: The Roman Elitists were behind the creation of Christianity. That is also a big clue and something I have also mentioned already and which you have chosen for now to ignore.

Now as to your latest argument, I will explain why it is based upon false premise.

My explanation is that you are conflating the actions of someone who declared to be a Communist and who founded the Maoist movement with someone of whom there is no record of having ever declared to be a Christian or to have declared to have founded Christianity.

One of the stark contrasts between the two individuals is that Mao Zedong wrote his ideas down. Incidentally the same applies to Adolph Hitler. Both can be shown to be followers and supporters of their particular ideologies because of this.

We have no record of Jesus ever having written anything which we can read from his pen, as it were. The only record of Jesus having written anything, was a passage in the NT which says that he wrote something in the dust...He was doing so when the organised dogmatic religious representatives were trying to find a way to trap him and he stopped what he was doing, stood up and gave his answer then bent down again and proceeded writing whatever he was writing, in the dust/dirt/sand/earth.

There is no record of what exactly it was that Jesus did write, but I am confident it was highly unlikely he wrote "I am a Christian.".

Point being, the above should show you that your argument re conflating Mao with Jesus is faulty and does nothing to provide evidence on your assertion that Jesus was a Christian, saw himself as a Christian, or has anything much to do with Christendom, which - if your argument were truth, would verify that Christendom/Christianity is the product of Jesus and his teachings.

As I first said to you at the beginning of this interaction. it may be convenient for you to claim this because it serves to help you win arguments in other areas to do with Christian beliefs, it is demonstrably based on an erroneous concept in the first instance so makes those arguments pretty much null and void, at least as far as the truth is concerned.

Now you have also claimed that you are not an atheist, so it is safe for others to thus assume you have a belief in some idea of a GOD, so your stance here in the use of falsely based arguments may also have something to do with those beliefs in your particular idea of a GOD. I can't be sure of course, but it is usually the case in such circumstances when dealing with theists and their belief systems. Can you point me to some example of your particular beliefs as I am always interested in theist belief systems and I think it could help me better see from what direction you are coming from, all for the purpose of bettering communication, which often happens when both parties understand where each is coming from.

Thanks.
W



.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 34 by William]

1: Jesus was never recorded as self identifying as being a 'Christian'.

Nor would I refer to myself as a Willumian, because I am not an idiot. I presume you feel Jesus was not an idiot?
Speaking of things people are ignoring.

So, now, please answer in context, because I do not find your argument convincing, no matter how many times you repeat it.

I think we come to accord if you answer the question - was Mao a Maoist? Or was he identically: Was Mao a Chinese Communist?

Was Christ a Christian, or identically: Was Jesus a practitioner of Christianity?

I'd like to know.

2: The Roman Elitists were behind the creation of Christianity. That is also a big clue and something I have also mentioned already and which you have chosen for now to ignore.

Actually I didn't comment because I agree.

We have no record of Jesus ever having written anything which we can read from his pen, as it were.

So he may very well have proclaimed himself the first Christian, we don't know. Certainly it is so non-profound and obvious that it would be redundant to record it. He would not be so idiotic as to say, "I am Christian," he would say, "Do as I do, and follow in my footsteps..." or some such.

Saying "I am Christian," would be internally inconsistent, defining himself as himself.

So, you see, my reasoning is fine.

I am an Altheiaist.

[William]

[Replying to post 34 by William

Was Christ a Christian, or identically: Was Jesus a practitioner of Christianity?

I'd like to know.

What do you mean you would like to know? You claim that he is a Christian, which implies that you do know!

So he may very well have proclaimed himself the first Christian, we don't know.

Not at all. There is no mention of him proclaiming to be a Christian, as I have already said. More than once.

Certainly it is so non-profound and obvious that it would be redundant to record it. He would not be so idiotic as to say, "I am Christian," he would say, "Do as I do, and follow in my footsteps..." or some such.

If that were the case, you would be able to claim that those who call themselves 'Christians' would be doing what Jesus did, as in 'following in his footsteps'.
Christendom appears not to be doing this, so how is it that you claim Jesus is a Christian when Christendom itself does not follow in his footsteps?

Saying "I am Christian," would be internally inconsistent, defining himself as himself.

Now you are claiming that Jesus as 'himself' is a Christian, but clearly where Jesus does identify himself as he sees himself, he never once used the word Christian. Often (as I see has been pointed out to you by another poster) he refereed to himself as 'The Son' of 'The Father GOD', and if memory serves me well, he actually referred to himself as many things, but never ONCE, a 'Christian.'

That is a hurdle you need to address. You make the claim but don't back it up. You are shown evidence to the contrary and ignore that. You STILL haven't shown where Jesus calls himself a Christian, and you STILL conflate the Roman Elitist agenda in creating Christianity as instigated by and for Jesus' by making the claim that Jesus was a Christian
Again - the evidence say's otherwise. It is up to you to connect those dots twixt the two and show your peers the results, that they might understand as well.

Until then, I cannot agree with your assertion that Jesus was a Christian.

So, you see, my reasoning is fine.

So you see, I show clearly that your reasoning is NOT 'fine'. Your reasoning continues to be flawed.

I am an Altheiaist.

Google is my friend. Perhaps therein I will find understanding as to your not wanting to budge from your present position on this matter.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 36 by William]

Then why is it I am not the one going around in circles?
According to you we don't know all he said. Him saying "I am Christian," would have rated right up there with, "I think I'd like to have lamb for breakfast."

Put why Jesus wouldn't be a Christian, in the same sense Mao wouldn't be a communist. Explain it to me - make it simple enough even I can understand it.
The circle is ended.

Jesus was a Christian. He followed the tenets of Christianity which is this definition:

person who has received the baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

Origin
late Middle English: from Latin Christianus, from Greek Christianos (see Christ).

Was Christ baptized, yes.
Is he a believer in his own teachings, yes.

I don't need to convince you - he wasn't a Jew, he was a Christian leader.

Here, I'll use an analogy for you:
You understand that the Popes are Christ's successors on Earth, right? Are they Christian? Yes.

So, now you need to show me why I am wrong.

[liamconnor]

The term Christian first appeared in Antioch after Jesus' death and the first proclamation he had risen from the grave and it merely meant "followers of the Christ".

Those who testified to Jesus' death and resurrection were not attempting to start a new religion. They had every hope of convincing their Jewish brethren that God had in fact already provided them with their Messiah, but that the function of this Messiah was different from what they all had expected.

Neither Peter or Paul thought they were starting a new religion in the sense that they had abandoned their previous one.

Thus neither Peter or Paul can be compared to a Mohammed or a Joseph Smith. both of whom started a new religion.


This is a rather old discussion among scholars.

[paarsurrey1]

Jesus name was Christ, it would be awkward for his to claim to be himself.
Christians are baptized, in the same tradition, but this makes them Christian, you should ask them.
Of course he believed in the trinity - he was a member of it, again, awkward to speak about.
So did he ascribe to the tenants of Christianity? Yes.
Did he ignore many tenants of Judaism? Yes.
A Jew he was not.

If you believe that Jesus father was human, Jewish lineage is not necessarily passed down by mother, that is a very modern convention: If his father were the Greek, Tiberius Panthera, he was Greek.
If his father were human, he was the product of a sinful union, and the Bible states children of unholy unions are unclean to ten generations.

If you believe his father were God, than he was not genetically Jewish, as we may well presume that God's DNA overwhelmed Mary's.

Further he did not obey the commandments.

So, he is proscribed from the OT from being Jewish, therefore he could only be Christian.

Jesus name was Christ

I don't agree with one. Jesus never had the proper name of "Christ" at his birth. Mary never named him the name "Christ."

Regards

[Willum]

[Replying to post 39 by paarsurrey1]

You're right, his name is NOW Christ, since his name was NOT Christ, then he was definitely a Christian, because it allows retrospect.
Please!