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 50 by AdHoc]

I have seen many statements that Jesus was a Jew, but zero backing it up.
There are statements above that explain pretty well he was no where near Jewish.

I'd love to see them refuted...
[For convenience]

[And here]

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 50 by AdHoc]

Yes Jesus was a Jew and Christians are also spiritual Jews.
Christian means little Christ so of course Jesus can't be a christian.
But Jesus definitely started the church. He gave new commandments and took away the authority of the priests and put the apostles in place. Not sure why you think Paul started it all...
We'd be called Paulians if that were the case.

Christian means little Christ so of course Jesus can't be a christian.
Please quote from Jesus that "Christian" means "little Christ". I am certain Jesus never said that.Right,please?
Regards

[Willum]

[Replying to post 52 by paarsurrey1]

No, not at all:

We have discussed (and some of us learned) that "Christ," was a title, not a name. As the Christ, Christians would be his followers. But he is also a follower of his own practices, so;

Just as Mao was a maoist,
so to Christ is a Christian.

Tough cookies.
You are very welcome.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 52 by paarsurrey1]

Christian means little Christ so of course Jesus can't be a Christian.

Christian, Jew, all of these words mean little to God, so Jesus doesn't need to be anything... what makes you think Jesus or God can be constrained by mortal words?

That the sounds we monkeys with larynx' has any effect on God?

Alternatively, they BOTH mean everything.

Why is it so important?

Is God a racist, that one people are better than another?
Many men have made this claim, and went on to commit atrocity.

In the Bible when the Jews claimed it, they committed genocide on the Canaan, I trust you see the analogy?

[McCulloch]

I have seen many statements that Jesus was a Jew, but zero backing it up.

Both Matthew and Luke provide genealogies showing Jesus' Jewish ancestry. His circumcision on the eighth day is recorded as was his visits to the Jewish temple. He admitted to a Samaritan woman that he was Jewish. When executed he was called king of the Jews. His followers believed that he was the messiah, prophesied by Jewish scripture. They were initially reluctant to admit Gentiles into their group.

What reason do you have to believe that Jesus was not Jewish?

[AdHoc]

[Replying to post 50 by AdHoc]

I have seen many statements that Jesus was a Jew, but zero backing it up.
There are statements above that explain pretty well he was no where near Jewish.

I'd love to see them refuted...
[For convenience]

[And here]

Jesus Christ was a Jew because of his birth and life. He was the Son of David through Mary so He was born a Jew. He was raised a Jew by his earthly parents. Circumcised and taken to the temple and taught the scriptures. As an adult He obviously believed in God, taught scriptures in the temple and was the fulfillment of scripture as the Anointed one.

If He wasn't a Jew then what was he?

[paarsurrey1]

I agree with one.
Jesus was a Jew, he never went to a Church, if he ever go to a temple, it was a Jewish temple.
Right, please?
Regards

[Willum]

[Replying to post 57 by paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 56 by AdHoc]

No, Gods genetics would overwhelm a Jewish rule about parentage.

Being born to a man, Tiberius Panthera, would make him unlclean and

BREAKING NEWS

In the Hellenistic period of the 4th Century BCE " 1st Century CE some evidence may be interpreted to indicate that the offspring of intermarriages between Jewish men and non-Jewish women were considered Jewish;[2] as is usual in prerabbinic texts, there is no mention of conversion on the part of the Gentile spouse. On the other hand, Philo of Alexandria calls the child of a Jew and a non-Jew a nothos (bastard), regardless of whether the non-Jewish parent is the father or the mother.[3]

So, Jesus was a bastard Greek, or the son of God.
Jews did not accept his teachings as Jewish (for those who read the Bible), he promoted Adultery, told his followers that Caesars coins: Graven images of other gods, were ok to submit in tribute to the man-god Caesar...

So, not remotely Jewish.

Jesus Christ was a Jew because of his birth and life.

His birth was either divine (not Jewish) or unlawful (not Jewish.)

His life was rejected by the practitioners of Judaism (not Jewish), as they were always after him, and eventually caught him.

If He wasn't a Jew then what was he?

He was the leader of a new religion, who genetically was either divine or a bastard son of a Roman soldier.

Christians do not have an opinion of his non-divine roots, Jews of the time state he was result of a naughty tryst.

Lets be frank, the odds say that he was fully human, meaning he was Greek.

Refute please. With details, not hopes and "but I was taughts..."

[liamconnor]

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

No. Paul did not start Christianity, for Christianity is the proclamation that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead, was Sovereign over the universe, and that his death atoned for sins. We have no reason to believe that Paul invented all of this. We have good reason to believe that he was on-board with the other apostles. We naively attribute it all to Paul because Paul wrote more than other apostles, or more of his writings survived, and therefore the oral communications (which far out number the written) are lost to us, and so we assume that, what has survived, must be it all. This is asinine.

No, neither Paul nor Jesus intended to start a new religion like Mohammed or Joseph Smith. They both believed they were like the Jewish prophets of old. No one can read Ro 11 and say that Paul thought he was starting a 'new' religion.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 58 by Willum]

[Replying to post 58 by Willum]

Willum!

You have very unique and interesting ideas. I would love to give you the publicity you deserve by debating you on a one on one venue. How could such hurt, after all!


If you decline (but then, everyone here will wonder why) might you at least argue against a specific theory of Jesus. Note (and every single member here will note) I am not asking for YOUR theory, but why THIS theory is wrong.


Jesus was just a human who grew up reading an old religious text that was the product of men, not gods.

Being human, he started to believe he was 'called' to bring about certain promises made in this human text. Poor fella.

He started a mission....he got a few followers.


Some followers, who knew the same religious texts, started thinking this dude was the 'promised' king.


Well, poor guy got a bunch of people to follow him. He walked into Jerusalem with his own ideas about how his god meant things to be. Well, the religious elite didn't agree. They thought he was an upstart. Given the timing (a Jewish feast which itself was reminiscent of a revolution) they were all nervous--this guy might start something which brings the wrath of Rome upon us!


So, they deliver him over to Rome and he is crucified.


Several days later, his disciples, for whatever reason, declare him raised. Let's say they were grieved, and this was how they coped.


Please tell EVERYONE here, what is historically wrong with this theory.