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 60 by liamconnor]

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.

Liam, since you are "ignored" by me, it is only luck I saw this challenge. This is very dirty pool, not at all in the spirit of debate.

But I won't otherwise be responding to your challenge:
1. I ignore you.
2. I can't make heads or tails of what you claim I am saying.
3. Indeed, I believe I am on your own ignore list - something I can appreciate.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 55 by McCulloch]

Both Matthew and Luke provide genealogies showing Jesus' Jewish ancestry.

Father's side or mother's side?
1st century Judaism followed parentage on the father's side, just like the patrilineality of Matt and Luke.
However, patrilineality is a human convention, not a commandment of divine law, the genetic material of God certainly overwhelms any contribution by a human.
Alternatively, if Jesus' had a human father, it was Tiberius Panderia, which would make him

He admitted to a Samaritan woman that he was Jewish.

We read this, she said he was Jewish, that could simply be a reference to where he was born, or his own perception: The Jews didn't think he was Jewish, eating pork, living with prostitutes, violating commandments, and so on. Your quote was not strong enough to make a comment either way.

When executed he was called king of the Jews.

Yes, but this was by the Romans, and you are aware this was a cruel and ironic title? Or haven't you read the Bible?

His followers believed that he was the messiah, prophesied by Jewish scripture.

Heaven's Gate comes to mind.

What reasons do I?:
I am having to repeat:

[T repeat]

What do you have to refute these?

[Clownboat]

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.

I have reasons:
Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
Ephesians 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace.
Romans 3:24 they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
1 Corinthians 4:15 For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
1 Corinthians 12:28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third, teachers,
Ephesians 4:11 And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,
1 Timothy 2:7 For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
2 Timothy 1:11 For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher,
1 Corinthians 5:7 For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed.
Ephesians 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

Paul certainly put forth these ideas that above you yourself claim "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."

I can show counter verses to each of these where Jesus says virtually the opposite of Paul.
For funsies:
Romans 13:12 Paul says: the night is far gone, the day is at hand.
Luke 21:8 Jesus says: Take heed that you are not led astray, for many will come in my name saying, the time is at hand! Do not go after them.

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.

Not asinine, since this is what we have.
Please evidence this oral communication and show that it matched with Paul's religion because from reading the New Testament, Paul and Jesus did not have much in common. (Evidence upon request).

No, neither Paul nor Jesus intended to start a new religion like Mohammed or Joseph Smith.

We cannot know much about Jesus nor anything about his intentions. However, from reading the NT, is sure seems to me that Paul was creating a church with Hierarchies and all.
Jesus seems to be about helping and saving others. Paul on the other hand seems to be about helping and saving your own skin. Their claimed messages don't seem to jive very often.

[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

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.

Christianity is the proclamation that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead, was Sovereign over the universe, and that his death atoned for sins.

Jesus never proclaimed that he was raised from the dead. If one has this claim, then please quote from Jesus.
This claim was invented by Paul and the Church. Jesus never taught this. Did he, please?
Regards

[marco]

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

It doesn't mean "little Christ". Whoever has deduced this is taking the adjectival suffix -ianus as a diminutive. Christianus simply means relating to Christ and we get the adjective or noun Christian from this word. An exact parallel is Caesarianus which means relating to Caesar.

It is possible to add parts to a name and make a familiar diminutive. Marcus would become Marculus, little Marcus. Christulus would be "little Christ."

Christ could be considered Christian if he lived by the practices we associate with being a Christian, but in fact to call him a Christian is to be anachronistic.

[paarsurrey1]

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

It doesn't mean "little Christ". Whoever has deduced this is taking the adjectival suffix -ianus as a diminutive. Christianus simply means relating to Christ and we get the adjective or noun Christian from this word. An exact parallel is Caesarianus which means relating to Caesar.

It is possible to add parts to a name and make a familiar diminutive. Marcus would become Marculus, little Marcus. Christulus would be "little Christ."

Christ could be considered Christian if he lived by the practices we associate with being a Christian, but in fact to call him a Christian is to be anachronistic.

It doesn't mean "little Christ". Whoever has deduced this is taking the adjectival suffix -ianus as a diminutive.

So one agrees that it is a later tradition. Jesus never used the word "Christian" in this sense. It has got nothing to do with Jesus or his religion. Right, please?
Regards

[Willum]

[Replying to post 66 by paarsurrey1]

No, not even remotely. Christian is a very apt. description.
Right?

[marco]

So one agrees that it is a later tradition. Jesus never used the word "Christian" in this sense. It has got nothing to do with Jesus or his religion. Right, please?
Regards

I don't know what you're talking about. I was correcting your view that Christian means "little Christ".

If you're not just teasing poor Marco here, then it is safe to make a wild guess that Christ didn't use the adjective Christian. In what possible context would he? He said cryptic things like I'm a tree and I'm a roadway but not - I'm a Christian. But that doesn't mean he wasn't. He didn't say he was God, but some think he was. Others think he was an architect while a few think he was a joiner. His expectation of figs out of season would suggest he wasn't a botanist or a landscape gardener.

[William]

[Replying to post 65 by marco]

Christ could be considered Christian if he lived by the practices we associate with being a Christian...

In relation to the story of Jesus as in the gospels, within the necessary process of sorting chaff from wheat, one can compare the two lifestyles associated with each and determine from that, there is substantial difference between the two.

Thus Jesus was not a Christian and never called his followers Christians. The word came much later and by then the Roman elitists were in the proces of completely infiltrating the movement and redirecting it to support their own agenda. Christianity and Christendom are inventions of Rome, not of Jesus.

Why, even the atheists are fooled! They think Jesus was a Christian too!

[marco]

Thus Jesus was not a Christian and never called his followers Christians. The word came much later and by then the Roman elitists were in the process of completely infiltrating the movement and redirecting it to support their own agenda. Christianity and Christendom are inventions of Rome, not of Jesus.

Well not quite. Intention goes for a lot and the masses of dogma in Christian teaching are meant to be the directions of Christ. Given that he asked people to be perfect it is hardly surprising that his vast following falls short, but they are certainly following what we think we know as Christ's instruction. That being so, the followers are Christian.

In the simplest sense people who take Christ as their leader are correctly designated as Christian. They may fail in what Christ would expect of them, but Christian they are.