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

[William]

[Replying to post 35 by Willum]

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

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.

(Google Search Engine)
Your search - Altheiaist. - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

Make sure that all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.

I will give you an opportunity to try again Willum.

[William]

[Replying to post 38 by 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".

Where does this information come from?

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.

Whatever the intention, the fact remains that a new religion was created.

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

This may be the impression given but how can we know for sure that Peter and Paul ever meet? The story was just a concoction of Roman Elitism to bring a disturbingly popular new anti-elitist movement which was proving it couldn't be put down through the sword, under the dominion of Rome.

Are you not willing to explore that possibility as being the most likely/probable reason for the creation of the organised religion called Christianity and its holy book?

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

Well they are characters in a book with no apparent evidence of having even existed outside of that story, so in that sense they cannot be compared to those who do. Although in relation to Mohammed, there is some debate as to him ever having existed.

This is a rather old discussion among scholars.

Well the religion is rather old too, so obviously it is still under investigation as to its ultimate legitimacy as a truthful/factual thing.
My call is that it is a diabolical creation of Roman Elitism created specifically to confuse the masses and have them squabbling with one another rather than focusing upon the elitists controlling them through the very mechanism they gave their hearts to and would fall on their swords for (and indeed raise their swords to defend).

History is on my side in relation to this as per the evidence.

Disturbingly brilliant minds are behind the whole thing. The the less intelligent more easily led population, have been duped.

We Are Owned ... through our own willful ignorance.

[Clownboat]

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

They did create a new religion though that didn't require them to totally abandon 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.

Sure seems to me that they can.

Joseph Smith claimed that he was visited by an angel and given golden plates and magic glasses to decipher his holy book for his new version of a religion.

Paul claims to have had a vision of the dead Christ and went on to write much of the New Testament for his new version of a religion.

Both Joseph Smith and Paul are to believed due to unverifiable claims made by the very people who then went on to pen their new versions.

Seems apt to me.

[paarsurrey1]

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.

Those who testified to Jesus' death

There is/was no first person witnessing/testification of Jesus' death on Cross. All third person witnessing/testification. Right, please?
Regards

[1213]

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".

Where does this information come from?

Here is one source:

When he found him, he brought him to Antioch, and for a whole year they were guests of the church and taught a large crowd. It was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.
Acts 11:26

It seems to have been originally insult and could be compared to calling someone nigger. That is why I think disciples of Jesus should reject that name and be directly disciples of Jesus.

[William]

[Replying to post 45 by 1213]

Here is one source:

When he found him, he brought him to Antioch, and for a whole year they were guests of the church and taught a large crowd. It was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.
Acts 11:26

Well since that source comes from the NT part of the bible which is a creation of Rome, it need not necessarily be truth.
However, I am able to accept that it may well be truth, because in order to deceive people, truth has to be mixed into lies so that people are more likely to become so confused they cannot easily tell the difference.
Sorting wheat from chaff is quite tricky.

It seems to have been originally insult and could be compared to calling someone nigger.

So we have a word created and used as an insult by those opposed to the new thing happening. More evidence that it is unlikely Jesus called himself a Christian.

That is why I think disciples of Jesus should reject that name and be directly disciples of Jesus.

No doubt - if any exist today, that is exactly what they do.
It would appear to me that those most occupied at the time in wanting the new thing to become a mainstay of human society would have been dismayed to see how Rome eventually usurped the process through infiltration and took it over and directed it towards something which benefited Rome and the elitists.

Or..maybe not. After all, Jesus himself said that this would happen. He didn't out and out name Rome as the vessel through which his less careful followers would be deceived, but Rome itself only really represents a whole cast of politically motivated mythological propaganda dating back to even before the Torah was written. Long before Rome was an empire or Romans existed as a tribe even.

No surprises there.

What Jesus was teaching was a threat to all such political organisations parading as religions doing the supposed work of GOD.

In relation to that, this is why Jesus pointed out to the representatives of organised Jewish religions that they had strayed from the intended path. There can be little to no doubt that those same Jewish organisations were involved in the creation of Christianity. Paul was not just a Roman. He was a Roman Jew.

It eventually backfired through the diaspora and how Christianity evolved into a Jew- hating platform and from then, the over the centuries ...to the subsequent holocaust...but is also helped establish Israel after the war, so not all was lost and never once are the elitists of any nations or peoples ever to be seen to suffer at the hands of those things they all work together to instigate.

No point in making all these plans and instigating things which might backfire if one has not prepared a backdoor/way out from the fallout from such politically manipulative methods.

But that was then and this is now.

The Elitists still exist and are presently building large complexes underground (whilst exploring the Mars/escape to space option) in an attempt to avoid the product of their deceitful manipulation of 'the lesser' humans they rule over and seek to continually control.

When the proverbial hits the fan, the elitists are always well enough protected from that fallout.

Too bad they seem presently unable to support the far better alternative and use their positions of power and influence and their wealth to invest in the whole of humanity. They have created a beast in their attempts to tame it, because their attempts to tame in involved deceit and the iron fist.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 45 by 1213]

So? That argument cuts both ways. Zero points on the board.

[Willum]

William:
Are you ever going to reply to this?

[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.

[William]

William:
Are you ever going to reply to this?

Presently I see no reason to reply to anything from you relating to the subject of whether Jesus was a christian as you claim until I have a reply from you regarding this post

And this is only because I want to understand where you are coming from according to your theist position of belief, because as I explained:

"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."

Failing that, I see no reason to continue in this particular interaction with you as I have made my points, shown yours to be false and see no reason to get into the domain of circular argument, which is now where our interaction is at.

The ball is in your court. What is the position of an Altheiaist? In what way does it influence you in your belief that Jesus was a 'Christian' despite the fact that there is no record of that being the case?

If there is no direct connection between your being an Altheiaist and your opinion about what Jesus was, then - while I am still interested in getting an answer from you re your theist belief system, I can create a thread in the questions to other members forum, and ask you there. If that is to be the case, then - as I said, I am not interested in continuing in a circular argument with you. I have answered your posts clearly enough for any who should read the interactions between us to have sufficient data in which to decide for themselves.

eom

W

[AdHoc]

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

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.