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

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 3 by Clownboat]
Jesus' mission was the same as was of John the Baptist- the cousin of Jesus. They both wanted that the people should follow the original teachings of Moses, please.
Regards

The Mission of John the Baptist (3:1–20)
At the heart of John's message was the call to a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (v. 3). This baptism symbolized both initiation and cleansing. It was used as a rite of initiation for gentile converts to Judaism, and the Jews practiced frequent ritual washings to cleanse themselves from defilement. The Baptist's claim that God could raise up from stones children to Abraham (v. 8) suggests that he regarded baptism as an initiation into a spiritual Israel. He also saw it as a symbol of cleansing from moral defilement. He put great emphasis on judgment and the need to bear fruit in conduct (vv. 7-9). He addressed social questions, including the sharing of clothes and food, honesty among tax collectors, and avoidance of injustice by soldiers.
https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/ ... hn-Baptist

The bold was being done without the need for going to the temple. This is why I claim his mission was to provide another pathway to god that bypassed the need for going to temple.

Did John want people to follow the laws of Moses? Perhaps, but that does not seem to be what he was about according to his actions (baptizing).

Can you show baptisms in the Old Testament? If so, that might help your claim. If not, see mine as it seems to make sense according the the Bible stories.

Quote "John's message was the call to a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (v. 3). " Unquote

Jesus also got baptized by John the Baptist as per NT.
Does one believe that Jesus was sinful?
If yes, I don't agree with one.
Jesus was as innocent as was John the Baptist, please.
They both were Messengers/Prophets of One-True-God whom Jesus used to address God-the-Father.
Regards

[William]

[Replying to post 16 by William]

Horse before the cart. Christianity cannot honestly be seen to be what Jesus was about, or we would all be living in a very different world.

Why is it a cart before the horse for Jesus, but not for other leaders of movements?

Sincerely, other leaders and whether they named themselves a particular thing and prompted their followers to create a religion and specifically call it something, hasn't been part of the question up until now.
You don;t mention any particulars re these other leaders or how they and Jesus were similar in message and teaching etc...so I am not sure as to why you ask or if your question is relevant here.

But anyway, in calling your reasoning 'horse before the cart', I also said why I thought that was the case. Christianity as an organised religion came along much later in linear time and we don't know even how much the original message may have been distorted during that period.
What we can reasonably assume is that distortion did indeed occur.
It is reasonable based on what data we do have, to suppose that it was not Jesus who coined the phrase "Christian" or popularized it. Paul appears to be the one who did this, and he is also by far, the Christian most Christians focus upon and follow after.

Why do we challenge language conventions to prove Jesus wasn't a Christian and was a Jew? Language conventions don't prove anything, in hindsight.

Not sure exactly what you mean here, but in relation to language culture etc, the invention of the new testament is fraught with certain misinterpretations - one example being the subject of Hell, where it would have been understood by most Jews of the day that Jesus was not referring to any actual place of torment forever, but was referring to a place where waste product was destroyed/deleted etc.

So language conventions are important in relation to accurate interpretations otherwise all hell can break loose, as the saying goes.
There is no doubt that Christendom is unique from Judaism whilst there is clear indication that much attempt has been made to connect the two in that overlapping manner.
As for Jesus, he never called himself a 'Jew' either, as far as I am aware. Do atheists who were brought up to believe in Christianity and later turn away from that, still call themselves 'Christians'?

It appears to me that the story indicates that whatever Judaism may have been meant to be, by the time of Jesus it had become organised into something else entirely, and for that had moved far away from the GOD idea it was supposed to have been representing.

That is the impression the story gives, but weather that is the case or not, is perhaps another story. Or perhaps dead accurate.

Why do we need to prove this? It's a silly point to make a distinction, does his message change if he were suddenly Chinese?

It is worthwhile making the observation...It was Paul who popularized the title, and there can also be found distinctions between Paul's message and Jesus', and so it may well be ( and I personally think it the case) that Christianity and Jesus have very little to do with each other, so NOT making that distinction can indeed muddy the waters.
Most Christians think they are following Jesus by being Christians. My observations see that they are following Paul far more, and Paul worked for Rome, so Christianity is far more likely to be and invention of Rome than something Jesus created. More on that further on in this post...

I'll wager that are about the same number elements to accept and ignore in Buddhism as there were in Judaism.

Speculation? Point them out please, and explain why it is important to accept or reject elements of any organised religion.

Jesus was the leader of the Christian movement. Therefore he was a Christian.

Not as far as the actual story goes, as I have already pointed out.

There is no way he could be considered Jewish.

No one is arguing that is the case...certainly not me. Indeed, explain what actually constitutes being 'Jewish', as I have yet to come across any consistently accepted agreement on what constitutes being a Jew. Indeed, there are many differing ideas as to what being Jewish actually means and there appear in that to be conflict/lack of general agreement.

Perhaps the most generally accepted understanding is that if your mother was a Jew, then you are a Jew. If that were the actual case, then Jesus could be said to have been a Jew, but the records clearly show (through the story) that he was focused on who his father was, not who his mother was.

He violated commandment, ...

As I have said, I have no particular memory of the story ever having Jesus claim to be Christian or Jew. It is simply contention on your part to make those claims regarding him, based apparently on what others say is a Christian or Jew. I at least recognize that there is much debate over what constitutes a Christian or a Jew within those organisations. You seem to present a clarity about this which is absent from those very institutions. Can you explain why this is so?

genetically God could have chosen a duck-billed platypus to give birth to Jesus.

Physically that would have presented problems - especially for the duck-billed platypus.

Jesus was Christian unless you accept a Jewish definition; the lineage is conferred by the female, something that also seems to come and go in time and also be true for convenience.

You claim Jesus was a Christian whilst also at least agreeing that within the Jewish traditions, things come and go (change in definition), but I think you are incorrect on both counts. Jesus was neither.

Oft enough I see the complaint from members of the atheist sector that religions should stay out of politics, which I have come to see as ironic as I have become more and more convinced that Christianity is a creation of politics and so can not be removed from that process unless politics itself dramatically changes.

The story of its creation as a political movement is to be found within many books attached to Christendom, even the book called the Bible.

If Jesus existed at all, he was one of many who were proclaiming a different way of seeing and doing things. Apparently what he started had an effect which worried both Rome and organised Judaism, and Rome initially dealt with it as a threat because people were starting to understand how to navigate around the Rule of disparity Rome inflicted and see the idea of GOD in another way and see that working together and pooling resource had the effect of lifting the load Rome and organised religion placed upon the masses.

It was becoming very popular and because it was different from what Rome prescribed and what the Roman authorities had planned in relation to extending their power over the people of the Earth, Rome dealt with the threat as Rome deals with all such 'uprising' (both peaceful or violent) - through murder as a means of instilling fear and bringing about its particular type of order.

Paul (as the story goes) tells us himself that he was part of this murderous purging program instited by Rome.

The purging only served to make the movement stronger and so Rome devised a plan in which it would infiltrate the movement and change it from within so that it taught the people to respect Rome as GODs political representative over those masses.

Paul was instrumental in this, and there is no reason why his story of meeting Jesus on the way to some purging needs to be believed, but it is nonetheless believed to be truth - not something made up with a specific purpose in mind which had to do with infiltration, but something that the masses could believe in as miraculous and from GOD.

This has always been the way of politics in relation to religion. If politics cannot wipe out religion, it will infiltrate religion - and organised it politically from within, not to GODs (and the masses) benefit, but for the benefit of the political leaders bent on maintaining their iron fist over the lives of the masses.

If you want to know where Rome and her politics have ended up, Look for the Eagle Symbol and the Senate. It really is a strange mix of Greek, Egyptian, Jewish, Roman rule, but stretches way further back than any of these. Politically it has simply infiltrated all political and religious institutions as per its agenda, and historically its agenda cannot be said to be benevolent, as per its own behavior, and this is why the idea of GOD it presents also cannot be said to be benevolent.

It is also why schisms happen, as those who were gullible and trusting come to understand the true nature of that thing parading around as a benevolent authority and proving itself to being anything but, with its iron-fist rule and love of disparity.

But historically those schisms remained ineffective because the message had become so distorted that confusion was all they had to work with because they failed to take into account just how diabolical these players were (and still are) willing to be to maintain their hold over the human population at any cost, and no deed is too dirty to justify support for that agenda, in the name of GOD or otherwise.

Which is why most Christians today, cannot bring themselves to think that Paul might have been lying to them as a means of bringing the movement Jesus started, under the rule of Rome in order to subvert and control it and bend it to the agenda of Rome, and her supporters. Rome named Christianity, not Jesus.

Why, even the atheists are fooled!



They think Jesus was a Christian too.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 20 by 1213]

I am not an atheist, and I am concerned with the truth.
What defines a Christian? Following Christ's principles, not the OTs. Did Christ follow his own principles? Yes, he was a Christian.

QED.

Did he ignore the Adultery Commandment? Yes.
Did he say you should venerate the god Caesar's wishes before the god Yahweh's? Yes.
Do his followers venerate his graven image? Yes.

Houston, we have a problem.

[William]

[Replying to post 20 by 1213]

I am not an atheist, and I am concerned with the truth.

I don;t recall saying your were an atheist. Nor would I say that atheism is not in its own way, concerned with the 'truth'
.

What defines a Christian?

Christians in general. Christendom too. I mentioned that in the bible Paul defines Christians. Indeed we each could have a go at it. I define Christians as those who follow the teachings of Paul - primarily.

Following Christ's principles, not the OTs. Did Christ follow his own principles? Yes, he was a Christian.

Your reasoning is erroneous, as pointed out in my prior post. Jesus did not follow Christendom (which wasn't a thing when Jesus was around) and while you and Christendom might argue that Jesus was a Christian, this in itself is not evidence that he was.

IF Christendom however, followed all the teachings of Jesus, your argument might hold water and I could happily agree with your and Christendoms assertions on the matter.

Until then, I cannot.

QED.

Did he ignore the Adultery Commandment? Yes.
Did he say you should venerate the god Caesar's wishes before the god Yahweh's? Yes.
Do his followers venerate his graven image? Yes.

Houston, we have a problem.

I already covered the concerns you raise, in my prior post.

[Willum]

[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?

[Monta]

[Replying to post 24 by William]



"Christians in general. Christendom too. I mentioned that in the bible Paul defines Christians. Indeed we each could have a go at it. I define Christians as those who follow the teachings of Paul - primarily. "

Sorry must have missed it. How does Paul (and you) define Christianity?

[William]

[Replying to post 24 by William]



"Christians in general. Christendom too. I mentioned that in the bible Paul defines Christians. Indeed we each could have a go at it. I define Christians as those who follow the teachings of Paul - primarily. "

Sorry must have missed it. How does Paul (and you) define Christianity?

In the bible Paul defines Christians as those who follow the teachings of those who call themselves 'Christians' (and claim to be following the teachings of Jesus)- thus - those who follow after the teachings of Christendom, which is exactly what people calling themselves 'Christians' do.

I define Christians as those who follow after the Roman Elitist invention of an organised religion known collectively as "Christendom'

[Willum]

[Replying to post 27 by William]

So, Jesus was a Paulian?

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 28 by Willum]

Jesus was neither a Christian nor a Paulian. Jesus was a Jew as was John the Baptist. Jesus joined the Jewish faith at hands of John the Baptist. Right, please?
Regards

[1213]

I am not an atheist, and I am concerned with the truth.

I have difficulties to believe that.

What defines a Christian? Following Christ's principles, not the OTs. Did Christ follow his own principles? Yes, he was a Christian.

Bible is clear about the definition of Christian = disciples of Jesus.

"If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:31-32

But Jesus didn’t follow his on principles, if we believe what he says in the Bible, because:

Jesus therefore answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself.
John 7:16-17

Did he ignore the Adultery Commandment? Yes.

That is not true.

Did he say you should venerate the god Caesar's wishes before the god Yahweh's? Yes.

That is not true.

Do his followers venerate his graven image? Yes.

Even if some do so, it is not what Jesus or God taught people should do.