Was Jesus a Christian? [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Was Jesus a Christian?

VFarris01

December 6th 2005, 02:14 PM

BronzeArcher

December 6th 2005, 02:31 PM

Since the term was applied by outsiders to label the followers, clearly not.

Amazing Rando

December 6th 2005, 02:54 PM

What many people don't realize is that the word "Christian" originally had political connotations rather than religious. Etymologically speaking, "Christian" means "of the party of Christ," or "one who alligns himself (or herself) with Christ." It's grammatically parallel in the Scriptures to "Herodian" as occurs in Mark 3:6 and its parallels.

In other words, for people to be "Christians" meant that their allegiance was to Christ, rather thah Herod, the Sadducees, or even Caesar himself.

James Peter

December 6th 2005, 03:22 PM

It depends what you mean by 'Christian' and 'Jewish' though. If the question is would he have been comfortable in either 21st century Christianity or Judaism then I think the answer is 'no'. Christianity today is a long step away from where it was even in the 40-60s AD (when the term was coined in Antioch). Modern Judaism is also very, very different to all the Jewish sects that were around in the 30s AD. As those terms are used today Jesus was neither Jewish nor Christian.

Yes, some of the gospels emphasise that Jesus was not a gentile (even going so far as using the vulgar terms 'pig' to describe gentiles - if the account is accurate you have to wonder whether by todays standards Jesus was racist. The phrase is like calling someone today a 'nigger') and that he was the Messiah, who came to Israel - but when Israel rejected him... The Sinatic Law was never for gentiles, christians do not claim to be part of that covenant (or most don't at least). We are as 'Jewish' as Abraham or Jacob. Like Noah we can be righteous outside of the covenant made between Israel and God at Sinai. I know which covenant I'd rather be part of if given the choice between Sinai and Golgotha...

VFarris01

December 6th 2005, 03:25 PM

Since the term was applied by outsiders to label the followers, clearly not.Words in quotes excape you... why did "Christians" adopt the name?

Was Jesus a Pharisee?... a Nazarite?... an Essene?... a Sadducee?

Who were the "orthodox" Jews?

What many people don't realize is that the word "Christian" originally had political connotations rather than religious. Etymologically speaking, "Christian" means "of the party of Christ," or "one who alligns himself (or herself) with Christ." It's grammatically parallel in the Scriptures to "Herodian" as occurs in Mark 3:6 and its parallels.

In other words, for people to be "Christians" meant that their allegiance was to Christ, rather thah Herod, the Sadducees, or even Caesar himself.The first "Christians" (followers of Christ) were Jewish and adhered to Jewish law... right?

It depends what you mean by 'Christian' and 'Jewish' though. If the question is would he have been comfortable in either 21st century Christianity or Judaism then I think the answer is 'no'. Christianity today is a long step away from where it was even in the 40-60s AD (when the term was coined in Antioch). Modern Judaism is also very, very different to all the Jewish sects that were around in the 30s AD. As those terms are used today Jesus was neither Jewish nor Christian.You mean there were other "forms" of Judiasm much like there are other "forms" of "Christianity" today each claiming "orthodoxy?" What a novel idea.

James Peter

December 6th 2005, 03:31 PM

The first "Christians" (followers of Christ) were Jewish and adhered to Jewish law... right?

For a while, yes. But they didn't all expect gentiles who converted to adopt Jewish law or custom. There was a faction in the early church that did, but Peter (and others) sided with Paul and supported his mission to the gentiles which had no such requirements. These two seperate missions were the cause of many of the problems in the early church, as some groups preached the law and others liberty. We have documents from both traditions surviving...(e.g. Matthew represents the legalist position quite well whilst Paul is the most obvious example of the liberty position - the Johaninne community is also a good example though as it seems to have been more isolated and less influenced by the legalists in its early years at least)

VFarris01

December 6th 2005, 03:38 PM

For a while, yes. But they didn't all expect gentiles who converted to adopt Jewish law or custom. There was a faction in the early church that did, but Peter (and others) sided with Paul and supported his mission to the gentiles which had no such requirements. These two seperate missions were the cause of many of the problems in the early church, as some groups preached the law and others liberty. We have documents from both traditions surviving...(e.g. Matthew represents the legalist position quite well whilst Paul is the most obvious example of the liberty position - the Johaninne community is also a good example though as it seems to have been more isolated and less influenced by the legalists in its early years at least)Was Jesus a Pharisee?... a Nazarite?... an Essene?... a Sadducee?

Who were the "orthodox" Jews?

Amazing Rando

December 6th 2005, 05:01 PM

The first "Christians" (followers of Christ) were Jewish and adhered to Jewish law... right?

Initially, yes. But I'd be willing to bet that changed within 15 years or so.

VFarris01

December 6th 2005, 05:13 PM

The first "Christians" (followers of Christ) were Jewish and adhered to Jewish law... right?Initially, yes.Initially? James, the brother of Jesus was a practicing Jew all of his life... as were the rest of the apostles... even the heretic Paul...

But I'd be willing to bet that changed within 15 years or so.I think the apostles lived longer than 15 years after Jesus' death...

Keumkang

December 6th 2005, 05:25 PM

James Peter

December 6th 2005, 06:09 PM

I beg your pardon? Are you calling Paul a heretic?

And what exactly is your point? That Christians have forsaken our Jewish roots, or something like that?

Pretty much. There is a certain logic to it though. IF Jesus did teach that the Sinatic Law needed to be kept THEN teaching that it didn't would be heresy.

Its a pretty big IF though.

VFarris01

December 6th 2005, 06:45 PM

Initially? James, the brother of Jesus was a practicing Jew all of his life... as were the rest of the apostles... even the heretic Paul...

I think the apostles lived longer than 15 years after Jesus' death...I beg your pardon? Are you calling Paul a heretic?Paul "taught" "Christianity" to the Gentiles. What he taught conflicted with the beliefs of Jesus and the "root" of "Christianity," Judiasm (see Acts 15 and Galatians 2).

And what exactly is your point? That Christians have forsaken our Jewish roots, or something like that?Exactly! The Jews believed in ONE god, the Father, not "three gods rolled up into one."

I beg your pardon? Are you calling Paul a heretic?

And what exactly is your point? That Christians have forsaken our Jewish roots, or something like that?Pretty much. There is a certain logic to it though. IF Jesus did teach that the Sinatic Law needed to be kept THEN teaching that it didn't would be heresy.(18) For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law until all is fulfilled. (19) Therefore whoever shall relax one of these commandments, the least, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven. But whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven. (20) For I say to you that unless your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of Heaven.

Its a pretty big IF though.Actually, no, it is not.

Keumkang

December 6th 2005, 06:50 PM

James Peter

December 6th 2005, 07:01 PM

Doesn't denying the Trinity restrict you to posting in Unorthodox and not in here?

And yes, Acts and Galatians give different accounts of that council. I trust Paul's account over Luke's though.

Mark_S

December 6th 2005, 07:37 PM

Was Jesus a Christian?

The NT goes through great effort to show how Jewish Jesus was and how he observed Jewish law. Never in the NT do we read of Jesus himself breaking a Jewish religous tenant.

Jesus was Jewish... not "Christian."

Tough to call him a Christian. He is the Christ. The term Christian implies that one is a subordinate of Christ. He leads, we follow. He's the head, we are the body. How can one be a follower of himself? Was He Jewish? Yup, and a dang good one to be refered to as a lamb without blemish. So :woohoo: you're correct, Jesus is the Jewish head of the catholic Church and the leader of all us Christians. Of course, in the body there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. So where are you going with this?

Amazing Rando

December 6th 2005, 08:38 PM

Initially? James, the brother of Jesus was a practicing Jew all of his life...

A practicing Jew who became a believer... ...in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ,

as were the rest of the apostles...

Peter's vision in Acts 10 notwithstanding? :rock:

even the heretic Paul...

I think the apostles lived longer than 15 years after Jesus' death...

Speaking of heretics, you have no business posting in Christianity 201. Off to Unorthodox Theology with this thread.

Pilgrim

December 6th 2005, 10:32 PM

I have moved this thread to unorthodox theology because the thread starter is not permitted to post in the Christianity section. Thanks.

IncRus

December 7th 2005, 08:04 AM

Was Jesus a Christian?

The NT goes through great effort to show how Jewish Jesus was and how he observed Jewish law. Never in the NT do we read of Jesus himself breaking a Jewish religous tenant.

Jesus was Jewish... not "Christian."

Was Jesus a Christian? This is like asking, "Was Martin Luther a Lutheran?"

Of course, Jesus was Jewish just as Luther was a Catholic monk. But both broke away from their former religion and taught doctrines that CONTRADICT what their former religions taught.

Jesus BROKE the Sabbath (John 5:18), a major doctrine which Judaism and some Christian religions still observe today.

VFarris01

December 7th 2005, 12:56 PM

Was Jesus a Christian?

The NT goes through great effort to show how Jewish Jesus was and how he observed Jewish law. Never in the NT do we read of Jesus himself breaking a Jewish religous tenant.

Jesus was Jewish... not "Christian."Was Jesus a Christian? This is like asking, "Was Martin Luther a Lutheran?""Lutheranism" is simply another "sect" of Catholicism which is another "sect" of Christianity which is another "sect" of Judiasm.

Of course, Jesus was Jewish just as Luther was a Catholic monk. But both broke away from their former religion and taught doctrines that CONTRADICT what their former religions taught.Jesus did not "break away" from Judasm... he taught quite the opposite (Matthew 5:18-20).

Jesus BROKE the Sabbath (John 5:18), a major doctrine which Judaism and some Christian religions still observe today.What constitutes "breaking" the Sabbath is/was relative to which sect of Judiasm you ask. I doubt all of the Jews wanted to kill Jesus... just those of the sect defining Jesus' actions as conflicting with the Sabbath.

Mark_S

December 7th 2005, 01:08 PM

Jesus did not "break away" from Judasm... he taught quite the opposite (Matthew 5:18-20).

So you believe that you are justified by the law?

VFarris01

December 7th 2005, 03:41 PM

Paul "taught" "Christianity" to the Gentiles. What he taught conflicted with the beliefs of Jesus and the "root" of "Christianity," Judiasm (see Acts 15 and Galatians 2)...
...The Jews believed in ONE god, the Father, not "three gods rolled up into one."

Okey Dokey, so you really do deny the doctrine of the Trinty.Do you mean that doctrine of men?... the one Jesus did not teach and never taught?... that doctrine?...

Hmmm...well, this just got awkward...For you maybe...

So what did Christ teach, as far as faith and practice, morals and dogma, and all that stuff Paul allegedly perverted?Perhaps you forgot to read Matthew 5:18-20.

How Jewish should Jesus' followers be today?After reading Matthew 5:18:20 and knowing Jesus was a devout follower of Judiasm, worshipping and praying to only one god, the Father, what would you think?

Doesn't denying the Trinity restrict you to posting in Unorthodox and not in here?I do not deny a trinity... Jesus was not, is not, and will never be God.

And yes, Acts and Galatians give different accounts of that council. I trust Paul's account over Luke's though.Why? Because Paul was not bias? Please. Paul's account is the one we should not trust.

Was Jesus a Christian?

The NT goes through great effort to show how Jewish Jesus was and how he observed Jewish law. Never in the NT do we read of Jesus himself breaking a Jewish religous tenant.

Jesus was Jewish... not "Christian."Tough to call him a Christian. He is the Christ. The term Christian implies that one is a subordinate of Christ. He leads, we follow. He's the head, we are the body. How can one be a follower of himself?:lol: Christianity according to Paul... what a hoot.

Was He Jewish? Yup, and a dang good one to be refered to as a lamb without blemish.More Pauline Christianity...

So you're correct, Jesus is the Jewish head of the catholic Church and the leader of all us Christians. Of course, in the body there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. So where are you going with this?... again... according to Paul...

Initially? James, the brother of Jesus was a practicing Jew all of his life...A practicing Jew who became a believer...

...in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ,I hate to be the one to break the news to you but EJames was not written by James the brother of Jesus...

as were the rest of the apostles...Peter's vision in Acts 10 notwithstanding?:lmbo:Visions are rarely about what is shown in them... I think Peter's "vision" has more to do with preaching to the Gentiles than an instruction on what to eat... Peter soon meets Cornelius and two other men (Acts 10) as I recall... all Gentiles.

even the heretic Paul...

I think the apostles lived longer than 15 years after Jesus' death...Speaking of heretics, you have no business posting in Christianity 201. Off to Unorthodox Theology with this thread.:rofl: The heresy is "orthodox" Christianity.

Jesus did not "break away" from Judasm... he taught quite the opposite (Matthew 5:18-20).So you believe that you are justified by the law?... More Pauline Christianity?... Jesus did not follow Paul... he followed the Law and told others to do likewise... look it up...

Mark_S

December 7th 2005, 03:54 PM

VFarris01

December 7th 2005, 04:50 PM

... More Pauline Christianity?... Jesus did not follow Paul... he followed the Law and told others to do likewise... look it up...Okay, that justified by law comment was merely asking for clarification. Do you believe that you are justified by the law.Should I be?

As for Paul, I dropped that line when I realized he means less than nothing to you. Clearly the Pauline Epistles crush your position and you acknowledge this and dismiss them.:lol: Crush? Hardly. You must remember, the "scripture" we call the NT was compiled because it supported the "majority," not because it is truely "orthodox."

So its pointless to use them.Not completely... The parts espousing anything Jesus, in all likelyhood, never taught, are not to be trusted as authentically Pauline... or Christian.

I hate shifting the goal posts, but in an effort to keep this discussion going, what part of scripture do you hold a canonical, (or God-breathed)?Since NT Scripture, as it has been handed down over the centuries is literally riddled with errors, changes, additions, and omissions, it is hardly "God breathed."

Is there any other literature/tradition/etc that you believe to be inspired/canon/etc?I consider all of it and reject anything the Christians of the first century, in all probability, would have rejected...

Mark_S

December 7th 2005, 06:29 PM

Should I be?

:shrug: I don't know where you stand that's why I was asking. If you don't like the phrasing, then let's go with: How do you see yourself as justified?

:lol: Crush? Hardly. You must remember, the "scripture" we call the NT was compiled because it supported the "majority," not because it is truely "orthodox."

Of course, you have stated that your views contradict Paul's. So if we take Paul's epistles in their entirety as Holy, inspired, etc. we would be forced to discard your views as heretical.

Not completely... The parts espousing anything Jesus, in all likelyhood, never taught, are not to be trusted as authentically Pauline... or Christian.

Since NT Scripture, as it has been handed down over the centuries is literally riddled with errors, changes, additions, and omissions, it is hardly "God breathed."

I consider all of it and reject anything the Christians of the first century, in all probability, would have rejected...

I read this as. "I accept the portions that support my preconceived viewpoint and reject the portions that don't" I don't think we can hold a discussion on those terms (yeah, yeah, I know you're emotionally scared by that)

James Peter

December 7th 2005, 07:05 PM

I consider all of it and reject anything the Christians of the first century, in all probability, would have rejected...

Of course the problem being that there was such diversity in first century christianity that some of them would have rejected pretty much every single book. The Johaninne community would doubtless have rejected Matthew. Matthew very likely rejected Paul. And so forth. All the NT is the product of 'first century christianity' - the problem is simply that it was a very diverse thing...

Keumkang

December 7th 2005, 07:06 PM

VFarris01

December 7th 2005, 07:08 PM

Should I be?I don't know where you stand that's why I was asking. If you don't like the phrasing, then let's go with: How do you see yourself as justified?Why must one be "justified?"

Crush? Hardly. You must remember, the "scripture" we call the NT was compiled because it supported the "majority," not because it is truely "orthodox."Of course, you have stated that your views contradict Paul's.Huh? Paul's view contradicted Jesus'; why should I accept it?

So if we take Paul's epistles in their entirety as Holy, inspired, etc. we would be forced to discard your views as heretical.Paul's "view" contradicts Jesus, therefore, his (and your) view is the one which is "heretical," not mine.

Not completely... The parts espousing anything Jesus, in all likelyhood, never taught, are not to be trusted as authentically Pauline... or Christian.

Since NT Scripture, as it has been handed down over the centuries is literally riddled with errors, changes, additions, and omissions, it is hardly "God breathed."

I consider all of it and reject anything the Christians of the first century, in all probability, would have rejected...I read this as. "I accept the portions that support my preconceived viewpoint and reject the portions that don't" I don't think we can hold a discussion on those terms (yeah, yeah, I know you're emotionally scared by that)I read this as: You accept the portions that support your preconceived viewpoint and reject the portions that do not.

I don't think we can hold a discussion on those terms (yeah, yeah, I know you're emotionally scared by that?

John from Ebla

December 8th 2005, 06:39 AM

How does Jesus follow himself?

Kind regards
John From Ebla

VFarris01

December 8th 2005, 07:56 AM

Okey Dokey, so you really do deny the doctrine of the Trinty.Do you mean that doctrine of men?... the one Jesus did not teach and never taught?... that doctrine?...You're surrounding by Christians who disagree with you on what we consider to be one of the most essential doctrines of our faith.Obviously, you have no idea of the source of the NT and the reason it is compiled the way it is.

Defend your positionI am...

Hmmm...well, this just got awkward...For you maybe...

So what did Christ teach, as far as faith and practice, morals and dogma, and all that stuff Paul allegedly perverted?Perhaps you forgot to read Matthew 5:18-20.

Are you kidding me? Do you really think I've never read that? Or that I'll read it and say "Oh, VFarris was right all along!"Obviously, you have not... Jesus was a practicing Jew... he taught others to follow Jewish Law... he established no "new covenant"... the one in force was for all time... to state otherwise is to say God made a mistake... did He?

If you're going for a radically different interpretation of scripture and essential doctrine, in direct opposition to orthodox Christianity, say something more than a useless, snippy commentRadical? Unorthodox? Essential doctrine? Please. Christianity, as it exists today, is radical and unorthodox and nothing like Jesus intended.

How Jewish should Jesus' followers be today?After reading Matthew 5:18:20 and knowing Jesus was a devout follower of Judiasm, worshipping and praying to only one god, the Father, what would you think?That's what I just asked you!English, a second language for you? I asked what you, "After reading Matthew 5:18-20 and knowing Jesus was a devout follower of Judiasm worshipping and praying to only one god, the Father, what would you think?" In other words, do you think we should be "more Jewish" than we are.

You're the one starting this thread to express your unusual and unorthodox ideas, so stop failling at being clever, and say somethingUnusual and unorthodox ideas? Hardly. Christianity, as it exists today would be unrecognizable to Christians of the first century.

How does Jesus follow himself?Considering what is called "orthodox" Christanity today, would Jesus be a Christian?

John from Ebla

December 8th 2005, 08:10 AM

The Gospel is about Jesus and salvation through him - Can someone, besides VFarris01, explain to me how Jesus can follow himself and give himself salvation.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

VFarris01

December 8th 2005, 11:16 AM

The Gospel is about Jesus and salvation through him - Can someone, besides VFarris01, explain to me how Jesus can follow himself and give himself salvation.John, you must be the dumbest person on Earth...

It is a simple question...

Considering what is called "orthodox" Christanity today, would Jesus be a Christian?... or would people consider Jesus a follower of Judiasm, a person who worships one god (not three as "Christians" do) as required by the Law?

If you cannot answer the question in a reasonable manner I will have you banned from my thread.

The Gospels are not about salvation thorough Jesus... never were... never will be...

VFarris01

December 8th 2005, 06:10 PM

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satell...icle%2FShowFull (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475699597&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

The portrayal of Jesus as being at odds with the Pharisees, the Jewish rabbinical leadership, is a later Christian device designed to implicate the Jews in Jesus' death. The proof that Jesus was a committed Pharisee throughout his life can be gleaned from how nearly all of his teachings are merely restatements of classical biblical and Pharisaic (talmudic) teachings.

John from Ebla

December 9th 2005, 01:02 AM

VFarris01

December 9th 2005, 07:48 AM

John, you must be the dumbest person on Earth...

It is a simple question...

Considering what is called "orthodox" Christanity today, would Jesus be a Christian?... or would people consider Jesus a follower of Judiasm, a person who worships one god (not three as "Christians" do) as required by the Law?

If you cannot answer the question in a reasonable manner I will have you banned from my thread.

The Gospels are not about salvation thorough Jesus... never were... never will be...What ever you do, you do-You mean, "Your will be done?"... :lol:

...but consider that l am agreeing with you "Jesus was not a Christian"... and would not be considered a Christian today?...

So, if l am the dumbest, what does that make you?Not the dumbest... :lol:

l agree with Mathew 5:17, so what l earth is your problem? The only ones that disagree with Mathew 5:17 are those ignorant of what 'Fulfill them" mean.In your opinion, when will "all be (is) fulfilled" (Matt 5:18)? Has "all been (is) fulfilled?" If not what remains to be "fulfilled?" Is the "Law" obsolete because of Jesus?

My question to you now is: What is the gospel about?I think you have a skewed understanding of the phrase "good news." Anything worthy of knowing is "good news," yes?

The "good news" is "The kingdom of God is near (Mark 1:15)?" (This is the message of Jesus, no? Though it is not a part of the autograph manuscript, compare this with Mark 16:15.)

John from Ebla

December 9th 2005, 09:43 AM

You mean, "Your will be done?"... :lol:.)

No. l mean l don't care about what you do.

... and would not be considered a Christian today?...

Agree

Not the dumbest... :lol:

We know that because you claimed l am the dumbest, so what position are you?

In your opinion, when will "all be (is) fulfilled" (Matt 5:18)? Has "all been (is) fulfilled?" If not what remains to be "fulfilled?" Is the "Law" obsolete because of Jesus?:

Well Matt 5:18 say's he came to fulfill them (which does not mean observe) and Luke 24:43 say's '........everything which is written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled"

Till earth and heaven pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be FULFILLED (Matt. 5:17-18; see Lk. 24:37-44-46)."
Some examples: When the Messiah was born in the city of Bethlehem, this fulfilled the prophecy of Malachi (Mal. 5:2). Being born of a virgin fulfilled Isaiah’s prophesy (Isa. 7:14; 9:6). Judas' betrayal of the Messiah for 30 pieces of silver fulfilled the prophecy of Zechariah (Zec. 11:12-13). . Messiah came on a donkey (Zech 9:9) (John 12:11-15)

I think you have a skewed understanding of the phrase "good news." Anything worthy of knowing is "good news," yes??:

No, This is to broad and can mean anything you want it to mean.

The "good news" is "The kingdom of God is near (Mark 1:15)?" (This is the message of Jesus, no? Though it is not a part of the autograph manuscript, compare this with Mark 16:15.)

Does "Near" mean two thousand year latter? If not, define what you mean.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

IncRus

December 9th 2005, 12:55 PM

Was Jesus a Christian?

The NT goes through great effort to show how Jewish Jesus was and how he observed Jewish law. Never in the NT do we read of Jesus himself breaking a Jewish religous tenant.

Jesus was Jewish... not "Christian."

[QUOTE=IncRus]Was Jesus a Christian? This is like asking, "Was Martin Luther a Lutheran?"
"Lutheranism" is simply another "sect" of Catholicism which is another "sect" of Christianity which is another "sect" of Judiasm.

Christianity refers to the religious atitudes, beliefs and practices of DISCIPLES of Christ who "BELIEVE in Christ and ABIDE in his words" (John 8:31). These DISCIPLES were first called Christians in Antioch (Acts 11:26).

Lutheranism and Catholicism are FALSE religions that masquerade as "Christian" religions. These religions do NOT abide in Christ's WORDS that he is a MAN (John 8:40 KJV/NKJV) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).

Of course, Jesus was Jewish just as Luther was a Catholic monk. But both broke away from their former religion and taught doctrines that CONTRADICT what their former religions taught.

Jesus did not "break away" from Judasm... he taught quite the opposite (Matthew 5:18-20).

Jesus BROKE the Sabbath (John 5:18), a major doctrine which Judaism and some Christian religions still observe today.

What constitutes "breaking" the Sabbath is/was relative to which sect of Judiasm you ask. I doubt all of the Jews wanted to kill Jesus... just those of the sect defining Jesus' actions as conflicting with the Sabbath.

The Old Testament Sabbath Law which ALL Jews (regardless of sect) were commanded to observe is to NOT do ANY work on the Sabbath (Exo. 20:10; Jer. 17:21-22). Jesus and his apostles BROKE this Law. Jesus and his apostles BROKE this Law.

VFarris01

December 9th 2005, 02:49 PM

You mean, "Your will be done?"... :lol:.No. l mean l don't care about what you do.Good. Stay off of my thread.

... and would not be considered a Christian today?...AgreeJesus would not be considered a Christian today even though it was he who "started" the movement? Interesting...

Not the dumbest... :lol:We know that because you claimed l am the dumbest, so what position are you?I would rank about 1-2 billion places above you.

In your opinion, when will "all be (is) fulfilled" (Matt 5:18)? Has "all been (is) fulfilled?" If not what remains to be "fulfilled?" Is the "Law" obsolete because of Jesus?Well Matt 5:18 say's he came to fulfill them (which does not mean observe) and Luke 24:43 say's '........everything which is written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled"

Till earth and heaven pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be FULFILLED (Matt. 5:17-18; see Lk. 24:37-44-46)."
Some examples: When the Messiah was born in the city of Bethlehem, this fulfilled the prophecy of Malachi (Mal. 5:2). Being born of a virgin fulfilled Isaiah’s prophesy (Isa. 7:14; 9:6). Judas' betrayal of the Messiah for 30 pieces of silver fulfilled the prophecy of Zechariah (Zec. 11:12-13). . Messiah came on a donkey (Zech 9:9) (John 12:11-15)Why are you avoiding the "original" gospel, Mark? Could it be because it does not support the "god king" thesis?

I think you have a skewed understanding of the phrase "good news." Anything worthy of knowing is "good news," yes?No, This is to broad and can mean anything you want it to mean.As I read the Gospels, the authors described everything as "good news." Should I be any less broad than they?

The "good news" is "The kingdom of God is near (Mark 1:15)?" (This is the message of Jesus, no? Though it is not a part of the autograph manuscript, compare this with Mark 16:15.)Does "Near" mean two thousand year latter? If not, define what you mean.I do not know... I only know GMark records Jesus as saying, "The kingdom of God is near (Mark 1:15). How "near" do you think Jesus meant. Does "near" mean "time," "distance," or a combination of the two?

Was Jesus a Christian?

The NT goes through great effort to show how Jewish Jesus was and how he observed Jewish law. Never in the NT do we read of Jesus himself breaking a Jewish religous tenant.

Jesus was Jewish... not "Christian."

Was Jesus a Christian? This is like asking, "Was Martin Luther a Lutheran?"

"Lutheranism" is simply another "sect" of Catholicism which is another "sect" of Christianity which is another "sect" of Judiasm.

Christianity refers to the religious atitudes, beliefs and practices of DISCIPLES of Christ who "BELIEVE in Christ and ABIDE in his words" (John 8:31). These DISCIPLES were first called Christians in Antioch (Acts 11:26).Jesus was a Jew... His religious attitude, beliefs, and practices were that of a Jew... Should ours (religious attitude, beliefs, and practices) not be the same?

Lutheranism and Catholicism are FALSE religions that masquerade as "Christian" religions. These religions do NOT abide in Christ's WORDS that he is a MAN (John 8:40 KJV/NKJV) and the Father is the ONLY true God (John 17:3).I agree.

Of course, Jesus was Jewish just as Luther was a Catholic monk. But both broke away from their former religion and taught doctrines that CONTRADICT what their former religions taught.Jesus did not "break away" from Judasm... he taught quite the opposite (Matthew 5:18-20).Jesus BROKE the Sabbath (John 5:18), a major doctrine which Judaism and some Christian religions still observe today.Jesus did not break the Sabbath. Some of the Jews said he broke the Sabbath... but did he really? Jesus' favorite Jewish sect, the Pharisees, would say, "No, he did not."

What constitutes "breaking" the Sabbath is/was relative to which sect of Judiasm you ask. I doubt all of the Jews wanted to kill Jesus... just those of the sect defining Jesus' actions as conflicting with the Sabbath.The Old Testament Sabbath Law which ALL Jews (regardless of sect) were commanded to observe is to NOT do ANY work on the Sabbath (Exo. 20:10; Jer. 17:21-22). Jesus and his apostles BROKE this Law. Jesus and his apostles BROKE this Law.What constitutes work? Getting something to eat, healing the sick, rescuing an animal, driving out "evil spirits," teaching, reading, or circumcising do not violate the Sabbath according to Jesus' teaching (Matthew 12, Mark 2, 3, & 6, Luke 4, 6, & 13, John 5, 7, & 9) which you say we should "abide in" (John 8:31).

Provoker

December 9th 2005, 04:23 PM

Keumkang

December 9th 2005, 05:00 PM

So far, this thread has mostly consisted of inflamatory statements and glib remarks. :sigh:

VFarris, you realize that you contradict the RCC, EOC, and every Protestant mainline denomination, as well as the vast majority of nondenominational and interdenominational Christians, including charistmatic/pentacostals. Among those who call themselves Christian, you are 1 in probably 100 who deny the Deity of Christ. Not that numbers make a doctrine true; quite the opposite, according to scripture. Just to make sure we agree that you are in the VAST minority, even here on TWeb.

Yet you feel no burden of proof whatsoever? Even though you started this thread? That's like walking into a the middle of a Million Man March and shouting a racial epithet at the entire croud of African-Americans. And it's not like you're providing a well-reasoned essay or even a series of thoughts on whatever your spouting. You just make jabs clever comments and shallow points. You throw out a verse of scripture, KNOWING that it is interpreted in a very different way by most everyone else here, and then provide little or no explanation. The fact that you won't even explain yourself, and then make these snooty little remarks, as if the rest of us are such imbeciles, is unnecesarily insulting, and extremely frustrating.

If you're trying to say something, you're failing. Have you never read a post by one the many well-spoken members of TWeb? Not just the men of the cloth, but we laiety as well.

Before his recent conversion, A Cup of Mystery was one of the most respected non-Christians on TWeb. (Wow, that sounded really bad...you know what I meant...) Why? Because although his views differed greatly from those of others, he had his reasons for them, and explained himself well. We would all do well to take a page from his book.

So PLEASE, explain your views. If you're not even trying to, then why this thread?

IncRus

December 9th 2005, 06:05 PM

Jesus was a Jew... His religious attitude, beliefs, and practices were that of a Jew... Should ours (religious attitude, beliefs, and practices) not be the same?

The DISCIPLES of Jesus had the same religious attitude, beliefs and practices as that of Jesus. That's why they were called "Christians" in Antioch (Acts 11:26), referring to his more popular name "Christ."

Jesus did not break the Sabbath. Some of the Jews said he broke the Sabbath... but did he really? Jesus' favorite Jewish sect, the Pharisees, would say, "No, he did not."

The Jews in Jesus' time were more knowledge than any of us concerning what was NOT allowed to be DONE on the Sabbath in accordance with the Old Testament Law. And John 5:18 tells us that the Jews accused Jesus of BREAKING the Sabbath.

What constitutes work? Getting something to eat, healing the sick, rescuing an animal, driving out "evil spirits," teaching, reading, or circumcising do not violate the Sabbath according to Jesus' teaching (Matthew 12, Mark 2, 3, & 6, Luke 4, 6, & 13, John 5, 7, & 9) which you say we should "abide in" (John 8:31).

Exodus 20:10 (RSV) - "But the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God: in it you shall NOT do ANY work..."

Exodus 31:15 (RSV) - "Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord; whoever does ANY work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death."

Jeremiah 17:21 (RSV) - "Thus says the Lord: Take heed for the sake of your lives, and do NOT bear a burden on the Sabbath day or bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem. And do NOT carry a burden out of your houses on the Sabbath or do ANY work, but keep the Sabbath day holy, as I commanded your fathers."

Exodus 16:26-30 (RSV) - "Six days you shall GATHER it; but on the seventh day, which is sbbath, there will be none. On the seventh day some of the people went out to GATHER and they found none. And the Lord said to Moses, 'How long do you refuse to keep my commandments? See! The Lord has given you the sabbath, therefore on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days; remain every man of you in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.' So the people RESTED on the seventh day."

Jesus HEALED the sick on the sabbath and commanded the man to CARRY his bed. Healing is WORK and the Law commands the Jews NOT to do ANY work on the Sabbath NOR carry ANYTHING.

The apostles GATHERED food on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1).

Jesus said, "...it is LAWFUL to do GOOD on the Sabbath..." (Matt. 12:12). This IMPLIES that ANYTHING done on a sabbath that is GOOD is lawful in the eyes of God.

Jesus did NOT only break the Sabbath. He ABOLISHED the Sabbath Law which is a COMMAND from God (John 12:49-50).

roboticist

December 9th 2005, 06:27 PM

The DISCIPLES ...The Jews in Jesus' time were more knowledge than any of us concerning what was NOT allowed to be DONE on the Sabbath in accordance with the Old Testament Law. And John 5:18 tells us that the Jews accused Jesus of BREAKING the Sabbath....
Exodus 20:10 (RSV) - "But the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God: in it you shall NOT do ANY work..."
Exodus 31:15 (RSV) - "Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord; whoever does ANY work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death."

et cetera

Please, I'm begging you: if you want us to try and read your post and address its concerns, follow these three easy steps:

1) Make at least a moderate effort to be grammatically accurate.
2) Ease off of the bold and italics, as they just distract from your point. They are often appropriate to draw attention or imply inflection in a few words, but if used too much they become nothing but disorienting to the reader.
3) Please do not ARBITRARILY capitalize words in mid-SENTENCE. It is UNNECESSARY, AND distracting.

I say all of this in love, because I feel you probably have something useful to say--I just can't manage to get through it and try to figure out your point. :teeth:

So far, this thread has mostly consisted of inflamatory statements and glib remarks.

VFarris, you realize that you contradict the RCC, EOC, and every Protestant mainline denomination, as well as the vast majority of nondenominational and interdenominational Christians, including charistmatic/pentacostals. Among those who call themselves Christian, you are 1 in probably 100 who deny the Deity of Christ. Not that numbers make a doctrine true; quite the opposite, according to scripture. Just to make sure we agree that you are in the VAST minority, even here on TWeb.

Yet you feel no burden of proof whatsoever? Even though you started this thread? That's like walking into a the middle of a Million Man March and shouting a racial epithet at the entire croud of African-Americans. And it's not like you're providing a well-reasoned essay or even a series of thoughts on whatever your spouting. You just make jabs clever comments and shallow points. You throw out a verse of scripture, KNOWING that it is interpreted in a very different way by most everyone else here, and then provide little or no explanation. The fact that you won't even explain yourself, and then make these snooty little remarks, as if the rest of us are such imbeciles, is unnecesarily insulting, and extremely frustrating.

If you're trying to say something, you're failing. Have you never read a post by one the many well-spoken members of TWeb? Not just the men of the cloth, but we laiety as well.

Before his recent conversion, A Cup of Mystery was one of the most respected non-Christians on TWeb. (Wow, that sounded really bad...you know what I meant...) Why? Because although his views differed greatly from those of others, he had his reasons for them, and explained himself well. We would all do well to take a page from his book.

So PLEASE, explain your views. If you're not even trying to, then why this thread?

Amen, amen, amen.

I have been extremely impressed with the majority of well-thought out, well-reasoned opinions on these boards. But every now and then, you just get people who enjoy argument--but not debate.

VFaris, If you are truly trying to make a point, do so thoroughly and in a debate-friendly manner, so that others may read, comprehend, and critique your thoughts. Otherwise, if you are just going to try to inflame each other, what will end up happening is that those interested in rational discussion and seeking truth will go elsewhere--and all that will be left are those who enjoy wasting their lives by spewing bile at one another, rather than performing true introspection.

And, as I have repeatedly said with regard to criticism of scientific theories (such as evolution), or any philosophy: if you are of an opinion which differs from the consensus of those knowledgable in an area, the burden of proof is on you to prove that the deviation exists. Just as if you wanted to say that the earth was flat, the burden would be on you, not the astrophysicist; just as if you want to say that macroevolution is impossible (as I believe), the burden is on you, not the evolution; and here, if you believe in theology with which 99.9% of Christians would disagree, the burden is on you to convince us.

VFarris01

December 9th 2005, 10:14 PM

Was Jesus a Christian?

The NT goes through great effort to show how Jewish Jesus was and how he observed Jewish law. Never in the NT do we read of Jesus himself breaking a Jewish religous tenant.

Jesus was Jewish... not "Christian."Jesus was definitely a christian because he proclaimed the christian message; "the gospel of the kingdom", and while the 1st century common Greek word "christian"(sic), was first used at Antioch, it also refered, in it's Hebrew form "messianic", to captive Jews in Babylon, 500+ years before Jesus, when they heard,and believed the prophesy that a messiah(a christ) would resurrect the Davidic kingdom(the gospel of the kingdom), and they became "messianic"(christian).
Christians/messianics were/are not those who follow the christ, but those who watch and wait for the christ, who will resurrect the Davidic kingdom from the dead.Jesus' told his followers to follow the Jewish Law... Jesus was a practicing Jew not a "practicing" Christian.

According to Paul, the thing which qualified a Jew, or a gentile, as a "true" Jew, was having a circumcised heart, or "circumcision in spirit".
Jesus, John the baptist, and the Zealots, were the first 1st century christians/messianics.Jesus was hardly unique as a purveyour of the "good news," simply another one.

So far, this thread has mostly consisted of inflamatory statements and glib remarks.Your opinion is noted and rejected as being non-responsive...

VFarris, you realize that you contradict the RCC, EOC, and every Protestant mainline denomination, as well as the vast majority of nondenominational and interdenominational Christians, including charistmatic/pentacostals. Among those who call themselves Christian, you are 1 in probably 100 who deny the Deity of Christ. Not that numbers make a doctrine true; quite the opposite, according to scripture. Just to make sure we agree that you are in the VAST minority, even here on TWeb.You are making an irrelevant remark and attempting to make it relevant. Even if I was the only person holding such a view it would not make me "wrong" would it? Jesus was not God and never claimed to be God... the Bible is quite clear on this point imo; you and the rest of the misled hold this heretical view (that Jesus is God) because of the pressure exerted by the "masses" to do so, not because it is expicitly discussed in the Bible...

Yet you feel no burden of proof whatsoever? Even though you started this thread? That's like walking into a the middle of a Million Man March and shouting a racial epithet at the entire croud of African-Americans. And it's not like you're providing a well-reasoned essay or even a series of thoughts on whatever your spouting. You just make jabs clever comments and shallow points. You throw out a verse of scripture, KNOWING that it is interpreted in a very different way by most everyone else here, and then provide little or no explanation. The fact that you won't even explain yourself, and then make these snooty little remarks, as if the rest of us are such imbeciles, is unnecesarily insulting, and extremely frustrating.I am under no obligation to prove or explain anything. Because Scripture is "interpreted in a very different way by most everyone else here" does not make their interpretation more acceptable than mine.

If you're trying to say something, you're failing. Have you never read a post by one the many well-spoken members of TWeb? Not just the men of the cloth, but we laiety as well.:rofl:

Before his recent conversion, A Cup of Mystery was one of the most respected non-Christians on TWeb. (Wow, that sounded really bad...you know what I meant...) Why? Because although his views differed greatly from those of others, he had his reasons for them, and explained himself well. We would all do well to take a page from his book.:lmbo:

So PLEASE, explain your views. If you're not even trying to, then why this thread?Why does everything have to have an explanation... you cannot figure it out for yourself? I did.

Jesus was a Jew... His religious attitude, beliefs, and practices were that of a Jew... Should ours (religious attitude, beliefs, and practices) not be the same?The DISCIPLES of Jesus had the same religious attitude, beliefs and practices as that of Jesus.Correct... they were Jewish and followed the Jewish Law.

That's why they were called "Christians" in Antioch (Acts 11:26), referring to his more popular name "Christ."What They were called and what they were are two different things... they were practicing Jews.

Jesus did not break the Sabbath. Some of the Jews said he broke the Sabbath... but did he really? Jesus' favorite Jewish sect, the Pharisees, would say, "No, he did not."The Jews in Jesus' time were more knowledge than any of us concerning what was NOT allowed to be DONE on the Sabbath in accordance with the Old Testament Law. And John 5:18 tells us that the Jews accused Jesus of BREAKING the Sabbath.Do you read what you write? "The Jews accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath." The last time I checked, being accused of a crime does not automatically make one guilty. Was Jesus ever found guilty of "breaking" the Sabbath? No... too bad for your accusation of guilt.

What constitutes work? Getting something to eat, healing the sick, rescuing an animal, driving out "evil spirits," teaching, reading, or circumcising do not violate the Sabbath according to Jesus' teaching (Matthew 12, Mark 2, 3, & 6, Luke 4, 6, & 13, John 5, 7, & 9) which you say we should "abide in" (John 8:31).Exodus 20:10 (RSV) - "But the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God: in it you shall NOT do ANY work..."

Exodus 31:15 (RSV) - "Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord; whoever does ANY work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death."

Jeremiah 17:21 (RSV) - "Thus says the Lord: Take heed for the sake of your lives, and do NOT bear a burden on the Sabbath day or bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem. And do NOT carry a burden out of your houses on the Sabbath or do ANY work, but keep the Sabbath day holy, as I commanded your fathers."

Exodus 16:26-30 (RSV) - "Six days you shall GATHER it; but on the seventh day, which is sbbath, there will be none. On the seventh day some of the people went out to GATHER and they found none. And the Lord said to Moses, 'How long do you refuse to keep my commandments? See! The Lord has given you the sabbath, therefore on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days; remain every man of you in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.' So the people RESTED on the seventh day."

Jesus HEALED the sick on the sabbath and commanded the man to CARRY his bed. Healing is WORK and the Law commands the Jews NOT to do ANY work on the Sabbath NOR carry ANYTHING.All of your legwork is appreciated... now define "work."

The apostles GATHERED food on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1).So?

(1) At that time Jesus went through the grain fields on the sabbath day. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck the heads of grain and to eat. (2) But when the Pharisees saw, they said to Him, Behold, your disciples do that which it is not lawful to do on the sabbath day. (3) But He said to them, Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him, (4) how he entered into the house of God and ate the showbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? (5) Or have you not read in the Law that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath and are blameless? (6) But I say to you that One greater than the temple is in this place. (7) But if you had known what this is, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice," you would not have condemned those who are not guilty. (8) For the Son of Man is Lord even of the sabbath.
"Profaning the Sabbath is OK for the priests but not for everyone else... right. "The Sabbath is for man... not man for the Sabbath," (Mark 2:27).

(9) And when He had departed from there, He went into their synagogue.
Of course he did this so he could practice Christianity and not Judiasm :lol:.

Jesus said, "...it is LAWFUL to do GOOD on the Sabbath..." (Matt. 12:12). This IMPLIES that ANYTHING done on a sabbath that is GOOD is lawful in the eyes of God.You must do better than this...

(11) And He said to them, What man among you will be, who will have one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbaths, will he not lay hold on it and lift it out? (12) How much better is a man then than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
A certain amount of "work" was lawful on the Sabbath; the OT does not define "work," it simply says "work" is not to be done... What constitutes "work?"

Jesus did NOT only break the Sabbath. He ABOLISHED the Sabbath Law which is a COMMAND from God (John 12:49-50).News flash... John 12:49-50 does not abolish the Sabbath... in fact, it abolishes nothing:

(49) For I have not spoken of Myself, but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say, and what I should speak. (50) And I know that His command is life everlasting. Therefore whatever I speak, even as the Father said to Me, so I speak.
Nice try.

I have been extremely impressed with the majority of well-thought out, well-reasoned opinions on these boards. But every now and then, you just get people who enjoy argument--but not debate.I do not enjoy either... I enjoy discussion... you obviously do not.

<snip>...if you believe in theology with which 99.9% of Christians would disagree, the burden is on you to convince us.I cannot convince anyone of anything unless they want to be convinced... you are not one of the convincible... you just want to "debate."

If discussion is beyond your ability... stay off of my thread.

VFarris01

December 10th 2005, 10:04 AM

... from here (http://www.timl.com/israel/wwjd.htm)...

Would your church really allow you to be like Jesus?
Which religion would a person be a member of if he did the following:

(1) Was circumcised on the eighth day.
(2) Kept Sabbath from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown.
(3) Attended a synagogue regularly.
(4) Kept Passover, Shavuot, Rosh HaShanah, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah.
(5) Was a citizen of Israel.
(6) His Bible contained the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings.
(7) Quoted passages from the Mishnah.
(8) Taught that Deuteronomy 6:4 was the most important commandment.

I would guess that most of you came up with the same answer -- Judaism. As a friend of mine always says, "You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out." Now, let's take a look at another person. See if you can identify the religion of this person.

(1) Sabbath was on Sunday.
(2) Attended a church.
(3) Kept Easter and Christmas.
(4) Bible contained an Old Testament and a New Testament.
(5) Stressed a person's beliefs.
(6) Taught that people had to be "saved" in order to go to heaven.
(7) Taught that they were not under the law.
(8) Taught that the church had replaced Israel as God's people.

I bet you got the right answer again -- Christian. Now let's take this discussion one more step by answering this question -- If a Jew wanted to become a member of a Christian religion could he continue practicing Judaism? Probably in the 99.9% of the cases the answer would be - NO!

What about the other side of the coin? If a Christian wanted to become a convert to Judaism could he continue practicing Christianity? Now, the percentage moves upwards, probably in 100% of the cases the answer would be - NO!

It is very apparent that not only are Judaism and Christianity different religions, they are exclusive in many ways. This reveals an amazing fact which can be seen by asking one very simple question -- Which religion did Jesus belong to -- Christianity, Judaism or both?

(1) He was circumcised on the eighth day.
(2) He kept Sabbath from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown.
(3) He attended a synagogue regularly.
(4) He kept Passover, Shavuot, Rosh HaShanah, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah.
(5) He was a citizen of Israel.
(6) His Bible contained the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings.
(7) He quoted passages from the Mishnah.
(8) He taught that Deuteronomy 6:4 was the most important commandment.

The answer to the above question is a matter of historical record -- Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian and he was certainly not both. It is clear that Jesus was a practicing Jew who lived a very observant lifestyle. An amazing discovery for any Christian is the fact that there is simply no evidence that Jesus ever renounced Judaism and quit being a Jew. Also, his teachings do not indicate that he ever wanted any Jew to renounce their Judaism and join a new religion. How then, did he get credited with the distinct label that he was the person responsible for creating a new religion? Especially a religion which opposed the religion and way of life he continued to live?
Can you answer the questions raised by such an assumption:

(1) Would a rabbi prohibit circumcision?
(2) Would a rabbi change the Sabbath to another day?
(3) Would a rabbi create a replacement for the synagogue?
(4) Would a rabbi substitute a pagan feast which was clearly idolatrous, Ishtar (Easter), for Passover?
(5) Would a rabbi want his followers to celebrate the birth of a Roman god (Saturnalia -- December 25)?
(6) Would a rabbi teach his students to not keep the biblical commandments?
(7) Would a rabbi teach Gentiles to hate Jews?
(8) Would a rabbi add books to the Torah?
(9) Would a rabbi replace Deuteronomy 6:4 as the most important commandment?

The answer to all the above questions is that a rabbi wouldn't, and that includes a rabbi named Jesus! If Jesus didn't create a new anti-Jewish religion, who did? Was it the men who acquired leadership after Jesus' departure? Did they continue teaching his message or did they change things?

The book of Acts provides us with some very valuable information. Acts 21:17-25 records Paul's return to Jerusalem and his meeting with the leaders of the "church." Keep in mind that these were the men who had been personally taught by and lived with Jesus. Their words provide us with some very enlightening information. The translation given below is based on a cultural and historical methodology. Your translation most probably reflects the doctrines of the Roman church and therefore may differ.

"You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have become faithful (observant). All of them are zealous for the Torah (Law). They have been informed that you have taught the Jews of the Diaspora to not keep the Torah, that they should not circumcise their children or live according to the Jewish religion.... Take these men and do the following... so that everybody will know that there is no truth in these reports about your teachings, but that you yourself are living an observant lifestyle and keeping the Torah."

A quick summary provides us with some very significant information. Is your church producing the same results?
Notice that Paul did as he was requested - he wasn't teaching the Jews to abandon their religion. Paul was "under the law" and lived an observant lifestyle. How then could he have been the author of a doctrine that advocated rejecting the law?

I don't mean to linger on this point forever, but are you really getting the importance of this message?

(1) The message of the apostles caused Jews to repent and become observant Jews who practiced Judaism faithfully.
(2) The apostles were causing Jews to become eager for the Torah and to pursue it with fervor. It is clear that they were not teaching them that "they were under grace and no longer under the law." This one point is in complete opposition to most fundamental teaching of every modern Christian doctrine.
(3) The Jewish members of the early church continued to circumcise their children. In other words, they continued to see themselves as participant's in the Abrahamic Covenant, just as every practicing Jew does today. Their children were Jews, not members of some new mystical religion that replaced Judaism.
(4) The Jewish members of the early church continued to practice Judaism. They did not switch to a new religion.
(5) When we look at Paul's actions, after being asked to take the men to the Temple to prove that he was an observant Jew, we are faced with two possibilities:
(A) Paul intentionally deceived the apostles and the Jews in Jerusalem; or,
(B) Paul's image and/or the teachings attributed Paul may have been altered by the Roman Church a hundred or more years later.

Did Paul intentionally deceive the apostles? After all they were the men who lived with and were personally taught by R. Jesus for three years. If Paul did deceive them, could you put much confidence in his teachings? On the other hand, if Paul's words were changed by the Roman Church could we base our foundational beliefs on forged documents?

Christianity, almost universally, requires a Jew to convert to Christianity before he can become a member of the church or be saved. This conversion process forces the Jew to renounce his or her Judaism and terminate or redefine any Jewish practices. Just answer the following questions.

(1) Would your church require a Jew to renounce or stop practicing Judaism if he or she wanted to become a member?
(2) How many circumcisions have you attended for the children of Jewish members of your church?
(3) How many of your church's members are zealous for the Torah and are pursuing it with fervor?
(4) Does your church conduct at least one Torah study per week?
(5) How many of your church's Jewish members are observant Jews?
(6) When was the last time you attended a Rosh HaShanah or Yom Kippur service at your church?
(7) Do you have a rabbi or a minister leading your church?

Your answers to the above questions are probably -- Yes, None, None, No, None, Never and Minister.

I want you take some time to think about the next question before you answer it. What would your church require a rabbi to do if he applied for membership?

Would they allow him to continue to be a rabbi, practice Judaism, teach the Torah, wear his prayer shawl, observe all the Jewish festivals and teach the members that they were under the Law?

What if that rabbi was Jesus?

Is the light beginning to come on? Without a great deal of effort it becomes glaringly apparent that neither R. Jesus, the apostles nor the Paul of Acts 21, would be allowed to join a church. On the other hand, it is also clear that R. Jesus would not participate in any religion that not only opposes, but is actively dedicated to destroying his religion! Is it not true that the goal and stated mission of Christianity is to "save the world?" How is this mission to be accomplished? To put it very simply, the goal is to convert every non-Christian to Christianity. The convert must renounce any non-Christian religion, agree to accept the doctrines of Christianity and oppose any religion that opposes Christianity.

Instead of a physical Jihad (holy war), Christianity has engaged in a doctrinal Jihad. As I stated above, Christianity is an exclusive religion. Christians are not allowed to simultaneously practice Islam, Buddhism, Judaism or any other religion. Therefore, if Christianity was to attain its goal of "getting every person on the face of the earth to believe in Jesus," including all the Jews, Judaism would be totally destroyed and cease to exist.

This would accomplish something that the crusaders, the inquisition, Hitler and a number of others have failed to accomplish. How do you think R. Jesus would react to the idea that such a mission was being carried out in his name? This really gets weird when you think about it!
Christians base their proof for their ultimate salvation on a Jewish rabbi named Yeshua (Jesus), who was an observant Jew who faithfully practiced Judaism. On the one hand, his religion would most probably not allow him to practice modern Christianity. On the other hand, modern Christianity would not allow him to practice its religion without first renouncing his religion -- Judaism!

This should present a very important challenge to every Christian -- If R. Jesus could not, and would not, practice a religion dedicated to destroying his religion, how can anyone who bases their salvation on R. Jesus participate in and perpetuate it? Would R. Jesus agree with a salvation message being based on such a system? Are you getting the drift of this discussion?

(1) Jews became more faithful (observant) Jews because of the message.
(2) They became zealous for the Torah (Law).
(3) They kept the Laws of Moses (the Torah).
(4) They circumcised their children.
(5) They lived according to the traditions (Jewish religion).

How did the religion that R. Jesus and his followers practice evolve into what it is today? To begin to unravel this problem lets ask how a religion whose foundational position focused on teaching its members "to keep the Law" became a religion whose main message as that "members are no longer under the Law."

Early Christian writers taught that the Law had been fulfilled with the coming of Jesus. Fulfilled, as they defined it, meant that it had been canceled and therefore was of no importance to Christians. However, to R. Jesus, "fulfilled" meant (1) to keep the Law; and (2) to correctly interpret the teachings of the Bible. There is absolutely nothing said by R. Jesus that would support modern Christianity's doctrine of grace. (this doesn't mean biblical grace...only Christianity's teaching on grace)

Next, the Roman Christian leaders focused on the story of God's unconditional and unending support. However, they claimed that this was something new and was created when God made a new covenant of grace. Again, this was unknown to R. Jesus and his apostles. Early Gentile Christian leaders and theologians continued to develop their new doctrines from the mid-second century on through the seventh century. As they refined their arguments they became much more antagonistic toward Judaism.

The anti-Judaic movement spanned almost all of Christianity -- from the Roman African communities represented by Tertullian (160-220 C.E.), to the Iranian monk Aphrahat (300-350 C.E.) of the eastern Syriac Christian tradition, and to Bishop John Chrysostom (349-400 C.E.) in Antioch.

Studies have clearly shown the extent to which leaders of the early church attacked Judaism for its position on the law, calling Jews "slavish adherents to the letter of the law." They claimed that Judaism was allowed to continue to exist primarily as an example of degradation. What do you think that rabbi Jesus would have thought about that position?

Origin, the third-century leader of the Christian community in Caesarea, summed up the difference between Judaism's and Roman Christianity's approaches to Scripture:

"It seems necessary also to explain how certain people by failing to read or understand Scripture correctly have given themselves up to a great many errors, since the way one ought to approach the understanding of divine letters is unknown to a great many people. And so, the Jews, through the hardness of their heart and because they wish to seem wise in themselves,
have not believed in our Lord and Savior....

Now the reason that those we have just mentioned [Jews and heretical Christians] have a false understanding of these matters is quite simply that they understand Scripture not according to the spiritual meaning but according to the sound of the letter....

[But] a person ought to describe threefold in his soul the meaning of divine letters, that is, so that the simple may be edified by, so to speak, the body of the Scripture's; for that is what we call the ordinary and narrative meaning. But if any have begun to make some progress and can contemplate something more fully, they should be edified by the soul of Scripture. And those who are perfect... should be edified by that spiritual Law (Rom. 7:14) which has a shadow of the good things to come (Heb. 10:1), edified by the
spirit of Scripture. Thus, just as a human being is said to be made up of body, soul, and spirit, so also is sacred Scripture, which has been granted by God's gracious dispensation for man's salvation."

This new scheme for reading Scripture, and the charge that Jews miss all but the literal meaning, made for powerful arguments. Origin's dichotomy between "letter" and "spirit," or in other words, between reading biblical materials either at their face value for norms of behavior and as a more generalized stance toward the world, set the stage throughout history for Christians to increase the fervor of the charge of legalism. Legalism became synonymous with Jewish, and therefore was viewed in a negative light. However, the word "legalism" simply means someone that "lives in accordance with or adheres to a legal system." What would you call someone who "did not adhere to or live in accordance with a legal system"-- a Christian? The products of this anti-Jewish tradition still shapes the thoughts of over 1.6 billion Christians regarding Judaic law.

I am challenging every Christian to make a decision to return to the religion, teachings and lifestyle expounded by R. Jesus. There will be some differences between what the Gentile and the Jewish Christian will need to do. First, let me address the Jew who has converted to Christianity. As I stated above, according to the book of Acts, your conversion experience should have made you zealous for the Torah and brought you back to an observant lifestyle. Has it?

Becoming a member of R. Jesus' movement should have caused you to become a serious student of the Torah. You should be teaching the Torah to others, especially the flood of Gentiles who are coming to you to be taught. Is there any other way for you to be a "light to the Gentiles?"

If you are a Gentile, you will also need to take a very close look at Acts 15. Gentiles who were coming to the movement originated by R. Jesus were given very special instructions. First they were to place themselves under specific laws. For all practical purposes those laws were the Ten Commandments. Of special importance was their keeping the Jewish Sabbath and studying the Torah at the synagogue with the Jews.

Keeping the Jewish Sabbath is something that you can do immediately, however; many of you may find it difficult to locate a synagogue where you will be allowed to study the Torah. For very good reasons, after thousands of years of persecutions, the Jewish community is very cautious. I believe that as Christian Jews return to the synagogue, because of the teachings of R. Jesus, the doors will be opened wider to Gentiles desiring to know the God of R. Jesus.

Two things must be kept in mind as both Jews and Gentile Christians choose to return to the teachings of Rabbi Jesus. First, almost two thousand years of conflict between Judaism and Christianity has left many scars. Both religions have developed reactionary doctrines and theologies. A reactionary doctrine created as a reaction to the another religion's actions or doctrines.

An example would be the Jewish position concerning kneeling for prayer. Because Christians knelt for prayer, the Jews took the position that they should no longer kneel but stand for prayers. Judaism altered its form of
worship because of this practice of Christianity. There have been many reactionary doctrines created both between and within both religions. This is an area of research that deserves much attention. I would challenge my readers to consider such a research project.

It must be kept in mind that the Judaism of Jesus is not exactly the same as the Judaism of today. Also, the movement attributed to Jesus is not the same as modern Christianity. Obviously, many things have taken place since the time of Jesus which resulted in the separation and numerous differences between the two religions.

It is of the utmost importance for both Christians and Jews to understand these changes. You must know when the changes were made, identify the people who were responsible for making the changes, and discover why they made them? Which changes were motivated by inspiration, which were produced by the hunger for power and wealth and which were the results of human frailties such as anger, rejection, fear and hatred?

As you embark on this journey you will quickly come to realize that you have stumbled upon the greatest cover-ups in history. To compare it to the JFK controversy is like comparing an elephant to an ant! Two very important factors confront everyone who explores this territory:

(1) Leaders, especially scholars, have always been aware of this information and have deliberately chosen to ignore it.
(2) Information itself is virtually within the grasp of every American. In many cases it is as close as an encyclopedia.

Today, there are over 1,600,000,000 Christians on the face of the earth -- a sleeping giant, just waiting for the wake-up call. If they all returned to the teachings and life-style taught in Acts, we would see a moral and ethical revolution that would literally rock the foundations of the world. Would your church allow you to REALLY be like Jesus?

N'tan Levy

Vfarris01 you may only quote two paragraphs of a copyrighted source and unless specifically mentioned to the contrary all sources are automatically copyrighted by their authors when written by them

Provoker

December 10th 2005, 11:44 PM

Jesus' told his followers to follow the Jewish Law... Jesus was a practicing Jew not a "practicing" Christian.

Jesus was hardly unique as a purveyour of the "good news," simply another one.
Hello VFarris:
Jesus was a practicing Jew, and he told his followers to keep the law, but it was only because that was their cultural tradition, not because of any legal requirement of God.
God chose a national assembly to make His covenant with, and that national assembly has not existed since the end of Solomon's reign, when it became divided against it'self and surely fell.
The old Israelite national law did not apply to the Jews, but it was Jewish tradition to keep the law, to remain prepared for the messiah and the resurrection of the kingdom. It was expected that a Jewish convert to the gospel of the kingdom, would continue to keep Jewish traditions, because it would indicate a phoney conversion if a Jew converted, and quite keeping the law.
However, Jesus was also a Christian, even though there was no particular Christian practice. Being a Christian consisted of only one attribute...a circumcised heart, which also made one a "true" Jew.
Those who accepted the gospel of the kingdom became "true" Jews, regardless of whether they were Jews or gentiles. The Jews were traditionally circumcised in the flesh, but they were backslidden, and were not circumcised in spirit(circumcised heart).
So there is really no difference between Jews and gentiles when it comes to having a circumcised heart.
Basicly, a Christian is a "true" Jew...according to Paul:-)

I also agree that Jesus was not the only "purveyour" of the good news of the kingdom. The 6th century BC prophet who told the Babylonian captives that "a messiah would come and resurrect the kingdom of his father David", was the first "purveyour" of the good news of the kingdom, and after the captivity ended, and the Jews who settled in Judea became backslidden, the Babylonian Jews sent at least 4 prophets to Jerusalem to proclaim the good news of the kingdom, but just like John the baptist and Jesus, Jerusalem killed them all.

In any case, every "true" christian is a "true" Jew, regardless of whether he is Jewish of gentile, and Jesus was certainly was a "true" Jew.

VFarris01

December 11th 2005, 07:22 PM

Jesus' told his followers to follow the Jewish Law... Jesus was a practicing Jew not a "practicing" Christian.Jesus was hardly unique as a purveyour of the "good news," simply another one.Jesus was a practicing Jew, and he told his followers to keep the law, but it was only because that was their cultural tradition, not because of any legal requirement of God.Where do you derive this "cultural tradition" nonsense?

(18) For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law until all is fulfilled. (19) Therefore whoever shall relax one of these commandments, the least, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven. But whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.
This is not an admonishment to follow a "cultural tradition;" it is a legal requirement of God.

God chose a national assembly to make His covenant with, and that national assembly has not existed since the end of Solomon's reign, when it became divided against it'self and surely fell.Wrong. Read Matthew 5:18-19 again.

The old Israelite national law did not apply to the Jews, but it was Jewish tradition to keep the law, to remain prepared for the messiah and the resurrection of the kingdom. It was expected that a Jewish convert to the gospel of the kingdom, would continue to keep Jewish traditions, because it would indicate a phoney conversion if a Jew converted, and quite keeping the law.Wrong. Read Matthew 5:18-19 again.

However, Jesus was also a Christian, even though there was no particular Christian practice. Being a Christian consisted of only one attribute...a circumcised heart, which also made one a "true" Jew.Jesus was not a Christian. He was a God fearing Jew who followed the Law.

Those who accepted the gospel of the kingdom became "true" Jews, regardless of whether they were Jews or gentiles. The Jews were traditionally circumcised in the flesh, but they were backslidden, and were not circumcised in spirit(circumcised heart).This was Jesus' message... Get back on the "right track" with God... Jesus did not institute a new religon to follow.

So there is really no difference between Jews and gentiles when it comes to having a circumcised heart.... and the law applies to both Jew and Gentile.

Basicly, a Christian is a "true" Jew...according to Paul:-)According to Paul, the apostate Jew...

I also agree that Jesus was not the only "purveyour" of the good news of the kingdom. The 6th century BC prophet who told the Babylonian captives that "a messiah would come and resurrect the kingdom of his father David", was the first "purveyour" of the good news of the kingdom, and after the captivity ended, and the Jews who settled in Judea became backslidden, the Babylonian Jews sent at least 4 prophets to Jerusalem to proclaim the good news of the kingdom, but just like John the baptist and Jesus, Jerusalem killed them all.True...

In any case, every "true" christian is a "true" Jew, regardless of whether he is Jewish of gentile, and Jesus was certainly was a "true" Jew.... and the law applies to both Jew and Gentile.

brother vinny

December 11th 2005, 08:07 PM

I got as far a VFarris01's assertion that the Apostle Paul is a heretic, then I had to stop reading.

The revelation to Paul of the mystery of the Body of Christ, in which there is no Jew and no gentile, along with the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith, are distinctives that lend Christianity a beauty that set it apart and above the bootstrap-pulling attempts to appease God of the other religions, including Judaism.

Paul, with these doctrinal distinctives already in place, went to the leaders of the Christian church and found acceptance. I choose to side with Peter, James and John in this, rather than with someone who came along some 2,000 years after the fact, embracing and espousing a heresy that would diminish the unique beauty of the Christian gospel.

VFarris01

December 12th 2005, 07:42 AM

I got as far a VFarris01's assertion that the Apostle Paul is a heretic, then I had to stop reading.Too bad... the truth hurts does it not? If you had read further you might have learned something... too bad your prejudice got in the way.

The revelation to Paul of the mystery of the Body of Christ, in which there is no Jew and no gentile, along with the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith, are distinctives that lend Christianity a beauty that set it apart and above the bootstrap-pulling attempts to appease God of the other religions, including Judaism.I am sure the Church of Christ of Latter-Day Saints appreciate your support. Why only Paul... why not Joseph Smith too? ... or me?... or you?

Paul, with these doctrinal distinctives already in place, went to the leaders of the Christian church and found acceptance.Found? Actually, the "gospel" Paul preached conflicted(s) with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

I choose to side with Peter, James and John in this, rather than with someone who came along some 2,000 years after the fact, embracing and espousing a heresy that would diminish the unique beauty of the Christian gospel.Unique? Hardly. Heresy? Only to the eyes blinded by the lie of the false Christianity derived and through the RCC. The teachings of Jesus were from Judaism not Catholicism (from which we have the various "protestant" denominations).

Keumkang

December 12th 2005, 12:46 PM

brother vinny

December 12th 2005, 02:02 PM

Too bad... the truth hurts does it not? If you had read further you might have learned something... too bad your prejudice got in the way.

I have nothing to learn from you unless I want to go the way of the heretic.

I am sure the Church of Christ of Latter-Day Saints appreciate your support. Why only Paul... why not Joseph Smith too? ... or me?... or you?

Good questions. Could it possibly be that the writings of the apostle Peter didn't hold Joseph Smith's writings, or yours, or mine, as equivalent to Scripture, while he did so with the Apostle Paul's?

Found? Actually, the "gospel" Paul preached conflicted(s) with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.

Then it's up to you to explain why Peter, James and John extended the right hand of fellowship to Paul, and why Peter equated Paul's writings with Scripture.

Unique? Hardly. Heresy? Only to the eyes blinded by the lie of the false Christianity derived and through the RCC. The teachings of Jesus were from Judaism not Catholicism (from which we have the various "protestant" denominations).

I beg to differ. Jesus' teachings were Jewish at root but were so all-encompassing that, by the time Jesus was done, the old Jewish Torah was but a subset of of the full body of teachings.

I think we're at loggerheads. I maintain that my salvation came by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and His death, burial, and resurrection. You have decided, it would appear, to work your way to heaven. Since we've reached this impasse, the thing to do would be to wait until we both die, at which point we'll both know who was right. I'm willing to bet my life on grace; are you willing to do the same on your own righteousness?

VFarris01

December 12th 2005, 02:47 PM

VFarris, you realize that you contradict the RCC, EOC, and every Protestant mainline denomination, as well as the vast majority of nondenominational and interdenominational Christians, including charistmatic/pentacostals. Among those who call themselves Christian, you are 1 in probably 100 who deny the Deity of Christ. Not that numbers make a doctrine true; quite the opposite, according to scripture. Just to make sure we agree that you are in the VAST minority, even here on TWeb.You are making an irrelevant remark and attempting to make it relevant. Even if I was the only person holding such a view it would not make me "wrong" would it? Jesus was not God and never claimed to be God... the Bible is quite clear on this point imo; you and the rest of the misled hold this heretical view (that Jesus is God) because of the pressure exerted by the "masses" to do so, not because it is expicitly discussed in the Bible...No, holding such a view does not make you neccesarily wrong, as I just said a few sentences ago. But it does mean you have the burden of proof.I am under no "burden of proof." Even so, you would probably reject it.

Yet you feel no burden of proof whatsoever? Even though you started this thread? That's like walking into a the middle of a Million Man March and shouting a racial epithet at the entire croud of African-Americans. And it's not like you're providing a well-reasoned essay or even a series of thoughts on whatever your spouting. You just make jabs clever comments and shallow points. You throw out a verse of scripture, KNOWING that it is interpreted in a very different way by most everyone else here, and then provide little or no explanation. The fact that you won't even explain yourself, and then make these snooty little remarks, as if the rest of us are such imbeciles, is unnecesarily insulting, and extremely frustrating.I am under no obligation to prove or explain anything. Because Scripture is "interpreted in a very different way by most everyone else here" does not make their interpretation more acceptable than mine.I never said a majority opinion is more acceptable. In fact, I've conceded the oppposite a a couple times already, so lose the strawman.So, my point of view could be the correct alternative to errant Christianity since the 1stcentury? ... do I detect an open mind?

And yes, you are under the burden of proof. Being in the minority means you have to present to the majority a strong case.No, I am not and no, it does not.

If nothing else, one would think you would actually want us to come to the truth.As if I could sway you...

Yet you do SUCH a bad job of presenting it, that you have no credit.Puts me and Jesus in the same canoe, yes? No one seemed to understand him either.

If you're trying to say something, you're failing. Have you never read a post by one the many well-spoken members of TWeb? Not just the men of the cloth, but we laiety as well.:rofl:What's so funny? There are a good number of well-spoken TWebbers.What is so funny is that they are blind to the fact they believe the Bible is inerrant and identical (or even close) to the autographs.

See, that would be appropriate to use about a hilarious or ridiculous statement. But you just threw it out there at a perfectly normal statement. In this way, your comments are cheapened.So far, all of your post has been an ad hominem... got anything else?

Before his recent conversion, A Cup of Mystery was one of the most respected non-Christians on TWeb. (Wow, that sounded really bad...you know what I meant...) Why? Because although his views differed greatly from those of others, he had his reasons for them, and explained himself well. We would all do well to take a page from his book.:lmbo:There you go again. You can't say anything about my last statement, so you just pretend that it's SO ridiculous, ir deserves only a :lmbo:.The funny thing here is that you have fallen for CoM's ruse of conversion so he can post in the "Christian only" forums.

Again, discrediting yourself.Again, with an ad hom..., discrediting yourself.

So PLEASE, explain your views. If you're not even trying to, then why this thread?Why does everything have to have an explanation... you cannot figure it out for yourself? I did.[quote=Kk]Why? Because we're not a bunch of mind-readers.It does not take a "mind-reader" only a person interested in the "truth."

The rest of us have figured it out for ourselves, and have come to different conclusions than you have.You have come to the wrong conclusion because your source material is flawed. The NT is not all there is to know about "Christianity" nor was/is it "inspired."

So, if you want to share your views, you need to explain them. Somehow, snippy remarks just don't speak of well-studied and thought-out theology.It would help if you could continue without ad hominems interlaced within the rest of your spew. A few "well-thought-out" questions on your part would help me find a place to begin in helping you understand where "Christianity" has gone wrong.

Hopefully moving on,...you've referred to Paul as a Heretic.Absolutely. He started Christianity as it exists today, not Jesus.

Do you then reject the NT, or parts of it, as canon?I reject all of the letters of Paul as heretical.

Which books of our Bible to you call inspired?None of them... they were written by men... not inpired men... just men... Even if they were "inspired," the copies we have today have been so thoroughly edited, any trace of their original doctrine has been eliminated in favor of the present "orthodox" Christianity we know and love/despise today.

Something folks do not know about me is that I once was ensnared in the "wrong belief" of Christianity (as it exists today) for over 40 years. Jesus was just a man... a God fearing man... but just a man... He was not/is not/will not be part of a "God trinity" as has been passed down to today... there is simply no evidence in the Bible to rationally support this conclusion... therefore it should be rejected as a "doctrine of men."

VFarris01

December 12th 2005, 03:52 PM

Too bad... the truth hurts does it not? If you had read further you might have learned something... too bad your prejudice got in the way.I have nothing to learn from you unless I want to go the way of the heretic.It is too late for that I am afraid... you already have...

I am sure the Church of Christ of Latter-Day Saints appreciate your support. Why only Paul... why not Joseph Smith too? ... or me?... or you?Good questions. Could it possibly be that the writings of the apostle Peter didn't hold Joseph Smith's writings, or yours, or mine, as equivalent to Scripture, while he did so with the Apostle Paul's?Since you and I had not written yet how could he? As for if Peter thought Paul's writing was "scripture" the debate is not yet finished on this one I am afraid... Did Peter write 1 & 2 Peter? Unlikely.

Found? Actually, the "gospel" Paul preached conflicted(s) with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.Then it's up to you to explain why Peter, James and John extended the right hand of fellowship to Paul, and why Peter equated Paul's writings with Scripture.They did? Perhaps you have missed the fact I do not consider Paul's "writings" (or those attributed to Paul) trustworthy (Galatians 2:9).

Unique? Hardly. Heresy? Only to the eyes blinded by the lie of the false Christianity derived and through the RCC. The teachings of Jesus were from Judaism not Catholicism (from which we have the various "protestant" denominations).I beg to differ. Jesus' teachings were Jewish at root but were so all-encompassing that, by the time Jesus was done, the old Jewish Torah was but a subset of of the full body of teachings.This is your opinion which bears little in fact. Jesus told his follows to obey the LAW (period).

I think we're at loggerheads. I maintain that my salvation came by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and His death, burial, and resurrection.Salvation comes by grace through faith in God. We are not too different except I refuse to believe the Jesus myth (anymore).

You have decided, it would appear, to work your way to heaven.James, the brother of Jesus, said faith without works is a dead faith (James 2:18-20). It appears you have decided to base your faith on the luck-of-the-draw.

Since we've reached this impasse, the thing to do would be to wait until we both die, at which point we'll both know who was right.Will we? It is sure going to suck when you find out you have been worshipping a mere man as God... I understand God is jealous in this respect.

I'm willing to bet my life on grace; are you willing to do the same on your own righteousness?Ah, the "Christian scare tactic." Let me see...

(28) One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandents, which is the most important?" (29) "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. (30) Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' (31) The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (32) "Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. (33) To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices." (34) When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God."
(25) On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" (26) "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" (27) He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" (28) "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
Not to worry... Jesus says I am on the right path already...

Provoker

December 12th 2005, 05:06 PM

Hello VFarris01:
While it is true that not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law, the law was only given the national assembly of the children of Israel. The old covenant is everlasting, and since it is based on the law, the law is just as everlasting, but if there is currently "no covenant assembly"(except in spirit), so the everlasting law, currently applies to no one.
Until covenant Israel is resurrected from the dead, there is no one under the Mosaic law...*except in spirit*.
Have you not noticed that everything having to do with God, salvation, etc, is all "in spirit"? That is because God turned His face away from the children of Israel, and by extension, all the peoples of the world, and will continue with His face turned away until the assembly of Israel in spirit(the church), resurrects literal covenant Israel from the dead to repentance.
Can you not see that apostolic christianity was simply an effort to assemble and enlarge the body of people who watch and wait for the christ(the body of christ), so that the christ would have a ready force with which to re-possess the promised land, thus resurrecting covenant Israel?
Apostolic christianity is a call to return to "true" Judaism, which was completely and only a nationalist movement for the resurrection of David's kingdom, on the land between the Euphrates and the Nile, so that God can forgive repentant Israel, and carry on with His everlasting plan to bless all the people's of the world(the old covenant).
I can see by your arguements against orthodoxy, that you have come a long way, but you have not arrived yet, so don't be in a hurry to close your mind.
As for the verses that you want me to read "again", they mean less than nothing as they stand alone, and must be interpreted and understood in the context of the only part of scripture which still has the ability to define scripture...the continuous bible story which runs, with great continuity, from Genesis to Revelation.
Scripture was *NOT* written in verses, but it *WAS* written in *CONTEXT*...LOL

Oh yes...when you don't understand what someone is talking about, don't judge them to be *Wrong*...LOL

Where do you derive this "cultural tradition" nonsense?

(18) For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law until all is fulfilled. (19) Therefore whoever shall relax one of these commandments, the least, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven. But whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.
This is not an admonishment to follow a "cultural tradition;" it is a legal requirement of God.

Wrong. Read Matthew 5:18-19 again.

Wrong. Read Matthew 5:18-19 again.

Jesus was not a Christian. He was a God fearing Jew who followed the Law.

This was Jesus' message... Get back on the "right track" with God... Jesus did not institute a new religon to follow.

... and the law applies to both Jew and Gentile.

According to Paul, the apostate Jew...

True...

... and the law applies to both Jew and Gentile.

Amazing Rando

December 12th 2005, 05:20 PM

James, the brother of Jesus, said faith without works is a dead faith (James 2:18-20). It appears you have decided to base your faith on the luck-of-the-draw.

Contradicting yourself yet again?
In this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1293211&postcount=21), only five days ago, you said,

I hate to be the one to break the news to you but EJames was not written by James the brother of Jesus...

No wonder nobody's taking you seriously.

domnave

December 12th 2005, 06:26 PM

The question should not be "Was Jesus a Christian?" or "Was Jesus a Jew?", but was "Was Jesus' God God?" The answer was most definetily yes. Jesus was a human, in the way that man was meant to be. There is Absolute Truth, and Jesus was the model for that Absolute Truth. So, in actually answering the question, Jesus was a "Jew" and a "Christian" both as they were meant to be. But I don't think Jesus was a "Jew" or a "Christian" as we define them today. He doesn't conform to any models. He was the model

VFarris01

December 12th 2005, 10:23 PM

Where do you derive this "cultural tradition" nonsense?

(18) For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law until all is fulfilled. (19) Therefore whoever shall relax one of these commandments, the least, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven. But whoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.

This is not an admonishment to follow a "cultural tradition;" it is a legal requirement of God.

Wrong. Read Matthew 5:18-19 again.

Wrong. Read Matthew 5:18-19 again.

Jesus was not a Christian. He was a God fearing Jew who followed the Law.

This was Jesus' message... Get back on the "right track" with God... Jesus did not institute a new religon to follow.

... and the law applies to both Jew and Gentile.

According to Paul, the apostate Jew...

True...

... and the law applies to both Jew and Gentile.While it is true that not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the law, the law was only given the national assembly of the children of Israel. The old covenant is everlasting, and since it is based on the law, the law is just as everlasting, but if there is currently "no covenant assembly"(except in spirit), so the everlasting law, currently applies to no one.And you know this because...

Until covenant Israel is resurrected from the dead, there is no one under the Mosaic law...*except in spirit*.This is your hypothesis... not much more. The last time I checked the "Jews" have their own country and are an "assembly." Though not always "together" the Jews have always been a "separate people."

Have you not noticed that everything having to do with God, salvation, etc, is all "in spirit"? That is because God turned His face away from the children of Israel, and by extension, all the peoples of the world, and will continue with His face turned away until the assembly of Israel in spirit(the church), resurrects literal covenant Israel from the dead to repentance.This is Pauline Christianity... yes? Ie... Jesus never said it... and never taught it...

Can you not see that apostolic christianity was simply an effort to assemble and enlarge the body of people who watch and wait for the christ(the body of christ), so that the christ would have a ready force with which to re-possess the promised land, thus resurrecting covenant Israel?
Apostolic christianity is a call to return to "true" Judaism, which was completely and only a nationalist movement for the resurrection of David's kingdom, on the land between the Euphrates and the Nile, so that God can forgive repentant Israel, and carry on with His everlasting plan to bless all the people's of the world(the old covenant).What bilge did you pump to find this nonsense?

I can see by your arguements against orthodoxy, that you have come a long way, but you have not arrived yet, so don't be in a hurry to close your mind.My "orthodoxy" is not your "orthodoxy."

As for the verses that you want me to read "again", they mean less than nothing as they stand alone, and must be interpreted and understood in the context of the only part of scripture which still has the ability to define scripture...the continuous bible story which runs, with great continuity, from Genesis to Revelation.This would all be nice and pretty if such a large part of the "story" had not been left out... you know... the parts deemed "heretical" by the "proto-orthodoxy" of the first three centuries.

Scripture was *NOT* written in verses, but it *WAS* written in *CONTEXT*...LOLQuite a lot of scripture can "stand alone."

Oh yes...when you don't understand what someone is talking about, don't judge them to be *Wrong*...LOLI understand perfectly... and you continue to be "incorrect."

James, the brother of Jesus, said faith without works is a dead faith (James 2:18-20). It appears you have decided to base your faith on the luck-of-the-draw.Contradicting yourself yet again? In this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1293211&postcount=21), only five days ago, you said,

I hate to be the one to break the news to you but EJames was not written by James the brother of Jesus...No wonder nobody's taking you seriously.:lmbo:Again? There has to be a first time before there can be a second time...

I certainly said the above quote... and I stand by it... no one knows if indeed it was James the brother of Jesus who wrote EJames... HOWEVER...

... the person I was responding to deems the entire NT "God breathed" and James to be written by the apostle James, the brother of Jesus; therefore, I posted a verse contradicting his contention of saved by faith alone through grace alone (typical Pauline "Christianity").

I think we're at loggerheads. I maintain that my salvation came by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and His death, burial, and resurrection.Salvation comes by grace through faith in God. We are not too different except I refuse to believe the Jesus myth (anymore).

You have decided, it would appear, to work your way to heaven.James, the brother of Jesus, said faith without works is a dead faith (James 2:18-20). It appears you have decided to base your faith on the luck-of-the-draw.You go right ahead and live your little "gotcha" fantasy. You are taking my quote out of context... no wonder no one takes you seriously.

(I actually like EJames... largely because it contradicts Paul. I never said EJames was worthless... I only said it was not (in all probability) written by the apostle James, the brother of Jesus.)

The question should not be "Was Jesus a Christian?" or "Was Jesus a Jew?", but was "Was Jesus' God God?" The answer was most definetily yes. Jesus was a human, in the way that man was meant to be. There is Absolute Truth, and Jesus was the model for that Absolute Truth. So, in actually answering the question, Jesus was a "Jew" and a "Christian" both as they were meant to be. But I don't think Jesus was a "Jew" or a "Christian" as we define them today. He doesn't conform to any models. He was the modelIs there any rational reason to believe Jesus is "God?"

God knows everything... Jesus did/does not (Mark 13:32 and Matt 24:36).

God is the most power being in exstence... Jesus was/is not (John 5:19, 30).

God does not have a God... Jesus did/does (Matthew 26:36-39, Matthew 27:46, Luke 11:2-4, John 20:17).

God is invisible... Jesus was/(is?) flesh and blood (John 1:18, John 4:24, John 5:37)

There is no one greater than God... Jesus said there is someone greater than himself (John 5:30, John 8:42, John 14:28 , Luke 18:19, Luke 22:42).

Provoker

December 13th 2005, 12:08 PM

Hello VFarris01:
With all due respect, your responses to me appear to be simply knee-jerk defensive rhetoric, and they suggest that you probably do not have the ability to discuss outside your comfy little box of memorized single verses.
You don't appear to have any kind of understanding of the story scripture tells, and you use the arguement of "missing information" as your ultime defense, while not applying it to your own dogma.
If your best arguement boils down to; "your opinions are no better than mine", then you don't understand the principle of discussion, and you are only the worst nightmare of those who you can fool...which are not as plentiful as you think they are...LOL
If you have the fortitude to rationally, and civily, discuss your personal dogma with someone who actually understands his own opinion well enough that he doesn't have to quote verses "out of context", then respond appropriately and we can discuss...LOL

And you know this because...

This is your hypothesis... not much more. The last time I checked the "Jews" have their own country and are an "assembly." Though not always "together" the Jews have always been a "separate people."

This is Pauline Christianity... yes? Ie... Jesus never said it... and never taught it...

What bilge did you pump to find this nonsense?

My "orthodoxy" is not your "orthodoxy."

This would all be nice and pretty if such a large part of the "story" had not been left out... you know... the parts deemed "heretical" by the "proto-orthodoxy" of the first three centuries.

Quite a lot of scripture can "stand alone."

I understand perfectly... and you continue to be "incorrect."

VFarris01

December 13th 2005, 01:30 PM

And you know this because...

This is your hypothesis... not much more. The last time I checked the "Jews" have their own country and are an "assembly." Though not always "together" the Jews have always been a "separate people."

This is Pauline Christianity... yes? Ie... Jesus never said it... and never taught it...

What bilge did you pump to find this nonsense?

My "orthodoxy" is not your "orthodoxy."

This would all be nice and pretty if such a large part of the "story" had not been left out... you know... the parts deemed "heretical" by the "proto-orthodoxy" of the first three centuries.

Quite a lot of scripture can "stand alone."

I understand perfectly... and you continue to be "incorrect."With all due respect, your responses to me appear to be simply knee-jerk defensive rhetoric, and they suggest that you probably do not have the ability to discuss outside your comfy little box of memorized single verses.
You don't appear to have any kind of understanding of the story scripture tells, and you use the arguement of "missing information" as your ultime defense, while not applying it to your own dogma.
If your best arguement boils down to; "your opinions are no better than mine", then you don't understand the principle of discussion, and you are only the worst nightmare of those who you can fool...which are not as plentiful as you think they are...LOL
If you have the fortitude to rationally, and civily, discuss your personal dogma with someone who actually understands his own opinion well enough that he doesn't have to quote verses "out of context", then respond appropriately and we can discuss...LOLWith all due respect, your responses to me appear to be nothing more than... well... nothing.

You obviously are comfortable in your little zone of denial of the true story of Christianity... which is fine with me...

The only fool is the one unwilling to know the truth behind Christianity as it exists today... consider yourself one of those 'fools.'

If the only way to not take your miscopied, mistranslated, misapplied Bible "out of context" is as a whole we can never have a discussion because there is no way to discuss the Bible otherwise.

Reply only if you have something constructive to add... otherwise... stay off of my thread.

VFarris01

December 13th 2005, 05:09 PM

Provoker

December 13th 2005, 07:38 PM

Hello VFarris:
I'd like to help you discover that there is a well defined story running through scripture, so that you can form opinions which don't conflict with that story.
It means using the story as context within which the scripture details must be understood.
A sentence from a story, means absolutely nothing outside of the story, and verses from scripture are no different. Remember, scripture was written in story form, and it was not written in verses.
Single verses are no more scripture, than single words are a sentence...LOL

With all due respect, your responses to me appear to be nothing more than... well... nothing.

You obviously are comfortable in your little zone of denial of the true story of Christianity... which is fine with me...

The only fool is the one unwilling to know the truth behind Christianity as it exists today... consider yourself one of those 'fools.'

If the only way to not take your miscopied, mistranslated, misapplied Bible "out of context" is as a whole we can never have a discussion because there is no way to discuss the Bible otherwise.

Reply only if you have something constructive to add... otherwise... stay off of my thread.

Provoker

December 13th 2005, 08:04 PM

Here is what others have to say about the inventor of "Christianity"...

"Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in." (U.S. News and World Report, April 22, 1991, p. 55) Carl Jung.

"Where possible Paul avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the sermon on the mount, and had taught His disciples the 'Our Father.' Even where they are specially relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord." Albert Schweitzer

"Paul's words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul- a vast difference." (Song, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, p. 104, Harper San Francisco, 1991) Bishop John S. Spong.

"Paul was the greatest fantasist of all. He created the Christian myth by deifying Jesus" (Hyam Maccoby, The Mythmaker Paul and the Invention of Christianity, Harper & Row, "1987" Pb. (c1986), 204.).

"Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ." Wil Durant.

"My long-time view about Christianity is that it represents an amalgam of two seemingly immiscible parts--the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Thomas Jefferson attempted to excise the Pauline parts of the New Testament. There wasn't much left when he was done, but it was an inspiring document." Carl Sagan.

Hummm...
Hello VFarris:
Paul did not deify Jesus, nor did he invent the existing christian religion. Both of those charges must be leveled at the pagan bishops who established the doctrines of the universal religion of the Roman empire, in 325 AD.
Paul exhibits a far greater understanding of the gospel of Jesus, than any of the gospel writers, but that fact is hidden in the "religion", which is twisted out of the four conflicting gospels, confuses the issue that Paul and Jesus both knew well.
The gospel writers copied from each other, or from the same source as each other, and yet they continually contradict each other, and they must take some responsibility for the fact that "the church" is so conflicted and divided.

I also read "The Mythmaker", and while I appreciated the author's research, and his explanations regarding Jewish expressions, I did not agree with his conclusion that Paul invented christianity.

Pilgrim

December 14th 2005, 09:22 AM

Richbee

December 14th 2005, 09:34 AM

Was Jesus a Christian?

The NT goes through great effort to show how Jewish Jesus was and how he observed Jewish law. Never in the NT do we read of Jesus himself breaking a Jewish religous tenant.

Jesus was Jewish... not "Christian."

In truth, and not in a selfish or self-seeking way, Jesus was the founding member for: Jews for Jesus!

The Greeks came later and some were know as Christ people. Antioch ~ 100 A.D.

See: "What is a Christian"

http://www.jewsforjesus.com

.

Provoker

December 14th 2005, 10:20 AM

A single word can indeed be a sentance: Stop! Go! No! Yes! What? Where? etc...

Hello Pilgrim:
None of those words are sentences because they would be incomplete. They all refer to something which is not contained in the word, but can only be found in the context.
Here is an example of why the word "stop" is incomplete as a sentence:
"Why did you eat that piece of meat after I yelled stop?" "I thought you meant stop using my fingers, so I used my fork."
We can, and do, play word games to create, and defend, doctrines, but if we would be honest, we wouldn't play games, we would attempt to find out what the words are actually refering to.

Provoker

December 14th 2005, 10:44 AM

In truth, and not in a selfish or self-seeking way, Jesus was the founding member for: Jews for Jesus!

The Greeks came later and some were know as Christ people. Antioch ~ 100 A.D.

See: "What is a Christian"

http://www.jewsforjesus.com

.
Hello Clutch Cargo:
Jesus may have been the founding member of "Jews for Jesus"...but "Jews for Christ" began in 6th century BC Babylon, and it's founding member was the prophet who first proclaimed "the gospel of the kingdom"(a messiah would receive the kingdom of his father David). Those who accepted the gospel of the kingdom became "messianic", which would be "christian" in first century common Greek...LOL

VFarris01

December 14th 2005, 01:15 PM

I'd like to help you discover that there is a well defined story running through scripture, so that you can form opinions which don't conflict with that story. It means using the story as context within which the scripture details must be understood. A sentence from a story, means absolutely nothing outside of the story, and verses from scripture are no different. Remember, scripture was written in story form, and it was not written in verses. Single verses are no more scripture, than single words are a sentence...LOLYou better tell Jesus... he seems to have done this quite often...

Paul did not deify Jesus, nor did he invent the existing christian religion. Both of those charges must be leveled at the pagan bishops who established the doctrines of the universal religion of the Roman empire, in 325 AD.Perhaps they altered Paul's letters to conform to the "new orthodoxy" and the "original" Pauline letters held a different theology.

Paul exhibits a far greater understanding of the gospel of Jesus, than any of the gospel writers, but that fact is hidden in the "religion", which is twisted out of the four conflicting gospels, confuses the issue that Paul and Jesus both knew well.Why does Paul quote Jesus so little in his "epistles (He "quoted" Jesus only twice that I can find... and these are snipits... perhaps he did not understand "context." :lol:)?" Paul writes on his own authority... in fact, most of the letters attributed to him are self-serving.

The gospel writers copied from each other, or from the same source as each other, and yet they continually contradict each other, and they must take some responsibility for the fact that "the church" is so conflicted and divided.I agree with you the synoptic "gospel" writers did copy from each other but I believe the differences between them can also be attributed to transcription errors and intentional changes (probably to conform to the "orthodox" view of Christianity).

I also read "The Mythmaker", and while I appreciated the author's research, and his explanations regarding Jewish expressions, I did not agree with his conclusion that Paul invented christianity.It is more than probable he was not alone in doing it... can you say, "Vast christilogical conspiracy." :lol:

Provoker

December 15th 2005, 11:36 AM

You better tell Jesus... he seems to have done this quite often...
What if Jesus is just a pawn in the conspiracy?
Perhaps they altered Paul's letters to conform to the "new orthodoxy" and the "original" Pauline letters held a different theology.
I'm sure they did...every other book in the new testament has been altered as necessary:-)

Why does Paul quote Jesus so little in his "epistles (He "quoted" Jesus only twice that I can find... and these are snipits... perhaps he did not understand "context." :lol:)?" Paul writes on his own authority... in fact, most of the letters attributed to him are self-serving.
Paul wrote what he wrote because he thought it needed to be written. I don't think he intended to be writing "inspired" scripture.

I agree with you the synoptic "gospel" writers did copy from each other but I believe the differences between them can also be attributed to transcription errors and intentional changes (probably to conform to the "orthodox" view of Christianity).
Kind of silly to make intentional changes that conflict with each other...LOL

It is more than probable he was not alone in doing it... can you say, "Vast christilogical conspiracy." :lol:
I agree that there was, and still is, a conspiracy, but it all becomes very clear in the recognition of the "strategicly hidden" but obvious story which runs through scripture.
The vary few churchmen who have recognized the hidden story, have simply convinced themselves that it is just an anomaly, and they put it out of their minds because they have too great an investment in "orthodoxy".
The only defense against the obvious conclusions of the preponderance of the evidence, is that "we can't argue with 1500 years of orthodoxy"...LOL

VFarris01

December 15th 2005, 12:15 PM

You better tell Jesus... he seems to have done this quite often... (quoted OT Scripture "out of context")What if Jesus is just a pawn in the conspiracy?It is quite clear he is being used as a "pawn of the conspiracy."

Perhaps they altered Paul's letters to conform to the "new orthodoxy" and the "original" Pauline letters held a different theology.I'm sure they did...every other book in the new testament has been altered as necessary:-)Are you agreeing with me that the Bible, as we have it today, does not tell the same "story" of Christianity if we could compare it to the "autographs?"

Why does Paul quote Jesus so little in his "epistles (He "quoted" Jesus only twice that I can find... and these are snipits... perhaps he did not understand "context." :lol:)?" Paul writes on his own authority... in fact, most of the letters attributed to him are self-serving.Paul wrote what he wrote because he thought it needed to be written.Paul wrote to promote himself and little else.

Paul writings were not "inspired."

I agree with you the synoptic "gospel" writers did copy from each other but I believe the differences between them can also be attributed to transcription errors and intentional changes (probably to conform to the "orthodox" view of Christianity).[quote=P]Kind of silly to make intentional changes that conflict with each other...Could it be that the copiest of one manuscript changed the text to say what he thought it should say without being aware of how it confliced with another text (see, Misquoting Jesus (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060738170/102-8898746-4113724?v=glance&n=283155), by Bart Ehrman)?

It is more than probable he was not alone in doing it... can you say, "Vast christilogical conspiracy."I agree that there was, and still is, a conspiracy, but it all becomes very clear in the recognition of the "strategicly hidden" but obvious story which runs through scripture.

The vary few churchmen who have recognized the hidden story, have simply convinced themselves that it is just an anomaly, and they put it out of their minds because they have too great an investment in "orthodoxy".

The only defense against the obvious conclusions of the preponderance of the evidence, is that "we can't argue with 1500 years of orthodoxy"...Correct me if I am wrong, but do you agree with me that "orthodox" Christianity, as defined by TWeb, is in conflict with the true teachings of JC and that he is not (a part of) "God?"

Pilgrim

December 15th 2005, 01:52 PM

Hello Pilgrim:
None of those words are sentences because they would be incomplete. They all refer to something which is not contained in the word, but can only be found in the context.
Here is an example of why the word "stop" is incomplete as a sentence:
"Why did you eat that piece of meat after I yelled stop?" "I thought you meant stop using my fingers, so I used my fork."
We can, and do, play word games to create, and defend, doctrines, but if we would be honest, we wouldn't play games, we would attempt to find out what the words are actually refering to.
I was only being a smart alec, after all, your point on context is absolutely correct. sSill, your understanding of grammar is wrong. Each of those words, in and of themselves, are sentances. It is known as either the imperative or the interrogative

Richbee

December 15th 2005, 08:27 PM

Hello Clutch Cargo:

Jesus may have been the founding member of "Jews for Jesus"...but "Jews for Christ" began in 6th century BC Babylon, and it's founding member was the prophet who first proclaimed "the gospel of the kingdom"(a messiah would receive the kingdom of his father David). Those who accepted the gospel of the kingdom became "messianic", which would be "christian" in first century common Greek...LOL

Bunk. You need a new hobby, because you just flunked History 101.

Oh, and the Jews who followed The Way, followed Y'Shua.

Y'Shua = Jesus

For the Greeks they followed the Jewish Messiah and called him Jesus Christ.

If Jesus was not the messiah of the Jews, then Jesus could be no Christ or savior for the gentiles.

Jesus of Nazareth...was a product of Palestine alone, a product of Judaism unaffected by any foreign admixture. There were many Gentiles in Galilee, but Jesus was in no way influenced by them. In his days Galilee was the stronghold of the most enthusiastic Jewish patriotism...In all this Jesus is the most Jewish of Jews...more Jewish even than Hillel. [The Greatest Jewish Rabbi]

(Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Macmillan, 1925), pp. 363, 374.)

Provoker

December 15th 2005, 10:24 PM

I was only being a smart alec, after all, your point on context is absolutely correct. sSill, your understanding of grammar is wrong. Each of those words, in and of themselves, are sentances. It is known as either the imperative or the interrogative
Hello Pilgrim:
Basic logic should tell you that those words are not sentences. What I wrote about them is absolutely correct, even if you happen to be an "English" professor...LOL
What I call a sentence, I guess you would call a paragraph, and what I call a paragraph, I suppose you would call a chapter. Hey, maybe a single letter is actually a word...LOL

Provoker

December 15th 2005, 10:39 PM

Bunk. You need a new hobby, because you just flunked History 101.

Oh, and the Jews who followed The Way, followed Y'Shua.

Y'Shua = Jesus

For the Greeks they followed the Jewish Messiah and called him Jesus Christ.

If Jesus was not the messiah of the Jews, then Jesus could be no Christ or savior for the gentiles.

Jesus of Nazareth...was a product of Palestine alone, a product of Judaism unaffected by any foreign admixture. There were many Gentiles in Galilee, but Jesus was in no way influenced by them. In his days Galilee was the stronghold of the most enthusiastic Jewish patriotism...In all this Jesus is the most Jewish of Jews...more Jewish even than Hillel. [The Greatest Jewish Rabbi]

(Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Macmillan, 1925), pp. 363, 374.)
Hello Clutch:
I flunked your history because it has no continuity.
Scripture records a continuous history from beginning to end. If your scripture is divided into verses, testaments, and dispensations, you have missed the undivided, continuous history of scripture...LOL

It's the old "divide and conquer" principle...and you fell for it...LOL

Provoker

December 15th 2005, 10:47 PM

Bunk. You need a new hobby, because you just flunked History 101.

Oh, and the Jews who followed The Way, followed Y'Shua.

Y'Shua = Jesus

For the Greeks they followed the Jewish Messiah and called him Jesus Christ.

If Jesus was not the messiah of the Jews, then Jesus could be no Christ or savior for the gentiles.

Jesus of Nazareth...was a product of Palestine alone, a product of Judaism unaffected by any foreign admixture. There were many Gentiles in Galilee, but Jesus was in no way influenced by them. In his days Galilee was the stronghold of the most enthusiastic Jewish patriotism...In all this Jesus is the most Jewish of Jews...more Jewish even than Hillel. [The Greatest Jewish Rabbi]

(Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Macmillan, 1925), pp. 363, 374.)
Hello Clutch:
I flunked your history because it has no continuity...LOL
Scripture records an unbroken, continuous, history, from beginning to end. If your scripture is divided, **by men**, into verses, testaments, and despensations, then you have missed the one, unbroken, continuous, history, which runs with continuity all the way through scripture.
Would you like a scripture history lesson???...LOL

Provoker

December 15th 2005, 11:29 PM

Hello VF:

Are you agreeing with me that the Bible, as we have it today, does not tell the same "story" of Christianity if we could compare it to the "autographs?"
Not exactly. It tells the same story, but we have been brainwashed into not noticing the "story", by the manmade division of scripture into false categories, which are intended to divert our attention away from undivided scripture.

Could it be that the copiest of one manuscript changed the text to say what he thought it should say without being aware of how it confliced with another text
Absolutely...it's paraphrasing according to one's own dogma, and every version of the bible that exists, has been written that way...LOL

Correct me if I am wrong, but do you agree with me that "orthodox" Christianity, as defined by TWeb, is in conflict with the true teachings of JC and that he is not (a part of) "God?"
Absolutely again...LOL There is a very good political reason that the Romans deified Jesus, but Paul is innocent I tell ya...he was framed...LOL
You see, the neat thing about scripture is that it is written in story form, and if you read it through, in story form, with a consideration for the historical chronology, it tells a story which is so reasonable that it does not have to rely on mysterious explanations, but after men have arbitrarily chopped it up into verses, testaments, dispensations, etc, the continuity of the story is destroyed, and they get to redefine the story to suit their purposes...LOL

VFarris01

December 16th 2005, 07:47 AM

Are you agreeing with me that the Bible, as we have it today, does not tell the same "story" of Christianity if we could compare it to the "autographs?"Not exactly. It tells the same story, but we have been brainwashed into not noticing the "story", by the manmade division of scripture into false categories, which are intended to divert our attention away from undivided scripture.Are we not "missing" some of the story? After all, the writings we call "the Bible" is more or less an anthology compiled by men; no? There were many other writings on the Christian "theme" written during the first two centuries... should they not be considered a part of the story too?

Could it be that the copiest of one manuscript changed the text to say what he thought it should say without being aware of how it confliced with another textAbsolutely...it's paraphrasing according to one's own dogma, and every version of the bible that exists, has been written that way...Sorry, the men who copied the manuscripts are not the ones who divided the texts into chapters and verses. Do you deny some of these men, in some cases, made significant errors and/or revisions while performing their task causing the books they copied to differ from the original(s)?

Correct me if I am wrong, but do you agree with me that "orthodox" Christianity, as defined by TWeb, is in conflict with the true teachings of JC and that he is not (a part of) "God?"Absolutely again...Would you agree one can be termed a "Christian" without being 100% in agreement with the general "orthodox" view?

There is a very good political reason that the Romans deified Jesus, but Paul is innocent I tell ya...he was framed...The possibility exists (approaching 100%) that Paul's original work was revised to conform to "orthodoxy;" yes?

You see, the neat thing about scripture is that it is written in story form, and if you read it through, in story form, with a consideration for the historical chronology, it tells a story which is so reasonable that it does not have to rely on mysterious explanations, but after men have arbitrarily chopped it up into verses, testaments, dispensations, etc, the continuity of the story is destroyed, and they get to redefine the story to suit their purposes...For the most part I agree with you, however, several of the books of the Bible indeed can be read independently of the others... Proverbs for instance...

In your opinion, what is the "story of the Bible" about?

Provoker

December 16th 2005, 05:19 PM

Are we not "missing" some of the story? After all, the writings we call "the Bible" is more or less an anthology compiled by men; no? There were many other writings on the Christian "theme" written during the first two centuries... should they not be considered a part of the story too?
There is enough overlapping historical record, in the bible, to assure us that it is history agreed upon by all the writers, and therefore it is the history within which the continuous story of scripture is set. That history therefore becomes the greater context within which the bible story was written, and it is the standard which the scriptural story must comply with. Biblical events, or statements, which conflict with the historical record, have a problem which must be resolved before we can move on past them.
If we added all the texts that the Roman bishops rejected, it might make the bible a little more honest, but the historical context of what we have is so strong, that the story couldn't be much clearer.

Sorry, the men who copied the manuscripts are not the ones who divided the texts into chapters and verses. Do you deny some of these men, in some cases, made significant errors and/or revisions while performing their task causing the books they copied to differ from the original(s)?
Of course the text has been changed to suit the politics of the time it was changed, and that would have been quite obvious to thinking men, but the strategic division of scripture took the emphasis off the continuity of story, and the changes were successfully covered up.

Would you agree one can be termed a "Christian" without being 100% in agreement with the general "orthodox" view?
It is my opinion that orthodoxy is not "Christian" at all...LOL

The possibility exists (approaching 100%) that Paul's original work was revised to conform to "orthodoxy;" yes?
Without doubt. However, it may not have been intentional. Translators had to interpret the source text, by the sentence, or the thought, and then paraphrase an equivalent sentence, or thought, in the new language, and they had to interpret according to their own doctrinal understanding, or the doctrinal understanding of their employers, so the meaning is prone to drift, every time it is translated. That is where the greater context comes in...LOL

For the most part I agree with you, however, several of the books of the Bible indeed can be read independently of the others... Proverbs for instance...
While there are a few books which appear to be complete in themselves, and do not appear to add to the greater story which runs through the bible, they still add to the greater historical context.

In your opinion, what is the "story of the Bible" about?
In a nutshell: "The rise, the fall, and the coming resurrection, of the kingdom of Israel".
In a coconutshell: "God made an everlasting "old" covenant with a "national assembly" made up of "Whosoever will" accept the terms of the everlasting "old" covenant, and become circumcised in the flesh to prove it.
That national assembly broke the covenant when it split into two enemy assemblies, and ceased to exist. Both assemblies were destroyed before they could repent/reunite and become the covenant national assembly again.
The everlasting covenant continued to exist, but without a covenant assembly for it to apply to.
Then came a good-news prophesy, that a leader would come and resurrect the covenant assembly. A "covenant-assembly-in-spirit" movement began to build a body of believers in that good news, so that the coming leader would have a ready force with which to take back the national homeland, in order to resurrect the national assembly, from the dead.
God will then make a "new" everlasting covenant with the resurrected covenant national assembly, which will forever write it in the hearts of the "assembly", to fulfill the terms of the everlasting "old" covenant, thus allowing God to forever fulfill all of His everlasting promises.

"Assembly" can refer to; a people, a nation, a synagogue, a church, a body, and/or two or more gathered together...LOL

Avalandrien

December 16th 2005, 06:19 PM

Pilgrim

December 16th 2005, 06:23 PM

Hello Pilgrim:
Basic logic should tell you that those words are not sentences. What I wrote about them is absolutely correct, even if you happen to be an "English" professor...LOL
What I call a sentence, I guess you would call a paragraph, and what I call a paragraph, I suppose you would call a chapter. Hey, maybe a single letter is actually a word...LOL
It's not logic, it's grammar. And there is no room for opinion on the matter because it is a rule of grammar. You see, it just is this way. Those words, used in the proper ways, are sentances in and of themselves. I guess you just don't see it though. LOL.

Provoker

December 17th 2005, 01:57 PM

It's not logic, it's grammar. And there is no room for opinion on the matter because it is a rule of grammar. You see, it just is this way. Those words, used in the proper ways, are sentances in and of themselves. I guess you just don't see it though. LOL.
Hello Pilgrim:
I understand exactly what you are saying, and now you have partially qualified your statement with a tiny bit of context; "used in proper ways", but even then, a "one-word" sentence is always an "incomplete" sentence, because it does not contain both a subject and a predicate. When one or the other is implied by the context in which the word is used, then the word is not a sentence, but and "incomplete sentence", which has a completely different definition than a sentence.
There are qualifying situations under which one can legally kill an innocent person and eat him, but it would be false to simply state that killing and eating an innocent person is legal...LOL

PS: "where?"...LOL

JSDileo

December 17th 2005, 02:02 PM

Was Jesus a Christian?

The NT goes through great effort to show how Jewish Jesus was and how he observed Jewish law. Never in the NT do we read of Jesus himself breaking a Jewish religous tenant.

Jesus was Jewish... not "Christian."

False. Jesus breaks many Jewish laws, such as working on the Sabbath, not washing his hands before meals, etc.

VFarris01

December 17th 2005, 02:14 PM

Are we not "missing" some of the story? After all, the writings we call "the Bible" is more or less an anthology compiled by men; no? There were many other writings on the Christian "theme" written during the first two centuries... should they not be considered a part of the story too?There is enough overlapping historical record, in the bible, to assure us that it is history agreed upon by all the writers, and therefore it is the history within which the continuous story of scripture is set. That history therefore becomes the greater context within which the bible story was written, and it is the standard which the scriptural story must comply with. Biblical events, or statements, which conflict with the historical record, have a problem which must be resolved before we can move on past them.I do not see the Bible as a "historical record" since some parts of it indeed do conflict with other historical records. It is a narrative of events, some are linear, others are not (as the example of Proverbs attests).

If we added all the texts that the Roman bishops rejected, it might make the bible a little more honest, but the historical context of what we have is so strong, that the story couldn't be much clearer.This is what I was referring to... and the story would be clearer... that certain books were retained in a "canon" while others were not (rejected) because of theological "concerns."

Sorry, the men who copied the manuscripts are not the ones who divided the texts into chapters and verses. Do you deny some of these men, in some cases, made significant errors and/or revisions while performing their task causing the books they copied to differ from the original(s)?Of course the text has been changed to suit the politics of the time it was changed, and that would have been quite obvious to thinking men, but the strategic division of scripture took the emphasis off the continuity of story, and the changes were successfully covered up.Politics of theology, yes... politics in general, no. I have no problem with the divisions of B, C, & V... these were made so various parts could be quickly found not to destroy the "continuity of the story."

Would you agree one can be termed a "Christian" without being 100% in agreement with the general "orthodox" view?It is my opinion that orthodoxy is not "Christian" at all...Then you do not believe Jesus is not (a) "God" as in the "orthodox" view?

The possibility exists (approaching 100%) that Paul's original work was revised to conform to "orthodoxy;" yes?Without doubt. However, it may not have been intentional. Translators had to interpret the source text, by the sentence, or the thought, and then paraphrase an equivalent sentence, or thought, in the new language, and they had to interpret according to their own doctrinal understanding, or the doctrinal understanding of their employers, so the meaning is prone to drift, every time it is translated. That is where the greater context comes in...I am not talking about translators, I am talking about the men who transcribed the text to another piece of "paper" while the text remained in the original language... these men altered the text to conform to "doctrine."

For the most part I agree with you, however, several of the books of the Bible indeed can be read independently of the others... Proverbs for instance...While there are a few books which appear to be complete in themselves, and do not appear to add to the greater story which runs through the bible, they still add to the greater historical context.In a way... yes.

In your opinion, what is the "story of the Bible" about?In a nutshell: "The rise, the fall, and the coming resurrection, of the kingdom of Israel".

In a coconutshell: "God made an everlasting "old" covenant with a "national assembly" made up of "Whosoever will" accept the terms of the everlasting "old" covenant, and become circumcised in the flesh to prove it.

That national assembly broke the covenant when it split into two enemy assemblies, and ceased to exist. Both assemblies were destroyed before they could repent/reunite and become the covenant national assembly again.
The everlasting covenant continued to exist, but without a covenant assembly for it to apply to.

Then came a good-news prophesy, that a leader would come and resurrect the covenant assembly. A "covenant-assembly-in-spirit" movement began to build a body of believers in that good news, so that the coming leader would have a ready force with which to take back the national homeland, in order to resurrect the national assembly, from the dead.

God will then make a "new" everlasting covenant with the resurrected covenant national assembly, which will forever write it in the hearts of the "assembly", to fulfill the terms of the everlasting "old" covenant, thus allowing God to forever fulfill all of His everlasting promises.

"Assembly" can refer to; a people, a nation, a synagogue, a church, a body, and/or two or more gathered together...If you were to place you in an "assembly," what would it be called (iow, your "church" affiliation)?

Was Jesus a Christian?

The NT goes through great effort to show how Jewish Jesus was and how he observed Jewish law. Never in the NT do we read of Jesus himself breaking a Jewish religous tenant.

Jesus was Jewish... not "Christian."Jesus broke the sabbath...Jesus was accused of breaking the Sabbath... Please show us where he was found guilty of breaking the Sabbath...

... and called himself lord of the sabbath.You are incorrect here... "The son of man" is "lord of the Sabbath" (Matthew 12:8, Mark 2:28, Luke 6:5). Jesus is well known for the use of the phrase, "The son of man." This phrase can either mean "I" or "all humanity" depending on how one interprets the context.

Provoker

December 18th 2005, 01:46 PM

Hello VF:
I do not see the Bible as a "historical record" since some parts of it indeed do conflict with other historical records. It is a narrative of events, some are linear, others are not (as the example of Proverbs attests).
Scripture is indeed a historical record, whether or not it agrees with other historical records. As they say; "the conquerors write the history", and "history is the lie agreed upon."
The narrative which joins the successive historical events of scripture, is written more like a historical novel, than a history book. Since there is not a specific chapter on each specific era, the history must unfold in the flow of the narrative, but that flow tends to be disrupted by the historical overlapping of the books, and their non-chronological placement in the bible.

This is what I was referring to... and the story would be clearer... that certain books were retained in a "canon" while others were not (rejected) because of theological "concerns."
If all the rejected books were added to the canon, it might not be clearer, but at least there would be more material to do detective work on...LOL

Politics of theology, yes... politics in general, no. I have no problem with the divisions of B, C, & V... these were made so various parts could be quickly found not to destroy the "continuity of the story."
Christianity, as we know it today, has it's roots firmly in the politics of 4th century Rome, and when the universal religion ceased to be an official arm of the Roman government, the politics became church politics.
I also have no problem with the divisions of the bible, but it took me 30 years to get past their influence. As a tool for quickly finding a passage, "chapters and verses" are great, but that is just a small part of their use today. "Verses" are quoted, as they stand alone, to teach the story of the bible, but the bible story, or any story for that matter, is not found in "verses", it is found in the continuously flowing narrative.

Then you do not believe Jesus is not (a) "God" as in the "orthodox" view?I believe that Jesus is literally 2000 year old dust of the earth, but in the continuing memory of the peoples of the world, his spirit is perpetuated(has everlasting life) as several different, but historicly significant, characters.

I am not talking about translators, I am talking about the men who transcribed the text to another piece of "paper" while the text remained in the original language... these men altered the text to conform to "doctrine."I agree, and the greater the numbers of a particular false copy, the more it would be accepted, according to today's thinking.
"Permanent' alterations to scripture, are most likely to have been made after scripture came under the ultimate control of the official universal religion of the Roman empire.

If you were to place you in an "assembly," what would it be called (iow, your "church" affiliation)?The "assembly-in-spirit" of those who would seek the truth of scripture, regardless of how it impacts their personal preferences...LOL

VFarris01

December 18th 2005, 02:40 PM

Was Jesus a Christian?

The NT goes through great effort to show how Jewish Jesus was and how he observed Jewish law. Never in the NT do we read of Jesus himself breaking a Jewish religous tenant.

Jesus was Jewish... not "Christian."False. Jesus breaks many Jewish laws, such as working on the Sabbath, not washing his hands before meals, etc.Many Jews accused Jesus of breaking the Sabbath. When, if ever, was Jesus found guilty by the religious tribunal (the Sanhedrin) of breaking a Jewish law?

This what I was referring to... and the story would be clearer... that certain books were retained in a "canon" while others were not (rejected) because of theological "concerns."If all the rejected books were added to the canon, it might not be clearer, but at least there would be more material to do detective work on...Just because it is not "canocal" does not mean it is not available for "detective work."

Then you do not believe Jesus is not (a) "God" as in the "orthodox" view?I believe that Jesus is literally 2000 year old dust of the earth, but in the continuing memory of the peoples of the world, his spirit is perpetuated (has everlasting life) as several different, but historicly significant, characters.Fine... but was Jesus always divine or has Christianity made him divine?

I am not talking about translators, I am talking about the men who transcribed the text to another piece of "paper" while the text remained in the original language... these men altered the text to conform to "doctrine."I agree, and the greater the numbers of a particular false copy, the more it would be accepted, according to today's thinking.

"Permanent' alterations to scripture, are most likely to have been made after scripture came under the ultimate control of the official universal religion of the Roman empire.... By the "victors" of course... LOL.

If you were to place you in an "assembly," what would it be called (iow, your "church" affiliation)?The "assembly-in-spirit" of those who would seek the truth of scripture, regardless of how it impacts their personal preferences...In the vernacular... what is this "assembly" called?

Pilgrim

December 18th 2005, 08:22 PM

Not meaning to high jsck the thread but when someone is talking about something they don't understand I just have to fix it. None of this changes the fact that Prov's original comment on contest was right on.

http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/writcent/hypergrammar/sntstrct.html

Provoker

January 13th 2006, 05:24 PM

Just because it is not "canonical" does not mean it is not available for "detective work."
Of course this is true, however the orthodox will not consider arguements made from non-canonical scripture...LOL

...was Jesus always divine or has Christianity made him divine?
It is my opinion that Jesus was finally pronounced divine at the first ecumenical council of Nicea, and it was necessary to appease those factions of Christianity which had been under pagan influence for years, if not centuries. After all, a "Universal" religion, founded on "Ecumenism", is going to be more inclusive than exclusive...LOL

In the vernacular... what is this "assembly" called?
The assembly I allude to is "the apostolic church" of the new testament, but today, that name is already assumed by thousands of non-apostolic organizations...LOL

VFarris01

January 14th 2006, 10:25 AM

Just because it is not "canonical" does not mean it is not available for "detective work."Of course this is true, however the orthodox will not consider arguements made from non-canonical scripture...Then we should expect them to use "scripture alone" to prove their position, no?

...was Jesus always divine or has Christianity made him divine?It is my opinion that Jesus was finally pronounced divine at the first ecumenical council of Nicea, and it was necessary to appease those factions of Christianity which had been under pagan influence for years, if not centuries. After all, a "Universal" religion, founded on "Ecumenism", is going to be more inclusive than exclusive...Are you of the opinion Jesus was/is "just a man" and his, so called, divinity is an invention of men?

In the vernacular... what is this "assembly" called?The assembly I allude to is "the apostolic church" of the new testament, but today, that name is already assumed by thousands of non-apostolic organizations...Would you quit avoiding the question and tell me/us your religious affiliation.

Provoker

January 14th 2006, 12:10 PM

Then we should expect them to use "scripture alone" to prove their position, no?
"They" can prove anything, to their own satisfaction, with "scripture alone". It all depends on whether they consider the greater context or not...LOL

Are you of the opinion Jesus was/is "just a man" and his, so called, divinity is an invention of men?
Yes, it is my opinion that Jesus was not God, but a man, however, I would not call him "just and man"...He was a martyred hero of true Judaism/Christianity.

Would you quit avoiding the question and tell me/us your religious affiliation.
Personal questions have no place on a theology discussion forum.
I am only prepared to offer my studied opinion regarding what is recorded in scripture...LOL

sonofyah

March 24th 2006, 12:11 PM

Ok. your missing it. You call him Jewish but your giving him an English name. His name is Yahoshua and he was full man and full divine. Salvation comes only through him. Yahoshua is Emmanuel which means that he is the Elohim that is with us. Nothing came into existance without him. He is the Word that became flesh. If you want to know if he was a Christian or not means nothing when you are trying to go to heaven but if you want to know I will tell you.

He IS Christianity. He IS the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE. Christian NO. Christ, YES. Messiah, YES.

And if you really want to study, Paul also kept the law until his death, so does that make him Jewish or a Christian? Christianity was started by JEWS but Paul received the MESSIAH in which most Jews wont until the END. That makes him a Christian. But to ask if Yahoshua was a christian is redundant. He is the anointed one and Christian means CHRIST LIKE, in other words "to be like the anointed one"!

Mikeb

March 26th 2006, 07:56 PM

Was Jesus a Christian?

The NT goes through great effort to show how Jewish Jesus was and how he observed Jewish law. Never in the NT do we read of Jesus himself breaking a Jewish religous tenant.

Jesus was Jewish... not "Christian."

By the time of Christ not even the Jews were Jewish. The nationalization of the tribes, the destruction of the Temple, the canonization of the Torah, Judaism was trying to be as Greek as it possibly could. Christ was a pre-world, if pre-Axial Age, reformer, trying to recover the original value of the Abrahamic stories.

No, Christ was not a Christian. Christianity is what happens to Judaism after the Romans finish with it.