Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian

[Khubla]

Jesus was a 1st Century Jew teaching 1st Century Judaism. He took all Jews as his disciples, observed all Jewish laws, holidays, and customs. He stated that the OT was true and should be followed. At no time did he advocate or teach a new religion. If he was alive today he certainly would not be a Christian.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Jesus was a 1st Century Jew teaching 1st Century Judaism. He took all Jews as his disciples, observed all Jewish laws, holidays, and customs. He stated that the OT was true and should be followed. At no time did he advocate or teach a new religion. If he was alive today he certainly would not be a Christian.

Would Marx be a Marxist, do you think?

 

[savagewind]

Jesus was a 1st Century Jew teaching 1st Century Judaism. He took all Jews as his disciples, observed all Jewish laws, holidays, and customs. He stated that the OT was true and should be followed. At no time did he advocate or teach a new religion. If he was alive today he certainly would not be a Christian.

True, except that he was there to lift the burden, not comfirm it. So I am sure he did not promote the "following" of the law. He taught the learning from it. Some people can't see the difference. I believe it is true he said "follow me". It is not true that he said to follow the law. He is a person. The law is a thing; a thing that is not alive and cannot help you.

 

[fantome profane]

Would Marx be a Marxist, do you think?

I think the views of Marx represented a departure from the views that preceded him, much more so than did the views of Jesus (assuming that we can know what the views of Jesus were). So yes, I would say Marx was a Marxist, but Jesus was a Jew.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I think the views of Marx represented a departure from the views that preceded him, much more so than did the views of Jesus (assuming that we can know what the views of Jesus were). So yes, I would say Marx was a Marxist, but Jesus was a Jew.

I don't think we know a thing about Jesus and what he believed, or even if he existed historically, so I see no reason to assume that Christ would not be a Christian.

Maybe a Jewish Christian, but still perhaps a Christian.

 

[Yerda]

I don't think we know a thing about Jesus and what he believed, or even if he existed historically, so I see no reason to assume that Christ would not be a Christian.

Do you see a reason to assume he would not be Jewish?

I presume the OP was arguing from a biblical perspective and not a historical one.

 

[nazz]

Jesus was a 1st Century Jew teaching 1st Century Judaism. He took all Jews as his disciples, observed all Jewish laws, holidays, and customs. He stated that the OT was true and should be followed. At no time did he advocate or teach a new religion. If he was alive today he certainly would not be a Christian.

At one time I would have agreed. Not so much anymore.

 

[Vouthon]

I agree he was a Jew, a Jewish rabbi to be more specific.

To understand him in a strictly secular, non-faith-based, historical manner one has to critically analyse the synoptic gospels and other sources within the context of Second Temple Judaism and not Christianity.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Of course He was a Jew. The people who follow Him are Christians.

 

[outhouse]

I don't think we know a thing about Jesus and what he believed, or even if he existed historically, so I see no reason to assume that Christ would not be a Christian.

Maybe a Jewish Christian, but still perhaps a Christian.

There is nothing to indicate this. he would have been a devoted Galilean Jew.


While you have your belief, the majority of historians 99.99% all claim he does in fact have historicity.


A Galilean Jew would have been very opposed to this sect formed long after his death who embraced Hellenism. A Galilean Jew would have looked at Hellenism as a problem in Judaism as they often worked hand in hand with their oppressors. The exact thing Jesus was fighting in the temple.


So no, he would never have been a Christian even if we just follow the mythology.

 

[outhouse]

I agree he was a Jew, a Jewish rabbi to be more specific.

To understand him in a strictly secular, non-faith-based, historical manner one has to critically analyse the synoptic gospels and other sources within the context of Second Temple Judaism and not Christianity.

Rabbi no.

You might want to check your history books and find out when that term started.

 

[Vouthon]

Rabbi no.

You might want to check your history books and find out when that term started.

I don't mean rabbi in the post-Temple sense but rather as a teacher of the Torah in the first century with a group of disciples, something very common. I know it is a bit anachronism to use that post-Second Temple Hebrew word in the pre-fall of the Temple era, nevertheless most people get the drift.

 

[outhouse]

I don't mean rabbi in the post-Temple sense but rather as a teacher of the Torah in the first century with a group of disciples, something very common. I know it is a bit anachronism to use that post-Second Temple Hebrew word in the pre-fall of the Temple era, nevertheless most people get the drift.

I just label him as teacher.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Do you see a reason to assume he would not be Jewish?

I dunno. He might still be Jewish and also a Christian... like being both a New Yorker and an American.

They're just labels. They don't tell us much.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

There is nothing to indicate this. he would have been a devoted Galilean Jew.

Whatever you say, that's what you say.

While you have your belief, the majority of historians 99.99% all claim he does in fact have historicity.

Oh do give me a break. That's like claiming that 99.99% of ghost hunters believe in ghosts.

If they didn't believe, they'd have to give up the game. So of course they claim to believe.

 

[Vouthon]

I just label him as teacher.

His disciples would still have called him "rabbi" though, even though it wasn't a formal title yet. It is important to remember that Jesus lived in that formative period of later Judaism that spawned the nuclei of rabbinic thought. He would have, and indeed did according to the gospel accounts, take part in the debates that eventually coalesced into the Talmud such as on the strict vs more liberal interpretation of divorce, as an example. Contemporary sources at the time of Jesus indicate that there was a relationship between a “talmid” (disciple) and his “rav” (master). The same word, “rav” had an “i” added to the end to mean “my,” in a personal sense, so that a disciple would address his teacher as rabbi, "my master" as the apostles are shown as doing in the gospels.

The formalized title of a "rabbi" in the period after the fall of the Temple grew out of this original, personalized attachment of disciples and schools to their "master".

So to his band of followers he definitely would have been, in my opinion, "rabbi".

 

[Yerda]

I dunno. He might still be Jewish and also a Christian... like being both a New Yorker and an American.

They're just labels. They don't tell us much.

I suppose they don't.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jesus was a 1st Century Jew teaching 1st Century Judaism. He took all Jews as his disciples, observed all Jewish laws, holidays, and customs. He stated that the OT was true and should be followed. At no time did he advocate or teach a new religion. If he was alive today he certainly would not be a Christian.

Few things bother me as much as people pretending to know something which they then presume to teach. It is disrespectful of audience and subject matter alike. It is also transparent.

 

[outhouse]

Oh do give me a break. .

Nope I wont.

You refuse the modern scholarly concensus, with no credible refutation.


Following the fractionally minority view is fine, but it is a minority view for a reason. It doesnt make sense.

 

[outhouse]

So to his band of followers he definitely would have been, in my opinion, "rabbi".

You dont know that.

Sources please.