Therefore, he was at no time a Christian.

Is it possible Christianity hijacked Judaism?

Don't get me wrong. I love peace loving, law abiding, good people who are Christian. It does feel like they stole the best parts of Judaism from the Jews, and made salvation contingent on whether or not one believes in Jesus Christ.

That is not a Jewish construct, and certainly not one Christ himself would have admonished. Scriptures that have been handed down that state otherwise were also likely hijacked by the Roman Catholics who took it upon themselves to purge and rid the world of their nemesis: the Jews.

This makes sense why there's been so much hatred and persecution directed at the Jews by Chrisians for millenia. As Mahatma Gandhi once said, 'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.'

That's because Christ was never a 'Christian' in the classical sense of the word. Christ's name in Hebrew is Yeshua or Esau. In Arabic it is Isa, or 'eesa.'



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/27/2017 10:24AM by Amyjo.

Constantine didn't like the Jews so he made them the bad guy in his Jesus story. Think of it as 4th century "fake news". Cultic writings of messianic figures similar to today's comic books already existed. He just put them together to promote a religion that respects the power of the state.

This ignores several hundred years of history.

The demonization of the Jews occurred within a century or so of Jesus's life (or the myths and the lives of the people who were combined to become Jesus). The earliest gospel was not very harsh to the Jews, but as the argument between the traditional Jews and the Christian Jews heated up so too did the condemnation of the Jews in the later gospels. In short, the Christians gradually rejected their co-religionists and then sought to distinguish themselves by, among other things, blaming the Jews for Jesus's death. This was long before Constantine's birth.

There were also a couple of centuries of contention between the various Christian sects, some of which were more hostile to Jews than others. When Constantine made his momentous decision, the status of the Jews in Christianity was more or less settled. He did not consider the Jews a major geopolitical threat; and he cared little for theological matters. He and his advisors sponsored some councils to resolve the disputes between various Christian organizations and movements, but that was for the purpose of harmonizing what was now a legitimizing factor for the state.

I don't think there is any evidence that Constantine disliked the Jews or even that he considered them particularly relevant. He had bigger fish to fry, namely consolidating the support or acquiescence of the people and movements around the Mediterranean that were growing restive and insubordinate. If the Christians disliked the Jews, so be it. But one can't go from that utilitarianism to the conclusion that Constantine disliked the Jews any more than he disliked any of the empires myriad other small and weak regional cultures.

I don't know much of anything about Constantine, but pushing the Christianity psyop seems like a great way to make people more agreeable in the waning days of the Roman empire.

Amyjo, I love that Gandhi quote!

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Therefore, he was at no time a Christian.
>
> Is it possible Christianity hijacked Judaism?


Yes, it did. And in a sense, islam tried to hijack christianity. As did every new christian denomination. Mormonism did it too.
But the original Christ was a jewish leader, not a christian one. Paul invented christianity.

The phony jesus story just keeps on getting better and better.

Could it be that Jesus never actually existed and it is all one gigantic myth.

The Jesus of the New Testament is widely believed to be a composite of many doomsday prophets perambulating in first century Palestine. At one point, they crucified one a week in Jerusalem alone, with more of them around Passover. The two others crucified alongside Jesus weren't criminals. They were other Jesuses.

But the point is that all of those Jesuses were born as jews, lived as jews and died of jews. They all preached to jews and not to gentiles. Like I said, christianity was invented by Paul, who had never met any Jesus, as far as we know.

That is not the mainstream view of scholars.

Admins, yesterday an interesting debate ensued as someone came up with counterarguments to the "Many Jesuses" theory and someone reacted to that.

Why were those posts removed? It was just getting educational.

My guess is that one post was removed for name calling which is against the rules. The response to that post was probably removed because it would make no sense without the first post.That is standard procedure here. If you have a question it is better to email administration directly and use your regular moniker.They often delete posts directed to administrators if they are in a thread instead of email.

In response to bona dea's and other comments that Jesus is/was a historical person, I posted the following yesterday. Here it is again from a couple of online sources:

1) "[T]here is no serious debate among the vast majority of scholars in the fields related to the question of the existence of Jesus. John Dominic Crossan, who co-founded the skeptical Jesus Seminar, denies that Jesus rose from the dead but is confident that Jesus was an historical person. He writes, “That [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be" (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, p. 145). Bart Ehrman is an agnostic who is forthright in his rejection of mythicism.

Ehrman teaches at the University of North Carolina and is widely regarded as an expert on the New Testament documents. He writes, “The view that Jesus existed is held by virtually every expert on the planet” (Did Jesus Exist?, p. 4).

3. Jesus’ existence is confirmed by extra-Biblical sources.

The first century Jewish historian Josephus mentions Jesus twice. The shorter reference is in Book 20 of his Antiquities of the Jews and describes the stoning of law breakers in A.D. 62. One of the criminals is described as “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James.” What makes this passage authentic is that it lacks Christian terms like “the Lord,” it fits into the context of this section of the antiquities, and the passage is found in every manuscript copy of the Antiquities.

According to New Testament scholar Robert Van Voorst in his book Jesus Outside the New Testament, “The overwhelming majority of scholars hold that the words ‘brother of Jesus, who was called Christ,’ are authentic, as is the entire passage in which it is found” (p. 83)."

https://strangenotions.com/jesus-existed/

In response to Jesus as myth or is considered a real person by mainstream scholars and historians, I provided another link from wikipedia,

"The Christ myth theory (also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism, mythicism,[1] or Jesus ahistoricity theory)[2] is the proposition that Christianity started with the belief in a new deity, named Jesus,[3] "who was later historicized"[4] in the Gospels, which are "essentially allegory and fiction".[5] Alternatively in "simpler terms" — given by Bart Ehrman — "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity".[6]

In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory not supported by any tenured specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines. The Christ myth theory contradicts the mainstream historical view, which is that while the gospels include many mythical or legendary elements, these are religious elaborations added to the biography of a historical Jesus who did live in 1st-century Roman Palestine,[7][8][note 1] was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate."

Some skeptics believe if they can disprove Jesus Christ actually lived, it supports their wannabe beliefs that Christianity is made up of multiple itinerant Jewish preachers, rather than the historical figure recognized by Christians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

Thanks for reposting it.

Ehrman makes several errors in those statements, as do a number of posters here along the same lines.

Namely, one: not accepting that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate any certainty about an "historical Jesus" is NOT the same as claiming "Jesus was a myth." Whether or not there is sufficient evidence to accept the claim "there was an historical Jesus" is one question; whether or not "the Jesus stories are entirely a myth" is a separate one. Not accepting the first does not impose the second.

Two: Ehrman may be (though he offers no survey of the "vast majority of scholars" to provide evidence for it) correct about most scholars believing in an historical Jesus. However,that appeal to 'authority' and to numbers is fallacious. It's evidence for/against the claim that matters, not how many people ('authorities' or not) believe the claim.

And Ehrman's own "evidence" is, frankly, rather silly: he gives as the main reason he believes there was an historical Jesus as the "criterion of embarrassment," which is a really big problem: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ#Criterion_of_embarrassment

Lastly, the supposed "historical Jesus" the supposed "vast majority of scholars" believe in differs for every supposed "scholar." They don't agree on the simplest details of this supposed "historical" person's life, and there nearly as many claimed DIFFERENT "historical Jesus" versions as there are "scholars." That's not any kind of consensus.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/2017 04:52PM by ificouldhietokolob.

+1

Paul did meet Jesus's brother and one of the apostles. And there is a long paper trail that substantiates Paul.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Paul did meet Jesus's brother and one of the
> apostles.

You mean his half-brother, obviously ;)

Still, not much to go on, is it? Especially if you understand that the gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John either.

Depends on whether you believe Jesus was the literal Son of God

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Depends on whether you believe Jesus was the
> literal Son of God

Even if he wasn't the literal son of God, he may not have been the literal son of Joseph.

If they had TV back then, you could have tuned in to "JBC's Wide World of Crucifixions".

Roseanne.

And came back as a zombie.

I like to believe that jesus wasnt really a religious man like the religions of today but stood for something greater. If he ever existed of course.

Considering the enormous success of his movement, I'm going with he stood for something greater.

Christianity is still the most popular world religion today, followed by Islam.

Both are spinoffs of Judaism. All worship the same God of Abraham.

Yet it is Christianity and Islam that are some of the most destructive forces in the world. Judaism is more a religion of peace than the other two combined.

Go figure. Jews are still a tiny minority religion in the world, but the only one that has survived from antiquity in the Middle East.

"Judaism is the oldest religion in all senses of the word. Before the birth of Judaism, there were only pagan religions. Judaism was created by Abraham whereas every other contemporary of Abraham understood that there were days and nights, stars and sky, the ocean and the land, and they also believed that each were an individual entity. But Abraham not only understood that the entire universe is connected (making him the first quantum physicist), he also understood that there was a need to connect to the source of it all. This science of connecting with the source, is called Judaism."

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/05/christians-remain-worlds-largest-religious-group-but-they-are-declining-in-europe/

http://www.convertingtojudaism.com/judaism.htm

Hold on. Hinduism is the oldest religion in all senses of the word. Which include Old and Religion. Hinduism is 5,000 years older than Judaism give or take 1,000 years.

Hindu is considered a pagan religion.

Monotheistic religions which make up the three well known religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, were born from the Judaic God of Abraham.

They are the predominant world religions that are not considered 'pagan.'


The reference I shared states that Judaism preempted paganism. The other two followed.

Respectfully, that is a ridiculous distinction.

First the quote states that Judaism is the oldest religion in all senses of the word. Which isn't even remotely true so it has to qualify it by saying it it the oldest, for all intents and purposes, true religion.

Second it brings up Abraham who isn't even close to being a historical figure. If we debate Jesus because the writings are 100-300 years after Jesus, we would definitely debate Abraham since the writings are 1,000 years after Abraham.

Third, the garbage about Abraham being the first quantum physicist because he understood the science of the source, well, it's garbage.

That's your opinion not shared by many Jewish theologians, among others.

Judaism was/is the first monotheistic religion born on the face of the earth.

Paganism v. monotheism there really isn't much comparison.

"Judaism is the oldest religion in all senses of the word."

Just to highlight it, "all senses of the word". The problem that you're running into is that it doesn't say "Judaism is the oldest monotheistic religion".

Pagan religions are religions, yes they are different from Abrahamic religions, but they are still religions. So, there are plenty of religions, that are religions in "all senses of the word" that pre-date Judaism.

You can't say that pagan religions existed before, but they don't count because you don't like them. If I say "The religion of FinallyFree! is the oldest religion." That wouldn't be true, even if afterward I said, that the others don't count because they are of a different type.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Judaism was/is the first monotheistic religion
> born on the face of the earth.

But not the first religion. Far from the first, in fact. Very very far. Thousands and thousands of years later. Own it.

"Judaism was created by Abraham..."

It's those kinds of statements that make arguments like this one worthless. Even numerous Jewish scholars will tell you that they don't think "Abraham" ever existed, and even if he did, "Judaism" as it was practiced even in the 5th century BCE was nothing that HE had invented.

Here is a chronology of the major world religions from Merriam Webster dictionary. Judaism is listed as the oldest. Hinduism follows, not precedes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Religion_timeline_graph.jpg

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is a chronology of the major world religions
> from Merriam Webster dictionary. Judaism is listed
> as the oldest. Hinduism follows, not precedes.


Wait, their starting date for hinduism is when hinduism was first heard of, but their starting date for judaism is when judaism claims to have started, though it was first heard of ten centuries or so later? Apples and oranges.

Yep, by the standard being applied to Judaism, Mormons are older because they claim that Adam believed the same religion as they do.

Judaism as a religion is the result of the Babylonian occupation/the Assyrian Exile. Before that the inhabitants of the land were the Hebrews and their religion was for the most part inclusive monotheism. Interestingly the Hebrew's evolving god slightly corresponds with the Pharaoh Akhenaten. So the Hebrew's ingenuity was at least shared by others.

As for the advent of Monotheism one need look not further than the origins of Hinduism. What greater thing is there than Brahman? While western religions tended to anthropomorphize their deities the Eastern religions did the opposite. They reduced, perhaps the wrong word, them to a single state. In this case the Brahman is the ultimate reality, not so different than Aquinas uncaused causer.

Jesus, aka Yeshua, came with a higher law. The Chief priests, Scribes and Pharisees, rejected that law.

They were totally close minded and close hearted to the gospel of forgiveness and love. They were entrenched in vanity, status, and being admired.

Jesus taught by example that the master is the servant. That whoever exalts himself will be abased, but whoever humbles himself will be exalted. The Jewish leaders of the time couldn't accept that new directive, and sought and succeeded to eliminate the threat of their control, aka Jesus.

They won the battle but lost the war.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.".....Stephen Roberts

Not trying to start a fight, just curious..

"Therefore, he was at no time a Christian."

What about Jesus being baptized by James and hanging out with (and preaching to) the low lifes in his society.

That wasn't very Jewish of him...


again just curious

It is and was Jewish in the biblical sense. By applying the teachings of King David from Psalms, and the book of Proverbs he lived the 'law of the prophets.' He taught by example not just word.

He wasn't raised anything but a Jew. He observed the Jewish laws, festivals, and sabbaths.

Christianity turned many of his teachings on their head, to subvert what he called pure religion.

His teachings are in essence, Jewish. That they are universal is how they were able to extend to the larger world outside his sphere of (initial) influence. Like the Diary of Anne Frank, no one knew at the time that an itinerant Jewish preacher would reach a worldwide audience for generations to come.

Which doesn't negate the fact there were petty minded and vile Jewish leaders where he lived in tandem with the Romans. He was persecuted not so much for his beliefs but for who he was. He threatened the status quo.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/2017 09:52AM by Amyjo.

nonmo_1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> What about Jesus being baptized by James and
> hanging out with (and preaching to) the low lifes
> in his society.
>
> That wasn't very Jewish of him...

The New Testament gospels say that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, not James.

There are mainstream New Testament scholars who say that John the Baptist was a representative of what is today called "Jewish Apocalypticism," which was one of the outlooks held by Jews at the time of Jesus. So Jesus being baptized by John would have been seen at the time as definitely a Jewish practice, at least from the standpoint of the Jewish Apocalypticists.

As far as Jesus hanging out with and preaching to "low lifes," scholars say that Jesus was proclaiming the imminent coming of the "Kingdom of God," in which many of the first (the elite in society) shall be last, and the last (the "low lifes") shall be first. Once again, the idea that this Kingdom of God was coming was part of the Jewish Apocalypticism of the times.

Baptism was an offshoot of the Jewish ritual bath and seems to have been popular at the time among some groups of Jews.

nonmo_1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What about Jesus being baptized by James and
> hanging out with (and preaching to) the low lifes
> in his society.
>
> That wasn't very Jewish of him...

What Christians refer to as "baptism" (immersion in, I am presuming, "living waters" according to Jewish law), is the Jewish practice of "mikvah"--which is something that an observant male Jew (which I am assuming that Jesus was, before he began his career as an itinerant rabbi), would have done at least weekly (before Shabbat begins on Friday night), and also following any seminal discharge ("wet dreams," or as a result of any other physiological process).

By the time that Jesus lived, there were already constructed mikvaot (plural of mikvah), ALL OVER what is now the nation of Israel (previously unknown ones are constantly being discovered and dug up, all the time, by current archaeologists).

In addition to constructed mikvaot: oceans, seas, and RIVERS are ALSO kosher mikvaot (my mikvah, when I converted to Judaism, was the Pacific Ocean), and if the Jesus immersing in the Jordan River story turns out to be historically correct, then the Jordan River (to which I have been, the part I saw was surrounded by carob trees in a very haimish ("homey") and scenic part of north-of-Jerusalem Israel) would have been a really nice place to immerse in "living waters."

What most Christians do not understand is that, for observant Jews especially, "mikvah" is a continuing part of Jewish LIFE.

Observant Jewish women are required to immerse in a mikvah (the kind of mikvah doesn't matter, just so that it meets Jewish legal standards) after their menstrual periods have ended, after they give birth, and also after any "unusual" vaginal discharge.

Observant Jewish men (which Jewishly means: beginning at age thirteen), immerse at least once a week before Shabbat begins (sunset on Friday), or more often if they have had sex (etc.)--whatever would have resulted in semen being released from their body. (For some Jewish men, and especially in earlier times, there are also instances when immersion becomes Jewishly necessary, according to Jewish law, because of their employment. An example would be, a merchant who deals in goods which may have non-kosher elements involved, such as pork fat used in their manufacture or packaging. In this case, after the Jewish merchant or Jewish employee of that merchant had touched the pork fat, they would have to immerse in a kosher mikvah to regain what amounts to "Jewish ritual purity." For some Jews especially, these circumstances would mean a nightly immersion in the community mikvah before they went home for the evening.)

According to Jewish law, when a new community is formed (this was a constant process, beginning in very ancient times in the area of what is now Israel), the FIRST thing to be constructed must be a community mikvah (assuming that there are no oceans, seas, or rivers within fairly easy walking distance of the new community). Once the new community's mikvah was constructed and running properly, the rest of the community needs (housing, etc.) could be tended to.

If Jesus was ever an observant Jew, he would have been totally familiar with immersion, and choosing the Jordan River as a place to immerse would have been a natural for him. If I lived in Israel, and I had a choice, I would choose the Jordan River too.

"Hanging out with low lifes" comes under the category of "tikkun olam" ("repairing the world"), which I think most any Jew would say is THE singular most important commandment in all of Judaism. Although in the first century C.E. there may have been some social norm conflict because of then-existing prejudices, this would have been on a day-to-day human level. From the point of view of Jewish law, Jesus would have been doing exactly the most correct Jewish thing.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/2017 06:06PM by Tevai.

Thanks all for the education...

Thank you, Tevai. And you didn't quote from Wikipedia or Webster's Dictionary. Thank you!!

When Jesus (Yeshua) was crucified, the Romans called Him "The King of the Jews". IMO, His teachings were all about living and practicing " The Golden Rule". The Pharisees, Sadducees, and the Romans were not into the Golden Rule so much. Lots of prejudice against the Samaritans. There was only one person that Jesus refused to speak to or acknowledge,and that was King Herod the Great.

>There was only one person that Jesus refused to speak to or acknowledge,and that was King Herod the Great.

Jesus speaking to Herod the Great would have been impossible since Herod the Great died in 4 BCE.

Valkyriequeen was likely referring to the successor of Herod the Great, his son Herod Antipas.

"The Gospel of Luke states that Jesus was first brought before Pontius Pilate for trial, since Pilate was the governor of Roman Judea, which encompassed Jerusalem where Jesus was arrested. Pilate initially handed him over to Antipas, in whose territory Jesus had been most active, but Antipas sent him back to Pilate's court." He reigned from 4 BC to 39 AD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Antipas



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/28/2017 03:27PM by Amyjo.

I mean, doesn't every religion have a progenitor?

If there was an actual "Jesus" (and that's by no means certain), he was Jewish. But the stories about him also show him thumbing his nose at parts of "Jewish law" and traditions.

Of course "Jesus" wasn't a christian -- christianity is the worship of Jesus. He didn't worship himself, even if he existed (unless he was more like a certain POTUS than is usually thought).

I'm not sure what the point is here, amyjo. If the Jesus stories are to be believed, the Jesus character was preaching a pretty severe modification to Judaism of the time. Enough to merit considering it a new religion. Is Judaism older than christianity? Of course. Did christianity arise from it? Of course. Is it the same? Of course not. Not even the kind the stories have Jesus preaching, though that kind bears little resemblance to most christianity today (just as most Judaism today differs quite a bit from the Judaism of that time).

Christian by daffynition is, among other things: a follower of Jesus Christ's teachings.

He couldn't follow himself. He was the leader of a movement, who also was Jewish. He wanted people to like him. He wanted people to be good to each other. What's wrong with that?

The Jewish folks don't believe in Jesus, as the King of the Jews, because they expect a more triumphant entry of their King.

The Jesus story cut into the profits from the Jewish priests.

Those bored and tired of the Jewish law thought it was a good side line and different enough to be interesting.

It was tough to be a Jesus of Nazareth follower but eventually the cult matured into it's own and accepted by the Romans in 4th century.

Son of a god? A likely story.

This isn't exactly news. I already saw the movie. Herod's number was really good and the guy playing Jesus killed it! And he was crowned King of the Jews, not King of the Christians. So I don't get this revelation.

Barbra Streisand has many worshipers as well. She also was born, lived and will die someday as a, ta dah . . . .jew. I hear there are others as well.

It is probably news to many Christians who hate Jews. Jesus would probably object to.hatred of his.people. Don, Jesus doesnt have to be divine to be historical or important.

"If Jesus wasn't God, He should have been."

--Paul Toscano