Magical Sailor Fuku

Who knew?

And discuss.

<_<

>_>

U_U

Since when? o_O

Yes. Explain, Padawan.

Well, back then, there weren't any Jews. Well, Judaism. If you were a Jew, then you were probably from Judea, a country, and not a religion. Around Jesus' time there were different sects, like the pharisees, sadducees, and essenes. Judaism didn't appear until long after Jesus, I think.

What really got me to think about this was when a few details decided to jump out at me and say, "hey, that doesn't sound right." For instance, if Jesus were a Jew, then why was he afraid to venture out of Galilee and into Judea? In that way, Jesus can be called a Galilean. What had first caught my attention, however, was something related to Jesus' religious position: how his criticism of the pharisees set him apart from them.

There's a reason why Jesus was the basis for a new religion instead of being an addition to the old: because he wasn't like them. Even if he were different in that he was true to the Jewish faith (unlike the pharisees), he can't technically be a Jew since the majority of those in the Jewish faith didn't practice it as he did. Hence, a new faith altogether, and a new testament. In essence, Jesus was the first Christian, and not a Jew, even if what he taught was more true to the Jewish faith.

So, that's why I think that Jesus was a Christian from Galilee instead of a Jew and whatnot. Although, being a "Son of God" tends to set you apart from everyone else, rabbi or not, anyway.

Practicing a religion with the same tenants and beliefs differently makes it a different religion?

So Martin Luthor wasn't Christian?

Calling Jesus a Christian wouldn't make sense. The essential irreconcilable difference between the two religions didn't occur in his stated beliefs. Thus, he wasn't a christian, but rather the leader of a new Jewish sect.

IE: Jesus' faith had far more in common with the Jewish people the Christian people.

You misunderstand. He wasn't a Jew because he didn't practice what the majority of Jews practiced. And he didn't start a new Jewish sect or else that is what it would have become, because he would have stated so and those following him would have known and spread the name of the sect around. You can compare what Jesus did as a rabbi to what the Jehovah's Witnesses do as Christians today: they don't break away from the mainstream because they have a different idea about what a (the) doctrine(s) means, but rather that the mainstream strayed away from the true practice and meanings and they're returning to it. Which in turn means that they do have differing ideas, but so did Jesus.

Jesus' teachings and life inspired the Christian religion, a new religion, not a sect of the Jewish religion. You can tell people that Christianity is a sect of Judaism today, and you can probably imagine what their reaction would be. It would be understandable since the basis of the New Testament requires the Hebrew scriptures (Old Testament), but I reckon that it's some sort of reconciliation. I mean, imagine if you started a new sect that taught that the other sects were wrong. Do you think people of the other sects would be happy with that? Both Jews and Christians had a hard enough time with how they were treated by the Roman empire, and it was so in particular for the Jews. The last thing that a new Jewish sect would need, one that denounced other Jewish sects, would be to have both the Roman empire and other Jewish sects on their backs. They may not have survived if they had. What better than to break away from the Jewish religion and deal with the Roman empire on a different front, and be different enough to not have to contest with other Jewish sects? And so Christianity was able to work its way into the empire and didn't have much to worry about when it came time for its different sects to fight for orthodoxy.

However, when you get right down to it, to call Jesus a Christian today would probably be wrong. Or, at least I think it would be, because I don't think that the majority of Christians have it right, much like how the pharisees of Jesus' day didn't. And he still can't be a Jew because the Jewish faith of that day, as well as the Judaism of today, just aren't what Jesus taught. Like Jesus said (if I remember correctly), the faith lost itself to the tradition of men rather than follow the word of God. Christianity has similarly lost itself to its traditions.

In the end Jesus was simply the Son of God, not a Jew or a Christian, because the Jewish and Christian labels just don't apply to him except when imposed by us for one reason or another. But if I had to call him one or the other, I wouldn't call him a Jew for two interconnected reasons: one, because he didn't follow the mainstream; and two, because he was able to inspire a new religion entirely, rather than just another sect. But if I were to call him a Christian, I wouldn't be thinking of the Christianity of then or of today, but rather when it was pure and untainted by the passage of time and the spoils of man... The Christianity at the very beginning, within Jesus himself. When you think about it, when you have a model, copies of it just won't be the same. Much like with evolution, over time there will be mutations, and things will change. Or like the passage of information, the details can alter between mouth and ear, much like with rumors. If I called myself a Jalopian, and practiced Jalopianism, I would be the only one even if I inspire millions of others to try and practice the same.

I guess I just think too much. <_<;

But, technically, there weren't any "Jews" back then, as far as I know (unless, perhaps, it was a short way of saying that someone was from Judea). As far as I can tell, God's chosen people are just referred to as Israelites, not Jews, in the Hebrew scriptures. And Judaism wasn't established until hundreds of years after Christ's death, if my sources are correct. Other than that, it's not a bloodline that makes one a Jew, but one's faith. If Jesus' father, Joseph, was related to king David, then that'd simply mean that a part of his ancestry lies in Israel, wouldn't it? Even if you say that "Jew" is another way of saying "Israelite", that's thinking beyond Jesus' time.

Basically, if I've got my facts straight, "Jew" did not denote someone's faith back then, but rather where they came from (Judah/Judea). However, I could be wrong since I've yet to find anything better than "Hebrew faith" to refer to those that followed the mosaic law and such. Le sigh. History simply isn't my forte.

You're still missing the point. How can Jesus be a "Jew" if he didn't teach what the other "Jews" did? It's as simple as that. You're the one complicating things. ;p

I'm thinking he means the nationality. Not the religion.

Empyrean Nikkou wrote:You're still missing the point. How can Jesus be a "Jew" if he didn't teach what the other "Jews" did? It's as simple as that. You're the one complicating things. ;p

We only have what Christians said Jesus taught. Many of the gospels not recognized by the council of Nicea were much closer to "add ons" to judaism rather than a whole new religion(there are also a bunch that were even more crazy too..) Objectively we don't know what Jesus taught vs what people wanted to believe he taught.

Haylie:

Yeah, I know. But a nationality isn't a religion, and I'm making sure that the two concepts remain separate. Back then Israelites were Israelites (as far as I know), not Jews. Jesus was from Galilee, not Judea or Israel. You can't call someone a Jew, in the religious sense, just because they come from a predominantly Jewish nation. Lio's just being his usual, silly self.

Lian:

That's a good point, and I'm glad it works for my argument. I mean, the orthodoxy hadn't been established until hundreds of years after Jesus' death, and all of the material written (in or out of any official bible) had not been from Jesus himself.

If it had been the religion of the Israelites that he believed in, then he wouldn't have criticized the pharisees. For him to be a Jew, at the time that he lived, he would have had to believe what the pharisees had. There's a difference between what a religion is and what it should be. Jesus practiced what it should be (to an extent), not what it was (formed by the common beliefs of both the teachers and the believers). Besides which, he taught things that were different even from either of those forms of the Mosaic law, as far as we know from the New Testament. If it was different enough to inspire a new religion altogether, how can anyone absolutely conclude that he had been Jewish?