Jesus was 100% Jewish circa year zero. Observed Torah, went to and taught at synagogues, celebrated Hannukkah, ate a kosher diet, etc. But Christians don’t follow Jesus’s own religious practices.
There was no year 0. It was 1 BCE then 1 CE. Just FYI.
Was it though? Like back then?
There are some christian denominations follow old testament holidays and honor the sabbath. Basically they recognize that jesus was jewish and follow most practices.
Almost like the only things most Christians do is what they personally like about the religion. The part that tells you to not sleep with a man if you are a man, literally tells you to not wear two types of cloth in the next sentence. You never hear republicans going after the people wearing two types of cloth do you? Never a single word. Not once in the history of the Republican party have they tried to dehumanize people who wear two types of cloth. Funny how that works. Almost like religion is just a tool they use to spread their hate.
Also fuck the people who write in scripture that being gay is a sin. I hope those people burn in hell. 2000 years of suffering and killing of gay people because some asshole couldn’t be bothered to think for 30 seconds about whether it’s actually wrong or not. Probably a good thing because without its several flaws, religion might have came to dominate the world.
Because Jesus showed them a better way? I thought that was the point of it.
All of Jesus’s followers who lived when he did were Jewish as well. They were all guilty of what Jesus was crucified for, going against the established religion of the land (I wouldn’t call it apostasy though; that’s renouncing God and none of them were doing that). Christianity is/was based on the teachings of Christ; it builds upon Judaism.
That’s my understanding anyway. I am not religious. But, I don’t think “Christians are not Jews like Jesus was” is a bad thing.
What’s wild to me is that today’s Jews believe Jesus was this decent guy but not the son of God. Then you have Muslims who believe that maybe he was the son of God, maybe he was just a prophet, but they still follow his teachings, they just lean more into the teachings of Muhammad (peace be upon him) (that’s how they say it, or they add “PBUH” which means the same). But guess who the Christians side with politically? I don’t get it. But I don’t think that (the political thing) has to do with who’s more closely aligned with Jesus, I think it’s who pays better.
But again, I’m not religious, so I don’t support or reject any of them. And of course my understanding of these religions is far less than actual practitioners of said religions.
There’s an argument out there that Paul was the guy who really started Christianity. He molded it into something that could spread all over the Roman Empire. It’s not completely accepted by biblical scholars, but it has a lot of merit.
Yeah. Jesus was explicitly clear that he came specifically for the Jews and that his offer was for them. The only gospel story that even hints at anything is is the story of the Gentile woman who wanted him to hear her daughter; he told her that he came for the Jews, and she replied that even the dogs may eat scraps from the master’s table. Jesus was “amazed by her faith” and healed her daughter, but that’s the end of the story.
It’s only after Jesus’ death that Peter had a vision that he interpreted to mean that Gentiles could be accepted as following Jesus too, and then Paul really leaned into it. Most of the rest of the New Testament is written by Paul or one of his disciples.
If you wanna follow Jesus (according to the best of our information about him), you can’t be a Trinitarian quasi polytheist who thinks faith, salvation and works are all disjointed and independent. But Paulian doctrines are nothing but that, and the way for a Roman Empire to convert Jesus’ message of accountability and righteousness and his Abrahamic monotheism to something more palatable and in-line with their existing beliefs. This includes but is not limited to: a pantheon of three (with a “human God” as one of those three), “consumption of blood and flesh” rituals, the Day of Judgment no longer being one of actual judgment because if you “believe” “Jesus is God” you’re automatically saved, whatever Paulian “grace” was…
The Roman Empire is the grandaddy of all Western imperialistic doctrines and my informed guess is that Paul, who didn’t actually know Jesus and even in the Bible he gets told off by Jesus’ actual followers, was nothing more than an agent of destabilisation and an infiltrator, perhaps sent by the Romans themselves but if not at least used by them to create what we know now as “Roman Catholicism”, which is nothing but a deformed, unrecognisable husk of the teachings of big J. Whether this happened this way or more organically is up to debate, whether Jesus’ teachings and Christendom are fundamentally different is not, though, that just requires some basic reading comprehension skills.
Most christians seem to ignore most or all of the bible, anyway.
After reading the book, I realized I’m following much more of the Bible as a Muslim than an average Christard zealot does.
There’s some line in the New Testamant that absolves Christians of the obligation to observe the laws of Kashrut and whatnot, if I recall, but I couldn’t tell you where it is or how exhaustive it is.
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
- Matthew 5:17 KJV
To be a follower of Jesus, which is what the disciples originally called themselves, you would need to observe the law… IE, follow the original kosher laws and such.
The real (historical) reasons why Christians don’t follow Jesus’s religious traditions, come from an ease of assimilation. The Catholic church assimilated pagans into the religion, and it was easier to do so by telling them they don’t have to change their current traditions, and that they just have to celebrate Easter, for example, for the birth of Christ and not as a celebration of the goddess of war, love, and fertility.
There are movements that try to go back to this core belief, though. Jews for Jesus and Messianic Judaism are two such movements, where they celebrate Judaism nearly in its entirety, while also believing Jesus was their savior and following his teachings. Truly an interesting, seemingly contradictory, mix of views.
.
I am fully aware that there are disagreements on whether or not Catholicism is Christianity or even whether it’s a monotheistic or polytheistic religion, and, as such, whether the Catholic assimilations of pagans were relevant to Christianity as a whole. But, honestly, I couldn’t care less. In the wise words of Shepherd Book, “I don’t care what you believe in, just believe in it”.
I think it goes a bit deeper than just ease of assimilation. A big part of Paul’s ministry was the idea that only Jesus can provide salvation, which implies that following all the laws can not. At least that was my understanding based on what I remember reading.
But what does that even mean? Jesus comes to you and holds you by the hand into salvation? Or following the teachings of Jesus does? Because if that’s so, then you’d also have to follow the law, right? Paul is a trickster.
deleted by creator
But like…would Jesus have been cool with that?
I mean, for the line in the New Testament to have any authority it’d have had to come from Jesus himself, so presumably yes.
In his words, seemingly fine with it; Two commandments
This doesn’t appear to include anything about allowing religious freedoms in the sense of the question. It’s not “you dont have to be Jewish”
The reference just says “the most important thing is to love god and your neighbor”
This is one of the parts they use. Knowing what to look for I prompted these: Hebrews 8:13: “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear”. Jeremiah 31:31-33: “The days are coming… when I will make a new covenant… I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they will be My people”. 2 Corinthians 3:6-11: Contrasts the “ministry of death” (Old Covenant) with the more glorious “ministry of the Spirit” (New Covenant). Romans 8:2: “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death”. Galatians 5:4: “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace”. Colossians 2:16-17: Advises not to be judged by Old Covenant regulations on food, festivals, or Sabbaths, as these were a “shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ”. Matthew 22:36-40: “On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets”. In this passage, Jesus summarizes the entire law into two commands: love God and love your neighbor. Christian theology understands this not as a replacement of the law, but as Jesus revealing its core purpose. The New Covenant, which emphasizes a transformed heart and life by the Holy Spirit, is seen as the means by which believers are now empowered to fulfill this ultimate intent of the law. Acts 15:10-11, 19-20: Documents the conclusion of the Council of Jerusalem, which decided that Gentile believers were saved by grace and were not required to observe most of the Mosaic Law.
TLDR: New Covenant updated the rules
Who could say? Not me. Maybe a theologian
I don’t know too much abut religion, but I thought Jesus was supposed to have bashed up the temples due to them operating like banks. I think that’d be evidence of crticising some the prevailing religious organisation.
IIRC it was other people abusing temples to set up markets there, he didn’t have problems with the church itself.
That’s because, per Christian doctrine, Jesus created a new covenant with his sacrifice that fulfills and supersedes the old laws, and put a more spiritual mercy/love-driven interpretation on the previous rigid adherence aspects of Jewish laws and traditions before.
Fun fact: year 0 does not exist.
No year “exists”, we made up the entire concept of keeping track of “years” in the first place.
Neither do nations or borders. Yet I still have to pay taxes and show my passport at the airport.
At some point, something just exists.
Sure, if you want it look at it that way. But if years exist than so does the year 0.
If you want to look at it that way, then year 0 is when earth started orbiting the sun.
But that’s a bit silly. Afterall, we don’t usw Kelvin inszead of Celsius despite Celsius being “made up” and Kelvin measuring the actual null point.
Or, just like with temperature scales, you can just make up a new one and put zero anywhere you want.
So, we made it, thus it exists? Or did we somehow manage to create a year system but it still doesn’t exist?
That’s really a philosophical question. Whichever you prefer.
My point is consistency. Either you believe years exists, in which case the year 0 also exists. Or you can believe that no years exist at all.
The obvious meaning of someone saying “year 0 doesn’t exist” is that the Gregorian calendar does not have a year 0; the year before 1 AD is 1 BC. It’s not a math thing, it’s a protocol thing.
Your point on consistency is just wrong. There is no reason that “believing years exist” would necessarily imply “believing all numbered years exist”
Then the comment should have mentioned the Gregorian calendar. It’s not the only calendar there is.
we made up all abstract concepts, but some abstract concepts are more real than othe6
Year 0 doesn’t exist in the BC/AD numbering system, but does exist in the astronomical year numbering system, as well as the ISO 8601:2004 numbering system (and, apparently, in most Buddhist and Hindu calendars, which I didn’t know).
Jesus was born Jewish but converted to Christianity in his teens
Nah he was actually Buddhist
Christianity wasn’t a thing until 200 years after his death.
Also…Teenjus!
The separation is generally considered to be when the first century church said circumcision was unnecessary. That was a clean break with Jewish tradition.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Savior?
If being a Christian means following Jesus’ teachings, I’m pretty sure that makes Jesus the first Christian.
Christ can’t be a “follower of Christ.” The first Christian’s were the Apostles.
If God can be son of himself, then Christ can be follower of Christ
-
Jesus (in the Bible!) = “God is one, the Father, and I pray to Him for guidance and strength, and to forgive my sins. I preach righteousness, selflessness and peace amongst us brothers and sisters.”
-
Jesus for Paulians, Roman Catholics and derivatives = “God is three, one of them is Jesus, and if you believe these two things you’re automatically saved, nvm morals, selflessness and righteousness, that’s optional.”
-
If your definition is “follower of Christ”, sure, you can argue that Christ can’t follow himself. My definition is “follower of Christ’s teachings”, and he could definitely follow his own teachings.
So, speaking extra pedantically, Christ taught that he is the lord, and to believe in him and accept him as lord is to be a Christian. He believed he was lord, and he believed in himself and accepted himself as lord, therefore I think Christ would also agree that he was a Christian.
I mean, the only real difference is that one believes Jesus was the Messiah and the other doesn’t. I am pretty sure Jesus straight up told people he was the Messiah so it would be weird if he didn’t believe in himself.
Christians see Jesus as kind of an honorary Christian, I suppose
The Jews also killed Jesus so yeah
The religious heads of his time and place were opposed to him, yes, but that doesn’t make Abrahamic and Mosaic Judaism any less important. If someone had the courage to be openly moral and follow Jesus’ footsteps in “Christian” America, he’d also be silenced…
The romans, technically.
Nar the Romans handed Jesus off to the Jews to deal with him. That’s where the phrase “I wash my hand of this” comes from. Was the Roman judge saying not my problem its a problem for your religious group to deal with. Then the Romans crucified him on the Jews behalf.
This is almost certainly not true. There is no way Romance would cede such an important aspect of governance to the Jews, not to mention most scholarship having converged on the idea that Jesus was killed by the Romans for changing their sovereignty (claiming to be the King of the Jews).
