Is Jesus a Christian?

[4enlightment]

Then where is the Church Jesus promised to build? hehe

Daniel 2:34While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them.

Matthew 16:18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Matthew 7:25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.

Daniel 2:35Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were all broken to pieces and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth.

1 Corinthians 10:4and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

Revelation 6:16They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!


The Rock has came from the Mountain which is God. I believe that there was a mistranslation about Peter's name being the Rock. I believed that Jesus was referring Himself as the Rock and Peter was piece of material of the Temple that's being built on this Rock. This Rock will crushed the whole system which we has built. So I believed that Peter's name meant something else beside the rock; and I believed that people which has thought that the word Peter name meant the Rock and had past down this misunderstood word throughout generations after generations and now it is established the meaning as being the rock.

 

[kenisyes]

This is indeed an interesting spin off of another topic:

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/65911-similarities-between-christianity-judaism.html#post1060988

To summarize what I said there:

'Christianity' only came to be AFTER Jesus walked the earth, it’s a historical phenomenon that started with (among others) Paul's interpretation of Jesus' words and resurrection. Followers of Christ were first named ‘christians’ in Antioch (Acts 11:26).

You cannot say Jesus belonged to that movement: calling Him a christian would lead to weird dogmatic problems. For instance: if we consider Christ to be a part of that movement, does that mean He's worshiping Himself? Jesus was first and foremost a jew, and we accepted His teachings as they were interpreted later on, especially by Paul.

Probably the strongest argument against I've seen so far. Thanks for reposting it.

 

[kenisyes]

Then where is the Church Jesus promised to build? hehe

The Greek word for "build" is "expand a house with an addition", not "start from the foundation up". Acts 7:38 says the church was already at Sinai, with the Jews. Sorry, but that IS what it says.

 

[psalm6819]

You are aptly named, kenisyes, when I pronounced your name- kinesis (movement, activity,energy) it seemed a better descriptor than ken is yes but just one woman's opinion.

 

[kenisyes]

You are aptly named, kenisyes, when I pronounced your name- kinesis (movement, activity,energy) it seemed a better descriptor than ken is yes but just one woman's opinion.

That's worthy of exploring a little more deeply. Do you mind sharing how you reached that opinion, either here or by pm?

 

[zone]

This is indeed an interesting spin off of another topic:

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/65911-similarities-between-christianity-judaism.html#post1060988

To summarize what I said there:

'Christianity' only came to be AFTER Jesus walked the earth, it’s a historical phenomenon that started with (among others) Paul's interpretation of Jesus' words and resurrection. Followers of Christ were first named ‘christians’ in Antioch (Acts 11:26).

You cannot say Jesus belonged to that movement: calling Him a christian would lead to weird dogmatic problems. For instance: if we consider Christ to be a part of that movement, does that mean He's worshiping Himself? Jesus was first and foremost a jew, and we accepted His teachings as they were interpreted later on, especially by Paul.

Jesus was first and foremost GOD; the Second Adam; a perfect human being, and lastly and of least importance for God's Redemption Plan, known as the King of the Jews.

Romans 3:29
After all, is God the God of the Jews only? Isn't he also the God of the Gentiles? Of course he is

Acts 10:34
Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism

Romans 9:24
even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

Romans 10:12
For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,

 

[zone]

The Greek word for "build" is "expand a house with an addition", not "start from the foundation up". Acts 7:38 says the church was already at Sinai, with the Jews. Sorry, but that IS what it says.

actually, it's the Tabernacle of David (david as the model subject of Christ the King) Jesus modeled His church on.
not Moses < see crossnote's recent post per Pastor Byers

we have not come to Sinai.
we have come to heavenly Jerusalem.
SHE is the mother of us all.

 

[kenisyes]

actually, it's the Tabernacle of David (david as the model subject of Christ the King) Jesus modeled His church on.
not Moses < see crossnote's recent post per Pastor Byers

we have not come to Sinai.
we have come to heavenly Jerusalem.
SHE is the mother of us all.

Of course that's correct. The point is the church did not start when Jesus said to Peter "upon this rock". At that moment He made it His own, and He expanded it to include potentially all the world. Until then, the church, the earthly shadow of the heavenly Jeruslaem to come, resided in Israel, among those who followed the law. When we speak of different groups of Jews, we divide in at least two ways. Even before this time of "on this rock", there were Jews such as David, who served the Lord, and Jews who did not. Since the time that Jews rejected Jesus, we divide by those who rejected Him and those who did not. Once we draw such lines, there is great similarity between some Jews (those who follow Jesus) and Christians.

 

[psalm6819]

That's worthy of exploring a little more deeply. Do you mind sharing how you reached that opinion, either here or by pm?

Sure I'll explain. Our parents name us but in this arena we select our own. It's interesting to see what moniker someone assigns themself. Mine reflects gratitude. Felt your reflected skills as a thought provoking communicator. I hope you don't feel there was a lack of respect intended for such is not the case.

sorry for being so off topic

 

[zone]

Of course that's correct. The point is the church did not start when Jesus said to Peter "upon this rock". At that moment He made it His own, and He expanded it to include potentially all the world. Until then, the church, the earthly shadow of the heavenly Jeruslaem to come, resided in Israel, among those who followed the law. When we speak of different groups of Jews, we divide in at least two ways. Even before this time of "on this rock", there were Jews such as David, who served the Lord, and Jews who did not. Since the time that Jews rejected Jesus, we divide by those who rejected Him and those who did not. Once we draw such lines, there is great similarity between some Jews (those who follow Jesus) and Christians.

June 06, 2013

Dear Ken,

Hope you are well.

This thread has been a little perplexing for me, I suppose the title is what is throwing me off.
Since you are the OP, I've really just decided to avoid the other posts and discern what it is you are asking.

I must admit I got lost at the end of this particular post. I apologize for being obtuse.
Could you clarify what you meant at the end?

Thanks very much,
Zone

 

[kenisyes]

Sure I'll explain. Our parents name us but in this arena we select our own. It's interesting to see what moniker someone assigns themself. Mine reflects gratitude. Felt your reflected skills as a thought provoking communicator. I hope you don't feel there was a lack of respect intended for such is not the case.

sorry for being so off topic

There was no disrespect perceived in any way. I sincerely felt you might have made an observation that would be helpful to me in my career or ministry. My moniker would be different if I were joining now. CC was my first non-paid online activity, and I did not know how safe it was. Had I known, I would have gone under kenbehrens, which is my webpresence name. The fact that ken means "yes" in Hebrew, and hence I must say yes to God, is what prompted the chocie. Thanks for sharing. Ps. 68 is one of my favorites, as a few verses after your name gives the proper organization plan for the music arrangements done by a praise team, one of my careers.

 

[didymos]

Jesus was first and foremost GOD; the Second Adam; a perfect human being, and lastly and of least importance for God's Redemption Plan, known as the King of the Jews.

Romans 3:29
After all, is God the God of the Jews only? Isn't he also the God of the Gentiles? Of course he is

Acts 10:34
Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism

Romans 9:24
even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

Romans 10:12
For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,

I don't contest that Jesus is God, I just wanted to describe the matter from a purely HISTORICAL point of view.

 

[kenisyes]

June 06, 2013

Dear Ken,

Hope you are well.

This thread has been a little perplexing for me, I suppose the title is what is throwing me off.
Since you are the OP, I've really just decided to avoid the other posts and discern what it is you are asking.

I must admit I got lost at the end of this particular post. I apologize for being obtuse.
Could you clarify what you meant at the end?

Thanks very much,
Zone

Greetings in the Lord back to you. i hope you and He are doing fantastically.

Of course, I can, Zone.

It started with a thread asking for similarities between Judaism and Christianity, and posting "beards" as a primary solution to the question. You have posted many times that there are extensive aspects of Judaism (including all of Judaism since 70AD) which have nothing in common with Christianity. Red Tent is quick to show that there are common threads between OT law/customs and Jesus' teaching.

To my way of thinking, Jesus is the common element. It was in preparation for His ministry that Judaism was created, and it is His ministry that might have transformed Judaism into something far greater. It is also His ministry that created Christianity.

I, quite innocently, submitted that Jesus is the most important common element, and received a response that Jesus is not Christian. While I saw the point of definition in the response, it seemed like a no brainer to me, like the old saw "is the pope catholic?". I thought it was worthy of a separate thread.

It impacts just how we process the word "Christian", in regard to whether it defines identity vs. actions. It impacts our view of history, and other things as well. I thought it might be worthwhile to get various opinions out there.

The specific post: I was attempting to separate the opinions of you and Red Tent. I have long studied from the Talmud exlusively in the Mishnah, and separated the teachings of the "fathers" or "sages" from the later rabbis. My theory is that before Jesus, Jews who followed Torah had a real partaking in the Word of God, and often had things worthy of our note. Another group of Jews, such as those under King Ahaz, and thus Jezebel and the prophets of Baal, have nothing to contribute. I also agree with you, that as soon as Jews reject Jesus as Messiah, they lose their ability to contribute to our understanding, and are more likely to mislead us, if we go to them for help understanding Scripture. I offer this as a way to reconcile the opposing points of view about Judaism. If we limit our reading of Talmud, Midrash, etc., to the early sages, when Jesus had not yet come, we get worthwhile help in Scripture.

Since you say you were lost, I'll say it one more way: If a Jew lived before the ministry of Jesus, and tried to live by the Law, I believe he is worthy to be consulted for deeper understanding of OT texts. If a Jew lived after Jesus, and accepted Jesus as Messiah, he is worthy to be sought as a brother in Christ. The other Jews are not worthy to consult on such matters, and, in fact, the further after Jesus' time they lived, the more confused they become about the Word of God they received. If one wishes to read any literature produced by Jews on Scripture or Godly life, one must apply these principles, or risk being misled.

Ken

PS. Since the thread is getting stale, let me add to the discussion, that no one has yet posted: If being Christians makes each of us brother or sister of Jesus, and if He is the "first on many brothers", does not that force Him to be Christian as well?

 

[didymos]

Probably the strongest argument against I've seen so far. Thanks for reposting it.

You're most welcome.

 

[Grandpa]

Greetings in the Lord back to you. i hope you and He are doing fantastically.

Of course, I can, Zone.

It started with a thread asking for similarities between Judaism and Christianity, and posting "beards" as a primary solution to the question. You have posted many times that there are extensive aspects of Judaism (including all of Judaism since 70AD) which have nothing in common with Christianity. Red Tent is quick to show that there are common threads between OT law/customs and Jesus' teaching.

To my way of thinking, Jesus is the common element. It was in preparation for His ministry that Judaism was created, and it is His ministry that might have transformed Judaism into something far greater. It is also His ministry that created Christianity.

I, quite innocently, submitted that Jesus is the most important common element, and received a response that Jesus is not Christian. While I saw the point of definition in the response, it seemed like a no brainer to me, like the old saw "is the pope catholic?". I thought it was worthy of a separate thread.

It impacts just how we process the word "Christian", in regard to whether it defines identity vs. actions. It impacts our view of history, and other things as well. I thought it might be worthwhile to get various opinions out there.

The specific post: I was attempting to separate the opinions of you and Red Tent. I have long studied from the Talmud exlusively in the Mishnah, and separated the teachings of the "fathers" or "sages" from the later rabbis. My theory is that before Jesus, Jews who followed Torah had a real partaking in the Word of God, and often had things worthy of our note. Another group of Jews, such as those under King Ahaz, and thus Jezebel and the prophets of Baal, have nothing to contribute. I also agree with you, that as soon as Jews reject Jesus as Messiah, they lose their ability to contribute to our understanding, and are more likely to mislead us, if we go to them for help understanding Scripture. I offer this as a way to reconcile the opposing points of view about Judaism. If we limit our reading of Talmud, Midrash, etc., to the early sages, when Jesus had not yet come, we get worthwhile help in Scripture.

Since you say you were lost, I'll say it one more way: If a Jew lived before the ministry of Jesus, and tried to live by the Law, I believe he is worthy to be consulted for deeper understanding of OT texts. If a Jew lived after Jesus, and accepted Jesus as Messiah, he is worthy to be sought as a brother in Christ. The other Jews are not worthy to consult on such matters, and, in fact, the further after Jesus' time they lived, the more confused they become about the Word of God they received. If one wishes to read any literature produced by Jews on Scripture or Godly life, one must apply these principles, or risk being misled.

Ken

PS. Since the thread is getting stale, let me add to the discussion, that no one has yet posted: If being Christians makes each of us brother or sister of Jesus, and if He is the "first on many brothers", does not that force Him to be Christian as well?

I was waiting for you to define what it was you were talking about. I knew lots of people would have lots of different opinions.

In the Life of Jesus Christ Judaism is perfectly lived and defined as well as expounded upon. The Lord showed the "teachers" of Judaism what the true teaching of their laws were supposed to mean and how to live. He Is the Unblemished Lamb, perfect in His Life before God.

The death, sacrifice, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is what defines Christianity. The Lord Jesus didn't need the Lord Jesus to be Christian. We need Him in order to be Christian. We who are dead in our sins are lifted up and given eternal Life.

didymos was correct, imo. We might not agree on the whys' and wherefore's...

 

[zone]

Greetings in the Lord back to you. i hope you and He are doing fantastically.

Of course, I can, Zone.

It started with a thread asking for similarities between Judaism and Christianity, and posting "beards" as a primary solution to the question. You have posted many times that there are extensive aspects of Judaism (including all of Judaism since 70AD) which have nothing in common with Christianity. Red Tent is quick to show that there are common threads between OT law/customs and Jesus' teaching.

To my way of thinking, Jesus is the common element. It was in preparation for His ministry that Judaism was created, and it is His ministry that might have transformed Judaism into something far greater. It is also His ministry that created Christianity.

I, quite innocently, submitted that Jesus is the most important common element, and received a response that Jesus is not Christian. While I saw the point of definition in the response, it seemed like a no brainer to me, like the old saw "is the pope catholic?". I thought it was worthy of a separate thread.

It impacts just how we process the word "Christian", in regard to whether it defines identity vs. actions. It impacts our view of history, and other things as well. I thought it might be worthwhile to get various opinions out there.

The specific post: I was attempting to separate the opinions of you and Red Tent. I have long studied from the Talmud exlusively in the Mishnah, and separated the teachings of the "fathers" or "sages" from the later rabbis. My theory is that before Jesus, Jews who followed Torah had a real partaking in the Word of God, and often had things worthy of our note. Another group of Jews, such as those under King Ahaz, and thus Jezebel and the prophets of Baal, have nothing to contribute. I also agree with you, that as soon as Jews reject Jesus as Messiah, they lose their ability to contribute to our understanding, and are more likely to mislead us, if we go to them for help understanding Scripture. I offer this as a way to reconcile the opposing points of view about Judaism. If we limit our reading of Talmud, Midrash, etc., to the early sages, when Jesus had not yet come, we get worthwhile help in Scripture.

Since you say you were lost, I'll say it one more way: If a Jew lived before the ministry of Jesus, and tried to live by the Law, I believe he is worthy to be consulted for deeper understanding of OT texts. If a Jew lived after Jesus, and accepted Jesus as Messiah, he is worthy to be sought as a brother in Christ. The other Jews are not worthy to consult on such matters, and, in fact, the further after Jesus' time they lived, the more confused they become about the Word of God they received. If one wishes to read any literature produced by Jews on Scripture or Godly life, one must apply these principles, or risk being misled.

Ken

PS. Since the thread is getting stale, let me add to the discussion, that no one has yet posted: If being Christians makes each of us brother or sister of Jesus, and if He is the "first on many brothers", does not that force Him to be Christian as well?

June 07, 2013

My Dear Friend Ken,

What a magnificent post! Thank you for such a detailed response.
I always do enjoy your writing and your thoughts - though we do disagree on so many points - I truly enjoy your company.

I do understand the point now, and thank you for the background. I know that you are familiar with the critical (and I of course will stress spiritually and eternally critical) difference between what we may call (if we MUST) Biblical Judaism, and what is Judaism today.

You see from my reticence that I am reluctant for us to even attempt to reconcile the term Judaism with any of the Books we know as The Bible. The reason are clear, and you have stated it perfectly.

I would name it as confusion (for Christians not aware of the pagan religion of Judaism of today). They make the frightening and forbidden mistake of mixing it with Christianity - for simplicity's sake, and to clarify my own position on the matter (as an English speaker), I will say the entire Bible is Christian from start to finish.

Part of your commentary said:

there are common threads between OT law/customs and Jesus' teaching.

which of course is true. In fact, they are unbroken and holy common elements - the Scriptures and everything they record are about Jesus. The Christian Bible is a single record of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ sent to redeem us from the wrath to come, to give us life, and abundantly. Amen.

I would possibly even venture to say that jews who have moved away from Christ to post 70AD Judaism (which is not Moses and can not lead to Christ) really have no claim to any of the Scriptures, nor reason for holding them, since they are about Jesus Christ and His Work for mankind, jew and gentile.

I will henceforth only ever use the term Judaism to describe the false religion which is completely unrelated to Biblical Torah, the record of the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob wherein He established His Promise of salvation by Grace through faith in Jesus Christ to all peoples, proclaiming the Gospel to Abraham long before any Israelite nation or Mosaic System (Old Covenant) was brought in. I may be wrong in my conclusion here, please give me your thoughts on this.

Galatians 3:8
Know you therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel to Abraham, saying, In you shall all nations be blessed. 9So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

Again, going by your words:

there are common threads between OT law/customs and Jesus' teaching.

....here I am delighted beyond measure to reintroduce our sister Elin's breathtaking study of Leviticus - if anyone has not enjoyed this study, or is in need of lasting edification, this is the thread for you:

Leviticus: Seedbed of NT Theology
http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/57882-leviticus-seedbed-nt-theology.html < click

If being Christians makes each of us brother or sister of Jesus, and if He is the "first on many brothers", does not that force Him to be Christian as well?

Well, I don't suppose we can force Jesus to be anything, but I get your point, and I like it.
But the closest I would venture to that would be to say, with Paul:

Galatians 3:27
26For you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus.


May The Lord Bless you richly, Ken,
each day more and more.

Love Zone.

 

[iamsoandso]

now i find this very interesting as to the thoughts of others on this matter. i would like to give some scriptures on the matter and opinions written in other books. but i will start in the letter to the Hebrews which i always find in it's self interesting,,because as we know Barnabas and Paul were given a letter of endorsement and Judas and Silas (acts 15;23-30).
now acts 15;23 uses the plural word "letter's" but as we know also is in italics/did not appear in original manuscript,i point this out because in acts 15;30 uses the wording (the epistle,singular),,,so if Paul or some think Barnabas wrote the letter to the Hebrews it is contrary to the letter stating that they were being sent to preach to the gentiles. and that the others were to preach to the Jews(Hebrews?),,,that is even before the law(Moses)the Hebrews(descendents of Abraham) were i.e.in Egypt.

although the wording used in Hebrews is very to the point on this matter.now the letter to the Hebrews uses the examples of the sacrifices made after the order of Aaron and the sons of Levi. so is clearly using the definition of the term to refer to the temple sacrifices and the Jewish law.

now in heb.7;13-14,,,this is stated "another tribe",,,then in verse 15 he uses the phrase "another priest",,,,but(paul?) by ch 7 has explained that there was always a revision between the two,,,,then in chapter 11 he begins "by faith" with able,,then Enoch,,then Noah,,,Abraham,Issac,Jacob,,Sarah,,and continues to the end of ch 11 beginning each time with "by faith".

now in ch. 8 of Hebrews he points out in verse 5-6 that Moses was admonished as he was about to make the tabernacle it was "according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount",,,that is it was never the temple but was an "example and shadow of heavenly things" verse 5 ch.8,,,,,,,

now notice in the scriptures Hebrews 3,verse 1 "the apostle and high priest of our profession,Christ Jesus",,,3 things he calls him "apostle,high priest,and Christ",,,all in reference to Jesus,,,,,but what is the meaning to the word "apostle"?,,,,and how can it apply to Jesus?

now in Hebrews 7;4 we are told to "consider how great this man,,ect.",,,,,but notice he is quoting things to the Hebrew people that they had seen before,,that is he was explaining Christ to them according to their very law of sacrifices..but notice the quotes he gives (after the order of Melchizedek,,quoting psalms 110:4),,,match to Hebrews 5;5-6

but then go to Hebrews,,,ch. 7;1-14 what scripture is he quoting to the "Hebrews/Jews"???without mother,without father,,no beginning of days,or end of life,,,,,no descendents,,,,,made like unto the son of god abideth a priest continually....

read in gen. it does not give this information,,,nor psalms 110,,,,,in jasher and Enoch(books the Jews would have had) one states Melchizedek was Shem,,, Who Was Melchizedek? or,, Melchizedek - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ,,,,,,john 1;18 john 6;46 none have seen the father so,,,,,,

if Abraham(and others) saw Melchizedek,,he was not god(no man ever saw god),,,,Shem was born(beginning),died(end),,,has decedents,,ect. ,,,,,now look at Hebrews ch.7 verse 3 "abideth a priest continually",,,that is he is still the same priest he always was,,,,,"continually"

now of Christ,,,he has no beginning and no end,,,he is the king of righteousness,,he is the king of peace,,without father(not Adams bloodline,not joseph) and he was the creator of all things john 1;3 and john 1;10,,,,,that is "her seed" the bloodline from Eve to Mary,,,but who created his own mother? so he said "who is my mother and who is my brother",,,matthew 12;48,,,luke 8;21,,,,mark 3;35,,,

that is he came to Abraham with bread and wine,,,,and blessed him,,,,the king of righteousness,,the king of peace,,

 

[just-me]

I can't relate to very much of what is trying to be said without becoming quite confused myself as I said before being a Christian is being Christ like, knowing the original question was "Is Jesus a Christian. You are welcome to read my earlier post. With that said. I look at things in simplicity as there is simplicity in Christ. Could be that the more we try to explain our views with integrity, we fail to represent that simplicity by intellectual thoughts. I'm not saying this to point my finger in the least. With that said, I sincerely believe that most protestant religions would stop endorsing that the Old Testament is inert and obsolete (even when they say it they don't do that) that we would start to understand that the insight of those who wrote the New Testament were educated on the Old Testament. If we didn't have the Jewish/Hebrew writings, there would be no concrete understanding of the Salvation of our Christian Christ. Here is something to think about. If Jesus was of American Indian heritage then the Hebrew Old Testament would mean absolutely nothing. To finalize this thought, our Christianity is based on Jewish tradition for understanding the truth in Christ. God set it up this way. His Word says clearly what God has joined together let no man put asunder. One might say that just applies to marriage. Well then I would say to that statement, is God limited to our viewpoint?