Armenians - Turks - the provocation starts in Europa

[IAmMadAtAC]

You are correct my dear. I was actually going to respond to that, but you beat me to it. If you read the Gospels and practice Christianity then it is indeed Pauline.

Hahahah thank you goey! Glad to have someone who understands what they're talking about and agreeing with me! You seems like my type of person haha!

[Tres Bien]

I absolutly do agree with your statements that Jesus never called himself christian, so on.
but what is the point in saying he was JEWISH? It has no value whatsoever, it just confuses people who wants to learn about christinity. Jesus went against all the teachings of judaism, and said this is wrong. do not take revange but turn the other cheeck around.He thought it was a injustful regime in wich was ruling.

Therefor there is no value in calling him Jewish, as judaism stands for something else than what Jesus preached.

[XxgoeyxX]

Hahahah thank you goey! Glad to have someone who understands what they're talking about and agreeing with me! You seems like my type of person haha!

Hehehee....

Well thank goodness a semester of Bible study didnt go to waste.

[IAmMadAtAC]

I absolutly do agree with your statements that Jesus never called himself christian, so on.
but what is the point in saying he was JEWISH? It has no value whatsoever, it just confuses people who wants to learn about christinity. Jesus went against all the teachings of judaism, and said this is wrong. do not take revange but turn the other cheeck around.He thought it was a injustful regime in wich was ruling.

Therefor there is no value in calling him Jewish, as judaism stands for something else than what Jesus preached.

Jesus was not some anti-Jew, why did he celebrate Passover and read in the Temple then?? Some of the things he preached could be seen as going against the Judaism of the time, but for the most part he opposed the Pharasees and other such leaders of Palestine. He was on the side of the common man, and usually common Jew, but of course for Samaritans and all ethnicities in the world. He was not some anti-Jew going around decrying Judiasm, but preached a new type of it. His successor, St. Peter, preached Jesus's teaching as something exclusively FOR JEWS. If he had had his way, Jesus's teachings would remain an alternative way of Judaism. Peter thought becoming Jewish was a prerequisite- something necesarry- before one could come into the Christian fold. It was St. Paul who said Jesus's teachings were for the gentiles as well. St. Peter was vehemently against Paul's bringing Jesus's teachings to non-Jews though and they did not get along, but in the end it was Paul's way that dominated and greatly shaped the Christianity we know today. It's clear that you don't know all the backstories around the founding of Christianity if you want to claim that Jesus tore himself away from the Jews and went around founding a totally new religion.

[Tres Bien]

What is christianity??????????What was the point in jesuse's teaching if it wasn't against the regime in wich he lived in?????
I dont care of that he went to the temple, and read the torah so on.

The question is about Christianity, that was what jesus was the founder of, then later add St Paul if you like!So jesus was a jew, but he went against his religion and the laws of that religion what else dont you understand?
He obivously did not intend to start a new religion...

[Armenian]

If you believe that Christ was a product of an immaculate conception, then Christ's genetic makeup becomes irrelevant. If you do not believe in the faith, then consider the following theosophical analysis regarding Christianity.

Christianity is, in essence, a non-Hebraic "pagan" faith system - theologically, philosophically and ethically. I recommend you all to learn about Pythagoras, Mithraism, Zoroastrianism and Buddha, in order to better understand Christianity and better appreciate Christ. Non-Hebraic theosophies of Christianity are as follows:

The Holy Trinity (pagan in origin).

The Holy Spirit (appearing exclusively within the New Testament and the only other place that it is mentioned is within Zoroastrianism).

The son of God (a non-Hebraic concept that was ubiquitous within the heathen world).

The nature and order of the angelic world (exclusively Zoroastrian).

The need for universal proselytizing (Zoroastrian).

Nature of the spirit world (Zoroastrian and pagan).

Sainthood and clergy celibacy (Exclusively pagan).

A virgin giving birth to a God (exclusively Hellenic and Egyptian).

God descending upon earth to dwell with mankind (Hellenic and Egyptian).

God being all-good, compassionate and loving (Zoroastrian).

Last judgment at the end-days (Zoroastrian).

Prayers offered for the dead (Zoroastrian and pagan).

Cleansing and purification rites through water (Zoroastrian).

Partaking in a communal bread breaking ritual (Mithraism/Zoroastrian and pagan).

The nature of the demonic world, Satan and heaven/hell (Zoroastrian).

Moreover, keep in mind that according to scriptures:

Most of the apostles, though Jews, were thoroughly Hellenized.

Christ was only versed in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures.

Christ know as "the King of the Jews" only spoke Aramaic.

Why were the very first worshipers of Christ Zoroastrian priests (Magi)?

Why are there serious discrepancies regarding Christ's "Hebrew" genealogy?

Why did the Pharisees and Sadducees (and also the Talmud) insinuate that Christ was not an ethnic Jew?

Zoroastrian/Hellenic/Babylonian/Egyptian/Buddhist traditions predated Judaism by centuries. The apostles, most of whom were Hellenized Jews, seemed to have gone to great lengths to directly connect Christ to Hebrew scripture within their writings in order to convert the Jews from their primitive and corrupt faith. That is precisely the reason why there were 'contrived' attempts by the apostles, such as Christ sitting on a donkey and entering Jerusalem, to convince the Jews at the time that Christ was their long awaited messiah. Unfortunately, our present day understanding of Christ is primarily based on these very contrived attempts of the apostles. These attempts of the apostles, however, would prove to be a futile effort. For Christ, as God on earth, was such an indigestible theosophical concept for a great majority of Jews that he was mercilessly put to death.

For what ever reason, the "Hellenized" Jewish apostles were very concerned about convincing the Jewish population of Asia Minor and the Levant at the time that Christ was their long awaited messiah. Nevertheless, even after the many contrived efforts, the general population and especially the religious establishment DID NOT RECOGNIZE CHRIST TO BE AS THEIR PROMISED MESSIAH. THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER ABLE TO RECOGNIZE THEIR PROMISED MESSIAH BETTER THAN US PAGANS. Jewish theologians laugh, still to this day, at us Christians when we tell them that our Christ was their "promised messiah." Frankly, I do not blame the Jews for rejecting Christ because Christ was NOT their expected savior. That is precisely the reason why the Jewish religious establishment was extremely concerned about Christ's "corruption" of the Jewish faithful. Christ was considered a wizard and wicked man who practiced theosophies associated with paganism. Nothing about Christ other than coincidental and/or contrived, such as Christ conscious effort to sit on an donkey prior to entering Jerusalem, was what Jews were expecting in their messiah - according to "their" scriptures.

My advice to you all: Mediate on this topic, reread the Old/New Testament, read about Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Pythagoras and Egyptian mythology. Give it time, it will all make sense.

Someday I will start a thread regarding Christianity's non-Hebraic roots. But for now this much should suffice.

[IAmMadAtAC]

The question is about Christianity, that was what jesus was the founder of, then later add St Paul if you like!So jesus was a jew, but he went against his religion and the laws of that religion what else dont you understand?
He obivously did not intend to start a new religion...

You have it wrong. Yes Jesus is the founder of Christianity, that doesn't mean he wasn't a Jew though. This is a hard concept to understand, but it can be applied a bit to, let's say, Social Darwinism. While not a religion, it is a belief system rooted in the teachings of Charles Darwin, who in no way was a social Darwinist (which was used to justified racist notions like Jews were inferior... hmm sounds familliar... to this board?!) Jesus did lay the foundation of beliefs for Christianity, but the religion did not develop until a few decades after his death. Jesus never said, I am no long a Jew, I am a Christian and I want my teachings to be a religion.
Also you keep saying Jesus went against the system and equate it with all Jews. Yes he went against the system of the time, the pharisees who were corrupt. That does not mean he hated all Jews and was not one. You also admit that Jesus did read the Torah, went to Temple, and like I added was celebrating Passover the night he was betrayed. Now is there Passover in Christianity?? No! It's only a Jewish holiday. Why would Jesus, who was "not a Jew", celebrate a Jewish holiday?

[IAmMadAtAC]

Why were the very first worshipers of Christ Zoroastrian priests (Magi)?

I don't really know much about Zoroastrianism and all that in order to respond to most of these claims, but this one stuck out like a sore thumb. That the magi of the nativity story even existed is quite in doubt (they only appear in one out of four Gospels) and there is so little known about them. There is so little in fact, that all it says about them is that they came from the East. That could have been anywhere, and assuming they were Zoroastrian priests is a reckless leap of faith trying to prove a point. Many say, for example, that IF they existed they could have been from the area of what is now Iraq, which was well-known for its astronomy, and far as I know would not be Zoroastrianism since that would have been in Iran.

[Anonymouse]

Jesus was not some anti-Jew, why did he celebrate Passover and read in the Temple then?? Some of the things he preached could be seen as going against the Judaism of the time, but for the most part he opposed the Pharasees and other such leaders of Palestine. He was on the side of the common man, and usually common Jew, but of course for Samaritans and all ethnicities in the world. He was not some anti-Jew going around decrying Judiasm, but preached a new type of it. His successor, St. Peter, preached Jesus's teaching as something exclusively FOR JEWS. If he had had his way, Jesus's teachings would remain an alternative way of Judaism. Peter thought becoming Jewish was a prerequisite- something necesarry- before one could come into the Christian fold. It was St. Paul who said Jesus's teachings were for the gentiles as well. St. Peter was vehemently against Paul's bringing Jesus's teachings to non-Jews though and they did not get along, but in the end it was Paul's way that dominated and greatly shaped the Christianity we know today. It's clear that you don't know all the backstories around the founding of Christianity if you want to claim that Jesus tore himself away from the Jews and went around founding a totally new religion.

But that's the thing, there was no "Judaism" then "at the time" because there were no Jews. It was the Pharisees who adhered to the Talmud, which as Freedman notes is more appropriate if you call it "Talmudism", and this is the basis of Judaism. The Torah isn't anything it's just the Old Testament. The Talmud is the key here. Jesus was neither a Jew nor a follower of Judaism. It is incorrect to call Hebrews as "Jews". Hebrews, Romans, Greeks, etc all in the area were referred to as Judeans since the area was known as Judea geographically. There were no such thing as "Jews" who followed a religion called Judaism.

[Armenian]

There is so little in fact, that all it says about them is that they came from the East. That could have been anywhere, and assuming they were Zoroastrian priests is a reckless leap of faith trying to prove a point. Many say, for example, that IF they existed they could have been from the area of what is now Iraq, which was well-known for its astronomy, and far as I know would not be Zoroastrianism since that would have been in Iran.

Apparently, there is allot you do not know my friend.

All of the lands under Persian influence and/or occupation, including Armenia, Iraq, Syria, Anatolia, Caucasus and central Asia were Zoroastrian by faith and culture - for about a thousand years.

All theologians and historians agree that the Magi were most likely Persian priests (however, they could have easily been Armenians as well).

You tell me what does "MAGI" mean, even if it does only appear once - scripturally speaking, once one is more than enough.

The Armenian term in question is known as Moker (adjective-Mokakan, meaning magical). The word Magi, moreover, is also where the word English word Magic comes from. The ancient Magi were known to perform magic/miracles and were excellent astronomers.

All of Armenia's classical kings were Zoroastrian priests as well. King Trdat of Armenia introduced Mithraism (Mher), a cult of Zoroastrianism, to Rome. For centuries thereafter, Mithraism (Mherakan) ruled supreme within Roman lands. Christianity also has a lot of similarities with Mithraism.

Lands where Aryan Persians at the time dwelled were know as the East, for that was also where the Zoroastrian sun rose. The sun represented the all-good, supreme creator God.

In my opinion, the Magi of the "East" (Zoroastrian "sun" priests) paying homage to Christ (the sun of God) is one of the most profound mysteries of Christianity. Yet, today, we have brain dead Judeo-Christians buffoons who are clueless of what it mean to be a Christian.

The depth of our Christian faith is beyond any persons grasp.