OK, guys, this is a part I'm struggling to make sense of. Does it really make any difference who is "right" and who is "wrong" on a matter like this? I would think this is a trivial thing that has absolutely no bearing on salvation, or how any one of us will answer G-d when we stand before Him in judgement and He asks "what have you done for me?"
All of you have heartfelt beliefs. Cool. Go with it...what do you do for G-d with those beliefs? Argue with others? What purpose does that serve? Does that not fuel the very warlike prejudicial hatreds and enmity not only between faiths, but between denominations of the same faith? do we stand before G-d at the Great White Throne and say, "I argued the daylights out of all the other non-belivers, Lord!" What do we reply when He tells us, "Yeah, well, you were pretty much on target, but you missed the high notes. And that means you weren't quite as right as you thought you were in your judgement of others. Come to think of it, I seem to remember asking you not to judge others. But since you did, we've got no choice but to judge you by the same set of standards you held others to...hmmm, let's see here...look's like you insisted on perfection...and guess what, you didn't hit that mark. By your own judgement you are judged wanting...ooops, sorry...next please."
Right and wrong is important to the point that we all must have an internal guide. But the days of homogenized societies are long gone. Now we have whole nations built of multiple cultures, not so much a melting pot as a patchwork quilt, as I've heard others allude to. These multiple cultures struggle in their history to accept each other, and over time they get better at it. But the biggest obstacle to overcome is prejudicial judgement. Who cares who is right and who is wrong, G-d will sort it out. The key thing is to do *your* best to do what you understand as right, and leave the judgement to G-d.
Jesus was born and raised a Jew.
Whether He could be said to be the first Christian depends on semantics. If "Christian" equals "Christlike", then it could be argued that as the prototype model for being Christ, then I guess it could be said He is the first Christian, by definition. However, by this definition, one must of necessity exclude His followers, because they were not and are not Christs. Now, if by the term "Christian" one means "follower of Christ," then it stands to reason that those who followed Christ are Christians, but the leader is not the follower, therefore Christ in this sense cannot be called the first Christian.
It really is a dumb argument, with no relation to salvation or peaceful interaction. Why waste the effort?
