The first Jedi?

This isn't a reworking of the mythos created around the historical person or his philosophy. This is specifically about the philosophy of his teachings as applied to Reality..

The first part of that philosophy being The Father, i.e. The One Light, or, One Force. Since, as he stated, The Father is Spirit. Which is beyond a being, as God is usually described. This, to me, is fundamental to understanding Yeshua's teaching. As James further explains it, God is above, throughout, and within all things. We are to understand that not only are all things are connected in this Force. They are also born and engendered by this spiritual light.. we're not separate from The Force, but are it's childern..
"The Kingdom of God is within you and outside of you" -Gospel of Thomas

This is only one of many examples of this philosophy. Yeshua teaches "the kingdom" repeatedly. Telling us that we too are "gods" as being born of God. That we are to embody and project "the kingdom" or The Light. Whereas Buddha was about ascension. Yeshua was about embodiment. Though he also taught redemption and reconciliation to The One as did Buddha. Both teaching a repentance from worldly desire..

In a sense, Yeshua improved on Buddha's teaching. Mostly by teaching how to bring Heaven down to Earth instead of just escaping the Cycles of Karma/Suffering. Which is what repentance does for us..
This concept is actually present in the Star Wars mythos. There's Yoda, who could be described as the Buddha with his insistence on detachment. Then there was Qui-Gon, who was not detached so much as he was aware of the Will of The Force. Though being younger and informed by Yoda. He surpassed and taught his former master..

So, as my definition of "Jedi" as one who embodies The Force. Yeshua fits the bill as that "chosen one"

Just to make sure that this is a meaningful thing to be saying, can you name one or two individuals, current, historical, or fictional that couldn't be reinterpreted to have all along been Jedi really deep down using the same sort of reasoning? Also, just to make sure the challenge can be set fairly, let's briefly recap what the rules are that are consistent with and permissive of your inference that the Nazarene was a Jedi, but also do not permit what ever other person you would be proposing to not fit the bill to be interpreted to fill it after all.

I do not mean that others don't fit the practice, but that the Nazarene "completed" the practice..

That's why I used the Qui-gon example..

Qui-gon came from a long line of practitioners. However, he would be one of a VERY few who could be said to have lived the purpose of what it was to practice that philosophy.. by not only adhering to the will of The Force, but by achieving a deep connection with it. A connection which allowed him to retain hims form in the afterlife. Yoda called it the secret of immortality..

I'm not being exclusive towards others that some may feel I'm purposefully neglecting due to favouritism.. I know Christianity, or any religion for that matter, can trigger some emotional reaction..

Are you suggesting that modern day Jedi can also follow in his foot steps and "complete" the journey, so to speak, to immortality? What happens to those that dont?

Why precisely Jesus (Yeshua)? Long before Jesus were bodhisattvas whose actions were very similar to the Jedi. Helping people, the pursuit of peace ...

The Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, John were recognized as "true" at the Council of Nicaea, in 325. Just like the other canons that are included in the Bible. But it happened almost 300 years after the death of Jesus. During 33-325 years A. D., the texts have changed, it is natural. And if we add Dead Sea Scrolls to the biblical texts, then we will see that direct contradictions begin there. Unfortunately, I do not have Qumran Caves Scrolls texts on my computer right now, and I cannot give an example. What is it for? This is the question of how much we know about the true teachings of Jesus and his actions. And, accordingly, can we say that it can be called "Jedi".

I do not find these particular topics of first Jedi particularly useful or all together appropriate. Calling historical or for that matter Mythical people (depending on which you believe is rather strange as Jedi ism as we see it is a relatively new identity and the people in those other times didn't have that type or anything close to the language and we do not get to call them first jedi simply to make ourselves feel warm and fuzzy about it.

i look to Jesus and Buddha as teachers and people of wisdom but they did not identify as jedi and we should not impose it on them.

In my query I did specify that it was about checking if this is a meaningful statement to make. I'm not accusing you of or trying to have you be exclusive with it. The point is that if everyone can be interpreted to have been (or perfected, as the case may be) Jedi all along, then it really doesn't mean anything to say taht Yeshua was, because everyone was and so it's entirely unremarkable. If no line can be drawn anywhere at all, then the label means nothing, just an alternative way of saying that we're all human or so. Sure, one may fairly call that accurate if one must, but to the extent that it is it's also trivial.

Well, my definition of "Jedi" is plainly someone who seeks the truth of the One divine and Unified Power that's behind reality. A search for a way to connect, and eventually become in sync with it.. or, finding the Kingdom, as it's put..

We're not at all different from those ancient seekers of truth and immortality. Jedi fits them just as much as Buddha would fit people of our time. There's nothing new about what goes on here save for the particular use of terms..

What I'm pointing out is that there is something more to "The Way" than just helping people. Something deeper that involves a change in nature. Also with that, a realization of Power.. This deeper aspect touches on things past the temporal world.. things like "whoever LIVES the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death".. but how do we not taste death when all of us will die? How will we not even when the soul can die?.. These are the things that need answering.. and Yeshua gives the best demonstration of Immortality..

A thought that I hope doesn't go too far astray -

I'm sensing in some of the contributions in this thread a hunt for clear, firm rules. Like:

"What is the standard that defines a Jedi?"
"What are the boundaries that separate Jedi from others?"
"Is Jediism a universal practice, with its recognition only a matter of degree?"

By contrast, I think we might be in a realm where the rules are fuzzy and blurred. In our records of Jesus, when he explained how someone might be healed, how they could be lifted from depravity, or even who he was, he didn't say, "A disciplined application of Aristotelian logic would suggest the answer is ... "; he said, "It has been given to you by faith."

Answering whether Jesus was "the first Jedi" perhaps is at least as much a matter of the heart as of the mind - a quest for the artist as much as the scientist. How do we relate to him? Has he touched our lives - and if so, how? Does he matter? Was he actually virtuous? Was he real? Was he truly sent by the Creator? Our answers to these things are personal, and influence how we may see him and his Jedi-ness.

My early life was strongly influenced by Protestant Christianity, and though my perspective has broadened markedly since then I find it impossible to purge my psyche of those early teachings. I can fairly easily regard Jesus as the first Jedi, but also understand that others may not. Perhaps it's a question that does not demand an objective answer, but rather a subjective one.

No.

Co-opting people of other religions after their death is a dirty thing to do and gives false impressions of the age of a tradition/religion. This is the same problem I have with Wicca, which falsely claims thousands of years of history and with Mormonism (which I take greater issue with), members of which actually “baptize” the dead into their religion.

The best you could possibly do is say that “this historical figure” might have been a good example of “x” ideal because of “y.” Or you could say “our religion takes inspiration from this historical figure/tradition.”