The first Jedi?

I've been doing some reading as of late. Along with some research revolving around early Christianity..

The area of my research was around the so-called "gnostic" movements. As well as the common misconceptions about it. From reading different books like the Gospel of Thomas or Valentinian scripture. I don't see the commonly held views about non-orthodox movements..

Which brings me to my main point..

To me, in the non-canonical scripture, Yeshua is teaching about the indwelling of The Light. How that process is done and what it gives. Also about the distinction between Light(Fulness) and Darkness(Emptiness).. This being one with "The Father of Lights", or The Force, as the true purpose of the teaching has parallels within canonical scripture as well. It seems to me that the crucifixion, that's so focused on today, was only an outer demonstration of the Truth..

Could Yeshua have actually been what we could call the first Jedi? A person who not only knew the Light(The Force) but lived it? Could he have been the first to fully embody what some people call God?..

https://theculturetrip.com/asia/articles/the-8-oldest-religions-in-the-world/

Jedi is, in the end, a matter of identity.

For example, my parents are Noahide. And I find few things as irksome as when I do something... i dunno, honest, selfless, ect (because I am a Jedi)... and they say that it's a very Noahide trait, as if I'd join their faith simply because they're my parents. Faith, whichever way it is directed, if directed at all, when practised is an identity. He was Jewish, and did all he did as such and identifying as such.

So would he be 'the first Jedi'? No. Even if living light made one as such, he wasn't the first to do so, so that would rob him of this 'first' thing. But he didn't identify as a Jedi, and thus wasn't one.

For the most part I'd just echo Ari's points, but let's say for the sake of it we all get together at the great big prophet-hijacking meeting and decide that Yeshua (Or Prince Adam) was "The First Jedi"

What difference does it make?

I'm not trying to be flippant, I'm just wondering if there is an If/Then/Else sort of thing to this, or if you may as well have said the moon is made of cheese, it can be debunked (or not) and it changes nothing to how anyone does business.

As a Jedi you are allowed to make up what ever mythology you want and then take that and reinterpret it into other mythologies just as you have done here. By corrupting other mythos in this way you embody the spirit of what Jediism is through the excuse of syncreticism. So sure Joshua was the first Jedi, what ever you say!

If we're renting key historical figures to prop up our mythology can we avoid all the popular ones?

Lets have Diogenes (Patrol Saint of Trolls), Ted Kaczynski (Patron Saint of complaining about the ways things are), and Simo Häyhä (Patron Saint of Getting Things Done), and Eiichiro Oda (Pirates are cool)

The usefulness of the Jedi label is to identify with the movement. As such, it makes no sense to call someone from another time a Jedi.

As for the eternal ineffable Truth we all seek, it has so many names, we can’t possibly expect to lay claim to it exclusively.

Also, Buddha beat Jesus to it.

I can go with Jesus (Yeshua) being a Jedi, even though he didn't call himself one. American Indians, Neanderthals, and savants haven't applied those labels to themselves either, but that is nevertheless what they are based upon their cultural and physical traits.

But if we accept the Christian history as having at least a possible basis in fact, he wouldn't be first. The Jewish prophet Elijah ascended before him, and Moses freed his people from what seems to have been seen as an otherwise unopposable enslavement. Joseph, robbed and cast into slavery, shows his Jedi-ness in his ultimate forgiveness of his siblings. The Buddhist Bodhisattvas would almost certainly qualify as well. Each of these displays a devotion to most of the Jedi ideals in the very expression of their lives, even though they never even heard the word "Jedi".

Since JamesSand proposed some non-traditional historical names to consider as Jedi, I'll propose a few others - not all so well known - to add to the list. I'll nominate Corrie Ten Boom, Emma Goldman, Smedley Butler, Oskar Schindler, Chris Gardner, Ralph Nader, and - if a fictional character may be allowed - Forrest Gump.

JamesSand wrote:
Lets have Diogenes (Patron Saint of Trolls)

Took me a while to remember what Diogenes had to do with trolls, and then I remembered he was a troll in the metaphorical sense Given the stories with Alexander's shadow and Plato's chicken, I pick up some mischievous "Yoda" vibes from Diogenes. But he's definitely not a pillar of moral character...

I'd agree with Arisaig - Jediism is an identity and a perspective more than an infallible code. You could look anywhere in history and find a shred of something that meets your definition of Jedi. So some of us might align the core of our Jediism with Siddhartha, while others find it in the teachings of the early Christians.

Personally, my "Jedi identity" was shaped most strongly by ecology and stoicism. The latter could possibly fit your definition of "The first Jedi", if you consider that Zeno of Citium, founder of Stoicism, dates back to around 300 BC. I've actually never read any of Zeno's work so I can't personally vouch for him. But I've always viewed the teachings of Epictetus, Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius as in harmony with the doctrine here.

Jedi are all about the human experience, and who best explained what humanity is all about than Diogenes (who predated Jesus)?
We really ought to have a pantheon of Jedi saints of sorts

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.”