I know that asking this question is automatically going to bring out the wisecrackers and the flamethrowers, but I’m asking a serious question here, albeit a controversial one.
In the Christian Gospels, it is clear that Jesus did not advocate a new religion, but was talking within the Jewish framework. His followers effectively were the Jesus sect of Judaism. If you read later in the New Testament, there was a great debate about whether or Gentiles could join the sect, so it just affirms that the Jesus-followers thought of themselves as Jewish, and not members of a new religion.
Somewhere along the line, the Jesus sect was transformed into a new religion, Christianity. So what was it that caused the split? Was it when Emperor Constantine declared Christianity to be the state religion (and in my opinion, corrupted it)? Did Saul/Paul commandeer the Jesus sect towards his own ends?
A bonus question for debate: I was watching a little bit of an A&E special where they asserted that the whole story about trading Barrabus with Jesus fit neither Jewish nor Roman practice, and that it was cooked up in order to paint the Romans in a more favorable light (whom the gospel writers didn’t want to piss off). How much water does that hold?
Before you launch that flame or state that dogma, yes I am WELL acquainted with the Gospel message, and what salvation means. If you’re going to tell me I’m going to hell, and I just don’t understand what it means to be a Christian, save your keystrokes - I’m not, and I do. I’m looking for an intellectually honest discussion, which I don’t believe has to be opposed to faith.
No snottiness or flaming intended here. After all, we’re all mature.
The simple answer is that the “Jesus sect” grew beyond its roots in the area around Jersualem. The Mediterranean peoples who had little contact with Judaism in the first place would be more inclined to look at the movement as a new and different religion, not as an offshoot of something they weren’t familiar with, anyway.
As you surmised, Paul and his followers had a good deal to do with this, because they were proselytizing to non-Jews. But I think it would have happened in any case. By the end of the 1st century, the Temple had been destroyed, the Jews had been dispersed and Judaism itself was becoming a “sect.”
Well, Jesus’s brothers (John, Paul, Ringo, Harpo, Chico , Groucho , Zeppo, & Elvis Christ–Christ was the family name, ya’ll know) just couldn’t draw the crowds no’ mo’. So Colonel Parker looked at this Jesus boy and said: " Bam! You got a million $ worth of talent–sign with me & ya’ll gets a $1 million." And that’s how rock & roll music was born, chilluns’.
I’m proud of my heresy. :o
Save The Endangered Jackalope! Send Cash Now! If You Do This, I Will Use The Cash To Save Any Jackalope That I Happen To Find! Send Cash Now! Before It’s Too Late! My Bills, I Mean The Jackalope’s Bills Are Due The 15th Of The Month! This has been a message from the Illuminated Committee To Save The Jackalope. Fnord.
“The Kingdom of God as described and founded by Jesus has an historical name. It is the Christian Church, which was able silently to leaven the Roman Empire, which has outlived the ruin of the Jewish Temple and its worship, and which, in the course of centuries, has extended to the confines of the world the knowledge and the worship of the God of Abraham, while Judaism has remained the barren fig-tree which Jesus condemned during His mortal life.”
Pretty harsh words. I wouldn’t want someone trashing my reason for existence as a “barren fig tree.”
You’ll have to wade through a lot of other crap to get the full opinion, but the bottom line is that (according to this source) Jesus quietly built his own religion within Judaism which became distinct upon his resurrection.
[I like the presidential analogy: some folks prefer the fire-and-brimstone Ronald Reagan god, while others like the kinder, gentler George Bush God.
Two words–Saint Paul. He was the person responsible for convincing the infant church that its followers no longer had to follow the rites of Judaism (circumcision, kosher diet, etc.). This pretty much turned off the devout Jews, so Paul and Co. began prosyltizing (sp?) amongst the heathen.
This was around A.D. 60-80. Constantine’s time was about 200 years later.
The split between Jews and Christians was pretty much from the get-go.
The Christians stated, “Jesus Christ is the coming of the Saviour, as predicted by Daniel.”
The Jews replyed, “Nonsense. The Saviour hasn’t shown up yet, ya schmucks.”
As for why Christianity moved so far away from Judaism, I believe that Jesus stated that the Jewish restrictions (Leviticus, etc.) did not apply to those who followed him.
As for picking up the little bits and pieces of everything it ran into, well, that’s part of the reason it suceeded in becoming such a major religion. The Romans managed to build and keep an empire for a long while because they’d invade a country, make a few minor changes to the laws, send a governor over to keep an eye on things, and then just let the ‘conquered’ country go on living as normal for the most part. Likewise, Christianity showed up, made some changes to the lifestyle (‘instead of worshiping the Sun God, we worship the Son God!’), but generally didn’t upset the applecart in major ways. If Christianity hadn’t learned to absorb and adapt local paganistic rituals and holidays, it would have been much harder to get people to adopt it as a religion.
As for the Christians not wanting to piss off the Romans, it wasn’t Zoroastrians that they were throwing to the lions. Okay, that’s not really helpful, and a bit smarmy. But the point is that the Romans were very strong and influential during Jesus’ time, and while they didn’t try to interfere much with the locals in the areas they ‘controlled’, they had no compunction about stomping out any cult or group that advocated their overthrow; so setting yourself up for saying “Your people killed Christ!” to Romans was not a real good way to keep the Word alive, as it were.
JMCJ
Die, Prentiss, Die! You will never have a more glorious opportunity!
This may be an exclusively Mormon slant (or maybe not) but the idea is that the Law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ and therefore no longer necessary. The sacrifices required by Mosaic Law culminated in Christ’s sacrifice and we now commemorate that event with the sacrament, rather than continue offering sacrifices.
I realize this is more of a theological than historical answer, but it ties in with the works of Paul and the occasional debates about the obligations of new converts to live the Jewish laws.
It seems like a whole new set of rituals is sufficient reason to call it a new church.
Let’s see. I lathered and I rinsed. But did I repeat?
But NOW we can talk about it. When I hear the hideous anti-semitic talk about the Jews being responsible for killing Jesus, I think (once I get past the revulsion) (a) the killing of Jesus is what bought Christians their salvation, and (b) the Romans did it, not the Jews. Anti-semites use any excuse they can find to justify their hatred.
In answer to pluto, the whole concept of a new mitzvot (I’m sorry, commandment) superceding the old one is strictly a Pauline construct - as far as I know this concept is not in the Gospels. So that raises the possibility that it was part of Paul’s agenda, not Jesus’s.
I reckon it is simply a matter of opinon. I don’t consider Moramans, or Christian Scientists(sp?) or Jehovah’s Witnesses to be Christians. But a lot of people do. If more people agree with me over a few centuries they won’t be. If more people disagree with me they will be.
My guess would be that it was basically a combination of Paul (and a few friends) wanting to “share the(ir) good news” with everyone they could (including gentiles), discovering that the gentiles they met were rather disinclined to add all the Jewish ritual and dietary laws to their own daily lives, and a certain amount of pressure from the Jewish community to take their heresy elsewhere.
Regarding Sofa King’s quote and link to the Catholic Encyclopedia: far too many Christians still believe that sort of description, today, but I would note that the on-line C E is the 1913 edition. The RCC has made a few steps away from that sort of thinking.
“The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.” Acts 11:26
When this exchange took place is anyone’s guess, but since it’s around the time of the beginning of Saul/Paul’s ministry, I’m guessing about 10-15 years after the resurrection.
The disciples referred to themselves as “The Way” and considered themselves “completed” Jews. As in, Jesus completed the requirements of the Old Covenant (law) and replaced it with a New Covenant (grace). The Jews considered “The Way” to be a heretical sect within Judaism, and apparently most gentiles felt the same way. Apparently the reaction at Antioch convinced the disciples that they were, indeed, part of a new religion.
I did forget that first mention of the term “Christian” in Acts. But perhaps back then the term “Christian” didn’t imply a new religion any more than “Lubovitcher” (sp?) does now, the latter simply being a Jewish sect. I don’t remember any extra-Pauline references to Christians being “completed Jews”, but perhaps you’ll fill me in if I missed something. I may be forced to dust off my Strong’s Concordance before this thread gets stale…
The quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia is rather old. A more recent and official publication, The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
IOW, the official Roman Catholic position is that salvation is not only available for non-Catholics, but very probable for any good Jew.
WRT the OP:
Within Judaism of the 1st century, there were different ‘branches’ which interpreted the Law and the Jewish tradition in varying ways. (Much like today, with Orthodox, Reformed, etc…)
Jesus was a popular figure outside any of the established branches. His own particular spin on the Law and Tradition was popular with the people (especially the disenfranchised) and unpopular with certain Jewish leaders.
Certain Jewish leaders condemned Jesus as a Jewish heretic and arranged for his execution. They then persecuted his followers (especially after the disciples started procalaiming that Jesus rose from the dead and was not only the Messiah but also the Son of God.
Understandably, this drove the followers of Jesus to not only go underground, but to take their message to others who were far from the powers that be in Jerusalem – Samaritans, Hellenistic Jews, Jews in the disapora (dispersion – they lived too far away to regular get to the Temple), and finally, to the Gentiles.
When the Jews revolted against the Romans circa AD 70, the Romans destroyed the Temple, leaving the Jewish priesthood to fall apart. Not being in a good mood, and now in charge of the Tradition, the Synagogue leaders (who evolved later into modern day Rabbis), officially expelled all Jews who were followers of Jesus and the New Way.
The ‘Jewish Christians,’ up to this point had been trying to be faithful Jews who happened to believe that the Messiah had already come. They went to the Temple and to the synagogues. They prayed and practice their Jewish faith, and, they practiced the New Way of ‘The Christ.’ They adhered to the Sabbath, and then celebrated the Sunday resurrection. However, with the expulsion from the synagogues, they started to see themselves as a different religion from the rest of Judaism. (The synagogue leaders already regarded them as such.)
The Gentiles who accepted The Way had no problem with the expulsion from the synagogues. They were already allowed to follow The Way without having to follow all the Jewish Laws and Traditions. And now, with the complete break from Judaism, the Way began to be called ‘Christianity’ (see quote from Acts in an earlier post). And Christianity, divorced from any strict adherence to Jewish Law and Tradtion spread like wildfire through the Roman Empire. From here on in history, Christianity continued to drift from its original Jewish roots, although, by accepting the Jewish scriptures as sacred text, never completely abandoned its Jewishness.
NOTE TO ALL: Paul’s role in spreading the gospel was important, but not as ground breaking as you are all making it out to be. In Acts, Gentiles hear and accept the gospel, receive the Spirit, and are baptized way before Paul has his conversion. And this involved and got the approval of Peter. When Paul came on the scene, the Way was already spreading among Gentiles – Paul simply accelerated it (and successfully defended it from being re-Judaicized).
And that’s how the Jesus sect no longer was regarded by Jew or Gentile as being a Jewish sect.
Wow, Moriah, what a great answer! I was afraid I was going to have to wait untill I got back home after Christmas to do a bunch of research (looking through my bookshelf) to get the SD with which to enlighten everyone, but you did a great job. You even mentioned the conversion of gentiles under Peter in Acts. Religion is one of my pet subjects, and I hate seeing great and answerable questions like Jolt’s get only half-answers. Thanks!
Thank you moriah for the thoughtful answer. I just have a few questions to ask about your post.
First of all, a bit of opinion, not directed at you. The section from the The Catechism of the Catholic Church shows that the Roman Catholic is more friendly to Jews, but in a still condescending way. The whole thought that Judaism was just a warm-up act for Christianity detracts from the majesty of the ongoing fact that the Jews are still G-d’s chosen people, who have the mission of keeping his mitzvot (commandments/good deeds) as a light to the world, New Covenant or no. It’s attitudes like this that keep things chilly between Judaism and the Roman Catholic Church.
In paragraph 3, you say:
I know this is in the Gospels, but what do you say to the statement I heard on that A&E show, that the trading Barrabas’ life for Jesus’ was most likely a concoction to appease the Romans? If that’s so, then is the set-up by the Temple leadership just part of that story?
In paragraph 6, you state that the members of The Way were expelled by the leadership as a result of shift in power brought by the fall of the Temple (paragraph 5). Are you supposing this, or is this documented somewhere?
I revisited Acts 10 and the first half of 11, where G-d gives Peter a vision, then sends him Cornelius. You’re half right, it was Peter to introduced Gentiles into The Way. But it was Paul who came up with the whole idea of a New Covenant, at least as far as I can tell. So I ask again – is the whole idea of a New Covenant all Paul’s idea?
According to my new Almanac Christianity was made the official state religion of the Roman Empire in 380 CE by Theodosius. Justinian was a Byzantine and became emperor in the East in 527. Or are we talking about different guys?
OK, I confess, I’m ignorant of most history pre-1K. I always thought it was Constantine, but now I’m sure I don’t know. And I realize now I’ve been assuming that the act of making Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire introduced political corruption into the Church. And since I’m fuzzy on that era of history, I’m assuming there was still one Church, and that was before the Roman Catholic/Byzantine split.
Jolt Sucker, there will always be a problem with any statement by a Christian group regarding Judaism. Christianity accepts Jesus as Messiah and as God. The first simply makes no sense in the context of Judaism and the second is blasphemous. If Christianity is not to regard itself as blasphemous, it must describe Judaism as having “missed” the point of the coming of Jesus, His Resurrection, and His divinity.
Between Judaism and Christianity, at least one group is wrong concerning God’s involvement with humanity in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. We can be respectful of each other’s beliefs (which has happened far too rarely when Christians have looked at Judaism), but we can’t very well say “Yes, they are right” without introducing the corollary “So, we must be wrong.” This makes it rather difficult to say anything without upsetting someone.
I think we should always respect the others’ beliefs. I think that a comparison between the (personal thoughts expressed in the) 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia and the (official expression of Catholic belief found in the) current Catechism indicates that at least one group of Christians are attempting to find a way to express our differences in a respectful manner. I suspect that the only way for us to avoid all offense would be to agree to believe the same things (won’t happen) or to say nothing at all. The problem with the second option is that it allows the fomentors of hatred to push their agenda while giving their opponents no official backing to oppose the lies of the haters.
I would choose to not be insulted if a Jewish forum talked about the inherent misunderstanding of the messianic prophesies held by Christians. If some/all Jews find the statement of the Catechism to be insulting, I can only point out that it is an internal document discussing Catholic beliefs among Catholics. It is not intended to be insulting; it is intended to identify Catholic beliefs. (And the RCC absolutely identifies Jews as the “Chosen People” today.)
