I don't think ''Christianity'' started with Jewish people at all i think it started within the gentiles. Jesus(p) was a Hebrew who upheld the laws and warned people if they broke any law they would suffer in the here-after. Claiming that Christianity is a lite-mode of Judaism is a laughable i don't see any comparison even in the same scriptures there are major disagreements on the interpretations and teachings. Lets not forget the fact that almost any basic ''Christian'' teaching we have now would be punished by death according to original Laws.
Jesus and the original disciples and followers were Jews. Jesus preached a Jewish message, to a Jewish audience. After he died, it appears as if Peter, John (two disciples) and James (the brother of Jesus), who were all Jews, continued the mission. Paul, who was also a Jew (he may not have been the best Jew, but that is a debate for another thread), brought this same message (and he relies quite heavily on the Hebrew Bible (or the Greek translation of it) for his message as well.
Paul simply takes the message to another group, one that was already interested in Judaism (God-fearers, who many actually practiced Judaism, but hadn't converted, primarily because of concerns over circumcision which was seen as a beastly procedure to them). The "gospel" the Paul preached was still centered around Judaism, had it's roots in Judaism, and was still officially under Judaism. However, he took out some of the major problems that Gentiles had in regards to Judaism, the primary one being circumcision.
So I think the title, Judaism-lite is quite accurate. Caladan does point out something very important though, that Christianity still was a big sacrifice.
As a note, I think the original statement that motivated this thread would have been very helpful, as it would have put the statement into context. Christianity has definitely changed since when it first was started. It is a very different religion, as nearly any modern religion is when compared to the ancient forms. However, at the earliest time, and the context of the statement did imply when Christianity was first forming. To take such a statement and put it into another context simply doesn't work.
Shermana said:
This is why I advocate that orthodox "Christians" should always be hyphenated and no longer referred to as "Christians", as if they own the term itself. They should only ever be addressed as "Pauline-Christians" or "Orthodox" or "Protestant/Lutheran-Christian", to simply call them "Christian" without a hyphenation is to give them and their beliefs a respect and concession that they don't deserve.
In a way, we do this with Islam quite often, often calling them "Sunnis" and "Shia" by their divisions rather than just saying "Muslims". Why do this for Islam but not for "Christianity"?
Most actually do such for Christianity. They use Christian only in the broadest way and usually qualify it with a more specific idea. That is unless they don't take on any actual denomination, and follow Christianity in the broadest form.
At the basic foundation though, Christianity does follow the basic teachings of Jesus. However, Jesus didn't teach much. We don't have this excess of religious teachings from Jesus, as he didn't have a long ministry. His ministry was rather short, and he did not address many issues that became relevant later on. Thus, there was a need to add new teachings. When Paul did it, many of his teachings reflected his Judaism. Yes, there was later Hellenistic and various other influences, but we even see that with Jesus to a lesser extent.
I really see no problem with calling them Christian though. They are trying to be Christ like. Sure, they may not agree with your form of being Christ-like; however, I see no reason to assume you have a monopoly on such ideas.
opcorn: