Did Christianity Start with Jesus?

[YoursTrue]

Jesus said if someone looks with lust they committed adultery and he was against divorce, which the Old Law allowed. Jesus didnt abolish the Old Covenant. The first Christians were like messianic Jews and gentiles. I believe in the supercessionism of Jesus with the Old Covenant, but He abolish replace it. Supersessionism - Wikipedia

More specifically, Skywalker, here's what Jesus said (Matthew 19:9):
"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."
So Jesus did allow for divorce on the grounds of sexual immorality, with the provision to marry another.

 

[Skywalker]

More specifically, Skywalker, here's what Jesus said (Matthew 19:9):
"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."
So Jesus did allow for divorce on the grounds of sexual immorality, with the provision to marry another.

Jesus brought the Old Covenant to a higher standard. He said that Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Rabbinic Judaism isn't just from the festivals found in the Bible it's also the traditions of rabbis.

Yes, the interpretations of the levites and judges, as per Deuteronomy 17:8-13, also known as Oral Torah. You can't have Torah without the Oral Torah.

Jesus supported the Oral Torah quite clearly in Matthew 23:1-3, and again in Matthew 23:23.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Abraham is said to be a descendent of Adam and Eve's offspring. Did you say you believe that?

Abraham is a historical person. Adam and Eve are not. The story of the garden of Eden is a teaching story, not history.

What does any of this have to do with the fact that the servant mentioned throughout the book of Isaiah is "Israel, my servant, Jacob"?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

How do you see God in Hitler?

Why do you ask?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The iniquity of us all wasnt laid upon Israel. Jesus took our iniquity because He doesn't want to be separated from His creation. Salvation affects more than the afterlife. Jesus also died so we could come before God. His goal wasn't social liberation of the Israelites from the Romans.

Actually it is the iniquity of Israel that is laid on the remnant of Israel, those who are obedient and faithful.

And I'm sorry, but not only is the passage not messianic, but Jesus just doesn't qualify to be the messiah, since he didn't fulfill the messianic prophecies.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Abraham is a historical person. Adam and Eve are not.

This is a statement of faith, not verifiable fact.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Some say Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi.

Did Jesus teach Christianity or did Jesus teach Judaism?

Did Jesus intend to found a new religion? Did not Jesus say that he was sent for the lost sheep of the house of Israel?

If however, you say Jesus did not come to found a new religion, then where did Christianity come from?

All of the above can be answered by first addressing the following questions:

1. Who "exactly" was Jesus?
   
   • Who is the most authorative source of information for this answer?
2. What exactly is "Christianity?"
   • Who is the most authorative source of information for this answer?
3. What exactly is Judaism?
   • Who is the most authorative source of information for this answer?
4. Concerning questions 2 and 3 what are the most ancient, authentic, and authorative terms used prior to and during Jesus's lifetime to describe those terms?
5. What is a "religion" and was this a term being used before or during his time?
6. Who was the houst of Israel during Jesus' time? Did he actually go out find these "lost sheep?" What are the names of some of the "lost sheep" he or his students "found" if they ever did?
7. When was the first instance that the term Christianity was used?
   • What language was it first used in?
   • What did the term mean to those who first used it?

If this questions were answered with sourced and meaningly commentary it would probably go a long way answering your questions.

 

[Milton Platt]

He said he came to fulfill the Law. How do you feel about that?
“Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill." Matthew 5:17

Well, I’m not sure he even existed. But no matter. Yes, he also supposedly said none of the law shall be changed until the heavens snd earth pass away. Fulfilling something is not ending or abolishing it. When you fulfill a request from a friend, you do not negate the request, you do what the request asks.

 

[Milton Platt]

Jesus followed the Law. He obviously did not practice or agree with many of the teachings of the scribes and teachers at the time.

Following Mosaic law was Judaism. Withoit mosaic law there is no Judaism as we know it.

 

[metis]

Since Jesus as personally seen or described in the Tanach is not in the writings

Because he was a Jew within the Jewish community, plus we also know he went to synagogue as was within the Temple, which only Jews could go into.

John, the writer of revelation, was a believer in Christ. He died before the advent of Constantine. He believed in Jesus. Jewish or not, John heard from Jesus in a revelation.

Even though it says it was written by "John on Patmos", some scholars wonder if there's also another author that may have been involved because the writing style is different than what's found in his epistles. Some have even theorized that maybe John the Baptist may have been part author or maybe one of his followers.

Back then, it was "kosher" for a student to write on behalf of his mentor and giving full recognition to the mentor versus themselves.

While I am pretty sure John did not wear a Jewish star around his neck, he believed in and followed Jesus.

There's no indication that Jews actually wore them back then.

 

[metis]

He knew the charge to put him to death wasn't true.

The charge most likely was what we call "sedition" nowadays, namely an attempt to undermine the Roman government. The reason why theologians are very much in agreement with this is that crucifixion was a Roman form of execution versus stoning that was done under Jewish Law.

Jesus' sedition likely fell under two categories, imo, namely his causing a scene in the Temple area, whereas the money-changers there that worked for the Romans were basically assaulted and, secondly, Jesus talking about his "Kingdom", which certainly would be viewed as a threat since monarchs don't like competition.

After saying this, he went out again to the Jews and said to them: “I find no fault in him."

Theologians question this, especially since supposedly only Pilate and Jesus were in the room. Pilate was so brutal that he was called back to Rome to account for having so many executions, thus it's not likely he would have granted Jesus mercy.

It seems possible that the blame for this was put on the Jewish crowd that supposedly yelled "Crucify him!" that would have been a subjective way of blaming most Jews who refused to convert into "the Way". But who knows?

But he knew Jesus was not guilty of the politically induced religious type charges.

Not likely "religious-type charges" as I allude to above. The Romans couldn't care less about Jewish Law as long as Jews paid their taxes and kept the order.

 

[pearl]

It seems possible that the blame for this was put on the Jewish crowd that supposedly yelled "Crucify him!" that would have been a subjective way of blaming most Jews who refused to convert into "the Way". But who knows?

And at Passover this 'Jewish crowd' were pilgrims from all over the Mediterranean, to celebrate the festival of freedom from foreign domination, but upon arriving they would see many signs of Roman supremacy most of whom never heard of this Jesus when they 'yelled crucify him'.
According to Mark Jesus was quietly arrested at night on the Mount of Olives. This means that his foes were concerned about his general popularity and feared taking him into custody publicly (cf. Mark 14:2).
All we have for possible answers is an historical reconstruction. And included in that is always the interests of the gospel authors;
To have the Church accepted as a legitimate religion in the Roman Empire.

To argue for the Church's way of being Jewish in the aftermath of the Temple's destruction by the Roman in the year 70.
To explain why the Temple was destroyed. To show that the Church's claim that the Crucified One has been raised is consistent with the Scriptures of ancient Israel.
In the case of the passion narratives, these factors contributed to a tendency to de-emphasize Roman responsibility and to highlight the role of Jewish figures in bringing about the execution of Jesus.

 

[metis]

And at Passover this 'Jewish crowd' were pilgrims from all over the Mediterranean, to celebrate the festival of freedom from foreign domination, but upon arriving they would see many signs of Roman supremacy most of whom never heard of this Jesus when they 'yelled crucify him'.

I'm not certain about that, but...

All we have for possible answers is an historical reconstruction. And included in that is always the interests of the gospel authors;
To have the Church accepted as a legitimate religion in the Roman Empire.

Nice thought, and you may well be right.

To argue for the Church's way of being Jewish in the aftermath of the Temple's destruction by the Roman in the year 70.
To explain why the Temple was destroyed. To show that the Church's claim that the Crucified One has been raised is consistent with the Scriptures of ancient Israel.
In the case of the passion narratives, these factors contributed to a tendency to de-emphasize Roman responsibility and to highlight the role of Jewish figures in bringing about the execution of Jesus.

I obviously fully agree.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

This is a statement of faith, not verifiable fact.

It's a difference of genre. Genesis 2 is a creation myth. Abraham is oral history that came to be written down. Abraham is as historical as Jesus or the Buddha.

 

[metis]

Abraham is oral history that came to be written down. Abraham is as historical as Jesus or the Buddha.

Maybe.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's a difference of genre. Genesis 2 is a creation myth. Abraham is oral history that came to be written down.

So you claim. And your evidence that Abraham is anything more than a character in an origin myth would be what, precisely?

 

[Skywalker]

So you claim. And your evidence that Abraham is anything more than a character in an origin myth would be what, precisely?

There is historical evidence that Moses existed.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So you claim. And your evidence that Abraham is anything more than a character in an origin myth would be what, precisely?

The Abraham story is not a creation myth.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is historical evidence that Moses existed.

Great. Would you mind telling us what that might be, and why purported evidence of Moses is relevant to the question of Abraham's historicity?