Did Christianity Start with Jesus?

[Miken]

Jesus taught the truth from his Father's word in Holy Scripture. For example:

"He then went to Nazʹa·reth, where he had been brought up, and according to his custom on the Sabbath day, he entered the synagogue and stood up to read. 17 So the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him, and he opened the scroll and found the place where it was written: 18 “Jehovah’s spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor. He sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and a recovery of sight to the blind, to send the crushed ones away free, 19 to preach Jehovah’s acceptable year.” 20 With that he rolled up the scroll, handed it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were intently fixed on him. 21 Then he began to say to them: “Today this scripture that you just heard is fulfilled.”-Luke 4:16-21.

He not only used God's word he showed how it is fulfilled in him. Did the Jews present accept the teaching? No, they tried to murder him for it:

"Now all those hearing these things in the synagogue became filled with anger, 29 and they rose up and rushed him outside the city, and they led him to the brow of the mountain on which their city had been built, in order to throw him down headlong. 30 But he went right through their midst and continued on his way." verses 28-30.

The reason the people in the synagogue were so angry was not that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah but that he told them that God was going to favor the Gentiles.

Luke 4
20 And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21 And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” 22 And all spoke well of him and marveled at the gracious words that were coming from his mouth. And they said, “Is not this Joseph's son?”

They have no problem with Jesus at this point. Whether they are really grasping what Jesus is saying is not clear. It is when he continues that they get all worked up.

Luke 4
25 But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land, 26 and Elijah was sent to none of them but only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. 27 And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.” 28 When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. 29 And they rose up and drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff. 30 But passing through their midst, he went away.

 

[firedragon]

It's the basic concepts that involve gods.
In both stories God(s) tells them to build a boat and put animals on it so humanity can be wiped out.
Each account has a symbol from God (a neclace and a rainbow) as a symbol the Earth will never be flooded.
Both release a bird to find land and many other small similarities.
But it's the myth of God deciding to wipe out humanity, picking one couple and putting all animals on the ship. That concept is extremely specific and each culture seemed to want a version in their god-stories.

You have decided its a myth because its two parallel stories. Again, let me say this again, maybe these two sources had a single legend where "its not a myth" but they had narrated their own versions of it.

 

[Marcion]

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?

That depends on how you define Christianity.
The christian outlook is not necessarily the same thing as the original outlook of a historical Jesus (if there was one) depending on how you reconstruct that historical Jesus.

If you believe that much of the New Testament texts is the product of the christian imagination and Jesus was made to say things that differ fundamentally from his original teachings, then you will not be able to accept that Jesus was the founder of Christianity.

Were the Ebionites christians or were they a quite different type of follower of Jesus?
Can we know how typically Jewish the earliest followers of Jesus were, given that we have very little of the texts they produced?

The way Christianity in the New Testament tries to align itself with Judaism seems to me artificial and second-hand. The more original teachings of Jesus don't take much if any real interest in using actual Jewish texts, but take a more universal mystic outlook as if the producer of the teachings was speaking from his/her own experience rather than reworking religious teachings of others.

 

[Father Heathen]

Technically Christianity isn't really a "religion"

Except that it very much is.

 

[Nakosis]

That depends on how you define Christianity.
The christian outlook is not necessarily the same thing as the original outlook of a historical Jesus (if there was one) depending on how you reconstruct that historical Jesus.

If you believe that much of the New Testament texts is the product of the christian imagination and Jesus was made to say things that differ fundamentally from his original teachings, then you will not be able to accept that Jesus was the founder of Christianity.

Were the Ebionites christians or were they a quite different type of follower of Jesus?
Can we know how typically Jewish the earliest followers of Jesus were, given that we have very little of the texts they produced?

The way Christianity in the New Testament tries to align itself with Judaism seems to me artificial and second-hand. The more original teachings of Jesus don't take much if any real interest in using actual Jewish texts, but take a more universal mystic outlook as if the producer of the teachings was speaking from his/her own experience rather than reworking religious teachings of others.

My opinion, which probably isn't worth much, The gospel of Mathew spends a lot of time trying to connect Christianity, the new theology of resurrection, to the OT.

 

[Nakosis]

The historical Jesus, if we can pry him away from legend, taught the Torah. He believed he was the messiah, but he failed in his attempt. Not in a million years did he ever imagine a new religion coming into being. That was Paul's doing. Paul substantially changed the theology, so much so that the theology of Paul's writings contradicts the theology of the Tanakh. Further, Judaism, like Jesus, is concerned with Jews. Paul created something that was universal in nature, and ended up becoming hostile to Jews.

Just a question.

The Christian resurrection theology, is there anything like it in Judaism?

 

[1213]

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?

Jesus said:

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, Because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim release to the captives, Recovering of sight to the blind, To deliver those who are crushed, And to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."
Luke 4:18-19

... "Let's go elsewhere into the next towns, that I may preach there also, because for this reason I came forth."
Mark 1:38

So, he didn’t come to found a new religion. I think he came to turn people back to God. And those who followed him where called disciples of Jesus, which later were called Christians.

When he found him, he brought him to Antioch, and for a whole year they were guests of the church and taught a large crowd. It was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.
Acts 11:26

And it seems to me that the word “Christian” was originally meant as an insult.

And later, when that group grew and got property, it attracted ravening wolves that are not really disciples of Jesus, but false “prophets” who like people following them and love the money people can bring for good purposes.

 

[Miken]

Can we know how typically Jewish the earliest followers of Jesus were, given that we have very little of the texts they produced?

We have Paul describing the earliest followers of Jesus as observant Jews. Paul’s take on Christianity, allegedly received from Jesus in heaven, is that Judaism should be abandoned even by Jewish Christians, something Jesus apparently never got around to telling his disciples.

We have a major early work produced by a Jewish Christian, the Gospel of Matthew. There are those who jump through hoops trying to get around it, but Matthean Christianity is Law-observant Jewish through and through. Furthermore, Matthew takes some swipes at Pauline Christianity even to the point of steering away from Paul’s pre-existent Jesus.

The way Christianity in the New Testament tries to align itself with Judaism seems to me artificial and second-hand. The more original teachings of Jesus don't take much if any real interest in using actual Jewish texts, but take a more universal mystic outlook as if the producer of the teachings was speaking from his/her own experience rather than reworking religious teachings of others.

Paul definitely does not align Christianity with Judaism. He makes it plain that Christianity needs to become non-Jewish from its original Jewish state.

What are these original teachings of Jesus that are more universal and mystic in outlook and how do you know they are original?

 

[Kenny]

Except that it very much is.

There is truth in what you say because you can make it religious but it is supposed to be a relationship - not a religion.

For me, however, and in context of the Christian faith... it isn't a religion. That is man's interpretation.

 

[metis]

Did Jesus teach Christianity or did Jesus teach Judaism?

The latter, and from his perspective as "commentary", which is a Jewish tradition.

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?

But things changed when relatively few Jews converted.

 

[Father Heathen]

There is truth in what you say because you can make it religious but it is supposed to be a relationship - not a religion.

For me, however, and in context of the Christian faith... it isn't a religion. That is man's interpretation.

Then there are no religions at all; they're all relationships with their gods, prophets, saints, or whatever.

 

[Kenny]

Then there are no religions at all; they're all relationships with their gods, prophets, saints, or whatever.

Perhaps... I haven't asked them if they classify themselves as a religion or not.

James, the half-brother of Jesus, said this of religion:

James 1:27
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Notice an additional definition

 

[MNoBody]

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?

I would suggest that there is only one true religion and all that we are familiar with are merely tributes we humans have cobbled together over time, as best we can, despite our existential handicaps.

 

[Faithofchristian]

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?

If you take the name Christ and Christian
You will find Christ = Christian.
Or Christian = Christ.

But did you also know that Jesus Christ is found in Condemning Christians for deceiving people..

Matthew 24:5--"For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many"

So who else professes to come in the name of Christ...besides Christians..
Christ = Christian.

Therefore there are two groups of Christians in the world.....those who come to deceive many people by the their falsehoods and fables..that are taught by man's teachings and doctrines in the churches..

And there are those Christians that only goes by the teachings of Jesus Christ..
that are the true worshippers of Jesus Christ in the Spiritual realm of the Spirit of God.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Just a question.

The Christian resurrection theology, is there anything like it in Judaism?

The 13th principal in Maimonides 13 principles of the Jewish faith is "I believe by complete faith that there will be a resurrection of the dead at the time that will be pleasing before the Creator, blessed be His name, and the remembrance of Him will be exalted forever and for all eternity. "

 

[metis]

James, the half-brother of Jesus, said this of religion:

Could be a male cousin though.

 

[Kenny]

Could be a male cousin though.

Could be... I'm more of a literalist on this one:

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James

 

[metis]

Could be... I'm more of a literalist on this one:

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James

But in Koine Greek, the word for "brother" and "male cousin" is exactly the same.

Reminds me of when my Sicilian wife and I were first married, and I quickly realized that when we said "family" that we weren't using the same definition. If someone asked each of us separately "Who is in your family?", my response was to use "family" as referring to the nuclear family, whereas my wife looked at it as being the extended family.

And it wasn't just a matter of semantics, as how we relate to the extended family makes a huge difference, and I could tell ya many a story about that. My guess is that your wife may also have that same perspective as it is commonplace amongst those from a Latin heritage.

 

[Kenny]

But in Koine Greek, the word for "brother" and "male cousin" is exactly the same.

Reminds me of when my Sicilian wife and I were first married, and I quickly realized that when we said "family" that we weren't using the same definition. If someone asked each of us separately "Who is in your family?", my response was to use "family" as referring to the nuclear family, whereas my wife looked at it as being the extended family.

And it wasn't just a matter of semantics, as how we relate to the extended family makes a huge difference, and I could tell ya many a story about that. My guess is that your wife may also have that same perspective as it is commonplace amongst those from a Latin heritage.

Yes... it could be but... since the word is the same, I prefer:

Galatians 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Interestingly enough, cousin John the Baptist was never called brother.

 

[metis]

Galatians 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

But it could be "... the Lord's cousin".

In one case, the same word is used in reference to a different Mary than Jesus' mother Mary, but I'd have to look that up, however I'm leaving shortly. If you can't remember or find that reference, please let me know and I'll do the "investigation". Sherlock Holmes, at your service. Or is it Doctor Jekyll?