Did Jesus preach with intent to start a new religion?

[jeager106]

OUTHOUSE!!!!
You simply amaze me.
I just can't be dishonest and often blurt out what I think, sometimes to my injury.
I dislike being rude also, to anyone, especially when putting things in writing even on the net.
One never knows when something could come back to bit ones butt.
That said, you simply amaze me with your knowledge. You post information that to me is so vital that
I must investigate.
One don't know what one don't know, I love knowing.
Opinions are often interesting but facts are beyond dispute and one must accept facts even if those facts
prove that one is wrong about something held dear.
I've learned over the years that humans are a million forms of self deception and many haven't the courage to
entertain that facts prove them wrong. People will twist 2 + 2 = 4 if such interferes with self image.
Humans are such odd creatures sometimes.
Most odd are those that take biblical scripture so far out of context that they will play with rattlesnakes
to demonstrate faith. Wow.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
--HERBERT SPENCER
Alcoholics Anonymous page 380 ( since moved to pg. 570)
Spencer was a very widely known English philosopher, scientist, theologin during the 1800's. He was also among the creators of the field of sociology. He was among the greatest minds of Victorian England.
(I understand about posting out of quotes.)

 

[atpollard]

A quick scan offers two issues:
There were and still are many many Jews who know nothing about Judaism let alone Jewish Law. "Him being a Jew" means absolutely zilch.
He may not have been trying to start a new religion as much as hijack the existing one.

In general, yeah.
However, taking Luke at face value, Jesus may have had an above average understanding of the OT.

From what I have read outside of Scripture, claiming to be the Messiah was almost a national sport in the first century.
I have no first hand knowledge of their motives (or even second hand knowledge) but I suspect that reformation of the temple (calling the people back to their faith) and rescue of the people from foreign oppression.
I suspect that Jesus motives might have been similar ... it was clearly a real need of the people of that day (as AD 79 proved).

In the spirit of the OP, I would like to hijack the thread and ask ...
... Do modern practitioners of Judiasm still expect a Messiah?
... What do they (you) expect him to do?

 

[Desert Snake]

In general, yeah.
However, taking Luke at face value, Jesus may have had an above average understanding of the OT.

From what I have read outside of Scripture, claiming to be the Messiah was almost a national sport in the first century.
I have no first hand knowledge of their motives (or even second hand knowledge) but I suspect that reformation of the temple (calling the people back to their faith) and rescue of the people from foreign oppression.
I suspect that Jesus motives might have been similar ... it was clearly a real need of the people of that day (as AD 79 proved).

In the spirit of the OP, I would like to hijack the thread and ask ...
... Do modern practitioners of Judiasm still expect a Messiah?
... What do they (you) expect him to do?

I'd like to get your input on that, do you expect a messiah, either the second coming of Jesus, or someone else?

 

[outhouse]

OUTHOUSE!!!!

Told you I have a passion. I love this stuff.

I guarantee you know the theology better then I do, I focus on the historical side.

With that said, the history does help to place the theology into context.

While history shows perceived biblical errors, when you wake and realize the authors did not care about them, because it was the theology that was important. The text gain a new beauty that surpasses any literal inerrant view.

Viewing the different ancient peoples views and opinions, gives more beauty then as multiple different accounts, then one view where you force square pegs into round holes trying to harmonize the accounts..

Just my 2 cents


You know why Matthew is first in the gospel accounts?

Do you know why Pauls epistles are in the order they are?


Do you know Jesus real first name , he may have actually heard?

He never heard the word Jesus called to him.

 

[outhouse]

Wait until you learn from all the popular scholars, and then develop your own hypothesis that stand up as well as any other.

It really get exciting learning about the past. I don't have one scholar I pull from. I don't agree fully with any scholar. That is why multiple views is a good thing.

I like Jonathon Reed, Candida Moss, John Crossan, some Ehrman, some Marcus Borg, E.P.Sanders and many of the classics. William Dever, Israel Finkelstein.

Here is a great source for self learning from a buddy of mine Peter Kirby.

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

And if you want the latest on the search for historicity of Jesus.

read this.

Sample Chapter for Levine, A., Allison, D., Jr., Crossan, J.D., eds.: The Historical Jesus in Context.

 

[roger1440]

How many people do you think witnessed this event?

NONE

 

[atpollard]

I'd like to get your input on that, do you expect a messiah, either the second coming of Jesus, or someone else?

As a Christian, I believe that the OT offers two seemingly contradictory glimpses into the future Messiah.
1. A suffering servant.
2. A conquering king.

I believe that he fulfilled the first prophetic view when he came in the first century.
I do, in fact, expect his return as a king who will sit on the throne of David forever.
At that point (in my humble opinion) Judiasm and Christianity will be healed of their current unnatural rift.

All just my personal beliefs and expectations ... binding on no other soul.

 

[jeager106]

Told you I have a passion. I love this stuff.

I guarantee you know the theology better then I do, I focus on the historical side.

With that said, the history does help to place the theology into context.

While history shows perceived biblical errors, when you wake and realize the authors did not care about them, because it was the theology that was important. The text gain a new beauty that surpasses any literal inerrant view.

Viewing the different ancient peoples views and opinions, gives more beauty then as multiple different accounts, then one view where you force square pegs into round holes trying to harmonize the accounts..


Just my 2 cents


You know why Matthew is first in the gospel accounts?

Do you know why Pauls epistles are in the order they are?


Do you know Jesus real first name , he may have actually heard?

He never heard the word Jesus called to him.

Yes indeed these subjects are interesting so that "interesting" just dosen't work to describe the fascination.

No I don't know His first name. I've read He was called rabbi, and His translated from Greek name is reported to be Yeshua.
Why is Mathew first and why the order of the epistles by Paul?
I assumed (bad premise I know) that they were in order of dates writen tho I doubt there was a post mark on
the letters.
When you reference Hellenistic are you meaning Hellenistic Judaism or Hellenistic Religion?

 

[outhouse]

No I don't know His first name

Isho was his name in his own language, Aramaic.

Why is Mathew first and why the order of the epistles by Paul?

Mathhew was first because it was the most popular of the 4 gospels.


Paul listed by length alone.


Just cool trivia

 

[jeager106]

"Jesus initiated the New Covenant to fulfill the promises of the Old Covenant. He established the Catholic Church, but not exactly a new religion. Christianity is the continuation of Judaism. It is the final phase of salvation history. If Christianity was seen as a new religion, it would have been seen that way only by those who rejected the Messiah. The Septuagint, the sacred Jewish texts in use during Christ’s time on earth, was the Bible that Jesus taught from. It remained the Bible of the first Christians, and still is the Old Testament of the Christian Bible."

No Jesus did not create, start, or even imply there should be a catholic church or a Catholic church.
Which catholic/Catholic to you refer too?

"not exactly a new religion" is what you state when saying he established the Catholic Church.
I posit Jesus wouldn't recognize the Catholic Church and if he were here on earth he would soundly trash the
notion.
If Jesus does indeed sit at the right hand of God I bet He's mighty upset at how bastardized His words have become, how
twisted mankind can get.
One must bear in mind that Jesus found the establishment of His day, the Jewish Heirarchy, to be a den of snakes.
The Jews in power were corrupted by the Roman government, they enjoyed riches they hadn't known prior
to playing kiss butt with the Romans. They were a wealthy, powerful, influencial, organization that did nothing
to stop the exploiting of the poor and helpless. Fact is tax collectors were dispised Jews.
Does the modern Catholic church immulate the ancient Jews in power in Jesus' day?
I don't know. I'm not Catholic or catholic.

(and outhouse comes up with interesting trivia-important to me)

 

[jeager106]

Isho was his name in his own language, Aramaic.
Mathhew was first because it was the most popular of the 4 gospels.
Paul listed by length alone.
Just cool trivia

Hey! I had to dig deep for that one. I almost took issue to say I couldn't find such a moniker but I did
and thanks for all that above.^^^^^^^
Now I can sound really cool to members of Christendom I speak with.
Awwww, sadly that would be none as I don't talk about religion to anyone in my very small
surviving family, especially to any of the KJV fundamentalist Catholics in my g-friends family.
I tried explaining why there isn't a literal Dante's Inferno Hell and almost got excommunicated from life!
Damn! You'd have thought I was attacking their religon or something.
Tried explaining where I got the basics of the info about hell.
FROM THE POPE! I fogot which modern Pope but it was the Pope who explained "hell" was a state of being
cut off from God without hope of reconcilliation but they thought I was heretic.
Some thought me demon possessed and went to confession to make themselve clean from my statanic
influence.
Oh, gawd how I love religion.

Found it.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church which, when published in 1992, Pope John Paul II declared to be "a sure norm for teaching the faith",[53] defines hell as a state involving definitive self-exclusion from communion with God:

From:
Christian views on hell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[outhouse]

Hey! I had to dig deep for that one. I almost took issue to say I couldn't find such a moniker but I did
and thanks for all that above.^^^^^^^
Now I can sound really cool to members of Christendom I speak with.
Awwww, sadly that would be none as I don't talk about religion to anyone in my very small
surviving family, especially to any of the KJV fundamentalist Catholics in my g-friends family.
I tried explaining why there isn't a literal Dante's Inferno Hell and almost got excommunicated from life!
Damn! You'd have thought I was attacking their religon or something.
Tried explaining where I got the basics of the info about hell.
FROM THE POPE! I fogot which modern Pope but it was the Pope who explained "hell" was a state of being
cut off from God without hope of reconcilliation but they thought I was heretic.
Some thought me demon possessed and went to confession to make themselve clean from my statanic
influence.
Oh, gawd how I love religion.

Found it.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church which, when published in 1992, Pope John Paul II declared to be "a sure norm for teaching the faith",[53] defines hell as a state involving definitive self-exclusion from communion with God:

From:
Christian views on hell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agreed whole hearted.

I cant talk about religion with my family. Its all over their head and they were never heavily religious anyway.

 

[columbus]

It is indesputable that a new religion was born out his teaching, His life and His death & resurrection.

This is the crux of the matter. This is extremely disputable.
Such information as exists is so sketchy and removed from the source that His very existence is debatable. The earliest writing are from Paul. He never met Jesus. And Jesus' followers would have very good reason to only tell Paul part of Jesus' true teachings, if Jesus were up to anything that could be construed as antiRoman activities. That was a capital crime and Paul's job was sending Jewish Messiah types off for execution.

I believe Paul started a new religion in Jesus' name, based upon a carefully edited version of Jesus' story.
Similarly I believe that the Gospels and Acts were only the parts of Jesus' story it was safe to commit to writing, decades after the crucifixion.

Tom

 

[Tumah]

In general, yeah.
However, taking Luke at face value, Jesus may have had an above average understanding of the OT.

From what I have read outside of Scripture, claiming to be the Messiah was almost a national sport in the first century.
I have no first hand knowledge of their motives (or even second hand knowledge) but I suspect that reformation of the temple (calling the people back to their faith) and rescue of the people from foreign oppression.
I suspect that Jesus motives might have been similar ... it was clearly a real need of the people of that day (as AD 79 proved).

In the spirit of the OP, I would like to hijack the thread and ask ...
... Do modern practitioners of Judiasm still expect a Messiah?
... What do they (you) expect him to do?

I'm not sure taking Luke at face value is ever going to be a good idea. But then again, I don't know Luke.
...Yes.
...This

 

[Skwim]

Isn't Christianity pretty much Paul's baby?

 

[Muffled]

I believe His teaching leads inexorably to a new religion. I also believe that it was His intention.

 

[Muffled]

A quick scan offers two issues:
There were and still are many many Jews who know nothing about Judaism let alone Jewish Law. "Him being a Jew" means absolutely zilch.
He may not have been trying to start a new religion as much as hijack the existing one.

I don't believe that is the case. Jesus said that a person does not put new wine in an old wineskin.

 

[Tumah]

I don't believe that is the case. Jesus said that a person does not put new wine in an old wineskin.

Yes, I'm sure you wouldn't believe it.
But you're quote notwithstanding, that's kind of exactly what he did: he took Judaism, threw out what he didn't like and called it a continuation of Judaism.

 

[Muffled]

How could anybody possibly know?

Threads such as these are, at best, conduits for baseless speculation and, at worst, an invitation to banal preaching.

I believe there is sufficient data but responses are dependant on the level of willingness to debate which probably doesn't exist among the orthodox since they are stuck with what they have.

 

[Muffled]

Yes, I'm sure you wouldn't believe it.
But you're quote notwithstanding, that's kind of exactly what he did: he took Judaism, threw out what he didn't like and called it a continuation of Judaism.

I would be interested in seeing what you construe as Jesus calling it a continuation of Judaism.

BTW I don't believe Judaism is a continuation of anything but is a modern contrivance and I would not equate the religion of the Jews of His day with Judaism.