Did Jesus preach with intent to start a new religion?

[jtartar]

To establish a few suggestions for debate can we assume Jesus was a Jew?
Him being a Jew He would have been well educated in Jewish Law.
This is presented in the N.T. when Jesus was a boy and it was witnessed that He had great
knowlege of Jewish law.
"And Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit. News about Him spread through all the surrounding district and He began teaching in their synagogues and was praised by all."
Lk. 4:16-24.
In my reading/studying of the Christian bible I have yet to see anything specific that suggests He intended
to start a religion different than the Jewish faith.
There is no doubt Jesus had Jewish roots and echoed the plea of former prophets before Him
to repent and return to God. That would be parochial, to follow Jewish law.
" I have come only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Matt. 15:24
It is indesputable that a new religion was born out his teaching, His life and His death & resurrection.
His intent was to bring people back to God and to draw all people to Himslef. John 12:32
His purpose was to reform the existing religious institution that would abolish the corruption
of the existing religious hierarchy.
Anyone can feel free to post here if they like unless the staff prohibits such.

jeager106,
Jesus was definitely a Jew, from the tribe of Judah, Heb 7:14, Gal 4:4,5.
As for the language that Jesus spoke; there was not a language on earth that he could not speak. Remember Jesus was with God when he gave Adam the Hebrew language, Gen 11:1, 6-9. Both God and Jesus knew every language on the earth.
Jesus knew that the Mosaic Law Covenant was a De Bene Esse, or interim Covenant. It was only to be in force until the Messiah would come to earth, Jere 31:31-34, Gal 3: 22-25.
Jesus knew the the Law would end at his death. Jesus even told the religious leaders that the kingdom would be taken away from them and given to ones who would produce it's fruits, Matt 21:42-45. The Mosaic Law Covenant ended with the death of Jesus, except for one part, the part that allowed only the Jews to become Christians for another 3 1/2 years. At that time the uncircumcised Gentiles were allowed into the congregation, Acts 10:1-48 shows that Cornelius was the first gentile accepted into the Chtistian Congregation.
Several scriptures show that neither the Jews nor the Gentiles were under the Mosaic Law after Jesus'' death, Rom 7:5,6, 6:14, 15. Col. 2:13,13, Gal 3:10-14. Paul, who was a Jew said that he was not under the Law Covenant, 1Cor 9:20.
The Gentiles were never under The Mosaic Law, except for a few Proselytes, Rom 2:14. The Mosaic Law Covenant was only given to the Jews who would, after accepting it, would become God's chosen people, Ex 19:5,6, Isa 43:6,7, 10-14, Deut 5:1-4, Ps 147:19,20.
Jesus did not actually start the Christian Congregation. It was against the Mosaic Law Covenant to preach another belief, it was a death penalty, Deut 13:1-11 shows this. If Jesus had preach Christianity he would have been a sinner against The Law. Jesus did teach many things that came from the Mosaic Law that would be the foundation fo Christianity. The name was first given to this group that had been with Jesus about 1 or 2 years later at Antioch, Acts 11:26, Acts 4:13,14.
The Christian Congregation actually started on Pentecost 33CE, when the Holy Spirit was poured out on the ones who would be called Christians a little later, because they were followers of Christ, Acts 2:1-21.

 

[jtartar]

To establish a few suggestions for debate can we assume Jesus was a Jew?
Him being a Jew He would have been well educated in Jewish Law.
This is presented in the N.T. when Jesus was a boy and it was witnessed that He had great
knowlege of Jewish law.
"And Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit. News about Him spread through all the surrounding district and He began teaching in their synagogues and was praised by all."
Lk. 4:16-24.
In my reading/studying of the Christian bible I have yet to see anything specific that suggests He intended
to start a religion different than the Jewish faith.
There is no doubt Jesus had Jewish roots and echoed the plea of former prophets before Him
to repent and return to God. That would be parochial, to follow Jewish law.
" I have come only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Matt. 15:24
It is indesputable that a new religion was born out his teaching, His life and His death & resurrection.
His intent was to bring people back to God and to draw all people to Himslef. John 12:32
His purpose was to reform the existing religious institution that would abolish the corruption
of the existing religious hierarchy.
Anyone can feel free to post here if they like unless the staff prohibits such.

jeager106,
Jesus was definitely a Jew, from the tribe of Judah, Heb 7:14, Gal 4:4,5.
As for the language that Jesus spoke; there was not a language on earth that he could not speak. Remember Jesus was with God when he gave Adam the Hebrew language, Gen 11:1, 6-9. Both God and Jesus knew every language on the earth.
Jesus knew that the Mosaic Law Covenant was a De Bene Esse, or interim Covenant. It was only to be in force until the Messiah would come to earth, Jere 31:31-34, Gal 3: 22-25.
Jesus knew the the Law would end at his death. Jesus even told the religious leaders that the kingdom would be taken away from them and given to ones who would produce it's fruits, Matt 21:42-45. The Mosaic Law Covenant ended with the death of Jesus, except for one part, the part that allowed only the Jews to become Christians for another 3 1/2 years. At that time the uncircumcised Gentiles were allowed into the congregation, Acts 10:1-48 shows that Cornelius was the first gentile accepted into the Chtistian Congregation.
Several scriptures show that neither the Jews nor the Gentiles were under the Mosaic Law after Jesus'' death, Rom 7:5,6, 6:14, 15. Col. 2:13,13, Gal 3:10-14. Paul, who was a Jew said that he was not under the Law Covenant, 1Cor 9:20.
The Gentiles were never under The Mosaic Law, except for a few Proselytes, Rom 2:14. The Mosaic Law Covenant was only given to the Jews who would, after accepting it, would become God's chosen people, Ex 19:5,6, Isa 43:6,7, 10-14, Deut 5:1-4, Ps 147:19,20.
Jesus did not actually start the Christian Congregation. It was against the Mosaic Law Covenant to preach another belief, it was a death penalty, Deut 13:1-11 shows this. If Jesus had preach Christianity he would have been a sinner against The Law. Jesus did teach many things that came from the Mosaic Law that would be the foundation fo Christianity. The name was first given to this group that had been with Jesus about 1 or 2 years later at Antioch, Acts 11:26, Acts 4:13,14.
The Christian Congregation actually started on Pentecost 33CE, when the Holy Spirit was poured out on the ones who would be called Christians a little later, because they were followers of Christ, Acts 2:1-21.

 

[outhouse]

There is an underlying assumption in the OP that Jesus words as recorded in the NT are factual

Doesn't matter what is assumed. This is a historical question.

What he is asking is whether any of what he is reported to have said and done justified the creation of a new religion.

No he said it much differently.

He asked if he preached with the intent to start a new religion

My argument was that it did. What is your argument?

Go back and read the beginning of he thread

 

[outhouse]

Jesus did not actually start the Christian Congregation.

I wanted to tell you, your message was that of apologetic rhetoric.

But your conclusion above was correct.

 

[Thanda]

Doesn't matter what is assumed. This is a historical question.



No he said it much differently.

He asked if he preached with the intent to start a new religion




Go back and read the beginning of he thread

This is not a historical question: how could it be? There aren't any historical sources for what Jesus preached outside of the Gospels ( which you do not regard as historical). It would have been an entirely useless thread had the question been about what the historical Jesus intended - since the most accurate and honest answer would have been: We have no idea!

But of course this thread is about the religious Jesus spoken of in the Bible: hence the OP's use of no less than three quotes from the Bible.

 

[sojourner]

To establish a few suggestions for debate can we assume Jesus was a Jew?
Him being a Jew He would have been well educated in Jewish Law.
This is presented in the N.T. when Jesus was a boy and it was witnessed that He had great
knowlege of Jewish law.
"And Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit. News about Him spread through all the surrounding district and He began teaching in their synagogues and was praised by all."
Lk. 4:16-24.
In my reading/studying of the Christian bible I have yet to see anything specific that suggests He intended
to start a religion different than the Jewish faith.
There is no doubt Jesus had Jewish roots and echoed the plea of former prophets before Him
to repent and return to God. That would be parochial, to follow Jewish law.
" I have come only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Matt. 15:24
It is indesputable that a new religion was born out his teaching, His life and His death & resurrection.
His intent was to bring people back to God and to draw all people to Himslef. John 12:32
His purpose was to reform the existing religious institution that would abolish the corruption
of the existing religious hierarchy.
Anyone can feel free to post here if they like unless the staff prohibits such.

He didn't. I don't think Xy was intended to be a "religion." It was intended to be a "movement."

 

[outhouse]

This is not a historical question: how could it be?

How could it not be. We are talking about what a man did and taught.

There aren't any historical sources for what Jesus preached outside of the Gospels

Exactly. That's why it takes educated people that know how and why these books were written. "Scholars" that determine what is history and what is not history.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

With respect. Could you please cite sources ...

Sure. See Udo Schnell's The History and Theology of New Testament Writings. Or, if you prefer, you can review the various gospels addressed in Early Christian Writings or avail yourself of the relevant Wikipedia entries.

On the other hand, mine is not the burden of proof. Perhaps you or @Dissily Mordentroge would like to refer us to credible first-hand accounts of Jesus and his theology.

 

[outhouse]

He didn't. I don't think Xy was intended to be a "religion." It was intended to be a "movement."

Lets clarify a few things for the people in this thread using your expertise.

The Apocalyptic Aramaic Galilean Judaism Jesus taught after learning it from John.

Was not the exact same Hellenistic movement that grew in the diaspora after his death, by people who never knew or heard Jesus and rhetorically backfilled in Jesus teachings decades after in another part of he world to meet their theological agenda.


Correct or Incorrect?

We really need to get some basics down for those here who still need to be plugged into academia.

 

[sojourner]

Lets clarify a few things for the people in this thread using your expertise.

The Apocalyptic Aramaic Galilean Judaism Jesus taught after learning it from John.

Was not the exact same Hellenistic movement that grew in the diaspora after his death, by people who never knew or heard Jesus and rhetorically backfilled in Jesus teachings decades after in another part of he world to meet their theological agenda.


Correct or Incorrect?

We really need to get some basics down for those here who still need to be plugged into academia.

Basically correct.

 

[jeager106]

Sure. See Udo Schnell's The History and Theology of New Testament Writings. Or, if you prefer, you can review the various gospels addressed in Early Christian Writings or avail yourself of the relevant Wikipedia entries.

On the other hand, mine is not the burden of proof. Perhaps you or @Dissily Mordentroge would like to refer us to credible first-hand accounts of Jesus and his theology.

Thank you kindly!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... See Udo Schnell's The History and Theology of New Testament Writings. Or, if you prefer, you can review the various gospels addressed in Early Christian Writings or avail yourself of the relevant Wikipedia entries.

On the other hand, mine is not the burden of proof. Perhaps you or @Dissily Mordentroge would like to refer us to credible first-hand accounts of Jesus and his theology.

Thank you kindly!

You're most welcome.

 

[psychoslice]

Realize also that Jesus created no church. That is a mistranslation. Most English translations are deliberately incorrect. The word originally used is ecclesia, and it means people and/or congregation, not church.

So we agree.

 

[truthofscripture]

So we agree.

Yes. That is what the scriptures say. Religions, however, teach quite the opposite to support their need to exist presumably. Religions are basically a scam and a money making scheme. Jesus said they were false, Revelation says they'll be destroyed in the final battle.

 

[outhouse]

Religions are basically a scam and a money making scheme

Tell that to all the people in tornado alley, when the churches often reach the people before the government does.

 

[psychoslice]

Yes. That is what the scriptures say. Religions, however, teach quite the opposite to support their need to exist presumably. Religions are basically a scam and a money making scheme. Jesus said they were false, Revelation says they'll be destroyed in the final battle.

Yes I don't know about being destroyed in the final battle, but yea, religion is a scam, we can only save ourselves. no one can do it for us.

 

[psychoslice]

Tell that to all the people in tornado alley, when the churches often reach the people before the government does.

That maybe true, but its still a scam, I think they help people but they also destroy their lives, by try to convert them, there's always a wanting behind their do gooding.

 

[outhouse]

That maybe true, but its still a scam, I think they help people but they also destroy their lives, by try to convert them, there's always a wanting behind their do gooding.

"It still being a scam" needs to be elaborated on. The positive in some geographic areas outweighs the negative.

Some religions I would agree, other no. Its all relative to context.

Many people use it as a social tool, in a positive way. There is no scam there.

It might seem that way to you, and I would say, stay away from those organizations that make you feel like that.

 

[psychoslice]

"It still being a scam" needs to be elaborated on. The positive in some geographic areas outweighs the negative.

Some religions I would agree, other no. Its all relative to context.

Many people use it as a social tool, in a positive way. There is no scam there.

It might seem that way to you, and I would say, stay away from those organizations that make you feel like that.

There is some truth in what you say as there is in what I say..........and yes I will keep away lol.

 

[Muffled]

I believe that you are wrong. What you call 'data' is arguably nothing more than the stories woven by apologists who never met the man and inferences made by those who took these creative writings as holy writ. You confuse faith and fact.

I believe you arguments would be speculation. The Bible is a fact. If one wishes to have an alternate explanation then one needs facts and not speculations. It is a fact that some of the books were written by disciples who would naturally see Jesus in a positive light but that is not evidence that they lied. Luke probably never met Jesus but he claims to have inteviewed those who did. At least he could be perceived as a more independent reporter of events.