Who Founded Christianity? The Answer Might Surprise You

[Skwim]

"Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus or Paul say that he is rejecting Judaism and starting a new religion. In fact, the term “Christian” doesn’t appear at all in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), which chronicle Jesus’ spiritual mission; and it only appears later, three times in the rest of the New Testament. The first utterance of the word “Christian” occurs when Paul is preaching in Antioch more than a decade after the crucifixion.

But the word “Jew” appears 202 times in the New Testament, with 82 of those mentions in the Gospels.

The evidence in the New Testament persuasively suggests that both Jesus and Paul viewed their teachings as Jewish revisionism — not a rejection of Judaism or the proposal for a new religion. If this is true, as it seems to be according to the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles (Book 5 of the New Testament), then we must ask: Who launched Christianity?

While the question presumes that someone had to fill that role, the answer may be that no one officially founded Christianity; it just happened.

“It just happened” doesn’t mean that it mysteriously materialized out of nowhere. A firm foundation was needed to enable it to “just happen.” While Jesus and Paul established the foundation for the new religion, neither of them officially initiated Christianity as a religion separate from Judaism. On the contrary, both remained dedicated to Judaism throughout their lives, as documented in the New Testament.

So why are so many people convinced that Jesus or Paul created a new religion?

Many who believe that Jesus wanted a new religion cite his pronouncement in Matthew 16:18: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” They jumped to the conclusion that “church” in this statement means a Christian or Catholic church, as we know it today — a building housing a new religion. But that doesn’t make much sense.

The term “church” was derived from the Greek and merely meant assembly; some scholars say it was an error in translation and had nothing to do with a place of worship. Moreover, at the time of Jesus, there was no concept of a new religion. If Jesus had proposed a new religion, he would have had few if any followers. Remember, all of his followers were Jews — and first-century Jews were fanatically dedicated to Judaism. Whichever way you cut it, Jesus’ church was more likely the new synagogue, which would represent spiritual Judaism — a spiritual core that Jesus charged was corrupted by the Sanhedrin, the ruling body of Judaism.

If Jesus conceived of a new church, then why did he spend his life religiously celebrating the major Jewish holidays in the Temple in Jerusalem? And we must remember that throughout the years, Jesus prayed, preached and read from the Torah in a synagogue on the Sabbath: “And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up : and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read” (Luke 4:16).

Christian theologian Jean Guitton, in his book Great Heresies and Church Councils, states explicitly:

Jesus did not mean to found a new religion. In his historical humanity, Jesus was a devout Israelite, practicing the law to the full, from circumcision to Pesach, paying the half-shekel for the Temple. Jerusalem, the capital of his nation, was the city he loved: Jesus wept over it. Jesus had spiritually realized the germinal aspiration of his people, which was to raise the God of Israel…​

Source and MORE
​

Comments?

 

[oldbadger]

Tell us something new.....!
Of course Yeshua didn't found Christianity. He didn't even found his new name 'Jesus'!

But Paul and others did. They founded a new faith/religion for Jews AND GENTILES and even received help from some of the original disciples.

Why.... even Cephas was a prophet for the new religion when he received his messages that Christians could discard many of the old food laws.

Is somebody selling a new book or something...?

 

[Augustus]

Same thing happened with Islam. There was no 'clean break' just a gradual evolution.

Cultures and traditions tend to change gradually, but we forget about that when we look back over many centuries.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

"Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus or Paul say that he is rejecting Judaism and starting a new religion. In fact, the term “Christian” doesn’t appear at all in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), which chronicle Jesus’ spiritual mission; and it only appears later, three times in the rest of the New Testament. The first utterance of the word “Christian” occurs when Paul is preaching in Antioch more than a decade after the crucifixion.

But the word “Jew” appears 202 times in the New Testament, with 82 of those mentions in the Gospels.

The evidence in the New Testament persuasively suggests that both Jesus and Paul viewed their teachings as Jewish revisionism — not a rejection of Judaism or the proposal for a new religion. If this is true, as it seems to be according to the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles (Book 5 of the New Testament), then we must ask: Who launched Christianity?

While the question presumes that someone had to fill that role, the answer may be that no one officially founded Christianity; it just happened.

“It just happened” doesn’t mean that it mysteriously materialized out of nowhere. A firm foundation was needed to enable it to “just happen.” While Jesus and Paul established the foundation for the new religion, neither of them officially initiated Christianity as a religion separate from Judaism. On the contrary, both remained dedicated to Judaism throughout their lives, as documented in the New Testament.

So why are so many people convinced that Jesus or Paul created a new religion?

Many who believe that Jesus wanted a new religion cite his pronouncement in Matthew 16:18: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” They jumped to the conclusion that “church” in this statement means a Christian or Catholic church, as we know it today — a building housing a new religion. But that doesn’t make much sense.

The term “church” was derived from the Greek and merely meant assembly; some scholars say it was an error in translation and had nothing to do with a place of worship. Moreover, at the time of Jesus, there was no concept of a new religion. If Jesus had proposed a new religion, he would have had few if any followers. Remember, all of his followers were Jews — and first-century Jews were fanatically dedicated to Judaism. Whichever way you cut it, Jesus’ church was more likely the new synagogue, which would represent spiritual Judaism — a spiritual core that Jesus charged was corrupted by the Sanhedrin, the ruling body of Judaism.

If Jesus conceived of a new church, then why did he spend his life religiously celebrating the major Jewish holidays in the Temple in Jerusalem? And we must remember that throughout the years, Jesus prayed, preached and read from the Torah in a synagogue on the Sabbath: “And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up : and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read” (Luke 4:16).

Christian theologian Jean Guitton, in his book Great Heresies and Church Councils, states explicitly:

Jesus did not mean to found a new religion. In his historical humanity, Jesus was a devout Israelite, practicing the law to the full, from circumcision to Pesach, paying the half-shekel for the Temple. Jerusalem, the capital of his nation, was the city he loved: Jesus wept over it. Jesus had spiritually realized the germinal aspiration of his people, which was to raise the God of Israel…​

Source and MORE​

Comments?

Christianity is built on roman politics (authority) using jewish laws and spirituality to govern the gentile behavior, convert them, or tell them they would die.

Anything before jesus disciples would not be christianity. I dont think they called it a religion. I heard it was refered to as the Way. The only think different i know between christianity (what jesus taught) and judaism is that jesus put himself as the only way tongod.

But then again, jesus didnt write the bible. those are wordw of his apostles. i mean, even in NT his apostles said and did things jesus didnt aprove of. Now that he is gone, they couls have changed the bible.

But then that all just seems logical to me. historically, i cant argue but id never take online references. even biblical is sketchy.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Tell us something new.....!
Of course Yeshua didn't found Christianity. He didn't even found his new name 'Jesus'!

Or "Christ," which is a Greek word (a language Yeshua didn't speak).

But Paul and others did. They founded a new faith/religion for Jews AND GENTILES and even received help from some of the original disciples.

And we must not forget that some of those for whom Paul is claimed to be the writer, he most certainly was not -- so these unnamed reformers (Hebrews, and the other deutero-Pauline epistles) contributed we know not why, because we don't even know who they were, let alone what their motives might have been.

Why.... even Cephas was a prophet for the new religion when he received his messages that Christians could discard many of the old food laws.

Why this doesn't surprise the dickens out of Christians is a real mystery to me, since the Jesus of the Gospels and Acts is adamant -- absolutely adamant -- that the law, the law that he knew a believed, could not be changed. As he himself is supposed to have said, "not a tittle or a jot," (although King James's translation would be even further from his ken than the Greek).

 

[pearl]

Jesus did not mean to found a new religion. In his historical humanity, Jesus was a devout Israelite, practicing the law to the full, from circumcision to Pesach, paying the half-shekel for the Temple. Jerusalem, the capital of his nation, was the city he loved: Jesus wept over it. Jesus had spiritually realized the germinal aspiration of his people, which was to raise the God of Israel…

I believe this is true. His mission was to the house of Israel. Before the time of John's Gospel, all the squabbles were among the Jews, those who followed Christ and those who did not, like a family squabble. In the time of John's writing, those who follow Jesus were considered heretics and excommunicated from the Temple. Followed by a clear division between Jews and now Christians. No longer being under the umbrella of Jewish protection, the Christians were now open to Roman persecution.

And then there's that saying of Jesus, 'don't give what is holy to dogs'.
Its good to remember that the Gospels were compiled in stages, the first being that of Jesus and his disciples. That stage is gone forever, nothing written. The next stage is the time of the church, the preaching of the Apostles, the oral tradition. Not until after the death of the Apostles do we find the writing Gospels.
Jesus was a prophet in line of the Jewish prophets.

 

[pearl]

Why.... even Cephas was a prophet for the new religion when he received his messages that Christians could discard many of the old food laws.

This pertained not to Christians but to Gentiles, who wished to follow Jesus but did not want to be circumcised nor follow the dietary laws.

 

[psychoslice]

I think Christianity couldn't be what it is today with Constantine, after all he did order all the text that was around then to be put into a book which we call today the new testament, at that time there was all sorts of scriptures written by every man and his dog, so what we have today could have been just about anything.

 

[oldbadger]

This pertained not to Christians but to Gentiles, who wished to follow Jesus but did not want to be circumcised nor follow the dietary laws.

No, it didn't!
When Cephas received his vision telling him that many of the food laws were no longer in force for Christians, HE HIMSELF felt that it was OK to take food with gentiles, gentile food, that is.

Cephas, Christian Prophet.....

 

[Augustus]

I think Christianity couldn't be what it is today with Constantine, after all he did order all the text that was around then to be put into a book which we call today the new testament, at that time there was all sorts of scriptures written by every man and his dog, so what we have today could have been just about anything.

Not really true. The New Testament canon developed organically and was fairly standardised before Constantine. There were some disagreements, as there still are today, but it certainly wasn't a free for all.

Constantine had very little to do with creating the NT.

 

[metis]

Not really true. The New Testament canon developed organically and was fairly standardised before Constantine. There were some disagreements, as there still are today, but it certainly wasn't a free for all.

Constantine had very little to do with creating the NT.

It took over 1/2 a century and tons of debate to come up with the canon, and they still could not decide on a series of books (Apocrypha). And Constantine was the man who directed that it be done because there were different churches using different books, plus there were "heretical" groups saying that they had the true canon.

 

[psychoslice]

Not really true. The New Testament canon developed organically and was fairly standardised before Constantine. There were some disagreements, as there still are today, but it certainly wasn't a free for all.

Constantine had very little to do with creating the NT.

Not what I have found, there is what most religions tell you, but that is their biased opinion,. so who knows ?. I also do not think that the new testament was anything like it is today before Constantine, there was lot of books floating around, many were burnt, and it makes you wonder why ?.

 

[Augustus]

Not what I have found, there is what most religions tell you, but that is their biased opinion,. so who knows ?.I also do not think that the new testament was anything like it is today before Constantine, there was lot of books floating around, many were burnt, and it makes you wonder why ?

I'm not looking at what 'religions' say. There is evidence that many books were widely accepted, although there was some disagreement about the total number and composition. Even today some churches have a different canon.

There is a lot of conspiratorial myth around Constantine and Christianity, and the idea that the NT was 'nothing like' it is today is one of them.

It took over 1/2 a century and tons of debate to come up with the canon, and they still could not decide on a series of books (Apocrypha). And Constantine was the man who directed that it be done because there were different churches using different books, plus there were "heretical" groups saying that they had the true canon.

Constantine's '50 Bibles' didn't finalise/universalise the canon though, and there were only a few of the chapters that were disputed.

Would have been a lot better if they had left Revelation out though.

 

[metis]

Constantine's '50 Bibles' didn't finalise/universalise the canon though, and there were only a few of the chapters that were disputed.

Would have been a lot better if they had left Revelation out though.

The selection process continued for quite a while after his death, plus he was not actually the one who chose the canon as he appointed that job to the bishops and scholars.

As far as disputes were concerned, there was the Apocrypha, the Epistle to the Hebrews (unknown author), the Book of Revelation (the issue of the millennial reign that had no other precedent for it, and a question of full authorship), plus many other disputes dealing with books that were ultimately not selected.

IOW, it was a long drawn out process, with many disputes, even ending up with indecision on the Apocrypha at the end, which was put off until a later time. We know this happened because of the CC's documentation process, although it is my understanding that the Vatican has not been willing to share all of the archived documentation on this.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Yes, it was a slow process, which I would say was a series of confusions!

Jesus quite clearly thought the has the messiah, the "son of man" in the words of the Book of Enoch. He made it clear that the old law was still valid.

Paul rejected the law, but evidently still called himself a Jew: a "Pharisee of Pharisees", as he put it. Josephus speaks of the Christians as those who thought the Jesus was the promised messiah, which implies that he saw them as a Jewish sect (of which there were quite a few).

Matthew's reference to the church or assembly implies a separate group, but that text was written in the mid-second century, in all probability.

I'd say that the turning point was in the early second century when the idea of divine incarnation (absent in Mark, Paul, and Clement of Rome and unmentioned by Josephus) appeared. You could be a Jew of sorts and believe that the messiah had arrived, even ignore the law, but to even the most liberal Jew the doctrine of Father and Son would be unacceptable polytheism.

 

[metis]

Yes, it was a slow process, which I would say was a series of confusions!

Jesus quite clearly thought the has the messiah, the "son of man" in the words of the Book of Enoch. He made it clear that the old law was still valid.

Paul rejected the law, but evidently still called himself a Jew: a "Pharisee of Pharisees", as he put it. Josephus speaks of the Christians as those who thought the Jesus was the promised messiah, which implies that he saw them as a Jewish sect (of which there were quite a few).

Matthew's reference to the church or assembly implies a separate group, but that text was written in the mid-second century, in all probability.

I'd say that the turning point was in the early second century when the idea of divine incarnation (absent in Mark, Paul, and Clement of Rome and unmentioned by Josephus) appeared. You could be a Jew of sorts and believe that the messiah had arrived, even ignore the law, but to even the most liberal Jew the doctrine of Father and Son would be unacceptable polytheism.

I agree with most of the above being quite possible, minus the exception that Matthew could not have written in the 2nd century, nor do I see him likely being involved in a separate group like what James seems to have done.

As far as the Law is concerned, I have come to believe that what Jesus had done was to take a very liberal Pharisee position, which was not that terribly unusual in the north of eretz Israel especially, and narrowed the entire Law, all 613 of the Commandments, down to two: the love of God & man and "do unto others". That obviously would not go over well with most Jews, but it does help to explain why there's this frequent confrontation between Jesus and the Pharisee leaders over the issue of the Law.

Paul bought into Jesus' view on this but got caught up on one significant problem, namely how could the church be "one body" with two different groups within it, one Jewish and observing the Law, and the other being Gentile and not observing the entire Law. Solution? Make Jesus superior to the Law as the "final sacrifice". Objectively, it doesn't make much sense, but subjectively it can.

 

[Sully]

The early Church was primarily Jewish...in fact most continued to go to the temple and worship after Christ was crucified. It wasn't until the Bar Kokhba rebellion when the Christians were kicked out of the Temple for good. The early followers of Jesus were (largely) Jews that believe (rightfully) that Jesus was their Messiah and Lord.

The early Church had a number of challenges that could have kept Christianity as a subset of Judaism. One were the legalist who believed one still had to follow all the Mosaic laws...(i.e., circumcision, dietary restrictions etc...) and accept Jesus as the Messiah and Lord. Remember Peter corrected the legalist by saying (loosely paraphrasing) why do you place the yoke of the Law (onto the Gentiles) that neither we nor our Fathers were ever able to bear. Peter was embracing the new covenant Jeremiah 31:31–34 of faith not law.

The name Christian was probably used initially by others to describe this group of Jesus followers and probably stuck because it is accurate.. we are in Christ ...and worship him as our Lord and Savior. Remember for a long while Muslims were termed Mohammedans by Westerns; conversely, that did not stick because it misrepresents the relationship...they do no worship Mohammed...

 

[2X4]

"Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus or Paul say that he is rejecting Judaism and starting a new religion. In fact, the term “Christian” doesn’t appear at all in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), which chronicle Jesus’ spiritual mission; and it only appears later, three times in the rest of the New Testament. The first utterance of the word “Christian” occurs when Paul is preaching in Antioch more than a decade after the crucifixion.

But the word “Jew” appears 202 times in the New Testament, with 82 of those mentions in the Gospels.

The evidence in the New Testament persuasively suggests that both Jesus and Paul viewed their teachings as Jewish revisionism — not a rejection of Judaism or the proposal for a new religion. If this is true, as it seems to be according to the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles (Book 5 of the New Testament), then we must ask: Who launched Christianity?

While the question presumes that someone had to fill that role, the answer may be that no one officially founded Christianity; it just happened.

“It just happened” doesn’t mean that it mysteriously materialized out of nowhere. A firm foundation was needed to enable it to “just happen.” While Jesus and Paul established the foundation for the new religion, neither of them officially initiated Christianity as a religion separate from Judaism. On the contrary, both remained dedicated to Judaism throughout their lives, as documented in the New Testament.

So why are so many people convinced that Jesus or Paul created a new religion?

Many who believe that Jesus wanted a new religion cite his pronouncement in Matthew 16:18: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” They jumped to the conclusion that “church” in this statement means a Christian or Catholic church, as we know it today — a building housing a new religion. But that doesn’t make much sense.

The term “church” was derived from the Greek and merely meant assembly; some scholars say it was an error in translation and had nothing to do with a place of worship. Moreover, at the time of Jesus, there was no concept of a new religion. If Jesus had proposed a new religion, he would have had few if any followers. Remember, all of his followers were Jews — and first-century Jews were fanatically dedicated to Judaism. Whichever way you cut it, Jesus’ church was more likely the new synagogue, which would represent spiritual Judaism — a spiritual core that Jesus charged was corrupted by the Sanhedrin, the ruling body of Judaism.

If Jesus conceived of a new church, then why did he spend his life religiously celebrating the major Jewish holidays in the Temple in Jerusalem? And we must remember that throughout the years, Jesus prayed, preached and read from the Torah in a synagogue on the Sabbath: “And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up : and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read” (Luke 4:16).

Christian theologian Jean Guitton, in his book Great Heresies and Church Councils, states explicitly:

Jesus did not mean to found a new religion. In his historical humanity, Jesus was a devout Israelite, practicing the law to the full, from circumcision to Pesach, paying the half-shekel for the Temple. Jerusalem, the capital of his nation, was the city he loved: Jesus wept over it. Jesus had spiritually realized the germinal aspiration of his people, which was to raise the God of Israel…​

Source and MORE​

Comments?

Like all us servants of God learned. The beast was necessary to start all religions by having men build false gods with their human hands until the fullness of God's plan came to fruition a little over a month ago.

 

[metis]

The early Church was primarily Jewish...in fact most continued to go to the temple and worship after Christ was crucified.

Debatable because we do know that followers of the Way were being kicked out of synagogues. Some theologians feel that they may have been allowed to go to the Temple but only stay in the outside parameter.

The name Christian was probably used initially by others to describe this group of Jesus followers and probably stuck because it is accurate.. we are in Christ ...and worship him as our Lord and Savior.

Most theologians that I have read that commented on this feel that it may have been used as an insult, largely because there's no record of the early church using it in reference to themselves until around the mid-2nd century. Reminds me of the use of the term "Obamacare", which went through a similar evolutionary process.

 

[Skwim]

Like all us servants of God learned. The beast was necessary to start all religions by having men build false gods with their human hands until the fullness of God's plan came to fruition a little over a month ago.

Why was this beast necessary to start all religions? Couldn't god have done it without creating the beast?

And just what is the fullness of god's plan that just finished up? And how do you know?


.