by VorJack
In a previous post I discussed the way I think that some people, mainly Liberal Christians, misuse the historical Jesus. Wishing to divorce the historical Jesus from the church, they accurately declare that Jesus had nothing to do with setting up the religion that bears his name. However, in attempting to explain what Jesus’ message actually was, they engage in some dubious history.
I believe they are committing the same error they see in the early Christians. They are projecting their own beliefs onto Jesus, making him a mouthpiece for their own religious feelings. If this is acknowledged, it’s not a problem. As one of my religion professors put it, “With Jesus, you’ve got to go where he grabs you.” If this is not acknowledged, then the speaker appears hypocritical and naive.
One of the biggest problems that results from this is the way that these people treat 1st century Judaism. In order to define Jesus as a revolutionary, they need to show what he was revolutionizing. So ancient Judaism is described in harsh terms as legalistic. They project onto it everything they dislike about modern religion in order to bolster their own perceptions of Jesus. The problem is that very few of these things are accurately grounded in history.
Roots and Branches
Pullquote: ”Christian study of Judaism has often been imperialistic. Its purpose has been to enhance the study of Christianity, and often to do so by contrast. Thus Judaism is mocked up as the dark “background” against which is played the glorious drama of Christian origins.”
Pardon me while I grossly simplify some history.
After the fall of the Temple in 70 CE, Judaism went through a tumult that left it broken into two major streams: Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism. The roots of Christianity you know, but the major root of Rabbinic Judaism was the sect known as the Pharisees.
To be grossly simplistic again, the difference came down to the question of how people are justified with (set right by, in accord with the will of) God. While the Temple still stood, most Jews would probably say that they were justified by performing the Temple rituals and sacrifices. However, the Pharisees maintained that you were justified by the study of the Torah, by observing the laws found therein and by performing good works. Christians argued that you were justified by faith in Jesus Christ, as well as performing good works (depending on your sect).
Since the Pharisees and the Christians had religions that centered on something other than the Temple, both groups survived its destruction. In fact, both groups thrived – albeit fitfully – and consolidated, emerging from the second and third centuries with cannons of sacred literature and established traditions.
So rather than having a parent/child relationship, the two sects seemed to have a sibling rivalry. Both sides produced polemics against the other. It’s important to realize that this bias existed, and approach the things said by both sides with some skepticism. This would be easier to see if we were exposed to both sides, but most of the Jewish arguments are lost to history, and what is left are rarely read by Christians.
Lifting Jesus by Lowering the Jews
Pullquote: ”To see him in a first-century Jewish context and to listen to his words with first-century Jewish ears do not in any way undermine Christian theological claims. Jesus does not have to be fully unique in order to say something or do something meaningful.”
With that in mind, I think folks who want understand 1st century Judaism need to do so using Jewish sources in addition to the Christian scriptures. If we turn to the Mishnah, the late 2nd century collection of Rabbinic teachings, we find a diverse collection of opinions within the Jewish community. Rather that being the very definition of short-sighted legalism, the Pharisees contained factions that were antinomian.
Care needs to be taken here. The 2nd century Jews who compiled the Mishnah were probably very different from the common Palestinian in 30 CE. Still, it should be possible to read the pluralism found in the Mishnah back to the first century. Further, there is a fair amount of material from the centuries before Jesus, from the Book of Enoch to the Book of Daniel. Most of it is literary rather than historical, but collectively it paints a picture of a variegated Judaism.
All of this means that 1st century Judaism was a diverse religion that had space for many different approaches to life. In this context, it’s difficult to see Jesus as a revolutionary Jew who wanted to turn the entire religion around. It’s quite possible that he disagreed with the legalist factions – which certainly existed – but that would seem to place him in the same camp with antinomian Pharisees like Hillel the Elder, who could famously say: “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.”
This does not reduce Jesus, as Prof. Levine points out in the side-quote. But it does snap things into focus. There was no monolithic Judaism for Jesus to rebel against. Instead, Jesus looks more like a man of his times, taking something from different streams of Jewish thought and melding them into his own message.
Extremely interesting article. I’m particularly grateful for bringing my attention to Hilel the Elder. I had no knowledge of this historical figure (BTW, your Wikipedia link has a quotation mark at the end and is thus broken. You might want to correct it).
Thank you for reminding me of another piece of baggage I’ve been carrying around since deconverting. While, I have no ill will towards Judaism (I have Jewish family who I love very much) I did still assume that the Jewish groups portrayed int he gospels were just as corrupt as they were presented. I really need to re-examine the Bible, maybe I’ll do that to mark my two years without God anniversary, which is coming up March 1st.
Suddenly I’m reminded of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS_Uvg56U_o which was another reminder of how much in the Bible I still blindly accepted.
Good article. You may have seen this, but Frontline did a good documentary which addressed this subject some twelve years ago, From Jesus to Christ: http://bit.ly/8xIWfY .
The end of the doc starts to get apologetic towards christianity, mind you, but the schisms within the jewish faith in the first century CE are well covered.
Very good article. I know many people turn gospels into a Jesus vs. the pharisees debate over the nature of justification, but as you pointed out the Jewish community was more complex than that. Really even a cursory reading of the gospels shows that there was religiously different groups within Palestine. I think the most revolutionary aspect of Jesus’s teaching was the idea of a suffering messiah, which was unthinkable, even for His inner twelve. The messiah was supposed to be a liberator and throw off the shackles of oppression from the Gentiles.
The Uber-logiest view of Judaism is coming to life in the present. Modern ultraortodox Jews are obsessed with controlling every aspect of the community’s life, probably out of fear that if they don’t then the lure of modern liberal society will be too strong and they lose the young. As usual the main topic they obsess over is the “modesty” of women but it go into any part of life to the extent that people can’t decide what to get for lunch without consulting a rabbi.
“Instead, Jesus looks more like a man of his times, taking something from different streams of Jewish thought and melding them into his own message.”
I’d like to point out that it’s extremely unlikely that Jesus did this, because it’s extremely unlikely that anyone resembling the Jesus of the bible ever existed.
The words and events attributed to the Jesus of the bible were written by many unknown individuals over the course of several hundred years *after* the crucifixion allegedly took place. The events of Jesus’ life described in the bible are mostly a synthesis of ancient oral traditions, the wishful thinking of jewish revolutionaries fighting against Roman occupation, and plagiarizations of a number of different pagan god-man myths. The only place Jesus or any of the things Jesus said or did are described is in the bible, nowhere else.
There are absolutely no independent historical accounts of any of the amazing words or deeds attributed to Jesus in the bible recorded by anyone. None. This is despite the fact that the events occurred in one of the world’s most advanced and cosmopolitan societies. A society known for keeping detailed records and personal accounts of the most insignificant and mundane daily events. There were a number of high-profile Roman and Greek historians living in Judea at the time Jesus supposedly lived. These same historians provide us with some of the best accounts we have of daily life and important events in ancient Roman society. Yet none of them ever mention anything about Jesus, or about anyone who might even resemble Jesus. There’s no mention of his birth, his teachings, his miracles, his crucifixion, or even his very existence…not even in passing. There’s certainly no mention of bright moving stars or massive earthquakes that supposedly surrounded major events in Jesus’ life. Such things would not have been overlooked. They would have been recorded by someone. Instead there’s nada. Nothing. The silence from history speaks strongly against a historical Jesus.
I think it’s important to keep this in mind anytime Jesus is being discussed as if he were a real person.
Sol Invictus, I was raised in a secular house. I have no axe to grind in this debate one way or the other.
I read John Loftus’ argument for a historical Jesus, and thought it made more sense than an entirely fictional Jesus. Its a long argument, but it boils down what is more probable:
There was a street preacher with a couple of followers (not exactly 12, thats probably a fabrication referring to the 12 tribes of the Jews) He was mostly ignored by the greater society around him. He did something to anger the local constabulary, and was executed. His followers kept on preaching his story and spreading it. Paul took up the story and spread it until it became more popular. Miracles were attached to the story, making Jesus more impressive. Embellish and grow, until it reaches Greece. Add in some typical Grecian themes like virgin birth, and half god/man offspring. Once this still small religion reaches Rome, its taken up by Constantine, codified, then spread by the sword.
OR
There was a secret group of guys who thought it would be fun to make up a completely new religion.
To be honest, there are recent historical examples of both. The Mormon religion was started by a con man, Joseph Smith, who had very few followers. After his death, Brigham Young took up his story and really founded their Church. Quite similar to the Jesus/Paul relationship.
The ‘just make it up’ scenario isn’t unheard of either. Its well known that L.R. Hubbard decided to make up a religion for fun and profit. Scientology was an up and running religion before he died.
I have a problem with the totally fictional Jesus. The larger a conspiracy grows, the more likely that the conspiracy will be discovered. All of the real historical evidence of Jesus and Christianity point to a tiny religion that grew after the Roman conquest of Jerusalem.
I don’t think Sol Invictus was arguing for a totally mythic Jesus in the above – he was saying that the Jesus of the Bible probably did not exist, not that there wasn’t a “Jesus” at all. It’s a different argument, though there are some similar pieces.
Basically the idea that the “Jesus of the Bible is ahistorical” is that even if we can say that there was a guy named Yeshua who preached some kind of something sometime around 30 CE, we can’t use the Bible to figure out anything about this man because there’s nothing about the Bible that is contemporary with him or accurate historical information. All of the accounts of Jesus in the Gospels were put together at a minimum of 40 years after when he supposedly died, and that’s if you use the most generous, earliest dating for the Gospels. The sources that are more conteporary with the life of Jesus – Paul’s letters – fail to give us any biographical information about the street-preacher Yeshua at all. And the sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels have been shown to be fairly typical sayings of various groups – cynics, stoics and pharisaic jews among others. The miracle stories mostly come from various OT stories reworked with Jesus as the main character, a lot of the motifs of the Gospels are lifted straight from OT stories, and even the passion of his death in Mark is basically Psalm 22 set to a narrative.
Given all that, some folks feel that the best you can say about the actual historical Yeshua is that there was a guy who lived sometime around the first century BCE who was the basis for the character of Jesus of Nazareth who appears in the Gospels. But you can’t actually use the stories in the Gospels to piece together what that first century preacher was like because they don’t actually provide any biographical data about him. You can’t even be sure that his name was “Yeshua” because the name “Yeshua” basically means “Saviour”, so his name could have been anything and Yeshua could have been a nickname or something his followers started calling him after his death.
“some folks feel that the best you can say about the actual historical Yeshua is that there was a guy who lived sometime around the first century BCE who was the basis for the character of Jesus of Nazareth”
A study of that period in Jewish history with show that there were any number of them. The oppression of the Roman occupation, and the blasphemy the Jews saw in Romans having access to their holy places, led to any number of apocalyptic prophets wandering the countryside saying, “OOOOOH the Romans are so gonna get it!!!! Also, God must be angry at us.”
Exactly. At best perhaps one of those guys actually was the single individual that was the inspiration for the character of Jesus in the Gospels. But trying to tease out the biographical details of this “historic Jesus” is an exercise in frustration because there just isn’t that much there to work with. So folks who are looking for an “historic Jesus” often end up projecting some personal vision of Jesus out of their own heads and calling that historical. The ones who recognize what they’re doing and try to account for their own biases still only ever seem to me to be teasing out a vision of Jesus that matches what early Christians believed Jesus to have been like – because there just isn’t the data there to do more than that.
The problem with your option B is that Christianity wasn’t “a completely new religion”. It was a Greek-style mystery religion, like dozens of others before and around it. The only new feature was casting it within Jewish mythology.
The thing about mystery religions is that they have a central myth about a godman dying and returning to life before ascending to heaven; Jesus is nothing more than a Jewish version of Mithras, Attis, Hercules, Dionysus, Shuba, et cetera, and the early non-canon gospels make it quite clear that there were plenty of early Christians who didn’t believe Jesus was a real flesh-and-blood human being, and even Paul (the earliest author to make the canonical cut) treats Jesus as a symbol rather than as a real historical figure.
The “mythological Jesus” hypothesis doesn’t posit a conspiracy theory, but rather an accepted and common theological device that, centuries later, gets recast as absolute, literal truth. And, even if the Jesus in the Bible was deliberately based on one of the actual prophets of the day who called themselves “Yeshua Messiah” doesn’t change the fact that every single detail we know about Jesus is mythological and was invented by later Biblical authors, so I’m not sure what you get from making the distinction…
I agree that ‘option B’ is a non-starter. The story of Jesus has to originate in the real world somewhere. It had to have been a person who launched the whole mess.
New Testament scholars have predicted a source document that Mathew Mark and Luke used to write their gospels. They call it the Q source. What surprised me about the Q hypothesis was what they thought the document did and didn’t contain. Many of the famous speeches and sayings were included, but none of the miracles. If the proponents of Q are on to something, then we can use those clues to try and paint a picture of the figure behind the Jesus myth.
Of course the Bible is full of fallacies and myths, but it IS a historical book. You can’t simply throw it out and disregard it. There has been a great deal of history learned by comparing its writings to physical evidence. That was my point to Sol when he said ‘The silence from history speaks strongly against a historical Jesus.’. From my readings, there is strong evidence of a central figure who stands behind all the myths. He might have even been wise, even if he surely wasn’t divine. The same arguments are made for the historical Buddha. Siddhartha Gautama was a real man, with some clever insights into human nature. His story was picked up by disciples and delivered across Asia, until he became a god.
Matthew Mark Luke John, Paul, Peter, James(the Brother of Jesus), and Jude. These were all 1rst hand accounts of Jesus during his day. Most all others where not kept if they could not be authenticated as 1st hand knowledge. Hersey was never kept and preserved but discard as that. One secular writers accounts were preserved that speaks of Jesus from around that time.
Josephus on Jesus
Jesus of Nazareth is possibly mentioned in two passages of the work The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, written in the late first century AD. One passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, discusses the career of Jesus. The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, although most modern scholars agree that it is partially authentic.[1] The second passage mentions Jesus as the brother of a James, possibly James the Just. Most scholars consider this passage genuine.[2]
- Josephus on Jesus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The III
Paul is most definitely not a 1st hand account.
It’s not clear who Mark is (tradition holds it was a scribe/disciple of Peter), so if tradition is right, then Mark is not a first-hand account.
It’s not clear which James is credited with the book that bears his name, and thus it’s not clear if it’s a first-hand account of Jesus or not.
Most all others where not kept if they could not be authenticated as 1st hand knowledge.
That’s not true. There are all sorts of extra-canonical texts that we know of. It stands to reason that there were even more that we don’t know about.
Paul is most definitely not a 1st hand account.
- brgulker
ACTS 9:4-6
9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: [it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord [said] unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
- Jesus
Paul and Saul are the same person.
This is definitely 1st hand. So you can lie, twist and deceive with you conjectures all you want you but know this God’s truth and holy Word will always prevail.
The III
LOL. Using the bible to prove that its true.
Wheel
Of
Bullshit.
That’s is definitely not what historians understand as “first hand”. Paul claims to see a spirit (why does it sounds bizarre “ghost” in this context? Damn it catholic education!).
Can’t you difference between reality and imagination?
Oh… I was going to ask you wich are the proofs that Paul did receive a message from god but I already know the answer: he says so in your magic book – circular reasoning makes baby Aristotle cry
This he says to bgulker!
LOL
So you can lie, twist and deceive with you conjectures all you want
The III — UF’s Christian version of Aor?
By that logic, every single Christian who has a “personal relationship with Jesus” is a 1st hand witness. Paul had a vision, but did not meet Jesus in the flesh.
A self-reported vision of the risen Christ (which people still report 2,000ish years later) is not the same thing as witnessing the human Jesus of Nazareth.
The latter is what is meant by a first-hand account. Paul is most definitely not that.
I think this one gives a more accurate account of Josephus mention of Jesus.
Dr. J Tabor website UNC Charlotte
He also point to the fact lost on our friend 3 that Josephus earlier book, Wars of the Jews, which directly deal with the relevant period doesn’t mention Jesus; rather surprising if he was such a prominent figure.
I’ll preface this with the admission that I think the philosophy (like Jefferson, discarding any supernatural elements handed down with the core philosophical message) attributed to an allegedly historically factual man named Jesus of Nazareth is a very good basis for personal conduct and behavior. I also think large portions of this philosophy were based on earlier thought attributed to Buddha (although filtered somewhat by time, method of communication/translation, and geography). I also believe that these philosophies have equals when compared to other philosophies. They do not stand out among others.
That said, the historical record of the ultimate source of “Christianity” within Judaism is pure conjecture, and nothing more.
As with all god-based religions, it is one thing to argue the “history” from within the context of the accepted dogma, but another thing, altogether, if one rejects the underlying dogma.
For an atheist, there is no reason to take a position on this issue, as it is akin to arguing the intricacies of the bloodlines of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.
The Bible itself testifies to this early plurality within Judaism. Matthew’s Gospel is a fantastic example, which was obviously written by a Jew who is both aware of and concerned with his own Judaism and is clearly trying to persuade other Jews that he is correct.
Sorry, the skeptic in me…
I kid, I kid.
You kid, but it’s a good point. Do we know he said that? What are the earliest manuscripts we have? I’ve studied biblical manuscripts & dating, but don’t know much about Hillel.
I think I’d probably respond that in this case, the question about the authenticity of authorship is less important than the question about the truth of the statement.
Certainly, the former is interesting, though.
Rabbinical tradition talk of two main schools the house (school) of Shamai, which took a very strict aproach to reading the torah and used to forbid anything that they weren’t sure was permited and the house of Hillel who took a more lenient aproach that tried to allow more and took the more lenient interpretation of torah phrases. Since these two came to represent these general paths I’m sure that at least some of the saying that represented their brancj were attributed to them regardless of whether they said it themselves. This saying come from a story about a man who first came to Shamai and asked him to teach him the whole torah on one foot (literal translation, should probably be translated to in a nutshell) upon which Shamai kicked him out. He then asked the same of Hillel who told him that famous line. How much of that has any root in history, none can answer that.
Great article. I have been reading “A history of christianity” by Paul Johnson. In it, he describes how the jewish cult called the Essenes came up with the ideas that God was where two or more were gathered instead of just in the temple and the breaking of bread and drinking of wine as symbolic and substitutes for the sacrifices that went on in the temple. It was likely that John the Baptist was an Essene and Jesus may have learned these concepts from him.
No, were in history or in the Bible is John the Baptist said to be a Essene. Only speculation.
Also no were is it said Jesus learned any of these concepts from him or any other man.
12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
- Jesus
As a matter of fact John the Baptist stated
“He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie.”John 1:27
This happened when Jesus was the age of 12
[46] After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. [47] Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. Luke 2:46-47
- God
Jesus was the teacher not the student and everyone who came to him referred to him as such. Those who believed him and those who did not.
The III
It’s just speculation, The III. If you compare the writing and lifestyle of the Essenes, you find striking similarities with the way that John lived and the content of John’s teachings.
Jesus was the teacher not the student and everyone who came to him referred to him as such. Those who believed him and those who did not.
Jesus was considered a Rabbi, by his disciples and by other Rabbis. You don’t become a Rabbi without having been someone’s disciple first. We don’t know who Jesus’ teacher(s) was, but we can infer from his Rabbinic status that he most definitely did have a teacher.
It’s NOT just speculation.
Typo.
That is a lie. The Word of God is truth(your word is not) and plainly states.
12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
- Jesus
God the father and God the Father alone taught his son Jesus. And I say again. You can twist and deceive with you conjectures all you want to, but know this, God’s truth and Holy Word will always prevail.
- The III
Rabbi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rabbi (pronounced /ˈræbaɪ/, Hebrew for “my master”) is the term in Judaism for a religious teacher.
The III
Not to sound like an arrogant jerk, but I know what a Rabbi is, and I know the training that was required in order to become a Rabbi. Jesus had human teachers. If he hadn’t, none of the religious leaders would have called him such.
In other words, in 1st C Judaism, one would never have been considered a Rabbi by the religious establishment (which the Gospels report Jesus was) unless that person had the requisite training. If the bible — God’s Word, as you understand it — reports that Jesus was a Rabbi, wouldn’t it be a lie for you to deny that he was trained as one?
brgulker, I don’t think there’s anything that you could write in response to “The III” that would make you sound like an arrogant jerk. I think he/she has that role down cold.
I have a hard time taking people lie The III seriously. I know some of them are genuine, but I also know that some just like to poke the bees nest.
A friend of mine recently confessed that he used to create fictional fundamentalist personas. He would mask his IP and go trolling atheist and science websites. He claimed it was an art form. He did the usual bible quoting and denying of reality, but he carefully inserted an obscure movie quote in every post he made. He kept copies of many of them, and showed how he put them together.
I was shocked! This guy is an atheist! Why badger other atheists? He’s also a really nice guy. He told me that it was fun, and he thought he was doing a public service by keeping other atheists sharp. He also told me that you can’t change anyones mind on the internet, and that forum arguments were pointless.
I think he might have a touch of nihilism.
I think he’s nuts. But he is great to have on your side in a FPS death match.
Yeah sure… “a friend of mine”, “someone explained me”… confess it!
:-p
“I think he might have a touch of nihilism.”
Which movie is that from?
;-)
Jesus had human teachers.
wouldn’t it be a lie for you to deny that he was trained as one?
Prove it. Give written proof anywhere inside the Bible or outside that plainly states this. Not everybody else did it, therefore he did too. His occupation was a carpenter. I thought every body new that.
as I stated before, God the father taught him and he states that fact. It is a lie for you to state it otherwise solely based on your opinion That everybody else was. Pleeeez.
So it’s wrong for brgulker to make a claim based on historic knowledge of what was required by 1st century jews in order to refer to someone as a rabbi (a distinction that is still in use today) yet its OK for you to make claims with no support in reality what so ever.
Written proof here: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Rabbi#Becoming_a_rabbi
as I stated before, God the father taught him and he states that fact. It is a lie for you to state it otherwise solely based on your opinion That everybody else was. Pleeeez.
How can you misunderstand my point so completely? Jesus was called Rabbi by his followers and by other Rabbis. In order to be called a Rabbi, one had to go through very intensive training and teaching from other Rabbis. It is and always has been that way in the Jewish religion.
It is a fact of history … Call me a liar all you want. That doesn’t change facts.
There was once a Rabbi who wanted to bring the faith to a tribe of Africans known as Knids.
Unfortunately, the Knids love to play tricks on people. They would put hot peppers in his food, or sew his bed sheets too short. They were a funny people who loved a great practical joke.
One day, the Rabbi thought he would teach them a new trick. He put a bucket of water on the top edge of the door, and called for someone to come into the room.
Just before entering, the Knid saw the bucket. He reached up and tipped it the other direction, landing straight on the head of the Rabbi.
Laughing, the Knid jumped around the corner and said “Silly Rabbi, Tricks are for Knids!”
We’re come back to a previous post of yours – The God in the Mirror about the tendency to project ones’ personal beliefs onto god.
To repeat my comment – “If we could put a name and a definition to this phenomena it would be a great foil to use against dogma.”
There’s something to be said for this, however, it might be slightly more accurate to say, “Jesus is the fault of the Roman-Jewish War.” The fighting in the Levant during the late 60s CE, and the destruction of the Temple which was its culmination, was definitely something of a socio-historical-philosophical cliff which fundamentally changed both Judaism and the Jesus movements (i.e. early Christianity).
Prior to this war, Christianity was a collection of frequently-disconnected “Jesus movements” which were made up either of Jews or of a mixture of Jews and Gentiles. They had in common the goal of trying to fit Judaism’s traditions into the wider, and much wider-ranging, Greco-Roman world. They did this in different ways; e.g. the Judean “signs community” (from which the gospel of John eventually emerged) did it by applying Hellenic mystical motifs to Judaic figures. The Cilician Christ-cult (whose most famous missionary was Paul of Tarsus) did it by casting a Judaic teacher as a Hellenic mystical-celestial guide, and they embraced the so-called “Godfearers” (i.e. Gentiles who viewed Judaism as a kind of alternate philosophical school).
Up to the time of the Roman-Jewish War, these groups mostly lived in ignorance of each other. (Paul’s Cilician Christ-cult did attempt a reconciliation with groups elsewhere, but although Paul claimed victory over “the Pillars of Jerusalem,” the compromise he and they reached amounted to “We’ll keep doing what we do, and you keep doing what you do,” which really was a “victory” for no one but the status quo; although it did justify Paul’s cult getting rid of its Judaizers, who presumably became Jewish-Christians of the Ebionite sort.)
But then the Roman-Jewish War came. This caused a number of things to happen, in rapid succession, which affected Judaism and the various Jesus movements drastically. First, it created enmity between Jews and others in the Greco-Roman world. Jews were seen not merely as insular and reclusive (which was not unusual given that many ethnic groups tended to be insular), but as dangerous, since they’d provoked the wrath of Rome. This antipathy affected the Jesus movements only a little less than the Jews, but it had another effect (which I’ll get to later). Second, it forced the Jesus movements to admit that their “kingdom of God” idea, which suggested that by better spiritual living the physical world would be steadily improved, simply was not working and had to be retooled. Third, the war’s end deprived Judaism of its Temple; this sent it down the road toward Rabbinic Judaism and basically obviated “reform” sects such as the Essenes (which had been founded in opposition to the Second Temple priesthood). Fourth, it sent a lot of Jews as well as members of the Jesus movements from places where there was fighting, such as Judea, Idumea and Galilee into the arms of other Jews and other members of the Jesus movements.
Basically this caused a vast reshuffling of Judaism and the Jesus movements, and forced Jews and Jesus-movement people to face one another in ways they hadn’t before. Judaism, as noted, began going down a more singular path. The Jesus movements, though, having existed alongside one another mostly in ignorance or mere tolerance of each other, suddenly had to actually decide what to think about each other. The “let-Jews-be-Jews-and-Gentiles-be-Gentiles” compromise which Paul and the Pillars had arrived at, was no longer good enough … because the parties were not several hundred miles apart, but right in each other’s neighborhoods!
At the same time that Jews were figuring out how to reconcile each other’s beliefs and also absorb the loss of the Temple, so too the Jesus movements graduated into “Christianity,” and in the process, never really unified, but merely changed into a slightly-smaller assortment of more drastically varied sects. The end of the 1st century is when the division between the Gnostic movements and “Orthodox” movements had its origins, and in the following decades, became more pronounced. This can be seen in warnings against false teachings (e.g. in the “letters to the churches” in the first chapters of Revelation, written in the last years of that century, and in the Johannine epistles, written in the first years of the next century).
Finally, back to the (increased) Greco-Roman antipathy toward Jews that the war engendered: Until then the Jesus movements had connected themselves with Jews, viewing themselves as Jews, or as “spiritual successors to the Jews” (e.g. they often referred to themselves as “the New Israel”). Now that Jews were suddenly unpopular, the Jesus movements, as they became Christianity, tried to sever their connections to Judaism, so that other Greco-Romans would not associate themselves with Jews. The last decade of the 1st century and the first decades of the 2nd are when anti-Jewish polemics really begin to make their mark in the documentary record of Christianity. In fact, some of the earliest aspects of that are found in the gospels themselves, in the form of the many “dressing downs” that Jesus dishes out to the Pharisees. (Note that the Pharisees in the gospels are really a caricature of what the actual Pharisees had been.) The gospels’ source material, such as the “lost gospel” Q, contains precursors to this, but if you compare how Jesus addresses the Pharisees in, say, Luke with how he addresses them in Q, you will find this rhetoric has been significantly ramped up.
Sorry to have bored everyone. The first few decades of Christianity’s history … i.e. the years prior to the Roman-Jewish War and the first 3 or 4 decades after — have been of particular interest to me. They happen to have been, I think, the defining years of the movement, and gave us the kernel of Christianity that we know now. (Most Christians believe that “kernel” to have been what Jesus taught to the apostles when he was still alive, but it’s not. That kernel only emerged decades later, tempered by the fires of the the Roman-Jewish War of the 60s CE.)
Fascinating information. I’d be interested to know what books you read relating to this subject matter, i.e. very early Christianity prior to 70 CE. Thanks!
I’ve read an awful lot on the matter. As it turns out I don’t actually agree with a lot of the scholarship, but some of it yields useful information anyway. FWIW I subscribe to the “multiple source” theory of Christian origins, which is not directly addressed in any single book I know of, yet several authors have veered in that direction a lot and it’s hard not to see it in some of their material.
I’d say the best sources on the subject are as follows, and in this order:
Who Wrote the New Testament? by B. L. Mack
The Jesus Myth by G.A. Wells
Excavating Q by J.S. Kloppenborg
The Birth of Christianity by J.D. Crossan
A Myth of Innocence by B.L. Mack
The last two — and most especially the last — are big, scholarly books, and you will want to have a substantial knowledge of primary sources before really delving into them. (Although Crossan offers a lot of explication, which helps, but still might leave you with your head spinning.) By “primary sources” I don’t just mean the gospels or the genuine Pauline epistles, but other early non-canonical documents like the Didache, the Gospel of Peter, the epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter, etc.
You might also find some other books illuminating, such as The Jesus Mysteries by Freke & Gandy, however, I found their breathless writing annoying, along with their assertion that they were the first to realize something was wrong with the traditional accounts of Christianity’s origins (they were most certainly not … not by a mile!).
Now that Jews were suddenly unpopular, the Jesus movements, as they became Christianity, tried to sever their connections to Judaism, so that other Greco-Romans would not associate themselves with Jews.
-
PsiCop
That is at bold face lie. True Christians held to their faith and the commandments of God. Particularly his 7th day Sabbath and died for it all through the ages. From Nero into the middle ages. The false Christians denied their God to save their skin and did go to Rome and started their false religion You may have heard of them. They were called the Holy Roman Catholic Church they are the ones who did not want to be associated with the Jews.
See:Council of Laodicea
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The III
Re: The III:
“That is at bold face lie. True Christians held to their faith and the commandments of God. Particularly his 7th day Sabbath and died for it all through the ages. From Nero into the middle ages.”
Actually, if there is any “lie” here, it’s that Christianity has been unchanged since the moment of its origins, as you claim. That is demonstrably false. Christianity in its first 3 decades knew absolutely nothing about the “virgin birth,” about supercession, the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, Jesus dying for redemption from sin, and much more. It had only one rite, communion. It was also primarily made up of Jews, or Gentiles interested in Judaism, and except for Paul’s Christ cult, all of the Jesus movements that existed in those first few decades obeyed Mosaic Law.
The version of Christianity which survived those first 3 decades and most closely resembled it, was that of the Ebionites. But the rest of Christianity, including Epiphanius whose complaints about them have best survived, made sure to wipe that sect out, just as soon as they could, and trample it along with other sects and religions they disliked, such as the various Gnostic sects, the Manichaeans, and even Jews (whom they never really managed to completely destroy, even though the Nazis came frighteningly close).
At any rate the Ebionites have been dead and buried for c. 1,500 years or more. So it is not true that their religion … which was closest to that of the very-first Christians … managed to survive as some mythical “true church.”
As for Laodicea (364), that was a provincial, not an ecumenical, synod. It did not, therefore, speak for all of Christianity. It also was called not for the purpose you said it was, but to unravel some of the reforms of Emperor Julian “the Apostate” who’d attempted to set up his own pagan “church of Theurgy” to compete with Christianity. (He chose to do that, rather than abolish Christianity. So much for him being as evil as was claimed later by Christian writers. Yes, they lied about him. It would have been nice had Julian survived and had Theurgy, not Christianity, become the prevailing religion of the Empire, but that’s a “what-if” and ultimately takes us nowhere. Alas, he gave his life defending Christians of the eastern Empire from Persian incursion. Again, so much for him being as evil as Christians later said he was.)
Not True
Julian the Apostate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Julian was the last non-Christian ruler of the Roman Empire and it was his desire to bring the empire back to its ancient Roman values in order to save it from “dissolution”.
(He chose to do that, rather than abolish Christianity. So much for him being as evil as was claimed later by Christian writers. Yes, they lied about him. It would have been nice had Julian survived and had Theurgy, not Christianity, become the prevailing religion of the Empire, but that’s a “what-if” and ultimately takes us nowhere. Alas, he gave his life defending Christians of the eastern Empire from Persian incursion. Again, so much for him being as evil as Christians later said he was.)
He was from Rome and for Rome and died for Rome not Christians. He was a soldier and politician and sought only to preserve his power by keeping the peace.
He purged the top-heavy state bureaucracy and attempted to revive traditional Roman religious practices at the cost of Christianity.
- Julian the Apostate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Julian’s expedition was not “for Rome,” since it did not help the central Empire at all. To them it was an expense — and a big one at that — and nothing more. His campaign was designed to quell Persia, which had occasionally raided into the eastern Empire … a portion of the empire which was, at that time, mainly Christian. (Or, as he himself put it, “Galilean.”)
What I said remains as true as it was before you replied: Julian “the Apostate” was not as bad — and did not harm Christianity anywhere near as much — as later (Christian) detractors claimed.
Yep, those 4th century Christians were a grateful bunch. Yes indeedie. They were also very good at staging Christologically-inspired riots in places like Alexandria. And not long after Julian died for them, they started killing each other over heresy (beginning with Priscillian who was killed for being an ascetic, not too different from other Christian ascetics like St Anthony of the Desert who’d been revered … so no, 4th century Christians didn’t even try to be consistent in their murderous rages).
In any event, you also failed to concede your error concerning the Council of Laodicea.
No error to concede. The Romans nor the Catholic Church have anything to do with The Church that Jesus founded.
Here is what the “Encyclopaedia Britannica” says of them:
“Nazarenes, an obscure Jewish-Christian sect … they dated their settlement in Pella from the time of the flight of the Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, immediately before the siege in A.D. 70; … Jerome (Ep. 79, to Augustine) says that they believed in Christ the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rose again, but adds that, ‘desiring to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither the one nor the other” … while adhering as far as possible to the Mosaic economy as regarded circumcision, sabbaths, foods and the like, they did not refuse to recognize the apostolicity of Paul or the rights of heathen Christians (Jer., Comm. in Isa., ix, 1).” (From article, “Nazarenes,” “The Ency. Brit.”, eleventh edition, Volume XIX, page 319.)
To say that Jews were suddenly unpopular, the Jesus movements, as they became Christianity, tried to sever their connections to Judaism, is just not true.
Re: “No error to concede.”
Oh yes, your every post here is riddled with error. You’re just unaware of it because you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Re: “The Romans nor the Catholic Church have anything to do with The Church that Jesus founded.”
Unfortunately there is no such thing as “The Church that Jesus founded.” Christianity is the product of multiple Jesus movements. There is never any time in history in which there ever was a “single” Christianity. Not once. By making this statement you reveal that you don’t understand this salient fact.
Re: “To say that Jews were suddenly unpopular, the Jesus movements, as they became Christianity, tried to sever their connections to Judaism, is just not true.”
Re: ““Nazarenes, an obscure Jewish-Christian sect … they dated their settlement in Pella from the time of the flight of the Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, immediately before the siege in A.D. 70 …”
Again you reveal you do not understand what you are talking about. The Nazarenes may or may not have been founded c. 70 CE, but even if they were, they aren’t relevant to Christianity (or more correctly the Jesus movements) that existed in the 40s, 50s and early 60s CE.
Re: “To say that Jews were suddenly unpopular, the Jesus movements, as they became Christianity, tried to sever their connections to Judaism, is just not true.”
Are you trying to suggest that the post-Roman-Jewish War Christians embraced Jews? On what documentary basis do you say that? The fact is that they did nothing of the sort. Rather they did the opposite. They wrote anti-Jewish polemics, and they purged their religion of its Jewish variants (i.e. the Ebionites and Nazarenes, among others).
If you seriously contend that Christians embraced Jews after 70 CE, once again, you reveal your own ignorance of history.
I have no idea what kind of delusional pseudo-history you’re peddling, but you’re going to have to foist it on someone else. I’m not falling for it. And you should at least make a small effort to understand what you profess to know, before you do it.
Re: As for Laodicea (364), that was a provincial, not an ecumenical, synod. It did not, therefore, speak for all of Christianity. It also was called not for the purpose you said it was, but to unravel some of the reforms of Emperor Julian “the Apostate” who’d attempted to set up his own pagan “church of Theurgy” to compete with Christianity. (He chose to do that, rather than abolish Christianity.
This is Laodicea (364)
Canon 29
Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.
Here is where the false Christians outlawed the practice that identifies Jesus Church. It was the Holy Roman Catholic Church, not the Church Jesus founded that, severed their connections to Judaism.
Fact: Laodicea was a provincial synod, not an ecumenical one. Time to go back to school and learn to look in standard references. You could start with this one.
Repeating an untruth does not magically make it true.
My point is. The Holy Roman Catholic Church held all the gold and all the power. So they got to make all the rules or else. When they outlawed doctrine as it was done at Synod of Laodicea, it did not matter to them what council it was done in. Their law was the law of the land and as well as the law for ecumenical churches or they branded them as heretics and had them killed. I had posted a list of martyrs who held to the doctrines of Jesus true Church and would not follow either council rules or laws, but it appears my post for this disagreement are being deleted. Canon 29 was accepted by most all and is practiced to this day. So to say this provincial synod was of no effect in the churches of the ecumenical council, is just not true.
An ecumenical council (or oecumenical council; also general council) is a conference of the bishops of the whole Christian Church convened to discuss and settle matters of Church doctrine and practice. The word derives from the Greek language “Οικουμένη”, which literally means “the inhabited world”, which first referred to the Roman Empire and later was extended to apply to the world in general.
A synod (also known as a council) is a council of a church, usually a Christian church, convened to decide an issue of doctrine, administration or application. An ecumenical council is so named because it is a synod of the whole church.
Sometimes the phrase general synod or general council refers to an ecumenical council. The word synod also refers to the standing council of high-ranking bishops governing some of the autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches
Re: “When they outlawed doctrine as it was done at Synod of Laodicea, it did not matter to them what council it was done in.”
Apparently you are having trouble with reading comprehension. The Synod of Laodicea did not do ANYTHING to the whole Church. It was a provincial synod, not an ecumenical one. And yes, the nature of the Council in question DOES matter. If a Council was not ecumenical, it could not do ANYTHING to the entire Church. Its canons ONLY applied locally.
Re: “Their law was the law of the land and as well as the law for ecumenical churches or they branded them as heretics and had them killed.”
Unfortunately the Synod of Laodicea did not decide any “law for the ecumenical churches,” because as you have repeatedly been told, it was NOT an ecumenical council.
Re: “An ecumenical council (or oecumenical council; also general council) is a conference of the bishops of the whole Christian Church convened to discuss and settle matters of Church doctrine and practice. The word derives from the Greek language “Οικουμένη”, which literally means “the inhabited world”, which first referred to the Roman Empire and later was extended to apply to the world in general.”
Thanks for the Greek lesson. Unfortunately it’s not necessary. I learned to read Greek years ago.
Re: “A synod (also known as a council) is a council of a church, usually a Christian church, convened to decide an issue of doctrine, administration or application. An ecumenical council is so named because it is a synod of the whole church.”
Yes, but irrelevant here, since Laodicea was a provincial, not an ecumenical, synod.
Re: “Sometimes the phrase general synod or general council refers to an ecumenical council. The word synod also refers to the standing council of high-ranking bishops governing some of the autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches”
Who are you talking to? Obviously not me. Again you post irrelevancy. The Synod or council of Laodicea was neither general nor ecumenical. It was provincial.
It’s obvious you haven’t a clue what you’re saying. I suspect you copied & pasted the above from other sources, without realizing that all of your remarks on the nature of ecumenical and general councils has NOTHING to do with Laodicea, which was a local synod and neither ecumenical nor general. You’re trying to impress me with your knowledge, but you have missed the entire context here.
“My point is. The Holy Roman Catholic Church held all the gold and all the power.”
By your own logic you have to concede then that God would want them to be rich and powerful.
Re: “To say that Jews were suddenly unpopular, the Jesus movements, as they became Christianity, tried to sever their connections to Judaism, is just not true.”
My sources to counter your claims is
Eusebius’ “Ecclesiastical History” Translated By: CF Cruse
This book covers early Christian facts. His concern was to record facts before they disappeared and before eyewitnesses were killed and libraries were burned and destroyed in persecutions by Rome.
“The Writings of the Fathers to AD.325” also known as The Ante-Nicene Fathers
The books are early Christian writings That covers the beginning of Christianity long before the announcement of the Nicene Creed at the first council at Nicaea.
Now you’ve veered back to another topic. Nice. You’re wrong on this other topic, too, but I doubt that’s going to stop you.
As for how Christians dealt with Jews, my sources are primary sources … i.e. the early Christians themselves.
The fact is that by the middle of the 2nd century, Christian writers were vilifying Jews so frequently that it became cliche. Here are two examples: Dialogue with Trypho by Justin Martyr, and An Answer to the Jews. Those are just two.
They are also much earlier than Eusebius.
If you want to read the ante-Nicene Fathers yourself, you can do so. All their works are available for free, online, and in English translation. I suggest getting a few of these under your belt before continuing to pretend to know anything about early Christianity.
Not boring at all to someone unfamiliar with the history of early Christianity. Thanks for the history lesson.
The Hatian Earthquake–miniature apocalyptic situation?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/34834881#34834881
Does anyone else view this disaster as a miniature apocalypse? The 7.0 magnitude earthquake basically hit the capital of the country, demolishing government buildings and public works alike. Aid is already on the way, but imagine what would happen should Washington (or your country’s capital city) got hit by an earthquake of this strength and suffered this much damage.
NO! TELL ME THEY DID NOT JUST SAY THAT!
The III
It’s obvious you haven’t a clue what you’re saying. I suspect you copied & pasted the above from other sources, without realizing that all of your remarks on the nature of ecumenical and general councils has NOTHING to do with Laodicea, which was a local synod and neither ecumenical nor general. You’re trying to impress me with your knowledge, but you have missed the entire context here.
Realllllly, trying to impress you?LOL
Did the churches of the ecumenical council follow Canon 29 or not and if it was so provincial, what churches did not follow this law then or now? You say there was no Church founded by Jesus and I say there was and it is still here today. It’s history did not come out synod of Laodicea or the ecumenical council but it is here non the less.
Re: “Did the churches of the ecumenical council follow Canon 29 or not and if it was so provincial, what churches did not follow this law then or now?”
In a word, no. Canon 29 of Laodicea was not binding anywhere except its participating Anatolian sees, back in 364 when it was written. It applied nowhere else at that time.
Re: “You say there was no Church founded by Jesus and I say there was and it is still here today.”
Absolutely I say that … and I’ve explained how and why. I will indulge you and explain it a second time: If you look at the oldest-extant Christian documents, i.e. the genuine Pauline epistles written in the mid 50s to early 60s CE, what do you see? Division. Nothing but division and disagreement. Division between Judaizers and Gentiles in Galatians. Division between generations of Christians (i.e. new converts and Christians of longer standing) in the Thessalonians. Division between Hellenic mystics and the rest in the Corinthians. And so on. Division over the standing of Christian slaves in Philemon. Division over the poor and the rich and the sanctity of contributions in Philippians.
Division, division, division! It’s all about division. If Jesus had been present in the 30s CE, and if so many Christians of the era (especially their leaders) had remembered him and his words inperson, how is it possible for there to have been so much division over his teachings and his intentions?
Most significantly … how is it possible for the Apostles who knew him, to have been unclear as to whether or not Gentiles should be allowed in, as implied in Galatians? If “the Pillars of Jerusalem” who had known Jesus personally, and Paul — who met Jesus personally and received the gospel from him on the road to Damascus — had actually known the very same Jesus then how could there possibly have been any disagreement on this point?
Yet, there WAS disagreement … a lot of it … over that one point, AND over many others too. All of that division among early Christians had happened inside of the cult’s first 20 years. That’s less than one generation of Christian conversion!
This extensive and pervasive division among Christians, the leaders of whom claimed to have known Jesus personally, CANNOT readily be explained, if one assumes that, in fact, they all learned the gospel from the very same person.
What’s more rational is that the division arose from the fact that these groups had all emerged on their own, separately, and while they were trying to unite, still had basic disagreements, because they did not all come from the same source.
If any of this is somehow not clear now, please explain how I can clarify it.
Again you reveal you do not understand what you are talking about.
So you will tell us that you know more about my Church History more than myself. You know false Christianity History Not the History of the Church, Jesus founded. You know pagan ritual keeping history not the keepers of the Passover, the keepers of the Sabbath(Saturday), keepers of The Ten commandments, God’s Holy days, all kept by Jesus and his apostles. You know Sundays keepers, Christmas, Easter,Valentines day, birthday celebrations, Halloween, all pagan Holidays and holy days. So go on deceiving because it is you who knows nothing about Christ his people or Church. It is you who does not understand what you are talking about, Judaism or Christianity.
Someone’s off their meds
That’s funny to me. For some reason I keep reading The III as The ill (with a capital I). It looks the same either way.
The III,
I’m sorry, but you do seem to be glossing over or ignoring a lot of confirmed Christian history. I’m curious, what are your sources? I’d like to examine them, because you do seem to have a perspective unique compared to that of the Biblical scholars, both Christian and non, that I have read.
I guess christians have a priori knowledge of christian history.
The III, Jesus is reported to have said these words in Luke 6:
You are woefully ignorant of Christian history, so much so that it’s safe to call you blind. People here — people who are atheists and have every reason to dislike you for the tone and content of your comments — are patiently trying to inform you that history did not happen as you think it did. But instead of listening humbly to someone who clearly has more knowledge about something than you do, you are choosing ignorance, willfully choosing to ignore the facts of history that even our own Scriptures testify to.
I encourage you to abandon ignorance, lest you be guilty of falling into a ditch and taking anyone who listens to you with you.
Re: “So you will tell us that you know more about my Church History more than myself.”
Yes, because you do not display any evidence of any such knowledge. You repeat the same canards ad nauseum no matter what is said to you.
Re: “You know false Christianity History Not the History of the Church, Jesus founded.”
Everything I know about Christian history comes from the pens of Christians themselves. Look e.g. at the genuine Pauline epistles, the oldest extant Christian documents (and canon, to boot). They tell us only of division: Between Judaizers and Gentiles in Galatians; misunderstandings and divisions over the predeceased saints and Jesus’ return in the Thessalonians; the influence of pagan mysticism in the Corinthians; and so on.
Do you understand what this means? That churches were divided, even at the time they were being created? How exactly is this “false” history, if Paul himself wrote about these divisions?
Re: “You know pagan ritual keeping history not the keepers of the Passover, the keepers of the Sabbath(Saturday), keepers of The Ten commandments, God’s Holy days, all kept by Jesus and his apostles.”
I already told you that it’s agreed that the Jesus movements, with the exception of Paul’s Christ-cult, obeyed Mosaic Law. But they were not merely Jews. Their beliefs were substantively different than Jews.
Re: “You know Sundays keepers, Christmas, Easter,Valentines day, birthday celebrations, Halloween, all pagan Holidays and holy days.”
I honestly don’t know when I mentioned any of those things. You keep bringing up Sunday, and now you introduce these others. I didn’t mention them. Why are you complaining to me about them?
Re: “So go on deceiving because it is you who knows nothing about Christ his people or Church.”
Once again, I have cited every Christian document that supports my view. I also provided another list of books that provide added evidence for what I said. You, on the other hand, cannot do so. At best all you’ve done is mention the synod of Laodicea, but you misrepresented it as ecumenical when it was, in fact, provincial.
Re: “It is you who does not understand what you are talking about, Judaism or Christianity.”
I fully admit not being expert on Judaism, but again, what I say about Christianity, I’ve backed up. You, on the other hand, have failed to do the same.
Does anybody else feel like The III is here for course credit on that retarded theology course somebody posted about a while back?
Hi, VorJack… Thanks for following up on your earlier article with this new piece.
We just wanted to emphasize a crucial consideration in this discussion: when it comes to identifying who’s really at “fault” regarding the creation/depiction/reshaping of “Jesus,” we can’t leave Paul out. In some sense — and this will be our gross oversimplification! :-) — we could strongly argue that “Christianity is Paul’s fault.”
More than anyone else, Paul establishes the underpinnings and theological groundwork by which Jesus is no longer restricted to his native Jewish community. Paul is almost singularly responsible for expanding the scope of Jesus “the Christ” and making him available to the entire world — Christ’s influence broadens to include Jews and gentiles alike. And really, it’s this “gentile” strain initiated by Paul that later evolves into standalone “Christianity.”
As you know, the Jewish disciples of Jesus ultimately fade as the Pauline-Roman strand of Christianity rises…. Yep, the Jews lose Jesus — and what happens next is Paul’s doing.
Roses are red,
violets are blueish,
if it wasn’t for Paul,
we’d all be Jewish
LOL….
Amen, verily I say unto you…. :-P