There's a running joke in my family regarding this. My great-grandmother and my mother got in an argument about Jesus being Jewish. The final word was when my great-grandmother shouted, "Jesus may have been Jewish, but the Blessed Virgin Mary was Catholic!!!"
Reminds me of the old argument when a church was adopting the NKJV Bible, and an old man yells out, "If the King James Bible was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!"
@Niko Bellic - That really depends on how you're using the word "catholic". The ministry of Jesus was open to all, as opposed to Judaism, which is only open to the descendants of Isaac. In that since it is a "universal" or "catholic" church. On the other hand, there is The Roman Catholic Church, which is what people usually think of when someone says "Catholic Church". Which is a power structure that solidified centuries after the death of Jesus, and as exemplified by its behavior throughout history (e.g., The Spanish Inquisition, etc.), has little to no validity as an interpretor of the ministry of Jesus. In short, Jesus was a small-con catholic, not a big-C Catholic. He believed in universalism, not in Roman Catholic dogma.
Please consider that pastors in apostolic churches are priests who celebrate the divine mysteries of Christ, ordained by bishops ordained by bishops, going back to Christ himself, and that Christianity is not propositional but sacramental. Lead your flock rightly back to Apostolic faith, in a canonical Church.
Please look up here, even on you tube Jewish Catholics. Also visit the Hebrew Catholic Association. One of many well-studied Catholic theologians, Dr Brant Pitre also has a written series on the Jewish roots of Catholicism. Thank you.
kjpmi of course I have, that's not my point. My point was that a defining characteristic of the new covenant is that it wasn't limited to those under the old covenant. Most of the earliest Christians were Jews, but the first church council ever was whether non Jews could be Christians as well, that was the whole theological problem of the NT post-resurrection and it's a massive theme in Acts. A lot of Paul's letters are to:explain salvation, encourage right living and defeat the legalism of the Jedaisers (a Jewish sect of Christians who insisted that new gentile converts had to be circumcised and keep kosher to be part of the community of believers). The ruling of the Council was that they didn't they only needed to do enough to keep with the spirit of ritual purity on a basic moral level, and so they could socialize without confusion or offense, so they had to keep the sabbath and not eat meat with blood in it, the rest of the rules were basic morality rules that Paul had to teach people over and over due to the maturity required for people to do good for simple moral reasons instead of legalism.
I think the important thing to remember about the early history of Christianity is that many of Jesus' followers largely came from among the more Hellenized Jews rather than the more orthodox and that this was the source of a lot of the controversy surrounding Jesus during his life. He was drawing on a population that was moving towards certain popular aspects of Greco-Roman religion and away from more traditional Jewish beliefs. This is what later made it very attractive to disaffected Greeks and Romans as the early Christians spread throughout the empire.
Excellent post. You might want to check some of his other videos about the ebionites, basically Jews for Jesus, and the gnostic groups, who were more non Jewish people.
I love your videos, but I always try not to scroll down to the comments. I can't imagine how difficult it is to discuss religious topics professionally with a scholarly outlook because it is such a personal thing for most people, and they tend to shut off and not actually listen to you when they think you may say something that won't like.
@@SonicSega0964 In the first and second centuries, many Christian groups held beliefs that were later considered heretical. Marcionists, for example, held that the Old Testament described a demiurge or lesser God, who was jealous, wrathful, and perhaps even malevolent. Why else would he command the Israelites to make war and commit genocide? Yet there was also a forgiving supreme being, or Monad, who sent Jesus to rescue us from the defective world that the demiurge had foolishly created. Marcion created the first known Christian canon, consisting of a form of the Gospel of Luke and ten Pauline epistles. Gnostics propounded a similar duality, in which a malevolent lesser deity created the material universe, and a hidden, supreme being sent his son to bring salvation -- not through faith, but by imparting _gnosis_ or esoteric knowledge. Docetists held that Jesus was divine and not human, that he didn't have a physical body and couldn't have suffered on the cross. Conversely, Ebionites believed that Jesus was a righteous human, but wasn't divine. Other varieties of Christianity included Montanism, Arianism, and Donatism.
There was also what Ehrman refers to as a proto-orthodox Christianity, which later won out, becoming official in the early fourth century with the Nicene Creed. But all these groups were present in the first and second centuries and grounded their beliefs in teachings that they attributed to Jesus. ua-cam.com/video/W80CbmfRt9s/v-deo.html
those are the sects we know of thanks to the bad press the got from the later church fathers, The situation at the start and even before of what we now call Christianity could have been far more complex. In communities where there was necesairy intense contact with Jews and non-Jews all kind of proto/pseudo Christian idea's could have emerged. For centuries all kind of versions of Christianity emerged waxed and waned got absorbed by other versions. The need for a main stream and mandetory way of religion is mainly a political one when power becomes an issue.
After the destruction of the 2nd Temple, Pharisee Judaism became what is today Rabbinical Orthodox Judaism. As apart of how they defined Judaism, they rejected what they considered as heretical or "minim." Undoubtly, Jewish Christianity was considered as being among the "minim."
@Max St. Arlyn Originally belief in the Gospel of Yeshua was a Jewish movement who were known as Ebionoi or as Nazorians. Jewish Christianity did eventually disappear or got absorbed into the Gentile Church or into Muhamadanism. But there are still Oriental Orthodox churches that still use the Semitic languages in their scriptures and rites such as the Syrian and the Eithiopian.
Yup, the Orthadox Jews of the Period weren't really keen on considering Jesus as the Messiah for a few reasons, 1. They were expecting more of a Military Figure for an independent Israel. 2. Jesus died on the Cross. Slowly but surely over time Christianity and Judaism seperated over that as Orthadox Jews saw Christianity as Heretical, in response overtime Christianity develops into its own to destingush itself from Judaism, sometimes this lead to violence between the 2.
And, it seems, the jews might have chosen a midianite or kennite god, based on yahweh's association with sinai / paran / seir. They seem to have adopted the storm / volcano god yahweh, displacing the canaanite storm god baal hadad, and merging him into the supreme god el.
Absolutely love the videos!! I am a Non Practicing catholic.. but very strong belief in Jesus as My Lord and Savior.. I started seriously researching his history and in turn history of religion .. your videos are perfect and love how you give additional research material
Bruh ya against Jesus he never claimed to be god he always pointed his father as the true God Greco Roman paganism destroyed his teaching n Paul did destroyed too. The real teaching of Jesus is in Islam
@@A1.4U Nah. That's a blatant lie. Jesus refers to Jewish theology and directly claims he is God way too many times. Paganism affected Catholicism but not Orthodoxy. Islam comes 630 years later and has lies while copying Apocryphal texts. No. Paul didn't do anything wrong either. Paul has more authenticity that Muhhamed in truth claims.
Monarch BLUE if u compare the teaching of Paul n Muhammad the disciples of Jesus would agree with Jesus more than Paul james brother of James was fighting against Jesus for teaching false preach
@@A1.4U False. Paul was chosen by Jesus in the road to Damascus where Paul was redeemed. Also, James was Jesus' brother. Him and Paul were friends. All the apostles and people agreed with Paul even though they had minor disagreements. They would agree with Jesus over Muhhamed. But everything you said still doesn't change that Paul was earlier that Muhhamed. This means that since Paul is from the 1st century while Muhhamed was from the 7th. Paul is far more believable and historically accurate than Muhammads. The Quran has been changed so the Quran doesn't really matter anymore in historical truth claims. Therefore, Paul's letters are better at telling the truth.
You have to remember that similar confusion was going on within the Jewish community as well after the destruction of Jerusalem. What did it mean to be 'Jewish' without the Temple and without a country to call their own.
Dude, I've fallen in love with your channel. I've been learning a lot through these videos, it's really helping me writing my masters thesis. I want to commend you for your effort in making good quality content, on a website where facts, reasoning, don't seem to be the main point. I bet you get a ton of Hate for having a scholar prespective, and I imagine you get constantly bombarded with comments like "SO YOU THINK JESUS WAS FAKE?" or " HAHA! Told you religion was a lie!". Anyway, if you ever see this, just remember that I feel your struggle and I know it must be hard on you. But please, keep making these videos, there's also a lot of people like me who genuinely just want to learn more about history and religion! Congrats, keep it up!
Thanks man, I really appreciate the encouragement. You're right that the comment sections are a new terrible hellscape of hate every morning. But I get plenty of gems like your comment. I won't be stopping any time soon! Good luck with the master's thesis.
Thank you for sharing with us this amazing wisdom, many have searched for this and finally after so many years get the answers as well as confirmation. 🙂 please keep up the good work, all your effort and intelligence count and adds up as you help the world learn better🌐🌏🌎🌍
@Foghorn LeghornThere is evidence of the existence of a man name Jesus of Nazareth who lived in Roman occupied Judea in the first century AD. Whether or not he is the son of God, you can debate. but there was a real Jesus who really lived, and really claimed to be the son of god. There is roman birth and death records of him. I know he is real because I have called upon him to save me, and he did. I recommend the books of Mathew mark, Luke and John. I used to be atheist. but I was so very wrong. Jesus Christ is real and he loves you brother. peace be to you in his holy name.
@Foghorn Leghorn The article clearly stated that Roman and Jewish texts refer to a man named Jesus , within decades of his death. -- "The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who according to Ehrman “is far and away our best source of information about first-century Palestine,” twice mentions Jesus in Jewish Antiquities, his massive 20-volume history of the Jewish people that was written around 93 A.D."
Isn't this basically the same question as saying when did Heavy Metal seperate from hard rock? As with most social transitions there was a period where there was a blend of the two before splitting legitimately.
The Bar Kokhba Revolution of 135 ca played a big role in parting ways between the two groups. From that moment on, the Jewish element in the Church was progressively suppressed and an anti-Judaic sentiment prevailed among the Christians. The Hebrew calendar was banned, the Hebrew feasts forbidden, and the Christian customs were slowly being made autonomous from their Jewish sources. The synagogues all over the Empire became very conservative and closed to Christian preachers. This process culminated in 193 CE when pope Victor tried to detach the Christian from the Jewish Passover, although not successfully. However, these changes marked a decisive moment in which a new, non-Jewish identity of the Christian Church started to develop.
This gets even more odd when The birth of Islam takes place. Even Islam itself has ideas from different and obscure Judeo-Christian texts in the Quran. The biographies of the Prophet came 100-200 years after his passing. Without these writings, the Quran is VERY vague. Some writers described Islam as a very Jewish Christianity. Others claim it evolved from Syriac Christianity. The ideas of Islam are very similar to Ebionites where they did not see Jesus as God. It is indeed hard to precise where the official separation happened.
Just found your channel. Very interesting stuff, so very well put together. I'm an athiest, but I'm inclined to learn something new about anything. I like to think of this as more the culture and history of someone or some thing more than just a religious standpoint. Your videos are well informed, and are very entertaining. Thank you for the great content!
Keep on staying open. This world wasn't created by accident. It is very calculated and designed. I'm praying that you get to know the one who created it which I believe is God who sent Jesus to save us and point us back into right relationship with Himself. Blessings on your journey!
I'm an Israeli and I am amazed at how EVERY VIDEO about the Israel Palestine conflict ends up in an even more serious argument between Indians and Pakistanis in the comment section.
You are indeed a sect unless you have another explanation why do you whole foriegners nations read about our creation tradtion,our own history and fathers and even just general folk stories like with Job,even songs like the songs of songs why you call yourself by original Jewish names,yet in the other hand you killed and despise us Oy vavoy indeed.
@@yakov95000 Yep, Europe started rapidly going backwards and stayed there for a thousand years after importing a foreign Middle Eastern religion based upon a narcissistic and emotionally abusive deity.
@@tsopmocful1958 Europe didn't go backwards, it was always backwards without Rome, before and after Christianity. What about the Muslim world, that was the beacon of technology and philosophy at the time, and Islam was also inspired by Judaism. Europeans were simply late bloomers. But naturally people would find a way to blame Jews.
@@yakov95000 cause humans are imperfect and often succumb to the temptations of the evil one. They forget that wouldn’t know anything about God if it weren’t for His chosen people and some are taught lies by misguided people who teach that the Jewish people are no longer God’s chosen people. Which of course isn’t true.
Since Mary Magdalene was the first one that Jesus chose to appear to after his resurrection, Mary was the first Christian ever. And this always blows my mind: from the time that she got her orders until the time that they saw Him, she was the ONLY Christian on earth.
@ReligionForBreakfast if you ever consider writing a book, I think this would be an excellent topic! There is a lot of interest in "Early Christianity" and "The Historical Jesus" from readers with a wide variety of backgrounds. I've read a lot of them, but I've never seen this angle in a book aimed at non-experts. I've been reading Boyarin's book, and, honestly, I don't think I would be following his points if I hadn't been introduced to it by this video. I am always learning about interesting subjects, but it is a rare peak experience when something opens up a whole new perspective for me. This video is one of those experiences, thank you!
I really appreciate the respectful and unbiased nature of this video, I’m not sure how you as the creator of the video feel about religion but your maturity and clarity made this a really enjoyable video that has a lot of valuable information to offer.
I love your videos will you be doing some on how Europe became Christian? I’ve read some historical items on it and its interesting how long it took till it was fully complete and how it was not exactly a kind gentle assimilation
The lack of knowledge that most religious people have concerning their religion is well documented and that includes the teachers of those religions. The scholars are not usually the people who disseminate that knowledge to the adherents of their particular religion.
I think it has to do with lack of knowledge the average Christian has about all this, and more subtly, the antisemitism in American society at large that probably prevents people from learning this history and seeks to keep the religions at odds. Jesus would want unity between us and mixing of ideas I’m sure of that
i enjoyed your discussion here. i was very pleased with your honesty here and your fairness. i have listened to a few Jewish and Gentile attempts at this topic and most of them are full of error in my view.
Good job, as usual, although there is the big question of non-Jews increasingly converting to Christianity, which, I daresay was the decisive factor: the ethnic dilution is already observable in Paul's letters and it couldn't but grow the two religious strains apart.
Likely Judaism at that time weren't really keen on converting others that much, especially when Christianity slowly became popular to the Romans which probably just made that worse and justifiable in some Ancient Jew's eyes.
You don't mention the three Jewish wars which were major events in the life of the Roman Empire. The Great Jewish War which ended in 70 with the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, then there was the Jewish rebellion centered around Cyrene in what's now Libya and elsewhere outside of Israel around 113 - 115 and was evidently very boody - the city of Cyrene never recovered from this uprising. Finally there was the Bar Kochba Revolt of 132 to 135 which required major Roman forces to defeat it. Jews were seen by many in the Roman Empire as enemies, many Christians (those who accepted Jesus as the Messiah or part of G-d of either Jewish or Gentile background) wanted to distance themselves from the pesky Jews. I was surprised you made no mention of Pella, still it was an interesting video.
The final versions of the 4 Gospels were completed after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, and the Gospel writers, in recounting the exchange between Jesus and the Roman centurion and the saying "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's," emphatically distance Jesus from Jewish nationalism and from any anti-Roman Jewish sentiment. St. Paul in his letter to the Romans teaches obedience to the Roman government, and in the Acts of the Apostles, he twice emphasizes his Roman citizenship to Roman magistrates. Early Christian writers take pains not to appear anti-Roman, at least until the writing of the Book of Revelations.
@@pompeiusmagnus2276 Saul of Tarsus was most likely the equivalent of a CIA/FBI Federal Operative, so of course he is going to preach obedience to secular rule. This form of Judaism should be called Paulianity. Ralph Ellis and Joseph Atwill go into this clandestine aspect of Saul of Tarsus' zealous work. Paula Fredriksen talks a lot about how jewish the early adherents to Paul's mission were. She also does a great talk on gods running in the blood which is a boon to pagans such as myself....because it is truth as was shown historically in it being the the status quo before the Abrahamists decided on universalization of all religious thought and began their judaizing of European gentiles.
Jesus the Messiah said this in, Rev 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: Rev 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
I think it is important to note the Council at Yavneh where Jewish Leaders reject Jesus as the Messiah in 90 AD, the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, the thought and teachings of early church fathers of the Rejection of the Jews because the temple was destroyed and Jews Banished from Jerusalem in 135? AD, and Constantine. I agree there was no one point but a gradual process. I also appriciate you pointing out how early Christians were closer to Judaism. Also in the Book of Acts it states that believers were first called Christians in Antioch, not in Israel.
I ended up not pursuing a degree in ancient history but my working theory at the time was that non-Christian Jews would have regarded Christians as different from Jews (which they would have defined more exclusively) much earlier than Romans would have distinguished them for a variety of reasons. To use an analogy, Catholics and Protestants at one point in the Reformation supposedly denied the others were really Christians (whether that's historically correct or not does not matter) yet if so non-Christians would simply have seen them both as Christians.
Christianity parted ways with Judaism, when Paul convinced the Apostles that Gentile male converts to Christianity did not need to undergo circumcision. Paul went further by arguing that circumcision was completely pointless. Paul's stance made it much easier (i.e., much less painful) for male Gentiles to adopt what evolved into Christianity.
I think the parting away from Judaism happened in the book of acts.When circumcision was not binding on a non jew who became a believer in the teachings of jesus.
It's more complicated than this. Jews didn't exactly see it as necessary to become Jewish as that is an ethno-religious designation. If a non-Jew did not convert to Judaism, that didn't mean that they didn't worship God, and we know that there were non-Jews who came into the synagogues and worshipped. The Gospels make mention of a Roman who helped fund the building of a synagogue. There are also mentions of "the God-fearers", non-Jews who kept certain Jewish customs yet did not wish to circumcise. There is a lot unknown on these individuals and how they varied from time and place. It wasn't like later Christianity that came to see it as either "you're saved or you aren't."
You need to study the bloody history of the Catholic Church. The reformers called the Papacy Antichrist because the Trinity doctrine depicts Christ as a separate person in the Godhead, Jesus cannot be Christ unless God was in him as one man both physical and Spiritual. God became a man in Christ Jesus. (see Acts 2:38).
Except, Christianity was never "far removed from its Jewish roots". Please look up here, even on you tube Jewish Catholics. Also visit the Hebrew Catholic Association. One of many well-studied Catholic theologians, Dr Brant Pitre also has a written series on the Jewish roots of Catholicism. Thank you.
I love this concept of how religion is very delicate and when talking about Christianity and Jewedisum (belief over practice) is very compelling but the one thing that isn't clarifying identity is the origin of nationality and what defines or is unique to that nationality and culture. For example, we talk about Jews and the unique customs and rituals that make that group of people unique, but then you compose those rituals and customs onto those who don't identify themselves as Jewish, which is what Christianity has done to most of the known world.
The rabbinical schools at the time, as well as the apostolic Church Fathers, and the myriad heretical groups, clearly distinguished one issue alone--- the divinity of Christ. All other issues were secondary. It is quite simply one's response to Jesus' question "Who do you say that I am?" which defined, and still defines one as a Christian.
You can see the beginnings of the separation within Paul's writings. There were those God Fearers that Paul addresses and grabs hold of that are intrigued by Sunday worship (2 Corinthians 9), having no forbidden foods (Romans 14), no castration - Galations (uhhmm... circumcision) etc. You can see some historical evidence in Suetonius as he records a disruption in Rome in 49AD because of a "Chrestus" (Acts 18?). The Jewish Synod of Jamnia expels "Christians" in 85AD. There's even some tiny evidence in the Pastoral Epistles of the beginnings of Gnostics. Most of these things take place in the first century. In summary there was probably never a one time email or communique that went out over the wire. It was one synagogue at a time that were getting fed up with these Gentile Jewish people. It was each house/business church set up by Gentiles that had no real connection with Jewish people. to be more visibly different groups. However, as mentioned in the above video, there was never a time where all of the groups acted cohesively in separating. Lastly, remember, there was the destruction of Jerusalem around 70AD (typing this without notes). This scattered many Jewish people and broke up communities. Aside from Nero's persecution (argued by some) most Roman or Roman province Gentile Christians began to thrive unimpeded. Many suggest that by the first decade of the so-called second century, those that were Gentile Christians easily outnumbered those that still identified themselves as Jewish as they had no Jerusalem or synagogues to attend.
It is interesting to read Rodney Stark on spreading of Christianity, he used the spreading of Mormonism as a model because this is very well documentated. His model tells you that spreading went along family and relation lines and as long as those ties existed some group of faraway boboo's could declair expultion what they wanted, it had little effect on the communities as they existed. We also tend to forget there were about 6 million Jews living in the Diaspora against 1 million in Palestine, in about 150 AD there were no more then an estimated 40.500 Christians. Were those complete seperated communities they would probably not even survive without their ties to the Jewish communities.
Speaking from a strictly historical standpoint; Nero did persecute the early Christians, they're debating to what extent. He also didn't fiddle while Rome burned.
I would say when Paul retconned the faith with his letters to the Churches so that everyone could take part in their god, instead of just the Hebrews. Jesus even said he only came for Israel. Paul pretty much double talked his way around it and made special pleadings so the Church could grow.
The single most important thing to remember is that the Greek word for *Christ* is just a translation of the Hebrew word for *Messiah.* Thus "Jesus Christ" is the Greek way of saying the Hebrew for "Joshua-the-Messiah". Note that the real name of Jesus was always the Hebrew name *Joshua,* and the name Jesus we have today is just a mistranslation of the original name of Joshua. So the Greek "Christ" can refer to any Messiah at all, not just Joshua, and the Romans dealt brutally with several Jewish Messiah cults - or Christ cults - in the first and second centuries. The most important besides Joshua-the-Messiah was Simon bar Kochba-the-Messiah, which in the Greek language would be Simon-Christ, and his second-century followers would be "Christians" in the Greek language just as much as followers of the Joshua of the previous century were "Christians" too. From the point of view of the Greek speaking Romans there was no important distinction between any specific Jewish Messiah claimant, and they would be unlikely to have the inclination to care - they were all just Jews following one of their various Messiahs to a Roman soldier. During the Roman supression of Simon-the-Messiah in the second-century, the Romans became so anti-Jewish that it was virtually certain that they were killing followers of both Joshua-the-Messiah (aka Jesus-Christ followers) as well as followers of Simon-the-Messiah (Simon-Christ followers). After that second century bloodbath, the followers of Joshua were very motivated to distance themselves from the Jews who had followed other Messiah claimants by downplaying their Jewishness. This is likely the fundamental reason why modern Christians use Sunday as their main day of worship instead of Saturday - instead of the _actual_ Sabbath as required in their holy text. (The commandment to _keep the Sabbath holy_ has lost its original meaning to most modern Christians, often being reinterpreted as the next day, Sunday, instead.) By no longer following the Jewish practice of keeping the Sabbath holy according to their holy texts, they could forge a new identity for their particular Messiah worship - the worship of Joshua/Jesus - that had less and less to do with the original Jewish Messiah concept. Over the centuries following the Roman supression of Simon-Christ, the Jesus-Christ movement carved for itself a new Roman identity that wasn't explicitly at odds with the Roman Empire like the Jews were known to be. The end result of that new identity was the early Roman Catholic Church, which had an explicit hartred for Jews, plus it had also elevated their own Messiah Joshua to the status of a god. Elevating Joshua, better known as Jesus, to the status of a god actually followed the Roman practice of the elevation of real historical figures to the status of a god - for example Julius Caesar was elevated to a god by the Romans as well. Of course since Judaism was monotheistic the elevation of Jesus to a god caused a lot of strife within the new "Christian" religion, since it required its followers to believe that Jesus was his own father! But that's a whole other story ... 😂😂😂
TorianTammas - yep, that's exactly right! Before Paul was recruited, the apostles only sought other Jews to join their cult, but 20 years after the death of Jesus, Paul finally succeeded in getting the cult to remove the Jewish requirement for circumcision for entry into the cult. And it was a long, hard fight by Paul to get circumcision removed. Since Jesus himself had nothing to say about circumcision, and considering all that the infighting between the apostles over circumcision, it's clearly absurd to claim that some all-knowing god was setting the rules for the cult. If circumcision was _not_ required, which was the eventual resolution, then why did it take 20 years and all the infighting to reach a consensus among the apostles? Surely if Jesus really was the son of some all-knowing god, sent to change the rules, then he would have been clear before he was crucified that circumcision wasn't required any more. But Jesus never said a word about circumcision! And then there's the whole "Holy Spirit" bullshit. Before Paul was involved, no cult member got the "Holy Spirit" without being physically touched by an apostle. The New Testament - Acts of the apostles is abundantly clear on that point. Even Paul had to wait before getting this "Holy Spirit" thing - he also had to be personally touched by an apostle to get the "Holy Spirit". But after Paul got the "Holy Spirit", the whole issue was dropped - it's simply never mentioned again, and Christians after Paul's involvement never again needed to be touched by an apostle to get the "Holy Spirit" thing, whatever that was. An _honest_ reading of the New Testament clearly shows that Paul's goal was to make the cult more appealing to non-Jews, and he faced resistance from within the cult, especially the other apostles, for a long time as he tried to reform the rules.
Absolute poppycock! As the writings of Paul reveal the universal (Catholic) Church was well established in the 1st century. After the destruction of Jerusalem it remained. And it is still here today just as filled wit sinners and miscreants as it always was. But it does produce some great Saints, as well. Merry Christmas!
@Shaun Tanger - wow ... look who's butthurt!!!! 😂😂😂😂 You can't come up with an argument to dispute me, so instead you say that some unnamed scholars disagree with me. When you have an _actual argument_ to dispute what I wrote, I'll listen. Until then you are just a poor _loser!_
Andrew Mark Henry, you seem to present the 'parting' of Judaism and Christianity from a strictly Christian perspective. What about the Jewish view of Christians, especially in light of the Council of Jamnia in 74 CE (or 85 CE per another commenter) in which assembled rabbis declared that followers of Jesus could not legally be called Jews (especially for the purpose of obtaining the Roman legal exemption granted to followers of Jewish religion)? Thanks for any info that you can provide.
This was a proposition of J. Louis Martyn. At the Council, a benediction called the Birkat-ha-Minim was written or revised, purportedly to exclude Jesus' followers from Judaism. Edward Klink summarizes numerous "irresolvable problems" with Martyn's thesis: "doubt concerning the kind of general authority to be given to the Jamnian Academy within the first century; the date of the Twelfth Benediction and the improbability of it being composed as early as the 80’s of the first century; the lack of direct evidence that the Benediction was formulated for the purpose of removing Christians from the synagogue, or that it was ever even used that way; the inability to limit the meaning of Minim to anything less than ‘heretic’; and the late date of the pertinent sources." legacy.tyndalehouse.com/Bulletin/59=2008/6%20Klink.pdf
The theory that that took place is nowadays not held by most scholars. The Sanhedrin never declared that Jews who became Christians are no longer Jews.
I love your posts. You fill in so many blanks in regard to religious history... Please address when Christians change their sabbath to Sunday from Saturday.
Rodney Stark mentioned the rejection of Marcion as an indication how strong the christian Jewish way of life and thinking was around 144 AD and it stayed strong for centuries to come.
I think they parted ways when god say “I am unchanging” and “put no gods before me.” Then Jesus came along and said, “god has changed, the only way to him is through me.”
@@aquillafleetwood8180 None of those verses say anything about Jesus. outreachjudaism.org/gods-suffering-servant-isaiah-53/ outreachjudaism.org/the-virgin-birth/ outreachjudaism.org/alma-virgin/ outreachjudaism.org/septuagint-virgin-birth/ jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/can-you-give-a-reason-why-jews-say-isaiah-96-does-not-refer-to-jesus
As long as the Jerusalem Church lived, it had the unique claim of being the direct disciples of Jesus. This was a no trump against other proto-christian sects. Without doubt, after the Roman Jewish war of 70, the destruction of the Second Temple, and with it the Jerusalem Church, the Nazarene faith split off from Judaism and become a new religion.
would you agree that a theological split began sometime during or after the destruction of the second temple. Christians starting to distance themselves from Jews and aligning themselves with the Romans more. John's Gospel paints the Jews as the Killers of Christ and that Pilot was not a bad guy. I think that shows the shift in identity and seperation. thoughts ?
The Gospel of John is a super confusing example, because I think the author was probably Jewish. So I don't know if that shows a split between Christianity and Judaism as much as it shows splits within Judaism (a Jesus-following Judaism starting to fracture with non-Jesus-following Jews). The destruction of the Temple probably did start a shift though since Palestinian Jews no longer had a center of sacrificial worship. What effect this had on the burgeoning Jesus movement though? I'm not sure.
ReligionForBreakfast hmm I don't know is if the Romans would care what sort of Jew they were. Jesus believing or non believing Jew. it's possible I guess ,but I feel the Romans would not be so keen to care of a little theological distinction. I think I read this sort of commentary in Bart Ehrman's works.. I will see if I can find something more solid to share with u
Yeah let me know. I respect Ehrman's work. My hunch is that the Romans didn't care about relatively minor theological distinctions (or what would have been minor to the Romans...to early Christian leaders...these distinctions meant a lot).
It is my understanding that there was some resentment against the Christians because they fled Jerusalem when the Roman armies approached because of the warning in Mark 13 and Matthew 24. Some Jews felt that had they stayed and fought that they could have withstood the Roman siege. Similar sentiments were felt when Christians would not participate in the bar Kochba revolt. It was more likely that any distancing was mutual. The separation was in-inevitable if it was not immediate because the identity of the promised Jewish Messiah was a deal breaker. It's like the Catholic Protestant split over the Pope and authority. Catholic doctrine says Protestants are still Christian but many protestant sects do not believe Catholics are Christians.
Angelo Nasios Roman could not care less what a religion one has. They were interested in public order and that taxes were payed in their provinces. So whatever caused a rebellion would be extinguished. So when in a roman controlled territory someone is claimed to be a king he will be killed. The stories we have about Jesus are in Greek and written by people living in the Roman/Greek world. Surely they wanted to appeal to a Roman audience and tried not to blame the Romans for killing there main character in their story.
This is a real question and not a veiled criticism. Why do you choose to use CE/BCE instead of BC/AD? Assume because CE/BCE is more all inclusive but just thought I'd ask. Great channel!
NCPATRIOT My guess is that it’s a bit more impartial, especially when it comes to religious studies. Using BC/AD when talking about religions other than Christianity might come off as disrespectful.
because in academia they have moved from using BC/AD to CE/BCE to be more objective because BC/AD clearly have a Christian bent, so that you don't come across as biased and don't offend atheists and non-christians
They are removing all evidence of Christ ex: BC before Christ AD after death These are not the true Hebrews of the land or the word as they worship a different god of the land.
It can be. However, it's ultimately more of a superficial choice that aesthetically aligns with secular language (since the issue of inclusivity with AD/BC isn't meaningfully solved by just using CE/BCE).
The Birkat haMinim (Hebrew ברכת המינים "Blessing on the heretics") is a Jewish curse on heretics (minim). Modern scholarship has generally evaluated that the Birkat haMinim probably did originally include Jewish Christians before Christianity became markedly a gentile religion.[1] It is the 12th of the Eighteen Benedictions or Amidah.[2] The writing of the benediction is attributed to Shmuel ha-Katan at the supposed Council of Jamnia which was inserted in the "Eighteen Benedictions" as the 19th blessing in the silent prayer to be said thrice daily, the Amidah. The benediction is thus seen as related to the Pharisees, the development of the Hebrew Bible canon, the split of early Christianity and Judaism as heresy in Judaism, the origins of Rabbinic Judaism, origins of Christianity, Christianity in the 1st century, and the history of early Christianity. According to one theory, it was useful as a tool for outing minim ("heretics"), because no min would recite aloud or reply amen to it, as it was a curse upon minim.[3]omposition According to the Babylonian Talmud Tractate Berakhot 28b-29a, Shmuel ha-Katan was responsible for the writing of the Birkat haMinim: "Rabban Gamaliel said to the sages: Is there no one who knows how to compose a benediction against the minim? Samuel Ha-Qatan stood up and composed it."[4] The blessing exists in various forms.[5][6] Two medieval Cairo Genizah copies include references to both minim and Notzrim ("Nazarenes", i.e. "Christians").[7][8][9] "For the apostates let there be no hope. And let the arrogant government be speedily uprooted in our days. Let the noẓerim and the minim be destroyed in a moment. And let them be blotted out of the Book of Life and not be inscribed together with the righteous. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who humblest the arrogant" (Schechter)."[10] Identification of Minim The extent of reference to Notzrim, or application of minim to Christians is debated.[11][12] In his analysis of various scholarly views on the Birkat haMinim, Pieter W. van der Horst sums up, "It is certain that minim in Tannaitic times are always Jews... It is certain that notsrim was not a part of the earliest version(s) of our berakhah."[13] During the medieval period, whether the blessing included Christians or not was the subject of disputations, a potential cause for persecution and thus a matter relevant for the safety of Jewish communities.[14] It is generally viewed in modern studies that the term "heretics" at an early point in split of early Christianity and Judaism had included Jewish Christians.[15][16][17][18] It was David Flusser's view (1992) that the Birkat haMinim was added in reference to the Sadducees.[19] Many scholars have seen reference to the Birkat haMinim in Justin Martyr's complaint to Trypho of the Jews "cursing in your synagogues those that believe on Christ." Reuven Kimelman (1981) challenged this, noting that Justin's description places the curse in the wrong sequence in the synagogue service.[20] Christian awareness of this prayer as a curse against them is only attested from the time of Jerome and Epiphanius in the fifth century CE. In the subsequent anti-Judeaic literature, it was almost universally ignored until the 13th century. The one exception is the work of Agobard of Lyons, writing in 826/827 to protest what he saw was the granting of too many privileges to Jews by the Carolingian monarch.[21]
I believe there are also descendants of Jews among the Muslims of the Middle East, because some Jews converted under pressure and their families eventually forgot they had been Jewish. A few Muslim families, though, have secretly retained the memory of their Jewish origins. I have heard a few of their stories.
@Mizrahi With Attitude Oh, that is very nice. My dad's family are Iraqi Christians from Mosul. We live in Jordan, though, and I recently moved to Germany. I personally really love Jewish culture, especially different types of Jewish folk music, my favorite being Klezmer music in the Yiddish language, but I also like other types.
Actually he is a Messianic Orthodox Jew who wouldn't be less Orthodox than a non believer in Jesus as long as he doesn't believe in Trinity and that Jesus is divine.
@Niko Bellic they are called the Apostolic Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, etc.. For example Polycarp of Smyrna was the disciple of John. Polycarp had a disciple called Irenaeus. Yes the famous Irenaeus of Lyon who fought the heresy of gnosticism. The Joannine spiritual lineage seems to be the archenemy of Gnosticism lol (some traditions said that John wrote his gospel in response to a proto-gnostic teacher called Cerentus or something similar to that name)
I love this topic. But my view is that it almost doesn’t matter. The specifics of what people believe and practice is far more important than what label they fall under. Changing their label doesn’t change their beliefs. And the beliefs are what I care about most
Fair enough. But some people (myself included) are fascinated about how religions came to be, how they split and grew and evolved, what were the causes and influences, and what are the remaining unknowns. Its a puzzle and a mystery, and those unknowns are intriguing!
I don't know what you're talking about. He goes beyond just labeling. The split of Christianity from Judaism has to do with beliefs, and he deals with that. Also, it is important how we label ourselves. It tells us a lot about what's going on in people's heads.
When the number of non Jewish born Christians outnumbered the Jewish born Christians- this is close to when the strong differentiating between Judaism and Christianity occurred. This would have been around the end of the 2nd 'generation' of Christianity, about 90 AD or just a bit earlier. True, Judaic influences persisted for centuries, but the church was a new different thing almost from the beginning, moving from heretical Judaism in the 1st century to the Christian church in the 2nd century.
Messianic Jews remain and remained Jewish with their synagogue and their celebrations and everything else that you was do they just believe that Jesus is the messiah. That's the only change and it's a change in mind and heart the rest of their life is Jewish.
The New Testament letters are mostly encouragement to the churches about not following the circumcision party. Which were people who believed they had to be circumcised before believing in Christ basically.
Try to read Genesis to Revelation with an open heart. You will find the intent and the purpose revealed in the Bible. May God bless you in understanding.
A few quick points: as discredited as the Jabneh hypothesis may be, nowadays, there is early evidence of splitting of Jewish and Christian communities in the second half of the 1st century. The polemical wording of the gospels against "the Jews" is a valid clue, for example. Same thing with the early rejection of dietary laws and circumcision (Paul's letters, Acts). Then you have the increasing weight of non-Jewish converts to Christianity. Then, perhaps not so much in the 1st but definitely in the 2nd century, you have pagan witnesses that seem to be able to establish a difference between the two religions and the two communities, possibly helped by the increasing amount of pagan converts, as already mentioned. Finally there is enough archeological evidence that sets apart Christian houses of prayers from synagogues as early as the third century.
This makes a lot of sense, as my own readings of history suggest the Romans really couldn't tell the difference between Christians and Jews in the early days
Personally, I see it more as a reformation than a clean break, hence why no particular date can be set as to when they 'split' as the reformation took place over several centuries.
Haven't watched the video yet . So , my snap answer is " when God was replaced by politico opinion ". When people get experience ( older ) they lean on that which works , most apply common sense to spirituality in the here and now and have integrity . Some people decide to manipulate and\or monetize spirituality for personal gain . Pick one .
Well it seems according to the account of the gospels of the Bible, the first Christians were in fact the messianic Jews, those among the Hebrews who keep the old laws and accept Jesus as the Messiah. So the man of the hypothetical Antioch was mostly a messianic Jew. The question is more rooted toward the practice and belief of the Gentiles and the Hebrews.
+RRK93 RRK93 I agree, though remember that there were a lot of messianic Jews in the first few centuries CE. We know of at least a few people who claimed the title "messiah." And you're right, it's tricky when you start considering Gentile converts into Christianity. Are they converting into a Jewish sect or a new religion? Tough questions for our clunky modern categories.
ReligionForBreakfast: That was one of the debates early on, should the gentiles circumcise and judaize? I agree even among the first messianic jews already sects were forming. Nothing to do with modern evangelical “messianic judaism”. Please do an episode on these last ones. Peace...
stereostream - This discussion about judaizing and circumcision shows how jewish Jesus and his followers were. Not even the idea ever came up that non Jews could be followers of Jesus.
You’re answering a lot of questions for many Evangelical Christian who are 1)bored of the “Gospel” Put on repeat every week. 2)frustrated with the group think within their own church who say they want to be discipled and study the Bible, but can’t ask these questions Ultimately, many are critically thinking and discovering the answers to their question by Evangelical “leaders” are not reasonable. Fallacies basically. 3)
I would guess that the important partition occurred when Rome acknowledged Christianity and spread it throughout the empire. This led to European "Christendom" which diverges much more from the Hebrew faith than do other, older, Christian groups, i.e. Ethiopian Christians, Coptic Christians, etc. Just my guess, I'm not a professional religious scholar.
Christian Population is more in this world than others. We follow the teaching of forgiving and letting others in to live a safe life. It will grow even more!
Yes hello very nice video but I have one question. The author of the Gospel of John already seems to partake in this partitioning, since he talks about "the Jews" instead of "the Pharisees". There is tension between Jesus and "the Jews", which implies that the author saw Jesus as something other than a Jew. Shouldn't this be mentioned, and could you clarify on it?
I think most scholars would agree that the Gospel of John was written by a Jew too. So his use of "the Jews" as the antagonists to Jesus is usually interpreted as the author saying something along the lines of "mainstream Jews" in opposition to his own smaller (and possibly persecuted) Jewish sect. Verses like John 16:2 imply that the author was concerned about being thrown out of synagogues too. Some scholars posit the existence of a "Johannine community," a community of Jewish Chrsitians that used the Gospel of John and 1 John, that were pushed out of a mainstream Jewish community. 1 John also seems very bitter about a recent rift (read the first chapter). Good question though, it is a really tricky issue that scholars still debate.
Good response by ReligionForBreakfast, but allow me to add one other theory. Some have argued that John is distinguishing between different groups then present in Jerusalem for the Passover feast: those from Judea and those from Galilee. In other words, we should not take the use of "the Jews" as a religious distinction but as a geographic one. I find this an interesting argument but there is no definitive answer.
TheCountryBumpkin - The Pharisees have seen even before Jesus a lot of things like the story tells about him. The story paint a totally wrong picture of the Pharisees. So either the author had not idea what the Pharisees believed and practiced or just try to bad mouth them.
James Kolan - The divide one can make with controlling the temple cult, and the one not so interested in the temple cult and the one who were against the temple cult. So it has a certain regional touch, but it is not determined solely by where someone lived.
I agree. I'll give an example, I'm a Filipina and often when I or other Filipinos will condemn or praise Filipinos as a whole, we say or use the term "Filipinos are like this and like that", as if we are not part of the community, when in fact we are simply trying to objectively reference a community about whatever subject matter. Don't Americans or others do the same?
Question is, why the references to "the Jews" in the NT? Was it because the separation of the two communities was wider when the Gospels were finally solidified?
They probably meant either the Jewish Elite who’d got on the same side as the Romans.... or they meant Jews who actively resisted Resurrection beliefs?
The Greek word that's typically translated "Jews" originally meant "Judeans". As I understand it, it's meaning was in flux at the time the Gospels were written. Given the emphasis on Jesus and his followers being Galilean (as opposed to Judean) in the crucifixion narrative, I strongly suspect that "the Jews" should actually be translated "the Judeans". Although when Pilate put a sign reading "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" on the cross, he clearly was using the word in its broader sense. Or else he just couldn't be bothered to distinguish between Judeans and Galileans.
I find this explanation rather unconvincing. Take Paul for instance. He recognized himself as persecutor of those who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, suggesting very strongly that mainstream Judaism (at least its Pharisaic sect) understood early christians to be something very distinct. It wouldn't be terribly out of place to imagine that a similar dynamic would play out if someone within judaism declared himself the messiah today. His acclaim would not be universal and pretty soon lines would be drawn around those who accept this individual as the messiah and those who do not. Indeed, the orthodox-judaizers (for lack of better distinction) debate is something that played itself within the early church for a long time, and if we read Ignatius (or perhaps even Chrysostom) along these lines we have a clearer picture of what was going on. The split between Judaism and Christianity may have happened very early (Paul in his roman letters already seems to recognize a difference) in history, but the internal dialogues between the different groups within early Christianity as to the role of judaic rites and practices within this new religion may indeed have taken much longer to become clear.
gre8 Paul is not the best example. The fantasy idea that someone like Paul can run amok in the Roman province of Syria and kidnap people is a illusion. If he had tried something like this in Damascus he would either get lynched by the people or by the Roman authorities. One can not run around and kidnap people and deliver them over many miles. He would have been hunted down and either killed on the spot or put on trial. So this is a fantasy claim for which we have no evidence and it makes no sense as people can not run around in the Roman provinces and kidnap people.
And you can back this claim with what evidence? Let's not forget that the Acts also mention Paul as a persecutor so there are at least to witnesses to this fact. Also, let's remember that we are talking about the first century. There were no police forces organized 24/7 to keep peace and, in larger cities such as Damascus one could easily picture Paul being aided by locals or, in the very least, aiding and participating with them in some public lynching. Crowds can get violent and it would be hardly surprising if some level of persecution and kidnaping happened. Let's never forget that it is the first century middle east we are talking about, not some western european capital nowadays. Let's grant that all could be an invention by Paul that went unchallenged by other witnesses, but I feel there is no compelling evidence that points to this; only some speculation based on some very loose collection of unsubstantiated claims. It is true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but in this case, one must also accept what has been presented and not just reject it based on what we want to be true.
gre8 I am sorry to say but the first rule of story telling is you have to prove every single story element. How about the document of the high priest? Nothing? How about a document from any Roman official? Nothing. Well it seems story telling is at work which can not provide any evidence for the claim Paul was a criminal who kidnapped people.
You really expect to have everything that happened 2000 years ago to be very well documented and preserved like in a modern archive? Boy, you are in for such a surprise about history...
gre8 If someone claims that a story actually happened then he has to provide evidence. We have hundreds or stories from antiquity. We have people bringing sacrifices to have been actually healed by the good Asclepius. We have first hand evidence as the people commented their donations. We have even a story in which a women leaves the temple not healed and then meets a men on a travel, she heals her and she realize it was the god Asclepius himself. So does it mean this happened? Does it mean this god exists. According to your argumentation we have plenty of evidence for his existence. In Acts we have a story about something that might have happened in the 50s which is written about in the 80 or 90s. Why should it have happened? It is implausible, unlikely and would have surely meet to some legionaries or auxiliaries mobbing up some criminal who tries to disturb the peace in a Roman province. Roman officials are known to be quite ruthless to take down criminals. They didn't like civil unrest. Kidnapping people causes civil unrest. So it is just a story without evidence unless we get a document from the High priest or a Roman official or anyone saying that this Paul and his henchman took one of his friends and family members. One of this would add a interesting dimension to the story and one has to see who produced it and when it was produced. As we have know of this it is a story element born by someone who does not have a clue about Roman authority and how they did govern in the provinces.
As a lifelong Christian, I’ve always understood Jesus to be the Messiah as prophesied in the Old Testament. As such, he wasn’t a Jew but THE Jew! Makes perfect sense that most early Christians were Jewish.
The parting really happened with Paul who changed the actual story of the Jesus political movement advanced by Peter and the Jesus followers to a story that would be received much better in the gentile communities who were adherents of various mystery religions around the Mediterranean. He basically changed the Messiah (political) story of events into a religious story and so Christianity was invented.
+coldslutsonfire Well, I would argue Paul was part of a reformist sect of Judaism that invited Gentiles into the covenant of Abraham. I guess it's all semantics, but I see Pauline Christianity as still 100% Judaism.
+ReligionForBreakfast thanks for your reply. I would disagree. I see Revelation as the main separating point where Paul claimed that what was once mythical was now a reality on earth. Mainly that the hero God of the various mystery religions had come into a true reality historically as Jesus. Jewish people would never accept a human as a god and that's why the Pauline Jesus church had to vere off. I'm getting my information about all this from Hyam Maccoby. I love your channel. It's very well presented and thoughtful. Totally fascinating!
+coldslutsonfire I'm glad you're enjoying the channel! Another video is coming up next week. I did say this topic is controversial even among scholars, so I don't think we'll figure this out on UA-cam comments haha. I'm getting most of my ideas from the scholar Daniel Boyarin who would say "Christianity" didn't exist as a distinct religion well into the 3rd century. It was all Judaism up until then. It's an interesting debate when you delve into it!
I agree with +Cold Sluts On Fire If I recall from my Jewish history class where we studied this whole sequence of events, Jesus was never superhuman, he was literally just a guy with a lot of things to say about the corrupt higher class Jews that ran all the temples in Jerusalem. Then, after the destruction of the 2nd Temple and Jesus's death (btw this was caused by the roman empire thinking that tensions and fights between jews were actually a conspiracy against romans) this guy Paul decided to send letters to Gentiles living in other areas about how his dead friend jesus was the son of god and told everyone to convert to Judaism but also "sure, you can keep your pagan holidays", "nah u dont have to keep kosher" and the actual Jews were like "wtf dude stop these ppl arent jews" and Paul was like "ok... theyre christians then!" i will say that the Jewish History class was from a jewish perspective, so feel free to debate me and say that jesus is the savior, i cant judge an idea when a billion people believe it.
Some good stuff here, especially in view of time constraints. But when you read Acts it is clear that there is a growing parting of the ways. For believing that Jesus was the Messiah, Christians faced expulsion from the synagogues . For claiming that gentile converts need not practice the law, we see a parting of the ways.
There's a running joke in my family regarding this. My great-grandmother and my mother got in an argument about Jesus being Jewish. The final word was when my great-grandmother shouted, "Jesus may have been Jewish, but the Blessed Virgin Mary was Catholic!!!"
Reminds me of the old argument when a church was adopting the NKJV Bible, and an old man yells out, "If the King James Bible was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!"
Read Romans chapter 11. And Mary was Jewish too.
The BVM was also Jewish. But its a good joke :)
😂😂😂😂😂
@Niko Bellic - That really depends on how you're using the word "catholic".
The ministry of Jesus was open to all, as opposed to Judaism, which is only open to the descendants of Isaac. In that since it is a "universal" or "catholic" church.
On the other hand, there is The Roman Catholic Church, which is what people usually think of when someone says "Catholic Church". Which is a power structure that solidified centuries after the death of Jesus, and as exemplified by its behavior throughout history (e.g., The Spanish Inquisition, etc.), has little to no validity as an interpretor of the ministry of Jesus.
In short, Jesus was a small-con catholic, not a big-C Catholic. He believed in universalism, not in Roman Catholic dogma.
Really fascinating. As a Pastor viewing this while leading my people through Luke/Acts, it gave me a new insight. Thank you!
Please consider that pastors in apostolic churches are priests who celebrate the divine mysteries of Christ, ordained by bishops ordained by bishops, going back to Christ himself, and that Christianity is not propositional but sacramental. Lead your flock rightly back to Apostolic faith, in a canonical Church.
Please look up here, even on you tube Jewish Catholics. Also visit the Hebrew Catholic Association. One of many well-studied Catholic theologians, Dr Brant Pitre also has a written series on the Jewish roots of Catholicism.
Thank you.
So early "Christians" were just Jews for Jesus.
kjpmi except the ones who weren't Jews.
ravissary79 you’ve never heard of Jews for Jesus?
kjpmi of course I have, that's not my point. My point was that a defining characteristic of the new covenant is that it wasn't limited to those under the old covenant. Most of the earliest Christians were Jews, but the first church council ever was whether non Jews could be Christians as well, that was the whole theological problem of the NT post-resurrection and it's a massive theme in Acts. A lot of Paul's letters are to:explain salvation, encourage right living and defeat the legalism of the Jedaisers (a Jewish sect of Christians who insisted that new gentile converts had to be circumcised and keep kosher to be part of the community of believers). The ruling of the Council was that they didn't they only needed to do enough to keep with the spirit of ritual purity on a basic moral level, and so they could socialize without confusion or offense, so they had to keep the sabbath and not eat meat with blood in it, the rest of the rules were basic morality rules that Paul had to teach people over and over due to the maturity required for people to do good for simple moral reasons instead of legalism.
they were messianic jews
zombie eibmoz that name is new is the 20-21 century name given
This is like pinpointing where rock became heavy metal-impossible.
black sabbath's self title album is such an authoritative start to metal imo
Not really so difficult: The first heavy metal song was by the Beatles: Helier Skelter
Blue Cheer's cover of 'Summertime Blues.' Everyone knows that.
Exodus 32:17-18
50 years ago yesterday. Birth of black sabbath. Everything before was just posturing.
One man's heresy is another man's orthodoxy.
I think the important thing to remember about the early history of Christianity is that many of Jesus' followers largely came from among the more Hellenized Jews rather than the more orthodox and that this was the source of a lot of the controversy surrounding Jesus during his life. He was drawing on a population that was moving towards certain popular aspects of Greco-Roman religion and away from more traditional Jewish beliefs. This is what later made it very attractive to disaffected Greeks and Romans as the early Christians spread throughout the empire.
Excellent post. You might want to check some of his other videos about the ebionites, basically Jews for Jesus, and the gnostic groups, who were more non Jewish people.
I love your videos, but I always try not to scroll down to the comments. I can't imagine how difficult it is to discuss religious topics professionally with a scholarly outlook because it is such a personal thing for most people, and they tend to shut off and not actually listen to you when they think you may say something that won't like.
As someone who has a degree in religious studies, I wish UA-cam had a love this option. The only other field I think that would be worse is politics.
"actually"
On the contrary I love scrolling down looking for more info and ideas from educated people. Just have to mentally filter out everyone else.
@@MBEG89 Well said.
I hope you realise that there are just as many ridiculous atheist comments on these videos too.
I'd also add that a lot of the early Christian sects you talk about wouldn't be (easily) recognised by modern Christians as fellow Christians.
Can you explain
@@SonicSega0964 In the first and second centuries, many Christian groups held beliefs that were later considered heretical.
Marcionists, for example, held that the Old Testament described a demiurge or lesser God, who was jealous, wrathful, and perhaps even malevolent. Why else would he command the Israelites to make war and commit genocide? Yet there was also a forgiving supreme being, or Monad, who sent Jesus to rescue us from the defective world that the demiurge had foolishly created. Marcion created the first known Christian canon, consisting of a form of the Gospel of Luke and ten Pauline epistles.
Gnostics propounded a similar duality, in which a malevolent lesser deity created the material universe, and a hidden, supreme being sent his son to bring salvation -- not through faith, but by imparting _gnosis_ or esoteric knowledge. Docetists held that Jesus was divine and not human, that he didn't have a physical body and couldn't have suffered on the cross. Conversely, Ebionites believed that Jesus was a righteous human, but wasn't divine. Other varieties of Christianity included Montanism, Arianism, and Donatism.
There was also what Ehrman refers to as a proto-orthodox Christianity, which later won out, becoming official in the early fourth century with the Nicene Creed. But all these groups were present in the first and second centuries and grounded their beliefs in teachings that they attributed to Jesus.
ua-cam.com/video/W80CbmfRt9s/v-deo.html
@@mattrogers5188 Yeah, many Catholic of the time condemned to them also.
@@mattrogers5188 Exactly, and what is "orthodox" in one age is corrected or nuanced in a later age.
those are the sects we know of thanks to the bad press the got from the later church fathers,
The situation at the start and even before of what we now call Christianity could have been far more complex.
In communities where there was necesairy intense contact with Jews and non-Jews all kind of proto/pseudo Christian idea's could have emerged. For centuries all kind of versions of Christianity emerged waxed and waned got absorbed by other versions.
The need for a main stream and mandetory way of religion is mainly a political one when power becomes an issue.
This channel is absolutely fantastic, great to hear from someone who clearly knows his shit, far too rare :)
Gunnar Hrafn Jónsson Bill Donahue Hidden Meanings if you really want the truth. He will shake your world to the core.
I am an atheist but I am binge watching your videos....
Awesome. Glad to hear it. I always say religious studies is for anyone...atheist, theist, and everyone in between.
I agree .
Mario Cassina same, I am fascinated by gnostic ideologies.
Me too, I love a good bit of world class mythology. Great stuff 😊
Same here. I appreciate the scholarly approach that ReligionForBreakfast gives.
After the destruction of the 2nd Temple, Pharisee Judaism became what is today Rabbinical Orthodox Judaism. As apart of how they defined Judaism, they rejected what they considered as heretical or "minim." Undoubtly, Jewish Christianity was considered as being among the "minim."
The Judeo-Christians were also eventually banned from the early Christian Church.
3xactly.
@Max St. Arlyn Originally belief in the Gospel of Yeshua was a Jewish movement who were known as Ebionoi or as Nazorians. Jewish Christianity did eventually disappear or got absorbed into the Gentile Church or into Muhamadanism. But there are still Oriental Orthodox churches that still use the Semitic languages in their scriptures and rites such as the Syrian and the Eithiopian.
Yup, the Orthadox Jews of the Period weren't really keen on considering Jesus as the Messiah for a few reasons,
1. They were expecting more of a Military Figure for an independent Israel.
2. Jesus died on the Cross.
Slowly but surely over time Christianity and Judaism seperated over that as Orthadox Jews saw Christianity as Heretical, in response overtime Christianity develops into its own to destingush itself from Judaism, sometimes this lead to violence between the 2.
And that's cause they believed Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies in the old testament
great job handling such a complex topic!
"How odd of god/ to choose the Jews... but not so odd/ as those who choose/ A Jewish god/ Yet spurn the Jews." William Norman Emer (1885 - 1977)
Also, in reply to "How odd of God/to choose the Jews," "Not odd, you sod/the Jews chose God."
Well written
And, it seems, the jews might have chosen a midianite or kennite god, based on yahweh's association with sinai / paran / seir. They seem to have adopted the storm / volcano god yahweh, displacing the canaanite storm god baal hadad, and merging him into the supreme god el.
God didn't choose anything.
Wow.. sounds similar to this ditty: the children of Moses all had big noses...except for Arron, he had a square‘ un!
I’ll get my coat
Love your brief but compact talks, so thought provoking.
Absolutely love the videos!! I am a Non Practicing catholic.. but very strong belief in Jesus as My Lord and Savior.. I started seriously researching his history and in turn history of religion .. your videos are perfect and love how you give additional research material
Bruh ya against Jesus he never claimed to be god he always pointed his father as the true God Greco Roman paganism destroyed his teaching n Paul did destroyed too. The real teaching of Jesus is in Islam
@@A1.4U Nah. That's a blatant lie. Jesus refers to Jewish theology and directly claims he is God way too many times. Paganism affected Catholicism but not Orthodoxy. Islam comes 630 years later and has lies while copying Apocryphal texts. No. Paul didn't do anything wrong either. Paul has more authenticity that Muhhamed in truth claims.
Monarch BLUE if u compare the teaching of Paul n Muhammad the disciples of Jesus would agree with Jesus more than Paul james brother of James was fighting against Jesus for teaching false preach
@@A1.4U False. Paul was chosen by Jesus in the road to Damascus where Paul was redeemed. Also, James was Jesus' brother. Him and Paul were friends. All the apostles and people agreed with Paul even though they had minor disagreements. They would agree with Jesus over Muhhamed.
But everything you said still doesn't change that Paul was earlier that Muhhamed. This means that since Paul is from the 1st century while Muhhamed was from the 7th. Paul is far more believable and historically accurate than Muhammads. The Quran has been changed so the Quran doesn't really matter anymore in historical truth claims. Therefore, Paul's letters are better at telling the truth.
Monarch BLUE how do you know it wasn’t the Satan Paul saw because he was teaching the opposite wa Jesus preach he even cursed Jesus
You have to remember that similar confusion was going on within the Jewish community as well after the destruction of Jerusalem. What did it mean to be 'Jewish' without the Temple and without a country to call their own.
Did it? Where's the historic evidence of that? Why did i as a jew never hear about it?
@@dumbledor22 probably because most Jews are entirely ignorant of our history
Dude, I've fallen in love with your channel. I've been learning a lot through these videos, it's really helping me writing my masters thesis. I want to commend you for your effort in making good quality content, on a website where facts, reasoning, don't seem to be the main point. I bet you get a ton of Hate for having a scholar prespective, and I imagine you get constantly bombarded with comments like "SO YOU THINK JESUS WAS FAKE?" or " HAHA! Told you religion was a lie!". Anyway, if you ever see this, just remember that I feel your struggle and I know it must be hard on you. But please, keep making these videos, there's also a lot of people like me who genuinely just want to learn more about history and religion! Congrats, keep it up!
Thanks man, I really appreciate the encouragement. You're right that the comment sections are a new terrible hellscape of hate every morning. But I get plenty of gems like your comment. I won't be stopping any time soon! Good luck with the master's thesis.
I second this comment! Thank you, I've learned so much through your videos!
Why, don't you look up the Roman records of Christ?
Thank you for sharing with us this amazing wisdom, many have searched for this and finally after so many years get the answers as well as confirmation. 🙂 please keep up the good work, all your effort and intelligence count and adds up as you help the world learn better🌐🌏🌎🌍
What did you write your thesis on?
I don’t believe in God, but I’m still fascinated by the history of human beliefs, and your channel is a goldmine for that. Concise and instructive!
jesus christ is real and Loves you! God is love. and just wants you to live in peace.
You capitalized God you're so respectful!😃
@Foghorn Leghorn Jesus Christ is alive, real. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
@Foghorn LeghornThere is evidence of the existence of a man name Jesus of Nazareth who lived in Roman occupied Judea in the first century AD. Whether or not he is the son of God, you can debate. but there was a real Jesus who really lived, and really claimed to be the son of god. There is roman birth and death records of him. I know he is real because I have called upon him to save me, and he did. I recommend the books of Mathew mark, Luke and John. I used to be atheist. but I was so very wrong. Jesus Christ is real and he loves you brother. peace be to you in his holy name.
@Foghorn Leghorn The article clearly stated that Roman and Jewish texts refer to a man named Jesus , within decades of his death. -- "The first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who according to Ehrman “is far and away our best source of information about first-century Palestine,” twice mentions Jesus in Jewish Antiquities, his massive 20-volume history of the Jewish people that was written around 93 A.D."
There are good Christian and Jewish people 💯
Many of them are good people, at least the true believers who do their best to adhere to the rules laid out by God.
The evil islamist "free palestine" chanters denies ur opinion...
@acgaes6243 Those Palestinians are Christian too buddy.
Isn't this basically the same question as saying when did Heavy Metal seperate from hard rock? As with most social transitions there was a period where there was a blend of the two before splitting legitimately.
From today I start to watch your works. Concised, filterex and vital. So I feel cool when watching yours.
The Bar Kokhba Revolution of 135 ca played a big role in parting ways between the two groups. From that moment on, the Jewish element in the Church was progressively suppressed and an anti-Judaic sentiment prevailed among the Christians. The Hebrew calendar was banned, the Hebrew feasts forbidden, and the Christian customs were slowly being made autonomous from their Jewish sources. The synagogues all over the Empire became very conservative and closed to Christian preachers. This process culminated in 193 CE when pope Victor tried to detach the Christian from the Jewish Passover, although not successfully. However, these changes marked a decisive moment in which a new, non-Jewish identity of the Christian Church started to develop.
Interesting
This gets even more odd when The birth of Islam takes place. Even Islam itself has ideas from different and obscure Judeo-Christian texts in the Quran. The biographies of the Prophet came 100-200 years after his passing. Without these writings, the Quran is VERY vague.
Some writers described Islam as a very Jewish Christianity. Others claim it evolved from Syriac Christianity. The ideas of Islam are very similar to Ebionites where they did not see Jesus as God.
It is indeed hard to precise where the official separation happened.
Just found your channel. Very interesting stuff, so very well put together. I'm an athiest, but I'm inclined to learn something new about anything. I like to think of this as more the culture and history of someone or some
thing more than just a religious standpoint. Your videos are well informed, and are very entertaining. Thank you for the great content!
When one person is delusional, it’s called insanity. When many people are delusional, they call it religion!
Keep on staying open. This world wasn't created by accident. It is very calculated and designed. I'm praying that you get to know the one who created it which I believe is God who sent Jesus to save us and point us back into right relationship with Himself.
Blessings on your journey!
I Am Hindu, Its always Interesting for me to learn About other Religions 🙏
Same brother. 🙏🏽 jai shree ram
I'm an Israeli and I am amazed at how EVERY VIDEO about the Israel Palestine conflict ends up in an even more serious argument between Indians and Pakistanis in the comment section.
@@simonbennatan8257 India Always STANDS for ISREAL 🇮🇳❤️🇮🇱
Nae wunner mate👍🏻
@@bhavyasharma3224 no
The man is brilliant. No bs, no padding, just the info
Its wild. As a Christian, we could all just be a jewish sect. Oi veh!
You are indeed a sect unless you have another explanation why do you whole foriegners nations read about our creation tradtion,our own history and fathers and even just general folk stories like with Job,even songs like the songs of songs why you call yourself by original Jewish names,yet in the other hand you killed and despise us Oy vavoy indeed.
@@yakov95000 Yep, Europe started rapidly going backwards and stayed there for a thousand years after importing a foreign Middle Eastern religion based upon a narcissistic and emotionally abusive deity.
@@tsopmocful1958 Europe didn't go backwards, it was always backwards without Rome, before and after Christianity.
What about the Muslim world, that was the beacon of technology and philosophy at the time, and Islam was also inspired by Judaism. Europeans were simply late bloomers. But naturally people would find a way to blame Jews.
@@yakov95000 cause humans are imperfect and often succumb to the temptations of the evil one. They forget that wouldn’t know anything about God if it weren’t for His chosen people and some are taught lies by misguided people who teach that the Jewish people are no longer God’s chosen people. Which of course isn’t true.
As a Christian you would be thinking the other way around
Since Mary Magdalene was the first one that Jesus chose to appear to after his resurrection, Mary was the first Christian ever.
And this always blows my mind: from the time that she got her orders until the time that they saw Him, she was the ONLY Christian on earth.
@ReligionForBreakfast if you ever consider writing a book, I think this would be an excellent topic! There is a lot of interest in "Early Christianity" and "The Historical Jesus" from readers with a wide variety of backgrounds. I've read a lot of them, but I've never seen this angle in a book aimed at non-experts. I've been reading Boyarin's book, and, honestly, I don't think I would be following his points if I hadn't been introduced to it by this video. I am always learning about interesting subjects, but it is a rare peak experience when something opens up a whole new perspective for me. This video is one of those experiences, thank you!
This
You will love Bart Ehrmans book, it is so accessible
I really appreciate the respectful and unbiased nature of this video, I’m not sure how you as the creator of the video feel about religion but your maturity and clarity made this a really enjoyable video that has a lot of valuable information to offer.
I love your videos will you be doing some on how Europe became Christian?
I’ve read some historical items on it and its interesting how long it took till it was fully complete and how it was not exactly a kind gentle assimilation
What a super informative channel. So glad I saw this. You education is stellar on this topic!
Wow, why was i not taught this in Sunday school!!!
+Cyrus cotton I think Sunday schools should teach it!
The lack of knowledge that most religious people have concerning their religion is well documented and that includes the teachers of those religions. The scholars are not usually the people who disseminate that knowledge to the adherents of their particular religion.
An ad hominem attack instead of addressing my argument means nothing. Could you try to add something substantive instead.
I think it has to do with lack of knowledge the average Christian has about all this, and more subtly, the antisemitism in American society at large that probably prevents people from learning this history and seeks to keep the religions at odds. Jesus would want unity between us and mixing of ideas I’m sure of that
Sunday school is for indoctrination, not theology.
i enjoyed your discussion here. i was very pleased with your honesty here and your fairness. i have listened to a few Jewish and Gentile attempts at this topic and most of them are full of error in my view.
Good job, as usual, although there is the big question of non-Jews increasingly converting to Christianity, which, I daresay was the decisive factor: the ethnic dilution is already observable in Paul's letters and it couldn't but grow the two religious strains apart.
Likely Judaism at that time weren't really keen on converting others that much, especially when Christianity slowly became popular to the Romans which probably just made that worse and justifiable in some Ancient Jew's eyes.
You don't mention the three Jewish wars which were major events in the life of the Roman Empire. The Great Jewish War which ended in 70 with the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, then there was the Jewish rebellion centered around Cyrene in what's now Libya and elsewhere outside of Israel around 113 - 115 and was evidently very boody - the city of Cyrene never recovered from this uprising. Finally there was the Bar Kochba Revolt of 132 to 135 which required major Roman forces to defeat it. Jews were seen by many in the Roman Empire as enemies, many Christians (those who accepted Jesus as the Messiah or part of G-d of either Jewish or Gentile background) wanted to distance themselves
from the pesky Jews. I was surprised you made no mention of Pella, still it was an interesting video.
The final versions of the 4 Gospels were completed after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, and the Gospel writers, in recounting the exchange between Jesus and the Roman centurion and the saying "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's," emphatically distance Jesus from Jewish nationalism and from any anti-Roman Jewish sentiment. St. Paul in his letter to the Romans teaches obedience to the Roman government, and in the Acts of the Apostles, he twice emphasizes his Roman citizenship to Roman magistrates. Early Christian writers take pains not to appear anti-Roman, at least until the writing of the Book of Revelations.
@@pompeiusmagnus2276 Saul of Tarsus was most likely the equivalent of a CIA/FBI Federal Operative, so of course he is going to preach obedience to secular rule. This form of Judaism should be called Paulianity. Ralph Ellis and Joseph Atwill go into this clandestine aspect of Saul of Tarsus' zealous work. Paula Fredriksen talks a lot about how jewish the early adherents to Paul's mission were. She also does a great talk on gods running in the blood which is a boon to pagans such as myself....because it is truth as was shown historically in it being the the status quo before the Abrahamists decided on universalization of all religious thought and began their judaizing of European gentiles.
This is from an Orthodox Jew. Jesus was a Great Teacher may God rest his soul. ✡ 🤝 ✝
Jesus the Messiah said this in, Rev 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: Rev 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
I think it is important to note the Council at Yavneh where Jewish Leaders reject Jesus as the Messiah in 90 AD, the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, the thought and teachings of early church fathers of the Rejection of the Jews because the temple was destroyed and Jews Banished from Jerusalem in 135? AD, and Constantine. I agree there was no one point but a gradual process. I also appriciate you pointing out how early Christians were closer to Judaism. Also in the Book of Acts it states that believers were first called Christians in Antioch, not in Israel.
I ended up not pursuing a degree in ancient history but my working theory at the time was that non-Christian Jews would have regarded Christians as different from Jews (which they would have defined more exclusively) much earlier than Romans would have distinguished them for a variety of reasons. To use an analogy, Catholics and Protestants at one point in the Reformation supposedly denied the others were really Christians (whether that's historically correct or not does not matter) yet if so non-Christians would simply have seen them both as Christians.
Christianity parted ways with Judaism, when Paul convinced the Apostles that Gentile male converts to Christianity did not need to undergo circumcision. Paul went further by arguing that circumcision was completely pointless. Paul's stance made it much easier (i.e., much less painful) for male Gentiles to adopt what evolved into Christianity.
I think the parting away from Judaism happened in the book of acts.When circumcision was not binding on a non jew who became a believer in the teachings of jesus.
It's more complicated than this. Jews didn't exactly see it as necessary to become Jewish as that is an ethno-religious designation. If a non-Jew did not convert to Judaism, that didn't mean that they didn't worship God, and we know that there were non-Jews who came into the synagogues and worshipped. The Gospels make mention of a Roman who helped fund the building of a synagogue. There are also mentions of "the God-fearers", non-Jews who kept certain Jewish customs yet did not wish to circumcise. There is a lot unknown on these individuals and how they varied from time and place. It wasn't like later Christianity that came to see it as either "you're saved or you aren't."
@@justinstewart4889 i think the person was a Roman named Cornelius in the gospels who was a God fearer
“Jesus Follower” sounds like something from a “average fan vs average enjoyer” meme 😆
Agnostic but raised Catholic and I'm loving your content. My dad studied theology so I've always wanted to learn more of what he talks about
You need to study the bloody history of the Catholic Church. The reformers called the Papacy Antichrist because the Trinity doctrine depicts Christ as a separate person in the Godhead, Jesus cannot be Christ unless God was in him as one man both physical and Spiritual. God became a man in Christ Jesus. (see Acts 2:38).
@hubertlancaster quite aware tbh, just more want extra knowledge so I can actually keep up at family dinners 😅
Wow, thank You. Much needed video. Glory to YAH!!!
As a Christian i am extremely saddned how Christianity is so far removed from it's Jewish roots.
Except, Christianity was never "far removed from its Jewish roots".
Please look up here, even on you tube Jewish Catholics. Also visit the Hebrew Catholic Association. One of many well-studied Catholic theologians, Dr Brant Pitre also has a written series on the Jewish roots of Catholicism.
Thank you.
Ok, first, cool starwars poster. Next, your energy back then was great.
I love this concept of how religion is very delicate and when talking about Christianity and Jewedisum (belief over practice) is very compelling but the one thing that isn't clarifying identity is the origin of nationality and what defines or is unique to that nationality and culture. For example, we talk about Jews and the unique customs and rituals that make that group of people unique, but then you compose those rituals and customs onto those who don't identify themselves as Jewish, which is what Christianity has done to most of the known world.
Many of the laws that are specific to Judaism Christianity dropped very early on and did not spread.
The rabbinical schools at the time, as well as the apostolic Church Fathers, and the myriad heretical groups, clearly distinguished one issue alone--- the divinity of Christ. All other issues were secondary. It is quite simply one's response to Jesus' question "Who do you say that I am?" which defined, and still defines one as a Christian.
You can see the beginnings of the separation within Paul's writings. There were those God Fearers that Paul addresses and grabs hold of that are intrigued by Sunday worship (2 Corinthians 9), having no forbidden foods (Romans 14), no castration - Galations (uhhmm... circumcision) etc. You can see some historical evidence in Suetonius as he records a disruption in Rome in 49AD because of a "Chrestus" (Acts 18?). The Jewish Synod of Jamnia expels "Christians" in 85AD. There's even some tiny evidence in the Pastoral Epistles of the beginnings of Gnostics. Most of these things take place in the first century.
In summary there was probably never a one time email or communique that went out over the wire. It was one synagogue at a time that were getting fed up with these Gentile Jewish people. It was each house/business church set up by Gentiles that had no real connection with Jewish people. to be more visibly different groups. However, as mentioned in the above video, there was never a time where all of the groups acted cohesively in separating.
Lastly, remember, there was the destruction of Jerusalem around 70AD (typing this without notes). This scattered many Jewish people and broke up communities. Aside from Nero's persecution (argued by some) most Roman or Roman province Gentile Christians began to thrive unimpeded. Many suggest that by the first decade of the so-called second century, those that were Gentile Christians easily outnumbered those that still identified themselves as Jewish as they had no Jerusalem or synagogues to attend.
It is interesting to read Rodney Stark on spreading of Christianity, he used the spreading of Mormonism as a model because this is very well documentated.
His model tells you that spreading went along family and relation lines and as long as those ties existed some group of faraway boboo's could declair expultion what they wanted, it had little effect on the communities as they existed.
We also tend to forget there were about 6 million Jews living in the Diaspora against 1 million in Palestine, in about 150 AD there were no more then an estimated 40.500 Christians. Were those complete seperated communities they would probably not even survive without their ties to the Jewish communities.
Speaking from a strictly historical standpoint; Nero did persecute the early Christians, they're debating to what extent. He also didn't fiddle while Rome burned.
I would say when Paul retconned the faith with his letters to the Churches so that everyone could take part in their god, instead of just the Hebrews. Jesus even said he only came for Israel. Paul pretty much double talked his way around it and made special pleadings so the Church could grow.
The single most important thing to remember is that the Greek word for *Christ* is just a translation of the Hebrew word for *Messiah.* Thus "Jesus Christ" is the Greek way of saying the Hebrew for "Joshua-the-Messiah".
Note that the real name of Jesus was always the Hebrew name *Joshua,* and the name Jesus we have today is just a mistranslation of the original name of Joshua.
So the Greek "Christ" can refer to any Messiah at all, not just Joshua, and the Romans dealt brutally with several Jewish Messiah cults - or Christ cults - in the first and second centuries.
The most important besides Joshua-the-Messiah was Simon bar Kochba-the-Messiah, which in the Greek language would be Simon-Christ, and his second-century followers would be "Christians" in the Greek language just as much as followers of the Joshua of the previous century were "Christians" too.
From the point of view of the Greek speaking Romans there was no important distinction between any specific Jewish Messiah claimant, and they would be unlikely to have the inclination to care - they were all just Jews following one of their various Messiahs to a Roman soldier.
During the Roman supression of Simon-the-Messiah in the second-century, the Romans became so anti-Jewish that it was virtually certain that they were killing followers of both Joshua-the-Messiah (aka Jesus-Christ followers) as well as followers of Simon-the-Messiah (Simon-Christ followers).
After that second century bloodbath, the followers of Joshua were very motivated to distance themselves from the Jews who had followed other Messiah claimants by downplaying their Jewishness. This is likely the fundamental reason why modern Christians use Sunday as their main day of worship instead of Saturday - instead of the _actual_ Sabbath as required in their holy text. (The commandment to _keep the Sabbath holy_ has lost its original meaning to most modern Christians, often being reinterpreted as the next day, Sunday, instead.)
By no longer following the Jewish practice of keeping the Sabbath holy according to their holy texts, they could forge a new identity for their particular Messiah worship - the worship of Joshua/Jesus - that had less and less to do with the original Jewish Messiah concept.
Over the centuries following the Roman supression of Simon-Christ, the Jesus-Christ movement carved for itself a new Roman identity that wasn't explicitly at odds with the Roman Empire like the Jews were known to be.
The end result of that new identity was the early Roman Catholic Church, which had an explicit hartred for Jews, plus it had also elevated their own Messiah Joshua to the status of a god.
Elevating Joshua, better known as Jesus, to the status of a god actually followed the Roman practice of the elevation of real historical figures to the status of a god - for example Julius Caesar was elevated to a god by the Romans as well.
Of course since Judaism was monotheistic the elevation of Jesus to a god caused a lot of strife within the new "Christian" religion, since it required its followers to believe that Jesus was his own father! But that's a whole other story ... 😂😂😂
Paul Gross - Paul was the first who made out of a Jewish messianic movement some pagan mystery cult with Jewish elements.
TorianTammas - yep, that's exactly right!
Before Paul was recruited, the apostles only sought other Jews to join their cult, but 20 years after the death of Jesus, Paul finally succeeded in getting the cult to remove the Jewish requirement for circumcision for entry into the cult.
And it was a long, hard fight by Paul to get circumcision removed.
Since Jesus himself had nothing to say about circumcision, and considering all that the infighting between the apostles over circumcision, it's clearly absurd to claim that some all-knowing god was setting the rules for the cult.
If circumcision was _not_ required, which was the eventual resolution, then why did it take 20 years and all the infighting to reach a consensus among the apostles? Surely if Jesus really was the son of some all-knowing god, sent to change the rules, then he would have been clear before he was crucified that circumcision wasn't required any more. But Jesus never said a word about circumcision!
And then there's the whole "Holy Spirit" bullshit.
Before Paul was involved, no cult member got the "Holy Spirit" without being physically touched by an apostle. The New Testament - Acts of the apostles is abundantly clear on that point.
Even Paul had to wait before getting this "Holy Spirit" thing - he also had to be personally touched by an apostle to get the "Holy Spirit".
But after Paul got the "Holy Spirit", the whole issue was dropped - it's simply never mentioned again, and Christians after Paul's involvement never again needed to be touched by an apostle to get the "Holy Spirit" thing, whatever that was.
An _honest_ reading of the New Testament clearly shows that Paul's goal was to make the cult more appealing to non-Jews, and he faced resistance from within the cult, especially the other apostles, for a long time as he tried to reform the rules.
Absolute poppycock! As the writings of Paul reveal the universal (Catholic) Church was well established in the 1st century. After the destruction of Jerusalem it remained. And it is still here today just as filled wit sinners and miscreants as it always was. But it does produce some great Saints, as well. Merry Christmas!
@@michaelogrady232 man, all yall have absolutely no clue what yall are talking about
@Shaun Tanger - wow ... look who's butthurt!!!! 😂😂😂😂
You can't come up with an argument to dispute me, so instead you say that some unnamed scholars disagree with me.
When you have an _actual argument_ to dispute what I wrote, I'll listen. Until then you are just a poor _loser!_
Catholic Christianity descended from the sacrificial temple judaism. it has more in common with temple practices than rabbinical judaism today
Andrew Mark Henry, you seem to present the 'parting' of Judaism and Christianity from a strictly Christian perspective. What about the Jewish view of Christians, especially in light of the Council of Jamnia in 74 CE (or 85 CE per another commenter) in which assembled rabbis declared that followers of Jesus could not legally be called Jews (especially for the purpose of obtaining the Roman legal exemption granted to followers of Jewish religion)? Thanks for any info that you can provide.
This was a proposition of J. Louis Martyn. At the Council, a benediction called the Birkat-ha-Minim was written or revised, purportedly to exclude Jesus' followers from Judaism. Edward Klink summarizes numerous "irresolvable problems" with Martyn's thesis: "doubt concerning the kind of general authority to be given to the Jamnian Academy within the first century; the date of the Twelfth Benediction and the improbability of it being composed as early as the 80’s of the first century; the lack of direct evidence that the Benediction was formulated for the purpose of removing Christians from the synagogue, or that it was ever even used that way; the inability to limit the meaning of Minim to anything less than ‘heretic’; and the late date of the pertinent sources."
legacy.tyndalehouse.com/Bulletin/59=2008/6%20Klink.pdf
The theory that that took place is nowadays not held by most scholars.
The Sanhedrin never declared that Jews who became Christians are no longer Jews.
The Council of Jamnia didnt have strong powers like the Sanhedrin, although it could be an added factor, between all the things that happened.
I love your posts. You fill in so many blanks in regard to religious history... Please address when Christians change their sabbath to Sunday from Saturday.
Technically the Sabbath never changed which is why some churches have services in Saturday & Sunday.
Thanks for the subtitle when you said "lugaks" because that's all I heard.
Rodney Stark mentioned the rejection of Marcion as an indication how strong the christian Jewish way of life and thinking was around 144 AD and it stayed strong for centuries to come.
I think they parted ways when god say “I am unchanging” and “put no gods before me.”
Then Jesus came along and said, “god has changed, the only way to him is through me.”
Jay Middleton Isaiah 7: 14 and Isaiah 9: 6 and Isaiah chapter 53.
Aquilla Fleetwood thank you for sharing the gospel with him
Zechariah 12:10
Jeremiah 31:32
Zechariah 9:9
Isaiah 7:14
Isaiah 9:6
@@aquillafleetwood8180 None of those verses say anything about Jesus.
outreachjudaism.org/gods-suffering-servant-isaiah-53/
outreachjudaism.org/the-virgin-birth/
outreachjudaism.org/alma-virgin/
outreachjudaism.org/septuagint-virgin-birth/
jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/can-you-give-a-reason-why-jews-say-isaiah-96-does-not-refer-to-jesus
@@SonicSega0964 Those verses show that the pagan authors of the NT didn't know even basic Hebrew or Judaism.
outreachjudaism.org/god-divorce-israel/
As long as the Jerusalem Church lived, it had the unique claim of being the direct disciples of Jesus. This was a no trump against other proto-christian sects. Without doubt, after the Roman Jewish war of 70, the destruction of the Second Temple, and with it the Jerusalem Church, the Nazarene faith split off from Judaism and become a new religion.
would you agree that a theological split began sometime during or after the destruction of the second temple. Christians starting to distance themselves from Jews and aligning themselves with the Romans more. John's Gospel paints the Jews as the Killers of Christ and that Pilot was not a bad guy. I think that shows the shift in identity and seperation. thoughts ?
The Gospel of John is a super confusing example, because I think the author was probably Jewish. So I don't know if that shows a split between Christianity and Judaism as much as it shows splits within Judaism (a Jesus-following Judaism starting to fracture with non-Jesus-following Jews). The destruction of the Temple probably did start a shift though since Palestinian Jews no longer had a center of sacrificial worship. What effect this had on the burgeoning Jesus movement though? I'm not sure.
ReligionForBreakfast hmm I don't know is if the Romans would care what sort of Jew they were. Jesus believing or non believing Jew. it's possible I guess ,but I feel the Romans would not be so keen to care of a little theological distinction. I think I read this sort of commentary in Bart Ehrman's works.. I will see if I can find something more solid to share with u
Yeah let me know. I respect Ehrman's work. My hunch is that the Romans didn't care about relatively minor theological distinctions (or what would have been minor to the Romans...to early Christian leaders...these distinctions meant a lot).
It is my understanding that there was some resentment against the Christians because they fled Jerusalem when the Roman armies approached because of the warning in Mark 13 and Matthew 24. Some Jews felt that had they stayed and fought that they could have withstood the Roman siege. Similar sentiments were felt when Christians would not participate in the bar Kochba revolt.
It was more likely that any distancing was mutual. The separation was in-inevitable if it was not immediate because the identity of the promised Jewish Messiah was a deal breaker.
It's like the Catholic Protestant split over the Pope and authority. Catholic doctrine says Protestants are still Christian but many protestant sects do not believe Catholics are Christians.
Angelo Nasios Roman could not care less what a religion one has. They were interested in public order and that taxes were payed in their provinces. So whatever caused a rebellion would be extinguished. So when in a roman controlled territory someone is claimed to be a king he will be killed. The stories we have about Jesus are in Greek and written by people living in the Roman/Greek world. Surely they wanted to appeal to a Roman audience and tried not to blame the Romans for killing there main character in their story.
There are few things in history that are so neat and simple. Especially when talking about beliefs and culture!
*clears throat* Hi Loretta 😌
This is a real question and not a veiled criticism. Why do you choose to use CE/BCE instead of BC/AD? Assume because CE/BCE is more all inclusive but just thought I'd ask. Great channel!
NCPATRIOT My guess is that it’s a bit more impartial, especially when it comes to religious studies. Using BC/AD when talking about religions other than Christianity might come off as disrespectful.
because in academia they have moved from using BC/AD to CE/BCE to be more objective because BC/AD clearly have a Christian bent, so that you don't come across as biased and don't offend atheists and non-christians
They are removing all evidence of Christ ex: BC before Christ AD after death These are not the true Hebrews of the land or the word as they worship a different god of the land.
@@extolzebulon9831 I believe AD is anno domini. If you're going to spout off at least get your facts right
It can be. However, it's ultimately more of a superficial choice that aesthetically aligns with secular language (since the issue of inclusivity with AD/BC isn't meaningfully solved by just using CE/BCE).
The Birkat haMinim (Hebrew ברכת המינים "Blessing on the heretics") is a Jewish curse on heretics (minim). Modern scholarship has generally evaluated that the Birkat haMinim probably did originally include Jewish Christians before Christianity became markedly a gentile religion.[1] It is the 12th of the Eighteen Benedictions or Amidah.[2]
The writing of the benediction is attributed to Shmuel ha-Katan at the supposed Council of Jamnia which was inserted in the "Eighteen Benedictions" as the 19th blessing in the silent prayer to be said thrice daily, the Amidah. The benediction is thus seen as related to the Pharisees, the development of the Hebrew Bible canon, the split of early Christianity and Judaism as heresy in Judaism, the origins of Rabbinic Judaism, origins of Christianity, Christianity in the 1st century, and the history of early Christianity.
According to one theory, it was useful as a tool for outing minim ("heretics"), because no min would recite aloud or reply amen to it, as it was a curse upon minim.[3]omposition
According to the Babylonian Talmud Tractate Berakhot 28b-29a, Shmuel ha-Katan was responsible for the writing of the Birkat haMinim:
"Rabban Gamaliel said to the sages: Is there no one who knows how to compose a benediction against the minim? Samuel Ha-Qatan stood up and composed it."[4]
The blessing exists in various forms.[5][6] Two medieval Cairo Genizah copies include references to both minim and Notzrim ("Nazarenes", i.e. "Christians").[7][8][9]
"For the apostates let there be no hope. And let the arrogant government be speedily uprooted in our days. Let the noẓerim and the minim be destroyed in a moment. And let them be blotted out of the Book of Life and not be inscribed together with the righteous. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who humblest the arrogant" (Schechter)."[10]
Identification of Minim
The extent of reference to Notzrim, or application of minim to Christians is debated.[11][12] In his analysis of various scholarly views on the Birkat haMinim, Pieter W. van der Horst sums up,
"It is certain that minim in Tannaitic times are always Jews... It is certain that notsrim was not a part of the earliest version(s) of our berakhah."[13]
During the medieval period, whether the blessing included Christians or not was the subject of disputations, a potential cause for persecution and thus a matter relevant for the safety of Jewish communities.[14] It is generally viewed in modern studies that the term "heretics" at an early point in split of early Christianity and Judaism had included Jewish Christians.[15][16][17][18] It was David Flusser's view (1992) that the Birkat haMinim was added in reference to the Sadducees.[19]
Many scholars have seen reference to the Birkat haMinim in Justin Martyr's complaint to Trypho of the Jews "cursing in your synagogues those that believe on Christ." Reuven Kimelman (1981) challenged this, noting that Justin's description places the curse in the wrong sequence in the synagogue service.[20]
Christian awareness of this prayer as a curse against them is only attested from the time of Jerome and Epiphanius in the fifth century CE. In the subsequent anti-Judeaic literature, it was almost universally ignored until the 13th century. The one exception is the work of Agobard of Lyons, writing in 826/827 to protest what he saw was the granting of too many privileges to Jews by the Carolingian monarch.[21]
I wonder if middle-eastern Christians today have Jewish ancestors. My family are Iraqi Christians.
Of course, noone in your country is 100% Arab Muslim or 100% Jewish ...
I believe there are also descendants of Jews among the Muslims of the Middle East, because some Jews converted under pressure and their families eventually forgot they had been Jewish. A few Muslim families, though, have secretly retained the memory of their Jewish origins. I have heard a few of their stories.
@@musiclover148 yep yet it's not hidden it's well known. I have a friend who fits this case.
@@yosafvictor5631 He's not afraid to talk about it?
@Mizrahi With Attitude Oh, that is very nice. My dad's family are Iraqi Christians from Mosul. We live in Jordan, though, and I recently moved to Germany.
I personally really love Jewish culture, especially different types of Jewish folk music, my favorite being Klezmer music in the Yiddish language, but I also like other types.
Peace and blessings to you for this. You are helping me so much with this paper.
4:10 In modern parlance he is what we would call a "Messianic Jew"
A sect of Judaism which isnt part of Judaism.
Wild stuff I know.
Phantom Thief Irwin Bill Donahue Hidden Meanings for deeper truths
Actually he is a Messianic Orthodox Jew who wouldn't be less Orthodox than a non believer in Jesus as long as he doesn't believe in Trinity and that Jesus is divine.
@Niko Bellic "unfortunately"
@Niko Bellic from the writings of the Apostolic fathers and the New Testament and the 2nd century fathers... It seems so
@Niko Bellic they are called the Apostolic Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, etc..
For example Polycarp of Smyrna was the disciple of John. Polycarp had a disciple called Irenaeus. Yes the famous Irenaeus of Lyon who fought the heresy of gnosticism. The Joannine spiritual lineage seems to be the archenemy of Gnosticism lol (some traditions said that John wrote his gospel in response to a proto-gnostic teacher called Cerentus or something similar to that name)
Even in war, we are behind you and we protect you.
I love this topic. But my view is that it almost doesn’t matter. The specifics of what people believe and practice is far more important than what label they fall under. Changing their label doesn’t change their beliefs. And the beliefs are what I care about most
Fair enough.
But some people (myself included) are fascinated about how religions came to be, how they split and grew and evolved, what were the causes and influences, and what are the remaining unknowns. Its a puzzle and a mystery, and those unknowns are intriguing!
I don't know what you're talking about. He goes beyond just labeling. The split of Christianity from Judaism has to do with beliefs, and he deals with that. Also, it is important how we label ourselves. It tells us a lot about what's going on in people's heads.
When the number of non Jewish born Christians outnumbered the Jewish born Christians- this is close to when the strong differentiating between Judaism and Christianity occurred. This would have been around the end of the 2nd 'generation' of Christianity, about 90 AD or just a bit earlier. True, Judaic influences persisted for centuries, but the church was a new different thing almost from the beginning, moving from heretical Judaism in the 1st century to the Christian church in the 2nd century.
Messianic Jews remain and remained Jewish with their synagogue and their celebrations and everything else that you was do they just believe that Jesus is the messiah. That's the only change and it's a change in mind and heart the rest of their life is Jewish.
That boat sailed though, as the video argues, it's departure happened over time.
Jesus followers that, just jews that believed in Jesus. Over time and through empires and instututions Christianity was formed.
The New Testament letters are mostly encouragement to the churches about not following the circumcision party. Which were people who believed they had to be circumcised before believing in Christ basically.
Not true at all sorry
I am also an atheist but your content is fascinating and I’m hooked. Thanks.
Try to read Genesis to Revelation with an open heart. You will find the intent and the purpose revealed in the Bible.
May God bless you in understanding.
I've been looking for this. Thanks❤
After the destruction of the temple
A few quick points: as discredited as the Jabneh hypothesis may be, nowadays, there is early evidence of splitting of Jewish and Christian communities in the second half of the 1st century. The polemical wording of the gospels against "the Jews" is a valid clue, for example. Same thing with the early rejection of dietary laws and circumcision (Paul's letters, Acts).
Then you have the increasing weight of non-Jewish converts to Christianity. Then, perhaps not so much in the 1st but definitely in the 2nd century, you have pagan witnesses that seem to be able to establish a difference between the two religions and the two communities, possibly helped by the increasing amount of pagan converts, as already mentioned. Finally there is enough archeological evidence that sets apart Christian houses of prayers from synagogues as early as the third century.
The history of things like this is always very gradual and layered, never cut and dry.
Very informative and thought provoking. And the poster of Tatooine did not escape me!
The official parting happened at the council of Nicaea in 325AD
lol no, it was way before that.
This makes a lot of sense, as my own readings of history suggest the Romans really couldn't tell the difference between Christians and Jews in the early days
Love watching your videos, especially the ones you do on Christianity
Personally, I see it more as a reformation than a clean break, hence why no particular date can be set as to when they 'split' as the reformation took place over several centuries.
It didn't take centuries. It maybe took a century or so.
That just sounds like Judaism with extra steps!
Haven't watched the video yet . So , my snap answer is " when God was replaced by politico opinion ". When people get experience ( older ) they lean on that which works , most apply common sense to spirituality in the here and now and have integrity . Some people decide to manipulate and\or monetize spirituality for personal gain . Pick one .
I learned Christian history, and I see this cute guy, Oh god.
Fascinating as always, but doesn't address the overt anti-Semitism of the gospels, particularly Matthew. Where did that come from?
Yeah, he completely avoided that. It's not the Gospels, but the schism that lead to that interpretation.
Well it seems according to the account of the gospels of the Bible, the first Christians were in fact the messianic Jews, those among the Hebrews who keep the old laws and accept Jesus as the Messiah. So the man of the hypothetical Antioch was mostly a messianic Jew. The question is more rooted toward the practice and belief of the Gentiles and the Hebrews.
+RRK93 RRK93 I agree, though remember that there were a lot of messianic Jews in the first few centuries CE. We know of at least a few people who claimed the title "messiah." And you're right, it's tricky when you start considering Gentile converts into Christianity. Are they converting into a Jewish sect or a new religion? Tough questions for our clunky modern categories.
ReligionForBreakfast: That was one of the debates early on, should the gentiles circumcise and judaize? I agree even among the first messianic jews already sects were forming. Nothing to do with modern evangelical “messianic judaism”. Please do an episode on these last ones. Peace...
stereostream - This discussion about judaizing and circumcision shows how jewish Jesus and his followers were. Not even the idea ever came up that non Jews could be followers of Jesus.
You’re answering a lot of questions for many Evangelical Christian who are 1)bored of the “Gospel”
Put on repeat every week.
2)frustrated with the group think within their own church who say they want to be discipled and study the Bible, but can’t ask these questions
Ultimately, many are critically thinking and discovering the answers to their question by Evangelical “leaders” are not reasonable. Fallacies basically.
3)
I would guess that the important partition occurred when Rome acknowledged Christianity and spread it throughout the empire. This led to European "Christendom" which diverges much more from the Hebrew faith than do other, older, Christian groups, i.e. Ethiopian Christians, Coptic Christians, etc. Just my guess, I'm not a professional religious scholar.
Ifs fun going back and watching these early episodes.
So when, certainly before Constantine
Christian Population is more in this world than others. We follow the teaching of forgiving and letting others in to live a safe life. It will grow even more!
Yes hello very nice video but I have one question. The author of the Gospel of John already seems to partake in this partitioning, since he talks about "the Jews" instead of "the Pharisees". There is tension between Jesus and "the Jews", which implies that the author saw Jesus as something other than a Jew. Shouldn't this be mentioned, and could you clarify on it?
I think most scholars would agree that the Gospel of John was written by a Jew too. So his use of "the Jews" as the antagonists to Jesus is usually interpreted as the author saying something along the lines of "mainstream Jews" in opposition to his own smaller (and possibly persecuted) Jewish sect. Verses like John 16:2 imply that the author was concerned about being thrown out of synagogues too. Some scholars posit the existence of a "Johannine community," a community of Jewish Chrsitians that used the Gospel of John and 1 John, that were pushed out of a mainstream Jewish community. 1 John also seems very bitter about a recent rift (read the first chapter).
Good question though, it is a really tricky issue that scholars still debate.
Good response by ReligionForBreakfast, but allow me to add one other theory. Some have argued that John is distinguishing between different groups then present in Jerusalem for the Passover feast: those from Judea and those from Galilee. In other words, we should not take the use of "the Jews" as a religious distinction but as a geographic one. I find this an interesting argument but there is no definitive answer.
TheCountryBumpkin - The Pharisees have seen even before Jesus a lot of things like the story tells about him. The story paint a totally wrong picture of the Pharisees. So either the author had not idea what the Pharisees believed and practiced or just try to bad mouth them.
James Kolan - The divide one can make with controlling the temple cult, and the one not so interested in the temple cult and the one who were against the temple cult. So it has a certain regional touch, but it is not determined solely by where someone lived.
I agree. I'll give an example, I'm a Filipina and often when I or other Filipinos will condemn or praise Filipinos as a whole, we say or use the term "Filipinos are like this and like that", as if we are not part of the community, when in fact we are simply trying to objectively reference a community about whatever subject matter. Don't Americans or others do the same?
Great content!! God bless you
The Talmud officially denouncing Jesus was probably a turning point. Not sure when that was added though.
The Talmud being wrote is a pretty big turning point in general.
Talmud was 600 years after Christ. Around the time of intense persecution of Jews by Christian rulers (Justinian).
Question is, why the references to "the Jews" in the NT? Was it because the separation of the two communities was wider when the Gospels were finally solidified?
They probably meant either the Jewish Elite who’d got on the same side as the Romans.... or they meant Jews who actively resisted Resurrection beliefs?
The Greek word that's typically translated "Jews" originally meant "Judeans". As I understand it, it's meaning was in flux at the time the Gospels were written. Given the emphasis on Jesus and his followers being Galilean (as opposed to Judean) in the crucifixion narrative, I strongly suspect that "the Jews" should actually be translated "the Judeans". Although when Pilate put a sign reading "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" on the cross, he clearly was using the word in its broader sense. Or else he just couldn't be bothered to distinguish between Judeans and Galileans.
I find this explanation rather unconvincing. Take Paul for instance. He recognized himself as persecutor of those who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, suggesting very strongly that mainstream Judaism (at least its Pharisaic sect) understood early christians to be something very distinct. It wouldn't be terribly out of place to imagine that a similar dynamic would play out if someone within judaism declared himself the messiah today. His acclaim would not be universal and pretty soon lines would be drawn around those who accept this individual as the messiah and those who do not.
Indeed, the orthodox-judaizers (for lack of better distinction) debate is something that played itself within the early church for a long time, and if we read Ignatius (or perhaps even Chrysostom) along these lines we have a clearer picture of what was going on. The split between Judaism and Christianity may have happened very early (Paul in his roman letters already seems to recognize a difference) in history, but the internal dialogues between the different groups within early Christianity as to the role of judaic rites and practices within this new religion may indeed have taken much longer to become clear.
gre8 Paul is not the best example. The fantasy idea that someone like Paul can run amok in the Roman province of Syria and kidnap people is a illusion. If he had tried something like this in Damascus he would either get lynched by the people or by the Roman authorities. One can not run around and kidnap people and deliver them over many miles. He would have been hunted down and either killed on the spot or put on trial. So this is a fantasy claim for which we have no evidence and it makes no sense as people can not run around in the Roman provinces and kidnap people.
And you can back this claim with what evidence? Let's not forget that the Acts also mention Paul as a persecutor so there are at least to witnesses to this fact. Also, let's remember that we are talking about the first century. There were no police forces organized 24/7 to keep peace and, in larger cities such as Damascus one could easily picture Paul being aided by locals or, in the very least, aiding and participating with them in some public lynching. Crowds can get violent and it would be hardly surprising if some level of persecution and kidnaping happened. Let's never forget that it is the first century middle east we are talking about, not some western european capital nowadays.
Let's grant that all could be an invention by Paul that went unchallenged by other witnesses, but I feel there is no compelling evidence that points to this; only some speculation based on some very loose collection of unsubstantiated claims. It is true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but in this case, one must also accept what has been presented and not just reject it based on what we want to be true.
gre8 I am sorry to say but the first rule of story telling is you have to prove every single story element. How about the document of the high priest? Nothing? How about a document from any Roman official? Nothing. Well it seems story telling is at work which can not provide any evidence for the claim Paul was a criminal who kidnapped people.
You really expect to have everything that happened 2000 years ago to be very well documented and preserved like in a modern archive? Boy, you are in for such a surprise about history...
gre8 If someone claims that a story actually happened then he has to provide evidence. We have hundreds or stories from antiquity. We have people bringing sacrifices to have been actually healed by the good Asclepius. We have first hand evidence as the people commented their donations. We have even a story in which a women leaves the temple not healed and then meets a men on a travel, she heals her and she realize it was the god Asclepius himself. So does it mean this happened? Does it mean this god exists. According to your argumentation we have plenty of evidence for his existence.
In Acts we have a story about something that might have happened in the 50s which is written about in the 80 or 90s. Why should it have happened? It is implausible, unlikely and would have surely meet to some legionaries or auxiliaries mobbing up some criminal who tries to disturb the peace in a Roman province. Roman officials are known to be quite ruthless to take down criminals. They didn't like civil unrest. Kidnapping people causes civil unrest. So it is just a story without evidence unless we get a document from the High priest or a Roman official or anyone saying that this Paul and his henchman took one of his friends and family members. One of this would add a interesting dimension to the story and one has to see who produced it and when it was produced. As we have know of this it is a story element born by someone who does not have a clue about Roman authority and how they did govern in the provinces.
As a lifelong Christian, I’ve always understood Jesus to be the Messiah as prophesied in the Old Testament. As such, he wasn’t a Jew but THE Jew! Makes perfect sense that most early Christians were Jewish.
He was never prophesied in the Hebrew Bible Isaiah 7:14 is NOT about Jesus
You could say they were Jew-ish.
Ba ha ha!
Appears that the demarcation line would have a fractal appearance
The parting really happened with Paul who changed the actual story of the Jesus political movement advanced by Peter and the Jesus followers to a story that would be received much better in the gentile communities who were adherents of various mystery religions around the Mediterranean. He basically changed the Messiah (political) story of events into a religious story and so Christianity was invented.
+coldslutsonfire Well, I would argue Paul was part of a reformist sect of Judaism that invited Gentiles into the covenant of Abraham. I guess it's all semantics, but I see Pauline Christianity as still 100% Judaism.
+ReligionForBreakfast thanks for your reply. I would disagree. I see Revelation as the main separating point where Paul claimed that what was once mythical was now a reality on earth. Mainly that the hero God of the various mystery religions had come into a true reality historically as Jesus. Jewish people would never accept a human as a god and that's why the Pauline Jesus church had to vere off. I'm getting my information about all this from Hyam Maccoby. I love your channel. It's very well presented and thoughtful. Totally fascinating!
+coldslutsonfire I'm glad you're enjoying the channel! Another video is coming up next week.
I did say this topic is controversial even among scholars, so I don't think we'll figure this out on UA-cam comments haha. I'm getting most of my ideas from the scholar Daniel Boyarin who would say "Christianity" didn't exist as a distinct religion well into the 3rd century. It was all Judaism up until then. It's an interesting debate when you delve into it!
ReligionForBreakfast Thanks. I'm not familiar with that author. I'll delve in!
I agree with +Cold Sluts On Fire If I recall from my Jewish history class where we studied this whole sequence of events, Jesus was never superhuman, he was literally just a guy with a lot of things to say about the corrupt higher class Jews that ran all the temples in Jerusalem. Then, after the destruction of the 2nd Temple and Jesus's death (btw this was caused by the roman empire thinking that tensions and fights between jews were actually a conspiracy against romans) this guy Paul decided to send letters to Gentiles living in other areas about how his dead friend jesus was the son of god and told everyone to convert to Judaism but also "sure, you can keep your pagan holidays", "nah u dont have to keep kosher" and the actual Jews were like "wtf dude stop these ppl arent jews" and Paul was like "ok... theyre christians then!"
i will say that the Jewish History class was from a jewish perspective, so feel free to debate me and say that jesus is the savior, i cant judge an idea when a billion people believe it.
Some good stuff here, especially in view of time constraints. But when you read Acts it is clear that there is a growing parting of the ways. For believing that Jesus was the Messiah, Christians faced expulsion from the synagogues . For claiming that gentile converts need not practice the law, we see a parting of the ways.