Did Jesus really intend to found a new religion?

[polonius]

An Episcopalian priest and religious writer, Tom Ehrich, wrote the following:

As best we can determine, the Jesus Movement began as a sect within Judaism and spread throughout the Mediterranean region largely by being passed from one Jewish community to another. Jesus, of course, was a Jew, as were his original disciples. He apparently saw his ministry as leading his people to higher ground, as it were, not launching a competing movement.

A hierarchy of power emerged, justified itself as ordained of God, continued the work of self-differentiation, and began branding as heresy any view or practice that contradicted the hierarchy...

This is a bit different then what the New Testament written about 40 -70 years after Jesus death in order to make converts tells us.

Is Ehrich correct?

[marco]

An Episcopalian priest and religious writer, Tom Ehrich, wrote the following:

As best we can determine, the Jesus Movement began as a sect within Judaism and spread throughout the Mediterranean region largely by being passed from one Jewish community to another. Jesus, of course, was a Jew, as were his original disciples. He apparently saw his ministry as leading his people to higher ground, as it were, not launching a competing movement.

A hierarchy of power emerged, justified itself as ordained of God, continued the work of self-differentiation, and began branding as heresy any view or practice that contradicted the hierarchy...

This is a bit different then what the New Testament written about 40 -70 years after Jesus death in order to make converts tells us.

Is Ehrich correct?

It is a reasonable claim. The reported Jesus seems to have been interested only in his times and his predictions relate to the lifetime of his listeners. It does not seem he was remotely interested in people 100 years away far less 2 millennia distant.

If he were on a divine mission it is surprising he left no written instructions, but entrusted his words to the interpretations of later readers. In fact he revealed nothing and said nothing more than "Be good." He is a man of his times but his ghost is one for all seasons, transformed into something Jesus never was. It has empowered the mighty to do both good and evil through the ages, and the mighty have seen Christianity as a useful tool, just as Islam is a useful tool for modern theocracies.

[tfvespasianus]

I think this sort of interpretation is rooted in an ecumenical impulse rather than an insightful weighing of the evidence. That is, it makes the Jesus of Christianity as a reforming rabbi and thus seeks to place Christianity as nebulously Jewish. However, putting aside what was actually normative Judaism prior to the fall of the Temple and the rise of Rabbinic Judaism, it diminishes whatever was the innovation that was the impetus for the formation of Christianity. Again, this is an interpretation that seeks to posit something like Jesus was just a Jewish reformer and then things got out of hand and someone (usually Paul is blamed) made a whole bunch of stuff up.

The rub is that we do have record of Pauls disputes with the earliest apostles. Pauls disagreements are not about the nature of the Christ or about Jesus resurrection, but have to do with questions about gentile converts. Moreover, he writes to congregations that he did not himself found (e.g. Rome) and makes no mention of a sizable distinction in worldview from this congregation. If a humble movement of better and so-called mainstream Judaism made its way all the way to Rome and this was the real Christianity, is there any hint of this in Pauls letter? Or are the people in Rome adherents of the same faith as Paul?

Take care,
TFV

[Hawkins]

Based on what he said so. Other than the Bible, we don't have many ancient documents left for us to do an objective speculation.

So the choices are, you believe literally what the Bible says or you not.

That's God's purpose as the only choices left invite your faith, while you don't have other options.

[JehovahsWitness]

Is Ehrich correct?

No I don't believe he is.




#QUESTION Do the teachings and philosophies of Jesus as expressed in the Gospels, taken by themselves, indicate he intented to start a "new religion"?

There are many that contend that Jesus had no intention of "starting a new religion" and/or that he simply wanted to instigate certain changes of attitude within the Jewish religion (possibly start a Jewish sect). The follow is my answer to these claims.


#1 HIS CHURCH Jesus explicity stated his intention to set up (built) a church in his name. Jesus said... "I will build MY CHURCH and the gates of hell [hades/ grave] shall not prevail [be prevailing] against it" (Matt. 16:18 ).

#2 LEADERSHIP Jesus set up an alternative religious leadership. Matthew 18 verse 17 Jesus provided the following guidelines:
"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.."- New American Standard Bible (1995)
http://bible.cc/matthew/18-17.htm

Under the Jewish religious system again only the priests and ultimately the High Priest had the right to excummunicate a worshipper. All judgement was reserved for the Priestly class, something a Jewish male was born to by being a descendant of Aaron. Jesus was thus implying a system that would have been totally illegal under the Jewish religion. If Jesus had no intention for his followers to be part of a CHURCH or community of believers from which one could be excluded in some way, what were these guidelines pointing towards? If Jesus never wanted a church, why did he say he intended to build one?

#3 RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION: Jesus instructed the instutution of a system by which religious instruction and encouragement to be administred through a pre-prescribed chanel - as opposed to each individual member praying to God and being guided indepently to spritually upbuilding information. Jesus chose 12 Apostles and gave them (notably Peter) instructions to feed his sheep, metaphorically refering to his disciples. It seems clear then that Jesus was indicating that there would be an identifiable group ("sheep") which Peter and his fellow Apostles, would be able to "feed" (give religious instruction to). (see John 21:15-17); under the JEWISH SYSTEM only the Priests were authorized to give religious instruction.

#4 RELIGIOUS MEETINGS : Jesus indicated he wished his Christian followers to stay in some kind of contact with each other; for example, on the last night of his life on earth, Jesus instituted a ceremony that involved bread and wine. He commanded that his followers "keep doing this in remebrance of me" (Luke 22:19). Indeed in Matthew Chapter 18 verse 20 Jesus stated "where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst. Thus indicating far from his teachings to simply be carried in the heart of each individual follower, his people would meet together on a regular basis.
The Jewish religion already had three national Festivals where male members of the religion were ordered to gather three times a year. There was absolutely no allowance for this to be done anywhere other than in Jerusalem; interestingly Jesus said explicity that the day would come when true worship would NOT be centered at the Jewish Temple (John 4: 23, 24)

#5 NEW RELIGIOUS RITUALS. Jesus indicated his disciples would continue to "meet together" (Matthew 18:20) and follow at least two religous ceremonies (Baptism - Not a requirement under the Jewish system), and later the memorial of his own (Jesus' death) again something certainly that had no place in the Jewish system (Luke 22:19; Mat 28:19). Although gathering for instruction in local communities (for example in local synagogues) was encouraged there was no allowance in that religion for the institution of additonal religious ceremonies as indicated by Jesus, evidently he was not suggesting "reforms" (not something permissable in the Jewish system) but something "new", something arguably Jesus was alluding to when he mentioned not putting new wine (a new religion) into old wineskins (a old obsolete system of worship).

#6 PRAYER One the last night of his life on earth, Jesus instructed his disciples to pray "in his name". There was nothing in the Jewish law that allowed for requests to be made to God through someone else. The High Priest offered prayers on behalf of the people and of course each individual Jew had the right to pray to God himself, but never through (on the merit of) someone else. Like the other features mentions this notion could not exist as a sect of the Jewish faith it was something radically new.

#7 PREACHING THE GOSPEL "Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded YOU." - Matthew 28: 19, 20 NWT In the Jewish religion, people that had heard of their God and wished to worship him were free to come and worship (in a limited way) at the temple, but Jesus last commission quoted above instigated something new, a religious system based on the authoroity not of the Priests or the Temple but on God's Son.

CONCLUSION All of the above indicates that Jesus

1) Was setting up a new religion (rather than attempting to reform or instigate changes in the Jewish system)

2) that Jesus was fully aware that his instructions would result in a religion (rather than a group of individuals loosely linked by a common ideology) and that this was completely in line with his intended purpose

RELATED POSTS

Can the first century church be rightly described as "an organised religion"?
viewtopic.php?p=1062104#p1062104

Can one obey Jesus words without a church or church leaders?
viewtopic.php?p=1081725#p1081725

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

RELIGION, ORGANISATION and ...CHRISTIANITY

[Elijah John]

An Episcopalian priest and religious writer, Tom Ehrich, wrote the following:

As best we can determine, the Jesus Movement began as a sect within Judaism and spread throughout the Mediterranean region largely by being passed from one Jewish community to another. Jesus, of course, was a Jew, as were his original disciples. He apparently saw his ministry as leading his people to higher ground, as it were, not launching a competing movement.

A hierarchy of power emerged, justified itself as ordained of God, continued the work of self-differentiation, and began branding as heresy any view or practice that contradicted the hierarchy...

This is a bit different then what the New Testament written about 40 -70 years after Jesus death in order to make converts tells us.

Is Ehrich correct?

Yes, I think so. Not sure about the heirarchy, power struggle paradigm, but I agree that Jesus did not intend to found a new religion, and certainly not a "Church".

Most probably he was a apocalyptic Prophet who may have viewed himself as the Messiah, and at least, he was a Rabbi who intended to bring reform to his Judaism, if not a Rabbinic school of thought all his own.

But "Church", "new Religion"? Not likely.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

I can't argue with what you say if we assume that Jesus actually said those things. Since there's no way to know what he may or may not have said though, and the writers of the NT (Paul/Saul as the primary writer) not knowing Jesus, I think there is viable doubt as to his exact words.

I think Paul/Saul intended to found a new religion. I don't know that the man named Jesus that he based it off of had any inkling of it...

[marco]

The rub is that we do have record of Pauls disputes with the earliest apostles. Pauls disagreements are not about the nature of the Christ or about Jesus resurrection, but have to do with questions about gentile converts.

Paul was in favour of bringing his good news to the gentiles. He opposed circumcision. Thus it would seem that the apostles, who got their ideas from Christ, were not outward-looking at all, suggesting that their master didn't intend to build a new church.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

I can't argue with what you say if we assume that Jesus actually said those things.

Thank you, I do try and present thorough arguments.


JW

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to marco]

This idea sits alongside something I mentioned in my post, but is not addressed in this response. Paul writes to the Roman congregation, a mixed Jewish and Gentile group of believers. He did not found this congregation. Moreover, in the epistle to the Romans he repeatedly emphasizes the work he has been conducting for several years " a collection on behalf of the Jerusalem Church. Again, we can posit interpolation, an idiosyncratic reading of the epistle itself, or a complex argument from silence, but we have to take into account the early existence of a mixed congregation that Paul did not found alongside documented disputes about to what extent converts should follow the Law (but NOT about whether there ought be any gentile converts AT ALL) and come up with something that explains Pauls alleged comprehensive disconnect from early Christianity with something tangible.

take care,
TFV