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]

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)

The existence of a mixed group does not, per se, indicate that new rules and a new church were unfolding; rather it suggests that the old format was being preached persuasively, including the old Jewish customs such as circumcision. It is my understanding that Paul broadened the outlook, else we would simply have had a larger Jewish fold, under a distinctly Jewish system.

I see nothing wrong with this viewpoint and regard Paul as the instigator of change. He may not have brought the Romans to the fold, but he broadened the rules for them.

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to post 11 by marco]

This just strikes me as ad hoc. You previously implied that the Jewish apostles did not intend to have converts (they were not outward looking) and now you are rationalizing the existence of a mixed congregation that Paul did not found. It is very likely that Pauls ideas about the Mosaic Law as it applies to gentile converts may have differed from those of the early apostles, but the main point is what of his ideas about Jesus (his status as Messiah, the meaning of his death and Resurrection)? That was the point being posited in the opening post " was Jesus simply a reforming mainstream rabbi? Again, if so, we have very little hint of this from Pauls letters. A dispute about circumcision without any mention of a dispute about the nature of Christ leads is to believe that there was a dispute about the former (its right in front of your face) and NOT about the latter (its nowhere to be found). Again, what do we make of this?

[marco]

[Replying to post 11 by marco]

This just strikes me as ad hoc. You previously implied that the Jewish apostles did not intend to have converts (they were not outward looking) and now you are rationalizing the existence of a mixed congregation that Paul did not found. It is very likely that Pauls ideas about the Mosaic Law as it applies to gentile converts may have differed from those of the early apostles, but the main point is what of his ideas about Jesus (his status as Messiah, the meaning of his death and Resurrection)? That was the point being posited in the opening post " was Jesus simply a reforming mainstream rabbi? Again, if so, we have very little hint of this from Pauls letters. A dispute about circumcision without any mention of a dispute about the nature of Christ leads is to believe that there was a dispute about the former (its right in front of your face) and NOT about the latter (its nowhere to be found). Again, what do we make of this?

In his parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus made it clear that one's neighbour wasn't necessarily a Jew. That does not mean that Jesus was introducing a competing religion; he was simply clarifying the rules of the existing system and allowing his Father's house many mansions. That might in itself seem that he was founding a new church, but all his ideas are rooted in Judaism, for he intended not to change one tiny piece of existing Scripture. This doesn't sound like founding a new religion.

I think perhaps Paul, writing later, was instrumental in propagating ideas about the divinity of Christ. The suggestion is that Christ worked within existing Law; this would not be an idea within such law and it is perfectly possible that Paul, the outsider, introduced this and so expanded a local group into a universal one, with rules completely different from Christ's original format. Paul's opinion seemed to carry the greatest weight.

I suppose this is what is being argued and it seems to me not an unlikely scenario.

[tfvespasianus]

I think perhaps Paul, writing later, was instrumental in propagating ideas about the divinity of Christ.

Not writing later than the gospels. Apologists for the simple rabbi Jesus quote mine and allude to later works (the gospels) in making their case and eschew earlier evidence (the epistles) as the innovation. I dont think thats cogent.

[bluethread]

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.

Your responses appear to take the RCC/protestant prospective. If I may, I will present another prospective that I believe to be more reasonable.

#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 ).

The term "church" is a generic term that merely means assembly. It can refer to any group. Yeshua, in the passage you have taken the quote from, speaks of Him establishing His rabbinic assembly on the messianic principle. Organizationally, there is nothing new here, Hillel and Gamaliel also had their followers.

#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?

I do not agree on two points. Moshe', on the advise of Ruel(Jethro) established a judiciary system that originate in the local community. The Temple was a court of appeals. Even in the case of the cities of refuge, the trial was held in the closest community to the occurrence, not the city of refuge. Second, excommunication is an RCC term, treating someone like a Gentile and a tax collector, allows the person equal access under HaTorah. It only establishes that the individual is not one of Adonai's people. Though some rabbinic teachings do have rather draconian rituals in this regard, such are not directly stated in HaTorah.

#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.

I do not believe this to be the case. Though difficult cases would be taken to the temple, most instruction was indeed a community and household matter. The limited number Torah Scrolls would limit the access to definitive decisions, but that was a matter of practicality.

#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)

HaTorah requires a weekly convocation, six other moed(appointed times) of which only 3 are pilgrimage feasts. The one you refer to where Yeshua said, "as often as you eat THIS bread and drink THE cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord, until he comes.", Yeshua was referring to the oficoman and third cup of the Pesach Seder. So, there is nothing different with regard to timing and manner here either.

#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).

Again, what the RCC/protestants refer to as "the Lord's supper" is Pesach and "baptism" is the just the mikvah that is spoken of repeatedly for various purposes in HaTorah.

#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.

I do not see "in his name" as a ritualistic instruction as the RCC/protestant do, but a recognition of the meaning of His actual name, i.e. salvation is of Adonai. There is nothing radically new about that.

#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.

None of the patriarchs served Adonai via priests or a Temple. Yes, the sacrificial system was administered by the Levites. However, submission too HaTorah is much more than the sacrifices. The prophets were not necessarily Levites and they were very influential in the life of the community. In fact it is they who spoke of the life of the community being more important than the Temple.

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.

Sorry, none of the above indicate that. They indicate that Yeshua knew Torah and set out to fully exemplify a Torah submissive life.

[polonius]

Hawkins posted in #4

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.

RESPONSE: Sure you have other options. You can believe related but conflicting stories written starting 25-70 years after Jesus' death by non-witnesses, which were written to make converts, and frequently contradictory, or you can realize that these are most just stories, an generally not things that really happened.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 15 by bluethread]

Interesting reading, thanks for taking the time to present your ideas.

JW

[PghPanther]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

Whatever Christ did all he managed to accomplish was to splinter Jews into a various movements and sects that were all in conflict about who Jesus was until Constantine came on the scene and had the empire hammer out a consensus of orthodoxy doctrine of what and who Christ was so that could enforce it as an official state religion........

The Christianity we know today is a result of that, centuries of the Catholic church dogma/tradition and a complete hodgepodge of Protestant sects of doctrinal wrestling among too numerous denominations to really know what the deal is here.

[marco]

I think perhaps Paul, writing later, was instrumental in propagating ideas about the divinity of Christ.

Not writing later than the gospels. Apologists for the simple rabbi Jesus quote mine and allude to later works (the gospels) in making their case and eschew earlier evidence (the epistles) as the innovation. I dont think thats cogent.

What Christ intended and what Paul taught are two different things. It seems reasonable to suppose that later authorities jumped at the chance to expand a religious-political system that had many advantages. Nothing in the reported words of Jesus suggests he was politically ambitious, or keen to do anything other than further the belief in Yahweh.
The epistles are not Christ's instructions.