Did Christianity split from Judaism?

[Diagoras]

Can Christianity be fairly called a ‘doctrinal split from Judaism’? It’s a fact that the two religions largely share a common holy book (one comparison at link below):

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ ... -testament

One view might be that “there were no Jews or Christians in the first century”, e.g. from here:

https://www.allsaintsvillage.com/docume ... SM%201.pdf

While the opposing view (from here):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ ... nd_Judaism

Might say, “Most historians agree that Jesus or his followers established a new Jewish sect, one that attracted both Jewish and gentile converts.”

Clearly, agreement on what to call different groups, based on ethnicity, geography or political allegiance has a bearing on the matter. For example, from a Jewish source, the origin of the term is explained in terms of geography:

https://www.hartman.org.il/how-did-the- ... sh-people/

So, for debate:

Did Christianity ‘split from’ Judaism?

N.B. My knowledge of the subject is very limited, so I’m posting in order to learn, rather than to debate a particular position.

[bjs1]

[Replying to PinSeeker in post #21]

I think that we are in agreement here. I did not intend to contradict anything you wrote in this post. It was simply not the focus of my words.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #1]
The “doctrinal split” Jesus caused was bigger. Its members did not see themselves as Jews any more. It was a struggle to come to that point, but it is generally agreed that when the church in Antioch first used the word “Christian,” that was their final acceptance that they weren’t Jews any more. Something new had come. That event probably took place in 37 AD, less than a decade after the death of Jesus.

This makes sense to me, and I'd not really known much about the church in Antioch so the 'parting of the ways' explained this way is clearer to me now, thanks.

To 2timothy316, also thanks for your posts - I'll try to have a read of the various verses from Acts (and other books) that you supplied. As I said at the start, my knowledge here is at best basic, so I haven't got much more in the way of an opposing argument.

If anyone else can suggest further reading (for the layperson), please let me know.

[tam]

Peace to you,

If by Christianity you mean the religion, then you'd have to start back at the first 'sect' (or 'daughter') to be formed, and this would be the RCC.

Perhaps the first sect that’s still recognisable in the same form today. As others have already mentioned, there were undoubtedly several Christian sects already in existence in the first century CE. As you said, Rome simply took some bits, added others and made their version of Christianity the official state religion. It’s those earlier sects that I’m more interested in.

There were some groups perhaps, but I only know of one group that was referred to specifically (though I'm not sure they'd be classified as a sect; maybe). Paul mentioned the 'circumcision group'; Jews who were going around trying to place people under the law, claiming that they had to be circumcised in the flesh in order to be saved (a law that Gentiles were never under to begin with) - or - place people BACK under the law that Christ freed them from (Jews for example, though this would account only for 2 of the 12 tribes of Israel). Some of these people claimed to have been sent by the apostles, but were not sent by them (Acts 15:24 is a record of the letter the apostles sent addressing the issue, though the entire verses 1-35 reference the issue. Paul speaks of them elsewhere in his letters as well.)

There may have been other groups popping up here and there. Makes sense, considering that there were already false prophets and false teachers among the people back in the first and second centuries.

The system that God gave to Israel (via Moses) is the only religion that God sanctioned and set up. This was to be in place until Christ came, and then the people were to listen to Christ.

Which is the same religion that Jews belong to today. So if that was the only religion, and some people remained in it while others took a different path (to Christianity), it does look very much like Judaism is the ‘unchanged, original’ and Christianity is the ‘new offshoot’.

Judaism today retains some elements of the previous religion, but it is not the same. There is no temple, no sacrifices, no priesthood, etc. Judaism also has multiple conflicting sects as well. Even before this though, there were false prophets and priests misleading people.

A horrible and shocking thing has happened in the land. 31The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule by their own authority. My people love it so, but what will you do in the end? Jeremiah 5:30, 31

And,

“’How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of [the LORD],” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?" Jeremiah 8:8


So there are multiple 'offshoots' (daughters), even in Judaism.

**

But there is meant to be just the one faith. Israel had been given the temple and system of worship from God through Moses (though Israel existed before this time as well), and that was meant to be a tutor until the Messiah (or, the Christ), and then the people were meant to listen to Him. So that there really is just one faith, in one God (the Most Holy One of Israel), with one Messiah (the mediator between man and God, the Holy One of God and of Israel: Jah'eshua, the Chosen One of JAH).

But while some Jews (and Samaritans) accepted Jah'eshua as the Messiah (and Gentiles were added in to Israel), many (specifically the priesthood) rejected Him as the Messiah.

But - though not at the direction of Christ - it is true that men did soon form another religion. But that really is just one more head on the same beast that is religion.

I feel you’re reinforcing my point for me here. In fact, it’s making Christianity (the religion) sound like a man-made mistake. Something that meant competing factions until Rome came along and cynically ‘took over’ purely to stabilise the population.

Mistake for some perhaps, but also big business, for profit (even if just power, rather than monetary).



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Diagoras]

There may have been other groups popping up here and there. Makes sense, considering that there were already false prophets and false teachers among the people back in the first and second centuries.

I think the evidence for such groups is reasonably clear. There’s mention of Justin Martyr, Valentinus and Marcion as leaders of different sects (or at least interpretations of faith) at this link - quite informative in my view:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontlin ... rsity.html

Plus there’s the ‘Gnostic’ Christians active around this time, with the writings unearthed at Nag Hammadi which paints a picture of a rather diverse and fractured early ‘Christian’ communities. That link above includes commentary on ‘why’ Christianity became more unified, to counter the persecution they encountered. You’ve been stressing the ‘there is one faith’ angle, and I am starting to see that your personal beliefs aren’t too far removed from those of some early Christians like Irenaeus and Paul, who tried to unite these groups around a central message.

Judaism today retains some elements of the previous religion, but it is not the same. There is no temple, no sacrifices, no priesthood, etc. Judaism also has multiple conflicting sects as well. Even before this though, there were false prophets and priests misleading people.

For sure. We can certainly agree that for both modern Judaism and modern Christianity.

But there is meant to be just the one faith. Israel had been given the temple and system of worship from God through Moses (though Israel existed before this time as well), and that was meant to be a tutor until the Messiah (or, the Christ), and then the people were meant to listen to Him.

The impression I get from all those ‘meants’ is of a very human process, rather than a divine one. I’m bemused why God sends angels to shepherds to announce an important birth, but once Jesus ascends to heaven it seems that everyone’s basically having to work out for themselves what it all means. It would have been much simpler for God to lay down some clear guidelines at that point, don’t you think?

Perhaps for another forum, though - I’m not challenging the ‘one faith’ position here in TDD.