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.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #5]

Lots to ponder here, thank you.

I followed the link to James Tabor’s blog and found this entry - possibly relevant and along the lines of what you seem to be arguing?

https://jamestabor.com/did-paul-make-a- ... -apostles/

I don’t know how accurate this is, or how it fits into the timeline, but it does point to a flux and fragmentation of different early Christian sects.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to 1213 in post #7]

Hi, 1213. I just saw that you quoted the passage from Jeremiah that I think 2timothy316 was referring to. I did reply to his post, and I think the link I provided applies equally to your comment.

[2timothy316]

The short answer is that Christianity wasn't supposed to be split from Judaism. Judaism was always supposed to become Christianity. There were many Jews that followed the new covenant of the Christ. There were many more that didn't. This is where the split comes in.

Really the whole answer to the OP question is to answer the question, what was the purpose of the Law Code, the way Jews were supposed to worship God? The Law covenant made between the Jews and Jehovah God wasn't supposed to be forever. The Law Covenant was to make sure a promise made to Abraham came to be. That there would be a person from his line that would bring blessings to ALL the nations of the Earth. (Genesis 22:18) Once that person arrived there was going to be a new covenant made with Israel. (Jeremiah 31:31-33)

Thanks for a detailed response. There’s particular parts of your post that are at odds with a Jewish perspective, and I’ve linked to a rabbinical response about Jeremiah here:

https://www.aish.com/atr/Jeremiah-31-an ... mobile=yes

“The new covenant did not abrogate the original one”

If the split occurred over a disagreement whether the Law Covenant was broken or not, then that surely argues for Christianity splitting off, rather than Judaism, surely?

So the short answer to your reply is: Yes, the New Covenant was given to the Jews first however, the Bible clearly indicates that the New Covenant was not going to and was not to be limited to the Jews. The law wasn't broken, it was fulfilled and ended.

Jesus too, was at odds with the Jewish prospective in his time and quite obviously the Jews were at odd with Jesus since ya know, they killed him. So It is no surprise the Bible's view is at odds with the Jewish perspective. It says in the article "Although it does state that God will create a new covenant, it clearly states that it will be with the House of Israel and the House of Judah." And indeed did start with Jews first. Not the broken Jewish leadership though. Jesus told those Jewish priests, "Look! Your house is abandoned to you." Jesus' disciples were the first ones to enter that new covenant. All of them were Jews. The first ones to enter into this new covenant were Jews. However after Pentecost 33 CE, the invite was expanded to people of all nations. (Romans 1:16) Acts chapter 10 recounts about the first non-Jew to become part of this new covenant. Holy Spirit coming on Cornelius, a non-Jew, lead Peter to say, “Now I truly understand that God is not partial, but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him." Remember, this was part of the promise made to Abraham that all nations would be blessed because his offspring. All of this has come true. And ever since Cornelius, non-Jews have been invited to be part of the New Covenant. Jews today can still become part of it, Jesus said though they'd have to do something first. "I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’” - Luke 13:35. Yet most Jews do not accept Jesus as coming in the name of God do they.

[Difflugia]

Lots to ponder here, thank you.

I followed the link to James Tabor’s blog and found this entry - possibly relevant and along the lines of what you seem to be arguing?

https://jamestabor.com/did-paul-make-a- ... -apostles/

I don’t know how accurate this is, or how it fits into the timeline, but it does point to a flux and fragmentation of different early Christian sects.

I hadn't read that (or watched the video yet), but "flux and fragmentation of different early Christian sects" is exactly what Tabor thinks happened. As primarily a scholar of Second Temple Judaism, he has always viewed Christianity in light of Jewish apocalypticism, which tended to be schismatic in general. One of his claims is that a somewhat obscure Hebrew copy of Matthew represents evidence (which is otherwise notably lacking) of an early Palestinian Christianity. He doesn't go so far as to argue that the Gospels were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, but he thinks that some of the differences between Matthew and Luke are the result of a schism between groups of Matthean and Lukan Christians. The Hebrew text includes a number of verses (particularly sayings of Jesus) that agree with Luke over Greek copies of Matthew. Rather than thinking these are late harmonizations, he sees the Hebrew text as an early translation of an earlier Greek original and evidence of later divergence.

A few authors think that some portions of the New Testament (at least the Gospels, sometimes more) were originally written in Aramaic or Syriac and translated into Greek later ("Aramaic primacy"). George Lamsa thought that the entire New Testament was originally written in Syriac and that the Gospels were written before the Pauline Epistles. HarperOne sells his translation of the Syriac Peshitta (Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text) in paperback or as an ebook. The translation itself isn't particularly remarkable (it's often hard to tell whether differences are because of the original text or his idiosyncratic translation style), but the introduction is worth reading and is included in its entirety in "free samples" of the ebook. Unfortunately, Google Books matches the EPUB with a PDF scan that doesn't include the introduction, but Christianbook, Barnes & Noble, and Amazon will let you read the sample if you have an account and, in the case of Amazon and B&N, the Kindle or NOOK app.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to Diagoras in post #1]

History and religion will probably tell you various things, but...

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. Rome took some elements of the faith (and so some true things), and combined it with the Roman State religion (thereby making it more palatable to converts). It boggles my mind that people do not see it. The RCC has a 'pope' at its head, along with the college of cardinals (also nuns, who remain unmarried).

The Roman state religion had a Pontifex Maximus at its head, as well as the college of Pontiffs (also vestigial virgins).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_maximus

The word pontifex and its derivative "pontiff" became terms used for Christian bishops,[5] including the Bishop of Rome,[6][7] and the title of pontifex maximus was applied to the Catholic Church for the pope as its chief bishop and appears on buildings, monuments and coins of popes of Renaissance and modern times. The official list of titles of the pope given in the Annuario Pontificio includes "supreme pontiff" (Latin: summus pontifex) as the fourth title, the first being "bishop of Rome".[8]

Same religion, just resurrected with some different elements ("Jesus", "Mary", "trinity", etc).

**

The rest of the denominations (aka "daughters") in Christianity (the religion), also carry some elements of the previous "daughter" that their subsequent leaders came out of, changing some things, keeping other things. Protestants kept the trinity, the belief that the bible is the word of God (it is not, Christ is the Word of God), the traditional doctrine of hell, etc. Then some others came out from them, and instead of coming to and remaining in Christ (who does call, "Come out of her, my people!"), they returned and/or formed a new 'daughter' (denomination), again keeping some elements and discarding/changing others. And so on and so forth.


**

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. (This is my Son, whom I love, Listen to Him!) Christ did not start a new religion. He said that the kind of worshipers the Father wanted are those who worship in spirit and in truth.


Consider how very detailed everything about the Temple/priesthood/law system that God gave to Israel, right down to the design of the Temple and every element in it (all of which had a specific purpose, to help people get a sense of the spiritual counterpart to the physical example. For example: the Most Holy Place in the Temple = the Most Holy One: God Himself. The Holy Place in the Temple = the Holy One: Christ Jaheshua, through which/whom one needed to come in order to enter the Most Holy Place. Just as Christ said: No one comes to the Father {the Most Holy One} - except through me {the Holy One}).


Now we are to worship in spirit and in truth.


**

So I'm not sure it is right to say that "Christianity" (the religion, as opposed to the faith that Christ taught and that God gives) split from Judaism, though certainly Jews who followed and accepted Jaheshua as the Messiah, were cast out and ostracized and even persecuted by Jews (and the priesthood) who rejected Him. 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.




Hope that helps, but if I have been unclear at all, please feel free to ask for clarification.


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

[Diagoras]

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.

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’.

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.

[Diagoras]

Jesus too, was at odds with the Jewish prospective in his time and quite obviously the Jews were at odd with Jesus since ya know, they killed him. So It is no surprise the Bible's view is at odds with the Jewish perspective. It says in the article "Although it does state that God will create a new covenant, it clearly states that it will be with the House of Israel and the House of Judah." And indeed did start with Jews first. Not the broken Jewish leadership though. Jesus told those Jewish priests, "Look! Your house is abandoned to you." Jesus' disciples were the first ones to enter that new covenant. All of them were Jews. The first ones to enter into this new covenant were Jews. However after Pentecost 33 CE, the invite was expanded to people of all nations.

If that invite hadn’t occurred, presumably we’d be talking about ‘New Judaism’, then? The new covenant is with Jews, the first converts were Jews. Only once the number of non-jewish converts reached a significant proportion of the new sect, the jewish (ethnic, tribal) moniker would be rather troubling. Leading to factions and infighting until Rome comes along and offers to make a popular version the state religion.

[2timothy316]

Jesus too, was at odds with the Jewish prospective in his time and quite obviously the Jews were at odd with Jesus since ya know, they killed him. So It is no surprise the Bible's view is at odds with the Jewish perspective. It says in the article "Although it does state that God will create a new covenant, it clearly states that it will be with the House of Israel and the House of Judah." And indeed did start with Jews first. Not the broken Jewish leadership though. Jesus told those Jewish priests, "Look! Your house is abandoned to you." Jesus' disciples were the first ones to enter that new covenant. All of them were Jews. The first ones to enter into this new covenant were Jews. However after Pentecost 33 CE, the invite was expanded to people of all nations.

If that invite hadn’t occurred, presumably we’d be talking about ‘New Judaism’, then?

Doubtful. "After he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year they assembled with them in the congregation and taught quite a crowd, and it was first in Antioch that the disciples were by divine providence called Christians." - Acts 11:26. Here we read that through divine influence there was a name change. Name changes are nothing new in the Bible. Jews were called Hebrews and Israelites for thousands of years before they were known as Jews. Paul after a time was no longer recognized as a Jew. Over time, all of the Jews with the teachings of Jesus Christ were not called Jews. In Acts 26:28, Agrippa understood that Paul wasn't trying to covert him to be a Jew, but to be a Christian. The addition of non-Jewish people to the New Covenant is not what makes the religion Christian. It's the New Covenant itself that makes the Christian religion. Even if there were no takers from non-Jews it would still be the Christian religion with all of the correct ways to worship recorded in the Greek Scriptures.

The new covenant is with Jews, the first converts were Jews. Only once the number of non-jewish converts reached a significant proportion of the new sect, the jewish (ethnic, tribal) moniker would be rather troubling. Leading to factions and infighting until Rome comes along and offers to make a popular version the state religion.

Not a first though. The first people to make significant changes were from the Jewish people that believed Jesus was the Christ. All of the scriptures in the Bible were written by Jews. So all the changes we read on how to worship God comes from God but written down from Paul, John, Matthew, Peter and other Jews not 'Gentiles' or the members of the RCC. Romans 3:1, 2 says that Jews were, "entrusted with the sacred pronouncements of God" and for relatively brief time Christians followed those pronouncements as best as they could.

However, you're not wrong about the influence of foreign doctrines infiltrating the Christian congregations. You're also not wrong about the Roman tampering either. Yet this was predicted by Jesus that this would happen. (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43) Paul even noted it was happening even in the 1st century CE at 2 Thessalonians 2:6-8 speaking of a 'lawlessness at work already' within the Christian congregations. This is what many point to as the beginning of the Great Apostasy in the Christian religion. Many believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the product of the Great Apostasy and is not true Christianity but a skewed version of it. That the RCC doesn't follow the teachings of Christ as stated in the Bible. Foreign doctrines infiltrated the Christian teachings. Including attacks on the Jewish people, which was never done by Christ or his disciples in the first century. But that is for a whole other debate.

The bottom line in this debate is that Christianity was not trying to separate from the Jews it was trying to convenience them to join the New Covenant. Accept Jesus as the Chosen One of God and to follow his teachings. So many refused though, denying that Jesus was the Christ. And if we were to point at single thing as to what separates one from the other, denying the Christ would be it. Christ didn't separate or deny his teachings from the Jews, the Jews separated from him and true worship. Only those that accepted this true worship and show their faith in God's Son by word AND deed does Jehovah find favor and support their worship. While the majority of Jews didn't accept this New Covenant, there were many who did and just because a majority of people following something doesn't make that something right. And if a majority are saying that Christianity split from the Jews doesn't make them right either. The truth is that the Jews had and still have the New Covenant still open to them and it is those that choose not to join that are splitting themselves off from what was given to them FIRST.

[bjs1]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #1]

As is often the case, it depends on what you mean.

Christianity grew out of Judaism. Jesus was a Jew, as were all of his first disciples. For the first few years his disciples practiced most Jewish customs as they worked out what the revelations from Jesus meant.

However, when people talk about a “doctrinal split,” they usually mean something smaller. The Methodist Church split from the Church of England. Both groups continued to call themselves Christians and the majority of both groups agreed that members of the other group were Christians.

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.



If we want to talk about what Jesus intended to happen – did he intend to reform Judaism, or was he trying to create something new? – then we can only speculate. The best I can say is that virtually all of his original followers came to believe that if Jesus intended reform, then it was a reform so great that the end result could not rightly be called Judaism anymore.

[PinSeeker]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #1]

As is often the case, it depends on what you mean.

Christianity grew out of Judaism. Jesus was a Jew, as were all of his first disciples. For the first few years his disciples practiced most Jewish customs as they worked out what the revelations from Jesus meant.

However, when people talk about a “doctrinal split,” they usually mean something smaller. The Methodist Church split from the Church of England. Both groups continued to call themselves Christians and the majority of both groups agreed that members of the other group were Christians.

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.



If we want to talk about what Jesus intended to happen – did he intend to reform Judaism, or was he trying to create something new? – then we can only speculate. The best I can say is that virtually all of his original followers came to believe that if Jesus intended reform, then it was a reform so great that the end result could not rightly be called Judaism anymore.

Good post, bjs. The only thing I would disagree with (if it can be called disagreement; maybe you just weren't exactly speaking to this) is that Jesus -- as Paul understood and clarified -- taught that God's Israel, and thus a true Jew -- was not exclusively those of Jewish descent, but those whom God chooses from among Jews and Gentiles, people of of every tongue, tribe, and nation. Jesus told Pilate that He was a king, and king of the Jews (Matthew 27:11, Mark 15:2, Luke 23:3, John 18:34) but that His kingdom was not of this world (John 18:36). And Paul's main mission was to show that the Gospel is for everyone, that:

• "...no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God" (Romans 2:28-29).

Paul says many times in various ways that:

• "(t)here is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise" (Galatians 3:28-29).

As he goes on to say in Romans 11:

• "...a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved" (Romans 11:25-26)

Grace and peace to all.