Jesus wasn't a Christian

[Major Nikon]

My father was a Unitarian minister, so naturally liked to talk about religion. While he did have a healthy respect for Christianity, he wasn't a Christian at least not when I knew him. He was raised in a devout Christian family and growing up he always wanted to become a Christian minister. Then came college and divinity school and his theology radically changed as often happens when people really study Christianity. He had a couple of phrases I often heard repeated. One was, "there are lots of things they don't teach you in Sunday school", and "Christ was not a Christian." Needless to say I was quite curious about the 2nd quite provocative phrase and my father would explain it quite convincingly.

Jesus was an observant Jew and a Rabbi and while it's true he formed his own sect, this was still a sect of Judaism. There's plenty of evidence for this when you examine the canonical gospels and compare them to most of the rest of the new testament gospels. There's actually zero direct evidence of the concept of the trinity in the canonical gospels. Jesus never desired to be worshiped as a god, and such would be forbidden by Jewish law. At no time did Jesus preach that his followers could disregard the Jewish law. He did break with certain traditions, which is what made his sect different, but he always preached adherence to the covenants of Moses and Abraham, at least as he understood them. Jesus had very little interest in the gentiles and specifically instructed his apostles NOT to preach to them. There are a few anecdotes about Jesus healing gentiles, but for the most part he wanted nothing to do with them as gentiles were considered unclean, meaning not that they were unwashed but rather that they were ritualistically impure. Jesus was tolerant of the gentiles which opens the door to their recruitment after his death.

After Jesus died, something interesting happens. The 12 apostles continue with Jesus' ministry as he intended, preaching almost exclusively to Jews. The gentiles they did minister to were expected to become circumcised as this was the one major delineating factor between Jews and gentiles. The Greeks and Romans didn't get circumcised. The problem was circumcision wasn't so easy. There wasn't much in the way of anesthesia or antiseptic. Infections were common often resulting in death. Needless to say this presented a serious problem with recruiting gentiles into the sect.

At some point Paul enters into the mix. Paul was both a Jew and a Roman citizen, which put him in an ideal position to recruit gentiles. Why were gentiles so attractive to recruit? Because they had money, specifically more money than most Jews and just like churches of today, without money churches don't operate. Paul was very successful at establishing churches for gentiles and brought a lot of people to the movement and subsequently a lot of money which is why he couldn't just be ignored by the real apostles. Paul is so successful he declares himself an apostle on equal terms with the real apostles, even though he never met Jesus. The problem Paul had was the vast majority of his new recruits were simply never going to be circumcised. This creates a rift with the early church, specifically the original 12 apostles. Eventually this rift comes to a head and Paul's church parts ways with the original founders. The Jewish sect created by Christ eventually dies out, and Paul's new theology becomes dominate.

So from a legal sense, how does Paul get around Jewish law which is pretty clear on the subject of circumcision? He simply invents a new covenant with god and declares the old one defunct! This completely solves his circumcision problem and allows him to recruit even more gentiles into the sect by promising them they would never have to get circumcised. The basis of this is actually quite funny. Paul never met Jesus and in fact he initially is a major detractor from the Jesus sect. Then he claims to have an epiphany after being temporarily blinded and the 'holy ghost' whispers in his ear (I'm thinking maybe he got hold of some bad hootch). After that he declares that his new gospel is actually above that which is being taught by the 12 real apostles, and Christianity as we know it is born.

The rest is history, and as dad said, they don't teach you that in Sunday school.

[HFRN]

1. of course not - kinda hard to follow yourself nt

[safeinOhio]

2. As the UU's say,

We can not answer your questions about religion, but we can question your answers about religion.

[Igel]

3. To be honest, while the primitive Xians were a sect of Judaism

they also had some differences. You can highlight the similarities, you can highlight the differences, or you can just try to make lists of them.

I like lists.

Assuming that Paul didn't rewrite the Gospels--each seems oriented towards a different audience, even if they make use of common sources--there was a kind of new covenant made. But the original call went to those under the original covenant. Theirs was the promise. That's what the gospels put Jesus working under, and it seems reasonable. I figure that was the promise Jesus originally made to Israel, so he bound himself to keep it until his death.

But the kind of law Jesus preached wasn't just the OT law. It was OT Law Plus. Don't commit adultery? Don't even lust after a woman. Don't murder? Don't even think it. Don't steal? Don't be greedy. He upped the ante: it's not just ritual compliance that matters, it's what goes on inside and precedes non-compliance. It's pretty hard to commit adultery or murder or theft without intending to do so ahead of time. One precludes the other, as a general rule. He finished his law giving.

From that it's a small jump from "Israel after the flesh," with circumcision, to "Israel after the heart," with a different kind of circumcision. Making it easier was non-compliance with outward rituals like animal sacrifice. If the physical side of things were pretty much gone, they were pretty much gone. It's hard to miss the entire "lamb" business in the gospels.

Some view Paul as liberating Xianity from the restrictions of the law. It's like with Jesus--unless he bothered to be redundant and list everything new Xians were to day, it's assumed that they weren't to do it. Even if Moses was taught in the synagogues that even Paul went to on his missions.

At the same time, a lot of people don't like Paul. They view Paul as legalistic, rule-bound. They want Xianity liberated from the restrictions of the Paul. They point out that not only did he not say to do a lot of "Moses," he mentioned routine observance of some of things that implies observance. A number of "gentile" congregations were still making problems for the Western church centuries after Paul, and they lost the internal political battle over the church's doctrine.

[Major Nikon]

4. As far as the differences go, Paul wrote extensively about circumcision to his followers

It isn't really a stretch to figure out this was the major rift between the real apostles and Paul. Whether people liked Paul or not, his teachings, which often differed greatly from the teachings of Christ, are the basis of Christian theology.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. It is easier to understand this mess if one simply assumes that the whole thing is a myth

and that there is as much historicity to jesus as there is to horus or thor or zeus. Some people made up some stories and out of those stories a religion was founded. For a more recent example see Joseph Smith, or L. Ron Hubbard.

[Major Nikon]

6. I don't think the whole thing is a myth

Just the most important parts.

[skepticscott]

7. Which parts are definitely true?

Did "god" say any of the stuff the Bible reports that he did?

[pinto]

8. Interesting take on the history. Thanks for the post. (nt)

[Leontius]

9. Your post makes a lot of sense

until you look at the totality of the events of the founding years of the Church , then not so much.

[Major Nikon]

10. Not sure what that means

But all you really have to look at is what Paul wrote himself.

[Leontius]

11. Sorry I took so long to reply

I will just point out one false argument you use. The Church of Jerusalem that was headed by James did not part ways with Paul after discussions that even Peter sided with Paul on the issue of gentile membership in the Church comprise was reached about the rules of circumsion and foods, there was no split. Paul continualy raised money to help support the Jerusalem church and his missions were supported by the Church leaders.