Onias

The author of the Acts of the Apostles tried his best to minimze the differences between Paul and the James faction, although it is unlikely Paul or the James Jerusalem church ever collaborated together in any way (even if either group actually existed). They were too far apart to even talk to one another. But Acts creates the false impression that they did. For more on this see "How Jesus Became Christian" by Barrie Wilson.

outhouse

One doesnt need to go to that far away from Judaism for the movement of christianities influences. The OT covers most of what we see.

Christianity is nothing more then a sect of Hellenistic Judaism.

God-Fearers and Gate Proselytes had been worshipping Judaism for centuries but would not fully convert.

The rift between Judaism and these people started long before Jesus was even in the picture. Thi ssect had been growing for quite some time.

And Paul states those were his targets and exactly who he took his message to.

Pauls movement was never intended for Jews nor did he even try.

Onias

The idea of a Christ dying for the sins of humanity is fundamentally non-Jewish but is derived from Mithraism and Egyptian savior cults. The idea of a Trinity is also fundamentally non-Jewish. But it is true the gospels have been redacted over time to appear to have a more Pauline tilt. Note that forgers were caught in the act of adding the longer version of Mark 16:9-20 for example.

stephan huller

It might be non-Jewish but I am not sure that we know exactly what was originally being promulgated. For instance, the term 'Christ' should not be associated with God and yet it is. Is the original understanding that God - later identified as 'Christ' - died for the sins of humanity - or 'Christ' later identified as God. I really don't know the answer to that. Abraham does secure that his ancestors will live in the heavens because of a death and resurrection of a dove or doves (the sign of Jona?) according to the tradition interpretation of Genesis 15:11 - wayyered haayit al happegarim wayyasseb otam abram

The ideas may have been influenced by Mithraism or this or that cultus but how do we know anything when the evidence is so hard to find.

Sheshbazzar

Agreed. But it wasn't even known by the term 'Christianity'.

This terms first known appearance is in the writings of St. Ignatius!!! (whenever these were really composed)
And by then it certainly no longer was the same religion. It had became the religion that John describes in Revelations 17.
Understandable when one considers that The Torah and the Prophets make specific predictions and promises to the Gentiles, as a seperate group from the Jews. ('Jews' being the twelve tribes of 'The House of Judah and The House of Israel' in prophecy)

With those Gentile specific promises in place there was NO religious reason for any Gentile to ever convert to being a Jew.
-Or for any learned and righteous Jew to ever wish for such a thing, because his reward in the Age to Come would be to hold rule over such Gentile believers. Thus it was better to maintain and protect Gentiles as being Gentiles, rather than to circumcise them and turn them into Jews. Some Jews such as Paul understood this.

Agreed. And I see the New Testament writings not as being any actual history, but as Midrashed religious/political propaganda documents of the joined Messianic Jews and Gate Proselytes to explain and to open acceptance to gentiles, in religious and political oppposition to the exclusionary and insular practices of traditional Judaism.
By Law gentiles (God-Fearers and Gate Proselytes) could not eat of the Paska seder (Passover Supper) thus the compromise of the introduction of 'The Lords supper' in its place, for the sake of gentile believers without the Jewish traditional dishes and rituals.
The Jews were very touchy about uncircumcised gentiles wearing Jewish clothing or doing 'Jewish' things, with keeping The Passover being right at the very top of that list.."For no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof" (Ex 12:45 & 48)
All right for the gentiles to worship The Holy One, but absolutely NOT to eat of the Jews Passover seder.

Very good John.

srd44

Again, could not disagree more. This is simpleton..

1) Homer Simpson is a historical person

2) Homer Simpson is not an historical person.

You are quite amazing aa, in that you repeatedly fail to see the issue.

1) this are not arguments; they are premises.

2) the NEXT stage is to question the asumptions and predispossitions inherint in your premises. --- which you continuously fail to see. You are like a man arguing that the sun rises because he can literally see the EVIDENCE as he stands on the horizon; but he fails to question his own assumptions, predispossitions, and biases. Woe to you...

srd44

Non-Jewish my ass. Again, mythicists tend to retroject 3rd c. Christianity onto its roots. Read 2 Macc 7 or better yet 4 Maccabbees. I also know of a dead sea scroll which speaks of martyrdom as expiation, and there are passages in Josephus that imply that as well. More so the presecuted martyrs of which Daniel speak, abate God's wrath, i.e., expiate the sins that they themselves are paying for, according to this authors theology.

Stephen, you initial OP I'd agree with. But you skirt the more thorny issue. If by Christianity you mean the religion that formed, was forming, in the 2nd c. and divorced itself from Judaism, fine. But I doubt Jesus Aramaic speaking followers would have agreed. There is enough historical context (Josephus, DSS) to hypothesis that Jesus was viewed as a messaih (i.e., another messianic claimant), but then we as 21 st century readers MUST understand what belief in Jesus as the JEwish messiah meant to Aramaic Palestinan Jews of the 1st century.

stephan huller

But a core belief of the DSS community was the expectation that God would walk among us again (= a divine visitation). Judaism was to a large extent reshaped in light of the success of Christianity. There can be no doubt about that. While the gospel narrative presents the idea that the Jews rejected Jesus's claims for divinity (of course the accounts are confused and corrupt but no one would be executed for claiming to be the messiah) it is equally true that many if not all contemporary Jewry would have been very receptive to a theophany in their age. This expectation of course has been downplayed by Jews ever since the ascent of Christianity. But we even see in Anastasius of Sinai's partial preservation of a lost anti-Christian treatise attributed to Philo, the Jews had a problem with the claim that this man (= Jesus) was God, not the idea of God making an appearance. After all what is the plot of the Pentateuch? The only question left unanswered is if Jesus is God who is 'playing' Moses?

outhouse

Yes but you need to clarify "only after his death"


During his life, it is not the case. In general, the gospels only deal with the last week of his life, because they never knew anything about his mortal life.


True.