Did Jesus preach with intent to start a new religion?

[jeager106]

To establish a few suggestions for debate can we assume Jesus was a Jew?
Him being a Jew He would have been well educated in Jewish Law.
This is presented in the N.T. when Jesus was a boy and it was witnessed that He had great
knowlege of Jewish law.
"And Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit. News about Him spread through all the surrounding district and He began teaching in their synagogues and was praised by all."
Lk. 4:16-24.
In my reading/studying of the Christian bible I have yet to see anything specific that suggests He intended
to start a religion different than the Jewish faith.
There is no doubt Jesus had Jewish roots and echoed the plea of former prophets before Him
to repent and return to God. That would be parochial, to follow Jewish law.
" I have come only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Matt. 15:24
It is indesputable that a new religion was born out his teaching, His life and His death & resurrection.
His intent was to bring people back to God and to draw all people to Himslef. John 12:32
His purpose was to reform the existing religious institution that would abolish the corruption
of the existing religious hierarchy.
Anyone can feel free to post here if they like unless the staff prohibits such.

 

[Tumah]

A quick scan offers two issues:
There were and still are many many Jews who know nothing about Judaism let alone Jewish Law. "Him being a Jew" means absolutely zilch.
He may not have been trying to start a new religion as much as hijack the existing one.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How could anybody possibly know?

Threads such as these are, at best, conduits for baseless speculation and, at worst, an invitation to banal preaching.

 

[outhouse]

To establish a few suggestions for debate can we assume Jesus was a Jew?

Yes but as stated it is meaningless.

He was to be more specific, an Aramaic Galilean apocalyptic Jew.

This is presented in the N.T. when Jesus was a boy and it was witnessed that He had great
knowlege of Jewish law.

Not credible and not deemed historical

"And Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit. News about Him spread through all the surrounding district and He began teaching in their synagogues and was praised by all."
Lk. 4:16-24.

Possible

In my reading/studying of the Christian bible I have yet to see anything specific that suggests He intended
to start a religion different than the Jewish faith.

Agreed

I have come only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Matt. 15:24

Hellenistic version of Judaism that wanted to hold onto more cultural Judaism then the rest of the Hellenist who started the movement in the Diaspora.

Its not really a reflection of the man himself.

His intent was to bring people back to God and to draw all people to Himslef. John 12:32

Not even close to credible when it comes to the man himself.

That is just Johns Christology, which was dramatically different from the others.

 

[outhouse]

How could anybody possibly know?

Educated plausibility.


Many areas are not concrete, and that does not mean we are altogether blind either.

 

[George-ananda]

I think this is a very good question. I doesn't seem Jesus or anyone of His time knew things would work out the way they did. The disciples seem to have expected a very soon end of times. The interesting question is did Jesus know the future in this regard? If He did, it doesn't seem his disciples 'got it'. The ultimate rise of Christianity seems to rely heavily on political fortunes not foreseeable during Jesus' life.

Like so much of Jesus and Christianity we suffer frustratingly from lack of nailed-down information. But fortunately as one raises in spirituality, the details are ultimately not that important but still dang intriguing.

 

[outhouse]

He may not have been trying to start a new religion as much as hijack the existing one.

The existing "one" is a mistake as I see it.

Judaism during this period was wide and diverse. Many different sects and ways to worship. So this Galilean Aramaic movement was firmly entrenched in first century Judaism.

The difference here is, as such. We had Jesus taking over Johns movement, and Jesus was not different, other then he learned from Johns mistake, and took his message to the road where he would not attract large crowds that would surely get him killed like John.

His movement died with him at Passover. BUT he was martyred for his perceived selfless actions in front of half a million people John did not have. From this martyrdom mythology grew in the Diaspora that started a new Hellenistic movement that was popular in gentile circles as Proselytes found importance in this new theology and spread it to the gentiles. Like Paul and many others that lived during Pauls time.

 

[Tumah]

I think this is a very good question. I doesn't seem Jesus or anyone of His time knew things would work out the way they did. The disciples seem to have expected a very soon end of times. The interesting question is did Jesus know the future in this regard. If He did, it doesn't seem his disciples 'got it'. The ultimate rise of Christianity seems to rely heavily on political fortunes not foreseeable during Jesus' life.

Like so much of Jesus and Christianity we suffer frustratingly from lack of nailed-down information. But fortunately as one raises in spirituality the details are ultimately not that important but still dang intriguing.

Which is odd, because allegedly, Jesus wasn't suffering from lack of nailed-down anything.

I'm sorry. I couldn't resist.

 

[jeager106]

The existing "one" is a mistake as I see it.

Judaism during this period was wide and diverse. Many different sects and ways to worship. So this Galilean Aramaic movement was firmly entrenched in first century Judaism.

The difference here is, as such. We had Jesus taking over Johns movement, and Jesus was not different, other then he learned from Johns mistake, and took his message to the road where he would not attract large crowds that would surely get him killed like John.

I disagree. Jesus did in fact draw many large crowds, preached for 3.5 years (roughly) before the ruling Jews
had Him killed to shut Him up.
If you mean John the Baptist, he was Jesus' cousin but that has nothing to do with his death. He was executed for
creating a bad image about Herod's g-friend. It was she that put her daughter up to asking for Johns head.
Ewwwwwwww.

His movement died with him at Passover. BUT he was martyred for his perceived selfless actions in front of half a million people John did not have. From this martyrdom mythology grew in the Diaspora that started a new Hellenistic movement that was popular in gentile circles as Proselytes found importance in this new theology and spread it to the gentiles. Like Paul and many others that lived during Pauls time.

 

[outhouse]

xxxxxxxx

Brother you have to post outside the quotes. that way I can respond.


I cannot quote text, already in quotes.


Not only that it looks like I stated it all or am conversing with myself.


If you need help let us know.

 

[outhouse]

I disagree. Jesus did in fact draw many large crowds, preached for 3.5 years (roughly) before the ruling Jews had Him killed to shut Him up.

Nope

He taught for 1 - 3 years depending on which book your following. It wasn't as much as the ruling Jews as it was the puppet ruling class placed in power by the Romans.

Caiaphas was a puppet ruler, and he and Pilate only wanted peace during the Passover holiday as to keep the money flowing. Had a large riot or war started and the money flow stopped, both would have been killed. Their lives were literally on the line to keep peace, and Jesus was trying to start a riot.


If you mean John the Baptist, he was Jesus' cousin but that has nothing to do with his death. He was executed for creating a bad image about Herod's g-friend. It was she that put her daughter up to asking for Johns head

Only Luke states that and its unlikely they were related. I never said John had anything to do with his death. Had Jesus taught in one spot he would have been killed like John.

John was killed for drawing large crowds on the Jordan. What your reading is theology not history.

The NT does not portray an accurate historical account of what happened.


If you want to debate history, the first thing you need to learn is that biblical Jesus, is not historical Jesus.


I bet you don't even know Jesus real first name.

 

[Nietzsche]

Which is odd, because allegedly, Jesus wasn't suffering from lack of nailed-down anything.

I'm sorry. I couldn't resist.

I love you so, so much.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Jesus initiated the New Covenant to fulfill the promises of the Old Covenant. He established the Catholic Church, but not exactly a new religion. Christianity is the continuation of Judaism. It is the final phase of salvation history. If Christianity was seen as a new religion, it would have been seen that way only by those who rejected the Messiah. The Septuagint, the sacred Jewish texts in use during Christ’s time on earth, was the Bible that Jesus taught from. It remained the Bible of the first Christians, and still is the Old Testament of the Christian Bible.

 

[outhouse]

Jesus initiated the New Covenant to fulfill the promises of the Old Covenant

No that isn't quite true.

Jesus did no such thing.

The Hellenist who created the movement away from Jesus cultural Judaism to a version of Hellenistic Judaism did so.

He established the Catholic Church, but not exactly a new religion

No he did not establish the catholic church.

 

[roger1440]

Jesus initiated the New Covenant to fulfill the promises of the Old Covenant. He established the Catholic Church, but not exactly a new religion. Christianity is the continuation of Judaism. It is the final phase of salvation history. If Christianity was seen as a new religion, it would have been seen that way only by those who rejected the Messiah. The Septuagint, the sacred Jewish texts in use during Christ’s time on earth, was the Bible that Jesus taught from. It remained the Bible of the first Christians, and still is the Old Testament of the Christian Bible.

It seems more like Christianity replaces Judaism.

 

[outhouse]

It seems more like Christianity replaces Judaism.

No. Replaced is the wrong word. Judaism is not going anywhere.

Christianity evolved from Judaism, it plagiarized Judaism, as Hellenist who had long worshipped the one god, but did not identify nor want to be a Jew wanted their own version.

Jesus was just the match that lit the fire and started the divorce from Hellenistic Jews and Proselytes, and cultural Judaism like Jesus followed.

 

[roger1440]

I think the intent of the gospels was to salvage Judaism after the destruction of the Temple. The intent wasn’t to start a religion; the intent was to rediscover it.

 

[roger1440]

Are you asking did some dead Jew who was resurrected from the dead intend to start a new religion with his preaching? You would think the resurrection alone would have sold people.

 

[outhouse]

I think the intent of the gospels was to salvage Judaism after the destruction of the Temple.

No. Factually no.

The people who started Christianity were Hellenist, not cultural Jews.

They purposely were perverting Judaism not keeping it alive.

The intent wasn’t to start a religion; the intent was to rediscover it.

It was to distance Hellenistic Judaism from cultural Judaism.

Hellenistic Judaism had been perverting Judaism for a long time.

They were not rediscovering it, they had been perverting it before Jesus was born. With Jesus death and martyrdom, Hellenist wanted to distance themselves from Judaism.


Had you been well read in the NT you would know and see the anti Semitism all through the text.

 

[outhouse]

You would think the resurrection alone would have sold people.

Resurrection was common mythology in that time across cultures. It was common belief before Jesus death.


How many people do you think witnessed this event?

How many people thought it was a spiritual resurrection?

How would they learn of this? and why would they believe strangers claims?



I can tell you we see both claims of spiritual and physical resurrection. But none by any witnesses to anything. None with direct knowledge.