Why two versions of Christianity right from the start?

[Daldianus]

Why were there two versions of Christianity right from the start? The Jewish version on the one side (James and the Jerusalem 'Church' which still adhered to the Torah and other Jewish customs) and the Gentile one (as defined by Paul) on the other.

Why wouldn't the Jews simply have converted to the new religion like the Gentiles did? If the Gentile Christians where saved simply by accepting Jesus as their God and Savior then why would the Jewish Christians still have to, additionally, follow Jewish customs and laws?

Especially if Christianity was indeed 'Judaism enhanced' and thus made traditional Judaism obsolete. Just because of tradition and folklore? But why? It wasn't needed, according to Paul, in order to be saved.

[Acumen]

If I didn't know any better, I would think you were deliberately trying to pit Jews against Christians on this forum based upon your thread topics.

[Daldianus]

If I didn't know any better, I would think you were deliberately trying to pit Jews against Christians on this forum based upon your thread topics.

Is it my fault that the history of Christians and Jews is intertwined and often has been difficult?

Christianity is built upon Judaism so why should a question like mine here come as a surprise?

And is this all you have to say concerning this topic ... ?

[Acumen]

Dald,

Probably because you didn't frame the question right.  There weren't two versions of Christianity right from the start.

[Daldianus]

Dald,

Probably because you didn't frame the question right.  There weren't two versions of Christianity right from the start.

You're right. First there was the Jewish version which then later on got displaced by the Gentile one (or simply died out).

But why wouldn't the Jews then simply later (when Paul had arrived on the scene) convert to Pauline Christianity if this version represents the true Christianity? Didn't Jesus tell his earliest followers that Torah had become obsolete and a part of the past that could be left behind since it wasn't relevant for salvation? As could be witnessed in the Gentile Christians.

Why would the earliest followers of Jesus (who were Jewish) cling to their old traditions and rituals despite their new knowledge that they had become totally superfluous as could be witnessed somewhat later when non-Torah observing Gentiles could become 'saved'?

Why would there be two flavors? Why not simply ONE?

If Christianity is all about salvation and about accepting Jesus as your God and Savior then why didn't his early Jewish followers just focused on that and left their old rituals behind just as Paul did and told others too?

[SquirleyWurley]

It is plausible that there weren't two major divisions at the start, but it hasn't been conclusively argued what the original movement looked like, that is largely a matter of idiosyncrasies of the interpreter based upon temperament, faith, upbringing, assumptions/methodology, etc.

I don't see why there couldn't in theory have been SEVERAL messianic miracle-worker movements at the time with a figurehead named Jesus, with more than one involving death by crucifixion, with more than one including bizarre claims after the crucifixion.  Lots of things are among the options.

But at some point there were splits: between those who were Jewish and saw maintaining Torah observance as extremely important for Gentile converts as well as for Jews, those who were suspicious about Gentile converts generally, those who embraced Gentile's Christianity, those who came from a Greek philosophy background and those who didn't, those who came from Mystery religions and those who didn't, those who emphasized withdrawal from the world and asceticism and strict rules and standards (some to the point of legalism, see Galatians, but there may have been Gentile and Gnostic communities with such tendencies also), those who emphasized liberty from Law (some to the point of license, see Corinthians, and also perhaps certain Gnostic communities with these tendencies), those who emphasized messianism or the end of the world, those who emphasized healing or charity over doctrine, those who had all sorts of different notions about who/what Jesus was (it took centuries for there to be large councils to settle such speculative questions which in the 1st century were floating around or in seed-form), etc.

[Acumen]

You're right. First there was the Jewish version which then later on got displaced by the Gentile one (or simply died out).

Well, unless you can frame the question right, there is no need for me to answer.

[Daldianus]

You're right. First there was the Jewish version which then later on got displaced by the Gentile one (or simply died out).

Well, unless you can frame the question right, there is no need for me to answer.

Are you trying to be difficult here?

So again:

First there was the Jew Jesus who taught and reinterpreted the Torah, and pointed out its importance. His teachings were Jewish in nature. His disciples were Jews. His earliest followers too. The Jew Jesus gets crucified. His Jewish followers still consider him the Messiah and expect him to return soon. Jews outside of the Jesus Movement don't agree of course. But the Jews from the Jesus Movement still go to the synagogue, participate in Jewish customs and practices, adhere to the Torah and see no reason to give it up.

Then comes Paul, who claims to have a vision from the 'risen' Jesus, which he calls 'Christ' but which is actually his own definition of Messiah, a definition that is quite different from the Jewish one. He also claims that the Torah has become obsolete and isn't necessary for salvation. Faith in Jesus as God and a sort of Cosmic Redeemer is enough in order to be saved. He also declares circumcision as unnecessary, which the Godfearers and other interested Gentiles greatly appreciate of course and which facilitates conversion a lot. Hence the 'rush' to his religion. The Godfearers could start being full members in a Judaic religion without having to change their diets and, more important, without having to cut of parts of their genitalia.

So these are the two versions I was talking about. And as can be verified in Paul's letters, both movements had quite different ideas and there were lots of frictions between them. Acts, written for a Roman audience and trying to establish a glorious ancestry for the new religion, tries to gloss over this later of course.

So, if Paul was right in claiming that the Torah had become obsolete and wasn't necessary for salvation then why weren't Jesus' Jewish followers aware of this before he proclaimed this? Though of course he didn't dare to tell this to the Jerusalem 'Church' upfront but rumors of him doing so the Jews in the Diaspora spread to them anyway.

Why the need for two variations? Why shouldn't the Jews, especially the Jewish Christians, simply convert to Paul's version and give up their old ways which wouldn't save them? Or, if the Jewish Christians were right then why shouldn't the Gentiles become Jews first? Why two flavors?

[SquirleyWurley]

It seems to me one of the favored ways to view this issue is to say that Jesus initially came for the Jews, and addressed mainly Jews, especially at the beginning, though he made a point of addressing Samaritans and a Roman centurion and others, and his example went in a certain direction; his point was to foster a movement of the time which emphasized charity, goodwill, loving relation to one's neighbor, and he expanded the concept of neighbor, and he emphasized those aspects of law which were in this direction, up to his death, with an interpretation based upon love of god and neighbor, again fostering a movement of the time as expressed in Hillel, etc.; particularly after his death and especially after the destruction of the Temple, Jewish followers were dispersed and Gentile converts embraced, and the death and destruction of the Temple both factor in as transformative events which naturally lead to new questions about how to deal with the exanded concept of 'neighbor' and the principle of love of god and neighbor over legalistic excess; Paul developed these latent elements in harmony with their natural potentials and their inner logic, based upon a visionary sort of insight, and his interpretation was accepted by enough of the leadership of certain Christian communities, to make for a difference among some Jewish Christians as well as among the Gentile community.

Jewish traditions of Noahide laws may be used to understand Jesus as perhaps actively seeking Gentile converts during some parts of his ministry, or at least this may give us insight as to already accepted ways of dealing with Gentiles who wished to be instructed by a Rabbi.  Later, with no Temple, Jews had to ask themselves yet again what their Judaism would look like, and for many Christian Jews the association with attached Gentiles was very important, replaced concern for the Temple sacrifices and various aspects of the Law, given their understanding of Jesus' teaching, message, role, mission.  It developed over time as situations changed, as such issues made it important for many to try to resolve such challenges in new directions.

After the fact, many people tried to see foreshadowing of the changes that were made, in earlier tradition and scripture, for the sake of cohesiveness.

[Howiedds]

Squirrely:

Your name suits you well. You seem to be on both sides of the issue.

It is plausible that there weren't two major divisions at the start,

Dal didn't mean the day after Jesus picked the apostles,but in the 2,000 year history of the church, a split that may have occurred by 70 is still at the beginning.

But at some point there were splits: between those who were Jewish and saw maintaining Torah observance as extremely important for Gentile converts as well as for Jews, those who were suspicious about Gentile converts generally, those who embraced Gentile's Christianity, those who came from a Greek philosophy background and those who didn't, those who came from Mystery religions and those who didn't, those who emphasized withdrawal from the world and asceticism and strict rules and standards (some to the point of legalism, see Galatians, but there may have been Gentile and Gnostic communities with such tendencies also), those who emphasized liberty from Law (some to the point of license, see Corinthians, and also perhaps certain Gnostic communities with these tendencies), those who emphasized messianism or the end of the world, those who emphasized healing or charity over doctrine, those who had all sorts of different notions about who/what Jesus was (it took centuries for there to be large councils to settle such speculative questions which in the 1st century were floating around or in seed-form), etc.

I don't mean to speak for Dal or give him a rest, but that's what he was saying in

Why were there two versions of Christianity right from the start? The Jewish version on the one side (James and the Jerusalem 'Church' which still adhered to the Torah and other Jewish customs) and the Gentile one (as defined by Paul) on the other.

[SquirleyWurley]

Squirrely:

Your name suits you well. You seem to be on both sides of the issue.

  Yes, it does.  But let me assure you of the REASONS which I feel are behind this appearance.

I do not think it is a love for moderation or a love for splitting the difference or a love for compromise -- I quite enjoy a strong argument, a strict viewpoint, separation of differences.

I think the reason lies partly in my tendency to look for complexity and nuance, especially in the face of subjects which seem to me to be very difficult to put into proper context, partly in my desire to find and discuss the BEST arguments which seem to be in accord with evidence, and what seems to be the most relevant and best understood evidence, and the most interesting plausible interpretations, and part of it has to do with my sensitivity to the political and religious distortions which occur when the stakes are high.

Because I am neither a Christian nor a Jew, my concern is more that I be corrected if I make a misstatement about evidence and arguments, and that I understand the best of the arguments, and the more interesting of the speculative arguments (i.e., Burton Mack's discussion of Jesus as fitting a role of Cynic Sage).

[Daldianus]

Dal didn't mean the day after Jesus picked the apostles,but in the 2,000 year history of the church, a split that may have occurred by 70 is still at the beginning.

Actually I meant the time between Jesus' death and Paul's vision. I'd still consider that early and at the beginning. Whether it was a split or rather an original view and a later one which built upon the original one isn't totally clear and subject to debate.

I don't mean to speak for Dal or give him a rest, but that's what he was saying in

Why were there two versions of Christianity right from the start? The Jewish version on the one side (James and the Jerusalem 'Church' which still adhered to the Torah and other Jewish customs) and the Gentile one (as defined by Paul) on the other.

Yes, and I'm waiting for an explanation by Christians.

[Howiedds]

Squirrely:

It seems to me one of the favored ways to view this issue is to say that Jesus initially came for the Jews, and addressed mainly Jews, especially at the beginning, {/i}

I think it's fair to say that Jesus' primary efforts were among his people.

though he made a point of addressing Samaritans and a Roman centurion and others,

Did he make a point of finding them or did they find him.

and his example went in a certain direction; his point was to foster a movement of the time which emphasized charity, goodwill, loving relation to one's neighbor, and he expanded the concept of neighbor, and he emphasized those aspects of law which were in this direction, up to his death, with an interpretation based upon love of god and neighbor, again fostering a movement of the time as expressed in Hillel, etc.;

As a Jew reading the red highlighted quotes from Jesus, I don't think he expanded. He sounds like a reformer wanting the people to get back to the basics from which they may have strayed. His emphasis seems to be the liberal Pharisaic one ( as you correctly referenced Hillel)  echoing the prophetic message that outward ritualized performances "to be seen by men" were less important than the change in behavior they were supposed to represent, "to be seen by God, your Father."


destruction of the Temple both factor in as transformative events

Yes, for both communities, Jewish and Christian. The Jewish one for obvious reasons of loss of body politic, nationhood, centrality of worship, and definition of "Jew." For Christians because of the loss of leadership of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and therefore their Jewish connection as the leadership passed into hands that were never and knew little about Judaism from the inside.

which naturally lead to new questions about how to deal with the exanded concept of 'neighbor' and the principle of love of god and neighbor over legalistic excess;

No, that part depends too much on the Christian apologetic of why a new institution was needed: love and mercy over those overly legalistic Jews for whom the emphasis was on the "Law" rather than Christian love. We reject that canard out of hand.

Paul developed these latent elements in harmony with their natural potentials and their inner logic, based upon a visionary sort of insight, and his interpretation was accepted by enough of the leadership of certain Christian communities, to make for a difference among some Jewish Christians as well as among the Gentile community.

How about just accepting Paul for what he said. He had been told of a new way to God for Gentiles that bypassed the need to be Jewish, and his commission was to spread "the good news" of that new way.

Jewish traditions of Noahide laws may be used to understand Jesus as perhaps actively seeking Gentile converts during some parts of his ministry,

Where do you read of him actively seeking Gentile converts?  I read a couple of places where he eschews such efforts: avoiding gentile towns, ministering to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel."

or at least this may give us insight as to already accepted ways of dealing with Gentiles who wished to be instructed by a Rabbi. 

He doesn't seem to have much time for them.

Later, with no Temple, Jews had to ask themselves yet again what their Judaism would look like,

The actual concern was its preservation in the face of such insurmountable odds of destruction, disconnect, and exile.

[SquirleyWurley]

I think it's fair to say that Jesus' primary efforts were among his people.

It seems so, from the canonical Gospels.  It may be so.

As a Jew reading the red highlighted quotes from Jesus, I don't think he expanded. He sounds like a reformer wanting the people to get back to the basics from which they may have strayed. His emphasis seems to be the liberal Pharisaic one ( as you correctly referenced Hillel)  echoing the prophetic message that outward ritualized performances "to be seen by men" were less important than the change in behavior they were supposed to represent, "to be seen by God, your Father."

I can understand that interpretation, but I don't see why I'd have to rule out the notion that he may have 'expanded'.

which naturally lead to new questions about how to deal with the exanded concept of 'neighbor' and the principle of love of god and neighbor over legalistic excess;

No, that part depends too much on the Christian apologetic of why a new institution was needed: love and mercy over those overly legalistic Jews for whom the emphasis was on the "Law" rather than Christian love. We reject that canard out of hand.

Well, I accept that there were such movements among Jews and that the Gospels lead people to a distorted view of such things.  I'm thinking about a possible extension of such a liberal approach to the scriptures/law, and a possible increase in attention to Gentile's thinking about traditions involving the 'Noahide laws'.

How about just accepting Paul for what he said. He had been told of a new way to God for Gentiles that bypassed the need to be Jewish, and his commission was to spread "the good news" of that new way.

Yes, through Jesus.  But the traditions about Noahide laws and Gentiles being attached to a synagogue, these do not involve Gentile converts to Judaism, they are not asked to convert, to be Jewish.  What was much more radical and divisive was Paul telling the Jews that things had changed for THEM, so that they could transform from Jews for Jesus to basically Noahides for Jesus, just like the rest of the Gentiles.

Where do you read of him actively seeking Gentile converts?  I read a couple of places where he eschews such efforts: avoiding gentile towns, ministering to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel."

Point well taken.  We can chalk it up to a debatable (or dubious) early Christian oral tradition.  It does seem that on certain occasions in the Gospels, the attitude is one that you suggest -- he didn't have much time for Gentiles.

Later, with no Temple, Jews had to ask themselves yet again what their Judaism would look like,

The actual concern was its preservation in the face of such insurmountable odds of destruction, disconnect, and exile.

Point well taken.  But at some point it was obvious they were more or less permanently dispersed, at least to some, earlier than others.  Not everyone had faith in regaining the Temple, did they?

[Howiedds]

Squirrely:

I can understand that interpretation, but I don't see why I'd have to rule out the notion that he may have 'expanded'.

To make the judgment that he expanded, wouldn't you first have to know the full extent of that which he started with in Jewish tradition?

Perhaps innocently, you were using the language that Jews have always heard about Christianity even today, i.e. that Judaism was tried until the 1st century, found wanting, and so Christianity came along as a new, expanded attempt to bring people to God and His plan. Even your reference to love and expanding the boundaries of love thy neighbor are familiar to Jews about Christianity being the religion of love and mercy, and Judaism being the religion of law and emphasis on legalities. All these key words crept into your post, perhaps inadvertently, but they are all too familiar to us.

Exactly how and what did Jesus expand?

I suppose that indirectly one could say that Paul's visions of the risen Christ with instructions and commission to bring the Jewish message to the Gentiles was an expansion, but was that Paul or Jesus?

 I'm thinking about a possible extension of such a liberal approach to the scriptures/law, and a possible increase in attention to Gentile's thinking about traditions involving the 'Noahide laws'.

I didn't get that. You think that Jesus expanded on Jewish thinking about Gentiles following the Noahide laws?

Howie:
How about just accepting Paul for what he said. He had been told of a new way to God for Gentiles that bypassed the need to be Jewish, and his commission was to spread "the good news" of that new way.

Squirrely:
Yes, through Jesus.  But the traditions about Noahide laws and Gentiles being attached to a synagogue, these do not involve Gentile converts to Judaism, they are not asked to convert, to be Jewish.  What was much more radical and divisive was Paul telling the Jews that things had changed for THEM, so that they could transform from Jews for Jesus to basically Noahides for Jesus, just like the rest of the Gentiles.

I'm lost.

But the traditions about Noahide laws and Gentiles being attached to a synagogue, these do not involve Gentile converts to Judaism, they are not asked to convert, to be Jewish.

No one was or is asked to convert, to be Jewish, to be "saved." That is the point of the noahide laws, that the righteous of all nations have a portion in the world to come. So where was the "expansion."

What was much more radical and divisive was Paul telling the Jews that things had changed for THEM,

I personally do not think Paul was telling the Jews anything; he was, and saw himself as, the apostle to the Gentiles per his commission. The Jews had their way to the end of days and he was providing a new way for the gentiles through Jesus.

[SquirleyWurley]

To make the judgment that he expanded, wouldn't you first have to know the full extent of that which he started with in Jewish tradition?

It wouldn't hurt.  But there's the issue that what we have only represents part of the story, as edited by those with a certain agenda, which might have emphasized Jewish origins rather than Greek or other influences.  What I mean is, I wouldn't over-emphasize Jewish context for two reasons: 1) Jesus may have been a bit more idiosyncratic than either Jews and/or Christians may have wished, and 2) Jesus may have been more non-Jewish and Gospel references were edited to make his statements seem more Jewish.  In either case, the statements which were recorded may be distorted. So I would just doubt the assumptions that 1) Jesus was a 'good Jew', 2) Jesus was a 'normative Jew', 3) Jesus was not influenced by 'Paganism/Gentiles', etc.

[quotte]Perhaps innocently, you were using the language that Jews have always heard about Christianity even today, i.e. that Judaism was tried until the 1st century, found wanting, and so Christianity came along as a new, expanded attempt to bring people to God and His plan. Even your reference to love and expanding the boundaries of love thy neighbor are familiar to Jews about Christianity being the religion of love and mercy, and Judaism being the religion of law and emphasis on legalities. All these key words crept into your post, perhaps inadvertently, but they are all too familiar to us.[/quote]

I was trying to bring out what I understood to be the conventional Christian view, and the best representation of it that I was aware of, and as such, I fell prey to their language a bit, in the course of presenting my re-iteration of that view.

What the reality may have been, is that a movement which initially included some gentile Noahides, expanded to be more Noahide based, and after the destruction of the Temple, Jewish members gave up on traditional Judaism in favor of the movement of the Charismatic martyr.  But I do not suppose that the Jesus movement was initially all that Jewish.  Could the original movement have been a bit Gnostic or based in a Cynic-sage figure or otherwise influenced by Gentile traditions/movements, or heterodox Judaism of some kind?

Exactly how and what did Jesus expand?

I suppose that indirectly one could say that Paul's visions of the risen Christ with instructions and commission to bring the Jewish message to the Gentiles was an expansion, but was that Paul or Jesus?

Traditionally, Christians have supposed that Paul's vision was authentic, thus making Paul's vision approved by Jesus, in retrospect.

I didn't get that. You think that Jesus expanded on Jewish thinking about Gentiles following the Noahide laws?

That is among the speculations I wonder about, yes.

No one was or is asked to convert, to be Jewish, to be "saved." That is the point of the noahide laws, that the righteous of all nations have a portion in the world to come. So where was the "expansion."

What I meant was that the role of Gentile admirers of this rabbi, Jesus, may have become more important/influential than the traditional Jewish following.

I personally do not think Paul was telling the Jews anything; he was, and saw himself as, the apostle to the Gentiles per his commission. The Jews had their way to the end of days and he was providing a new way for the gentiles through Jesus.

I do think Paul was telling Jewish Christians in Galatians that they were misunderstanding Jesus' message to Gentiles, AND that he was telling Jews that they should move towards the 'new vision' of Jesus rather than remain as ordinary Jews.

[Daldianus]

No Christian views on this?

Acumen: care to reply to my post no 7?

[Acumen]

No Christian views on this?

Acumen: care to reply to my post no 7?

Honestly, I don't care to.  First, I'm only one man.  I can't respond to everyone all the time.  And if you noticed, I'm participating in a host of conversations while maintaining and updating two websites, which isn't easy.  In fact, it's wearing me out.  Not to mention the fact that I have a full time job, and my wife deserves some of my time as well.  Perhaps if your questions weren't riddled with so many assumptions, it would be easier to respond, but I just don't have the time. 

[Acumen]

I was being honest.  The most difficult and time consuming responses are those that address posts riddled with assumptions I don't agree with.  It's difficult to tackle so many issues in a single post, and this is part of the reason I have refused to respond in any depth until you shore up your questions.