Why two versions of Christianity right from the start?

[Daldianus]

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.

I've rephrased my question already once. I don't see the need to do it again. You're free not to address it.

[Acumen]

Okay, then don't complain when Christians don't respond to your loaded questions.

[SquirleyWurley]

It does help sometimes to simplify and reduce assumptions, ask little questions instead of big ones, etc.  I need to do that more, myself.

[Daldianus]

It does help sometimes to simplify and reduce assumptions, ask little questions instead of big ones, etc.  I need to do that more, myself.

I'll have to do that as well then. But some questions simply are bigger and can't really be reduced ... well, we'll see then.

[SquirleyWurley]

Yes, it can be hard, because reality is complex.  Certain issues are full of hot button controversies and confusion and assumptions whatever you say.

One way to reduce assumptions here might be to limit the question to: why this tension found in the book of James and the writings of Paul and Acts (and elsewhere in the NT and in what we understand of the history of the time), between Jewish Christians who followed the Law, and Gentile Christians who did not.  Is this tension really resolved adequately in the NT?  How? Does it make sense?  What was going on?

[Daldianus]

Yes, it can be hard, because reality is complex.  Certain issues are full of hot button controversies and confusion and assumptions whatever you say.

They're usually also the most interesting since they often go to the bottom of things.

One way to reduce assumptions here might be to limit the question to: why this tension found in the book of James and the writings of Paul and Acts (and elsewhere in the NT and in what we understand of the history of the time), between Jewish Christians who followed the Law, and Gentile Christians who did not.  Is this tension really resolved adequately in the NT?  How? Does it make sense?  What was going on?

These are good and valid questions indeed. Although it's obvious WHY there was this tension between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. I was interested in why there would need to be differences at all? Why didn't Jesus just tell the Jerusalem 'Church' that Paul was right, that their Law has become obsolete and unnecessary and that they should simply follow Paul's way?

[SquirleyWurley]

Why didn't Jesus just tell the Jerusalem 'Church' that Paul was right, that their Law has become obsolete and unnecessary and that they should simply follow Paul's way?

True.  It could have been clarified right there in Acts, post-resurrection, pre-pentecost.

[Acumen]

Yes, it can be hard, because reality is complex.  Certain issues are full of hot button controversies and confusion and assumptions whatever you say.

They're usually also the most interesting since they often go to the bottom of things.

One way to reduce assumptions here might be to limit the question to: why this tension found in the book of James and the writings of Paul and Acts (and elsewhere in the NT and in what we understand of the history of the time), between Jewish Christians who followed the Law, and Gentile Christians who did not.  Is this tension really resolved adequately in the NT?  How? Does it make sense?  What was going on?

These are good and valid questions indeed. Although it's obvious WHY there was this tension between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. I was interested in why there would need to be differences at all? Why didn't Jesus just tell the Jerusalem 'Church' that Paul was right, that their Law has become obsolete and unnecessary and that they should simply follow Paul's way?

First, there is no "Paul is right" at the expense of the Jerusalem Church, or vice versa.  Quite simply, there is no good reason to believe there was a disagreement between them.  Second, it was not Paul's doctrinal position that the Law was obsolete and unnecessary.  When you can display a good understanding of Paul's teachings, then Christians on this site will quit accusing you of misrepresenting our beliefs.

In my opinion, there is no excuse for this.  You've been around long enough to get the gist of Christian doctrine, and you should know that Paul viewed the Law as useful on many levels.

[Beautiful_Dreamer]

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.

Well, I might point out that Jesus did not originally intend to start a new religion. Moreso, He wanted to reform the one that was already there, to call the people to God. A new religion kind of grew from it as time went on. Perhaps some of the Jews saw this.

But, old habits die hard. If you have a people who have been doing things a certain way for thousands of years (the Jews, in this case), their customs aren't going to go away entirely because a new belief comes. It takes time. And there isn't anything saying that a custom has to go away, that it can't somehow be modified. There are many instances we can all think of where a new belief was introduced and adopted, and the people incorporated current customs in with the new tradition. For instance, instruments weren't always used in church. That tradition is the product of the Gospel being introduced into a culture that already used music widely, and decided to incorporate that into the new practice.

When someone becomes a Christian, most of the time they do not completely do away with every custom that they have lived with in the society around them. This is about what it would amount to, since the Jewish way of life encompasses all aspects of a person's life. There is a lot more to Jewish life than just deciding to believe a certain thing.

And I am sure I don't have to point out that people tend to have a natural way of splitting up among themselves, of establishing an 'us v. them' of sorts. Watch any preschool class on the playground to see this in action, even among young children. It happens, religion or not.

[SquirleyWurley]

I don't know that Jesus didn't intend to start a new religion.

There is both record of tensions and of efforts to resolutions those tensions.  I can't deduce from this that the Jerusalem church were all Ebionites who hated the Pauline church.  Nor can I deduce from this that Paul's communities hated the law and never reconciled themselves to the Jerusalem church.  There was tension, yes.  The efforts to resolve that tension may have been more or less successful.

How much to make of it?  Don't know.

[Acumen]

I don't know that Jesus didn't intend to start a new religion.

There is both record of tensions and of efforts to resolutions those tensions.  I can't deduce from this that the Jerusalem church were all Ebionites who hated the Pauline church.  Nor can I deduce from this that Paul's communities hated the law and never reconciled themselves to the Jerusalem church.  There was tension, yes.  The efforts to resolve that tension may have been more or less successful.

How much to make of it?  Don't know.

I think this supposed tension between the Jerusalem church and the Pauline communities are way overplayed based upon fictional imaginings.  Just saying.

[Faithfulee]

I am new to this topic but respond to the question after reading some works by my friend and bible scholar,  Bishop Jack Spong.

One of his recent publications showed that there are actually two gospel stories, each quite different.  That to me answers the question.

The Christian bible is a living document that is subject to interpretation and reinterpretation as the world matures and we understand more clearly the action of God in our lives, the lives of others and throughout history.  We have evolved into numerous Christian denomonations that deal with these events differently.

And I won't take the bait about Jews, because I have studied and believe in another of Bishop Spongs books.  "The Old Testament roots of our Faith"

God Bless you all.

[Acumen]

One of his recent publications showed that there are actually two gospel stories, each quite different.  That to me answers the question.

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

[Lilly]

I think this supposed tension between the Jerusalem church and the Pauline communities are way overplayed based upon fictional imaginings.  Just saying.

I agree.  I see NO tension between Paul and the Jerusalem Church.  The accounts that I read in the NT show them all agreeing and getting along.  The leaders of the Jerusalem Church agreed with Paul and added nothing to his message.  There is one gospel message - one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.

Peter said, "God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted (the Gentiles) by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us (Jews).  He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.  Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?  No!  We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

Paul said, "This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus."

James said, "Brothers, listen to me.  Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself.  The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written... Amos 9:11-12.

Where's the disagreement?

[Acumen]

Well, there are those who believe that Paul and James had a major rift, and Luke's purpose of writing the book of Acts was to smooth over the theological differences and make everything hunky dory.

They point to the Judiazers in Antioch and the meeting with the pillars in Acts.

[Faithfulee]

One of his recent publications showed that there are actually two gospel stories, each quite different.  That to me answers the question.

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

This is part of the writing that demonstrtes the various versions

the idea that anyone would assert that a heavenly sign can or did literally predict or mark an earthly event is unbelievable. It implies that behind the sky is a supernatural deity who communicates with earthlings about events in human history. Second, the suggestion that Jesus at the moment of his birth was thought of as the king of the Jews is to accept as historical fact a concept in Jewish messianic thought, which was not applied to Jesus until well after his earthly life had come to an end. The biblical claim that Jesus was descended from the royal line of David was first introduced by Paul in the Epistle to the Romans about the year 58. This idea was later incorporated into Matthew's gospel written in the mid-eighties (82-85) by moving Jesus' birthplace from Nazareth, where the first gospel, Mark, assumed that he had been born (he was called "Jesus of Nazareth"), to Bethlehem so that he could be born in the city of David. Matthew introduced this Bethlehem story with a genealogy that traced Jesus' ancestry through the royal line of the kings of Judah back to King David, though Matthew clearly edited the genealogy to fit his needs. This same Matthew, however, tells us in chapter 13 that Jesus was in fact the son of a carpenter. Matthew, we need to note, is the only gospel to mention the "Star of Bethlehem." In the only other birth story of Jesus, found in Luke (88-93), the star has been replaced by a host of angels who break through the midnight sky to sing to hillside shepherds about the birth of a savior, not a king. Jesus is not called the "King of the Jews" in Luke until the scene of the crucifixion. Apparently Professor Filippenko is not aware of the fact that a star in the sky was a regular Jewish way of announcing the births of a significant life in Jewish history. Examples in Jewish writing can be found of stars that announced the births of Abraham, Isaac and Moses, to say nothing of an earlier biblical account (Numbers 24:17) in which a star was anticipated to rise out of Jacob and a scepter, the sign of a king, would rise out of Israel. Matthew would have been aware of each of these references.

As I say above, one can examine these differences best if one believes as I do that the Bible is a living document and not unchangable as Muslims believe the Koran to be.

[Acumen]

I still don't see how the above establishes two gospels.

[Faithfulee]

I still don't see how the above establishes two gospels.

There are 4 gospels

They each tell a story that is a bit different, as shown above.  If we are called to believe today in every word written 2000 years ago, as Islam is, there would be no need for 4 Gospels. 

For me the real gospel is the one that lives in my heart and my life.  Others can believe what they want to, but I hope and pray that they live a life that reflects the truth of the gospels as they have larned them.

I grew up presbyterian, married Episcopal, and now wordship in Methodist (winters) and Baptist (when warm in the north) and am completely comfortable.  They are different approachs to the same religion, all based on the bible (that also has several versions, I wonder why).

[Acumen]

I still don't see how the above establishes two gospels.

There are 4 gospels

They each tell a story that is a bit different, as shown above.  If we are called to believe today in every word written 2000 years ago, as Islam is, there would be no need for 4 Gospels. 

For me the real gospel is the one that lives in my heart and my life.  Others can believe what they want to, but I hope and pray that they live a life that reflects the truth of the gospels as they have larned them.

I grew up presbyterian, married Episcopal, and now wordship in Methodist (winters) and Baptist (when warm in the north) and am completely comfortable.  They are different approachs to the same religion, all based on the bible (that also has several versions, I wonder why).

If what you're saying is there are four gospel narratives, but one gospel message, then we agree.