The Relationship Between Judaism and Christianity

[nili]

I'm curious why some folks are of the opinion that if Jesus believed himself to be the messiah, if his followers believed him to be the messiah, that such belief, in and of itself, made them apostates.

... There's also the controversial question put forth by many scholars:  "Did Jesus even exist at all?"  If the story of Jesus was purposely created in order to bring about a social and political change at that time and over the succeeding centuries, it certainly worked.  But I don't think that was quite the change in the world that Judaism's expectations of the Messiah would have fulfilled.

I believe the term "many" may be misleading. Again, from Wikipedia:

The Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, supported by few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines. It is criticised for its outdated reliance on comparisons between mythologies, and deviates from the mainstream historical view, which is that while the gospels include many legendary elements, these are religious interpretations of the life of a historical Jesus who was crucified in the 1st-century Roman province of Judea and subsequently deified.

[Channalee]

I'm curious why some folks are of the opinion that if Jesus believed himself to be the messiah, if his followers believed him to be the messiah, that such belief, in and of itself, made them apostates.

... There's also the controversial question put forth by many scholars:  "Did Jesus even exist at all?"  If the story of Jesus was purposely created in order to bring about a social and political change at that time and over the succeeding centuries, it certainly worked.  But I don't think that was quite the change in the world that Judaism's expectations of the Messiah would have fulfilled.

I believe the term "many" may be misleading. Again, from Wikipedia:

The Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, supported by few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines. It is criticised for its outdated reliance on comparisons between mythologies, and deviates from the mainstream historical view, which is that while the gospels include many legendary elements, these are religious interpretations of the life of a historical Jesus who was crucified in the 1st-century Roman province of Judea and subsequently deified.

I used the word "many" as an indefinite number.  "Less than most" works for me, as well.  In any case, it wasn't the main point of my posting.

[nili]

I'm curious why some folks are of the opinion that if Jesus believed himself to be the messiah, if his followers believed him to be the messiah, that such belief, in and of itself, made them apostates.

... There's also the controversial question put forth by many scholars:  "Did Jesus even exist at all?"  If the story of Jesus was purposely created in order to bring about a social and political change at that time and over the succeeding centuries, it certainly worked.  But I don't think that was quite the change in the world that Judaism's expectations of the Messiah would have fulfilled.

I believe the term "many" may be misleading. Again, from Wikipedia:

The Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, supported by few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines. It is criticised for its outdated reliance on comparisons between mythologies, and deviates from the mainstream historical view, which is that while the gospels include many legendary elements, these are religious interpretations of the life of a historical Jesus who was crucified in the 1st-century Roman province of Judea and subsequently deified.

I used the word "many" as an indefinite number.  "Less than most" works for me, as well.  In any case, it wasn't the main point of my posting.

As you wish. I simply find "fringe ... supported by few" to be far more accurate than "many ... less than most" and far less likely to give the mythicist position too much credence.

But you are correct in noting that it was not the main point of your post. My apologies.

[Channalee]

I'm curious why some folks are of the opinion that if Jesus believed himself to be the messiah, if his followers believed him to be the messiah, that such belief, in and of itself, made them apostates.

... There's also the controversial question put forth by many scholars:  "Did Jesus even exist at all?"  If the story of Jesus was purposely created in order to bring about a social and political change at that time and over the succeeding centuries, it certainly worked.  But I don't think that was quite the change in the world that Judaism's expectations of the Messiah would have fulfilled.

I believe the term "many" may be misleading. Again, from Wikipedia:

The Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, supported by few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines. It is criticised for its outdated reliance on comparisons between mythologies, and deviates from the mainstream historical view, which is that while the gospels include many legendary elements, these are religious interpretations of the life of a historical Jesus who was crucified in the 1st-century Roman province of Judea and subsequently deified.

I used the word "many" as an indefinite number.  "Less than most" works for me, as well.  In any case, it wasn't the main point of my posting.

As you wish. I simply find "fringe ... supported by few" to be far more accurate than "many ... less than most" and far less likely to give the mythicist position too much credence.

But you are correct in noting that it was not the main point of your post. My apologies.

That's quite all right.  Your own point is well taken.

[Jude86]

The difference with Jesus is that his followers back then and today believe that Jesus rose from the dead, was the son of God, and fulfilled all the requirements to be considered the Messiah.  Christians not only continue to view Jesus as the Messiah, they worship him as being a one-third part of God and/or the son of God.

I just wanted to say that that very last part--specifically that portion about the Trinity--would not have been part of the beliefs of the first Christians. The teaching of the Trinity isn't something that developed until way later.

The reason why we know this is because the Jewish communities that believed that Jesus was the Messiah wrote Gospels that denied the divinity of Jesus. There's a group called the Ebionites who are an early Christian group that had views that were part of that whole milieu. Here's a link to wikipedia, if anybody's interested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

And just as a brief aside (pay no real attention to this because this is just a side thing), we Catholics don't really believe that Jesus is one-third part of G-d. The Trinity is probably the strangest doctrines we have and even Christians don't really understand it. But yeah, in spite of the way the doctrine of the Trinity sounds , we do actually believe that HaShem is integrated--that He is ONE--and that He is indivisible.

[nili]

The difference with Jesus is that his followers back then and today believe that Jesus rose from the dead, was the son of God, and fulfilled all the requirements to be considered the Messiah.  Christians not only continue to view Jesus as the Messiah, they worship him as being a one-third part of God and/or the son of God.

I just wanted to say that that very last part--specifically that portion about the Trinity--would not have been part of the beliefs of the first Christians. The teaching of the Trinity isn't something that developed until way later.

Would you not consider Ignatius to be a (perhaps nascent) trinitarian?

[Jude86]

Would you not consider Ignatius to be a (perhaps nascent) trinitarian?

Which Ignatius? We have so many. LOL

[nili]

Would you not consider Ignatius to be a (perhaps nascent) trinitarian?

Which Ignatius? We have so many. LOL

Sorry. Ignatius of Antioch.

[Jude86]

Sorry. Ignatius of Antioch.

Oh! Possibly, but I don't know enough about him to say. From what I HAVE read of his works, it's clear that he wasn't a Jew and was probably a convert from a pagan faith; because at the time, the earliest followers who still considered themselves Jewish would have insisted on following the Torah and the rabbis while he said you didn't have to.

[nili]

Sorry. Ignatius of Antioch.

Oh! Possibly, but I don't know enough about him to say. From what I HAVE read of his works, it's clear that he wasn't a Jew and was probably a convert from a pagan faith; because at the time, the earliest followers who still considered themselves Jewish would have insisted on following the Torah and the rabbis while he said you didn't have to.

What we seem to know with some degree of confidence is that Ignatius saw Jesus as deity, which suggests that nascent trinitarianism may well have been promulgated prior to 107 C.E., i.e., within half a century of Paul's missionary work. This seems at odds with your view that "The teaching of the Trinity isn't something that developed until way later."

Parenthetically, when talking about this period care should be taken to avoid conflating Judaism and Rabbinic Judaism. It's also useful to remember that much of what's 'known' about the Ebionites and Nazarenes is derivative and speculative.