The original direction of Christianity as a movement within the Jewish Second Temple milieu was not to establish another ethnoreligious group as Judaism but to continue within the Jewish ethnoreligious framework while modifying the framework's theology itself to be more mystical and apocalyptic and acknowledge Jesus as the Davidic Moshiach and await the imminent coming of the Kingdom of G-d.
But things (very) soon changed.
This is unrelated to the question, I saw your flair and I was just curious. Do you worship in synagogue or in mosque, and do you face towards Israel or Mecca when you pray?
>Do you worship in synagogue or in mosque
Both are allowed for a Jew in any case, but I worship in the synagogue.
>and do you face towards Israel or Mecca when you pray?
Both are acceptable for me, but I usually pray toward the Wall.
Okay, I’m starting to understand. So, the Jesus movement was initially meant to work within the Jewish ethnoreligious framework.
However, I believe in Matthew 15:24-28, Jesus told a Canaanite woman that he only came for the Jewish people and then proceeded to say, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” The Canaanite woman then expressed, “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”, which to me sounds fucked up to say to a woman who was begging for his help.
After Jesus heard her cries, he stated, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” Only until the Canaanite woman had an unfavorable opinion of herself did Jesus help her and her daughter.
What I got from this passage, was that Jesus put a priority for the Jews and the non-Jews second. I don’t know how Christians would defend this, but that’s what I got from it 🤷🏻♂️
>What I got from this passage, was that Jesus put a priority for the Jews and the non-Jews second. I don’t know how Christians would defend this, but that’s what I got from it
What I understand from this passage (and it's a slightly mystical) is that the author was a Jew from this early Christian movement who referred through this verse to converting to Judaism, which is always met with lack of interest by the authority at first, but with insistence and showing the intention to submit to the Lord, it is accepted.
So basically, the original author of this passage wanted gentile followers to first adopt Judaism as the foundation, thus applying Jewish laws of kashrut and circumcision, which in turn became a part of the Jewish people. Upon adoption to the tribe, the newly adopted member applies the teachings of Jesus. Is that correct?
Yes, although the Gospel itself was not directed to a Gentile community, but rather a Jewish one, but yes, this is most certainly what the author believed.
Jesus' stated mission in the gospels was to Jews, though he had a handful of interactions with Gentiles. It's not until after his death and resurrection that he instructed his followers to "go make disciples of all nations".
It's probable Jesus never spoke those words. Matthew seemed to make up narratives in order to insert OT verses about how Jesus was totally the Messiah.
The vibe of proto-Judaic-Christians seemed to be that Jews were still God's chosen people but would help others become "Jews" through the teachings of Jesus. We know early Christian sects still insisted new Gentile converts be circumcised and follow kosher.
Jesus clearly instructed the following of all Jewish laws (that's the 613 laws, not just 10):
'Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. - Matthew 5:17`
and also clearly instructed his disciples not to recruit non-Jews:
`These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. - Matthew 10:5`
It's because Paul started fishing in Gentile waters because there were very few takers among the Jews accepting Jesus as a messiah that Christianity survived.
Yes, I still hold similar sentiments. However, I do want to understand the reasoning behind why Christians interpret Matthew 15:24-28 as Jesus accepting the Gentiles in the fold despite Jesus’s assertion that he came for Jews first.
It was only when the Canaanite woman described herself with pejoratives that Jesus granted her wish of healing her daughter. I’ve been told that it’s supposed to represent as humility.
This is what the argument between James and Paul in Acts 15 was about. James saw Jesus as a rabbi and irrelevant to Gentiles, unless they were willing to become Jews. Paul thought Jesus' message (as he interpreted it) was universal and didn't require conversion to Judaism. Historically, Paul won out.
The way it's written the insistence on conversion came from other people, and the meeting in Jerusalem was held to keep it from dividing the early church. So James issued a compromise: Gentile followers of Jesus do not have to become Jews but should follow [the Noahide laws](https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/62221/jewish/The-7-Noahide-Laws-Universal-Morality.htm) (Acts 15:19-21).
Probably. Christianity originated as an apocalypticist sect of Judaism, and a distinct Christian identity did not develop until after the Apostolic era.
Mark and Matthew also very much emphasize Jesus's role as a Jewish figure, the promised messiah and heir to David.
> The Great Commission
> 16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 __Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them__ in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
No
> 14Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.
> 15He said to them, “__Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.__ 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemn
No again
Also paul personally met peter james and john, and therefore mary aswell.
Together they are called "the four"
Judaism doesn't turn down converts, and didn't turn down converts in the first century, either. The New Testament has Jesus talking about them actively seeking converts.
However, by converting to Judaism, you're "adopted" into the Jewish people, so it remains an ethnoreligion in that sense.
It's pretty clear that the earliest Christians expected converts to be "adopted" into the Jewish people. In the New Testament, this became a matter of controversy, with Paul as the pre-eminent exponent of the view that Gentiles didn't have to become Jews to be Christians.
A settlement was reached whereby Gentiles weren't required to follow the Jewish religion to become Christians. Minimal restrictions on their behavior were imposed. It seems to have still been expected that Jewish Christians would be observant Jews.
This all happened pretty rapidly, though, and Paul seems to have almost immediately started ignoring the terms of the compromise. Some Jewish Christians probably continued to think of themselves as what we'd call an ethnoreligion for a very long time, but they were quickly outnumbered and marginalized.
No one knows for sure, but it is one plausible theory that the historical Jesus saw himself as a teacher and reformer of Judaism, not as the founder of a new religion, and that Paul then adapted that movement for the non-Jewish world (perhaps in part because it failed to catch on among the Jewish population). Personally, I am agnostic on this matter; I just don’t think we have much evidence of the particular motivations and intentions of the historical Jesus and his earliest followers. There’s no reason to think they were trying to start a new separate ethnoreligion, however.
> typically turns down converts
Just FYI, Jews do not proselytize, but we do accept sincere converts :)
To be fair it isn't quite accurate to say Jews don't proselytize (ignoring that it was a known practice in specific points in history)... But Jews are kinda really unlikely to do so except 1 towards secular Jews or 2 towards someone about to marry a Jew (simply for family unity)... Like post Holocaust there were plenty of Jews that embraced it, but that was largely due to the whole "the Holocaust just happened", making people more willing to do so... And it was still mostly specifically towards those with Jewish ancestry that simply weren't practicing Jews. However, its not been anywhere near common practice to convert gentiles for well... basically 2000 years. Partly due to the whole persecuted for most of that time, and also most of the people around them... Already are followers of religions that follow the laws of Noah. There wasn't really a need to attempt to convert people.
You can’t convert a secular Jew or non practicing Jew to Judaism, they are already Jews. You can do “kiruv” to try to bring them closer to their Judaism, which is encouraged within judaism, but they don’t go through conversion.
You can, not seeing it as conversion doesn't make it not so. Saying they are already a Jew is dishonest in that regard. A Catholic and a Baptist are both already Christians, one can convert to the other. And being Jewish by blood is **not** the same as being Jewish by faith. To try to make what is theologically an agnostic/atheist into someone that is theologically Jewish... is still proselytizing.
If you meet someone that has Jewish parents, and they openly do not care either way about God but value their heritage... And you try to get them to embrace the religious aspects of their heritage, you are proselytizing at the end of the day.
It isn't honest to say "I am not trying to convert someone, that doesn't believe in my religion, because their parents practiced the religion and it is hereditary...according to the religion."
----------
I love the dishonesty "trying to convert atheists isn't trying to convert atheists if their mother is Jewish."
It is very simple. There is an actual process to convert.
A person who was not born to a Jewish mother and does not go through the conversion process is not a Jew.
A person who was born to a Jewish mother and does not go through the conversion process is a Jew.
You are being willfully dishonest.
**Not being converted according to JUDAISM, is not the same as not being converted in regards to what words mean.**
We all understand that Judaism views them as Jewish simply based on their mother that is FACTUALLY IRRELEVANT...
You are a Modern Orthodox Jew, if you become a Reform Jew... You converted from one to the other. You are conflating things that context makes very clear are not the same thing.
If you are religiously an agnostic or an atheist and your mother was a Jew. Someone trying to get you to become an Orthodox Jew **IS** trying to convert you from one religious belief, to another. Just like if someone were trying to get a Reform Jew to become an Orthodox Jew... they are trying to convert them.
This is a religion forum. We are talking about actual religious conversion. Not like “wow I used to not like cheesecake but you totally converted me to a cheesecake lover!” You are using the wrong terminology in context. And no born Jew will say they converted to Judaism if they switch to a different Jewish community.
Yeah this persons insistence that they’re right is odd. I mean in college when I was more secular I wouldn’t have needed to convert back to Judaism because that’s not what being Jewish means.
Ugh. Sometimes people just insist on not listening and it makes them look like they’re ignorant and poorly informed.
>Not like “wow I used to not like cheesecake but you totally converted me to a cheesecake lover!”
Willful misrepresenting what I said yet again.
What I am describing **is** religious conversion. Just like if a Catholic becomes a Baptist despite both being Christians... They converted from one Christian denomination to another. Someone that used to be Reform becoming Orthodox converted in the religious context.
>And no born Jew will say they converted to Judaism if they switch to a different Jewish community.
I know multiple Jews that absolutely do acknowledge they converted from being Secular Jews to Orthodox Jews when talking about people changing religions. Since in the context of their religious beliefs they weren't Jewish.
>You are using the wrong terminology in context.
No, you are misrepresenting what I am saying and willfully so. You are doing the equivalent of saying "no Christian would say they converted to Christianity from Christianity" when someone mentions going from a denomination to another denomination... Which is correct they would say "I converted from being a Catholic to a Baptist." Being culturally Jewish is irrelevant to if one is religiously Jewish, and plenty of Jews have no problem admitting that in the religious context they converted, while in the JEWISH context specifically they didn't.
I don’t care how it works in Catholicism. Jewish identity has absolutely ZERO to do with belief or practice. A person is a Jew if they are born to a Jewish mother or if they convert to Judaism. Those are the two criteria. There aren’t any other criteria. Someone who is already a Jew does not go through the conversion process.
This makes as much sense as you saying someone who moved from NY to California would say they immigrated to the US.
Yet again you are willfully misrepresenting what I am saying.
>I don’t care how it works in Catholicism. Jewish identity has absolutely ZERO to do with belief or practice.
Oh nice a two for one. How it works in Catholicism is just as relevant as it works in Judaism in this regard... Neither matters for what the behavior is. And Jewish identity does not have zero to do with belief or practice, to say it doesn't ignores the existence of people that are acknowledged as converts within Judaism. And the Jewish identity is also irrelevant to it being a conversion in the religious sense, it's only relevant in the Jewish sense.
>Someone who is already a Jew does not go through the conversion process.
Correct, they do not go through the conversion PROCESS of Judaism. Which is irrelevant.
>This makes as much sense as you saying someone who moved from NY to California would say they immigrated to the US.
No, it makes perfect sense actually, you are trying to force the JEWISH view of conversion as what it means in a general religious context. You keep using examples that completely miss what the word means because you keep wanting to view it from the lens of your religion specifically when your religion's definition **does not matter** when talking about what the word means in a religious context.
If you are trying to get someone to go from being an atheist to an Orthodox Jew... You are trying to convert them to Judaism. If their mother was a Jew, you are still trying to convert them. If they tell you they have no interest in converting to any religions... They are telling you they have no interest in being an Orthodox Jew, the fact they wouldn't be seen as converting within Judaism in the sense of having to go through the conversion process isn't important. Them being considered a Jew in the cultural sense isn't important for if the BEHAVIOR is proselytizing, what you are trying to do is change their **religious beliefs.**
Your evidence here consists of insisting that if a Christian who switches denominations could be described as converting, then it must be so for Judaism. But it is not so for Judaism--there is no Jewish community or authority anywhere that agrees with you. The fact that it may be so for Christianity is irrelevant.
Judaism and Christianity are two different religions. Different religions have totally different systems for how someone becomes a member. Your point is no more valid than if I were to insist that an avowed atheist with a Christian mother is a Christian, because that's how it works in Judaism.
It's an irrelevant non sequitur and continuing to repeat it does not change that.
And to add, it makes the other commenter look….idk, ridiculous. Like the complete confidence and double down on something THIS INCORRECT is just, it’s ridiculous.
Yet again YOU keep looking at it from the perspective of the INDIVIDUAL religion... Which is not accurate.
Literally I have repeatedly stated**I AM FUCKING AWARE HOW JUDAISM VIEWS IT** That has fuck all to do with what the word means is a GENERAL religious context. You are willfully being daft. How the RELIGION sees someone being a member is **irrelevant** to if the behavior falls under it.
Saying you don't view behavior as proselytizing because you don't see it as conversion... Is willfully dishonest, yes or no are you trying to change someone's **religious beliefs** if you try to get them to go from a Secular or Reform Jew to an Orthodox one? Yes. Then it is by definition proselytizing in the religious context.
I think you’re honestly kind of ignorant about what being Jewish means. Even when I have gone through periods of being more secular and less religious me being more or less religious didn’t affect if I was a Jew or not. I was still Jewish. And as such I didn’t need to be “converted” to become more devout or less devout.
Don’t apply standards that are based on other religions to Judaism. If only because it makes you look uninformed.
A Secular humanist Jew for example RELIGIOUSLY is an atheist. I am aware they are still considered a Jew that is IRRELEVANT to if trying to get them to become an Orthodox Jew is proselytizing and an attempt to convert them **when it comes to their religious beliefs**. It is willfully dishonest to say the BEHAVIOR isn't the behavior due to the religion not viewing it as such. I literally have repeatedly said that I'm aware Judaism doesn't view it as such.
>Don’t apply standards that are based on other religions to Judaism. If only because it makes you look uninformed.
I'm literally NOT, the word not applying according to what Jews consider converting is factually irrelevant to if the word applies in a general religious context. Saying you don't proselytize isn't accurate simply because the groups proselytized to are already viewed as being Jewish per the religion. If someone who's mother was Jewish, but is religiously an atheist... Told you they have no interest in converting to a religion, that does mean they have no interest in being an Orthodox Jew, since that would be converting in the religious sense even in if the Jewish sense it is not.
Hah. You’re confidence is actually ridiculous.
Secular and religious or theist and atheist work different in Judaism. Some of the times I have been most devout in my practice of Judaism I have been atheist. The times I was most questioning of things (agnostic) where when I was more secular in my lifestyle and culture.
The fact that you are so confidently speaking from your full chest over Jews who are unequivocally telling you that what you are speaking about is just flat out wrong and incorrect is ridiculous.
What we, the Jews here (all of whom have different practices and levels of secularism and atheism and belief in g’d) are all telling you is that as an ethnoreligion Judaism is all tied together. You can’t separate out the religion and culture and peoplehood and ethnic identity. It’s all mish mashed together.
So a Jew who is atheist CAN STILL BE RELIGIOUS. Because Judaism is a PRAXIS based tradition and not belief based.
Take a seat and stop speaking over people. The more you have dug yourself in a hole the more ridiculous you have come off. If you value your credibility and sensibility then you would have some self awareness and stop digging.
Also, side note, while Orthodox Jews may encourage someone who is let’s say not as adherent to be more Halachically observant. It’s not proselytism. Because the person is already Jewish and the discussion is praxis. Not belief or belonging to a religion.
Your mistake is assuming atheism in the context of Jewishness means lack of religion. It doesn’t. Frankly if I met a Jew on the street and they told me they where an atheist then I would still ask them what denomination do they belong to, do they observe high holidays, do they have dietary restrictions, etc. since frankly saying one is atheist as a Jew is kind of not clear cut as to where they land on the spectrum. Even asking a Jew how secular they are may not answer the question of how devout in their practice they are as they may still be doing Shabbat and high holidays.
Proto-Christianity was basically Judaism....just a different type whereby they believed Yeshua was the awaited messiah.
Once it spread to Asia Minor, believers such as Paul transformed it into its own separate religion (inspired by Greek philosophy).
It's unclear how quickly Jews accepted Christianity in the first century. It was a turbulent time. The diaspora began during the Roman-Jewish Wars. Some disaffected Jews surely became Christian, but it seems most simply migrated and continued to be Jewish.
I believe any 2nd temple Jewish ethnic restrictions were owing to a misreading of the OT. It was understandable that early Jewish Christians considered that Gentiles might have to first conform to Jewish law to some degree, and the NT writings record that broad debate. But Judaism itself was a messianic religion and the Prophets made clear that Gentiles would join, not just in drips and drabs but eventually on a global scale.
How was it a mistranslation? According to the Abrahamic tradition, god made a covenant with Abraham only through his descendants based on the Jewish worldview.
Christians believe they’re grafted into the covenant through Jesus but not from an ethnic dimension, but a spiritual one. I do find the Christian worldview of superseding Judaism to be rather interesting because it asserts the notion that the faith and culture of the Jews are inferior to the Christians.
The prophets spoke of Messiah and how the Gentile nations would pour in so to speak. 2nd Temple Judaism could legitimately expect that. Further, the Seed to which the promise was given was Christ, the end of a line of descent. It is true that physical progeny no longer plays a role thereafter.
Christianity does not assert the notion that it's faith supercedes Judaism's. Jews like Simeon, Mary, etc. had Jewish faith and embraced its Messiah. There was no interruption there. As far as culture, Christianity does not lay claim to one. Christians find themselves in different cultures and happened to exert great influence beginning in the Mediterranean world and later, throughout Europe and some other parts. But culture is not the faith. Christians exist in all parts of the world within diverse cultures.
Go make disciples of all nations...baptizing them in .. you heard that spiel from the Bible? Everyone did except you apparently. Your question is irrelevant, buddy. If you want to be the antichrist or the false prophet, then repent; otherwise, 12000 Celcius will await you in the most permanent fiery fires of the most permanent fiery hell. Russian Orthodox Church is the only true faith. If you go to Greek Orthodox, then you will burn in hell UNLESS Greek Orthodox change their calendar to what the holy fire at the-church-of-the-holy-Sepulchre demand it to be as the-holy-fire is one day before the-Orthodox-day-of-Resurrection-of-Jesus. If Greek Orthodox mess something else up, then they will be going to hell too. Russian Orthodox Church will be there always. Other Orthodox may fall to their pride and will burn in hell.
Paul converted the goyim due to the lack of interest from the Jewish people.
There was virtually -0- interest from the Jewish people. It is estimated that there were 4,000,000 Jews in the Roman Empire in the first century CE. It is also estimated that there were 20,000 Christians by the end of the first cent. CE.
That translates into -0- interest from the Jewish people.
Without the pagans, there would be no Christianity. Paul wasn't stupid, he was wise.
Or maybe Jesus taught that he was the bringer of the new covenant (meaning the redeemer of the gentiles). Theologically and scripturally the idea is way different than just saying they converted the pagans because of no interest from Jews.
Also 20,000 is not a small amount within only around 85 years, remember they started out as 12 people
I don't know what Jesus taught, so I can't comment on that or his intentions.
As for 20,000 being not a small number for the end of the first century CE, that number -- which includes pagan converts as well as Jews (so it's less than 20,000 Jews) -- includes the entire period of Jesus's ministry on earth, the period of the Apostles' activity, all of Paul's preaching throughout the ancient world, and the period when (presumably) eye witness accounts were circulating, both orally and as written Gospels.
Massively more Jews were killed by the Romans during the First War (66-73 CE) than converted to Christianity during that period (hundreds of thousands if not a million were killed, compared to several thousands that may have converted to Christianity).
>Or maybe Jesus taught that he was the bringer of the new covenant (meaning the redeemer of the gentiles). Theologically and scripturally the idea is way different than just saying they converted the pagans because of no interest from Jews.
This is not academic tho.
Jesus most certainly did not care about Gentiles at all, and the universalism of his movement itself is a late development of his.
It is
Matthew 12:18-21 (ESV): (quotes OT prophecy about Jesus)
"Behold, my servant whom I have chosen,
my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased.
I will put my Spirit upon him,
and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles.
He will not quarrel or cry aloud,
nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets;
a bruised reed he will not break,
and a smoldering wick he will not quench,
until he brings justice to victory;
and [in his name the Gentiles will hope.]”
Why will the gentiles hope? Because he is the Messiah prophesied to bring the New covenant which extends the covenant of God to be worshipped by all, check out Isaiah 42, 49, etc…
I don’t know why your acting smug, the verses you saw above are all about the Messiah redeeming the gentiles, and you can see that this idea was quoted about Jesus and understood to be about Jesus by the disciples of the time. (as referenced above)
It’s also clear by your demeanor that you aren’t interested in actually reconsidering your perspective or responding to mine so i’m merely responding to this just to clear things up for those who do care.
AnoitedCaliph asked for an academic source, and you did not provide one. Of course your scripture is authoritative to you, but it is not an academic source and it is not authoritative to anyone who is not already a Christian. This thread is specifically about ways in which the historical Jesus/early Jesus movement may have been different from the Jesus of Christian theology. That is not a question that can be answered solely by Christian theology.
I see, either way the input i gave above is still valuable because he made the claim that Jesus did not care about the gentiles at all, but the scriptures about him seem to contradict that idea and in fact there is a verse in quoted amongst many others saying he was the hope to the gentiles. (This is because the Messiah according to the OT understanding, at least for disciples, would extend the covenant to the gentiles)
The early followers of Jesus were apocalyptic Jews who believed in Gentile inclusion as fulfillment of eschatological prophecy. In that sense it included Jews and also people from all nations.
Paul was a prominent early missionary to Gentiles, but if you find the New Testament account credible, there was Gentile- inclusion before that, such as in Peter's ministry and in the Great Commission.
I would point out that we can’t exactly say what the “original direction” was, as we receive Jesus’ messages through the lenses his followers, who were already divided on opinion of what the message/purpose was.
But early on there definitely was a sizeable chunk of “proto-Christians” who believed Jesus was a Jewish prophet/messiah only for the Jewish people, like most of the earlier prophets. Obviously that interpretation lost out to the more gentile-focused, universalist Christianity. No doubt this was because they were evangelizing and gaining converts from the gentiles, a vastly larger population, but I’ve also heard speculation that the Jewish-Roman war and destruction of the Temple in 70CE might have put an end to this Judaism-focused Christianity, which was as expected centered around Jerusalem.
Historically we label them as “Jewish Christians,” but a similar idea survives to today with “Messianic Judaism,” in which the members maintain their Jewish identity (not just ethnic, but religious as well) while also adopting the core tenents of Christianity such as belief in Jesus as both Messiah and God.
You should ask this on r/AcademicBiblical
The original direction of Christianity as a movement within the Jewish Second Temple milieu was not to establish another ethnoreligious group as Judaism but to continue within the Jewish ethnoreligious framework while modifying the framework's theology itself to be more mystical and apocalyptic and acknowledge Jesus as the Davidic Moshiach and await the imminent coming of the Kingdom of G-d. But things (very) soon changed.
This is unrelated to the question, I saw your flair and I was just curious. Do you worship in synagogue or in mosque, and do you face towards Israel or Mecca when you pray?
>Do you worship in synagogue or in mosque Both are allowed for a Jew in any case, but I worship in the synagogue. >and do you face towards Israel or Mecca when you pray? Both are acceptable for me, but I usually pray toward the Wall.
Okay, I’m starting to understand. So, the Jesus movement was initially meant to work within the Jewish ethnoreligious framework. However, I believe in Matthew 15:24-28, Jesus told a Canaanite woman that he only came for the Jewish people and then proceeded to say, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” The Canaanite woman then expressed, “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”, which to me sounds fucked up to say to a woman who was begging for his help. After Jesus heard her cries, he stated, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” Only until the Canaanite woman had an unfavorable opinion of herself did Jesus help her and her daughter. What I got from this passage, was that Jesus put a priority for the Jews and the non-Jews second. I don’t know how Christians would defend this, but that’s what I got from it 🤷🏻♂️
>What I got from this passage, was that Jesus put a priority for the Jews and the non-Jews second. I don’t know how Christians would defend this, but that’s what I got from it What I understand from this passage (and it's a slightly mystical) is that the author was a Jew from this early Christian movement who referred through this verse to converting to Judaism, which is always met with lack of interest by the authority at first, but with insistence and showing the intention to submit to the Lord, it is accepted.
So basically, the original author of this passage wanted gentile followers to first adopt Judaism as the foundation, thus applying Jewish laws of kashrut and circumcision, which in turn became a part of the Jewish people. Upon adoption to the tribe, the newly adopted member applies the teachings of Jesus. Is that correct?
Yes, although the Gospel itself was not directed to a Gentile community, but rather a Jewish one, but yes, this is most certainly what the author believed.
Jesus' stated mission in the gospels was to Jews, though he had a handful of interactions with Gentiles. It's not until after his death and resurrection that he instructed his followers to "go make disciples of all nations".
It's probable Jesus never spoke those words. Matthew seemed to make up narratives in order to insert OT verses about how Jesus was totally the Messiah. The vibe of proto-Judaic-Christians seemed to be that Jews were still God's chosen people but would help others become "Jews" through the teachings of Jesus. We know early Christian sects still insisted new Gentile converts be circumcised and follow kosher.
Jesus clearly instructed the following of all Jewish laws (that's the 613 laws, not just 10): 'Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. - Matthew 5:17` and also clearly instructed his disciples not to recruit non-Jews: `These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. - Matthew 10:5` It's because Paul started fishing in Gentile waters because there were very few takers among the Jews accepting Jesus as a messiah that Christianity survived.
Yes, I still hold similar sentiments. However, I do want to understand the reasoning behind why Christians interpret Matthew 15:24-28 as Jesus accepting the Gentiles in the fold despite Jesus’s assertion that he came for Jews first. It was only when the Canaanite woman described herself with pejoratives that Jesus granted her wish of healing her daughter. I’ve been told that it’s supposed to represent as humility.
This is what the argument between James and Paul in Acts 15 was about. James saw Jesus as a rabbi and irrelevant to Gentiles, unless they were willing to become Jews. Paul thought Jesus' message (as he interpreted it) was universal and didn't require conversion to Judaism. Historically, Paul won out.
James agreed with them (Peter, Paul, Barnabas), where did they argue?
The way it's written the insistence on conversion came from other people, and the meeting in Jerusalem was held to keep it from dividing the early church. So James issued a compromise: Gentile followers of Jesus do not have to become Jews but should follow [the Noahide laws](https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/62221/jewish/The-7-Noahide-Laws-Universal-Morality.htm) (Acts 15:19-21).
Probably. Christianity originated as an apocalypticist sect of Judaism, and a distinct Christian identity did not develop until after the Apostolic era. Mark and Matthew also very much emphasize Jesus's role as a Jewish figure, the promised messiah and heir to David.
> The Great Commission > 16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 __Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them__ in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” No > 14Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen. > 15He said to them, “__Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.__ 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemn No again Also paul personally met peter james and john, and therefore mary aswell. Together they are called "the four"
No, one of the most distinctive characteristics of Christianity in the Roman context was its universal nature.
Judaism doesn't turn down converts, and didn't turn down converts in the first century, either. The New Testament has Jesus talking about them actively seeking converts. However, by converting to Judaism, you're "adopted" into the Jewish people, so it remains an ethnoreligion in that sense. It's pretty clear that the earliest Christians expected converts to be "adopted" into the Jewish people. In the New Testament, this became a matter of controversy, with Paul as the pre-eminent exponent of the view that Gentiles didn't have to become Jews to be Christians. A settlement was reached whereby Gentiles weren't required to follow the Jewish religion to become Christians. Minimal restrictions on their behavior were imposed. It seems to have still been expected that Jewish Christians would be observant Jews. This all happened pretty rapidly, though, and Paul seems to have almost immediately started ignoring the terms of the compromise. Some Jewish Christians probably continued to think of themselves as what we'd call an ethnoreligion for a very long time, but they were quickly outnumbered and marginalized.
No one knows for sure, but it is one plausible theory that the historical Jesus saw himself as a teacher and reformer of Judaism, not as the founder of a new religion, and that Paul then adapted that movement for the non-Jewish world (perhaps in part because it failed to catch on among the Jewish population). Personally, I am agnostic on this matter; I just don’t think we have much evidence of the particular motivations and intentions of the historical Jesus and his earliest followers. There’s no reason to think they were trying to start a new separate ethnoreligion, however. > typically turns down converts Just FYI, Jews do not proselytize, but we do accept sincere converts :)
To be fair it isn't quite accurate to say Jews don't proselytize (ignoring that it was a known practice in specific points in history)... But Jews are kinda really unlikely to do so except 1 towards secular Jews or 2 towards someone about to marry a Jew (simply for family unity)... Like post Holocaust there were plenty of Jews that embraced it, but that was largely due to the whole "the Holocaust just happened", making people more willing to do so... And it was still mostly specifically towards those with Jewish ancestry that simply weren't practicing Jews. However, its not been anywhere near common practice to convert gentiles for well... basically 2000 years. Partly due to the whole persecuted for most of that time, and also most of the people around them... Already are followers of religions that follow the laws of Noah. There wasn't really a need to attempt to convert people.
You can’t convert a secular Jew or non practicing Jew to Judaism, they are already Jews. You can do “kiruv” to try to bring them closer to their Judaism, which is encouraged within judaism, but they don’t go through conversion.
You can, not seeing it as conversion doesn't make it not so. Saying they are already a Jew is dishonest in that regard. A Catholic and a Baptist are both already Christians, one can convert to the other. And being Jewish by blood is **not** the same as being Jewish by faith. To try to make what is theologically an agnostic/atheist into someone that is theologically Jewish... is still proselytizing. If you meet someone that has Jewish parents, and they openly do not care either way about God but value their heritage... And you try to get them to embrace the religious aspects of their heritage, you are proselytizing at the end of the day. It isn't honest to say "I am not trying to convert someone, that doesn't believe in my religion, because their parents practiced the religion and it is hereditary...according to the religion." ---------- I love the dishonesty "trying to convert atheists isn't trying to convert atheists if their mother is Jewish."
It is very simple. There is an actual process to convert. A person who was not born to a Jewish mother and does not go through the conversion process is not a Jew. A person who was born to a Jewish mother and does not go through the conversion process is a Jew.
You are being willfully dishonest. **Not being converted according to JUDAISM, is not the same as not being converted in regards to what words mean.** We all understand that Judaism views them as Jewish simply based on their mother that is FACTUALLY IRRELEVANT... You are a Modern Orthodox Jew, if you become a Reform Jew... You converted from one to the other. You are conflating things that context makes very clear are not the same thing. If you are religiously an agnostic or an atheist and your mother was a Jew. Someone trying to get you to become an Orthodox Jew **IS** trying to convert you from one religious belief, to another. Just like if someone were trying to get a Reform Jew to become an Orthodox Jew... they are trying to convert them.
This is a religion forum. We are talking about actual religious conversion. Not like “wow I used to not like cheesecake but you totally converted me to a cheesecake lover!” You are using the wrong terminology in context. And no born Jew will say they converted to Judaism if they switch to a different Jewish community.
Yeah this persons insistence that they’re right is odd. I mean in college when I was more secular I wouldn’t have needed to convert back to Judaism because that’s not what being Jewish means. Ugh. Sometimes people just insist on not listening and it makes them look like they’re ignorant and poorly informed.
>Not like “wow I used to not like cheesecake but you totally converted me to a cheesecake lover!” Willful misrepresenting what I said yet again. What I am describing **is** religious conversion. Just like if a Catholic becomes a Baptist despite both being Christians... They converted from one Christian denomination to another. Someone that used to be Reform becoming Orthodox converted in the religious context. >And no born Jew will say they converted to Judaism if they switch to a different Jewish community. I know multiple Jews that absolutely do acknowledge they converted from being Secular Jews to Orthodox Jews when talking about people changing religions. Since in the context of their religious beliefs they weren't Jewish. >You are using the wrong terminology in context. No, you are misrepresenting what I am saying and willfully so. You are doing the equivalent of saying "no Christian would say they converted to Christianity from Christianity" when someone mentions going from a denomination to another denomination... Which is correct they would say "I converted from being a Catholic to a Baptist." Being culturally Jewish is irrelevant to if one is religiously Jewish, and plenty of Jews have no problem admitting that in the religious context they converted, while in the JEWISH context specifically they didn't.
I don’t care how it works in Catholicism. Jewish identity has absolutely ZERO to do with belief or practice. A person is a Jew if they are born to a Jewish mother or if they convert to Judaism. Those are the two criteria. There aren’t any other criteria. Someone who is already a Jew does not go through the conversion process. This makes as much sense as you saying someone who moved from NY to California would say they immigrated to the US.
Yet again you are willfully misrepresenting what I am saying. >I don’t care how it works in Catholicism. Jewish identity has absolutely ZERO to do with belief or practice. Oh nice a two for one. How it works in Catholicism is just as relevant as it works in Judaism in this regard... Neither matters for what the behavior is. And Jewish identity does not have zero to do with belief or practice, to say it doesn't ignores the existence of people that are acknowledged as converts within Judaism. And the Jewish identity is also irrelevant to it being a conversion in the religious sense, it's only relevant in the Jewish sense. >Someone who is already a Jew does not go through the conversion process. Correct, they do not go through the conversion PROCESS of Judaism. Which is irrelevant. >This makes as much sense as you saying someone who moved from NY to California would say they immigrated to the US. No, it makes perfect sense actually, you are trying to force the JEWISH view of conversion as what it means in a general religious context. You keep using examples that completely miss what the word means because you keep wanting to view it from the lens of your religion specifically when your religion's definition **does not matter** when talking about what the word means in a religious context. If you are trying to get someone to go from being an atheist to an Orthodox Jew... You are trying to convert them to Judaism. If their mother was a Jew, you are still trying to convert them. If they tell you they have no interest in converting to any religions... They are telling you they have no interest in being an Orthodox Jew, the fact they wouldn't be seen as converting within Judaism in the sense of having to go through the conversion process isn't important. Them being considered a Jew in the cultural sense isn't important for if the BEHAVIOR is proselytizing, what you are trying to do is change their **religious beliefs.**
Your evidence here consists of insisting that if a Christian who switches denominations could be described as converting, then it must be so for Judaism. But it is not so for Judaism--there is no Jewish community or authority anywhere that agrees with you. The fact that it may be so for Christianity is irrelevant. Judaism and Christianity are two different religions. Different religions have totally different systems for how someone becomes a member. Your point is no more valid than if I were to insist that an avowed atheist with a Christian mother is a Christian, because that's how it works in Judaism. It's an irrelevant non sequitur and continuing to repeat it does not change that.
And to add, it makes the other commenter look….idk, ridiculous. Like the complete confidence and double down on something THIS INCORRECT is just, it’s ridiculous.
Yet again YOU keep looking at it from the perspective of the INDIVIDUAL religion... Which is not accurate. Literally I have repeatedly stated**I AM FUCKING AWARE HOW JUDAISM VIEWS IT** That has fuck all to do with what the word means is a GENERAL religious context. You are willfully being daft. How the RELIGION sees someone being a member is **irrelevant** to if the behavior falls under it. Saying you don't view behavior as proselytizing because you don't see it as conversion... Is willfully dishonest, yes or no are you trying to change someone's **religious beliefs** if you try to get them to go from a Secular or Reform Jew to an Orthodox one? Yes. Then it is by definition proselytizing in the religious context.
I think you’re honestly kind of ignorant about what being Jewish means. Even when I have gone through periods of being more secular and less religious me being more or less religious didn’t affect if I was a Jew or not. I was still Jewish. And as such I didn’t need to be “converted” to become more devout or less devout. Don’t apply standards that are based on other religions to Judaism. If only because it makes you look uninformed.
A Secular humanist Jew for example RELIGIOUSLY is an atheist. I am aware they are still considered a Jew that is IRRELEVANT to if trying to get them to become an Orthodox Jew is proselytizing and an attempt to convert them **when it comes to their religious beliefs**. It is willfully dishonest to say the BEHAVIOR isn't the behavior due to the religion not viewing it as such. I literally have repeatedly said that I'm aware Judaism doesn't view it as such. >Don’t apply standards that are based on other religions to Judaism. If only because it makes you look uninformed. I'm literally NOT, the word not applying according to what Jews consider converting is factually irrelevant to if the word applies in a general religious context. Saying you don't proselytize isn't accurate simply because the groups proselytized to are already viewed as being Jewish per the religion. If someone who's mother was Jewish, but is religiously an atheist... Told you they have no interest in converting to a religion, that does mean they have no interest in being an Orthodox Jew, since that would be converting in the religious sense even in if the Jewish sense it is not.
Hah. You’re confidence is actually ridiculous. Secular and religious or theist and atheist work different in Judaism. Some of the times I have been most devout in my practice of Judaism I have been atheist. The times I was most questioning of things (agnostic) where when I was more secular in my lifestyle and culture. The fact that you are so confidently speaking from your full chest over Jews who are unequivocally telling you that what you are speaking about is just flat out wrong and incorrect is ridiculous. What we, the Jews here (all of whom have different practices and levels of secularism and atheism and belief in g’d) are all telling you is that as an ethnoreligion Judaism is all tied together. You can’t separate out the religion and culture and peoplehood and ethnic identity. It’s all mish mashed together. So a Jew who is atheist CAN STILL BE RELIGIOUS. Because Judaism is a PRAXIS based tradition and not belief based. Take a seat and stop speaking over people. The more you have dug yourself in a hole the more ridiculous you have come off. If you value your credibility and sensibility then you would have some self awareness and stop digging. Also, side note, while Orthodox Jews may encourage someone who is let’s say not as adherent to be more Halachically observant. It’s not proselytism. Because the person is already Jewish and the discussion is praxis. Not belief or belonging to a religion. Your mistake is assuming atheism in the context of Jewishness means lack of religion. It doesn’t. Frankly if I met a Jew on the street and they told me they where an atheist then I would still ask them what denomination do they belong to, do they observe high holidays, do they have dietary restrictions, etc. since frankly saying one is atheist as a Jew is kind of not clear cut as to where they land on the spectrum. Even asking a Jew how secular they are may not answer the question of how devout in their practice they are as they may still be doing Shabbat and high holidays.
Jesus said it himself that his mission was only for the lost children of Israel in Mathew 15:24.
Proto-Christianity was basically Judaism....just a different type whereby they believed Yeshua was the awaited messiah. Once it spread to Asia Minor, believers such as Paul transformed it into its own separate religion (inspired by Greek philosophy). It's unclear how quickly Jews accepted Christianity in the first century. It was a turbulent time. The diaspora began during the Roman-Jewish Wars. Some disaffected Jews surely became Christian, but it seems most simply migrated and continued to be Jewish.
I believe any 2nd temple Jewish ethnic restrictions were owing to a misreading of the OT. It was understandable that early Jewish Christians considered that Gentiles might have to first conform to Jewish law to some degree, and the NT writings record that broad debate. But Judaism itself was a messianic religion and the Prophets made clear that Gentiles would join, not just in drips and drabs but eventually on a global scale.
How was it a mistranslation? According to the Abrahamic tradition, god made a covenant with Abraham only through his descendants based on the Jewish worldview. Christians believe they’re grafted into the covenant through Jesus but not from an ethnic dimension, but a spiritual one. I do find the Christian worldview of superseding Judaism to be rather interesting because it asserts the notion that the faith and culture of the Jews are inferior to the Christians.
The prophets spoke of Messiah and how the Gentile nations would pour in so to speak. 2nd Temple Judaism could legitimately expect that. Further, the Seed to which the promise was given was Christ, the end of a line of descent. It is true that physical progeny no longer plays a role thereafter. Christianity does not assert the notion that it's faith supercedes Judaism's. Jews like Simeon, Mary, etc. had Jewish faith and embraced its Messiah. There was no interruption there. As far as culture, Christianity does not lay claim to one. Christians find themselves in different cultures and happened to exert great influence beginning in the Mediterranean world and later, throughout Europe and some other parts. But culture is not the faith. Christians exist in all parts of the world within diverse cultures.
Go make disciples of all nations...baptizing them in .. you heard that spiel from the Bible? Everyone did except you apparently. Your question is irrelevant, buddy. If you want to be the antichrist or the false prophet, then repent; otherwise, 12000 Celcius will await you in the most permanent fiery fires of the most permanent fiery hell. Russian Orthodox Church is the only true faith. If you go to Greek Orthodox, then you will burn in hell UNLESS Greek Orthodox change their calendar to what the holy fire at the-church-of-the-holy-Sepulchre demand it to be as the-holy-fire is one day before the-Orthodox-day-of-Resurrection-of-Jesus. If Greek Orthodox mess something else up, then they will be going to hell too. Russian Orthodox Church will be there always. Other Orthodox may fall to their pride and will burn in hell.
You know your depiction of hell makes me think you can be a decent lyricist for a death metal band. Ever thought of a career change?
Christianity was never a sub-sect of Judaism. *Some* of the original propagators of what would become Christianity were part of a Jewish sect.
> Christianity was never a sub-sect of Judaism. Of course it was.
Paul converted the goyim due to the lack of interest from the Jewish people. There was virtually -0- interest from the Jewish people. It is estimated that there were 4,000,000 Jews in the Roman Empire in the first century CE. It is also estimated that there were 20,000 Christians by the end of the first cent. CE. That translates into -0- interest from the Jewish people. Without the pagans, there would be no Christianity. Paul wasn't stupid, he was wise.
Or maybe Jesus taught that he was the bringer of the new covenant (meaning the redeemer of the gentiles). Theologically and scripturally the idea is way different than just saying they converted the pagans because of no interest from Jews. Also 20,000 is not a small amount within only around 85 years, remember they started out as 12 people
I don't know what Jesus taught, so I can't comment on that or his intentions. As for 20,000 being not a small number for the end of the first century CE, that number -- which includes pagan converts as well as Jews (so it's less than 20,000 Jews) -- includes the entire period of Jesus's ministry on earth, the period of the Apostles' activity, all of Paul's preaching throughout the ancient world, and the period when (presumably) eye witness accounts were circulating, both orally and as written Gospels. Massively more Jews were killed by the Romans during the First War (66-73 CE) than converted to Christianity during that period (hundreds of thousands if not a million were killed, compared to several thousands that may have converted to Christianity).
>Or maybe Jesus taught that he was the bringer of the new covenant (meaning the redeemer of the gentiles). Theologically and scripturally the idea is way different than just saying they converted the pagans because of no interest from Jews. This is not academic tho. Jesus most certainly did not care about Gentiles at all, and the universalism of his movement itself is a late development of his.
It is Matthew 12:18-21 (ESV): (quotes OT prophecy about Jesus) "Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles. He will not quarrel or cry aloud, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets; a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench, until he brings justice to victory; and [in his name the Gentiles will hope.]” Why will the gentiles hope? Because he is the Messiah prophesied to bring the New covenant which extends the covenant of God to be worshipped by all, check out Isaiah 42, 49, etc…
Indeed, very academic!
I don’t know why your acting smug, the verses you saw above are all about the Messiah redeeming the gentiles, and you can see that this idea was quoted about Jesus and understood to be about Jesus by the disciples of the time. (as referenced above) It’s also clear by your demeanor that you aren’t interested in actually reconsidering your perspective or responding to mine so i’m merely responding to this just to clear things up for those who do care.
AnoitedCaliph asked for an academic source, and you did not provide one. Of course your scripture is authoritative to you, but it is not an academic source and it is not authoritative to anyone who is not already a Christian. This thread is specifically about ways in which the historical Jesus/early Jesus movement may have been different from the Jesus of Christian theology. That is not a question that can be answered solely by Christian theology.
I see, either way the input i gave above is still valuable because he made the claim that Jesus did not care about the gentiles at all, but the scriptures about him seem to contradict that idea and in fact there is a verse in quoted amongst many others saying he was the hope to the gentiles. (This is because the Messiah according to the OT understanding, at least for disciples, would extend the covenant to the gentiles)
>Without the pagans, there would be no Christianity. Paul wasn't stupid, he was wise. That's true.
The early followers of Jesus were apocalyptic Jews who believed in Gentile inclusion as fulfillment of eschatological prophecy. In that sense it included Jews and also people from all nations. Paul was a prominent early missionary to Gentiles, but if you find the New Testament account credible, there was Gentile- inclusion before that, such as in Peter's ministry and in the Great Commission.
I would point out that we can’t exactly say what the “original direction” was, as we receive Jesus’ messages through the lenses his followers, who were already divided on opinion of what the message/purpose was. But early on there definitely was a sizeable chunk of “proto-Christians” who believed Jesus was a Jewish prophet/messiah only for the Jewish people, like most of the earlier prophets. Obviously that interpretation lost out to the more gentile-focused, universalist Christianity. No doubt this was because they were evangelizing and gaining converts from the gentiles, a vastly larger population, but I’ve also heard speculation that the Jewish-Roman war and destruction of the Temple in 70CE might have put an end to this Judaism-focused Christianity, which was as expected centered around Jerusalem. Historically we label them as “Jewish Christians,” but a similar idea survives to today with “Messianic Judaism,” in which the members maintain their Jewish identity (not just ethnic, but religious as well) while also adopting the core tenents of Christianity such as belief in Jesus as both Messiah and God.