Question about the history Chirstianity

[GTaudiophile]

BunLengthHotDog: Thanks for the honorable and intelligent response.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

Originally posted by: 3NF
You came to the right place to get this question answered correctly

Agreed.
*Grabs lawn chair and beer*

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: JS80
Not as effectively as you can with Muhammad. The Messiah is prophesized in the Tanakh. Christians believe He is the Messiah. For whatever reasons the Jewish leadership rejected Jesus, partially because it would destroy Jewry and they would be out of a job.

Wow, interesting. You must know alot about Judaism to make such an offhand comment, that the Rabbi's didn't accept him because they would be out of a job. I mean, sure, Jews have believed this for thousands of years, but you know that the real reason is because the Rabbi's would be out of a job. How arrogant of you.

You must first learn the signs of the Messiah, which are brought down in Halacha (the Jewish code of law). Jesus did not fulfill any of them.

It is impossible for a Jew to believe in divinity of man. Any man.
It's against the basics of Jewish belief.

 

[BunLengthHotDog]

Originally posted by: ThePresence
You must first learn the signs of the Messiah, which are brought down in Halacha (the Jewish code of law). Jesus did not fulfill any of them.

It is impossible for a Jew to believe in divinity of man. Any man.
It's against the basics of Jewish belief.

Wasn't the term "messiah" as it was used back then completely devoid of "divinity" , meaning the term messiah didnt mean "God" as it was used back in those times? Another tidbit I picked up in my readings along the way, not sure how true it is though.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: BunLengthHotDog

Originally posted by: ThePresence
You must first learn the signs of the Messiah, which are brought down in Halacha (the Jewish code of law). Jesus did not fulfill any of them.

It is impossible for a Jew to believe in divinity of man. Any man.
It's against the basics of Jewish belief.

Wasn't the term "messiah" as it was used back then completely devoid of "divinity" , meaning the term messiah didnt mean "God" as it was used back in those times? Another tidbit I picked up in my readings along the way, not sure how true it is though.

That's correct, and that's how I understand the term today as well.
The hebrew word for messiah is "Moshiach" which means "annointed" or "the annointed one".
I was making two seperate points.

Although there are places where it says "Mashiach Hashem", which means the annointed one of God, that certainly does not ascribe divinity to man.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Azndude51

Originally posted by: chrisms
The New Testement is the addition Christians made, and the entire thing ended up being called the bible. Christianity did of course come about because of Jesus, Jews believe a Messiah was to come but did not believe it was him. Those Jews that did believe turned into Christians.

Oh, so is the Old Testament like the Jewish bible?

Old Testament = Tanakh = Torah (first five books) + (Old Testament - Torah)

Tanakh = Torah, Navi'im, Ketuvim (Hence the name Tanakh).
However, Jews believe that the Oral Law of the Mishnah (and thereby the Talmud) is part of Torah as well.

Yea, well it's been a while since my Jewish Studies class in college.

Thankfully you have me here to help you.
I studied in a Rabbincal Seminary for quite a few years.

My roommate from college is now in Rabbinical Seminary

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Azndude51

Originally posted by: chrisms
The New Testement is the addition Christians made, and the entire thing ended up being called the bible. Christianity did of course come about because of Jesus, Jews believe a Messiah was to come but did not believe it was him. Those Jews that did believe turned into Christians.

Oh, so is the Old Testament like the Jewish bible?

Old Testament = Tanakh = Torah (first five books) + (Old Testament - Torah)

Tanakh = Torah, Navi'im, Ketuvim (Hence the name Tanakh).
However, Jews believe that the Oral Law of the Mishnah (and thereby the Talmud) is part of Torah as well.

Yea, well it's been a while since my Jewish Studies class in college.

Thankfully you have me here to help you.
I studied in a Rabbincal Seminary for quite a few years.

My roommate from college is now in Rabbinical Seminary

Do you know which one?
Just curious.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: JS80
Not as effectively as you can with Muhammad. The Messiah is prophesized in the Tanakh. Christians believe He is the Messiah. For whatever reasons the Jewish leadership rejected Jesus, partially because it would destroy Jewry and they would be out of a job.

Wow, interesting. You must know alot about Judaism to make such an offhand comment, that the Rabbi's didn't accept him because they would be out of a job. I mean, sure, Jews have believed this for thousands of years, but you know that the real reason is because the Rabbi's would be out of a job. How arrogant of you.

You must first learn the signs of the Messiah, which are brought down in Halacha (the Jewish code of law). Jesus did not fulfill any of them.

It is impossible for a Jew to believe in divinity of man. Any man.
It's against the basics of Jewish belief.

I said partially. And yes that last part too (interpretation). But they technically would be out of a job.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: JS80
Not as effectively as you can with Muhammad. The Messiah is prophesized in the Tanakh. Christians believe He is the Messiah. For whatever reasons the Jewish leadership rejected Jesus, partially because it would destroy Jewry and they would be out of a job.

Wow, interesting. You must know alot about Judaism to make such an offhand comment, that the Rabbi's didn't accept him because they would be out of a job. I mean, sure, Jews have believed this for thousands of years, but you know that the real reason is because the Rabbi's would be out of a job. How arrogant of you.

You must first learn the signs of the Messiah, which are brought down in Halacha (the Jewish code of law). Jesus did not fulfill any of them.

It is impossible for a Jew to believe in divinity of man. Any man.
It's against the basics of Jewish belief.

I said partially. And yes that last part too. But they technically would be out of a job.

Yeah, technically they would, but that is not any part of the reason why they didn't accept Jesus at the time.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Azndude51

Originally posted by: chrisms
The New Testement is the addition Christians made, and the entire thing ended up being called the bible. Christianity did of course come about because of Jesus, Jews believe a Messiah was to come but did not believe it was him. Those Jews that did believe turned into Christians.

Oh, so is the Old Testament like the Jewish bible?

Old Testament = Tanakh = Torah (first five books) + (Old Testament - Torah)

Tanakh = Torah, Navi'im, Ketuvim (Hence the name Tanakh).
However, Jews believe that the Oral Law of the Mishnah (and thereby the Talmud) is part of Torah as well.

Yea, well it's been a while since my Jewish Studies class in college.

Thankfully you have me here to help you.
I studied in a Rabbincal Seminary for quite a few years.

My roommate from college is now in Rabbinical Seminary

Do you know which one?
Just curious.

UJ in LA

 

[evident]

Originally posted by: BunLengthHotDog

Originally posted by: 0
Christianity started in Genesis. The Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) were united as one God from the beginning. Jesus was God made man to show us how to live our lives, and how to serve others, and how to take death. The new testament is about Jesus' life, teachings and much more (revelation etc). If you are a Christian, you believe that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was payment for all the sins of mankind, for all time (future and past).

Not sure which version of the Bible you are reading, but please point me to the section of Genesis, or the entire Old Testament for that matter, which refers to the Holy Trinity...from what I understand, its simply never mentioned. Interpreting its presence is the source of many an argument, but at least regarding ink (or other medium) to paper (scroll whatever)...it's never mentioned. IN FACT, I will take this one step further...can you point me to any section of the New Testament which mentions the "Holy Trinity"?? I don't think it exists there either.

In my readings on the subject, it was man who came up with the concept to accomodate the fact that certain sects of Christianity (Arianism perhaps) were worshipping Jesus (man/prophet) and God as seperates (oops idolatry). In fact, the Council of Nicea (Emperor Constantine says to the parties involved "you guys are ruining my empire with all this in-fighting...FIGURE IT OUT NOW") was convened to hash out these differences (among others). The dogma of Jesus being "begotten" (not made....Nicene creed) from the father was officially committed as canonical in 325.

Regarding the OP :

Christians central belief is that of Jesus Christ being the son of God, part of the Holy Trinity (essentially son of god, and god...one in the same). Those that want to be attain salvation through the lord must accept Jesus Christ as their savior and recognize he is one in the lord. The different iterations of Christianity stick to this concept with varying amounts of fervor (Baptists are much more about being "saved" than Catholics etc.) so to speak, but the central message is pretty much the same. The differences lie in the hierarchy of the human church, who is in control etc (Pope vs Ministers vs Congregation etc). Also keep in mind that those who believe in Christianity (at its core) believe that those who do not accept Jesus as their savior are destined to spend an eternity in Gods absence (hell so to speak).

This history of the bible is quite a complicated one, so the question you pose is prone to open the proverbial "can-o-worms"...you will get differing versions from pretty much every post. From what I have read, the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) is the basis of the old testament, and consists of 3 parts

Torah (Teachings)
Nevi'im (Prophets)
Ketuvim (Writings)

However, the Christian Old Testament differs slightly from the Hebrew Bible in that the books are in a slightly different order. The interpretations therein are obviously different as well. The fundemental difference with Christianity is that it added the New Testament to the Hebrew Scriptures, which centered around the life, and death, of Jesus...his teachings, and the writings of his apostles. It contains 27 books, originally written in some form of Greek, with Jesus as its central character.

The Catholic Encyclopedia itself challenges the notion that the New Testament existed during apostolic times...admitting it has no foundation in history. The canon therein was developed over time (Ecumenical Councils) until it was made into how it stands today. However you feel about how these teachings came about will ultimately shape your belief system, whatever that ends up becoming.

My suggestion..READ READ READ READ READ READ...

It blows my mind that some (most?) people who follow these teachings have no real grasp of where they came from (or "who" made them)...which to me is absolutely mind boggling. If you chose to follow the teachings after you have knowledge of how they came about, thats much more admirable than doing so because you were told to do so...but thats a topic in and of itself. I have zero problem with those who are religious (you will likely find the exact opposite oddly enough of them to me) as its inherently a peaceful set of guidelines to follow. The attrocities of the past carried out in the name of religion are not religion itself, but people abusing it for their own personal gain. My daughter and son go to church with their grandparents all the time, I have zero problems with this. They will, however, be able to make up their own minds when they are of sound mind to do so (they are 3 and 1 respectively).

For reference, I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic grade school and high school...and consider myself an atheist

EDIT: Spelling and edited a bit.

very well said :thumbsup:

 

[BunLengthHotDog]

Suggested reading for the OP and whomever wishes to educate themselves on the matter

Ecumenical Councils

Council of Nicea

Council of Trent

Arianism (Christian belief of Jesus as Man, NOT God...pre-Nicean council)

Biblical Canon

Catholic Encyclopedia (Very good reference)

It's astounding to see how many people think the various sects of Christianity (Catholic / Orthodox / Protestant) are based ardently on the bible as their sole source of guidance.

Enjoy

 

[Crono]

Yes, in essence Christianity did start as a result of the death and resurrection of Christ. Christians are are disciples of Christ, those who follow His Word and believe in Him and believe Him to be the Son of God and God incarnate.

The difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament is that the OT looks forward to the future coming of the messiah, who would save us from sin and establish His everlasting kingdom, while the NT sees the messiah, Jesus, as having arrived. The OT deals with "types and shadows" that portray Christ and His sacrifice before they happened, and in the NT those things are actualized. The OT deals primarily with the covering of sin by the law, but the NT deals with the absolution of sin by grace (both OT and NT saints were saved by grace from and faith in God, however). The OT serves as historical backdrop for the NT and provides Christians examples to follow or to learn from. The OT primarily is about the nation of Israel, who were the "first-born" of God's salvation, while the NT is about the extending of salvation to the entire world.

There are some more differences, but more important is the unity of these two books as the Word of God. They complement each other and are fluidly and inseparably linked. To deny the Truth or infallibility of either is to deny God.

 

[ctark]

Originally posted by: chrisms

Originally posted by: Azndude51

Originally posted by: chrisms
The New Testement is the addition Christians made, and the entire thing ended up being called the bible. Christianity did of course come about because of Jesus, Jews believe a Messiah was to come but did not believe it was him. Those Jews that did believe turned into Christians.

Oh, so is the Old Testament like the Jewish bible?

The Torah is the "Jewish Bible," it is the first 5 books of the Old Testament.

The Torah is the first five books in the bible, not called the Jewish Bible.

 

[Codewiz]

They complement each other and are fluidly and inseparably linked.

Yeah because putting together a book 300 years after Christ lived and making it fit the OT makes all the sense in the world. Not to mention none of the books saw the light of day until 70AD. 40 years after Christ lived. I am sure that spoken word history didn't get distorted in the least.......

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Azndude51
So did Christianity pretty much start with the life/death/resurrection of Jesus? As I understand it before Jesus, there was mainly Judaism as Jesus was a Jew. Then Jesus came along with his teachings and stuff and after his death and resurrection, Christianity formed because of him. Is that pretty much correct?

Also, can someone give me a quick summary of the differences between the Old and New Testaments?

BTW, in case you're wondering, I consider myself agnostic.

Wow, some great content in this thread. Since we've got several in depth posts, I'm just going to give a cliff notes version of an answer.

OP:
1. Yes, that's pretty much correct.
2. My summary is that the Old Testament are a collection of history and books of law and prophecy all relating to the Jews. The New Testament is a set of individual accounts of the life of Jesus and the apostles, letters to individuals and the early churches, and prophecy, wherein various churches derive their doctrine.

 

[animalia]

"Peter, on this Rock I build my Church." Spoken by Jesus before his death. Paul did much to spread the Church to the Gentiles, or non-Jews. The people of Jerusalem either converted or stayed Jews, rejecting that Jesus was the Messiah. Basically, the OT prophesizes of the Messiah and the NT fulfills that prophecy. Yes, without Jesus Christ there would be no Christians, or followers of Christ.

 

[animalia]

Originally posted by: Hyperblaze
Christianity as we know it I believe started with St. Paul (who saw Jesus and made a 180 in his life because of it)

main difference between the old and new testaments.

Old : Before Jesus was born. Starts with the book of Genises. Moves on to Adam and Eve and then discusses their decendants and so forth. I kinda lost interest in reading somewhere down the line there.
New: Jesus is born. Four gospels. Each talking about the Life of Jesus from different ways. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. John was the first gospel written I think. For all we know, it's stories past down from father to son, etc and then written to not be forgotten.

One thing for sure, you cannot take the bible literally.

John was the last written.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: Hyperblaze

Originally posted by: KLin

Originally posted by: Hyperblaze
Christianity as we know it I believe started with St. Paul (who saw Jesus and made a 180 in his life because of it)

main difference between the old and new testaments.

Old : Before Jesus was born. Starts with the book of Genises. Moves on to Adam and Eve and then discusses their decendants and so forth. I kinda lost interest in reading somewhere down the line there.
New: Jesus is born. Four gospels. Each talking about the Life of Jesus from different ways. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. John was the first gospel written I think. For all we know, it's stories past down from father to son, etc and then written to not be forgotten.

One thing for sure, you cannot take the bible literally.

It actually started with the Apostles spreading the gospel. You can read about it in Acts chapter 2. Paul's story is the background of how he came to believe in Jesus Christ.

woops...forgot about the Acts.

Yeah...the apostle did their fair share of preaching too.

As big a part as Paul played, I don't think you can fairly say that Christianity started because of him. A huge part traces back to Peter and his time in Rome, not to mention the other travelers that were not necessarily apostles (Timothy comes to mind) but who did a share in taking the news from a provincial to international level.

 

[Codewiz]

s big a part as Paul played, I don't think you can fairly say that Christianity started because of him. A huge part traces back to Peter and his time in Rome, not to mention the other travelers that were not necessarily apostles (Timothy comes to mind) but who did a share in taking the news from a provincial to international level.

Actually without Paul or Peter, Christianity would have died. Paul was VERY big for early Christianity, without him there would be no religion. Without Peter, the same thing.

My issue with the whole thing is that nothing was written and published until well after Christ died. Now why is that. There were no history books about Christ except by a select few who were followers of Christ. One of the two most important people in getting Christianity started didn't even witness any of the miracles attributed to Christ.

 

[BunLengthHotDog]

Originally posted by: Crono
They complement each other and are fluidly and inseparably linked. To deny the Truth or infallibility of either is to deny God.

Care to address how the first iterations of the NT (say around 140AD when the first "official" canonical list was released containing Luke and 10 letters of Paul) were written in Greek, yet Jesus spoke Aramaic, and was believed to have never known Greek to begin with? The oldest recovered fragments of the NT date back to 2nd century AD (albeit very early 2nd century), and are also in greek...does this not present a big problem? If you are to take the apostolic parts of the bible somewhat literally, the apostles were poor, uneducated fisherman...how suddenly has the "infallible word of God" been translated to an entirely new language?

The fact is that the actual words of Jesus have never been found (and likely will never be found)... they have been interpreted, subjectively mind you, from an ancient archaic language. Nevermind the fact that the first compositions of the text and the surviving, actual "copies" of some of the works said compositions are based on are seperated by a period of almost 300 years.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: JS80
Not as effectively as you can with Muhammad. The Messiah is prophesized in the Tanakh. Christians believe He is the Messiah. For whatever reasons the Jewish leadership rejected Jesus, partially because it would destroy Jewry and they would be out of a job.

Wow, interesting. You must know alot about Judaism to make such an offhand comment, that the Rabbi's didn't accept him because they would be out of a job. I mean, sure, Jews have believed this for thousands of years, but you know that the real reason is because the Rabbi's would be out of a job. How arrogant of you.

You must first learn the signs of the Messiah, which are brought down in Halacha (the Jewish code of law). Jesus did not fulfill any of them.

It is impossible for a Jew to believe in divinity of man. Any man.
It's against the basics of Jewish belief.

I said partially. And yes that last part too (interpretation). But they technically would be out of a job.

Because clearly it would beyond them to become the religious leaders of a new faith.... :roll:

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: JS80
Not as effectively as you can with Muhammad. The Messiah is prophesized in the Tanakh. Christians believe He is the Messiah. For whatever reasons the Jewish leadership rejected Jesus, partially because it would destroy Jewry and they would be out of a job.

Wow, interesting. You must know alot about Judaism to make such an offhand comment, that the Rabbi's didn't accept him because they would be out of a job. I mean, sure, Jews have believed this for thousands of years, but you know that the real reason is because the Rabbi's would be out of a job. How arrogant of you.

You must first learn the signs of the Messiah, which are brought down in Halacha (the Jewish code of law). Jesus did not fulfill any of them.

It is impossible for a Jew to believe in divinity of man. Any man.
It's against the basics of Jewish belief.

I said partially. And yes that last part too (interpretation). But they technically would be out of a job.

Because clearly it would beyond them to become the religious leaders of a new faith.... :roll:

not exactly. Jesus allows humans to reconcile directly with God (making priests short of useless). Before Jesus you HAD to go through the Temple and it's Priests. This is the main reason why Protestants disagree with the Catholic church.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: JS80
Not as effectively as you can with Muhammad. The Messiah is prophesized in the Tanakh. Christians believe He is the Messiah. For whatever reasons the Jewish leadership rejected Jesus, partially because it would destroy Jewry and they would be out of a job.

Wow, interesting. You must know alot about Judaism to make such an offhand comment, that the Rabbi's didn't accept him because they would be out of a job. I mean, sure, Jews have believed this for thousands of years, but you know that the real reason is because the Rabbi's would be out of a job. How arrogant of you.

You must first learn the signs of the Messiah, which are brought down in Halacha (the Jewish code of law). Jesus did not fulfill any of them.

It is impossible for a Jew to believe in divinity of man. Any man.
It's against the basics of Jewish belief.

I said partially. And yes that last part too (interpretation). But they technically would be out of a job.

Because clearly it would beyond them to become the religious leaders of a new faith.... :roll:

If the Jews all accepted a Messiah, that would not create a new faith, it would remain Judaism. There is a messiah in Judaism, he just hasn't arrived yet. The breakoff religion of Christianity is BECAUSE the Jews do not accept him as the messiah.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: JS80
Not as effectively as you can with Muhammad. The Messiah is prophesized in the Tanakh. Christians believe He is the Messiah. For whatever reasons the Jewish leadership rejected Jesus, partially because it would destroy Jewry and they would be out of a job.

Wow, interesting. You must know alot about Judaism to make such an offhand comment, that the Rabbi's didn't accept him because they would be out of a job. I mean, sure, Jews have believed this for thousands of years, but you know that the real reason is because the Rabbi's would be out of a job. How arrogant of you.

You must first learn the signs of the Messiah, which are brought down in Halacha (the Jewish code of law). Jesus did not fulfill any of them.

It is impossible for a Jew to believe in divinity of man. Any man.
It's against the basics of Jewish belief.

I said partially. And yes that last part too (interpretation). But they technically would be out of a job.

Because clearly it would beyond them to become the religious leaders of a new faith.... :roll:

If the Jews all accepted a Messiah, that would not create a new faith, it would remain Judaism. There is a messiah in Judaism, he just hasn't arrived yet. The breakoff religion of Christianity is BECAUSE the Jews do not accept him as the messiah.

That's all just semantics