Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms

JESUS' RELIGIOUS BELIEF SYSTEM...DID YOU KNOW IT CHANGED...WHO DID IT...AND WHEN?

Theological diverseness was an important aspect of the history of Judaism as well as the many sects within Biblical Judaism of the first century. If one consults a multitude of books on early church history one comes away from such an experience seeing that traditional Christian understanding of its own history - and the implicit understanding of most scholars - is that Christianity was a gradual or incremental evolution away from Biblical Judaism and a gravitation backward to pagan mystery religious doctrines that have more in common with astral and solar worship than with Moses and the Torah. If you think that statement is not true then I challenge you to do your own personal study in an unbiased way to refute it. You won't be able to because facts don't change; fables do. It can be proven by the testimony of many scholars today as well as the overwhelming evidence from archeology along with comparison of manuscripts that the later Gentile church modified or added to the tradition once handed them and taught them about the historical Jesus (Bart Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture). What started with the teachings of Jesus as the basic structure and true "gospel" which brought Biblical Judaism to it's zenith, ended up as a rejection of almost all of what he believed and stood far as Gentile neo-paganism successfully mutated Biblical Judaism and almost successfully destroyed all traces of it doing it. Rome had to to this since Jesus was a Jew and anyone familiar with that fact and what it entails would have a hard time swallowing Roman replacement religion. Keith Akers, in his The Lost Religion of Jesus, makes an astute comment: "Most modern 'historical Jesus' researchers, whether liberal or conservative, begin with this (unstated) view of history and the assumption that, if we can just identify what was added later and strip it away, we will see the 'historical Jesus.'" There is debate as to if this works. Although some scholars challenge this idea it seems flawless to me and a multitude of others who have sought and are seeking the truth concerning the historical Jesus. I can personally testify for myself that having adopted such a methodology for study over the last 18 years or so I can attest to its success in recovering as best as possible an accurate picture of Jesus within the religious pluralism of both Judaism of the first century as well as the Romanized version of him.

The history of Christianity that Keith Akers, B. Ehrman, and a host of other scholars propose, by contrast, is not one of smooth and natural development. It is rather a bumpy ride with a succession of crossroads and turning points that confronted Jesus' followers, both Jewish and Gentile. Events will occur that will cause fundamental alterations in the then current "orthodox" beliefs of Judaism and Jesus which later will come to be known as Gentile Christian doctrine and perspective. Coming to grips with these changes in the faith of Jesus is essential to understanding the teachings of Jesus, because it is through these changes that the Gentile church not only altered, but destroyed the historical Jesus and replaced him with a Christ of faith of their own making who was patterned after the Gentile godmen of the ages. Early Christian history seems so contradictory because it was "contradictory" - so many people were saying so many different things at such an early stage of Christian history. Religious pluralism thrived in this age of apocalyticism. This is the fruit of the apocalyptic enthusiasm that had gripped the nation prior to and after Jesus' birth when the Jews' were desperate for deliverance and the hope of the prophets drew near.

The evidence for diversity in early Christianity is widespread and comes from the writings of early church leaders, from historical accounts, and the New Testament itself. The literature of early Christianity is often strongly controversial, and the bitterness of the attacks on other followers of Jesus who are "misrepresenting" Christianity is quickly apparent. If you read the above articles on the contrasting and conflicting salvation message of Jesus and the salvation message of Paul you saw such an example of conflicting teachings as both "paths" to salvation are diametrically opposed.

• Paul describes an angry confrontation he had with Peter in Galatians as with the host of Jews that continually followed him to undue his teachings let alone often beat him for the doctrines he was teaching that contradicted Moses and the Prophets
• Ignatius' letters to the churches on his way to martyrdom in Rome, around 100 A.D., literally castigate severely Judaism and Jewish Christianity. The Writings of Ignatius: Bishop of Antioch in Syria [ca 1-2 century] martyred in Rome by beasts (ca 105-116). On his way to Rome, he visits and then writes to various churches, warning and exhorting them to reject the Jews and anything Jewish (at that time the present faith of Jesus). He also writes ahead to Rome, and writes to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna. Warned the church against heresies that threatened peace and unity, opposed Gnosticism and Docetism. In the Epistle to Smyrna, insisted Christ came in the flesh not just in spirit.
• Ireneaus, around 180 A.D., writes his Against Heresies where he attacks all beliefs others than his and labels all other "interpretations" as heresy.
• The Epistle of Barnabas [ca 130]: This letter, probably not authored by the NT Barnabas, repudiates the claims of Jewish Christians at the time who advocated adhering to observance of the Mosiac Law. Argued that Christ provided salvation and man is no longer bound by the Law. Compares holy life to unrighteousness.
• The Epistle of Mathetes (Believer/Disciple) to Diognetus: This Apologetic treatise? written perhaps ca 200, presents a rational defense of the Gentile's interpretation of Christianity
• Justin Martyr, around 150 A.D., writes his Dialogue With Trypho the Jew where we find replacement religion at its best as he builds his case that his brand of "Christianity" has replaced the Jewish faith and they the Gentiles are the new Israel of God and have again replaced the Jews in this distinction.
• Justin also wrote Apology and Second Apology where he attacked docetism. Justin admitted that traces of truth were found in the writings of pagan authors since all people shared in the generative or germinative Word (logos spermatikos), but he insisted that only Christian had a truly rational faith.
• Quadratus (second century) introduced himself as a Christian philosopher. Thus he began the dialogue which has extended to our own times between philosophy and theology. We knew of him only through Eusebius until a portion of his Apology was discovered written in Armenian. It was published at Venice in 1878. A complete version was found in a Syrica version on Mt. Sinai in 1889. According to Eusebius this apologia was delivered to Emperor Hadrian along with one by Quadratus; however some scholars believe that it was really delivered to Antonines Pius (D. 161). Whatever the occasion, Aristides defended the proposition that Christians had a more complete understanding of the eternal God than Jews or barbarians. He justified this by arguing that Christianity had a higher notion of God and more perfect rules for human conduct.
• Hippolytus, (170-236), in the third century wrote his The Refutation of All Heresies. According to his refutation, the Ebionites (the earliest Jewish followers of Jesus) followed the heresy of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. Cerinthus held that Jesus was born of Mary in the same way as all men and that Mary was not a virgin. He claimed that Jesus was more just and more wise than all the human race. And then Hippolytus adds: They live conformably to the customs of the Jews, alleging that they are justified according to the law, and saying that Jesus was justified according to the law. And therefore it was (according to the Ebionaeans,) that (the Savior) was named (the) Christ of God and Jesus, since not one of the rest (of mankind) had observed completely the law. For if even any other had fulfilled the commandments (contained) in the law, he would have been that Christ. And the Ebionaeans allege) that they themselves also, when in like manner they fulfill (the law), are able to become Christs; for they assert that our Lord Himself was a man in a like sense with all (the rest of the human family). But Ebionism was not only addressed as he ran the gamut of religious sects of his day; especially gnosticism.
• Origen (third century) comments that "many" Christians had differences of opinion with each other on "subjects of the highest importance" (De Principiis, Preface, section 2).
• Tertullian is our earliest extensively preserved Latin Christian author [140-230], who aligned himself around 207 with the "Montanist" Christian movement that was considered "heretical" by the representatives of emerging mainstream Christianity. He is credited with writing five books Against Marcion, in addition to less lengthy polemical works such as Prescription Against Heretics, Against Hermogenes, Against the Valentinians, and Against Praxeus. Tertullian details for us his ideas on heresy in his Prescription Against Heretics, but like I said he himself joined the Montanists, who were themselves declared heretics at a later date by the official church.
• Epiphanius was a bishop who is noted in the history of the early Christian church for his struggle against beliefs he considered heretical. His chief target was the teachings of Origen, a major theologian in the Eastern church whom he considered more a Greek philosopher than a Christian. Epiphanius' own principles were later discredited by the harsh nature of his attacks. He is credited with writing the Panarion which is a rather lengthy work directed against heresy in which he details and delineates the views of eighty various religious groups and of course denounces each one.
• Theodoret was the bishop of Cyrus and a theologian, born at Antioch in Syria about 393; died about 457. His major works are the Compendium of Heretical Fables in which he describes and attacks sixty heretical groups.

From this short summary list above anyone can see for themselves that early Christianity was not at all stable and had not one set of adopted and supported consensus of religious opinion. That would come but not after centuries of councils where these ideas would be debated and even submitted to murder and violence before a consensus would be achieved in order to stabilize Gentile Christianity. "Stability" is a characteristic of later Christianity, beginning about the time of Constantine and the council of Nicaea (in the year 325). It will take the power of Rome to bring religious ideas together and that itself will take centuries. After Constantine and the controversies raised at the council of Nicaea, there were still serious disputes, but they had a much narrower focus and did not occur nearly as frequently. Nicea was the theological watershed and the death knoll for Jewish Christianity. In fact, there were only three truly great heresies after this point.

The first was the monophysite controversy, which concerned whether or not Christ had one or two natures; later there was the split between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox over the authority of the pope; finally, there was the greatest heresy of all, that of Martin Luther and others, which launched the Protestant reformation (Akers, The Lost Religion of Jesus, p. 10).

For over 1600 years following Constantine, controversy over doctrinal matters - while it did occur - was the exception rather than the rule. But during the first four centuries after Jesus, Christianity was even more doctrinally divided than it is today. Moreover, these disputes did not involve political questions of church authority, nor obscure theological points that most ordinary Christians had difficulty understanding; they involved the very nature of God, Jesus, and salvation.

In Christian history, these early theological disagreements are both admitted and denied. Eusebius' fourth-century Ecclesiastical History details for us these various theological disagreements which threatened the church but they are not presented as serious but just as bumps on the road of church history, due to the sorts of misunderstandings that were bound to arise as any message was carried forward. Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, distorts the truth of the events he reports. He presents a story of the followers of Jesus as having established a church and who wrote down the teachings of the Christ. They, according to Eusebius, faced opposition, persecution, and even setbacks along the way, but in general the gospel gained increasing numbers of adherents as time progressed. What the casual reader of Eusebius fails to note is that all along this route of theological diversity the religious and religious belief system of Jesus and his first followers is continually being altered and changed by the Gentile juggernaut called Rome. Three hundred years after the death of Jesus the Roman Empire is made to look as if only "embraced" and "sanctioned" an exiting faith instead of altering it almost beyond recognition as it conformed it to their already existing pagan ideas surrounding their sungods. Eusebius portrays Christian history as the record of revelation gaining increasing acceptance over time. That it did, but at the expense of the truth about a Jewish Jesus and his faith. Today we have the task of recovering the faith of Jesus, the faith once given to the saints.

From the above chart alone you should have seen that Christianity did not emerge as a gradual and natural evolution or development from the teachings of Jesus, Moses, or the Prophets. Rather, you should have seen that Christianity, as it has become today, is a rejection and continual modification of Biblical Judaism whereby the non-Jew, instead of finding his place within the Israel of God, has totally replaced it and its religious teachings by substitution and modifying their own. Due to these theological diversities or, as some have called it, theological crises that shaped the direction of the Gentile church, we have almost totally lost today the truths once held dear and sacred by Jesus, Moses, and the Prophets. If you see and understand what has been said then the reality of the situation should hit home hard; namely, that the historical Jesus has little if anything in common with the religious doctrines that exist and are cherished by those who believe to be his followers. I guess you might have to ask if you really are a true follower of Jesus at all if you are a Christian and adhere to their religious belief system as practiced in the Western Hemisphere today.