The Earliest Christians were Muslims, according to scholars
James D Tabor:
Muslims do not worship Jesus, who is known as Isa in Arabic, nor do they consider him divine, but they do believe that he was a prophet or messenger of God and he is called the Messiah in the Quran. However, by affirming Jesus as Messiah they are attesting to his messianic message, not his mission as a heavenly Christ. There are some rather striking connections between the research I have presented in The Jesus Dynasty and the traditional beliefs of Islam. The Muslim emphasis on Jesus as messianic prophet and teacher is quite parallel to what we find in the Q source, in the book of James, and in the Didache. To be the Messiah is to proclaim a message, but it is the same message as that proclaimed by Abraham, Moses, and all the Prophets. Islam insists that neither Jesus nor Mohammed brought a new religion. Both sought to call people back to what might be called 'Abrahamic faith.’ This is precisely what we find emphasized in the book of James. Like Islam, the book of James, and the teaching of Jesus in Q, emphasize doing the will of God as a demonstration of one’s faith. Also, the dietary laws of Islam, as quoted in the Qu'ran, echo the teachings of James in Acts 15 almost word for word: “Abstain from swine flesh, blood, things offered to idols, and carrion” (Quran 2:172).
Since Muslims reject all of the Pauline affirmations about Jesus, and thus the central claims of orthodox Christianity, the gulf between Islam and Christianity on Jesus is a wide one. However, there is little about the view of Jesus presented in this book that conflicts with Islam's basic perception.
Muslims do not worship Jesus, who is known as Isa in Arabic, nor do they consider him divine, but they do believe that he was a prophet or messenger of God and he is called the Messiah in the Quran. However, by affirming Jesus as Messiah they are attesting to his messianic message, not his mission as a heavenly Christ. There are some rather striking connections between the research I have presented in The Jesus Dynasty and the traditional beliefs of Islam. The Muslim emphasis on Jesus as messianic prophet and teacher is quite parallel to what we find in the Q source, in the book of James, and in the Didache. To be the Messiah is to proclaim a message, but it is the same message as that proclaimed by Abraham, Moses, and all the Prophets. Islam insists that neither Jesus nor Mohammed brought a new religion. Both sought to call people back to what might be called 'Abrahamic faith.’ This is precisely what we find emphasized in the book of James. Like Islam, the book of James, and the teaching of Jesus in Q, emphasize doing the will of God as a demonstration of one’s faith. Also, the dietary laws of Islam, as quoted in the Qu'ran, echo the teachings of James in Acts 15 almost word for word: “Abstain from swine flesh, blood, things offered to idols, and carrion” (Quran 2:172).
Since Muslims reject all of the Pauline affirmations about Jesus, and thus the central claims of orthodox Christianity, the gulf between Islam and Christianity on Jesus is a wide one. However, there is little about the view of Jesus presented in this book that conflicts with Islam's basic perception.
- Jesus Dynasty, Page 315
Not only do I believe Paul should be seen as the “founder” of the Christianity that we know today, rather than Jesus and his original apostles, but I argue he made a decisive bitter break with those first apostles, promoting and preaching views they found to be utterly reprehensible. And conversely, I think the evidence shows that James, the brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church, as well as Peter and the other apostles, held to a Jewish version of the Christian faith that faded away and was forgotten due to the total triumph of Paul’s version of Christianity. Paul’s own letters contain bitterly sarcastic language directed even against the Jerusalem apostles. He puts forth a starkly different understanding of the message of Jesus—including a complete break from Judaism. This viewpoint changes our understanding of early Christianity.
- Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity, Page 6
Bart Ehrman:
Historians of the Gospels have long concluded that the idea that Jesus called himself God is not historical. If it were, it would be in the earliest Gospels; this is a view that is distinctive to John, the last of the Gospels to be written.
- How Jesus Became God, Page 37
"Jesus is not God in Islam. Certainly, more realistic, Jesus was a man. And I think, the early Christians would agree that Jesus was a man and this would be a point of... and Christians would agree that Jesus was a Prophet, which is what the Quran says. And so I think there are places of agreement."
- MythVision Podcast, 4:24
Robert Eisenman:
Because of its palpably more accommodating attitude towards foreign rule and, at least while the Temple was still standing, to High Priests appointed by foreigners or foreign-controlled rulers, it was really the only form of Jewish religious expression the Romans were willing to live with. The same was to hold true for the form of Christianity we can refer to as 'Pauline', which was equally accommodating to Roman power. For his part, Paul proudly proclaimed his Pharisaic roots (Phil. 3:5).
This form of Judaism must be distinguished from the more variegated tapestry that characterized Jewish religious expression in Jesus' and James' lifetimes. This consisted of quite a number of groups before the fall of the Temple, some of which were quite militant and aggressive, even apocalyptic, that is, having a concern for a highly emotive style of expression regarding 'the End Time'. Most of these apocalyptic groups focused in one way or another on the Temple. They were written out of Judaism in the same manner that James and Jesus' other brothers were written out of Christianity.
'Christianity', as we know it, developed in the West in contradistinction to the more variegated landscape that continued to characterize the East. It would be more proper to refer to Western Christianity at this point as 'Pauline' or 'Gentile Christian'. It came to be seen as orthodox largely as a result of the efforts of Eusebius and like-minded persons, who put the reorganization programme ascribed to Constantine into effect. It can also be usefully referred to as 'Overseas' or 'Hellenistic Christianity' as opposed to 'Palestinian Christianity'.
- James The Brother Of Jesus And The Dead Sea Scrolls I
Not only do I believe Paul should be seen as the “founder” of the Christianity that we know today, rather than Jesus and his original apostles, but I argue he made a decisive bitter break with those first apostles, promoting and preaching views they found to be utterly reprehensible. And conversely, I think the evidence shows that James, the brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church, as well as Peter and the other apostles, held to a Jewish version of the Christian faith that faded away and was forgotten due to the total triumph of Paul’s version of Christianity. Paul’s own letters contain bitterly sarcastic language directed even against the Jerusalem apostles. He puts forth a starkly different understanding of the message of Jesus—including a complete break from Judaism. This viewpoint changes our understanding of early Christianity.
- Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity, Page 6
Bart Ehrman:
Historians of the Gospels have long concluded that the idea that Jesus called himself God is not historical. If it were, it would be in the earliest Gospels; this is a view that is distinctive to John, the last of the Gospels to be written.
- How Jesus Became God, Page 37
"Jesus is not God in Islam. Certainly, more realistic, Jesus was a man. And I think, the early Christians would agree that Jesus was a man and this would be a point of... and Christians would agree that Jesus was a Prophet, which is what the Quran says. And so I think there are places of agreement."
- MythVision Podcast, 4:24
Robert Eisenman:
Because of its palpably more accommodating attitude towards foreign rule and, at least while the Temple was still standing, to High Priests appointed by foreigners or foreign-controlled rulers, it was really the only form of Jewish religious expression the Romans were willing to live with. The same was to hold true for the form of Christianity we can refer to as 'Pauline', which was equally accommodating to Roman power. For his part, Paul proudly proclaimed his Pharisaic roots (Phil. 3:5).
This form of Judaism must be distinguished from the more variegated tapestry that characterized Jewish religious expression in Jesus' and James' lifetimes. This consisted of quite a number of groups before the fall of the Temple, some of which were quite militant and aggressive, even apocalyptic, that is, having a concern for a highly emotive style of expression regarding 'the End Time'. Most of these apocalyptic groups focused in one way or another on the Temple. They were written out of Judaism in the same manner that James and Jesus' other brothers were written out of Christianity.
'Christianity', as we know it, developed in the West in contradistinction to the more variegated landscape that continued to characterize the East. It would be more proper to refer to Western Christianity at this point as 'Pauline' or 'Gentile Christian'. It came to be seen as orthodox largely as a result of the efforts of Eusebius and like-minded persons, who put the reorganization programme ascribed to Constantine into effect. It can also be usefully referred to as 'Overseas' or 'Hellenistic Christianity' as opposed to 'Palestinian Christianity'.
- James The Brother Of Jesus And The Dead Sea Scrolls I
Hans-Joachim Schoeps:
For in the understanding of Jewish Christianity, the new law is in fact identical with the oldest law of all. Like the Ebionites, Mohammed wanted to correct the false hoods which had crept into the law and to effect a reformation which would restore the original. To be sure, a full demonstration of the relationship between Mohammed and the Ebionites is not possible, but the line of tradition has been established. And thus we have a paradox of world historical proportions, viz., the fact that Jewish Christianity indeed disappeared within the Christian church, but was preserved in Islam and thereby extended some of its basic ideas even to our own day. According to Islamic doctrine, the Ebionite combination of Moses and Jesus found its fulfillment in Mohammed; the two elements, through the agency of Jewish Christianity, were, in Hegelian terms, "taken up" in Islam.
- Jewish Christianity, Page 140
Jeffrey Bütz:
That the earliest Christian doctrine was in no way incompatible with Jewish doctrine is evidenced above all by the fact that the Jews in Jerusalem continued to accept Jesus’ followers as fellow Jews; in fact, they saw them as being particularly rigorous and pious Jews. It is more than intriguing that the Muslim understanding of Jesus is very much in conformity with the first Christian orthodoxy—the original Jewish Christian understanding of Jesus. As already noted, this is no coincidence, for in his extensive travels prior to receiving his first revelation from Allah, Muhammad had numerous contacts with various seventh-century Jewish Christian sects in the northwestern perimeter of the Arabian Peninsula. It would seem that their views on Jesus strongly influenced Muhammad’s understanding of Jesus. If Jewish Christianity had prevailed over Pauline Christianity, history would likely have been written quite differently. It is quite likely that such atrocities as the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Holocaust would never have transpired. If the Jewish Christian understanding of Jesus had prevailed, Jews and Christians might never have parted ways, and Islam would never have become Christianity’s perceived enemy. To this day, it is the refusal of Jews and Muslims to accept the full divinity of Jesus that makes them “pagans” and “heathens” in the eyes of many Christians.
As abundant evidence has shown us, after Jesus’ crucifixion his family and disciples continued to worship together in the Temple in Jerusalem, manifesting no difference from their fellow Jews except in their belief that Jesus was the Davidic Messiah. Unfortunately for these harmonious beginnings, Pauline Christianity increasingly adopted an understanding of Jesus that Judaism could not ultimately bear: the Hellenistic theological belief that Jesus was literally God incarnate in human flesh. As the doctrine of the incarnation became ever more central to Gentile Catholic Christianity, an impassible theological wall arose between Jews and Christians. The doctrine of the incarnation is also the great wall that separates Muslims and Christians. Most Christians today are completely unaware that Muslims highly revere Jesus and honor his teachings (they even believe in the virgin birth), but like their Jewish cousins, the strict monotheism of Islam could never accept the key Christian dogmas of the incarnation and the Holy Trinity. It is therefore potentially significant for interreligious dialogue today that one of the firm conclusions modern research into James has revealed is that neither Jesus’ family, nor the apostles, nor his Jewish disciples, believed that Jesus was literally God.
- The Brother of Jesus and the Lost Teachings of Christianity
Source: https://archive.org/details/the-jesus-dynasty-james-d.-tabor_202301
Source: https://ru.scribd.com/document/109860022/Paul-and-Jesus-How-the-Apostle-Transformed-Christianity-by-James-D-Tabor
Source: https://dn720004.ca.archive.org/0/items/the-jesus-dynasty-james-d.-tabor_202301/The%20Jesus%20Dynasty%20%28James%20D.%20Tabor%29.pdf
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1lNj7KXcfA
Source: https://archive.org/details/JamesTheBrotherOfJesusAndTheDeadSeaScrollsI/page/n3/mode/2up
Jeffrey Bütz:
That the earliest Christian doctrine was in no way incompatible with Jewish doctrine is evidenced above all by the fact that the Jews in Jerusalem continued to accept Jesus’ followers as fellow Jews; in fact, they saw them as being particularly rigorous and pious Jews. It is more than intriguing that the Muslim understanding of Jesus is very much in conformity with the first Christian orthodoxy—the original Jewish Christian understanding of Jesus. As already noted, this is no coincidence, for in his extensive travels prior to receiving his first revelation from Allah, Muhammad had numerous contacts with various seventh-century Jewish Christian sects in the northwestern perimeter of the Arabian Peninsula. It would seem that their views on Jesus strongly influenced Muhammad’s understanding of Jesus. If Jewish Christianity had prevailed over Pauline Christianity, history would likely have been written quite differently. It is quite likely that such atrocities as the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Holocaust would never have transpired. If the Jewish Christian understanding of Jesus had prevailed, Jews and Christians might never have parted ways, and Islam would never have become Christianity’s perceived enemy. To this day, it is the refusal of Jews and Muslims to accept the full divinity of Jesus that makes them “pagans” and “heathens” in the eyes of many Christians.
As abundant evidence has shown us, after Jesus’ crucifixion his family and disciples continued to worship together in the Temple in Jerusalem, manifesting no difference from their fellow Jews except in their belief that Jesus was the Davidic Messiah. Unfortunately for these harmonious beginnings, Pauline Christianity increasingly adopted an understanding of Jesus that Judaism could not ultimately bear: the Hellenistic theological belief that Jesus was literally God incarnate in human flesh. As the doctrine of the incarnation became ever more central to Gentile Catholic Christianity, an impassible theological wall arose between Jews and Christians. The doctrine of the incarnation is also the great wall that separates Muslims and Christians. Most Christians today are completely unaware that Muslims highly revere Jesus and honor his teachings (they even believe in the virgin birth), but like their Jewish cousins, the strict monotheism of Islam could never accept the key Christian dogmas of the incarnation and the Holy Trinity. It is therefore potentially significant for interreligious dialogue today that one of the firm conclusions modern research into James has revealed is that neither Jesus’ family, nor the apostles, nor his Jewish disciples, believed that Jesus was literally God.
- The Brother of Jesus and the Lost Teachings of Christianity
Source: https://archive.org/details/the-jesus-dynasty-james-d.-tabor_202301
Source: https://ru.scribd.com/document/109860022/Paul-and-Jesus-How-the-Apostle-Transformed-Christianity-by-James-D-Tabor
Source: https://dn720004.ca.archive.org/0/items/the-jesus-dynasty-james-d.-tabor_202301/The%20Jesus%20Dynasty%20%28James%20D.%20Tabor%29.pdf
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1lNj7KXcfA
Source: https://archive.org/details/JamesTheBrotherOfJesusAndTheDeadSeaScrollsI/page/n3/mode/2up
Source: https://youtu.be/0s0kToALlbU
Source: https://archive.org/details/jewishchristiani0000scho/page/140/mode/2up
Source: https://annas-archive.org/md5/f45cfdcd9253b0f422dcc1cbee551307
Comments
Post a Comment