You are here:   Christianity > Jews, Christians and Judaeo-Christians
 

On the feast of Pentecost that followed the crucifixion, Peter and the rest of the apostles were metamorphosed under the influence of the divine Spirit from a group of gutless fugitives into born-again champions of the faith in Jesus, the risen Messiah, and their charismatic proclamation to the Jerusalem crowds instantaneously increased the original nucleus of 120 Jesus followers by 3,000 new Jewish converts. All they were asked to do was to believe in Peter's teaching about Jesus and be baptised in his name. 

The individual members of the Jerusalem Jesus party did not call themselves by any specific name, but their religious movement was known as "the Way" (Acts 9:2; 19:9; 24:14), short for "the Way of God". Only at a later date, after the establishment of a community in Antioch in northern Syria, do we encounter in the Acts of the Apostles 11:26 the specific designation Christianoi ("Christians" or Messianists), applied to the members of that particular church. 

How did the original Judaeo-Christians of Jerusalem compare to their Jewish neighbours? In some essential ways they did not differ from them at all. The Judaeo-Christians considered themselves Jews and their outward behaviour and dietary customs were Jewish. In fact, they faithfully observed all the rules and regulations of the Mosaic Law. In particular, the apostles and their followers continued to frequent the religious centre of Judaism, the Temple of Jerusalem, for private and public worship, and it was there that they performed charismatic healings (Acts 3:1-10; 5:12, 20, 25, 42). According to the Acts, the entire Jesus party assembled for prayer in the sanctuary every day (Acts 2:46). Even Paul, the chief opponent of the obligatory performance of Jewish customs in his churches, turned out to be a temple-goer on his occasional visits to Jerusalem. He once fell into a trance in the course of his prayer in the House of God (Acts 22:17) and on a later occasion he underwent the prescribed purification rituals before commissioning the priests to offer sacrifice on his behalf (Acts 21:24-6). 

In addition to their attachment to the Law of Moses, including worship in the Temple, the religious practice of the first Jewish Christians also included the "breaking of the bread" (Acts 2:46). This breaking of the bread was not a purely symbolical cultic act, but a real meal. It had the double purpose of feeding the participants and symbolically uniting them with one another as well as with their Master Jesus, and with God. The frequency of the rite is not immediately specified, but the initial impression is that it took place daily, not unlike the sacred dinner of the fully initiated Essenes, described by the Jewish writers Philo, Flavius Josephus and the Community Rule of the Dead Sea Scrolls. "And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous heart" (Acts 2:46). On the other hand, according to Acts 20:7, Paul in Troas broke the bread on the first day of the week, and the Didache, the earliest Christian treatise (late first century CE), also orders that the bread should be broken and thanksgiving (Eucharist) performed each Sunday (Did. 14:1). 

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
62peppe
March 18th, 2014
12:03 PM
"Didachè.7:1 Concerning baptism, you should baptize this way: After first explaining all things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in flowing water." Isn't there clearly stated the trinity? Who should be the "Son" if not Jesus?

sabluerAnonymous
April 3rd, 2013
9:04 AM
I THINK i'VE ALWAYS BEEN A JEWISH CHRISTIAN, BUT NEVER PUT A NAME TO IT UNTIL RECENTLY. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM COMBINING THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. I ACCEPT JESUS CHRIST AS THE MESSIAH, BUT I AM OPEN TO THE FACT THAT JESUS MAY HAVE BEEN "LIGHTING THE WAY" FOR ANOTHER, WHO IS YET TO ARRIVE.

Unimpressed
June 13th, 2012
1:06 PM
I don't know why Standpoint feels the need tho humour Geza Vermes by publishing these articles. His method of scholarship is less "historical critical" and more "cut and paste". The traditional gospels are not to be trusted (unless they can be mined for tidbits which support his argument). Here's a good overview of his nitpicky approach to criticism: http://www.amazon.com/review/R23BXJ5P3WJQWV/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R23BXJ5...

jackndc
December 24th, 2011
2:12 AM
The comments on here are a great example of how mankind has been able to argue about things of many years past which have zero use in today's society of Islamic jihad terror, Arab-Zionist fights, and other such threats to civilization. The are all petty people picking fights over nonsense that is mostly myth.

andyd
December 15th, 2011
10:12 PM
Sorry, Ben David: "Until the middle of the 20th century it was customary to believe that the Samaritans originated from a mixture of the people living in Samaria and other peoples at the time of the conquest of Samaria by Assyria (722–721 BC). The Biblical account in II Kings 17 had long been the decisive source for the formulation of historical accounts of Samaritan origins. Reconsideration of this passage, however, has led to more attention being paid to the Chronicles of the Samaritans themselves. With the publication of Chronicle II (Sefer ha-Yamim), the fullest Samaritan version of their own history became available: the chronicles, and a variety of non-Samaritan materials. According to the former, the Samaritans are the direct descendants of the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, and until the 17th century AD they possessed a high priesthood descending directly from Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas. They claim to have continuously occupied their ancient territory and to have been at peace with other Israelite tribes until the time when Eli disrupted the Northern cult by moving from Shechem to Shiloh and attracting some northern Israelites to his new followers there. For the Samaritans, this was the 'schism' par excellence.("Samaritans" in Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1972, Volume 14, op. cit., col. 727.)"

andyd
December 15th, 2011
9:12 PM
Love the self-appointed experts who boldly claim that Geza Vermes has only a superficial knowledge of the bible and/or gospels!

notmelbrooks
December 15th, 2011
9:12 PM
How can I believe anything past the 2nd sentence in the article," For how can someone simultaneously be a follower of both Moses and Jesus?" Jews dont "follow" Moses.

giuseppebrasil
December 14th, 2011
11:12 PM
the christian meme evolution

AnoJoenymous
December 14th, 2011
6:12 PM
Monism is passe: The Uncertainty principle and Relativity make that evident. If monism is passe so too is monotheism.

Ben David
December 14th, 2011
1:12 PM
Just one quibble: Samaritans were not, are not Jewish. They are one of the alien tribes moved in to resettle Israel after the destruction of the first Temple. Their attempt to prevent the return of the Jews - and their disputes with Ezra and Nehemia - are recorded in those books, and in the book of Daniel.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.