Hello Micaias,

Sorry for being late in answering, lot of chores, limited time :-)

The real authority during the period in question was the Roman Governor Pontius Pilatus who condemned Jesus to crucifixation.

The sole religious autority was the Jewish Sanhedrin (70 members and the High Priest who was a Sadducee), completely subordinated to the Romans. As it happens today with the Congresses around the democratic world, the Sanhedrin was divided between the dominant group ruling and the oposition.

The dominant group were the Sadducees, the oposition was the group of Pharisees.

A Strong douctrinal divergence existed between the two groups, the Pharisees being strongly adherent to the Torah, whereas the Sadducees were more liberal and willing to compromisse with the Roman authorities.

Jesus was in friendly terms with the Pharisees but very critical about the Sadducees.

So there was no diverging between Jesus and the Pharisees; on the contrary, Jesus was teaching exactly the strict adherence to the Torah's commandments, the same precepts the Pharisees embraced..

You are right, Jesus disciples did not make war against Jesus, since they were the founder of the Church of Jerusalem, and James, their leader, was Jesus' brother.

The ideological-religious war started with Paul and then later was embraced by the Early Church's Fathers, Ambrose being the most vocal among them.

Ambrose considered the synagogues the "home of unbelief, a house of impiety, a receptacle of folly, which God Himself has condemned." Isn't this an expression. of anti-Judaism?

I hope this puts us both on the same ground of this discussion. As I wrote before, let's stay with the documented historical facts and episodes of persecution of the Jews by Christians.

Be well

Tom

Tom, Jesus didn´t found a new religion, He changed its interpretation. Before Jesus the jews walked by law without love. Jesus himself talked that the pharisees recited longs passages from the prophetic books and put hard burds over the peoople, but they didn´t help them. Jesus taught love is more important than sacrifices. The dead on the cross was the perfect sacrifice, finishing the secular rituals of kill goats and others animals. By his sacrifice the law can be completely understood. In others words: He didn´t create a new religion,  but He showed that obey the law was fewer than necessary because everybody make a mistake. By the law if a person make a mistake (sins), the person needs to do holocaust to get the forgiveness. Jesus changes this more big: He taught the meaning of the grace, a gift that the people don´t deserve, but God gives because He loves the humanity. Jesus was a man but He was a God and He talked with autority and He was misunderstood and, because this, He was cricified. The law´s masters liked of the honor and respect by the jews and they didn´t want to went out of the "pedestal". They considered themselves sinless men. The great problems with the jews was this...

Hello Micaias

Thank you for your comments.

Allow me to supplement my question:

(1) The discussions and answer I am looking for refer not  to Jesus but to his followers who first originated the Church of Jerusalem, and later, those who joined Paul in his missionary labors. These were the first Christians who created the schism between the two groups, mainly by attacking the traditions contained within and the teachings of the Old Testament.

(2) When discussing Jesus, it is necessary to differentiate between Jesus the man and Jesus the Divinity. This second personality falls into the category of issues of Faith and religion. On the other hand, Faith and religion are matters of individual believes; as such, should be detached from the discussion in question because they cannot be asserted with academic exactness, thus preventing reaching a conclusion.

Therefore, hopefully the discussions to my question will take into consideration these two constraints.

Dear Tom,

I am afraid you asked a too difficult and too complicated question. Without objective historical and archeologic sources your question cannot be answered. Regarding that people’s ideas and feelings are determined by practical and not theoretical issues, the main raisons of the schism might have been those of political nature. During years errors, bias and preconceptions have been accumulated and the original causes cannot be recognised.

Tom, you can perceive that the jews authoritys (law's masters) was a great prestige among the Jews and the roman authority. The  farisees Was relaxed and satisfied with this. The disciples of Jesus didn't "make war" against the farisees: they lived what preached and the peoples liked them. They, non intentionaly, touched in the egoes of the farisees. The farisees Was a confortable situation and didn't modify this...

Hello Micaias,

Sorry for being late in answering, lot of chores, limited time :-)

The real authority during the period in question was the Roman Governor Pontius Pilatus who condemned Jesus to crucifixation.

The sole religious autority was the Jewish Sanhedrin (70 members and the High Priest who was a Sadducee), completely subordinated to the Romans. As it happens today with the Congresses around the democratic world, the Sanhedrin was divided between the dominant group ruling and the oposition.

The dominant group were the Sadducees, the oposition was the group of Pharisees.

A Strong douctrinal divergence existed between the two groups, the Pharisees being strongly adherent to the Torah, whereas the Sadducees were more liberal and willing to compromisse with the Roman authorities.

Jesus was in friendly terms with the Pharisees but very critical about the Sadducees.

So there was no diverging between Jesus and the Pharisees; on the contrary, Jesus was teaching exactly the strict adherence to the Torah's commandments, the same precepts the Pharisees embraced..

You are right, Jesus disciples did not make war against Jesus, since they were the founder of the Church of Jerusalem, and James, their leader, was Jesus' brother.

The ideological-religious war started with Paul and then later was embraced by the Early Church's Fathers, Ambrose being the most vocal among them.

Ambrose considered the synagogues the "home of unbelief, a house of impiety, a receptacle of folly, which God Himself has condemned." Isn't this an expression. of anti-Judaism?

I hope this puts us both on the same ground of this discussion. As I wrote before, let's stay with the documented historical facts and episodes of persecution of the Jews by Christians.

Be well

Tom

Note to András: as soon as I have time I will comment about  what you wrote.

Be well, egy kelemes hét véget.

Tom

Dear Tom,

There is, in my opinion, no other way to see this story as an example of anti-judaism moviment. 

Thank you for upvoting my comments.

Exactly Vilemar, to answer my question one has to search the historical background of the founding and spreading of the Christian religion and then understand why the members of this new religion became so antagonistic and violent towards their brethren in fait.

Furthermore, my question implies a paradox: during Jesus' time there were several Jewish sects living together in the Roman Palestine's territory. Samaritans, Essenians and, of course, Pharesees. All of them practiced some form of Judaism and followed the Torah (Old Testament).

The paradox resides in why those who embraced Jesus' teaching decided to form a new religion, which later originated bitter anti-Judaism, the precursor of modern anti-Semitism which lead to the extermination of millions of Jews.

All the best

Tom

Dear András

You have a very strong point. My question's answer is complex to find and formulate, reason why I asked it :-)

Please see my comment to Vilemar's answer. I believe the route to answer my question is to analyze two important period's: that of Paul and his evangelistic efforts and the reasons why emperor Constantine decided to abandon Roman paganism and embrace a monotheistic faith.

Paul's reasons to badmouth the Jews was not political, rather theological and self-serving, given that the Pharisees held him as an imposter and a nasty character.

On the other hand, you may be right about Constantine's reasons, which could originate from political interests.

BTW, if you want to read a horrific attack on the Jews, read some writings of Chrysostomos

What do you think?

I would consider the deviation on the interest of the Roman Empired which created Christianism as a religion. Probably, it was easier to have a essinian Christ because the essenians would offer less reaction to the use of these teaching in order to establish an anti judaism policy.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13421-seneca-lucius-annaeus

This article on Seneca sheds some light on anti-judaism in the Roman society; the Roman church adopted these attitudes. The church fathers did declare the people of Israel to be extra deum (outside of G-d). The Greek (orthodox) church is reported historically to have more tolerant attitudes towards people of Hebrew faith. This might be due to:

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/hellenism-judaism/

In Book of Luke, in this past Sunday's sermon at our church, one of the exercise was about '70 evangelists' that Jesus sent out to go about in towns in his name... I find that echo back to your descriptive opening remark: " Jewish Sanhedrin (70 members and the High Priest who was a Sadducee)"... Most interesting, yes? But how was story of Jesus tied to Hebrew? ... instead of Yiddish or Jesus's mother tongue? ...hmmm

btw " writings of Chrysostomos", which Chrysostomos?

Thanks for this question. I learned quite a bit just by pondering about it...