Why is it Called Christianity?

Haven't you ever wondered why it is called 'Christianity'? If the religion was all about 'Jesus' why isn't it just called 'Jesusanity' or some such name?

Let's start at the beginning. If the words of Rashi and Saadya are translated EXACTLY, you can see how each quotes his unacknowledged source, and then adds words of his own to reconcile this with the opinion of his own time. This work of separating components is part of what is called Source Criticism. When this has been done, you will then see that neither of them dared change what his source said, but that each of them was puzzled by it. You then have to show to what extent each one was willing to go against the view of his own time. This gives evidence of the strength of the survival of the older view, and shows that they partially AGREED with it, as you have seen for yourself.This faithfulness in transmitting puzzling statements is evidence of the use of an old document that was regarded with respect. Showing this puzzlement is another part of Source Criticism, since it is evidence of the antiquity of the source. After doing this, you then have to show precisely which bit of the Zadokite document they were alluding to. This is another part of Source Criticism. You will see why an EXACT translation of the Hebrew is needed, and an EXACT reference to the Zadokite Document is needed.
A different question. If Marcion used a Gospel of Luke, what was it like?
Don’t forget that Christianity has de-sanctified Jerusalem. This is a major theological doctrine. It can be connected with your theory very easily.
You may well wonder why I can look at all this with equanimity while remaining a Christian. Well, first, if you’re a Protestant, you have complete confidence that the pursuit of the truth must be beneficial in the end, and that whatever is puzzling will sort itself out. That’s why we don’t need the Pope or any other officials to filter out what might cause difficulties. Second, there is no point in carrying on too much over who was or was not the Anointed One, or Messiah. Many people could have been. The Jewish concept of what the term means is not the Christian one. Jesus wouldn’t accept the term, except from the Samaritan woman in John IV and from Peter right at the end, when Peter had been shown by the Holy Ghost what the CONCEPT was. As for Jesus being an Angel, that concept exists within Christianity, and is well documented. Don’t forget that Jacob was an Angel as well as a human. (I can give you a precise reference for this). If Jesus embodies Israel (which is a name ending in EL, as all names of angels do), then he must have been an Angel, as well as being human. Besides, Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple, and as this prediction was an essential part of his work, and important for Christian doctrine, then it doesn’t matter that he said it forty years before the event. Both he and Agrippa would have believed that this destruction of the earthly Temple was necessary for the descent of the Heavenly Jerusalem or Heavenly Tabernacle, thus uniting Jews and Samaritans. Note that the Epistle to the Hebrews fuses the two concepts. The Christian order of service for Sunday morning often includes hymns asserting that Christ is High Priest in the Heavenly Tabernacle. One is right to point out that the religion is called Christianity, not Jesusanity. This has profound implications. Anyway, whatever might be in Evangelical hymnbooks, mainstream Christians don’t worship Jesus or Christ, which is why Maimonides declared the religion not to be polytheism, and in this he was following the Talmud.

Who Were the Nazarenes?

The suggestion of reading the term נוצרים as notsarim (root YOD-tsade-resh, nif‘al participle, deserves serious consideration. Of course there could have been a pair of terms, an exoteric term notsrim from nun-tsade-resh meaning “guardians” and an esoteric term notsarim from yod-tsade-resh meaning “re-formed”. Look at the verse in Isaiah that says God will set notsrim on the walls of Jerusalem. Look in BDB under NUN-tsade-resh, qal, participle. You should also go through the shades of meaning of yetser listed in Jastrow, if the meaning of notsarim is “those with a new yetser”.

What the Jews Call Christians

On Notsrim and the root NUN-TSADE-RESH. The question is far more complicated than it seems at first sight. Yes, it does mean to be vigilant or to guard, and it is the root of the Hebrew notsrim meaning Christians; but it is also the root of Nasoraean (Mandaean) and the term ans.âr انصار which is a word of uncertain meaning applied to those that supported Muhammad right at the start and which might be older than the term Muslim. It occurs in the OT in important contexts. No-one has ever worked out why it was such an important religious term. Notice that the application to Christians seems to have been later than the origin of its use as a religious term. As to what the term MEANT, no-one knows.

Why the Fish is the Symbol of Jesus

The term the Year of Favour is found in Isaiah and elsewhere, clearly connected with the Jubilee. One might therefore speculate that the early Christian symbol of a fish originated as a hint at the number fifty. The Aramaic word nun means fish. The letter Nun has the numerical value of fifty. This is not meant to exclude the intention of using the Greek word ichthys as an acronym of Iêsous Christos Theou [sic] Sôtêr. It is not unusual for an important symbol to have two intentional derivations.

Against conventional guesses going back to antiquity, I prefer to read Theou Sôtêr and not Theos Sôtêr. The term could have come from several verses of the NT working together. One of the most obvious is Titus II:13 with the phrase “the appearing of the Glory of the great God and our saviour Jesus the anointed”. (This is how the verse is understood in the Old Syriac and the Peshitta. In my observation and that of others that are comfortable in Aramaic, the feeling of the Syriac translators for the intention of the text is better than that of many modern commentators and translators). It is a useful rule to remember that the explanation of a verse or term in the NT that finds a deliberate echo of the Torah is to be treated as the right explanation. In the present case, Titus II:11, 13, 14 are meant to echo Deuteronomy XXXIII, and specifically verses 2 and 29. If Jesus is Saviour, it is as the agent of God. The Glory of God is the manifestation of God. The creative word or the Son or what has been called the second God is manifest in Jesus, as it says in John I:14 and 18, which echo Deuteronomy XXXIII:2. This passage in Titus also shows the implication of the term “anointed” that was applied to Jesus. If Deuteronomy XXXIII is a blessing, it must refer to the future as well as the past. Verse 5 of Deuteronomy XXXIII in its future meaning refers to one that is King in the sense that Moses was (and not in the sense that David was). As King, he can be called anointed. Moses was made King at Sinai, as verses 2 and 5 say. He also embodies the whole twelve tribes. For both these reasons, Jesus is King by nature. This is not at all the same thing as being descended from David, a very secondary concept, irrelevant or at best peripheral to Christology. Furthermore, Jesus seems to have implicitly applied the term “anointed” to himself in his sermon at Caphernaum (Luke IV:16-30). Jesus seems to agree with the Greek translation of Isaiah LXI:1 in interpreting the tem “anointed” as having the spirit of God upon him; or otherwise, the early Church thought the Greek version was relevant here. What is this spirit? This spirit was in Joshua, the successor of Moses (Numbers XXVII:18; note that whereas the Mt has “a man in whom is spirit”, the Samaritan has “the man”, that is, the only man). Joshua was full of the spirit of wisdom because Moses laid his hands upon him. Wisdom can be taken to mean the creative wisdom. That means Moses must have been full of the creative wisdom and in greater measure than Joshua. He must have been filled with it in this way unique to him at Sinai. We are back to the opening verses of Deuteronomy XXXIII. I go out of my way to say all this about the words I read as Theou Sôtêr because the reading preferred by me removes any objection to a very early date of origin of the Greek acrostic. The straight equation of Jesus with God, justifiably criticised by Moslems as a deliberate corruption of the Gospel by the Church, took time to creep in. Isaiah LXI:2 connects the Jubilee with the eschatological Day of Vengeance and Recompense (Deuteronomy XXXII:35, which it quotes as “To the Day [LYWM] of Vengeance”, in agreement with the Samaritan text and the LXX (against MT “Mine [LY] is vengeance”. This implies a great and final Jubilee, and thus a connection with Deuteronomy XXXIII as being about the future coming of a unique figure as a final and greater salvation. We are back to the Aramaic word nun, the letter Nun, and the number fifty. More could be said, but this is not the occasion.