Most Christians erroneously believe that Christianity either began with the birth of Yeshua, whom they call “Jesus,” which is the modern English transliteration of the Greek form of his name, Iesous, and the early Latin form, Iesus, which was also the spelling of his name used in the original King James Version of 1611.  However, the word “Christian” did not even exist during the life and ministry of Yeshua, nor did it begin in the land of Isra’el at all.  In fact, according to the writings of the book of Acts, the word “Christian” did not begin in the land of Isra’el at all – but in the country of Syria!  In Acts 11, we read,

…and the disciples were FIRST called Christians in Antioch. (Acts 11:26; emphasis added)

Antioch is the “FIRST” place where the word “Christian” was ever used, and it is a city in the country of Syria.  This verse is not telling us that Antioch is the city where the disciples first started calling themselves “Christians,” but it is saying that Antioch is the city where the surrounding non-believing Syrians, who were not Jewish, “FIRST” started calling these new Syrian believers “Christians.”

“Christian” – A Change in Meaning?

However, what many Christians do not consider when they read the word “Christian” is that it did not mean what it means today: “one who believes and practices the religion of Christianity.”  Instead, when the word was originally used, it was used as a derogatory slur, a mocking ridicule, to demean and humiliate the new Syrian (non-Jewish) believers for believing in this “new Jewish Messiah.”  In all three times that this word is used (Acts 11:26; 26:28; I Peter 4:16) in the “New Testament,” it is always used with this same derogatory meaning.  For example, in I Peter 4, we read, 

By no means let any of you suffer as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a troublesome meddler; but if anyone suffers as a Christian, LET HIM NOT FEEL ASHAMED, but in that name let him glorify God.  (I Peter 4:16, NASB; emphasis added)

Why would someone “feel ashamed” for suffering as “a Christian” if the word “Christian” meant the same thing then that it does now?  Obviously, there has been a change in meaning.

Christianity – “A Replacement Religion”?

The historical fact is that Yeshua began a Second-Temple Jewish Restoration movement that was growing in popularity until the time that the Roman military attacked and destroyed Jerusalem and the Holy Temple in 70 C.E.  When the non-Jewish believers saw what had happened, they erroneously believed that it meant that God had turned His back on Isra’el and the Jewish people, and they began to believe and call themselves the “New Isra’el,” the “New People of God.”  They saw themselves as having REPLACED Isra’el and the Jewish people, and upon that belief, called “Supersessionism” or “Replacement Theology,” is what they used to begin to mold and shape themselves into a REPLACEMENT RELIGION, called “Christianity.”  Christianity did not happen all at once or after one event, but it was one event – the destruction of Jerusalem and the Holy Temple – that initiated a process that happened over a 30-year time, so by the beginning years of the second century, C.E., there was a new distinct religion called “Christianity.”

Historic Evidence

This is confirmed by Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, it is believed by researchers that he died around the year 105-117 C.E.  In his letter, “To the Magnesians,” he argues for believers to quit living in “accordance to Judaism” and to begin living “in accordance with Christianity,” the newly created religion.  In his letter, he writes, 

If we CONTINUE to live in ACCORDANCE WITH JUDAISM, we admit that we have not received grace. (8:1, qtd. in Lightfoot, Harmer, and Holmes, p. 95)

How is it possible to “continue” doing something if Christianity began when Christians claim: at the birth or life of Yeshua or in the Upper Room in Jerusalem on the feast of Shavuot/”Weeks”/Pentecost in Acts 2, particularly since the word “Christian” did not even begin until Acts 11? If Christianity’s claims are true, then Christianity would have been around by the time of this letter for about 80 years, so why would Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, 80 years after the beginning of Christianity, to be writing “believers in Jesus” to try and persuade them to quit living in accordance with Judaism?  At the beginning of the very next paragraph, he writes,

If, then, those who lived in ANTIQUATED PRACTICES came to newness of hope, NO LONGER KEEPING THE SABBATH but living in accordance with the Lord’s day, on which our life also arose through him and his death (which some deny)…(9:1, qtd. in Lightfoot, Harmer, and Holmes, p. 95; emphasis added)

Again, we can see his polemic attempt to demean their previous experiences in Judaism by calling them “antiquated practices,” and he even tells them that they should “no longer keep the Sabbath,” but why would that be necessary if they had already been “living in accordance with the Lord’s day”?  Obviously, in this letter, what we see are the things these new leaders are writing to convince the various believers to switch from one religion, Judaism, to another religion, “Christianity.”  But then in the next paragraph, he writes,

Therefore, having become his disciples, LET US LEARN TO LIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHRISTIANITY.  For whoever is called by any other name than this one does not belong to God.  Throw out, therefore, the bad leaven, which has become stale and sour, and reach for the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ.  Be salted with him, so that none of you become rotten, for by your odor you will be examined.  It is UTTERLY ABSURD TO PROFESS JESUS CHRIST AND TO PRACTICE JUDAISM.  For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity in which “every tongue” believed and “was brought together” to God. (10:1-3, qtd. in Lightfoot, Harmer, and Holmes, p. 96; emphasis added)

Here we can see the main point behind his letter: He wants them to leave their life in Judaism behind and to begin to live in accordance with the new religion of Christianity.  Again, if Christianity had been around for about 80 years, then why do they need to “learn to live in accordance with Christianity”?  Wouldn’t they have been doing that already?  Then, as part of his polemic letter, he argues that for them to be “called by any other name [Christian] than this one does not belong to God.”  He even tells them to “throw out” their Jewish lives and practices by comparing them to “bad leaven,” which, he says, “has become stale and sour,” and instead, he says, they are to “reach for the new leaven, Jesus Christ.” Again, he is trying to persuade them, using what he sees to be logical reasoning, to leave their life and practices in Judaism and to live in accordance with Christianity.

He then says that “It is utterly absurd to profess Jesus Christ and to practice Judaism.” But does this make any sense once you realize that Yeshua Himself lived a Torah-observant Israeli Jewish lifestyle and all of his Jewish disciples all believed in and practiced Second-Temple Judaism as well?  Is it “absurd” for us to want to act and live like Yeshua or one of his disciples?  His final point here is one of time sequence.  He argues that since Christianity was created AFTER Judaism, then obviously Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but “Judaism [believed] in Christianity”?  But is this true?  No, it is not.  The majority of the Jewish disciples continued to believe and practice in the Judaism that they had been living all along.  They did not change, and even many of the non-Jewish believers also continued to live in accordance with Judaism did not change as soon as Christianity as a distinct religion was formed shortly after the beginning of the second century, C.E..  It was only after centuries of people experiencing persecution and death that more and more non-Jews, and a few Jews, began to follow Christianity.  This is the true historic beginning of Christianity.

Purpose for the “Divided Bibles”

This new Replacement Religion also took the writings of Yeshua’s disciples, and they divided and separated them from the Hebrew Scriptures, and they called these collections of writings of the disciples of Yeshua the “New Testament,” and they claimed that these “New Testament” writings has “replaced,” “annulled,” “done away with,” or even “superseded” the Hebrew Scriptures and, therefore, making their “New Testament” into a set of Replacement Scriptures.  However, just think, Is there one verse or one passage in the whole Bible, from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21, where the phrase “Old Testament” is defined as the first 39 books of the Bible and the phrase “New Testament” is defined as the last 27 books of the Bible?  No, there are no such definitions given anywhere in the Bible; therefore, this Christian teaching regarding the structure of the Scriptures is not biblical and completely man-made.