Catholic vs Christian: What Are the Key Differences?

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

For centuries, Christianity has been a mixed bag of diverse theological beliefs, practices, and traditions. Among the most significant divides is that between Catholics and Protestant Christians, a schism that dates back to the Reformation in the 16th century. 

This “Catholic vs Christian” division, rooted in deep theological disagreements, has shaped the religious landscape of the world in profound ways. Yet, despite these differences, both traditions share the same foundational faith in Jesus Christ, prompting an exploration of what unites and divides them.

This historical backdrop raises several intriguing questions:

These questions, among others, pave the way for a deeper understanding of the diverse world of Christian belief and tradition. 

By exploring the key differences in beliefs, practices, and theological underpinnings that distinguish Catholics from their Christian (Protestant) counterparts, we endeavor to provide our readers with a clear and accessible understanding of this complex subject matter.

Moreover, through an objective examination of "Catholic vs. Christian beliefs", we aspire to bridge gaps in understanding and appreciation for the rich tapestry that makes up Christianity in its many expressions.

Catholic vs. Christian Discourse: A Methodological Approach

In the realm of religious studies, scholars generally regard Catholicism as an integral branch of the Christian tradition. Yet, there exists a subset of conservative thinkers, such as James White, who challenge this classification, arguing that Catholics shouldn’t be considered Christians.

This perspective isn’t isolated to individuals but extends to certain conservative Protestant denominations, which either outright reject Catholicism's Christian status or express confusion over the distinctions between Catholics and what they refer to as Christians.

The heart of this debate, encapsulated in the "Catholic vs. Christian" discourse, lies not in questioning the Christian faith of Catholics but in understanding the doctrinal divergences that separate Protestant beliefs from Catholic practices.

This article aims to unpack these differences. By exploring the theological, liturgical, and ecclesiastical distinctions between Protestant and Catholic adherents, we endeavor to shed light on the complexities that underpin this discourse, paving the way for a more informed and respectful dialogue within the broader Christian community.

In adhering to what Bart D. Ehrman describes as "methodological agnosticism," we commit to a discourse that is informed by an academic and neutral standpoint, avoiding any bias towards a particular set of religious beliefs. 

This approach allows us to engage with the "Catholic vs. Christian" discussion in a manner that is respectful, informative, and inclusive of the diverse beliefs that constitute the Christian faith.

Recognizing the complexity of the distinctions between Catholic and Christian beliefs, we’ll first present a concise table outlining the key differences. This will serve as a foundation for our deeper exploration into these diverse theological perspectives, ensuring a clear and structured understanding as we navigate through the intricacies of this discussion. 

Catholic vs. Christian: Summarizing the Key Differences (TABLE)

The following table encapsulates the fundamental differences, providing a clear overview of contrasting beliefs, practices, and perspectives. 

Having outlined the foundational distinctions through our comparative table, let's now delve deeper into these theological landscapes, beginning with a closer look at Catholicism—its origins, beliefs, and practices that have shaped the history of Western Civilization in many ways.

What is Catholic? A Brief Overview of Catholicism

Within the broad spectrum of Christianity, Catholicism manifests in several distinct traditions. However, for this article, we’ll focus on the most common and globally recognized form: Roman Catholicism.

The term "Catholic" itself originates from the Greek word "katholikos," meaning "universal" or "pertaining to the whole." This etymology underscores the Catholic Church's claim of universality, a central tenet that has guided its mission and theological outlook. 

What is Catholic? Roman Catholicism is grounded in a rich well of beliefs and practices that have been developed and refined over millennia. At the heart of Catholic doctrine is the importance of Tradition—with a capital "T."

This concept, as articulated by Lawrence S. Cunningham, emphasizes that Catholicism values Tradition as a "handing down" process. This isn’t merely a passive transmission of beliefs but a dynamic act of preservation and preaching. 

Catholics hold that the Gospel and the worship of the Church have been continuously handed down from the era of Jesus Christ to the present day, making the Church a living witness to the faith. 

This sacred Tradition is entrusted primarily to the bishops, who are viewed as the legitimate successors of the Apostles, ensuring the apostolic lineage and the integrity of the faith.

Central to Roman Catholic belief is the sacramental system, with the Eucharist—or Holy Communion—at its core. This sacrament, considered the true body and blood of Jesus Christ (doctrine of transubstantion), epitomizes the profound mystery and grace of Catholic worship.

Additionally, Catholics underscore the significance of the Virgin Mary and the saints, viewing them as exemplars of faith and intercessors between the faithful and God. Furthermore, Catholic beliefs include the doctrine of perpetual virginity of Mary which holds that Jesus’ mother was a virgin before, during, and after Jesus’ birth. 

The Catholic Church also upholds the pivotal authority of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, as the spiritual leader and successor to Saint Peter, affirming a hierarchical structure that has guided the faithful through centuries of change and challenge.

In addition to its foundational beliefs and practices, Roman Catholicism offers a distinctive perspective on the path to salvation, intertwining the roles of grace and good works. Central to Catholic theology is the belief that salvation is a process initiated by God's grace, which is freely given and not earned by human merit.

However, unlike some Christian (Protestant) traditions, Catholics hold that faith must be lived out through good works as a response to God's grace. Good works, including charity, moral living, and participation in the sacraments, are seen as both evidence of faith and a means through which God dispenses grace to aid believers in their spiritual journey.

Having outlined the fundamental beliefs and practices of Roman Catholicism, particularly its distinctive stance on salvation that intertwines grace with good works, we transition to exploring the roots of the Christian (Protestant) tradition.

This pivot allows us to delve deeper into the "Catholic vs. Christian" discussion which will ultimately help us understand the difference between Catholic and Christian (Protestant).

What is Christianity? A Brief Look at the Origin of Protestantism

The Protestant Reformation, a pivotal epoch in the history of Christianity, was significantly shaped by the contributions of Martin Luther and John Calvin, among others. 

Their roles in the Reformation not only catalyzed a theological revolution but also laid the groundwork for the enduring "Catholic vs. Christian" dialogue that distinguishes between Catholicism and Protestant denominations.

Martin Luther, a German monk and theologian, ignited the Reformation in the early 16th century with his critique of certain practices and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, most famously through his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517.

Luther's call for reform was rooted in the belief that salvation is obtained through faith alone, a stark contrast to the Catholic view that emphasizes the synergy of faith and good works.

His translation of the Bible into the vernacular made the scriptures more accessible, encouraging personal interpretation and challenging the Church's role as the sole interpreter of Christian doctrine.

John Calvin, a French theologian and pastor, furthered the Reformation's impact in the mid-16th century, particularly with his teachings and writings in Geneva. Calvin is best known for his doctrine of predestination and his emphasis on the sovereignty of God in salvation, as well as for his contributions to the organization and governance of the Protestant Church. 

His work, "Institutes of the Christian Religion," remains a foundational text for Reformed theology and has profoundly influenced Protestant thought and practice.

Together, Luther and Calvin's legacies represent crucial junctures in the development of Protestant Christianity. Their advocacy for scriptural authority over church tradition and a personal, direct relationship with God without the mediation of the church hierarchy were fundamental to the formation of various Protestant denominations.

While this section doesn’t delve deeply into the theological nuances of Luther and Calvin's beliefs, their roles are essential to understanding the historical backdrop against which the "Catholic vs. Christian" distinctions emerged, setting the stage for a more detailed exploration of the differences between Catholic and Christian.

Delineating the Differences Between Catholic and Christian

As we pivot to a detailed examination of the distinctions within the Christian faith, it becomes imperative to explore the nuances that define the "Catholicism vs. Christianity" polemic. This segment sets the stage for a deeper dive into the theological, liturgical, and doctrinal differences between Catholic vs. Christian beliefs, practices, and perspectives.

The Role of Scripture in Catholicism and Christianity

In the discourse on "Catholic vs. Christian" beliefs, the role and authority of Scripture emerge as pivotal points of divergence. For Protestant Christians, Scripture alone is seen as the supreme authority, independent of and surpassing the authority of popes and church councils. 

This principle of Sola Scriptura underscores a fundamental difference between Catholic and Christian (Protestant) approaches to Biblical authority.

In contrast, Catholic doctrine holds that Scripture must be interpreted within the context of the Church's tradition and hierarchy. According to the "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation," sacred tradition, sacred Scripture, and the teaching authority of the Church are inextricably linked, with none able to stand without the others.

Catholic vs. Christian Bible

The difference between the Catholic and Christian (Protestant) Bible further illustrates the "Catholic vs. Christian" theological divide.

The Catholic Bible includes seven books in the Old Testament known in Protestant circles as the Apocrypha, such as 1 and 2 Maccabees, which are not found in the Protestant Bible. The Catholics usually designate them as Deuterocanonical books. They are: 

This distinction between the Catholic and Christian (Protestant) Bible originated from the Reformation in the 16th and 17th centuries, though its roots trace back to the earliest days of Christianity. 

Early Christians, primarily Greek-speaking, utilized the Septuagint—a Greek collection of Jewish Scriptures that included both books originally written in Hebrew and those written in Greek, like 1 and 2 Maccabees. This version of the Scriptures was widely used among Greek-speaking Jews and early Christians alike, without an official canon.

However, by the 2nd century CE, as Jews officially canonized their Scriptures to include only those books originally written in Hebrew, the Christian Old Testament continued to embrace the Greek books of the Septuagint. This inclusion reflects the early Christian community's broader understanding of sacred texts.

During the Reformation, figures like Luther and Calvin advocated for a return to the Hebrew originals, excluding the Greek texts from the Protestant Old Testament. This decision underscored a significant "Difference between Catholic and Christian" scriptural canons, with the "Catholic Bible vs. Christian Bible" distinction highlighting the varying approaches to what constitutes authoritative sacred scripture.

The Issue of Salvation for Catholics and Christians

At the core of Christian (Protestant) theology lies the principle of justification by faith alone, a concept that defines their understanding of how individuals are saved. This doctrine posits that salvation is granted solely through faith in Jesus of Nazareth as the Savior, without any contribution from human actions toward their redemption.

Embracing the Apostle Paul's declaration that “The righteous will live by faith (Rom 1:17)”, Protestant Christians maintain that salvation is a gift passively received from God. It’s through trust in Christ's atoning sacrifice alone that sinners are deemed justified before God.

This stance presents a stark contrast to the Catholic view, which, as we’ve seen, articulates salvation as a synergy between the grace of God and good works performed by the believer.

The "Catholic vs. Christian beliefs" dialogue thus encompasses a fundamental divergence in understanding salvation's mechanics. In other words, the difference between Catholic and Christian perspectives on salvation highlights a pivotal theological divide.

This distinction not only underscores the diverse interpretations within Christianity but also reflects the rich tapestry of thought that has historically shaped the faith's evolution.

Catholicism vs. Christianity: The Authority of the Pope

In the landscape of "Catholic vs. Christian" theological distinctions, the authority of the pope serves as another significant point of divergence. Rooted in the principle of Sola Scriptura, Christians fundamentally reject the papal office as the supreme ecclesiastical authority.

This stance stems from a broader rejection of any religious authority that supersedes or rivals the authority of the Bible. Consequently, Protestants don’t recognize the pope as the successor of St. Peter in the sense that Catholic doctrine asserts. 

Within some of the more conservative Protestant communities, this rejection is taken further, with the pope at times controversially described as the Antichrist. This characterization, though not universally held among Protestants, reflects the depth of theological and ecclesiastical rifts that have historically divided Protestant and Catholic perspectives. 

Conversely, the Catholic Church holds the pope as the Vicar of Christ on Earth, asserting his role as the spiritual successor to St. Peter, whom they regard as the first bishop of Rome and the rock upon which Jesus built his church. 

Throughout the Middle Ages, in a religious sense, dominated by the Catholic Church, the pope ("Christ's vicar") oversaw Christendom as a whole. Bishops, seen as successors of Jesus' apostles, were responsible for their dioceses, and parish priests served the laity directly in their parishes. This was (and still is) the institutional backbone that holds the Catholic Church together.

Moreover, the dogma of papal infallibility, proclaimed in the First Vatican Council of 1870, articulates that the pope is preserved from the possibility of error when he declares a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.

This dogma, often misunderstood, doesn’t imply that the pope is incapable of sin or error in his judgments. As Karl Keating explains: “Papal infallibility extends only to matters of faith or morals—not to Church customs, not to sports, not to literature, not to most things of everyday life. And infallibility comes into play only when the pope ‘proclaims by a definitive act’. This means a formal, public statement. An offhand comment over lunch doesn’t count.”

The concept of papal infallibility and the supreme authority of the pope underscores another fundamental difference between the Catholic and Christian perspectives on God, religion, salvation, and sin. 

Catholic vs. Christian Beliefs: The Virgin Mary

In the discourse on "Catholic vs. Christian" differences, the role and veneration of saints, particularly the Virgin Mary, provide another strong demarcation between (Protestant) Christian and Catholic practices. 

Christians, adhering strictly to the principle of justification by faith alone, reject any religious practices they perceive as not grounded in this doctrine. This includes prayers to saints, participation in pilgrimages, and practices of radical asceticism. 

They argue that such practices detract from the sole efficacy of faith in Christ for salvation and, in some cases, attribute to them the character of works-righteousness, which they believe contradicts the core message of the Gospel.

The contrast becomes even more pronounced in the context of Marian veneration. The Catholic Church holds the Virgin Mary in high esteem, articulated through the four Marian Dogmas:

Protestant Christians, however, generally reject these dogmas, aligning with their broader theological stance that emphasizes a direct relationship with God through Christ, without the intercession of saints or veneration of Mary beyond recognizing her as a blessed and highly favored servant of God.

While they acknowledge Mary's importance as the mother of Jesus, they don’t accord her the same level of doctrinal or devotional emphasis as seen in Catholicism. Through this lens, the "Catholic vs. Christian" debate reveals deep-rooted theological and ecclesiological distinctions that have shaped the identities and practices of these traditions.

Catholic vs. Christian: The Role and Number of Sacraments

In the ongoing exploration of the differences between Catholics and Christians, the sacraments also represent an area of divergence. Protestant Christians, guided by the principle of Sola Scriptura, accept only those sacraments that they believe are instituted by Christ and clearly rooted in Scripture. 

This criterion leads most Christian (Protestant) denominations to recognize two sacraments: Baptism and the Eucharist (or Lord's Supper). These rites are viewed as direct commands from Jesus to His followers, found explicitly in the New Testament, and are thus embraced as essential elements of Christian faith and practice.

In stark contrast, the Catholic Church upholds seven sacraments: 

Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance (Confession), Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains, sacraments are seen as the “efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us.”

The Catholic perspective sees these sacraments not merely as symbolic acts but as effective signs of grace, by which God dispenses His blessings directly to the faithful. 

This comprehensive sacramental system reflects a deep sacramental theology in Catholicism, where the sacraments are seen as integral to spiritual life and growth, marking key stages and aspects of the Christian journey.

As we approach the conclusion of our exploration, we now turn to our final example, further illuminating the differences between Catholics and Christians. 

Catholic vs. Christian Beliefs: Jesus’ Brothers?

Catholics, drawing on the interpretation championed by Jerome, a prominent early Church father, posit that references in the New Testament to Jesus’ brothers are to be understood as cousins or close relatives - not biological siblings. 

This interpretation is rooted in the broader context of the Church’s tradition, which holds to the already-mentioned dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. It’s an emblematic illustration of the Catholic approach to Scripture and tradition, where the latter plays a crucial role in interpreting the former. 

Contrastingly, the dominant view among (Protestant) Christians is that the references to Jesus' brothers in the New Testament (such as James, Joses, Judas, and Simon) are to be taken literally, suggesting that Jesus had biological siblings. 

This interpretation aligns with a straightforward reading of Scripture, emphasizing the text's plain meaning without the lens of later theological developments. It’s noteworthy to mention that some Catholic scholars such as John P. Meier also accept that Jesus had real brothers. 

Protestant scholars like Ben Witherington III note that the issue of Jesus' brothers became more pronounced as the early church, moving away from its Jewish roots, embraced ascetic ideals and became predominantly Gentile. This shift underscored a departure from Jewish customs, which celebrated fertility and the bearing of children, thus challenging the notion of perpetual virginity.

The differing views on Jesus' brothers between Catholics and Christians not only highlight theological and hermeneutical differences but also reflect broader themes in "Catholic vs. Christian" relations, such as the role of tradition in scriptural interpretation and the influence of cultural context on theological developments.

While I, as a historian, find the Christian (Protestant) position more compelling, recognizing it as closely aligned with a direct interpretation of the Biblical texts, this discussion exemplifies again the rich tapestry of differences between Catholics and Christians. 

Summing up Conclusions

In conclusion, our journey through the nuances of "Catholic vs. Christian" beliefs, practices, and theological underpinnings reveals a mosaic of faith shaped by history, scripture, and doctrine. 

From the pivotal roles of figures like Luther and Calvin in challenging and reforming religious thought, to the deep-seated traditions and teachings of the Catholic Church, we've traversed a landscape marked by divergence yet bound by a common pursuit of divine truth.

As we close this chapter, let us carry forward the spirit of objective analysis, fostering a dialogue that respects differences, seeks understanding, and appreciates the rich tapestry that Christianity, in all its expressions, offers to the world.

Following our exploration of the differences between Catholics and Christians, we invite our readers to delve deeper into the roots of Biblical interpretation with the captivating course “In the Beginning: History, Legend, and Myth in Genesis”.

Led by renowned scholar Bart D. Ehrman, this course offers an unparalleled journey into the Book of Genesis, viewed through the lens of history, legend, and myth. Ehrman's scholarly approach demystifies the complexities of Genesis, providing insights into its historical context and enduring significance.

How Jesus Differs in Islam, Judaism, and Christian Beliefs

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

In "Who's Bigger?: Where Historical Figures Really Rank", authors Steven Skiena and Charles Ward undertook the ambitious task of quantifying the impact of historical figures. Their analysis positioned Jesus as the most influential person in history. 

This ranking underscores the profound significance of Jesus not only as a religious icon but also as a central figure in the tapestry of Western civilization.

Today, Jesus remains at the heart of Christianity, the religion of over two billion followers globally. His life, teachings, and legacy continue to shape not only religious thought but also cultural, ethical, and social paradigms. 

However, the perception and interpretation of Jesus vary significantly across different cultural and religious contexts. In the Judaic tradition, he is viewed through a different lens than in Christianity, and similarly, Islamic texts offer a distinct portrayal of Jesus that diverges from both Christian and Jewish perspectives.

This article aims to explore how Jesus differs in Islam, Judaism, and Christian beliefs. Our objective is not to engage in theological debate or endorse any religious viewpoint, but rather to examine how different traditions have historically understood and represented Jesus.

By adopting this approach, we aim to provide an objective analysis, focusing on how each tradition situates Jesus within its historical narrative. Moreover, our focus isn’t a scholarly (historical) reconstruction of Jesus’ life - to know more about that check out a couple of our earlier articles (here, and here).

This methodological choice allows us to delve into the nuances of these portrayals while maintaining scholarly objectivity and accessibility to readers regardless of their religious backgrounds. 

Interested in further historical exploration? Join Bible scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman in his enlightening online course, 'In the Beginning: History, Legend, or Myth in Genesis?' Dive into six 30-minute lessons for an in-depth understanding of the Book of Genesis from a historical perspective.

Let’s begin by exploring how Judaism is different from Christianity. To do that, we need to get back to the historical context of Jesus’ life!

Jesus in Judaism: Historical Context and Collective Memory

The portrayal of Jesus in Jewish tradition diverges significantly from the Christian and Islamic perspectives, emphasizing his roots as a Jewish figure. As noted by scholars Tom Holmen and Stanley Porter, "Jesus’ Jewish roots and relations have long been an essential item of discussion and contention in historical Jesus studies.”

Within the framework of Judaism, particularly during the Second Temple period, the environment was ripe with various religious and philosophical thoughts under the shadow of Roman rule.

This era, marked by the presence of diverse Jewish sects like the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots, presented a complex religious tapestry. Each group had its interpretation of Jewish law and tradition, reflecting the multifaceted nature of Judaism at the time.

Another significant aspect of Jewish thought during this period was apocalypticism. Many Jewish groups, influenced by the socio-political pressures of Roman occupation and internal religious debates, fostered a belief in an imminent end of the world. 

This belief system, characterized by the anticipation of a messianic figure and a transformative end of the current age, provides context for understanding some of the Jewish expectations and interpretations of Jesus' time.

In this milieu, Jesus emerges as a figure within the Judaic tradition, yet one whose portrayal is marked by distinct nuances and interpretations. 

Unlike the Christian view of Jesus as the divine Messiah and the Islamic recognition of him as a prophet, Jewish texts typically regard Jesus as a historical figure whose life and teachings must be understood within the broader context of Jewish history and thought.

Transitioning from this understanding, we will now explore the specific Jewish texts and rabbinic sources to further illuminate the Judaic view of Jesus and his place within Jewish tradition. 

Jesus in the Rabbinic Sources: Magician, not a Messiah!

In Jewish tradition, the portrayal of Jesus is strikingly different from the narratives found in Christian and Islamic texts. The Rabbinic sources, particularly the Talmud, offer limited but intriguing references to Jesus, providing a glimpse into the Jewish perspective on his life and identity.

The Talmudic references to Jesus are sparse and cryptic, often embedded in layered narratives and allegories. These references do not provide a comprehensive biography but rather snippets that reflect the complex relationship between early Rabbinic Judaism and the emerging Christian movement. 

One of the most contentious aspects of the Talmud's portrayal of Jesus is the suggestion of his illegitimate birth, famously encapsulated in the Panthera theory. This theory posits that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier named Panthera, challenging the Christian narrative of the virgin birth.

Such a portrayal reflects a broader skepticism within the Jewish tradition about the divine claims made about Jesus, aligning more with a view of him as a historical figure rather than a theological one.

Moreover, the Talmud presents Jesus and his followers as practitioners of magic. The most famous example is the story of R. Yehoshua b. Levi and his grandson who was healed by some anonymous heretic, a follower of Jesus. However, as the story goes, the grandson may survived but lost his life in the world to come because he received help from a heretical magician. 

As Peter Schäfer explains: “The story about Yehoshua b. Levi and his Grandson is not just an affirmation of the automatic effectiveness of magic; rather, it presents an ironical critique of Jesus’ and his followers’ belief in their magical power… Hence, our story ultimately conveys the message: this Jesus and his followers claim to have the keys to heaven, to use their magical power with divine authorization—but they are dead wrong!

Is Jesus Messiah in Judaism? The Jewish concept of the Messiah, as John J. Collins shows, differs significantly from the Christian interpretation. In the context of Second Temple Judaism, the concept of the Messiah was multifaceted and varied among different Jewish groups:

However, these diverse Messianic expectations shared a common thread – they didn’t foresee the Messiah as an obscure preacher from Nazareth who would suffer a criminal's death on the cross. As a result, the figure of Jesus, with his humble origins and humiliating death, starkly contrasted with the prevailing Jewish notions of a Messiah.

This incongruity led to the predominant Jewish rejection of Jesus' claim to Messianic identity, as he didn’t align with any of the anticipated Messianic archetypes prevalent in Jewish thought at the time.

Moreover, the Talmud also touches upon the death of Jesus. The text alludes to Jesus being executed, a detail that aligns with the Christian narrative of the crucifixion:

“On Passover Eve they hung the corpse of Jesus the Nazarene after they killed him by way of stoning. And a crier went out before him for forty days, publicly proclaiming: Jesus the Nazarene is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited people to idol worship, and led the Jewish people astray.” (Sanhedrin 43a).

Here it’s important to note that Judaism doesn’t accept the belief in the redemptive nature of Jesus’ death. In Jewish tradition, his death is explained as the execution of a controversial figure in Jewish society at the time.

Having explored the view of Jesus within Jewish tradition, we now transition to examining his portrayal in the Christian tradition, where he occupies a central and defining role that shapes the very foundation of the faith.

Jesus in the Christian Tradition: The Resurrected Messiah, Son of God, and the Savior

Christianity, as a distinct religious movement, did not emerge immediately with the life or even the death of Jesus, but rather, as Dr. Bart Ehrman has shown, with the belief in his resurrection. This pivotal event marks the foundational moment in Christian history, signifying the start of the transition from a Jewish sect to a separate and distinct religion. 

The resurrection of Jesus is seen as a confirmation of his divine mission and a cornerstone of Christian belief, catalyzing the spread of Christianity beyond its Jewish roots. 

In the early centuries of Christianity, there was a diversity of beliefs and perspectives about Jesus among various Christian communities. This pluralism is vividly depicted in Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities", which explores the rich tapestry of early Christian thought. Over time, one perspective gradually gained predominance, forming the basis of what is now known as mainstream Christian belief.

Central to this mainstream Christian view is the conception of Jesus as the incarnated Son of God, simultaneously fully divine and fully human.

This dual nature of Jesus was a subject of extensive theological debate in the early Church. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 C.E. played a crucial role in affirming this doctrine, asserting that Jesus was to be acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, change, division, or separation.

Furthermore, the Christian portrayal of Jesus emphasizes his redemptive death – his crucifixion isn’t seen just as a historical event but as a sacrificial act for the salvation of humanity. His resurrection is celebrated as the victory over death and sin, opening the path to eternal life for all who embrace his teachings and accept him as their Savior. 

This mainstream Christian understanding of Jesus, however, didn’t emerge in a vacuum. It was shaped by and in response to the diverse theological landscapes of the time, including various interpretations of Jesus' nature and mission. 

The debates and discussions that occurred within the early Christian community were instrumental in shaping the orthodox doctrines that would come to define Christianity.

Shifting our attention from the Christian understanding, we next delve into the Islamic perspective on Jesus. This viewpoint, distinct yet respectful, adds another layer to our exploration of how different traditions perceive this seminal figure in history. Let’s take a look at how is Islam different from Christianity! 

Jesus in Islam: A Great Prophet?

Islam's emergence is intrinsically linked to the life of Prophet Muhammad (570-632 CE), whose role vastly differed from that of Jesus. Muhammad wasn’t only a religious figure but also a political leader and military commander. His multifaceted role played a crucial part in shaping the early Islamic community, which was both a religious and a political entity.

The distinct identity of Islam, as highlighted in Fred M. Donner's study "Muhammad and the Believers," developed over the first 200 years following Muhammad's death, during which time the Islamic community transitioned from the “Monotheistic renewal movement” centered around a charismatic leader to a distinct religion that conquered a huge territory encompassing Arabic peninsula, the Middle East and North Africa.

To understand the Islamic portrayal of Jesus, it's essential to first define the Quran. The Quran is the holy book of Islam, believed by Muslims to be the word of God as revealed to Muhammad. 

Jesus in the Quran

Within the Quran, Jesus, known as Isa, is mentioned numerous times, often in the context of stories about his mother, Mary (Maryam in Arabic). Oddbjorn Leirvik explains:

“The Christ story isn’t retold in the Quran, only referred to. Furthermore, many of the references to Christ are found within a context where Mary is the dominant figure. The title of Surah 3 is ‘The House of Imran' (the fatherhouse of Mary according to the Quran) and that of Surah 19 is ‘Maryam’. Most of the references to Christ are found in these suras.”

For instance, Surah (chapter) 19 extensively discusses the birth of Jesus, emphasizing his miraculous nature from the outset.

It’s essential to note that throughout Surah 19, the narrative of Jesus' birth and early miracles serves to reinforce the message of monotheism. Jesus, even as an infant, is depicted as a human messenger who calls people to worship one God and follow the path of righteousness.

Jesus in the Early Islamic Tradition

The Hadiths, a collection of sayings and actions of Prophet Muhammad, also provide insights into the Islamic view of Jesus. While the Hadiths are secondary to the Quran, they offer additional context and interpretation of Islamic teachings. The Hadiths include references to Jesus, primarily regarding his return at the end of times.

According to various Hadiths, Jesus will descend at a time when the world is filled with injustice and conflict. A well-known Hadith narrated by Abu Huraira, found in Sahih Bukhari (one of the most authentic collections of Hadith), states:

"By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, surely (Jesus,) the son of Mary will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind justly (as a Just Ruler); he will break the Cross and kill the pigs and there will be no Jizya (i.e. taxation taken from non-Muslims). Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it, and a single prostration to Allah (in prayer) will be better than the whole world and whatever is in it.”

Furthermore, one of the earliest biographies (c. 760. C.E.) recorded the letter that Muhammad sent to the Christian Negus of Abyssinia. In it, he states:

“I bear witness that Jesus son of Mary is the spirit of God and His word which he cast to Mary the Virgin, the good, the pure so that she conceived Jesus. God created him from His spirit and His breathing as He created Adam by His hand and His breathing.”

In Islam, therefore, Jesus (Isa) is revered as a prophet and a messenger of God, but not as divine. This stands in contrast to the Christian view of Jesus as the incarnation of God. Another fundamental divergence from Christian belief is the Islamic assertion that Jesus wasn’t crucified. 

The Quran states that it appeared to people that Jesus was crucified, but in reality, he wasn’t, and God raised him to Himself. This belief negates the concept of Jesus' redemptive death, a cornerstone of Christian religion.

Moreover, the Islamic narrative also dismisses the idea of original sin and the need for atonement through Jesus' sacrifice, emphasizing instead the concepts of personal responsibility and accountability before God. The portrayal of Jesus in Islam is one of a human being, a mighty prophet, who, like others before him, came to guide humanity towards monotheism and righteous living.

As we approach the end of our exploration, let’s take a look at the table summarizing the key differences in the views of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam on Jesus. 

Summing up Conclusions: Different Views on Jesus

In this exploration of how Jesus differs in Islam, Judaism, and Christian beliefs, we have encountered a figure of profound complexity and multifaceted significance. Jesus, a historical figure whose existence is acknowledged across these major world religions, is viewed through remarkably different lenses. 

For Christianity, Jesus is the divine Messiah, whose life, death, and resurrection form the cornerstone of the religion's belief in salvation and redemption. Judaism, while recognizing Jesus as a historical figure, doesn’t ascribe to him a messianic or divine status, reflecting a starkly different interpretation of his role and legacy.

Islam reveres Jesus as a mighty prophet and the Messiah, yet denies his divinity and crucifixion, offering a narrative that intertwines respect and distinction.

The differing perspectives on Jesus – from his nature to his role in eschatology – serve as a fascinating reflection of the broader dialogues and interactions among these religions throughout history.

Do Jews Believe in Jesus? Revealing Judaism’s Messiah

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

For centuries, the story of Jesus of Nazareth shaped the religious and social landscape of our world, leading to a rift that continues to influence our lives today: the divide between Christianity and Judaism.

The origins of this divide go back to the first century when Jesus walked the dusty roads of Judea and Galilee. He was born into a Jewish family from Nazareth and raised within the framework of Judaism.

However, the path he took ultimately led to a profound schism within the Jewish community. We'll embark on a journey into the heart of this divide. We'll explore the historical roots of Christianity, the Jewish expectations surrounding the Messiah, and why Jesus was embraced as a savior by Christians and rejected as an imposter by most Jews.

Before we uncover whether Jews believe in Jesus, it’s important to describe the rise of the Messianic expectations within ancient Judaism.

Second Temple Judaism and the Messiah Expectations

Jesus lived within the period in Jewish history that scholars usually describe as the Second Temple Period (c. 516 B.C.E.-70. A.D.). Despite the promise that God gave Moses, for most of this period, the chosen people were subject to foreign rule. Since 63 B.C.E. when Pompey conquered Jerusalem, the Jewish people in Palestine were living under Roman rule.

Such a political outcome that lasted for centuries created a strong cognitive dissonance among the Jews. Based on the disparity between belief (Jews as God’s chosen people) and political reality (living under pagan rule), the idea of the Messiah was born. The assumption behind the idea was that the future would witness the rise of a great Messianic figure who would free the Jews and establish an independent kingdom.

The first mentions of the Messiah figure come from prophetic books of the Old Testament. 2 Samuel, for example, contains God's promise to King David that one of his descendants will establish an everlasting kingdom. 

During the most of Second Temple period, however, messianism didn’t figure prominently. The absence, as John J. Collins explains, changed with the Book of Daniel and the rise of Jewish apocalyptic thought in the 2nd century B.C.E.

It’s important, however, to emphasize that ancient Judaism wasn’t a monolithic entity. Consequently, there was no single idea about the exact nature of the future Messiah. 

In other words, Jewish apocalyptic thought was "stimulated" by the general image of a future savior who would establish the kingdom of God in Israel and elevate the Jewish state above all other empires in the world.

Who is the Messiah in Judaism? What kind of a savior will he be? As it turns out, Jewish texts reveal different ideas and beliefs! 

#1 - Messiah as a royal figure and the future king of Israel

This was a common idea found within the Jewish texts of that period. Some of these texts even specified that the Messiah would be king from the line of David. Take, for instance, the Psalms of Solomon (1st century B.C.E.).

Written in reaction to Pompey's occupation and conquest of Jerusalem, the anonymous author describes the future day when David's anointed son will free his people from the enemy, restore the power of Jerusalem, and establish a just society. Other Jews, however, had a different picture of the future Messiah.

#2 - Messiah as a priestly figure who would restore the Temple

An apocryphal document Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs predicts the future days when God will appoint a new priest who will rule over all of Israel. In this scenario, the Messiah acts like a priest by establishing proper worship of God, often in a new, more sacred Temple.

Furthermore, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, a collection of Jewish texts from the Second Temple period discovered in the mid-20th century, there is a text known as the Melchizedek Scroll. It speaks of a Messianic figure who is a priestly figure in the order of Melchizedek, an ancient priest-king mentioned in the Hebrew Bible.

#3 - More than one Messiah?

Since the Dead Sea Scrolls are a captivating collection of Jewish books, it doesn’t come as a surprise that we find different notions of Messiah figures within them.

In The New Testament, Dr. Ehrman notes that "some of the scrolls indicate that this kingdom would be ruled by two messiahs, one a king and the other a priest. The priestly messiah would lead the faithful in their worship of God in a purified temple, where sacrifices could again be made in accordance with God’s will."

#4 - Messiah as the Son of Man in the Book of Daniel 

Probably the most famous Messiah figures appear in Daniel 7. The author reports a vision in which he sees God on his throne, preparing to judge all people. A beast that represents an evil earthly power is killed. 

Then the author reports: “I sad one like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him. To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed (Daniel 7:13-14).”

In this interpretation, the Messiah is depicted as a cosmic (supernatural) deliverer from heaven, who would engage in supernatural warfare with the enemies of the Jews and bring a divine victory over their oppressors.

Whoever this figure from Daniel 7 was supposed to be, he became the model or paradigm for many subsequent Messiah figures in early Jewish literature. He is, therefore, sometimes referred to as the “Son of Man”.

The point is that the concept of the Messiah in ancient Judaism was diverse, and different Jewish sects and traditions had their interpretations of the Messiah's role and attributes. However, as we shall see soon, the diversity has its limits! 

Jesus of Nazareth and Early Messianic Claims

Most historians believe that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who proclaimed the arrival of the Kingdom of God. Around the year 30, the Romans crucified him. 

After his death and based on the belief that God raised Jesus, some of his followers proclaimed that their leader was, in fact, God’s Messiah, the King of the Jews, and the Son of Man from Daniel 7. In the Gospel of Matthew, for example, Jesus asks his disciples who they believe he is. Peter responds with an explicit declaration: "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God (Mt 16:16)."

Furthermore, early Christians claimed that Jesus would soon arrive on the clouds of heaven bringing the final Judgment and the establishment of God’s kingdom on Earth.

The apostle Paul, for instance, assures his readers in Thessalonica: “For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thess 5:13-16). 

Even though the Old Testament was originally the Scripture of the Jewish people, most early Christians accepted it as part of their Scripture. 

Not only that! Christians believe in the Old Testament. Already in the earliest texts such as Paul's epistles and the four canonical Gospels, Christians expressed their belief that the Old Testament contains prophecies about Jesus. In other words, they believed that the Messiah Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies. 

Take, for instance, the famous passage from Isaiah: “He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem... But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds, we are healed (Isaiah 53:3-5).”

Most critical scholars today, however, recognize that the original meaning of Isaiah 53 has nothing to do with the concept of Messiah. To learn more about it, check out Dr. Ehrman’s excellent blog post! 

Armed with the belief in a resurrected Jesus whose Messianic identity was predicted by the Old Testament prophets, the first Christians spread the new faith around the Mediterranean world. Already by the middle of the 1st century, the good news reached Rome.

But the message of the resurrected Messiah was first conveyed to the Jews in Palestine. After all, Jesus’ disciples were all Jews living in Judea and Galilee. It was only natural to transmit new beliefs about Jesus and salvation to their fellow countryman. However, most of them weren’t pleased with the news they heard.

“You are not the Messiah”: Jewish Rejection of Jesus

In his Epistle to Corinthians, Paul stated that the first followers of Jesus preached “about a crucified Christ, a stumbling block to Jews.” But why didn’t most Jews believe in Christ? How to comprehend the concept of Messiah in Judaism vs. Christianity? The only way is to look at the Christian message from the Jewish perspective.

Despite the differences in Jewish Messianic expectations, one thing was certain: A Messiah is going to be a great figure of triumph and victory. 

In Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of New Millenium, Dr. Ehrman notes that “prior to the Christian proclamation of Jesus, there were no Jews, at least so far as we know, who believed that the Messiah was going to be crucified. On the contrary, the Messiah was to be the great and powerful leader who delivered Israel from its oppressive overlords.”

And who was Jesus? He was, from a historical point of view, a crucified criminal who died in a most humiliating way. Consequently, a rapture between early followers of Jesus and the rest of the Jewish community emerged. It started a process that scholars often call the “Parting of the Ways” between Judaism and Christianity. 

There were, however, some Jews who believed in Jesus. The Ebionites are an excellent example. They were a Jewish Christian sect that originated probably among the early Jewish followers of Jesus in Jerusalem.

Like other early Christians, the Ebionites believed that Jesus was the Messiah promised in Jewish scripture. However, they had a unique understanding of Jesus. They saw him as a human prophet and Messiah, rather than a divine figure.

Eventually, the proto-orthodox Church marginalized Ebionites who became only a “heretical” footnote in the history of Christianity. If you want to know more about it, check out Dr. Ehrman’s bestseller Lost Christianities!

Still Rejected: Jesus in the Later Rabbinic Sources

With the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. everything changed. The Jewish history reached a new breakpoint. The subsequent defeat by the Roman forces (135 C.E.) and the deportation of Jews from Palestine represented the ultimate end of the Second Temple Period. 

Consequently, Rabbinic Judaism emerged as the dominant force within the Jewish religious tradition. But the view on Jesus didn’t change. Most Jews still rejected the idea that the crucified criminal who was probably born in Nazareth was a true Messiah and a Savior. 

The Talmud - a collection of Jewish texts that originated within the Rabbinic movement, mentions Jesus a couple of times. He is depicted as a sorcerer or the son of an adulteress, and the Roman soldier Panthera.

This tradition was probably a Jewish polemical attack on the Christian belief that Jesus was the son of a virgin (Παρθένος). Moreover, the punch line of this attribution, as Peter Schäfer notes, is the “fact that Jesus, through his father Panthera becomes not only a bastard but even the son of a non-Jew.”

When will the Messiah come? Rabbinic Jews still maintain the belief in a future Messiah to usher in a period of ultimate redemption, but the exact time of his arrival is unknown. His exact identity is also a mystery. Different streams within the Rabbinic tradition give different answers. But they all agree on one thing: Jesus of Nazareth is not the Messiah! 

Summing up Conclusion

The question of "Do Jews believe in Jesus?" emerges as a pivotal point of distinction between two religious traditions. The rejection of Jesus by the majority of the Jewish community, epitomized by his crucifixion, was rooted in the fundamental disparity between their understanding of the Messiah and the reality of Jesus' life and death. 

History is full of paradoxes. And is there a greater paradox than the fact that Jesus, despite his Jewish identity and message, was rejected by the majority of Jews? Unfortunately, this rejection also stipulated the rise of early Christian anti-semitism that was carried through the Middle Ages to the 20th century.

In the end, the enduring legacy of this divide underscores the richness and complexity of religious traditions and the profound influence of Christianity on our world. To know more about the two most important figures of Christianity (Jesus and Paul), I invite you to join Dr. Ehrman’s captivating course "Paul and Jesus: The Great Divide". Click the link below and embark on this fascinating journey to the origin of Christianity!