The True Founder of Christianity

[mobkem]

Did Jesus or his Apostles follow a religion called Christianity? Who were the first 'Christians' ? Who founded Christianity and do the teachings of Christianity conform to the teachings of Jesus?





The mission of Jesus.

In 721 B.C.E the Jewish kingdom of Israel faced defeat at the hands of the Assyrians. Scattered abroad with their Temple destroyed, the Jews turned their focus onto the Law. Monotheism was once again lost, but this time in an ever increasing maze of elaborate rites and rituals.

It was this situation that was present in the world when Jesus received his calling from God. Upon beginning his ministry at the approximate age of 30, Jesus made it clear that his mission from God was to get the Jews back on track:

"For the son of man is come to save that which was lost." (Matthew 18:11)

"For I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.� (Matthew 15:24)

Jesus also made it clear just what God wanted him to do :
"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak" (John 12:49)

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17)

A careful study of Jesus' words will show that, contrary to what Christians may think, Jesus had no intention of starting a new religion; he only came to reiterate the message that God had given to all prophets before him: man was to obey God's Laws and worship Him alone.

At no time during his ministry did Jesus claim to be anything more than a human being, inspired by God. Indeed, he referred to himself as the son of man, and made it clear, in a number of verses throughout the Gospel, that he was merely a Messenger of God


Was Jesus' Mission a success?

"Why callest thou me good? There is none good but One, that is God." (Mark 10:18)

"...whosoever receives me, receives not me, but Him who sent me." (Mark 9:37)

"And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou has sent." (John 17:3)

"Now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard from God." (John 8:40)

"I ascend unto my Father and your Father, my God and your God." (John 20:17)

Despite all his efforts--wonderful words backed up with some pretty nifty miracles--Jesus was soundly rejected, especially by his own people.

Three years after he began his ministry, he was arrested and charged with sedition and blasphemy. Success had eluded him, at the end of his life on earth; he left behind only a mere handful of followers, not more than 500 at most.


The True Founder of Christianity

Approximately five years after Jesus' ascension into heaven, A twenty-five-year old zealot was on his way to Damascus to pick up a group of Nazarenes (The followers of Jesus called themselves as Nazarenes) for return to Jerusalem when he had a vision in which he claimed Jesus appeared, asking why Saul was persecuting him. Saul changed his name to Paul and went off into the deserts of Arabia in order to think about just how he was going to go about carrying out what he believed to be a command from Jesus to go out and preach.

Exactly WHAT to do was quite a dilemma for him, however; since the Jews had rejected Jesus and his message, Paul didn't think he stood much of chance of getting through to them, either. He made up his mind that it would be best to simply dismiss them off and target the Gentiles (non-Jews) instead.

The Romans and the Greeks, who made up the Gentile population of Paul's world, were pagans who worshiped a plethora of gods and goddesses. Temples and statues of their deities abounded in the land, and Roman law had it that all people, with the exception of the Jews, must pay homage to the gods.

Paul knew that people with such deep-reaching pagan beliefs were not going to accept the idea that grace and salvation could come from a person who was only considered to be a most upright and righteous human being. If Paul wanted quick results in his ministry, he knew that he would have to "modulate" things a bit, taking into account the culture of the Gentiles.

Paul Maier, in his book "First Christians", tells us that thirteen years elapsed between the time Paul "received his calling" and the time that he began preaching. During that thirteen years, Paul's creative mind put in a lot of overtime; when he finally returned to Damascus, he came back armed with the knowledge that the Gentiles would demand a tangible god within their new religion, and he was prepared to give this to them.

Paul was wildly successful in his subsequent missionary efforts, what with the accommodations he ended up making for the Gentiles. Although the religion of Christianity takes its name from Jesus Christ, Paul of Tarsus must be considered as its true founder, as he is the one who conceived all of its doctrines, and set up its churches throughout the world of his time. Christians don't deny this, either: "No figure in Christian history stands so tall or has had such a tremendous influence as has Saul of Tarsus..."

In his book "The 100: A Ranking of the most Influential Persons In History", author Michael Hart concurs in saying:

"No other man played so large a role in the propagation of Christianity."

There is one big problem with this picture, however: The teachings of Paul, the true founder of Christianity, cannot be found anywhere in the teachings of Jesus or in those of prophets before him.

The following are some of the innovations that Paul introduced into "his" religion of Christianity.

1. The divinity of Jesus
2. The trinity
3. Atonement
4. Salvation by faith


Using these doctrines Paul achieved phenomenal success in his ministry. The Jews may have brushed Jesus aside, but the Gentiles flocked to Paul's side, as he gave them just what they wanted in their new religion. The term for the earlier followers of Jesus –Nazarenes was dropped in favor of a new, more 'appropriate' name: Christians, or followers of Jesus Christ.

This new religion of Christianity "...was abundantly interwoven with mythological content drawn heavily from pagan sources..." along with having a theology "...which was produced as the need arose to suit the mentality of the times..."

Later Church leaders thought to neatly end the confusion by saying that Jesus was God-incarnate--an eternal being who "chose" to become a man in the womb of Mary. Jesus had, in other words, two natures--divine and human-- which were united in one single person. While they probably meant well, making a statement such as this only led to more confusion.

The Jews did brush Jesus aside; in a way, however, the religion of Christianity as conceived by Paul has also brushed Jesus aside. Despite what a Christian might say, one will find no evidence wherein Jesus himself puts forth any of the afore--mentioned doctrines within the Gospels. Since Jesus had no plans to start a new religion, it goes without saying that he also did not formulate any doctrines for such.

All Christian doctrines are the work of Paul, based on his desire to gain favor--and new converts--among the non Jews of his time. By incorporating pagan beliefs into the teachings of Jesus, Paul achieved phenomenal success in his ministry, but at the price of tearing down everything that true monotheism stands for. In so doing, Paul abrogated all teachings of Jesus and gave mankind a set of beliefs that have plagued his sense of reason ever since. It is here --the true nature and role of Jesus, as opposed to the Christian view of such -- where we find the fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity.

http://islam.thetruecall.com/modules.ph ... =0&thold=0

[Volbrigade]

It took centuries for the Church to construct the Chistological doctrines of Trinity.

There are several references to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the New Testament. I don't think it's accurate to say that the Church "constructed" the doctrine of the Trinity centuries later, any more than it would be to say a contemporary writer "constructs" the 1st Amendment by publishing a paper amplifying its context and meaning.

The doctrine now known as Trinity is not evidenced in any first century writings. A significant proportion of early Christians earnestly debated on the losing side.

Good news! I found some evidence:

Matt 3:16,17; John 14: 26; Matt 28: 19; 2 Cor 13:14; Gal 4: 4-6

The use of the Hebrew scriptures to make the case for Jesus' messianic mission is crude and indicates poor scholarship

That's a matter of opinion, of course. Many quite informed opinions cite Paul's profound knowledge of the Scripture -- he was a Pharisee, after all -- and the beautiful economy of language in the Gospels and Epistles.

He claimed to be a Pharisee and a scholar, yet he demonstrated that he did not understand Jewish law and tradition. He frequently quoted out of context and drew conclusions not supported in the text.

I'm sure you'll agree that those are conclusions based on a particular premise. One could just as easily draw the conclusion that he understood the Jewish laws and traditions as no one ever had before, being (arguably) the first educated Pharisee to see them within the context of the new paradigm that would become known as Christianity. From that standpoint, his quotes bring out new meaning from their context, and his conclusions are the first ones to accurately portray those meanings, which had been unfulfilled up to that time.

...those stories have origins that are more ancient and diverse than the usual simplistic Christian analysis will allow.

What is "the usual simplistic Christian analysis?"

The usual simplistic Christian analysis is that the events recorded in the Gospels really did happen, and that is why they were recorded. Critical and scholarly analysis finds more ancient mythological roots to many of the elements of the stories.

If the Gospels events actually occurred, the very last appropriate descriptor for them would be "simplistic." They would be complex in a way that is beyond human understanding. And given the Jewish prophecies in regard to them, it's not surprising that other cultures possessed prefigurements and foreshadowings of them, as well. It speaks to the universality of the Gospel Message. What would be troubling is if there weren't such "mythological roots."

I submit that materialism provides the most coherent alternative to Christian belief, but it has profound problems (e.g., origins; the impossibility of establishing moral standards; the logical conclusion that life has no ultimate meaning; and the lack of justification for logic and reason themselves).

I submit that those problems exist in a somewhat different form for Christianity and are not any less insurmountable for the materialist point of view.

Well that's interesting. I have engaged in numerous debates on that very issue (and just by looking at your credentials on this board, it's a sure bet you have, too), and have yet to encounter a materialist position on origins or development that doesn't reduce to "we don't know -- yet," or on human morality and ethics that answers the question "why should I be good?" in a way that holds water for more than five minutes or so.

It is the business of God to provide evidence of Himself. I tell you what: you make an earnest effort to believe, which includes an earnest desire to believe. You will have your evidence.

I have an earnest desire to know truth. I do not think that an a priori assumption on my part as to which competing claim is true would help in my efforts to discern truth. In fact, a strong desire for X or Y to be true, is a hindrance to objectively knowing what is true.

There is truth in what you write.

However, I'm sure you'll agree that there are categorical differences between The Truth expressed by Christianity, and all other truth claims. Then again, perhaps you don't.

The "categorical differences" I refer to are many and deep, but can be summed in the dictum "God entered His material creation in the form of a man at a particular time and place in history."

One ancillary to that fact, if true, is that the causes of that Divine intervention also render it necessary to engage in a volitional act in order to believe it.

[McCulloch]

He [Paul] claimed to be a Pharisee and a scholar, yet he demonstrated that he did not understand Jewish law and tradition. He frequently quoted out of context and drew conclusions not supported in the text.

I'm sure you'll agree that those are conclusions based on a particular premise. One could just as easily draw the conclusion that he understood the Jewish laws and traditions as no one ever had before, being (arguably) the first educated Pharisee to see them within the context of the new paradigm that would become known as Christianity. From that standpoint, his quotes bring out new meaning from their context, and his conclusions are the first ones to accurately portray those meanings, which had been unfulfilled up to that time.

I'll quote my Jewish friend cnorman about Paul's alleged Jewishness.

In point of fact, there is some doubt about those allegations [that Paul was a highly educated Jew].

In spite of the claims made by Paul himself, there is internal evidence in Paul's letters that he may not have even been Jewish; and if he was, he was far out of step with the Judaism of his day and rather clearly did not understand or share some of the most basic teachings of it.

First, it's doubtful that Paul could read Hebrew. All of his Scripture quotations are from the Septuagint, the Greek OT, which was not highly thought of nor much consulted among the Jews of Palestine.

Second, he claims to know that he is of the tribe of Benjamin, which is very peculiar. Even in his day, few Jews other than Levites knew their tribal affiliation (and this remains true today). This would be even more unusual in a Jew from Tarsus, which was a backwater of the Jewish world and much more influenced by Greek culture.

Third, though Paul claims to have studied with the great rabbi Gamaliel, there is no evidence whatever of Gamaliel's influence in anything Paul teaches or says.

Fourth, and again in spite of Paul's claims, there is no evidence whatever outside of the New Testament that Paul (then Saul) was well-known or highly respected in the Jewish community, or indeed that anyone had ever heard of him before he began preaching his Gospel.

Most importantly, though, and a matter of concern whether any of the foregoing ought to be or not, is the matter of Paul's teachings about Judaism running directly counter to traditional Jewish understandings. Most prominently, when Paul says that the Law is a burden and imparts death rather than life, he sets himself at odds with every Jew and every rabbi in his world.

Pick a Psalm. The Law has always been regarded by Jews as God's most precious gift, a light into one's path and a lamp into one's feet, sweet as honey, more valuable and to be cherished than silver or gold. Saying the Law is a burden and a trial, to a Jew, is analogous to a Christian calling the Gospel "the Bad News." It's so bizarre that one wonders where it might have come from. It certainly didn't come from Gamaliel, from the Torah, or the Hebrew Bible. There are other matters of concern as well, but that one stands out like the proverbial sore thumb.

Notice; I do not assert as a matter of fact that Paul was not Jewish. I say that the matter is in doubt, which it absolutely is.

[Cathar1950]

He [Paul] claimed to be a Pharisee and a scholar, yet he demonstrated that he did not understand Jewish law and tradition. He frequently quoted out of context and drew conclusions not supported in the text.

I'm sure you'll agree that those are conclusions based on a particular premise. One could just as easily draw the conclusion that he understood the Jewish laws and traditions as no one ever had before, being (arguably) the first educated Pharisee to see them within the context of the new paradigm that would become known as Christianity. From that standpoint, his quotes bring out new meaning from their context, and his conclusions are the first ones to accurately portray those meanings, which had been unfulfilled up to that time.

I'll quote my Jewish friend cnorman about Paul's alleged Jewishness.

In point of fact, there is some doubt about those allegations [that Paul was a highly educated Jew].

In spite of the claims made by Paul himself, there is internal evidence in Paul's letters that he may not have even been Jewish; and if he was, he was far out of step with the Judaism of his day and rather clearly did not understand or share some of the most basic teachings of it.

First, it's doubtful that Paul could read Hebrew. All of his Scripture quotations are from the Septuagint, the Greek OT, which was not highly thought of nor much consulted among the Jews of Palestine.

Second, he claims to know that he is of the tribe of Benjamin, which is very peculiar. Even in his day, few Jews other than Levites knew their tribal affiliation (and this remains true today). This would be even more unusual in a Jew from Tarsus, which was a backwater of the Jewish world and much more influenced by Greek culture.

Third, though Paul claims to have studied with the great rabbi Gamaliel, there is no evidence whatever of Gamaliel's influence in anything Paul teaches or says.

Fourth, and again in spite of Paul's claims, there is no evidence whatever outside of the New Testament that Paul (then Saul) was well-known or highly respected in the Jewish community, or indeed that anyone had ever heard of him before he began preaching his Gospel.

Most importantly, though, and a matter of concern whether any of the foregoing ought to be or not, is the matter of Paul's teachings about Judaism running directly counter to traditional Jewish understandings. Most prominently, when Paul says that the Law is a burden and imparts death rather than life, he sets himself at odds with every Jew and every rabbi in his world.

Pick a Psalm. The Law has always been regarded by Jews as God's most precious gift, a light into one's path and a lamp into one's feet, sweet as honey, more valuable and to be cherished than silver or gold. Saying the Law is a burden and a trial, to a Jew, is analogous to a Christian calling the Gospel "the Bad News." It's so bizarre that one wonders where it might have come from. It certainly didn't come from Gamaliel, from the Torah, or the Hebrew Bible. There are other matters of concern as well, but that one stands out like the proverbial sore thumb.

Notice; I do not assert as a matter of fact that Paul was not Jewish. I say that the matter is in doubt, which it absolutely is.

Just to add to the doubts, Paul says he is related to the little Herod. Herod's family was not Jewish and the area once called Edom(maybe) was conquered by the Jewish state in the 1st and 2nd century BCE. The were forced to convert which might give them the law is a burden. Herod claimed to be from the Tribe of Benjamin.
Maybe even with converted Jewish Grand Parents he never felt Jewish enough.
Fun stuff.

[Volbrigade]

He [Paul] claimed to be a Pharisee and a scholar, yet he demonstrated that he did not understand Jewish law and tradition. He frequently quoted out of context and drew conclusions not supported in the text.

I'm sure you'll agree that those are conclusions based on a particular premise. One could just as easily draw the conclusion that he understood the Jewish laws and traditions as no one ever had before, being (arguably) the first educated Pharisee to see them within the context of the new paradigm that would become known as Christianity. From that standpoint, his quotes bring out new meaning from their context, and his conclusions are the first ones to accurately portray those meanings, which had been unfulfilled up to that time.

I'll quote my Jewish friend cnorman about Paul's alleged Jewishness.

In point of fact, there is some doubt about those allegations [that Paul was a highly educated Jew]. In spite of the claims made by Paul himself, there is internal evidence in Paul's letters that he may not have even been Jewish;

Waitaminnit. I thought it was Luke who was the dastardly liar. Now it's Paul again. Which is it? Or could it be both?

In any case, allegations against either one (or both) do nothing to undermine the singular nature of the "conspiracy" and its results. In fact, they serve to reinforce them. Now the man who is at (or at least very near) the center of the conspiracy is not only not a highly-educated Pharisee, he may not even be a Jew. Astounding!

...and if he was, he was far out of step with the Judaism of his day and rather clearly did not understand or share some of the most basic teachings of it.

It's hard to imagine how he could have illuminated the doctrines of a New Covenant without at least appearing to be out of step with the Old one.

First, it's doubtful that Paul could read Hebrew. All of his Scripture quotations are from the Septuagint, the Greek OT, which was not highly thought of nor much consulted among the Jews of Palestine.

Since his writings were addressed to Gentiles (primarily, I think we can all agree; or at least secondarily), wouldn't it make sense for him to use as a source a version of Scripture that was accessible to them?

Second, he claims to know that he is of the tribe of Benjamin, which is very peculiar. Even in his day, few Jews other than Levites knew their tribal affiliation (and this remains true today). This would be even more unusual in a Jew from Tarsus, which was a backwater of the Jewish world and much more influenced by Greek culture.

That is an interesting point. But it's certainly not outside the realm of possibility that he was one of the "few." As an item of novelistic speculation, one can imagine a family that remains aware of its heritage precisely because of its placement within a foreign culture. I totally defer to cnorman's knowledge of the subject on this point, but if a Jew were to fabricate a lineage to a particular tribe, would he be likely to choose Benjamin? It seems to me, based on events described in the Judges 19, that there might be some stigma attached to that particular tribe.

Third, though Paul claims to have studied with the great rabbi Gamaliel, there is no evidence whatever of Gamaliel's influence in anything Paul teaches or says.

What we're offered for belief is that the experiences Paul had, and the insights he acquired, superseded his religious indoctrination.

Fourth, and again in spite of Paul's claims, there is no evidence whatever outside of the New Testament that Paul (then Saul) was well-known or highly respected in the Jewish community, or indeed that anyone had ever heard of him before he began preaching his Gospel.

Perhaps not. He is certainly well-known and highly respected now, however.

Most importantly, though, and a matter of concern whether any of the foregoing ought to be or not, is the matter of Paul's teachings about Judaism running directly counter to traditional Jewish understandings. Most prominently, when Paul says that the Law is a burden and imparts death rather than life, he sets himself at odds with every Jew and every rabbi in his world.

Pick a Psalm. The Law has always been regarded by Jews as God's most precious gift, a light into one's path and a lamp into one's feet, sweet as honey, more valuable and to be cherished than silver or gold. Saying the Law is a burden and a trial, to a Jew, is analogous to a Christian calling the Gospel "the Bad News." It's so bizarre that one wonders where it might have come from. It certainly didn't come from Gamaliel, from the Torah, or the Hebrew Bible. There are other matters of concern as well, but that one stands out like the proverbial sore thumb.

Again, if Paul had merely rubber-stamped the prevailing views of the Pharisees -- or should I say, "if he had continued to rubber stamp..." -- then he wouldn't have presented the radical new paradigm of Christianity to the world.

What this assertion does is to bring into bold, stark contrast the startling novelty of Paul's proclamation, which is imminently logical: The law condemns us; Jesus frees us from its condemnation. This makes sense even from a the standpoint of mundane legality. If we break a civil or criminal law, the law condemns us. Someone in the proper authority can free us from that condemnation (e.g., a governor's pardon).

[olddocbenway]

Matthew 16:16-17 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."

How exactly does that tie into Christ never claiming divinity?

I believe the terms 'father' and 'heaven' my have meanings outside the literal. Using the pesher method of reading into certain terms, they mean positions within the church (father) and actual places (heaven). I would add that the clarity of what Jesus seems to be saying here in English have been through 2000 years and a couple of languages, so maybe sound so obvious, but are in fact not how they were meant. Or of course, they could simply be later additions, as per the resurrection.

[olddocbenway]

In other words, if "all paths lead up the mountain", rendering all paths (as well as no path at all) of equal value, or lack thereof --

I'm afraid I would have to say that not all paths lead up the mountain. And to extend the metaphor - people of faith see the mountain, religious people see their path.

[olddocbenway]

There are several references to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the New Testament. I don't think it's accurate to say that the Church "constructed" the doctrine of the Trinity centuries later, any more than it would be to say a contemporary writer "constructs" the 1st Amendment by publishing a paper amplifying its context and meaning.

There is certainly talk of those three things in a list, it makes a trinity, but does it make The Trinity. Once again, it seems that Paul/Saul took the texts very literally, or at least the people he told did. What are essentially roles of humans within the church hierarchy took on supernatural conotations for the pagan polytheist gentiles as they adopted Christianity. Doubtless steered by Paul/Saul.

[olddocbenway]

The real genius, the liar, fraud and heretic would have been Luke, the author or Acts and the Gospel bearing his name. Luke, seeing that the Romans needed for any new religion to have a pedigree to be acceptable, co-opted the weakened Jesus movement's hero, after the destruction of the Temple, into a literal historical background for Paul's Christ movement.

A lecturer from Yok University in Toronto who teaches biblical history says that none of the synoptic gospels were in fact written by the people whose names title them.

[olddocbenway]

He [Paul] claimed to be a Pharisee and a scholar, yet he demonstrated that he did not understand Jewish law and tradition. He frequently quoted out of context and drew conclusions not supported in the text.

I'm sure you'll agree that those are conclusions based on a particular premise. One could just as easily draw the conclusion that he understood the Jewish laws and traditions as no one ever had before, being (arguably) the first educated Pharisee to see them within the context of the new paradigm that would become known as Christianity. From that standpoint, his quotes bring out new meaning from their context, and his conclusions are the first ones to accurately portray those meanings, which had been unfulfilled up to that time.

I'll quote my Jewish friend cnorman about Paul's alleged Jewishness.

In point of fact, there is some doubt about those allegations [that Paul was a highly educated Jew].

In spite of the claims made by Paul himself, there is internal evidence in Paul's letters that he may not have even been Jewish; and if he was, he was far out of step with the Judaism of his day and rather clearly did not understand or share some of the most basic teachings of it.

First, it's doubtful that Paul could read Hebrew. All of his Scripture quotations are from the Septuagint, the Greek OT, which was not highly thought of nor much consulted among the Jews of Palestine.

Second, he claims to know that he is of the tribe of Benjamin, which is very peculiar. Even in his day, few Jews other than Levites knew their tribal affiliation (and this remains true today). This would be even more unusual in a Jew from Tarsus, which was a backwater of the Jewish world and much more influenced by Greek culture.

Third, though Paul claims to have studied with the great rabbi Gamaliel, there is no evidence whatever of Gamaliel's influence in anything Paul teaches or says.

Fourth, and again in spite of Paul's claims, there is no evidence whatever outside of the New Testament that Paul (then Saul) was well-known or highly respected in the Jewish community, or indeed that anyone had ever heard of him before he began preaching his Gospel.

Most importantly, though, and a matter of concern whether any of the foregoing ought to be or not, is the matter of Paul's teachings about Judaism running directly counter to traditional Jewish understandings. Most prominently, when Paul says that the Law is a burden and imparts death rather than life, he sets himself at odds with every Jew and every rabbi in his world.

Pick a Psalm. The Law has always been regarded by Jews as God's most precious gift, a light into one's path and a lamp into one's feet, sweet as honey, more valuable and to be cherished than silver or gold. Saying the Law is a burden and a trial, to a Jew, is analogous to a Christian calling the Gospel "the Bad News." It's so bizarre that one wonders where it might have come from. It certainly didn't come from Gamaliel, from the Torah, or the Hebrew Bible. There are other matters of concern as well, but that one stands out like the proverbial sore thumb.

Notice; I do not assert as a matter of fact that Paul was not Jewish. I say that the matter is in doubt, which it absolutely is.

Might I add that Judaism at that time was a not united, as the US churches of Christianity have many different takes on ritual/belief/history etc. And it is not beyond the realms of belief that Paul/Saul didn't understand some of the what later became the more widely known forms of Judaism.

[Goat]

Might I add that Judaism at that time was a not united, as the US churches of Christianity have many different takes on ritual/belief/history etc. And it is not beyond the realms of belief that Paul/Saul didn't understand some of the what later became the more widely known forms of Judaism.

There are some aspects of Paul's theology that is decisively 'non-Jewish', no matter what form of Judaism you are talking about. The disrespect for the law in particular.