Roman Catholicism found in approximately 380 A.D. when Roman Empire took up the religion as it's religion. The Catholics believe in the Teaching Authority and Sacramental Agent given to them. Basically
the Pope was passed down from St. Peter and power is given to each Pope to tell the truth when it comes to morality and faith. The Pope is infallible when he speaks on authority to these things, yet is fallible in other areas of life as he is not seen as a god. They also teach the seven sacraments for the seven major aspects or
events of life to keep grounded. 1. Baptism, 2. confirmation. 3. Marriage. 4. Holy Orders. 5. Death. 6. Confession. 7. Communion. They also view Mary as a holy figure and believe that works show faith and without works you have no faith or little faith. Eastern Orthodoxy popped into being around 1054 A.D. when they split off from Catholicism over mixed views on things. Mostly the Pope, as Othordoxy claims that the view the Pope has these powers is raising him to a God figure which is against the Bible according to
them. They honor the same sacraments however. Yet they don't interpret purgatory, indulgences, and etc. the same way. They mostly believe in a whole ness of the church rather then in the individual. Protestantism broke away from Catholicism for similar reasons including disregarding the Pope and getting the word from the Bible
which they believe is the infallible, inerrant, direct word of God in writing. They believe every word and letter was written by God and to be taken in it's direct context. Also that justification is by faith alone without works. It is possible to be saved without performing works. Also it is the Protestant Principle which warns
against idolatry in money, sex, etc. Anything that can preoccupy you and direct your whole attention away from God and life. Basically it's the fact that if you accept Christ into your life you are saved and can live life. However, that is not to say you can have complete disregard but it is saying that it is left to you how
to live. A freedom of will in essence.
because of the fact that Christians base their faith on an act of
faith on the historical Jesus as the human figure of God. Crossan
disguesses how out of place Jesus was with the period of that time
and that he was considered as much of an outsider as John the
Baptist and that he was at odds with the politico-religious groups
and leaders and after John was put to death for similar reasons
Christs fate was probably well expected. However, no one expected
his teachings to take hold as well as they did. It is also needed
because the four gospels are merely the canonical gospels that have
been approved by the Nicean counsel and that there are many other
gospel accounts out there. 5 book of them are used by Catholics and
are known as the apocrypha. The other purpose according to Crossan
is there might be multiple Jesuses that are talked about. Which I
think is a flat out joke and since he's not able to source it give
it much little credibility. I'm pretty sure he's standing out on
his own for that one as most historians feel there was simply ONE
Jesus, however, without the miracles and other faithish aspects to
it. Crossan talks about the fact that Jesus was a peasant and
worked the streets of the villages instead of the farms. He went
into towns and taught them new social rules and asked them to teach
others the Kingdom of God He was building a social program as
Crossan puts it. In which he was going to rebuild society on
religious and egalitarianism, "with free healing brought directly to
the peasant homes and free sharing of whatever they had in return."
Basically it was a system of honor, and compassion with no boundary
lines or classifications which was extremely at odds with society.
Especially between Jew and Gentile. Crossan then discusses his
comparison to those of the Cynics of that age and that basically he
was a Jewish Cynic who was confronting the current way of life, the
current politico-religion rule, and the mind set of the entire
economy and population especially with the romans. Crossan even
goes to compare them to the hippies of the 70's. Crossan then talks
about the differences in what's happened from then on in the
Christian faith which I feel has nothing to do with a "historical
Jesus" it is merely people either correctly or incorrectly reading
and interpretting their scriptures.