• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What do Jews find strange about Christianity and why.

pearl

Well-Known Member
Jewish scholars who read the Scriptures (including the New Testament!) with ‘Jewish eyes emphasize that Jesus is speaking completely within the confines of the arguments of the Judaism of His time. Hearing a sharp antithesis between the Jewish Torah and Christian ethics from Jesus’ lips is only possible if it is accepted (even unconsciously, possibly) that the presumption already mentioned more than once – that Christian doctrine is superior to Jewish doctrine – stretches the expression ‘you have heard that it is said … I say to you’ to the absurd. This is, in fact, customary terminology in rabbinical discussion. The opinion of previous Torah exegetes is given first; thereafter the speaker gives his own interpretation as a contribution to the correct understanding (the ‘establishment’) of the Torah. It is remarkable that Christian translations always choose a contrasting translation for the Greek ‘egoo de legoo humin’: but I say to you – if possible translated even more strongly by ‘I even say’, whereas the Greek ‘de’ in the Gospels does not usually indicate an antithesis, but rather a connection. The translation should therefore simply read: Jewish exegetes who read the Scriptures (including the New Testament!) with ‘Jewish eyes through Jewish glasses’ emphasize that Jesus is speaking completely within the confines of the arguments of the Judaism of His time and this corresponds with the usual rabbinical way of saying: ‘wa ani omeer lachem’, which is not an introduction to a contradiction of the Torah, but, on the contrary, an elucidation thereof. “Far from being ‘unique‘, this is a basic tenet of the ‘verbal Torah’ and accordingly it has many parallels in the Talmudic writings. ‘You have heard’ or ‘It is said’ followed by ‘And I say to you’ actually constitute a pair of fixed expressions in the basic vocabulary of rabbinical rhetoric.
Jesus uses the common way of speaking to give His Torah explanation, and that He in no way intends to express Himself ‘antithetically’ about Torah and tradition, and that He intends to radically break with it even less. That is a Christian construction that came afterwards.
 

Flankerl

Well-Known Member
Any thread about Christians asking Jews about something

Is it them
A) actually asking genuine questions?
or
B) trying to convert them?


hmmkrjq8.png
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Jewish scholars who read the Scriptures (including the New Testament!) with ‘Jewish eyes emphasize that Jesus is speaking completely within the confines of the arguments of the Judaism of His time.
Examples please?
Hearing a sharp antithesis between the Jewish Torah and Christian ethics from Jesus’ lips is only possible if it is accepted (even unconsciously, possibly) that the presumption already mentioned more than once – that Christian doctrine is superior to Jewish doctrine
John 14:6 is a sharp antithesis.
The translation should therefore simply read: Jewish exegetes who read the Scriptures (including the New Testament!) with ‘Jewish eyes through Jewish glasses’ emphasize that Jesus is speaking completely within the confines of the arguments of the Judaism of His time and this corresponds with the usual rabbinical way of saying: ‘wa ani omeer lachem’, which is not an introduction to a contradiction of the Torah, but, on the contrary, an elucidation thereof. “Far from being ‘unique‘, this is a basic tenet of the ‘verbal Torah’ and accordingly it has many parallels in the Talmudic writings. ‘You have heard’ or ‘It is said’ followed by ‘And I say to you’ actually constitute a pair of fixed expressions in the basic vocabulary of rabbinical rhetoric.
OK. I'm sorry for focusing on this one verse; (I don't know the NT), but, does this ^^ apply to John 14:6? If not, can you provide other examples from the Christian Bible that sounds like it contradicts the Torah but actually doesn't because it begins with "And I say to them..." ?
Jesus uses the common way of speaking to give His Torah explanation, and that He in no way intends to express Himself ‘antithetically’ about Torah and tradition, and that He intends to radically break with it even less. That is a Christian construction that came afterwards.
This goes back to the question in the OP. I find this ^^ "strange"

Matthew 28:18-19. That's a radical break from Torah and tradition.
 
Last edited:

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
The question was "What do jews find strange about Christianity?" not "What do Jews find strange about Wizanda's updated/revised/upgraded version of Christianity aka 0neness?"
It isn't my version, these are logical inconsistencies in the texts; if someone wants to pretend that these things don't exist, it shows they have problems in being logical by definition of the IQ morality test.

A Jew by definition is someone who uses Levitical Law, if they do not assess this case based on testimonial evidence; this is why the Source of reality did this, to see who is worth keeping.

This is not teaching 0neness; this is the Bible exegeted.

In my opinion.
:innocent:
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
It isn't my version, these are logical inconsistencies in the texts; if someone wants to pretend that these things don't exist, it shows they have problems in being logical by definition of the IQ morality test.

A Jew by definition is someone who uses Levitical Law, if they do not assess this case based on testimonial evidence; this is why the Source of reality did this, to see who is worth keeping.

This is not teaching 0neness; this is the Bible exegeted.

In my opinion.
:innocent:
no.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
Unabashed giggling.
Thank God we can prove I'm the archangel sent down to Hell before Judgement Day, otherwise such rudeness would make no sense. :(

Maybe you do not understand the Parable of the Fig; that the Messiah's 2nd coming is Isaiah 28, and in Isaiah 28:22 it warns not to be mockers, as I'm sent before the Holy Fire cleanses humanity. :oops:

It appears some think these are my own concepts, I've been taught some of these by the Most High as a child before reading the Bible, and I'm now discussing with religious people before their imminent destruction as prophesied.

In my opinion. :innocent:
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
I have resisted posting in this thread for a few reasons, not the least of which is that I'm not sure that, phrased as it is, it can lead to any really fruitful conclusion. But I feel it is important to make a particular distinction:

There are some things that I might find "strange" about Christianity but I'm not sure because there are so many strands of Christianity, and it is not monolithic in most any sense, so what I react to, as said by one person purporting to be a representative of the religion, ends up being contradicted or rejected by what someone else (who is a representative of Christianity). So no matter what study I have done, books I have read and experts I have heard from, I am usually not able to judge Christianity, only things said by specific Christians.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
God gave us each a mind to think for himself not through others, eyes to see for himself and ears to understand with but instead history has shown we tend to blindly follow popular and charismatic leaders instead of seeking out truth for ourselves.

I agree completely (except for the God part), and have even said as much twice recently on RF. I posted this this morning to another Baha'i on another thread:

"And as I told another poster on another thread, I'm not looking to follow anybody, including these messengers. Autonomous means self-ruling. I follow my conscience. If you'd like to argue that that is a god communicating to me directly, I won't argue. But then what do I need with written messages, and why do I need to know these come from a god that can't or won't present itself?"

So it piqued my interest to see your words coming from another Baha'i.

I know for example, Jewish Christian converts who speak and read Hebrew and were raised in the culture, yet they confirm the accuracy of Christian understanding.

But why would their opinions be meaningful to anybody else? All one need do is compare the Old Testament messianic prophecies with the Gospels oneself to see if they match or not.

A Christian will always tell you that they match, because he believes they have to, and so that's what he sees. The Jew has no need to do that. Neither does the secular humanist. And most secular humanists are going to agree with the Jews not because the Jews understand scripture better - the words aren't difficult to understand - but because they have no need to try to make the two match, and like the secular humanist, are free to report what they see without sanitizing it to conform with Christian dogma.

People who think like that will agree, just as the people that believe by faith that Jesus was messiah will all agree with one another in the opposite direction. The difference is accounted for by a Christian faith-based confirmation bias that Jesus must match the Old Testament prophecies, and that if it seems he doesn't, you must be misunderstanding the words. We see that kind of thinking often:
  • [1] "... if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." - William Lane Craig
  • [2] The moderator in the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on whether creationism is a viable scientific field of study asked, "What would change your minds?" Scientist Bill Nye answered, "Evidence." Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, "Nothing. I'm a Christian." Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."
  • [3] “If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa
Sorry, but I can't use the opinions of people who process information this way. Why would we be interested in their apologetcs trying to knit OT and NT messianic prophecy. We already know that they must say that what all believers say.

Sometimes the New Testament does agree with the Old, especially when Jesus or the apostles are quoting the Old Testament. None of us has any difficulty saying that there is a match when we see one, and wouldn't in this instance either if we saw one.
  • Romans 4:7-8 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
  • Psalms 32:1-2 Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.
These match. Messianic scripture not so much.

I don't believe that you know "what Christians are taught", I think you think you know.

We see what Christians are taught right here on RF. They aren't all saying the same thing, but we can tell what they are hearing in church and to what degree the message affects the adherents - what fraction accept fundamentalism and creationism, what fraction become homophobic and/or atheophobic bigots, what fraction oppose same sex marriage and abortion rights, what fraction can't make a coherent argument, etc.. We see the spectrum of what it means to be a Christian to a wide variety of people and types. More interestingly to me, is how they process information and how faith affects clear thought and critical thinking.


This is all Christian apologetics. As I explained, I already know that these sources will contain faith-based beliefs dishonestly presented as conclusions to a sound argument - pseudo-conclusions if you will, since they were the starting point, and are thus premises.

And I also know that most of these people will write anything to support their faith-based beliefs, and more importantly, omit whatever contradicts it, which is the bigger problem. You might say to evaluate the apologist's argument on its merits rather than its source, but how can one tell what's been left out? One can fact-check the claims made, but it's going to be difficult to determine what has been deliberately omitted if you are not very familiar with the field being discussed.

We went over this when you were promoting Habermas' book.

Here's a great example of that from DNA tests prove Darwin Was Wrong - Ape DNA very different from human DNA - Laws of Genetics Contradicts Ape to Human Evolution , with a Christian creationist arguing that "Man cannot have descended from a common ancestral great ape because all of the other apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, and man but 23, implying the loss of a whole chromosome, which would be fatal.”

Go ahead and evaluate that argument on its merits. If you don't know about human chromosome 2, the argument seems compelling. If you do, it seems dishonest.

Other areas I might be less knowledgeable about. Recently some creationist made what seems like a compelling argument against radiocarbon dating, saying it was unreliable, since by a million years, the amount of carbon 14 in any object that hasn't had a fresh infusion of environmental C14 ought to be undetectable, but it's not.

How long would it have taken me on my own to find the omission there, one I was unaware of until another poster explained to the thread, "As for the diamond and coal, they have simply failed, probably deliberately, to take into account that U and Th have decay processes that lead to C14, as I mentioned in my previous post. I note they make no reference to uranium or thorium in the write up. Too inconvenient to mention, I expect."

Once again, how can you evaluate an argument like that with a serious omission on its merit? Nobody can except somebody who knows the science that well.

So why go to such people with such ethics for anything? You also shouldn't be going to those sites, but I don't think you care if the arguments are honest - just if they can be used to promote your religious beliefs. One needs to trust the source to be honest and arguing in good faith. I don't when its AiG, CARM, ICR, Discovery Institute, etc..
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
3. Most if not all of its theology comes from someone who never met Jesus and has a dubious mystical account about meeting him in a vision. Said man then goes on to argue tirelessly with Jesus' actual disciples.
God: Get married, be fruitful and multiply.
Said Man: It's actually best to not get married and never have sex and never reproduce.
:confused:
Well, Jesus did warn about Said Man, saying he would claim to speak on Jesus' behalf but would only deceive and lead astray.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Oh fantastic.

This thread is for discussion, hopefully contributing to understanding......it was not my idea, but the suggestion of a Jewish poster that might help us get a better understanding of the other side of the Christian argument. If there are two sides to every argument, then let’s hear both sides.

It is in a debate section so that both sides can present their views, hopefully in a civil manner. The truth is the truth, no matter how much it hurts....let’s get it out there and see if the arguments are valid scripturally.....

Stop with the defensiveness and contribute something to the discussion. If you can’t contribute without the attitude, don’t bother. This is not an anti-Semitic thread, or for Christian bashing, but an opportunity for the Jewish side of the argument to be heard. I want to hear it.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
God: Get married, be fruitful and multiply.
Said Man: It's actually best to not get married and never have sex and never reproduce.

That is just twisted. If you are referring to Paul, he was suggesting that those who wanted to serve the Lord undistracted were in a better position to do so without a wife. He did not tell people not to marry or to never have sex or to reproduce.....he was simply telling those who wanted to serve God more fully that being single was an advantage. Misinterpretation is the mother of ignorance.

Well, Jesus did warn about Said Man, saying he would claim to speak on Jesus' behalf but would only deceive and lead astray.

As part of the sign of Jesus’ return, he said....

“Look out that nobody misleads you; for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many. You are going to hear of wars and reports of wars; see that you are not terrified. For these things must take place, but the end is not yet.” (Matthew 24:4-6)

Those intent on misleading others would not come saying, ‘I am Jesus,’ or speaking for Jesus, but would come using the title “Messiah” and would come saying: “I am the Christ.”

For Jews, those professed Messiahs would have to be Jews, not Gentiles. (Paul was appointed as “an apostle to the nations)
With the threatening destruction of Jerusalem, these would come as Liberators, Preservers of the Holy City, as Jews expected their Messiah to be, and for which reason they would have much appeal to the oppressed Jews and would mislead many.

They would have just the opposite message from what Jesus proclaimed, namely, the destruction of Jerusalem and her temple. By this warning Jesus’ disciples could know that those self-styled ‘Christs’, who did not have the anointing of God’s spirit, were false.

So yes, people have done this.....but Paul wasn’t one of them.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I have resisted posting in this thread for a few reasons, not the least of which is that I'm not sure that, phrased as it is, it can lead to any really fruitful conclusion. But I feel it is important to make a particular distinction:

There are some things that I might find "strange" about Christianity but I'm not sure because there are so many strands of Christianity, and it is not monolithic in most any sense, so what I react to, as said by one person purporting to be a representative of the religion, ends up being contradicted or rejected by what someone else (who is a representative of Christianity). So no matter what study I have done, books I have read and experts I have heard from, I am usually not able to judge Christianity, only things said by specific Christians.

This thread was posted as a suggestion from @IndigoChild5559 (even its title) as a means to discuss things from the Jewish perspective.

It is good to identify what comes from men and what actually comes from God on both sides of this issue. Both rely heavily on their ‘leaders of choice’.

Interpretation is everything.....so whose interpretation is valid and whose is not? By examining the differences and comparing scripture we can at least discuss what we have in common...the Hebrew Scriptures. Our founder and Leader was a devout Jew, so no Christian can be anti-Jewish.....but we can be “anti” the opinions of mere men. In amongst all the misinterpretation, is the truth.....the proverbial diamond in a pile of broken glass. Do you not think that God wants us to find the diamond? If so, what is it that prevents us from doing so?
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
That is just twisted. If you are referring to Paul, he was suggesting that those who wanted to serve the Lord undistracted were in a better position to do so without a wife. He did not tell people not to marry or to never have sex or to reproduce.....he was simply telling those who wanted to serve God more fully that being single was an advantage. Misinterpretation is the mother of ignorance.

Pray tell, how can one serve G-d more fully when he or she is burning with sexual desire? It is one of the strongest. There is no reason to forgo it. If sexual desire is unmet it results in exactly the things we are told not to do - fornicate, masturbate, rape and otherwise act out. There is no weakness in marrying and having relations - this is in fact the ideal state as one will be able to have that satisfaction within the proper context and will therefore be less sexually frustrated and will be able to better concentrate during prayer or other forms of worship. G-d did not ordain that our whole lives be lived in a bizarre monasticism, but be enjoyed and lived. Monks and nuns who live the way they do are not somehow holier or more dedicated. G-d did not make us just so we should suffer so crazily while forgoing all the good things He gives us. This is something your religion made up in its glorification of suffering.
 
Last edited:

Flankerl

Well-Known Member
This thread is for discussion, hopefully contributing to understanding......it was not my idea, but the suggestion of a Jewish poster that might help us get a better understanding of the other side of the Christian argument. If there are two sides to every argument, then let’s hear both sides.

It is in a debate section so that both sides can present their views, hopefully in a civil manner. The truth is the truth, no matter how much it hurts....let’s get it out there and see if the arguments are valid scripturally.....

Stop with the defensiveness and contribute something to the discussion. If you can’t contribute without the attitude, don’t bother. This is not an anti-Semitic thread, or for Christian bashing, but an opportunity for the Jewish side of the argument to be heard. I want to hear it.

So you hid your debate behind asking a question.
In actuality you want to question Jewish positions themselves and show these Jews how wrong they are.

Just be honest about it.
I simply don't buy your arguments about the basic intention of this thread.
And why should I?

And of course I am defensive. We are a meagre 14 million people whose Religion is constantly under attack by the two dominant Religions of the planet.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
As part of the sign of Jesus’ return, he said....

“Look out that nobody misleads you; for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many. You are going to hear of wars and reports of wars; see that you are not terrified. For these things must take place, but the end is not yet.” (Matthew 24:4-6)

Those intent on misleading others would not come saying, ‘I am Jesus,’ or speaking for Jesus, but would come using the title “Messiah” and would come saying: “I am the Christ.”
Mark 13:5-6, Matthew 24:4-5, Luke 21:8 He said, “Watch out that you don’t get led astray, for many will come in my name, saying, "I Am (G1473 G1510)" and "The time is at hand". Therefore don’t follow them."

Yeshua warns in all 3 Synoptic Gospels at the start of the eschatology about the "I Am" statements being made up; if we examine the Greek of the Synoptic Gospels to the Gospel of John, it is blatantly not how Yeshua spoke.

Yeshua warned the corruption in the Parable of the Wheat and Tares, that the Tares were planted at the beginning of the Harvest, not at the end...

Yeshua's warning is "that many shall be deceived" by the I Am statements, thus they already have according to his prophecy.
So yes, people have done this.....but Paul wasn’t one of them.
Paul was a Pharisaic infiltrator, which Yeshua blatantly warns about being the corruption (Matthew 16:6, Luke 11:44, Matthew 5:20), as does Zechariah 11:15-17 when understood properly.

John, Paul, and Simon the stone (peter) were all Pharisees who created Christianity, contradicting the Ebionites (Followers of the Way), which were the true followers of Yeshua.

Real Judaism should be to accept Yeshua; yet reject jesus from Christianity, as it is amateurish in comparison.

In my opinion. :innocent:
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
G-d says this in Hoshea 3:4,

For the children of Israel shall remain for many days, having neither king, nor prince, nor sacrifice, nor pillar, nor efod nor terafim.

So it's not exactly unpredicted. and G-d doesn't say 'Oh and it will make their religion untenable.'

In pronouncing a blessing upon Judah, the dying patriarch Jacob said: “The scepter will not turn aside from Judah, neither the commander’s staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes; and to him the obedience of the peoples will belong.” (Ge 49:10)

Beginning with the rule of the Judean David, power to command (the commander’s staff) and regal sovereignty (the scepter) were the possessions of the tribe of Judah. This was to continue until the coming of Shiloh, indicating that the royal line of Judah would terminate in Shiloh as the permanent heir. Similarly, before the overthrow of the kingdom of Judah, Jehovah indicated to the last Judean king, Zedekiah, that rulership would be given to one having the legal right. (Eze 21:26, 27) This would evidently be Shiloh, as the name “Shiloh” is understood to signify “He Whose It Is; He to Whom It Belongs.”

In the centuries that followed, Jesus Christ is the only descendant of David to whom kingship was promised. Before the birth of Jesus, the angel Gabriel said to Mary: “Jehovah God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule as king over the house of Jacob forever, and there will be no end of his kingdom.” (Lu 1:32, 33) Therefore, Shiloh must be Jesus Christ, “the Lion that is of the tribe of Judah.”—Re 5:5; compare Isa 11:10; Ro 15:12.

Concerning the ancient Jewish view of Genesis 49:10, a Commentary edited by F. C. Cook (p. 233) notes: “All Jewish antiquity referred the prophecy to Messiah. Thus the Targum of Onkelos has ‘until the Messiah come, whose is the kingdom;’ the Jerusalem Targum, ‘until the time that the king Messiah shall come, whose is the kingdom.’ . . . So the Babylonian Talmud (‘Sanhedrim,’ cap. II. fol. 982), ‘What is Messiah’s name? His name is Shiloh, for it is written, Until Shiloh come.’”

Shiloh — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

In a parable in Matthew 21:33-46 Jesus gives the reason why the Jewish nation were no longer going to be regarded as God’s people.....why they lost their place in his arrangement, and why their rejection of the “chief cornerstone” of God’s whole arrangement was their undoing. (Isaiah 28:16; Isaiah 8:14)

So we have to look at the history of the Jewish nation and ask if this is a valid commentary on Jesus’ part. How did the Jewish leadership treat God’s prophets all through their recorded history?
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member

Pray tell, how can one serve G-d more fully when he or she is burning with sexual desire? It is one of the strongest. There is no reason to forgo it. If sexual desire is unmet it results in exactly the things we are told not to do - fornicate, masturbate, rape and otherwise act out. There is no weakness in marrying and having relations - this is in fact the ideal state as one will be able to have that satisfaction within the proper context and will therefore be less sexually frustrated and will be able to better concentrate during prayer or other forms of worship. G-d did not ordain that our whole lives be lived in a bizarre monasticism, but be enjoyed and lived. Monks and nuns who live the way they do are not somehow holier or more dedicated. G-d did not make us just so we should suffer so crazily while forgoing all the good things He gives us. This is something your religion made up in its glorification of suffering.

That is exactly what I was pointing out....Paul himself said it is OK to marry....”better to marry than to be inflamed with passion”. (1 Corinthians 7:1-8)

Arguing from ignorance is what creates unnecessary misunderstandings. :( Marriage is God’s arrangement.
 
Top