Christianity from Judaism?

[PearlSeeker]

So, John doesn't describe what Jesus said accurately?

This just wasn't the main purpose.

Jesus' teachings in the Synoptics greatly differ from those in the fourth gospel. Since the 19th century, scholars have almost unanimously accepted that the Johannine discourses are less likely to be historical than the synoptic parables, and were likely written for theological purposes.[98] Nevertheless, scholars generally agree that the fourth gospel is not without historical value. (Wiki)​

 

[dybmh]

This just wasn't the main purpose.

Jesus' teachings in the Synoptics greatly differ from those in the fourth gospel. Since the 19th century, scholars have almost unanimously accepted that the Johannine discourses are less likely to be historical than the synoptic parables, and were likely written for theological purposes.[98] Nevertheless, scholars generally agree that the fourth gospel is not without historical value. (Wiki)​

so John doesn't quote Jesus accurately?

 

[PearlSeeker]

so John doesn't quote Jesus accurately?

Accuracy is irrelevant here. It's not biography or history. It's a discussion of theological questions in form of dialogue. Similar to philosophical dialogues of Platon.

 

[dybmh]

Accuracy is irrelevant here. It's not biography or history. It's a discussion of theological questions in form of dialogue. Similar to philosophical dialogues of Platon.

I understand; you keep dodging the question. Unless I hear from you otherwise, the Book of John doesn't accurately quote Jesus. Done.

Now, if you want to discuss the theologial aspects of John 8, that's fine by me. I just reread John chapter 8. It is 100% relevent to the OP. There cannot be a Judeo-Christian tradition based on what it says in John 8. Ignoring the quote that Jews are children of the devil doing the devils work, the general theme is "Anyone who questions Jesus is from the devil." The book of John does not describe any middle ground; therefore the Book of John argues against a Judeo-Christian tradition.

Edit: If the Book of Matthew is a more accurate text; maybe we can discuss Matthew 19 where people are encouraged to leave their children and spouse for great reward and eternal life. Surely this argues against a Judeo-Christian tradition. Following Jesus cuts off the Judaic tradtions in favor of his own theology.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I understand; you keep dodging the question. Unless I hear from you otherwise, the Book of John doesn't accurately quote Jesus. Done.

Now, if you want to discuss the theologial aspects of John 8, that's fine by me. I just reread John chapter 8. It is 100% relevent to the OP. There cannot be a Judeo-Christian tradition based on what it says in John 8. Ignoring the quote that Jews are children of the devil doing the devils work, the general theme is "Anyone who questions Jesus is from the devil." The book of John does not describe any middle ground; therefore the Book of John argues against a Judeo-Christian tradition.

Edit: If the Book of Matthew is a more accurate text; maybe we can discuss Matthew 19 where people are encouraged to leave their children and spouse for great reward and eternal life. Surely this argues against a Judeo-Christian tradition. Following Jesus cuts off the Judaic tradtions in favor of his own theology.

Yes, G-John was written in late 1st century when synagogues started to expell members who believed in Jesus’ messiah's hip. "... the Jews had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue." (John 9:22)

The Community Behind the Gospel of John | The Bart Ehrman Blog

 

[wellwisher]

Yes, G-John was written in late 1st century when synagogues started to expell members who believed in Jesus’ messiah's hip. "... the Jews had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue." (John 9:22)

The Community Behind the Gospel of John | The Bart Ehrman Blog

When Jesus went into the wilderness to fast for 40 days, he was approached by Satan who offered him all the wealth and power of the kingdoms of the earth, if he would bow and serve him. Jesus did not say that Satan lied or he not have this authority, since he knew Satan was made the Lord of the earth, while God rested on the seventh day. Instead Jesus respectively declined the offer.

Had Jesus accepted the offer, he would have become the Messiah anticipated by the Old Testament; rich and powerful. But instead by declining the offer he would become something better. This change of plans shook the heavens and would lead to Satan being thrown from heaven; Revelations. Satan would lose his divine authority to be lord of the earth. However, humans would not know this but would continue to follow. Jesus would be groomed for that job as seventh day of creation comes to a close and God resumes work.

 

[dybmh]

Yes, G-John was written in late 1st century when synagogues started to expell members who believed in Jesus’ messiah's hip. "... the Jews had already agreed that anyone who confessed Jesus to be the Messiah would be put out of the synagogue." (John 9:22)

The Community Behind the Gospel of John | The Bart Ehrman Blog

Yes, the Book of John should be ignored.

What's your response to Matthew 19? Leaving the family behind in search of great reward and eternal life is not preaching Judaism. There is no Judeo-Christian tradition there either.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Yes, the Book of John should be ignored.

What's your response to Matthew 19? Leaving the family behind in search of great reward and eternal life is not preaching Judaism. There is no Judeo-Christian tradition there either.

V-John shouldn't be ignored even if it's not a literal account. It's still a reflection of the then situation, beliefs and theology.

Matthew 19 is not about leaving family behind. It's actually about inseparability of man and wife. "Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Sometimes being a Christian involved being mocked or even expelled from family, friends, community... Even family of Jesus rejected him/were ashamed... IMO this was meant with leaving "houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children."

 

[dybmh]

V-John shouldn't be ignored even if it's not a literal account. It's still a reflection of the then situation, beliefs and theology.

Can we agree that the Book of John does not describe a shared Judeo-Christian tradition?

Matthew 19 is not about leaving family behind. It's actually about inseparability of man and wife. "Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

The text says:

Matthew 19:29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for the sake of My name will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.
​

Sometimes being a Christian involved being mocked or even expelled from family, friends, community... Even family of Jesus rejected him/were ashamed... IMO this was meant with leaving "houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children."

The promise if one leaves their family is great reward and eternal life. That's what makes it not a Jewish tradition. Can you find anything similar in the OT?

 

[PearlSeeker]

Can we agree that the Book of John does not describe a shared Judeo-Christian tradition?


The text says:

Matthew 19:29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for the sake of My name will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.
​

The promise if one leaves their family is great reward and eternal life. That's what makes it not a Jewish tradition. Can you find anything similar in the OT?

As I know the word "Judeo-Christian" tradition is used for today's moral values, social order... In the West. Yes, you will not find much of this in G-John - it's mainly concerned about faith in Jesus as the Messiah.

Regarding Matthew 19. It's clear from context that Jesus doesn't advocate leaving your spouse and family...

 

[PearlSeeker]

I'm not describing blind faith. The Jewish folks have been studying their scriptures longer than Christianity has existed, and many of them still accept as a prerequisite the Mosaic authorship. Study isn't blind, and nor are their conclusions imo.

Studying something doesn't make it more accurate per se. Geocentric model was also studied for a long time:

The astronomical predictions of Ptolemy's geocentric model, developed in the 2nd century CE, served as the basis for preparing astrological and astronomical charts for over 1500 years. The geocentric model held sway into the early modern age, but from the late 16th century onward, it was gradually superseded by the heliocentric model of Copernicus (1473-1543), Galileo (1564-1642), and Kepler (1571-1630). There was much resistance to the transition between these two theories. Some felt that a new, unknown theory could not subvert an accepted consensus for geocentrism. (Wiki)​

 

[Rival]

Studying something doesn't make it more accurate.

Studying a book makes you an expert on what the book says. Unless you believe the Tanakh itself is in error, your argument doesn't work.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Studying a book makes you an expert on what the book says. Unless you believe the Tanakh itself is in error, your argument doesn't work.

Studying Harry Potter can make you an expert on the book but this doesn't mean that the book is non-fiction.

 

[Rival]

Studying Harry Potter can make you an expert on the book but this doesn't mean that the book is non-fiction.

So you believe the Tanakh is fiction?

Not sure how you can maintain your Christianity with that belief?

 

[PearlSeeker]

So you believe the Tanakh is fiction?

Not sure how you can maintain your Christianity with that belief?

As I already said it's not complete fiction to me...

This is not a belief at all. It's just a different field of study - history. Actually I wasn't happy to accept new views that proceeded from this study. It was similar to childhood realization that my hero Sant Nicholas is actually not what I thought.

 

[Rival]

As I already said it's not complete fiction to me...

This is not a belief at all. It's just a different field of study - history. Actually I wasn't happy to accept new views that proceeded from this study. It was similar to childhood realization that my hero Sant Nicholas is actually not what I thought.

But then on what would you base the expectation and definition of the messiah at all? It seems kind of convenient that the bits you apparently do believe still lead you to Christianity.

 

[PearlSeeker]

But then on what would you base the expectation and definition of the messiah at all? It seems kind of convenient that the bits you apparently do believe still lead you to Christianity.

After some reconsideration I'm now more into Christ-consciousness and Cosmic Christ. We are all part of the process and responsible for making a better place and fullness of life. Jesus gave an example.

I've read some Jews also interpret the concept of Messiah as collective - not as an individual.