Comparison of Christianity and Judaism

[outhouse]

To stay on topic, I think many of the parables in Christianity, are Jewish parables that reflect Aramaic Judaism.

I think all Aramaic Judaism in total was used in all of the NT, and every line and word used was attributed to Jesus blindly, by people far removed from any spoken word.

Jesus learned what he did from John, John learned it from being in unknown, but we can assume it was just Aramaic Judaism in that geographic location.

My point is what we have in Q and in Thomas, Are a compilation of Aramaic Judaism parables. And little can be said as originating from Jesus consciousness, as he just repeated what he was taught in his very very short ministry.

He was Like a modern day comedian. They all have writers and they are just the spokesperson for the team. In this case the team is Aramaic Judaism.

 

[Levite]

Well, Judaism is full of Cristian-like concepts.

You have that backward. Christianity, which began over a thousand years after Judaism, is full of Judaic concepts.

But it's not an universal religion. It is a religion addressed to a group of people who believe they are superior to the others.

If you think Jews believe they are superior to non-Jews, you really know nothing about Judaism. We are not universal because we are not limited enough to think that there is only one way to relate to God, and that God might not have different expectations and demands of different peoples, nor are we arrogant enough to presume that we should foist our ways on others. Judaism is for Jews, non-Jewish religions are for the non-Jews who participate in them, and anyone (regardless of religion) can be a good person, do right, and be rewarded by God for it.

 

[Estro Felino]

If you think Jews believe they are superior to non-Jews, you really know nothing about Judaism. We are not universal because we are not limited enough to think that there is only one way to relate to God, and that God might not have different expectations and demands of different peoples, nor are we arrogant enough to presume that we should foist our ways on others. Judaism is for Jews, non-Jewish religions are for the non-Jews who participate in them, and anyone (regardless of religion) can be a good person, do right, and be rewarded by God for it.

You really contradict yourself. First you say that Jews are not superior to non-Jews.
and then you say that God expects something only from the Jews (so, by means of a logical reasoning, Jews are privileged because they are capable of something the other nations are not capable of).
and then, you insist on saying: Judaism is for Jews, by claiming the truth, that is, you are a private club.
we Christians say: Christianity is for everyone. You can come to Mass anytime you want. we will welcome you. and you don't have to stop being a Jew

And you certainly didn't understand what universal means. It means that it is open to everyone, not that we force anyone to enter to Christianity.
We just invite them, if they don't want to join us, it's all right.
But at least we welcome them with open arms. Because we love, we love, we love.

One more thing: we even think that God is equal (not superior) to men. So, we consider all nations equal in the eyes of God, because we reject the devilish concept of superiority

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No, I'm going by what is known of him in the gospels.

Known by whom? You're talking nonsense.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I disagree. Matthew, at least, wasn't "divorcing Judaism," rather, he was pushing for his community of Diaspora Jews-turned-believers to see themselves as the "True Israel." Which is, in part, what led me to surmise that modern Judaism might be closer to what Jesus had visualized.

Rarely has logic been so pathetically tortured.

 

[metis]

First you say that Jews are not superior to non-Jews.

I don't know if Levite will respond to this, but I will, and I hope he throws in his two-cents as well.

As for the above sentence of yours, you're correct.

and then you say that God expects something only from the Jews (so, by means of a logical reasoning, Jews are privileged because they are capable of something the other nations are not capable of).

We are obligated to follow the Mosaiic Law, but gentiles are not. Instead of being a "privilege", the reality is that it's a burden that we accept, namely following the 613 Laws. See here: Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

and then, you insist on saying: Judaism is for Jews, by claiming the truth, that is, you are a private club.

Anyone can join if they wish, or even just attend with no interest in joining, but unlike many Christians, we don't condemn any other religious group as long as it teaches basic morality ("do unto others..."). And agnostics and atheists are welcomed, and we really don't judge them either.

we Christians say: Christianity is for everyone. You can come to Mass anytime you want. we will welcome you. and you don't have to stop being a Jew

Ditto.

It means that it is open to everyone, not that we force anyone to enter to Christianity. We just invite them, if they don't want to join us, it's all right.
But at least we welcome them with open arms. Because we love, we love, we love.

Ditto again.

So, we consider all nations equal in the eyes of God, because we reject the devilish concept of superiority

We don't believe in superiority of any group either. The issue of "chosen people" is found in your Bible and is often misunderstood by many outside of Judaism.

 

[metis]

Well, Judaism is full of Cristian-like concepts.
But it's not an universal religion. It is a religion addressed to a group of people who believe they are superior to the others.

I don't think they love all mankind as much as they love themselves.
We Christians love all the nations and we welcome all the nations of the world into our Churches.

and we don't expect any penis-cutting from men

I read what you posted above to my wife and my younger daughter, and the question my daughter asked was "Who wrote that?!". My wife just rolled her eyes.


BTW, both of them are practicing Catholics that are quite familiar with Judaism.

 

[sojourner]

we Christians say: Christianity is for everyone. You can come to Mass anytime you want. we will welcome you. and you don't have to stop being a Jew

Yeah, but here's the difference: I, as not only a Christian, but a member of the clergy, may NOT receive communion in an RCC church. But when I'e gone to Synagogue, I've never been disallowed from participating in any part of the service. Who's more "open" now?

 

[sojourner]

Known by whom? You're talking nonsense.

Then don't take part in the discussion. No one's twisting your beard, you know.

 

[sojourner]

Rarely has logic been so pathetically tortured.

Rarely has a post been so inane as yours.

 

[outhouse]

Rarely has a post been so inane as yours.

If your lucky, he will put you on ignore


I'm glad he did. he thinks he knows more then he does.

 

[sojourner]

Rhetoric to persuade Hellenist Proselytes and Gentiles, their version was the true version


And the unknown authors of that book were definitely divorcing Born and raised Israelite Judaism, in favor of their lets not follow all the laws of Judaism version, based on Marks appeal to the romans version of Judaism.

I disagree. But maybe that disagreement is based upon my woefully inadequate 3 graduate courses concentrating on the synoptics.

 

[sojourner]

The thing is, Jesus seems to have been crafting his own vision of Judaism. He seems pretty clearly to have been trained as a Pharisee, but his theology and practice-- if we can even trust the synoptic gospels, which of all the Christian scripture seem likeliest to bear some vague resemblance to something Jesus might actually have taught or done-- have borrowed heavily from ascetic and perhaps apocalyptic sources like the Essene-type communities, and perhaps even from Greek philosophy a little, as well as containing his own innovations and ideas. So his Judaism that he practiced and taught in his day, if we can guess anything about it from Christian scripture and the few brief stories about Jesus as a renegade student that exist in the Talmud, would not really have resembled Rabbinic Judaism or even necessarily any of the major Jewish sects of his day.

But I think it is safe to say that at heart, it would resemble Rabbinic Judaism-- which encompasses all the major Jewish movements today, and all of mainstream Judaism for the past 1500+ years-- more than it would mainstream Christianity.

While I can easily believe that Jesus might have proclaimed himself the messiah-- tons of guys were running around Israel in those days proclaiming themselves the messiah, it was entirely commonplace-- I find it entirely unlikely that he proclaimed himself either the literal son of God (an idea wholly foreign to Judaism, even to the chaotic mess of sects that embodied Judaism in Jesus' time) or God Himself-- an idea utterly at variance with Judaism to the core. Trinitarianism would have been wholly foreign and at odds with everything Jewish that Jesus would have known, to say nothing of spreading the religion to non-Jews without benefit of even the most basic tokens of conversion, or nullifying the vast majority of the commandments.

If somehow Jesus were to be brought back to life today, I think everything-- Judaism and Christianity-- would look strange and foreign to him. But ultimately, I think he could come to recognize something familiar in Judaism. Christianity? I don't think so. I think once he understood it, he would feel empathy and compassion for the legitimate desires of Christians to live holy lives and reach out for God, and he would be touched that they remembered even a faint and distorted record of his teaching. But I don't think he would approve of being worshipped, nor would he understand, I think, how all these non-Jews could believe that what they were doing had much to do with the religion of the Jewish People.

I agree with this. I'm not convinced that Jesus was wanting to do anything more than reform the Judaism of his day. Given that the gospels are biased in several ways, and are largely theological treatises, and not histories, they still are the baseline we have to go off of.

In reading Q (extrapolated from the canonical texts), we find a theology that is very Judaic, rural, agrarian, and Galilean. In Q, we find a lot of mistrust for Roman occupiers and religious establishment. This seems to be congruent with a Rabbinic form of Judaism found in several incarnations, as opposed to a powerful and centralized Christianity (as in Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy).

Plus, as you say, Jesus seems to embrace a more Judaic theology than is found in present-day Xy. I wonder how compatible the gospel theology is with present-day Judaic theological expression, because it seems to me (with my limited knowledge of Judaism) that it is.

 

[sojourner]

If we are talking strictly about reform Judaism (and I mean URJ temple type stuff), then I would say no. Mainly b/c while I think Jesus was in some ways a radical, he and his early followers alike don't strike me as ultra-progressive modernists.

Can you provide some examples and comparisons?

 

[sojourner]

If your lucky, he will put you on ignore


I'm glad he did. he thinks he knows more then he does.

I generally find his posts to be on the money. I just can't figure out why the curmudgeon seems to be coming out here?

 

[Levite]

Plus, as you say, Jesus seems to embrace a more Judaic theology than is found in present-day Xy. I wonder how compatible the gospel theology is with present-day Judaic theological expression, because it seems to me (with my limited knowledge of Judaism) that it is.

It's hard to say exactly what "gospel theology" is, so it's hard to answer. But even if you strip out trinitarianism and Jesus being the literal son of God, you're still left with some fairly problematic statements and actions, from a Jewish point of view.

Judaism has no doctrine of Original Sin, and therefore no doctrine of salvation from it. Those seem fairly central to Christianity, and to Jesus' narrative as "savior." In fact, the notion of inherited sin, or sin as a condition, is antithetical to Rabbinic Judaism at least, and maybe to most historical Judaism (my guess is that Jesus got some of it from some of the proto-Midrashic apocryphal literature that was popular in the late Second Temple period, which did float the idea of original sin-- the idea never caught on much in theological practice).

For us, a sin is a specific action (not a thought or idea, and not a state of being), done by a specific individual: that individual is then a sinner beginning from the time the sin action is taken and lasting to the time at which the individual completes the process of teshuvah ("repentance," involving acknowledging one's culpability, accepting the consequences of one's actions, making all possible reparations for one's actions, apologizing to those against whom one has transgressed, committing oneself to try not to repeat the sin, confessional prayer to God, and participation in Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement). The individual can do all these things himself, and requires no intermediaries, and upon doing teshuvah, his sin is forgiven, completely.

Rabbinic Judaism has never embraced a dogmatic doctrine of Hell, either; even those Jews who choose to believe in Gehinnom (the closest our tradition offers to it) conceive of it as a purgatory, rather than a place of eternal damnation and torment. We also have no Devil. The satan (literally "opposer," "anti-advocate," or "accuser," but better idiomatically translated as "prosecutor") for us is the job title of an angel (and not always even the same angel), who is the "patron angel," if you will, of the yetzer ha-ra, the chaotic impulse we all have (idiomatically, basically the Id). We also have no doctrine of fallen angels in Rabbinic Judaism (Jesus probably also got these from apocryphal literature of the late Second Temple period).

Those are just the most significant differences that spring to my mind....

 

[xkatz]

Can you provide some examples and comparisons?

I don't think Jesus rejected the idea of the messiah being a person, nor do I think he saw the Torah as merely an important work of Jewish literature, but in some capacity as the word of G-d, whether divinely inspired or directly revealed.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No, I'm going by what is known of him in the gospels.

Known by whom? You're talking nonsense.

Again, known by whom?

 

[outhouse]

But maybe that disagreement is based upon my woefully inadequate 3 graduate courses concentrating on the synoptics.

Depends on who your professors were, and if they were following more of an apologetic views instead of actual history.


My class on Paul rode right down the middle.

The NT under Dale B Martin, was more historically focused.



#1 Do you think the author used rhetoric to combat against the view of him being an illegitimate spokesperson?


All of these authors were trained in rhetoric, it was just the prose they wrote in, so I don't know how solid your debate would be there.



#2 The author was very skilled in the OT, do you doubt the knowledge of the OT by Proselytes who had studied the OT for generations?


#3 the authors intended audience, were the Hellenist Proselytes and gentiles in the Graeko-Roman world?


#4 The author focuses on Jesus as a Galilean sage. Do you think knowing the study of Jewish sage rhetoric would help one understand?


Ok so lets focus on the anti-Semitism of Matthew

Antisemitism and the New Testament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


As Matthew's narrative marches toward the passion, the anti-Jewish rhetoric increases.


chapters 23 and 24, three successive hostile pericopes are recorded

The culmination of this rhetoric, and arguably the one verse that has caused more Jewish suffering than any other second Testament passage, is the uniquely Matthean attribution to the Jewish people: "His [Jesus's] blood be on us and on our children!" (Matthew 27:25). This so-called "blood guilt" text has been interpreted to mean that all Jews, of Jesus' time and forever afterward, accept responsibility for the death of Jesus.


Which brings me back full circle, this accepted responsibility in Jewish context, is that of Hellenistic Judaism. Proselytes and Hellenist viewed their selves as Jewish, even after breaking way from Judaism with different beliefs



The term "Jews" in the Gospel of Matthew is applied to those who deny the resurrection of Jesus and believe that the disciples stole Jesus's corpse.



So were did I show error?

 

[Estro Felino]

Anyone can join if they wish, or even just attend with no interest in joining, but unlike many Christians, we don't condemn any other religious group as long as it teaches basic morality ("do unto others..."). And agnostics and atheists are welcomed, and we really don't judge them either.
.

That's not what I meant. I meant that you as a Jew can consider yourself a Christian, because Christ's teachings are for everyone. Even for the Jews, who don't go to Mass , but to the Synagogue.
Au contraire, when I said in the other thread that I as a Christian, consider myself a Jew, (because Christianity implicitly contains Judaism in it), well, lots of Jews condemned me. They have accused me of cultural appropriation.
They said that I can't consider myself a Jew, because only you Jews can consider yourselves Jews.
It's all written in my thread: relationship between Judaism and Christianity.
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...elationship-between-judaism-christianity.html
So the fact that you Jews can't stand that we Christian consider ourselves Jews, that makes you an exclusive private club.
No offense...but you should read what they wrote about me.