Comparison of Christianity and Judaism

[outhouse]

There is a distinction, though. Proselytes are called "Judaizers" and are neither highly-regarded, nor accepted by Jews as Jews. And that's the important thing.

Again, these were Hellenist factually perverting Judaism. How Jewish could they have been?

To be considered Jewish, one only needed to swear off other deities.

Now this definition varied from one community to the next.

The definition of jewish to Jesus was night and day different to the Hellenist.

If Matthew were seen as an "illegitimate author," his work would have neither been preserved, circulated, nor canonized.

I dont think he was viewed by all as illegitimate, combatting it, does not mean all. It doesnt state any number or percentage.

Matthew became the most popular, but that is not what happened while the author/s was compiling the pieces.

Afterall, if he was a pious Jew, he knew by changing gods law of Judaism, he was being blasphemous.

 

[Levite]

The fact that I believe in the Tanakh, makes me Jewish.
However, I was right: the fact that I consider myself a Jew really bothers you.
And that proves that Judaism is not an universal religion

The fact that you "believe in the Tanakh" (whatever that means) makes you an Italian guy with a belief.

If you gave up Christianity, studied Judaism, got circumcised, went to a rabbinical court for conversion, and immersed in the mikveh before them-- that would make you Jewish.

Judaism isn't trying to be a universal religion. We don't believe in the idea of universal religion. We believe in pluralism: that many different ways are valid for different peoples, and different does not imply superiority or inferiority-- just difference.

And yes, it irritates us when non-Jews try to pass themselves off as Jewish because Judaism is more than just a religion, it is a socioreligious ethnicity-- it is an identity that combines elements of religion, culture, and nationality. So someone non-Jewish trying to claim they are Jewish is cultural imperialism, religious hegemonism, and plain out and out bigotry.

 

[4consideration]

Honey, try to go to a Catholic Mass. You can take the communion; the priest gives it to everyone. He doesn't care whether you are a Catholic or not

Since when?

edit: I just have to ask since I'm unfamiliar with your form of Catholicism -- Pelagian, and since I can't stop laughing about this post. Does your form of Catholicism have any similarities with Roman Catholicism? If so, could you mention why you consider yourself to be Catholic? I just can't seem to figure it out.

 

[Levite]

Hay consideres me a Catholic, too. And himself Jewish. There is a distinction, though. Proselytes are called "Judaizers" and are neither highly-regarded, nor accepted by Jews as Jews. And that's the important thing.

FWIW, "Judaizers" in ancient times were non-Jews who adopted many Jewish practices and observances, but did not actually convert to Judaism. In some places, Jews looked askance at them; in other places, Jews seemed delighted by them. Today, we have no equivalent category, mostly because contrary to ancient Judaizers, who tended to be respectful enough of Judaism to be clear that while they were lovers of Judaism and Jewish ideas and practices, they were not themselves Jews; whereas today, as we can see even within this thread, elements of Judaizing identity are most often used by Christians, ex-Christians, or other similar groups to appropriate Jewish identity and culture.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Honey, try to go to a Catholic Mass. You can take the communion; the priest gives it to everyone. He doesn't care whether you are a Catholic or not

That is a lie. Only baptized Catholics in a state of grace are eligible to receive Communion.

 

[Estro Felino]

And yes, it irritates us when non-Jews try to pass themselves off as Jewish because Judaism is more than just a religion, it is a socioreligious ethnicity-- it is an identity that combines elements of religion, culture, and nationality. So someone non-Jewish trying to claim they are Jewish is cultural imperialism, religious hegemonism, and plain out and out bigotry.

Good. I understand perfectly why you dislike me. Maybe you like Hitler better, given that he is the most significant example of person who would never want to be Jewish

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Maybe Jesus said it, but then maybe he didn't. Either way, as Joseph Campbell was fond of saying, "the myth becomes the reality".

That much is certainly true. I'm just not at all sure of it's relevancy here.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I really was wondering just how much you all thought the Xy of the gospels has in common with modern Judaism, because it seems to me (and I haven't done any in-depth study of the subject -- just posed this as sort of a "knee-jerk" question) that modern Judaism is closer to what, say, Matthean Jesus had in mind, than is modern Xy.

So your question is: "Is modern Judaism closer to what Matthean Jesus had in mind than is modern Christianity?"

Since you apparently how some coherent view about what "Matthean Jesus had in mind," perhaps you should first share that view with us and clarify how you believe the Weltanschauung of your "Matthean Jesus" differs from modern Christianity. Yes?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

FWIW, "Judaizers" in ancient times were non-Jews who adopted many Jewish practices and observances, but did not actually convert to Judaism.

It is my understanding that, on the contrary, Judaizers were those who insisted (contra Paul) that gentile converts 'Judaize.'

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Regarding the juvenile …

Honey, try to go to a Catholic Mass. You can take the communion; the priest gives it to everyone. He doesn't care whether you are a Catholic or not

… see Who Can Receive Communion?

 

[Levite]

It is my understanding that, on the contrary, Judaizers were those who insisted (contra Paul) that gentile converts 'Judaize.'

Is that not Petrine Christianity, which converted its gentiles to Judaism before inducting them into Christianity?

I am trying and so far failing to bring to mind the author, but I read an article not too long ago which basically was outlining Christian Judaizing in Greek/Ionian Jewish communities, which was trying to make the case that they were the definition in Exile for gerei toshav....

 

[Shiranui117]

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).

I should note that Orthodox Christianity also never believed in the concept of Original Sin. It's a uniquely Roman Catholic (and by extension, Protestant) doctrine.

 

[outhouse]

I think what is being missed, is that there is a line that defines Proselytes from Jews.


And I think the reason no one wants to define it, is because they cannot.

Hellenistic Judaism and Proselytes to me are all one in the same. Aramaic Judaism should be easier for one to define since it followed a more traditional route, but at his time Judaism in itself not easy to define.

Talk all you want but until a baseline is set up for a definition of Judaism, no difference can be shown.

 

[Levite]

I should note that Orthodox Christianity also never believed in the concept of Original Sin. It's a uniquely Roman Catholic (and by extension, Protestant) doctrine.

OK, so I am not sure I was aware of that-- very interesting indeed! If you don't mind my asking, if that's the case, then in Orthodox Xy, what exactly is Jesus saving humanity from? How is he a savior?

 

[Shiranui117]

OK, so I am not sure I was aware of that-- very interesting indeed! If you don't mind my asking, if that's the case, then in Orthodox Xy, what exactly is Jesus saving humanity from? How is he a savior?

In Orthodoxy, He's saving us from enslavement to death and sin. By dying and rising from the dead, He destroyed the power of death over humanity--death is no longer the end, and we won't be forever in Sheol, but now we can share in God's life, just as Jesus shared in our human life. He gave us a way out of death.

In Orthodox Christianity, Jesus died, not to satisfy the wrath of an angry God, but to put to death the estrangement between God and man caused by our sin. He died to reconcile us, just as (correct me if I have this wrong) the Israelites gave sacrifice to God in order to put away their sin and be reconciled to Him.

 

[Levite]

In Orthodoxy, He's saving us from enslavement to death and sin. By dying and rising from the dead, He destroyed the power of death over humanity--death is no longer the end, and we won't be forever in Sheol, but now we can share in God's life, just as Jesus shared in our human life. He gave us a way out of death.

In Orthodox Christianity, Jesus died, not to satisfy the wrath of an angry God, but to put to death the estrangement between God and man caused by our sin. He died to reconcile us, just as (correct me if I have this wrong) the Israelites gave sacrifice to God in order to put away their sin and be reconciled to Him.

Interesting.

Yes, sacrifice was part of the process of repentance and absolution from sin; but only a part. One still had to do teshuvah (the full process of repentance-- including but not limited to making reparations for what one has done and accepting consequences of one's actions), make a confessional prayer to God, and participate in Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement). The Rabbis teach us that while sacrifice in general was important, prayer serves equally well if not better in the process of attaining absolution from sins.

So, for you guys, are people born sinners? And do you consider the only way for anyone to achieve full absolution from their sins have to do with Jesus' sacrifice?

 

[roger1440]

If you read my comments on the canonical Gospels I have written during the last two years on this forum they have a sort of Reform Judaism flavor to them. It is not done deliberately. Most New Testament scholars are Christian. Therefore they come to the table with a prejudice. They examine the New Testament threw a Christian lens. Jewish scholars on the other hand have very little interest in the New Testament. The few Jewish scholars that do study the New Testament have been influenced by Christian scholars. I on the other hand come to the table with a clean plate. In other words I start from scratch. The Jesus of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) is Israel, the Israel that never went astray. Who then is the Messiah? Well if Jesus is Israel and Jesus is the Messiah, then Israel must be is its own Messiah. This is pretty much in line with Reform Judaism.

 

[Estro Felino]

OK, so I am not sure I was aware of that-- very interesting indeed! If you don't mind my asking, if that's the case, then in Orthodox Xy, what exactly is Jesus saving humanity from? How is he a savior?

Then Eastern Orthodoxy is Pelagian.
Given that it rejects Augustinian Theology, it is necessarily Pelagian
this really thrills me

Good question. Jesus didn't save mankind from anything
given that there is freewill

 

[sojourner]

Then Eastern Orthodoxy is Pelagian.
Given that it rejects Augustinian Theology, it is necessarily Pelagian
this really thrills me

Good question. Jesus didn't save mankind from anything
given that there is freewill

The ball is snapped...
The kick is up...

...aaaaand... WIDE to the left...


:cheer:

 

[outhouse]

PROSELYTE - JewishEncyclopedia.com

The more rigorous seem to have been inclined to insist upon such converts observing the entire Law, with the exception of the reservations and modifications explicitly made in their behalf. The more lenient were ready to accord them full equality with Jews as soon as they had solemnly forsworn idolatry.


So until you define Judaism, your OP has little meaning.