Comparison of Christianity and Judaism

[outhouse]

PROSELYTE - JewishEncyclopedia.com

According to Josephus there prevailed in his day among the inhabitants of both Greek and barbarian cities ("Contra Ap." ii., § 39) a great zeal for the Jewish religion. This statement refers to Emperor Domitian's last years, two decades after Jerusalem's fall. It shows that throughout the Roman empire Judaism had made inroads upon the pagan religions. Latin writers furnish evidence corroborating this. It is true that Tacitus ("Hist." iv. 5) is anxious to convey the impression that only the most despicable elements of the population were found among these converts to Judaism; but this is amply refuted by other Roman historians, as Dio Cassius (67, 14, 68), Cicero ("Pro Flacco," § 28), Horace ("Satires," i. 9, 69; iv. 142), and Juvenal (xiv. 96).

And these are the exact people who became and were early movement members

 

[Shiranui117]

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

No, we are not Pelagian. Pelagianism has been condemned by Eastern Orthodoxy as a heresy.

Just because we reject Augustinian theology doesn't mean that we automatically accept Pelagian theology. Pelagianism is as wrong as Augustinianism, because both go to heretical extremes, just in the opposite directions. Orthodoxy is neither Augustinian nor Pelagian.

 

[Shiranui117]

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.

The process is essentialy identical in Orthodoxy; we repent (i.e. change our hearts and minds), seek forgiveness from those we have wronged and do what we can to right our wrong, confess our sins to God, and go to confession and receive absolution from Christ through the priest. As far as the sacrifice part, we already have Jesus' sacrifice, so no need to have a new one.

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?

We are born with the consequences of Adam's sin (sickness, mortality, suffering and a heavy inclination to sin). We become sinners by living under the influence of other sinful human beings--the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, as the saying goes.

I believe that anyone can be saved as long as they live according to what they know of God, don't outright reject Jesus, and do their best to be virtuous people. Jesus had the power to forgive sins, and it's through the cross that we are reconciled to God, since it is through His death and Resurrection that the relational gap between God and man caused by our sin is bridged. Jesus did say that no one comes to the Father except through Him, so however we get to God, whether inside His Church or outside of it, goes through Jesus in some way, shape or form, however that happens.

 

[Estro Felino]

Orthodoxy is neither Augustinian nor Pelagian.

Well...you Orthodox should make a choice. This sounds a typical attitude of someone who doesn't want to take a side.

besides, if something isn't black...it is white
It's Aristotelian Logic: if grace doesn't save us...we are automatically saved by our freewill.
Pardon us, if we are going off topic

 

[Shiranui117]

Well...you Orthodox should make a choice. This sounds a typical attitude of someone who doesn't want to take a side.

Orthodoxy existed before either Pelagianism or Augustinianism. Just because the two camps each went off the rails doesn't mean we should, too. Both Pelagianism and Augustinianism are deviations from the teachings of the Apostles and the Prophets, as can be easily proven by even a cursory knowledge of Scripture. You don't even need the New Testament. All you need is the Tanakh to disprove both.

 

[Estro Felino]

Orthodoxy existed before either Pelagianism or Augustinianism. Just because the two camps each went off the rails doesn't mean we should, too. Both Pelagianism and Augustinianism are deviations from the teachings of the Apostles and the Prophets, as can be easily proven by even a cursory knowledge of Scripture. You don't even need the New Testament. All you need is the Tanakh to disprove both.

But Christianity is not based upon prophets or upon apostles. Apostles' statements are worth less than zero. (and Paul was a very fallible person).

Christianity is exclusively based upon Christ's teachings, and so therefore exclusively based upon Christ's parables.
And Christ's parables say that we will save ourselves through our merits, not through our words.
The typical parable that proves that is this:

Matthew, 21, 28
28“What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’
29“ ‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.
30“Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go.
31“Which of the two did what his father wanted?”
“The first,” they answered.

 

[xkatz]

But Christianity is not based upon prophets or upon apostles. Apostles' statements are worth less than zero. (and Paul was a very fallible person).

So the Apostles' testimonies of Jesus are worthless?

I may not be a Christian but that doesn't seem to add up to me...

 

[outhouse]

So the Apostles' testimonies of Jesus are worthless?

We do not have any apostles testimonies.

 

[xkatz]

We do not have any apostles testimonies.

Then what would the Gospels be?

I am seriously confused now

 

[Estro Felino]

So the Apostles' testimonies of Jesus are worthless?

I may not be a Christian but that doesn't seem to add up to me...

well, good observation. There is a big difference between the parables, which directly come from Jesus' mouth, and philosophical\theological affirmations made by apostles like Paul.
Paul was a fallible person. He said right things and wrong things. he never met Jesus. He said that women have no right to speak in assemblies. Do you think this statement is divinely inspired? I don't

 

[outhouse]

Then what would the Gospels be?

I am seriously confused now

The gospels have nothing to do with any Galilean apostles.

They were written by unknown Hellenist in the empire writing to and for Romans.

What amounts to Jesus enemies in my opinion.

 

[xkatz]

The gospels have nothing to do with any Galilean apostles.

They were written by unknown Hellenist in the empire writing to and for Romans.

What amounts to Jesus enemies in my opinion.

I am speaking about the Christian understanding of the Gospels, however. From my understanding, the Gospels are the Apostles accounts of Jesus.

 

[outhouse]

the Gospels are the Apostles accounts of Jesus.

The gospels have nothing to do with any Galilean apostles.

They were written by unknown Hellenist in the empire writing to and for Romans.

 

[Shiranui117]

But Christianity is not based upon prophets or upon apostles. Apostles' statements are worth less than zero. (and Paul was a very fallible person).

Christianity is exclusively based upon Christ's teachings, and so therefore exclusively based upon Christ's parables.
And Christ's parables say that we will save ourselves through our merits, not through our words.
The typical parable that proves that is this:

What Jesus taught, the Apostles preached and the Fathers kept.

 

[Estro Felino]

What Jesus taught, the Apostles preached and the Fathers kept.

please...let's be honest. When Paul says : you are saved by Christ's sacrifice...he is contradicting that parable.

 

[metis]

IMO, Paul was using a lot of symbolism versus literal and was quite imaginative. Not that I agree with him, mind you.

 

[sojourner]

But Christianity is not based upon prophets or upon apostles. Apostles' statements are worth less than zero. (and Paul was a very fallible person).

Christianity is exclusively based upon Christ's teachings, and so therefore exclusively based upon Christ's parables.

Wrong. The apostles were spreading Xy long before the gospels were written. We have an apostolic faith -- not a biblical faith. Not all Xtians had access to all gospels. There wasn't even a bible settled upon for 450 years of the church. The apostles' teaching has always been paramount in considering orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

 

[outhouse]

What Jesus taught, the Apostles preached and the Fathers kept.

Not really.

Do you think all of John the Baptists parables and teachings were lost?

Or were they all included in the gospels?


We do not kno wthe apostles preached anyting. Jesus Jewish movement died with Jesus.

His death was martyred and Hellenist found importance in this martyrdom, and the mythoogy grew in the Diaspora. It did not grow in Israel.

The gospels are only a reflection of the movement 40 years and later after his martyrdom. It does not reflect the Galilean movement.

Some of the parables have the possibility to go back to Galilee under Aramiac Judaism typical to Galilee. Words that originated with Jesus are impossible to know.

If he only had a 1-3 year ministry beofre his death, he was only repeating the local Judaism taught to him by John.

We have Johns teachings more so then jesus

 

[sojourner]

We do not have any apostles testimonies.

Sure we do -- they're just not part of the canon.

 

[outhouse]

The apostles were spreading Xy long before the gospels were written.

Which apostles do you think have historicity here? Galilean or Hellenist in the Empire who are said to be his apostles?