Christian Cannot Be True (Not if it believes in the Old Testament)

[TheKnight]

But we do have our own. And scholastic endeavors do make use of the Talmud.

There's a binding oral tradition in Christianity?

Well, I'd say that the genaeologies of Matt. and Lk., in and of themselves bear this out. Further, if the Law encapsulates righteous Israel, and Jesus fulfills that Law, that's pretty self-explanatory, too. Matthew also does a real good job of identifying the Church as the "true Israel" in his gospel, being that those followers are portrayed as the ones who truly keep the prophets.

I don't understand what you mean in saying that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Jewish people for right and wrong.

But that's not what you said. You said the NT was clear about this.

The general nature of the New Testament, and it's attitudes (particularly Paul's attitudes) point to the idea that sin was not God's intention.

Neither one is explicit that humanity was created evil and sinful. You're confusing Augustine with Paul.

I never said that Christianity believes that man is created evil and sinful, but that mankind, as a result of the fall, is sinful and evil.

Again, implied, but not explicit. While we may say that Jesus' sacrifice is "the perfect offering for our sins," many, many of us do not take it as far as saying that th blood offering is in any way necessary.

That's pretty specific. It says "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin." That doesn't mean that blood is necessary? It's pretty much saying that if there is no blood, there is no forgiveness...

Which "last four things" are you referring to?

I have "Difference" 1-10 and then I have the four bolded points at the bottom.

This represents a distortion of both Judaism and Christianity. It is regrettable that most Christians know little of the Tanakh. But this is also true of most Jews.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the general attitude (in fact one of the most important ideals) of Judaism is study, while this does not seem to be the case with Christianity.

Another distortion. I'll grant you that things look different from an outside perspective, but the fact remains that "feeling" it's true and ignorance is a fault shared by all humanity. Christians have no corner on this.

Actions, however, are not required in Christianity. Therefore, many Christians don't focus on refining their behavior.

Three issues. First, which Mesorah do you have in mind?

The difference between the pharisees and those other groups was that those other groups did not accept the Talmudic tradition.

Second, Paul did not say that the purpose of the law was to show that we couldn't keep it.

Sorry, communication error on my part. That should read "Of course, this works to their advantage because Paul (in his writings) talks about how no one can follow the law and that the purpose of it is to show us that we are sinners"
Paul discusses in his writings how the law is the power of sin and that through the law we are made away of sin.

Third, authority. For Christians, all authority belongs to Jesus. So it's in light of Jesus and his apostles' teachings that we interpret Torah. As a result, the early Christians began their own Mesorah, just as the Essenes and the rabbis did. That's nothing against Christianity if it's nothing against the rabbis.

1. I never knew of such Christian oral tradition
2. The Rabbinic Mesorah is/was considered to be divinely inspired as well. The Biblical support for this is found in Deuteronomy 17 when Moses orders that the people not turn from the rulings of the judges (ie the Rabbis) as they were given. The Christians (as well as the Essenses, Sadduccees, and Zealots) all denied the Rabbinic Oral tradition. However, the Rabbinic Oral Tradition has Biblical support behind it.

Here again, you are accusing "Christianty" of believing what a small segment of Christianity believes. That said, I think your anthropology is correct.

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...."~Romans 3:23
"None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God."~Romans 3:10-11

The New Testament seems to present humanity as being sinful by nature. Incapable of doing good.

I think you're conflating repentance and forgiveness. Christianity holds that being restored to covenant faithfulness (i.e. FORGIVENESS and RECONCILIATION) used to require a blood sacrifice. That's what the temple cult was all about. A person's repentance PLUS the sacrifice "covered" the sin and restored the sinner to full participation in the covenant community. On a Christian view, Jesus ended the sacrificial system by being the Lamb prefigured in the yearly and daily sacrifices.

Christainity holds that forgiveness requires blood sacrifice. However, this concept is not found anywhere in the Jewish scriptures.

Yes, this is the key issue. It cannot be won out by either side by hurling proof texts at the other. The Christian claim for the Messiahship of Jesus does not rest on this or that proof text but on what we claim as historical fact: Jesus, who claimed before a Jewish court that he was in fact "the Son of the Blessed" died on a Roman cross. That should have ended the matter, but it didn't. He rose from the dead. If that last claim is true, it vindicates the Christian claim.

Is there proof of his resurrection? As I said in the OP, Perhaps the biggest evidence that Jesus was not the Messiah is the fact that he came, did his thing, and nothing changed.

This is anachronistic. Some forms of first century Judaism fervently believed in hell. That said, most Judaisms would have said (and Christianity has gotten away from this) that heaven is important, but it's not the end of the world. Most Judaisms have said that God will one day set all things to rights and restore creation to His original intent for justice, righteousness, beauty, shalom. This won't involve destroying the cosmos but rather re-ordering it.

How can you say that heaven/hell is considered important in Judaism when it's not mentioned in the entire Tanakh at all. It is virually unmentioned. Other then David's prayers concerning the pit (the nature of which we will not ever be able to agree on) and Solomon's mention of the "soul returning to God who gave it" the entire focuse of the Jewish "afterlife" experience seems to be on th Messianic age.

If not, not. It's really as simple as that.

We will never be able to agree on the resurrection either. Regardless of how much evidence either side presents.

Rather, it's that niggling resurrection once again. If Jesus was raised from the dead, he was and is the Lord of Lords.

True. And this is what most Christian V Judaism (or any other religion for that matter) will boil down to. How Jesus is viewed. Christians believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, and thus is God. That's always going to be the ultimate point of contention.

True, the Jewish scriptures don't spell out how the sacrificial system enacts forgiveness...

That's because the sacrificial system (for the most part) had nothing to do with forgiveness, but with connecting to God.

If not, not. Our sacrifices become monstrous and repulsive to God if they are not mingled with faithfulness, including repentance.

I agree. As Isaiah 64:6 teaches us that God requires both our heart and our action. However, that wasn't my point, my point was that the sacrificial system was not a matter of forgiveness, but of connection to God.

Another oversimplification. We find the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel speaking of a hoped-for new covenant where the law of God is not something externally imposed but something lived out from the heart. At the time of the Tanakh writings, this hope was still entirely in the future. Christianity claims to be the inauguration (not complete fulfillment) of that future hope. The resultant uncomfortable in-between time does not put an end to the Law but relativizes it somewhat to accommodate the presence of Gentiles in the people of God. Thus some things such as circumcision have to be abandoned as signs of covenant membership.

The Law, throughout the entire Tanakh, is seen as something eternally binding.

You have done nothing more than show how they are different.
When exactly are you going to prove something other than they are different?

Different is the point. Christianity claims to be of the same nature of Judaism. However, theologically, Christianity is completely different. The point is not to disprove Christianity (I realize that the title of the thread doesn't exactly reflect that).

I believe what you are saying is.

"Christianity cannot be true if my interpretation of the Jewish bible is correct."

If that is what you are saying, I will completely agree with you.

Not my interpretation, but the interpretation that Orthodox Judaism has had of the Jewish scriptures since Sinai. I guess from an external perspective that's another way of saying "my interpretation".

 

[sojourner]

There's a binding oral tradition in Christianity?

Of course.

I don't understand what you mean in saying that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Jewish people for right and wrong.

No, whether it's right or wrong, Matthew presents Jesus in that way.

The general nature of the New Testament, and it's attitudes (particularly Paul's attitudes) point to the idea that sin was not God's intention.

I'd say the same is true of the OT.

I never said that Christianity believes that man is created evil and sinful, but that mankind, as a result of the fall, is sinful and evil.

I disagree. Humanity, being the image of God, is not inherently sinful and evil. We engage in sin, and we do evil, but that's not who we truly are.

That's pretty specific. It says "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin." That doesn't mean that blood is necessary? It's pretty much saying that if there is no blood, there is no forgiveness...

Except that this is commentary on an OT passage, not an explicit edict for a NT church.

Actions, however, are not required in Christianity. Therefore, many Christians don't focus on refining their behavior.

Love your neighbor, go to the nations, preach the good news, help the helpless. These are actions that are central to Xy.

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...."~Romans 3:23
"None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God."~Romans 3:10-11

The New Testament seems to present humanity as being sinful by nature. Incapable of doing good.

A good example of eisegesis here. That's not what the text says. The text says that we have sinned. It says that no one is righteous. But have you considered that the understanding is that these conditions are by default, and not by design? Is not a beautiful car covered with mud still a beautiful car underneath all the mud? And when the mud is washed off, the true beauty comes through.

Christainity holds that forgiveness requires blood sacrifice.

No, it doesn't. A segment of it does, but not all of it.

 

[TheKnight]

No, whether it's right or wrong, Matthew presents Jesus in that way.

Can you explain what you mean by fulfillment of the Jewish people? What exactly does that mean?

I'd say the same is true of the OT.

There are parts that do teach that mankind has evil within him. However, the difference is that the Tanakh teaches that a man can turn from his sin. The NT teaches that someone needs Christ to free them from their enslavement in sin.

Except that this is commentary on an OT passage, not an explicit edict for a NT church.

It is a "commentary" on a passage that isn't in the Tanakh. The idea that blood is required for sacrifice is not found anywhere in the Tanakh. That being said, when Paul tries to use "blood is required for forgiveness" as justification, he is bringing an entirely new idea to the forefront.

Not only that, but even if the statement were in the Tanakh, it wouldn't change the fact that Paul believes it's necessary. In that passage he is discussing the sacrifice of Jesus, and the affect of his blood.

Love your neighbor, go to the nations, preach the good news, help the helpless. These are actions that are central to Xy.

Central though they may be, they are not required.

A good example of eisegesis here. That's not what the text says. The text says that we have sinned. It says that no one is righteous. But have you considered that the understanding is that these conditions are by default, and not by design? Is not a beautiful car covered with mud still a beautiful car underneath all the mud? And when the mud is washed off, the true beauty comes through.

I'll give you that one.

 

[Dunemeister]

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the general attitude (in fact one of the most important ideals) of Judaism is study, while this does not seem to be the case with Christianity.

That's simply false. Christianity has a very long and hallowed intellectual tradition. Once again, don't mistake American fundagelicalism with all of Christianity for all of its history. This is just ignorance on stilts.

Actions, however, are not required in Christianity. Therefore, many Christians don't focus on refining their behavior.

Again, that's simply false. Christianity, apart from small heretical groups, holds that actions are decisively important. Improvement in one's moral character is, in Christianity, one of the signs of covenant membership. If moral improvement is absent, that demonstrates that one's faith is lacking. Selective reading of the NT would give one the opposite impression, so let's not be so selective going forward, shall we?

The difference between the pharisees and those other groups was that those other groups did not accept the Talmudic tradition.

Niether did the Pharisees. The Talmud was developed by the heirs of the Pharisees, the rabbis. From Wikipedia's article on the Talmud:

The Talmud has two components: the Mishnah (c. 200 CE), the first written compendium of Judaism's Oral Law; and the Gemara (c. 500 CE), a discussion of the Mishnah and related Tannaitic writings that often ventures onto other subjects and expounds broadly on the Tanakh.

In that same article, there is a brief discussion of the Saduccees:

The Sadducees were a Jewish sect which flourished during the Second Temple period. One of their main arguments with the Pharisees (later known as Rabbinic Judaism) was over their rejection of an Oral Law as well as denying a resurrection after death. The disagreement was not strictly speaking about the Talmud, as this had not been written at the time.

Emphasis mine.

The Essenes radically reinterpreted the oral tradition but did not reject it outright. For their part, Christians also selectively appropriated the Jewish oral tradition. But as the Christian movement became more Gentile in character, the interaction with their Jewish roots diminished, much to the disadvantage of both parties.

It's also true that not all Judaism accepts the Talmud as authoritative. Reform and Reconstructionist branches, for instance. Conservative Judaism's appropriation of it is incomplete and nuanced. Only Orthodox Judaism accepts it as authoritative, and among them there is wide disagreement on how to understand it. So the situation is not as different from Christianity as you seem to think. Both Judaism and Christianity are far more diverse than the ultraconservative wings of each.

Sorry, communication error on my part. That should read "Of course, this works to their advantage because Paul (in his writings) talks about how no one can follow the law and that the purpose of it is to show us that we are sinners"
Paul discusses in his writings how the law is the power of sin and that through the law we are made away of sin.

Yes, Paul says that sin used the commandment to produce the opposite of what was intended. Yet the law is righteous, holy, and good in every way. Sin demonstrates its sinfulness by producing evil from a good source.
Paul never says following the law is impossible.

1. I never knew of such Christian oral tradition
2. The Rabbinic Mesorah is/was considered to be divinely inspired as well. The Biblical support for this is found in Deuteronomy 17 when Moses orders that the people not turn from the rulings of the judges (ie the Rabbis) as they were given. The Christians (as well as the Essenses, Sadduccees, and Zealots) all denied the Rabbinic Oral tradition. However, the Rabbinic Oral Tradition has Biblical support behind it.

1. Welcome to my world!
2. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox claim divine inspiration for their traditions as well. Moreover, the Saduccees, Essenes, Zealots, and Christians of all varieties all say that their traditions have biblical support, too. With all this diversity, it's not at all obvious that rabbinic Judaism should be favored above the others. It's just what happened to survive the rebellions of AD 70 and especially AD 135.

The New Testament seems to present humanity as being sinful by nature. Incapable of doing good.

First, notice Paul was quoting Psalms. Second, the "sinful by nature" reading is influenced by St. Augustine, who came centuries later. We are accustomed to reading Paul this way, but it's probably not the best way. Read Paul without Augustine getting in the way, and you may find an ultraconservative Pharisee struggling to understand the death and resurrection of the Messiah in the middle of history and the joining of Jew and Gentile under God.

Christainity holds that forgiveness requires blood sacrifice. However, this concept is not found anywhere in the Jewish scriptures.

Please explain the purpose of the temple cult if not restoration of the people and individuals to full covenant membership.

Is there proof of his resurrection? As I said in the OP, Perhaps the biggest evidence that Jesus was not the Messiah is the fact that he came, did his thing, and nothing changed.

Well yes, there is. The church itself is evidence, as well as the New Testament (a product of the church). Many people have come to believe in the resurrection through historical poking around, and if you'd like a really good discussion of the topic, may I suggest The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright? This is a very, very long book because it tackles a great many of the historical arguments and distortions (by both friends and foes of the church) over the centuries. But it rewards a patient read.

How can you say that heaven/hell is considered important in Judaism when it's not mentioned in the entire Tanakh at all. It is virually unmentioned. Other then David's prayers concerning the pit (the nature of which we will not ever be able to agree on) and Solomon's mention of the "soul returning to God who gave it" the entire focuse of the Jewish "afterlife" experience seems to be on th Messianic age.

Actually, I was trying to affirm exactly this. I guess my attempt at putting it humorously fell a bit flat.

We will never be able to agree on the resurrection either. Regardless of how much evidence either side presents.

Well yes, we shouldn't let evidence get in the way of our ideology, now should we?

True. And this is what most Christian V Judaism (or any other religion for that matter) will boil down to. How Jesus is viewed. Christians believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, and thus is God. That's always going to be the ultimate point of contention.

I knew we could agree on something. I really suggest that discussions between Jews and Christians focus their attention here. The problem is that there's a lot of bad blood and bad history because of Christian antisemitism. It's hard getting past that.

That's because the sacrificial system (for the most part) had nothing to do with forgiveness, but with connecting to God.

That, but it was ALSO about re-connecting with God after sin. Sin alienates one from God and the community of God. Repentance and sacrifice restores one's place. The Hebrew scriptures nowhere provide a rationale for this, but it's clearly what's going on. To deny it would be churlish.

The Law, throughout the entire Tanakh, is seen as something eternally binding.

Except where it's not. You ignore the hope held out by Ezekiel and Jeremiah for a new covenant. In the new covenant, the law is "binding" but in a very different sense. I suggest a re-read of those prophets to get a sense of what they were on about.

Christianity claims to be of the same nature of Judaism. However, theologically, Christianity is completely different. The point is not to disprove Christianity (I realize that the title of the thread doesn't exactly reflect that).

Not quite. Christianity claims to have the same God and same roots. Romans 9 - 11 deals with the relationship between the people of God and the new Christian movement. In fact, these chapters are the climax of the letter, the whole of which is worth a read.

 

[sojourner]

Can you explain what you mean by fulfillment of the Jewish people? What exactly does that mean?

The Jews are identified by being a people of the covenant -- a covenant that was set up, in part, with Jacob, or Israel. That covenant includes the keeping of the Law. Matthew has Jesus embodying a new covenant and fulfilling the Law.

There are parts that do teach that mankind has evil within him.

"Having evil" is wholly different than "being evil."

NT teaches that someone needs Christ to free them from their enslavement in sin.

Does it? Or does it teach that Christ is the perfect expiation for the sin of humanity?

The idea that blood is required for sacrifice is not found anywhere in the Tanakh.

Nor is that explicit in the NT.

Central though they may be, they are not required.

Hmmn. "One thing more is required. Go, sell all that you have, give the proceeds to the poor and follow me."
"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment, and a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments all the Law and the prophets depend."
Sound like requirements to me...

 

[TheKnight]

Niether did the Pharisees. The Talmud was developed by the heirs of the Pharisees, the rabbis. From Wikipedia's article on the Talmud:

The Pharisaic oral tradition (the Talmud) is believed to go back to Moses himself. It wasn't written until after the destruction of the Second Temple (when they wrote it down in order to preserve it).

1. Welcome to my world!
2. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox claim divine inspiration for their traditions as well. Moreover, the Saduccees, Essenes, Zealots, and Christians of all varieties all say that their traditions have biblical support, too. With all this diversity, it's not at all obvious that rabbinic Judaism should be favored above the others. It's just what happened to survive the rebellions of AD 70 and especially AD 135.

It's survival is a testament to it's validity seeing as how the Torah states that groups that deviate from the law won't last that long (and indeed they haven't).

Please explain the purpose of the temple cult if not restoration of the people and individuals to full covenant membership.

The Temple served as a house of worship to God. The practices there are outlined in the Torah as methods of connecting to God.

Well yes, there is. The church itself is evidence, as well as the New Testament (a product of the church). Many people have come to believe in the resurrection through historical poking around, and if you'd like a really good discussion of the topic, may I suggest The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright? This is a very, very long book because it tackles a great many of the historical arguments and distortions (by both friends and foes of the church) over the centuries. But it rewards a patient read.

Hmm...I'm not sure if the church is evidence...Lol..

Well yes, we shouldn't let evidence get in the way of our ideology, now should we?

I think it's more a matter of having different standards of evidence...

I knew we could agree on something. I really suggest that discussions between Jews and Christians focus their attention here. The problem is that there's a lot of bad blood and bad history because of Christian antisemitism. It's hard getting past that.

If we argued about whether or not Jesus rose, we'd be going around in circles all day.

Except where it's not. You ignore the hope held out by Ezekiel and Jeremiah for a new covenant. In the new covenant, the law is "binding" but in a very different sense. I suggest a re-read of those prophets to get a sense of what they were on about.

The New covenant didn't mean that the old one would be replaced. It would simply be a new way of viewing the same covenant. But that is a matter of interpretation.

Not quite. Christianity claims to have the same God and same roots. Romans 9 - 11 deals with the relationship between the people of God and the new Christian movement. In fact, these chapters are the climax of the letter, the whole of which is worth a read.

Christianity does claim to have the same God (and some Rabbinic opinions would say that it does). The arguments between Judaism and Christianity are based entirely on which group of Christianity we're arguing with. There are some groups of Christianity that I have encountered where the only difference (literally) was whether or not Jesus is God.

 

[Jakaceel]

3. Christianity claims that a blood sacrifice is necessary for the expiation of sins. (Hebrews 9:22)

However, no where in the Jewish scriptures is that stated. In fact, the forgiveness of sins is more often accomplished through repentance (Ezekial 18 & 33) and through charity (Daniel 4:27).

This is a strange statment considering the fact that The Jews bought doves, sheep etc. to sacrifice at the Temple to cover their sins.

 

[TheKnight]

This is a strange statment considering the fact that The Jews bought doves, sheep etc. to sacrifice at the Temple to cover their sins.

Sacrifices were a part of the Jewish system. But a blood sacrifice was not required for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[Dunemeister]

Sacrifices were a part of the Jewish system. But a blood sacrifice was not required for the forgiveness of sins.

Please re-read Leviticus 4. You'll find there that the purpose of at least one form of offering, a blood sacrifice no less, was required for forgiveness of sin.

 

[TheKnight]

Please re-read Leviticus 4. You'll find there that the purpose of at least one form of offering, a blood sacrifice no less, was required for forgiveness of sin.

I have read Leviticus 4. Leviticus 4 says that a sacrifice CAN atone for sin, not that it MUST atone for sin. Charity can also atone for sin (Daniel 4:24). Repentance can also atone for sin (Ezekiel 18 and 33). Blood sacrifice is not required for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[Dunemeister]

I have read Leviticus 4. Leviticus 4 says that a sacrifice CAN atone for sin, not that it MUST atone for sin. Charity can also atone for sin (Daniel 4:24). Repentance can also atone for sin (Ezekiel 18 and 33). Blood sacrifice is not required for the forgiveness of sins.

I think you actually have in mind Daniel 4:27:

Therefore, O king, may my counsel be acceptable to you: atone for your sins with righteousness, and your iniquities with mercy to the oppressed, so that your prosperity may be prolonged.

How is Daniel's advice to a pagan king about how he ought to obtain forgiveness relevant to how a covenant Jew receives forgiveness?

Let's move on to Ezekiel 18:21 - 24:

But if the wicked turn away from all their sins that they have committed and keep all my statutes and do what is lawful and right, they shall surely live; they shall not die. None of the transgressions that they have committed shall be remembered against them; for the righteousness that they have done they shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that they should turn from their ways and live? But when the righteous turn away from their righteousness and commit iniquity and do the same abominable things that the wicked do, shall they live? None of the righteous deeds that they have done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which they are guilty and the sin they have committed, they shall die.

Yes, this passage indicates the centrality of repentance. But it does NOT say that a sacrifice is not also necessary. You'll need to look elsewhere for indications that Ezekiel is advocating an alternative to the temple cult rather than emphasizing an internal element in receiving forgiveness.

However, somewhat in favor of your interpretation, Ezekiel is speaking to the exiled community, which is far away from the temple. In such a circumstance, temple sacrifice is not possible, so it would make sense for provision to be made in that case. Nevertheless, should these people be restored to Jerusalem, and should a temple be available, it would be mandatory to offer sacrifices as part of the ritual of reintegration into covenant fidelity.

Ezekiel 33 basically repeats the same themes, so I won't address it directly.

 

[Arlanbb]

This is a very silly thread, somewhat reminiscent of Arlanbb's petty picking at the Tanakh.

I never petty picked Tanakh in my life, She doesn't even live in my neck of the woods, in fact I don't even know her.:no:

 

[Humanistheart]

Throughout this post I will show differences between Christianity and Judaism, and then respond to some claims that Christians make that simply cannot be true (if they also believe in the Bible.

Difference #1
In Judaism, the Bible is something that should be followed, not felt, and so traditionally Observant Jews and Noahides know a lot more about the Tanakh (Old Testament) than Christians. In fact, usually the only Christians who actually know the OT are those who are higher up in scholarship. Your average Christian doesn't know much about the OT or the NT for that matter.

Difference #2
Judaism believes that he Bible should be followed and applied in each person's life. Christians generally believe that they can feel it in their hearts and that's good enough. Most common-man Christians I've talked to say that "Jesus died for my sins, and I believe that, so I'm covered" or some variation of that statement. Other ones do feel guilty when I question them about their lack of knowledge, but the guilt doesn't last long because they'll not go and study, but will stay where they are.

Difference #3
The texts that both Judaism and Christianity use are different. For one, Christians use the Tanakh but deny the Mesorah (ie the Oral Tradition). Whereas, Judaism teaches that the Mesorah is just as divine as the Tanakh, and that the New Testament is false. This (because Christians usually deny the truth of the first two differences) is quite possibly the biggest difference. Of course, Christians always ignore the fact that the Torah CANNOT be followed without the Mesorah. Of course, this works to their advantage because Paul (in his writings) talks about how no one can follow the law and that the purpose of it is to show us that we can't keep it. But text is the biggest issue. Christians (particularly protestants who know about the Catholic acts of the past) are unwilling to accept the teachings of any official source or organizational structure. They believe in Sola Scriptura whereas Judaism takes in all that God has delivered to the world about the Torah.

Difference #4
The next difference is really obvious (to the learnéd person), but is perhaps the most discreet and unknown. Christianity and Judaism disagree about who the son of God is. Christianity teaches that it is Jesus, even Jesus says that he is God's son. And Matthew quotes OT scriptures to validate himself. However, in Exodus 4:22, God says that Israel is his first-born son. Now, this is a hard concept for many to understand the importance of. If the purpose of God's son is to be a light unto the nations as Isaiah says, then who God's son is would be very important. God's son, is the nation of Israel to the Observant Jew or Noahide and to the Christian, God's son is Jesus.

Difference #5
Sin and Evil. Now, in this way Judaism and Christianity are actually quite the same, and yet MUCH different. They are similar in that Judaism and Christianity both accept that sin entered the world through Adam and Eve. Now, in Christianity, sin was not intended to enter the world. It was the result of an evil force (Satan) ruining what God had created by tempting Eve. I understand that not ALL of Christianity believes this, however, I am going simply based on my former Christian understand of the New Testament. In Judaism, sin was the intent. God intended that we should sin. How do we know? Because nothing happens unless God intends it to. Now, in Judaism the purpose of OUR creation is to create a connection to God, to change darkness into light, to make a home for God amongst the physical and amongst that which is evil. We were created to turn evil to good, darkness to light, hunger to plenty. We were created to follow the Torah and through the Torah make things below as they are above. Christianity (parts of it anyways) rejects this idea. Also, in Judaism, there is no opposite force of God. God makes evil, everything that Satan does is an order by God. Satan is a loyal angel and his job is to try and keep us off track through our evil inclination.

Difference #6
The nature of humanity. Christianity believes that humans are inherently bad, and that had Jesus not died we'd all be going to hell. This view is NOT held in Judaism. In fact, Judaism teaches that humanity is inherently good. That people should be valued as people despite their bad acts. That a person, though he may be shrouded in darkness, has good inside of them. Everyone has a redeeming quality which would allow them to do tremendous good. God created man to be ultimately good, and that is what he is.

Difference #7
Repentance. Christianity is based on the notion that blood is necessary for repentance. That God requires blood (Hebrews 9:22). That Jesus is the perfect and Eternal sacrifice that stands as a sacrifice so that we no longer need to bring them. Despite what Christianity believes, the Torah does not require blood for complete repentance. In Judaism there are three ways to repent. There is sacrifice (the least effective), there is charity (the next to least effective), and repentance (the most effective). In Christianity, repentance is accepting that Jesus died for your sins and asking for forgiveness. In Judaism, asking for forgiveness is required, but in addition to that you must actually resolve to never do the sin again. You must be constantly trying to avoid that sin (if it is an addiction) and must be doing everything you can to avoid it.

Difference #8
Christianity teaches that Jesus is the Messiah, Judaism teaches that Jesus did not fulfill the requirements required for a claim to Messiahship

Difference #9
Afterlife. In Judaism everyone goes to the same place. In Christianity, there's a heaven and a hell.

Difference #10
The trinity. In Judaism God is a unity that is not made up of different parts. In Christianity God is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Claims:

1.Christianity makes the claim that Jesus was God (Philippians 2:5-6)

However, the New Testament also teaches that Jesus was a man (1 Tim 2:5).

The Jewish scriptures (which Christianity claims to have derived its truth from) state clearly that God is not a man (Numbers 23:19).

Also, Christians will point to the miracles that Jesus performed as evidence of his godship. However, Jesus was not the only person in the NT to perform miracles. In fact, Jesus never did anything that was exclusively God-like that no one else in the NT did. All of the disciples and apostles did what Jesus did, yet none of them are considered God.

2. Christianity claims that Jesus was the Messiah as prophesied by the Jewish scriptures and they will throw out a plethora of random verses to try and prove this point.

A lot of their claims are disputed here.

Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus was not the Messiah as prophesied by the Jewish scriptures, is the fact that literally nothing changed after Jesus came. Nothing spectacular occurred, nothing got better. In fact, the world got worse a the newly made religion went out and caused all sorts of damage.

3. Christianity claims that a blood sacrifice is necessary for the expiation of sins. (Hebrews 9:22)

However, no where in the Jewish scriptures is that stated. In fact, the forgiveness of sins is more often accomplished through repentance (Ezekial 18 & 33) and through charity (Daniel 4:27).

4. Christianity claims that the law is old and obsolete. (Romans 10:4 & Hebrews 8:13)

However, God states that the laws should be followed forever (Deuteronomy 4:40 & Psalm 119:152).

Based on the above, it is logical to assume that Christianity cannot be true and the Jewish scriptures be true at the same time.

I agree with your positions Knight, some more than others. But you are right. The differences are so staggaring it's hard to believe Christianity owes it's origins to a failed jewish reform movement. I particularly agree with your conclusion, given some of the striking differences between the two religions, they cannot both be right, particularly when it comes to the false messiah Yeshua.

Yeshua did not full fill one single messianic prophicy, and was indeed the oposite of everything the messiah was to be, which would make him an anti-messiah or 'anti-christ' if you will. It's like it says in Deut, how god will sometimes grant power to frauds simply to test the hebrew people's faith. Jesus was nothing but a test, and many failed that test.

 

[TheKnight]

How is Daniel's advice to a pagan king about how he ought to obtain forgiveness relevant to how a covenant Jew receives forgiveness?

It's conceptual. It's a concept that is also found in Isaiah 1. The fact that charity in some way atones for sins....

Yes, this passage indicates the centrality of repentance. But it does NOT say that a sacrifice is not also necessary. You'll need to look elsewhere for indications that Ezekiel is advocating an alternative to the temple cult rather than emphasizing an internal element in receiving forgiveness.

There's not a single passage in the entire Tanakh which says that sacrifice is necessary for atonement of sin.

 

[rrosskopf]

Throughout this post I will show differences between Christianity and Judaism, and then respond to some claims that Christians make that simply cannot be true (if they also believe in the Bible.

Most of these points don't apply at all to Mormons. Then again, trying to include all of Christianity under one umbrella is a monumental task.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Difference #2
Judaism believes that he Bible should be followed and applied in each person's life. Christians generally believe that they can feel it in their hearts and that's good enough. Most common-man Christians I've talked to say that "Jesus died for my sins, and I believe that, so I'm covered" or some variation of that statement. Other ones do feel guilty when I question them about their lack of knowledge, but the guilt doesn't last long because they'll not go and study, but will stay where they are.

This is only certain christian sects. For example Catholicism is very strict in how one must repent for sins. Belief alone is not enough and one can easily loose their ticket to heaven. It is a protestant idea that one can simply be "saved" and be done with it.

Difference #3
The texts that both Judaism and Christianity use are different. For one, Christians use the Tanakh but deny the Mesorah (ie the Oral Tradition). Whereas, Judaism teaches that the Mesorah is just as divine as the Tanakh, and that the New Testament is false. This (because Christians usually deny the truth of the first two differences) is quite possibly the biggest difference. Of course, Christians always ignore the fact that the Torah CANNOT be followed without the Mesorah. Of course, this works to their advantage because Paul (in his writings) talks about how no one can follow the law and that the purpose of it is to show us that we can't keep it. But text is the biggest issue. Christians (particularly protestants who know about the Catholic acts of the past) are unwilling to accept the teachings of any official source or organizational structure. They believe in Sola Scriptura whereas Judaism takes in all that God has delivered to the world about the Torah.

Christians don't use the whole Tanakh but mostly just the Torah (and I don't think even the whole Tora). But the history of the development of the Cannons is an interesting one.

Difference #8
Christianity teaches that Jesus is the Messiah, Judaism teaches that Jesus did not fulfill the requirements required for a claim to Messiahship

Out of curiosity what are the requirements?