TheKnight
Guardian of Life
There's a binding oral tradition in Christianity?But we do have our own. And scholastic endeavors do make use of the Talmud.
I don't understand what you mean in saying that Jesus was the fulfillment of the Jewish people for right and wrong.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.
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.But that's not what you said. You said the NT was clear about this.
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.Neither one is explicit that humanity was created evil and sinful. You're confusing Augustine with Paul.
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...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.
I have "Difference" 1-10 and then I have the four bolded points at the bottom.Which "last four things" are you referring to?
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.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.
Actions, however, are not required in Christianity. Therefore, many Christians don't focus on refining their behavior.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.
The difference between the pharisees and those other groups was that those other groups did not accept the Talmudic tradition.Three issues. First, which Mesorah do you have in mind?
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"Second, Paul did not say that the purpose of the law was to show that we couldn't keep it.
Paul discusses in his writings how the law is the power of sin and that through the law we are made away of sin.
1. I never knew of such Christian oral traditionThird, 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.
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.
"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...."~Romans 3:23Here again, you are accusing "Christianty" of believing what a small segment of Christianity believes. That said, I think your anthropology is correct.
"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.
Christainity holds that forgiveness requires blood sacrifice. However, this concept is not found anywhere in the Jewish scriptures.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.
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.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.
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.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.
We will never be able to agree on the resurrection either. Regardless of how much evidence either side presents.If not, not. It's really as simple as that.
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.Rather, it's that niggling resurrection once again. If Jesus was raised from the dead, he was and is the Lord of Lords.
That's because the sacrificial system (for the most part) had nothing to do with forgiveness, but with connecting to God.True, the Jewish scriptures don't spell out how the sacrificial system enacts forgiveness...
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.If not, not. Our sacrifices become monstrous and repulsive to God if they are not mingled with faithfulness, including repentance.
The Law, throughout the entire Tanakh, is seen as something eternally binding.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.
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".