Christianity is Judaism-lite?

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is the best fight ever.

opcorn:

Pass me some of that popcorn!

Me too!

 

[Levite]

I would shun the term "Judaism-lite" just on principle. I think it blurs the very real differences and separation between Judaism and Christianity, even in relatively early Christian times.

Perhaps the idea behind the term might have been applicable to the very earliest Christianity of Peter and James, but it was never even close with Pauline Christianity. Pauline Christianity isn't anything like "Judaism-lite" because it's not close enough to Judaism to qualify.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I agree with you Levite

 

[idav]

This came up in my rise of Christianity thread, which I want to keep on track. Someone made a insinuation that Christianity is Judaism-lite.

How is it hardly comparable? My understanding is that the two view God entirely differently, and many other unJewish ideas that many churches hold.

Judaism-lite? Really?

Christianity took the god and the covenants and laws and decided they didn't even have to follow any of it. Definitely a lite version.

 

[Bob Dixon]

I would shun the term "Judaism-lite" just on principle. I think it blurs the very real differences and separation between Judaism and Christianity, even in relatively early Christian times.

Perhaps the idea behind the term might have been applicable to the very earliest Christianity of Peter and James, but it was never even close with Pauline Christianity. Pauline Christianity isn't anything like "Judaism-lite" because it's not close enough to Judaism to qualify.

Well, the Christianity of Peter and James was a religion that didn't really separate itself from Judaism. They kept the Law, so I'd hesitate to call them "Lite".

 

[Levite]

Well, the Christianity of Peter and James was a religion that didn't really separate itself from Judaism. They kept the Law, so I'd hesitate to call them "Lite".

They kept the law as they understood Jesus to have taught it, or so I am told. Gauging by the accounts of Jesus in the Christian scriptures, he appears to have been relatively strong on some ethical commandments, but not so strong on others, overly strong on some social behavior commandments, but very weak on ritual commandments. So I would presume that the Christianity of Peter and James shared at least some of these flaws.

 

[F0uad]

I don't think the religion Christianity was ever part of Jesus(p) it could have been of Paul but that's for a other thread. I personally belief that Jesus(p) and hes followers were strict Hebrews who followed up the laws Moses(p) gave, hence Jesus(p) always refers to the law when rebuking the Pharisees. I also belief that he played a role being a teacher in inlighting people with Spirtuality and Mercy.

 

[outhouse]

Modern day Christianity is a Romanization of Paul's version of Judaism. While Protestant denominations are an attempt to de-Romanize Christianity they came far to late to do more than create another layer on top.

ding ding ding

we have a winner!!


a very true statement


a roman religion taken from jews, started by a roman and passed on to other romans

 

[Bob Dixon]

They kept the law as they understood Jesus to have taught it, or so I am told. Gauging by the accounts of Jesus in the Christian scriptures, he appears to have been relatively strong on some ethical commandments, but not so strong on others, overly strong on some social behavior commandments, but very weak on ritual commandments. So I would presume that the Christianity of Peter and James shared at least some of these flaws.

OK, you're right, then. His emphasis wasn't the same as that of the mainstream Jews around him.
But why would you say that he is "very weak" on ritual commandments?

 

[jasonwill2]

OK, you're right, then. His emphasis wasn't the same as that of the mainstream Jews around him.
But why would you say that he is "very weak" on ritual commandments?

I think he was probably referring to stuff like when Jesus wouldn't wash before he ate.

 

[Levite]

OK, you're right, then. His emphasis wasn't the same as that of the mainstream Jews around him.
But why would you say that he is "very weak" on ritual commandments?

As I recall, Jesus refused to wash before eating bread. He prevented people from burying dead relatives. He picked grain and ate it on the Sabbath. And in his major sermons, he goes to great lengths about the social and ethical commandments that concern him, but never reinforces keeping the Sabbath, observing the festivals, keeping kosher, and other such fundamental and basic laws-- all just as important to Jewish life as treating people justly and helping the poor. There are probably other instances of specific issues in the accounts of his deeds and those of his followers, but I haven't actually read the gospels and the Acts in a while.

 

[Shermana]

I really see no problem with calling them Christian though. They are trying to be Christ like. Sure, they may not agree with your form of being Christ-like; however, I see no reason to assume you have a monopoly on such ideas.

I don't claim to own the monopoly, I claim to have a position that disagrees with them. Thus, my position is that calling yourself "Christian" without a hyphenation, even if with "Nazarene-Christian" or "Ebionite-Christian", it is less audacious than the term "Christian" of which the definition is ill-defined to the point that its essentially held by the "orthodox" establishment due to its historical use alone. Most "Protestants" I've talked to who hold the recognizable place called "Christian" in their discussions about Mormons often don't consider them "Christians". They will say JWs aren't "Christians" because they don't hold to the Trinity. The popular CARM site and others that represent where they get their doctrinal views outright declare those who don't believe their way aren't "Christians".

It becomes a challenge to the claims of monopolies of others.;

Nonetheless, the question of how "Christlike" they try to act and what their idea of "Christlike" is is definitely open to debate.

 

[fallingblood]

I don't claim to own the monopoly, I claim to have a position that disagrees with them. Thus, my position is that calling yourself "Christian" without a hyphenation, even if with "Nazarene-Christian" or "Ebionite-Christian", it is less audacious than the term "Christian" of which the definition is ill-defined to the point that its essentially held by the "orthodox" establishment due to its historical use alone. Most "Protestants" I've talked to who hold the recognizable place called "Christian" in their discussions about Mormons often don't consider them "Christians". They will say JWs aren't "Christians" because they don't hold to the Trinity. The popular CARM site and others that represent where they get their doctrinal views outright declare those who don't believe their way aren't "Christians".

It becomes a challenge to the claims of monopolies of others.;

Nonetheless, the question of how "Christlike" they try to act and what their idea of "Christlike" is is definitely open to debate.

Point taken. I will agree that Christian is a very ill-defined word and that a hyphenation, or a better way of explaining ones stance is needed. However, I also think Christian is a nice umbrella term for quick conversations where specifics really are not needed, nor cared for.