Comparison of Christianity and Judaism

[roger1440]

"To err is human; to forgive, divine."
[FONT=&quot]Alexander Pope[/FONT]

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

OK, but when discussing biblical origins, one has to take a very limited amount of empirical knowledge and proceed from a basis of certain key assumptions. In other words, you gotta pick a camp and then work from within that particular set of assumptions.

When discussing biblical origins one has to be cautious an not talk confidently about 'probabilities' sucked out of inferences predicated on assumptions.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Then you clearly don't know what Augustine actually taught. Augustine's definition of original sin is that we inherit the guilt of Adam's sin--that is, we are automatically just as guilty of Adam's sin as Adam himself. We are unable to choose good on our own without God's grace (total depravity). God's grace is irresistible, and we are essentially saved whether we want to be or not, because we are unable to choose salvation in the first place (monergism). He held that unbaptized babies go to hell because of original sin.

Orthodoxy rejects all three of these false and quite frankly heretical notions. So no, we do not hold to Augustine's theology.

The Catholic Church doesn't teach that, either. That's Calvinism.

Original sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Shiranui117]

You see no problem here?

Actually, I don't. I should have chosen my words better in that first post, but the point remains the same. I should have said that we sin under the influence of our parents' sin, but not completely as a result of that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Actually, I don't. I should have chosen my words better in that first post, but the point remains the same. I should have said that we sin under the influence of our parents' sin, but not completely as a result of that.

OK. How does my parents' sin influence me to sin?

 

[metis]

...This is how I see the influences that shaped Jesus – Hillel’s principle of following the spirit of the Law, dissatisfaction with Shammai’s obsession with the letter of the Law, Daniels’s image of the Son of Man coming to judge everyone, and all of this informed by the figure of Amos.

First of all, kudos on your overall post. I would like to comment on this part, not to disagree as much is to throw in another possibility.

Jesus was operating from a Pharisee paradigm, but I also see evidence in him being at Hellenized to maybe a significant extent, quite possibly supported by that influence in the area where he was brought up. His position seems to reflect a very liberal form of the Pharisee movement, which I have heard sometimes being referred to as "love Pharisees", whereas the love of God and one's neighbor trumps all.

Where Jesus' and Hillel's positions seem to separate is that Hillel did indeed feel the same but not to the point whereas the rest of the Law became possibly expendable. Now, it's hard to say if Jesus literally said that, but the fact that the apostles are questioning the kosher Laws after his death seems to suggest that Jesus must have opened the door in some way as those Laws are pretty basic to day-to-day life for us then and now. But the fact that the apostles did indeed gradually walk away from the Law tells me that he must let the camel's nose slip under the tent in some way.

There's more, but I'll stop here.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Now, it's hard to say if Jesus literally said that, but the fact that the apostles are questioning the kosher Laws after his death seems to suggest that Jesus must have opened the door in some way as those Laws are pretty basic to day-to-day life for us then and now.

It is not at all a fact and it suggests nothing so much as a base-building effort in the (largely gentile) diaspora.

 

[metis]

It is not at all a fact and it suggests nothing so much as a base-building effort in the (largely gentile) diaspora.

Which is why I put the word "suggests" in my statement. Secondly, no doubt a gentile influence gradually affected the Way after 70 c.e., but changes appear to have been taking place prior to that because of certain things that show up that are hard to explain in any other way, along with the fact that there remained Jews involved in the movement even after 70, such as the apostle John.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Which is why I put the word "suggests" in my statement.

What you said was: "but the fact that the apostles are questioning the kosher Laws after his death seems to suggest." When, and according to whom, is this a fact?

Secondly, no doubt a gentile influence gradually affected the Way after 70 c.e., but changes appear to have been taking place prior to that because of certain things that show up that are hard to explain in any other way, ...

Such as?

..., along with the fact that there remained Jews involved in the movement even after 70, such as the apostle John.

I would suggest that "the fact that there remained Jews involved in the movement even after 70" suggests exceedingly little while the claim that John the Apostle was one of these is simply a disputed claim. So, for example, Wikipedia notes" "Until the 19th century, the authorship of the Gospel of John had universally been attributed to the Apostle John. However, most modern critical scholars have their doubts."

 

[metis]

What you said was: "but the fact that the apostles are questioning the kosher Laws after his death seems to suggest." When, and according to whom, is this a fact?

Found in Acts, and there's no reason to suggest that it's a fabrication that they were under discussion, although anything is possible.

Such as?

Certain Laws that Jesus appears to violate if Acts is at all correct, such as traveling from town to town on Shabbat and picking grain on that day. Again, what I'm giving is my impression, and I made that quite clear in my post. If your impression is different, I certainly don't have a problem with that.

I would suggest that "the fact that there remained Jews involved in the movement even after 70" suggests exceedingly little while the claim that John the Apostle was one of these is simply a disputed claim. So, for example, Wikipedia notes" "Until the 19th century, the authorship of the Gospel of John had universally been attributed to the Apostle John. However, most modern critical scholars have their doubts."

No, John's existence after 70 is really not seriously questioned, and I didn't say nor suggest that John actually authored the gospel attributed to him.

 

[outhouse]

Found in Acts, and there's no reason to suggest that it's a fabrication that they were under discussion, although anything is possible.

Acts should raise a rhetorical generated red flag.

I think there was a dispute, rhetoric would be attributing apostles as leaderes of these Helleistic Jerusalem sects.


I also differ from you in your Hellenistic stance of Jesus. I view him as being opposed to Hellenism to the point of fighting Hellenism.

The socioeconomic divide between the Hellenist of Sepphoris was steep. These Hellenist kept the Jewish agrarian and fishing peasants in poverty, enslaving many when they could not make their leased land payments.

Hellenist were oppressing every bit as much as their Roman oppressors.

 

[metis]

I also differ from you in your Hellenistic stance of Jesus. I view him as being opposed to Hellenism to the point of fighting Hellenism.

I don't see it as either/or. Jesus emphasis on removing barriers and more equality leans away from the parochialism that the anti-Hellenists wanted.

 

[Alt Thinker]

First of all, kudos on your overall post. I would like to comment on this part, not to disagree as much is to throw in another possibility.

Jesus was operating from a Pharisee paradigm, but I also see evidence in him being at Hellenized to maybe a significant extent, quite possibly supported by that influence in the area where he was brought up. His position seems to reflect a very liberal form of the Pharisee movement, which I have heard sometimes being referred to as "love Pharisees", whereas the love of God and one's neighbor trumps all.

Where Jesus' and Hillel's positions seem to separate is that Hillel did indeed feel the same but not to the point whereas the rest of the Law became possibly expendable. Now, it's hard to say if Jesus literally said that, but the fact that the apostles are questioning the kosher Laws after his death seems to suggest that Jesus must have opened the door in some way as those Laws are pretty basic to day-to-day life for us then and now. But the fact that the apostles did indeed gradually walk away from the Law tells me that he must let the camel's nose slip under the tent in some way.

There's more, but I'll stop here.

The “love God, love neighbor” paradigm far from being liberal is rooted in scripture

Deuteronomy says “These are the commands, decrees and laws the LORD your God directed me to teach you to observe”.

The very first command is the Shema:
“ Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.”

In Leviticus, God tells how to treat other people, summing up the end of that list with “love your neighbor as yourself”.

Neither is it the case that these two commandments ‘trump all’. When asked specifically how to gain eternal life, Jesus replies with the action commandments from the Decalogue: do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not lie, honor your parents. All three Synoptics present this in nearly identical wording. Matthew adds “and love your neighbor as yourself”. What does Matthew mean by this? Check out Matthew 25 where the importance of charitable action is emphasized. No liberal hippy-dippy love fest here but strong scripture-based commandments.

It is Paul who first questions the continued applicability of the multitude of kosher laws for Jesus followers, in order to attract gentiles into the movement. Let’s face it – adult circumcision is not a great selling point. This is well after the death of Jesus. That Jesus was opposed to all the empty ‘man-made’ rules and rituals while ignoring the spirit of the Law is clear. (So was Amos BTW.) But my comments above show that he adhered to core Judaism. But we see Paul meeting strong resistance from the then mainstream Jewish-centric Jesus movement and having to argue strenuously. One must suspect that the parts of the Gospels where Jesus seems to abandon traditional Kosher Law are post-Paul inventions reflecting that Pauline Christianity had become mainstream by then.

 

[CMike]

Here's a question aimed specifically at Levite, Jewscout, Jayhawker, etc. -- The Jewish members -- although other opinions are welcome, as well.

I posed this question in another thread, but thought it might merit enough discussion such that a distinct thread is more advisable:

Do you think that today's Judaism (and I *think* I'm talking more about, say reform Judaism more than, say Hassidic or even orthodox, but I'm really not too clear on the distinctions) is "closer" to what Jesus would have had in mind with his movement than is today's apostolic Christianity (RCC, Orthodox, Anglican)?

Thanks!

That's a tough question because what jesus had in mind is irrelevant in judaism.

 

[outhouse]

I don't see it as either/or. Jesus emphasis on removing barriers and more equality leans away from the parochialism that the anti-Hellenists wanted.

I believe that opinion stems from the Hellensit authors writing in the Diaspora.

We dont know he wanted any barrier removed other then oppression and starvation.

Anti governement goes with the Roman and Hellenistic oppressors, of which the Pharisees and Saducees both had a bad rap in peasant communities.


Hellenist factually oppressed his class of people.

 

[xkatz]

That's a tough question because what jesus had in mind is irrelevant in judaism.

Even the morality?

 

[metis]

The “love God, love neighbor” paradigm far from being liberal is rooted in scripture

Deuteronomy says “These are the commands, decrees and laws the LORD your God directed me to teach you to observe”.

The very first command is the Shema:
“ Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.”

In Leviticus, God tells how to treat other people, summing up the end of that list with “love your neighbor as yourself”.

Neither is it the case that these two commandments ‘trump all’. When asked specifically how to gain eternal life, Jesus replies with the action commandments from the Decalogue: do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not lie, honor your parents. All three Synoptics present this in nearly identical wording. Matthew adds “and love your neighbor as yourself”. What does Matthew mean by this? Check out Matthew 25 where the importance of charitable action is emphasized. No liberal hippy-dippy love fest here but strong scripture-based commandments.

Of course "love God and they neighbor" is rooted in scripture, but Torah does not rank the Law into most to least important. One may hypothesize that the entire Law deals with "love" directly or indirectly, and some Jewish sages believed just that, but not in denial or any kind of downplaying of any of the rest of the Law.

Secondly, nor did I imply that hippie-like belief in "love" replaced action, although he does seem to put much emphasis in internalizing "love", and this is reflected even in how he dealt with the issue of divorce and exactly what constitutes adultery.

It is Paul who first questions the continued applicability of the multitude of kosher laws for Jesus followers, in order to attract gentiles into the movement. Let’s face it – adult circumcision is not a great selling point. This is well after the death of Jesus. That Jesus was opposed to all the empty ‘man-made’ rules and rituals while ignoring the spirit of the Law is clear. (So was Amos BTW.) But my comments above show that he adhered to core Judaism. But we see Paul meeting strong resistance from the then mainstream Jewish-centric Jesus movement and having to argue strenuously. One must suspect that the parts of the Gospels where Jesus seems to abandon traditional Kosher Law are post-Paul inventions reflecting that Pauline Christianity had become mainstream by then.

It appears that the kosher Laws are being questioned or it would have been a slam-dunk "NO!" for Peter to eat cheeseburgers when James walked in the door.

I'm very tired, so I gotta cut this short.

 

[roger1440]

Certainly not, but a tendency to commit those same sins is an inheritance. For example, someone born in a family of alcoholics is more likely to become dependent on alcohol themselves.

It is only when we surrender to an alcoholic tendency it becomes a sin. The tendency itself is not a sin. The only means of defense is to put on a full armor of God or to use the shield of God. Sin is always crouching at the door waiting to pounce on us. We either defend ourselves or surrender to it. Unless we take responsibility for our own actions we became a second hand person.

“Mr. and Mrs. America — you are wrong. I am not the king of the Jews nor am I a hippie cult leader. I am what you have made of me and the mad dog devil killer fiend leper is a reflection of your society. . . Whatever the outcome of this madness that you call a fair trial or Christian justice, you can know this: In my mind's eye my thoughts light fires in your cities”

“My father is the jailhouse. My father is your system.... I am only what you made me. I am only a reflection of you.”
​

Do you know who I’m quoting? Here is an example of a man who blamed his actions on society rather than take responsibility for them.

 

[outhouse]

But we see Paul meeting strong resistance from the then mainstream Jewish-centric Jesus movement and having to argue strenuously.

I dont think we know enough to call any aspect, mainstream. Sorry being nit picky You are correct.

I see no reason not to call this later sect Paul argued with, nothing more then a sect in Jerusalem that mirrored well educated Proselytes who wanted to adhere more to Judaism them most Hellenistic followeres of Judaism.

I see no reason why any Aramaic peasant Jew would have anything to do with Paul.

And since we have very litte to go on other then Pauls rhetoric I dont buy any real apostles. "Inner circle".

Sorry, just my pet project, and I felt like addressing "Jewish-centric" :bow:

 

[metis]

I believe that opinion stems from the Hellensit authors writing in the Diaspora.

We dont know he wanted any barrier removed other then oppression and starvation.

Anti governement goes with the Roman and Hellenistic oppressors, of which the Pharisees and Saducees both had a bad rap in peasant communities.


Hellenist factually oppressed his class of people.

Frankly, we don't know much of any thing about Jesus or anything else back then. What we do is to take what's written, try to read between the lines, and draw conclusions. And if we're intelligent enough, we know that the chances of being wrong is quite high.

The Greek influence was very strong in eretz Israel, especially along along the northern coast, and one could easily resent it and yet fall victim to at least part of it all at the same time.