Comparison of Christianity and Judaism

[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. m Overall, I see a liberalization of more inclusion in some areas, and yet a toughening up in certain other areas.

Again, I'm tired, so I gotta go.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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. m Overall, I see a liberalization of more inclusion in some areas, and yet a toughening up in certain other areas.

That was rather well said. By the way, have you read As A Driven Leaf?

 

[roger1440]

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.

Are you suggesting the message of the synoptic Gospels differ that of the Pauline letters?

 

[roger1440]

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.

The question of the day is how is someone to know Jesus? The answer can’t be as simple as “believe in the Bible”. For centuries most people could not read the Bible. It wasn’t in their native language. Faith therefore must be placed in the church that interprets the Bible. Faith must also be placed in the people who decided what books are in the Bible. Seems all to confusing for my little mind. I live in a small city. Within a two block radius there are three churches, a Catholic, Lutheran and Methodist church. Which one should I go in, if any? 500 years ago I probably would have been burned at the stake for heresy. There is a church right now in the 21st century that believes “God hates ****”. Is that the right church? With over 10,000 flavors of Christianity worldwide to choice from, how is little ole me to decide?

 

[Shiranui117]

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

I already listed the example of the fact that if you're born into an alcoholic family, you are four times more likely to become alcoholic yourself. You learn your worldviews and behaviors and values in large part from your family.

 

[outhouse]

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. m Overall, I see a liberalization of more inclusion in some areas, and yet a toughening up in certain other areas.

Again, I'm tired, so I gotta go.

Yet it does not address the socioeconomic divide known between Hellenist and peasant class of Aramaic Jews

While Hellenism was strong, it is the impact of said Hellenism on the peasant class that is up for debate. But we are not in the dark by any means.


If what your stating was true, we may have ended up with some evidence of Jesus teaching in Sepphoris or Tiberius, but we don't. Our best guess is that he stayed in peasant Aramaic villages.

 

[s2a]

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!

Despite whatever *ahem* moniker or label of specific adherence any particular faith demands or requires to be a faithful "member", I still best understand the distinctions of Judaism and Christians to be straightforward. You either accept "Jesus the Christ" as lone savior and manifestation of the "God" of mankind, or...you do not.

Is there something else I am missing here?

 

[Estro Felino]

Tì

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

You do not hold it, but you don't reject it totally. Because, if you did, you would say that Christ's sacrifice was not necessary.
I ask you directly: What would have happened, if Pilate hadn't crucified Jesus?
and if Jesus had died of old age?

 

[metis]

That was rather well said. By the way, have you read As A Driven Leaf?

Thanks, and no I haven't read it but I'll check it out at Amazon. What do you think about it?

 

[jewscout]

Despite whatever *ahem* moniker or label of specific adherence any particular faith demands or requires to be a faithful "member", I still best understand the distinctions of Judaism and Christians to be straightforward. You either accept "Jesus the Christ" as lone savior and manifestation of the "God" of mankind, or...you do not.

Is there something else I am missing here?

yes, the first being that Judaism is not just a Jesus-less Christianity

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thanks, and no I haven't read it but I'll check it out at Amazon. What do you think about it?

Steinberg weaves a wonderful and wonderfully balance historical fiction about Elisha, his student Meir, and the period - including the lure and tragedy of Hellenism.

----------

In thinking about this, I just came across the following:

Redeeming Acher

The Talmud records incredible conversations between Rabbi Meir and Acher. They were once walking on the Sabbath together and reached the boundary beyond which an observant Jew was allowed to walk. Acher said to Rabbi Meir, “Return back.”

“My teacher,” Rabbi Meir replied, “you also turn back.” He was alluding to more than just literally turning around and not going past the physical boundary. He was telling him to repent, to come back to his people, to God, to his senses.

Acher replied, “But I heard from a heavenly voice say that even the most wayward Jews can come back to God – except from Elisha ben Abuyah.”

He felt he was doomed. As an aside, many commentators say that while the heavenly voice he heard was real it was actually a test to see if he would return for the purest of reasons, without expectation of acceptance or reward. That would have made up for his mistakes.

In any event, Rabbi Meir remained a fierce defender of his teacher until the end. When Elisha ben Abuyah died Rabbi Meir believed he had repented. However, when they buried him they saw fire coming out of his grave, which was obviously a bad sign.

Rabbi Meir spread his tallis (prayer shawl) over the grave and prayed on his teacher’s behalf. In essence, he noted how the world is night; it is black. There are always unanswered questions. It contains cruelties that cannot be explained. Terrible things happen in the night called this world. In the night we have no answers. Nevertheless, in the morning, when the sun rises – in the World to Come – we will see things clearly, Rabbi Meir added.

Then Rabbi Meir remarked, “If God will redeem you, my teacher, good. If not, however, then I will redeem you.”

This remarkable statement is the Talmud’s way to teaching that the actions of one’s disciples affect the soul of the teacher even after it has departed this world. In other words, even if the person’s deeds are not enough to earn redemption on their own it can be won for him, so to speak, when the deeds of his disciples (or children) are added to the equation. [source]

It is an intriguing story.

 

[metis]

Yet it does not address the socioeconomic divide known between Hellenist and peasant class of Aramaic Jews

While Hellenism was strong, it is the impact of said Hellenism on the peasant class that is up for debate. But we are not in the dark by any means.


If what your stating was true, we may have ended up with some evidence of Jesus teaching in Sepphoris or Tiberius, but we don't. Our best guess is that he stayed in peasant Aramaic villages.

The Hellenization of eretz Israel had much less of an economic impact than did the Roman occupation, especially in the north. The Galilee area was quite well known for its more liberal approach theologically, and was viewed was some disdain further south.

Jesus seems to have avoided Tiberius but that may have been at least partially due to its rather hedonistic reputation, which is still true today, btw. Capernaum was more "working class", and it's this element that he more related to.

When I try and connect the dots, which is obviously an imprecise art, I see in Jesus a man who was less dogmatic, very flexible when it came to the Law, one who was very concerned about the plight of the poor, and more willing to be inclusive with women. The repeated emphasis on "love" shines through both the gospels and epistles, and it seemingly takes priority over the letter of the Law at least.

At least this is how see the dots connected.

 

[metis]

Steinberg weaves a wonderful and wonderfully balance historical fiction about Elisha, his student Meir, and the period - including the lure and tragedy of Hellenism.

----------

In thinking about this, I just came across the following:

​

It is an intriguing story.

Thanks, and I will definitely check it out.

 

[Shiranui117]

You do not hold it, but you don't reject it totally. Because, if you did, you would say that Christ's sacrifice was not necessary.
I ask you directly: What would have happened, if Pilate hadn't crucified Jesus?
and if Jesus had died of old age?

Then Jesus' entire plan of salvation for us would have been different, and He was going to save us another way. It was His will to be crucified and die for us, it wasn't an accident of circumstance.

Look at what Jesus Himself said about His impending death, in Matthew 20:

But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,[c] 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,[d] 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

He gave His life to ransom us from sin and death.

Pelagius is no Christian if he sees absolutely no use for Christ's coming. If we don't need God to be saved, then Jesus becoming man had absolutely no purpose.

 

[Estro Felino]

Then Jesus' entire plan of salvation for us would have been different, and He was going to save us another way.

we are already saved by doing good

It was His will to be crucified and die for us, it wasn't an accident of circumstance.

No, it wasn't. He didn't suicide himself. He was killed. So it was really an accident of circumstance

the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

I'd say to Matthew: dear Matt...it's easy to talk after that something happened, and say that it was meant to be.

Pelagius is no Christian if he sees absolutely no use for Christ's coming. If we don't need God to be saved, then Jesus becoming man had absolutely no purpose.

yes. His coming was necessary to teach us love and to show us how to become prefect. as perfect as him

 

[Alt Thinker]

Of course "love God and thy 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.

Concerning the Torah, Hillel summarized it as, “That which is hateful to you, do not do unto others… All the rest is explanation… Go and study it.” Hillel was not downplaying any of the Torah but expressing the spirit of it. The man who had asked the ‘standing on one leg’ question had previously been run off by Shammai who was much more concerned with the letter of the law.

What Jesus opposed was the obsession with the plethora of ‘man made’ laws. Mark (Mk 7) and Matthew (Mt 15) illustrate this in the confrontation with the Jerusalem Pharisees. They criticize the absence of the hand washing ritual before eating. Rather than a sanitary measure, this was to ensure that tithes given to the priests would not ritually contaminate the priests. It was to be done all the time, not just prior to giving tithes. This is not explicitly in the Torah but was an elaboration of the requirement for bathing before presenting tithes to allow more common tithing. It is this kind of often self-serving obsession with rule making that Jesus opposed.

Jesus then proceeds to lambast the Pharisees over the korban practice. Korban simply means sacrifice. In this context, it referred to the pledging of property to the Temple, e.g., on one’s death. This was interpreted to mean that one could never use that property for any other purpose even if one’s parents desperately needed help. Jesus pointed out that the man-made rule contradicted the God-given command to honor one’s parents. We have already seen that Jesus considered the action commandments of the Decalogue to be of primary importance.

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.

Deuteronomy 24 specifies the rules for divorce, primarily that the husband writes a bill of divorce and gives it to her wife. By the time of Jesus, these rules had become elaborated in legalistic fashion. In Mark (Mk 10) and Matthew (Mt 19) Jesus speaks against not only the elaborations as might be expected but against the idea of divorce itself. He leaves only the wife’s adultery as a legitimate qualification. As justification he cites Genesis (Gen 2) that man and woman are joined as one flesh. Here is a stronger than usual case of Jesus cutting through legalisms and getting back to basics. (Amos would have been proud.) It should be noted that Jesus was not advocating stepping outside any scriptural laws but making them stricter in accordance to what he saw as the original intent of God.

I do not see Jesus defining adultery. He does comment that a man who divorces his wife for reasons other than ‘fooling around’ and marries another commits adultery and that if she remarries it is also adultery. Jesus is noting that sex outside of (legitimate) marriage is adultery but does rely define adultery. What about unmarried people having sex? Is that adultery? Cannot say from these passages.

I also do not see how this relates to internalizing love. Please explain.

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.

Looking at the several stories concerning kosher dietary laws and other practices, it seem to me that Jesus never intended to step outside any legitimate scripture based requirements, only the ‘mad-made’ elaborate elaborations. He saw these as shifting focus away from true righteousness.

Mark (Mk 7) has Jesus declare all foods allowable. We may note that Matthew, champion of ‘every jot and tittle of the Law’, omits that comment. Luke omits the entire section, possibly because the back and forth about Judaic legalism would be too confusingly unfamiliar to Luke’s mainly Gentile audience.

Paul in Galatians (Gal 2) relates his confrontation with Peter (Cephas). When Peter is in Antioch he eats with Gentiles. What he eats is not specified but eating with gentiles alone is against strict kosher law. When representatives from James in Jerusalem arrive, Peter no longer eats with gentiles. Paul calls him out on this.

In Acts 10 Peter states that he has never eaten anything impure but a vision from God tells him it is OK. Likewise when he enters the house of a gentile. In Acts 11 when Peter relates this story the Council of Jerusalem agrees that gentiles can also be Jesus followers. It is not clearly stated but the implication seems to be that gentiles need not follow kosher law to be Jesus followers and that Jews who were Jesus followers were also exempt.

Galatians and Acts both agree that the original core belief of the Jesus movement was that it was a totally Jewish one, following kosher law and excluding gentiles. But how could it be if Jesus said that kosher dietary law was obsolete? It would appear that Mark – which was written after Paul’s epistles – is inserting this remark by Jesus to ex post facto justify gentile inclusion, already an accomplished fact when Mark was written. We are then led to the belief that Jesus never intended the movement he started to be anything other than Jewish.


Hope you got a good rest.

 

[outhouse]

The Hellenization of eretz Israel had much less of an economic impact than did the Roman occupation, especially in the north. The Galilee area was quite well known for its more liberal approach theologically, and was viewed was some disdain further south.

Jesus seems to have avoided Tiberius but that may have been at least partially due to its rather hedonistic reputation, which is still true today, btw. Capernaum was more "working class", and it's this element that he more related to.

When I try and connect the dots, which is obviously an imprecise art, I see in Jesus a man who was less dogmatic, very flexible when it came to the Law, one who was very concerned about the plight of the poor, and more willing to be inclusive with women. The repeated emphasis on "love" shines through both the gospels and epistles, and it seemingly takes priority over the letter of the Law at least.

At least this is how see the dots connected.

If you get a chance read some Johnathon Reed. And Chauncey [I believe] on the socioeconomics.

The Hellenist made life a terrile burden and were every bit as hard as their Roman overlords, if not harsher.

Almost all of these Aramiac villages had children with Harris lines due to malnutrition.


The debate of poverty and wealth will not be settled soon, nor the relationship between Helleist and Aramaic Jews, but the archeological evidence, speaks to a more poverty stricken Aramiac society in which the burden of feeding these Hellenistic cities were placed on the peasant class used as a work force withfamilies forced off their land and slavbes taken who could not make their lerase payemets.

Life was hell for these peasants.

 

[Shiranui117]

we are already saved by doing good

We're saved by a lot of things--by baptism, by the Eucharist, by God's grace, by forgiving others, by abiding in Christ, by following Christ... the list goes on.

No, it wasn't. He didn't suicide himself. He was killed. So it was really an accident of circumstance

Jesus prophesied His death over and over again. He knew it was going to happen years beforehand. He planned on it happening.

I'd say to Matthew: dear Matt...it's easy to talk after that something happened, and say that it was meant to be.

Matthew didn't say that. Jesus said "the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Go back and read the verses for yourself, in Matthew 20. Let me repeat: Matthew didn't say it, Jesus did. Take it up with Jesus.

I directly quoted Jesus. And you said that it's only Jesus' teachings that matter. I gave you one of Jesus' teachings, and now you deny it. On what basis, then, do you claim to know Jesus' teachings if its only source (Scripture and Tradition) is wrong according to you?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Matthew didn't say that. Jesus said "the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Go back and read the verses for yourself, in Matthew 20. Let me repeat: Matthew didn't say it, Jesus did.

More correctly, the author of gMt narrates Jesus saying it. Furthermore …

The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90;[2] a pre-70 date remains a minority view.[3] The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle.[4] The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source.[5] [source]

This suggests dialogue fashioned four plus decades after the event by someone who never met the man.

 

[sojourner]

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

What specifically, do you think Jesus had in mind, and how, specifically is that "irrelevant" in Judaism? I'm not disputing you -- I just want to know what you're thinking.