Comparison of Christianity and Judaism

[outhouse]

So the fact that you Jews can't stand that we Christian consider ourselves Jews, that makes you an exclusive private club.

.

What?

Are you for reel?



I don't know a single Christian anywhere that makes that statement.



Speak for yourself, you are no part of any "WE"

 

[Estro Felino]

What?
Are you for reel?
I don't know a single Christian anywhere that makes that statement.
Speak for yourself, you are no part of any "WE"

Sweetheart, you are an atheist. So you certainly don't know what Christians think.
I do know lots of Christians (including my mother, it's her who taught me that we are Jews too) who consider themselves Jews (besides being Christians) because Judaism is a little part of Christianity.

 

[outhouse]

you are an atheist. So you certainly don't know what Christians think..

Your ignorance shines so bright.

 

[Estro Felino]

Your ignorance shines so bright.

all right. and my mother is ignorant too

 

[Flankerl]

Why so surprised? The basic idea behind Christianity has always been that its the real Judaism and if you dont repent its like in the picture.

Nowadays some Christians act more... civilised as in that they dont condemn everyone outside of their club and try to focus on some kind of Hippie image of Jesus. But in itself this kind of view goes against 2000 years of Christianity and the teachings of their Religion. It gets even weirder when you have Christians denouncing the various Churches because they are contrary to what is written in their Bible completely ignoring that this Bible wouldnt even exist if it wasnt for these Churches and that the canon added to the Jewish scriptures was selected by two of the oldest Churches they speak out against.


In a parallel Universe we Jews are surrounded by Sikhs and Zoroastrians. And its the best party ever.
Sadly we are stuck in this Universe with our current neighbours.

 

[Estro Felino]

Why so surprised? The basic idea behind Christianity has always been that its the real Judaism and if you dont repent its like in the picture.

.

Actually we still believe that people who hurt and damage the neighbor will go to Hell.
That's why you Jews are different than us. You think that Hell doesn't exist, that's why you don't mind hurting your neighbors

But that painting is just an allegory. There will be no physical torture in Hell; just the eternal remorse that hits your cranium like an eternal hammer. If that's not Hell...

 

[Flankerl]

That's why you Jews are different than us. You think that Hell doesn't exist, that's why you don't mind hurting your neighbors

:clap

Which is why we persecuted the **** out of the poor Christians for 2000 years.

 

[sojourner]

Again, known by whom?

Mostly by scholars who study the gospels from a literary, historical and anthropological approach. And understanding that the gospels present Jesus more as a literary device than as an historical person. Mark's Jesus is the least mythic of all the gospels. The Q material presents a Jesus who is more human (IMO). From studying all those angles, we can extrapolate a "best guess" of what an historical Jesus may have been like. So, it's kind of a tug-of-war between historical Jesus and a theological Jesus from the various perspectives of the writers. We have a Jesus presented to us in highly specialized and unique literature, that we can talk about on several different levels. Do we mean a purely historic figure? Do we mean the character given to us in theology? And by whom? Like all things religious, it's not an exact science.

 

[metis]

That's not what I meant. I meant that you as a Jew can consider yourself a Christian, because Christ's teachings are for everyone. Even for the Jews, who don't go to Mass , but to the Synagogue.
Au contraire, when I said in the other thread that I as a Christian, consider myself a Jew, (because Christianity implicitly contains Judaism in it), well, lots of Jews condemned me. They have accused me of cultural appropriation.
They said that I can't consider myself a Jew, because only you Jews can consider yourselves Jews.
It's all written in my thread: relationship between Judaism and Christianity.
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...elationship-between-judaism-christianity.html
So the fact that you Jews can't stand that we Christian consider ourselves Jews, that makes you an exclusive private club.
No offense...but you should read what they wrote about me.

The Covenant requires, as spelled out in Torah, and mandates that a boy be circumcised on the 8th day after birth. This we do but most Christians don't.

Besides the Torah, the other major teaching that covers literally most of the teachings in the Torah and Tanakh, is the giving and following of the Mosaiic Law-- all 613 of them that I linked you to. This we try to do but most Christians don't.

Since Torah's and Tanakh's teachings are mostly about the Covenant and the Law we are to follow, and since you don't feel the need to do so, what makes you "Jewish"? The only exception would be if you're borne of a Jewish mother.

Does having Jesus being the head of your religion warrant calling you a "Jew"? How could that be even slightly logical? Jesus' mother was a Jew, therefore Jesus was one also. Since he was a Jew, he would be obligated to follow the entire Law-- not just pick-and-choose which Laws to follow.

Even if Jesus followed the entire Law, that means nothing as far as you are concerned any more than if my great-grandfather were to follow the Law that this somehow miraculously makes me a "Jew".

 

[metis]

That's why you Jews are different than us. You think that Hell doesn't exist, that's why you don't mind hurting your neighbors

.

If you would bother checking back at what I linked you on the Law, intentionally hurting an innocent person violates the Law, and God's judgement may well be upon us. It's one thing to have a different opinion, but it's another to make up falsehoods.

 

[sojourner]

Depends on who your professors were, and if they were following more of an apologetic views instead of actual history.


My class on Paul rode right down the middle.

The NT under Dale B Martin, was more historically focused.



#1 Do you think the author used rhetoric to combat against the view of him being an illegitimate spokesperson?


All of these authors were trained in rhetoric, it was just the prose they wrote in, so I don't know how solid your debate would be there.



#2 The author was very skilled in the OT, do you doubt the knowledge of the OT by Proselytes who had studied the OT for generations?


#3 the authors intended audience, were the Hellenist Proselytes and gentiles in the Graeko-Roman world?


#4 The author focuses on Jesus as a Galilean sage. Do you think knowing the study of Jewish sage rhetoric would help one understand?


Ok so lets focus on the anti-Semitism of Matthew

Antisemitism and the New Testament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


As Matthew's narrative marches toward the passion, the anti-Jewish rhetoric increases.


chapters 23 and 24, three successive hostile pericopes are recorded

The culmination of this rhetoric, and arguably the one verse that has caused more Jewish suffering than any other second Testament passage, is the uniquely Matthean attribution to the Jewish people: "His [Jesus's] blood be on us and on our children!" (Matthew 27:25). This so-called "blood guilt" text has been interpreted to mean that all Jews, of Jesus' time and forever afterward, accept responsibility for the death of Jesus.


Which brings me back full circle, this accepted responsibility in Jewish context, is that of Hellenistic Judaism. Proselytes and Hellenist viewed their selves as Jewish, even after breaking way from Judaism with different beliefs



The term "Jews" in the Gospel of Matthew is applied to those who deny the resurrection of Jesus and believe that the disciples stole Jesus's corpse.



So were did I show error?

My profs (Bernard Brandon Scott/Dennis Smith approached the gospels from a literary/historic perspective. Scott is a founding member of the Jesus Seminar.

Using their framework,
1) I don't think Matthew was viewed as an "illegitimate spokesperson."
2) I don't think Matthew was a Greek Proselyte. I think Matthew was a Judaic follower.
3) I don't think Matthew's audience were proselytes. They were Jews living in the Greek world.
4) I think understanding the Galilean mind set would be helpful.

As far as Matthew's anti-semitism: Yes, Jesus becomes more vocal the closer he comes to Jerusalem, but that's a literary device that's played out of the inherent Galilean mistrust of the religious power base in Jerusalem. (Mark's gospel uses the same device; the closer Jesus comes to Jerusalem, the less power he has.) On the whole, Matthew's gospel isn't "anti-Semitic." One of the main thrusts of Matthew's gospel is to use the Law as the basis for establishing the Matthean community as the "True Jerusalem." It's not anti-Semitic; it's anti-establishment. Matthew uses that unique verse to cement his thesis that the establishment had not understood the full intent of the Law; that it's Jesus who brings full understanding. He lays out this full understanding throughout his gospel in five sermons, the middle sermon being the capstone of his theological thesis. the term "Jews" is used to denote the establishment that does not understand.

That's where I think you went wrong.

 

[sojourner]

you as a Jew can consider yourself a Christian, because Christ's teachings are for everyone.

No. No one is considered a Christian until s/he confesses Christ.

So the fact that you Jews can't stand that we Christian consider ourselves Jews, that makes you an exclusive private club.

No. It makes Judaism a religion with parameters of identity and membership, the same as Xy. You're having boundary issues here.

 

[sojourner]

Sweetheart, you are an atheist. So you certainly don't know what Christians think.
I do know lots of Christians (including my mother, it's her who taught me that we are Jews too) who consider themselves Jews (besides being Christians) because Judaism is a little part of Christianity.

Well, Momma would be wrong. Xtians are not Jews; Jews are not Xtians (unless they're Messianic Jews). Judaism is definitely not "a little part of Christianity." That's appropriation.

I could call myself "catholic," too, but it doesn't matter what I call myself; it matters what the church calls me. If I try to take communion in a Catholic church, guess what? The celebrant is going to say, "You're not Catholic. Here's a blessing and go sit down."

 

[sojourner]

Actually we still believe that people who hurt and damage the neighbor will go to Hell.
That's why you Jews are different than us. You think that Hell doesn't exist, that's why you don't mind hurting your neighbors

But that painting is just an allegory. There will be no physical torture in Hell; just the eternal remorse that hits your cranium like an eternal hammer. If that's not Hell...

Well... so much for this thread... :computer:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Mostly by scholars who study the gospels from a literary, historical and anthropological approach.

Thats mostly good news except for the fact that you mostly avoid referencing your sources. Would you like to try again?

By the way, what do you think of Schnelle?

 

[sojourner]

Thats mostly good news except for the fact that you mostly avoid referencing your sources. Would you like to try again?

By the way, what do you think of Schnelle?

Never read Schnelle. My sources are mainly my NT profs, Bernard Brandon Scott and Dennis Smith. But I also like to reference people such as John Kloppenborg, David Rhoads, Raymond Brown, John Dominic Crossan, Stephen Harris, Robert Funk.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Never read Schnelle. My sources are mainly my NT profs, Bernard Brandon Scott and Dennis Smith. But I also like to reference people such as John Kloppenborg, David Rhoads, Raymond Brown, John Dominic Crossan, Stephen Harris, Robert Funk.

Thanks. Which of these claim that the gospels contain an accurate portrayal of the ideology of the presumed Jerusalem sect and its founder?

Or, to put it differently, how would you distinguish your literary Jesus from, for example, Micah, or for that matter, any of the layers of Isaiah.

 

[Estro Felino]

The Covenant requires, as spelled out in Torah, and mandates that a boy be circumcised on the 8th day after birth. This we do but most Christians don't.

Besides the Torah, the other major teaching that covers literally most of the teachings in the Torah and Tanakh, is the giving and following of the Mosaiic Law-- all 613 of them that I linked you to. This we try to do but most Christians don't.

Since Torah's and Tanakh's teachings are mostly about the Covenant and the Law we are to follow, and since you don't feel the need to do so, what makes you "Jewish"?

The fact that I believe in the Tanakh, makes me Jewish.
However, I was right: the fact that I consider myself a Jew really bothers you.
And that proves that Judaism is not an universal religion

 

[Estro Felino]

I could call myself "catholic," too, but it doesn't matter what I call myself; it matters what the church calls me. If I try to take communion in a Catholic church, guess what? The celebrant is going to say, "You're not Catholic. Here's a blessing and go sit down."

Honey, try to go to a Catholic Mass. You can take the communion; the priest gives it to everyone. He doesn't care whether you are a Catholic or not

 

[xkatz]

The fact that I believe in the Tanakh, makes me Jewish.

The fact that I like anime and sushi makes me Japanese.

Konichiwa, Hay85-san.