Comparison of Christianity and Judaism

[sojourner]

There factually is a 40 year gap after Jesus death, and these books being compiled.

You're talking canon texts. There are other writings, you know -- some of them earlier than the canon texts. And there certainly was oral tradition passed off in the form of teaching by those who were sent out to do that very thing. Here's the rub: Paul began his preaching mission about 18 months after Jesus. To whom was he preaching??? To established communities of Christians, before he began to plant churches. That means that churches were established less than a year following Jesus, and these communities were familiar with the stories of Jesus in a fairly corroborative way. Someone familiar with Jesus (i.e. "apostles") had to do what they were commissioned to do (go out) and spread the faith, in order for these communities to exist.

 

[outhouse]

Why do they have to be Galilean to be authentic???
Fact is, there were apostles who had authority and they wrote stuff. That's all I'm saying.

Yes they do. His inner circle were Aramiac Jews


All I am saying is these apostles were not Galilean Aramiac Jews who actually followed and knew Jesus.

Call apostle to who every you wish

 

[sojourner]

and I am proud of it.

: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. "
Matthew, 18, 1-4

Life is simple, dear. It's you who want to make it complicated

Jesus didn't mean "don't do your homework and blather about things you know nothing about." He was talking about trust -- not scholastics.

This is what lack of study gets you: rampant misquoting of scripture.





"Dear."

 

[outhouse]

well...the world is a mess because people like you have always misread the scriptures and believed that man is free to sin. as Paul did.

You fit your description to a T.

Both of us however have extended are studies to that of professors, so that we can make more accurate opinions.

 

[outhouse]

You're talking canon texts. There are other writings, you know -- some of them earlier than the canon texts. And there certainly was oral tradition passed off in the form of teaching by those who were sent out to do that very thing.

Agreed, we only have a fraction of what once was.

Here's the rub: Paul began his preaching mission about 18 months after Jesus. To whom was he preaching???

Gentiles and Proslytes like himself. Factually Hellenist in the Diaspora.

Pauls Judaism has long been debated with no real credible answers.

We only know Paul started writing 15 years after Jesus death.

To established communities of Christians, before he began to plant churches

To Pater Familias, before he started new Pater Familias.

. That means that churches were established less than a year following Jesus, and these communities were familiar with the stories of Jesus in a fairly corroborative way

That is not all together accurate.

We only know Paul started writing 15 years after Jesus death.

. Someone familiar with Jesus (i.e. "apostles") had to do what they were commissioned to do (go out) and spread the faith, in order for these communities to exist.

False.


Jesus death was factually martyred. His martyrdom found no popularity in Aramaic Jewish communities. It did find popularity in the Diaspora in Hellenistic Proselyte Pater Familias.

This is because the people went home back to the diaspora after Passover with legends and mythology and some theology. Paul did not spread the message, the message was already out there. Paul was simply correcting errors in theology, and adherence or lack of in Gentile communities.

It is these Gentile communities/houses that made up the people tat would become teh gospel authors.

The rub is, Paul was not al that popular or his teaching even well known during this period. In this period he was a minor player who found popularity in time as the movement grew.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

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!

I believe what Moses originally taught in essence is the same as what Jesus taught. But if you mean which Jewish denomination and which Christian denomination are closest to each other in our time, I don't know the answer.
I believe Catholic church is closest to what Jesus taught, but still many things are not the original ideas of Jesus, example: 'original sin'.

 

[metis]

Pater Familias is a more correct definition. Dont you think?

I haven't heard that term in decades-- seems like old times.

 

[outhouse]

I believe

Thats fine, but we are talking about historical questios, not faith and apologetics.

 

[sojourner]

That is not all together accurate.

We only know Paul started writing 15 years after Jesus death.

We know that Paul began to preach about 18 months following Jesus, according to scholars.

 

[outhouse]

We know that Paul began to preach about 18 months following Jesus, according to scholars.

Sources please.

We dont even know how long he was out hunting said sect.

Some have stated 3 years. And its not even known when he was hired to do so.

 

[Levite]

We are born with the consequences of Adam's sin (sickness, mortality, suffering and a heavy inclination to sin). We become sinners by living under the influence of other sinful human beings--the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, as the saying goes.

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. Jesus had the power to forgive sins, and it's through the cross that we are reconciled to God, since it is through His death and Resurrection that the relational gap between God and man caused by our sin is bridged. Jesus did say that no one comes to the Father except through Him, so however we get to God, whether inside His Church or outside of it, goes through Jesus in some way, shape or form, however that happens.

Forgive me, but that sounds incredibly similar to original sin. We suffer because of Adam's sin, Jesus is the cure. This might be a differentiation in theology that just isn't noticeable enough to non-Christians....

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

We can get some of Jesus' quotations pinned down to less than 7 years after Jesus. ...

Go ahead ...

The Q material is actually highly Galilean in nature.

What is the criteria for something being "highly Galilean"? … according to whom? … where?

 

[sojourner]

Working from an assumption of Q, and noting material that is shared between Q and Thomas, and knowing that Thomas was probably written in Syria, due to its dependence on other Syriac writings, Van Voorst, Scott, Funk, and other scholars surmise that Thomas was written early. The shared material between Q and Thomas indicates a common source -- a community that produced the sayings. For Thomas to have an early writing date, the community would have had to divide early, one part remaining in Galilee to produce Q, one part moving to Syria to produce Thomas. The division would have had to have happened prior to the year 40 c.e., indicating an early date of less than 10 years following Jesus, assuming Jesus was crucified ca. 33 c.e., or about 7 years.

What is the criteria for something being "highly Galilean"?

Generally speaking, Galilee was highly anti-Rome (much more so than Judea), and they were also suspicious of the Judean religious power base. The Q sayings reflect this sort of political animosity toward Jerusalem, the religious authorities, and the power base.

according to whom?

Scott, Kloppenborg, Rhoads, etc.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

sojourner, did you find …

I really was wondering just how much you all thought the Xy of the gospels has in common with modern Judaism, because it seems to me (and I haven't done any in-depth study of the subject -- just posed this as sort of a "knee-jerk" question) that modern Judaism is closer to what, say, Matthean Jesus had in mind, than is modern Xy.

So your question is: "Is modern Judaism closer to what Matthean Jesus had in mind than is modern Christianity?"

Since you apparently how some coherent view about what "Matthean Jesus had in mind," perhaps you should first share that view with us and clarify how you believe the Weltanschauung of your "Matthean Jesus" differs from modern Christianity. Yes?

… unworthy of response or simply difficult to address?

 

[sojourner]

sojourner, did you find …

​

… unworthy of response or simply difficult to address?

Oh, wow! Thanks for reminding me! It went completely off my radar. Look for a response to this tomorrow. I'm really too tired to tackle it right now.

 

[Shiranui117]

Forgive me, but that sounds incredibly similar to original sin. We suffer because of Adam's sin, Jesus is the cure. This might be a differentiation in theology that just isn't noticeable enough to non-Christians....

The doctrine of original sin states that we share the guilt of Adam's sin. This is denied in Orthodoxy.

Rather, since Adam's sin resulted in the introduction of death, sickness and suffering into the human condition, we reap the consequences of what he did (Genesis 3:16-24). And we see that everyone after Adam sinned, because that was the precedent he set, and because mankind became enslaved to death and sin. Jesus sets us free from the latter two.

It's the difference between saying "We're arresting this kid because his father was a murderer" and saying "This child was born with deformities because his mother took drugs that she shouldn't have taken while pregnant".

 

[Estro Felino]

The doctrine of original sin states that we share the guilt of Adam's sin. This is denied in Orthodoxy.

It's the difference between saying "We're arresting this kid because his father was a murderer" and saying "This child was born with deformities because his mother took drugs that she shouldn't have taken while pregnant".

No, honey, it's the same thing. It's the cause-consequence model.
so I think that this theology is very hypocritical and phony. It claims to reject Augustine's view, but actually it doesn't reject it at all.
You said:
- Adam's guilt has brought consequences----sin and death (as Augustine said)
- Jesus' sacrifice was necessary to erase sin and death (as Augustine said)

 

[roger1440]

We are born with the consequences of Adam's sin (sickness, mortality, suffering and a heavy inclination to sin). We become sinners by living under the influence of other sinful human beings--the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, as the saying goes.

Sin is not a inheritance according to many verses in the Bible.

"19"Yet you say, 'Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity?' When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has observed all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live. 20"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. 21"But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die.…" (Ezekiel 18:20-21)
​

 

[Estro Felino]

Sin is not a inheritance according to many verses in the Bible.

"19"Yet you say, 'Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity?' When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has observed all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live. 20"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. 21"But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die.…" (Ezekiel 18:20-21)
​

finally a person who slags off hypocrisy. Thank you. Frubal

 

[metis]

Just a reminder that, according to both the Torah and Tanakh, God can and will forgive sins through our correcting our error and through repentance and asking God for forgiveness, and this is not at all dependent on a messiah and the Temple sacrifices are not a requirement. If in doubt about this, one can look up "forgive" and its variations in a concordance.