Comparison of Christianity and Judaism

[Levite]

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".

OK, I guess I see the distinction you're making, but TBH, it still seems comparatively slight to me, since in the end, it posits we all still suffer for Adam's sin. And from a Jewish perspective, that is theologically very problematic.

 

[melk]

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.

For a person who isn't a jew and recognizes his sin, a God that offered His Son in sacrifice to show His love anda forgiveness, looks the One he is looking for.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

So much certitude.

See, on the other hand, Wikipedia: Gospel of Thomas - The late camp. The earlier sections on "Syriac origin" and "Lack of apocalyptic themes" are also relevant.

Finally, I'm not at all sure that one can start with the "assumption" of Q and proceed to "[note the] material that is shared between [this assumed] Q and Thomas".

Again, you pretend to know more than you know, and dropping the names of a few favored scholars without noting the spread of opinion and lack of consensus strikes me as a bit disingenuous.

 

[metis]

For a person who isn't a jew and recognizes his sin, a God that offered His Son in sacrifice to show His love anda forgiveness, looks the One he is looking for.

I would suggest that God has figured out a way for any peoples in the world to have a pathway out of sin, and just believing in one person or one ceremony that originated in one location and at one time period doesn't really add up to me.

 

[melk]

I would suggest that God has figured out a way for any peoples in the world to have a pathway out of sin, and just believing in one person or one ceremony that originated in one location and at one time period doesn't really add up to me.

I agree. Other religions may have different ways to show God's love. I'm just emphathizing how christianity may be more atractive to the ones that are outside of any religion.

 

[metis]

I agree. Other religions may have different ways to show God's love. I'm just emphathizing how christianity may be more atractive to the ones that are outside of any religion.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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).

That is, indeed, a valuable distinction.

And we see that everyone after Adam sinned, because that was the precedent he set, ...

If sin (however defined) is the result of some ancestral precedent, what accounts for Adam's sin?

 

[sojourner]

So much certitude.

See, on the other hand, Wikipedia: Gospel of Thomas - The late camp. The earlier sections on "Syriac origin" and "Lack of apocalyptic themes" are also relevant.

Finally, I'm not at all sure that one can start with the "assumption" of Q and proceed to "[note the] material that is shared between [this assumed] Q and Thomas".

Again, you pretend to know more than you know, and dropping the names of a few favored scholars without noting the spread of opinion and lack of consensus strikes me as a bit disingenuous.

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. That's what I've done here. Of course there's a "late camp" for Thomas, but that's not the framework within which I'm working.

Again, one has to choose which assumptions from which one proceeds. The camp of assumption from which I proceed is that of the existence of a source "Q." Working from that assumption, alongside the assumption of an early Thomas, these are the conclusions. I don't know more than I know -- but I do know what I know, based upon the scholarship of the people I've mentioned, and my own work in establishing the authenticity of certain quotations attributed to Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

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?

Matthew is writing to Jewish converts to Xy living in Gentile territory. Matthew hopes to establish Xy as the "True Israel," using Jesus as a "clarifier" of Judaic law. Those who follow Jesus have the "true" interpretation and application of God's law, and so are the "True Israel." Matthew begins his gospel with a genealogy, in which several of the lineage are "outsiders," and "impure" characters. In other words, Matthew uses the biblical precedent of the refutation of primogeniture in the calling of God to those specifically set apart to accomplish God's purposes. (Isaac was a younger son, as were Jacob and Joseph, yet they were the inheritors of God's favor.) So Jesus is established as a "younger son, born of outsiders, who is not worthy of inheritance," who stands in the line of these historic, biblical figures who do inherit.

Having established Jesus as the inheritor of God's kingdom, Matthew has Jesus teach the law through a series of five great sermons, in which a sense of inclusion of outsiders is built, culminating in the "great commission" of chapter 28, in which Jesus commands his followers to go and make "us" (laos) out of "them" (ethne).

Knowing what I think I know of modern Judaism (or at least some sects of it), that the Faith isn't only for ethnic Jews, but for anyone who wants to convert, and it's more mitigatory approach to keeping the law (as opposed to what we're presented with in the biblical accounts of ancient Judaic religion), it seems to me that modern Judaism is closer to the kind of Judaism that Matthew's Jesus points toward, than is modern Xy, with its version of soteriology and developed Christology, rooted in the Incarnational nature of God's salvation.

 

[Alt Thinker]

Reaching way back in the thread…

The thing is, Jesus seems to have been crafting his own vision of Judaism. He seems pretty clearly to have been trained as a Pharisee, but his theology and practice-- if we can even trust the synoptic gospels, which of all the Christian scripture seem likeliest to bear some vague resemblance to something Jesus might actually have taught or done-- have borrowed heavily from ascetic and perhaps apocalyptic sources like the Essene-type communities, and perhaps even from Greek philosophy a little, as well as containing his own innovations and ideas. So his Judaism that he practiced and taught in his day, if we can guess anything about it from Christian scripture and the few brief stories about Jesus as a renegade student that exist in the Talmud, would not really have resembled Rabbinic Judaism or even necessarily any of the major Jewish sects of his day.

But I think it is safe to say that at heart, it would resemble Rabbinic Judaism-- which encompasses all the major Jewish movements today, and all of mainstream Judaism for the past 1500+ years-- more than it would mainstream Christianity.

While I can easily believe that Jesus might have proclaimed himself the messiah-- tons of guys were running around Israel in those days proclaiming themselves the messiah, it was entirely commonplace-- I find it entirely unlikely that he proclaimed himself either the literal son of God (an idea wholly foreign to Judaism, even to the chaotic mess of sects that embodied Judaism in Jesus' time) or God Himself-- an idea utterly at variance with Judaism to the core. Trinitarianism would have been wholly foreign and at odds with everything Jewish that Jesus would have known, to say nothing of spreading the religion to non-Jews without benefit of even the most basic tokens of conversion, or nullifying the vast majority of the commandments.

If somehow Jesus were to be brought back to life today, I think everything-- Judaism and Christianity-- would look strange and foreign to him. But ultimately, I think he could come to recognize something familiar in Judaism. Christianity? I don't think so. I think once he understood it, he would feel empathy and compassion for the legitimate desires of Christians to live holy lives and reach out for God, and he would be touched that they remembered even a faint and distorted record of his teaching. But I don't think he would approve of being worshipped, nor would he understand, I think, how all these non-Jews could believe that what they were doing had much to do with the religion of the Jewish people.

Reading between the lines of the Synoptic Gospels in the context of the times, I see a Jesus who is indeed crafting a new vision of Judaism but one that is at the same time rooted deeply in Jewish traditions.

According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod and is a grown man during the tenure of Pontius Pilate. This would mean that as Jesus was growing up Hillel was president of the Sanhedrin. The House of Hillel was rather liberal in its application of the Law. Hillel was moe concerned with the spirit of the Law than the letter. When Hillel died in 10 CE, he was succeeded by Shammai who insisted on a very strict interpretation of the Law, including all of the may mitzvot. Both Hillel and Shammai were Pharisees but the Pharisees depicted in the Gospels were clearly those of the House of Shammai.

Apocalyptic sentiments and expectations were not confined to the Essenes. Messianic movements were common. Judging by the prominent place of the Son of Man meme in the Synoptic Gospels, the Book of Daniel was apparently part of public consciousness. The Zealots wanted to create an apocalypse, seeking to expel the Romans by force.

But the ideas of the House of Hillel combined with apocalyptic sensibilities sufficient to explain the attitude of Jesus? Although clearly opposed to the high handed legalistic nitpicking of the Shammai Pharisees, Jesus does not seem all that aligned with the House of Hillel. One telling episode, repeated in all the Synoptics, concerns divorce. Hillel favored allowing divorce for even trivial reasons. Jesus allowed only adultery as a valid justification.

Might there be another source of influence on the thinking of Jesus that helps in explaining his mind set? There is indeed a figure in the Jewish scriptures that resembles Jesus in a number of ways. This figure came from fairly humble origins and decried obsession with ritual and preached a return to true moral righteousness. He warned that a severe punishment of apocalyptic proportions will be visited on Israel by God. The sinners will be destroyed but that being don, Israel will be restored and glorified by God. This figure was the prophet Amos.

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.

 

[outhouse]

Reaching way back in the thread…



Reading between the lines of the Synoptic Gospels in the context of the times, I see a Jesus who is indeed crafting a new vision of Judaism but one that is at the same time rooted deeply in Jewish traditions.

According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod and is a grown man during the tenure of Pontius Pilate. This would mean that as Jesus was growing up Hillel was president of the Sanhedrin. The House of Hillel was rather liberal in its application of the Law. Hillel was moe concerned with the spirit of the Law than the letter. When Hillel died in 10 CE, he was succeeded by Shammai who insisted on a very strict interpretation of the Law, including all of the may mitzvot. Both Hillel and Shammai were Pharisees but the Pharisees depicted in the Gospels were clearly those of the House of Shammai.

Apocalyptic sentiments and expectations were not confined to the Essenes. Messianic movements were common. Judging by the prominent place of the Son of Man meme in the Synoptic Gospels, the Book of Daniel was apparently part of public consciousness. The Zealots wanted to create an apocalypse, seeking to expel the Romans by force.

But the ideas of the House of Hillel combined with apocalyptic sensibilities sufficient to explain the attitude of Jesus? Although clearly opposed to the high handed legalistic nitpicking of the Shammai Pharisees, Jesus does not seem all that aligned with the House of Hillel. One telling episode, repeated in all the Synoptics, concerns divorce. Hillel favored allowing divorce for even trivial reasons. Jesus allowed only adultery as a valid justification.

Might there be another source of influence on the thinking of Jesus that helps in explaining his mind set? There is indeed a figure in the Jewish scriptures that resembles Jesus in a number of ways. This figure came from fairly humble origins and decried obsession with ritual and preached a return to true moral righteousness. He warned that a severe punishment of apocalyptic proportions will be visited on Israel by God. The sinners will be destroyed but that being don, Israel will be restored and glorified by God. This figure was the prophet Amos.

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.

That really a good post.

You understand that the Pharisees themselves were divided, multi cultural, and had different view within themselves, no matter who's house was running things.

I have heard some sects within the Pharisees aligned with Zealots, and some with Hellenistic Judaism, almost contradicting some of your above information.

 

[Alt Thinker]

That really a good post.

You understand that the Pharisees themselves were divided, multi cultural, and had different view within themselves, no matter who's house was running things.

I have heard some sects within the Pharisees aligned with Zealots, and some with Hellenistic Judaism, almost contradicting some of your above information.

Three rabbis, four opinions.

The House of Shammai was the dominant force in Pharisaic thought from 10 CE (when Shammai become Sanhedrin president) to 70 CE (when many adherents died in the destruction of Jerusalem). Whatever individual differences there may have been, there was always the uniting principle of strict interpretation and rigorous practice of the minutiae of the Jewish Law.

The House of Hillel was probably less homogeneous in thought concerning the Law. Hillel himself was quite liberal. However rabbinic Judaism was founded by Hillel Pharisees after the destruction of Jerusalem and did not exhibit quite the same liberality concerning formalistic requirements.

Out in the Diaspora, away from the ‘debating grounds’ of Jerusalem, there was likely even more heterogeneity. But when Paul claims to be a Pharisee with respect to the Law he is obviously talking about the strict adherence of Shammai type Pharisaism. Luke tries to tell us that Paul studied under Gamaliel, who was of the House of Hillel. IMO this was likely part of Luke’s campaign to separate the Jesus movement from the bad odor surrounding Jewish messianic movements after the Revolt of 66-73 CE. This revolt was supported by many Shammai types in league with the Zealots.

 

[outhouse]

Another great post.

I would only add that it only addresses a small part of Judaism.

It does not address the Hellenistic Pharisees, who were divided with what the house thought. Which on a note, The Hellenist ran the temple, and this sect and Pharisees in Jerusalem, were known to use Roman muscle to extort tithes from peasants. [Woes ect ect]

As well as the Sadducees differences and combined with the differences of the Zealots and or Aramaic Judaism as Im now coining/developing that phrase.


One could write a book on first century Judaism and were barely scratching the cover here.

 

[Alt Thinker]

Another great post.

I would only add that it only addresses a small part of Judaism.

It does not address the Hellenistic Pharisees, who were divided with what the house thought. Which on a note, The Hellenist ran the temple, and this sect and Pharisees in Jerusalem, were known to use Roman muscle to extort tithes from peasants. [Woes ect ect]

As well as the Sadducees differences and combines with the differences of the Zealots and or Aramaic Judaism as Im now coining/developing that phrase.


One could write a book on first century Judaism and were barely scratching the cover here.

One could write a book on today's Judaism as well.

The Sadducees ran the Temple. They represented the wealthy upper class of Jewish society and were Hellenized and definitely in league with the Romans. Jesus was all about criticizing ‘establishment’ Judaism: Shammai Pharisees and when he got to Jerusalem the lucrative money changing practices of the Sadducees in the Temple. But he apparently steered clear of the Romans. This would be in keeping with the idea that restoring righteousness would make Israel worthy of a messiah and accomplish deliverance from foreign rule by a ‘side run’.

 

[Shiranui117]

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

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.

 

[Shiranui117]

OK, I guess I see the distinction you're making, but TBH, it still seems comparatively slight to me, since in the end, it posits we all still suffer for Adam's sin. And from a Jewish perspective, that is theologically very problematic.

I think we need to make a distinction between suffering as a result of someone else's sin and being punished for someone else's sin, but I do understand what you're getting at. It's an interesting question. Can you flesh out what the problem is from the Jewish perspective?

It seems to me as if, looking at Genesis 3, the consequences suffered by Adam and Eve extended to all humanity--because at the time, Adam and Eve were the only two humans in existence. And if Adam and Eve suffered a change in their state of being as a result of their sin, then would this altered human experience not be passed onto us?

 

[Shiranui117]

That is, indeed, a valuable distinction.

If sin (however defined) is the result of some ancestral precedent, what accounts for Adam's sin?

I would say that sin isn't wholly the result of some ancestral precedent, but influence from our family does give a big inclination to sin--yet this itself does not mean that people are guaranteed to follow the exact same path as their parents. In Scripture, we see that wicked people arose out of righteous families, and vice-versa.

Adam's sin came as a result of Eve's influence, and Eve's sin came as a result of the tempting of the serpent and Eve's own carelessness towards God's commandment. Both, of course, had free will and every opportunity to not sin, but they valued the empty promise of the serpent over communion with God. Outside influences that tempt us to sin can simply tip the scales further in that direction.

 

[Shiranui117]

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)

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.

 

[Ingledsva]

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".

OK, I guess I see the distinction you're making, but TBH, it still seems comparatively slight to me, since in the end, it posits we all still suffer for Adam's sin. And from a Jewish perspective, that is theologically very problematic.

I agree with you. I don't think it says we are born with sin, or even a "sin nature."


I think the story is teaching that Adam and Chavvah lived in a "positive state," and their actions brought about a new condition of - positive and negative = choice.


We are not born sinners - we are just born into a world (that their act created) which has choice. Positive or negative action, both having consequences.


*

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And we see that everyone after Adam sinned, because that was the precedent he set,

I would say that sin isn't wholly the result of some ancestral precedent, but ...

You see no problem here?