Examining Christianity as a Jewish heresy

[Rainbow Mage]

Well that is what traditional Judaism holds falling blood, that when the Torah speaks of elders, it is speaking of the Rabbis. You've got to remember, the elders were in charge of teaching the people, and hence, developing the oral tradition. It is the Rabbis that pass the oral tradition and always have. That was not the function of the Priestly class. The oral tradition addresses a lot, like how to mantain the Jewish religion when there is no temple, it had to be done once before when the temple was destroyed and the Jews were exiled in Babylon. That's actually the majority of the Babylonian Talmud. The religion can be mantained without the temple by the Rabbis, and had been done before.

 

[logician]

No, what I'm saying is that any idiot can take any argument - whether logical or fallicious in other contexts - and use it to justify the Nazis.

(and I don't think that you've correctly identified a bandwagon fallacy)

And you are simply incorrect.

 

[fallingblood]

Well that is what traditional Judaism holds falling blood, that when the Torah speaks of elders, it is speaking of the Rabbis. You've got to remember, the elders were in charge of teaching the people, and hence, developing the oral tradition. It is the Rabbis that pass the oral tradition and always have. That was not the function of the Priestly class. The oral tradition addresses a lot, like how to mantain the Jewish religion when there is no temple, it had to be done once before when the temple was destroyed and the Jews were exiled in Babylon. That's actually the majority of the Babylonian Talmud. The religion can be mantained without the temple by the Rabbis, and had been done before.

In this case, what traditional Judaism holds really isn't important. Traditional Christianity holds that Paul was the man who developed the Christian religion and that what we have now is passed directly from him. That is not the truth. What the traditional form of a religion says does not mean that it is historically correct.

Historically speaking, the synagogue system did not really exist until after the destruction of the Temple. There was no reason to really have a synagogue system while the Temple was in place. The reason was simply, Jewish religion revolved around the Temple.

If we look at this historically, the elders were just that. They weren't Rabbis in the modern sense. They were the older people of the community. There really is no historical evidence to suggest that they were Rabbis in the modern sense, or that the synagogue was anything like it is today.

Rabbinic Judaism evolved after the Temple was destroyed. From what we can see, it evolved out of the Pharisaic sect. However, they did not have an established synagogue system. And they were not the only Jewish sect, or even the "traditional" form. They were just one more Jewish sect during a time that Judaism was very diverse.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Falling blood do you also deny the validity of the Mishna and the Babylonian Talmud then?

 

[fallingblood]

Falling blood do you also deny the validity of the Mishna and the Babylonian Talmud then?

I guess I am in this case. Is that a problem? I deny the validity of the Bible as well in many cases. I don't see how any of that is an issue here though. We are talking about historical facts. Religion simply has not had a great track record on recording history. Not too mention, we now know much more than the Mishnah and Babylonian Talmud did back then.

 

[Oberon]

It's not as if they just threw up their hands and said "screw this, let's try something else".

For one thing, in 2nd temple judaism alone, various groups were throwing up their hands and saying exactly that. With the possible exception of the Essense, they still had the temple though.

The temple was destroyed and they were driven from the land.

And radically changed judaism. Almost as radically as christianity changed from Judaism.

Heck, as long as we are concerned with "heretical judaism" different branches WITHIN judaism of the 2nd temple period were deemed heretical by others.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I guess I am in this case. Is that a problem? I deny the validity of the Bible as well in many cases. I don't see how any of that is an issue here though. We are talking about historical facts. Religion simply has not had a great track record on recording history. Not too mention, we now know much more than the Mishnah and Babylonian Talmud did back then.

Well falling blood you know when it comes to Judaism it's not that simple though. The Mishna and parts of the Gemara are older then the written scripture themselves. So without the tradition what do you know about the Jews in ancient times at all? The written scripture leaves much unsaid.

 

[fallingblood]

Well falling blood you know when it comes to Judaism it's not that simple though. The Mishna and parts of the Gemara are older then the written scripture themselves. So without the tradition what do you know about the Jews in ancient times at all? The written scripture leaves much unsaid.

The Mishnah may have parts that go further back, but oral tradition is not wholly accurate. Things can be left out, changed, or what not. And oral tradition does have a tendency, when written, to be influenced by the writer.

Tradition can be useful; however, it can not be considered wholly accurate. Which is why additional research is needed. Archeology can reveal much about the Jews in ancient times if coupled with the tradition, as well as other literary works (including the ones in which attack the religion).

 

[Smoke]

It's not as if they just threw up their hands and said "screw this, let's try something else". The temple was destroyed and they were driven from the land.

Meanwhile, I have always kind of seen Christianity as having been started by a bunch of frustrated Jews who did just throw up their hands and say "screw this, let's try something else". Which is why I always saw Jesus as the reappearance of the Golden Calf.

I agree with most of that. I just don't think Jesus is the founder of Christianity or has much of anything to do with Christianity.

 

[Smoke]

I don't think that earliest Christianity can be interpreted that way, unless the entire New Testament doesn't reflect anything concerning the problems of the earliest Christian communities that accepted and preserved the texts as authoritative.

Jesus always puts Jews first and Gentiles second in the Gospels, and the genuine letters of Paul have Jews in the majority of the community at Galatia, Rome, and Corinth - the exclusion of Gentiles from homes and dinner tables were a persistent problem because of this. It would have been entirely the other way around if Christianity were a Jewish veneer to paganism - it would be a Gentile majority excluding a Jewish minority....

But, as I said, this division became more and more anti-Jewish... if one views much later forms of Christianity, one could believe that Christianity is just paganism with a bit of Jewish Scripture thrown in for good measure.

I'm not saying Christianity came out of paganism without any real reference to Judaism. Obviously, the Jesus movement was a Jewish movement. But we're talking about a process, and as Pauline Christianity developed and became distinct from the Jewish Jesus movement, I think the overall effect is of placing a Jewish veneer on paganism.

By the way, what's with the Muppet avatar? I liked that lizard avatar you had before.