Examining Christianity as a Jewish heresy

[Rainbow Mage]

No Rabbinic Judaism isn't really a heresy, since it was one of the accepted schools of Judaism in the temple era, the Pharisees. Now you're showing your lack of knowledge about Jewish history, and notice that the only part of my post you addressed is the heresy part.

and that most of the ideas it teaches are totally un-Jewish. Such as, the atonement. That's another one. Anyone care to point out any religious Jew who believes somebody else can die for our sin?

 

[DoctorAnswerMan]

Exactly what the title says. I couldn't help it, after something I posted in another thread. I'm eager to see where this debate could lead. Let's start with the messiah. The Christian view of the messiah as oppossed to the Jewish view. The Jewish view is that the messiah will be a king, a warrior, one who gathers the lost tribes together, one who puts the enemies of Israel under his feet. How does this contrast to the Christian view of the messiah?

'Christian' is too vague a point of reference...for such called ones seldom agree, hence the 39,000 or so various denominations.

But for a Christian who claims to adhere to the writings, well then, the Messiah is certainly a Mighty Warrior King who will in fact gather all the ones belonging to his G--d together. Even before he begins/began his reign all of his enemies will have been arranged as a 'stool for his feet'. Thus he will 'begin rulking amidst his enemies.'

But what do I know? This is only my educated opinion.

 

[fallingblood]

No Rabbinic Judaism isn't really a heresy, since it was one of the accepted schools of Judaism in the temple era, the Pharisees. Now you're showing your lack of knowledge about Jewish history, and notice that the only part of my post you addressed is the heresy part.

and that most of the ideas it teaches are totally un-Jewish. Such as, the atonement. That's another one. Anyone care to point out any religious Jew who believes somebody else can die for our sin?

The idea of atonement was fine with Judaism in the first and second centuries, and going even beyond that as the Jesus movement was still associated with Judaism (at least to a point).

 

[Poisonshady313]

Again, if that is true, than the judaism of the 2nd temple period was in many ways "jewish heresy." And rabbinic judaism even more so. So what?

Rabbinic Judaism started the moment Moses' father in law instructed Moses to appoint others to help settle disputes.

Judaism IS Rabbinic. To suggest that Rabbinic Judaism is a "Jewish heresy" is absurd.

 

[Oberon]

No Rabbinic Judaism isn't really a heresy, since it was one of the accepted schools of Judaism in the temple era, the Pharisees. Now you're showing your lack of knowledge about Jewish history, and notice that the only part of my post you addressed is the heresy part.

The pharisees may have been pre-cursors to the rabbis, but they weren't rabbis. Moreover, the entire 2nd temple period represented a radical departure from the conception of both Judaism as a national religion and from Judaea. The ruling elites were not the pharisees, and in fact prior to the destruction of the temple in the 70s (CE) to call the pharisees representatives of Judaism is to say that Judaism doesn't have much of a coherent definition (which many have argued).

Nonetheless, 2nd temple judaism centered around the temple and the land of Israel, the heart of the Jewish race/faith/people. Groups like the Essenes and the Pharisees, while not totally rejecting all the past beliefs (neither did the christians) began to radically seperate from these central symbols. By the time we get to full-fledged rabbinic judaism, the cornerstones of judaism were gone (temple and land) and a paradigm shift occured: sacrifice turned to torah study, temple to synagogue, and so forth. If you really believe that there is a clear contiuum between rabbinic judaism and 2nd temple judaism (or earlier) that is far more linear than christianity and earlier judaism, by all means let's get some citations (and to be clear, nothing online. I mean academic citations).

 

[Oberon]

Rabbinic Judaism started the moment Moses' father in law instructed Moses to appoint others to help settle disputes.

Judaism IS Rabbinic. To suggest that Rabbinic Judaism is a "Jewish heresy" is absurd.

No, it isn't. Rabbinic Judaism is an evolution of judaism. It has little more in common with older forms than does christianity. I began a whole thread on this: The Origins of Rabbinic Judaism

 

[Poisonshady313]

By the time we get to full-fledged rabbinic judaism, the cornerstones of judaism were gone (temple and land) and a paradigm shift occured: sacrifice turned to torah study, temple to synagogue, and so forth.

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.S.L.A.M617]

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.

Jesus and the Golden Calf are one and the same.

 

[Poisonshady313]

No, it isn't. Rabbinic Judaism is an evolution of judaism. It has little more in common with older forms than does christianity. I began a whole thread on this: The Origins of Rabbinic Judaism

Yeah... your thread is silly. I agree with Jayhawker Soule when he said "I believe this to be a rather sad and unnecessary distortion."

It's stupidity to suggest that the Rabbis had the Torah replace the land and the temple... because the Torah was given to the people as a nation before they arrived in the land given to their forefathers, and before there was a Temple.

 

[TheKnight]

How does this contrast to the Christian view of the messiah?

Christians use that term without any knowledge of what it means. Being so immersed in Christian communities as I am (it's really not all that great), I have found that my study of the Bible with Christians generally doesn't lead to intelligence. There is simply a fundamental apathy as to what the Bible actually says and means. Christianity, for a lot of Christians, is something you inherit and say you believe in when you need to.

The Jewish view of the Messiah and the Christian one are exactly the same, it's just a difference of when. The Jews expect the Messiah to establish his kingdom on earth and to be a king and ruler on earth. Unfortunately the prophets don't say when his kingdom will be established on earth. The Christians say that Jesus will establish his rule on earth when he returns. I think the Christian view is the correct one because Jesus also fulfills Isaiah 53 the suffering servent. IMO

No. The ideas are not the same. Jesus, as Messiah, fills some sort of weird pagan-like role that is a lot like that of Dionysus (water to wine anyone?). The Jewish idea of the Messiah is not nearly so focused on the person of the messiah as it is the age in which he will come. It will be a time of peace, when the world will recognize God, when the Temple will be rebuilt and Jews (and Noahides) can bring sacrifices to the Temple.


How those who created Christianity twisted it out of the Jewish idea of the messiah is far beyond me.

 

[Zardoz]

I suppose, as the resident MJ, that I should wade in on this mess. Pity with the timing, so close to Shabbat (when I can't post) that the thread will likely veer off into some nonsense or other and I will come back long after it's fatally off-topic.

Once more, folks.

Christianity is not Judaism, nor any version thereof (heretical or not).

Christianity was made for non-Jews, more specifically Romans. Even more specifically Edom, the descendant of Esau. Christianity is G-d's plan for Esau, just as Islam is G-d's plan for Ishmael. Both needed a new plan, with our failure and the destruction of G-d's Temple. Surely you didn't think G-d would abandon the Children of Abraham, did you?

No. All is in G-d's plan.

See what this means to the topic. If Christianity was never meant for Jews, then it can't be a heresy, by definition:

The word "heresy" comes from the Greek hairetikos "able to choose" (haireisthai "to choose"). The term heresy is often perceived as a value judgment and the expression of a view from within an established belief system.

Within an established belief system. I am a MJ Jew, and I affirm that Christianity is not within.

Does Judaism not teach that Messiah ben David will avenge the death of messiah ben Yosef upon his enemies? Unless I am much mistaken from listening to lectures by Rabbi Moshe Shulman, that is what he said.

You are, but perhaps Avenge is an exaggeration. The current age is Messiah Ben Yosef. It's almost complete. Messiah Ben David is soon to come, and it will be an Age of Peace, not revenge.

 

[Man of Faith]

Isaiah 53 is about the nation of Israel, read it again slowly. You'll see

I disagree.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I see it more as applying a Jewish veneer to paganism.

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.

 

[logician]

I guess so, it's attracted over a billion people.

Unfortunately, "bandwagon" theories can be used to prove Nazism was acceptable.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Unfortunately, "bandwagon" theories can be used to prove Nazism was acceptable.

Only by idiots.

 

[logician]

Only by idiots.

Then maybe you get my point that bandwagon theories prove nothing about anything.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Then maybe you get my point that bandwagon theories prove nothing about anything.

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)

 

[Rainbow Mage]

The pharisees may have been pre-cursors to the rabbis, but they weren't rabbis. Moreover, the entire 2nd temple period represented a radical departure from the conception of both Judaism as a national religion and from Judaea. The ruling elites were not the pharisees, and in fact prior to the destruction of the temple in the 70s (CE) to call the pharisees representatives of Judaism is to say that Judaism doesn't have much of a coherent definition (which many have argued).

Nonetheless, 2nd temple judaism centered around the temple and the land of Israel, the heart of the Jewish race/faith/people. Groups like the Essenes and the Pharisees, while not totally rejecting all the past beliefs (neither did the christians) began to radically seperate from these central symbols. By the time we get to full-fledged rabbinic judaism, the cornerstones of judaism were gone (temple and land) and a paradigm shift occured: sacrifice turned to torah study, temple to synagogue, and so forth. If you really believe that there is a clear contiuum between rabbinic judaism and 2nd temple judaism (or earlier) that is far more linear than christianity and earlier judaism, by all means let's get some citations (and to be clear, nothing online. I mean academic citations).

Okay, let me correct you on a few things here. Firstly, yes there were Rabbis prior to the establishment of Rabbinic Judaism. The Pharisees had the synagogue system in place in the temple era, as even your New Testament would show you. The synagogue system and the teaching system of the Rabbis was already there. The Rabbis can be found in the Torah, it calls them elders. The Torah speaks of two classes, the Priests and the elders. The elders have the job of teaching the Torah to the people. That has always been the job of the Rabbis. The Priests serve a different function.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Okay, let me correct you on a few things here. Firstly, yes there were Rabbis prior to the establishment of Rabbinic Judaism. The Pharisees had the synagogue system in place in the temple era, as even your New Testament would show you. The synagogue system and the teaching system of the Rabbis was already there. The Rabbis can be found in the Torah, it calls them elders. The Torah speaks of two classes, the Priests and the elders. The elders have the job of teaching the Torah to the people. That has always been the job of the Rabbis. The Priests serve a different function.

O boy.

 

[fallingblood]

Okay, let me correct you on a few things here. Firstly, yes there were Rabbis prior to the establishment of Rabbinic Judaism. The Pharisees had the synagogue system in place in the temple era, as even your New Testament would show you. The synagogue system and the teaching system of the Rabbis was already there. The Rabbis can be found in the Torah, it calls them elders. The Torah speaks of two classes, the Priests and the elders. The elders have the job of teaching the Torah to the people. That has always been the job of the Rabbis. The Priests serve a different function.

Yes, there were Rabbis, but they were thought of in a different way. Really, the synagogue system was not in place. The synagogue developed as more of a public meeting place. The synagogue system as we know it did not really evolve until after the destruction of the Temple, closer to the second century. The teaching system of the Rabbis simply was not there.

Also, the elders were not rabbis. That is a stretch. The synagogue systems, and Rabbinic Judaism really evolved after the destruction of the Temple. Archeology, literature, etc all support this.