Judaism, Christianity, and the Jewish Faith

[Desert Snake]

Ah the Temple. I am always torn between sad feelings and feelings of relief that it was destroyed.

A: On one side it was destroyed and we lost the Temple Mount till today.

B: On the other side the Christians didn't get to pervert it into one of their idol infested places of worship.

So in the end we should probably be a tiny little bit glad that it didn't turn out to be option B while being sad that it was option A.

How the Temple would be decorated by Xians is a matter of which group was in charge, however yes a bad job at restoring the Temple is quite unappealing.

 

[outhouse]

Ah the Temple. I am always torn between sad feelings and feelings of relief that it was destroyed.

A: On one side it was destroyed and we lost the Temple Mount till today.

B: On the other side the Christians didn't get to pervert it into one of their idol infested places of worship.

So in the end we should probably be a tiny little bit glad that it didn't turn out to be option B while being sad that it was option A.

That's one side definitely.

Im mixed but for different reasons. I cant stand that eyesore mosque but that's another issue.

Like you A it sucks

But for me B is a sign of the end of politics corrupting Judaism and taking advantage of the good Jew born and raised there.

Had the all the Sadducees and Pharisees [some] not been corrupted in Hellenism and Roman power, it may have still stood.

To me the real Israelite Jews, Zealots and Aramaic Jews stopped the corruption at the cost of hundreds of thousands of real Jews. It is sad it is a graveyard to me.

 

[ZenMonkey]

Yes and No. When is a better question.

Some did, some did not. And that is what im talking about, you don't understand Judaism in the first century to even begin to fathom the religion.





yet your clueless to what Jesus taught, and have no idea what his Galilean disciples taught.

YOU only know what Hellenist wrote about him, who wanted to divorce Judaism yet keep one god.



No

Paul taught he was liberating them from Jewish law. And even if he did, Jesus was a Jew teaching Aramaic Judaism and not to change anything. Without knowing the diversity in the religion your lost.


You could bring up sources in scripture if you like so we can place them in context for you.

I disagree. You can study the books, traditions, heritage and what not all you like, but this does not mean that you or anyone else gets to determine who is and who is not a true Jew. It's a bit too reminiscent of Hitler taking it upon himself to decide the characteristics of a perfect race of people. It's BS and you know it. The same is true for any Christian denomination who thinks themselves to be true Christians while demanding others are not. I don't care about what you 'think' the litmus test is to identify one as belonging to the Jewish faith. I likewise don't care what you think about my knowledge base. Your point is moot in relation to my OP.

 

[outhouse]

I disagree. You can study the books, traditions, heritage and what not all you like, but this does not mean that you or anyone else gets to determine who is and who is not a true Jew.
.

That is funny I don't remember defining them for you

I likewise don't care what you think about my knowledge base.

Your only embarrassing yourself to those that have actually studied this.


It is obvious you have no clue what your talking about. Your just making stuff up appealing to ignorance.

 

[Flankerl]

No, he's saying it isn't.

Well he's saying it isnt. But it still is.

How the Temple would be decorated by Xians is a matter of which group was in charge, however yes a bad job at restoring the Temple is quite unappealing.

No it wouldn't have been about which group would have been in charge.

It would have been desecration in any possible way.

God, according to the Torah, was quite zealous in regards to the Jewish people.. But the Torah also outlines several curses that would befall Jews if certain conditions were not met. It isn't lawful to suggest Jews are completely free of blame, no matter what century it is. Jews had God's presence according to the Torah, and were still being commanded to kill innocent women, children, infants, and animals. Hitler did not have God holding his hand, ready to send plagues on those cursing him.

Yes lets compare the daily ups and downs from antiquity with time periods later where completely different ethics were present.

Nothing wrong here.

It also doesn't make sense to disregard God's presence in the Temple, to the point where you'd believe idol worshippers, whom you call Christians, would be able control it. This idea goes against the idea that Jews are God's most precious possession. If that was the case, and you are completely innocent, you shouldn't believe Christians could take anything from you or God.

Its not about control. Its about desecration.

And the Temple Mount has been taken from us. Same goes for the Cave of the Patriarchs which we only own for some ~50% as of recently.

Had the all the Sadducees and Pharisees [some] not been corrupted in Hellenism and Roman power, it may have still stood.

To me the real Israelite Jews, Zealots and Aramaic Jews stopped the corruption at the cost of hundreds of thousands of real Jews. It is sad it is a graveyard to me.

Well choosing Allies wasn't really our best skill during those days.

It's a bit too reminiscent of Hitler taking it upon himself to decide the characteristics of a perfect race of people.

Ah the typical Christian ignorance which has a history of about 1900 years and still counting.

And its never going to stop.

 

[ZenMonkey]

That is funny I don't remember defining them for you





Your only embarrassing yourself to those that have actually studied this.


It is obvious you have no clue what your talking about. Your just making stuff up appealing to ignorance.

Funny how people like you attack the poster instead of addressing the argument. Seems a bit desperate actually. I don't care what you've studied and you have no idea what I've studied. Btw, this isn't a ******* contest. It's not about how big our johnsons are either. Likewise, it isn't about who has studied what. You sound pretty confident in your scholarly pursuits, though. It reminds of first semester philosophy students thinking themselves to be philosophers after a few classes. You may very well have a greater knowledge base than I do, but that doesn't make you an expert theologian on Jewish theology either. Put your pee pee away mate. I'm not interested in making size comparisons. I am however interested in a civil debate if you're able to carry on without the insults. If not then good day.

 

[ZenMonkey]

Ah the typical Christian ignorance which has a history of about 1900 years and still counting.

And its never going to stop.

Christian ignorance? Care to explain your statement and elaborate a bit?

 

[Desert Snake]

No it wouldn't have been about which group would have been in charge.

It would have been desecration in any possible way.

I think many groups could really do that wrong, I was joking btw. lol

 

[Sleeppy]

Yes lets compare the daily ups and downs from antiquity with time periods later where completely different ethics were present.

Nothing wrong here.

Considering the Israelites literally had God in their company, able and willing to give commands (not just advice), I don't see how you're able to exempt your ancestors from morals we've attained only after God "left" everyone to themselves. Seems absolutely wrong to me. Seems completely backwards.

Its not about control. Its about desecration.

And the Temple Mount has been taken from us. Same goes for the Cave of the Patriarchs which we only own for some ~50% as of recently.

Either or. Neither control, nor desecration, nor destruction should have even been possible considering the magnitude and number of miraculous interventions God partook in solely for the wellbeing of the Jewish people. There needs to be some reason the intervention stopped.

 

[outhouse]

Christian ignorance?

Yes

Dude, its obvious you don't have a clue about Paul or how the gospels formed.

You making statements that do not add up.


No one is saying Christianity did not evolved from Judaism.


But since Pauls Judaism is still up for debate

Some scholars see Paul (or Saul) as completely in line with 1st-century Judaism (a "Pharisee" and student of Gamaliel or as part of Hellenistic Judaism),[2] others see him as opposed to 1st-century Judaism


Paul the Apostle and Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He successfully argued that Gentile converts did not need to follow Jewish customs, get circumcised, follow Jewish dietary restrictions, or otherwise observe Mosaic law,



We now have to look elsewhere, and that elsewhere is his teachings


Does that above look like Judaism? Or someone throwing Judaism out the window as he pleased?

 

[Sleeppy]

Yes

Dude, its obvious you don't have a clue about Paul or how the gospels formed.

You making statements that do not add up.


No one is saying Christianity did not evolved from Judaism.


But since Pauls Judaism is still up for debate

Some scholars see Paul (or Saul) as completely in line with 1st-century Judaism (a "Pharisee" and student of Gamaliel or as part of Hellenistic Judaism),[2] others see him as opposed to 1st-century Judaism


Paul the Apostle and Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He successfully argued that Gentile converts did not need to follow Jewish customs, get circumcised, follow Jewish dietary restrictions, or otherwise observe Mosaic law,



We now have to look elsewhere, and that elsewhere is his teachings


Does that above look like Judaism? Or someone throwing Judaism out the window as he pleased?

Jews today say Gentiles don't need to follow the entire Mosaic law.. 7 Noachide laws instead. Paul was still an observant Jew.

 

[Sees]

Jews today say Gentiles don't need to follow the entire Mosaic law.. 7 Noachide laws instead. Paul was still an observant Jew.

Because the gentiles are not practicing Judaism and are not expected to. Paul wasn't preaching Judaism - just some new religion for gentiles with Judaism and the Jesus figure as inspirations. It wasn't Judaism but it also wasn't completely disassociated with it.

 

[outhouse]

Paul was still an observant Jew.

Some scholars see Paul (or Saul) as completely in line with 1st-century Judaism (a "Pharisee" and student of Gamaliel or as part of Hellenistic Judaism),[2] others see him as opposed to 1st-century Judaism


Paul the Apostle and Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[outhouse]

It wasn't Judaism but it also wasn't completely disassociated with it.

Exactly

Hellenist like Paul had worshipped Judaism for hundreds of years, yet many did not want to fully convert. Hellenistic proselytes were well trained in Judaism, yet were not Jews.

Jesus martyrdom after Passover did not grow in Aramaic Judaism or Zealots at all. He was a failed messiah to Jews but this eludes OP for some reason.


The Hellenist in the Diaspora however did find importance when the divorce from Judaism took place with this new sect of Hellenistic Proselytes and gentiles grew after Jesus death.

We see growth ONLY in Hellenism with Christianity. Not a growth in Judaism.

 

[Sleeppy]

Some scholars see Paul (or Saul) as completely in line with 1st-century Judaism (a "Pharisee" and student of Gamaliel or as part of Hellenistic Judaism),[2] others see him as opposed to 1st-century Judaism


Paul the Apostle and Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who are these scholars, and what is their reasoning?

 

[ZenMonkey]

Yes

Dude, its obvious you don't have a clue about Paul or how the gospels formed.

You making statements that do not add up.


No one is saying Christianity did not evolved from Judaism.


But since Pauls Judaism is still up for debate

Some scholars see Paul (or Saul) as completely in line with 1st-century Judaism (a "Pharisee" and student of Gamaliel or as part of Hellenistic Judaism),[2] others see him as opposed to 1st-century Judaism


Paul the Apostle and Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He successfully argued that Gentile converts did not need to follow Jewish customs, get circumcised, follow Jewish dietary restrictions, or otherwise observe Mosaic law,



We now have to look elsewhere, and that elsewhere is his teachings


Does that above look like Judaism? Or someone throwing Judaism out the window as he pleased?

It looks like neither to me, but it does look a great deal like a progression of the Jewish faith. Even practicing Jews suggest that gentiles are not bound by Jewish law since Jewish law was given to the Jewish people and to the Jewish people alone. According to Paul, this progression came with some liberties and also some conditions. The letter of the law is no longer binding to those who live through the Spirit, but is rather fulfilled through the spirit.


As I understand it, the Old covenant made with the Jewish people is still binding to the Jewish people until such time that one truly turns their heart to God and begins to live through the spirit. At which point God's grace is sufficient when it comes to living according to his will. The letter is not needed in other words, but rather faith and an unyielding love for God and neighbor. This simply cannot be forced nor acquired by 'our' will. God gives to those who ask as I understand it though.


Contrary to popular Christian dogma, grace isn't a license to live as you please. Quite the contrary, it is impossible to lead a wicked life if you live in God's grace through faith and by our faith working through love. When a person no longer needs the written law to keep them from acting wickedly and they have truly come to live according to the Spirit (love), the written law has been fulfilled. That's grace. Not one aspect of the law will be taken away until all is fulfilled through the spirit, which is the New Covenant.


The purpose of the written law was to help maintain order in what was a wicked generation. The laws were meant to curb Jewish desire to do wicked things. The law is made up of a bunch of rules that many obey because they feel obligated. It's a requirement of the religion. The Spirit of the law is love, however. God loved the Jewish nation enough to help them maintain order by giving laws and penalties to follow and carry out as a people. Love however, or rather the spirit enables us to live in God's grace when our faith has been placed in love and when this spirit is nurtured enough to multiply in our hearts.


It's not replacement theology at all. Paul didn't throw Judaism out the window, but rather conveyed a New Covenant which is the fulfillment of what God desires for us as his children. To love and be loved, and to keep the faith in love and live in its grace. Paul's teachings are a progression of the Jewish faith and not an opposition to the Jewish faith as many seem to believe.

 

[outhouse]

Who are these scholars,

The most credible ones not following a more apologetic view.

and what is their reasoning?

Paul was not an Israelite.

Paul was a Hellenist in the Diaspora.

Paul taught to not follow Jewish traditions.

For hundreds of years Hellenism absorbed Judaism.

And Hellenism was infused into Judaism at different levels.


Paul resembles a typical Proselyte in the Diaspora, a typical Hellenistic person that ended up being a Christian, more so then a Jew. But that is the tough part, to understand and define Judaism, you have to understand how the different cultures defined Judaism. They all defined it differently. So it matters who is doing the defining. A born and raised oppressed Israelite had a different definition then a Hellenistic Proselyte who was a Roman citizen.

And Paul wrote with a community, much of what was written attributed to Paul was not his work alone. These were NOT just Pauls epistles. It was a communities epistles. Everyone screws this up and its the first thing they teach you in school. They all wrote rhetorically and were trained to build up the authors authority with the sole purpose of persuading people to believe what was written. I place no credibility in Pauls personal claims of being Jew as it could just be rhetorical prose.


With all my studies, I have no idea if he was a Jew or a Proselyte to Judaism.

 

[ZenMonkey]

Exactly

Hellenist like Paul had worshipped Judaism for hundreds of years, yet many did not want to fully convert. Hellenistic proselytes were well trained in Judaism, yet were not Jews.

Jesus martyrdom after Passover did not grow in Aramaic Judaism or Zealots at all. He was a failed messiah to Jews but this eludes OP for some reason.


The Hellenist in the Diaspora however did find importance when the divorce from Judaism took place with this new sect of Hellenistic Proselytes and gentiles grew after Jesus death.

We see growth ONLY in Hellenism with Christianity. Not a growth in Judaism.

There you go trying to tell others who is and who is not a true Jew again. That flavor/branch of Judaism simply never sprouted new growth. That flavor/branch of Judaism may have been cut off from further growth, but then these fruitless branches are also not destined to remain desolate and void of God's grace and Spirit either. Many flavors of the same faith ... Some grew other didn't. They all belong to the Jewish faith though.

 

[outhouse]

Paul didn't throw Judaism out the window, but rather conveyed a New Covenant .

Paul the Apostle and Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He successfully argued that Gentile converts did not need to follow Jewish customs, get circumcised, follow Jewish dietary restrictions, or otherwise observe Mosaic law,


A new covenant was not Jewish

which is the fulfillment of what God desires for us as his children.

How would you know?

not an opposition to the Jewish faith

others see him as opposed to 1st-century Judaism


Those others are professors and scholars, not someone hammering out their imagination on the internet.

 

[outhouse]

There you go trying to tell others who is and who is not a true Jew again..

Which sentence did I write that stated that?


Where did I define true Jew in the paragraph you quoted?


Im sorry your lost here.