No true Christian?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The first reason is that in Judaism, all nations of the world serve certain purposes - so yes, there are differences between people from different nations. Non-Jews are familiar with the Hebrew term 'goy', which many think is a degrading term. Admittingly, over the millennia of bad relations between Jews and non-Jews, the may have indeed become a little negative, but at its core, it simply means 'nation'. Jews are also referred to as a goy in the Tanach. Yes, we're all goyim - people of different nations.

The second reason is based on the first: because different nations have different purposes, so too the Jewish nation has a certain purpose. And that purpose does not allow us to intermarry with people of other nations.

The third reason is tied to the second. Some of the beliefs of other religions are blasphemous according to Judaism. That doesn't make those people any less human than Jews, and does not necessarily mean that they'll be wiped from existence (our version of the worst punishment) - we'll leave that to God. However, that does make mingling with other people problematic - we seen the ramifications countless times over the ages - so we try to be careful.

But when we're talking about the Abrahamic religions, we're talking about religions that were ultimately derived from Judaism.

You say that Judaism encompasses diversity, but it seems to me that this is only true up to a point. The starting point for Christianity and Islam was Judaism, but somewhere in their history, as these faiths diverged, there was apparently some point where they apparently stopped being "Judaism."

Not quite. It was important for me to include in my OP that whatever disagreements there are between Jews, that, in general, doesn't mean that any of them are less Jewish inherently.

... but you've drawn a line between the beliefs derived from ancient Judaism that you consider still Jewish and the beliefs derived from ancient Judaism that you consider not Jewish anymore.

To me, this says that you are judging some beliefs as "less Jewish;" these would be the Abrahamic denominations you don't consider to be Jewish at all.

You seem to suggest that every denomination and sub-denomination in every religion denies the legitimacy of all others.

I didn't say anything about legitimacy.

Which makes me wonder why Christians aren't the same.

The way I see it, you're doing exactly what they are. It's just that when the Christians do it, you get to see it from an outsider's perspective. You're lacking that outsider's perspective when it comes to Judaism.

I have an outsider's perspective on both Christianity and Judaism, so I'm in a better position to see the similarities between your approach and the Christian approach you describe.

Edit: I see quite a bit of similarity between your position and the position of, say, a Methodist who acknowledges that Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians (and maybe even Catholics ) are Christians, but denies this for non-Trinitarian denominations.

Apparently, you have some concept of the bare minimum needed for a belief system to be Jewish; this has allowed you to decide that, say, Christians aren't Jewish. Same for many Christians: many of them have ideas of the bare minimum qualifications to be Christian, and not everyone meets those, either.

 

[Vouthon]

Which makes me wonder why Christians aren't the same. Yes, as humans we tend to disagree with others. But some take those disagreements, in my view, to terrible extremes. I'm sure the differences are serious issues for Christians - but because of that to deny the Christianity of certain people? Well, that seems to me to take it a step too far. Especially when considering that 'love' and 'love thy neighbor' are central aspects in Christianity.

As you noted further upstream, Judaism bears some similarity to Samaritanism, Parsi Zoroastrianism and Yazidism in being an "ethnoreligion": that is, the faith tradition not only of persons sharing core articles of belief, symbology, worship and/or practice but also of a 'people' defined by an ethno-cultural heritage and identity, which is contiguous with - but also divisible from - the Jewish faith itself.

Judaism, of course, has a powerful supranational vision as well (the Noahide laws, the Abrahamic covenant with Abraham becoming the father of "many nations", the Messianic Age described by Isaiah and Micah involving a pacification of global society) but the religion is still primarily centered around the people of Israel and the Torah (Mosaic covenant betweeb Jews and God).

Christianity isn't an ethnic religion - on the contrary, it positively strives to be a transracial 'cosmopolis' as opposed to an 'ethnos': "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28) and "In that renewal there is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free; but Christ is all and in all!" (Colossians 3:11).

As the Jewish Talmudist scholar Daniel Boyarin wrote in relation to baptismal doctrine amongst the early Christians, in his study of St. Paul (A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity):

In the process of baptism in the spirit the marks of ethnos, gender, and class are all erased in the ascension to a univocity and universality of human essence which is beyond and outside of the body...[Paul] allegorically interpreted circumcision as the outer sign performed in the flesh of an inner circumcision of the spirit
​

But while we are not an ethnos, we are a 'community' entered into through the rite of baptism (equivalent to circumcision in Judaism), which Christians refer to as the "Body of Christ".

The corollary is that "belief" has proven more critical to Christianity, as a 'borderline' marking out the rudiments of the Body of Christ (this transnational religious community), because we have no 'ethnic' parameters to fall back on. However, this has historically been exaggerated into an ugly ideological chauvinism - as you note above - which conflicts with not only Christian morality but the fact that it is "baptism" which incorporates a person into the body of Christ (even 'baptism of desire', in the inability of undergoing the water rite) that serves as the 'certificate' of one's Christianness, prior to the person's 'beliefs'.

That is because 'baptism' is understood by Christians, theologically, to constitute a "new birth" by which a person becomes a member of Christ's spiritual Body and for Gentiles/goyim (in our understanding) is incorporated into the Abrahamic promise in Genesis.

In this respect, baptismal theology did create a Christian culture - Christendom - which people can be affiliated with culturally (in the sense of having been raised in a Christian culture, probably baptised at some point (whether with water or "in spirit") and adhering, instinctively, to set of moral suppositions and holidays, like Christmas and Easter, that are idetifiably Christian in origin).

As such, 'lapsed Catholicism' / 'cultural Catholicism' is as much a social reality as 'secular Jewishness' and this forum has a number of such cultural Catholics on it and this has even assumed a secondary 'ethnic component' from traditionally Catholic cultures (i.e. "Irish Catholics, Polish Catholics"):


Cultural Catholic - Wikipedia

A cultural catholic is a person who identifies with Catholic traditions but does not actively practice the religion.[1] Some cultural Catholics may still attend church at special occasions, such as Christmas, Easter, infant baptism, weddings and funerals.

​

Lapsed Catholic - Wikipedia

A lapsed Catholic is a baptized Catholic who is non-practicing.[1] Such a person may still identify as a Catholic[2] and remains a Catholic according to canon law.[3]

Some lapsed Catholics attend Mass on special occasions like Christmas and Easter. Such lapsed Catholics are colloquially referred to by such terms as Cultural Catholics, Convenient Catholics, Submarine Catholics, Two-Timers (for attending Mass twice a year), Chreasters (a portmanteau of Christmas and Easter),[24][25] C&E Catholics, Poinsettia & Lily Catholics,[25] CEOs ("Christmas and Easter Only"), APEC, CAPE or PACE Catholics (Palm [Sunday], Ash [Wednesday], Christmas, Easter), CASE Catholics ("Christmas and Sometimes Easter"), CMEs (Christmas, Mother's Day and Easter), or A&P Catholics (for Ash Wednesday and Palm Sunday).[26]

"Cultural Catholic" is also used to refer to a non-religious member of a historically Catholic ethnic group, such as Austrian,[27] Belgian, Bavarian , French, French Canadian, Filipino, Hungarian,[28] Irish, Italian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Poles,[29] Portuguese, Spaniards,[30] Slovene, Slovak and Latin Americans.[31]​

Research among self-identified Catholics in the Netherlands, published in 2007, found that only 27% of the Dutch Catholics could be regarded as a theist, 55% as an ietsist, deist or agnostic and 17% as atheist. Thus, the vast majority of Dutch Catholics were cultural Catholics.

 

[rrobs]

In the last couple of years of my surfing forums and engaging online with people of different religions, I've come to realize that not only are there literally tens of thousands of Christian denominations, but many - if not most of those denominations - appear to deny the Christianity of other denominations and consequently, consider those "outsiders" to be blasphemous sinners condemned to whatever punishment that denomination holds to be the worst possible.

My question is, why is this so? Why not unify in some sort of way? Lots of people like throwing at us Jews the expression "Two Jews, three opinions" - but in the end, we're all Jews, for better or for worse. It doesn't seem to me that the same can be said of Christians. If I'm wrong, please correct me. If I'm right, I'd be happy to hear why this is so.

Excellent question. It's a pet peeve of mine that there are so many denominations despite the fact that God tells us over and over to be of the same mind and speak the same thing.

I will reply to this from the New Testament, which I understand you don't completely (or at all?) agree with. Nonetheless, somebody wrote the words and I think they answer your question square on. As always, belief is optional. I'm just pointing out what the book says about itself.

Rom 2:16,

In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my (Paul's) gospel.
​

Rom 16:25,

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my (Paul's) gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,​

While virtually all Christians know of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, few understand that God gave the Apostle Paul another, completely different, gospel to preach among the Christians. Notice the "mystery" Paul speaks about. That mystery is the essence of what Paul preached. I've asked many Christians what that mystery is and I get as many different answers as the number of people I ask. Few are there that can quote even one of the many verses in which Paul explains the mystery in rather minute detail in his letters. All one needs is a concordance to look up the word "mystery" and it'll be clear enough.

Acts 19:10,

And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.​

Paul managed to spread his gospel throughout the entire region. So, what did they do with it?

2 Tim 1:15,

This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.
​

Before Paul even died, his gospel was lost!

Acts 20:29,

For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
​

2 Pet 2:1,

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
​

There you have the 10,000 denominations. Nonetheless, the words of Paul are recorded for any Christian who wants to abandon church tradition over truth. Sadly very few are willing to make the leap.

Take care.

 

[syo]

I've come to realize that not only are there literally tens of thousands of Christian denominations, but many - if not most of those denominations - appear to deny the Christianity of other denominations and consequently, consider those "outsiders" to be blasphemous sinners condemned to whatever punishment that denomination holds to be the worst possible.

Grifindor and slitherin. (however the spelling)

 

[loverofhumanity]

In the last couple of years of my surfing forums and engaging online with people of different religions, I've come to realize that not only are there literally tens of thousands of Christian denominations, but many - if not most of those denominations - appear to deny the Christianity of other denominations and consequently, consider those "outsiders" to be blasphemous sinners condemned to whatever punishment that denomination holds to be the worst possible.

My question is, why is this so? Why not unify in some sort of way? Lots of people like throwing at us Jews the expression "Two Jews, three opinions" - but in the end, we're all Jews, for better or for worse. It doesn't seem to me that the same can be said of Christians. If I'm wrong, please correct me. If I'm right, I'd be happy to hear why this is so.

I think what you have pointed out so clearly is humankind’s spiritual immaturity of the past which has always been one of competitiveness and control and domination at the expense of love and unity. But in this age of intermingling of faiths i believe it is becoming increasingly a need for humanity to have a world embracing vision that sees truth in all religions not just ones own.

My belief is that humanity is at a cross roads of sorts where we are exploring and finding out about each other and that it will eventually lead to unity. Just as there is truth in Judaism so there is truth in Buddhism, Christianity and other Faiths if we are to be completely honest and fair minded.

I believe the day is approaching when religionists will visit and pray and meditate at each other’s churches, temples and synagogues for truth and God is everywhere.

Once we open our hearts to accept all humankind as our family I believe that will have a very potent and unifying effect on humanity. But prejudices, born primarily of ignorance need to be torn down and I believe will be as we look into all things with an open heart and mind.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In the last couple of years of my surfing forums and engaging online with people of different religions, I've come to realize that not only are there literally tens of thousands of Christian denominations, but many - if not most of those denominations - appear to deny the Christianity of other denominations and consequently, consider those "outsiders" to be blasphemous sinners condemned to whatever punishment that denomination holds to be the worst possible.

My question is, why is this so? Why not unify in some sort of way? Lots of people like throwing at us Jews the expression "Two Jews, three opinions" - but in the end, we're all Jews, for better or for worse. It doesn't seem to me that the same can be said of Christians. If I'm wrong, please correct me. If I'm right, I'd be happy to hear why this is so.

Religions behave like languages and living things - they evolve through repeated bifurcation leading to denominations within denominations like language families and clades.

Here's a joke from Emo Philips to celebrate that:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

He said, "Like what?"

I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"

He said, "Religious."

I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

He said, "Christian."

I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

He said, "Baptist!"

I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

He said, "Baptist church of God!"

I said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist church of God!"

I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"

I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.​

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

My post under the one linked here seems related somewhat to my take on the topic here as well, since my earlier post in this thread was about how I felt that Christians these days almost entirely and across the board from all varieties of denominations quite frequently appear to have no real religion besides a lot of talk and talking.

Bring Me Your Religions, Their Fruits, Perfumes, Their Juices, and Other Gossip (Detailed!)

By the end of my response post there under their comment, I think I may come to the conclusion that the people are prevented or even in a sense spared from going much further in their religions by a lack of understanding and a propensity to miscredit things if they were given any spiritual gifts, and so they are in some ways, stuck, until and unless a better understanding is given to them, which can never occur so long as they insist that God is a man and not controlling all rather than some or one, and that the image of a man is worthy of worship, or that God is like them or a being with form in any sense.

What the Early Church Believed: God Has No Body

"The Church Fathers, of course, agreed, and loudly declared the fact that God is an unchangeable, immaterial spirit who has an entirely simple (“incomposite”) nature—that is, a nature containing no parts. Since all bodies extend through space and thus can be divided into parts, it is clear that God cannot have a body.

Tatian the Syrian
“Our God has no introduction in time. He alone is without beginning, and is himself the beginning of all things. God is a spirit, not attending upon matter, but the maker of material spirits and of the appearances which are in matter. He is invisible, being himself the Father of both sensible and invisible things” (Address to the Greeks 4 [A.D. 170]).

Athenagoras
“I have sufficiently demonstrated that we are not atheists, since we acknowledge one God, unbegotten, eternal, invisible, incapable of being acted upon, incomprehensible, unbounded, who is known only by understanding and reason, who is encompassed by light and beauty and spirit and indescribable power, by whom all things, through his Word, have been produced and set in order and are kept in existence” (Plea for the Christians10 [A.D. 177]).

Irenaeus
“Far removed is the Father of all from those things which operate among men, the affections and passions. He is simple, not composed of parts, without structure, altogether like and equal to himself alone. He is all mind, all spirit, all thought, all intelligence, all reason” (Against Heresies2:13:3 [A.D. 189]).

Clement of Alexandria
“The first substance is everything which subsists by itself, as a stone is called a substance. The second is a substance capable of increase, as a plant grows and decays. The third is animated and sentient substance, as animal, horse. The fourth is animate, sentient, rational substance, as man. Wherefore each one of us is made as consisting of all, having an immaterial soul and a mind, which is the image of God” (Fragment from On Providence [A.D. 200]).

“Being is in God. God is divine being, eternal and without beginning, incorporeal and illimitable, and the cause of what exists.” (ibid.).

“What is God? ‘God,’ as the Lord says, ‘is a spirit.’ Now spirit is properly substance, incorporeal, and uncircumscribed. And that is incorporeal which does not consist of a body, or whose existence is not according to breadth, length, and depth. And that is uncircumscribed which has no place, which is wholly in all, and in each entire, and the same in itself” (ibid.).

“No one can rightly express him wholly. For on account of his greatness he is ranked as the All, and is the Father of the universe. Nor are any parts to be predicated of him. For the One is indivisible; wherefore also it is infinite, not considered with reference to inscrutability, but with reference to its being without dimensions, and not having a limit. And therefore it is without form” (Miscellanies 5:12 [A.D. 208]).

Origen
“Since our mind is in itself unable to behold God as he is, it knows the Father of the universe from the beauty of his works and from the elegance of his creatures. God, therefore, is not to be thought of as being either a body or as existing in a body, but as a simple intellectual being, admitting within himself no addition of any kind” (Fundamental Doctrines 1:1:6 [A.D. 225]).

“John says in the gospel, ‘No one has at any time seen God,’ clearly declaring to all who are able to understand, that there is no nature to which God is visible, not as if he were indeed visible by nature, and merely escaped or baffled the view of a frailer creature, but because he is by nature impossible to be seen” (ibid. 1:1:8).

Athanasius
“God, however, being without parts, is Father of the Son without division and without being acted upon. For neither is there an effluence from that which is incorporeal, nor is there anything flowering into him from without, as in the case of men. Being simple in nature, he is Father of one only Son” (Letter on the Council of Nicaea 11 [A.D. 350]).

Didymus the Blind
“God is simple and of an incomposite and spiritual nature, having neither ears nor organs of speech. A solitary essence and illimitable, he is composed of no numbers and parts” (The Holy Spirit 35 [A.D. 362]).

Hilary of Poitiers
“First it must be remembered that God is incorporeal. He does not consist of certain parts and distinct members, making up one body. For we read in the gospel that God is a spirit: invisible, therefore, and an eternal nature, immeasurable and self-sufficient. It is also written that a spirit does not have flesh and bones. For of these the members of a body consist, and of these the substance of God has no need. God, however, who is everywhere and in all things, is all-hearing, all-seeing, all-doing, and all-assisting” (Commentary on the Psalms 129[130]:3 [A.D. 365]).

Basil the Great
“The operations of God are various, but his essence is simple” (Letters 234:1 [A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan
“God is of a simple nature, not conjoined nor composite. Nothing can be added to him. He has in his nature only what is divine, filling up everything, never himself confused with anything, penetrating everything, never himself being penetrated, everywhere complete, and present at the same time in heaven, on earth, and in the farthest reaches of the sea, incomprehensible to the sight” (The Faith 1:16:106 [A.D. 379]).

Evagrius of Pontus
“To those who accuse us of a doctrine of three gods, let it be stated that we confess one God, not in number but in nature. For all that is said to be one numerically is not one absolutely, nor is it simple in nature. It is universally confessed, however, that God is simple and not composite” (Dogmatic Letter on the Trinity 8:2 [A.D. 381]).

Gregory of Nyssa
“But there is neither nor ever shall be such a dogma in the Church of God that would prove the simple and incomposite [God] to be not only manifold and variegated, but even constructed from opposites” (Against Eunomius1:1:222 [A.D. 382]).

John Chrysostom
“[Paul] knows [God] in part. But he says, ‘in part,’ not because he knows God’s essence while something else of his essence he does not know; for God is simple. Rather, he says ‘in part’ because he knows that God exists, but what God is in his essence he does not know” (Against the Anomoians1:5 [A.D. 386]).

“Why does John say, ‘No one has ever seen God’ [John 1:18]? So that you might learn that he is speaking about the perfect comprehension of God and about the precise knowledge of him. For that all those incidents [where people saw a vision of God] were condescensions and that none of those persons saw the pure essence of God is clear enough from the differences of what each did see. For God is simple and non-composite and without shape; but they all saw different shapes” (ibid., 4:3).

Augustine
“In created and changeable things what is not said according to substance can only be said according to accident. . . . In God, however, certainly there is nothing that is said according to accident, because in him there is nothing that is changeable” (The Trinity 5:5:6 [A.D. 408]).

Cyril of Alexandria
“We are not by nature simple; but the divine nature, perfectly simple and incomposite, has in itself the abundance of all perfection and is in need of nothing” (Dialogues on the Trinity 1 [A.D. 420]).

“The nature of the Godhead, which is simple and not composite, is never to be divided into two” (Treasury of the Holy Trinity 11 [A.D. 424]).

“When the divine Scripture presents sayings about God and remarks on corporeal parts, do not let the mind of those hearing it harbor thoughts of tangible things, but from those tangible things as if from things said figuratively let it ascend to the beauty of things intellectual, and rather than figures and quantity and circumscriptions and shapes and everything else that pertains to bodies, let it think on God, although he is above all understanding. We were speaking of him in a human way, for there is no other way in which we could think about the things that are above us” (Commentary on the Psalms 11[12]:3 [A.D. 429]).

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004 "

 

[McBell]

In the last couple of years of my surfing forums and engaging online with people of different religions, I've come to realize that not only are there literally tens of thousands of Christian denominations, but many - if not most of those denominations - appear to deny the Christianity of other denominations and consequently, consider those "outsiders" to be blasphemous sinners condemned to whatever punishment that denomination holds to be the worst possible.

My question is, why is this so? Why not unify in some sort of way? Lots of people like throwing at us Jews the expression "Two Jews, three opinions" - but in the end, we're all Jews, for better or for worse. It doesn't seem to me that the same can be said of Christians. If I'm wrong, please correct me. If I'm right, I'd be happy to hear why this is so.

My opinion is that you are focusing on the wrong aspect, denominations.
It is my thought that Christianity is NOT about denominations.
It is about the individual.

That being said, I suspect that you will find "True" Christians (whatever that really means) in all of the denominations.
Just as you will find "Fake" Christians (whatever that really means) in all denominations.

The fact that you find so many divisions even with in the denominations seems to reveal that Christianity is not about denominations, but the individual.

 

[1213]

...My question is, why is this so? Why not unify in some sort of way?...

Good question. Jesus said:

I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them through your name which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are.
John 17:11

that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that you sent me.
John 17:21

If Christians are truly disciples of Jesus, they should be one and love each other.

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, just like I have loved you; that you also love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.
John 13:34-35

Originally “Christian” meant a disciple of Jesus. Apparently, it is not so anymore. But why it is so? I believe it is because people don’t like the truth and love more their own doctrines than Jesus, because their own teachings are easier and that way nicer and can be used to rule others and to get more power and money.

 

[Vouthon]

But when we're talking about the Abrahamic religions, we're talking about religions that were ultimately derived from Judaism.

You say that Judaism encompasses diversity, but it seems to me that this is only true up to a point. The starting point for Christianity and Islam was Judaism, but somewhere in their history, as these faiths diverged, there was apparently some point where they apparently stopped being "Judaism."

Undoubtedly, Christianity originated as a Jewish eschatological sect while Islam developed from an Arab profession of the faith of Abraham and a Jewish-Christian intellectual milieu.

The Talmudist scholar and Orthodox Jewish historian Daniel Boyarin traced the history of the Christian schism from Second Temple Judaism in his book, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (2006) and again in his more recent account for lay readership, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ (2013).

Another even newer study is Joshua Burns The Christian Schism in Jewish History and Jewish Memory (2016), which he describes as a “Jewish history of the Christian schism” (p. 12)

It is a fascinating, very much live but also highly controversial topic of historical enquiry, given the religious sensitivities on both sides of the aisle.

In brief, though, the 'borderlines' - the theological parameters demarcating Rabbinical Judaism from early (pre-Nicene) Jewish Christianity - were delineated by both the Rabbis and the Church Fathers (i.e. it was a two-way schism) in a process spanning some four centuries of active 'border-setting'.

See the following article Joshua Blachorsky (PhD student in rabbinics at New York University):


Book Note | The Christian Schism in Jewish History and Jewish Memory — ANCIENT JEW REVIEW

Over the last 20 years, the traditional paradigm of a clean “parting of the ways” between Jews and Christians in antiquity has been challenged by numerous scholars. Rather than see a neat break in the 1st or 2nd century CE, scholars such as Judith Lieu,[1] Adam Becker and Annette Reed,[2] and Daniel Boyarin[3] have offered arguments for a messier, long-term entanglement.

Burns continues the trend of eschewing the traditional parting model and envisioning a split only after the beginning of the 4th century. But he does so with a novel lens, focusing on the rabbinic evidence. In Burns’s interpretation, Tannaitic texts, c. 200 CE, view Jewish Christians as those who practice incorrectly but are wholly Jewish, indicating that the rabbis did not see any decisive split as having yet occurred. However, due to social and religious changes over the next few centuries in Roman Palestine, whereby a wholly gentile Christianity won the day, Amoraim knew only of this later group. Thus later, Amoraic texts speak of gentile Christians, and do so as total others. Burns, accordingly, locates the rabbinic perception of what he calls a “schism” in this later, Amoraic period.

In Burns’s words, “the empirical data attesting to the continual refinement of the terms ‘Judaism’ and ‘Christianity’ beyond the second century does not undermine Parkes’ [traditional ‘parting’] narrative quite to the extent that Boyarin would have us believe” (p. 33-34). Whereas Boyarin diverges from the “parting” model in that he sees a singular tradition with Judaism and Christianity positioned as ends on a spectrum with heresiological “border lines” drawn along the way, Burns depicts a process whose culmination allows him to speak of rabbinic “perceptions of the differences between Christian and Jew in terms of a schism” (p. 34), albeit in a later period than other scholars have suggested.

Burns’s focus on Jewish Christians in the “parting” question is also notable. He revisits the question in light of recent scholarship that does not assume that the Jewish experience was defined by pharisaic/rabbinic norms. Based on his understanding of Jewish identity in antiquity (on which see further below), Burns suggests we “reassess the Jewish Christians as Jews” (p. 51). He maintains that the earliest interactions between rabbis and Jewish Christians was “a meeting between Jews of different ideological persuasions” (p. 51).

Chapter 4 revisits the minim of Tannaitic literature. Burns maintains that the term min functions as the descriptor given by the rabbis to Jews who were learned, but errant in their ways. As such, the term includes, but does not uniquely refer to, Torah-observant Jewish Christians. Burns notes that the concept of minut is rare in Tannaitic literature (32 passages in total), and passages that explicitly refer to Christianity are even rarer (4 in total). However, in these accounts, Burns argues, this heretical group is defined as within the Jewish collective. Particularly compelling is the example from t. Sanhedrin 13 (p.173), and Burn’s discussion about why minim are inferior to gentiles in certain Tannaitic rulings on the subsequent pages. However, even though the Jewish Christians were within the Jewish fold, Burns claims that the Tannaim still viewed them cautiously and sought to marginalize them. On this point, he explicitly engages with Boyarin, claiming that the Tannaim were not “as naïve as Boyarin intimates” (p. 55).[5] In Burns’s model, the evidence suggests that the Tannaim viewed (Jewish) Christianity with guarded, though not heresiological eyes. In his words “the Tannaim had reason to be cautious of Christianity even if they did not yet possess the language to articulate their concerns” (p. 55).​

What helped further the cleavage into two separate religions, in my eyes, was that the early Jewish-Christian 'Gentile mission' ultimately proved too successful, such that an originally Jewish movement became majority Gentilised, which had ramifications for its emerging theology and identity.

(continued....)

 

[Vouthon]

One of the most interesting episodes of this "border-setting" - at the end point of the centuries-long process - comes to us from the church father St. Jerome (345-420), in which he condemns a group of Jewish Christians named 'Nazarenes' (the lasting remnants of the originally Jewish Christianity) still extant in the fourth century and attests that the Rabbis - 'Pharisees' as he calls them - also regarded them as minim (heretics):


CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 75 (Augustine) or 112 (Jerome)

What shall I say of the Ebionites who pretend to be Christians? To-day there still exists among the Jews in all the synagogues of the East a heresy which is called that of the Minæans [Minim], and which is still condemned by the Pharisees; [its followers] are ordinarily called 'Nasarenes'; they believe that Christ, the son of God...to be the one who suffered under Pontius Pilate and ascended to heaven, and in whom we also believe. But while they pretend to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither.​

St. Epiphanius (320 - 403) had written about them at the same time:

They disagree with Jews because they have come to faith in Christ; but since they are still fettered by the Law – circumcision, the Sabbath, and the rest – they are not in accord with the Christians.

— Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 29.7.4​

Even at this stage, however, the church fathers still recognised that their religion 'had' once been Jewish and indeed founded by Torah-observant Jews in centuries-past. As St. Augustine of Hippo ( 354 – 430 A.D) wrote:


CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 40 (Augustine) or 67 (Jerome)

Paul was indeed a Jew; and when he had become a Christian, he had not abandoned those Jewish sacraments which that people had received in the right way, and for a certain appointed time. Therefore, even although he was an apostle of Christ, he took part in observing these; but with this view, that he might show that they were in no wise hurtful to those who, even after they had believed in Christ, desired to retain the ceremonies which by the law they had learned from their fathers...For the same reason, he judged that these ceremonies should by no means be made binding on the Gentile converts, because, by imposing a heavy and superfluous burden, they might turn aside from the faith those who were unaccustomed to them...

5. The thing, therefore, which he rebuked in Peter was not his observing the customs handed down from his fathers — which Peter, if he wished, might do without being chargeable with deceit or inconsistency, for, though now superfluous, these customs were not hurtful to one who had been accustomed to them — but his compelling the Gentiles to observe Jewish ceremonies​

CHURCH FATHERS: Contra Faustum, Book XVI (Augustine)

The more we consider the words and actions of our Lord Jesus Christ, the more clearly will this appear; for Christ never tried to turn away any of the Israelites from their God. The God whom Moses taught the people to love and serve, is the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, whom the Lord Jesus Christ speaks of by this name, using the name in refutation of the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection of the dead...

The idea that Christ broke one of the commandments given by Moses is not a new one, for the Jews thought so; but it is a mistake, for the Jews were in the wrong. Let Faustus mention the commandment which he supposes the Lord to have broken, and we will point out his mistake, as we have done already, when it was required.

From this several things maybe learned: that Christ did not turn away the Jews from their God; that He not only did not Himself break God's commandments, but found fault with those who did so; and that it was God Himself who gave these commandments by Moses.​

Early Jewish Christianity strikes me as somewhat akin to the modern Chabad movement in Judaism, inasmuch as, like the Lubavitcher Rebbe (who died in 1994 after inspiring unfulfiled Messianic expectations in his followers, some of whom refused to accept that he'd truly 'died' but continued believing in his Messianic status and that he'd come back, somehow, to complete it) but with a key difference: Chabad had been extraordinarily successful in its outreach to other Jews, whereas Christianity proved particularly appealing to Greeks and Romans interested in the Jewish scriptures, which set Christianity - ultimately - on quite a different trajectory towards its eventual domination of the ancient Roman world as an entirely distinct religion.

 

[QuestioningMind]

In the last couple of years of my surfing forums and engaging online with people of different religions, I've come to realize that not only are there literally tens of thousands of Christian denominations, but many - if not most of those denominations - appear to deny the Christianity of other denominations and consequently, consider those "outsiders" to be blasphemous sinners condemned to whatever punishment that denomination holds to be the worst possible.

My question is, why is this so? Why not unify in some sort of way? Lots of people like throwing at us Jews the expression "Two Jews, three opinions" - but in the end, we're all Jews, for better or for worse. It doesn't seem to me that the same can be said of Christians. If I'm wrong, please correct me. If I'm right, I'd be happy to hear why this is so.

It's interesting to note up until the passage of Roe vs Wade the Christians in this nation were far more fractured than they are today. It was this issue that convinced many of them to stop sniping at one another and unify against the godless unbelievers. Prior to that it was often viewed as almost worse to belong to the wrong religion than to not follow any religion at all. Yet, even while unified against the common enemy of godless unbelievers you can still often see the old animosities rear their ugly heads.

Should Christians ever succeed in turning this country into a Christian theocracy you will see the various denominations revert back to their old ways, where Catholics and Protestants view each other as perversions of the 'true word', where Baptists distrust Methodists and EVERYONE agrees that the Mormons are wicked crackpots.

 

[Kenny]

Not quite. It was important for me to include in my OP that whatever disagreements there are between Jews, that, in general, doesn't mean that any of them are less Jewish inherently. You seem to suggest that every denomination and sub-denomination in every religion denies the legitimacy of all others. I don't think that's true about Judaism. Sure, we may not agree with each other on everything, but I'm sure you saw that @sun rise described himself here on-thread as a Jew, though he doesn't keep Judaism. And I, because I keep Judaism, don't deny his Jewishness.

Which makes me wonder why Christians aren't the same. Yes, as humans we tend to disagree with others. But some take those disagreements, in my view, to terrible extremes. I'm sure the differences are serious issues for Christians - but because of that to deny the Christianity of certain people? Well, that seems to me to take it a step too far. Especially when considering that 'love' and 'love thy neighbor' are central aspects in Christianity.

I just don''t see your point and really don't quite understand what point you are trying to make.

Jews were sure to bypass Samaria because they weren't Jewish enough. Then you have the problem of whether YHWH considers Jewishness a matter of ethnicity since He also mentioned that He wanted a circumcision of the heart (not the first time He rejected some). So maybe you consider a Jewish atheist part of the covenant but God doesn't?

Or what about those who were not born from a Jewish mother but became Jews. Were they as Jewish as one born of a Jewish mother?

And does one who believes in Jesus being the Messiah, cease from his Jewishness by other Jews?

For that matter, as a Christian, I also consider myself Jewish.

 

[rational experiences]

If any human was going to speak the truth the answer is
No words.

The truth....you are natural, I am natural every other state is natural, it is supportive in natural.

So you ask a human did you own a name before you existed?

The real answer is no.....and nor did anything else.

Creation actually owned no name or description for consciousness, the human self did not exist.....as rationality in an argument.

Therefore if a human says to everyone...okay we cannot all be born from exactly the same 2 parents...but science knows that the first 2 parents were the same DNA in every country on Earth originally so we are all extended family...truthfully.

If you asked the self, how did we get separated when we all live in the same exact atmospheric Nature support, natural light, water and oxygen as a bio life side by side with Nature?

What happened to us all to force change upon how we look and feel, being honest about an appraisal of what a human says....."we need positive changes?"

The O God body, the Creator title changed, stone change and fusion changed in science want of change, by machine....and brought into our atmosphere the Sun machine that changed everything. Extra UFO radiation mass......as actual reality of what happened to force us to become separated, self spiritually.

When most of us now realize we are family, we are naturally spiritual and loving, to want an answer and explanation, why did we change our mentality.

Science/machine and UFO radiation mass is that answer as simple as it is.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I'm not trying to make a problem. Do you not believe that denominationalism and the endless schisming in Christianity is problematic for the faith? I didn't make that happen, and I'm certainly not the first person to point it out.

Christians are divided on:

Is Jesus God? Is God a Trinity? Is God unchanging? Which books belong in the Bible? Is the Bible inerrant? Is the Bible the sole and final infallible source of doctrinal teaching? Is faith alone necessary for salvation? Is baptism necessary for salvation? What is the proper method for baptism? What is the nature of communion/the Eucharist? Is it literally Christ's body, spiritually his body, or completely metaphorical/symbolic? Who is eligible to partake? Can salvation be lost? Are some people eternally going to hell? Is hell conscious torment or just death? Should women be allowed to be pastors/priests? Should LGBT people be allowed to be pastors/priests? Should churches perform same sex weddings? Is divorce a sin? In all circumstances? Is abortion a sin? In all circumstances? What will the nature of the end times be like?

I could go on. Y'all are divided every way from Sunday, to the point that many of the above questions are considered dividing lines among the faithful between who's a "true" Christian and who isn't. The OP's inquiry is why that is.

Good post. I'd add that Christians can't even agree what makes a person a Christian.

 

[Harel13]

But when we're talking about the Abrahamic religions, we're talking about religions that were ultimately derived from Judaism.

Okay, and? This isn't the same as a bank opening a second branch.

You say that Judaism encompasses diversity, but it seems to me that this is only true up to a point.

No. I said that in Judaism Jews of different types are accepted as Jews. I also said that non-Jews are not necessarily considered evil or considered lower beings or whatever.

and the beliefs derived from ancient Judaism that you consider not Jewish anymore.

What, Christianity? Jews drawing lines against Christianity is nothing new. That started in 'ancient Judaism'. I've never suggested there aren't any boundaries in Judaism. At one point, people who cross enough lines are pushed off - they may keep their Jewish identity - if they are born as Jews or properly converted - but that doesn't legitimize everything they do. In Christianity, though, every denomination has a different set of boundaries - group x may think you're okay, but group y will be ready to burn you at the stake. In the beginning, early Christians continued praying with Jews in synagogues - they were Jews after all. But when their beliefs developed and became more and more problematic, and when they began preaching to the gentiles - that was considered a point of no return.

To me, this says that you are judging some beliefs as "less Jewish;" these would be the Abrahamic denominations you don't consider to be Jewish at all.

Yes. But the subject of this thread is not what bothers me about "Abrahamic religions" but a fact about the reality of Christianity which I wonder about sometimes.

I didn't say anything about legitimacy.

Okay, so I have no idea what you were suggesting,

I have an outsider's perspective on both Christianity and Judaism, so I'm in a better position to see the similarities between your approach and the Christian approach you describe.

Eh, and even with that, you have an insider's perspective, because as a secular person, you think that religions are focused on a lot of bad things and probably are the cause of much evil in the world (though this evil is subjective to changing times, according to you) and it would probably be best if everyone saw the light and became atheists. Your view is no less subjective than mine.

 

[Harel13]

That being said, I suspect that you will find "True" Christians (whatever that really means) in all of the denominations.
Just as you will find "Fake" Christians (whatever that really means) in all denominations.

"Whatever that really means" is the big question - why are some Christianity adherents being written off? You yourself admit that there are fake Christians.

 

[Harel13]

Jews were sure to bypass Samaria because they weren't Jewish enough.

Huh? Samarians aren't Jews. It wasn't because they weren't "Jewish enough", it's that they weren't Jewish at all.

Then you have the problem of whether YHWH considers Jewishness a matter of ethnicity since He also mentioned that He wanted a circumcision of the heart (not the first time He rejected some).

I fail to see how this is a problem. This is a problem from a Christian perspective on Judaism, but not a Jewish perspective on Judaism. One could argue that this thread's subject is also only a problem from a Jewish perspective on Christianity, but so far most of the people on the thread seem to more-or-less agree.

Or what about those who were not born from a Jewish mother but became Jews. Were they as Jewish as one born of a Jewish mother?

Yes, conversion. The ethno-religious group decides who can become a member of the group and how. A convert's descendants are just as much Jewish as those that come from born-Jews.

For that matter, as a Christian, I also consider myself Jewish.

See if you can find any Jews who'll accept you as a Jew. The State of Israel certainly won't give you any citizenship on those grounds.

 

[Kenny]

Huh? Samarians aren't Jews. It wasn't because they weren't "Jewish enough", it's that they weren't Jewish at all.

I think it is in your view. They were Israelites who intermarried with Assyrians. Eventually the Jews decided they weren't Jewish enough. This, in essence, is a great example of what you say Christian are doing.

I fail to see how this is a problem. This is a problem from a Christian perspective on Judaism, but not a Jewish perspective on Judaism. One could argue that this thread's subject is also only a problem from a Jewish perspective on Christianity, but so far most of the people on the thread seem to more-or-less agree.

Just saying that I think YHWH may not have the perspective you have.

Yes, conversion. The ethno-religious group decides who can become a member of the group and how. A convert's descendants are just as much Jewish as those that come from born-Jews.

So, then, it is a matter of faith and not by birth?

See if you can find any Jews who'll accept you as a Jew. The State of Israel certainly won't give you any citizenship on those grounds.

The Messianic Jews do.

Does a Messianic Jew cease from his Jewishness?

 

[Harel13]

I think it is in your view. They were Israelites who intermarried with Assyrians. Eventually the Jews decided they weren't Jewish enough. This, in essence, is a great example of what you say Christian are doing.

I don't know about you, but I accept the Tanach's explanation of their background - non-Jews who were exiled to Israel by the Assyrians and settled in the Shomron (Samaria).
But even if we say that they are what you say they are, descendants of male Israelites - well, it's not me who says that they aren't Jewish but it's Judaism which says that. Only in more recent times did some sects of Judaism - Reform, in particular - decide that people can be Jews also if only their fathers are Jewish. As this is a recent development, that means that prior to this, they weren't considered Jewish at all. Why? Because the Jewishness comes from the maternal side.

Just saying that I think YHWH may not have the perspective you have.

No kidding. Welcome to the big Jewish/Christian/Muslim/Baha'i divide.

So, then, it is a matter of faith and not by birth?

Both.

The Messianic Jews do.
Does a Messianic Jew cease from his Jewishness?

No. [Knew I should've changed the sentence to 'See if you can find any Jews who still adhere to so some Jewish-centered form of Judaism who'll accept you as a Jew']. See, you suggest that any individual of a group can freely decide anything he wants about the group as a whole, and that'll make it legit/correct. Presumably you believe this because this appears to be what is done in Christianity.