As a side note, I've been listening to the Whole Counsel of God podcast a lot lately. Its incredible.
I help teach/host a bible study "community group" for our church and were going through Acts right now. Its so frustrating how thick yet empty the leaders packets are. I'll read the leaders packet then go fire up a podcast episode and just shake my head at how much context the leader packet is missing compared to just a one hour episode.
Love to see this. Welcome to a whole new world of Christianity. Bit by bit you will slowly remove western thought from your current idea of God. I've seen that podcast and others as a gateway for Protestants into Orthodoxy.
I am no where as versed as most who post on here but I never understood Christians looking at modern day Israel and saying "those are God's chosen people" whenever we have to go through the Son to get to the Father…I'm I missing something?
As a side note, I've been listening to the Whole Counsel of God podcast a lot lately. Its incredible.
I help teach/host a bible study "community group" for our church and were going through Acts right now. Its so frustrating how thick yet empty the leaders packets are. I'll read the leaders packet then go fire up a podcast episode and just shake my head at how much context the leader packet is missing compared to just a one hour episode.
Love to see this. Welcome to a whole new world of Christianity. Bit by bit you will slowly remove western thought from your current idea of God. I've seen that podcast and others as a gateway for Protestants into Orthodoxy.
I am no where as versed as most who post on here but I never understood Christians looking at modern day Israel and saying "those are God's chosen people" whenever we have to go through the Son to get to the Father…I'm I missing something?
Nope you totally get it. It's legit cognitive dissonance with certain Protestants. It's really difficult to understand Christian and religious history in general through a western lens…especially local churches in the south who endlessly defend the current nation of Israel. It's just a type of brain washing. Any American that claims the prophecy was fulfilled in 1948 has been clearly influenced by evangelicals who play a political game. How many times do we have to hear the line "Apple of His eye" and Protestants believe it means modern day Jews…it's exhausting and goes against all Christian doctrine/scripture/worldview.
One crucial thing evangelicals need to learn is that we do not worship the same God as modern Jews. They are worshiping an idol. It is not God the Father. Rabbinic Judaism forever changed that for their culture.
As a side note, I've been listening to the Whole Counsel of God podcast a lot lately. Its incredible.
I help teach/host a bible study "community group" for our church and were going through Acts right now. Its so frustrating how thick yet empty the leaders packets are. I'll read the leaders packet then go fire up a podcast episode and just shake my head at how much context the leader packet is missing compared to just a one hour episode.
Love to see this. Welcome to a whole new world of Christianity. Bit by bit you will slowly remove western thought from your current idea of God. I've seen that podcast and others as a gateway for Protestants into Orthodoxy.
I am no where as versed as most who post on here but I never understood Christians looking at modern day Israel and saying "those are God's chosen people" whenever we have to go through the Son to get to the Father…I'm I missing something?
Nope you totally get it. It's legit cognitive dissonance with certain Protestants. It's really difficult to understand Christian and religious history in general through a western lens…especially local churches in the south who endlessly defend the current nation of Israel. It's just a type of brain washing. Any American that claims the prophecy was fulfilled in 1948 has been clearly influenced by evangelicals who play a political game. How many times do we have to hear the line "Apple of His eye" and Protestants believe it means modern day Jews…it's exhausting and goes against all Christian doctrine/scripture/worldview.
One crucial thing evangelicals need to learn is that we do not worship the same God as modern Jews. They are worshiping an idol. It is not God the Father. Rabbinic Judaism forever changed that for their culture.
Modern Jewish people are demon worshipers? Yeah. Yeah, I'm going to say I'm a bit offended.
Why? Christianity has always held the claim that idol worship is demonic. Nothing new at all. Now if you can prove that what a modern Jew worships is the same God they claimed to worship before Rabbinic Judaism came along then you would have a case.
I don't have a theological dog in this fight, but I do have Jewish loved ones and have spent a lot of time discussing philosophy and theology with practicing Jews. I sent my kids to a Jewish daycare and have celebrated their holidays with them. The idea that they are evil, demon-worshipping idolaters is just gross.
I recognize the arguments made by Zobel and Orthodox throughout European history. And they deeply bother me based on that history.
Is your one source this collection of essays from the 80s that has little to do with the post-temple period? I want your sources claiming Rabbinic Judaism is a completely new faith created 400 years after the loss of the temple. I'm fascinated to see these sources.
Recognizing that Judaism had to change after the destruction of the temple is very different from claiming they created an entirely new faith and very different from calling them demon-worshipping idolaters.
Tell me you don't know who Jacob Neusner is without telling me you don't know who Jacob Neusner is.
I'm aware. My point stands. You've taken nuanced historical arguments to an extreme in service of your own beliefs about the nature of "Israel" and your theology.
The claim is pretty simple. Christianity is an unbroken tradition that goes back to one of the Judaisms of the second temple period. Rabbinic Judaism is not.
The claim is pretty simple. Christianity is an unbroken tradition that goes back to one of the Judaisms of the second temple period. Rabbinic Judaism is not.
Neither of those claims is supported by what you are citing.
Then cite the pages. Because no review of those books makes such a wild claim.
For you to claim the theology of first century Christianity is the same as post-Rome Christianity is a hell of a claim that no history of Christianity I've seen takes seriously. And to claim that Judaism ceased to exist and only re-emerged as something not Jewish is even more of a fringe claim.
For you to claim the theology of first century Christianity is the same as post-Rome Christianity is a hell of a claim that no history of Christianity I've seen takes seriously.
Tell me you know nothing about Orthodoxy without telling me you know nothing about Orthodoxy.
Quote:
And to claim that Judaism ceased to exist and only re-emerged as something not Jewish is even more of a fringe claim.
This is an asinine comment given the claim that I articulated literally two posts above.
At any rate here's two more less scholarly works for you to read that address the particulars of the first part of the claim directly - from another Jewish scholar. I'll pretend you have an open mind and that you might read them. I have not read these, nor anything by this author, but I'm buying both because they look interesting.
You seem to assume you know all about the history of Christianity. I have yet to see you address the very significant ways the theology and practice changed over the first centuries. But that would ruin your entire argument, wouldn't it? That becoming a multicultural state church changed the theology irrecoverably.
Funny enough, your linked books are making that exact argument.
You seem to assume you know all about the history of Christianity. I have yet to see you address the very significant ways the theology and practice changed over the first centuries. But that would ruin your entire argument, wouldn't it? That becoming a multicultural state church changed the theology irrecoverably.
Funny enough, your linked books are making that exact argument.
I am fairly confident I know more about it than you do. And more or less your premise here is just wrong.
Is it? Because those are the claims you've made before.
I'm also fairly confident I've never said Judaism ceased to exist and re-emerged as something not Jewish. If you can find a place where I've said that, please share it.
My position is that there is no one thing you can point to in the Second Temple period and call "Judaism". This is the position of modern scholarship by people like Jacob Neusner. It's much more appropriate to speak of Judaisms. Some scholars go as far as to say that there is no such thing as Judaism at all until later, that its a product of later ideas about religion. You are consistently misunderstanding or misstating the argument. Whether it is intentional or due to inability to comprehend the words I'm writing is unclear to me.
Here's a long form interview if the author of that book addressing much of this for anyone interested.
Quote:
By the way, do you support Orthodox's contention that Jews are demon-worshipping idolaters?
Christ Jesus says: "Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him."
"Yes, you know me, and you know where I am from. I am not here on my own authority, but he who sent me is true. You do not know him but I know him because I am from him and he sent me."
"If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father glorifying Me, of whom you say, 'He is our God.' You do not know Him, but I know Him. If I said I did not know Him, I would be a liar like you. But I do know Him, and I keep His word."
"You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out his desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, refusing to uphold the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, because he is a liar and the father of lies."
"You do not know Me or My Father. If you knew Me, you would know My Father as well."
"No one comes to the Father except through Me. If you had known Me, you would know My Father as well."
"If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you as well; if they kept My word, they will keep yours as well. But they will treat you like this because of My name, since they do not know the One who sent Me."
"They will do these things because they have not known the Father or Me."
Idolatry takes many forms. Worshipping Yahweh in name alone is no guard against idolatry. The golden calf and the altars set up by the Northern Kingdom were still idolatry. I see no way that a Christian can believe that modern Jews who have rejected Jesus Christ know the Father. Thus while they may try to worship Him, they are worshipping something else. Whether that is a demon or not I can't say. Nor can I say what the consequence of pious misbelief is. Judging humans is for God alone.
Idolatry takes many forms. Worshipping Yahweh in name alone is no guard against idolatry. The golden calf and the altars set up by the Northern Kingdom were still idolatry. I see no way that a Christian can believe that modern Jews who have rejected Jesus Christ know the Father. Thus while they may try to worship Him, they are worshipping something else. Whether that is a demon or not I can't say. Nor can I say what the consequence of pious misbelief is. Judging humans is for God alone.
My position is that there is no one thing you can point to in the Second Temple period and call "Judaism". This is the position of modern scholarship by people like Jacob Neusner.
There were competing philosophies, but the idea that there was no basic theology or philosophy that framed Judaism as a religion makes no sense. And that is not the position of modern Jewish scholarship. That's like saying there's no Christianity in 1650 since there were so many competing claims and philosophies.
My position is that there is no one thing you can point to in the Second Temple period and call "Judaism". This is the position of modern scholarship by people like Jacob Neusner.
There were competing philosophies, but the idea that there was no basic theology or philosophy that framed Judaism as a religion makes no sense. And that is not the position of modern Jewish scholarship. That's like saying there's no Christianity in 1650 since there were so many competing claims and philosophies.
Funny, I've given you several books that say the opposite, one by the leading Jewish scholar of the 20th century and probably all time. You've provided..nothing.
There's the very real idea that there was a completely different concept of religion itself, and indeed imperial handling of both Christian and Judaism in the late Roman period lead to the rise of the modern concept.
The difference is that there were bodies with teaching in 1650 and an entirely different approach to belief and faith, including the idea of religious taxonomy and orthodoxy or canonical scriptures. There wasn't anything remotely like this in the first century. At best you have heresies, schools, but even then the lines are blurry and the parties are numerous.
What part didn't you understand? I can use words with fewer syllables, if it will help.
It's a non-answer. It avoids the issue. You've been dancing around this despite it being brought up a few times. This theology you're spouting and these claims about Judaism have been refined over centuries for explicitly anti-Semitic purposes. Your church has a history swamped in blood over nearly two millennia on this topic. And your attitude is to ignore the concerns people have about the ways that theology has been used by Christians at every level of the versions churches and the various nations and to hand wave away the legitimate criticisms, all so you can claim your church is the actual Israel. I'm not claiming you are anti-Semitic, but you also aren't willing to address the dangers in what you claim. Very real dangers that have body counts in the millions over the years.
What a mealymouthed non-answer. Do you have anything to contribute other than calling me an anti-semite? Is there any part of my answer you don't understand?
My position is that there is no one thing you can point to in the Second Temple period and call "Judaism". This is the position of modern scholarship by people like Jacob Neusner.
There were competing philosophies, but the idea that there was no basic theology or philosophy that framed Judaism as a religion makes no sense. And that is not the position of modern Jewish scholarship. That's like saying there's no Christianity in 1650 since there were so many competing claims and philosophies.
Funny, I've given you several books that say the opposite, one by the leading Jewish scholar of the 20th century and probably all time. You've provided..nothing.
There's the very real idea that there was a completely different concept of religion itself, and indeed imperial handling of both Christian and Judaism in the late Roman period lead to the rise of the modern concept.
The difference is that there were bodies with teaching in 1650 and an entirely different approach to belief and faith, including the idea of religious taxonomy and orthodoxy or canonical scriptures. There wasn't anything remotely like this in the first century. At best you have heresies, schools, but even then the lines are blurry and the parties are numerous.
You've provided whole books. That's nice. Now, what specific claims and passages in those books are you relying on? Claiming there was no Judaism in the first century is not a consensus, widely held claim. Particularly by Jewish scholars. What is held as a consensus is that there was a wide spectrum of philosophies over practices. The law, including the vast majority of the Oral Torah, was very much in existence and followed.
What a mealymouthed non-answer. Do you have anything to contribute other than calling me an anti-semite? Is there any part of my answer you don't understand?
I specifically said I wasn't calling you one. But that theology has justified anti-Semitism for centuries and you seem unwilling to even acknowledge that.
And you've provided nothing at all other than a stubborn refusal to actually consider what I'm saying.
Here's a nice quote from Neusner.
Quote:
The multiplicity of Judaisms in the early centuries of the Common Era has made ever more parlous the insistence upon a single Judaism, from which Christianity took its leave and against which Christianity is to be contrasted (whether favorably or otherwise, depending on the polemical purpose) that still marks study of Judaism in the New Testament. No one has succeeded in so defining a single Judaism everywhere ascendant, unifying all the Jews and excluding everybody else, as to account for all of the conflicting evidence. A Judaism so general that it encompasses Enoch, the writings found at the Dead Sea, Josephus, Philo, the Elephantine papyri, and the Mishnah not to mention the (uninterpreted) books of the Hebrew Scriptures of ancient Israel ("the Old Testament") proves trivial. If so many diverse circles, all of them claiming to form "Israel" and to set forth God's message out of the Torah, each of them reaching conclusions not so much in disagreement with everybody else but out of all relationship with those of all other parties, are joined in a single conversation, taken all together, they yield a Judaism that covers everybody and turns out so thin and trivial as not to engage anybody. Whether, then, the Judaism adhered to by all Judaisms consisted of the belief in the unity of God, the Torah, the Temple, covenantal nomism, or what have you scarcely proves consequential when we realize nothing important to the various circles of Judaic faithful represented by the public, preserved documents in hand comes within that definition. A definition that appeals to the lowest common denominator serves in the end to include everything but to explain nothing. By contrast, when we recognize that each set of documents works out of its particular premises and presuppositions, representing a set of choices concerning urgent questions that demand response, self-evidently valid answers that require articulation, we can take into hand the entire corpus of evidence, without homogenization, harmonization, or, worst of all, trivialization.
...The difference emerges as soon as we reflect on how the conception of a single uniform Judaism affects the framing of the question of "the relationship of the New Testament to Judaism," for as soon as we dismiss as hopelessly in conflict with diverse data the notion of a single uniform, operative, ubiquitous Judaism, the relationship of the New Testament to Judaism ceases to define a comprehensible issue at all...
People take for granted that Judaism contributes a principal formative force for the emergence of New Testament Christianity. We understand the New Testament solely in the setting of Judaism. We propose, by contrast, that we understand the New Testament still better when we regard it as the statement of Judaism, that is, from its writers' perspective, the New Testament at every point formed that very same Judaism that the Old Testament had adumbrated.
.. arguing about the Jewishness of Jesus or of Paul or Peter or the Evangelists emerges as disingenuous; it is like asking about the influence of Judaism upon Aqiba or Hillel, Judah the Patriarch, who sponsored the Mishnah at the end of the second century CE, or upon Yohanan and Simeon b. Laqish, Joseph, Rabbah, Abbayye, and Raba, of the third and fourth centuries, who founded the Talmud and so defined the Judaism that has held the field from their time to ours. They took for granted that they continued the Torah of Sinai and its tradition, saying precisely what it meant then and for all time, and so did the Evangelists and Paul and the other New Testament writers. They deemed it a fact that theirs was the valid reading of the Torah, and so did their Christian counterparts. The category "Judaism" scarcely pertains, since for none, Christian or Judaic, was "Judaism" a native category. But what difference does that observation, so entirely coherent with Christian self-understanding throughout history, make? Once we reject the premise that Christianity negates Judaism, and see that Christianity must be placed within its setting as a Judaism, alongside others, what follows is that the description of Christianity from the premise of its essentially alien and estranged relationship with Judaism (that is, other Judaisms, appealing to the same Scriptures) is worthless, because misleading and distorting. Recognizing a number of Judaisms of the same time and place, all of them adhering to a common structure but each different from the others at every important point, we no longer conceive the analytical category, "Judaism versus the New Testament," to define a sensible inquiry. Instead, we try to see matters in such a way that we read the New Testament in its own Judaic context. It defines Judaism its Judaism, speaking descriptively and after the fact and how we read the document as a Judaism remains to be seen.
...
So by their own word what they set forth in the New Testament must qualify as Judaism, and they insisted (as vigorously as any other Judaic system-builders) the only Judaism. Judaisms known to us over time follow suit: ours is the Torah, and we form Israel, the holy people. True, early on, the Gospel pf John would fiercely condemn "the Jews" and blame them for the crucifixion. But even John valued Israel and certainly adhered to the Torah as he read it. While later on a shift in category-formation distinguished between Judaism and Christianity, even here Christianity insisted on its patrimony and inheritance out of ancient Israel. Not only so, but Christianity would represent itself for all time as the sole valid continuation of the faith and worship of ancient Israel. That is to say, Christianity portrayed itself as (other) Judaisms ordinarily portrayed themselves, and out of precisely the same shared Torah at that...
...We simply bring to its logical conclusion the widely understood fact that, in antiquity as today, many Judaisms competed. Most knowledgeable people now reject the conception of a single Judaism, everywhere paramount. A requirement of theology, the dogma of a single, valid Judaism contradicts the facts of history at every point in the history of Judaism, which finds its dynamic in the on-going struggle among Judaisms to gain the position of the sole, authentic representation of the Torah. Further, along with the notion of a single official Judaism, we give up the notion of a unitary, internally harmonious Judaism, a lowest common denominator among a variety of diverse statements and systems. And logic further insists that we let go of the notion of an incremental, cumulative, "traditional" Judaism. At the same time, and for the same reason, we dismiss as vacuous and hopelessly general the notion of a single Judaism characteristic of a given age, e.g. the first century BC and AD, and we reject as groundless the conception that all documents of said age tell us about one and the same religious community, therefore, a single "Israel" and its Torah. It follows that the sources of a given period of time do not tell us about a single Judaism, characteristic of that time. They tell us about their writers' premises, the Judaic thinking that underpins the Judaic system they have put forth and that alone.
Chilton and Neusner, Judaism in the New Testament, 1995.
As they note, your definition of Judaism as "people who have the Torah" is, worst of all, a trivialization. And, as they note, most knowledgeable people reject the conception of a single Judaism.
