What a mealymouthed cowardly way to have a discussion - introduce a vile accusation at an opponent and then when they object insist that you were only noting their unwillingness to acknowledge it before it was brought up.
Who is Israel?
9,763 Views |
136 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by nortex97
Zobel said:
What a mealymouthed cowardly way to have a discussion - introduce a vile accusation at an opponent and then when they object insist that you were only noting their unwillingness to acknowledge it before it was brought up.
The theology you are promoting was founded in and supported anti-Semitism and slaughter for going on 1700 years. And you refuse to address the concerns people have about the implications of that philosophy. Period. In fact, you can't even address the concerns when someone says modern Jewish people are demon-worshipping idolaters. You can only pass on making a judgement.
Good luck do you. No sense in engaging with someone as disingenuous as you.
Zobel said:
Good luck do you. No sense in engaging with someone as disingenuous as you.
Still can't even engage with the issue….
Actually I think I should respond to this, if only to clarify why what you're saying is both an unacceptable way to engage in a discussion, cowardly, and factually incorrect.Quote:
The theology you are promoting was founded in and supported anti-Semitism and slaughter for going on 1700 years. And you refuse to address the concerns people have about the implications of that philosophy. Period. In fact, you can't even address the concerns when someone says modern Jewish people are demon-worshipping idolaters. You can only pass on making a judgement.
First of all, Christianity's claim as the unique continuation of authentic Israel is no different, and no less valid on its face, than any other Judaic tradition which derives its source from the scriptures. It must be evaluated on antiquity, consensus, continuity, and its own claims. Gatekeeping it due to an appeal to an ahistorical, anachronistic, and incorrect view of 1st century Judaism is factually and historically incorrect.
Second, this understanding is no more responsible for anti-semitic bloodshed than your atheism is responsible for the horrors of Stalin or Mao. I have no obligation to address your ficticious concerns, because that are made in a dishonest and cowardly way. At no point have I articulated any reason to conclude that because of the claims of Christianity, Jews must be persecuted or treated poorly in any way whatever. Further these claims promote an clear and explicit relationship to them as brethren by whom we are separated, much as St Paul views his kinsmen. Further yet even if this relationship were not the case, their separation from the faith no more encourages violence or bloodshed than it does against any other people or faith. Drawing the conclusion that because we view them as on the wrong side of a theological claim we are promoting violence is, as has been said repeatedly, disingenuous. Insisting upon a litmus test answer is cowardly as much as if I asked you when you stopped beating your wife.
I pass on making a judgment not because I am afraid of saying I view their religious understanding of God as both incorrect and problematic, but because I refrain from judging any man's heart as a matter of faith. Jews are not unique in this regard. Nor are modern evangelicals whom I consider brethren, but also another religion distinct from Orthodoxy as I have said numerous times on this forum. Nor was I unclear about this in my post. Your insistence upon framing my views within the narrow confines of anti-semitism betrays your bias and bad-faith approach to discussion. Frankly, it's pathetic.
I don't expect you to acknowledge your error or even less likely an apology because nothing you've said in this discussion demonstrates this level of self-awareness of fortitude. As I said, this kind of backhanded "I'm not saying I'm just saying" insult is cowardly, and reveals much more about you than it does about me.
Zobel said:Actually I think I should respond to this, if only to clarify why what you're saying is both an unacceptable way to engage in a discussion, cowardly, and factually incorrect.Quote:
The theology you are promoting was founded in and supported anti-Semitism and slaughter for going on 1700 years. And you refuse to address the concerns people have about the implications of that philosophy. Period. In fact, you can't even address the concerns when someone says modern Jewish people are demon-worshipping idolaters. You can only pass on making a judgement.
First of all, Christianity's claim as the unique continuation of authentic Israel is no different, and no less valid on its face, than any other Judaic tradition which derives its source from the scriptures. It must be evaluated on antiquity, consensus, continuity, and its own claims. Gatekeeping it due to an appeal to an ahistorical, anachronistic, and incorrect view of 1st century Judaism is factually and historically incorrect.
Second, this understanding is no more responsible for anti-semitic bloodshed than your atheism is responsible for the horrors of Stalin or Mao. I have no obligation to address your ficticious concerns, because that are made in a dishonest and cowardly way. At no point have I articulated any reason to conclude that because of the claims of Christianity, Jews must be persecuted or treated poorly in any way whatever. Further these claims promote an clear and explicit relationship to them as brethren by whom we are separated, much as St Paul views his kinsmen. Further yet even if this relationship were not the case, their separation from the faith no more encourages violence or bloodshed than it does against any other people or faith. Drawing the conclusion that because we view them as on the wrong side of a theological claim we are promoting violence is, as has been said repeatedly, disingenuous. Insisting upon a litmus test answer is cowardly as much as if I asked you when you stopped beating your wife.
I pass on making a judgment not because I am afraid of saying I view their religious understanding of God as both incorrect and problematic, but because I refrain from judging any man's heart as a matter of faith. Jews are not unique in this regard. Nor are modern evangelicals whom I consider brethren, but also another religion distinct from Orthodoxy as I have said numerous times on this forum. Nor was I unclear about this in my post. Your insistence upon framing my views within the narrow confines of anti-semitism betrays your bias and bad-faith approach to discussion. Frankly, it's pathetic.
I don't expect you to acknowledge your error or even less likely an apology because nothing you've said in this discussion demonstrates this level of self-awareness of fortitude. As I said, this kind of backhanded "I'm not saying I'm just saying" insult is cowardly, and reveals much more about you than it does about me.
Except the history of this theology is explicitly tied to anti-Semitism, as early as Augustine in City of God, and is used as justification over and over again throughout history. To try and hand-wave away the association between the two is simply not possible when you consider the real world consequences of theologies. Consequences we saw in this thread that you still will not explicitly address except to say he may be right. This refusal to accept the reality that cloaks the claims you make suggests you see the weakness of that position. I said I'm not claiming you're anti-Semitic and I mean it. I'm directly addressing the logical and historical consequences of supersessionism; a doctrine deemed dangerous enough that plenty of large Christian denominations have dropped it or significantly modified it.
I knew it was a waste of time. Pathetic. Good luck to you.
Zobel said:
I knew it was a waste of time. Pathetic. Good luck to you.
From Augustine,
Quote:
"the house of Israel which [God] has cast off… are themselves the builders of destruction and rejecters of the cornerstone [Jesus]… the Lord Christ distinguished between His faithful ones and His Jewish enemies
Rejection of the Jewish people, their claims to the Torah, and their heritage is part-and-parcel of supersessionism. This is not some benign theology. You have to address very real problems it raises and has caused.
Reread the OP. It's not replacement theology. Your propensity for being wrong is truly impressive.
I don't have to address anything to you.
I don't have to address anything to you.
Zobel said:
Reread the OP. It's not replacement theology. Your propensity for being wrong is truly impressive.
I don't have to address anything to you.
Except it is. You're being very explicit about that.
Weird, when I look at the OP I see "The Church did not replace Israel, is not the new Israel. It is Israel, in continuity."
Again, refusal or inability to understand - I can't tell, but I don't really have much appetite to figure it out.
Again, refusal or inability to understand - I can't tell, but I don't really have much appetite to figure it out.
Critics call it replacement theology. Sapper is a critic so he's going to call it that.Zobel said:
Weird, when I look at the OP I see "The Church did not replace Israel, is not the new Israel. It is Israel, in continuity."
Again, refusal or inability to understand - I can't tell, but I don't really have much appetite to figure it out.
If this is the same Sapper that I know, I'd just quit. "Do not throw your pearls to pigs."Zobel said:
I don't expect you to acknowledge your error or even less likely an apology because nothing you've said in this discussion demonstrates this level of self-awareness of fortitude. As I said, this kind of backhanded "I'm not saying I'm just saying" insult is cowardly, and reveals much more about you than it does about me.
Though I have enjoyed the discussion on 1st century Judaism. I hadn't heard it before.
Zobel said:
Weird, when I look at the OP I see "The Church did not replace Israel, is not the new Israel. It is Israel, in continuity."
Again, refusal or inability to understand - I can't tell, but I don't really have much appetite to figure it out.
You're superseding the actual Jewish people. And it appears your excuse is that there aren't any "real" non-Christian Israelites left.
"Actual Jewish people" is begging the question. As Neusner - whom the New York Times obituary describes as one of the world's foremost scholars of Jewish rabbinical texts - said:
Its the same claim "real" Israelites make about Christians. Worthless, misleading, distorting. About sums it up.Quote:
...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.
...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...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...
Eh. Not worth it.
I didn't say the Jews were evil. I think you assume demon worship is like a cult of dark evil practices. Even Christians have communion with a demon when they sin. The point is that modern Jews are worshipping an idol and have been for a very long time now and there's going to be demons associated with that.Sapper Redux said:
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.
Go to your local synagogue and ask them if Yahweh exists in multiple Persons.Sapper Redux said:Zobel said:
Weird, when I look at the OP I see "The Church did not replace Israel, is not the new Israel. It is Israel, in continuity."
Again, refusal or inability to understand - I can't tell, but I don't really have much appetite to figure it out.
You're superseding the actual Jewish people. And it appears your excuse is that there aren't any "real" non-Christian Israelites left.
Hitler was anti Christian to the core so the Jews were unfortunate victims because of their ties to Christianity, among other reasons. Don't act like Christians haven't been slaughtered for centuries. It's a bad look and completely ignorant. Hitler wanted to rid the world of weak Christian philosophy as do a lot of current secular westerners. Nothing new under the sun.Sapper Redux said:Zobel said:
What a mealymouthed cowardly way to have a discussion - introduce a vile accusation at an opponent and then when they object insist that you were only noting their unwillingness to acknowledge it before it was brought up.
The theology you are promoting was founded in and supported anti-Semitism and slaughter for going on 1700 years. And you refuse to address the concerns people have about the implications of that philosophy. Period. In fact, you can't even address the concerns when someone says modern Jewish people are demon-worshipping idolaters. You can only pass on making a judgement.
Just wanted to circle back to this. The jews reinterpreting their text was not a simple drift. There were huge events happening in that time.Sapper Redux said:Zobel said:
How about recognizing that the formative age of Rabbinic Judaism began in AD 70 and went to 600?
https://www.amazon.com/Rabbinic-Judaism-Documentary-Formative-C/dp/1883053064
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.
First, the temple was a huge huge part of jewish life. And you couldn't just rebuild it after its gets destroyed. If God truly dwelt in the temple, He wouldn't allow it to be destroyed. There's a debate whether God even dwelled in the second temple like he did in the beginning of the first temple. You don't see in Ezra or Nehemiah that God approached someone and commanded them to rebuild the temple, but that 'God stirred up their souls' to rebuild it. You don't see God speak at all in those books. And you see the sins of man loud as day as they struggle to rebuild, recommit themselves, and keep the Sabbath holy. So from the get go, there are indications the second temple was not a resting place of God's presence. So remember, second temple Judiasm is a remnant of the scattering after the exile that has decided to rebuild Jerusalem. We aren't in a twelve tribes moving in lockstep era, but more of 'lets get the band back together' and things aren't going smoothly.
Also during Jesus's time, it was prophesied that this is the age of the messiah. So there's a lot going on. In Acts 5 we see Gamaliel (very highly respected Jewish teacher) tell the jewish people, "If this Jesus is the Christ there is nothing we can do to stop it. If he isn't, he'll just die in the wilderness with his followers like the rest of the proclaimed messiahs." So Jesus isn't the first one to come through town and proclaim to be the Messiah.
But this time its different. You've got Jesus rising from the dead (big key here between previous messiahs and an actual one). You have apostles healing and resurrecting people, doing signs and wonders, and driving out demons in Christ Jesus's name. Jews accepting the messiah has come, gentiles receiving the same holy spirit.
Then the temple comes down. This messiah that droves of jewish people are believing now had prophesied the temple would come down. And this temple would not be toppled if God didn't allow it.
So the next age for Jews is to reinterpret the texts to fit their current situation. There has to be a way to continue on without a temple. There has to be an out to stretch the age of the messiah. 70x7 isn't enough time - gotta keep reinterpreting it. Edit any reference to a Godhead. No more Angel of the Lord or Spirit of the Lord. Got acts as God. No pointing to a part of God himself as a savior. Pay no attention to how Melchizedek approaches Abraham knowing about the God of Abraham as he sits as the King of Peace (Salem- what will become Jerusalem.)
The era of post Jesus judiasm is a retconning of scriptures, built purposefully against Jesus. Because Jesus created the divide.
A modern jew who is taught what has been built up over 2000 years of that rejection, is not going to have a lot in common with the second temple jews.
This is not at all a good grasp of the history of anti-Semitism in Europe. The concentration camp guards were overwhelmingly associated with Christianity. Their fathers and grandfathers were at least casual anti-Semites. Your own branch of Christianity has a horrid, bloody history of support of pogroms. It has nothing to do with Jewish ties to Christianity. You can't just wave away the millions killed over centuries. It didn't start in 1942.Orthodox Texan said:Hitler was anti Christian to the core so the Jews were unfortunate victims because of their ties to Christianity, among other reasons. Don't act like Christians haven't been slaughtered for centuries. It's a bad look and completely ignorant. Hitler wanted to rid the world of weak Christian philosophy as do a lot of current secular westerners. Nothing new under the sun.Sapper Redux said:Zobel said:
What a mealymouthed cowardly way to have a discussion - introduce a vile accusation at an opponent and then when they object insist that you were only noting their unwillingness to acknowledge it before it was brought up.
The theology you are promoting was founded in and supported anti-Semitism and slaughter for going on 1700 years. And you refuse to address the concerns people have about the implications of that philosophy. Period. In fact, you can't even address the concerns when someone says modern Jewish people are demon-worshipping idolaters. You can only pass on making a judgement.
I'm sorry, but what % of Jewish people are following Jesus by 70AD?Quote:
This messiah that droves of jewish people are believing now
Yes Ancient Jews were never monotheistic. Modern scholars can attempt to classify it as monotheism but they are clueless about Trinitarian theology. Multiple hypostases is not a Christian invention and is located throughout the OT. Rabbinic Judaism made the shift.
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/wholecounsel/2018/05/16/the-angel-of-the-lord/?fbclid=IwAR3HxTxW4AhQX0XYdcCiyZxpzGovWS4aKh5BMEpOLe8rpx1Z4Cq_l-cZ4VQ
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/wholecounsel/2018/05/23/god-the-word/?fbclid=IwAR3mb5khnoxqQ2IFtm-wz6wkKDGYGA8ijYZnb9_pu_LwVAFN5DvmDuXyB0k
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/wholecounsel/2018/05/16/the-angel-of-the-lord/?fbclid=IwAR3HxTxW4AhQX0XYdcCiyZxpzGovWS4aKh5BMEpOLe8rpx1Z4Cq_l-cZ4VQ
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/wholecounsel/2018/05/23/god-the-word/?fbclid=IwAR3mb5khnoxqQ2IFtm-wz6wkKDGYGA8ijYZnb9_pu_LwVAFN5DvmDuXyB0k
Didn't say it started in 1942. Just pointing out a big one. Having an association with Christianity is not the same as being swept up into mass racism and the culture that Hitler was creating which was 100% anti Christian. Hitler and Nietzsche despised Christian morality and wanted to return to the system of brute power and dominance. Even if a German camp guard was "Christian" it's obvious that his actions were not. The only reason you can even make the claim is that you have similar Christian framework to work with. Great movie showing how a culture goes mad.Sapper Redux said:This is not at all a good grasp of the history of anti-Semitism in Europe. The concentration camp guards were overwhelmingly associated with Christianity. Their fathers and grandfathers were at least casual anti-Semites. Your own branch of Christianity has a horrid, bloody history of support of pogroms. It has nothing to do with Jewish ties to Christianity. You can't just wave away the millions killed over centuries. It didn't start in 1942.Orthodox Texan said:Hitler was anti Christian to the core so the Jews were unfortunate victims because of their ties to Christianity, among other reasons. Don't act like Christians haven't been slaughtered for centuries. It's a bad look and completely ignorant. Hitler wanted to rid the world of weak Christian philosophy as do a lot of current secular westerners. Nothing new under the sun.Sapper Redux said:Zobel said:
What a mealymouthed cowardly way to have a discussion - introduce a vile accusation at an opponent and then when they object insist that you were only noting their unwillingness to acknowledge it before it was brought up.
The theology you are promoting was founded in and supported anti-Semitism and slaughter for going on 1700 years. And you refuse to address the concerns people have about the implications of that philosophy. Period. In fact, you can't even address the concerns when someone says modern Jewish people are demon-worshipping idolaters. You can only pass on making a judgement.
I mean, this is a tough one to nail down. So you're going to get a frustrating answer. A significant amount.Sapper Redux said:I'm sorry, but what % of Jewish people are following Jesus by 70AD?Quote:
This messiah that droves of jewish people are believing now
The jewish people (TM) at this time are on a spectrum of scattered as well as disaffected. So who gets to be called jewish here? Big issues with huge swaths of jewish people becoming fully assimilated and just trying to survive in the economy they're in. Lifetimes with no trips to second temple. You might be associated with judiasm by heritage only. Or when someone insults judiasm you're now its biggest defender. Much like modern day christianity. The census might show large religious associations, but actions prove otherwise.
So you could make the case that the jews the apostles preached to in Jerusalem or in front of the synagogues of the towns they went to were people who were trying to be pious. They were going to temple. (Of course, the temples are the center of towns as well). We see in Acts accounts of A) a majority of crowds accepting Jesus as the messiah B) a mixed reaction C) or rejection. You see huge amounts of converts when there are miracles being performed. The holy spirit descends and everyone speaks in their native tongue? A paralyzed man begger everyone knew now walks in the name of Jesus? A girl being resurrected? Yeah the apostles are batting pretty good numbers in those crowds. When people reject Christ you see its with a majority of the local power players and vested interests. The Way, at its core, upsets a power balance and realigns benefactors.
Also, this is a descriptive claim trying to prove a moral point. Jesus converting 90% of jews by 70AD and hitting his sales quota does not detract nor add from his mission/claims/acts.
You're taking Acts at face value. That's not exactly an unbiased source. I'm curious if you have any evidence besides what you interpret Acts to mean? Because the revolt in 70AD and the Bar Kokhba revolt were not small, and all indications are that Christianity was in 70. Much bigger by 135, but that wasn't because of Jewish adherence.
Sapper Redux said:
You're taking Acts at face value. That's not exactly an unbiased source. I'm curious if you have any evidence besides what you interpret Acts to mean? Because the revolt in 70AD and the Bar Kokhba revolt were not small, and all indications are that Christianity was in 70. Much bigger by 135, but that wasn't because of Jewish adherence.
Just out of curiosity, what does the post-structuralist era recognize as an unbiased source? I thought it was all about interrogating narrative and who constructed it since truth is unknowable.
AGC said:Sapper Redux said:
You're taking Acts at face value. That's not exactly an unbiased source. I'm curious if you have any evidence besides what you interpret Acts to mean? Because the revolt in 70AD and the Bar Kokhba revolt were not small, and all indications are that Christianity was in 70. Much bigger by 135, but that wasn't because of Jewish adherence.
Just out of curiosity, what does the post-structuralist era recognize as an unbiased source? I thought it was all about interrogating narrative and who constructed it since truth is unknowable.
I'm not a poststructuralist. Most academics aren't. We do recognize that every source has an axe to grind and do our best to reconstruct what likely happened given the information available. Using Acts as the only source doesn't pass the smell test.
Couldn't follow up yesterday, but this was the first point I had in mind to discuss. Glad someone else got it out of the way.Sapper Redux said:AGC said:Sapper Redux said:
You're taking Acts at face value. That's not exactly an unbiased source. I'm curious if you have any evidence besides what you interpret Acts to mean? Because the revolt in 70AD and the Bar Kokhba revolt were not small, and all indications are that Christianity was in 70. Much bigger by 135, but that wasn't because of Jewish adherence.
Just out of curiosity, what does the post-structuralist era recognize as an unbiased source? I thought it was all about interrogating narrative and who constructed it since truth is unknowable.
I'm not a poststructuralist. Most academics aren't. We do recognize that every source has an axe to grind and do our best to reconstruct what likely happened given the information available. Using Acts as the only source doesn't pass the smell test.
Couple things, it doesn't pass your smell test-which is okay to have as an opinion, but lets cover the ground rules first. Academics like scoffing at ancient documents like apostolic letters from the get go because of the content. The idea of talking about miracles happening already discounts the source in a modern academics eye. So there's already a huge bias that is searching for a different source, hopefully one that just blasts these people talking about religion. So when people talk about it not passing the smell test. It isn't pertaining to dating of the documents (we can place the letters within the lives of the first generation of believers-and it looks to be mostly when the primary sources are starting to face their death and want these things written down). Nor is it pertaining to evolutionary drift of the content. There isn't 2000 years of slowly editing Jesus into God, but from the get go we see people proclaiming Jesus as Christ. Any margin written drift can be attributed to explanation of concepts, not deification of Jesus. Both the Jews and Christians took transcribing copies of the bible very seriously. As we find more and more texts, any modifications can be traced to their copier anyway. And very old copies match what you still read to this day. So if the sources can't really be discounted because of bad origin dating or faithless copying, we're really left with just going after the content directly and biases cut both ways.
Secondly, this is all happening in a time where things that are written down serve a direct purpose due to the expense. So there's really only a few other sources you would find any primary information. Those would be A) a Jewish perspective preserved by jews, of which that document's existence would be dubious here. They reject Jesus, why would they preserve a document of fending off followers of christianity? B) Followers of christianity who believed Jesus to be the messiah due to these speeches, but again among the laypeople people thats not a priority to write that down and preserve it. The early church is doing that-thats these letters. C) Military or roman backed historians. Both who write in very broad strokes of a quelling uprisings or mentioning names.
I'm happy to always learn more, but I never understood the throwing the baby out with the bathwater approach to discounting these letters. There is not other people group that is as incentivized to document, preserve, and disseminate the good news about Jesus being the Christ. Why would there be another source that is as well preserved and well intentioned?
What would it take to convince a skeptic?
Ok, so I have thoughts about this. First let me say that I agree with the idea that Christianity is an unbroken continuation from Ancient Judaism. However, I think modern Judaisms are as well. I've heard it best said that Christianity and Judaism are sister religions, not the popular conception of a mother Judaism with an offshoot Christianity.
That's about as far as I can go down that path. For one, it seems a bit disingenuous to say the Christianity is the sole unbroken continuation of Ancient Judaism with one breath, and then start talking about the new Sabbath, the new Passover, and the new sacrifice in the next breath. It seems that if one is an unbroken continuation of the other, then why would anything be "new"? It seems clear to me that Christianity is a new and different thing that arose from Second Temple Judaism. That's not a bad thing. In the Old Testament, God promised a new and different Covenant. It's fine to be the inheritors of such.
However, modern Judaism is almost entirely based on the rabbinical schools already present in the Second Temple period. It's an easy and almost accurate generalization that Christianity arose from the western Hellenized Greeks, and the rabbinical schools from the near eastern Babylonian and Persian Jews. So going by that reckoning, the pharisees existed before the Second Temple was built, and would therefore predate even proto-Christians.
Regardless it is easy to follow the lineage of both religions. A good reference point is the destruction of the Second Temple, as it destroyed Temple Judaism until the present day. Christians had already moved away from strict Temple worship in a serious way, and they were well equipped to land on their feet when it happened. Among the rest of the Jews, the rabbis were most readily equipped to pick up the pieces. They had schools, scattered places of worship, and a rudimentary administrative structure that was independent of the priesthood. They began to collect the Mishnah almost immediately after the destruction of the Temple, and that is a distinctive and fundamental text of Modern Judaism.
So I don't understand the statement that modern Judaism was entirely reactive against the emergence of Christianity. The origins and histories of both are pretty easy to see and follow going back to the Second Temple period and even before. The earliest unique text of Judaism, the Mishnah, doesn't even mention Jesus. In fact, intermingling and co-religion was extremely common among Jews and Christians for hundreds of years after the destruction of the Temple. The separation of the two was also not a one-sided affair, with the Jews defining their religion in opposition to Christianity. That certainly happened, but the Christians were willing dance partners in the separation. One need only read John Chrysostom haranging Christians that fellowship with Jews, or read the many papal edicts that go into the 6th century that admonish Christians for following Jewish practices like the Sabbath. Until this mutual disownership, there were many that didn't see any mutual contradictions between the two faiths.
Finally, the idea that modern Jews worship demons is laughable and impressively insulting. After all, modern Jews worship the God of Abraham. As a Christian, I think they do so incompletely, but do any of us really have a full enough understanding of God to cast judgement on other's understanding of Him? Don't we almost entirely define our God by what we don't know and can't know? It's not like they have a vastly different value system either. They value life, charity, kindness, virtue, prayer, reverence, and sacrifice of a sort. To say that someone who values these things as an integral to their worship and claim to follow the God of Israel worships a demon is tantamount to calling God Himself a demon. Which is patently ridiculous and nonsensical.
Are they wrong about some fundamental points of theology? As a Christian, I must say yes. However, my Christian humility forces me to admit that I am also likely wrong about a great many things, and it's not a matter of category, only degree. If God is willing to forgive my wrongness through His grace, then why would He not forgive another who is slightly more wrong than me as long as that person tries to worship Him with a genuine and sincere spirit? As with all of my rants, to me it boils down to a Christ-like spirit, behavior, and attitude being more important than a technically correct belief in the Trinity.
That's about as far as I can go down that path. For one, it seems a bit disingenuous to say the Christianity is the sole unbroken continuation of Ancient Judaism with one breath, and then start talking about the new Sabbath, the new Passover, and the new sacrifice in the next breath. It seems that if one is an unbroken continuation of the other, then why would anything be "new"? It seems clear to me that Christianity is a new and different thing that arose from Second Temple Judaism. That's not a bad thing. In the Old Testament, God promised a new and different Covenant. It's fine to be the inheritors of such.
However, modern Judaism is almost entirely based on the rabbinical schools already present in the Second Temple period. It's an easy and almost accurate generalization that Christianity arose from the western Hellenized Greeks, and the rabbinical schools from the near eastern Babylonian and Persian Jews. So going by that reckoning, the pharisees existed before the Second Temple was built, and would therefore predate even proto-Christians.
Regardless it is easy to follow the lineage of both religions. A good reference point is the destruction of the Second Temple, as it destroyed Temple Judaism until the present day. Christians had already moved away from strict Temple worship in a serious way, and they were well equipped to land on their feet when it happened. Among the rest of the Jews, the rabbis were most readily equipped to pick up the pieces. They had schools, scattered places of worship, and a rudimentary administrative structure that was independent of the priesthood. They began to collect the Mishnah almost immediately after the destruction of the Temple, and that is a distinctive and fundamental text of Modern Judaism.
So I don't understand the statement that modern Judaism was entirely reactive against the emergence of Christianity. The origins and histories of both are pretty easy to see and follow going back to the Second Temple period and even before. The earliest unique text of Judaism, the Mishnah, doesn't even mention Jesus. In fact, intermingling and co-religion was extremely common among Jews and Christians for hundreds of years after the destruction of the Temple. The separation of the two was also not a one-sided affair, with the Jews defining their religion in opposition to Christianity. That certainly happened, but the Christians were willing dance partners in the separation. One need only read John Chrysostom haranging Christians that fellowship with Jews, or read the many papal edicts that go into the 6th century that admonish Christians for following Jewish practices like the Sabbath. Until this mutual disownership, there were many that didn't see any mutual contradictions between the two faiths.
Finally, the idea that modern Jews worship demons is laughable and impressively insulting. After all, modern Jews worship the God of Abraham. As a Christian, I think they do so incompletely, but do any of us really have a full enough understanding of God to cast judgement on other's understanding of Him? Don't we almost entirely define our God by what we don't know and can't know? It's not like they have a vastly different value system either. They value life, charity, kindness, virtue, prayer, reverence, and sacrifice of a sort. To say that someone who values these things as an integral to their worship and claim to follow the God of Israel worships a demon is tantamount to calling God Himself a demon. Which is patently ridiculous and nonsensical.
Are they wrong about some fundamental points of theology? As a Christian, I must say yes. However, my Christian humility forces me to admit that I am also likely wrong about a great many things, and it's not a matter of category, only degree. If God is willing to forgive my wrongness through His grace, then why would He not forgive another who is slightly more wrong than me as long as that person tries to worship Him with a genuine and sincere spirit? As with all of my rants, to me it boils down to a Christ-like spirit, behavior, and attitude being more important than a technically correct belief in the Trinity.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I think there's a distinction that needs to be made between an unbroken temporal chain and an unbroken theological chain. Obviously all modern derivatives of the faith of the Judaean people in the first century have some degree of continuity. But there are varying degrees of theological continuity. I didn't clarify, but that is absolutely where I was making a distinction.
"New" in regards Passover etc isn't technically correct. The scriptures teach that Christ IS the Passover (e.g. 1 Cor 5:7) and that the worship in the Tabernacle was in the form of heavenly worship (Hebrews 8:5 etc). Neither is the commandment "love one another" is "new" in the sense you use it here. All are revelations of realities, of which the former were types that pointed to the reality. So I do not think Christianity is a new and different thing at all - and importantly, neither did the apostles, St Paul, etc. They understood themselves as adhering to the same faith they always had (cf Acts 26:22-23). This is the important thing - they did not convert. It was not new. It was a revelation of what had already been promised.
If you say - which Second Temple Judaism was Christianity? there are many to choose from. The New Testament and its beliefs fit extremely well into contemporary literature. The primary or perhaps only distinction between it and other Judaism is its affirmative identification of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. You see some variance as to what specifically that means (e.g., between the Pharisees and St Paul in the council of Jerusalem) but not so much as to the novelty of the basic interpretation of the OT.
On the other hand - where is the Second Temple sect which denied God has a body? Denied two or three powers in heaven? Moved away from Messianic expectations?
There is a very important error to avoid here and that is projecting current views of group x y or z back to Second Temple. It's obvious some variants of Modern Judaism and Christianity alike bear almost no resemblance to...well, anything... that came before. The question is one of a chain of beliefs. And this is the area where I believe that the faith of the apostles can be shared today, which is the only remaining authentic expression of any Second Temple Judaism.
"New" in regards Passover etc isn't technically correct. The scriptures teach that Christ IS the Passover (e.g. 1 Cor 5:7) and that the worship in the Tabernacle was in the form of heavenly worship (Hebrews 8:5 etc). Neither is the commandment "love one another" is "new" in the sense you use it here. All are revelations of realities, of which the former were types that pointed to the reality. So I do not think Christianity is a new and different thing at all - and importantly, neither did the apostles, St Paul, etc. They understood themselves as adhering to the same faith they always had (cf Acts 26:22-23). This is the important thing - they did not convert. It was not new. It was a revelation of what had already been promised.
I disagree with this.Quote:
It's an easy and almost accurate generalization that Christianity arose from the western Hellenized Greeks
There was clearly dialogue between what amounts to two extant religions. But there was undeniable theological drift in Rabbinic Judaism in two things: away from messianic expectations and toward unitarian monotheism. These are radical departures from Second Temple Judaism(s).Quote:
So I don't understand the statement that modern Judaism was entirely reactive against the emergence of Christianity
If you say - which Second Temple Judaism was Christianity? there are many to choose from. The New Testament and its beliefs fit extremely well into contemporary literature. The primary or perhaps only distinction between it and other Judaism is its affirmative identification of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. You see some variance as to what specifically that means (e.g., between the Pharisees and St Paul in the council of Jerusalem) but not so much as to the novelty of the basic interpretation of the OT.
On the other hand - where is the Second Temple sect which denied God has a body? Denied two or three powers in heaven? Moved away from Messianic expectations?
There is a very important error to avoid here and that is projecting current views of group x y or z back to Second Temple. It's obvious some variants of Modern Judaism and Christianity alike bear almost no resemblance to...well, anything... that came before. The question is one of a chain of beliefs. And this is the area where I believe that the faith of the apostles can be shared today, which is the only remaining authentic expression of any Second Temple Judaism.
Yeah, no major beefs with any of that. I'd quibble that Modern Judaism really tightened up their faith identity and pared down the number of acceptable beliefs, and that's where you lose the concepts of multiple divine persons and such. Christianity did something similar around that time. If you're going by the same standards, then many early Christian saints would be considered heterodox by later standards. So both Christianity and Judaism really stamped out a lot of that Second Temple religious diversity.
I'm also curious about your problem with my statement about Christianity largely arising from the Hellenized Greeks. Seems pretty apparent to me. After all, the accepted Bible of the early Church was the Septuagint and John 1 straight up plagiarizes Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenized Jew. Christianity also caught on the fastest in Greece and the Greek speaking cities of Asia minor.
I'm also curious about your problem with my statement about Christianity largely arising from the Hellenized Greeks. Seems pretty apparent to me. After all, the accepted Bible of the early Church was the Septuagint and John 1 straight up plagiarizes Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenized Jew. Christianity also caught on the fastest in Greece and the Greek speaking cities of Asia minor.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
There's a difference between paring down acceptable beliefs and rejecting things outright. I think unitarian monotheism is flatly incompatible with the Old Testament scriptures, and it is itself a later development over and against Second Temple Judaism. This is the biggest point to me - are there trinitarian and binitarian Second Temple beliefs? Absolutely. Are there unitarian ones? I don't think so. I think it is safe to say that Second Temple Judaism has a commonality in understanding a plurality of hypostases of Yahweh, which makes Rabbinic unitarianism a reaction.
Now, I agree that the early Christological heresies are best understood as a paring down from the plurality of understandings of the hypostases of God (binitarian, trinitarian, adoptionism, proto-Arianism) from Second Temple Judaism. But I'm not sure unitarianism is there to prune away like adoptionism (i.e., understanding the son of man or the angel of the Lord as a divinized human) was.
Christianity didn't arise from Hellenized Greeks. Philo was not the source of identifying the second power in heaven as the Word of God - that is plainly there in the text itself. All St John did was say, the Person known in the scriptures as the Word of God in the OT became flesh. Everything in St John's prologue can be found in the scriptures, none of it is original or derivative of Philo. Or in another example St Paul says the Rock was Christ.
I think it's pretty hard to say that Christianity was Hellenized because it proselytized in Greek. Greek was the lingua franca of the vast majority of the known world at the time. Even the very Jewish authors of the NT take for granted that the Greek Old Testament was an authorized translation - St Paul uses a particularly Greek grammatical point as a pivotal argument in Galatians 3:16, which means his audience would have taken that for granted as well. But it's hard to say St Paul or the other apostles were Hellenized!
Now, I agree that the early Christological heresies are best understood as a paring down from the plurality of understandings of the hypostases of God (binitarian, trinitarian, adoptionism, proto-Arianism) from Second Temple Judaism. But I'm not sure unitarianism is there to prune away like adoptionism (i.e., understanding the son of man or the angel of the Lord as a divinized human) was.
Christianity didn't arise from Hellenized Greeks. Philo was not the source of identifying the second power in heaven as the Word of God - that is plainly there in the text itself. All St John did was say, the Person known in the scriptures as the Word of God in the OT became flesh. Everything in St John's prologue can be found in the scriptures, none of it is original or derivative of Philo. Or in another example St Paul says the Rock was Christ.
I think it's pretty hard to say that Christianity was Hellenized because it proselytized in Greek. Greek was the lingua franca of the vast majority of the known world at the time. Even the very Jewish authors of the NT take for granted that the Greek Old Testament was an authorized translation - St Paul uses a particularly Greek grammatical point as a pivotal argument in Galatians 3:16, which means his audience would have taken that for granted as well. But it's hard to say St Paul or the other apostles were Hellenized!
I think you're stretching a bit with the unitarian bit. Every monotheistic religion besides Christianity, and some Second Temple Jewish sects if you wish, have been unitarian. That's part and parcel of being monotheistic. I don't think it requires some sort of seismic redefinition of belief to go from monotheism to unitary monotheism. A simple clarification is enough. The real trick is going from monotheism to dual or trinitarian monotheism. Even most Christian theologians past and present would readily admit that trinitarian monotheism is definitely our belief even if it doesn't make logical sense. I would agree that the Jews leaned more strongly toward the unitary position to set themselves apart from the Christians, but if they weren't Christian it's hard to fault them.
I also think you are taking my view of Hellenized Jews in a way I don't mean. I don't mean it as a pejorative. Only that they were strongly influenced by Greek language and culture. As you said, it's hard not to be so influenced when Greek culture is so dominant in that part of the world. I'd similarly say that Conservative Jews are Americanized, as their movement started in the US, and is most popular in our country. Doesn't make them any less Jewish. You're downplaying Philo's influence on early Christianity quite a bit as well. Plato posited a Demiurge that used the power of reason to bridge the material and immaterial and shape existence. Philo, a Jewish Platonist, substituted the Logos for the Demiurge and bridging the divine and the mundane instead of materal and immaterial. So the idea that the world was created through Christ and that he is the sole bridge between the divine and the mundane is 100% cribbed by Philo's Logos. Yes, the concept is found in the Old Testament, but that's where Philo got the idea. The fact that John uses the word Logos in the same context and with the exact same theological meaning as Philo is not an accident.
I'm also a bit amused that I, a Torah observant oddity of a Christian, am arguing in favor of heavy Greek influence on the origin of Christianity while my friend the devout Greek Orthodox Christian is arguing for a more heavy Hebrew influence
I also think you are taking my view of Hellenized Jews in a way I don't mean. I don't mean it as a pejorative. Only that they were strongly influenced by Greek language and culture. As you said, it's hard not to be so influenced when Greek culture is so dominant in that part of the world. I'd similarly say that Conservative Jews are Americanized, as their movement started in the US, and is most popular in our country. Doesn't make them any less Jewish. You're downplaying Philo's influence on early Christianity quite a bit as well. Plato posited a Demiurge that used the power of reason to bridge the material and immaterial and shape existence. Philo, a Jewish Platonist, substituted the Logos for the Demiurge and bridging the divine and the mundane instead of materal and immaterial. So the idea that the world was created through Christ and that he is the sole bridge between the divine and the mundane is 100% cribbed by Philo's Logos. Yes, the concept is found in the Old Testament, but that's where Philo got the idea. The fact that John uses the word Logos in the same context and with the exact same theological meaning as Philo is not an accident.
I'm also a bit amused that I, a Torah observant oddity of a Christian, am arguing in favor of heavy Greek influence on the origin of Christianity while my friend the devout Greek Orthodox Christian is arguing for a more heavy Hebrew influence
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Monotheism is a later addition as well, for what its worth. The word didn't even exist until the 1600s. Second Temple Jews were not monotheistic. Second Temple Judaism was not unitarian. Check out Segel's Two Powers in Heaven.
Christianity obviously took - "baptized" - elements of Greek Philosopy - what the Byzantines would later call "Outer Wisdom". But they contrasted this with "Inner Wisdom." What they took wasnt philosophy but language, descriptive terms. There's a really good chapter on this in Sailing for Byzantium, which goes into the dispute between Barlaam and St Gregory Palamas. But the whole inner - outer wisdom tension goes all the way back to St Basil and St Gregory.
Two powers in heaven preceded Philo in Second Temple writings. He didn't invent it. Philo was synthesizing two extant traditions - Plato, and the OT. Philo was a contemporary of St John - born in 30 BC, died in 50 AD. What's more likely, that they both were formed by the same tradition, or that St John read Philo and said "yeah this seems like the same stuff the Lord was talking about"?
I would content that Orthodox Christians keep the whole law, for example.
Christianity obviously took - "baptized" - elements of Greek Philosopy - what the Byzantines would later call "Outer Wisdom". But they contrasted this with "Inner Wisdom." What they took wasnt philosophy but language, descriptive terms. There's a really good chapter on this in Sailing for Byzantium, which goes into the dispute between Barlaam and St Gregory Palamas. But the whole inner - outer wisdom tension goes all the way back to St Basil and St Gregory.
Two powers in heaven preceded Philo in Second Temple writings. He didn't invent it. Philo was synthesizing two extant traditions - Plato, and the OT. Philo was a contemporary of St John - born in 30 BC, died in 50 AD. What's more likely, that they both were formed by the same tradition, or that St John read Philo and said "yeah this seems like the same stuff the Lord was talking about"?
I think the Judaism of Orthodoxy is misunderstood / under-understood.Quote:
I'm also a bit amused that I, a Torah observant oddity of a Christian, am arguing in favor of heavy Greek influence on the origin of Christianity while my friend the devout Greek Orthodox Christian is arguing for a more heavy Hebrew influence
I would content that Orthodox Christians keep the whole law, for example.
Featured Stories
See All
66:03
7h ago
6.0k
Players to Watch: No. 15 Texas A&M at Auburn
by Olin Buchanan
54:59
10h ago
1.1k
37:53
7h ago
787
Reed Report: Chatting with D-Kirk, recapping A&M's 4-0 home stand
by Luke Evangelist
10:56
14h ago
2.9k