Why aren't Christians Jews

Hyzepher

As a non practicing Irish Catholic I'd be interested in hearing the views of those who have a deeper faith than I as to why they don't consider themselves Jews.

The history or teachings of the Christian faith admit that Jesus was a Jew and in his travels etc he spent his time teaching Judaism to fellow Jews. He was a peasant that proclaimed himself as the Messiah in a bid to re-establish the kingdom of David - to reconstitute the twelve tribes of Israel. Essentially rebelling against the rule of Rome and the destruction of the Jewish faith.

So having faith in Christ and following his teachings is essentially following the teachings of Judaism.

Or do Christians follow the teachings of those who wrote the bibles or Christian papers - which are not historical documents but more writings of faith.

Manach

Well it depends on perspective. In that drawing an analogy from Science, where different groups have a common ancestor stock but when they split begin to show characteristics that distinguish themselves from parallel and the source relations. This would be the case between present day Christians and Jews who have a historical relationship with Old Testament Jewry but would now differ in doctrine, history and their own self-image. A good resource that documents this initial cleavage would be "When the Church Was Young: Voices of the Early Fathers" by Marcellino D'Ambrosio.

MrPudding

Hyzepher wrote: »

As a non practicing Irish Catholic I'd be interested in hearing the views of those who have a deeper faith than I as to why they don't consider themselves Jews.

The history or teachings of the Christian faith admit that Jesus was a Jew and in his travels etc he spent his time teaching Judaism to fellow Jews. He was a peasant that proclaimed himself as the Messiah in a bid to re-establish the kingdom of David - to reconstitute the twelve tribes of Israel. Essentially rebelling against the rule of Rome and the destruction of the Jewish faith.

So having faith in Christ and following his teachings is essentially following the teachings of Judaism.

Or do Christians follow the teachings of those who wrote the bibles or Christian papers - which are not historical documents but more writings of faith.

More importantly; if Christians are decended from Jews then why are there still Jews? Checkmate Christians.

MrP

Hyzepher

Manach wrote: »

Well it depends on perspective. In that drawing an analogy from Science, where different groups have a common ancestor stock but when they split begin to show characteristics that distinguish themselves from parallel and the source relations. This would be the case between present day Christians and Jews who have a historical relationship with Old Testament Jewry but would now differ in doctrine, history and their own self-image. A good resource that documents this initial cleavage would be "When the Church Was Young: Voices of the Early Fathers" by Marcellino D'Ambrosio.

But the point is that Christians follow the teachings of Christ or so they are told. The teachings of Christ was Judaism.

So do Christians follow Christ or do they follow the documented history of Christ - or even an evolution of those teachings.

EirWatcher

The Old Testament of the Bible (much of which is shared by both Jewish and Christian Scripture), which was written before Christ was born and is the foretelling (prophesy) of the coming of a Messiah among the Jewish people. Jesus was indeed born and raised in the Jewish Tradition - it is even accounted that he read some of those prophesies from the Torah in the Synagogue and then told the people listening that he was fulfilling them as he spoke. Many of the Jews at the time did not react well to much of what Jesus said - he challenged the authority of the pharisees and high priests - who rejected him, and ultimately led to the Crucifixtion. They rejected him as Messiah. So Jews today, presumably, still reject that Jesus was ever the Messiah.

The New Testament of the Bible, in large part, is the account of his fulfilling of those Old Testament prophesies. It is considered by Christians to be both the fulfillment of the Old Covenant between God and his chosen people (i.e. the Jewish people from which the Messiah would come), but also Christ establishing a New Covenant, which Christians follow to this day. Christ opened a new covenant with all peoples, not just the chosen ones (all are called including non-Jew "Gentiles")

hinault

Hyzepher wrote: »

But the point is that Christians follow the teachings of Christ or so they are told. The teachings of Christ was Judaism.

So do Christians follow Christ or do they follow the documented history of Christ - or even an evolution of those teachings.

The teachings of Christ are the teachings of Christ, and of nothing else.

I can see the argument that Jesus was a Jew therefore what He taught was Judaism. But if you read the gospels you'll see that Jesus opposed the views/ideology/theology as expressed by the Pharisees. And the Pharisees were expert in Judaism.

The roots of Christianity are bedded in Judaism. But the demarcation between Judaism and Christianity was apparent from inception. Even John the Baptist alluded to this.

Hyzepher

EirWatcher wrote: »

The New Testament of the Bible, in large part, is the account of his fulfilling of those Old Testament prophesies. It is considered by Christians to be both the fulfillment of the Old Covenant between God and his chosen people (i.e. the Jewish people from which the Messiah would come), but also Christ establishing a New Covenant, which Christians follow to this day. Christ opened a new covenant with all peoples, not just the chosen ones (all are called including non-Jew "Gentiles")

So which is it. Jesus was spreading the word of Judaism - regardless of whether the priests looked favourably on him or not. Whether he was the Messiah or not is irrelevant, his teachings were that of the Jews.

The new testament was written by people who supposedly followed the teachings of Christ - Jewish teachings.

At the time Christ there were many calling themselves the Messiah. In fact Crucifixion was a Roman punishment for those guilty of crimes against the state, like Sedition. And many were crucified.

The Romans controlled the temples and definitely the high priests - so the hierarchy denouncing any of the "Messiahs" was common.

So again, do Christians actually follow the teachings of a Jewish Jesus or do they follow the accounts of Jesus written many years later.

A Jesus in the historical sense was Jewish and preached Judaism. Jesus in books is a different thing entirely.

EirWatcher

Hyzepher wrote: »

A Jesus in the historical sense was Jewish and preached Judaism. Jesus in books is a different thing entirely.

To know him, is to read his Word - that's why He left us the New Testament.

Many may have been crucified as false messiahs and never a word was heard about them since - yet only one left Spirit that inspired such belief in the apostles that impassioned such widescale spread of the message and inspired them to put it down in the gospels that gives life to His Word right up to this day. That alone tells us there was something different about Jesus.

"Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: The Pharisees and the teachers of the Law are experts in the Law of Moses. So obey everything they teach you, but don’t do as they do. After all, they say one thing and do something else. They pile heavy burdens on people’s shoulders and won’t lift a finger to help. Everything they do is just to show off in front of others. [...] But none of you should be called a teacher. You have only one teacher, and all of you are like brothers and sisters. Don’t call anyone on earth your father. All of you have the same Father in heaven. None of you should be called the leader. The Messiah is your only leader. Whoever is the greatest should be the servant of the others. If you put yourself above others, you will be put down. But if you humble yourself, you will be honored." Matt 23

"Then the Pharisees said to one another, 'You see, there is nothing you can do; look, the whole world is running after him!'" John:12

It's all in there.

Hyzepher

EirWatcher wrote: »

To know him, is to read his Word - that's why He left us the New Testament.

Many may have been crucified as false messiahs and never a word was heard about them since - yet only one left Spirit that inspired such belief in the apostles that impassioned such widescale spread of the message and inspired them to put it down in the gospels that gives life to His Word right up to this day.

"Then the Pharisees said to one another, 'You see, there is nothing you can do; look, the whole world is running after him!'" John:12

It's all in there.

But he left us nothing. It was all written way after the fact. If you take away those writings, gospels etc there is actually hardly anything known about Jesus, hardly anything written about him. This in a time when the Romans documented everything.

In fact more has been written about his brother James than himself.

So again do Christians follow the teachings of Jesus as they happened i.e. Judaism or do you follow other's interpretation of him?

EirWatcher

Hyzepher wrote: »

But he left us nothing.

The Holy Spirit, the Eucharist, his Church, unconditional forgiveness of sin, and eternal salvation.

Is that nothing?

Hyzepher wrote: »

It was all written way after the fact.

Actually, some of it was written before the fact -that's the point about the prophesy. Who could foreshadow historical events but God? Jesus was the only person in history who's coming was foretold.

Hyzepher wrote: »

If you take away those writings, gospels etc. there is actually hardly anything known about Jesus, hardly anything written about him. This in a time when the Romans documented everything.

What more would you need to know about him. The color of his hair? Would it make an iota of difference to His message? Perhaps we know all we need to know about him and no more than we need to. God chose (- chooses -) what to reveal about him and when and to whom - the gospels being one means of that Revelation.

The gospel accounts were from four of the apostles Jesus chose and were with him day by day. The spread of Jesus's teachings in the earliest days of the Church was by word of mouth by necessity - in a time when many couldn't read and widespread disemination of writing wasn't like today. It was only later, when the Church was growing, and local leaders looked for guidance on practical questions that arose and to stop the heresies that were beginning to form that the gospel accounts were then written down and spread to Church leaders. ("Where we got the Bible" is a good reference book about this).

Hyzepher wrote: »

In fact more has been written about his brother James than himself.

Study James' life more than the Word of Jesus do you?

Hyzepher wrote: »

So again do Christians follow the teachings of Jesus as they happened i.e. Judaism or do you follow other's interpretation of him?

Re Judaism: refer to the quote for Matt 23 in my last post. Jesus took the law of Moses and raised the bar! Here's an example of where took Jewish marriage and divorce law and custom and elevated it even further:
"“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. [...] The one who can accept this should accept it.”"


As for interpretations of Jesus: you will hear Christians talk of the "personal relationship with Jesus". It is not others' interpretation of Him per se we follow, it is an interpretation individual to each of us. It is not actually called interpretation in the Church at all, but *Revelation* - how Jesus reveals himself to us, through the Word of Scripture, prayer, the Holy Spirit in the living Body of Christ of the Church, and applied to each one of us in our own individual lives and circumstances.

Anyway, must get to sleep now...

jmark

Jesus came as the fulfilment of many Old Testament predictions. He was the rescuer promised from Genesis 3:15 onwards, and whom Israel should have been looking for. For many Jews, the expectation of a rescuer from sin had morphed into a rescuer from the Romans. So when Jesus came and refused to take part in a political rebellion many of hte Jewish establishment turned against them

In addition to that, his teachings challenged the very core of what Judaism had become - the law had become a ladder to get to heaven, instead of a way of life for already rescued people. The whole of the Old Testament laws and sacrifices had been pointing forward to him - they carried their own built in obsolescence. But many of the Jewish people in Jesus day had lost sight of the signpost quality of the sacrifices etc and made them into the destination. Although not all - some saw him as the one of whom the prophets had spoken, eg Nathaniel, Andrew, Simeon, Anna to name a few.

Jesus completed all the OT pointed forward to - so to answer your question: Why are we not Jews? Christians in one sense are, for Paul called all those who have faith in Jesus, children of Abraham. In another sense we are not Jews because it would ignore the completion which Jesus brought.

antiskeptic

Hyzepher wrote: »

But the point is that Christians follow the teachings of Christ or so they are told. The teachings of Christ was Judaism.

So do Christians follow Christ or do they follow the documented history of Christ - or even an evolution of those teachings.

Christ's teaching weren't Judaism. Judaism involves the letter of the law, whereas Christ taught the spirit of the law. For example: the Judaic (OT) law was based on a series of proscriptions. Thou shalt not commit adultery (with the definition of that being much like we define it today). Christ taught that even lusting after a women was adultery, not just having it away with another woman when you were married

The spirit law understands that damage is done to relationship by what goes on your head as much as in your pants. And sets that law in the hearts of men who are given eyes (by being born again) to see and understand it.

The apostle Paul elaborates further. A jew (a chosen one of God) isn't one who is a physical Jew (belonging to the race of Israel, physically circumcised , etc.) but is one who has undergone a circumcision of the heart. That God's Israel isn't a physical nation but a spiritual one.

So as a Christian, I am a Jew. But a spiritual one, belonging to God's true and eternal nation. According to the teaching of Christ and Paul et al.

antiskeptic

Hyzepher wrote: »

But he left us nothing. It was all written way after the fact. If you take away those writings, gospels etc there is actually hardly anything known about Jesus, hardly anything written about him. This in a time when the Romans documented everything.

In fact more has been written about his brother James than himself.

So again do Christians follow the teachings of Jesus as they happened i.e. Judaism or do you follow other's interpretation of him?

If you don't accept what is written as being Jesus' teaching (including commissioning people to propagate his message when he was gone) then how do you suppose we would know his "teachings as they happened".

You would be presuming him teaching Judaism, for want of an acceptable-to-you account of what he said, wouldn't you?

homer911

Acts 15 makes a clear distinction between Jews becoming Christians and Gentiles becoming Christians

Circumcision was about keeping the Law of Moses, Gentiles are not required to be circumcised in order to follow Jesus

Why aren't Christians Jews? Because they follow Christ.

Hyzepher

All those points are all very well but they are based on writings many,many decades after the death of Christ.

Here are my points

1. At the time of Jesus's life there are little or no writings about him at the time. Hardly anything. This at a time were the Roman's documented everything. Nothing written by them, by the priests, by the disciples or the Apostles.

2. Jesus was a Jew and his disciples were Jews. He didn't like the way Judaism was going due to the influence of the Romans on the high priest etc. He himself was a disciple of John the Baptist and was influenced by his teachings. his teachings weren't strict Judaism but ultimately that's what it was.

3. His primary claim was that he was the Messiah. That is, he wanted to re-establish the kingdom of David - to reconstitute the twelve tribes of Israel. That's what someone claiming to be the Messiah is claiming to do.

4. There were many people claiming to be the Messiah or trying the rebel against the Romans and their religious repression. This is reinforced by the number of Crucifixions at that time. A punishment reserved by the Romans for sedition etc. Jesus wasn't even the most famous of these - again nothing written about him at the time.

5. The Gospels are all dated post-Jesus and very much post the Apostles. They were written by people who were disconnected from the life of Jesus and the teachings of Jesus. The Bible is a book that has gone through many revisions and additions long after the death of Jesus. For example, the Gospel of Mark has no account of the life of Jesus prior to his meeting with John the Baptist and has no account of the Resurrection or anything after the death of Jesus. It was added many, many years later.

So are Christians really following the writings of people who tried to account for the life of Jesus when nothing was written about him while he lived. You would have a hard time doing that for someone you know if you couldn't rely on any historical fact.

Or should you be following the more likely teachings of Jesus given he was a Jew, surrounded by Jews and believed in Judaism. The Gospels themselves talk of how Jesus would welcome even non-Jews into the Kingdom of Heaven at the end.

antiskeptic

Hyzepher wrote: »

All those points are all very well but they are based on writings many,many decades after the death of Christ.

a. not that many decades.

b. irrelevant since the starting point for a Christian is that these writings are inspired by God and not merely reliant on men's memories.

1. At the time of Jesus's life there are little or no writings about him at the time. Hardly anything. This at a time were the Roman's documented everything. Nothing written by them, by the priests, by the disciples or the Apostles.

And if there were writings on the hoof, they would/could be dismissed on other grounds. Proximity wouldn't add to their veracity

2. Jesus was a Jew and his disciples were Jews. He didn't like the way Judaism was going due to the influence of the Romans on the high priest etc. He himself was a disciple of John the Baptist and was influenced by his teachings. his teachings weren't strict Judaism but ultimately that's what it was.

Which writings are you relying on for that interpretation? Assuming the writings you object to above, then fair enough. Yours would be just an interpretation. And, I'd warrant, a not very well founded one were you to begin to defend it here.

3. His primary claim was that he was the Messiah. That is, he wanted to re-establish the kingdom of David - to reconstitute the twelve tribes of Israel. That's what someone claiming to be the Messiah is claiming to do.

ditto above

4. There were many people claiming to be the Messiah or trying the rebel against the Romans and their religious repression. This is reinforced by the number of Crucifixions at that time. A punishment reserved by the Romans for sedition etc. Jesus wasn't even the most famous of these - again nothing written about him at the time.

Does the fact there are numerous copies of Nike mean there is no genuine Nike.

5. The Gospels are all dated post-Jesus and very much post the Apostles. They were written by people who were disconnected from the life of Jesus and the teachings of Jesus. The Bible is a book that has gone through many revisions and additions long after the death of Jesus. For example, the Gospel of Mark has no account of the life of Jesus prior to his meeting with John the Baptist and has no account of the Resurrection or anything after the death of Jesus. It was added many, many years later.

The net is rife with any number of arguments for and against the soundness of the NT bibliography. In a way, your post is merely a restatement of Common Objections which all need to be dealt with in detail.

So are Christians really following the writings of people who tried to account for the life of Jesus when nothing was written about him while he lived. You would have a hard time doing that for someone you know if you couldn't rely on any historical fact.

You seem to rely on the writings to draw conclusions about Jesus: his motivation and mission. Why can't we?

Or should you be following the more likely teachings of Jesus given he was a Jew, surrounded by Jews and believed in Judaism. The Gospels themselves talk of how Jesus would welcome even non-Jews into the Kingdom of Heaven at the end.

You would have to give evidence and reason for "more likely".

As I pointed out at the start, Christians (and by that I mean, born again - of whatever hue/denomination/era) aren't concerned about the things your concerned about.

Why would someone who concludes God exists and realizes he communicates through his Word, worry about the kinds of details that would cause someone who perhaps wasn't born again - and who is limited to evaluating the Bible according to worldly metric systems - to worry.

Either the Bible is truly the word of God and so sidesteps your concerns. Or it isn't.

jmark

Hyzepher wrote: »

All those points are all very well but they are based on writings many,many decades after the death of Christ.

Here are my points

1. At the time of Jesus's life there are little or no writings about him at the time. Hardly anything. This at a time were the Roman's documented everything. Nothing written by them, by the priests, by the disciples or the Apostles.

I think your statement that the Romans documented everything is an overstatement. They documented what it took to run the empire - meticulous records of grain shipping etc. Less so the teachings of wandering rabbis in a backwater province. Yet it is surprising that he managed to get mentioned by several contemporary writers outside of the Bible. That is the fact that needs explaining.

2. Jesus was a Jew and his disciples were Jews. He didn't like the way Judaism was going due to the influence of the Romans on the high priest etc. He himself was a disciple of John the Baptist and was influenced by his teachings. his teachings weren't strict Judaism but ultimately that's what it was.

I am unsure where there is evidence for your second statement. Biblically, Jesus is the promised Messiah that Judaism was looking for. True he didnt like the way Judaism had gone, but that was little to do with the Romans who put pressure on the Sadducees - most of Jesus criticism is levelled at the Pharisees. But the problem wasn't political, it was because they had made the law of God a means of salvation, rather than looking for the Messiah

3. His primary claim was that he was the Messiah. That is, he wanted to re-establish the kingdom of David - to reconstitute the twelve tribes of Israel. That's what someone claiming to be the Messiah is claiming to do.

Second sentence again is the problem - that's not what he wanted to do. He didnt come to set up a political kingdom. That's not what the OT prophecies of Messiah were looking for. True there seemed to be some aspect of a throne of David, but when Jesus himself was questioned he said his kingdom was not of this world.

4. There were many people claiming to be the Messiah or trying the rebel against the Romans and their religious repression. This is reinforced by the number of Crucifixions at that time. A punishment reserved by the Romans for sedition etc. Jesus wasn't even the most famous of these - again nothing written about him at the time.

5. The Gospels are all dated post-Jesus and very much post the Apostles. They were written by people who were disconnected from the life of Jesus and the teachings of Jesus. The Bible is a book that has gone through many revisions and additions long after the death of Jesus. For example, the Gospel of Mark has no account of the life of Jesus prior to his meeting with John the Baptist and has no account of the Resurrection or anything after the death of Jesus. It was added many, many years later.

"very much post the apostles" And the evidence for this is? I would recommend you read 'Jesus and eye witnesses' by Richard Bauckham. Its a bit of a beast of a book, but it is a thorough account of the practices of historians in the first century, the preference for eye-witness accounts, and the internal evidence that the gospel were written by eye-witnesses.

I would recommend too that you familiarise yourself with a more general history of the Bible's text - and how it hasn't been changed down through the years. That sort of thing is more generally covered in something like "Why a choose to believe the Bible" by Voddie Baucham - a 45 minute video presentation.

So are Christians really following the writings of people who tried to account for the life of Jesus when nothing was written about him while he lived. You would have a hard time doing that for someone you know if you couldn't rely on any historical fact.

This is based on the assumption that none of the disciples made notes of Jesus' sayings. Or the assumption that memorisation didn't play a major part of Jewish education. Both of which are questionable assumptions.

Or should you be following the more likely teachings of Jesus given he was a Jew, surrounded by Jews and believed in Judaism. The Gospels themselves talk of how Jesus would welcome even non-Jews into the Kingdom of Heaven at the end.

Given that the Jews should have been expecting that a Messiah would come and who would die for the sins of his people (Isaiah 53), being crucified (Psalm 22), and rise again (Psalm 16)--and given that thats where they weren't, why should we go back to a group of people who were looking for the wrong thing?

If they were doing the right thing, what was the point of Jesus coming and dying on the cross?

BlitzKrieg

Hyzepher wrote: »

As a non practicing Irish Catholic I'd be interested in hearing the views of those who have a deeper faith than I as to why they don't consider themselves Jews.

because they simply cant.

The Jewish faith draws heavily from a perceived direct bloodline to Abraham. You cannot become Jewish (well you can go so far, but there will always be a limit to stop you rom being genuinely *Jewish*). Converting to judaism is bloody hard and is actually discouraged for the most part (see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/beliefs/conversion.shtml) and to many orthodox parts of the faith you will never be seen as jewish.

Christianity removes this requirement and opens it to everyone and anyone, the catch is the Jewish faith actually requires at the most basic level nothing from the believer. Your jewish...congratulations you are god's people you can live a holy life or a sinful one unaware of your heritage you still in the very end get to heaven because you are god's people. Christianity put a different requirement on entry in having one actively embrace their religion.

christianity justify this with the argument that Jesus was the Messiah and he changed the terms of the faith opening it to the whole world through him

Islam and Mohammad pretty much the same terms, removes the bloodline requirement but puts a requirement to be of the right faith to be saved.

antiskeptic

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Christianity put a different requirement on entry in having one actively embrace their religion.

That's about 180 degrees away from correct

The only requirement for salvation is that you be born again (at which point a raft of things occur relating to you and your position in God's sight).

People were born again long before Christ walked the earth. That is to say: the means and mechanism of salvation existed before the in-time fulfillment of that required to enable it (Christs death on a cross). Those means and mechanisms existed too before detailed explanations of them were provided in the gospels and epistles - these latter emerging with Christianity. You no more have to know the workings of a car engine in order to be able to avail of it's ability to carry you from place to place.

Being born again itself doesn't require embracing of the Christian religion since it is on being born again that you become a Christian (a.k.a. declared righteous before God a.k.a. are saved a.k.a. any number of other descriptions of the same thing: rightstanding before God).

After you are born again you don't have to adhere to the Christian religion either. Indeed, you might never even have heard of it (for example: those who lived before Christ) in order to satisfy entry requirements. Or those who lived in remote places after the time of Christ and who never heard the gospel.

You may have to actively embrace the particulars of a denomination you want to join - but that's a separate matter to having to embrace anything in order to maintain the status you've obtained before God (if once having obtained that status). Before him, you need do nothing to remain a member of the faith / be a Christian / be declared righteous / be seen as justified / be one who is surely destined for 'heaven'

Islam and Mohammad pretty much the same terms, removes the bloodline requirement but puts a requirement to be of the right faith to be saved.

There's a thread downstream somewhere entitled something like "How was Abraham saved" addressed to Christians who might suppose this or that Christian-era ordinance which need be obtained / observed in order to be saved. It's seen surprisingly little activity, which indicates the lack of certainty in Christians, that there is some or other "right" denomination who have the correct understanding of entry to heaven requirement.

This much is agreed however: folk can and have been saved since day 1. My argument is that it is by the exact same means, before, during and after Christ.

tommy2bad

Jesus was a Jew, the lords prayer is a prayer that a Jew could say in good conscience. Dose that make Christians Jews?
Well first off being Jewish is not a choice its inherited. Secondly, apart from some fringe elements Christianity is not recognised as part of Judaism by Jews themselves. So no Christians are not Jews, they are not bound by Jewish laws the way practising Jews are.

That's not the same as saying that judaism is irrelevant to Christians, its part of our history and a record of man's relationship with God, what's changed is Christians believe the covenant has been fulfilled. Jesus himself believe He was the fulfillment of that covenant and that's the basis of Christianity, the covenant fulfilled, Jews otoh still live under the old covenant.
Are you asking if it's true or just a later spin by a sect of Judaism? Could be, but what difference if Christians define themselves one way and Jews another. They are two related but separate faiths. I would say its all the same God but Judaism does not require believe in God unlike Christianity.

brian_t

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well first off being Jewish is not a choice its inherited.

You can convert to Judaism just as you can to any religion.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/religion/article/conversion_an_irish_catholic_comes_home_to_judaism

Eugene Norman

Hyzepher wrote: »

So which is it. Jesus was spreading the word of Judaism - regardless of whether the priests looked favourably on him or not. Whether he was the Messiah or not is irrelevant, his teachings were that of the Jews.

The new testament was written by people who supposedly followed the teachings of Christ - Jewish teachings.

At the time Christ there were many calling themselves the Messiah. In fact Crucifixion was a Roman punishment for those guilty of crimes against the state, like Sedition. And many were crucified.

The Romans controlled the temples and definitely the high priests - so the hierarchy denouncing any of the "Messiahs" was common.

So again, do Christians actually follow the teachings of a Jewish Jesus or do they follow the accounts of Jesus written many years later.

A Jesus in the historical sense was Jewish and preached Judaism. Jesus in books is a different thing entirely.

You seem to have decided that Jesus didn't exist and was teaching Judaism. This is embarrassing ( and I say this as an atheist).

Stealthfins

I think Jesus basically brought in a hybrid off Judaism.
He brought in a kind of New Age hippie mix into his Religion.
A more let's all get on and love each other type of thing.
He was welcomed like a hero such as a politician,then when the more powerful political and religious hierarchy felt the fear they turned the people against him.

A lot of Christ's teachings were very similar to a kind of secular society.

Love thy neighbour and turn the other cheek.
Christianity has mysticism,hard core evangelism,New agey type's.....

1123heavy

The reality is that Christianity today actually bares very little resemblance to anything Jesus pbuh taught, Paul and many others formed their own religion completely separate from Christ's teachings, Christ taught what Moses, Abraham, Noah (pbut) etc all taught. He brought no new faith as such, he prayed in the Jewish temples, he stated his own goal as being to re-establish the law of Moses pbuh which the Jews of the time had corrupted and strayed away from, he didn't come to preach anything new. He was rejected by the Jews at the time because their high priests did not like having someone say they knew better than they did.

The op does make sense, he is confused as to why "Christ"ians seem to have a new faith considering Jesus pbuh taught the same laws as all previous prophets of God, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." Matthew 5:17.

Those laws he says he came to fulfill, were actually abolished later on by Paul and the like, so people are left on their own to decide whether they stick to what Jesus pbuh said while he was alive or believe that Paul was given authority to abolish those laws after Jesus pbuh left the earth ... I know who I follow. Those that follow Paul are called Christians funny enough and that is the reason Christians today do not really reflect Christ's teachings, they follow the teachings of Paul and writings of others which were brought about some time after Christ leaving the earth.

antiskeptic

1123heavy wrote: »

The reality is that Christianity today actually bares very little resemblance to anything Jesus pbuh taught, Paul and many others formed their own religion completely separate from Christ's teachings, Christ taught what Moses, Abraham, Noah (pbut) etc all taught. He brought no new faith as such, he prayed in the Jewish temples, he stated his own goal as being to re-establish the law of Moses pbuh which the Jews of the time had corrupted and strayed away from, he didn't come to preach anything new. He was rejected by the Jews at the time because their high priests did not like having someone say they knew better than they did.

Did the law of Moses teach what Jesus taught about adultery or theft? Could you be stoned in Moses day for lusting in your heart after a woman. Did Jesus advocate stoning?

I think you'll find marked difference between what Jesus taught and what the law involved.

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." Matthew 5:17.

Fulfill = fill fully. Not the limited letter of but the full spirit behind the law. E.g. adultery.

Those laws he says he came to fulfill, were actually abolished later on by Paul and the like,

Paul didn't abolish the spirit of the law any more than Jesus advocated adherence to it's letter.

Those that follow Paul are called Christians funny enough and that is the reason Christians today do not really reflect Christ's teachings, they follow the teachings of Paul and writings of others which were brought about some time after Christ leaving the earth.

When were the teachings of Jesus (on which you rely) written down, if not some time after Jesus leaving the earth?

The position of Christians is that they can reconcile what Jesus teaches with what Paul teaches. They find something made patent in the gospels/epistles which was ever-latent in the Law. It's not so much something new (since salvation by faith was always God's way of salvation) but is clearly revealed in the NT.

If you can't reconcile the two then you are left with an either/or situation. Jesus or Paul. But if you can reconcile then there is no issue.

1123heavy

antiskeptic wrote: »

Did the law of Moses teach what Jesus taught about adultery or theft? Could you be stoned in Moses day for lusting in your heart after a woman. Did Jesus advocate stoning?

He advocated the law of all previous prophets, these are not my words, they are his, he speaks of no letter, he says he has come to fulfill those laws, clearly meaning whatever those laws are, he has come to fulfill/re-establish their authority. The only way you may start inventing things such as a "spirit of the law" is if you're aiming to try and make it fit in with Paul's writings.

Jesus pbuh is very clear in his strictness of following those laws, I will quote the very next two verses for you, "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven ..." (Matt 5:18-19)

He is very clear, none of the laws change.

Paul didn't abolish the spirit of the law any more than Jesus advocated adherence to it's letter.

Laws are laws, while there is wisdom behind all of God's commands/laws, they are made laws which humans are to follow, that is follow the law of God, not what you deem to be the "spirit of the law". For example the consumption of swine, Jesus pbuh did not eat it nor did he tell his followers they had permission to eat it ... he did as he said he would in Matt 5:17. That is again, following that law of not eating swine. With the coming of Paul however, somehow we are told we don't have to follow it, and that we should seek the "spirit" of laws. This is in direct contradiction with Matt 5:18. It is simple, you are either following the laws of old (and Jesus pbuh in doing so), or you are following Paul (which is when you begin to speak of a spirit of a law).



As for adultery and stoning, are you referring to John 8 ? One of the most famous textual variances of the Bible ? ... if so, I will remain silent cos we will get nowhere.

The position of Christians is that they can reconcile what Jesus teaches with what Paul teaches. They find something made patent in the gospels/epistles which was ever-latent in the Law. It's not so much something new (since salvation by faith was always God's way of salvation) but is clearly revealed in the NT.

This is exactly it, they are impossible to reconcile, they are polar opposites in some instances.

antiskeptic

1123heavy wrote: »

He advocated the law of all previous prophets, these are not my words, they are his, he speaks of no letter, he says he has come to fulfill those laws, clearly meaning whatever those laws are, he has come to fulfill/re-establish their authority. The only way you may start inventing things such as a "spirit of the law" is if you're aiming to try and make it fit in with Paul's writings.

By spirit I mean that which Jesus himself indicates in both what he says and what he does. By letter I mean that written down / clearly defined.

On swine eating or no. Jesus doesn't appear to consider what goes into the mouth as the important thing.

"Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them."

Jesus pbuh is very clear in his strictness of following those laws, I will quote the very next two verses for you, "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven ..." (Matt 5:18-19)

He is very clear, none of the laws change.

Yet immediately downstream of that verse he alters the law by gross expansion: say in the matter of murder and adultery. How can he not come to change the law then at once change the law in such dramatic fashion?

This is in direct contradiction with Matt 5:18. It is simple, you are either following the laws of old (and Jesus pbuh in doing so), or you are following Paul (which is when you begin to speak of a spirit of a law).

I'd see the law of Moses as the written law and Jesus' expansion as the spirit of the law. That is to say, the spirit governs all our thoughts and actions, whereas the written Law is limited to governing that which it can describe in words. The latter is necessarily more limited and easily circumvented than the former.

Jesus closes these loopholes. Again, there's a motivation for doing so.

As for adultery and stoning, are you referring to John 8 ? One of the most famous textual variances of the Bible ? ... if so, I will remain silent cos we will get nowhere.

I was referring to the Beatitudes. But let's not go erasing pages/verses from the gospels as suits our case - that truly will get us nowhere.

This is exactly it, they are impossible to reconcile, they are polar opposites in some instances.

The reconciliation isn't troubled by a standalone verse/section (such as you've posted) anymore than one need suppose one's salvation-by-faith jeopardized merely because a verse/section or two can be pointed to in the epistles which seems to indicate salvation something that can be lost subsequent to it being obtained. Once you've a solid framework, it's a comparatively straightforward thing to insert (what will appear, if viewed standalone) troublesome sections into it - because the framework gives the context for the troublesome sections.

ABC101

1123heavy wrote: »

The reality is that Christianity today actually bares very little resemblance to anything Jesus pbuh taught, Paul and many others formed their own religion completely separate from Christ's teachings, Christ taught what Moses, Abraham, Noah (pbut) etc all taught. He brought no new faith as such, he prayed in the Jewish temples, he stated his own goal as being to re-establish the law of Moses pbuh which the Jews of the time had corrupted and strayed away from, he didn't come to preach anything new. He was rejected by the Jews at the time because their high priests did not like having someone say they knew better than they did.

The op does make sense, he is confused as to why "Christ"ians seem to have a new faith considering Jesus pbuh taught the same laws as all previous prophets of God, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." Matthew 5:17.

Those laws he says he came to fulfill, were actually abolished later on by Paul and the like, so people are left on their own to decide whether they stick to what Jesus pbuh said while he was alive or believe that Paul was given authority to abolish those laws after Jesus pbuh left the earth ... I know who I follow. Those that follow Paul are called Christians funny enough and that is the reason Christians today do not really reflect Christ's teachings, they follow the teachings of Paul and writings of others which were brought about some time after Christ leaving the earth.

I can't say I understand your post. Why would God send his only son Jesus, to preach one thing.... and then later on... convert Saul to Paul and get Paul to preach something else? Why would God do that?

Christians follow the teachings in the New Testament... where God is for all mankind.

antiskeptic

ABC101 wrote: »

I can't say I understand your post. Why would God send his only son Jesus, to preach one thing.... and then later on... convert Saul to Paul and get Paul to preach something else? Why would God do that?

"He wouldn't have done" I'd figure 1123heavy as saying. Paul can be removed from scripture, as can certain passages from the gospels.

The trouble removing chunks of scripture is justifying how you retain the rest.