mrmoderate

"For all intent and purposes" does not make something so except in the thoughts of the person who writes such an opinionated statement.

Jews of 2000 years ago would not recognize the tradition based philosophical rheteric of todays Judaism as being at all Jewish.

The only way to get out of the fact that the New Testament is not anti-Jewish is to make claims that the writers of the New Testament were not who they claimed to be and that all of the first followers of Jesus as well as Jesus Himself were not Jewish.

This kind of argumentation is solely to pit Jews against Christians by making the claim that Christianity is anti-Jewish by nature which it most certainly is not. The Roman Catholic Church is the source of the anti-Jewish sentiments. Paul was a devout Jew from birth to death and believed that he was teaching the Messianic fulfillment of the Hebrew Testament.

I live in a very Jewish area, I converse with many Jews on religion, my girlfriend is Jewish, I use a Jewish translation of the bible, both Hebrew and New Testaments for my studies. So don't give me that bullshit that I am not understanding because I don't learn outside of biased teachings. <ad hominem removed-moderator>

CX

I see a lot of assertions there, but no actual support. In addition I never called you a bigot or anything of the sort so I'm a bit unclear whence this hostility is coming. It was your claim that Constantine created the Catholic church. I gave references based on fact (which I'd be happy to support with citations if you like) why that is not the case. You claimed that protestantism represents the true Xianity taught by Jesus. I explained why that claim is unfounded; again with factual, albeit very terse, references. In your response I see no attempt to refute my response. I see a reiteration of the same claims and an ad hominem attack along with an appeal to authority. I'm not inclined to get into a lengthy discussion of why Jesus failed to me the Jews messianic expectations because the OT is not my primary area of interest or study. Perhaps Spin or Apikorus could oblige you there. In any event we are just having a discussion here so I see no need to make it emotional.

spin

Sorry, mrmoderate, I don't understand this attitude. No-one is attacking you. We are struggling to understand things about ancient events. You made a statement about the past which was not agreed with, and I don't agree with it. Hey, that's the way it goes. It would be nice if there were total agreement in the world, but then there would be no discussion or learning. I think your statement calling cx a bigot was totally uncalled for.

As to the anti-Semitic attitude inherent in xianity, what do you think of the Jews ioudaioi as antagonists to Jesus throughout the gospel of John? What do you think is the purpose of the writer of the Martyrdom of Polycarp telling us that it was the Jews who helped build the fire under Polycarp? or of the Ignatian letter to the Magnesians using the phrase "Christ-killing Jews"? If you have a different interpretation of this sort of material, I'll be glad to read it.


spin

jman0904

MrModerate
This forum is a place for mature discussion about topics whose factual evidence is constantly being debated. If you can't maintain a modicum of maturity and refrain from ad hominem attacks when someone simply offers rebuttle, then you need to re-evaluate your presence here.

chapka

First of all, the writers of most of the New Testament (the Gospels and Acts, at least) didn't claim to be anyone; the traditional attributions were probably added later. Most of them, including the Gospels, almost certainly weren't written by eyewitnesses, at least in the versions we have today. Please read the Carrier article referenced above.

And even if those attributions are correct, I don't think that your point follows. Throughout the Gospels Jesus is presented as an iconoclast who opposes the traditional Jewish doctrine of his day. Do you think it was the Romans who wanted to stone the woman taken in adultery?

While arguably the early Christians saw themselves as Jews, they certainly saw themselves as a special kind of Jew, and in opposition to the traditional Jewish establishment. The NT emphasizes the differences between Christianity and Judaism as well as the connections, which is not surprising, since most Gentile converts in the 1st century probably weren't wild about circumcision and kosher food. Jews who embrace those traditions Jesus rejected aren't portrayed particularly favorably, in my eyes. The writers may have thought of themselves as rejecting a "certain kind of Judaism," but I think the seeds of antisemitism are there.

CX

The authorial attributions of the Gospels were definitely added later. We don't see them at all until the 2nd century when the proto-orthodox texts were in competition with the gnostic texts.

Amaleq13

Christianity, by nature, is anti-everything that isn't Christianity. Because of the significant amount of "shared" history/beliefs between Judaism and Christianity, it is only natural that this primary competitor be addressed first, strongest, and loudest.

Paul claims to be (have been) a devout Jew but he also admits he is willing to take on the "appearance" of whomever he is addressing in order to spread his gospel. Talmudic scholar, Hyam Maccoby, calls into question Paul's claims to Pharisaic training and even acknowledges it is possible the guy wasn't Jewish at all. I think he actually tends to consider Paul the son of "God fearers" (folks who accepted/practiced Jewish beliefs without fully converting) who was more familiar with the pagan Mysteries in Tarsus than Judaism.

rlogan

When we were discussing Justin Martyr I thought it strange he cited "memoirs" of the aposltes without attribution, and we see this elsewhere. You would think that were they bona-fide one would appeal to the authority of source.

One comment on Nicea - because Nicea determied what beliefs were orthodoxy, esp. as it pertains to the nature of Jesus, that was a defacto decision about what books are orthodox and what was heretical.

So I would not dismiss Nicea as a non-event. Gregor has brought in Athanasius - but of course he attended Nicea in 325 and was instrumental in promoting that silly creed.

But yes there was also long development. The Arians, although beaten back in 325 continued on until at least the Council of Constantinople in 381.

Kilgore Trout

And you know what Judaism was like 2000 years ago because...? Actually, from how christians describe the Jews in the NT, they are already lost in "tradition based philosophical rheteric" and that's why jesus hates them. He wants them to worship him, and stop obeying the laws his "father" gave them.

Secondly, your statement is irrelevant. Even if somehow every Jew today was not following the "correct" version of Judaism, that does not make christianity correct. This is not a multiple choice test...either Jews today are right or christianity is right. Why would what modern Jews do have any bearing on whether jesus was the messiah? I do not base the idea of jesus as a false messiah on modern Judaism. I am basing it on what is said in the OT. The Torah says do not add or take away anything from the law. Jesus did both. That alone makes him a false messiah. The OT descibes how the messiah will be. Jesus does not qualify. His "sacrifice" goes against god's commands on how every sacrifice must be done. There are many other reasons, but you are not going to listen to them anyway, so I won't bother saying them.


For one thing, no one knows who wrote anything in the NT. I include the letters of pau,l because the only real evidence we have of his life is from the NT, so we have no way to know that he is not a liar. We only "know" he's a Jew because he says he's a Jew. That's pretty flimsy evidence. I believe I already said that anybody who likens circumcision to castration is not a devout Jew. He may have said he was born a Jew, but I don't think Paul thought he was a Jew anymore. You are the one putting those words in his mouth. As far as the other books, there is no reason to believe the "real" Peter wrote the books attributed to him. Same with the gospel writers and all the rest of the books. Christians just want to believe they are written by who apostles so they won't feel like suckers. It makes no sense to believe that the apostle John wrote the gospel, but somehow you know that the gospel of Thomas wasn't written by THE Thomas.

Also, maybe I should amend my claim about the anti-semitism of the NT. The NT may not be against Jews as a race, but it is clearly against the Jews as a religion. The NT is against anybody who doesn't follow your false messiah. In case you didn't know it, being bigoted against a religion still makes you a bigot. Like, say if someone was against catholics, that person would be a bigot, even though catholicism is a religion and not a race.

Let me repeat one part of what you said in case anyone missed it. I use a Jewish translation of the bible, both Hebrew and New Testaments for my studies. Was that supposed to be a joke? What exactly is a Jewish translation of the NT? Some Jewishized version put out by Jews for jesus? Why are we supposed to impressed by that? Talk about a biased source. I notice you never back up your claims of why jesus is the Jewish messiah. You just expect us to believe you because you've talked to Jews about religion, so that makes you an expert. You also don't even say what these alleged Jews you talk to say to you. Do they say they know jesus is the messiah, but they're just too rebellious to follow him? Are they all messianic Jews? Are they atheists? Just saying you've talked to Jews doesn't mean much. Why don't you try to give some specifics. Tell me why I am wrong about jesus disobeying god's laws.

CX

mrmoderate,

I noted that you had not responded and thought perhaps this had slipped off page one before you ahd a chance. There are some interesting points raised.