Skeptical

I understand that tradition perfectly. My point is that the Christian traditions relating to Jesus bear no resemblance to the Jewish traditions for the Messiah. The Christian view of who Jesus was cannot be reconciled with the Jewish Messianic conception, ergo from the Christian perspective the Jewish traditions were completely and totally wrong on a matter of fundamental importance. Given this, the only logical position would be to break from the "foundation" of Judaism. Yet, the early Christians did not do this and neither have modern Christians. In fact, modern Christians embrace and venerate nearly all Jewish traditions while rejecting one of the most fundamental at the same time.

Hence, the fundamental contradiction of which this thread is the title. At least, it seems to me to be a fundamental contradiction and I haven't seen anything so far that would indicate a reasonable different view.

Skeptical

It may be a theological nuance, but my understanding was always that if the mother of a child is Jewish the child was considered Jewish. I could be wrong.

In any case, that would only make my point even stronger. I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt to the Jewish Messianic criteria that Jesus could plausibly have fulfilled. But, your point is taken.

Skeptical

I've read something along those lines in other sources. I'm not sure which one, but I distinctly remember reading that in the 1st century Roman empire anything "new" was looked down upon, so the early Christians tried desperately to tie Jesus and Christianity to the Jewish traditions.

The more I have thought about this subject the more bizarre it seems to me. Honestly, the fundamental contradiction seems so basic that I don't understand how I never really saw it before, nor do I understand how it can be reconciled now.

Is there any Christian apologetic that has even tried to answer this problem in a reasonable way (if there is such a thing)? Thanks for the other reference BTW, I'll put it in my stack of "to be read".

GakuseiDon

FWIW, Richard Carrier touches on this point, in his rebuttal of JP Holding's "Impossible Faith". Carrier believes there is evidence that the Jews were expecting a Messiah who shared quite a few similarities to the Gospel Jesus (see esp "1.4. Many Converts Expected a Humiliated Savior").
http://www.columbia.edu/~rcc20/chris...cified.html#11

GakuseiDon

Can you explain a little more by what you mean by "contradiction"? If it is along the lines of Christianity both accepting and rejecting Judaism, which parts within Christianity contradict? The earliest Christians believed that the OT prefigured Jesus Christ, but the Jews of the day disagreed. That doesn't imply a contradiction within Christianity, it just means the Christians could have been wrong. Can you give a concrete example of the contradiction?

TedM

One answer that makes sense to me is that its founder was profoundly Jewish, and a strict follower of the Jewish laws and traditions. This appears to be supported some by the idea that Jesus and his followers were an offshoot of the Essenes, or the JBap group, and that the original Christians were the Nazarenes, who taught strict adherence to the Jewish Law, yet obviously believed that Jesus had been the messiah that has ushered in the kingdom of god and would soon return. In Acts the original Christians in Jerusalem were called a 'sect' with the name 'Nazarenes', and it seems likely that this is related in some way to Jesus's alleged hometown of 'Nazareth'. It may also explain why James was called 'James the Just', and in Acts Jesus is called 'The Just One'.


With an actual human as inspiration all that is needed is to find a new interpretation or embrace some of the new interpretations about what kind of Messiah was expected. My understanding is that there were competing concepts within Judaism about what the Messiah would be like. The early use of Isaiah 53 by the NT authors could be a sign that the earliest Christians 'created' a new interpretation for the Messiah from it, or since they appeared to use it as OT support for their interpretation it could also be seen that they were appealing to a pre-existing expectation of a suffering Messiah. My understanding is that parts of Isaiah 53 (verse 2) for example, was considered by the Jews to be a Messiac reference, and verse 2 is referring to the same entity as the entire chapter.

So, one possibility is that the early believers were actually very strict Jews and they embraced the concept of a suffering Messiah. They either then created this Messiah out of thin air in their imaginations, or one of their members or someone like themselves in philosophy became 'like' a Messiah through his actions, deliberate or not.

ted

This was a big deal, and it appears that those who initially favored not making any changes were the Nazarene group in Jerusalem, ie the very earliest followers that included Peter, James and John.

To me the differences are best explained by the traditional belief that Jesus had been a real man who was really crucified and who had inspired certain peoples prior to his crucifixion and who for whatever reasons inspired people after his death to believe he had risen and had been the Messiah that the people had been desparately seeking--so much that whatever differences existed between the life/death of Jesus and traditional expectation were not enough to overcome its success in finding a way to syncronize the two faiths. It may also be that the earliest Jewish Christians emphasized their Jewishness to a high degree so that that their message about Jesus would be more palatable to the avg Jew--ie the Nazarenes would be beyond reproach for their adherence to the Jewish traditions, making their claims about this risen Jesus seem more legitimate.

ted

Johnny Skeptic

Jesus could not possibly have been Jewish. All that can be claimed by Christians is that he was made to look like a Jew by the Holy Spirit, in other words, an impersonator. In Matthew, an angel tells Joseph that Jesus would be conceived by the Holy Spirit. That means that Jesus could not possibly have been from the genetic line of David. No Jew from the genetic line of David could possibly have qualified as being "a lamb without spot or blemish." Only a non-human could meet that qualification since the texts say "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

TedM

No one is going to take you seriously if you keep writing things like that. He most certainly could have been Jewish despite your claim in support of supernatural events that you don't even believe. You sound like you are just trying to be contrary here to this discussion. You said yesterday you weren't going to respond to my posts and you already have twice. I may decide to do the same but I hope to have a better record of compliance. p.s. don't take this too seriously, but please do keep in mind that we are talking about possible historical issues--not supernatural ones.. take care,

ted

ted

offa

Wow, you are confused. The difference between Jews and Christians is about Jesus turning water into wine. The Jews had a monopoly on religion by right of birth. Jesus' transformation allowed those not of the blood (not wine, but water) to collect tithes. Jesus really existed and wiped his ass just like you and me, and Jesus really died some thirty years after the crucifixion (that he survived).

TedM

I'll play along. How did Jesus survived for 30 years without any peep of that from Paul? What's your theory in a nutshell?