The Temporal Law

[RandyPNW]

You have to remember that Jews under the Law started Christianity.

Just because they were Jewish doesn't mean that they were correct.

And while the original Christians may have been Jews, the people who formed it and shaped it in the following centuries were not. Did first century Christianity have the same ideas as second, third, and fourth century Christianity? Or did gentiles bring their own ideas in and make the religion based on that?

That's a very good question. In case you haven't noticed, Jewish intellectuals have basically guided Western thought, from Christianity to Marxism. Christianity is a Jewish idea--exclusively.

Obviously, as that seminal idea advanced into a culture that it wasn't originally part of, it changed. But the original orthodoxy remained.

The first few centuries of Christianity were marked by an apology for the faith in the context of other cultures, with the aim of maintaining pure and original doctrine. Therefore, I believe Christianity remains a Jewish idea.

Clearly, new traditions were tacked onto the original Christian doctrine, and various interpretations were formed. But it always goes back to the teaching of Jesus and of the original apostles, the NT Scriptures. It remains a Jewish faith.

[Fenris]

That's a very good question. In case you haven't noticed, Jewish intellectuals have basically guided Western thought, from Christianity to Marxism.

Debatable. But it's not pertinent to our present discussion, so I'll give it a pass.

Christianity is a Jewish idea--exclusively.

It's not, though. Christianity borrows a lot from the Jewish bible, but where it differs from Judaism it is obviously not Jewish. It contains some ideas that are Greek and others that are (and I hope you forgive me for using this term) pagan.

Obviously, as that seminal idea advanced into a culture that it wasn't originally part of, it changed. But the original orthodoxy remained.

I think that's difficult to know. How many books from early Christianity were thrown out and considered "not canon"? What was written in them? Why were they thrown out? We'll never know.

The first few centuries of Christianity were marked by an apology for the faith in the context of other cultures, with the aim of maintaining pure and original doctrine. Therefore, I believe Christianity remains a Jewish idea.

This seems very presumptuous given what I said, above.

Clearly, new traditions were tacked onto the original Christian doctrine, and various interpretations were formed. But it always goes back to the teaching of Jesus and of the original apostles, the NT Scriptures. It remains a Jewish faith.

I wonder. When I read what Jesus says- and only what he says- it's very Jewish. That can't be said for the other characters (I'm looking at you, Paul).

[RandyPNW]

That's a very good question. In case you haven't noticed, Jewish intellectuals have basically guided Western thought, from Christianity to Marxism.

Debatable. But it's not pertinent to our present discussion, so I'll give it a pass.

Christianity is a Jewish idea--exclusively.

It's not, though. Christianity borrows a lot from the Jewish bible, but where it differs from Judaism it is obviously not Jewish. It contains some ideas that are Greek and others that are (and I hope you forgive me for using this term) pagan.

Not offended at all. You're just being honest. Christianity doesn't look Jewish to you because the majority position among the Jews was to remain with the Law, and against anything that transcended the Law. Christianity definitely transcended the Law, thinking it was the fulfillment of the Law.

But I would insist that Jews founded Christianity based on their view that Jewish prophecy expected the Law to be fulfilled in some way--it was not clear in many ways, and so most Jews rejected it. To Christians, it became clear once Christ had come, taught what he did, and then suddenly died.

I don't believe you'll find pagan philosophy in Christianity, anymore than you will find paganism in the Jewish celebration of seasonal festivals, or in the offering of animal sacrifices.

Obviously, as that seminal idea advanced into a culture that it wasn't originally part of, it changed. But the original orthodoxy remained.

I think that's difficult to know. How many books from early Christianity were thrown out and considered "not canon"? What was written in them? Why were they thrown out? We'll never know.

That underscores my point, that only the original Jewish Disciples of Jesus were allowed to determine doctrinal orthodoxy for the Christian Church. Virtually all Christian communions accept this.

[Fenris]

Not offended at all. You're just being honest.

I appreciate that.

Christianity doesn't look Jewish to you because the majority position among the Jews was to remain with the Law, and against anything that transcended the Law. Christianity definitely transcended the Law, thinking it was the fulfillment of the Law.

A Jewish person would say that there would be no purpose for human existence without the revelation at Sinai. I myself would consider it the single most important event in human history. God communicated with man and told us what His expectations for our behavior is. All of western civ stands on that one moment.

But I would insist that Jews founded Christianity based on their view that Jewish prophecy expected the Law to be fulfilled in some way--it was not clear in many ways, and so most Jews rejected it. To Christians, it became clear once Christ had come, taught what he did, and then suddenly died.

I'm not sure. Because things that Jesus said would mean different things to a Jew than to a gentile. A simple example: Jesus said that God was his father. A gentile might understand that to mean that God was literally his father. But a Jew would see nothing special about that statement because we refer to God as our father in prayer.

I don't believe you'll find pagan philosophy in Christianity

The whole idea of a god dying for humanity has roots outside of Judaism.

That underscores my point, that only the original Jewish Disciples of Jesus were allowed to determine doctrinal orthodoxy for the Christian Church. Virtually all Christian communions accept this.

No, orthodoxy and biblical canon was established hundreds of years later. Nicea.

[RandyPNW]

A Jewish person would say that there would be no purpose for human existence without the revelation at Sinai. I myself would consider it the single most important event in human history. God communicated with man and told us what His expectations for our behavior is. All of western civ stands on that one moment.

I personally believe that God in some way speaks to all of mankind via the human conscience. But yes, it was important to note that God codified His laws in a covenant form for a particular nation. That means that God is willing to enter into a covenant relationship with nations, that we can interact with God, and not just slavishly follow His laws. Israel became a light to the nations in this way, I feel.

In paying a heavy price to conform with God's ways, Israel experienced something unique among the nations. And it has led to brutal treatment among the nations, as well as unique gifts that benefit all nations.

I don't think there is a "Jewish conspiracy" to take over the world. Jewish influence throughout the world and throughout history is due to their careful adherence to God's Law throughout their history. It is evidence of God's faithfulness to a nation that has suffered very much for having been called by God to be a prototype for the nations, in my view.

I'm not sure. Because things that Jesus said would mean different things to a Jew than to a gentile. A simple example: Jesus said that God was his father. A gentile might understand that to mean that God was literally his father. But a Jew would see nothing special about that statement because we refer to God as our father in prayer.

True. However, Jesus said not just that God was his Father, but also that he was God's "only Son," as well as the Messiah, a source of spiritual life, a path that God's covenant with Israel must go down.

Nevertheless, everything Jesus taught came directly from the Law and the Jewish Scriptures.

The whole idea of a god dying for humanity has roots outside of Judaism.

It might be argued that Judaism utilized "pagan" symbols in their sacrificial system of worship? It doesn't mean that Jews practiced "paganism" in doing this--only that God utilized pagan symbols to counteract the influence of pagan culture upon the Hebrew people.

Jesus' death for all people is no different than God suffering the sin of mankind in rejecting His Law. If there is an equivalency between Jesus and God, then the idea of suffering for sin isn't pagan at all. It's more like animal sacrifice under the Law. God is actually the one suffering, and the animals merely represent His suffering loss with human sin.

No, orthodoxy and biblical canon was established hundreds of years later. Nicea.

Apostolic teaching had authority from the time of the Apostles. Codifying it into "Scripture" isn't when apostolic authority began.

[Fenris]

I personally believe that God in some way speaks to all of mankind via the human conscience. But yes, it was important to note that God codified His laws in a covenant form for a particular nation. That means that God is willing to enter into a covenant relationship with nations, that we can interact with God, and not just slavishly follow His laws. Israel became a light to the nations in this way, I feel.

This is fair. I feel compelled to add though that I feel the whole idea of human conscience is only with us because of the revelation at Sinai.

In paying a heavy price to conform with God's ways, Israel experienced something unique among the nations. And it has led to brutal treatment among the nations, as well as unique gifts that benefit all nations.

This is true.

I don't think there is a "Jewish conspiracy" to take over the world. Jewish influence throughout the world and throughout history is due to their careful adherence to God's Law throughout their history. It is evidence of God's faithfulness to a nation that has suffered very much for having been called by God to be a prototype for the nations, in my view.

Again, this is good. Nothing for me to disagree with here.

True. However, Jesus said not just that God was his Father, but also that he was God's "only Son," as well as the Messiah, a source of spiritual life, a path that God's covenant with Israel must go down.

OK. And it's on these details that our faiths differ.

It might be argued that Judaism utilized "pagan" symbols in their sacrificial system of worship?

Yeah, it could be. Some Jewish thinkers have followed this line of thinking and said that sacrifice to God was a way of "weaning" Jews off the pagan practice. Of course, Ezekiel does prophesize a third temple that will again have sacrifice so....

I'm ambivalent on the matter.

Jesus' death for all people is no different than God suffering the sin of mankind in rejecting His Law. If there is an equivalency between Jesus and God, then the idea of suffering for sin isn't pagan at all. It's more like animal sacrifice under the Law. God is actually the one suffering, and the animals merely represent His suffering loss with human sin.

It doesn't conform to my idea of justice though. There should be no free lunch.

Apostolic teaching had authority from the time of the Apostles. Codifying it into "Scripture" isn't when apostolic authority began.

I don't know if this is true or not.

[RandyPNW]

Apostolic teaching had authority from the time of the Apostles. Codifying it into "Scripture" isn't when apostolic authority began.

I don't know if this is true or not.

Yes, all Christians (of a conservative bent) believe that doctrinal authority began with the original Jewish apostles. Only they were intimately familiar with Jesus' teaching and could reliably transfer it into Church practice. Christianity is indeed a Jewish faith, even if it is not so by standards of Judaism.

Jewish Messiah, and Jewish apostles--Christianity is utterly Jewish in origins, and remains so to this day, because their teaching is the core fundamentals of the Christian faith.

Obviously, not all Christians practice what they believe their teaching to be, just as not all Jews are followers of their Law. But we should at least acknowledge that our common morality comes from a single source.

But thanks for an interesting and cordial conversation on this. I thought you'd enjoy the pride of being related to the most influential ethnic group in history?

[Fenris]

Yes, all Christians (of a conservative bent) believe that doctrinal authority began with the original Jewish apostles.

Right, I understand that Christians could believe that. But that doesn't necessarily make it so.

Only they were intimately familiar with Jesus' teaching and could reliably transfer it into Church practice. Christianity is indeed a Jewish faith, even if it is not so by standards of Judaism.

Jewish Messiah, and Jewish apostles--Christianity is utterly Jewish in origins, and remains so to this day, because their teaching is the core fundamentals of the Christian faith.

In my opinion it's more accurate to say that it's partially Jewish in origin. If it was completely Jewish in origin, then Christianity would be a Jewish sect, like Hasidism or Reform Judaism. But it isn't. It's a different and separate faith. It has different holy books, a different theology, and a different idea of Who God is and what He expects from us.

Obviously, not all Christians practice what they believe their teaching to be, just as not all Jews are followers of their Law. But we should at least acknowledge that our common morality comes from a single source.

In this we are in agreement.

But thanks for an interesting and cordial conversation on this. I thought you'd enjoy the pride of being related to the most influential ethnic group in history?

It has been a pleasure.