Just wrote this up in response to a comment that "Christianity as it relates to Judaism is an interloper and a parasite feeding off the establishment of an older religion." That's a fairly common type of view among critics, explicitly or more implicitly, but I wonder if it actually has any merit? I'm not an expert on the history of Judaism by any stretch of the imagination, but perhaps there is a little more to the story than folk who hold such views realize.
There were at least four noteworthy, distinct branches of Jewish thought before Jesus started preaching: Compare for instance the Sadducees - associated with social elites, oriented towards the temple and priesthood, accepting only the written Torah as divine scripture, rejecting life or punishment after death - with the Pharisees - a lay movement, using the Prophets, Writings and 'oral Torah' in addition to the written Torah, many believing in judgement or reincarnation after death, emphasizing personal observance of the Law as much if not more than temple sacrifice...
Jesus may well have been taught or influenced by Pharisees (particularly of the Hillel school) and/or the Essenes. Peter, John, Paul, James and so on were all Jews too. Rightly or wrongly, their understanding that Jesus was the messiah to be 'cut off' was firmly grounded in Jewish scripture (Dan.9:26, and, as if in confirmation, the city and the sanctuary were indeed destroyed shortly thereafter); so too were their respective (and not necessarily identical) interpretations of the 'new covenant' (Jer. 31:31-34) and being a 'light to the gentiles'/salvation to the ends of the earth (Isaiah 49:6). For forty years or so theirs was one of now at least five major streams of Jewish thought. The gradual demographic shift from a predominantly Jewish Christianity to a more gentile Christianity was undoubtedly marked by superficially obvious changes like maybe eating pork sometimes and no longer cutting a bit of skin off their sons' willies, but arguably such trivialities of practice were a mere consequence of the much more profound shifts in theology - believing Jesus was the Messiah, fulfillment of the law and bringer of a new covenant - which many if not most Jewish believers had already accepted even in the earliest decades of that Jewish sect's existence.
Meanwhile the temple's destruction began a shift in what eventually became 'mainstream' Judaism which was just as radical as the shift in what eventually became Christianity, begun forty years earlier. What became known as Rabbinic Judaism was heavily influenced by the Pharasaic tradition largely because they, like the Christians, had been ahead of the game in shifting emphasis away from the temple and towards a more adaptable, versatile attitude towards 'the Law.' Rabbinic Judaism, like Christianity, added more Scripture to their canon in the form of the Talmud. In fact, if you believe that it is important then surely you should be aware that Rabbinic Judaism added more content later on than the Christian branch of the religion did!
There's literally no reason to suppose that modern or for that matter 1st century Jews are any more the 'true' heirs to the religion Isaiah helped shape than that modern or 1st century Christians were.
Of course, there's also what could be considered an equally insulting view that Judaism is simply a misguided religion that missed the point of it all. What do y'all think; is one or the other of these extremes reasonable? Or even correct? Or are both of these branches from the 1st century Judaic faith equally il/legitimate?
Is Christianity an offshoot or 'parasite' from Judaism
Moderator: Moderators
- 1213
- Savant
- Posts: 13491
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
- Location: Finland
- Has thanked: 498 times
- Been thanked: 511 times
Re: Is Christianity an offshoot or 'parasite' from Judaism
Post #41Interesting question. To answer, one must first determine what is the original Judaism. If that would be The Ten Commandments, Jesus was very much original Judaism, for example because he said:Mithrae wrote: ...
Of course, there's also what could be considered an equally insulting view that Judaism is simply a misguided religion that missed the point of it all. What do y'all think; is one or the other of these extremes reasonable? Or even correct? Or are both of these branches from the 1st century Judaic faith equally il/legitimate?
"Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill. For most assuredly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Mat. 5:17-19
Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. A second likewise is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Mat. 22:37-39
My new book can be read freely from here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rIkqxC ... xtqFY/view
Old version can be read from here:
http://web.archive.org/web/202212010403 ... x_eng.html
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rIkqxC ... xtqFY/view
Old version can be read from here:
http://web.archive.org/web/202212010403 ... x_eng.html

