Is Christianity an offshoot or 'parasite' from Judaism

[Mithrae]

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?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Mithrae]

I would not call Christianity a "parasite" religion with Judaism as the host. But neither would I call Christianity an organic outgrowth of Judaism. More like an artificial graft.
Or a synthetic combination of Greco-Roman philosophy and Judaism. In effect, a hybrid.

Certainly not the receptacle of fulfilled Hebrew prophecy, as so many apologists claim.

[Mithrae]

But neither would I call Christianity an organic outgrowth of Judaism. More like an artificial graft.
Or a synthetic combination of Greco-Roman philosophy and Judaism. In effect, a hybrid.

I wonder how the development of the two religions would have played out if the temple had not been destroyed. Presumably Christianity still would have become a gentile-majority sect, but perhaps more gradually and more open to ongoing Jewish influence. The Jewish wars against the Roman Empire created a powerful incentive for Christians, particularly gentile Christians, to emphasize their distinctions from the Jewish culture moreso than their commonalities. Similarly the absence of a temple raised the pressing question for Jews of what did it really mean to belong to their faith without that central locus of worship and ceremony, and hence likewise explicitly distance 'Jewishness' from distinctively Christian beliefs.

Even in spite of that seismic shift in relations, most Christians (at least these days) still view Israel as the Holy Land and Jerusalem as the site of God's most important works and eventual messianic world capital. How might they have viewed them if the temple and distinctively Jewish administrative regions had continued to exist?

The apostle Paul described gentile Christians as grafted into the original vine: That kind of description of Christianity as an artificial outgrowth seems to fit well with views that Jesus was sent by God, and perhaps the temple's destruction too. Or with views that it was some kind of conspiracy fostered by Rome, I suppose. But from a non-conspiracy naturalistic perspective I can't really see how it could be considered anything but an organic development. A surprising one? Perhaps... or perhaps not. Jewish thought had been influenced plenty by Persian and Greek thought already, and a couple of verses aside I've never really been persuaded that there's anything in the New Testament, at least, which cannot be plausibly understood as developing from the Hebrew scriptures given contemporary events and circumstances. There were disagreements and tensions between the various Jewish sects, including Christianity, before the temple's destruction of course: But I wonder whether that wasn't the biggest reason for the Rabbinic and Christian branches deciding so emphatically to go their separate ways?

[Jagella]

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."

Nothing short of Shakespeare!

That's a fairly common type of view among critics, explicitly or more implicitly...

It's basically what Jewish scholars have been saying for centuries. Christians have distorted and then co-opted the Hebrew religion to fit their own ends. All one needs to do to verify this fact is read the Tanach (the "Old Testament") to see that there is not one word about Jesus and that the Christian dogma that the law of Moses has been superseded by a "new covenant" is false.

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.

No reason except for the Hebrew Bible. Modern Judaism has its roots in the Tanach--Christianity has its roots in a severe distortion of the Tanach.

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?

I'd recommend that everybody here especially the Christians get educated in what the Jews have to say about what Christianity has done to their beliefs. A good place to start is Jews for Judaism and The Christian Problem: A Jewish View by Stuart E. Rosenberg.

Finally, I need to stress that I'm no more a fan of Judaism than of Christianity, but I strongly disapprove of the many falsehoods perpetrated upon Judaism by Christianity. Next to atheists, Jews may have some of the best arguments against the truth claims of the Christian religion. It's time for the truth to be told about this centuries-old and tragic scam.

[Divine Insight]

I think it's pretty obvious that Christianity was trying take over Judaism and replace Yahweh with Jesus.

In John 3:16 they want to place emphasis on believing in Jesus, not in Yahweh.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

In John 5:22 they demote Yahweh from being the Judge and promote Jesus into that position:

John 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

In John 14:6 they demand that no one can come to the father buy by Jesus.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

In John 14:13-14 they make it clear that Jesus is the one who is promising to answer your prayers. There was never any guarantee that Yahweh would give a hoot about anything we might ask. But now they have Jesus basically promising to fulfill your every request. He promises to do any thing you ask. Can't beat that. Yahweh never promised to do anything remotely close to this.

John 14:13-14 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

So I'd say that it's pretty crystal clear that Christianity was designed specifically to override Judaism. I'm not sure of that makes it a parasite, but it's certainly a take-over.

No Jesus, no forgiveness. And you can't even get to the father unless you come through Jesus. IMHO, this is a crystal clear attempt of one religious theology trying to take-over a previous theology.

And it's not even compatible with the original commandment "Thou shall place no other Gods before me."

Christianity has most definitely placed Jesus before Yahweh. No question about it.

[William]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

IMHO, this is a crystal clear attempt of one religious theology trying to take-over a previous theology.

There is a clear historical pattern in relation to organizations using prior ideas and beliefs to attempt to 'take over' from those previous ones - due in part - to the prior ones weakening in their attractiveness, and this practice - of course - is not limited to just the theistic aspect of Human Society.

It is all to do with the systems of disparity organizing Human Beings as assets which make $$ for said organizations, so the competition is fierce and will go to such extremes as take-overs, as part of the ordinary practice of said systems.

It is the way of religious and secular organizations enabled by said systems to practice such. No surprises here.

If the parasite is to be identified, it is those Systems of Disparity - enabled by Human Beings...so essentially such Human Beings are the parasites. They are legally entitled/enabled to parasite off one another and the planet in general.

[Jagella]

I'm not sure of that makes it a parasite...

Webster's definition for parasite is the following:

parasite - something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

Christianity depends on the Jewish beliefs found in the Tanach. It cannot exist without those beliefs, and it has never made an adequate or useful return to Judaism. Christianity then fits the definition of "parasite" to a T.

[marco]

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.

Jesus derives his legitimacy from the many references in Scripture that seem to apply to him, from his Bethlehem origins (Micah 5:2) to his garments being shared out (Psalm 22:18) and his bones counted (Psalm 21:18). The aim was perhaps to build a new structure based on humanitarian principles using the old as a template.


Religions annex whatever morsels there are around them, taking the interesting bits from surrounding faiths and making adjustments. Islam is derived from Judaism and Christianity, with changes made that make the story more appropriate to Arab ears.
With time that faith too split into various sections, each claiming authemticity.

I don't think that one finds Truth in religion, just a reflection of social customs, fears and aspirations. Christianity gave up the demigods of the people it enlisted, but could not quite adjust to a single God, so it compromised mysteriously. And as the centuries rolled on saints became the new demi-gods, with their own shrines; Saint Cecilia is the patron of music, not too far removed from what the Romans once accepted in Apollo.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Mithrae]

I would say neither.

A parasite cannot survive without the host. Christianity is entirely self sufficient and is not dependent on Judaisim for its continued existence.

An offshoot is a descendent or a branch of the parent and owes its existence to that one. If by Judaism one is referring to the ancient religion of the Jewish people, then biblically Christianity is an offshoot, not of Judaism but of the Abrahamic covenent (which predates the Jewish religious system).



JW

RELATED POSTS

Do the teachings and philosophies of Jesus as expressed in the Gospels, indicate he intented to start a "new religion"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 645#792645

How were first century Christians viewed by the Jewish community? (tigger)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 198#953198

Were the first century Christians an organized, unified community?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 434#885434

Is a person a Christian because one believes oneself to be one?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 629#797629

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Mithrae]

I would say neither.

A parasite cannot survive without the host. Christianity is entirely self sufficient and is not dependent on Judaisim for its continued existence.

So then, the "Old" Testament is rendered null and void because Christianity is now "self sufficient"? Then why not jettison the OT from your New World Translations of the Bible? Why not carry around New Testaments which do not even include the Psalms and Proverbs?

Those are remnants of Judaism, Jesus own religion. Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. Jesus' Bible was the Hebrew Bible, not the NWT of the Bible. Jesus did not even prohesy Paul, and did not need Paul's theology...at all.

Or is the Old Testament only of value because of it's supposed prophecies of Jesus? Take those away, or demonstrate how they have been misapplied to Jesus, and would JWs or the average Trinitarian have any use at all for the Old Testament?

Actually, I do believe JWs would. Because after all, the Jewish OT introduces the name of God, which is not "Christ" but rather YHVH, Yahweh, Jehovah.