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?

[quality]

[Replying to post 1 by Mithrae]

In my opinion, not an "offshoot", but a fulfillment of the Law. Orthodox Judaism consists of belief in the Torah (First 5 books of the Bible). Orthodox Jewish people do not believe the Messiah has arrived yet. They adhere to the Mosaic Law ( First Covenant). The second covenant is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, who came to fulfill the law, not to replace it. According to the new Testament, he is the Messiah or the "Word" ( John 1:1-5,14) So the word "offshoot" may be insufficient in really describing the fulfillment of the law within accurate and reverent boundaries. Especially if the word "parasite" is used, which I would consider catalyzed from an uninformed view point, with no malice intended on my part. "Offshoot" falls significantly short of accurately describing the correlation between the two.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 1 by Mithrae]

In my opinion, not an "offshoot", but a fulfillment of the Law. Orthodox Judaism consists of belief in the Torah (First 5 books of the Bible). Orthodox Jewish people do not believe the Messiah has arrived yet. They adhere to the Mosaic Law ( First Covenant). The second covenant is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, who came to fulfill the law, not to replace it. According to the new Testament, he is the Messiah or the "Word" ( John 1:1-5,14) So the word "offshoot" may be insufficient in really describing the fulfillment of the law within accurate and reverent boundaries. Especially if the word "parasite" is used, which I would consider catalyzed from an uninformed view point, with no malice intended on my part. "Offshoot" falls significantly short of accurately describing the correlation between the two.

I do not believe that the concept of 'fulfillment' is valid. It is, in fact, highly insulting to the Jewish faith. Now, when it comes to the Gospel of John, if you read Philo of Alexanders writings about Logos, and then read the Gospel of John in that light, where Logos is the 'wisdom of God' (not God itself), it puts a huge different spin on the entire Gospel. Of course, it is hard to say what the author of the GOJ actually meant, because there is evidence it had several 'editions' before it reached it current state.

[quality]

[Replying to post 11 by Goat]

I don't mix philosophy with the Gospel. All scripture is God breathed.( 2 Timothy 3:16) And as you admit, the early writings of Phil0 of Alexandria puts a different "spin" on the Gospel of John, which I consider invalid and a distraction. I mean no disrespect to Orthodox Judaism. I simply do not agree with their Theology. In 1 Corinthians 1:18-20:"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." "For it is written I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; and frustrate the intelligence of the intelligent." Where is the wise person ? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has God not made foolish the Wisdom of the world?" Derived from Isaiah 29:14.

Not certain if I understand your science reference? I'm not against science, but do not depend on it in general on living my life. I can state that science does not believe in miracles, rather tangible data. Since the resurrection in the NT is considered a miracle, it lays outside the realm of scientific logic, therefore disqualifies their analysis of scripture and voids any authority on such. The Lord rules per OT scripture (Psalms 103:19). The Scriptures are not primarily an exercise in science and intellectual assent, or opinion, rather based on basic Truth and faith. Romans 10:17-21

[Mithrae]

Hi Quality, and welcome to the forum

They adhere to the Mosaic Law ( First Covenant). The second covenant is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, who came to fulfill the law, not to replace it.

Actually the 'first covenant' would have been the one given to Noah, which most Jews believe outline basic moral requirements binding on all humanity regardless of culture or religious exposure. Another covenant was made with Abraham that he would become the "father of many nations," which Paul interpreted the Christian movement as being a fulfillment of. Interestingly and somewhat inconsistently, despite the fact that the specific and eternal sign of that covenant was circumcision according to Genesis 17, circumcision is something which Paul explicitly rejected/downplayed as being associated with the Law of Moses. After his conversion Paul seemingly viewed the Law of Moses as little more than a signpost on the way at best, as a clear indictment of sin rather than anything with merit in and of itself, and in some ways a burden and distraction.

By contrast the author of 'Matthew' - evidently a Jewish Christian, and alone among the four gospels - said that Jesus had come to 'fulfill' the Law, and also that "Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven." Strangely, a lot of Christians take on board the 'fulfillment' part whilst quietly glossing over Matthew's insistence on obedience to the Law's commands.

Even the idea of a single monolithic 'Law of Moses' is perhaps a later theological construct. According to the current form of the Pentateuch, even in the time of Moses there was more than a single covenant given by God; one at Sinai after the Israelites' departure from Egypt (Ex. 24:1-8) and one across the Jordan River before their entry into Canaan (Deut. 29:1). The latter, including elements such as rules for warfare and anachronistic laws for the king, most obviously resembles a sort of constitution for the nation of Israel. One might suppose in contrast that the Sinai covenant, given after departure from centuries of life in Egypt, was more along the lines of guidance for how to live as holy people.

If nothing else, I suspect that many Christians miss a lot of the depth in the Tanakh because of the dismissive 'Old Testament' label which has been given to it.

[quality]

[Replying to post 4 by Jagella]

It is interesting though that the Prophet Isaiah prophesized the death of Christ some 800 yrs prior to his death as clearly stated in Isaiah 52:13-53:12. The actual name of Jesus may not be mentioned in the OT because his incarnate birth was described in the NT, although Jesus has always been here from the beginning according to John 1:1-2 and became flesh John 1:14. This isn't about trying to discredit Judaism. It is simply telling the complete story. Nothing Shakespearian about that. Rejecting the Savior has eternal consequences. I pray your eyes would be opened by the Holy Spirit.

[quality]

[Replying to post 1Actually I misspoke myself. I meant to say the old and new covenant. Good observation.3 by Mithrae]

[Mithrae]

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.

As noted above, even according to the Tanakh there were multiple major covenants between God and his people, each one of which would have been a 'new' covenant; and Jeremiah explicitly prophesied yet another new covenant which he explicitly contrasted against the one given at Sinai (Jer. 31:31-34).

If you're looking for hard objective 'facts' in the Bible, whether Hebrew or Christian, I suspect that you're going to be sorely disappointed. In fact I suspect that this is a rhetorical approach which on almost all other occasions you yourself would reject, instead trying to emphasize vagueness, ambiguity and the plethora of interpretations available. That you find it convenient, in this particular instance, to declare that there is some unambiguous theological message among all those ancient Hebrew books is not an argument that I find any more compelling than all the Christians who claim that their interpretation is the obviously 'factual' one.

On a specific, case-by-case basis there are some fairly clear instances of seeming misuse of the Hebrew scriptures by early Christians. But ironically probably 90% of those occur within the pages of the gospel of 'Matthew,' the most overtly Jewish book in the NT. If we were to read the midrashim of other ancient Jews we would surely think that they were 'distorting' the scriptural text too! People can come up with some strange ideas when they think that what they're reading must be full of profound depth and wisdom awaiting the diligent inquirer; Jews and Jewish Christians and gentile Christians alike. Supposing for the sake of argument that Judas really had been paid thirty pieces of silver for betraying Jesus, the legitimate interpretation of Zechariah should remain the same both before and after that event, but a post hoc application of it to underscore the perceived significance of that event would be understandable and - at least in that culture - not necessarily the same thing as distorting it in the sense of saying "this is what Zechariah was talking about" (which is how we tend to read Matthew's 'according to the prophecy' claims).

In fact the biggest problem with 'Matthew' from our perspective - and potentially his own culture's too - is not the application of scripture to the alleged events but rather the probability that many of those events themselves were invented (eg. the massacre of the innocents and flight to Egypt): But that suggests that it's absurd to suppose that he started with a clear distortion of the scripture and invented events to match the distortion; rather he invented events which, if true, would clearly provide significant parallels to the scripture, as a whole if not individually. His early chapters as a whole, for example, portray Jesus as mirroring much of Moses' life. In a similar vein Jewish reports of Hillel the Elder (an older contemporary of Jesus) made his life stages mirror those of Moses, supposedly living 40 years in Babylon, 40 years in Israel and 40 in leadership as head of the Sanhedrin; so it's possible that even event-fabrications of that kind were not necessarily considered deceptive in that culture (though more likely, I'd guess, that in some cases such fabrications simply became accepted enough to be hallowed by time).

For the most part though, the most dubious applications of Hebrew scripture in the NT surround more or less trivial details of Jesus' life: In the case of the core theological innovations which Paul and the others brought to the table, there obviously are alternative interpretations of the scriptural 'proof texts' they used, but I'm not aware of many (if any) cases in which it's clear that the Christian interpretation is in fact "false."

[Goat]

[Replying to post 11 by Goat]

I don't mix philosophy with the Gospel. All scripture is God breathed.( 2 Timothy 3:16) And as you admit, the early writings of Phil0 of Alexandria puts a different "spin" on the Gospel of John, which I consider invalid and a distraction. I mean no disrespect to Orthodox Judaism. I simply do not agree with their Theology. In 1 Corinthians 1:18-20:"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." "For it is written I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; and frustrate the intelligence of the intelligent." Where is the wise person ? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has God not made foolish the Wisdom of the world?" Derived from Isaiah 29:14.

Not certain if I understand your science reference? I'm not against science, but do not depend on it in general on living my life. I can state that science does not believe in miracles, rather tangible data. Since the resurrection in the NT is considered a miracle, it lays outside the realm of scientific logic, therefore disqualifies their analysis of scripture and voids any authority on such. The Lord rules per OT scripture (Psalms 103:19). The Scriptures are not primarily an exercise in science and intellectual assent, or opinion, rather based on basic Truth and faith. Romans 10:17-21

As far as I can see, Scripture is philosophy, with a religious preconception to it. And, one thing that should be done with all writings is to look at it in context. If you read Philo's works, you will see that many of the phrases that Philo actually used are mimicked in the Gospel of John. A lot of 'take away' that Christians have with the Gospel of John is it being read INTO, rather being taken from. That is because there is a lot of symbology. It has nothing to do with 'science' what so ever, but the fact that with vague references and heavy symbology, you can read anything you want into it.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 16 by Mithrae]

Let's get back to the core issue and be concise (there's no need to be verbose). Earlier I posted:

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.

In defense of this position I can cite the following passages from the Hebrew Bible:

Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations. Deuteronomy 7:9

Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, always. Deuteronomy 11:1

These are the statutes and judgments, which ye shall observe ... all the days that ye live upon the earth. Deuteronomy 12:1

Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations ... an everlasting covenant. 1 Chronicles 16:15

Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth. Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever. Psalm 119:151-2

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalm 119:160

As we can see there is never to be any end to the application of the Law of Moses. Paul disagrees and tells us in Galatians 3:25-26:

Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith.

So Paul (and Christianity) clearly contradict Moses making the law out to be only temporary while Moses said it was to be obeyed forever. Christianity is indeed a distortion of Judaism as Jews as well as atheists know or should know.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 16 by Mithrae]

Let's get back to the core issue and be concise (there's no need to be verbose). Earlier I posted:

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.

In defense of this position I can cite the following passages from the Hebrew Bible:

Three verses from Deuteronomy which (as explained above) was a covenant given to Israel across the Jordan just before they entered, apparently as a sort of national constitution rather than holiness as individuals under foreign rulership. One from Chronicles which refers to the covenant given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not Moses. And from Psalm 119 which doesn't mention Moses at all, and without knowing by whom or at least when it was written we can't be sure which commands and laws it's about; it too could be understood as exalting the Abrahamic and Noahide laws.

As we can see there is never to be any end to the application of the Law of Moses. Paul disagrees and tells us in Galatians 3:25-26:

Even if that's what we did see - which we don't - Paul was just one early Christian; I've already shown that the author of Matthew for one seemingly insisted on the ongoing relevance and perfection of the Torah's commands. Heck, even in Galatians itself we see hints that Jesus' brother James, who Paul names first among the 'pillars' of the church, along with the other Jewish Christians of the Jerusalem church almost certainly maintained observance of the Torah; and Peter felt those traditional Jewish sensitivities keenly enough that he withdrew from eating with gentile Christians (which is not even prohibited by the Torah, merely a precautionary hedge) when some of James' envoys came to visit Antioch. Yet for the most part even the early Christians who believed that they as Jews were still obliged to obey the Torah had no reason and did not presume to tell gentile Christians that they must also.

So Paul (and Christianity) clearly contradict Moses making the law out to be only temporary while Moses said it was to be obeyed forever. Christianity is indeed a distortion of Judaism as Jews as well as atheists know or should know.

Moses had the Israelites build a portable tabernacle in which to offer daily and annual sacrifices; later Jewish tradition (most likely beginning under the reign of Hezekiah due to an influx of refugees from the northern kingdom) decided that a particular building on a particular spot in Jerusalem should be the centralized, eternal site of sacrifice. Consequently rather than going back to a tabernacle such as that commanded by Moses, Jews have neglected those sacrifices for over 1900 years now; and many believe that it doesn't really matter, that the sacrifices were merely a ritual or symbol of something else. Christians likewise believe that those sacrifices were merely a ritual or symbol of something else, and that this is the main reason why the temple became redundant and was destroyed so soon after they had begun spreading their message.

A dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalist could certainly argue that both Christianity and Judaism are therefore 'distortions' of the ancient Hebrew/Mosaic religion. But people who recognize the inevitability of societal evolution and value our capacity for growth and progress would be more likely to view both Christianity and Judaism as branches from that same ancient faith.

The one thing which is certainly and unequivocally not the case is that Christianity developed from (let alone distorted) the religion we know as Judaism.