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?

[Jagella]

I suspect that one of Jesus' primary motivations was the hope of protecting his people from the consequences which nationalism, messianic hopes and cultural separatism contributed towards bringing down on the Jewish people during the three Jewish-Roman wars of 66-135CE.nity; for all we know, in that world the Jewish people as such might no longer exist.

I think this is correct.

It's at best wild, apologetics' speculation and is at worst, plain wrong. Jesus had a bigoted attitude that Jews were special in FOTS' (Father Of The Sky) eyes and cruelly resisted helping gentiles. He endangered his own people with his apocalyptic rants which fueled the fire of revolt against the Romans. If that wasn't bad enough, he and his followers demonized the Jews resulting in centuries of anti-Jewish sentiment and persecution.

In any event, Jesus was not Christian; he was a Jew who understood that God was not just a tribal God. Paul damaged that message by worshipping the messenger.

You have it backwards here. As I just pointed out, Jesus did see FOTS as a tribal god exclusive to the Jews. It was Paul who, realizing most Jews would not believe him, turned to the gentiles instead which set Christians on the road to hating the Jews for "rejecting" a Christ who may never have existed.

[Danmark]

I suspect that one of Jesus' primary motivations was the hope of protecting his people from the consequences which nationalism, messianic hopes and cultural separatism contributed towards bringing down on the Jewish people during the three Jewish-Roman wars of 66-135CE.nity; for all we know, in that world the Jewish people as such might no longer exist.

I think this is correct.

It's at best wild, apologetics' speculation and is at worst, plain wrong. Jesus had a bigoted attitude that Jews were special in FOTS' (Father Of The Sky) eyes and cruelly resisted helping gentiles. He endangered his own people with his apocalyptic rants which fueled the fire of revolt against the Romans. If that wasn't bad enough, he and his followers demonized the Jews resulting in centuries of anti-Jewish sentiment and persecution.

In any event, Jesus was not Christian; he was a Jew who understood that God was not just a tribal God. Paul damaged that message by worshipping the messenger.

You have it backwards here. As I just pointed out, Jesus did see FOTS as a tribal god exclusive to the Jews. It was Paul who, realizing most Jews would not believe him, turned to the gentiles instead which set Christians on the road to hating the Jews for "rejecting" a Christ who may never have existed.

The problem with your analysis is that you don't know scripture and are also unaware we received a very biased, selective view of Jesus in the traditional canon. Nowhere in the synoptic gospels does Jesus claim to be God. As for his 'bigoted' view, TWO stories come to mind that edify:

1st, The story of the Good Samaritan where Jesus says your 'neighbor' is not necessarily a Jew, and uses a non Jew as an example of good behavior.

2d, and even more illuminating is the story of the Canaanite woman who asks for healing for her daughter. Jesus teases her, telling her he must tend to 'his' people first. To the casual reader this seems to prove your point; however, it is better understood as a playful Jesus making a point. When she 'gets' his joke, she replies that even the dogs (a pejorative for gentiles) get the crumbs from the table, Jesus praises her faith and heals the daughter.

Two books are helpful re: these points:
Elton Trueblood's, The Humor of Christ
and
Thomas Sheehan's The First Coming, which you can read for free.
https://infidels.org/library/modern/tho ... rstcoming/

Yes, Paul continued what Jesus started in moving from the tribal to the universal, but then Paul completely ruined the core message by deifying Jesus, and insisting that one can only know God by seeing Jesus as God. There is nothing more human and more wrong than turning a man into a God. All religions that insist on this sort of thing are false.

[Mithrae]

2d, and even more illuminating is the story of the Canaanite woman who asks for healing for her daughter. Jesus teases her, telling her he must tend to 'his' people first. To the casual reader this seems to prove your point; however, it is better understood as a playful Jesus making a point. When she 'gets' his joke, she replies that even the dogs (a pejorative for gentiles) get the crumbs from the table, Jesus praises her faith and heals the daughter.

I'm not sure it is just a case of Jesus playfully making a joke over her daughter's demon possession But on the other hand, as you've suggested, stories such as the good Samaritan and the centurion seeking healing for his servant provide an important counterbalance - not to mention the fact that Jesus himself was the one who apparently chose to leave Galilee and travel to Tyre in the first place.

Yes, Paul continued what Jesus started in moving from the tribal to the universal, but then Paul completely ruined the core message by deifying Jesus, and insisting that one can only know God by seeing Jesus as God. There is nothing more human and more wrong than turning a man into a God. All religions that insist on this sort of thing are false.

Is there anything more alien and more wrong than a God who presumes to speak to humanity having never experienced it firsthand? (Well, obviously there are things that are more wrong...) I'd be very worried by any religion or sect proclaiming that their living guru or pharoah is even remotely god-like due to the obvious issues of power and fallibility - even the Catholic doctrines of papal infallibility and their Church as the sole legitimate mediator between God and men is troubling - but the idea that it might have happened sometime/s in the distant past seems like a laudable, 'walk a mile in their shoes' kind of notion. The book of Hebrews even somewhat implies that Melchizedek may have been a prior incarnation of Christ, which arguably opens the door to the biblical possibility that other cultures may have had their own incarnations too.

Both Paul and Jesus said/wrote things which could be taken as narrow, parochial views, but also other things which could be taken as being more liberal and inclusive. The religious variations which I find most worrying are those which insist on exclusivity and dogmatism; the idea that if a group is not conforming to a predetermined set of proof texts or current leader's diktats, they must be some kind of illegitimate distortion or parasite off the real faith.

[William]

Even assumed mediators between GOD and the individual, whoever they are or whatever these are (Humans/papers Humans have written) are problematic.

If the idea is that a person believes they are in a relationship with GOD, if their message is that they are a mediator between Humans and GOD on account of that, then it becomes problematic.

This even includes the idea that laws can mediate between GOD and the individual.

If one can not/will not have a relationship with GOD without such props, then the relationship is shallow at best - if it can even be called a relationship.
Christians appear in general to have a relationship with the bible, believing in that, that they are having a relationship with GOD.

If the idea is that such writ and/or individuals act as types of stepping stones/bridges toward relationship with GOD - that the individual uses such device as a means of getting to that point of relationship with GOD where the props of medium become redundant - having served their purpose - then all fine and dandy. Often though, the props become the idols, the mediators become the focus and this is problematic. Such individuals are still metaphorically in the midst of crossing the river, rather than having completed the crossing.

[Jagella]

The problem with your analysis is that you don't know scripture and are also unaware we received a very biased, selective view of Jesus in the traditional canon.

First of all, I do know scripture and am learning to read it in Greek. Ὦ ἀνόητοι καὶ β�αδεῖς. Second, I'm acutely aware that Christians were "selective" in what they wrote about Jesus, but that's all the evidence we have. So if we wish to understand who or what he was, then we need to rely on what's written about him in the New Testament.

Nowhere in the synoptic gospels does Jesus claim to be God.

Maybe not in so many words, but Luke 22:69 comes pretty close:

But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.�

What mere mortal has such a privileged seat? Anyway, I'm not sure what relevance that has to what I posted.

...and even more illuminating is the story of the Canaanite woman who asks for healing for her daughter. Jesus teases her, telling her he must tend to 'his' people first. To the casual reader this seems to prove your point; however, it is better understood as a playful Jesus making a point. When she 'gets' his joke, she replies that even the dogs (a pejorative for gentiles) get the crumbs from the table, Jesus praises her faith and heals the daughter.

Talk about whitewashing! The version of this story from reads Matthew 15:22-28(NRSV ):

Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.� But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, “Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.� He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.� But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.� He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.� She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.� Then Jesus answered her, “Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.� And her daughter was healed instantly.

So unlike the distortion you posted (you didn't even bother to cite your source), Jesus never teased this poor woman but cruelly ignored her pleas for help at first, and his disciples told him to get rid of her. Jesus then told the woman he would only help Jews and only gave in to her begging him for help when she stoked his ego. You call that a joke? Where are you getting this nonsense?

In conclusion, I should point out that the attitude of Jesus as he's portrayed in the gospel tale can only serve as a basis for harming Jew and gentile alike.

[Danmark]

Is there anything more alien and more wrong than a God who presumes to speak to humanity having never experienced it firsthand?

Tho' I agree with much you write in this post, I have never appreciated the argument represented in this sentence. This Judeo/Christian God is touted as the creator of the universe, of existence itself. I find it completely contradictory that such an omniscient and omnipotent God would need to walk among humans as a human in order to understand them. Such a God would have understood us before he even created us. He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the all and in all. He knew us in our depths before we were born.
... or so goes Christian dogma. To steal the phrase from J.B. Phillips' book title, 'Your God is Too Small.'
But then this is a typical snapshot of Christian theology, perfectly contradictory in every way.

[Danmark]

Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.� But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, “Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.� He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.� But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.� He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.� She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.� Then Jesus answered her, “Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.� And her daughter was healed instantly.

So unlike the distortion you posted (you didn't even bother to cite your source),

I cited it from memory and it exactly matches the text you quoted. All I can say (other than to repeat you should read the two references I gave you) is that you do not comprehend English the way I do and the way Elton Trueblood and many Christian scholars do. You shouldn't bother with learning Greek until you come closer to comprehending English.

[William]

[Replying to post 35 by Danmark]

He knew us in our depths before we were born.

A Panentheist interprets the reason to this idea as being because we are that GOD, and as GOD knows Its Self intimately as a whole, It also knows Its parts with equal intimacy.

Also in line with that thinking, 'we' were never 'created' because 'we' are aspects of GOD and GOD was never created.

What was created is form in which GOD can experience different 'selves' through.

Abrahamic (and other) religions in their evolution of understanding have - for the most part - *forced adherents to continue thinking that 'we' are the form we occupy, and this thinking has lead to the idea that 'we' are distinctly separate from GOD and are just 'creations' of GOD...and that to think ourselves as particles of GOD within form, is *blaspheme.

Panetheism knows better because it has evolved more truthfully.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 35 by Danmark]

He knew us in our depths before we were born.

A Panentheist interprets the reason to this idea as being because we are that GOD, and as GOD knows Its Self intimately as a whole, It also knows Its parts with equal intimacy.

Also in line with that thinking, 'we' were never 'created' because 'we' are aspects of GOD and GOD was never created.

What was created is form in which GOD can experience different 'selves' through.

Abrahamic (and other) religions in their evolution of understanding have - for the most part - *forced adherents to continue thinking that 'we' are the form we occupy, and this thinking has lead to the idea that 'we' are distinctly separate from GOD and are just 'creations' of GOD...and that to think ourselves as particles of GOD within form, is *blaspheme.

Panetheism knows better because it has evolved more truthfully.

This all strike me as unnecessary speculation and theorizing to no effect. Why assume a 'god' of any kind, mono, multi, or pan?
Why not simply accept what is, what nature suggests? For me the battle is between truth as we find it, unadorned and uninfluenced by speculative religious concepts, and ideology/idolatry as speculated by man.

Religion is simply speculative wishful thinking reinforced by tradition.

[William]

[Replying to post 38 by Danmark]

This all strike me as unnecessary speculation and theorizing to no effect. Why assume a 'god' of any kind, mono, multi, or pan?
Why not simply accept what is, what nature suggests? For me the battle is between truth as we find it, unadorned and uninfluenced by speculative religious concepts, and ideology/idolatry as speculated by man.

Religion is simply speculative wishful thinking reinforced by tradition.

Why not? What does it matter whether one does or does not? What does nature 'suggest' to you which cannot be interpreted by me differently?

Perhaps if we lived and did not die, your points would be more appropriate, but that is - so far - not how nature is.

Thinking we are all aspects of GOD is not to be frowned upon - unless of course the nature of the idea of GOD is detrimental to human progression.

Some ideas of GOD do appear to be detrimental to human progression, but not all.

Some things scientists+naturalism have uncovered have been used to the detriment of human progression, and this is obvious in what nature suggests, since nature is being harmed by those things.

Perhaps that is because scientists+naturalism have tried to be GOD without knowing how that is best done...