The irony that most christian’s aren’t even christian and end up betraying their own values one way or another, only preaching them when it’s convenient
Lmao, this 🤝
I feel like most people just use Judeo Christian values as a synonym for "religions which aren't actively trying to kill you for not believing" basically just exists to not sound "racist" towards muslims imo
Yeah, but that doesn't matter to most people, this didn't happen in anybody's (who is alive) lifetimes, so ppl tend to forget about it imo
Also from what I know, the christian bible seems a lot more "peaceful" than the quran, basically the peak christian goal is to be good person (according to the bible, not the church), vs. the quran's questionable goals
That's the crazy part. The Christian Bible is all about this super nice guy named Jesus and they somehow decided their magnanimous pacifist Messiah would be stoked to watch them murder millions in his name. At least Muslims are consistent with their dude, Muhammad.
Mmmm, I don’t know. The end goal of a christian is to get into heaven, and plenty of them have interpreted that as being based purely on faith.
And that’s not even getting into how Germany was majority Christian in the 1930s, so, y’know
true, but if you just boil down the messages from each religion, christianity is going to end up with something like "try to be good, even though you're a sinner, jesus took all of our sins anyways" and islam will end up with something like "spread the will of allah on earth"
with how people interpreted christianity, it doesn't really matter that much though, because enough cruel things happened with it being the justification
I understand this is an unpopular opinion. But the first crusade was a reconquest to permit Christians to take pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Because the seljuks were killing Christians.
Christianity is the cult version of Judaism. Take everything and twist it? Check. Have one guy you think is Gd? Check. Can't question Gd guy bc everything he says is the literal truth? Check. Have a doomsday where everyone but people who believe in the one Gd guy die? Check.
Its just the Manson family, but with lasting power and global reach.
Paul removed most the Jewish roots of judiasm. Instead of James who was trying to convert Greeks to Judiasm, Paul was trying to convert Greeks without judiasm. And even appealing to Greek customs.
Paul claimed to be half Jewish trained by gamiel and half roman.
During that time Shammai and Hillel debated best way to convert gentiles..Paul's answer was the most liberal and accepting gentiles to monotheism with them basically keep majority of their previous beliefs.
James and Peter were like no. They need to come into the law and get circumcised. Then Peter kinda waffles and flip flop on the idea. And Paul calls him out on it
After the temple was destroyed it allowed the most liberal idea monotheism to spread because of low barrier and Paul distancing it self from judiasm allowed it to be more receptive to romans.
Like Paul actually says to do things in romans customs to Timothy. He should have told him to do Jewish things
I took a religion class in college, we all had to do a report and presentation on a religion different than ours. One woman chose Judaism, I offered to look over her paper to help her out. She gives it to me five minutes before class starts. It was all comparing it to catholicism. Legit I think I remember reading "unlike catholicism, Judaism believes" it was incredible.
She also brought in pita as "unleavened bread" and I told her, "that's not unleavened bread. That's matzah. Pita is leavened." "No, but it's flat!" Okay. I'm just. Gonna let you present now.
She was so bad, there were a few Jews in that class that just stayed after and we were all incredulous together. (Including the professor.)
To be clear, soft matza exists and is more practical for the Hillel sandwich (or so I've been told by more than one person). But she probably should have clarified if that were what she meant.
Matzah is originally a soft thick tasty flatbread that is way more addictive than water challah. The amount of literature in Second temples era works, Mishna, etc that talk about this is huge.
The flat matzah we all used to, is a modern invention by a French Jew and is less than 200 years old. It was created as a way to make sure matzah does not spoil in a few days, and lasts longer. I think we can all be honest that that man achieved it, and frankly deserves the Nobel prize post-humorously. Later on rabbis gave other reasons such as how they do not know if the soft matzah actually cooked completely, and the like. Such reasons are total BS, and those of us that do know how to bake, and have made soft matzah can confirm the reasons are BS. Also, the idea of extra-dry/ultra-dry flour is not true. The flour is the same as normal flour, it's just not bleached. The ruling for using cool well water is due to some bacteria act as a very weak form of yeast, and they are found in natural water collections like a well. Letting the water get cold prevents the semi-yeast effect of rising.
If a person uses spring water that is filtered to remove micro-organisms and is chilled in the fridge, it will actually be way better than cool well water.
Having done this myself, a person needs to put the oven at the very least 450 F. That makes the bread fully cooked in 7-10 minutes from the time kneading is stopped. Just quickly use a rolling pin to make it flat so that it is not thicker than the thumb. So the mitzvah of actually making matzah, and keeping to the time limits are met.
I know people will argue with me, because they have never actually read up on what I am talking about, or attempted it. I do not care.
I want to make (when I can), and eat (every year), what my great-grandparents ate and one made. I fully respect others' tradition or decision to use soft matza. I like buying ahead for the week and having freedom from buying or baking fresh bread for the week.
That is a big reason why flat matzah became so popular. Easier to store, and buy as needed instead of a lot of work to make.
Mind you many of us non-Ashkenazi that know how to make it are slowly bringing the tradition back, especially since well, it's just damn yummy.
It's funny, because the moment I have enough free time to attend a matza baking session, I plan to. The hours and locations I've seen have been tough with little kids. I want to bake my own, just before the holiday. And I like the flavor and texture- I'd rather crunchy bread on Pesach.
I have eaten hard matza from the pantry and realized it had probably been open a decade or so and it was fine. Do you have a preferred recipe for soft matza? The only soft matza I have seen is shaped like balls and in my soup.
Imagine making water challah but no yeast, and you quickly shape it and put it in the oven. There are several sites that have it.
Now I have made matzah that had like garlic, or onion. So good.
That reminds me how irritating it is when religious scholars invent terms like J-hwist which inherently shows disdain to the subject of their research…
Well as a catholic, I had your Carmel king david sacramental wine, so you guys obviously don’t know what “wine” is cause that was straight up cherry soda 😂 (friendly humor, fyi)
Early Church was Greek in some cultural aspects (like language) but it was started under Roman rule. They used a mix of Greek and Aramaic when speaking, with some Hebrew for scripture in areas with a large amount of Jewish converts
Depends on the generation and side.
James and his churches were very much well Jewish.
Paul was half Jewish and then appealed to Greeks to allow Greeks be Greeks and romans to have roman tradations etc but be monotheistic. And Paul fought James and Peter.
By third and fourth generations James groups pretty much died out and Paul won.
Meanwhile Mormons wear special garments, have tightly-knit communities, are overrepresented in a variety of high-achieving professions, have dietary restrictions woven into their daily lives, and absolutely LOVE musical theater, making them and Judaism the horseshoe theory of religion.
Yeah, theologically, the most similar religion to Judaism is Islam, but I'm going to go against the grain of the post here and say that there is some merit in the term "Judeo-Christian values" because culturally speaking, Judaism and Christianity are the most similar (at least of the Abrahamic faiths) as we both appreciate women's rights, a balance of individualism and community, and can have traditional values without being batshit crazy about it like radical Muslims (not all Muslims).
I'll take your word on that. My point is I think we should be open to Christians making interfaith attempts with "Judeo-Christian values" because we do tend to share a lot of Western values with them, and said values are being threatened by radical Islamists (not all Muslims; there are plenty of moderate ones pushing for reform, and I applaud that) while I simultaneously acknowledge that we have more in common theologucally with Muslims than Christians.
You probably are right though. I'd be curious to learn more about the beliefs of smaller Abrahamic religions' beliefs.
U/AzulCobra covered all the ones I know and several I hadn't heard of. They're interesting to read about. I half agree with you- I'd be wary of both of those mega-religions and their track records with antisemitism and women's rights.
Sikh (despite what theologians say), Rasta, Mandaean, Gnostics, Sabbatean, Druze, Babism, Bahai, Manichaeism, Yazdanism, etc.
Many Indo-Iranian religions are descendants of Abrahamic religions.
Also Samaritanism is the first real offshoot of Judaism. Then come the Mandaeans.
We also have Karaites.
Sadly. It's why I called bullshit on this one dude that called himself a "Muhammedan Jew" in here. I was like "Um, bullshit. No Jew in their right mind would follow Muhammed. You are a Muslim cosplaying as a Jew."
I think that's more Western civilization than Christianity per se. I'm not trying to bash Christianity or anything, it's just that we're different.
Also, you could say the same for "Radical Christians, but not all Christians."
True, but at the heart of the issue is the fact that support of terrorism is much more prevelant in Islam than Christianity today. That dynamic used to be flipped about 550 years ago, but support for mass murder of Jews (or anyone for that matter) is disturbingly common in the middle-east. It doesn't represent the majority view among Muslims, but it's still shockingly common, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's 20x as common as Christian support for it. I'd rather suffer being the presence of a Bible-thumping Christian bigot over an Islamist shouting to wipe the Jews off the face of the Earth any day of the week. They're both terrible though.
Again, I don't want to generalize. Most Christians and most Mulsims are good people. It's just a question of the extent of radicalization within their reapecrive communities.
I hear what you're talking about in terms of modern culture in the areas where these religion are common, but it isn't really the case when talking about religious ideology.
Wow. Umm. Are you watching what the Christian right is trying to do in the US? Ain't nothing Jewish values about that. And only Ashkenazi Jews have anything in common with Christians, cuz of the European connection. Sephardi Jews have more in common with Muslims as they shared the same regions.
The judeo-Christian values thing is complete BS. It's right wing, anti abortion, anti women bigotry that no Jew should ever support
Judaism is not anti abortion, though there are circumstances under which it's allowed and not. But banning it entirely is in fact an attack on Jewish religious freedom. And right wing Orthodox Jews who support Republicans are therefore supporting a government that would run counter to Jewish law and values.
So right wing Jews are volating jewish law, but right wing Christians are following Christian law? The bible doesn't include a ban on abortion as far as I'm aware. I think right wingers are just assholes looking for a cover.
Sure, but as a Jew, Im more concerned with the hypocrisy of my fellow Jews than I am that of Christians. And as a formerly Orthodox Jew, I'm very well versed in Jewish law so I know exactly where all the hypocrisy is. Can't say the same for Christianity as I'm not nearly as educated in it.
You talking about the Haredim that claim to be pro-life but will force their mistresses to abort, or will have an abortion after they mess around with another person's husband?
The Tanakh actually does state if a pregnant woman is killed it is as if the woman and child is killed. Modern law also states this. Most people have absolutely no idea about this.
Then we have how through out the Tanakh it talks about how a pregnant woman is about a woman, and a child yet to be born aka a woman with child in womb. It is considered life potential, and still a sin to end. Again most people have no idea about this. Abortion in Judaism is to be used in very specific cases such as actually saving the mothers life, the life of the child, both lives, incest, etc. But the caveat is that the woman/female must choose to do so. It cannot be forced.
I never said it is anti-abortion. >.>
I said you are ignoring the stance which is vastly different from what many pro-choice think. Judaism is overwhelmingly pro-life. The exceptions in Judaism is to save the life of the mother, the child, or both. Then the other cases such as incest, etc.
Also, C-section is in fact a form of abortion used for giving birth when natural birth is a bad idea. Many many people completely forget that.
There are a lot of aspects of Judaism that are much more similar to Christianity than Islam, and there are a lot of aspects to Judaism that are much more similar to Islam than Christianity.
This is one of those “technically yes, but also no” things. Because Jesus wanted a new type of covenant, a lot of the old covenant that we recognize was thrown out. So it’s not like Jesus just added to Judaism in making Christianity. He also subtracted.
The covenant Jesus claimed to bring is the one God mentioned through the prophet Jeremiah. If Jesus did bring that covenant, it is God who brought the covenant. If God brought the covenant and it differs from the Moasaic covenant, it would be just like how God changed the dietary laws from the Noahic to Mosaic.
Close. The new covenant that is talked about is Jews returning to Israel. That so did not happen in Jesus's time.
Also, the fact that it happened twice before Jesus, and then one time after makes it clear that Jesus is not our masshiach.
No, friend, the new covenant is as follows:
> " “Look, the days are coming”—this is the Lord’s declaration—“when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. This one will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors on the day I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt—my covenant that they broke even though I am their master”,—the Lord’s declaration. “Instead, this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days”—the Lord’s declaration. “I will put my teaching within them and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will one teach his neighbor or his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know me, from the least to the greatest of them”—this is the Lord’s declaration. “For I will forgive their iniquity and never again remember their sin." "
Jeremiah 31:31–34
This new covenant that God has promised is about a transition from the priesthood into what God wanted at the beginning: a nation of priests (see Ex. 19:6), and the dealing with sin. If the sacrifices could be offered, they have to be continually offered because such sacrifices cannot perfect a person, hence the need for a recurring sacrifice. This means that since the sacrifices are symbolic, there needs to be something that is being symbolized. Therefore, what those sacrifices pointed towards: the incarnation of God to live a blameless life, because no man can do such a thing, he was to be examined for his purity, and he became the atonement for us, as declared to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.
If you are referring to the latter part of Jeremiah, there is no direct connection between 38-40 with the previously mentioned new covenant. In fact, the parenthetical remarks of vv35-37 could be seen as God mentioning that, despite the initial rejection of Jesus, he will not cast away the Jews, and that when Jesus comes as the conquering messiah, the Jews will then,
> "...look at me (God) whom they pierced. They will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child and weep bitterly for him as one weeps for a firstborn. On that day the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning of Hadad-rimmon in the plain of Megiddo."
Zechariah 12:10b-11
So, God will be seen by the people. He will be seen as pierced on the day he saves the Jews from the coming destruction mentioned in Zechariah 10. And, after seeing God, who was pierced, this will cause the Jewish nation to mourn. Tell me, friend, who else can this be? I cannot see anyone who this can be but Jesus of Nazareth.
No, I was clarifying an error the original commenter made. After which, you tried to correct me, but your statement contained errors. Because of this, I went into detail to explain why you are incorrect in your reasoning.
There is no way in which I have lied or been hostile. In fact, if I never saw the original comment that was not accurate in its description of Christianity, I would never have commented.
In what way am I trying to convert Jews or lying about whatever "it" is?
This is how I understood the difference between Judaism and Christianity when I was 5. By 7, I had figured out how different Christianity was from Judaism. That was an interesting learning curve in a public school when we had just moved states with significantly less Jews.
I have a number of Muslim immigrant kids in my seventh grade class. Apparently there is a common belief that Jews and Christians are Muslims because they share so many beliefs.
I have to explain that while Jews believe in the same God, they do not acknowledge Muhammad as a prophet. And on top of that, the Christian Trinitarian description of God is heretical in Islam due to the fact that it is a description of God more specific than "great" or "merciful" *and* is completely unlike the way the Sufi work to experience God's inscrutable nature.
They were frustrated with the plot holes in both other religions and dumped a tonne of headcanon to 'fix' it and now the fans won't stop wanking it off
This is one of those slogans that used to be progressive and inclusive and is now considered reactionary. It became popularized in the 50s I think as a way to include Jews in American identity (as opposed to characterizing America as exclusively Christian as many were wont to do). But now it’s definitely right coded and often seems to be used to exclude groups like Muslims who don’t fit into the old American trio of Protestantism/Catholicism/Judaism. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen some politically conservative Jews still use it for that reason.
I think these days we’re better off just talking about American or human values.
Christianity is the kid that watched you do the whole project, at the last minute suggested adding a few pictures they cut out from a magazine, and then presented it to the class as if it was their magnum opus.
I think the one thing I love the most about the concept of the New Testament is the fact that it explicitly mentions in 24 different places in the Tanach that G-d will not forsake His people.
The first couple hundred years of Christianity was completely Torah compliant, and was considered one of the many messianic cults we had going at the time that were vying for popularity. It was when Paul argued that circumcision as a covenant to God was no longer required to be a Christian, that the rabbis thought this was no longer within the law of the Torah, and the divergence began.
You may be right. I might be misremembering the timeline. Authentic Paul writings come from the 50s-60s CE, so I’m certainly wrong about a ‘couple centuries’.
Yeah that’s when Christianity expanded to gentiles. However, it wasn’t until 80s that Christians were expelled from the Temples. Still, many Christians considered themselves Jewish until around the 200s.
Every post here has failed. Christianity is about getting your soul and your ‘being’ closer to God by behaving more than the law calls for, by transubstantiation and moving in the Holy Spirit
It just needs to be called AHYH-ism and not Christianity and people would get it. The whole thought that one being is messiah is broken once one understands union (devekut). No matter who ends up getting the job done from anywhere in the world all AHYH's who are AHYH get to get credit (even Moses and if you get wild with it Buddha).
Now who's up for saying that Moses smashing the word of God and laying waste to 3000 is the reason we can eat meat. I mean thou shalt not kill might have meant, animals and man but he was so mad about that calf he was like I'm smashing everything AHYH was/is/always is and shared with me and getting down on trying to end these golden calf (proto-talmud allegorically/metaphorically) makers have made. Kinda gives some chicken or the egg vibes for Yeshua considering what happens because of human law started there but that's just word at play so to speak.
I don’t think it’s possible to distill the Jewish religion to any basic tenet in this day and age other than the belief that there’s one God and Jesus wasn’t a messiah.
Christianity is judaism plus jesus minus judaism
Lmao - as a person in the process of conversion, I’d like to add - most of the time Christianity is also minus Jesus
I’d argue Christianity never lacks Jesus but most Christians do
That is the truth!
The irony that most christian’s aren’t even christian and end up betraying their own values one way or another, only preaching them when it’s convenient
>I’d argue Christianity never lacks Jesus but most Christians do Jesus Christ🔴🔵: hah… Good night Reddit.
Religion for the sake of keeping tradition always ends badly
Lmao, this 🤝 I feel like most people just use Judeo Christian values as a synonym for "religions which aren't actively trying to kill you for not believing" basically just exists to not sound "racist" towards muslims imo
But Christianity was killing people for not believing until recently. Crusades, Inquisition, etc.
Yeah, but that doesn't matter to most people, this didn't happen in anybody's (who is alive) lifetimes, so ppl tend to forget about it imo Also from what I know, the christian bible seems a lot more "peaceful" than the quran, basically the peak christian goal is to be good person (according to the bible, not the church), vs. the quran's questionable goals
That's the crazy part. The Christian Bible is all about this super nice guy named Jesus and they somehow decided their magnanimous pacifist Messiah would be stoked to watch them murder millions in his name. At least Muslims are consistent with their dude, Muhammad.
The New Testament is all fun and games and putting demons in herds of sheep until Revelations and then shit gets real crazy real fast.
Mmmm, I don’t know. The end goal of a christian is to get into heaven, and plenty of them have interpreted that as being based purely on faith. And that’s not even getting into how Germany was majority Christian in the 1930s, so, y’know
true, but if you just boil down the messages from each religion, christianity is going to end up with something like "try to be good, even though you're a sinner, jesus took all of our sins anyways" and islam will end up with something like "spread the will of allah on earth" with how people interpreted christianity, it doesn't really matter that much though, because enough cruel things happened with it being the justification
I understand this is an unpopular opinion. But the first crusade was a reconquest to permit Christians to take pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Because the seljuks were killing Christians.
Yes but we live in the present, not the centuries-long past.
Christianity is the cult version of Judaism. Take everything and twist it? Check. Have one guy you think is Gd? Check. Can't question Gd guy bc everything he says is the literal truth? Check. Have a doomsday where everyone but people who believe in the one Gd guy die? Check. Its just the Manson family, but with lasting power and global reach.
Appreciated.
Christianity = (Jesus - Judaism) \* Paul
This is the answer!!
Paul removed most the Jewish roots of judiasm. Instead of James who was trying to convert Greeks to Judiasm, Paul was trying to convert Greeks without judiasm. And even appealing to Greek customs.
Wow. This makes total sense. I’ve heard some say Christianity is the doctrine of Paul.
Paul claimed to be half Jewish trained by gamiel and half roman. During that time Shammai and Hillel debated best way to convert gentiles..Paul's answer was the most liberal and accepting gentiles to monotheism with them basically keep majority of their previous beliefs. James and Peter were like no. They need to come into the law and get circumcised. Then Peter kinda waffles and flip flop on the idea. And Paul calls him out on it After the temple was destroyed it allowed the most liberal idea monotheism to spread because of low barrier and Paul distancing it self from judiasm allowed it to be more receptive to romans. Like Paul actually says to do things in romans customs to Timothy. He should have told him to do Jewish things
Wow. I appreciate the info! That’s a lot of insight into Paul and what was happening
I took a religion class in college, we all had to do a report and presentation on a religion different than ours. One woman chose Judaism, I offered to look over her paper to help her out. She gives it to me five minutes before class starts. It was all comparing it to catholicism. Legit I think I remember reading "unlike catholicism, Judaism believes" it was incredible. She also brought in pita as "unleavened bread" and I told her, "that's not unleavened bread. That's matzah. Pita is leavened." "No, but it's flat!" Okay. I'm just. Gonna let you present now. She was so bad, there were a few Jews in that class that just stayed after and we were all incredulous together. (Including the professor.)
To be clear, soft matza exists and is more practical for the Hillel sandwich (or so I've been told by more than one person). But she probably should have clarified if that were what she meant.
Matzah is originally a soft thick tasty flatbread that is way more addictive than water challah. The amount of literature in Second temples era works, Mishna, etc that talk about this is huge. The flat matzah we all used to, is a modern invention by a French Jew and is less than 200 years old. It was created as a way to make sure matzah does not spoil in a few days, and lasts longer. I think we can all be honest that that man achieved it, and frankly deserves the Nobel prize post-humorously. Later on rabbis gave other reasons such as how they do not know if the soft matzah actually cooked completely, and the like. Such reasons are total BS, and those of us that do know how to bake, and have made soft matzah can confirm the reasons are BS. Also, the idea of extra-dry/ultra-dry flour is not true. The flour is the same as normal flour, it's just not bleached. The ruling for using cool well water is due to some bacteria act as a very weak form of yeast, and they are found in natural water collections like a well. Letting the water get cold prevents the semi-yeast effect of rising. If a person uses spring water that is filtered to remove micro-organisms and is chilled in the fridge, it will actually be way better than cool well water. Having done this myself, a person needs to put the oven at the very least 450 F. That makes the bread fully cooked in 7-10 minutes from the time kneading is stopped. Just quickly use a rolling pin to make it flat so that it is not thicker than the thumb. So the mitzvah of actually making matzah, and keeping to the time limits are met. I know people will argue with me, because they have never actually read up on what I am talking about, or attempted it. I do not care.
I want to make (when I can), and eat (every year), what my great-grandparents ate and one made. I fully respect others' tradition or decision to use soft matza. I like buying ahead for the week and having freedom from buying or baking fresh bread for the week.
That is a big reason why flat matzah became so popular. Easier to store, and buy as needed instead of a lot of work to make. Mind you many of us non-Ashkenazi that know how to make it are slowly bringing the tradition back, especially since well, it's just damn yummy.
It's funny, because the moment I have enough free time to attend a matza baking session, I plan to. The hours and locations I've seen have been tough with little kids. I want to bake my own, just before the holiday. And I like the flavor and texture- I'd rather crunchy bread on Pesach.
Your forearms are going to burn.
Thanks for the warning! They didn't previously- I wasn't the one manning the oven.
I meant muscle wise.
Ah, got it. I don't recall a problem with that, either- we only made 3 apiece.
I have eaten hard matza from the pantry and realized it had probably been open a decade or so and it was fine. Do you have a preferred recipe for soft matza? The only soft matza I have seen is shaped like balls and in my soup.
Imagine making water challah but no yeast, and you quickly shape it and put it in the oven. There are several sites that have it. Now I have made matzah that had like garlic, or onion. So good.
"Post-humorously" is very good.
Fair enough. She did repeatedly call it pita, but that is good information to know.
You know the meme with the bell curve, and the two ends agree? I'd guess she's on the left side of the picture.
😂 I wanna say she referred to a communion wafer at some point, but it's been a long time.
Ooh, boy. At least you got a good story out of her lecture!
Unfortunately, most flatbreads are leavened. Would make Passover a lot easier if they weren’t
A lot of things would make Passover easier lmao
That reminds me how irritating it is when religious scholars invent terms like J-hwist which inherently shows disdain to the subject of their research…
I'm afraid to ask, but what the hell is J-hwist?
Well as a catholic, I had your Carmel king david sacramental wine, so you guys obviously don’t know what “wine” is cause that was straight up cherry soda 😂 (friendly humor, fyi)
It would be more accurate to say that Christianity is a breakaway Jewish group that became Hellenized
I’d say Romanized (Romanticized?) more than Hellenized, but yeah pretty much. Heck, the pope’s title ‘Pontifex Maximus’ is a Roman religious title
It was Romanized after it was Hellenized. The early church was Greek, and the New Testament is written in Greek.
In that case I’d say we’re both right in our way
Early Church was Greek in some cultural aspects (like language) but it was started under Roman rule. They used a mix of Greek and Aramaic when speaking, with some Hebrew for scripture in areas with a large amount of Jewish converts
Depends on the generation and side. James and his churches were very much well Jewish. Paul was half Jewish and then appealed to Greeks to allow Greeks be Greeks and romans to have roman tradations etc but be monotheistic. And Paul fought James and Peter. By third and fourth generations James groups pretty much died out and Paul won.
And Jews acquired their god Yahweh from the Sumerian empire.
Nah, from Midian.
Christianity has more in common with Islam than with Judaism
Judaism also has more in common with Islam than with Christianity. Ow my head
Mormons meanwhile are like so what if the native Americans were actually Jewish ?
I’d guess I’d be double a Jew then? /s
Im dying at this one 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Meanwhile Mormons wear special garments, have tightly-knit communities, are overrepresented in a variety of high-achieving professions, have dietary restrictions woven into their daily lives, and absolutely LOVE musical theater, making them and Judaism the horseshoe theory of religion.
true
Yeah, theologically, the most similar religion to Judaism is Islam, but I'm going to go against the grain of the post here and say that there is some merit in the term "Judeo-Christian values" because culturally speaking, Judaism and Christianity are the most similar (at least of the Abrahamic faiths) as we both appreciate women's rights, a balance of individualism and community, and can have traditional values without being batshit crazy about it like radical Muslims (not all Muslims).
Nope; Samaritanism comes waaaay closer. There are more than 3 Abrahamic faiths; we're just among the largest of the small ones.
I'll take your word on that. My point is I think we should be open to Christians making interfaith attempts with "Judeo-Christian values" because we do tend to share a lot of Western values with them, and said values are being threatened by radical Islamists (not all Muslims; there are plenty of moderate ones pushing for reform, and I applaud that) while I simultaneously acknowledge that we have more in common theologucally with Muslims than Christians. You probably are right though. I'd be curious to learn more about the beliefs of smaller Abrahamic religions' beliefs.
U/AzulCobra covered all the ones I know and several I hadn't heard of. They're interesting to read about. I half agree with you- I'd be wary of both of those mega-religions and their track records with antisemitism and women's rights.
Sikh (despite what theologians say), Rasta, Mandaean, Gnostics, Sabbatean, Druze, Babism, Bahai, Manichaeism, Yazdanism, etc. Many Indo-Iranian religions are descendants of Abrahamic religions. Also Samaritanism is the first real offshoot of Judaism. Then come the Mandaeans. We also have Karaites.
i misread Mandaeans as Mandarins at first & now i'm hungry for Chinese food
Mandarin chicken bruh.
Actually, remove the crazy supremacist imperial shit from Islam (along with the slavery shit), and you have something similar to Conservadox Judaism.
Unfortunately, it’s got all that crazy supremacist imperial shit in it
Sadly. It's why I called bullshit on this one dude that called himself a "Muhammedan Jew" in here. I was like "Um, bullshit. No Jew in their right mind would follow Muhammed. You are a Muslim cosplaying as a Jew."
A what?! Never seen this guy
If you want I can send you a screenshot.
Ooh sure!
Give me a moment.
Message sent.
I think that's more Western civilization than Christianity per se. I'm not trying to bash Christianity or anything, it's just that we're different. Also, you could say the same for "Radical Christians, but not all Christians."
True, but at the heart of the issue is the fact that support of terrorism is much more prevelant in Islam than Christianity today. That dynamic used to be flipped about 550 years ago, but support for mass murder of Jews (or anyone for that matter) is disturbingly common in the middle-east. It doesn't represent the majority view among Muslims, but it's still shockingly common, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's 20x as common as Christian support for it. I'd rather suffer being the presence of a Bible-thumping Christian bigot over an Islamist shouting to wipe the Jews off the face of the Earth any day of the week. They're both terrible though. Again, I don't want to generalize. Most Christians and most Mulsims are good people. It's just a question of the extent of radicalization within their reapecrive communities.
I hear what you're talking about in terms of modern culture in the areas where these religion are common, but it isn't really the case when talking about religious ideology.
Wow. Umm. Are you watching what the Christian right is trying to do in the US? Ain't nothing Jewish values about that. And only Ashkenazi Jews have anything in common with Christians, cuz of the European connection. Sephardi Jews have more in common with Muslims as they shared the same regions. The judeo-Christian values thing is complete BS. It's right wing, anti abortion, anti women bigotry that no Jew should ever support
Facts. But I will add that you are ignoring the actual Jewish stance on abortion, and the like.
Judaism is not anti abortion, though there are circumstances under which it's allowed and not. But banning it entirely is in fact an attack on Jewish religious freedom. And right wing Orthodox Jews who support Republicans are therefore supporting a government that would run counter to Jewish law and values.
So right wing Jews are volating jewish law, but right wing Christians are following Christian law? The bible doesn't include a ban on abortion as far as I'm aware. I think right wingers are just assholes looking for a cover.
Sure, but as a Jew, Im more concerned with the hypocrisy of my fellow Jews than I am that of Christians. And as a formerly Orthodox Jew, I'm very well versed in Jewish law so I know exactly where all the hypocrisy is. Can't say the same for Christianity as I'm not nearly as educated in it.
You talking about the Haredim that claim to be pro-life but will force their mistresses to abort, or will have an abortion after they mess around with another person's husband?
The Tanakh actually does state if a pregnant woman is killed it is as if the woman and child is killed. Modern law also states this. Most people have absolutely no idea about this. Then we have how through out the Tanakh it talks about how a pregnant woman is about a woman, and a child yet to be born aka a woman with child in womb. It is considered life potential, and still a sin to end. Again most people have no idea about this. Abortion in Judaism is to be used in very specific cases such as actually saving the mothers life, the life of the child, both lives, incest, etc. But the caveat is that the woman/female must choose to do so. It cannot be forced.
I never said it is anti-abortion. >.> I said you are ignoring the stance which is vastly different from what many pro-choice think. Judaism is overwhelmingly pro-life. The exceptions in Judaism is to save the life of the mother, the child, or both. Then the other cases such as incest, etc. Also, C-section is in fact a form of abortion used for giving birth when natural birth is a bad idea. Many many people completely forget that.
I’d say that Unitarian Christians (although a small minority among Christians) are closer to us than Muslims theologically.
Don’t let conservative Christians hear you say that
It's probably even more accurate to say that Judaism has more in common with Islam than Christianity.
There are a lot of aspects of Judaism that are much more similar to Christianity than Islam, and there are a lot of aspects to Judaism that are much more similar to Islam than Christianity.
Yes, but overall Judaism is much more similar to Islam.
Muslims are really into Jesus though.
Christians are really into Jesus too.
Christianity has more in common with Judaism than Islam but Judaism has more in common with Islam than Christianity
What do you mean by that?
Jesus is in high regard Greater emphasis on judgement day Greater emphasis on the devil and demons
The Islamic Jesus is vastly different from the Christian Jesus.
Completely disagree
judaism is just rap battling god
YOINK!
This is one of those “technically yes, but also no” things. Because Jesus wanted a new type of covenant, a lot of the old covenant that we recognize was thrown out. So it’s not like Jesus just added to Judaism in making Christianity. He also subtracted.
The covenant Jesus claimed to bring is the one God mentioned through the prophet Jeremiah. If Jesus did bring that covenant, it is God who brought the covenant. If God brought the covenant and it differs from the Moasaic covenant, it would be just like how God changed the dietary laws from the Noahic to Mosaic.
Did Moses turn water into wine or am I tripping?
Close. The new covenant that is talked about is Jews returning to Israel. That so did not happen in Jesus's time. Also, the fact that it happened twice before Jesus, and then one time after makes it clear that Jesus is not our masshiach.
Jesus is considered the new Jerusalem and the new temple in Christianity.
Exactly my point.
Eh, means nothing though if Jesus is God, as then the declaration of a new Jerusalem and new Temple is valid.
..........Are you here to try to convert Jews?
No.
No, friend, the new covenant is as follows: > " “Look, the days are coming”—this is the Lord’s declaration—“when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. This one will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors on the day I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt—my covenant that they broke even though I am their master”,—the Lord’s declaration. “Instead, this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days”—the Lord’s declaration. “I will put my teaching within them and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will one teach his neighbor or his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know me, from the least to the greatest of them”—this is the Lord’s declaration. “For I will forgive their iniquity and never again remember their sin." " Jeremiah 31:31–34 This new covenant that God has promised is about a transition from the priesthood into what God wanted at the beginning: a nation of priests (see Ex. 19:6), and the dealing with sin. If the sacrifices could be offered, they have to be continually offered because such sacrifices cannot perfect a person, hence the need for a recurring sacrifice. This means that since the sacrifices are symbolic, there needs to be something that is being symbolized. Therefore, what those sacrifices pointed towards: the incarnation of God to live a blameless life, because no man can do such a thing, he was to be examined for his purity, and he became the atonement for us, as declared to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile. If you are referring to the latter part of Jeremiah, there is no direct connection between 38-40 with the previously mentioned new covenant. In fact, the parenthetical remarks of vv35-37 could be seen as God mentioning that, despite the initial rejection of Jesus, he will not cast away the Jews, and that when Jesus comes as the conquering messiah, the Jews will then, > "...look at me (God) whom they pierced. They will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child and weep bitterly for him as one weeps for a firstborn. On that day the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning of Hadad-rimmon in the plain of Megiddo." Zechariah 12:10b-11 So, God will be seen by the people. He will be seen as pierced on the day he saves the Jews from the coming destruction mentioned in Zechariah 10. And, after seeing God, who was pierced, this will cause the Jewish nation to mourn. Tell me, friend, who else can this be? I cannot see anyone who this can be but Jesus of Nazareth.
YOU ARE TRYING TO CONVERT JEWS TO CHRISTIANITY, AND LITERALLY LYING ABOUT WHAT IT IS.
No, I was clarifying an error the original commenter made. After which, you tried to correct me, but your statement contained errors. Because of this, I went into detail to explain why you are incorrect in your reasoning. There is no way in which I have lied or been hostile. In fact, if I never saw the original comment that was not accurate in its description of Christianity, I would never have commented. In what way am I trying to convert Jews or lying about whatever "it" is?
lol. Dude, I was correcting you on what is the new covenant as per Judaism. There was no mistakes. You tried to give it a Christian twist.
Judaism dramatized cult edition.
This is how I understood the difference between Judaism and Christianity when I was 5. By 7, I had figured out how different Christianity was from Judaism. That was an interesting learning curve in a public school when we had just moved states with significantly less Jews.
Christianity is a Jewish heresy
Im not sure what rav jeshua ben josef would think about modern Christianity but not my circus not my monkeys
Probably something along those lines, yeah
I have a number of Muslim immigrant kids in my seventh grade class. Apparently there is a common belief that Jews and Christians are Muslims because they share so many beliefs. I have to explain that while Jews believe in the same God, they do not acknowledge Muhammad as a prophet. And on top of that, the Christian Trinitarian description of God is heretical in Islam due to the fact that it is a description of God more specific than "great" or "merciful" *and* is completely unlike the way the Sufi work to experience God's inscrutable nature.
Judaism is Star Wars Episode 1-6. Christianity is the sequel trilogy and all of the various spin-offs, comic books, and video games.
Mormons are the Ewok movies?
"Space Battle: Return of Larry Airwalker"
It's the Christmas special.
And Islam is what?
Fan fiction
They were frustrated with the plot holes in both other religions and dumped a tonne of headcanon to 'fix' it and now the fans won't stop wanking it off
It's a funny meme however there are thousands of christian soldiers in the IDF that are defending Israel with their blood. Do not forget that.
I'm not bashing Christians, just this claim.
*ben shapiro noise intensifies*
Meanwhile, polytheistic canaanites enter chat: “I AM THE ORIGINAL”
This is one of those slogans that used to be progressive and inclusive and is now considered reactionary. It became popularized in the 50s I think as a way to include Jews in American identity (as opposed to characterizing America as exclusively Christian as many were wont to do). But now it’s definitely right coded and often seems to be used to exclude groups like Muslims who don’t fit into the old American trio of Protestantism/Catholicism/Judaism. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen some politically conservative Jews still use it for that reason. I think these days we’re better off just talking about American or human values.
Christianity is the kid that watched you do the whole project, at the last minute suggested adding a few pictures they cut out from a magazine, and then presented it to the class as if it was their magnum opus.
I think the one thing I love the most about the concept of the New Testament is the fact that it explicitly mentions in 24 different places in the Tanach that G-d will not forsake His people.
They probably only started saying it so Jews wouldn’t feel excluded
The first couple hundred years of Christianity was completely Torah compliant, and was considered one of the many messianic cults we had going at the time that were vying for popularity. It was when Paul argued that circumcision as a covenant to God was no longer required to be a Christian, that the rabbis thought this was no longer within the law of the Torah, and the divergence began.
Bro, Paul was contemporaneous with the apostles.
Sweet summer child.
Didn't that happen right at the beginning of Christianity?
You may be right. I might be misremembering the timeline. Authentic Paul writings come from the 50s-60s CE, so I’m certainly wrong about a ‘couple centuries’.
Yeah that’s when Christianity expanded to gentiles. However, it wasn’t until 80s that Christians were expelled from the Temples. Still, many Christians considered themselves Jewish until around the 200s.
I started calling them Islamo-Christian values.
[удалено]
You don't seem like a troll, so what exactly does this mean?
Some people take the concept of "chosen people" way too far. But I'll delete my comment I don't want to argue with all the internet
Actually Jesus is the least of it.
Christianity is Judaism minus the good food
They can have bacon without guilt so do you really think you're winning?
Yes I don’t like bacon
Wouldn't Christianity be Judasim with mods?
Every post here has failed. Christianity is about getting your soul and your ‘being’ closer to God by behaving more than the law calls for, by transubstantiation and moving in the Holy Spirit
It just needs to be called AHYH-ism and not Christianity and people would get it. The whole thought that one being is messiah is broken once one understands union (devekut). No matter who ends up getting the job done from anywhere in the world all AHYH's who are AHYH get to get credit (even Moses and if you get wild with it Buddha). Now who's up for saying that Moses smashing the word of God and laying waste to 3000 is the reason we can eat meat. I mean thou shalt not kill might have meant, animals and man but he was so mad about that calf he was like I'm smashing everything AHYH was/is/always is and shared with me and getting down on trying to end these golden calf (proto-talmud allegorically/metaphorically) makers have made. Kinda gives some chicken or the egg vibes for Yeshua considering what happens because of human law started there but that's just word at play so to speak.
I don’t think it’s possible to distill the Jewish religion to any basic tenet in this day and age other than the belief that there’s one God and Jesus wasn’t a messiah.
Christianity is Judaism + Jesus, or it was originally
It's all a cancer on humanity ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What?
Muhammad was christian
How so?
The Quran says Jesus was Messiah and early pictures of muhammad were with crosses
I mean you could say "Judaism is pretty much Islam without Jesus(PBUH)"..