Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

...there is one problem, and it is one that has always dismayed me:

Ah, the blessings and the curses! Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim.

it is interesting! I see Mount Ebal-curse (on the right) and Mount Gerizim-blessing (on the left), and Shechem between them, - from my home. Welcome!

Thanks for that. That's extremely cool.

I've always marvelled at the propensity of people, whether Jewish or Christian, to hear the blessings of Mt. Gerizim and not the curses of Mt. Ebal. To take on oneself, in ones own strength, the responsibility of representing HaShem is to take both.

I should think Mt. Ebal would be enough to give anyone pause about doing that, wouldn't you?

[attofishpi]

Er, sorry if I've been a bit harsh on you lately I.C.

[attofishpi]

I've become over the years fascinated with the origins, the basis of Christianity, Judaism.

I was rather annoyed that through my Catholic school upbringing we were taught next to nothing of the Old Testament even, it wasn't until I was much older I even realised that Judaism is the foundation.

I'm not here to have a debate, can't sleep v hot night too.

Alexis Jacobi or Janoah, even I.C. - I presume this song is in the Hebrew language?
I really love it, the video might go odd at times, but the woman's voice is beautiful, as is some of the visuals.
I wonder if I could be given the "gist" of what she is singing from one of you guys, I have searched online to no avail.

https://youtu.be/lcjWJe0_xd4

[Immanuel Can]

Doesn't it seem unfair to you? The person who has will be given more but the one who doesn't will lose the little he has?

Not at all, if you look at the context of that parable.

The one who "had little" is the unfaithful steward. He "had little" because he refused to believe at all in the goodness or generosity of his Lord, so he buried all that he had, and had nothing by way of profit to show for all that the Lord had invested in him. He was so afraid, so convinced that his Master was "a hard man," the kind who would "reap where he had not sowed," (which he clearly was not) and so nervous that his Lord would punish him if he lost the money, that he refused to trust in the goodness and generostiy of his Lord, and so wasted his opportunity. He didn't even invest it in a bank.

What a fool.

He also loses what little he has, because even what he has was not his own in the first place -- it was a stewardship entrusted to him from his Lord's money. And he did squat with it. So he doesn't deserve squat.

But the reason the other two had something is that they believed in the goodness of their Lord and Master...they took his entrusted funds, and built on them, secure in the knowledge that he would reward them for being faithful to their charge, and would forgive them for what they lost, if they lost anything, because he would know their hearts are in the right place...they were trying to honour him, and they believed in his goodness.

They acted like men of faith.

So it's a parable about faith in God: what do you believe God is like? Is He a "hard man," one who has only given you life and opportuntiies in order to demand that which you cannot give? Or is He a generous Lord, one who has given us many gifts that we can use for His service and bring joy to Him...for which He will amply reward us?

The key question, then, is "What do you think God is really like?"

[Immanuel Can]

Er, sorry if I've been a bit harsh on you lately I.C.

Well, that shows character! Good for you. It's not easy to apologize. I'm impressed.

Completely forgiven. And if I have said anything that hurts you, I ask for your forgiveness, too.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yes, I am the servant of a Jew. Of THE Jew, the Jew of Jews, the King of the Jews. It is my honour to know HaShem, and I am deeply conscious of the debt I owe to the people who preseved His Name for me to hear. It has saved my life. It is everything to me, both now and forever. How can I not be grateful?

Well, I think some correction is needed. First, no one owes anything to the Jews -- that is to say the people who identify as Jewish who exist on the planet right now. If you owe anything to anyone, or honor to some, it is to those very few who wrote the biblical texts. The entire idea of being beholden to 'the Jews' simply because they are Jewish seems absurd to me, if looked at rationally.

Christian Zionists seem wedded to this absurdity and through this absurdity they manifest a bizarre idolatry of Israel as if the modern state of Israel is an attainment of God. In the long run (a possibility I have considered) the establishment of Israel may not work to the advantage (if advantage in respect to Jews and Jewish history can be contemplated) of Jews or Judaism.

But all of this is tied, as I see it, to the essential tragic nature of Jewish history. There are too many moving parts and everything about it is extremely hard to contemplate.

It even seems absurd to me for modern Jews -- so many of those I know and those in my family -- to claim any ownership or to claim some sort of right as moral arbiters because they are Jewish. (Or whatever odd ideas arise from the sort of idolatry, as indeed it must be called, that you seem to propose). Most Jews, if not all Jews, are simply people attempting to live their lives and to make progress along the lines defined by culture.

Strict Judaism holds Jesus Christ and also Christians in total contempt. There will never be any association or reconciliation possible. For a non-Jew to convert to Judaism requires that that non-Jew renounce Jesus Christ and Christian belief. Only among quasi-Jews, or Jews on the easy (or inevitable) road to assimilation, can or will profess some sort of respect for Jesus Christ, and Christians, but usually because Christianity seems to support the basic Noahide Laws. But there is no Jew that will ever say or confess that the incarnation of Jesus was an incarnation of God. The idea is absurd.

So the upshot here is that if there is a Jews who *confesses* Jesus Christ, that Jew is no longer a Jew but a Christian. And because that Jew is a Christian there can be no relationship with Judaism, except to the degree that Christianity and Christians subordinate themselves to Jewish (what is the world here?) purposes or general plan. However, there are some Jews who have 'become Christians' at least for a time, but then have spun back into a more-or-less Jewish, and perhaps Orthodox, perspective. Take the famous Sixties personality Bob Dylan. If my sources are correct he was sort of *reabsorbed* into Chabad-Lubavitch.

Therefore, and by nature, and even naturally, a strict Jew (Orthodox, practicing) must essentially rewrite Christianity because the core tenets of Christianity are unacceptable to Judaism. For this reason, it seems fair to say, you could not rely on any strict Jew to explain what Christianity is, nor what the incarnation of Jesus Christ is, as they could only explain it away.

Finally, I do not think that Jesus Christ, as incarnation of God, can be or even should be seen as a Jew. The very notion of it is absurd. It is said, and it is understood, that the Logos -- you use the term Shem but in Judaism the name of God is referred to as 'the name' only because the name of God cannot be stated in human language yet the notion of Logos is quite different, it seems to me -- the Logos is the intelligent idea that runs through all the world and all possible worlds. If there is a salvific Jesus Christ in this our world it stands to reason(logically: logos-stically) that this salvific Reality operates in and applied to all worlds throughout the Universe, and that means throughout Creation, on all levels, everywhere and always.

And the idea that expresses this is not culture-bound to Jews, the the Jewish project, to Jewish history, nor to Judea.

I do understand that in the Christian story, the Christian view of history and of prophesy, that the eventual conversion of the Jews is understood to be necessary, and though this seems doubtful I guess anything is possible (!)

But my point is that I think it is a strange mistake to see Jesus Christ as a Jew. Because that means seeing God as Jewish as well. And this reduces the whole idea of God to something absurd.

[attofishpi]

Er, sorry if I've been a bit harsh on you lately I.C.

Well, that shows character! Good for you. It's not easy to apologize. I'm impressed.

Completely forgiven. And if I have said anything that hurts you, I ask for your forgiveness, too.

Bah! Beyond being called a murderer, I'm all fine with you!

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, I am the servant of a Jew. Of THE Jew, the Jew of Jews, the King of the Jews. It is my honour to know HaShem, and I am deeply conscious of the debt I owe to the people who preseved His Name for me to hear. It has saved my life. It is everything to me, both now and forever. How can I not be grateful?

Well, I think some correction is needed.

Strict Judaism holds Jesus Christ and also Christians in total contempt.

I know. It does not mean I feel the same way as they do.

But there is no Jew that will ever say or confess that the incarnation of Jesus was an incarnation of God.

Well, that claim is only bought by redefining all Messianic Jews as "not Jews."

It's really the same way Islam is able to say, "Nobody ever converts away from Islam." They do it be redefining "convert."

Both statements, though, are obviously contentious rather than unequivocal. The Messianic Jews regard themselves as Jews, are biologically Jewish, many of them live in Israel, and their whole heritage is Jewish. They're just not allowed to be called Jews by the Jewish authorities.

So the upshot here is that if there is a Jews who *confesses* Jesus Christ, that Jew is no longer a Jew but a Christian.

There's a level of truth in this, but also a level of untruth. The truth is that every Jew who confesses Christ is a member of HIs Body, the Church, and a a fellow-Christian with me, totally coequal without distinction. But he/she has not lost his/her yiddishkeit, nor has to surrender it, anymore than a Somali or Chinese has to drop his/her culture in order to be a Christian. He/she is perfectly free to celebrate his or her Jewishness, and to teach me about it to, if he/she is so inclined. There's a lot I can learn from that.

...the core tenets of Christianity are unacceptable to Judaism...

I deny that. I would say, "the core tenets of Christianity are not currently being accepted by conventional Judaism."

But we have Messiah. And Messiah is King of the Jews. So long as Judaism has any ambition for Messiah, they will eventually have to reconsider Him.

Finally, I do not think that Jesus Christ, as incarnation of God, can be or even should be seen as a Jew.

That, too, is surely arbitrary. There's no disputing he was the son of a Galilee carpenter, born in Bethlehem, in the line of King David himself. You don't get a whole lot more Jewish than that.

...Logos is the intelligent idea that runs through all the world and all possible worlds.

Christians believe He's not just an idea. "Logos" has affinitites with "logic," it's true...but also with "word," in the particular sense of "utternace to which one is committed." It also has links to "Law" or "authortiative word." It is the basis of Creation itself, in Genesis 1. But it is also the Pre-existent, Living Word of John 1. Logos, as God's final word to man, is Christ Himself.

I do understand that in the Christian story, the Christian view of history and of prophesy, that the eventual conversion of the Jews is understood to be necessary, and though this seems doubtful I guess anything is possible (!)

Fair enough. Do you know the book of Ruth? It's in the Tanakh. Have you ever read it? I have some thoughts from it.

But my point is that I think it is a strange mistake to see Jesus Christ as a Jew. Because that means seeing God as Jewish as well. And this reduces the whole idea of God to something absurd.

I think maybe you've got that reversed: God isn't "Jewish," in the sense that "Jewishness" is a mere predication of God, or as if the idea "Jew" existed before God existed, so can be predicated of Him. Think of it instead, the other way: "Jew" is a synonym for "nation chosen by God to represent Him among all nations." In other words, everything good about Judaism is derived from its association with the character of God. But God is not a Jew...Jewishness, if faithful, is godly.

But if we look at the Incarnation, of course, we can also speak meaningfully of God "being a Jew." For Christ was born to the Jews, in Bethlehem, and raised according to the Law, and worked and ministered in Israel. There He lived, died, was buried, rose again and appeared to His disciples. From thence he was taken up into the heavens, and to the Mount of Olives Messiah shall return. He will enter the Temple through the East Gate...despite all the attempts to make that impossible. And from Jerusalem He will rule.

That's pretty Jewish stuff, I would say.

[Nick_A]

Do you sense a relationship between what is written in Matthew 13 and John 9 with Plato's description of the darkness of Plato's Cave?

No, not really.

I think Plato's cave is much more like our media-saturated culture. Consider the "shadows" that the cave-dwellers take for real. Consider their hatred of those who argue they're shadows, and their "games" based on the shadows...

Suppose that the external world for humanity is Plato's Cave. It is the domain of the Prince of darkness. What is darkness for the inner man? It is the absence of spiritual light made possible by our interpretations. Darkness means ignorance

There is this old story of the devil and an imp walking down the street. All of a sudden they see a man picking up a piece of the truth. The imp is terrified and tells the devil we will be exposed. The devil turns to him with a smile. Don't worry my young friend. He may have found a piece of the truth but we will help him organize it. All is well.

Freedom from the darkness of the cave and leaving the cave is through inwardly turning towards the light. For Christianity it is metanoia or inwardly turning towards the light. Either way it is the same. Christianity goes on to say it is impossible without the help of the Spirit.

That is why Jesus spoke in parables. Otherwise this tendency to interpret and classify will force a person to lose everything if not sufficiently evolved to profit by Jesus' sacrifice rather than devolving it into the many forms of secularized interpretation.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you sense a relationship between what is written in Matthew 13 and John 9 with Plato's description of the darkness of Plato's Cave?

No, not really.

I think Plato's cave is much more like our media-saturated culture. Consider the "shadows" that the cave-dwellers take for real. Consider their hatred of those who argue they're shadows, and their "games" based on the shadows...

Suppose that the external world for humanity is Plato's Cave.

No, I don't suppose that, at all. There's actually no reason to suppose it's true.

[Nick_A]

No, not really.

I think Plato's cave is much more like our media-saturated culture. Consider the "shadows" that the cave-dwellers take for real. Consider their hatred of those who argue they're shadows, and their "games" based on the shadows...

Suppose that the external world for humanity is Plato's Cave.

No, I don't suppose that, at all. There's actually no reason to suppose it's true.

Anyone who has experienced the hypocrisy and absurdity of the external world as well as the same conditions existing in their own internal world will know it's true and that they live in darkness with the need to let the light in.

[uwot]

oops, I done fucked up, uwot!

Who doesn't? Think nothing of it.

[Age]

But varieties of god belief are not flavours. If I want orange flavour but ask for apple flavour I would not be understood

me: I like sherbet

you: so you like dairy

me: sherbert is non-dairy

you: you shoulda told me that from the start

your education is on you, not me

'nuff said

I agree it's best to define the terms right at the beginning.

Great.

So, considering this thread's topic title is "Christianity", then how about, right at the beginning, the definition for the term 'christianity' is given, agreed with, and then accepted. Then let the discussion begin.

By the way, coming together, peacefully, in agreement and in acceptance, and in the beginning, of how to define the word and term 'God', would be very helpful in discussions like this one.

This is a philosophy website and so one presumes people use standard and precise philosophical words for philosophical ideas, or at least try to do so.

WHY would one PRESUME such a thing? Doing so will only lead to MISUNDERSTANDINGS and MISCONCEPTIONS.

Also, where, EXACTLY, would one find the 'standard and precise' philosophical words, and their 'standard and precise' meanings and definitions?

[Age]

one presumes people use standard and precise philosophical words for philosophical ideas, or at least try to do so.

I believe if one is confronted by an unfamiliar term or notion, or a notion or term is used in what one thinks is an novel way, one ought do a little research (or mebbe just ask what the other means)

I find this gaining CLARITY of what thee other ACTUALLY means to be GREAT advice.

But one is absolutely FREE to ASSUME and/or PRESUME absolutely ANY thing, instead, in the first place.

[Immanuel Can]

Anyone who has experienced the hypocrisy and absurdity of the external world...

There's nothing at all "hypocritical" or "absurd" about reality. You're speaking of the human beings around you.

...their own internal world ...

Now you've got it. The hypocrisy is a human phenomenon. There is, indeed, something wrong with us.