Christianity is NOT Derived From Judaism

[Rhetro]

Which Judaism? There's more than one.

There's the one founded by the prophets in the Old Testament, which doesn't actually call itself by that name.

Then there's the one founded by the Pharisees in the 3rd-2nd century BC, which continues under that name to this day.

Christianity is derived from the former, and not the latter.

Christianity IS the religion of the Prophets. The Old Testament is the uncompromised property of Christ. Modern Rabbinic Judaism is the actual 'derivative', a post-Temple mutation that stripped away the priesthood and sacrifices, rewriting its traditions in the Talmud explicitly to oppose Christ. The Church is the exact same congregation (ekklesia) that marched through the wilderness with Moses. Abraham, David, and Isaiah all worshipped the pre-incarnate Logos. The voice that declared "I Am Who I Am" was the Logos(when Moses was at the burning bush), which is why Jesus shocked the Pharisees in John 8:58 by using the exact same divine name for Himself: "Before Abraham was, I AM."

The Jewish Talmud says that Christ is boiling in excrement in Hell. Gittin 57a: Onkelos then went and raised Yeshu from the grave through necromancy... He said to him: "What is the punishment of that man in the next world?" Yeshu said to him: "He is punished with boiling excrement."

I don't think @Wrangler even knows what the Jews believe. Either he is completely blind to what is in the Talmud, or Bibi gave him a quiet wire $transfer$ to keep his mouth shut.

 

[Lambano]

​

​

Which Judaism? There's more than one.

There's the one founded by the prophets in the Old Testament, which doesn't actually call itself by that name.

Then there's the one founded by the Pharisees in the 3rd-2nd century BC, which continues under that name to this day.

Christianity is derived from the former, and not the latter.

Judaism’s history is commonly divided into major eras including the Biblical Period (c. 1800–586 BCE), the Second Temple Period (538 BCE–70 CE), the Rabbinic/Talmudic Period (70–600 CE), the Medieval Period (c. 600–1800 CE), the Early Modern/Emancipation Era (18th–19th centuries), and the Modern/Contemporary Era (20th century–present). These eras reflect shifts from ancient Israelite origins through exile, rabbinic development, medieval communities, emancipation, and the formation of modern Jewish life.

 

[Wick Stick]

Judaism’s history is commonly divided into major eras including the Biblical Period (c. 1800–586 BCE), the Second Temple Period (538 BCE–70 CE), the Rabbinic/Talmudic Period (70–600 CE), the Medieval Period (c. 600–1800 CE), the Early Modern/Emancipation Era (18th–19th centuries), and the Modern/Contemporary Era (20th century–present). These eras reflect shifts from ancient Israelite origins through exile, rabbinic development, medieval communities, emancipation, and the formation of modern Jewish life.

It needs a LOT more divisions.

For starters, the timeline of the northern kingdom is significantly different from the southern kingdom. I suppose only the southern kingdom is "Judaism," though.

The era of the patriarchs is much different from the time in "Egypt" is different from Moses era in the Wilderness is different from the era of the Judges, is different from the united kingdom under David is different from the divided kingdom after Solomon. That's just the "Biblical Period" above.

The history from the Babylonian captivity forward needs to be separated by places. It's very different in Babylon than it was in Judea, and Persia is different yet. Most of the prophets fall into this timeframe.

The era after the return from captivity marks a change. There was a major reform in Hosea's day and things changed again. The practice of writing histories was invented in this era and the literature changes drastically.

The Hasmonean era is another thing, again, and changes mid-dynasty with the conquest/conversion of the Edomites. Somewhere around that time, we have a major fragmentation among Jewish sects. That only gets us through the Second Temple Period.

edit: the most important of these differentiations is the one between the Northern & Southern kingdoms. Evidence shows that they weren't practicing the same "Judaism" at all

 

[Marvelloustime]

The harlot has seduced both sides . she is only keeping them pitted against one the other
so they cannot see they are both deceived and , oh yes and this is a massive huge AND
AND that both sides are also preaching the same false solution .
I have never had more sense of urgency that i do now .
WE have got to get far from anyone , no matter what side RCC or protesetant
Liberal or conservative , non political or political
ANYONE that is focused on world peace . DO IT NOW . NOW . once the delusion takes a man
HE NEVER comes b ack and will only be damned . GET THEM OUT now .
ITs peace IS OF ANTI CHRIST and nOT OF GOD .

@amigo de christo

 

[Marvelloustime]

you ever heard of nimrod .
You messed all of this up wrangler .
And before i get accused of being anti semtic
HELLO I ALREADY KNOW SALVATION IS OF THE JEWS .
but not of man , not of the flesh . IT WAS OF GOD by JESUS CHRIST buddy .
YOU run to the jews as if SOMEHOW they GODS KIDS and salvation is of them .
As if being a jew is all that mattered . Like heck it is . JESUS called the jews who did not believe on him
as having one father . AND IT WAS NOT GOD . salvation didnt come of man , and it darn sure
did not come of the unbelieving jews . IT CAME FROM GOD BY JESUS CHRIST .
WAKE UP . SNAP OUT OF THIS delusion , OR WAIL and WAIL you will on JESUS day .
THE JEWS of today are not going to bring salvation on earth , NOR peace
NOR will the nar realm , nor will trump , nor will the liberal left , nor will their ecuemenical peace plan of ANTI CHRIST either .
ITS ALL a delusion . and its one i see you are beginning to be led right into it .
Salvation is of the JEWS , not because one is a jew , but because SALVATION was always OF JESUS CHRIST
who was , according to the flesh of that lineage of the jews . YOU SEEK THE PERSON , THE FLESH
BUT as for me I SEEK THE JESUS and POINT ONLY TO HIM . You will surely wail if you do not get off this path .
And wrangler , hard as this might seem for you to believe , ALL I EVER WANTED was THE GOOD of your welfare .
NOW get far and wide from anyone or anything connected to anyone or anything ecumeincal
inclusive interfaith , far f rom any who is trying to lead and guide us into WORLD peace . oR WAIL ON JESUS DAY .

@amigo de christo

 

[Lambano]

It needs a LOT more divisions.

For starters, the timeline of the northern kingdom is significantly different from the southern kingdom. I suppose only the southern kingdom is "Judaism," though.

The era of the patriarchs is much different from the time in "Egypt" is different from Moses era in the Wilderness is different from the era of the Judges, is different from the united kingdom under David is different from the divided kingdom after Solomon. That's just the "Biblical Period" above.

The history from the Babylonian captivity forward needs to be separated by places. It's very different in Babylon than it was in Judea, and Persia is different yet. Most of the prophets fall into this timeframe.

The era after the return from captivity marks a change. There was a major reform in Hosea's day and things changed again. The practice of writing histories was invented in this era and the literature changes drastically.

The Hasmonean era is another thing, again, and changes mid-dynasty with the conquest/conversion of the Edomites. Somewhere around that time, we have a major fragmentation among Jewish sects. That only gets us through the Second Temple Period.

edit: the most important of these differentiations is the one between the Northern & Southern kingdoms. Evidence shows that they weren't practicing the same "Judaism" at all

Is it any surprise that Judaism had to evolve to survive exile, occupation, persecution, etc.?

Is anyone uncomfortable with the fact that Christianity has evolved over the centuries to deal with changing conditions? Evolved to the point that it would not be recognizable to the original 12 disciples?

Is anyone uneasy with the fact that Christianity is evolving TODAY?

And that Jude 1:3 is an illusion?

 

[Wick Stick]

Is it any surprise that Judaism had to evolve to survive exile, occupation, persecution, etc.?

Again, which Judaism? There's more than one, and they don't seem to have the same origins or follow the same people.

There's the one that follows Moses and was born in the Wilderness. There's the one that follows the prophets that was born in Canaan. There's one that follows Rabbi Akiva and was born in the ashes of 1st century Israel. There's the one who follows Maimonides, that was born in Spain. There's a Judaism that follows the Talmuds that was born in Babylon. There's Christianity, following Christ.

These are not all parts of the evolution of a single religion. They're different things entirely.

Is anyone uncomfortable with the fact that Christianity has evolved over the centuries to deal with changing conditions? Evolved to the point that it would not be recognizable to the original 12 disciples?

Is anyone uneasy with the fact that Christianity is evolving TODAY?

Yes to all. We should be trying to get back to our roots.

 

[Lambano]

Again, which Judaism? There's more than one, and they don't seem to have the same origins or follow the same people.

If you have to ask that question, then you missed the point.

Yes to all. We should be trying to get back to our roots

Why?

 

[Lambano]

"According to theologian James D. G. Dunn, four types of early Christianity can be discerned: Jewish Christianity, Hellenistic Christianity, Apocalyptic Christianity, and early Catholicism." - Dunn, James D. G. (2005) [1977]. Unity and diversity in the New Testament: An inquiry into the character of earliest Christianity (3rd ed.)

Which Christian roots should we get back to?

 

[Wrangler]

Christianity IS the religion of the Prophets. The Old Testament is the uncompromised property of Christ. Modern Rabbinic Judaism is the actual 'derivative',

Not according to the last chapter of Acts, where Paul acknowledges Christianity is a Jewish sect.

 

[Wick Stick]

If you have to ask that question, then you missed the point.

I have to ask that question, because we don't get to just ignore reality in favor of "how it should be."

The flavors of Judaism that come out of Babylon, and from Rabbi Akiva, are actually evil, and stand in opposition to Christ.

The flavors of Judaism that come from Moses and Maimonides are not evil, but those Jews who follow them are missing Christ, clinging instead to a covenant that was meant to be temporary and punitive.

The Judaism of the prophets is Christianity. Clearly, I favor this.

Why?

Because the faith was delivered once-for-all; not once-for-all with the caveat that it changes and evolves over time.

 

[Wick Stick]

Modern Rabbinic Judaism is the actual 'derivative', a post-Temple mutation that stripped away the priesthood and sacrifices, rewriting its traditions in the Talmud explicitly to oppose Christ.

That doesn't make it a derivative. That makes it a whole 'nother thing

 

[Rhetro]

Not according to the last chapter of Acts, where Paul acknowledges Christianity is a Jewish sect.

Incorrect. In Acts 28:22, it is the non-believing Roman Jewish leaders who refer to Christianity as a 'sect' (hairesis) because they didn't know what it was yet. Paul immediately corrects them in the very next verses by preaching the Kingdom of God and proving Jesus from the Law and the Prophets, demonstrating that Christ is the absolute fulfillment of Israel's hope, not a mere subset of a fractured religion.

In Acts 28:16, Paul arrives in Rome under house arrest. Then in Acts 28:17 it says “And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together”. The people speaking in verse 22 are the exact same local leaders he summoned to his lodging in Rome.

Acts 28:21-22 “Then they said to him, “We neither received letters from Judea concerning you, nor have any of the brethren who came reported or spoken any evil of you. 22 But we desire to hear from you what you think, for concerning this sect, we know that it is spoken against everywhere.”

Who is “we” in the verse, @Wrangler ?

When Paul is on trial before the Roman governor Felix in Acts 24:14, his accusers call Christianity a sect (hairesis). Paul directly refutes this, stating under oath: “But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets.”

 

[Rhetro]

That doesn't make it a derivative. That makes it a whole 'nother thing

Indeed. Calling it a 'derivative' gives it too much credit. By abandoning the Temple, the priesthood, and the blood sacrifices, and replacing them with the authority of the Rabbis and the Talmud, modern Rabbinic Judaism didn't just derive from the Old Testament faith…it mutated into an entirely different, rival religious system built to oppose Christ.

 

[Wrangler]

Incorrect. In Acts 28:22, it is the non-believing Roman Jewish leaders who refer to Christianity as a 'sect'

And Paul corrected them? Research tacit approval.

 

[Wrangler]

That doesn't make it a derivative.

What would make it derivative? @Rhetro can't seem to answer but only resort to personal attack.

 

[Rhetro]

And Paul corrected them? Research tacit approval.

Invoking 'tacit approval' is a desperate, textually bankrupt evasion, because the literal text shows Paul spent the entire next day using the Law and the Prophets to prove that Jesus is the exclusive fulfillment of Israel’s hope..the exact opposite of a sect, before explicitly pronouncing a divine judgment of blindness on those Roman leaders in verse 25

What are they even teaching you at your synagogue?

 

[Rhetro]

What would make it derivative? @Rhetro can't seem to answer but only resort to personal attack.

Ah yes, here comes the fake victimhood and pearl clutching. As much as you endorse Trump like a battered housewife, you’re the one who employed leftist tactics earlier by whining “antisemitism!” as if that was going to shut down discourse and theological debate thinking it was going to make people fall in line.

I unequivocally stand with Israel and the Jewish people on political, racial AND religious grounds.

You still haven’t addressed the passage from the Talmud where it says Christ is boiling in excrement in hell. You said you stand on religious grounds with the Jews. Explain that apostasy, @Wrangler

I addressed your derivative question earlier, quit lying. “To be "derived" from something means you are a secondary byproduct or mutation of it, Christianity is not a derivative of Judaism because the Old Testament is the direct, uncompromised property of Jesus Christ…the Logos, meaning the Church is the tree itself, while modern Rabbinic Judaism is a post-Temple branch that broke itself off from the root by rejecting its own Messiah.”

 

[Wrangler]

Invoking 'tacit approval' is a desperate, textually bankrupt evasion, because the literal text shows Paul spent the entire next day using the Law and the Prophets to prove that Jesus is the exclusive fulfillment of Israel’s hope

So Law and the Prophet writings that prove that Jesus is the exclusive fulfillment of Israel’s hope is not derivative? LOL. What would derivative be?

 

[Rhetro]

So Law and the Prophet writings that prove that Jesus is the exclusive fulfillment of Israel’s hope is not derivative? LOL. What would derivative be?

Fulfillment.

You still don’t understand what the word "derivative" means. You think that if a newer book references or builds upon an older book, it is automatically a "derivative" subset of it. By that logic, a sequel is a derivative of its prequel, rather than part of the same continuous story.

Fulfilling a promise does not make the fulfillment a derivative subset of the promise, the New Covenant is the actual realization of the Old Covenant story, meaning Christianity is the tree itself, while modern Rabbinic Judaism is a post-Temple branch that snapped itself off from the root by rejecting its own Messiah.