Christianity is NOT Derived From Judaism

[Wrangler]

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.

So, you deny Jesus is the fulfillment, the derivative of Judaism? LOL

 

[Rhetro]

So, you deny Jesus is the fulfillment, the derivative of Judaism? LOL

Using the words 'fulfillment' and 'derivative' as synonyms might impress Bibi Netanyahu, but otherwise you would be proving you are illiterate in both theology and basic English grammar. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant promises, not a 'derivative subset' of a modern, post-Temple Rabbinic religion that formed to deny Him.

Think about this logically. How can Christ be a 'derivative' of a Rabbinic religion that was created after His Resurrection for the specific purpose of rejecting Him?

Just who was Moses talking to at the burning bush?

Exodus 3:14 “And God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM.’ And He said, ‘Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, “I AM has sent me to you.”

John 8:58 “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am”

Are those 2 different gods, or the same God?

 

[Wrangler]

Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant promises, not a 'derivative subset' of a modern, post-Temple Rabbinic religion that formed to deny Him.

Strawman. Who said anything about this modern BS?Judaism is ancient. Jesus was a Jew. He is the Jewish Messiah, which is where salvation comes. Jesus quoted the Hebrew Holy text to make his points. You deny all this.

 

[Rhetro]

Strawman. Who said anything about this modern BS?Judaism is ancient. Jesus was a Jew. He is the Jewish Messiah, which is where salvation comes. Jesus quoted the Hebrew Holy text to make his points. You deny all this.

Just because Jesus was an ethnic Jew who quoted the Hebrew Scriptures does not make Christianity a derivative of "Judaism," because the actual religious system practiced by modern Christ-rejectors didn't even exist until the Talmud was written after the Resurrection to replace the destroyed Temple.

Again, just who was Moses talking to at the burning bush?

Exodus 3:14 “And God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM.’ And He said, ‘Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, “I AM has sent me to you.”

John 8:58 “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am”

Are those 2 different gods, or the same God?

 

[Wrangler]

Just because Jesus was an ethnic Jew who quoted the Hebrew Scriptures does not make Christianity a derivative of "Judaism,"

What would make it derivative? It’s so revealing that you refuse to answer the question. Your claim that Judaism came after a Christ is ludicrous.

 

[Rhetro]

What would make it derivative? It’s so revealing that you refuse to answer the question. Your claim that Judaism came after a Christ is ludicrous.

Nothing makes Christianity a derivative because fulfillment is the climax of a story.

Again, just who was Moses talking to at the burning bush?

Exodus 3:14 “And God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM.’ And He said, ‘Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, “I AM has sent me to you.”

John 8:58 “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am”

Are those 2 different gods, or the same God?

 

[Wick Stick]

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

To be part of the Tree, you have to be attached to the trunk.

@Rhetro has correctly pointed out that Rabbinic Judaism has gone to lengths to sever itself from Christ and Christianity. Paul talks about God breaking off some branches, but what Rabbi Akiva and the church at Babylon did is more like...



He goes too far in some of what he said... Rabbinic Judaism is not ALL Judaism, and probably doesn't deserve to be affiliated with the Old Testament, or have the name Judaism. But yeah... the "Judaism" that was born in Babylon and rejects Christ hasn't been attached to the True Vine for quite a while... if it ever was.

 

[Rhetro]

To be part of the Tree, you have to be attached to the trunk.

@Rhetro has correctly pointed out that Rabbinic Judaism has gone to lengths to sever itself from Christ and Christianity. Paul talks about God breaking off some branches, but what Rabbi Akiva and the church at Babylon did is more like...

View attachment 92274

He goes too far in some of what he said... Rabbinic Judaism is not ALL Judaism, and probably doesn't deserve to be affiliated with the Old Testament, or have the name Judaism. But yeah... the "Judaism" that was born in Babylon and rejects Christ hasn't been attached to the True Vine for quite a while... if it ever was.

At this point, all I want to know from @Wrangler is:

Whether these are two gods or one God.

Exodus 3:14 “And God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM.’ And He said, ‘Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, “I AM has sent me to you.” (Burning bush)

John 8:58 “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am”

I do have a question for you though. Since you agree that Rabbi Akiva and the Babylonian Talmud sawed themselves off from the True Vine, where exactly on the tree do you think Christ-rejectors were attached before they sawed themselves off after the Resurrection, given that Jesus explicitly stated in John 14:6 that no one comes to the Father except through Him?

So there never was a neutral 'Judaism' left over after the Resurrection that belonged to the Old Testament, you are either in the Church with the Messiah, or you are in Rabbinic Judaism with the Talmud and Bibi Netanyahu kissing the wall with @Wrangler

 

[Wick Stick]

I do have a question for you though. Since you agree that Rabbi Akiva and the Babylonian Talmud sawed themselves off from the True Vine, where exactly on the tree do you think Christ-rejectors were attached before they sawed themselves off after the Resurrection, given that Jesus explicitly stated in John 14:6 that no one comes to the Father except through Him?

The way the question is phrased causes a timing problem. The point at which they became Christ-rejectors is the point at which they sawed themselves off.

Before that, many were Israelites, which gave them a connection through Abraham. Disbelieving severs that connection, because Abraham's deal with God is predicated on belief.

Some were fake-Israelites to begin with, and they were never part of the Tree.

So there never was a neutral 'Judaism' left over after the Resurrection that belonged to the Old Testament, you are either in the Church with the Messiah, or you are in Rabbinic Judaism with the Talmud and Bibi Netanyahu kissing the wall with @Wrangler

I don't agree with that. There are plenty that are in neither camp. The majority of modern Israelis are atheists, actually. They certainly don't all align with Netanyahu's hawk-ish policies.

 

[Rhetro]

The way the question is phrased causes a timing problem. The point at which they became Christ-rejectors is the point at which they sawed themselves off.

Before that, many were Israelites, which gave them a connection through Abraham. Disbelieving severs that connection, because Abraham's deal with God is predicated on belief.

Some were fake-Israelites to begin with, and they were never part of the Tree.

I don't agree with that. There are plenty that are in neither camp. The majority of modern Israelis are atheists, actually. They certainly don't all align with Netanyahu's hawk-ish policies.

Disbelieving severs that connection

Well by admitting that disbelieving in Christ is the exact point they sawed themselves off, you just conceded my entire timeline: they were permanently severed at the Resurrection, not centuries later with the Talmud…meaning a neutral, Christ-rejecting 'Judaism' never existed after the Cross. You were so focused on correcting a 'logic flaw' or 'timing problem' in my phrasing, you left absolutely no historical room for a neutral "Judaism" to exist after 33 AD.

We weren’t even debating secular modern voting statistics, we were debating biblical covenant history. Your own words proved my point: the rejection of Christ was the absolute cut from Abraham's tree, which leaves the Church as the sole, continuous continuation of Israel.

Before that, many were Israelites, which gave them a connection through Abraham

Right. Before Christ. Everyone agrees that before Christ rose, the Israelites were the chosen people through Abraham. And when Moses was talking through the burning bush, he was talking to the pre-incarnate Logos.

 

[Wrangler]

@Rhetro has correctly pointed out that Rabbinic Judaism has gone to lengths to sever itself from Christ and Christianity

Rabbinic? Never heard of it. Odd semantic game and even more odd to deny Christianity is derived from Judaism, even if non-Rabbanic was not specified.

If my granddaughter tells me she wants apple juice, I don’t give her spoiled juice on the grounds that she didn’t exclude Rabbinic, spoiled juice.

 

[Wick Stick]

Well by admitting that disbelieving in Christ is the exact point they sawed themselves off, you just conceded my entire timeline: they were permanently severed at the Resurrection,

I don't see why that would be the case? There must be some logic to bridge that gap, but it isn't obvious here.

...not centuries later with the Talmud…meaning a neutral, Christ-rejecting 'Judaism' never existed after the Cross

Neutral and Christ-rejecting are contradictory. There existed/exists a neutral Judaism that accepts Moses and the prophets, but it ceases to be neutral at the point it rejects Christ, which is often early because that is what the rabbis teach.

The situation is similar to the Mormons or JW's. The leadership is bad; there are doctrines added on top of the truth that subvert it. Nonetheless, they have the Scriptures and there is real truth at a foundational level that is enough to lead one to salvation. The less experienced and less indoctrinated one is there, the more likely that is to be the case.

Right. Before Christ. Everyone agrees that before Christ rose, the Israelites were the chosen people through Abraham. And when Moses was talking to the burning bush, he was talking to the pre-incarnate Logos.

I don't think they stopped being a chosen people at that point. Paul didn't think so, either.

 

[Rhetro]

Rabbinic? Never heard of it. Odd semantic game and even more odd to deny Christianity is derived from Judaism, even if non-Rabbanic was not specified.

If my granddaughter tells me she wants apple juice, I don’t give her spoiled juice on the grounds that she didn’t exclude Rabbinic, spoiled juice.

That's also why you've been quiet on the Jewish Talmud after I quoted it for you where it says Christ is boiling in excrement in hell.

Your apple juice analogy backfires on you because Christianity is the actual, fresh glass of juice poured out as the literal fulfillment of the Old Covenant while the post-Temple Rabbinic system you are defending today is the sour vinegar that sat on the counter for 2000 years rejecting the Source of life. And even if you aren't intentionally defending that specific system, by calling Christianity a mere 'derivative', you are accidentally telling your granddaughter to drink the vinegar just because it happened to use the same name as the apple juice.

There was never a religion on earth before Christ called "Judaism" that matches the religion practiced by modern Christ-rejectors.

The political right wing you openly endorse was subverted by trading traditional Christian theology for geopolitical pragmatism. By admitting you never heard of Rabbinic Judaism while trying to lecture on church history is the ultimate self-sabotage, it proves you are a victim of a modern political machine that trained you to view the Bible as a geopolitical real estate map rather than the story of Christ.

 

[Wick Stick]

Rabbinic? Never heard of it. Odd semantic game and even more odd to deny Christianity is derived from Judaism, even if non-Rabbanic was not specified.

Yes, it absolutely IS a semantic game. I didn't start it. People who are either not-Jewish or not-faithful have been calling themselves Jews and calling their religion Judaism since Biblical times.

The state of things in the world today is that the word 'Judaism' refers most often to people who are not-faithful and often not-Jewish. I am only pointing it out. They went out from us, but they weren't of us.

As for Christianity being derived from Judaism... it would be more accurate to say that Christianity IS a sect of Jewish religion. Perhaps even better to say Israelite religion, since Judaism now evokes the false copy of the thing rather than the true.

If my granddaughter tells me she wants apple juice, I don’t give her spoiled juice on the grounds that she didn’t exclude Rabbinic, spoiled juice.

If you go to the store and buy something labeled 'apple juice' and it turns out to be spoiled, that's on the people who bottled and labeled it. I'm just the guy at the store telling you that brand is untrustworthy.

 

[Rhetro]

I don't see why that would be the case? There must be some logic to bridge that gap, but it isn't obvious here.

Neutral and Christ-rejecting are contradictory. There existed/exists a neutral Judaism that accepts Moses and the prophets, but it ceases to be neutral at the point it rejects Christ, which is often early because that is what the rabbis teach.

The situation is similar to the Mormons or JW's. The leadership is bad; there are doctrines added on top of the truth that subvert it. Nonetheless, they have the Scriptures and there is real truth at a foundational level that is enough to lead one to salvation. The less experienced and less indoctrinated one is there, the more likely that is to be the case.

I don't think they stopped being a chosen people at that point. Paul didn't think so, either.

If Moses was speaking to the pre-incarnate Logos in the bush, then the religion of Moses has no 'neutral' existence outside of Christ. You cannot accept the Voice in the Bush while rejecting the Voice on the Cross. By saying they didn't stop being a chosen people outside of Christ, you are claiming there is a way to the Father that bypasses the Son, directly contradicting John 14:6. The tree did not split into two valid religions, the branches that refused the Logos fell off, and the Church moved forward as the sole continuation of Israel.

As for the Mormons and JW..they don't even have the right Christ because they deny His true identity. If having the wrong Christ gets you cut off the tree, how on earth does having no Christ keep you on it?

And Paul? Paul literally wrote the words 'they were broken off because of unbelief.' If Paul thought they were still a chosen people with a valid, neutral covenant after the Resurrection, he wouldn't have spent 3 chapters of Romans weeping, praying for their salvation, and wishing he could go to hell to save them.

 

[Rhetro]

They went out from us, but they weren't of us.

By quoting 1 John 2:19 'They went out from us', you again conceded that the Christ-rejectors split away from the original true covenant line of the Church, destroying your own argument that Christianity is a 'derived sect' of their religion.

Who was Moses talking to through the burning bush? Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 show that the God of Abraham who spoke from the bush is Jesus Christ, the Pre-Incarnate Logos.

Since Moses was interacting directly with Christ 1,500 years before Bethlehem, Christianity is the original, eternal root of Israelite faith. A fulfillment cannot be a 'sect' of its own foundation.

 

[Wick Stick]

If Moses was speaking to the pre-incarnate Logos in the bush, then the religion of Moses has no 'neutral' existence outside of Christ. You cannot accept the Voice in the Bush while rejecting the Voice on the Cross. By saying they didn't stop being a chosen people outside of Christ, you are claiming there is a way to the Father that bypasses the Son, directly contradicting John 14:6. The tree did not split into two valid religions, the branches that refused the Logos fell off, and the Church moved forward as the sole continuation of Israel.

Your thinking is very binary. For or against. Heaven or hell. Eternal life or eternal damnation.

Mine isn't. There's for and there's against and there's neither. Most people fall into the neither category. They aren't going to heaven or hell. They're going into perdition - they'll be destroyed and just stop existing at the end of this life.

So yeah, there's a neutral existence outside of Christ. One doesn't need to be a Jew or have any kind of covenant to get there. It's the default state.

And Paul? Paul literally wrote the words 'they were broken off because of unbelief.' If Paul thought they were still a chosen people with a valid, neutral covenant after the Resurrection, he wouldn't have spent 3 chapters of Romans weeping, praying for their salvation, and wishing he could go to hell to save them.

Moses' covenant isn't salvic. It doesn't save. At best, it deferred judgment, but we're well past the deferment date. At worst, it was punitive, which I truly believe. Moses was a true prophet, but the task he was given was to administer a covenant of punishment on Israel for their unfaithfulness at Sinai.

That there are Jews and false-Jews who still want to enroll in that program of punishment is a bit of a mystery to me. As best I can tell, that's a program of self-flagellation. Nobody is made righteous. The participants are only made more aware of their unrighteousness.

 

[Rhetro]

Your thinking is very binary. For or against. Heaven or hell. Eternal life or eternal damnation.

Mine isn't. There's for and there's against and there's neither. Most people fall into the neither category. They aren't going to heaven or hell. They're going into perdition - they'll be destroyed and just stop existing at the end of this life.

So yeah, there's a neutral existence outside of Christ. One doesn't need to be a Jew or have any kind of covenant to get there. It's the default state.

Moses' covenant isn't salvic. It doesn't save. At best, it deferred judgment, but we're well past the deferment date. At worst, it was punitive, which I truly believe. Moses was a true prophet, but the task he was given was to administer a covenant of punishment on Israel for their unfaithfulness at Sinai.

That there are Jews and false-Jews who still want to enroll in that program of punishment is a bit of a mystery to me. As best I can tell, that's a program of self-flagellation. Nobody is made righteous. The participants are only made more aware of their unrighteousness.

Was Jesus also being too binary in his thinking when he stated 'He who is not with Me is against Me' (Matthew 12:30)?

By claiming most people just 'stop existing' and that the Old Covenant was a 'program of punishment' rather than a holy blueprint pointing to Christ, you resurrected the ancient heresies of Annihilationism and Marcionism. Paul contradicts your claim that the law was punitive, stating in Romans 7:12 that 'the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.'

You had to rewrite the entire New Testament, invent a third cosmic destination, and insinuate God's holy covenant is a system of self-flagellation to avoid admitting that your timeline was wrong.

 

[Wick Stick]

By quoting 1 John 2:19 'They went out from us', you again conceded that the Christ-rejectors split away from the original true covenant line of the Church, destroying your own argument that Christianity is a 'derived sect' of their religion.

That wasn't my argument. If you think that was my argument... then you didn't understand my argument.

Who was Moses talking to through the burning bush? Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 show that the God of Abraham who spoke from the bush is Jesus Christ, the Pre-Incarnate Logos.

Since Moses was interacting directly with Christ 1,500 years before Bethlehem, Christianity is the original, eternal root of Israelite faith. A fulfillment cannot be a 'sect' of its own foundation.

This all accords very well with my beliefs. The tree is Christ; the tree is not Israel.

Nonetheless, the children of Abraham have a choice. As heirs, they have the right to opt-in and become testators of Abraham's covenant. It isn't automatic, though. Ishmael and Esau and Midian are all Abraham's heirs and they opted-out and did not take hold of the promise.

 

[Rhetro]

That wasn't my argument. If you think that was my argument... then you didn't understand my argument.

This all accords very well with my beliefs. The tree is Christ; the tree is not Israel.

Nonetheless, the children of Abraham have a choice. As heirs, they have the right to opt-in and become testators of Abraham's covenant. It isn't automatic, though. Ishmael and Esau and Midian are all Abraham's heirs and they opted-out and did not take hold of the promise.

A testator is a person who makes a will and then dies to execute it. Abraham was the testator of his own covenant, his descendants are the beneficiaries

Calling heirs 'testators' would be inventing definitions on the fly, and your timeline still collapses: if Christ is the Tree, then the exact second they rejected the Resurrection they were severed from Christ, meaning the imaginary 'neutral, Christ-rejecting Judaism' remains a theological impossibility

As for Christianity being derived from Judaism... it would be more accurate to say that Christianity IS a sect of Jewish religion. Perhaps even better to say Israelite religion, since Judaism now evokes the false copy of the thing rather than the true.

Back to 1 John 2:19, I understood your argument: you claimed Christianity was a 'derived sect' of an 'Israelite religion' that existed neutrally alongside the Church after the Cross, but that theory completely collapsed the second you quoted 1 John 2:19 and admitted the Christ-rejectors are the ones who fractured away from us (the Church).