Christianity and Judaism: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
m c/e
(6 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 17:
According to [[Christian theologian]] [[Alister McGrath]], the Jewish Christians affirmed every aspect of then contemporary [[Second Temple Judaism]] with the addition of the belief that Jesus was the messiah,<ref>McGrath, Alister E., Christianity: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishing (2006). {{ISBN|1-4051-0899-1}}. p. 174: "In effect, they [Jewish Christians] seemed to regard Christianity as an affirmation of every aspect of contemporary Judaism, with the addition of one extra belief—that Jesus is the Messiah. Unless males were [[Circumcision controversy in early Christianity|circumcised]], they could not be saved{{bibleverse||Acts|15:1}}.";see also [[Paleo-orthodoxy]]</ref> with Isaiah 49:6, "an explicit parallel to 42:6" quoted by [[Paul the Apostle]] in Acts 13:47<ref>Beale, Gregory K., Other Religions in New Testament Theology, in David Weston Baker, ed., ''Biblical faith and other religions: an evangelical assessment'', Kregel Academic, 2004, p. 85</ref> and reinterpreted by [[Justin Martyr]].<ref>McKeehan, James, ''An Overview of the Old Testament and How It Relates to the New Testament'', iUniverse, 2002, p. 265</ref><ref>Philippe Bobichon, "L'enseignement juif, païen, hérétique et chrétien dans l'œuvre de Justin Martyr", ''Revue des Études Augustiniennes'' 45/2 (1999), pp. 233-259 [https://www.academia.edu/7279724/_Lenseignement_juif_pa%C3%AFen_h%C3%A9r%C3%A9tique_et_chr%C3%A9tien_dans_l%C5%93uvre_de_Justin_Martyr_Revue_des_%C3%89tudes_Augustiniennes_45_2_1999_p_233_259 online]</ref> According to Christian writers, most notably Paul, the Bible teaches that people are, in their current state, [[sin]]ful,<ref>{{bibleverse||Romans|3:23}}</ref> and the [[New Testament]] reveals that Jesus is both the [[Son of man]] and the [[Son of God]], united in the [[hypostatic union]], [[God the Son]], [[God in Christianity|God]] made [[incarnate]];<ref>{{bibleverse||John|1:1}}, {{bibleverse||John|1:14}}, {{bibleverse||John|1:29}}</ref> that [[Crucifixion of Jesus|Jesus' death by crucifixion]] was a [[Atonement in Christianity|sacrifice to atone]] for all of humanity's sins, and that acceptance of Jesus as [[Christian soteriology|Savior]] and [[Hæland|Lord]] saves one from [[Divine Judgment]],<ref>{{bibleverse||John|5:24}}</ref> giving [[Eternal life (Christianity)|Eternal life]].<ref>{{bibleverse||John|3:16|NIV}}</ref> Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant.<ref name="bibleverse||Hebrews|8:6|NIV"/> His famous [[Sermon on the Mount]] is considered by some Christian scholars<ref>See also [[Expounding of the Law#Antithesis of the Law|Antithesis of the Law]]</ref> to be the proclamation of the [[Ethics in religion#Christian ethics|New Covenant ethics]], in [[Typology (theology)|contrast]] to the [[Mosaic Covenant]] of [[Moses]] from [[Biblical Mount Sinai|Mount Sinai]].
 
But some scholars, like [[Margaret Barker]], propose that early Christianity has roots in [[First Temple]] [[Yahwism|Israelite religion]], which is dubbed as the "Temple Theology".<ref>Collinwood, Dean W. & James W. McConkie. (2006). [https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3777&context=byusq 'Temple Theology: An Introduction' by Margaret Barker]. Provo, UT: [[BYU Studies Quarterly|BYU Studies]] 45:2 (May 2006).</ref> Baker's works have been criticized for engaging in [[parallelomania]] {{r|Twigg 2012}}and failing to engage in the broader scholarly literature {{rcitation needed|Twiggdate=May 20122024}} but it has gained some religious and academic support.<ref name="Bench 2015">{{cite web |last=Turner |first=John G. |date=8 January 2015 |title=Why Mormons Love Margaret Barker |url=https://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2015/01/why-mormons-love-margaret-barker/ |access-date=5 December 2020 |website=Anxious Bench}}</ref><ref name="Schäfer 2020">{{cite book |last=Schäfer |first=Peter |url=https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691181325/two-gods-in-heaven |title=Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity |date=2020 |publisher=Princeton University Press |pages=143, n. 17}}</ref>
 
==Sacred texts==
Line 170:
===Shituf===
{{Main|Shituf}}
A minority Jewish view, which appears in some{{which|date= November 2018}} codes of [[halakha|Jewish law]], ismaintains that while Christian worship is polytheistic (due to the multiplicity of the Trinity), it is permissible for them to swear in God's name, since they are referring to the one God. This theology is referred to in [[Hebrew language|Hebrew]] as [[Shituf]] (literally "partnership" or "association"). Although worship of a trinity is considered to be not different from any other form of idolatry for Jews, it may be an acceptable belief for non-Jews (according to the ruling of some Rabbinic authorities).<ref>{{whoCite journal|dateurl=https://hcommons.org/deposits/download/hc:50798/CONTENT/shituf-article.pdf November|title=World 2018Religions and the Noahide Prohibition of Idolatry |author=Klein, Reuven Chaim|year=2022|journal=Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society|volume=79|pages=109-167|DOI=10.17613/h2nz-ep07}}).</ref>
 
==Right action==
Line 207:
{{Main|Judaism and abortion|Christianity and abortion|Ensoulment#Judaism}}
{{more citations needed section|date=October 2021}}
The only statements in the Tanakh about the status of a fetus state that killing an unborn infant does not have the same status as killing a born human being, and mandates a much lesser penalty.<ref>Exodus 21: 22–25</ref><ref>Daniel Schiff, 2002, ''Abortion in Judaism'', Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. 9–11</ref> (althoughAlthough this interpretation is disputed,{{according to whom|date=October 2021}} the passage could refer to an injury to a woman that causes a premature, live birth).{{citation needed|date=October 2021}}
 
The Talmud states that the fetus is not yet a full human being until it has been born (either the head or the body is mostly outside of the woman), therefore killing a fetus is not murder, and abortion—in restricted circumstances—has always been legal under Jewish law. [[Rashi]], the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and Talmud, states clearly of the fetus ''lav nefesh hu'': "it is not a person". The Talmud contains the expression ''ubar yerech imo''—the fetus is as the thigh of its mother,' i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body." The Babylonian Talmud [[Yevamot]] 69b states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born. Christians who agree with these views may refer to this idea as abortion before the [[quickening]] of the fetus.
Line 235:
===Taboo food and drink===
{{Main|Taboo food and drink|Kashrut}}
Orthodox Jews, unlike most Christians, still practice a restrictive diet that has many rules. Most Christians believe that the kosher food laws have been [[Supersessionism|superseded]],. forFor example, they cite what Jesus taught in [[Mark 7]]: what you eat doesn't make you unclean but what comes out of a man's heart makes him unclean—although Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have their own set of dietary observances. [[Eastern Orthodoxy#Fasting|Eastern Orthodoxy, in particular has very elaborate and strict rules of fasting]], and continues to observe the [[Council of Jerusalem]]'s apostolic decree of Act 15.<ref>[[Karl Josef von Hefele]]'s [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.viii.v.iv.ii.html commentary on canon II of Gangra] notes: "We further see that, at the time of the Synod of [[Gangra]], the rule of the Apostolic Synod with regard to blood and things strangled was still in force. With the Greeks, indeed, it continued always in force as their Euchologies still show. [[Balsamon]] also, the well-known commentator on the canons of the Middle Ages, in his commentary on the sixty-third [[Canons of the Apostles|Apostolic Canon]], expressly blames the Latins because they had ceased to observe this command. What the Latin Church, however, thought on this subject about the year 400, is shown by [[Augustine of Hippo|Augustine]] in his work [[Contra Faustum]], where he states that the Apostles had given this command to unite the heathens and Jews in the one ark of Noah; but that then, when the barrier between Jewish and heathen converts had fallen, this command concerning things strangled and blood had lost its meaning, and was only observed by few. But still, as late as the eighth century, [[Pope Gregory III|Pope Gregory the Third]] (731) forbade the eating of blood or things strangled under threat of a penance of forty days. No one will pretend that the disciplinary enactments of any council, even though it be one of the undisputed [[Ecumenical council|Ecumenical Synods]], can be of greater and more unchanging force than the decree of that first council, held by the Holy Apostles at Jerusalem, and the fact that its decree has been obsolete for centuries in the West is proof that even Ecumenical canons may be of only temporary utility and may be repealed by disuse, like other laws."</ref>
 
Some Christian denominations observe some biblical food laws, for example, the practice of [[Ital]] in [[Rastafari]]. [[Jehovah's Witnesses]] do not eat blood products and are known for their refusal to accept [[blood transfusion]]s based on not "eating blood".