Talk:Christianity and Judaism

"Cafeteria Christianity"

Just noticed that under the heading "Common Christian views of Judaism", the following text appears:

"Some Christians who view the Jewish people as close to God seek to understand and incorporate elements of Jewish understanding or perspective into their beliefs as a means to respect their "parent" religion of Judaism, or to more fully seek out and return to their Christian roots. Christians embracing aspects of Judaism are sometimes criticized as Biblical Judaizers by Christians when they pressure Gentile Christians to observe Old Testament teachings rejected by many [modern Christians]."

The text in brackets redirects to a page entitled "Cafeteria Christianity", which, according to the page "... is a derogatory term used by some Christians, and others, to accuse other Christian[s]..."

The definition of "Cafeteria Christianity" clearly requires its placement in this article to be baised towards a particular theological dispute within Christianity.

I am going to go ahead and remove this link as it is:

1. A very clear bias against a particular opinion.

2. Factually incorrect. -According to the page on Cafeteria Christianity, this term appeared in 1986. -We know that the rejection of Jewish rites was proposed by

     -Ignatius (100 CE)
     -The Synod of Elvira (306 CE)

long before the term Cafeteria Christianity existed.

3. Shows a clear bias towards Christianity in the United States, as that is where the term orginiated.

4. Has no citiation

The paragraph itself in the article is of low quaility and will probably have to be replaced, as it does not respect several opinions on the subject.

jamiles1000 —Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sin

Christians, or at least many mainsream Christians, believe sin must be atoned for through blood sacrifice. Jews used to believe this, but no longer. Pointing out this diference seems to be one of the things the articles is for so I donot know why debresser wants to delete it. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll explain. The sentence I removed is "Christians believe that Christianity is the fulfillment and successor of Judaism, retaining much of its doctrine and many of its practices including monotheism, the belief in a Messiah, and certain forms of worship like prayer and reading from religious texts. Other beliefs, like the need for a blood sacrifice for sin, are beliefs that Rabbinical Judaism has since veered away from (since the Destruction of the Second Temple, see also Third Temple)."

The The reasons I give for the removal in the edit summary were (I'll elaborate here):

1. The paragraph is inconsistent, since it starts out with Christianity, and suddenly, in the middle of the sentence in which we expect to here which believes Christianity has not retained from Judaism, switches to what Judaism has (alledgedly) changed.
2. It is simply not true that Judaism has changed its doctrine in regard to the blood sacrifice of animals in the Temple service. It is simply that the Temple has been destroyed and no sacrifices can take place at the moment.

BTW, saying that Jews are practised blood sacrifice without the stipulation that we are talking about animals and about part of the service in the Jerusalem Temple, is a little dangerous. There was a modernised blood libel just this week... Debresser (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this sentence is unsourced and contentious, and that therefore the burden of proof is on the editor insisting on restoring it. Debresser (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Debresser has two problems:

1. The paragraph is inconsistent, since it starts out with Christianity, and suddenly, in the middle of the sentence in which we expect to here which believes Christianity has not retained from Judaism, switches to what Judaism has (alledgedly) changed.

Please look up the word inconsistent in the dictionary. This is not being inconsistent. This is making a comparison; it is comparing Christianity to judaism, whichi is what the article is for.

1. It is simply not true that Judaism has changed its doctrine in regard to the blood sacrifice of animals in the Temple service. It is simply that the Temple has been destructed and no sacrifices can take place at the moment.

The passage does not say that Judaism has changed its doctrine towards blood sacrifice (although of course Reform jews and some Orthodox Jews have in fact changed). The article says that since the Temple was destroyed (destructed? destructed? Debresser, what on earth do you mean???) Jews have stopped relying on blood sacrifice which in fact is a core Rabbinic doctrine, that with the Tenmple destroyed Jews do not need to rely on blook dsacrifice. This is what the article says. Debresser faults the article for saying what it says ... that is no basis for deletion! Slrubenstein | Talk 08:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Also Debresser does not await discussion because he does not assume good faith. Is it possible I know as much as you do, Debresser? Try assuming that. You made a change. Okay, I do not fault you for that, you were being bold. But your change was a mistake and I fixed it. Now, if you want to discuss it, we can discuss it. That is how Wikipedia works. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Debresser has another problem with the passage, that it implicitly accuses Jews of the infamous blood libel. But that is not what the passage says, and if ambiguity is really a problem it can easily be fixed by adding a few words, rather than deleting. But what the passage does say is that Jews used to believe sin could only be atoned for by blood and that Christians still believe this. If there is any risk of a blood libel against Jews, cal vchomer, the risk against Christians is far, far greater.Slrubenstein | Talk 10:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's take this step for step.

1. The administrative side of things.
   1. Slrubenstein has violated the 3 revert rule with his last edit. ([1], [2], [3])
   2. According to this official policy, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material".
   3. Slrubenstein uses cheap rethorics instead of arguments. I quote: "Debresser does not ... assume good faith" (I do. Slrubenstein is just wrong.) That is how Wikipedia works. (While in fact he violates the 3 revert rule, and seems unaware of the proper place of the burden of evidence.) "Debresser faults the article for saying what it says". (Indeed I do! If it is incorrect, it shouldn't be here.)
2. The arguments.
   1. The paragraph is inconsistent with its appearent intent. If it were to compare Christianity and Judaism it should have said "Christians believe that ... Rabbinical Judaism on the other hand..." But that is not how the paragraph is constructed. At the moment the pargraph is misleading the reader as to its logical continuation.
   2. The contentious sentence says "Rabbinical Judaism has since veered away from [blood sacrifice]". Which is the same as saying that it "changed its doctrine". And the fact is, it didn't. Even if somebody would propose to rephrase "Rabbinical Judaism doesn't rely any more on blood sacrifice", well, neither does Christianity. If one would argue that Christianity does rely on blood sacrifice, by way of the what they would call the sacrifice of their so-called savior, then so does Judiasm, where the daily prayers are considered to take the place of sacrifice.

Unfortunately, because of the 3 revert rule I can't undo the last edit of Slrubenstein, but I shall do so tomorrow, if nobody else has before then, or unless I would be proven wrong or otherwise persuaded not to do so. Debresser (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

My comment about the blood libel was not an argument, just a comment. But indeed, if the sentence were to be retained, it should be polished a little to avoid possible misunderstandings. Debresser (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I posted on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion/Interfaith_work_group#You_input_would_be_appreciated and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#You_input_would_be_appreciated to ask for outside input on this discussion. Debresser (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Debresser is right about that content. Besides completely misrepresenting Judaism, it isn't even well written. Slrubenstein, if you wanted something like it, why couldn't you have simply modified it to make it more appropriate and address Debresser's concerns? Debresser, yes, it's animal sacrifice and not human, but the section is what Christians believe. Just because they're wrong doesn't mean it isn't what they believe. -Lisa (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Lisa, for your improvements. I can live with this version. At the same time though, you haven't addessed the issue of sources. Although I am familiar with Christianity, at least at a basic level, I was not aware Christians believe such a thing about Judaism. I really think this should be sourced.

Also, I don't understand the flow of the sentence now: "and believe that Judaism has abandoned this since veered away from (since the Destruction of the Second Temple, see also Third Temple)".

Another question, not related to your edit, is why we need this "see also" here. That is what we have "See also" sections for, or Template:See also. Debresser (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right. The sentence should say "and believe that Judaism has abandoned this since since the destruction of the Second Temple." I plead "early in the morning".

As far as sources go, I'll go dig some up. It won't be hard. Every missionary I've ever argued with has trotted out that old saw. Take this. Or this. I'd just rather use something from a book, because I hate giving these sites the click-throughs. And frankly, I don't keep books like that around. So it may be a while, since I'll have to hit the library. If someone else has books on the subject, please feel free to do it first. -Lisa (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Lisa, I really thought the text was fine before, which is why I objected to Debresser's deletion of it. I thought it was common knowledge that Christians believe that God demands blood. That said, I am fine with your rewrite of it. Debresser, had you suggested a rewrite of it rather than wholesale deletion, I would like to think I woul dhave been as receptive to your suggestions as I am to Lisa's. Now, since we have moved away from just deleting, may I suggest another modification. This is the current version:

Christians believe that Judaism requires blood sacrifice to atone for sins, and believe that Judaism has abandoned this since the destruction of the Second Temple.

How about something like this:

Christians believe that the Old Testament requires blood sacrifice to atone for sins, and believe that Jews have abandoned this since the destruction of the Second Temple.

(I personally do not like "Old Testament" but this is what they use). My reasoning is, we move away from claims about Judaism (which is arguably not the religion of Christians) to interpretations of the OT. In other words - and maybe now I am finally understanding Debresser's point? - Christians don't care what Jews did or did not believe, they do care what they believe God wishes, and it is just that both Jews and Christians look to the Hebrew Bible to authorize our diverse practices. I also have to say, I am ambivalent about the phrase "veered away from." I won't delete it until we can come up with something better. The point is that Judaism believes that in the absense of the Temple there are other ways to worship God and atone for sin. Is there an easy way to just put this in? Do either of you have ideas? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the section is called "Common Christian views of Judaism", so I think it davka should contain Christian claims about Judaism, no? Why move away from that in a section that's specifically about it?

Also... I don't think that Judaism ever held that "in the absense of the Temple there are other ways to worship God and atone for sin". On the contrary, repentence was always the essence of the process of getting atonement. The sacrifice was a ritual necessity, but it wasn't what atoned. And we can't (currently, temporarily) fulfill that ritual necessity just now. Also, and this is a nitpick, because I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but Jews don't believe in "sin". We believe in "sins". "Sin", as used by Christians, is a state of being. Jews don't recognize being in a state of sin, only committing sins and repenting for them. -Lisa (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(back to margin) Slrubenstein, I didn't suggest a rewrite, because I didn't see the kernel of truth that was in this sentence. Now that Lisa has uncovered it for me, I have no problem with either version, hers and the one you propose. Actually, I think yours is the more accurate one. And Lisa is basically right about the disctinction between "sin" and "sins", so I would change "sin" in this case to "sins". We could also dedicate a subsection to that subject, if anyone were willing to write about it. Debresser (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am sure that assuming good faith and discussing things here before deleting or changing anything we can come up with further improvements. Lisa is right that this secion is about Christian views about Judaism. One possibility would be to move discussion of this up, to the sectioneon either sin or judgement, that are about differeces between Judaism and Christianity. However, I suspect that whoever added this about Christians thinking Jews needed blood to atone etc. were actually trying to make an impoirtant oint about a Christian misconception and wanted to make it clear - clear that there is a Christian isconception - for reasons Debresser has pointed out, the blood libel. I think we can go in two different directions. one direction is purely action, and we would be addressing a difference between Christianity and Judaism that would belong in another section (Christians rely on blood sacrifice, Jews do not). The other dirction is belief, and it would focuson a clear misunderstanding Christians have about Jews. hat I get from both Lisa and Debresser is the section would have to b clearer about the extent of the misunderstanding, that Jews never felt blood was necessary for atonement, but that the sacrifice of animals iscentral to Temple practice, or something like this. Oh, and by the way, I never violated 3RR. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Nor did you ever say a lie in your life, right? :)) Debresser (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, that was uncalled for. We're all cooperating now, right? So no one needs to snipe at anyone else. (if you wanted to delete that last line, I'm sure no one would say anything about it) -Lisa (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have lied many times in my life, so I guess I just have to ask you to trust me in this case that I am not lying - generally speaking. As for 3RR, this is simple enough - it is easy to prove that i violated 3RR if you provide the edit diffs that demonstrate that. You have not. because I have not. Now I am trying to engage in a civil conversation. Aside from protecting content that I belive has value and importance in the article (even if, as Lisa has shown, editing may improve it) what have I done to hurt your feelings? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was said with a smile, if you didn't notice the smilie. But in actual fact, I provided the diffs on this page, a little higher up, some hours ago. My hurt feelings (remember what I wrote you on your talkpage) had nothing to do with it. It was a real joke. Debresser (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I appreciate a joke and am glad you/we can joke about it. That said, you did not provide proo I iolated 3RR. Above you provide three edit difs, not four. So I did not violate 3RR. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy! And I always thought the 3 revert rule means you are "wrong" when doing the 3rd revert. Now I see it means that the 3rd revert is still okay. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Revert wars suck and I am very glad that we have broken the cycle and are actually improving the artile. I have broken 3RR in the past and do not mind being reprimanded when i do so. But i really have tried to watch myself ever since and I really was trying to be careful here to reign myself in. Anyway, thanks, and back to editing! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys! Have you've read the Wikipedia:No personal attacks? Just in case You would like to know, the same debate of blood atonement has a very long history in christianity too, compare Atonement (moral influence view), Atonement (ransom view) and Atonement (satisfaction view). Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

More sin!

While I find the section Sin being very interesting, it doesn't succeed in contrasting the Jewish and the Christian views against each other. As far as I can see the Jewish opinion is in accord with the Christian view, the other way around I know less about, but specifically the statement:

There is almost always a "way back" if a person wills it. (Although texts mention certain categories for whom the way back will be exceedingly hard, such as the slanderer, the habitual gossip, and the malicious person)

seems very similar to the "Catholic" (vs. the Donatists) claim that apostasy is always reversible, a claim which is shared by at least Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans and Orthodox churches. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the real difference in "sin" concepts is that the Christian sin (not the Catholic specifics, they're just a Catholic speciality not shared by other Christianities) counterparts het — "to go astray" — but that this het is a more or less continuous distance from God (?) in Judaism, remediable by following the traditions and the rabbis, while in Christianity it is a digital state (on/off) that can only be broken by "salvation" which is mostly interpreted as a submission under Jesus. The difference is the mode of remedy: in Judaism it is an adherence to a praxis, in Christianity it is generally (but not universally) regarded an emotional submission, lacking an immediate connection with acts and behavior. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Antinomianism

Next to last paragraph in Sacred Texts claim:

Some Christians (see also Dual-covenant theology) agree that Jews who accept Jesus should still observe all of Torah, based on warnings by Jesus to Jews not to use him as an excuse to disregard it,[23] and they support efforts of those like Messianic Jews to do that, but other forms of Christianity oppose all observance to the Mosaic law, even by Jews, which is sometimes known as Antinomianism^{[clarification needed]}.

Non-observation of a religious law may certainly be called "Antinomianism" by some, but Antinomianism is not a religious objective term, it is an academic expression exclaiming something like "lawless scum"! So also these non-observing groups must have some detractors, criticisingly called those groups: "you scum!!" What group is that? I can easily imagine the following candidates:

• Jews are calling some Christian groups "Scum!!", or
• other Christians are calling some Christian groups "Scum!!".

Which is it? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

See Antinomianism#Antinomian_Controversies_in_Lutheranism and Luther#Anti-Antinomianism for more details. 75.15.203.103 (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

So to answer your question directly, some Christians call other Christians Antinomian. Judaism does not consider Christianity to be Antinomian as long as they follow the Noahide Laws which apply to all humans. 75.15.203.103 (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you want a Jewish view of Antinomianism, see Jewish Encyclopedia: Antinomianism, and for a Catholic view see Catholic Encyclopedia: Antinomianism. 75.0.8.252 (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Some comments on this article

There is a fundamental mistake, and it is, that you consider "Christianity" to be a single and unique set of beliefs. It may be possible to set the differences between:

• "traditional" christians (catholics, orthodox, eastern)
• "germanic" or "protestant" christians (or whatever you want to call them) and,
• other sections at the end of the article for cults, sects etc.

At least this level of differentiation should be considered. Right now the article is unclear and sometimes plain wrong. 201.253.237.170 (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is not very serious, but thanks for pointing it out. Compared to Hinduism and f.ex. Buddhism, Christianity is one of the most coherent religions, generally but maybe not universally alleging:

• Abrahamite statements,
• Jesus is son of God,
• Jesus sacrificed his life and died on the cross, after three days returning to life - and this he did in order to save all humankind from "death" (variously interpreted),
• The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the three persons in God that constitute the Trinity,
• Eucharist and the Baptism are central Christian rites,
• The Bible is the Holy Scripture, with few variations of contents,
• adherence to the Nicene Creed mostly, and the Apostles' Creed mostly, which defines some detailed aspects on which most Christianity agree.

most other religions, except the small ones, and the new ones, have a much greater variation than Christianity. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

this is basically an article written from a Judeo-centric Gentilephobic and Xanthochroiphobic POV. It doesn't say anything about the hateful elements of the Talmud to Xtianity. nor does it note that Talmudic Judaism is a s much - if not more - of a deviation from the ancient Hebrew faith, especially, the concepts of Godhead in Chassidism, etc. but the latter Talmud in it's completion. Indeed, the notion of the 'Jews' as in - the Judeans is derivational from the shared ancestor faith of the Hebrews and not pure or original. This entire article - indeed it's location with the Jewish section of Wikipedia - is biased and centered within an Ashkinazi mindset which identifies that ethno-religious group as the sole 'real people' and well...it's awful and bigotted isn't it? 78.147.57.60 (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Not aborting children

Hi, I'm Wikipedia's pilot347 and i believe that no human should be denied life. If you abort a baby, you have killed a person, and a baby at that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilot347 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC) It's pilot again. I just looked at the bible and found that killing children can send you straight to Hell.

This is not a forum discussion for expressing your personal opinions, unless those opinions regard the article named Christianity and Judaism. Questions and opinions that can be used for improving the article are however welcome. As for Hell, life is often a Hell for many, so we don't need an extra one. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Concepts of God

Iam deleting the this sentence of the text in the concepts of god part. It stands in absolut opposition to the introductional sentence and is wrong by logic.

"Some Jewish and Christian philosophers hold that due to these differences; based on these differences, Christianity and Judaism do not believe in the same God at all."

the introductional sentence:

"Traditionally, both Judaism and Christianity believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, for Jews the God of the Tanakh, for Christians the God of the Old Testament, the creator of the universe."

I also remark that the text of the tanakh and the old testament are identic In Judaism the name is "Tanakh", in Christianity the name is "old testament" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiago84 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote, and focus of this article

According to the hatnote,

This article is about widely diverging views between two religions. For the values held in common, see Judeo-Christian.

But the article Judeo-Christian is not a discussion of the values held in common. Rather, (and arguably appropriately, given its title), it is a discussion of the history and use of that particular phrase itself.

Can I therefore suggest that, as (in my view, correctly) Judeo-Christian is not doing the job advertised in the hatnote, then the hatnote needs to be changed; and more significantly, this article needs to step up to the plate.

If this article, Christianity and Judaism, is to live up to its title (and also be much more in line with wiki's policy against WP:POVFORK), then the proper function of this article, given its title, should be to be the top-level introduction to all aspects of relationships and comparison between Christianity and Judaism -- including, but not necessarily limited to, what may be common ground between the two faiths; where the two faiths may differ, both broadly and in detail; and also the historical nature of relations between the two faiths. For comparison, that is roughly the scope that Christianity and Islam and Islam and Judaism set themselves.

To make room for all of that, some of what is currently in the article probably needs to be condensed, or spun out to subsidiary articles, WP:SUMMARY-style. And of course, the detail of the most of what is not yet in the article no doubt similarly would be spun out summary-style.

But I think it would be only for the good, if WP could create a go-to article introducing all sides of the relation between Christianity and Judaism, a jumping-off point to all sorts of more detailed treatment, but on this page placing agreement and disagreement set out side by side. Jheald (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This article has a standing need to be merged into Judeo-Christian. This has already passed discussion but has not been done. See the top of this page: Talk:Judeo-Christian. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 20:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Check the talk page archives on both pages (eg here). The merge was discussed at length, and at length was agreed to be inappropriate. (One of the problems had been that the AfD which came to the merge decision hadn't even been mentioned on the Talk:Judeo-Christian page). We checked with an admin what the appropriate thing to do was, and their advice was that if consensus had changed, the AfD result could be set aside. Strictly, after all, AfD is a decision to delete/not delete. Merge counts as not delete. But check the talk page archives for the full discussion. I've raised at Template talk:Afd-merge from the desirability of creating a new template Template:Afd-merge-from not done to cover a situation such as this. Jheald (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, the view you yourself expressed was: "Do not delete nor merge. --Carlaude (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)" Jheald (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jheald; this article should never be merged with "Judeo-Christian." Slrubenstein | Talk 21:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)