davidbu@tekigm2.men.tek.com (David Buxton) (11/29/89)
There are a number of topics where Christians find it easy to offer a contrast of how Christianity is superior to Judaism. I should make that more personal - there are a number of topics where I find myself using words that put down the Jews. Personally, I wish I knew more Jews and wish I had more Jewish friends. And yet I say these things. It is a dilemma - how to go about talking about the various topics relevent to the time of Christ here on earth, especially the death of Jesus, and not appear to condemn the Jew of today and not hold a grudge against the Jew of Christ's day? Clearly Jesus called out to His Father and said - "Forgive them for they know not what they do". It is clear to me that Jesus would not be at all pleased with me if I held any grudge againts any Jew, especially if any resentment focused upon the cross and the day Jesus died. The problem remains. How to speak of these things without sounding negative on Jews? Christianity, not having solved this problem, has turned away more Jews from Christ than anything else that Christians do. Turning the question back to myself: How can I speak of these topics without offending the Jews? How can I dialog with a Jew about Christianity without turning him off? There certainly are understandable reasons why Jews are not very enthusiastic about Christians and why a Jew might not be very enthusiastic about me. I have no glib pat answers. It is easy to simply appologize and hope that solves the problem. But the problem is bigger than that. We have a Jesus who grew up a Jew and died a Jew. Consider the crowds who loved Him and the few who did not. We can say the 'leadership' did it - the 'establishment' did it. Is that a decent answer? I don't know. I have a Jesus that I would like every Jew to meet in the same way that the Jews met Him on the hills and lakes of Galilee, and the other regions that Jesus visited. The vast multitude clearly loved Him and a few did not. The Jew has stood at the grave side of each of their enemies. Clearly God still holds His protecting hand over the Jew - both spiritual Jews and and Jews by birth. God is not at all pleased with me if I speak against the Jews. The problem remains. How to speak of these topics without being negative on Jews? A topic that I am considering for posting has to do with the covenants, especially the Messianic Covenants, and then on to the millenium which I believe will be in heaven. How do I discuss these conditional covenants and the millenium without sounding negative on Jews? A tough question with no easy answers. I would very much appreciate it if any Jews that might read this would be willing to strike up a dialog with me. Give me some pointers on how I can discuss these topics without offense and please take the time to be my friend. I would like to be your friend. Dave (David E. Buxton) davidbu@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM [My inclination is that the proper characterization is "the establishment". I think the best Christian piety on the subject of the Crucifixion has always assumed that in killing Christ, the government of that time represented the human race as a whole. I.e. that if he came to the modern world, we would kill him. Unfortunately I'm working in the middle of a student terminal room (a due date is tomorrow morning, and I'm helping people) so I don't have my books nearby. But I recall the passion chorale that appears in the St. Matthew Passion and elsewhere says "I crucified thee". --clh]
ejalbert@phoenix.princeton.edu (Edmund Jason Albert) (11/30/89)
A good way of solving this problem (and I speak as a current Episcopalian and former Jew) is to realize that there are certain inaccuracies in the Biblical record. The Sanhedrin could not have possibly met when claimed in the New Testament because it would have been during the holiday of Passover. The record probably got distorted since the gospels at the earliest were written around AD 70, when there was Jewish persecution of Christians due to the latter's refusal to join in the revolt against Rome. This led to an anti-Semitism among the Christians of that day which is unfortunately reflected in the gospels. I would say that for today's Jews the main problem is not the Bible, but rather the persecution they have endured at the hands of Christians in medieval and modern times. For instance, the National Front in Hungary, which is currently the main opposition group, has exhibited anti-Semitic tendencies, and lest we forget, Hungary was allied with Hitler. Incidents such as these cause Jewish suspicion of Christians, and rightly so. Jason Albert Princeton University [I certainly do not want to be understood as supporting Biblical inerrancy. But I don't see any problem with the meeting of the Sanhedrin. First, there is some serious question about the relationship between the crucifixion and passover. If you accept John's chronology, Jesus was arrested and tried the day before passover (Jn 13:1). Second, it may not have been a full-dress official meeting. In John, it looks like a meeting of the High Priest and some cronies. Even in Mark, it could be interpreted as a an unofficial hearing. Note that they didn't pass an official verdict, but turned him over to the Romans. Finally, if they viewed it as a sufficiently serious emergency, the Sanhedrin might have been willing to meet in any case. There's a standard list of illegalities about the trial. However these are based on Talmudic information from somewhat later. In 30 A.D. the Sanhedrin was in a very different situation than after the destruction of Jerusalem. There are several reasons why it might have operated more informally than the Talmudic descriptions. --clh]
phys-bb@garnet.berkeley.edu (12/04/89)
[David Buxton asked how one can talk about Jesus' trial without making comments about "the Jews" that seem to condemn Jews of today. >Consider the crowds who loved Him and the few who did not. We can say >the 'leadership' did it - the 'establishment' did it. Is that a >decent answer? --clh] I think the best way to talk about Jesus and who it was that condemned him, and of the prophets and who it was who condemned them, etc., is to talk about the Religious Establishment. In Jesus's day and place the religious establishment was Judaism, but not today. In the Middle Ages the religious establishment in Western Europe was the Roman Catholic Church, but much much less so today. Today in the U.S. the establishment is harder to define, but it's still there. Any institution that claims to have its roots in "Thus says the word of the Lord" and yet has grown too big and has become rooted actually in the world rather than in God's word is a religious establishment gone haywire. phys-bb@garnet.berkeley.edu / ". . .into the narrow lanes, \ (John Warren) I can't stumble or stay put. . ." \ -- Dylan /
ez000585@castor.ucdavis.edu (Jason Gabler) (12/04/89)
In article <Nov.30.03.21.41.1989.19364@athos.rutgers.edu> ejalbert@phoenix.princeton.edu (Edmund Jason Albert) writes: >(and I speak as a current Episcopalian and former Jew) I am a Christian.. Born in LI Jewish Hospital, circumcised on the 8th day and BarMitzvah'd at 13yrs and Accepted Jesus at 10yrs But I am definately not NOT Jewish. Remember "Christian" means "follower of Christ" , not Gentile". >A good way of solving this problem is to realize that there are certain >inaccuracies in the Biblical record. The Sanhedrin could not have >possibly met when claimed in the New Testament because it would have >been during the holiday of Passover. The record probably got distorted >since the gospels at the earliest were written around AD 70, when there >was Jewish persecution of Christians due to the latter's refusal to join >in the revolt against Rome. This led to an anti-Semitism among the >Christians of that day which is unfortunately reflected in the gospels. My belief is that conceptually and historically, the Bibile is correct; they both go hand, usually. Also, not only is this prophecy, but the Sanhedrin wanted Jesus out REALLY BAD. They had finally got Him, why take a chance of him getting away? If they were right, then putting Jesus away was Gods will, correct? Jesus was about to cause a great upset in the Jewish religion and further separate the Jews from one another. With the ability to stop such a catastrophe by an emergency metting, even in Passover (which is not one of the holiest holidays) , I do not think it would stop them. >I would say that for today's Jews the main problem is not the Bible, but >rather the persecution they have endured at the hands of Christians in >medieval and modern times. I highly disagree! The persecution created the Diaspora and that is what has kept the jews so close a people. It cause the Jews to refrain from intermarrying. Hatred and separation has kept the Jews "spiritually" (or may I say religiously) one people, even though they are scattered throughout the world. Jason Gabler ccjason@castor.ucdavis.edu
lih@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Andrew Lih) (12/08/89)
In article <Nov.30.03.21.41.1989.19364@athos.rutgers.edu> ejalbert@phoenix.princeton.edu (Edmund Jason Albert) writes: > >inaccuracies in the Biblical record. The Sanhedrin could not have >possibly met when claimed in the New Testament because it would have >been during the holiday of Passover. The record probably got distorted >since the gospels at the earliest were written around AD 70, when there >was Jewish persecution of Christians due to the latter's refusal to join >in the revolt against Rome. This led to an anti-Semitism among the >Christians of that day which is unfortunately reflected in the gospels. > >Jason Albert >Princeton University Interesting that you raised this point, since my paper topic is on the Trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin. It has been argued by several scholars that the account of the trial in Matthew and Mark is probably quite inaccurate in parts. Most importantly, Jesus never claimed anything that could have been charged as blasphemous; Jesus' comments certianly were preposterous to the Jewish leaders, but would not have been considered blasphemous. Mark and Matthew claim that the Sanhedrin accused Jesus of blasphemy, however the punishment for blasphemy was stoning. Why was Jesus not stoned then? Scholars point more to Luke's account, where Jesus was not accused of blasphemy, and probably did not face the Sanhedrin, but a private interrogation by the high priest Caiaphas and the scribes. After interrogating Jesus, they brought him to Pilate so that he [Pilate] might find Jesus guilty of an uprising against the Roman government. ___________________________________________________________ """""""""" / \ | @ @ | | Andrew "Fuz" Lih Columbia University Center | < > > ___/ Academic Computing for Computing Activities | \ \__/ / <___ / \____/ \ lih@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu AJLUS@CUVMB.BITNET / \ lih@cs.columbia.edu ...rutgers!columbia!cunixc!lih | \__________________________________________________________/
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (12/08/89)
In article <Dec.3.12.46.20.1989.23154@athos.rutgers.edu> ez000585@castor.ucdavis.edu (Jason Gabler) writes: >I am a Christian.. >Born in LI Jewish Hospital, circumcised on the 8th day and BarMitzvah'd at 13yrs >and Accepted Jesus at 10yrs >But I am definately not NOT Jewish. I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, if you mean you are not of Jewish descent or if you mean not of the Jewish religion. However this triggers some thoughts for me: Actually it appears to me that in New Testament times the Christians were not arguing against Judism but were saying effectively, "Christianity is the particular sect of Judism you should accept." For example, Rom 2:28-29 indicates that the important thing is to be a Jew inwardly in the heart, not outwardly in the (circumcised) flesh. Rev 2:9 and 3:9 both refer to those who say they are Jews and are not but are of "the synogogue of Satan." I believe the early Christians thought of themselves as Jewish. Even the Gentile Christians seemed to think of themselves as of a Jewish religion which is the reason for the controversy over circumcision (Acts 15 etc.). It seems to me that the question was not "Judism or Christianity" but "Which branch of Judism: Christian, Saducee, Pharise, or Essene?" The message of early Christianity seems to be, "This is true Judism to follow the Messiah who has now come to earth, even Jesus Christ." In this sense all Christians can consider themselves Jews, at least in religious belief. I would consider the main branches of Judism today to be Orthodox, Reformed, Conservative, and Christian. Perhaps if we thought of ourselves this way we would find it easier to understand and communicate with our fellow Jews and thus help answer Dave's original question. [I think you missed the double negative in Jason's original. At any rate, I am not convinced that claiming to be Jewish is going to increase communications with Jews. Certainly the original Christians were Jewish. I agree that it started with the orientation you describe. But we did come to a parting of the ways. The original separation of the Church from Judaism was very painful, and many Christians tried to avoid it. But there are enough differences in perspective that it's hard to see how it could have been avoided. I think it's too late to undo the separation. We certainly should understand our Jewish heritage, we should think of Jews as fellow members of the Kingdom of God, etc. But I think for us to claim that Christianity is a branch of Judaism is inviting something between incredulity and resentment. --clh]
jygabler@ucdavis.edu (Jason Gabler) (12/11/89)
I wrote..... >>I am a Christian.. >>Born in LI Jewish Hospital, circumcised on the 8th day and BarMitzvah'd at 13yrs >>and Accepted Jesus at 10yrs >>But I am definately not NOT Jewish. hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) writes: > >I'm not sure exactly what you mean here..... What i meant was... or that is, to me David seemed to be saying, "Now that I have accepted Christ, I am no longer a Jew." I was giving a rebutle of his state through my own experience/feelings. I was born into a jewish family, raised as a Jew, and at a young age accepted Christ; I like to think of it as fuffilling my Jewishness :) . How much better the Jewish aspects of my life are with Jesus as part of them. I felt that David was missing out on a very special privilage (ahem, excuse me...) of being Jewish. > >Actually it appears to me that in New Testament times the Christians >were not arguing against Judism but were saying effectively, >"Christianity is the particular sect of Judism you should accept." >It seems to me that the question was not "Judism or Christianity" >but "Which branch of Judism: Christian, Saducee, Pharise, or >Essene?" The message of early Christianity seems to be, "This is >true Judism to follow the Messiah who has now come to earth, even >Jesus Christ." In this sense all Christians can consider themselves BINGO !!!! Our Scholarly Moderator said: >At any rate, I am not convinced that claiming to be Jewish is going to >increase communications with Jews. This is also true. I have heard of passages in the Talmud ( though it may be a fable that they are there) that Jesus is not on the 'bed of roses' side of Abraham's Bosom. Jews consider themselves very different from Christians, and take it offensively to be compared so. As a side note: When sharing Christ with Jews, be cautious as to not offend them in this way. If and when they learn to trust in Jesus, the connection between Christianity and Judaism will become quite clear. In Christ, Jason Gabler -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Gabler Data Communications Group, Computing Services, UC Davis, Davis CA ccjason@castor.ucdavis.edu jygabler@ucdavis.edu edu!ucdavis!jygabler -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord, rather than men. ><> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------