Why don't Christians worship as Jews do?

[InChristAlways]

Originally Posted by InChristAlways
Bigotry? I don't understand that, as God is God of all, regardless of "religion", correct?

So it is a matter of one being of the Faith of Abraham and his Seed, and those of the faith of the Covenant of Mt Sinai through Jacob/Israel and Moses, the jews.

That doesn't sound like "Replacement Theology", just 2 "churches" side by side, who share the belief of One God, the Creator.

Anyway, perhaps someone can start a topic on it unless it would be too "controversial".?.
Steve

oh yes it does turn into bigotry because some of them say the Jews go to hell& have been replaced by Christians...the same way each of these Christian denominations tell each other they are going to hell unless you join them.
i think Origen or Augustine started all that. (not sure)
i dont seperate God into religion. there is one God & as far as i am concerned He is the same God of the jew & the christian, the muslim the american indians....

I am in total agreement here on One God and Creator overall. I never read the early church father's writings that people bring up, so I am not familiar with their beliefs, but I do follow Jesus and Paul's teachings on Love and Peace. The jews do have the original Covenant with God in respect to Mt Sinai and why I do not worship as they do as I am not under their Covenant.

Thank you for clarifying that. Peace.
Steve

1 corin 10:31 Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God,

[chokmah]

Originally Posted by Bandit

hey chokmah, are you an othodox Jew?

No. I'm a Noachide.

[chokmah]

Originally Posted by truthseeker

Indeed, the Church does believe that it has replaced the Jews as Israel and make the necessary adjustments for its claim...

Strangely enough, I claim Christianity - but the Church won't have me. I don't think that I am against the Church - but I'm not a numbskull either.

Thanks for sharing. I empathize about your situation though.

[chokmah]

Replacement Theology in a nutshell is an ideology that the Jews have been rejected by G-d and the Christian Church takes the place of Israel as the "nation of priests". This replacement has afforded the Christian Church all the blessings that are enumerated in the Torah, but none of the punishments. The punishments are being carried out on the Jews, because of their supposed rejection by G-d. This rejection is carried out against the Jews, because they reject Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. As for who started it, it was Paul. Replacement Theology is gleaned from the words of his letters. Marcion was a HUGE advocate of the theology, and in many circles, it is still alive and well.

And, yes, it does lead to bigotry.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by truthseeker

The view is always interesting in the Christian light - and I mean that sincerely.
If one is smart, in self-preservation there are those who never forget. Rome has not fallen - it just exists under another name.

I suppose, if I was expressing a Christian POV. However, that came from a secular history book, being used in a public school...

[truthseeker]

Originally Posted by chokmah

Thanks for sharing. I empathize about your situation though.

I'm still growing, Chokmah. No big deal.

I read about Noachide. Interesting. That is something, in my Bible readings, that I overlooked or didn't put any emphasis on in my reading. I thought that those laws were tied into the Mosaic laws...

[chokmah]

Originally Posted by truthseeker

I'm still growing, Chokmah. No big deal.

I read about Noachide. Interesting. That is something, in my Bible readings, that I overlooked or didn't put any emphasis on in my reading. I thought that those laws were tied into the Mosaic laws...

They were re-confirmed at Sinai as binding on the Gentile nations. Yet, there is the separation between Jews and Gentiles in that regard.

[YO-ELEVEN-11]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Remember the song "A little Less Talk and alot more Action" ? We here at CR are looking for more dialogue than pasting of other works (including biblical). Granted referencing scripture is fine, however, personal thought on the issue is devine, and the more personal thought, the better!!!


v/r

Q

HERE HERE...

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by chokmah

Replacement Theology in a nutshell is an ideology that the Jews have been rejected by G-d and the Christian Church takes the place of Israel as the "nation of priests". This replacement has afforded the Christian Church all the blessings that are enumerated in the Torah, but none of the punishments. The punishments are being carried out on the Jews, because of their supposed rejection by G-d. This rejection is carried out against the Jews, because they reject Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. As for who started it, it was Paul. Replacement Theology is gleaned from the words of his letters. Marcion was a HUGE advocate of the theology, and in many circles, it is still alive and well.

And, yes, it does lead to bigotry.

From my reading of the Bible and New Testament, I don't think Christianity replaces anything. Nothing is replaced. There is no "Replacement Theology."

Jesus came into this world for purely sentimental purposes. It wasn't part of some Divine Constitutional Law. He wasn't following some system of rules or formal protocols. Actually, what he came to do was to nullify the moral authority of such a system of rules and formal protocols. In other words, his purpose was to do away with the Systematic Law so that we could align ourselves to something more natural -- something more sentimental -- the Natural Law.

He came as a liberator to emancipate us from ideology and dogma. He came to free us from what the Israelite religious leaders believed was the "Divine Constitutional Law." He freed us from this "Divine Constitutional Law" by proving that it never had any moral authority in the first place. He showed that it was invalid by allowing the religious leaders to condemn an innocent, righteous man -- himself.

Don't get the wrong idea, though. I'm not talking about Judaism here. I'm talking about man-made distortions of God's religion. Both Jews and Christians have done that for centuries. It's where religious leaders turn God's religion into a Constitution. It continues in today's world with the issue of abortion and gay marriages and the "Christian Right" movement in America. It's where people believe in a political system more than they believe in individuals. People's lives are enslaved by ideology and the structure of the world -- and they start believing that to make the world a better place they need to "re-structure" the world. The religious leaders in Jesus' day were doing something similar. Personally, I don't think changing rules and laws is going to help anyone. It doesn't make us better people.

In a sense, Christianity has no new theology at all. Christianity isn't about "changing the rules." It's just a story we believe in. It's a story of how a man died on our behalf to free us from formal protocols. The legacy of that man lives on. It's a shift in focus. Once upon a time we believed rules and formal protocols were the most important ingredient in "purity" and "righteousness." Then along came a man who changed all that . . .

The terms "Christian" and "Jew" are just a way of labelling people to distinguish who believes or does not believe in that story. Think of these two words as like a signpost. It's like we're fans of a Christian concept of Jesus. I don't see how it's wrong to be a fan. Fans of celebrities like John Farnham, Nicole Kidman, Greg Norman and Andre Agassi aren't bigots. Fans of celebrities devote themselves to the personality, charisma and life story of that person. It's like that with Christianity. It's a religion dedicated to the memory of a person.

It's about the story and legacy of one man. This story means something to us and we think it's important. We're not going to throw this story in the dumpster just because it happened two thousand years ago. Moreover, if our religion is about a God we can trust and a personal connection with that God, then it is important that we recognise what such a God has done for us. Christianity is supposed to be something sentimental. Sure, there's a long history of disputes about what is correct or incorrect about the story and concept of Christ, but these are just attempts to forge something concrete and systematic in Christianity. It's where people try to fit Christianity into some kind of model, philosophy or mystical science.

The "bigotry" is a result of a belief not in something sentimental, but something systematic, scientific and concrete. It's a result of people trying to compartmentalise Christianity. It's where people do it with their heads and not their hearts. They believe Christianity should be compartmentalised and that these compartmentalisations apply to everybody.

It's when we realise that Christianity was meant to be something purely sentimental that we stop all the bickering and factionalism and realise that what we fought over wasn't what Christianity represented in the first place. It's just us trying to fit Christianity into some kind of model. When we focus on the sentimental we start connecting with people and we start appreciating the true meaning of the Religion of Christ, and accepting each other's differing views. We may even start realising that there is no real difference between the Religion of Christ and the Religion of Israel. The only significant difference is that the Religion of Christ is the story of what God did to reconnect with His people.

Christianity isn't a threat. It's an invitation. You don't have to come. Try thinking of us as more like a social club than a recruiting force.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

From my reading of the Bible and New Testament, I don't think Christianity replaces anything. Nothing is replaced. There is no "Replacement Theology."

Jesus came into this world for purely sentimental purposes. It wasn't part of some Divine Constitutional Law. He wasn't following some system of rules or formal protocols. Actually, what he came to do was to nullify the moral authority of such a system of rules and formal protocols. In other words, his purpose was to do away with the Systematic Law so that we could align ourselves to something more natural -- something more sentimental -- the Natural Law.

He came as a liberator to emancipate us from ideology and dogma. He came to free us from what the Israelite religious leaders believed was the "Divine Constitutional Law." He freed us from this "Divine Constitutional Law" by proving that it never had any moral authority in the first place. He showed that it was invalid by allowing the religious leaders to condemn an innocent, righteous man -- himself.

Don't get the wrong idea, though. I'm not talking about Judaism here. I'm talking about man-made distortions of God's religion. Both Jews and Christians have done that for centuries. It's where religious leaders turn God's religion into a Constitution. It continues in today's world with the issue of abortion and gay marriages and the "Christian Right" movement in America. It's where people believe in a political system more than they believe in individuals. People's lives are enslaved by ideology and the structure of the world -- and they start believing that to make the world a better place they need to "re-structure" the world. The religious leaders in Jesus' day were doing something similar. Personally, I don't think changing rules and laws is going to help anyone. It doesn't make us better people.

In a sense, Christianity has no new theology at all. Christianity isn't about "changing the rules." It's just a story we believe in. It's a story of how a man died on our behalf to free us from formal protocols. The legacy of that man lives on. It's a shift in focus. Once upon a time we believed rules and formal protocols were the most important ingredient in "purity" and "righteousness." Then along came a man who changed all that . . .

The terms "Christian" and "Jew" are just a way of labelling people to distinguish who believes or does not believe in that story. Think of these two words as like a signpost. It's like we're fans of a Christian concept of Jesus. I don't see how it's wrong to be a fan. Fans of celebrities like John Farnham, Nicole Kidman, Greg Norman and Andre Agassi aren't bigots. Fans of celebrities devote themselves to the personality, charisma and life story of that person. It's like that with Christianity. It's a religion dedicated to the memory of a person.

It's about the story and legacy of one man. This story means something to us and we think it's important. We're not going to throw this story in the dumpster just because it happened two thousand years ago. Moreover, if our religion is about a God we can trust and a personal connection with that God, then it is important that we recognise what such a God has done for us. Christianity is supposed to be something sentimental. Sure, there's a long history of disputes about what is correct or incorrect about the story and concept of Christ, but these are just attempts to forge something concrete and systematic in Christianity. It's where people try to fit Christianity into some kind of model, philosophy or mystical science.

The "bigotry" is a result of a belief not in something sentimental, but something systematic, scientific and concrete. It's a result of people trying to compartmentalise Christianity. It's where people do it with their heads and not their hearts. They believe Christianity should be compartmentalised and that these compartmentalisations apply to everybody.

It's when we realise that Christianity was meant to be something purely sentimental that we stop all the bickering and factionalism and realise that what we fought over wasn't what Christianity represented in the first place. It's just us trying to fit Christianity into some kind of model. When we focus on the sentimental we start connecting with people and we start appreciating the true meaning of the Religion of Christ, and accepting each other's differing views. We may even start realising that there is no real difference between the Religion of Christ and the Religion of Israel. The only significant difference is that the Religion of Christ is the story of what God did to reconnect with His people.

Christianity isn't a threat. It's an invitation. You don't have to come. Try thinking of us as more like a social club than a recruiting force.

Actually Saltmeister Christianity is not sentimental. One cannot carry their cross in a sentimental fashion. Christianity and Judaism though complimentary are far from the same and must by their natures be approached differently. I've never really read their essential difference explained better than in the following.

I've been reading "Simone Weil and the Intellect of Grace" by Dr. Henry Leroy Finch. He wrote it as he was dying so the book contains a lot of sincerity. In chapter 12: Time and Timelessness, he makes the following comparison between Judaism and Christianity:

................The law has a timeless character just because it is laid down once and for all as part of the timeless myth or timeless history of the people. Even when it is practiced by only a handful of people, it remains alive and authoritative. These Orthodox people are a demonstration of the original character of Judaism which did not distinguish the sacred from the secular and united the cultural, the biological, and the religious in one timeless system.

I turn to the Christian experience of time and timelessness. This is as much a closed book to Jews as the Jewish point of view is to Christians. But as the Jews have their treasure which is the treasure of the Law preserved in the torah, Christians too have their treasure, which is the spirit of Christ preserved in the Gospels.

If we study the Gospels we will find that it is life in the present - not in the timeless present of past and future, but in the (timeful) present of the NOW - that is the true essence of Christianity The secret of the teaching of Christ is that all true life is life in the present, as distinct from the past and the future. This is where reality is. If there is no experience of the present, as the now, then there is no real life at all.

There is nothing sentimental about this. Christianity is life itself in the raw. Sentimentality destroys this experience.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

From my reading of the Bible and New Testament, I don't think Christianity replaces anything. Nothing is replaced. There is no "Replacement Theology."

Jesus came into this world for purely sentimental purposes. It wasn't part of some Divine Constitutional Law. He wasn't following some system of rules or formal protocols. Actually, what he came to do was to nullify the moral authority of such a system of rules and formal protocols. In other words, his purpose was to do away with the Systematic Law so that we could align ourselves to something more natural -- something more sentimental -- the Natural Law.

He came as a liberator to emancipate us from ideology and dogma. He came to free us from what the Israelite religious leaders believed was the "Divine Constitutional Law." He freed us from this "Divine Constitutional Law" by proving that it never had any moral authority in the first place. He showed that it was invalid by allowing the religious leaders to condemn an innocent, righteous man -- himself.

Don't get the wrong idea, though. I'm not talking about Judaism here. I'm talking about man-made distortions of God's religion. Both Jews and Christians have done that for centuries. It's where religious leaders turn God's religion into a Constitution. It continues in today's world with the issue of abortion and gay marriages and the "Christian Right" movement in America. It's where people believe in a political system more than they believe in individuals. People's lives are enslaved by ideology and the structure of the world -- and they start believing that to make the world a better place they need to "re-structure" the world. The religious leaders in Jesus' day were doing something similar. Personally, I don't think changing rules and laws is going to help anyone. It doesn't make us better people.

In a sense, Christianity has no new theology at all. Christianity isn't about "changing the rules." It's just a story we believe in. It's a story of how a man died on our behalf to free us from formal protocols. The legacy of that man lives on. It's a shift in focus. Once upon a time we believed rules and formal protocols were the most important ingredient in "purity" and "righteousness." Then along came a man who changed all that . . .

The terms "Christian" and "Jew" are just a way of labelling people to distinguish who believes or does not believe in that story. Think of these two words as like a signpost. It's like we're fans of a Christian concept of Jesus. I don't see how it's wrong to be a fan. Fans of celebrities like John Farnham, Nicole Kidman, Greg Norman and Andre Agassi aren't bigots. Fans of celebrities devote themselves to the personality, charisma and life story of that person. It's like that with Christianity. It's a religion dedicated to the memory of a person.

It's about the story and legacy of one man. This story means something to us and we think it's important. We're not going to throw this story in the dumpster just because it happened two thousand years ago. Moreover, if our religion is about a God we can trust and a personal connection with that God, then it is important that we recognise what such a God has done for us. Christianity is supposed to be something sentimental. Sure, there's a long history of disputes about what is correct or incorrect about the story and concept of Christ, but these are just attempts to forge something concrete and systematic in Christianity. It's where people try to fit Christianity into some kind of model, philosophy or mystical science.

The "bigotry" is a result of a belief not in something sentimental, but something systematic, scientific and concrete. It's a result of people trying to compartmentalise Christianity. It's where people do it with their heads and not their hearts. They believe Christianity should be compartmentalised and that these compartmentalisations apply to everybody.

It's when we realise that Christianity was meant to be something purely sentimental that we stop all the bickering and factionalism and realise that what we fought over wasn't what Christianity represented in the first place. It's just us trying to fit Christianity into some kind of model. When we focus on the sentimental we start connecting with people and we start appreciating the true meaning of the Religion of Christ, and accepting each other's differing views. We may even start realising that there is no real difference between the Religion of Christ and the Religion of Israel. The only significant difference is that the Religion of Christ is the story of what God did to reconnect with His people.

Christianity isn't a threat. It's an invitation. You don't have to come. Try thinking of us as more like a social club than a recruiting force.

Hmm a human being dismisses a faith...wrong. Christianity is far more than what is expressed here. Christianity is a threat. Why?, It won't stop moving forward. Oh, it won't kill, or harm, but it will be there...

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Actually Saltmeister Christianity is not sentimental. One cannot carry their cross in a sentimental fashion. Christianity and Judaism though complimentary are far from the same and must by their natures be approached differently.

It's been a while, but I think you'd be misunderstanding me if you were to say that. Similarities and differences is not what I have in mind, particularly with regards to theology and practices.

This post was in response to someone who was talking about "replacement theology" and I was disputing that theory. Jesus in particular never intended to replace the existing religion, one that he followed himself. He was addressing issues with the politics of that religion, particularly with dogma and ideology. People were being taught to follow rules and formal protocols, rather than trying to discover how these practices (or concepts) could have personal value in their lives. The people and their religious leaders were taking their Scripture literally. Rather than following the spirit of the Law, they followed the Law to the letter. Jesus didn't agree with that.

My impression of Judaism today is that it has moved on from that kind of thinking to a more theoretical and contemplative approach, rather than one of strict conformity to rules and literal interpretation of Scripture. It's grown out of that.

Christianity, however, is still struggling with these issues, even though it, as a religion was about dealing with these issues. Rather than adhering to the spirit of the Gospel, Christians adhere to the letter of the Gospel. The problem plaguing Judaism 2,000 years ago is now plaguing Christianity, and it has been continually happening in the last 2,000 years ago.

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it and ironically enough, Christianity forgot the past.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that Christianity was never meant to be a new religion. It grew out of the religious politics that was happening back then. Jesus had his views and agenda, but they were rejected. His followers formed a movement to preserve his legacy and that is how the religion started.

Jesus' agenda was not "replacement theology" but rather advocacy of principles he saw as important in an existing religion that he followed. His life, rhetoric and sayings were not supposed to be a new religion, but political statements projected out into a Jewish environment, intended to further his agenda in Jewish politics, concerning what he thought was right in being Jewish.

If there is a reason why it has become a new religion, it's because the political statements made by Jesus are no longer taken in the context of the Jewish environment and politics into which he projected them.

If Jesus were here today, I believe he would be making political statements about Christianity instead of Judaism, because Christianity today is in a similar state as Judaism was in 2,000 years ago. People were taught to follow rules without regard as to what personal value and personal meaning they might have in their lives.

Christianity being merely a collection of political statements, it could well have not existed, but it happened to make a political statement, not to replace another religion. Like the Books in the Tanakh, Christianity is another chapter in the history of the Abrahamic Faiths.

What makes me uncomfortable is Christians adhering to "the letter of the Gospel" rather than the "spirit of the Gospel." By doing so, they are repeating the same mistakes Jesus tried to address 2,000 years ago. Ironically, then, Christianity is a satirical statement about itself.

For those of us who don't see the satire and irony in Christianity, I reckon you'd be missing one of the most important messages behind Christianity. It probably means that you are one of those people who pursue the letter of the Gospel rather than the spirit of the Gospel and I wish we could spend more time chasing after the Spirit than the letter.

[Dream]

Thread Historical Highlights

• post 8 Basstian gives his explanation of the move from Sabbath to Sunday
• post 10 truthseeker doesn't feel they must dedicate themselves to any particular denomination
• post 18 NewAgeNerd, transitioning to orthodox Judaism discusses Sabbath a little bit. post 24 gives this link: Sabbath Day of Eternity - Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan - An OU.ORG Exclusive
• post 22 Quahom says "It is a delight to discover something new, from such an old story..." like he was sipping wine with his pinky out. A Coast Guard and carpenter uses the word delight?
• post 30 Bananabrain clarifies Psalm 74:8 does not mention synogogues per se
• post 32 Basstian provides a link "http://www.nisbett.com/sabbath/sunday_history.htm" which has since become God's Sabbath for Mankind--Chapter Six : Christian Resource Centre (Bermuda)
• post 35 Quahom a founding member of Theology class in his Catholic school
• post 37 Dauer's scathing attack on the Ragamuffins
• post 40 InchristAlways says the foundation of heaven and earth in Genesis aren't literal!
• post 62 InChristAlways brainstorms Ezekiel 4:5 sees dates of destruction of Jerusalem and of Rome as proportional to days of Ezekiel on his side.
• post 99 Saltmeister denounces replacement theology

[Saltmeister]

Post 103: Dream provides a summary of the thread's history

[Nick_A]

Hi Saltmeister

IMO you are confusing Christianity with Christendom. As Dr. Finch wrote, Christianity is concerned with "Now," Christendom as you say is primarily political which means it deals with imagined change. Where Christendom is concerned with external conditioned results or behaviorism, Christianity is an expression of "being" which is experienced "now"and psychological in nature

All through history, the awareness of what constitutes the quality of "now," has been corrupted into preoccupation with change and earthly value. The result is the societal creation of Plato's " Beast" and Simone Weil's reference to the "Great Beast. This psychological tendency has permeated both Christianity and Judaism as Simone rightly describes.

Rome is the Great Beast of atheism and materialism, adoriing nothing but itself. Israel is the Great Beast of religion. Neither one nor the other is likable. The Great Beast is always repulsive.
- Simone Weil, Prelude to Politics, completed shortly before her death in 1943
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 393

As you know in the Bible there is always "oh Israel" this or that. As soon as Moses went up the mountain, the golden idol emerged again. it cannot be helped as we are. It is lawful for the fallen human condition to lose vertical conscious perspective in favor of linear conditioned perspective.

It is precisely because of this that the New Covenant became necessary. It doesn't replace anything but rather adds something, the awareness of the conscious quality of Now, But, as Simone suggests, this new covenant was corrupted through egotism. Christianity, that is based upon giving up power for a greater good became Christendom a religion of power for Rome.

To begin to understand what "now" means and if it has relevance means contemplating the meaning of the New covenant as explained in Hebrews 8. Are you willing to do that or do you just deny its importance?

7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said[b]:
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
9It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."[c] 13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.