My First Christian - Jewish Debate (where did I go wrong?)

[Gamera]

I’m a veteran at debating fundamentalists and I’m reasonably experienced at debating atheists, but recently I had my first internet debate of “Christianity and Judaism” (I refuse to put “versus”). I did, eh, okay. Maybe you guys could tell me where I went wrong. This debate was over 200 posts, but here are the major issues.

1). I mostly feel that I lost because every time I cited the Hebrew Scriptures, my adversary would smugly reply that I couldn’t possibly understand what the verse meant because I don’t speak Hebrew. I pointed out that by that reasoning, he had no standing to comment on the New Testament unless he spoke Greek. He didn’t get it. What am I supposed to do? I’m 44 years old, I’m not gonna learn another language now.

1. He claimed that “every Jewish soul was present when God gave the law to Moses.” Like, even his own soul was present, even though he wasn’t conceived until thousands of years later. Is that really a Jewish belief? Found where?
2. He asserted that Christians worship a “different god.” Not because we worship Jesus – I mean, he thinks we don’t worship the God of Abraham at all, but that instead we worship a pagan deity. Is this a common opinion? I’d never heard that one before. He said that in the First Commandment, when the Lord says, “I am the Lord who brought your ancestors out of Egypt…,” proves that YHWH isn’t my Lord because my ancestors weren’t brought out of Egypt – therefore I must worship some other god. (that’s when my head exploded).
3. He thinks the Virgin Birth was stolen from myths about Zeus impregnating human women. Moreover, he argues that this would mean God committed adultery with Mary!!! I explained to him over and over that we don’t think God had sexual relations with Mary, and even explained about the sh’khinah glory cloud. See back to #1 LOL.
4. I easily won on accusations of worshipping statues, etc mostly because I have debated those points with fundamentalists countless times.
5. Every so often, my adversary would say, “I read your posts and realize you just don’t know the God of Abraham at all. Your concept of God is totally foreign to Judaism.” How am I supposed to respond to such vague, conclusory comments?

 

[Nine_Two]

1). I mostly feel that I lost because every time I cited the Hebrew Scriptures, my adversary would smugly reply that I couldn’t possibly understand what the verse meant because I don’t speak Hebrew. I pointed out that by that reasoning, he had no standing to comment on the New Testament unless he spoke Greek. He didn’t get it. What am I supposed to do? I’m 44 years old, I’m not gonna learn another language now.

He made a fallacy here, you didn’t lose the point however you have to call him on it being a fallacy, which it sounds like you did. If he still doesn’t get it you simply have to continue to call it being a fallacy or let it drop. People will rarely change their mind in a debate, it is afterwards while thinking it over they might, and that’s the point of debate, to raise questions, not to win converts direct.

1. He claimed that “every Jewish soul was present when God gave the law to Moses.” Like, even his own soul was present, even though he wasn’t conceived until thousands of years later. Is that really a Jewish belief? Found where?

Never heard it before, if it is an actual Jewish belief it’ll probably be in the Mishnah, the “oral torah” which is a basic compendium of Rabbinic Jewish scholarship. Whether or not it is a true Jewish belief it doesn’t seem very relevant.

1. He asserted that Christians worship a “different god.” Not because we worship Jesus – I mean, he thinks we don’t worship the God of Abraham at all, but that instead we worship a pagan deity. Is this a common opinion? I’d never heard that one before. He said that in the First Commandment, when the Lord says, “I am the Lord who brought your ancestors out of Egypt…,” proves that YHWH isn’t my Lord because my ancestors weren’t brought out of Egypt – therefore I must worship some other god. (that’s when my head exploded).

I believe Muslims worship a different God so hearing Jews say they don’t believe I worship the same God doesn’t bother me, however Christ himself said that God could raise Children of Abraham from the stones, and that a prestigious lineage is ultimately meaningless.

1. He thinks the Virgin Birth was stolen from myths about Zeus impregnating human women. Moreover, he argues that this would mean God committed adultery with Mary!!! I explained to him over and over that we don’t think God had sexual relations with Mary, and even explained about the sh’khinah glory cloud. See back to #1 LOL.

A common argument, and an uneducated one that shows a lack of knowledge of both the Greek myths and the Christian Nativity story. You can either explain the differences or show that Judaism has syncratic elements with other religions (there are many) and that such coincidences don’t prove it wrong.

1. Every so often, my adversary would say, “I read your posts and realize you just don’t know the God of Abraham at all. Your concept of God is totally foreign to Judaism.” How am I supposed to respond to such vague, conclusory comments?
   The Christian view of God is rather foreign to Judaism, but ask to be educated on the Jewish view of God. Only way to win debates is to know what you’re debating.

 

[Bluegoat]

My experience is that Christians often have a hard time debating with Jews, because they understand the Scriptures very differently, and most Christians don’t have the background to be able to account for that. Also, within Judaism there are a lot of different streams of thought, so what one person says might have little relation to what another believes.

I have also notices that theologically, Judaism has more in common with Orthodoxy that with Western Christianity, and have seen some Orthodox Christians have fairly fruitful discussions with Jews.

 

[Kaninchen]

I’m a veteran at debating fundamentalists and I’m reasonably experienced at debating atheists, but recently I had my first internet debate of “Christianity and Judaism” (I refuse to put “versus”). I did, eh, okay. Maybe you guys could tell me where I went wrong. This debate was over 200 posts, but here are the major issues.

Discussions on religion will (obviously) vary depending on who’s doing the discussing and what their particular favourite issues are but I think that there are kinds of ‘meta-discussion’ problems that go on in discussions between Christians and Jews that get hidden by ‘particulars’.

Christians tend to think that Christianity is Judaism plus Jesus and Judaism is Christianity minus Jesus and they are not. They are paradigmatically different religions, they don’t work in the same way - what may be central issues in one may be totally irrelevant in the other - an example would be the Christian concept of ‘Salvation’ which is pretty meaningless to us Jews who don’t see what the fuss is at all.

Again, central to most discussions is the question of the ‘New Testament’ and, to us, it’s a bit like a Catholic talking to a Muslim who thinks that the Qur’an is revelation or a Mormon who thinks that the ‘Book of Mormon’ is revelation. It may be fascinating to people who enjoy literary criticism but, basically, we don’t believe a word of it (being a bit blunt).

1. Every so often, my adversary would say, “I read your posts and realize you just don’t know the God of Abraham at all. Your concept of God is totally foreign to Judaism.” How am I supposed to respond to such vague, conclusory comments?

Given what I’ve said above, you’ll see that I rather agree with your adversary. It’s not that Christians or Muslims worship a different God, it’s that the whole concept of God is different - much to the bemusement of all parties.

From experience, discussions are usually best between parties who accept that these ‘meta-problems’ exist from the start.

 

[Javl]

I have engaged Jews in discussions and have received the same answers and comments. When they say that I know nothing of Judaism I reply “what do you know of Christianity to make your statement”? I then explain That I want useful dialogue to exchange information to dispell the lies, myths and mis-understanding that we each have about the other. This, then, usually opens a line of civil communication and we each learn from the other. Many times debate is of no useful purpose, but dialogue always is.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[KyivAndrew]

I don’t like gotcha arguments in Jewish/Christian exchange. I find discussion and learning more fruitful on this particular topic than one-up-man-ship redolent of religious debates of old where the King of Spain for instance would force Rabbi Nahmanides under coercion to the Kingly Court to argue against the truth of Christianity with Christian scholars, something he did not wish. Too heavily charged.

In any event, before I falls asleep, an interesting article written by R.R. Reno, a prominent Catholic, married to a Jewish woman whose children have been raised Jewish. Reno writes for the late Father Neuhaus’s religion journal “First Things”:

"Take the case of Judaism and Christianity. Both treat the book of Genesis as sacred. But Genesis itself poses a problem. For, as Levenson points out, the text “resists the notion that he [Abraham] is equally the father of more than one community.”

When God calls Abraham out of his father’s house, the promise he makes to him is singular, not plural: “I will make of you a great nation” (Gen 1:2). The singular character of election is then strongly reinforced. The line of inheritance passes to only one son, first Isaac and then Jacob. No happy diversity, I’m afraid.

This singularity, moreover, has universal significance. The children of Abraham will be both blessed and a blessing. As God says to Abraham: “I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves” (Gen 12:2-3). God is up to something with Abraham, something of significance for the whole world.

Thus we come to a crucial point of difference between Jews and Christians. As Levenson explains, the main lines Jewish interpretation presume that the biological descendents of Abraham will inherit the blessings promised to Abraham, and precisely as God’s chosen people, they will ensure divine blessing for all the nations of the earth.

Just how this happens is a matter of speculation in the history of Jewish theology. The prophets often see a restored Jerusalem as the cultic center of the world, while some medieval interpreters see the Jewish people leading the nations toward monotheism. Differences noted, the picture is fairly clear. Jews stand at the center of human history, with blessings radiating outward to the rest of humanity, which remains non-Jewish, but acknowledges the unique and universal significance of God’s covenant with Abraham’s descendents.

Christianity reads the promise to Abraham differently. St. Paul writes against the view that Abraham’s descendants are biological: “It is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7). This does not rule out Jews. An extended and complicated meditation on God’s providence in his Letter to the Romans ends up speculating that the biological descendants of Abraham are “cut off” for the sake of the promises, only to be “regrafted” at the end of the age (Rom 9:3-4 and 11:23-24).

By St. Paul’s reading, the patrimony of Abraham remains singular, but instead of Jews at the center, he pictures Abraham’s patrimony diffused to all the nations. The leaven enters the lump of dough, so to speak, brings to fruition the promised blessings in the form of the church now spread among all the nations. Thus one of the very practical differences between Judaism and Christianity: the former does not proselytize, while the latter urges missionary outreach."

Pays to read whole article to see on which points one agrees, Jewish or Christian, alike, and which not. (i.e. not peaceful quip on human nature?)
firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/07/our-father-abraham

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Javl]

Christianity is a completion of Judaism. Jesus as much said this and opened the door for Gentiles to become, at the very least, spiritual Jews. Therefore Abraham is as much the father of we Christians as he is for the Jews.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom haMeshiach

 

[Kaninchen]

Christianity is a completion of Judaism. Jesus as much said this and opened the door for Gentiles to become, at the very least, spiritual Jews. Therefore Abraham is as much the father of we Christians as he is for the Jews.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom haMeshiach

That might be a very, very convincing argument if you’re arguing with another Christian - for arguing with a Jew, however, it would be another matter altogether.

 

[Anna_Scott]

My experience is that Christians often have a hard time debating with Jews, because they understand the Scriptures very differently, and most Christians don’t have the background to be able to account for that. Also, within Judaism there are a lot of different streams of thought, so what one person says might have little relation to what another believes.

I have also notices that theologically, Judaism has more in common with Orthodoxy that with Western Christianity, and have seen some Orthodox Christians have fairly fruitful discussions with Jews.

Bluegoat,

I think you are right. I have read a number of books by Jewish authors. After the first couple of books, I realized I really didn’t have a clue about Judaism. And a few books certainly do not make me an expert. All my life, I’ve heard Christians talk about Jewish beliefs and the reason behind them. Most of what I’ve heard from Christian pulpits is seriously lacking.

What I did find is that most Jews are not awaiting a savior. God is already their Savior. Most will say that a blood atonement is not necessary for salvation. So, it’s difficult to talk about Christ as Savior. In fact, I read a Jewish commentary that said, God required sacrifices to Him in order to prevent Israel from sacrificing to the pagan gods–as old habits die hard (I’m paraphrasing.)

Also, the phrase “personal Savior” used often by Evangelicals and Fundamentalist is actually offensive to some Jews, according to an article I read. Attaching “personal” to a reference to God shows a lack of respect for God. In fact, my Jewish friends will not write God as “God.” They will write God as “G-d.”

My Jewish friends told me their impression of the New Testament is that the authors wrote it with the Hebrew Scriptures open, looking for ways to claim Christ fulfilled prophecies.

There is also the issue of the “Virgin prophesy” of Isaiah 7:14. The Jews claim the prophesy wasn’t about a miraculous virgin birth at all; and the prophesy was fulfilled during that generation. This debate between Christians and Jews has been going on for centuries.

You will find the comparison of the story of Christ and the story of pagan gods in other writings as well, such as those from Gnostics, other sects, and of course atheists.

Anna

 

[Javl]

That might be a very, very convincing argument if you’re arguing with another Christian - for arguing with a Jew, however, it would be another matter altogether.

Many Jews who have accepted Jesus as the Meshiach, and therefore Christanity, come to that conclusion. Have you ever attended a Catholic Liturgical service? If you haven’t, please do. You will find it very similar to a Hebrew service. Many Jews who have accepted Jesus ( Messianic Jews ) have converted to Catholicism because of this "continuation"of Judaism. None have relinquished their ethnicity or customs. Please check hebrewcatholic.org if you wish more information.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom haMeshiach

 

[Kaninchen]

Many Jews who have accepted Jesus as the Meshiach, and therefore Christanity, come to that conclusion. Have you ever attended a Catholic Liturgical service? If you haven’t, please do. You will find it very similar to a Hebrew service. Many Jews who have accepted Jesus ( Messianic Jews ) have converted to Catholicism because of this "continuation"of Judaism. None have relinquished their ethnicity or customs. Please check hebrewcatholic.org if you wish more information.

I have to tell you that this particular argument would be even less useful than your one before and would more than likely make whoever you were talking to think much less of you.

You’re supposed to be trying to impress and convince people for heaven’s sake!

 

[choy]

1. He claimed that “every Jewish soul was present when God gave the law to Moses.” Like, even his own soul was present, even though he wasn’t conceived until thousands of years later. Is that really a Jewish belief? Found where?

this belief is part of the Kabbalah
the belief is that in Heaven there is a room that is filled with souls of all the people that will be born. once the room is emptied, the Messiah will come

now there is also a Christian Kabbalah belief that the emptying of this room would then trigger the Second Coming. and they believe this is supported in Revelations when it talked about Heaven becoming completely silent. it is believed that this room is filled with the noise of infants crying, because all the souls here are souls for the newborn. once the room is emptied, then no more crying, no more souls left. Second Coming

the room is called the Chamber of Guf en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guf

this is popularized in Demi Moore’s movie, The Seventh Sign, where the world is about to end because Guf was emptied of its souls

also the Anime, Neon Genesis Evangelion revolves around the same premise, the kids born after the event called Second Impact do not have souls, because Guf was emptied, and for some reason only kids without souls are able to operate the Evangelions

 

[Javl]

I have to tell you that this particular argument would be even less useful than your one before and would more than likely make whoever you were talking to think much less of you.

You’re supposed to be trying to impress and convince people for heaven’s sake!

Nope. It’s more that you have a closed mind and refuse to have a useful dialogue or learn anything.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom haMeshiach

 

[GerrardLerux]

1). I mostly feel that I lost because every time I cited the Hebrew Scriptures, my adversary would smugly reply that I couldn’t possibly understand what the verse meant because I don’t speak Hebrew. I pointed out that by that reasoning, he had no standing to comment on the New Testament unless he spoke Greek. He didn’t get it. What am I supposed to do? I’m 44 years old, I’m not gonna learn another language now.

Sure you can learn a new language. You don’t have to be a scholar, or take many years of school. A first year course will give you the foundation you need to learn the aleph-bet, syntax and grammar. When a Jew tries to trump you with the ‘original language’ argument, remind him that the LXX is still the oldest and most reliable text we have of the Torah.

1. He claimed that “every Jewish soul was present when God gave the law to Moses.” Like, even his own soul was present, even though he wasn’t conceived until thousands of years later. Is that really a Jewish belief? Found where?

Never heard of it. Tell him to cite his sources, then re-evaluate.

1. He asserted that Christians worship a “different god.” Not because we worship Jesus – I mean, he thinks we don’t worship the God of Abraham at all, but that instead we worship a pagan deity. Is this a common opinion? I’d never heard that one before. He said that in the First Commandment, when the Lord says, “I am the Lord who brought your ancestors out of Egypt…,” proves that YHWH isn’t my Lord because my ancestors weren’t brought out of Egypt – therefore I must worship some other god. (that’s when my head exploded).

Shoot back that parts of the Bk of Genesis were taken from Baylonian myths, so, using his reasoning he really worships Marduk.

1. He thinks the Virgin Birth was stolen from myths about Zeus impregnating human women. Moreover, he argues that this would mean God committed adultery with Mary!!! I explained to him over and over that we don’t think God had sexual relations with Mary, and even explained about the sh’khinah glory cloud. See back to #1 LOL.

I have heard this one before too. Get sources from him. Critical works that evaluate original inscriptions, art, etc. that are peer reviewed not just polemical hit pieces. There is only one example of a virgin birth that I could find, and it was the birth of Romulus and Remus by a Vestal Virgin by the god Mars. You can use Google Books to find ‘Religions of Rome’ by Simon Price. Either Virgil or Ovid records the story.

6

) Every so often, my adversary would say, “I read your posts and realize you just don’t know the God of Abraham at all. Your concept of God is totally foreign to Judaism.” How am I supposed to respond to such vague, conclusory comments?/QUOTE

By saying just that, the comments are vague and lack merit.

 

[GerrardLerux]

Again, central to most discussions is the question of the ‘New Testament’ and, to us, it’s a bit like a Catholic talking to a Muslim who thinks that the Qur’an is revelation or a Mormon who thinks that the ‘Book of Mormon’ is revelation. It may be fascinating to people who enjoy literary criticism but, basically, we don’t believe a word of it (being a bit blunt).

Or, as an atheist would say, the unknown writers of the Old and New Testaments, compilers of the Quran and obvious mythmakers behind the Book of Mormon are all goofy.

From experience, discussions are usually best between parties who accept that these ‘meta-problems’ exist from the start.

I agree, and let us also agree that one of the meta-problems is the whole idea of divine revelation.

 

[Kaninchen]

Nope. It’s more that you have a closed mind and refuse to have a useful dialogue or learn anything.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom haMeshiach

That’s guaranteed to be one of the least convincing arguments/approaches you could use, certainly.

Well done, you’re on a roll.

 

[Kaninchen]

I agree, and let us also agree that one of the meta-problems is the whole idea of divine revelation.

If that were the issue in question, obviously, but it falls outside the context of the OP.

 

[Sam_777]

Gamera for your efforts in spreading the light of JESUS, however I think the answer for your question is within the Bible itself:

(John 12:37-41):
"Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet: "Lord, who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:"He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them.“Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.”

(2 Corinthians 4:4):
“The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”

 

[Kaninchen]

Gamera for your efforts in spreading the light of JESUS, however I think the answer for your question is within the Bible itself:

(John 12:37-41):
"Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet: "Lord, who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:"He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them.“Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.”

(2 Corinthians 4:4):
“The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”

The problem is, Sam, that, while proud statements of belief and claims that everybody who doesn’t immediately believe is just naughty (or blind) may be good rousing stuff and make believers feel very pleased with themselves, it’s not really a path to discussion of religion or understanding of other religions (or anything else in human discourse really) outside those who believe in the first place.

If every discussion of religion has, on one side, the sole purpose of conversion then the tendency on the other side is likely to suggest: “Go away silly person and leave me alone!”

 

[Javl]

That’s guaranteed to be one of the least convincing arguments/approaches you could use, certainly.

Well done, you’re on a roll.

Thank you. You have just proven my point. Mille grazie, signorina ( signora? ):

PAX DOMINI

Shalom haMeschiac