When Did Christianity and Judaism Part Ways?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thephilosopher6

Guest
What do you guys think of this video:


I do find a few problems in this video, like assuming the Marcionites were ever a genuine Christian group, despite it having arisen in the 2nd century, nearly a century removed from Jesus, based off of some bad ideas of one guy who clearly departed from the Abrahamic tradition Christianity inherited from Judaism through Jesus and the apostles. Still, I found it made some interesting points. Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
My vote is “Constantine”.
But obviously it was a process. It’s like looking at a rainbow and trying to divine where it stops being more red and starts being more violet.
 
Last edited:
Personally I’d say the final break was during Bar Kokhba revolt (132 A.D.) since it was during that when the last major center of Jewish Christianity was finally dissolved.
 
Last edited:
Oh I’ll readily concede that “Constantine” was on the back-end, or conclusion of the process, for sure.
 
Last edited:
I’d personally say the beginning of Fall A.D. 70 was the official point at which Second Temple Judaism (which Christianity was a sect of) ceased to exist and Rabbinic Judaism and non-Jewish Christianity were both born.
 
From a Christian perspective I think there was no parting of ways, rather a fulfillment (of the promises made in the Hebrew scriptures) at the incarnation of Jesus
 
There were still some pockets of non-Rabbinic Judaism that survived the destruction of the Second Temple. In fact, Gnosticism is thought to have arisen in late 1st century non-Rabbinic Jewish groups, and only by the early 2nd century started assimilating Christian ideas and influencing some Christian thinkers. Of course, both mainstream Judaism and Christianity heavily opposed this new “tradition”.

Now, it could be said that pockets of the Church were surviving remnants of Second Temple Judaism that didn’t give into Rabbinic ideas influenced by the Pharisees, but also didn’t give into the developing Gnostic ideas of other non-Rabbinic groups. The Church in Palestine was still exclusively Jewish well into the 2nd century, all the way up until the Bar Kokhba revolt.
 
Last edited:
Yes I agree. For the New Covenant to thrive, the Old Covenant especially Temple rituals had to cease.
 
Christianity and the legalization of Judaism parted at the Crucufixion of Jesus Christ. Saul (a Pharisee lawyer of the Mosaic law) of Tarsus is proof, when he was sent to the Jewish leadership of the Dasmascus political legal authority (Roman/Jewish puppet) after the resurrection to persecute/arrest Jewish Christians.

Technically it was made official here; Pilate addresses the Jews during the Lords Passion; “shall I crucify your King?” The Jews replied; " We have no King but Caesar".
 
Last edited:
thephilosopher6 said:
I do find a few problems in this video
Click to expand...
Umm… just a few?

One of his fundamental claims is that, among New Testament texts, only Luke is not a “Jewish text”. Really? I guess that means that Mark needs to explain Jewish practices and customs to Jews? I guess that means that John, having been written after the destruction of the temple and the expulsion of Christians from synagogue worship, is written to Jews? I guess that means that Paul, writing to Christian communities in far-flung locations, is writing to Jews, not Gentiles?

He claims, “at least in the first century, we can’t say that Jesus followers constituted a whole new religion.” Really? I guess the expulsions from the synagogues didn’t happen? 😉

At best, I could shrug and think that the author believes that Christians didn’t separate themselves from Jews until after the Bar Kochba revolt (in the early 2nd century). However, scholars don’t all agree on that claim. One widely-held notion is that, following the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70AD, Jews expelled Christians from synagogues.

So… at the very least, the author here is making assumptions that aren’t accepted by all scholars, and presenting them as truths.

He claims that Paul was attempting to make reforms to Judaism. Umm… really? Did he make these claims to the authorities in Jerusalem? If not – that is, if his theological claims were made to followers of Jesus, and not to those who did not follow Jesus – is it reasonable to suggest that he was reforming “Judaism”? Or, is it more reasonable to suggest that, in those nascent days of Christianity, he was attempting to define Christianity rather than to reform Judaism?

He claims that early Christians “weren’t really trying to start a whole new religion.” Umm… again, really? They set up distinct standards of behavior for Jewish and Gentile Christians. If the standard wasn’t “here’s what Gentiles need to do to fully express themselves as second-class citizens within Judaism” (as already existed within Judaism), then isn’t it evident that what Paul was doing, from the very beginning of his ministry, was distinct from Jewish norm?

Henry suggests that, since Ignatius’ use of the term “Christianity” was coined before our “modern concept of religion”, therefore our ideas of what it means to be Christian differ from what Ignatius had in mind. (Umm… yeah. Right. By that standard, since 2nd century Christians didn’t use the term “carbs”, they didn’t eat grains in the same way we did. Yeah. Thanks, man. :roll_eyes: )

Henry conflates notions of ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ in the question of what it means to be ‘Christian’. Such an assertion flies in the face of the witness found in the New Testament: early Christians realized that it was possible to self-identify as believers in Jesus, and this claim was not a claim to a particular ‘race’ or ‘ethnic background’. Red herring much, Mr Henry? :roll_eyes:

continued…
 
continuing…

Then, he presents a picture of a man whom he presents as a Jewish man from Antioch. Really? I guess the fact that you’re using a photo of a 2nd century Egyptian shouldn’t clue us in to the fact that you’re assuming we’re clueless idiots, right? OK: if he’s really from Antioch in the 2nd century, then he’s been expelled from the Jewish synagogue. He practices Christianity, which means he practices the Christian Sunday Liturgy (rather than the Jewish Sabbath). He “has a Jewish wife”? Really? Nah… if she’s Jewish, her parents won’t want her to have anything to do with him. And so, is it really about orthopraxis[/i] being less important than orthodoxy? No… not really. Both would be Christian rather than Jewish, at that time and in that place. But hey… nice try. 😉

To believe Henry – that is, that we place modern ‘bias’ on him – is to disbelieve what the Scriptures, and other historical books, tell us: Christians and Jews parted ways following the destruction of the temple.

He makes it seem like ECFs tell us “do whatever you want.” Is that what they say? Not so much. He cites Augustine’s epistle 54, chapter 2. Does Augustine say “do whatever the Jews do”? No. He says, “there is no better rule for the wise and serious Christian in this matter, than to conform to the practice which he finds prevailing in the Church.” Not “conform to Jewish practice”, but “conform to the practice in the Church.” Umm… oops. :roll_eyes:

He refers to various heresies as if they were generally accepted variants of Christianity.

And, at this point, five minutes into his video, I tuned out. Calling heretics ‘Christians’ flies in the face of what Christians called them. Unbelievers. Sorry… if you want to accept Henry’s view, anyone and everyone is a Christian, even if he believes something different than the Church believes. I mean, c’mon… even in the letters of John, we see that the Church rejected heterodox belief.

Henry makes a variety of claims that resonate with a certain type of scholar. They’re the type of scholar that says that, if a person calls themself by a name, then clearly they are accepted by all who call themselves by that name. By that standard, I’m a 17th century buccaneer, and a flightless waterfowl. Or maybe… just maybe… I’m not either, but I identify by the name ‘Pirate’ or ‘Penguin’. Not that any real pirate or penguin would agree with me. Then again, my love of sports teams doesn’t make me that thing with which I want to identify… right? 😉
 
Last edited:
This is all very interesting. BTW, do scholars ever agree on ANY claim?
 
meltzerboy2 said:
do scholars ever agree on ANY claim?
Click to expand...
If they always did, then they’d be out of a job. 😉

However, it’s just plan frustrating to listen to these kinds of poor conclusions, especially when they’re being touted as fact. 🤯
 
When Did Christianity and Judaism Part Ways?

The Last Supper
 
Last edited:
The stand of the Roman Catholic Church via the Pontifical Biblical Council and it’s scholars, clergy, and representatives working on the formal Catholic/Jewish dialogue that have produced the two documents, namely, The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible and the recent The Gifts and Calling of God are Irrevocable do not agree with most, if not all of the points offered by several of the people on this thread. (The answers and the Church’s view on these matters are there.)

Remarkably I have found that most Catholics have not studied these two documents, some even claiming that the Church teaches Supersessionism or that the division between Church and synagogue is viewed as a favorable thing by the Church (it is not).

If Catholics spent more time reading and studying what their own official teaching was on this matter instead of discussing and debating it on a forum, think of all the time that would be saved.

It makes no sense that a Jew like myself would have spent months studying these materials, looking up each and every Biblical text and pondering their significance to their use in the documents when after all these were published mainly for Catholics.

No offense to Catholics, but if I can keep up with my own religion and yours, you should at least be able to keep up with the latest information from your own. I am puzzled.
 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
I’d personally say the beginning of Fall A.D. 70 was the official point at which Second Temple Judaism (which Christianity was a sect of) ceased to exist and Rabbinic Judaism and non-Jewish Christianity were both born.
Click to expand...
Hadn’t we already been kicked out of the temple at that point?

I’d always understood that to be the point of separation, which would need to have been between the counsel of Jerusalem (50 AD?) and the razing of the temple.

Prior to the ejection, Christians would attend services on the Sabbath, and then commemorate the Resurrection on Sunday.

hawk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top