Wikipedia

Talk:Christianity and Judaism

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Slrubenstein (talk | contribs) at 22:49, 12 September 2002. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Learn more about this page

From the article:

Historically, Christianity has taught that all people are born contaminated with Original sin, and that nothing a person does in their life can ever get rid of this taint; this doctrine began with Paul in the New Testament, and was especially promoted by Augustine in the fourth century. Failure to get rid of this taint leads God to eternally damn these people to Hell. Only by worshipping Jesus as a saviour and son of God can a person be saved from this fate.

Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christianity never held this doctrine, and began repudiating it once they learned of it. They teach that we inherit a corrupted or damaged human nature in which the tendency to do bad is greater, but that each person is only guilty of their own sins. By participating in the life of the church, our human nature is healed and it becomes easier to do good; at the same time, we become more acutely aware of more of our shortcomings. I added this bit in another article once, I think. --Wesley
Please provide a few official sources for this statement about Eastern Orthodoxy.

First, tell me where in the New Testament you find this doctrine, and more importantly your hermeneutical method, which Christians of any stripe follow this interpretation, and which Eastern Orthodox Christians affirm or have made that interpretation.

Its not my method, its their method. I don't believe that the New Testament is divinely inpired, so I don't follow rules or beliefs derived from it. But I don't understand your perspective. All of Christianity has historically believed what I mentioned. I understand that some liberal Protestant sects have changed their beliefs in the last two centuries, many in the last 50 years. Perhaps Orthodox Chrisitianity has as well. But you seem to be asking me to "prove" that most Christians have historically believed (and still believe) that Christ is the only way to God. I don't know how to respond to this. Just read any encyclopaedia, or go to any Church. Where did you learn the contrary? Here in the USA we have hundreds of distinct Protestant Christian groups, and the vast majority teach this. Even the Catholic Church is still divided on this issue, with one person claiming that salvation is available outside Christ, while another equally ranking official denies this. Much information is available on this topic from the religioustolerance.org website RK
First of all, the Catholic Church is not "divided" on this issue, as you say--Vatican II clearly pronounced that non-Christians can attain salvation, and the current Pope has also stated this. Secondly, Quakers have never believed that only Christians attain salvation (that is to say, when Quakers even worry about the question of salvation, which they generally don't), and Quakerism is 350 years old. It is true that many Protestant churches still preach an intolerant vision of salvation, and it is also true that historically the Christian church was highly intolerant of other faiths (Catholicism used ot preach that "there is no salvation outside the church", but reversed itself on this subject at Vatican II), but the religion is also more diverse than you are making it out to be.
If we attribute something to St. Paul or the New Testament, we need to cite book, chapter and verse. In addition, just look at protestantism to see how many opposing views can be attributed to Paul, often citing the same passages in support of opposite positions. It's poor policy for an encyclopedia to enter the fray by citing the New Testament directly in support of a particular doctrine. We can cite specific passages, but should also identify the people or groups that have used the passage in that way to justify a particular belief or practice.
Paul in First Corinthians 15 specifically talks about the concept of Original Sin. He didn't give any particular name for this theology, but he describes it in detail. According to Paul, Jesus died not to merely allow people to gain eternal life, but Jesus died specifically because of "our sins". He is not talking about the sin of Adam and Eve, but about the sins of the actual audience that he is writing to. RK
Second, as Ben said, Original Sin defined as guilt that has been inherited, is NOT what the Eastern Orthodox church has taught. Nor did the Catholics before Augustine. This doctrine is much more specific than claiming that Jesus is the only way to God, and is not shared by the entire church. Methodists are a notable exception on the protestant side, going back to the 18th century, but again, you simply won't find it in the East, for at least most of the last 2000 years. But I'm talking very specifically about inherited guilt. Also, many Christians would speak more of people destroying themselves by their sins and by their rejection of God, rather than speak of God damning them to hell on a technicality. The language used matters a great deal when discussing the problem of evil, for example. --Wesley

Scripture can and has been used poorly to say almost anything; be careful to attribute interpretations of it specifically. This is also NPOV procedure; otherwise we have Wikipedia setting down a standard interpretation. I made several statements together there. A random web site confirmed that Augustine wasn't translated into Greek until the 14th century, and suggested he wasn't widely read in the East until the 17th or 18th century, when Western style education made its way to Russia. That's the easiest fact to confirm. I'll have to look harder for some official statements; ( ... goes away grumbling about being asked to prove a negative ...  ;-) ) --Wesley

Here's a somewhat extended quote from St. Iranaeus, a second century bishop and early church Father, taken from Book IV of Irenaeus Against Heresies:

Chapter XXII.-Christ Did Not Come for the Sake of the Men of One Age Only, But for All Who, Living Righteously and Piously, Had Believed Upon Him; And for Those, Too, Who Shall Believe.
1 Now in the last days, when the fulness of the time of liberty had arrived, the Word Himself did by Himself "wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion,"327 when He washed the disciples' feet with His own hands.328 For this is the end of the human race inheriting God; that as in the beginning, by means of our first [parents], we were all brought into bondage, by being made subject to death; so at last, by means of the New Man, all who from the beginning [were His] disciples, having been cleansed and washed from things pertaining to death, should come to the life of God. For He who washed the feet of the disciples sanctified the entire body, and rendered it clean. For this reason, too, He administered food to them in a recumbent posture, indicating that those who were lying in the earth were they to whom He came to impart life. As Jeremiah declares, "The holy Lord remembered His dead Israel, who slept in the land of sepulture; and He descended to them to make known to them His salvation, that they might be saved."329 For this reason also were the eyes of the disciples weighed down when Christ's passion was approaching; and when, in the first instance, the Lord found them sleeping, He let it pass,-thus indicating the patience of God in regard to the state of slumber in which men lay; but coming the second time, He aroused them, and made them stand up, in token that His passion is the arousing of His sleeping disciples, on whose account "He also descended into the lower parts of the earth,"330 to behold with His eyes the state of those who were resting from their labours,331 in reference to whom He did also declare to the disciples: "Many prophets and righteous men have desired to see and hear what ye do see and hear."332

From what I can tell quickly skimming his writings, when he speaks of the consequences of Adam's sin, it is of the consequence of death, and he contrasts this with the consequence of Jesus Christ's death, which is resurrection and new life. There appears to be no mention of inherited guilt. It's proof by absence, but what do you expect?

True, but this quote doesn't address original sin. Most Christians have historically believed in this concept, and that most still do. Further, most Christians lived long after him. What have most Chruches and Christian denominations taught about original sin? This quote could be used as source material for coming up with a view on the subject, but it doesn't represent what any particular church teaches. Also, this quote shows that he believed that only Jesus is the way to avoid eternal death. Why would this even be necessary without original sin? RK
I think you are confusing "original sin" with a doctrine that says that everyone sins. "Original sin" is a doctrine that says that all have inherited the stain of Adam's guilt, and that was a product of Augustine's theology. That has nothing to do with a belief that everyone sins and that the penalty of sin is death. -- Egern.
To follow up, I included this quote to show that the early church talked about the first sin. Read it carefully, and it says that the consequence of the first sin, meaning Adam's, was death for all humanity. The work of Christ is to restore life to humanity, to remove a legal blot that we all inherited. This most certainly does address how early Christians viewed original sin, and it has been very formative in how the Eastern Orthodox Church continues to view sin. Elsewhere Iranaeus argues at length that when Christ rose from the dead, he freed Adam himself from death. The influence of this statement can be seen in the icon of the resurrection that is in every Orthodox church: most variations show Christ rising from the tomb, pulling after him Adam with one hand and Eve with the other. As far as "most" Christians believing in original sin, I think that Eastern Orthodoxy represents the second largest body of Christians worldwide, after the Roman Catholics. There are also a sizable minority of Protestants that reject the doctrine. --Wesley


More sources, including more recent and official statements, will have to wait a day or two. I can tell you that when Augustine's theology is mentioned by any Orthodox writer I've come across, it's to point out where he's wrong more often than not. --Wesley

Here's a relatively modern statement regarding the state of the "sinner", by St. Theophan the Recluse (1802-1894) in The Path to Salvation: A Manual of Spiritual Transofrmation, page 101:

We have said that the sinner is like a person who is sunk in deep slumber. Just as a person who is fast asleep will not stir and get up on his own in spite of approaching danger unles someone comes and rouses him, so will the person who is sunk in the slumber of sin not come to his senses and awaken unless divine grace comes to his aid. By the boundless mercy of God, this grace is prepared for everyone, approaches everyone in turn, and calls out clearly to each: "Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light" (Eph. 5:14).... Thus, there are three stages in the conversion of sinners to God: 1) arousal from the slumber of sin; 2) reaching the decision to give up sin and devote oneself to pleasing God; 3) vestment with power from on high for doing this in the Mysteries of Repentance and Communion." (BTW, the above is from a translation that's copyright 1996, so don't anyone go pasting it into a Wikipedia article.)

This isn't a statement of a council, but it is the statement of a bishop who is now regarded as a saint. The picture of the sinner fast asleep, then awakening, is very often used. In fact, the verse quoted from Ephesians is sung by the congregation (or perhaps choir) as a person is being baptized. Salvation for the Orthodox is not concerned with erasing an inherited "taint" or with legal formalities. It is concerned with repentance, change, and ultimately achieving union with God. I'm going to wait for questions before I go looking for more quotes. Wesley

This is a good source to describe their POV, but - and I may be wrong here - doesn't appear to directly discuss the issue. We should try to get quotes that discuss the concept of original sin. RK
Again, it shows that original sin is not significant in the Orthodox perspective of dealing with sin and salvation. But there is a quote at the Orthodox Church in America's web site that addresses it; I'll let you read it there: http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Q-and-A_OLD/St-Augustine-and-Original-Sin.html

I'll be controversial by saying to my knowledge, the idea of original sin is only one interpretation of scripture possible among christians. It is uncontroversial to say that sin entered the world by Adam's acts. It is uncontroversial to say that Jesus is the eternal Life of God, and that believers avoid the penalty of sin by trusting in him. 'There is none righteous, no, not one' is in Romans 3:10, but it claims there to be a quote from the Jewish scriptures. (ie: 'As it is written,') In Romans, it also says 'For he that is dead is freed from sin'. (Rom 6:7) and then proceeds to argue 'sin shall no longer have dominion over you' because of the death and resurrection of Christ. 'the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.' (Rom 6:23)

So in summary, there seems to be support for the idea that sin came into the world. There seems to be support for sin bringing death into the world. There is support for Jesus giving life. The niceties of original sin versus personal sin are not supported by this scripture. It would not be NPOV, in my point of view, to make a statement in Wikipedia to the extent of 'all Christians' believe either side.

I tried to look at the main article, and feel it states Paul supported views that I don't see evidence that he supported. -- BenBaker

I have corrected the information in this article about Original Sin, which is a different doctrine altogether than merely a belief that everyone sins. "Original Sin" is not an inherent doctrine of Christianity, but rather a very specific doctrine about the transmission of guilt through inheritance. I also clarified the point that Catholicism, as of Vatican II, accepts that salvation is available to non-Christians.



Do Catholics say they changed their beliefs or they changed them without admiting they were ever different. --Taw

As far as I know, Catholicism never admits that it has changed its official theology on anything, because that would call into question the claims it makes about itself. But the fact is that Catholicism did reverse itself on this subject, even if it doesn't admit it. -- Egern

I read the page that I was referred to, and I saw the almost the opposite of what other people were talking about. The webpage states that Orthodox Christianity does believe in original sin. They say that they believe that Adam and Even sinned, that they were punished, and that all of humanity inherits the same punishment that they got, and that only by worshipping Jesus as the messiah will the punishment be erased. This is precisely what I was saying all along. The only difference was that Catholics believe that both the sin and punishment get inherited, while the Orthodox say that only the punishment was inherited. But they agree on 3 out of 4 points on this concept. I guess to an Orthodox Christian it might be easy to overlook the the vast common ground, and see only the differences, but to a non-Christian this is virtually the same concept! Thus, this entry should indeed point out that Orthodox Christians do believe in original sin, but explain these 1 out of 4 points that they reject. [Here is part of the relevent text (copyrighted, probably) from their webpage: RK

In the Orthodox Faith, the term "original sin" refers to the "first" sin of Adam and Eve. As a result of this sin, humanity bears the "consequences" of sin, the chief of which is death. Here the word "original" may be seen as synonymous with "first." Hence, the "original sin" refers to the "first sin" in much the same way as "original chair" refers to the "first chair." In the West, humanity likewise bears the "consequences" of the "original sin" of Adam and Eve. However, the West also understands that humanity is likewise "guilty" of the sin of Adam and Eve. The term "Original Sin" here refers to the condition into which humanity is born, a condition in which guilt as well as consequence is involved. In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, chief of which is death.
Well, I've lost track of what those 4 points are that you speak of, but I don't see your interpretation that the Orthodox Church believes that people have inherited the original sin. From what I can tell, even Jews believe that we humans no longer live in the Garden of Eden, so how is that any different from the Orthodox view that we still suffer the consequences of the original sin? According to that logic, Jews also believe in original sin! Which is, of course, not hte case at all. Orthodox doctrine doesn't say that any individual is guilty in the eyes of God of sin at the moment of conception, which is the key point of the Catholic doctrine. -- Egern
It looks to me like there are 4 points in common between Catholic and Orthodox understandings of this issue: (A) Adam and Eve sinned and thus were guilty of the original sin (B) They were punished for their sin, (C) All of their descendents are still being punished for their sin, (D) By accepting Jesus as their messiah they can bypass the punishment for the sin. The difference is that Catholics say that sin is inhertited along with the guilt, while Orthodox Christians say that sin ins't inherited (does this mean that God is punishing the innocent?). RK
Judaism's view of this issue does have significant similarities; most Jews see the story as an explanation of how man came to have a finite lifespan and free-will, rather than immortality but no free-will (which might have happened if Adam & Eve ate from the fruit of the Tree of Life). Judaism's theological emphasis on this story is different, as we believe that nothing we say, do or believe will change the fact that humans are mortal and have free-will. Belief in God has no effect on this status. In Christianity, the inherited punishment (Orthodox), or the inherited punishment and sin (Catholic) is one of the prime driving forces behind the faith, as one of the purposes of Christianity (as I understand it) is to overcome the punishment. Mainstream Jewish denominations have no such concern, but there are individual Jewish theologians who have made this point.RK

Maybe we should restructure the article in chronological order, as follows:

  • The story of Adam and Eve in Genesis, which talks about their personal sin.
  • The early rabbinic Jewish concept of what this means (Mishna)
  • The New Testament theology of original sin as discussed by Paul, and the various statements on this by early Church authorities.
  • The view of original sin in Catholic and Orthodox Christianity
  • The later Jewish views, in the Talmud and Kabbalah. Point out that some parts of the Kabbalah are closer to the Christian view of original sin.
I was about to submit the below text, when the above suggestion for reorganization was submitted. If we follow that organization plan and spell this stuff out, does "original sin" get its own subpage? --Wesley
I don't think that would be necessary. I propose this entry stay focused on original sin; I just think it would be good to discuss its origins in the primary religious texts, in chronological order, and discuss how different groups view the concept. Also, I will be writing some stuff on Judaism's view of this concept. Most of Judaism rejects original sin outright, but has similarity to Orthodox Christianity's view. However, the Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism) has some provocative analogues to original sin which are worth mentioning in this entry, even if they are not the same theological concept. Sentence on this issue can be linked to the already existing entry on Kabbalah for further amplification. RK


Ok, we are getting much closer to a common understanding. This is good. This exercise is also making me do some homework, which is good for me at least. The Jewish understanding of what might have happened had Adam also eaten of the Tree of Life is at least somewhat similar to Orthodoxy's. Here's Iranaeus again on why Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden (Book III, Chapter XXIII, as found at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm#P7805_2133414):

6. Wherefore also He drove him out of Paradise, and removed him far from the tree of life, not because He envied him the tree of life, as some venture to assert, but because He pitied him, [and did not desire] that he should continue a sinner for ever, nor that the sin which surrounded him should be immortal, and evil interminable and irremediable. But He set a bound to his [state of] sin, by interposing death, and thus causing sin to cease, putting an end to it by the dissolution of the flesh, which should take place in the earth, so that man, ceasing at length to live to sin, and dying to it, might begin to live to God.

So death is in part a way to at least limit sin; other Orthodox theologians see it as a natural consequence of mankind choosing independence from God, the source of life. Severance from one's life source results in death, just as though one were to choose to stop breathing or to stop eating. The Orthodox do not only seek salvation from the consequences of sin, but salvation from sinning personally. (See also the earlier summation by St. Theophan.) A line from the standard morning prayers (matins) reads "Grant, O Lord, that we might pass this day without sin." Standard doctrine is that infants who die without committing sin are received into Heaven. (No concept of Limbo or of Purgatory.) In fact, the infants who were killed by Herod in the latter's effort to destroy the infant Jesus are remembered collectively as the Holy Innocents and revered as saints on December 29 of each year. The Orthodox do practice pedobaptism, but not because the infants would go to Hell otherwise. Rather, it is because they are part of a Christian family and so are immediately received into the extended family of the Church.

Gee, I should be putting this stuff on the Eastern Orthodoxy page. --Wesley

I deleted the text that referred to Augustine's doctrine of original sin as a pre-existing belief that he made more explicit. I have quoted earlier authors who discussed Adam's sin and the remedy to it without reference to any inherited 'taint' or guilt. Please give some evidence to the contrary before you re-insert this claim. --Wesley

It is described by Paul in First Corinthians, chapter 15. Read the entire section, especially sentences 20 to 28. This is a standard Catholic view of Original Sin. Even before Paul was born, varying conceptions of original sin were extant among some Jews; it was certainly extant in the time of Jesus and Paul as well. That's not surprising, as it is a natural way of interpreting the story in Genesis. It was never an official principle of Jewish faith, then or now, but that's a different issue. We can look up some historical studies on this issue, but I am under the impression that this isn't controversial. RK
Well, I read the passage, and I didn't see the reference to "original sin". Maybe you should quote some specific passages and tell us how that they specifically express this doctrine. I see there that Paul did say that death was brought into the world by Adam's sin, which is the same as saying that all of us live with the consequences of that sin, which is what Judaism believes and what Orthodox Church believes (according to Wesley), but which is not the same as the doctrine of "original sin" as taught by the Catholic Church.
Paul doesn't use the phrase "original sin", as this name for his theology wasn't invented until later, and its not the clearly developed theology that Augustine had. But he describes the basis of it here. Many other Christians and non-Christians see it , which is why most Christian denominations do believe in original sin. I guess Eastern Orthodoxy reads this text differently. Maybe we can write this into the entry, saying that Catholics and Protestants read this biblical text as describing the basis of original sin, while Eastern Orthodox read it in another way, and both ways are equally legitimate? RK
Just as long as you put a some on the Protestants who believe this way. My experience and knowledge is not Eastern Orthodox, but mainstream Protestant, such as Baptist, and Methodist. To my knowledge, Lutherans hold to Original Sin as a doctrine, but other protestants have more variety of belief. In fact, any church that rejects pedobaptism probably also rejects Original Sin, as they are tied together. (And that church probably has some concept of Age of Accountability as well.) Certain doctrines form cohesive sets. -- BenBaker
As a clarification Original Sin as a doctrine is the guilt of sin passing on to the children. "original sin" uncapitalized is the doctrine that Adam and Eve brought sin into the world (and hence death) which I would be surprised if any Judeo-Christian belief system would disagree with. I'm not sure how other religions explain that death is the 'lot of mankind'.

I have a question regarding this paragraph:

Both Jews and Christians believe that there will be some sort of afterlife. Protestant Christianity generally posits that one can be saved through the acceptance of Jesus as a saviour, although some variants of Protestantism do teach that salvation is available to followers of other faiths as well.

Which variants of Protestantism teach that salvation is available to other non-Christian faiths? I can't think of any off-hand, unless you count the 10% of Unitarian Universalists that call themselves Christian. Who am I forgetting? Is the list short enough to name the exceptions? --Wesley

Quakers who identify themselves as Christian and who concern themselves with the question of salvation believe that salvation is available to other faiths. However--Quakers don't consider themselves Protestants, so that doesn't really count. -- Egern

I changed a couple of sentences that I think reflect the fact that "judeo-christian ethic" often means "christian ethic ascribed to Judaism." In the section on sin I indicated that Jews and Christians interpret the Adam and Eve story differently -- Christianity has perhaps "inherited" the same text that Jews read, but the two groups still read this text in very different ways; one cannot say that Christians inherited a Jewish story about original sin because for Jews it is not about that. Later I modified a sentence on Jews and Christians accepting the same moral principles in the Torah. What the former sentence did was to take whatever laws in the Torah both Jews and Christians accept (to my knowledge, only the ten commandments and the golden rule) and label them "moral." Does this mean that the laws Christians do not accept as binding are not about morality? The point is, Jews and Christians may disagree not only over how to classify different laws in the Torah, but also over what constitutes a "moral" law. There are many laws Christians do not obey that at least some Jews would consider moral laws, or laws with ethical effects. Note, this doesn't mean that Christians aren't moral, just that Judaism and Christianity have developed different notions of morality and different moral practices. -- SR

Did you read the discussion on this page regarding "original sin" and "first sin"? Some of us worked hard for the compromise you just erased. I was under the impression that Jews and Christians were at least in broad agreement about what happened there, and have at least some agreement about the consequences. See the short Iranaeus quote above, and RK's comments. The goal of this article as I understand it is to show both similarities and differences between Judaism and Christianity, as honestly and accurately as possible. As for what Christians have retained from the Torah, many would also cite its teachings regarding sexuality, cross-dressing, responsibility for providing religious instruction to our children, just to name a few. I'm sure there are others, but I would also agree that which things Christians have kept might seem arbitrary, and some Christian groups have kept more than others. AFAIK, modern Judaism doesn't follow the entire Law literally either. Both religions have evolved their understanding of the Torah over the centuries. --Wesley

Regarding the peace churches, I think the distinctive factor about those churches is that they apply the nonviolent principle to governments as well as individuals. Roman Catholicism has a well-developed just war theory to allow governments to wage war in limited circumstances; I could be wrong, but I doubt they intend for individuals to apply just war theory to justify violent force. Most other Christians would agree that we should practice nonviolence. If it's not as emphasized in the creeds, it's because there has been little disagreement. The application of nonviolence to the state, and the total noninvolvement in government affairs, is at least one of the things that evoked so much animosity towards the Anabaptists during the Reformation. Princes were choosing sides in the Reformation partly along political lines, to gain independence from Rome or to maintain dependence on Rome, and the Anabaptists were refusing to fight and persuading others to do likewise. If the peace churches are to be singled out in this article as different, then we should at least briefly identify what makes them different. --Wesley

Since I have a background with one of the peace churches (Quaker), I have my own take on this. It is definitely true that the peace churches generally oppose the "just war" theory, but are you actually saying that most Christians believe in eschewing personal violence in the case of personal self-defense? I see almost no evidence of this among the Christians I know, and it certainly has not been the case that the last 2000 years of Christianity has seen much of this in practice. On the other hand, the whole question of how to apply a "pacifist" viewpoint differs widely, at least among Quakers, and there is no hard and fast rule. There is an old (perhaps apocryphal) anecdote about William Penn, who was said to wear a sword, as was the custom of the day for certain men of status. It was carried as a means of self defense, and was not a military weapon. He asked George Fox, the founder of Quakerism, if he should stop wearing the sword. Fox's answer was, "Wear the sword as long as thou canst"--in other words, it is a matter of personal conscience, that everyone has to decide for themselves what it really means to adhere to the Quaker peace testimony. (The story continues that after that, Penn stopped wearing the sword, saying that "I wore it as long as I could") The point is that "pacifism" has a lot of different meanings among Quakers.
That being said, I can't fathom that most non-Peace church Christians would have even wrestled with the question in first place--they would have merrily carried the sword and used it in self defense. I just don't see any real belief in pacifism or "turning the other cheek" in the history of Christianity outside of the peace churches. -- Egern
Believe me, I have the greatest respect for the peace churches. I considered myself a conscientious objector from my late teens through much of my twenties, and was a member of a Mennonite church for several years. At the moment, my stance is firmly undecided, partly because I think the odds of me personally being drafted are vastly lower than they were. I know that's awful to say, but it's true. By now, I'm generally skeptical that any true Christian teaching was ignored by everyone for 1500 years or more until someone, for the first time ever, read the Sermon on the Mount. I can believe that many fell short of what it calls for, but that it was universally ignored by millions for more than a millenium?? On the other hand, I haven't researched this in depth yet; now might be a good time. A quick Google search gave this very brief overview of some Orthodox perspectives on the subject: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jim_forest/Justwar.htm. Having said all that, I'll leave the subject alone, at least until I have a chance to do some homework. Peace, --Wesley
I used to own a copy of a little book with a title along the lines of "How Christianity Made Peace with War" (or something similar to that). It talked about how Christianity in the first few centuries of the common era moved away from the pacifist teachings of Christ in its official doctrine and adopted such notions as the "just war" theory. I thought it was a good summary of the subject. My feeling is that pacifism is hard to embrace, and Christianity mostly took the easy way out and dropped it from its practical belief system, even if it supported it in theory. -- Egern
The link I gave isn't the last word by any means, but it does suggest that the just war theory was first proposed by Augustine. If that's true, then the standard disclaimers about the lack of Augustinianism in the East would also apply to this subject. In the first few centuries, I know that there were at least some Roman soldiers who quit serving as soldiers when they became Christians. There's also the story of the "47 martyrs of [geographical location I forget] tells how some Roman soldiers were ordered to remove all their clothes and go stand on a frozen lake until they gave up Christianity. They did so, some gave in and came back, while other secretly Christian soldiers decided to confess their faith and join their brothers on the ice. They were dead by nightfall. Some observers saw angels descending from heaven giving them crowns. No doubt about it, pacifism is hard to embrace. --Wesley


In response to Wesley: pleae forgive me for sloppy language. My intention was NOT to return to the generalization that "all Christians" accept the notion of "Original Sin." I understand that not all Christians read the Bible the same way. Obviously not all Jews read the Bible the same way. My point -- which I didn't think would stir up any trouble -- is that Jews and Christians do not read the Bible the same way. The previous version of the article entry did not refer to the part of the Bible in question in a manner that was, in my eyes, neutral enough. That is, the reference to the story in the Bible itself suggested a particular interpretation. Perhaps this is an interpretation that all Christians would accept (first sin rather than original sin), but this does not mean that all people, especially people of other religions, would read the text the same way. And this gets to my point about how the Tanach and the Old Testament are different books -- even when the words are identical and in the same order, readers from different points of view will read those words differently. My understanding of NPOV is not to privilege any of those readings. I still think that my revision of that sentence in the article (despite what I perhaps sloppily wrote in "talk" -- but I did think I was being very careful int he article itself) does justice to my standard of NPOV without erasing the "compromise" others worked out -- which, by the way, I did not take to be a compromise but rather a move towards greater precision and accuracy. Honestly, I thought that my revision would take us further in that direction. --SR

You might be right. My critique was somewhat knee-jerk surprise to see someone else entering the discussion. Thanks for joining the work; I'll try to be more thoughtful before I protest again. Sorry; please forgive me. --Wesley
there is no need to apologize, I understand the spirit behind your earlier comment. As far as I am concerned it is all part of the process. But I am glad if my last remarks made things clearer -- SR

I have problems with the following sentence from the article:

The New Testament holds that the Jews themselves are no longer the people of God; rather it is only those who adopt the Christian faith who become chosen.

I would say rather that some Christians' hold that opinion. I can't imagine a verse in the NT saying specifically that Jews aren't the people of God any more.

What do you mean that "you can't imagine" this? Its not about what anyone imagines; this is about what the New Testament actually states. The New Testament repeatedly states that only those who follow Jesus Christ as the messiah are the people of God, period. In the New Testament worldview, anyone in the world who does not follow - which includes most Jews - are not the people of God. RK
Well, goodie goodie gumdrops! Finally someone admits that the 90% of Christians who consider Jesus to be God Himself, instead of following Him as the Messiah, are not the people of God!! I've been saying this for a quarter of a century, but no one would listen till today -- saints be praised!!! :-) Ed Poor, Friday, June 21, 2002

This might be a tricky (or ticklish) issue to define. The little I know about NT theology is that Jesus made some comments about his fellow Jews in the Gospels. A lot of these comments were in the form of parables; some of these he explained in private to his disciples, others he left un-explained.

That is incorrect. The New Testament contains a large amount of material by people other than Jesus, especially stuff written by Paul. In fact, very little of the New Testament contains the words of Jesus. These writings in the New Testament repeatedly state that the Jews are no longer God's chosen people - except for those who adopt Christianity. RK
Hm, I thought all they had to do was admit that "Jesus was the Christ". I musta missed something... Ed Poor, Friday, June 21, 2002

A major issue for Jesus, as seen by the Unification Church (of which I am a member), was his acceptance by the Jewish people as the Messiah. The UC holds that Jesus' acceptance as the Messiah by the Jews was (a) God's will and (b) essential to the completion of his mission as Messiah. Of course, 90% or more of Christians disagree with the UC view, since they hold that Jesus "came to die".

This is incorrect. I think you misunderstand the mainstream Christian view. Most Christians throughout all of history actually agree with this. Most agree that Jesus' acceptance as the Messiah by the Jews was, in their view, God's will and in some way essential to the completion of his mission as Messiah. Christians have always agreed that the Jews were supposed to accept Jesus as the Messiah, but when they did not they lost 'part of their special status (but not all of it). The difference is that they also have an addition belief, i.e. the belief that Jesus needed to die to carry out his mission. RK
Oh, I get it now: the first-century Jews were supposed to herald Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah and promptly get him killed. Huh? Run that by me again one more time, please? Ed Poor, Friday, June 21, 2002

I hope I'm not making a mountain out of a molehill here. But I'm planning to edit the article sentence, and I'd like to avoid stepping on any toes. Ed Poor, Friday, June 21, 2002

I vote against this particular change, because I think this is incorrect. The New Testament does say these things (and much more :( ) RK
Ed Poor, here you reveal your lack of NPOV.
Well, duh! Of course I'm not neutral. I take sides on dozens of major issues, as I hope I've made abundantly clear. And the talk pages are the place to "reveal" this. Ed Poor, Friday, June 21, 2002
The reason to keep something in the article is NOT because it "steps on someone's toes," but because it states an important view. Conversely, the reason you should delete something is NOT because you "cannot imagine" something. It isn't about you -- and it isn't about me or RK or anyone; it is about research. You admit you know little of NT theology, yet you want to edit the article? Do some research and edit it based on what you learn, not your imagination.
Fair enough, I'll postpone my proposed edit. I guess I let my imagination run away with me (it's quite vivid you know). Ed Poor, Friday, June 21, 2002
The issue of whether the NT holds that Jews are no longer the people of God is complicated, because the NT is a complicated document written by different people at different times with different agendas. This article is not the place for an essay on NT theology, but within the NT you will find statements that God does not reject the Jews but does want to include gentiles in the new covenant, and statements that God rejects the Jews and is establishing an entirely new covenant. It is likely that these conflicting statements were made to different audiences and at different times (e.g., the second view established after it was clear that the Jews had rejected claims that Jesus was the Son of God.) Here are just a couple of versus that Jews find at best strange, at worst, offensive:
Hebrews 8: 13: In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Romans 11:17-20: 17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in their place to share the richness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast over the branches. If you do boast, remember it is not you that support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 You will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast only through faith.
Do you still want to edit the article? Okay, but please do some serious research first, slrubenstein
My butt's still smarting from being publicly spanked. I'll wait till Monday. See ya in church! (Or should I say, at temple?) Ed Poor, Friday, June 21, 2002

I wrote that "These writings in the New Testament repeatedly state that the Jews are no longer God's chosen people - except for those who adopt Christianity." Ed Poor responded with "Hm, I thought all they had to do was admit that "Jesus was the Christ". I musta missed something."

My response is this: I don't think you missed anything; accepting Jesus as Christ has always been the definition of Christianity. If a person rejects that, they are by definition not a Christian. At least that is what was always taught in most branches in classcal Christianity. RK

Ed Poor writes: "Oh, I get it now: the first-century Jews were supposed to herald Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah and promptly get him killed. Huh? Run that by me again one more time, please? "

My responde: Hey, man, I understand your frustration with this! I am with you. But classical Christianity has always taught that this was just the case: In their view, Jesus came to be the King of the Jews, as well as the rest of the world, but somehow this all failed: the Jews rejected him and they got him killed (the Romans are never blamed in the NT) and yet also they simulatenously claim that Jesus had to die, otherwise he could never redeem the world. Both claims exist. Odd. (Not that the Tanach (Hebrew Bible, Old Testament) doesn't have its own set of theological conundrums as well.) RK

Well, my church has proposed a sort of compromise: Jesus came to be the King of world and if the Jews has accepted him as the Messiah then he would not have had to die to redeem the world. On the contrary, the people's failure to accept him has delayed world redemption until the Second Coming.

I think modern Jews and Christians would both agree that my church is full of beans: Jews will deny that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, and Christians insist that Jesus had to die (there was no alternative plan). Ed Poor, Monday, June 24, 2002

The issue here, and I think it is a central issue for this article, is that Jews and Christians have radically different ideas of what the word "messiah" means -- I think this difference is more basic that accepting Jesus as Messiah or not. For Jews, the messiah is a descendent of David who will restore the throne of David -- and if Judea is occupied by Romans, then the Messiah will have to lead an army to expel the Romans.
I have no doubt that many Jews did think Jesus was the Messiah, and they rallied around him. I have no doubt that Jewish leaders at the time had mixed feelings about this: if Jesus is the Messiah we should rise up violently against the Romans and get rid of them; if Jesus isn't the Messiah but we rise up against the Romans, we are going to be in really big trouble. Indeed, this is precisely what happened when Akiba supported Bar Kochba as Messiah and it led to the unparalleled disaster of 135 CE. I also have no doubt that Romans thought Jesus was a messiah, because curcifiction was the punishment for treason and sedition, and when Jesus was crucified he was mockingly labled "King of the Jews."
The problem was, many of Jesus' followers simply could not believe that Jesus was not the Messiah, and they thus claimed that he didn't really die and that he would come back soon to lead the revolt.
Then the problem was, a generation or two later, Jesus still hadn't come back to lead a revolt.
Rather than abandon their claims that Jesus was the Messiah, Christians re-defined Messiah. Instead of being the descendent of David, he was the son of God. And instead of leading a revolt against Rome thus offering political emancipation, he would offer spiritual salvation. And instead of creating a Jewish State, he would reign in heaven. Call all of this stuff the "messiah" if you will, but it just is not what we Jews mean by messiah. David Ben-Gurion is more of a messiah than Jesus.slrubenstein
Very well put! Reminds me of Maimonides, in the last two chapters of the Laws of Kings, who also sums up the Jewish position: "The Messiah is not a supernatural being." He is simply a leader and teacher of great stature, who restores Jewish independence and initiates the path to peace and harmony between all peoples. In fact, and in this Judaism differs greatly from Christianity, other religions can and will continue to exist even after the Messiah comes. Danny
Hm, this makes Sun Myung Moon a candidate to be the Jewish Messiah: he supports Jewish independence and is working tirelessly for peace and harmony between all peoples. But I digress: this article is about Judaism and Christianity... Ed Poor
I'm hoping that was a joke. In answer, absolutely not. He may support Jewish independence--so does Bill Clinton. He may work tirelessly for peace: so did Bill Clinton. In Jewish tradition, the results count, otherwise there would be too many wannabe Messiahs. Or maybe there already are Danny
ditto -- anyway, I doubt the Rev. Moon can demonstrate his lineal descent from David. I sure hope he is not claiming he should be the king of Israel! I am not even sure he is eligible for their president! slrubenstein

From the article:

The New Testament teaches that rejection of Jesus as the path to salvation must be viewed as willful disobedience, and a rebellion against God. This choice then compels a just God to enforce that person's separation from Him, causing such a person to be sentenced to Hell, or in some views, Limbo or Purgatory. Only belief in Jesus, as a savior and son of God, could rescue a person from this fate.

What percent of Christians subscribe to this view? Virtually all? 90 percent? More than half?

For those who regard sentencing to Hell as punishment for refusing to accept Jesus as savior, how do they reconcile the doctrine of eternal (and often hideously savage) punishment with the doctrine of a loving God? Ed Poor, Wednesday, June 26, 2002

To attempt to briefly several of Ed's questions from what I can only hope is an Eastern Orthodox Christian POV:
* Nothing "compels" a just God to "enforce" a person's separation from Him, save the principle of the person's free will. If a person chooses not to love God, or chooses a life separate from God, that amounts to the same as choosing death, since they are cutting themselves off from the ultimate source of life. Looking at the word "perish" in John 3:16, in Greek it is in neither active nor passive voice, but rather "middle voice", which means a better translation would be "whoever does not believe in him will destroy himself". Living in the presence of an all-loving God while rejecting that love is how some Orthodox theologians describe Hell; hence, God's love is sometimes described as a "river of fire". Hence both God's goodness and justice are preserved, as well as each person's free will.
* Also, Jesus did not have to die. To say that he was forced to die would imply that some external force or law is greater than God and forced God to act against His will. Eastern Orthodoxy has always rejected this notion, and rather says that Jesus chose to lay down his life in order trample down death by death. When Death tried to swallow up the the Giver of Life, Death's power was overcome. As for alternative plans, none are discussed, but that's not the same as saying that God had no choice or was compelled by something or someone else. Some Church Fathers speak of Christ triumphantly mounting the Cross like a steed.
* The Jews did not have to accept Jesus as their Messiah. He simply was their Messiah; it was not an elected office, and their choices did not change this fact, did not prevent his triumphant death or his resurrection. Many Jews did believe in him, many more did not.
Hope this helps. I'll have to look another time at whether or how any of this should affect the article, as I'm obviously coming in very late to an old discussion. Wesley 17:15 Sep 9, 2002 (UTC)

I'd like to raise a question regarding the following paragraph:

The New Testament records that Jesus taught that if someone comes to harm you, then one must turn the other cheek. This has led many Christians to develop a theology of pacifism, the avoidance of force and violence at all times. In practice, this has often not been followed (i.e. the many crusades, pogroms in Russia, Martin Luther's exhortions to burn down synagogues with Jews still in them, the violence of the Reformation and later wars in Europe).

I have to agree that "in practice, this has often not been followed," but I have to ask why this needs to be raised in the article. Bearing in mind the topic of this article, would it not be better to simply compare their beliefs? No religion follows all its beliefs perfectly; is the point to compare how Judaism and Christianity have followed their beliefs in this particular area, and would it be "on topic" and NPOV to add examples of Jews either not defending themselves, or committing acts of violence as well? As it stands, it looks like an attempt at a small jab at Christians. I'm not sure turning it into a blow-by-blow tit-for-tat account would be constructive either. Wesley 20:52 Sep 9, 2002 (UTC)

No one expects all Christians, Jews or Muslims to follow all of their beliefs in practice. The article points out that no Christian nation has ever even come close to follow this teaching. The Church itself, even independently of any nation, has been the cause of violence. Consider the Biblical law about how a parent should kill their child if he/she is rebellious to them; in practice no Jewish or Christian group or nation ever even considered instituting this as a practical law. The Jewish Oral law explains in detail that not only was this law never carried out, but that the original intent was that it should never be carried out. However, no one actually expects parents to kill their children, so no one bothered to write that Jews and Christian avoid killing their kids! Its just taken for granted that each group has a way of reading the text that effectively nullifies this apparent command. But when it comes to Jesus teaching pacifism, it is extraordinary to note that every society of his followers has absolutely refused to carry this command out. Only a statistically insignificant handful of exceptions live by this rule; the point is that the vast majority of Christians have always rejected it outright. Its not that some people fail to follow the rule; its that almost all peoples in all places and times deliberately so the exact opposite. RK
I see now that the section is based on a false premise, and that it was considered "neutral" to include such an accusation only because the accusation was so severe. Countless martyrs went peacefully to their deaths at the hands of various persecutors. Numerous monastics, monks and nuns, renounced the use of force among other things and spent their lives in peace and quiet. Many, many other Christians followed this rule, but are not recorded in history simply because there is nothing remarkable to record about a Christian who does not go off to war or murder his neighbor.
For these reasons I'm deleting that text. If you wish to restore it, please suggest some general guidelines for comparing belief and practice, so it can be shown that both are being treated fairly. Again, I would rather ignore practice than turn it into a mudslinging contest, but I won't allow only the shortcomings of one religion to be trumpeted while those of the other are ignored, in an article that is attempting to compare them.

I disagree with Wesley. This isn't about a "short coming" of the personal practices of a few Christians. This is about the mainstream beliefs and practices of almost all Christian nations over the past 2,000 years. This history cannot be ignored, and substituted with a ideologicall based revisionist history based on a statistically insignificant handful of pacifist saints! The entire point of this article is to accurately discuss the similarities and differences between Judaism and Christianity - and the topic of war and peace is one of the key points, not something to be deleted. It seems as if you are uncomfortable by most of Christianity's history on the point over the last 2,000 years. Ok, but doesn't change anything. RK

My chief question, which has still been ignored, is what general criteria should be applied to determine which historical incidents are on topic? I'm not trying to pretend the events mentioned didn't happen, but trying to establish an objective basis for evaluating those and other failures. Regarding pacifism, you seem to be assuming that only a few Protestant sects have correctly interpreted Christ's "turn the other cheek" passage (i.e. the Anabaptists and Quakers), and are holding all of Christendom up to that standard. What exactly are you trying to say about the the "beliefs and practices of almost all Christian nations over the past 2000 years"? That almost all Christians at all times have been murderers? Wesley 22:07 Sep 10, 2002 (UTC) (I know you haven't called us all murderers, I'm phrasing the question in the extreme to make it clear what I'm asking you to clarify. Just so there's no misunderstanding.)

Hmmmmm..... I think that Judaism and Christianity are broadly comparable in that both were created in antagonism to, or excluding, some other group. For Judaism, it was folks like the Amelakites and Canaanites; for Christians it was Jews. Perhaps this comparison reaveals something more general about the history of religion.

Such a comparison would of course have to discuss the differences. I think that in this cases the differences are contingent, but nevertheless important. One difference is that the Amelakites and Canaanites just do not exist any more, so Jews can safely ignore not only the law to kill Amelikites, but any theological/political/ethical issues involved with the law. Jews still exist, and have provided a challenge to Christian Theologians and leaders, however.

A second difference, also contingent, is historical. There is a big difference between a religion's actions when it is connected to a powerful state, versus when it is not. For much of European history christianity has been allied with, and thus has shared, political power. In power it has authorized actions that many Christians may today feel ashamed of. Jews have not enjoyed such power for a long time. But when they have power, they often act differently (like everyone else). When the Maccabees ruled, Jews forcipbly converted non-Jews to Judaism (something Jews today would think of as un-Jewish). And today, now that the Jews have a state of their own, we see that (as in the book of Judges) there is once again a complex relationship with other inhabitants of the land, in which Jews sometimes do things we would rather not think fo them as doing. This comparison leads me to see a point not so much about "Judaism" or "Christianity," but rather about the relationship between religion and politics in general.

I do not know if RK, Wesley, and other participants agree with my observations, but if so perhaps this could provide a framework for incorporating some of this material into the article... Slrubenstein

  • Expanding on that theme, the first three hundred years of Christianity - before it became officially accepted and then sponsored - were markedly different than, well, Christianity for the next 1700 years. (And I'm not just talking about the replacement of Arianism by Roman Orthodoxy, either.) I strongly suspect that the similarities between early Christianity and contemporary Judaism were not only due to their recent divergence, but to their mutual position as "unofficial sects" under Roman rule. I can't speak to what was happening with Judaism in the rest of the world at the time, being woefully ignorant of this. :) -- April

I would agree that there is some relationship between the behaviour of any religious (or for that matter ethnic) group and how much power it has. An article about the relationship between religion and politics would appropriately discuss Islam and perhaps Buddhism and Hinduism, as well as Judaism and Christianity. That would be a different article than this one.

I do think the sharp distinction April draws between the first 300 and last 1700 years is a bit more blurred than that. Christianity has had many ups and downs in terms of political power in different parts of the world. I think it was the Christians in places like Egypt and Syria who first came under Muslim rule, later the Byzantine Empire including Greece fell to the Turks, while Christianity grew in power in Russia and Western Europe. In the last 150 years, Christianity was severely attacked in Eastern Europe following the rise of Communism there, while Greece gained its independence and Greek Orthodoxy became the state religion there. Even today, Christians are severely limited in their freedom, or even persecuted, in countries like Egypt, Syria and China, while in other countries they enjoy considerable political freedom and power There's also some variation in how much freedom and power Jews have today in different parts of the world, not to mention Muslims. Wesley 21:25 Sep 12, 2002 (UTC)

I agree that this topic invites considerable discussion, and would be appropriate for a separate article. I guess my basic point (concerning this article) is that one way to make claims about certain beliefs (e.g. the beliefs that have been used to legitimize Anti-Semitism, to which RK called attention) more NPOV would be to historicize them. What I mean is that (as RK suggests) we are not merely talking about "practices" (or as Wesley puts it, "behavior") as if practices are distinct from "beliefs" (and, as if this article can restrict itself to a discussion of beliefs). But my suggestion was meant to provide an alternative to RK's view, which -- if I understood him correctly -- implied that certain Christian beliefs resulted in certain practices. My suggestion is that certain practices (themselves determined by changing circumstances -- such as, whether the group had political power or not -- as much as, or even more than, by "beliefs") may have produced certain beliefs; Christian (and Jewish, Muslim, etc.) "beliefs" as recorded in various texts developed under certain conditions ... and when those conditions changed, Christians (and Jews, Muslims, etc.) ended up reinterpreting (or even disregarding) those "beliefs." Anyway, it was just a suggestion -- by historicizing such beliefs, people will understand that the religions in question are not reducible to these beliefs. Slrubenstein
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christianity_and_Judaism&oldid=221946"