My own viewpoint concerning some of the major differences between Judaism and Christianity (for Kiwi, etc.)
Kiwi the Geek, a Christian reader of PsychoToddler, posed some questions about Judaism that Mark/PT decided to refer to The Jewish Connection.
Here's some of what transpired in the course of that conversation.
"Kiwi the Geek:
I'm told Jewish Christians can find the answers in the Tanach, which is apparently a basis for their belief.
PsychoToddler:
Jewish Christians
Ain't no such animal. Pick a team."
I'd like to expand (expound?) on Mark's statement, and perhaps make it a bit clearer why he's right. Contrary to popular opinion, and/or all claims to the contrary notwithstanding, there are many good reasons why there's no such thing as a so-called "Jewish Christian," "Hebrew Christian," and/or "Messianic Jew," and why one can't be both a Jew and "for Jesus." I’m copying here the comment that I posted on GoldaLeah’s blog, when she published her Sunday, December 11, 2005 post, “Your god is Not My God.”
“Disclaimer: The following are my own opinions, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of “the management.” :) It is entirely possible that these opinions are based on limited knowledge and/or interpretation, or are inaccurate for other reasons.
I think that Judaism and Christianity share some of the same beliefs, but that what we emphasize can differ radically.
I believe that Judaism tends to emphasize *this* world, whereas Christianity tends to emphasize the next, though both officially posit a belief in life after death.
I believe that Judaism tends to emphasize the group—notice that our central prayer, the Amidah, is written entirely in the plural—whereas Christianity tends to emphasize the individual.
I believe that Judaism tends to emphasize deeds, whereas Christianity tends to emphasize faith or thought. Consider how many centuries Judaism managed to thrive before the Rambam/Maimonides write the Thirteen Principles of Faith. Consider, too, that the performance of a mitzvah/divine commandment is considered paramount. So what if you’re really buying the most gorgeous etrog you can find to impress the woman you hope to marry and her parents? The important thing is that you’re fulfilling the commandment to use a lulav and etrog during Sukkot. No Jew in his/her right mind would ever refrain from fulfilling a commandment out of concern that she/he might be doing so for ulterior motives. I’m under the impression that ulterior motivation for doing the right thing might be of greater concern for a Christian.
And here’s the biggie: I believe that Judaism tends to emphasize individual responsibility, whereas the the belief in vicarious atonement is at the very heart of Christian dogma. Yes, we Jews pray that Hashem will forgive us because of the merit of our ancestors. And yes, we used to sacrifice animals as a way to atone for our sins. But our main emphasis is on improving our behavior. Christianity, on the other hand, is very clear on this point—according to Christian dogma, no amount of personal atonement could earn a person entry into heaven if Jesus had not died for the sins of humankind. You can’t get much more vicarious than that.
Judaism and Christianity had totally different responses to pagan human sacrifice. Judaism replaced it with animal sacrifice, and, later, with prayer. Christianity replaced it with a one-time “human” sacrifice, followed by the symbolic “human” sacrifice of the sacrament/holy communion (hope I’m using the correct terminology). Mind you, symbolic sacrifice is a vast improvement over the real thing.”
Please feel free to add to this list and/or to respond in any other (respectful) manner.
Update (posted at some ridiculous hour on Sunday morning, Feb. 12, 2006):
I encourage you to read not only the ongoing series at The Jewish Connection, but, also, to see what Kiwi and commenters have to say on her Friday, February 10, 2006, Judaism & Christianity post.
Update #2, Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2006:
Another major difference between Judaism and Christianity that I neglected to mention here, but discussed in a comment to Kiwi's Judaism & Christianity post, is that, as relatively non-dogmatic as Judaism is, it still has a serious problem with the idea that G-d would choose to have a "begotten" child. Dilbert discusses the related issue that the (resultant) divinity of Jesus is not within the acceptable parameters of Jewish beliefs. Tze u-l'mad—go and learn.
One of the joys of blogging is having respectful discussions concerning serious issues on which people disagree. In these days when even cartoons can practically start a war, that's downright refreshing.
Here's some of what transpired in the course of that conversation.
"Kiwi the Geek:
I'm told Jewish Christians can find the answers in the Tanach, which is apparently a basis for their belief.
PsychoToddler:
Jewish Christians
Ain't no such animal. Pick a team."
I'd like to expand (expound?) on Mark's statement, and perhaps make it a bit clearer why he's right. Contrary to popular opinion, and/or all claims to the contrary notwithstanding, there are many good reasons why there's no such thing as a so-called "Jewish Christian," "Hebrew Christian," and/or "Messianic Jew," and why one can't be both a Jew and "for Jesus." I’m copying here the comment that I posted on GoldaLeah’s blog, when she published her Sunday, December 11, 2005 post, “Your god is Not My God.”
“Disclaimer: The following are my own opinions, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of “the management.” :) It is entirely possible that these opinions are based on limited knowledge and/or interpretation, or are inaccurate for other reasons.
I think that Judaism and Christianity share some of the same beliefs, but that what we emphasize can differ radically.
I believe that Judaism tends to emphasize *this* world, whereas Christianity tends to emphasize the next, though both officially posit a belief in life after death.
I believe that Judaism tends to emphasize the group—notice that our central prayer, the Amidah, is written entirely in the plural—whereas Christianity tends to emphasize the individual.
I believe that Judaism tends to emphasize deeds, whereas Christianity tends to emphasize faith or thought. Consider how many centuries Judaism managed to thrive before the Rambam/Maimonides write the Thirteen Principles of Faith. Consider, too, that the performance of a mitzvah/divine commandment is considered paramount. So what if you’re really buying the most gorgeous etrog you can find to impress the woman you hope to marry and her parents? The important thing is that you’re fulfilling the commandment to use a lulav and etrog during Sukkot. No Jew in his/her right mind would ever refrain from fulfilling a commandment out of concern that she/he might be doing so for ulterior motives. I’m under the impression that ulterior motivation for doing the right thing might be of greater concern for a Christian.
And here’s the biggie: I believe that Judaism tends to emphasize individual responsibility, whereas the the belief in vicarious atonement is at the very heart of Christian dogma. Yes, we Jews pray that Hashem will forgive us because of the merit of our ancestors. And yes, we used to sacrifice animals as a way to atone for our sins. But our main emphasis is on improving our behavior. Christianity, on the other hand, is very clear on this point—according to Christian dogma, no amount of personal atonement could earn a person entry into heaven if Jesus had not died for the sins of humankind. You can’t get much more vicarious than that.
Judaism and Christianity had totally different responses to pagan human sacrifice. Judaism replaced it with animal sacrifice, and, later, with prayer. Christianity replaced it with a one-time “human” sacrifice, followed by the symbolic “human” sacrifice of the sacrament/holy communion (hope I’m using the correct terminology). Mind you, symbolic sacrifice is a vast improvement over the real thing.”
Please feel free to add to this list and/or to respond in any other (respectful) manner.
Update (posted at some ridiculous hour on Sunday morning, Feb. 12, 2006):
I encourage you to read not only the ongoing series at The Jewish Connection, but, also, to see what Kiwi and commenters have to say on her Friday, February 10, 2006, Judaism & Christianity post.
Update #2, Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2006:
Another major difference between Judaism and Christianity that I neglected to mention here, but discussed in a comment to Kiwi's Judaism & Christianity post, is that, as relatively non-dogmatic as Judaism is, it still has a serious problem with the idea that G-d would choose to have a "begotten" child. Dilbert discusses the related issue that the (resultant) divinity of Jesus is not within the acceptable parameters of Jewish beliefs. Tze u-l'mad—go and learn.
One of the joys of blogging is having respectful discussions concerning serious issues on which people disagree. In these days when even cartoons can practically start a war, that's downright refreshing.
posted by Shira Salamone at 1:05 AM
49 Comments:
Makes sense to me.
I believe that Judaism tends to emphasize *this* world, whereas Christianity tends to emphasize the next, though both officially posit a belief in life after death.
Christian denominations differ on this, IME. I recently met a Christian who believes it's wrong to wish for heaven, because she equates it with wanting to die.
I believe that Judaism tends to emphasize the group—notice that our central prayer, the Amidah, is written entirely in the plural—whereas Christianity tends to emphasize the individual.
This seems like a cultural thing, in the very individualistic US. My limited knowledge of Christians in Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe suggests that they're much less individualistic.
I believe that Judaism tends to emphasize deeds, whereas Christianity tends to emphasize faith or thought.
True, however,
No Jew in his/her right mind would ever refrain from fulfilling a commandment out of concern that she/he might be doing so for ulterior motives. I’m under the impression that ulterior motivation for doing the right thing might be of greater concern for a Christian.
Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is a concern in Christianity, and one of the reasons is in the first chapter of Isaiah, where God says he doesn't like the offerings because the Israelites are sinning. However, I think one should still do the right thing, and deal with the wrong reasons. When Christians refrain from doing the right thing until their heart is right, that's usually a cop-out.
But our main emphasis is on improving our behavior.
Christians are also expected to improve our behavior. Although we can never earn our eternal reward, Jesus says if we love him we'll obey. (John 14:15) Paul, in Romans 6, deals with the wrong idea that we should sin more to get more grace.
Do Jews believe it's possible to obey the Law perfectly, to improve behavior to the maximum? An important Christian belief, which I can't find the reference for, is that the purpose of the Law was to show us that we couldn't be perfect, that we needed a Savior.
Judaism replaced it with animal sacrifice, and, later, with prayer.
Wasn't the switch from animal sacrifice to prayer caused by the destruction of the temple? I'm not aware of God commanding that.
Christianity replaced it with a one-time “human” sacrifice, followed by the symbolic “human” sacrifice of the sacrament/holy communion (hope I’m using the correct terminology).
I'm gonna have to think about the "human sacrifice" part more, but this is the Catholic version of Communion. Most Protestant denominations believe that the bread & wine are symbolic, and a few believe that Jesus' body and blood are spiritually present, not physically. Jesus isn't being sacrificed repeatedly, except maybe in the Catholic belief, which even few Catholics completely understand.
If I'm not mistaken, Jewish beliefs change over time, because of rabbinical interpretations, even when there are no new scriptures. Christian beliefs also change over time, but outside of the Catholic Church, (and maybe the Orthodox too) the Bible is considered to be the only reliable source of truth. I understand that the rabbis' writing is considered alongside the Tanach, not in subjection to it.
In Judaism, I'm not sure to what extent the above beliefs are tradition, and what are actually fundamental/theological differences. In Christianity, I try to stick to what the Bible actually says, while the perception of Christianity, even by Christians, depends heavily on what individual denominations, leaders, or cultures teach.
I wrote a Christian viewpoint of Judaism and Christianity at my blog.
Jack, thanks for the thumbs-up.
Kiwi, thanks for the response. I'm already late for work, so I'll get back to you after Shabbat. See you tomorrow night.
Testing, 1, 2, 3.
I'm having trouble opening my blog directly, and Mark/PT confirms that it's gone. I linked in from DovBear's http://dovbear.blogspot.com/ sidebar, and want to see whether my blog--what's left of it--is still accepted comments. So here goes.
Testing, 4, 5, 6. As I was saying, I'm having trouble opening my blog directly, and Mark/PT confirms that it's gone. I linked in from Eliyahu's http://kablogalah.blogspot.com/ sidebar this time--I should mention that I tried links from about a half dozen fine folks' blogrolls, and none of 'em worked--and want to see whether my blog--what's left of it--is still accepted comments. So here I go again.
Apparently, my blog is back. I hope it'll still be here by tomorrow night. See you after Shabbos.
Shira, I haven't had a problem seeing your blog, but I couldn't post comments or change anything on my own blog for several hours last night. I think Blogger is/was having issues.
Well done writing on a difficult topic which you handled rather sensitively. Another difference between Judaism and Christianity is that Judaism emphasises action(Miztvot) based on the oral law(Talmud)whereas Christianity emphasises belief(based on slected passages from the torah such as the 10 Commandments).
The first attempt to list “Jewish Beliefs” was initially declared heresy. The list of beliefs made by rambam was originally burnt. Jews have always held that what you do is more important that what you believe.
Ittay, thanks. And thanks, also, for bringing the Talmud into this discussion. Much of what we observe as Jews, even for those of us who are not Orthodox, is based on rabbinic writings, interpretations, and/or traditions that simply don't exist in Christianity.
I wasn't aware that the Rambam's list of 13 beliefs was initially burned as heretical, but I'm not surprised. I have heard that the Rambam (Maimonides) was considered quite controversial in his time. And I agree that Judaism generally puts more emphasis on deed than on creed.
Kiwi, let me try to respond to your points one by one.
Me (I don't know how to format in comments, so I can't do italics): I believe that Judaism tends to emphasize *this* world, whereas Christianity tends to emphasize the next, though both officially posit a belief in life after death.
Kiwi: Christian denominations differ on this, IME. I recently met a Christian who believes it's wrong to wish for heaven, because she equates it with wanting to die."
Thanks for the information. I don't know whether it's true of Jews in general, but, speaking for myself, I think that I do tend to lump all Christians together.
Me: I believe that Judaism tends to emphasize the group—notice that our central prayer, the Amidah, is written entirely in the plural—whereas Christianity tends to emphasize the individual.
Kiwi: This seems like a cultural thing, in the very individualistic US. My limited knowledge of Christians in Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe suggests that they're much less individualistic."
That's possible. I may not have enough information on this matter to be able to make such a broad statement.
Kiwi: "Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is a concern in Christianity, and one of the reasons is in the first chapter of Isaiah, where God says he doesn't like the offerings because the Israelites are sinning."
Jewish tradition is very clear on this point: When we ask G-d to forgive us for our sins, we are referring to *ritual* sins, such as not keeping kosher. We cannot ask G-d to forgive us for sins involving *ethics* and/or sins that we commit against another human being--we must ask the person against whom we've sinned for forgiveness. That's the way I interpret Isaiah: We couldn't expect to be forgiven for sins against our fellow and sister human beings just because we brought sacrifices to the Holy Temple.
Kiwi: "Do Jews believe it's possible to obey the Law perfectly, to improve behavior to the maximum?"
This is one of the reasons why it's taken me so long to reply: Not being a particularly learned Jew, I needed to spend 10 minutes with my eyes glued to the Talmudic tractacte popularly known as Pirkei Avot, Ethics (more literally translated, Verses) of the Fathers, to find you the proper citation for this verse. It is recorded in Chapter 3, Saying 21, that Rabbi Tarfon says, "You are not required to complete the task, yet you are not free to withdraw from it." My own interpretation of that saying is that, while it's not possible for to learn everything that there is to know and/or to perfect one's behavior and/or to solve all the world's problems, one is not absolved from doing the best that one possibly can. As Jews, it is our responsibility to "keep on pluggin'," always striving to learn more, to improve ourselves, and to make the world a better place.
Kiwi: "An important Christian belief, which I can't find the reference for, is that the purpose of the Law was to show us that we couldn't be perfect, that we needed a Savior."
Granted that some of Jewish law is of the "do this because I say so" variety, the laws of kashrut (keeping kosher, "dietary laws") being among the most obvious of that type. But a good deal of Jewish law is "designed" to help us improve our behavior. The idea that G-d would deliberately give us laws that we couldn't obey just to prove to us that we couldn't be perfect is alien to Judaism, in my opinion. We don't need anyone else to help us--G-d Himself already provided that help in the form of the laws that He gave us.
Me: "Judaism replaced it with animal sacrifice, and, later, with prayer."
Kiwi: "Wasn't the switch from animal sacrifice to prayer caused by the destruction of the temple? I'm not aware of God commanding that."
That's correct. In point of fact, that's one of the issues on which differences of opinion among the various Jewish dominations are quite pronounced. Only Orthodox Jews pray for the restoration of the Holy Temple, including animal sacrifices. Non-Orthodox Jews may or may not pray for the restoration of the Holy Temple, but, by and large, non-Orthodox Jews do *not* pray for the restoration of animal sacrifices.
Me: "Christianity replaced it with a one-time “human” sacrifice, followed by the symbolic “human” sacrifice of the sacrament/holy communion (hope I’m using the correct terminology)."
Kiwi: I'm gonna have to think about the "human sacrifice" part more, but this is the Catholic version of Communion. Most Protestant denominations believe that the bread & wine are symbolic, and a few believe that Jesus' body and blood are spiritually present, not physically. Jesus isn't being sacrificed repeatedly, except maybe in the Catholic belief, which even few Catholics completely understand."
Again, perhaps I'm thinking of all Christians in Catholic terms. Not all Christian denominations even have communion as part of their ritual practice.
As for the "human" sacrifice, I'm afraid I'm going to have to stand by that one. From my perpective, Christianity replaced the Holy Temple's sacrificial lambs with one sacrificial "Lamb." If there's any other way to interpret the idea that Jesus died for the sins of humankind, I just don't see it.
Kiwi: "If I'm not mistaken, Jewish beliefs change over time, because of rabbinical interpretations, even when there are no new scriptures. Christian beliefs also change over time, but outside of the Catholic Church, (and maybe the Orthodox too) the Bible is considered to be the only reliable source of truth. I understand that the rabbis' writing is considered alongside the Tanach, not in subjection to it."
I'm under the impression that your statement is reasonably accurate, but it would probably be best if you pose that particular question to someone better educated Jewishly than I.
Kiwi: "In Judaism, I'm not sure to what extent the above beliefs are tradition, and what are actually fundamental/theological differences."
Good question. Again, I refer you to the more learned among us.
"In Christianity, I try to stick to what the Bible actually says, while the perception of Christianity, even by Christians, depends heavily on what individual denominations, leaders, or cultures teach."
Again, I'm probably putting all Christians into one box. Gotta work on that.
Oops. That's Pirkei Avot, Chapter **2**, Saying 21.
Shira, the way you do italics is as follows:
<I>stuff in italics</I>
The Is can be capital or not.
I'm sick, and I have some stuff I have to do by tomorrow morning. Hopefully I can respond to you tomorrow afternoon.
Sorry, those are letter Ii, not Ll.
Kiwi, thanks for the formatting tip.
Get well soon.
I'm definitely not well, but here goes.
I think that I do tend to lump all Christians together...I'm probably putting all Christians into one box. Gotta work on that.
Generalizations are necessary to human understanding; we can't deal with all the details at once.
We cannot ask G-d to forgive us for sins involving *ethics* and/or sins that we commit against another human being--we must ask the person against whom we've sinned for forgiveness. That's the way I interpret Isaiah
I never heard of that belief, so that's a totally new interpretation to me.
while it's not possible for to learn everything that there is to know and/or to perfect one's behavior
This is why, in Christian doctrine, we needed a Savior. We are imperfect, and God can't accept us into heaven with blemishes, so Christ's righteousness replaces our sin.
Not all Christian denominations even have communion as part of their ritual practice.
That's new to me. Do you know which ones?
From my perpective, Christianity replaced the Holy Temple's sacrificial lambs with one sacrificial "Lamb."
That's exactly how Christian doctrine describes it. The phrase "human sacrifice" was discussed at length at Go West Young Jew, so I won't repeat all that here.
Kiwi, you naughty girl, you're supposed to tell us to which post you're referring. I think you're talking about GoldaLeah's Sunday, December 11, 2005 post "Your god is Not My God," which, assuming this attempt at hyperlinking actually works . . .
Uh, never mind:
"Your HTML cannot be accepted: Reference "”http:" is not allowed:"
Just look for it at westernjew.blogspot.com/2005/12/your-god-is-not-my-god.html#comments”>
Okay, now that I've attempted to refer my readers to Go West, Young Jew (GoldaLeah's westernjew.blogspot.com), let's tackle that other good one.
I've always been taught that all the fasting and praying that we do on Yom Kippur/the Day of Atonement can bring forgiveness from G-d for ritual sins only (known as sins "bein adam l'makom"--between a human and G-d). To be forgiven for sins between one human and another (bein adam l'chaveiro?--between a human and his/her friend?--help me out here, folks), we must ask and receive forgiveness from the person(s) against whom we've sinned. You can't insult someone in public and ask G-d for forgiveness--you have to apologize to the person whom you've humiliated.
(Someone correct my Hebrew, please!)
"Not all Christian denominations even have communion as part of their ritual practice.
That's new to me. Do you know which ones?"
Um, no. Maybe I'm just misinformed.
Kiwi, thanks for the formatting tip. I'm not getting anywhere fast with creating hyperlinks in comments, but at least I've figured out how to do italics and bold.
Somewhere in Proverbs I think is the sentence that says there is not a righteous man who has not sinned. Judaism accepts that mankind is not perfect, and cannot be perfect, by definition. However, we have a tremendous obligation to be the best that we can be. Shira, you are totally right in the fact that the Atonement on Yom Kippur affects only those acts between man and God. However, to achieve atonement for acts between one person and another, one has to ask for forgiveness from the wronged party. In the request for forgivness that is traditionally recited on the death bed, I am pretty sure it includes a general request of forgiveness from everyone who was wronged, along with forgiveness from God. So, there is probably a difference between pre death forgiveness and Yom Kippur. Irregardless, Judaism emphasizes the personal responsiblity one has for his/her actions and sins. One has to actively ask for forgiveness from one's fellow human being, one has to not only ask God for forgiveness, but provide action that shows that the request for forgiveness was genuine, and indeed, produced a change in the asker. In Maimonides's steps for repentence, the first step is identifying the sin, the second is regret over the sin, down the road the final step is that when faced with similar circumstances, one does not sin again. We believe that God does not neccesarily grant complete and unconditional forgiveness to all who ask in all circumstances. However, at the end of our lifetimes, we bring all our merits and misdeeds, requests for forgiveness and inevitable backsliding, to our Father in Heaven, and rely on his using the trait of mercy, rather than strict justice in dealing with us. But I think the big difference between Judaism and Christianity is that in Judaism, we are totally responsible for our actions. There is no easy way to atone, or achieve forgiveness, no intercessor needed or wanted(although we occassionally ask our forefathers Abraham Isaac and Jacob to put in a good word for us now and then, but in the context of the merit of their actions). There is no easy formula, or set of words to say, or single act, to obtain automatic admission to heaven. Its just us and the Big Guy(or Gal).
Dilbert, thanks for clarifying matters. Your comments are much appreciated.
Kiwi, another major difference between Judaism and Christianity that I neglected to mention here, but discussed in a comment to your post, is that, as relatively non-dogmatic as Judaism is, it still has a serious problem with the idea that G-d would choose to have a "begotten" child. Dilbert followed up my comment with a discussion of the related issue that the (resultant) divinity of Jesus is not within the acceptable parameters of Jewish belief.
I am happy that we are able to have a respectful discussion and clarify our beliefs to one another.
Shira, I would have provided a link to Go West Young Jew, but you already did in your post above! For anybody else who needs it again, here ya go.
Shira, here's how you link in a comment, and hopefully it comes out right:
<A HREF="put the link here">put the text here, whatever you want the reader to click on</A>
I've always been taught that all the fasting and praying that we do on Yom Kippur/the Day of Atonement can bring forgiveness from G-d for ritual sins only
Apparently this is another difference between us. When a Christian sins against another person, we need to ask forgiveness from that person, but all sins require God's forgiveness too.
There is no easy formula, or set of words to say, or single act, to obtain automatic admission to heaven.
I'm not sure if you're comparing this to Christianity, but none of that is true for us either.
no easy formula: If repentance is genuine, it requires a change in behavior. As I tell my Sweetie day after day, 'sorry' means "I wish I hadn't done it and I won't do it again."
set of words to say: Many Christian tracts include a sample prayer, but actually salvation is based on the attitude of your heart; if you admit that you're not good enough on your own, repent of your sins, and ask God to replace your sin with Christ's righteousness, it doesn't matter what words you use.
single act: If a new believer is serious about their decision, it won't be a single act. If it is a single act, with no follow-through of obedience to Christ and attempting to grow in knowledge of Him, then the attitude of the heart obviously wasn't right.
So I think Dilbert's description of forgiveness is approximately the same for Christianity, except for how you gain admission to heaven in the end.
And Shira, speaking of new Hebrew words, I was kinda surprised you didn't tell me refuah shleima instead of get well soon! I've got a buncha Hebrew phrases that roll around in my head, and when one is appropriate, I think, "Mazal tov! No wait, wrong one, uh, Beis Mikdash? No, that means Temple, um, shabbat, daven, milchig, Yisroel, hmmm..."
Oops! Yes, indeed, I did put the hyperlink in the post itself. Sorry. Forgot.
Meanwhile, let me try this one more time:
Kiwi's blog
It worked! Yay! You're one kool Kiwi!
Looks like we're both learning Hebrew at the same time. :)
"I think Dilbert's description of forgiveness is approximately the same for Christianity, except for how you gain admission to heaven in the end."
The Christian belief that one must accept Jesus as one's savior as a condition of admission to heaven is, to say the least, a huge issue for us Jews. Obviously, that's another point at which Judaism and Christianity part company.
The Christian belief that one must accept Jesus as one's savior as a condition of admission to heaven is, to say the least, a huge issue for us Jews.
Actually, the Jews pre-Jesus didn't have him to accept. The Bible says, "Abraham believed God, (that he'd have a son) and it was credited to him as righteousness." So Abraham was saved by faith in God's promise, and his descendents could have faith in lots more detail about the Messiah, and then after the year 33, the whole picture was available. But I wouldn't be surprised if God makes a way for those with insufficient knowledge to also be saved by faith in what they have.
kiwi- forgive my ignorance. Maybe too much of what I think I know about Christianity is from movies and tv. However, it was my impression that when Catholics go to confession, and confess their sin, and do whatever it is that the priest asks of them, they are considered absolved of their sin. (I believe some Catholic theologians were asked the theoretical question 'if Hitler went to confession before he died, would he be accepted into heaven, and considered absolved of his sins?' and some of the answers were in the affirmative). I guess this may be a difference between Catholics and other Christians.
Obviously our interpretation of Abraham's words in Genesis are totally different than yours. For us, faith in God is simply faith in God. We dont read 'faith in the coming of the messiah' into Abrahams words
Dilbert, I'm with you in, perhaps, having insufficient knowledge of Christianity, especially the Protestant demoninations thereof.
For my own take on "reading into" the words of our Bible, see my Thu Feb 16, 12:59:05 AM CST comment at Kiwi's "Judaism & Christianity". Here's the short version: "Essentially, the Christian religion has taken our Bible and completely reinterpreted it in ways that are contrary to our beliefs. In essence, the Christian faith comes perilously close to telling The People of the Book what our own Book means. Personally, I find that a real problem."
Kiwi, I appreciate your sensitivity to this issue.
I guess this may be a difference between Catholics and other Christians.
Definitely. I think you're correct about Catholic confession. However, most Protestants, and all evangelical Christian denominations, believe there's no need for an intermediary between us and God, ever since Christ closed that gap. Another way to say it is that Jesus is our high priest, interceding for us with the Father. One of my favorite Bible trivia is at the moment Christ died, the huge heavy curtain around the Most Holy Place in the Temple ripped from top to bottom, because He made it possible for anybody to enter God's presence. (I hope saying this doesn't offend anybody, but I considered it important to my explanation.)
Evangelical Christians believe at the moment of salvation, Christ's righteousness covers all our sins, past and future. We still confess, to clear our consciences and be honest with God, but if we die before confessing something, that sin is already covered.
Alternatively, if a murderer sincerely repents, and dies the next day, we believe he was forgiven even though he didn't have time to follow through. The important thing is intent: if he could do it over, would he live differently? If he had another year, would he turn around? The answer to these questions is the same whether or not he has time to prove it.
Regarding Abraham's faith, he didn't know anything about the Messiah. He merely believed God's promise of a son. Only much later were the prophecies of Messiah given. And if a Jew had faith in God, wouldn't that mean by extension that he'd have to have faith in God's promises?
I'm glad I haven't stepped on any toes (yet) and I hope that continues. ;o)
Then I guess the main theological difference between us is that we never believed there was a gap between us and God in the first place,
Dilbert, true and not quite: In the Bet haMikash/Holy Temple, we did have to go through the Cohanim/Priests for the purpose of making sacrifices. In modern times, on the other hand, one doesn't need a rabbi to conduct a service. We don't have religious practices like confession or communion that can't be conducted without a clergyperson. But the fact that the Orthodox segment of the Jewish community still prays for the restoration of the sacrificial system does raise a question about whether Orthodox Jews truly believe that Jews don't need anyone to intercede for us. For the record, the belief of Orthodox Judaism that the sacrificial system will, and should be, restored is not shared by any other Jewish denomination.
I don't understand why Jews don't believe there's a gap between man and God. In the garden, God walked and talked with Adam & Eve. When they sinned, and got kicked out of the garden, they could no longer be face to face with Him. It became really unusual for anybody to see or hear God at all. This, to me, seems like a separation, and I think all of humanity longs to get back to that close friendship with God. I think that's the reason there are so many religions and varied beliefs; every culture wants to find a way to meet God.
Also, if there's no gap between God and man, why couldn't anybody go into the place where He dwelled? Once a year, one priest could go into the Most Holy Place, and if he wasn't totally right with God, he would die. There were at least two walls between God and the average Jewish man. Doesn't that imply separation?
Oy.
Good questions. I'm not sure that I'm the best person to answer them, not being exactly the most learned Jew in the Jewish blogosphere. Where's Dilbert when we need him? Is anyone with a Jewish day school/yeshiva education reading this? If you are, please help! I hereby declare myself officially out of my depth.
For the record, I don't have a day school education. I mean, jsut so you know.
First of all, I think a significant point fell through the cracks. Forgive me if it's covered and I missed it. On Yom Kippur, we confess to God and ask atonement for all of our sins, including sins committed against our fellow men. The additional necessary step is that for such mano-a-mano sins, we must have first requested forgiveness (and paid restitution as necessary) from the injured party.
Kiwi - you are absolutely right about "sorry" meaning I won't do it again - I tell my kids the same thing!
As far as the gap b/t God and people goes... I once heard an Orthodox Jewish writer for the Tonight do a bit in his stand-up act where he was riding in a car with some non-Jewish co-workers when the song "What if God was one of us" (that should be "were" but nevermind) came on the radio. One of the co-workers offered to turn it off the song offended him (Mr. O-Jew). He said, "Actually, we do think he's one of us."
This got a laugh, and I'm not sure how it relates to this discussion. I don't know if "gap" is the right term or not. Definitely God is different from us, so profoundly so that it seems odd to even type that He is different from us. And when the Temple stood, there was an intensity of his Presence that only one individual could exist in that "concentrated" presence, once a year, and faced death if he performed any rituals even slightly incorrectly.
But we approach God's presence everyday in prayer. In fact, one shouldn't walk, stand, or sit right in front of someone who is praying the "standing" prayer (amidah, aka shmoneh esrei) because the presence of God is said to be before such a person. The Talmud also speaks of the presence of God being with a person or people learning Torah (not so sure what the story is when blogging Torah). So there's that.
As far as an intermediary goes... I don't know that I'd call the priests (kohanim) intermediaries, per se. They were doing their jobs, fulfilling their roles. It wasn't a case of "we can't get as close to God as you" - and we know that prayer and sacrifices co-existed. Maybe this is splitting hairs, I don't know. But I've never thought of it that way. When someone recites a blessing for wine and you say "amen" and drink, that person has fulfilled your obligation to make a blessing before drinking wine. Or maybe you have fulfilled your obligation by merely saying amen.
Actually, now that I think about it, both cases must be true. The blesser has to have you in mind specifically (that he is fulfilling your obligation), and you have to say amen. Neither of you has a more direct line to God, and both of you are doing your part in fulfilling your duty to God. So there you have it. I think I'm gonna stick with that one. (The only difference is that with the sacrifices you couldn't do it yourself if you wanted to. But the point is the same.)
One last note - Kiwi - yes, it's true that we believe God's promises. That is why Jews are required to believe in the coming of the messiah. We just don't believe that he's come yet, and that he will be divine.
it's true that we believe God's promises.
But is that the reason you go to heaven? My point was that BC, Christians believe Jews became righteous and gained heaven by believing what God said.
Regarding a gap or separation between God and man, I'm talking about the gap caused by sin. (I understand y'all don't believe in 'original sin'?) Isaiah 59:2 (JPL) says "But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid His face from you, that He will not hear." Christians believe that until a person repents and accepts Christ's sacrifice, he's separated from God by his unrighteousness that God can't tolerate. But Jews don't believe they're separated from God?
Re: gettin' to heaven - see the same post I linked to in the comments to your blog's Jew-Christian discussion.
I see what you mean now about "separation." I guess this occurs on two levels, micro and macro. On the micro level, whenever we sin we disgust God and he moves away from us (God is everywhere so this metaphysical, quasi-anthropomorphical type of discussion makes me a little dizzy, but still). When can draw Him near again by sincere, personal repentance. On the macro level, God withdrew His presence because of the sins of the Jewish nation that led to the destruction of the second Temple. So we always feel a bit of separation from Him.
We have a day to commemorate the destruction of both Temples - a solemn fast day, the only full-day (25 hour) fast other than Yom Kippur. On that day, we lament not only that the Temples were destroyed, but that we haven't merited - haven't become good enough as a Nation (I'm talking The Jewish People here, not just the state of Israel) - to see the third Temple arise.
But God has indeed promised the Messiah will come and the Temple will be rebuilt. How we get there no one really knows for sure. I am in the middle of the last chapter of the Talmudic tractate "Sanhedrin" which records a number of ancient rabbis' traditions on this subject. Fascinating stuff. A recurring theme is that there is a set date for the Messianic era to begin, but if we shape up, we can merit to move up the date.
Anyway, I guess the bottom-line answer to your question is that Jews feel the same way - in fact, I would say that we believe almost all of this sentence: "Christians believe that until a person repents and accepts Christ's sacrifice, he's separated from God by his unrighteousness that God can't tolerate." We just wouldn't add the "and accepts Christ's sacrifice."
Just to make sure I understand -- Christians bridge this sin gap by accepting Christ's substitutionary punishment. Jews bridge the gap by repentance, but it's temporary, right? Sin again, bridge the gap again?
Right - anytime you do something wrong, you have to make a concerted effort not only to not do it again, but to change your behavior to make it less likely that you will do it again. The distance (which is just a metaphor, of course) from God depends on the gravity of the sin.
Okay, there's another difference. Christians believe sin is sin. Murder has worse results than a white lie, but either one makes a huge chasm between us and God, that can only be bridged by Christ. That's why even the best of people can't get to heaven on their own, because everybody screws up somehow, sometime.
This whole discussion has been really enlightening, and I plan to write an update/summary on my blog within a week. Assuming my poor stiff hands feel better. :o(
Actually, I have to correct myself. Catholics and possibly other denominations have 'levels' of sin. That's where the phrase "mortal sin" or "cardinal sin" comes from; those are the ones you get sent to hell for. My explanation above was for evangelical Christianity.
What can I tell you? We Jews have to categorize and classify everything. Did you know there are four different kinds of death penalties? And the types of crimes that merit each, and the relative severity of each, is debated at length in the Talmud? Good times.
Nice to see that this conversation is still going on. I read the post a while ago, but it seemed like there were so many serious issues raised that I wouldn't be able to respond to it without a good deal of time and energy.
Here are my thoughts: Together, you've identified many significant general differences between Judaism and Christianity, but I don't think that any of them could be called essential differences. The boundaries between religions can be very blurry. Personally, I don't see any use in deciding what ultimately qualifies as "Judaism" and what does not. I know that I do not believe that salvation is attained through faith in Christ, and I know that I do not believe that the future will bring the restoration of a Jewish theocratic monarchy along with temple sacrifice. From a practical standpoint, what difference should it make to me which of these beliefs is "Jewish" and which is "Christian"?
I tend to agree with Mordecai Kaplan's assertion that the primary differences between religions reside in their symbol systems rather than their dogma. In terms of beliefs, a Unitarian Christian shares more with a Reconstructionist Jew than with an evangelical Protestant, but the Unitarian worships on Sunday and invokes Jesus in prayer, while the Reconstructionist worships on Saturday and invokes the biblical ancestors. Of course, even with respect to symbol systems there are fuzzy boundaries (Seventh Day Adventists worship on Saturday, for example). "Messianic Jews" are a particularly interesting case, since their beliefs derive mainly from Christian tradition, but their symbol system draws heavily on Judaism as well as Christianity. On the whole, I would say that "Messianic Jews" are more Christian than Jewish, but I don't think that one can draw a rigid line.
A few comments on some of your specific points:
I believe that Judaism tends to emphasize *this* world, whereas Christianity tends to emphasize the next
I've heard this many times, but I suspect that it's more a product of modern apologetics than historical truth. We moderns tend to be skeptics; even if we belive in that which cannot be verified by scientific observation, we'd rather not make it the focus of our existence. However, rabbinic and medieval Judaism placed a very strong emphasis on the next world, and, notwithstanding a few rabbinic texts that suggest that life in this world is "better," the general thrust of premodern Judaism has been the opposite.
I believe that Judaism tends to emphasize the group—notice that our central prayer, the Amidah, is written entirely in the plural—whereas Christianity tends to emphasize the individual.
Kiwi has suggested that this aspect of Christianity is mainly a product of modern America, and I suspect that she is correct. I would also argue that the collective orientation of Judaism is a product of the premodern world rather than any essential feature of Judaism. This is why the Reform movement, which has always sought to be in keeping with modernity, tends to emphasize individual autonomy.
I believe that Judaism tends to emphasize deeds, whereas Christianity tends to emphasize faith or thought.
There is definitely some validity to this, but it is often overemphasized (mainly by Jews). Nearly all streams of Christianity throughout history have emphasized right behavior, even when that would seem to conflict with their dogma.
I believe that Judaism tends to emphasize individual responsibility, whereas the the belief in vicarious atonement is at the very heart of Christian dogma....according to Christian dogma, no amount of personal atonement could earn a person entry into heaven if Jesus had not died for the sins of humankind.
Again, yes and no. Psalm 130 states, "If you keep account of sins, O Lord, Lord, who will survive? Yours is the power to forgive so that you may be held in awe." These verses imply that repentence alone is insufficient for humans to attain salvation; we also need God's superhuman mercy. This is an important tenet of rabbinic Judaism and is functionally very similar to the Christian idea of atonement through Jesus.
Judaism and Christianity had totally different responses to pagan human sacrifice. Judaism replaced it with animal sacrifice, and, later, with prayer. Christianity replaced it with a one-time “human” sacrifice, followed by the symbolic “human” sacrifice of the sacrament/holy communion (hope I’m using the correct terminology)."
This is more a matter of "symbol systems" than beliefs. As it stands, I don't think that this statement is true. (I admit that in this regard I've been heavily influenced by Levenon's Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son.) It probably isn't accurate to say that animal sacrifice "replaced" human sacrifice in Judaism, since those who practiced human sacrifice among Israel's neighbors also practiced animal sacrifice, and even maintained the practice (adopted by Jews) of substituting an animal for a human. Those verses in the Bible that condemn human sacrifice never state that animal sacrifice is to take its place, since animal sacrifice is a given whether human sacrifice is practiced or not. Similarly, the crucifixion can't be regarded as a replacement for human sacrifice, since there was no human sacrifice in second temple Judea. Jesus was a one-time, anomolous human sacrifice, yes. But a replacement? No.
Also (just to play Devil's advocate), one can't necessarily differentiate between Judaism and Christianity by saying that we have different ideas about what took the place of sacrifice. Rabbinic Judaism includes both the idea that prayer took the place of sacrifice and the idea that righteous deeds (gemilut chasadim) took the place of sacrifice. Some Jewish texts even imply that the death of martyrs has taken the place of animal sacrifice -- a notion that seems uncomfortably "Christian" to modern Jews. If a "Messianic Jew" were to add the crucifixion to the roster of "things that have taken the place of sacrifice" in Judaism, it wouldn't necessarily conflict with the others.
Mind you, symbolic sacrifice is a vast improvement over the real thing.
I share this belief, but I must concede that the thrust of rabbinic Judaism is quite the opposite. AFAIK, Maimonedes was the only premodern Jewish thinker to even suggest that prayer might be superior to sacrifice, and even he stated that animal sacrifice would be restored in messianic times.
Anyway, thanks for carrying on this thought-provoking discussion.
FYI, I reposted my comment on my own blog.
Ralphie, rabbinic Judaism mandates four kinds of death penalties? Nu, we Heebs don't always know when to leave bad enough alone.
And thanks for the clarification about prayer on Yom Kippur. First we ask forgiveness of the injured party, then we ask forgiveness of Hashem. Sounds right.
elf, when I spoke of symbolic sacrifice, in that particular instance I was referring to the Christian communion ritual, which I consider a form of symbolic sacrifice, rather than Jewish prayer, which I consider a substitute for sacrifice. Both religions ended up ditching actual sacrifice. We just went about it in different ways.
As to the rest of your comment, as they used to say in the old Popeye cartoons, "well, blow me down." You've done a very well-thought-out job of punching holes in just about everything I've said, and much of what you've said in the process makes sense, so thanks for the thoughtful response.
"I tend to agree with Mordecai Kaplan's assertion that the primary differences between religions reside in their symbol systems rather than their dogma." As Spock would say, "Fascinating." I don't always agree with Kaplan (or, to be more precise, I sometimes think that he would be less than happy about where the Reconstructionist Movement has gone with some of his ideas), but he did have some interesting theories, so thanks for pointing out his perspective.
Kiwi said, "Christians believe sin is sin. Murder has worse results than a white lie, but either one makes a huge chasm between us and God . . ."
I may get shot down by Elf again, but I think that Judaism has a more nuanced approach to sin. It's true that, when we pray for forgiveness on Yom Kippur, we do tend to lump all manner of sins together. But I can't really imagine that the rabbis, ancient or current, would (have) consider(ed) lying to be in the same class as committing murder. But, obviously, I've been proven wrong before.
the Christian communion ritual, which I consider a form of symbolic sacrifice, rather than Jewish prayer, which I consider a substitute for sacrifice.
I must reiterate that communion is in no way a symbolic sacrifice, except maybe in Catholicism and similar traditions. Evangelical Christians believe that the bread and grape juice are powerful symbols, and that the resurrected Christ is spiritually present with us during the rite. But its purpose is to remember His death until he comes, not to reenact it.
Post a Comment
<< Home