The following warnings occurred:
Warning [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/jaihare/thehebrewcafe.com/forum/inc/languages/english/replyban.lang.php:1) - Line: 1939 - File: inc/functions.php PHP 7.3.23 (Linux)
File Line Function
[PHP]   errorHandler->error
/inc/functions.php 1939 header
/inc/functions.php 2009 my_setcookie
/inc/functions_indicators.php 41 my_set_array_cookie
/showthread.php 665 mark_thread_read
Warning [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/jaihare/thehebrewcafe.com/forum/inc/languages/english/replyban.lang.php:1) - Line: 1939 - File: inc/functions.php PHP 7.3.23 (Linux)
File Line Function
[PHP]   errorHandler->error
/inc/functions.php 1939 header
/inc/functions.php 2009 my_setcookie
/inc/functions_indicators.php 255 my_set_array_cookie
/inc/functions_indicators.php 47 mark_forum_read
/showthread.php 665 mark_thread_read




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Relationship Between Judaism and Christianity
#31
(02-21-2019, 07:01 PM)nili wrote: What we seem to know with some degree of confidence is that Ignatius saw Jesus as deity, which suggests that nascent trinitarianism may well have been promulgated prior to 107 C.E., i.e., within half a century of Paul's missionary work. This seems at odds with your view that "The teaching of the Trinity isn't something that developed until way later."

Parenthetically, when talking about this period care should be taken to avoid conflating Judaism and Rabbinic Judaism. It's also useful to remember that much of what's 'known' about the Ebionites and Nazarenes is derivative and speculative.

I have to disagree with that notion of the development of the Trinity. We know that that the development of the Trinity is something that was started by the Greeks as a form of mediation, sort of like a koan that's used in Zen practices (e.g. what is the sound of one hand clapping) in order to illustrate the impossibility of thinking of HaShem directly. The question as to whether Jesus is divine and the question of the Trinity were two VERY DIFFERENT debates on Christianity, so I would say no. It isn't till the 200s that the Trinity comes into full form and is accepted.

In a similar manner, Christianity is also not a monolithic, so even supposing that Ignatius were espousing nascent Trinitarianism, that's no indication that his view, in his time, was prominent among Christians but again, I don't think I could call it that. Let me look more into it just to make sure, but I feel fairly confident about what I've said.
Reply
#32
(02-21-2019, 07:21 PM)Jude86 wrote:
(02-21-2019, 07:01 PM)nili wrote: What we seem to know with some degree of confidence is that Ignatius saw Jesus as deity, which suggests that nascent trinitarianism may well have been promulgated prior to 107 C.E., i.e., within half a century of Paul's missionary work. This seems at odds with your view that "The teaching of the Trinity isn't something that developed until way later."

Parenthetically, when talking about this period care should be taken to avoid conflating Judaism and Rabbinic Judaism. It's also useful to remember that much of what's 'known' about the Ebionites and Nazarenes is derivative and speculative.

I have to disagree with that notion of the development of the Trinity.

OK.

(02-21-2019, 07:21 PM)Jude86 wrote: We know that that the development of the Trinity is something that was started by the Greeks as a form of mediation, sort of like a koan that's used in Zen practices (e.g. what is the sound of one hand clapping) in order to illustrate the impossibility of thinking of HaShem directly.

I don't "know" this. What is your evidence that "the development of the Trinity is something that was started by the Greeks as a form of mediation ... in order to illustrate the impossibility of thinking of HaShem directly"?

And in what way does this support your earlier claim that "the Trinity isn't something that developed until way later"?

(02-21-2019, 07:21 PM)Jude86 wrote: The question as to whether Jesus is divine and the question of the Trinity were two VERY DIFFERENT debates on Christianity, so I would say no. It isn't till the 200s that the Trinity comes into full form and is accepted.

Again, what is you evidence that these were very different debates?

And, yet again, what does the date in which "the Trinity comes into full form and is accepted" have to do with the date in which the concept was developed?

On second thought, never mind. This may be a good time for me to simply bow out of this thread.

L'shalom ...
To be is to stand for. - Abraham Joshua Heschel
Reply
#33
(02-21-2019, 07:59 PM)nili wrote: On second thought, never mind. This may be a good time for me to simply bow out of this thread.

L'shalom ...

I mean, you can if you want, but I just wanna let you know that I have no problem answering your questions if you really want to know.

Most of my citations would come from Greek churchfathers and monastics that show that these particular monastics were using the concept of the Trinity as part of their meditative practices.

And I mean the only thing I can go by is what was written down.

As for how the Trinity vs Jesus' divinity debate? We (as in Catholics) consider those debates separate because of the individuals involved in the disputes. The Trinity is predicated on the divinity of Jesus; otherwise, you'd be putting the cart before the horse.

I mean, one must also consider that there were so many different kinds of Christianity at the time, so it's difficult to determine when it might have been developed.  I'm on my phone, so I apologise for not being able to give you a more in-depth answer.

L'shalom to you as well! Smile
Reply
#34
But I just realized that I may be getting us off track, and I'm sorry. This is a Jewish space and I wanna respect that.
Reply
#35
You're fine Jude. . .Really

I'm finding this very interesting because I am somewhat curious about Catholicism. We get a good many evangelical types on here. They are here in the hope of seeing Jews converted to Christianity, because they seem to think we are going to hell. I don't get that vibe from you, or other Catholics for that matter.
Reply
#36
(02-21-2019, 08:43 PM)Jude86 wrote: But I just realized that I may be getting us off track, and I'm sorry. This is a Jewish space and I wanna respect that.

I'm impressed, Jude, that you weren't offended when I brought up the question as to whether or not Jesus actually existed.  It may be true (as Nili pointed out) that this is a fringe theory, but it's something that has been discussed on this forum with some interest.  I just want to quickly add that we've also discussed whether certain historic Jewish events as recorded in the Bible actually happened.
Heart !לחיים

Reply
#37
(02-21-2019, 09:03 PM)Channalee wrote: I'm impressed, Jude, that you weren't offended when I brought up the question as to whether or not Jesus actually existed.  It may be true (as Nili pointed out) that this is a fringe theory, but it's something that has been discussed on this forum with some interest.  I just want to quickly add that we've also discussed whether certain historic Jewish events as recorded in the Bible actually happened.

Yeah, it takes a lot to offend me. I've studied Biblical literature a lot, and I've come across this hypothesis before. The first time I came across it was actually in an atheist-theist debate-style forum on facebook that I helped run back in 2013 (and which I still help to moderate to this day). Most often, it's used to try and say, "Look at these Christians; look at how stupid they are; Jesus and God aren't real, you're all just worshipping your sky-daddy" etc.

It maybe shocked me the first time I heard but now I just . . . deal with it. And it's not really offensive because the question of whether or not Jesus existed is a valid question. Certainly, most Biblical scholars who study the Gospels and other Christian literature agree that the Historical/Real Jesus (or, the "Jewish Jesus") is not the same person we read about in the Gospels. There's a lot of stuff in the Gospels that's written in metaphorical terms, that's inaccurate, or that's literally the result of an editor who just decided to make Jesus say or do a certain thing that a Jew living in what was then Roman Palestine wouldn't say and do.

Just reading the four canonical Gospels will present you with four different Jesuses. So, I when I go to Mass and hear the Gospels, I'm very cognizant of the fact that what I'm getting is more of a spiritual and interpretive narrative rather than anything of any practical historical value. Not every Catholic or Christian is going to be as open about this as I am, but that's because I studied this stuff over the span of fifteen years or more. Some Catholics are dogmatic to the point that they're actually very scary to me. I, personally, am relatively comfortable with most ideas or opinions about Jesus; so, you don't have to worry so much about me.

Now, Dominionist Christians, on the other hand . . . .
Reply
#38
(02-21-2019, 09:03 PM)Channalee wrote:
(02-21-2019, 08:43 PM)Jude86 wrote: But I just realized that I may be getting us off track, and I'm sorry. This is a Jewish space and I wanna respect that.

I'm impressed, Jude, that you weren't offended when I brought up the question as to whether or not Jesus actually existed.  It may be true (as Nili pointed out) that this is a fringe theory, but it's something that has been discussed on this forum with some interest.  I just want to quickly add that we've also discussed whether certain historic Jewish events as recorded in the Bible actually happened.

Just to make clear my own provisional view ...
  • The works of Paul, Luke, and Josephus are sufficient support for positing an historical Jesus.
  • That inference in no way means that Christian scripture is historically accurate and without layers of redaction and embellishment.
To be is to stand for. - Abraham Joshua Heschel
Reply
#39
(02-21-2019, 08:53 PM)Baruch wrote: You're fine Jude. . .Really

I'm finding this very interesting because I am somewhat curious about Catholicism. We get a good many evangelical types on here. They are here in the hope of seeing Jews converted to Christianity, because they seem to think we are going to hell. I don't get that vibe from you, or other Catholics for that matter.

Yeah, that was always a disgusting idea to me. I mean, have no doubt that we do have what--to me--are crazier Catholics that DO believe that Jews are going to Hell but to me, that's just a load of nonsensical gobbledygook. There are Evangelical pastors here that have--and I mean this literally--chased down one of my Jewish friends and was trying to kinda find out where he lived so he could convert him.

From the mainline Catholic perspective, Jews aren't in need of conversion; in fact, I think I feel kinda safe to say that most mainline Christians, in general, don't feel that Jews are in need of conversion. The "Official" teaching of the Catholic Church is a bit different--and here I disagree with church teaching: They will say that while Jews should convert, it is not necessary for Salvation.

I personally think it's a ridiculous idea: An individual's relationship to HaShem is personal and communal, and I don't think it's right to go out and try to convert anybody.

In short, no, I don't believe Jews are going to Hell; and no, Jews don't need to be converted.
Reply
#40
(02-21-2019, 09:38 PM)nili wrote: Just to make clear my own provisional view ...
  • The works of Paul, Luke, and Josephus are sufficient support for positing an historical Jesus.
  • That inference in no way means that Christian scripture is historically accurate and without layers of redaction and embellishment.

Totally in agreement with you, here. Yup!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)