Paul and Peter, Sicarii-in-arms

[Open Heart]

if by "Judaism" you mean Rabbinic/Pharisaic Judaism sure

By Judaism, I'm mean a Jew keeping the covenant between God and Israel. Today that is known as rabbinical Judaism, as we have adjusted to not having the temple. But I am certainly, certainly not talking about belief in Jesus.

 

[American Gothic]

"yyyYeshu!"
"tzu gezunt"
"a sheynam dank"
"badonkadonk"

(I hope Slang doesn't get me in trouble with CARM again)

 

[tbeachhead]

You forget that I converted to Judaism.

Au contraire.

But you commend your conversion as an act of reasoned wisdom, being convinced that the "real deal" you claim to have been was not the real deal, but that Judaism is.

And yet..."these are not Jews..." is your taught response to those who found in Jesus the True Messiah. You dare to say, "Christian Jews are simply Christians. They have nothing to do with Judaism." Such caustic, flagrant judgementalism is noted, unwarranted and exceedingly ironic. Do not miss it. They have a different concept of just what the "Real" deal is.

I spent most of my life as a christian. Not just any christian, either, but a Christian that really got into studying teh Bible, Church history, and theology. So enough of your patronization.

If I were to say you were never a Christian, you would take umbrage. You claim to have been "the real deal." You condescend. I patronize. I'm not even sure why you feel you need to make comments like this.

 

[Harel13]

@American Gothic your posts on this thread make me miss the old CARM forums a little. Back when it was possible to post some Jewish traditions about Christianity on the Jewish sub-forum without being bombarded with irrelevant or barely-relevant posts.

Sorry, man. We had some good discussions on other threads, but I don't know what your deal is here.

 

[Harel13]

When you make stuff up out of whole cloth, and then draw a conclusion, it's not called "scholarship." It's actually frivolous. Thoughts on a straw man will drift like chaff in the wind.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you're trying to say. Korman's view came from not believing in the supposed mystical capabilities of Jesus and his students and barely trusting anything in the NT. Which is basically what the rest of modern NT scholarship holds.

 

[American Gothic]

what your deal is here.

I'm agreeing with you that some disciples might have carried swords
but I don't think Jesus condoned or taught violence in His followers
in the NT He demonstrated the opposite Luke 22

between Pharisees and Qumran Essenes I see two competing Jewish views
both of which still exist today
I might question necessity of Traditions or validity of theology points
but I can appreciate Jewish culture and people
I think we actually agree on a lot of stuff
more so than I would with more Liberal branches of Judaism

I don't know if Rabbi Korman's work is just a Pharisaic hit piece
intended to make Jews think badly of Peter, Paul, and Jesus
I can't find the book online

the way I read the NT account
Jesus was officially rejected on grounds of demon possession/working for Belial
I see no actual denial of His miracle doings

 

[tbeachhead]

Sorry, but I have no idea what you're trying to say. Korman's view came from not believing in the supposed mystical capabilities of Jesus and his students and barely trusting anything in the NT. Which is basically what the rest of modern NT scholarship holds.

He created a straw man based on his own skepticism, and drew conclusions. This is called "making stuff up, and drawing conclusions from your invention."

 

[American Gothic]

barely trusting anything in the NT. Which is basically what the rest of modern NT scholarship holds.

from Seforim blog, in a post on a David M. Goldenberg piece about the pope guy and Bibi's exchange about what languages Jesus spoke or knew
and any designation of Him as a "Teacher" -

"Among the proofs that Aramaic was the spoken language of Jesus’ time and place is the evidence of the New Testament, which no doubt informed the pope’s comment. Of the Aramaic words and phrases recorded in this text, perhaps the most cited is the word rabbouni (ραββουνι) or rabboni (ραββωνι), which is how Jesus is referred to by the blind man in Mark 10:51 and by Mary Magdalene in John 20:16. The text in John glosses the word by adding: “which means teacher”
...not only was the pope right that Jesus spoke Aramaic, but the evidence of Jesus’ speech in the New Testament records precisely the pronunciation and meaning of the Aramaic of his time and place"

this isn't surprising to Me as I was taught that Jews of that time spoke Aramaic in Sunday School
I think it's interesting and cool that Jewish academics and rabbis study these sorts of Jesus/NT things

 

[Open Heart]

Au contraire.

But you commend your conversion as an act of reasoned wisdom, being convinced that the "real deal" you claim to have been was not the real deal, but that Judaism is.

And yet..."these are not Jews..." is your taught response to those who found in Jesus the True Messiah.

No, I never said they were not Jews. They are technically still Jews, but in a state of apostacy. What I said was that they were Chrsitians, that they did not practice Judaism. And THAT, sir, is true.

You dare to say, "Christian Jews are simply Christians. They have nothing to do with Judaism."

Yes. thank you for at least getting what I said correct when you put it into quotes.

Such caustic, flagrant judgementalism is noted, unwarranted and exceedingly ironic. Do not miss it. They have a different concept of just what the "Real" deal is.
If I were to say you were never a Christian, you would take umbrage. You claim to have been "the real deal." You condescend. I patronize. I'm not even sure why you feel you need to make comments like this.

Of course I would take umbrage. You don't know me, you can't see my heart or read my mind. All you have to go on is what I say about myself. Unless you have direct evidence that I am lying, it pretty much goes that if I say I was a Christian, that I was in fact a Christian.

 

[tbeachhead]

No, I never said they were not Jews. They are technically still Jews, but in a state of apostasy. What I said was that they were Christians, that they did not practice Judaism. And THAT, sir, is true.

It's easy to check what you said: ""Christian Jews are simply Christians. They have nothing to do with Judaism." You never said the were "not Jews." You went farther..."They have NOTHING to do with Judaism."

Being Christian and Jews, they might more respectfully disagree with your assessment, coming as it is from a proselyte, not a real Jew.

Yes. thank you for at least getting what I said correct when you put it into quotes.

It seems to be easier for me to quote you than it is for you to quote yourself.

Of course I would take umbrage. You don't know me, you can't see my heart or read my mind. All you have to go on is what I say about myself. Unless you have direct evidence that I am lying, it pretty much goes that if I say I was a Christian, that I was in fact a Christian.

And hence, my comment on the irony of your assessment of my Messianic Jewish friends, who are every bit as Jewish as they were at birth...no conversion necessary, just a real encounter with the risen Messiah.

Whatever your own assessment of your own "real deal"...had you met Jesus you would still know Him. Unlike Judaism, where only guided study by others and ancient guesswork brings you in, Jesus is not known from meetings and bible studies however regular, frequent and thorough...He is known and revealed by personal encounter, and the revelation of the Holy Spirit, as God promised through Ezekiel and Jeremiah and David.

 

[American Gothic]

Korman's view

I hang out here mostly because I view my own Faith as, at root, at Jewish faith
and I expect Jews to be smart, knowledgeable, articulate, and funny
usually more so than many Gentile Christians (sorry Fam, just the truth)
certain Christian Jews are some of my favorite people on Earth

Since posting the OP you really haven't made any attempts at defending it
the first places I think NT error would be found would be in the little details (a la Koran, Book of Mormon, etc.)
but even those are arguable

Christians here are going to Bring da Ruckus - it's just what We do

 

[Open Heart]

It's easy to check what you said: ""Christian Jews are simply Christians. They have nothing to do with Judaism." You never said the were "not Jews." You went farther..."They have NOTHING to do with Judaism."

Being Christian and Jews, they might more respectfully disagree with your assessment, coming as it is from a proselyte, not a real Jew.

It seems to be easier for me to quote you than it is for you to quote yourself.

And hence, my comment on the irony of your assessment of my Messianic Jewish friends, who are every bit as Jewish as they were at birth...no conversion necessary, just a real encounter with the risen Messiah.

Whatever your own assessment of your own "real deal"...had you met Jesus you would still know Him. Unlike Judaism, where only guided study by others and ancient guesswork brings you in, Jesus is not known from meetings and bible studies however regular, frequent and thorough...He is known and revealed by personal encounter, and the revelation of the Holy Spirit, as God promised through Ezekiel and Jeremiah and David.

What I have said, and siad quite clearly, is that "Messianic Judaism" is Christianity, and NOT Judaism. I stand by that.

I was a Chrsitian for most of my life. There is no need to explain to me Christian teachings.

 

[tbeachhead]

What I have said, and siad quite clearly, is that "Messianic Judaism" is Christianity, and NOT Judaism. I stand by that.

This only shows your antipathy to Jews who actually came to a different conclusion than yours. And your willingness to box up strangers whose views you contend with.

And this is not all you said. Remember, you said, "They have nothing to do with Judaism."

I was a Chrsitian for most of my life. There is no need to explain to me Christian teachings.

You have nothing to do with Christianity.

How does that shoe feel? Can you not even see the flaws in your own judgment?

(As an ironic aside, your claim, "There is no need to explain to me Christian teachings..." does not speak much for an Open Heart, does it?)

Religion is not about teachings...or real deals. It is all about knowing Him Who made us and gave all to redeem us. I'm sorry that explaining this to you can have no impact. Let me just add, as you know, Ezekiel and Jeremiah were Jews expounding on the promised Holy Spirit Who came on the church at Pentecost...and moved among the Gentiles as promised. This is Jewish teaching first...and ignored by those who, like you, chose to reject their Messiah. Joel, also a Jew, said, "All flesh." This is what was never grasped by those who chose to turn away from His Promise.

 

[Harel13]

but I don't think Jesus condoned or taught violence in His followers
in the NT He demonstrated the opposite Luke 22

I didn't say that he did.

between Pharisees and Qumran Essenes I see two competing Jewish views

That's true.

both of which still exist today

I find this doubtful, but perhaps you're more knowledgeable on this than I am.

I don't know if Rabbi Korman's work is just a Pharisaic hit piece
intended to make Jews think badly of Peter, Paul, and Jesus
I can't find the book online

I saw that you referred to him as a rabbi on a prior post. He wasn't a rabbi. And probably the reason that you can't find is that it wasn't translated into English. I just translated the title for this thread. More to your point, you could argue that any book that disparages Christianity and early Christian figures is a "Pharisaic hit piece", as you put it. What's interesting about the debates Jews and Christians had over the millennia is that Jews didn't simply say: "Oh, the NT is antisemitic, we're not going to talk about it." Sure, it's certainly antisemitic. But there's a concept in Judaism of "know what you shall reply to the heretic". To know means knowing the subject matter. That's the only way to properly reply to the heretic.

Jesus was officially rejected on grounds of demon possession/working for Belial
I see no actual denial of His miracle doings

I don't know what you're talking about. The main subject of the OP was about Paul and Peter. What does it matter now why Jesus was rejected?

this isn't surprising to Me as I was taught that Jews of that time spoke Aramaic in Sunday School

Jews didn't have "Sunday School" at the time. Aramaic was the main language of the Jews of the Land of Israel and Babylon at the time.

I think it's interesting and cool that Jewish academics and rabbis study these sorts of Jesus/NT things

See above about knowing what answer the heretic.

Since posting the OP you really haven't made any attempts at defending it

Been busy. Hard to believe, but I have a life outside of CARM. Also, the formatting of this site makes it difficult for me to reply properly on my phone. Yesterday, for example, I didn't have my computer.

the first places I think NT error would be found would be in the little details (a la Koran, Book of Mormon, etc.)
but even those are arguable

There's a lot to be said about errors in the NT. This thread isn't really about analyzing all of the mistakes in the NT.

 

[Harel13]

He created a straw man based on his own skepticism, and drew conclusions. This is called "making stuff up, and drawing conclusions from your invention."

If you say so.

 

[American Gothic]

I didn't say that he did.

ok

That's true.

cool

I find this doubtful, but perhaps you're more knowledgeable on this than I am.

I see about a half dozen or so significant theological points of difference between them
which continue in Judaism and in the Church

I saw that you referred to him as a rabbi on a prior post. He wasn't a rabbi. And probably the reason that you can't find is that it wasn't translated into English. I just translated the title for this thread. More to your point, you could argue that any book that disparages Christianity and early Christian figures is a "Pharisaic hit piece", as you put it. What's interesting about the debates Jews and Christians had over the millennia is that Jews didn't simply say: "Oh, the NT is antisemitic, we're not going to talk about it." Sure, it's certainly antisemitic. But there's a concept in Judaism of "know what you shall reply to the heretic". To know means knowing the subject matter. That's the only way to properly reply to the heretic

I thought the book was a recent work, so my bad - I tried googling Name and it seemed known possibly
lots of books these days are hit pieces and hack jobs is all
the subject does sound interesting and something worth reading

I don't view the NT as anti-Semitic, it's Jewish - Gentile Christians who deny that are either ignorant or in serious error
but unfortunately, it has been used in anti-Semitic ways based in ignorance and serious error
I understand Jewish sensitivity on the issue
I agree about being able to understand your opponents views

.

I don't know what you're talking about. The main subject of the OP was about Paul and Peter. What does it matter now why Jesus was rejected?

It does matter in the NT
the Official ruling was rejection of Messianic claim on grounds of demon possession and the majority of the people/the Nation went along with that decision
not sure how you or other Jews view it

Jews didn't have "Sunday School" at the time. Aramaic was the main language of the Jews of the Land of Israel and Babylon at the time.

I thought OH would catch that and say something similar
I think there is precedent in the Qumran community for Shabbat observance and then study/teaching on the next day

Been busy

saul good

 

[Harel13]

I thought the book was a recent work, so my bad - I tried googling Name and it seemed known possibly
lots of books these days are hit pieces and hack jobs is all
the subject does sound interesting and something worth reading

I don't think it was a hit piece back in the day, but nor do I think it was ever thought as a hack job.

I don't view the NT as anti-Semitic

I do.

it's Jewish

There's such a thing as self-hating Jews.

It does matter in the NT

But why is it relevant to this thread?

not sure how you or other Jews view it

You are welcome to start a thread on the subject.

I think there is precedent in the Qumran community for Shabbat observance and then study/teaching on the next day

While the rest of the people studied every day of the week (when they weren't working).

saul good

No, Paul bad. Very bad. And not in a slang-cool way.

 

[American Gothic]

I do. (think it's anti-Semetic)

that's a shame
NT disagrees with Pharisaism, sure

is there such a thing as Paul, Peter (and Jesus) hating Jews?

 

[Harel13]

that's a shame
NT disagrees with Pharisaism, sure

It would be nice if you could stop editing my quotes. Also, that's not how I spell antisemitism.

is there such a thing as Paul, Peter (and Jesus) hating Jews?

Nothing comes to mind at the moment. Would have to look into the subject more.

 

[American Gothic]

the subject (of the OP)

when was this published?
what is Mr. Korman's bibliographical info?
anything we here might be able to look at?
as a youth, I loved the book "The Cross and the Switchblade", so I'm into this sort of stuff


would it be Kosher for him to make something up out of, er....Mixed cloth?