Talk:Christianity and Judaism/Archive 2

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 "40 martyrs of Sebaste" 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


 * The text I deleted was the only text that described any actual practices of either religion, unless you count the issuing of statements by various people. The entire remainder of the article compares the beliefs and teachings of the two religions, so it's obviously quite easy for the article to restrict itself to a discussion of beliefs. If it's truly the intent to expand it to encompass practices, you would need to redefine the topic in the article's opening, as well as incorporate considerable additional material concerning the practices of both religions. As for "historicizing" beliefs, would it not be important to also maintain the claims both Judaism and Christianity make to having received divine revelation in various forms? I won't deny that historical context has played a part in shaping beliefs and how they are communicated, but to suggest that beliefs are only a product of historical conditions would be to deny the role of God, which would certainly be compatible with atheism but not with traditional Judaism or Christianity. Wesley 12:45 Sep 16, 2002 (UTC)

I just deleted the following from the opening paragraph:
 * Christianity, whose syncretic roots are Jewish, is also markedly  influenced by European Pagan religions, Greek philosophy and the religions of the Mediteranian basin. While Jewish Cultural Groups are united by common language, law, ritual, sabath, group reliance and self criticism, Christianity is not united by language, law, ritual, sabath, group reliance, or self criticism.

That Christianity's roots are syncretic is highly debatable. Claiming influence by European pagan religions is anachronistic, unless perhaps if you're talking about specific subsets of Christianity that developed much later. What on earth is a "Jewish Cultural Group", and how can you claim that Jews are united by law, ritual, and sabbath when different groups differ widely over how to observe various Jewish laws or whether to observe them at all? Apparently, Jews aren't even entirely united by monotheism if what is said later about Reform Judaism is accurate. Christianity has similar problems; if anything this "variety" is a point of similarity, rather than a point of contrast. Oh, I also removed "genetic" from the paragraph, as it was not at all clear to me what genetics have to do with religion. If the point was that Judaism is (also?) a race instead of (in addition to?) a religion, that should be explained a little more fully. Wesley


 * I agree copmpletely with Wesley's cut. If Jews were once united by Hebrew, Christians were for a time united by Latin -- and if vernacular languages became important for Christians, the same happened for Jews too.  Also, to whatever extent Christiand rituals have pagan origins (Christmas trees?), one can certainly say the same for Jewish myth and ritual -- the Noah story is a revision of part of the Gilgamesh epic, for example, and the major holidays share origins with pagan agricultural feasts. (I have no idea what the self-criticism remark is about). Slrubenstein


 * I want to express my agreement with both Wesley and Slr. I don't understand the point of starting this article off by pointing out that Christianity had a syncretic origin. So did Judaism and Islam!  Yet this has nothing to do with the content of this article.  If someone wants to discuss this, then it should be done within the context of an article exploring the historical origin of the religion. RK

Can someone provide the textual source for the claim that Jewish tradition views childbirth as a miracle (not Sarah's preganancy with Isaac, but childbirth in general)? Slrubenstein


 * There is a discussion on how miraculous pregnancy is in Talmud Bavli, Tractate Niddah, page 31a. Rav Hinena bar Papa, commentin on a verse from Job, holds that it is a miracle that the embryo stays safe within the mother's uterus, and that mankind would not be capable of producing a system so well as designed. Rav Yose the Galilean comments on a verse from Psalms, noting that when men plant seeds, each seeds produces its own offspring, but when God combines the seed of man and the seed of women, they miraculously join and produce a single offspring. RK


 * "Our sages learned: There are three partners in the creation of man: the Almighty, his father and his mother. The father contributes through his seed the white subtanceout of which are formed the bones, sinews, the nails, the brain and the white of the eye. The mother contributes through her ovum the pigmented portions: i.e., the skin, the flesh, blood, hair, and the black of the eye. The Almighty contributes the spirit, the soul, the beauty of the features, eyesight, the power of hearing, ability to speak and walk, and cognition. When the child dies, the Almighty takes His Portion to Himself and leaves the remainder to the parents." (Talmud Bavli, tractate Niddah 31)


 * "What is taught in the verse, I will give thanks unto Thee for I am wonderfully made; wonderful are Thv works and that my soul knows right well". " Take note of the difference between the Almighty and man! A man puts different seeds together in the soil and each grows in the manner of its own species; whereas the Almighty places the embryo in the mother' womb, with the result that both the father's seed and the mother's seed grow into one and the same human being."


 * "Compare the clothes-dyer puts several dyes in the vat and all unite to form one color, whereas the Almighty places the embryo in the womb so that each element of the parent's seed develops in it own natural way" (Niddah 31).
 * Jewish perspectives on birth and children