Talk:Christianity and Judaism/Archive 4

Query for FT2
FT2, you made a recent edit on Jewish views o heaven and hell. Do you have a verifiable source to support thi? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "In some ways life on earth is seen as more valuable than life in heaven, since humans have the ability to live within Gods laws in a number of ways which are only applicable to earthly life, thus presenting earthly life as a gift to be cherished, as providing the means to more fully live within that law."
 * Yes, I do, somewhere. It's a well known rabbinic view. I'd have to ask round for the source, I've seen it but can't remember in which text. I was hoping someone else could add the actual cite and actual text for me :) FT2 (Talk 12:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure we can use primary sources here, for NOR reasons. Please find an appropriate citation (Steinzaltz, Urbach, Cohen - any major synthetic work on Rabbinic thought would do) or we may need to remove it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That'd take a bit of work. I have had a brief trawl online for the source, and I've come across the following views tending to support the statement. However I'm still looking for the actual source underpinning these, at the moment.


 * The following quick notes tend to support that there are rabbinic views that humans are privileged over angels, and over heavenly beings, for being trusted with Mitzvot and being capable of freewill (yetzer hara/yetzer tov) over their fulfillment, and that beings in heaven who lack the capability to fulfill mitzvot or who lack the full force of freewill, are less holy than man is capable of being on this earth:


 * Once he [Abraham] was engaged in a mitzvah (i.e., hospitality), he 'stood over the angels,' whose greatness is natural and impervious to temptation. In other words, in doing a mitzvah wholeheartedly, we rise above angels. (The Belzer Rebbe)
 * The midrash relates to us Moses' response when challenged by the angels as to the right of mortal Jews to receive the Torah from G-d: 'Are angels ever tempted to steal? Do they have a father or mother to honor?'  (Miodrash)
 * When Moshe Rabbeinu ascended to Har Sinai the Malachim (the Angels) pleaded with Hashem not to give the Torah to the Jewish people. "They won't appreciate it, they won't fulfil it," said the Angels. "How could you give them the Torah?" Moshe responded to them and said: yes, the Jewish people might not follow some or many of the Mitzvot. But Angels don't have any free will. They can only do what Hashem tells them. They have no temptations, no desires no inclinations at all. So how can they say that they can appreciate the greatness of the Torah? The Jews however, Moshe explained, have a yetzer hara, they have lusts and desires and temptations that will sometimes distance them from Torah. But they also have the ability, the potential to rise above those emotions and do what's right in Hashem's eyes. That is the real appreciation of Hashem's Torah.
 * There's a much deeper level to the Mitzvah to "Be holy." Nachmanides explains that holiness is the result of exercising restraint in areas that are permitted to us. ... An angel is a purely spiritual being, with no sense of "free will" to choose spirituality over the mundane world of animalism. But we humans - every time we make such a choice, we refine our soul, and achieve a level ... higher and holier than even that of angels.
 * With no free will there is no evil. An animal killing its prey for food cannot be accused of committing an evil act since it has no choice in this matter. It was created by G-d with a predatory instinct and no free will. Similarly, angels cannot be considered good because they were created to do so. Only humans possessing free will can rise above angels or fall below animals, depending upon the choices they make. (Chabad website )
 * On a similar theme, Angels do not have freewill to obey or not obey God. Humans do. A human who obeys Mitzvot is therefore able to reach morally higher than the angels, who have no choice in the matter (the following isnt citable; it does however suggest certain points have rabbinic sources):


 * {| Style="border:1px solid black"


 * "Which is loftier, people or angels? A basic difference between man and angels is that 'angels only have one foot', as described by the prophets and the classical rabbis. 'Angels stand, people walk.' 

In the case of a table, the essence preceeds its existance. with people, existance preceeds essence. Who and what I am now is a newer evolution than the fact that I exist at all. As Rav Dessler writes about the flow of time, every moment is the realization of light or occlusion in one’s soul. Human change, in fact time as we know it, is a product of having bechirah.

Angels, for all their holiness, are static. An angel can be “Refa’el” (G-d’s healing), or “Gavriel” (G-d’s Might). A word, a static thought, can capture who they are and who they will be. At the end of their all night battle, Jacob asks the angel, “What is your name?” Until then, the angel is called in the Torah “the man”. Jacob thought it was a person he encountered on his trip. When he realized it could an angel, and therefore fully apprehended by a word, he asked “What is your name?”

'''Angels serve G-d, but not from free will. The have service of the soul, presence in heaven, but not creative beings in the image of G-d. Without the tension of both body and soul and choices to be made, one is ironically further from G-dliness.'''

See also Mesukim MiDevash for Tetzaveh, where the same triad is used to explain the layout of keilim in the beis hamiqdash. Of the keilim that lack crowns, it is only the menorah, representing the perfection of wisdom, that is in the heichal. The kiyor, made from the mirrors the women used in Egypt to beautify themselves for their husbands, where the kohahim washed off this world in preparation for service, represents this world. The mizbei’ach where animals were offered, Divine service. Both were outside the actual building. And of the three crowned keilim, the mizbei’ach hazahav (golden incense altar) and shulchan (table of showbread) are in the heichal. Pure intangible service, the ultimate relationship with the One in heaven. Concern for the nation, the 12 breads, the royal relationship with others in this world. But the aron, the self perfection shown by the love of the keruvim and the Divine Presence of the pillar of cloud flowing from the tablets, is in the qodesh haqadashim (holy of holies). The soul’s ability to have a mind is held to be loftier than its being a resident of heaven."
 * }


 * These are the sorts of views I'm looking at. As a result of these there is a rabbinic thought that says it is better to be on earth, where one is capable of undertaking and fulfilling mitzvot, than in heaven where one is either unable, or limited in ability to fulfill mitzvot. I am still looking for cites on the latter, which i know I've seen. How would you present these aspects of judaic thought? FT2 (Talk 20:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

FT2, you are violating NOR by making your own synthetic or generalized statements! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not so. I'm saying, that this is a bona fide citable view, but at present I don't have the cites readily to hand, to do more than add it uncited. I expect it to be citable with ease, and if not then of course removed. But to be honest, I had figured others would have the cite to hand sooner -- its quite a well founded view as best I'm aware. The above quotes are not a basis for synthesis; rather they are an evidence that this view (and related views) are to be found, with proper research. Hope that clarifies. FT2 (Talk 21:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Evangelism
Hi all, In a recent lecture Bishop Michael Nazir Ali claimed that in the ancient world there was a great deal of Jewish evangelism - thus Matthew 23:15 (You travel over land and sea to win a single convert ...) is speaking of what was commonplace. But I have not seen any other reference. Anyone know any sources for or against this assertion? Springnuts 20:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

request for source
What is the source for this caim: "Based on the oral law, they understand that Judaism demands the same selflessness as that of the "Christian love" mentioned above?" Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

And the source for this: "According to this view, Christian ideals about love were borrowed from an existing Jewish tradition, supported by the fact that most early Christians were Jewish." Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Mess
Who ever been writting this page has not got a clue on Jewish views. I tried to straighten some of it but it needs a lot of work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.237.136.68 (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

I was not on my regular machine, I did not have my password. I wrote this section called mess. BernardZ 01:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, 220.237.136.68, most of what you wrote was incorrect. For example, the Day of Judgment in Judaism is Rosh Hashana, not Yom Kippur as you changed it to. Jayjg (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong here too. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/yomkippur1.html http://www.jewfaq.org/holiday4.htm Do a net search! BernardZ 02:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Rosh Hashana is the Day of Judgment, Yom Kippur is the Day of Atonement. Read the articles. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I doubt you have read the pages, I asked you to read. http://www.infoplease.com/spot/yomkippur1.html This is judgment day.

BernardZ 02:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear BernardZ, As clearly stands for, Jayjg is completely right here. That some sources are mixing up their facts a bit doesn’t change that. -- Olve 03:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read this stuff tomorrow as I am going to amend much of this stuff when I get some references. 203.34.248.95 07:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * BernardZ, I am trying to make sense of your edits and frankly am really lost. First of all, Jayjg and Olve are right.  They are right because they have done serious research.  By serious research I mean reading books and articles, not just other people's web-pages.  Rosh Hashanah is the day of judgement.  It is only after you have been judged that you can repent of what you have been judged for, and the days following Rosh HaShanah are the days of repentence culminating on Yom Kippur which is identified (in the Torah itself) as the Day of Atonement.  Second, I do not understand your edit "As with the article on the Judeo-Christian tradition, this article makes generalizations about Jewish and Christian beliefs and practices. Neither religion is monolithic. Although beliefs and practices do vary less within Judaism, then they do between Christian denominations." - what you have done here is you have broken up a sentence consisting of an independent clause and a dependent clause into a sentence with an independent clause and a free-standing dependent clause which is not a grammatical sentence.  You also changed the word "than" to "then" which renders the clause utterly meaningless. If English is not your first language you can of course contribute to Wikipedia but please defer to native English speakers when it comes to spelling and syntax. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are getting confused between the literal translation of Day of Judgement and what it means in English. But I know I am not going to win this argument. There should be a note which you can do if you like to explain this or I will do it as it is misleading to person that does not know Judaism.

Also I don't see how you can say it makes it meaningless. The meaning is quite clear.

Anyway this page is a mess possibly as you say because it is such a generalization. BernardZ 03:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * BernardZ, if anyone is getting confused, it is increasingly obvious that it is you. You seem to be approaching the subject from the mistaken position that Yom Kippur is the Day of Judgment "in English", based on the misinformation you're gleaning from some equally confused websites, and then saying that every source that disagrees with you is "confused".  This is very confusing, in fact, I almost feel like my brain is shrinking away from the inside of my skull just trying to comprehend how you can believe the stance you're taking on this issue to be anything even remotely resembling "rational".


 * That said, nobody's trying to have an argument with you for you to win or lose here, if there's any argument you're going to "lose" it's with Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOR and WP:RS. Tom e rtalk  14:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Plus the dictionary. Look up "then" and then explain to me how after changing "Although beliefs and practices do vary less within Judaism, than they do between Christian denominations" to "Although beliefs and practices do vary less within Judaism, then they do between Christian denominations" you can say "The meaning is quite clear." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe that came from one of the geniuses who's rewriting Judaism on the websites BernardZ is using as his sources? Tom e rtalk  18:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear BernardZ: If you want your editorial opinions about Jewish subjects to be respected, I’m afraid you have a lot of homework ahead. Please realise that these things are best learned the hard way &mdash; through going to the primary sources. First and foremost, I recommend studying the siddur (!!!), the Mishna (!) (as a minimum the massekhtot Berakhot & Shabbat) and selected chapters of either Mishne Tora or the Shulhan 'arukh (or more extensive selections of a Kitsur S.A.). All the Online Judaism 101s and all the college intro course textbooks are not going to be nearly as useful as getting acquainted with the real thing. Also, find yourself a teacher if possible. Not “just any old” teacher, but a good one. There is an ocean of possibilities for learning &mdash; halakha, minhag, derekh erets... If you can’t do all this for practical reasons, you are of course still very welcome to participate, and you will have the possibility of learning a lot from your fellow editors here if you edit with a positive attitude and good listening skills. Once you show the ability to listen and to recognise that others may sometimes have the correct answer, many (most?) other editors will sense this, treat you with more respect and have more respect for your opinions. -- Olve 18:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the kosher laws. The difference in Jewish foods between Ashkenazic and Sephardic are very small and the differences only relate to Ashkenazic people. However the difference between most christains and Jews on this issue is total. BernardZ 05:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * BernardZ: This comment is a total non-sequitur on our comments immediately above on your mixing-up of two major Jewish holydays. If you intend it to be a new thread, it should be marked as such somehow. -- Olve 15:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Bernard, it sounds like youa re trolling. The passage in question originally made no mention at all of kashrut, and you kept deleting it because you insisted that despite different cuisines both groups generally observed the same laws of kashrut - that was the reason you gave for deleting it.  So I added a sentence on how despite the differences in cuisine both groups generally follow the same laws of kashrut and now you delete it because it includes mention of kachrut.  You cannot have it both ways.  you can object to it for not mentioning kashrut, and we can add a sentence.  Or you can object to it for mentioning kashrut and we can remove the sentence.  But obviously you do not really mean what you say - you have no interest in compromise or working with others, and when we respond to one point you make, you do a 180 and contradict yourself.  Obviously all you want to do is create problems at this page.  Sad. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 08:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why bother mentioning such a trival issue at all and making it seem it is big different between jews. What it is is a big difference between Jews and Christians

Also why make it out that Maimonides is the ABC of Judaism. He is a great thinker but a Jew does not have top accept his writing and several major ones did not. 203.34.248.95 01:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Non sequitors. The fact that not all Jews are alike is a fact and not trivial - and in no way undermines the focus on the article which is on differences between Jews and Christians.  But in contrasting Jews and Christians it would be a violation of Wikipedia policy to suggest that all Jews are alike and all Christians are alike.  Second, nowhere does the article suggest that Rambam is the ABC of Judaism. Nowhere.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 08:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Then why cut off my comment that Rambam "and a major Jewish theologian"

When did I said that all Jews are alike and all Christians are alike? Your example is terrible. Why don't you check on your Jewish food - cholent? Now tell me a few examples of foods that a North African Sephardi Jews would consider "Jewish food" that an Eastern European Ashkenazi Jew would not consider "Jewish food"? BernardZ 07:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Certain types of locusts, rice and/or string beans on Pesah (varies within the N-Afr communities), a dairy dish cooked in a glass pot which has previously been used for meat, a mostly liquid dish being re-heated (without boiling) on Shabbat, to mention a few.... Add the soft and almost fluffy maṣṣot of some Mizrahim, the chicken with dairy accepted by Beta Esrael, Karaim and previously by pre-Talmud Babli inhabitants of Ereṣ Yisrael, and it should be pretty clear what our point is. -- Olve 02:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

How much longer am I to wait till Slrubenstein get back to me? There are other people beside me that want to start editing this page. BernardZ 00:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * See above. -- Olve 02:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I did not mess them up as much as you think but for the time being there are other articles on the Wiki to keep going. Bernard 220.237.136.68 15:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation
editprotected The link to Ruth should be disambiguated to Ruth. -Amillar 23:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible error: "if the person is [un?]repentant"
In the sentence, "According to critical scholars, Biblical Jews first believed that God always punished evil, but always during a person's life — or, if the person is repentant, in the life of one of that persons' descendants," should the word repentant be replaced by unrepentant?

God vs. Messiah
I removed a piece of text that used a statement from the Talmud about finishing ones work before going to see a supposed messiah to illustrate the fact that belief in God is not as central an idea as obeying God. It was completely irrelevant, because Jews do not view the messiah as a deity. (Lisa Liel) 98.193.75.57 14:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Page move
This article was moved without a move proposal or talk page discussion and I wanted to see if anyone else had concerns with the move. That rationale was that of alphabatizing, but there can be arguments that Judaism should go first (it is chronologically first, plus the very common phrase "Judeo-Christian" is not "Christy-Jew"). Any other thoughts? Is there any more rationale for the recent move?-Andrew c [talk] 00:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree renaming the page without discussion was arbitrary and capricious, or just plain old POV. AWB was then used to change all the links.  The historical "Judeo-Christian" usage is common practice.  This move and related AWB changes should be reverted. RichardF 01:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

God as Creator
In the section Concepts of God, the claim is made that Christians believe in the God of Abraham and the Old Testament God, the creator of the universe. I do believe there are numerous Christians (and Jews) who believe in a God quite different than that presented in the OT. I also know of many Christians who do not consider God to be the creator of the universe. Especially consider the Clergy Letter Project—certainly they do not believe in a god who created all the Universe.

I think someone, with some more time on their hands than me :-(, needs to rework this portion (and others that might be like it) to either reﬂect the views of a broader range of Christians and Jews (instead of only the fundamentalist kind), or for the article to state from the onset that it will only be discussing a narrow-focused fundamentalist sect of the Christian and Jewish religions.

Regards,Esdraelon 03:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue is not what self-identified Jews and Christians believe, the question is what are the views of Judaism and christianity. This means mainstream views of notable authorities.  That said, you are right that even among theologicans there are different lcaims about God.  This article is about key differences between Judaism and Christianity.  We have spearate articles on Judaism and Christianity, and it is those articles that should go onto detail on differences among Christian and Jewish theologians.  My suggestion is this: work on those two articles until there is a provisional consensus that they are thorough and up to date first.  Then, make sure that summaries in this article reflect those articles. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * [To Esdraelon] You misrepresent the views of the signatories on the Clergy Letter and what the Letter itself says. It describes God unequivocally as "Creator". To reject Creationism is not to deny the creative action of God, but merely a literal view of the beginning chapters of Genesis. That God as depicted in the Old Testament is Creator of the entire universe is the mainstream Christian view, vastly outnumbering self-identified Christians who believe otherwise. It is undue weight to present an alternative view as characteristically Christian. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue is whether or not it is a necessary condition of being a Jew or a Christian. To say that a person who is a Jew accepts God as the creator of the universe gives the impression that for one to become Jew, one must ﬁrst accept God as the creator of the universe.  The same is true of Christians.  In fact, there have been quite well-known cases throughout history, such as Gnostic Christianity, where a core part of the belief system was that God did not create the universe.  The mainstream Christians are actually the ones that went about killing Gnostic Christians.  Had the Gnostic Christians gone done killed off the mainstream ones, I think we'd be putting up quite different arguments.  You're trying to deﬁne a people based on the views of the historically powerful.


 * Who have been the historically powerful people in the United States? What sort of a reaction do you think you would get if you tried to say that that group [historically powerful] was what an American was?


 * Finally, most mainstream Christians believe in a loving God, which, if you've read any of the OT, is clearly not the nature of the OT God. They may believe in the things that the OT God did, but they certainly do not believe in the God-character that is within presented.Esdraelon 02:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's ridiculous. At no time was any Gnostic sect anywhere near a majority Christian view, or even a significant minority. While it's true that the later descendant sects such as the Bogomils and Paulicians were persecuted by Christian governments, the Church was well-established by that time and was never in any danger of losing its position to them. The only time this was anywhere close to true, where the Church had to exert a significant effort to dislodge it, was in the 1st-2nd centuries when Christians were in no position to be killing anyone even were they so inclined. The winners won and continued on to be "mainstream" Christianity in the first place by writing books, not by the sword.


 * The fact that anyone who wants to can apply the label "Christian" to themselves regardless of their beliefs or antecedents complicates matters in a way that you don't find in Judaism. No one can just up and decide one day that he's a Jew and expect to be taken seriously, but people do that with Christianity all the time. ("Becoming a Jew" is not a straightforward process when supervised by a responsible rabbi.) That suggests the only sensible thing to do is to identify some "mainstream" to stand for Christianity and work off that. Fortunately, there is such a thing. If we take the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Nestorians, Anglicans, and mainline Protestants together, while there are significant differences among them they are mostly similar enough relative to Judaism that you can begin to make a meaningful comparison. And since this is what "Christian" means to a vast majority worldwide, non-Christians included, it ought to do. To go on about Gnosticism would be clearly undue weight.


 * Your overly simplistic idea about how Christians ought to read the OT is a red herring.


 * Nice dodge about the Clergy Letter, by the way. Changing the subject often works to distract from arguments based on false premises, but it's better to be accurate in the first place. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Settle down.
 * "The winners won and continued on to be 'mainstream' Christianity"

This, of course, is exactly what I was referring to. You have yet to tell me how it is you justify defining a people based on the views of the historically powerful.
 * "The fact that anyone who wants to can apply the label "Christian" to themselves regardless of their beliefs or antecedents complicates matters in a way that you don't find in Judaism."

If it really is the case that a Christian can be anyone who calls themselves a Christian, then this article should reﬂect that by not limiting its deﬁnition of Christian to merely those who accept an OT-God and a creator-God. You seem to be falling into the trap of trying to 'deﬁne' something that you should instead be trying to 'describe'.
 * "Fortunately, there is such a thing. If we take the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Nestorians, Anglicans, and mainline Protestants together, while there are significant differences among them they are mostly similar enough relative to Judaism that you can begin to make a meaningful comparison."

Then, you would not mind describing these groups? What are the major aspects of their beliefs? Keep in mind that you will be required to present sources that support your descriptions.
 * "Nice dodge about the Clergy Letter, by the way. Changing the subject often works to distract from arguments based on false premises, but it's better to be accurate in the first place."

No dodge. Your reply was simply not warranting of a response, since it didn't address the issue and was ﬁlled with the same raging emotions you've shown here.
 * "Your overly simplistic idea about how Christians ought to read the OT is a red herring."

Where did I say a Christian ought to read the OT in one manner or the other? I merely commented that the OT gives an image of God with which few "mainstream" Christians would agree. For example: when the OT-God kills a man for ejaculating on the ground, does it demonstrate the loving kindness of God? In the past, Christianity has given a view of God as very vengeful; in the present, Christianity gives a view of God as very loving. In the past, the OT was heavily used in understanding the character of God (since there is little about it in the NT); and in the present, the NT is more widely used, with aspects Jesus being more closely linked to God, to give a more loving impression of God. I assure you, the two characters (OT-God, and NT-God) are not the same.
 * "At no time was any Gnostic sect anywhere near a majority Christian view, or even a significant minority."

Once again, just a further example that you are trying to 'deﬁne' a group based on the historically powerful instead of trying to 'describe' that group in an objective manner. You've written up all the tenets of Christianity and now you get to decide who is in and who is out. Shame on you; Wikipedia is not your doctrine-pushing playground. I agree with Slrubenstein that we should work to improve and objectify the other articles on Christianity and Judaism, then giving a summary here would not be so difﬁcult and would be more accurate a representation of the groups involved. Esdraelon 09:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You misrepresent both historical Christianity and the way Christianity has always interpreted the Old Testament, and the role of the Law in salvation history, yes. By insisting on a particular way the OT must be read, you disallow any others. Even the interpretation of the passage you cite as an example was wrong by anyone else's lights. (The consensus view in neither Christianity nor Judaism holds that Onan died because he ejaculated on the ground per se.) The Christian doctrine has always been that God doesn't change. There are ample documents from the early Church reflecting a view of God you're calling "modern" and denying they held. Not many at all could be described as "very vengeful" outside a very limited body of eschatological literature where it's not at all clear what they're really talking about underneath the symbolism.


 * Of course sources exist for the major beliefs in common of all the groups I mention, and there is no reason for you to imply, as you do by so unctuously reminding me of them, that sources will be difficult to turn up. It would naturally be a large PIA due to the number of groups I mentioned, but it is not difficult to prove that all of them in common believe:
 * in God as Creator
 * in the Fall of Adam understood as the breaking of man's natural relationship with God.
 * in Jesus as the Christ and the Son of God in a unique sense. (The details of that sonship vary somewhat, but this is broadly true as stated.)
 * that Jesus was born of a virgin
 * in Jesus as both human and divine (precise definitions vary)
 * in Jesus' death on the Cross and resurrection on the third day redeeming us of our sins, making possible the erasure of the effects of the Fall, and opening the way to paradise
 * in Jesus as our heavenly High Priest, through whom we have access to the Father
 * in the giving of the Holy Spirit to the Church by whom Christ is made present in the Church
 * in the role of the Law of Moses in salvation history
 * Excluding some Protestants:
 * in veneration the saints
 * in the Eucharist as the actual presence of Christ, however defined in precise theological terms and however varied the rites
 * in Apostolic Succession
 * in the propriety of representing Jesus, the saints, and heavenly reality iconographically
 * And probably a number of other areas that I can't bring to mind at the moment.


 * The definition you want of "Christianity" is not definition at all; it's so broad as to be meaningless. If we're to take any group that ever called itself "Christian" in history and try to derive some standard of comparison from it -- unduly weighted syncretic Gnostics and the occasional modern new-age sect included -- we end up with nothing. Far from agreeing with Mr. Rubenstein here, by your argument we might as well delete the article because it would have either nothing to say or far too much.


 * "Historically powerful" cannot describe the Christians of, say, the 3rd century when Gnosticism was not a factor, but the Catholic Church had no power at all in the sense you mean. It's impossible to take this seriously. The groups I mention above, including any which share those beliefs that I may have omitted, are Christianity by any reasonable standard. They are not in communion with each other and in some cases have not been for over a millennium; several of them claim to be the Christian Church to the exclusion of the others; yet they have all this in common, most of which the Gnostics would not have subscribed to. (Gnostics themselves varied so much it's not easy to speak generally.) Even if the Gnostics had ever been a significant force, comparison with them would not make a useful article because they're not around now. For a reader who just wants to know what the difference between Judaism and Christianity is, they're not relevant.


 * It is patently obvious that I addressed an issue squarely by pointing out your misrepresentation. You tried to use that letter to prove that large numbers of modern Christian clergy do not believe in a creator-God when it actually proves the exact opposite. Furthermore, the implied categorization of those who do so believe in your opening post to this thread as "fundamentalist" is wildly inaccurate. Roman Catholics are "fundamentalist"? This is an application of the word unknown to the English lexicon.


 * And "raging emotions?" Spare me the histrionics. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)