/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7241332]

Are there any theologians who wrote strong rebuttals to the Jewish arguments against Christianity?

[Anonymous No.7241350]

Luther's "On the Jews and Their Lies" and Chrysostom's "Against the Jews" should be taught in middle schools.

[Anonymous No.7241357]

Christianity is a Jewish sect fam

[Anonymous No.7241358]

>>7241350
Are either of those arguments that actually address Jewish arguments, or are they just invective against Jews?

[Anonymous No.7241359]

>>7241332
Start with Justin Martyr

[Anonymous No.7241362]

Undying Indulgence by David Fisher Wallach

[Anonymous No.7241364]

>>7241357
That's true. By "Jewish" I mean the Pharisees, which is where all the non-Christian Judaism is descended from to this day.

[Anonymous No.7241365]

>>7241359
Thank you

[Anonymous No.7241366]

>>7241358
They are not "strong" in any sense of the word, if that's what you're asking.

[Anonymous No.7241372]

>>7241357
Christianity predates "Judaism" (as we understand the term today) by several centuries.

[Anonymous No.7241378]

>>7241372
Only about a century, according to Harold Bloom, who sees Rabbi Akiva as the founder of Judaism as we understand.it, which begin truly shortly after his death.

[Anonymous No.7241381]

>>7241372
then what were the jews doing with the OT til the NT

[Anonymous No.7241382]

>>7241378
Eh I figure it dates from when the Talmud was completed in the third century. At that point the Pharisees had totally abrogated the Torah in favour of their new "holy" book.

[Anonymous No.7241386]

>>7241381
If by OT you mean Old Testament, they were ignoring it. If by OT you mean Oral Torah, they were fabricating it.

[Anonymous No.7241390]

>>7241332
Science is the best rebuttal

[Anonymous No.7241392]

>>7241381
Following God's Church

[Anonymous No.7241395]

>>7241372
>as we understand the term today

[Anonymous No.7241396]

>>7241381
It was closer to the Orthodox Church. They didn't have rabbis back then as a specific office, they had priests. After the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem after Christ, the priesthood stopped, and the office of Rabbi became the function that replaced it. Christ is called "rabbi", but it just meant "master" then, it wasn't a religious office like today.

[Anonymous No.7241983]

bump

[Anonymous No.7242057]

>>7241332
It basically comes down to the fact that the Jews imagine the Messiah to be a great military leader who will literally conquer the world for Israel and subjugate all the goyim.

Jesus of course was a carpenter who was born in a barn and taught people to love their enemies. Naturally, when this lowly person was claiming to be the Messiah it was very offensive to many Jews who instead of getting the Rambo-like figure they were expecting got the Lamb-like figure who is Jesus.

[Anonymous No.7242070]

>>7241357
This. Idolators please leave.

>>7241372
The post clearly said 'Jewish' and not '[Rabbinical] Judaism', fam.

[Anonymous No.7242072]

>>7242057
Its offensive to the Jews because of Deuteronomy: “If a man has committed a sin deserving of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain overnight on the tree, but you shall surely bury him that day, so that you do not defile the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance; for he who is hanged is accursed of God” (Deuteronomy 21.22, 23).

The crucifixion is in direct contradiction to the Messianic claims. Scholars today think that the resurrection and sacrifice theme was originally a mechanism to get around the whole crucifixion thing.

They have no problems with simple men becoming great, David was the son of a sheep-herder after all.

[Anonymous No.7242083]

>>7242072
>The crucifixion is in direct contradiction to the Messianic claims

No it isn't, all the Deuteronomy verse explains is that crucifixion is an especially humiliating form of execution which lines up with Isaiah's prophecy that the Messiah will make "his grave with the wicked" (Isaiah 53:9).

>They have no problems with simple men becoming great, David was the son of a sheep-herder after all.

The only reason they liked David was because He killed Goliath. I'm sure the Jews would have loved Jesus if He had kicked Pontius Pilate's ass or something, the point is that the Jewish conception of the Messiah is someone who is an overtly political leader and not an itinerant preacher who hangs out with prostitutes and tax-collectors.

[Anonymous No.7242088]

Quite random, but there is a Philosophy prof. (who I believe is a Wittgenstein scholar), who got kicked out of Colorado St. for some comments he made once in a class, all this to say: I stumbled upon his blog this summer, called "Apophenia." Not a bad little thought space.

Turns out this prof., Dan Kaufman, is Jewish, and he's written some very intriguing posts about how if we understand the Jewish interpreatation of parts of the OT, then Christianity simply isn't necessary.

Give it a look, made me stop and think for a bit.

daniel-kaufman-rpur._______squarespace.______com/blog/2015/7/16/_________some-brief-thoughts-on-judaism-and-christianity

[Anonymous No.7242277]

>>7242057
>>7242083
How does it feel to know that the Jews will accept the Antichrist as the Messiah?

[Anonymous No.7242287]

>>7241358
It's Anti-Semitism at it's finest. Luther used to be read at the Holocuast camps.

[Anonymous No.7242297]

Daily reminder that Jesus was a false prophet, proven by the fact that he did not return within the lifetime of the "apostles".

[Anonymous No.7242331]

>>7241364
> I mean the Pharisees, which is where all the non-Christian Judaism is descended from to this day.
Can I have a source on that. Genuinely interested

[Anonymous No.7242341]

>>7242331
Not that guy, and I'll let him provide a source, but the Talmud (a series of discourses by a handful of rabbis from shortly before the time of Christ) is extremely influential in Judaism as we know it. The Talmud did not exist when the Old Testament was written, and much of what Jesus chastized the Pharisees for is a result of extra bullshit in the Talmud that's not in the rest of scripture.

[Anonymous No.7242356]

>>7242341
Oh I gotcha, just researched it + I am taking a class on origins of christianity. So Oral Torah (not allowed by other sects) transformed into Talmud and was upheld by the Pharisees? Makes sense, thanks.
Does anyone know which sect Jesus could have been from? Reading some conflicting things. Also I read once that Jesus was not a Jew but a Judean
Apologies for my ignorance

[Anonymous No.7242366]

>>7242331
>The Pharisees (/ˈfærəˌsiːz/) were at various times a political party, a social movement, and a school of thought in the Holy Land during the time of Second Temple Judaism. After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, Pharisaic beliefs became the foundational, liturgical and ritualistic basis for Rabbinic Judaism (the term 'Judaism' today almost always refers to Rabbinic Judaism).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees

[Anonymous No.7242485]

>>7242277
Unsurprising.

[Anonymous No.7242617]

>>7242072
> “If a man has committed a sin deserving of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain overnight on the tree, but you shall surely bury him that day, so that you do not defile the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance; for he who is hanged is accursed of God” (Deuteronomy 21.22, 23).

Yeah, Christ took on the sins of all men.

WHO hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?

2And he shall grow up as a tender plant before him, and as a root out of a thirsty ground: there is no beauty in him, nor comeliness: and we have seen him, and there was no sightliness, that we should be desirous of him:

3Despised, and the most abject of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with infirmity: and his look was as it were hidden and despised, whereupon we esteemed him not.

4Surely he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows: and we have thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted.

5But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and by his bruises we are healed.

Isaiah 53

[Anonymous No.7242665]

>>7241332
Who is this semen demon

[Anonymous No.7242685]

>>7242665
Living under a rock?
Nicole Kidman

[Anonymous No.7242934]

>>7241332
who is this cum bum?

[Anonymous No.7243240]

>>7242287
The Holocaust is a myth.

[Anonymous No.7243248]

>>7241372
Saying that pre-Talmudic Judaism isn't Judaism is like Protestants and Catholics are not both Christian

[Anonymous No.7243543]

>>7243248
Judaism as a term today refers to Rabbinic Judaism, in particular. For instance, people who use the term "Judaism" don't typically include Christianity in it, which you would if you were using a definition that included pre-Rabbinic Judaism. So "Judaism", as it is used today to refer to the Rabbinic religion, did not begin until after Christ, no.

[Anonymous No.7243627]

>>7241381

Waiting, hoping, sinning, repenting

[Anonymous No.7243703]

>>7242665
>>7242934

Rose McIver

[Anonymous No.7243708]

>>7241332
The New testament
/thread

[Anonymous No.7243826]

>>7242297
>implying he didn't return within 40 years, destroy the Temple, and then replace it with its own body.

[Anonymous No.7243996]

>>7242088
Wittgenstein, the guy who said Elizabeth Anscombe, known Catholic, was the one who best understood his work.

[Anonymous No.7244005]

>>7243996
We all say things we don't actually mean on occasion.

[Anonymous No.7244008]

>>7241332
Maimonides was a better philosopher than any Christian that has ever lived.

[Anonymous No.7244044]

take a couple of minutes to read Psalm 22 (KJV)

It beings with "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me." and ends with "he hath done this" ("It is finished")

Both of these statements were made on the cross, and Psalm 22 perfectly describes a crucifixion.

The goal of the crucifixion was the defeat of Satan, and this is why the particulars of his defeat, the means by which all future accusations by Satan would be rendered powerless, was kept mostly secret in the Old Covenant.

[Anonymous No.7244054]

>>7243543
A word can refer to a set while excluding certain subsets (in this case, Christianity, Islam, various smaller sects such as Rasta and Baha'i). Dinosaur excludes birds even though birds are a class of Dinosaur.

[Anonymous No.7244061]

>>7244044
I'm thoroughly familiar with that and all the other prophecies, and so is he, being able to read Hebrew and studying Torah growing up. His main issue is that several OT verses are over interpreted in what Christians claim are their fulfillment, that the Messiah can't be God because God is not a man, that the OT doesn't say the laws will be changed, etc.

[Anonymous No.7244088]

>>7244061

I never know where the dialogue ends and the man begins, when it comes to religion

The fundamental nature of christians and jews are different, they will have different beliefs, irrespective of the text involved, or any particulars concerning it.

Challenging the beliefs and nature of a race, while claiming intellectual objectivity, seems innately dishonest. I can't take that sort of thing seriously.

[Anonymous No.7244096]

>>7244088
I thought they were both de facto Neoplatonist so there is that.
What's the philosophical underpinning of Islam?

[Anonymous No.7244108]

>>7244044
>The New Testament is a live-recorded documentary, no one could possibly have put words into his mouth after the fact
>Some Judean preacher wouldn't have ever heard of Psalm 22

oh wow

[Anonymous No.7244128]

>>7244096
Bestiality and high explosives.

>>7244108
Basically. Christians like to throw up their hands and go, "Really, I guess you can just find any old loophole," when you point out that Jesus wouldn't have been totally naive or that people start cults all the time without becoming millionaires.

[Anonymous No.7244136]

>>7244128
>Basically. Christians like to throw up their hands and go, "Really, I guess you can just find any old loophole," when you point out that Jesus wouldn't have been totally naive or that people start cults all the time without becoming millionaires.
Some of my friends maintain that it doesn't matter whether the events of the NT "actually" happened.

[Anonymous No.7244172]

>>7244136
I'm from the south so I've only seen people saying that on 4chan. My response to that is that you might as well get into the more esoteric traditions if it was all just a prank to begin with, but everyone I've suggested it to writes that off as heresy despite fitting in perfectly with denying the importance of a historical gospel.

[Anonymous No.7244192]

>>7244108
>no one could possibly have put words into his mouth after the fact
you might as well count all recorded history into doubt then.

[Anonymous No.7244198]

>>7241332
Jesus Christ, I thought she'd never drop her fucking hands.

[Anonymous No.7244199]

>>7244192
That's pretty much the correct approach, actually. You're making some progress :')

[Anonymous No.7244209]

>>7244199
of course it isnt, you dont call an account of history into doubt unless you have evidence that conflicts with that account.

[Anonymous No.7244256]

>>7244209
If you'd ever studied history you'd know that there's counter-evidence to just about everything, and counter-evidence to that. This may not be apparent from the library of Bumblefuck Junior High, but if you keep those grades up maybe you'll get to learn at a real school one day!

[Anonymous No.7244270]

>>7244209
>of course it isnt, you dont call an account of history into doubt unless you have evidence that conflicts with that account.
How about the fact that it's physically impossible for a human to be born from a human female without a human male having intercourse with her resulting in a pregnancy, or that dead human beings can not come back to life after they're died? Considering those conflicts, surely the whole thing is dubious from the start.

[Anonymous No.7244278]

>>7244136
They're on the right path. We don't need to throw out the whole of the Bible if it's primarily fiction anymore than we need to throw out Moby Dick if it's primarily fiction. The next step, however, is bringing the Bible down to the realm of literature and not above it.

[Anonymous No.7244299]

>>7244256
> you'd know that there's counter-evidence to just about everything
oh sure, i sure believe those goys with their "evidence" against the shoah :o
>How about the fact that it's physically impossible for a human...
>but that ior that dead human beings can not come back to life after they're died?

buit that isnt a historical issue anon, it's a PHILOSOPHICAL issue, and there are plenty things to be said/that have been said in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.7244303]

>>7244299
>it's a PHILOSOPHICAL issue
The birth/resurrection things are natural science issues, actually.

[Anonymous No.7244312]

>>7244278
Someone who thinks the Bible is "mere" literature wouldn't be a Christian under any known definition of the word.

>>7244299
>virgin birth
>PHILOSOPHICAL issue
Believe it or not, some things do occur in the realm of matter.

[Anonymous No.7244317]

>>7244303
of course not, the birth/resurrection are issues of a philosophical nature, since they presuppose the existence of God and the possibility of miracles. If God exists and can do miracles, then the resurrection/birth is possible

[Anonymous No.7244318]

>>7244312
>Someone who thinks the Bible is "mere" literature wouldn't be a Christian under any known definition of the word.
Yes. Again, a step in the right direction.

[Anonymous No.7244324]

>>7244312
>some things do occur in the realm of matter.
pfft, what is matter anyway?

[Anonymous No.7244329]

>>7244054
No. They're not.

[Anonymous No.7244336]

>>7244317
Even presupposing the existence of God and miracles does not grant that both of those necessarily miraculous events occurred, and those even being necessarily miraculous (that is, impossible) is itself evidence that conflicts with the accounts. That, and the fact that there's reason to believe the virgin birth is a later element of the mythos anyway.

[Anonymous No.7244337]

>>7244318
I don't disagree.

Growing up in rural Alabama convinced me that Christianity is more cancer than transcendence. Not that you can't live a good life and learn about yourself and the world through it, but Christianity piles on way too much baggage with the good.

[Anonymous No.7244358]

>>7244336
>Even presupposing the existence of God and miracles does not grant that both of those necessarily miraculous events occurred
sure, but that wasnt what you said, you said that if they were miraculous then there was conflicting evidence that they didnt happen, but i replied that a miracle being conflicting evidence is a philosophical issue, not a historical one.
> necessarily miraculous (that is, impossible)
see? this is what im talking about. The miraculous being impossible or possible is what is at issue when discussing the miracles in the gospels. And that issue is of a philosophical nature, not of a historical nature.

[Anonymous No.7244360]

>>7241332
boobs

[Anonymous No.7244365]

>>7244136
Those are what you call mainline Protestants, they're the ones who aren't fundamentalist. That specific type are called "post-theists", and
include people like Paul Tillich and Bishop Spong.

Protestants basically divided into fundamentalists and ultra liberals. There are the orthodox among the Anglican communion, although the Anglican Church is become doctrinally very liberal and they are in the minority. For those who are neither fundamentalists nor ultra liberal, the only options left are pretty much Catholic and Orthodox.

[Anonymous No.7244379]

>>7244365
I would imagine that it would be the hard-liners holding that God transcends even the Bible.

[Anonymous No.7244381]

>>7244379
Those are Quakers and Unitarians.

[Anonymous No.7244396]

>>7244358
No, what I said was that the claim that someone was born from a virgin and resurrected from the dead is itself evidence that conflicts with accounts since those two things are impossible. These two claims are in the very least dubious. You can say, "well, they're miracles" until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't change the scientific, historically based arguments that these things did not happen because they could not have happened. Yes, you can say the idea of whether miracles can or can't exist is a philosophical issue, if you want to. No, you can not say that this philosophical issue carries into a historical justification for belief in virgin birth and resurrection of the dead UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE WITHOUT DOUBT that these events happen/happened. You're just trying to get an elephant through a back-door because it won't fit through the front.

[Anonymous No.7244402]

>>7244365
>That specific type are called "post-theists", and
>include people like Paul Tillich and Bishop Spong.
I guarantee you if you asked 1,000,000 protestants if they knew who at least one these people were, 10 would say yes.

[Anonymous No.7244404]

>>7244396
It happened because God willed it, the proof is right in the Bible.

[Anonymous No.7244436]

>>7244396
>what I said was that the claim that someone was born from a virgin and resurrected from the dead is itself evidence that conflicts with accounts since those two things are impossible.
and that is a philosophical opinion, not historical
>but that doesn't change the scientific, historically based arguments that these things did not happen because they could not have happened.
same as above, and slapping "scientific" and "historical" doesnt change the fact that it's philosophy.
>Yes, you can say the idea of whether miracles can or can't exist is a philosophical issue, if you want to. No, you can not say that this philosophical issue carries into a historical justification for belief in virgin birth and resurrection of the dead
of course you can, since the belief in the birth/resurrection PRESUPPOSE that miracles can happen.
>UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE WITHOUT DOUBT that these events happen/happened.
and one step to show that they happened is to show that they are POSSIBLE, and the question on whether they are possible or not must be responded before showing they really happened. Of course you see that some beliefs presuppose other beliefs, just like some sciences presuppose other sciences.

Youre literally asking believers to tie a knot without a rope, i dont know how you can make sense of that

[Anonymous No.7244456]

>>7244436
I'm assuming you're actually serious. In which case, you're just begging the question.

[Anonymous No.7244460]

>>7244404
The bible says it happened so we know it happened because the bible says it happened.

[Anonymous No.7244469]

>>7244460
Exactly, in the same way the Constitution says people have the right to arm bears.
You can't deny the existence of such law because it's written right there in the Constitution.

[Anonymous No.7244474]

>>7244456
how am i begging the question? i didnt give any positive arguments for miracles, God, etc.

What I said was that bringing a philosophical assumption to a question of history is useless if the philosophical question hasnt been settled (and there is still a lot to say in philosophy)

If someone is begging the question it is you, since the legitimacy of pulling a Humean hat is something you havent established, and i just called you out on it.

[Anonymous No.7244489]

>>7244396
>No, what I said was that the claim that someone was born from a virgin and resurrected from the dead is itself evidence that conflicts with accounts since those two things are impossible.
See the first link here
>>7242880

[Anonymous No.7244530]

>>7244474
>>7244489

>how am i begging the question?
Because you're assuming the conclusion of an argument. You're just building an argument to form the conclusion you want.

[Anonymous No.7244689]

>>7244530
The first link addresses why miracles can't be ruled out philosophically. The second link addresses why, taking that into account, we ought to believe in the miracles of the Gospels.