Christ was a Jew...

... practising the faith correctly and all that.

So why don't Christians live as Jews.

Just always bugged me.

Christ was introducing a new way of living as fulfilled Jews.

Catholicism is just an enlightened form of Judaism. Jews may not want to agree with Catholics on that, but in the end, that's the entire reason their designations are seperate.

As for their practices, well, seeing as how Christ changed the view of the universe for most Jews (the ones who became Catholic), its not out of this world to believe things would change on their end drastically.

For example: Christ was the one who introduced Transubstantiation. Seeing as how the stead-fast Jewish didn't believe he was the son of God, they didn't adopt the practice. Since we did and still do believe, we did adopt it.

I think it's funny that some people worship Jesus yet hate Jews.

Eh. They're dumbasses, but Jesus doesn't really belong to a faith considering he is the faith.

What faith?

Christianity.

I thought Christianity includes several different faiths.

Eh?

Clarify.

Clarification

I would assume that wednesday means that Christianity has incorporated elements of a number of different faiths, most notably Judaism and Roman Paganism.

For example: "Christmas" is celebrated in December because it borrows elements of a Roman feast of the Sun.

"Easter" has elements of of the Jewish holidays "Passover" (what do you think the last supper was? A Passover seder) and "Purim."

In fact, one might argue that Christianity has thrived due to its adapting to, and lifting elements from, different cultures and religions.

Wow. One book, so many organisations.

That doesn't even include all the little unofficial groups and the people who follow a DIY path.

Quote:

the G-man said:
I would assume that wednesday means that Christianity has incorporated elements of a number of different faiths, most notably Judaism and Roman Paganism.

Yes, and many of those different faiths have been gelled into different sects and practices.

Quote:

the G-man said:
In fact, one might argue that Christianity has thrived due to its adapting to, and lifting elements from, different cultures and religions.

One could also argue that Judaism thrived because, at times, it didn't.

Quote:

Wednesday said:
Clarification

Oh, those.

Wednesday, Christianity has absoutely nothing to do with those splinters religions. The people who formed them decided to break away from Catholicism because they didn't feel like believing all it entailed since it didn't suit their whim. So they decided to make their own rules loosely based around Christian values.

I'm not tying to trash talk the people of these religions. It's just when they were created, this was their predessecors' true intention.

Protestantism is the best example of this seeing as how they continually cut away at the rope over time instead of sticking to their very original set of beliefs. Over the course of 3/4s of a century, Protestantism has changed more and more of the values which made it even remotely Catholic related. This isn't to say that it doesn't share many of our beliefs, but they've changed the orthodox so much that it doesn't resemble our form of religious propriety in the least.

So no, Christianity isn't really related to these other religions. Because of it, they came into being, but it doesn't have anything active to do with them.

Wow, that's, like, so not how I see it.

But, hey, it's a difference of opinion.

It's not as if Catholosism hasn't changed over time.

That wacky priests shall not have wives thing for instance did not get introduced for a long time.

I think I see a Catholic in our midst. And, Pariah, Catholicism evolved from Christianity, not the other way around. It also changed and altered many beliefs to benifit itself over the centuries just as all other demoninations have.

Quote:

Steve T said:
It's not as if Catholosism hasn't changed over time.

Vatican II, luckily, didn't have the authority over the execution of the sacramants. It made things PC and bloody annoying, it's even destroying the Latin Mass, but that's hardly a change worthy of being called unorthodox. So no, you couldn't say there were many (if any) drastic changes

Quote:

That wacky priests shall not have wives thing for instance did not get introduced for a long time.

It's always been there.

Quote:

the G-man said:
I would assume that wednesday means that Christianity has incorporated elements of a number of different faiths, most notably Judaism and Roman Paganism.

For example: "Christmas" is celebrated in December because it borrows elements of a Roman feast of the Sun.

"Easter" has elements of of the Jewish holidays "Passover" (what do you think the last supper was? A Passover seder) and "Purim."

In fact, one might argue that Christianity has thrived due to its adapting to, and lifting elements from, different cultures and religions.

Eh, no. Not exactly.

Quote:

Steve T said:
So why don't Christians live as Jews.

Well, you can say many males in America are circumcised shortly after birth, so that's kinda Jewish.

Quote:

Wednesday said:
Clarification

Well I haven't even heard of some of the denominations listed here as Judao-Christian groups. Some of them represent cults (i.e., convoluted distortions of what Christianity truly teaches, the true teachings of Christianity being: emphasis on the life and teachings of Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, and how to live a Christ-like life in the way God desires us to.)

Of the Protestant sects, Lutheranism is the closest in style to Roman Catholicism.

I myself have attended Lutheran church, and Methodist, and Catholic, and Baptist, but now identify myself as Presbyterian.

Basically, most of these Protestant and Catholic denominations teach pretty much the same Biblical emphasis, but perhaps put a greater emphasis on prayer, or scholarly pursuit of scripture, or passionately exclaiming your faith and evangelizing to others as the Baptists do.
Aside from the cult of Reverend Moon, Hari Krishnas, Jim Jones, the Branch Davidians and a few similarly extreme groups, I recognize most of these Protestant or Catholic sects to be Christian groups, as long as they have a Biblical emphasis that doesn't divert from the message of Christ, or blatantly endorse practices clearly condemned in the Bible, such as adultery or homosexuality, as "obsolete" verses that have to change with the times.

I could also argue that Roman Catholicism has multiple practices that are extra-Biblical, and therefore non-Christian practices, such as:

Emphasis of the Virgin Mary, praying to her instead of Jesus. Jesus said:
"I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Mary isn't the Way, Jesus is.
Confession to a Priest is not Biblical. Confession of sins is, but not necessarily to a Priest, in ritualistic fashion.
Priests and nuns not being allowed to marry is not scriptural. Men and women are intended to marry, and in their union "The two flesh become one flesh" in their children.
Pergutory as well is a uniquely Catholic concept, and not scriptural.

I would also argue that Catholicism, up till about 400 years ago, was not truly representative of Christian faith or scripture.
Throughout the Middle Ages, up through which time scripture was excluded from the masses and was the exclusive to the eyes of the Catholic clergy, and many abuses of scripture were added for the Church/Clergy's benefit --the reason that Martin Luther broke away from Catholicism (in 1513) and began Protestantism, in protest to the Catholic church using the Inquisition to seize people's property, Pergutory to profit from relatives who through large gifts of money and property to the Catholic church, attempted to buy their deceased loved ones' way into heaven.

It was not until printing presses and the Gutenberg Bible (first published in 1455) were invented, when scripture became accessible to the masses, that Catholicism began to accurately represent Biblical scripture.

Please don't misinterpret me to have said that Catholicism is a false religion. Just that at times, a few within the Catholic religion have purposefully misrepresented what Christianity is. And that is certainly true of a few groups of Protestants and Jews as well.
Jesus clearly condemns these misrepresentations of Jewish faith in the pre-Christian/pre-Protestant/pre-Catholic era he lived in, condemning specific practices of the Pharisees, Sadduces, and other Jewish sects of his time, when they strayed into legalistic circumnavigation of what true faith in God is.
Jesus emphasized living in the spirit of the law, over keeping simply the legalistic letter of the law.

I think there is much overlap (or shared scriptural ground) between Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism, from the point where those scriptures became widely printed and accessible, and on to the present.
All three can be scriptural, all three can potentially be abused to misrepresent Christianity.

I would argue (as Steve T. raised) that Christians who hate Jews are either Euro-centric or Neo-Nazis, and don't have a good understanding of what Christianity is, from the Biblical-scripture perspective.

Because Jews are clearly the appointed bringers of scripture from God, and Jews are the ones through whom end-time prophecy is fulfilled (i.e., the present re-forming of Israel, prophetic future attacks on Israel from the North, and from the Far East in end times, from which God will protect Israel)
Jews are clearly protected and avenged by God, past, present and future, so anyone who calls himself a Christian has no business hating Jews.

Britain is primarily Church of England, a Protestant faith, since the days of Henry Tudor VIII. I don’t think the attendance figures for the two faiths are all that different these days though. I believe we still have some laws regarding Royalty that actually require them to be CoE. The Monarch is head of the church.

The thing that amuses me about CoE is that it was set up purely so that Henry could get divorced and marry again in front of God. His Cardinals went through various documents so they could justify it. The final argument was, I believe, the king is appointed by God, therefore he is beholden only to God, so let’s just ignore the Pope.
Despite this the Church don’t want Prince Charles to remarry since he divorced his first wife.

I think Pariah was right when it came to why Cristians live differently from jews, but I think the chaterisation of the Cristian church seperating from the Catholic church because they wanted to have thier religion according to thier whim is kind of a rediculouse over simplification.

In the light of time (I'll be back later to elaborate) I'll give an equally simple response, but not an overly trivial one. The prime deviation that Martin Luthor had with the Catholic church was the doctrine of faith. The Catholic Church had evolved the doctrine of Salvation by faith and works whereas Luthor believed the Scriptures plainly taught the doctrine of Salvation by Faith alone. Also they believed that it wasn't the churches sole authority to interpret the Scriptures. If it weren't for the Protastant church the common folk still wouldn't be allowed to read thier own Bibles.

Quote:

Steve T said:
Britain is primarily Church of England, a Protestant faith, since the days of Henry Tudor VIII. I don’t think the attendance figures for the two faiths are all that different these days though. I believe we still have some laws regarding Royalty that actually require them to be CoE. The Monarch is head of the church.

The thing that amuses me about CoE is that it was set up purely so that Henry could get divorced and marry again in front of God. His Cardinals went through various documents so they could justify it. The final argument was, I believe, the king is appointed by God, therefore he is beholden only to God, so let’s just ignore the Pope.
Despite this the Church don’t want Prince Charles to remarry since he divorced his first wife.

That's because the church relies on scripture now rather than it's ill begotten founadtional priciples.

Actually, Thomas Cromwell and Thomas Cramner wanted to break away from Catholicism (i.e. the Pope) and reform England into Protestantism for many reasons. The king wanting, and not being granted a divorce (because the Pope was being heald by Catherine's nephew at the time, and wanted to keep his head (remember Henry VIII was a champion of the Chruch)) was merely the final straw tha broke the camel's back. They convinced Henry to break from the Pope and become the head of the Church of England. They believed that Bishops and other Church officials should sit below the king, who should be directly under God. By breaking away, the king was able to take all of the land and money that went to the Church. He was then able to sell it to his Nobles, which gained him their loyalty. Remember, he came into power because everyone else in his family was killed. Lots of other reasons for the break too, but these are the big ones. In fact, before Henry's death, the Church of England worshipped in much the same way as the Rome, except for the part about divorce. Henry still believed in Catholosism, and some say he repented upon his death bed, because in the end he felt wrong for breaking with Pope. He may have still believed the Pope to be above him.

Oh, that bit about no one above him but got was only an excuse (I think) I doubt he believed it.

Quote:

wannabuyamonkey said:
The prime deviation that Martin Luther had with the Catholic church was the doctrine of faith. The Catholic Church had evolved the doctrine of Salvation by faith and works whereas Luthor believed the Scriptures plainly taught the doctrine of Salvation by Faith alone.

Yes. And very clearly stated in scripture: "It is by grace you are saved, not by works, so that no man should boast."

Quote:

wannabuyamonkey said:

Also they [ Martin Luther and the Protestants ] believed that it wasn't the [ Catholic ]church's sole authority to interpret the Scriptures.
If it weren't for the Protastant church the common folk still wouldn't be allowed to read their own Bibles.

Also a great insight, WBAM.
The whole idea of having a written Bible is that people can read it and understand how to serve and obey God, and be inspired by God, in their daily lives. It's a written contract between God and those who believe in God.

The Catholic church in the Middle Ages had taken away the accessibility of scripture and, I think unquestionably, corrupted scripture, and that scripture was intended to be accessible to all, not just the Catholic clergy.
Protestantism brought the focus back to accessible scripture, so that Christians could read the Bible and be inspired by it in their daily lives.

The church was not a wonderful organisation during the dark and middle ages. I remember my Maths lecturer at university telling me Oxford Uni was formed by scholars who had been chased out of Europe by the church for heretical teachings.

Science took a bit of a kicking from the spread of Christianity. Strange since scientists have often been a fairly religious breed. But I guess when the Church was so powerful (in a different way to now) it was bound to attract people more interested in its power than its teachings.

At other times however, monks have been great scholars, so I guess there’s a balance there somewhere.

During the Middle Ages, much of the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans that was thought to be lost to the world was recovered by - get this - the collaborative work of Islamic, Jewish, and Christian clerics. Many traveling scholars traded copies of manuscripts, and despite their religious differences, many scholars studied among scholars of other faiths.

For me, it's all these iterations and changes in Christianity that make it hard to figure out.

That, and I don't feel that humanity is separated from any God. If we come from the Divine, then we are ourselves divine. But that's just this man's opinion.

I'm gonna get to this thread later. Way too much stuff to adress now, but at the moment, I'll get to the post that I missed earlier.

Quote:

thedoctor said:
I think I see a Catholic in our midst.
Quote:

Common knowledge.

And, Pariah, Catholicism evolved from Christianity, not the other way around. It also changed and altered many beliefs to benifit itself over the centuries just as all other demoninations have.

I think I know what you're getting at, but at the same time I'm afraid I'll misinterpret, so you could you clarify on this?

Yo Dave. Just briefly noting your post on Catholicism. I'd just want to point out before I go that most of what you said is a misconception. Understandable (yet annoyingly voluminous) misconceptions, but common ones none the less.

Ciao till later.