Well, yeah, that’s the point. Christianity started out as a sect of Judaism, but it’s beliefs differred enough from Judaism so that now it’s a seperate religion.
Raoul,
It did begin as a Jewish sect, as you say - but it left that origin within a generation of Jesus’ death.
One of the big arguments amoung the 1st generation christians was whether or not non-jews could be christians. Paul won that argument by converting every person who would listen to him, while the original followers of Jesus were content to wait for Him to return.
Compare the book of Acts with the letters of Paul, if you are so inclined - but I would argue that since neither Jews nor Christians consider Christianity to be a sect of Judaism, you cannot legitimately argue that they are. There is a seperate movement, called “Jews for Jesus” that meets that definition: people who consider themselves fully Jewish and who abide by Jewish law, but still consider Jesus to be the Messiah.
jsleek,
There were more than two Jewish sects; the Essenes come to mind in particular, since they MAY have had an influence on Jesus, his cousin John the Baptist and (therefore) the early Christians in Israel.
In addition, I believe the Samaratins were a heretical branch of Judaism which, if I am remembering correctly, why they were held in such low esteem by mainstream Jews of the day. I could easily be wrong on that, though, please don’t hold me to it. Mr. Steinhardt may have better information on it.
Everyone should also keep in mind that two thousand years have passed since then - both Christianity and Judaism have thought, taught and experienced much since the year 33 “anno domini” and neither is exactly what it was then.
**
Nope. I’m afraid you were misinformed. Judaism most certainly has a doctrine of an afterlife. Without one, the story in 1 Samuel where Saul meets Samuel’s ghost doesn’t make much sense.
The Saudacees DID not believe in the concept of the resurrection of the dead. I’m not sure that they disagreed with the concept of the afterlife in general. In fact, given the above-mentioned story, I don’t see how they could disagree with the concept of an afterlife at all.
As porkchop_d_clown pointed out, there was another group called the Essenes. However, they were a minor sect.
Raoul Anatherwan,
As was said to you by others on this board, Christianity did start out as a sect of Judaism. However, once they allowed gentiles into the fold without a proper conversion, and once they deified Jesus, they, in essence, stopped being Jewish.
Today, Christianity is most definitely not a sect of Judaism. It’s beliefs are so outside the pale of normative Jewish thought that it is impossible to refer to it as a part of Judaism.
Zev Steinhardt
AFAIK, the modern judaism is the inheritor of the Pharisees. The Sadducee (Sadducean???) branch dissapeared at the time of the exile.
What about Islam? It seems a lot closer to Judaism than Christianity. Could it be considered a sect of Judaism? I think it has more on common with Judaism than the LDS have with mainstream Christianity.
Indeed, you are correct Badtz Maru. Judaism takes a much different approach to Islam than to Christianity. A Jew who accepts Christianity is actually engaged in idolatry. A Jew who accepts Islam may be violating any number of other commandments (which he probably would under Christianity as well), but idolatry is not among them.
The reason for this is because the Muslim concept of God is essentially the same as the Jewish concept (single, invisible, omnipotent, indivisible), as opposed to the Christian concept of God (divisible into the Trinity, corpified God, etc.)
Zev Steinhardt
They did. However, later on, a group, the Karaim, developed, who shared a lot of beliefs with the earlier Sauddcees. They still exist today.
I understand there are conservative, orthodox, and liberal Jews. Are these groups roughly similar in size (at least in the US) and would this inheritance apply to all three? (I’m supposing that what separates them is small compared to what separates Judaism from Christianity.)
If it’s an easy question, what does separate them? Anything to do with Zionism? (I would just get confused if it’s not easy.)
Exactly. The transition from sect to separate religion comes when any sect makes as an essential point of belief some concept that violates an immutable principle of the mother religion. So as another example, the Druze are an offshoot of the Is’maili sub-sect of the Shi’a sect of Islam. Many of their beliefs are similar to that of the Is’mailis, but what makes them a separate religion as opposed to just another sect of Islam, is that they reject the idea that Muhammed was the final prophet, and the Qur’an the final word, of G-d.
- Tamerlane
As usual, zev is amazing.
I always understood it similarly to his initial synopsis.
A Jew follows the rules and in so doing may come to know God.
A Christian knows God and is therefore guided in how to follow the rules.
Christianity was a faith which could have the big tent. It could absorb a variety of different cultures and specific practices within it. Judaism has always been more of a tribal religion. Group cohesiveness is important.
All modern Jewery arises from the Pharisees. They were the originators of the Oral Law … a tradition of how Torah was to interpreted and applied. The Saducces were mainly interested in Temple ritual; the destruction of the Temple was a fatal blow. The Essenes were celebate and strict; I wonder why they didn’t make it?
The Orthodox believe that the rules are given by God and that following them is what is commanded. They do not need justification other than that. Reform originated in the late 18th century. It downplayed the importance of strict observation of the laws and played up social activism (“completing the world”, tikkun olam) and ethics. The Conservative movement was a reaction to Reform by some who felt that Reform had, in its attempt to contemporize itself, rejected too much of the Law and tradition, yet felt that Orthodox interpretation was too rigid.
Easy enough?
With the same caveat that Zev gave about this coming from an Orthodox perspective:
Within the US, the Conservative and Reform movements are significantly larger than the Orthodox, although the largest group is probably unaffiliated Jews. (Within Israel, most people are either Orthodox or unaffiliated; the Conservative and Reform movements are very small there and consist largely of Americans who’ve moved there. I don’t know enough about other countries to guess as to proportions.)
For nearly two millenia after the destruction of the Second Temple (70 CE), the only Jewish religious tradition was that of the Pharisees, or what is referred to today as Orthodox. During the Enlightenment in Europe, some German Jews began to question the doctrine that the Torah was given by God to Moses at Sinai. They reasoned that if the Torah was not divine, there was no need to keep laws they felt irrelevant to modern people. They began the Reform movement, which keeps those traditions it feels to be relevant and adapts new elements as desired. The Conservative movement began as a breakaway group from Reform that felt that too much of tradition was being done away with. Officially, the Conservative movement doesn’t believe in the divinity of the Torah either, but individual Conservative people differ on this point. The Orthodox do not believe that Jewish Law can be modified to “update” it, although opinions differ on what degree of integration with the outside world is acceptable/desireable. (I’m posting to this message board from a my dorm room in a secular university, having just decided where I’m going to go to school for my PhD, and wanting to go to the movies soon, so you can figure out where I stand.)
The difference includes attitudes to Israel, but that isn’t the cause - the break came well before the Zionist movement was first a gleam in Herzl’s eye.
None of the groups would agree with Christian teachings about the Messiah, divisibility of God, original sin, etc. covered above.
I’m not going to go searching now for the earlier threads about Jews for Jesus, although there are plenty of them that predate the Winter of Our Missed Content. Suffice it to say that I and a great many others feel very strongly that they’re not a sect of Judaism.
Then, there are the Reconstructionalists…
Not exactly, Zev. I would never encroach on your impressive comprehension of spiritual matters, but I did want to clear up what might be a miscomprehension. Casual lay Christians who attend church for the politics of it might think of God in this way, but God is not made up of three parts. Rather, there are three primary perceptions of God from man’s point of view: God as our father, the life-giver and authority over all things on heaven and earth; God as our brother, the one Who upholds and protects us when we’re picked on by bullies; and God as our essential essence, created in His own image.
Jesus acknowledged Himself alternately as the Son of God and the Son of Man. He taught the indwelling of God in man, a la David of the Psalms. David said, “I love the house where you live, O Lord , the place where your glory dwells.” Jesus was merely saying that the place is in the hearts of those who love God.
When I Google some of these terms, I get a zillion hits, most from the Christian viewpoint. If you can stand it, here are a couple more. Remember, keep it simple.
(1) John the Baptist was Jewish and baptizing. It’s easy to blow this off as some goofball who got carried away with washing rituals, but is there something in Judaism about baptism?
(2) There’s a bible term ‘the law and the prophets’. (math 22:40) I understand that means ‘the Torah and the commentaries’ and I understand that means more than just ‘the law’.
‘The law’ = orthodox (?)
‘The law and the prophets’ = conservative (?)
(3) Dr. Laura often explains Judaism on her radio program. Does she do a good job of it?
What would you say are the primary differences between Judaism and Islam? What parts of Islam contradict Jewish teachings?
There is no baptism for Jews.
Fair enough Libertarian. Thank you for the correction. I had always understood it to be three parts = one (but somehow still one).
Zev Steinhardt
**
As Knighted Vorpal Sword pointed out, there is no ritual of baptism in Judaism. When the Temple stood, people would go to mikvaos (sort of like ritual baths). Such a trip would be necessary to rid oneself of tumah (sort of like an uncleanliness – but that’s not a great translation, but it’s the closest term I have) before going to the Temple grounds or eating consecrated foods. However, there was no aspect of “salvation” attached to it, as there is with baptism today.
**
Well, I can’t speak with any authority for a verse in the NT. However, my guess would be that “the law” refers to the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) and “the prophets” refers to the books from Joshua onward.
The reason this would make sense is because the Jewish canon is, indeed broken down in that fashion. The Jewish canon consists of three parts:
[list=1]
[li]Torah (the first five books)[/li][li]Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets)[/li][li]Writings (Psalms, Provers, Job, Esther, Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Lamentaions, Song of Solomon, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles)[/li][/list=1]
In addition, this division of books was in place well before Matthew’s time. So, my guess would be that “the law” refers to the Torah and “the prophets” refers to the other books (which may or may not include the Writings).
I was never really a big listener, so I can’t really tell you. Sorry.
Zev Steinhardt
Primarily, that Muhammed was a prophet of God, that the Quuran is the revealed word of God. But you’d have to look very closely to see all the small little things. Its very hard to truly see all the differences in a single religion.