My understanding is that they were traditionally considered equal. The only authorities I know that discuss this issue is Maimonides, who I believe said something like ‘those who accept the Noahide laws out of sincere conviction will be considered righteous and have a part in the world to come’, but did not state anything about a difference between them and righteous Jews.
A carpenter is the whole deal, when he works with wood he shows his practical side (the spirit) when he talks and discusses theory with his apprentice he is the teacher (the word) anything he does as a carpenter either practical or as a teacher he is responsible for as they are one.
Well, yes, but – are we hijacking the thread, or illuminating it? – while the metaphor sounds good at first, it only really works if we postulate one carpenter who knows stuff the other carpenter doesn’t know, and they will different things, and their voices issue from two different places when they talk about how oh-so-different they are.
Now, I can find you two carpenters who know different things and will different things, and who have voices that issue from two different places when they talk about just how different they are. And I can probably even find you two carpenters who do that, and one thinks he’s the son of the other. But while that makes the metaphor fit better, it also makes it completely Jewish instead of at all Christian.
Malthus:
My understanding of the difference - and mind you, this is a layman’s understanding, and not from a single source - is that the righteous Jew is in a better position to APPRECIATE the World to Come than a righteous Noahide (and both, more so than someone who is not righteous). Imagine the difference between an ordinary person vs a music scholar in how they’d experience a piece of good music. Both can enjoy, but the latter has sensitized himself to the nuances to a greater degree, and thus, gets more enjoyment. Performance of G-d’s commandments are, in that sense, a way of refining one’s spirit to interface with G-d in the world to come.
The Other Waldo Pepper, I’m not really understanding your Trinity scenarios. The purpose (I think) of the Trinity concept is that God has three states of which he can manifest. You seem to be saying it’s a way to escape culpability for a criminal or sinful act by claiming you are both the perp and the victim. How are you drawing that conclusion?
I’m saying that, I’ve often seen people who to all appearances are separate individuals: they know different things, they will different things, they talk to each other and about each other as if they were two different people in two different places, and so on.
And that, if any of them said to me, well, yes, on an obvious level, we’re two different individuals, but in a subtle and ununderstandably mysterious way we’re actually the same individual, in a way that you aren’t – well, I wouldn’t believe them: not if they were trying to escape culpability, and not for any other reason either.
Why would I? I don’t believe my nephew is also my grandmother; on the one hand, he’s obviously not my grandmother – and if he told me that, in another weird sense that can’t be explained, he also is my grandmother (but not, he added, my grandfather, because that’d just be silly), then I wouldn’t believe him.
He’s never yet said anything like that, so I haven’t needed to put that to the test. But if he ever did say something like that, either to escape culpability or for any other reason, then I wouldn’t take him seriously. And I’m guessing you wouldn’t, either.
I like the analogy; but I admit, it’s not something I ever heard before. Mind you, I am very fuzzy on the whole ‘world to come’ notion in the first place! 
I think it is fair to say though that in Judaism, a superior position of appreciation in the afterlife isn’t held out as a significant inducement for non-Jews to convert to Judaism. It is perfectly acceptable for non-Jews to be righteous Noahides, and not follow the commandments incumbent on Jews.
This is in strong contrast to some historical interpretations of Christianity, in which a failure to convert to Christianity was thought to have a drastic impact on one’s chances in the afterlife.
Well, I have no idea what a first-century Jew actually thought, but if I had been one, I wouldn’t have minded his attitude, as long as he delivered. He was supposed to be the Messiah, who would drive the Romans out of Israel and restore the throne of David. And beyond that, he promised all kinds of magical things to his believers: they would be able to heal the sick, be immune to poison, and get anything they asked for in prayer, even something as petty and spiteful as killing a tree for not having fruit, even though it wasn’t the right season. And beyond that, he predicted all kinds of cataclysmic, worldwide events that would occur within a generation.
None of that happened. Even in this allegedly Christian country, people who actually believe those promises are locked up when their kids die from easily treatable diseases, and all they did was pray, instead of taking them to a doctor. I realize that Christians have devised ways to rationalize the lack of results away, but I truly don’t understand how an objective person wouldn’t just say, “He was a phony.”
But like I said, I don’t understand Jews, either, because you have the same thing with (among others) 2 Samuel 7, where Yaweh makes an unconditional promise to David that Israel will no longer be bothered by enemies, and his descendants will rule over Israel forever. Instead, his descendANT ruled over Israel for just one generation, after which 5/6 if the kingdom seceded. And both pieces of the kingdom were constantly at war, with external enemies and each other, and both were eventually destroyed. There hasn’t been a Davidic king, even of Judah, for 2500 years, and the “bother” that Jews have had from their enemies over those years is considerable.
Everybody knows this, yet believers, Christians and Jews alike, think that the Davidic Covenant is just wonderful.
If I live to be a thousand, I will never understand people.
Well, I’m not religious, but to be fair: the vision of Nathan is interpreted by both Jews and Christians as not referring to the immediate future of David. Christians interpret it as a promise foretelling the advent of Jesus, and Jews the foretelling of a Messianic Age that hasn’t happened yet.
The carpenter is one man fulfilling two rolls both teacher and craftsman
That’s how they are forced to interpret it, but it makes no sense, because it’s clearly talking about Solomon building the Temple, and it says HIS throne will be established forever.
Besides, if Trump campaigned on a promise of peace and prosperity, and as soon as he was elected the US split into two pieces, one of which was conquered by China, and the other by Russia, would you accept it if he said, “Oh, I meant 3000 years from now.”
Well, even Trump’s most fervent supporters don’t claim he’s literally a god. 
The rules of interpretation applicable to prophetic visions aren’t the same as those applicable to more mundane political campaign promises. I know you are arguing that they ought to be, but typically they aren’t, and I don’t think it is a reasonable claim to expect them to be - or to express amazement when others don’t interpret them as such.
Keep in mind also that the OT wasn’t actually written down until hundreds of years after the reign of David, so the people writing it down were, of course, well aware that the promise, if it was supposed to mean “right now, David”, hadn’t happened.
Seems to me that if they were interpreting it in the way you claim, they’d have left that part out: why record those times god’s prophets got it wrong, in your religious propaganda? It makes more sense to interpret it as a future promise.
No, I acknowledged that they claim it’s a future event, although IMO the obvious reference to Solomon makes that claim nonsense. But I don’t understand how anyone could take it seriously, even 400 years after David, let alone 3000.
Look at Isaiah 7:14 (“Behold, a virgin shall conceive…” in the KJV). Christians consider this among the most, if not the most, important prophecies about Jesus. Jews, IMO correctly, say this is nonsense, that the word is “young woman,” and in any case it’s meant to be a sign for King Ahaz, so it would be ridiculous to give a sign that he has to wait 700 years for.
But as usual, when the same logic applies to something they want to believe, they bypass their rationality.
I just don’t understand anything about religious people.
Well, there are a lot of reasons why believing in the literal existence of a creator-god as described in an ancient set of religious texts is odd … but I can’t say that carefully parsing the wording of messianic promises contained in those texts is even in the top 10 of such reasons, as far as I’m concerned.
The Jewish prophets were not predicting the future, they were warning what could happen. “If you elect Trump, the country will fall apart” for example. 
“If you set a king up over you, he will take your money, send your sons to his wars and your wives and daughters to his harem.”
Well, that one came true.
Yes, I get that.
The thing is, though, I’ve had the experience of fulfilling multiple roles. And I’ve also had the experience of being a separate entity from someone else.
When I’m being a separate entity from someone else, I know things he doesn’t know. And I will different things than he does. And we converse with, and about, each other as if we were different people in different places. I’m quite an expert at doing it; why, I’m doing it right now, with you! And to all appearances, we’re different people, and not just two roles being fulfilled by one man.
I know what it’s like to fulfill two roles as one man; it’s not like that. It’s not like what we’re doing right now; it bears no resemblance to our relationship. I do not chat with myself in one role while in another role that knows other things and wills differently; I do that with you, but I don’t do that with me.
Saying that Jesus is merely a role fulfilled by a Deity – a Deity, mind you, for Whom monotheism is His very First Commandment – is like saying that I am just a role fulfilled by you: it takes the metaphor and stretches it to the point where entities with separate knowledge and separate wills interact like any other separate individuals and yet are mere roles, and there’s a better way to describe that relationship.
It’s the way we routinely describe every other such relationship. It’s the way you and I would describe our relationship. It’s not how we would describe ourselves when we’re merely fulfilling different roles; we know what that’s like. It’s how we would describe ourselves in relation to each other, which is profoundly different.
To claim that he’s obviously a separate person from someone else, and yet also is that person in another role, is no different than telling me that you are me: as far as I can tell, you’re not me; and, as far as I can tell, he’s not Him.
I do not know. From what I have read anyone who has more laws will have a much greater reward for doing much more work.
Just like there is Reform Judaism, so is Protestantism the Reform Christianity.
According to Orthodox Christianity anyone who does not obey many laws including very restrictive fasts (about 200 days a year) is doomed to eternal suffering. In 1054, Catholicism split from Christianity, and decreased the number of fasts to 80. They allowed milk products during fasts. The Protestants abolished many commandments and all fasts.
IMO promises about the future are all you have to go on.
If you’re picking a political party, then you should consider how much sense it makes, how well it agrees with your philosophy, how much good it does for society, how much you admire its leaders, how well you get along with people you know to be its members, how much fun the rallies are, etc. And of course, what party your parents were.
That also seems to be how most people pick a religion, if they give it any thought at all, but IMO the ONLY thing you should consider in picking a religion is whether or not it is true. And since most of them were founded before there was videotape, you can’t evaluate their truth by the alleged miracles performed by their founders.
You can test mundane claims about science and history and geography, and those almost always fail, but apologists explain those away as allegory or whatever. Never mind that they were believed to be literally true for thousands of years, NOW we know that they are allegory.
So all you have left are promises and prophecies. If the promises fail, and the prophecies aren’t fulfilled, then you can safely junk that religion. So I do.