Well, I know you don’t believe that anymore than I do, for if you did, you’d be a Christian! Jews don’t accept “Jesus” as the Messiah precisely because, in their minds, “Jesus” didn’t truly fulfill the Hebrew prophecies.
While it is true that some of the authors of some of the Gospels (such as Matthew’s) endeavored to link their godman with a few selected Hebrew prophecies, there’s really nothing essential to that effort since most (if not all) of the so-called “prophecies” of “Jesus” were nothing of the kind. And you know it, Zev.
No, the Christian Myth could easily stand alone. You could redact all mention of the Hebrew Bible from the Gospels without undoing Christianity. The links to the Hebrew Bible are equivalent to icing rather than the cake itself.
ambushed, I thank you for your comments to my postings.
I’m afraid I have to disagree with you on many of the things you’ve said. It could well be that my disagreement is simply rooted in my religion and upbringing.
I asked (retorically) if we shouldn’t prosecute robbers and murderers and theives because we ourselves are not without sin. You responded (to my surprise) that Christians should let them go. My question to you then is, how do you deal with people who fail to live up to the Christian ideal? Since people are not perfect, there will be those who will rob, cheat and steal. How will you deal with them in a Christian society? If you don’t stop them, they will simply do so again and again and again. How is that a good thing?
I asked (again, retorically) if a person should have no recourse to recover damages in court. Again, you surprised me by stating that a Christian must not apply for recourse in courts. How does that help society?
Your most surprising statement to me, however, was when I asked if you should turn over your bank account to the mugger who just relieved you of your wallet. Your response to that was:
Are you telling me Christians aren’t allowed to own property?
Maybe it’s just my background. Jews aren’t “overly materialistic,” but we do understand that there are responsibilities that one has toward his fellow man’s property. There is a whole corpus of Jewish law detailing those responsibilities covering all sorts of topics such as damages, the requirement to return lost objects, deposits and guardianships, inheritences, laws of business and loans and so on and so on. The Torah tells us very clearly that I don’t have the right to just take my neighbor’s property for myself. I have to be very careful regarding his property – and if I fail in that responsibility, I have to answer for it in court. If I burn down my neighbor’s house, I have to pay for it. If I dig a ditch in a public street and leave it uncovered and someone falls into it, I have to pay for the damages. That’s not “overly materialistic!” That’s guidence for the functioning of a normal society!
If everyone lived with perfect hearts and had no envy, jealousy or evil intent, the Christian ideal might be practical. But, as it is, we live in a world of human beings, not angels; and human nature being what it is, we can never have that ideal. That being the case, you will have people who will take advantage of those ideals. How will you deal with them?
Zev Steinhardt
P.S.
BTW, you misunderstood my point about allowing a theif to take the loot as furthering robbery. I didn’t mean that the muggee (or bank teller) was wrong for giving over the money – certainly you should give over your money rather than risk injury. My point was that you are furthering it by not having the theif captured by the authorities. In doing so, you are simply inviting him to steal again and again, since he sees that there are no consequences for his actions.
Hello, Zev. I’ve always admired the highly knowledgeable and honorable manner in which you’ve defended and/or elucidated Judaism here, and I’ve learned much from you. Thank you.
You write:
I understand your concerns and I will do my best to answer them… Perhaps the first thing to understand is that Christianity comes in two paths, or flavors, as Buddhism does: High Christianity – what Robert M. Price calls the Hinayana Gospel in his compelling new book: The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, and the Low Christianity, or the Mahayana Gospel.
Low, or Mahayana, Christianity I used to refer to as pseudo-Christianity until I learned of Price’s nomenclature. Low Christianity represents probably 99% of Christians, they who misread the NT such that they think the call to live a hard and challenging life – such as taking a vow of poverty or turning the other cheek – is purely symbolic nice-nice talk and can be safely ignored. Among these are the hypocrites; the fundamentalists; those who abuse the Bible as a weapon; the self-appointed sheriffs and posses who loudly decry sinners while doing nothing about the planks in their own eyes (if I may mix metaphors); I have little or no respect for Mahayana Christians. You will find the ranks of criminals and anti-criminals flush with these low people. They would share your posts’ concern with stopping wrongdoers rather than becoming right-doers themselves.
Hinayana Christianity is the real thing. When these high Christians are asked to turn the other cheek, they turn the other cheek! They have given their belongings to the poor and have left their families. I have unlimited respect for these high Christians, these who have chosen the hard path, these who have chosen to, in Nietzsche’s terms, “build their huts on the slopes of Vesuvius”. (But I suppose they’re easy to respect because I don’t actually know any!)
Returning to your explicit question, it should be plain that Hinayana Christians would not seek any retribution or punishment or imprisonment for wrongdoers, and that instead these should be sought out, shown unlimited love, and taught either or both of the Christian paths. Surely you would agree that this would often, or even usually, result in a much better result than prison can accomplish, even though it would require vast personal commitment, something that our low Christian society probably cannot supply. Hinayana Christians would handle all they could and, with deep regret, leave policing and retributions to the low Christians and others who do not or cannot keep to the high path.
You continue:
A less criminal society is not a direct aim of the High Christians. To stay true to the high path, the traveler must turn the other cheek, and in the case you specify, that means that he or she must not avail themselves of opportunities for redress. But neither would a high Christian wish to eliminate opportunities for redress by those on other paths. There is no hypocrisy in high Christianity. So, to repeat, helping society by penalizing wrongdoers is no worthy goal at all. The only worthy goal for them is to show unlimited love to the wrongdoer and teach them the peace that comes with the high road.
More or less. Hinayana Christians (a better term for “Jesusians”) must give all they have to the poor. How can one steal from a man who has nothing? Remember what the NT Scriptures teach about wealth in terms of camels and needles.
Low Christians are often among the most wealthy individuals, and so have totally sold themselves out. At least certainly from the High view, they are unworthy of respect, let alone the (sadly fictional) virtues of Heaven.
I may not have made myself clear: it was not Jewish people that seem to me to be overly materialistic, it was/is your posts’ arguments. They seem to excessively center on worldly wealth and property and ignore the higher, more noble and spiritual aspects of faith and calling.
Now, as for safeguarding the property of others, Hinayana Christians would feel bound to their promises unless violence or retribution were required.
Low Christians, however, should be bound to fulfill your standards as you see it – however hateful, violent, and ugly they had to be. But I can’t say I find that honorable or noble.
I hope I’ve answered your questions. You and Hinayana Christians simply have divergent and mostly incompatible moralities.
Real fast- to Zev’s Qs to me- “Witchcraft” is forbidden under the Noachic ban on idolatry & the thigh muscle (I’m in a hurry & forgot the technical term) was only banned to the literal descendants of Jacob. Oddly, it’s apparent in Gen 6 that Noah made distinction between clean & unclean animals but I’ve never seen a Jewish or C’tian argument that kosher should be part of the Noachic Code (except for not eating blood & humane slaughter).
RE Torah Vs Sermon on the Mount- if I believed Jesus was commanding the enabling of parasites & predators, I’d have been on Caiaphas’ side. Note to Diogenes- many pacifistic C’tians do take the Sermon legalistically. I was on an Assembly of God discussion board in which a charismatic Mennonite kept accusing us of disobeying Christ because we weren’t pacifist.
I think this boils down to what you think is the role of religion.
If you think that it is a set of laws that ensure a functioning society, then I understand where you’re coming from. But then, how different is religion to other political/civic systems?
I don’t think religion has to concern itself with building a well-functioning society. It can leave that up to the civic auhorities.
Religion’s role is to provide spiritual fullfillment and enlightenment to people.
It’s like if you go to your cardiologist, and because of high blood pressure and other heart problems, he tells you to not get very excited and if someone insults you in public, or even hits you, you must, for your own sake, remain calm and walk away.
If your doctor is giving you this advice, he doesn’t care about the civic implications of your action. He doesn’t care that someone who hit you will walk away. He cares about your health and about keeping you from having a heart-attack due to over-excitement.
Similarly, Jesus, and religion in general, is like a doctor for your spirit. He gives you advice that is good for your soul, and he lets the civic implications to be taken care of by the authorities.
Of course, some people may disagree on the role of religion. Some people think that religion must be a complete system telling people exactly how to live and exactly what to do in every instance of their lives, in order to achieve a well-functioning society. In that case, religion can tell you what food you can eat, how long your hair can be, what clothes you can wear, when and how to repay a loan, etc.
For example, you mention that “Jewish law [detailes] those responsibilities covering all sorts of topics such as damages, the requirement to return lost objects, deposits and guardianships, inheritences, laws of business and loans and so on and so on.”
I cannot for the life of me fathom why a religion has to care about “laws of business”. The state should care about those things and make laws to govern them, not religion.
Anyway, just my opinion. It seems that there is a fundamental disagreement about the *reason d’etre * of religion.
There exists, within Eastern Orthodoxy and, to a lesser extent, traditional Catholicism, the idea that “high” and “low” Christianity are just different stages on the spiritual path. “Low” Christians are the rank-and-file of the believers, who live in the world and have to deal with it. They are called to follow Christ’s teachings as much as they can, but it is recognized that they may not be able to do so at the same level as others may. “High” Christianity is exemplified by monastics, who renounce all material possession and societal status and withdraw from the world to contemplate Christ and purify themselves. All Christians are called to the monastic ideal, but not all can reach it; this doesn’t mean that the “low” Christians should be ignored or considered lesser Christians, but rather should be guided into growing closer to the Christian ideal; this is primarily the task of the Church, who exhorts her members and provides the sacraments for their assistance. It is common (or, at least, used to be) in Orthodox societies for people to become monks and nuns in their later years after they no longer had dependent children or spouses.
As for turning the other cheek, we are all called to do this; however, as it was explained to me, we are not called to turn other people’s cheeks for them. There exists a St. Nestor, who was a young man in pagan Rome. The Roman ruler of the time had the pastime of having his favorite gladiator slaughter various people, including many Christians, in a specially-built arena. St. Nestor resolved to put a stop to this, so he went and challenged the gladiator, and wound up killing him in the fight. The ruler then had St. Nestor put to death. If St. Nestor were fighting for himself, then he certainly should have turned the other cheek (as indeed he did when he was put to death), but he did not shy away from fighting for others.
Ambushed, a fascinating analysis – I don’t think I’ve ever run into bringing the Buddhist terms into play here. (It’s also been fascinating to note the parallels between Mahayana and Theraveda (preferable over Hinayana, an insulting term) Buddhism, on the one hand, and Catholicism and Protestantism, on the other, with reference to the intercession of holy persons, the Treasury of Grace concept, and so on – the firstnamed in each group presuming the validity of an intercessory gift from the arhat to the asshat, as it were ;), and the second rejecting it.
While I’m posting here, I might bring up Marcion, a very early Christian heretic, whom my namesake condemned in no uncertain terms, whose position was very much separatist from Judaism and in actuality a form of Gnosticism, and who rejected the whole Tanakh and about half the New Testament. The Catholic Encyclopedia on Marcion and Marcionism – while not strictly reliable as regards Catholic/Protestant differences, the Catholic Encyclopedia is probably one of the best reference works on the Internet for reliable information on Christianity generally in all other circumstances.
And there you have encapsulated the differences between our opinions.
Judaism is not merely a religion. It’s a code by which we govern our lives, both spiritually and civilly.
Many commentators have tried to find ways over the years to categorize the 613 commandments in Judaism. One of the most popular categorizations is the division of commandments between those between a man and God and those between man and his fellow man. Both are equally important – that I not, for example, overcharge my fellow man when selling him a product is just as important as keeping kosher. That I respect his property rights is just as important as the prohibition against stealing from him.
In Judaism, there is no separation between “church” and state – it’s all one. As such, there are laws that govern every aspect of our lives.
Certainly a noble ideal. But I think it ignores basic human nature.
Well, here is where we have part ways again. Judaism very much recognizes the rights of people to own property and has numerous laws regarding how people should respect the property rights of others. There is nothing sinful about wealth (“It’s no shame to be poor… but it’s no great honor either!”) and wealth, like many other things, can be used for good or for poor. We don’t believe that it’s harder to get a rich man into heaven than a camel through the eye of a needle. It simply requires that the rich man live his life the correct way.
That’s because “faith and calling” seem to have different meanings between (High) Christianity and Judaism. The only reason my posts have centered on the worldly is because that’s what we were dealing with – functioning in normal society. Society can still function if people don’t keep kosher, or don’t keep Shabbos or don’t blow shofar on Rosh HaShannah. It can’t however, if we are all robbing and stealing from one another.
These are all excellent points that, even though I don’t agree with all of them, I was nevertheless remiss in reporting. Thanks for contributing them.
I certainly agree that all Christians are called to the higher path, even if few can hope to reach the higher one. But although my view of the difference between the two may arguably be unduly harsh, I still can’t quite bring myself to respect the bulk of the Mahayana Christians, for whom condemning wrongdoers is far more important than making the personal effort to do right and suffer the consequences and thereby be noble examples and role models. That being the case, I’m afraid I do consider the low Christians to be lesser Christians.
Thank you, also, for the example of St. Nestor. I shall have to think more on his story and its implications. I struggle with the idea that for High Christians, using violence to protect others is morally justified. I wonder how “Theraveda” Buddhists would respond?
I’m honored, sir. I can’t claim any credit, of course, having learned of the idea from Price, whose discussion of the topic (as well as the entire book) I thoroughly recommend.
(A small question, if you’ll forgive my ignorance: would you elaborate a wee bit on why the term Hinayana would be insulting in this context and why Theraveda is preferable? I’m not looking for a defense of the term, I’m just trying to improve my understanding).
Well, you’re over my head, but unfortunately that’s not difficult. Do you think it would be generally enlightening for us if you were to expand on these matters?
I understand intellectually that Marcionism (et al) represented a risk to early Christian/Roman Catholic orthodoxy and membership, but it’s still shocking to read (from your cite):
Yikes!
I imagine that were I alive at the time, I’d have joined the Marcionites and/or the subsequent Manicheans. I share their (and perhaps the OP’s) views that the Hebrew Bible falls ethically short of the High Christian ideal. (Let me assure the reader that such a view is not to my mind anti-Semitic, for I have great fondness and admiration for the Jewish people, through whom the world has gained immeasurably. I dearly hope that doesn’t sound trite or anything like “some of my best friends are Jewish”!) To me, it’s more a matter of the enormous passing of time between the founding of the two religions and the coincident intervening cultural advancement, no small amount of which derives from Jewish contributions.
In fact, it’s just within the range of possibility that were modern Christianity entirely free from the Vengeful Ogre of the Hebrew Bible/OT, I might today still be a Christian.