The inconsistency between the OT and NT is one of the reasons I was wondering about this question. In the OT, the message from God seems to be “Jews, I have chosen you. You are the only people who matter. Everyone else can be slain or smitted.” But then Jesus comes along and it’s all “Everyone is special. God loves everyone. Everyone can enjoy God’s graces.” Why wasn’t God in the OT the loving god of all humans?
For some reference;
Israel and Judah were Canaanite tribes, a Semitic people.
The chief God of the Canaanites was ‘El’, “He who contains all things”. Each of the Canaanite tribes had a patron deity as well. El was the patron of Israel, JHVH was the patron of Judah. JHVH may have originated as a tribal hero who, like many before him* was raised to godhood.
You can find vestiges of El and other Canaanite gods in the bible, in various names for God. Eventually, JHVH subsumed and took on the attributes of all of the other gods, becoming first among many, then the ONE.
Oh, and Baal merely means ‘Lord’. Just like, many years from now, future historians may think our word ‘Lord’ is just one of the many names of their vision of our Christian god.
- For example, the Sabeans of now modern Yemen, right up until the Muslim Conquest, worshiped a gender swapped version of the Babylonian pantheon (Ashtar - a male version of Ishtar, for example) with the head of their pantheon being an ascended Egyptian Governor appointed by one of the early Pharaohs who had conquered the area millennia earlier.
Well, as long as they’re willing to accept that they’re to be treated as dogs; and that this is right and proper.
Not to mention that whole bit about ‘only come to the Father through me’.
There are a whole lot of contradictions all through the Bible. Portraying the older portions as being entirely ‘only Jews matter’ and the newer ones as being ‘everyone matters equally’ is simplistic and misleading.
In a sense, antisemitism made more sense than the current norm for Christians.
It’s sort of like when the Europeans came from Europe the New World, met all of the Native Americans, watched them all die of famine, and then had to answer the question of what those people were to blame for that God never gave them a chance to learn about Him, and then murderized them all the instant the Europeans discovered them. Mormonism offered an explanation for that by giving a backstory to the New World that connected to the Judeo-Christian story. Possibly that’s what drove people to embrace it during that period of time where we were embracing Humanistic benevolance but hadn’t yet stopped encountering and murdering Native Americans.
With the historical Catholic / antisemitic doctrine, the Jews were offered, denied, and then tortured and murdered their messiah that God had granted them to bring them to the next step. And, as God did with Sodom and Gomorrah, so he did with Jerusalem and Israel, deciding that they needed to be punished and dispersed. Their children deserved to be punished for the crime until they showed penance and finally came to accept the messiah. Until that point, they are to be reviled, their continued refusal to accept the messiah a clear indication of their support for the murder of him even though they are the children and grandchildren of those who actually did the evil act.
From a logical standpoint, if Jesus is who he is purported to be and if the Jews are to blame for killing him and continue to reject him, that makes a fair case for God’s 180 on the subject.
But if you’re all “we should coexist with the Jews and they’re all alright in their beliefs”…well, that does become a problem if you’re serious about the actual text of the Bible.
Fortunately, no one is serious about that.
Now that we’ve all forgotten about and few have ever even met a Native American, let alone watch one die, the question of why God committed a horrible genocide against them is no longer something that anyone really considers. Mormonism survives through the simple process of having a sufficiently large member count to continue propagating itself.
Do some Christians see the (relative) success of Jews, say, in business or science (e.g. Nobel Prizes), as the fruits of God’s blessing?
If so, I’ve never looked at it that way, but, as a member of the tribe, I could see it as almost belittling and trivializing these fruits of the ‘blessing’.
Sorry for hijack, but: they’re not nearly as gone as you seem to think they are. (List undoubtedly incomplete.)
Nor have all the rest of us forgotten about, or even failed to meet, Native Americans. – for that matter, don’t you realize you may have met some without knowing it? Not everybody’s wearing signs all the time.
I grant that I have no idea what the actual number is, but we live in a country where 40% of the population think that the planet is 10,000 years old. It’s an assumption, but I would expect that most white Americans have probably never met a Native American in any practical sense even though that seems like it should be ridiculous.
I should have put a disclaimer that I was making a cynical assumption, though. I may well be completely wrong on that one aspect.
(For the record, I grew up the next town over from one that was entirely native in population - their group was never given a reservation; my best friend in 7th and 8th grade was a member; and I once attended a charity event for Leonard Peltier when I was living in Tokyo; and I had a manager a few years ago who was, I believe, Inuit.)
I agree.
The Bible collects old religious writings. Little effort seems to have been made to harmonize the teachings within the old testament, or the new.
And I see no ancient introduction claiming that these writings all say the same thing.
The division into chapters, done far later, makes transitions between ancient authors, with different agendas, less obvious.
This perception arises from reading the Old Testament only in part and not understanding the history when each book was written.
As noted, earlier, many later writings in the Hebrew Scriptures promoted an ecumenical approach to believers of other gods. Amos, later Isaiah, and Ezekiel each promoted more of a universal brotherhood (with the Jews leading the way to God). Even in older works, there are passages that promote tolerance or an acceptance of others. Melchizedek was not a follower of Abraham, yet his sacrifice was found acceptable. Ruth was a foreigner, but became an ancestor to David. Many of the 613 mitzvot found in Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy speak to treating strangers with justice and compassion. Many of the later works address only the personal need to behave correctly without engaging in any xenophobic behavior. And later works that did emphasize setting Jews apart from others were written at a time when various kings subsequent to Alexander the Great were actively persecuting Jews, making war on them, etc.
I am not claiming that there is not a lot of henotheism and xenophobia in much of the Old Testament, but the notion that the OT was all fire and brimstone and the NT was all love and flowers is based on an inadequate reading of both sections (and, probably, a misunderstanding of the history behind each book) (Jesus got a bit fiery on a few occasions and Paul suggested that one group castrate themselves.)
well, if you read the NT, Jesus said he came for the Jews but they rejected him, so he turned to Gentiles
Ah. Tone-of-voice-over-internet comprehension failure on my part. Thanks for clarification.
.
And yet he was a Jew.
No offense, but this misconception is where anti-Semitism comes from. Where does it say that everyone else should be killed? Not enemies - that you can find - but everyone.
Chosen means a special covenant. Nowhere is there a claim of superiority. That is a very common Christian misconception.
Finally, all those who were not Jews were not punished in any way by God - either in this life or in the afterlife. (Not that there was much about an afterlife.) Contrast that to Christianity where not doing the correct rite and saying the correct words gets you eternal torment.
When I was a believer and went to shul my rabbi never, ever, said anything about those who were not Jews suffering. That’s why there is no call for conversion. However when some Baptists came to my door, and I told them I wasn’t interested because I was Jewish (I didn’t want to get into an atheism debate) they started telling me I had to be saved.
Christians don’t have a loving god, they have a mobster god. Nice soul you got there. Wouldn’t want anything to happen to it, would we?
And if you read the history of the creation of the New Testament, you will notice that such claims come from works that were written many years after Jesus, after the Jewish and Christian communities had already begun to quarrel, generally by Gentiles who felt no need to reconcile the groups. The Gospels also show Jesus interacting with and showing compassion toward Samaritans and pagans. When Paul has his feud with the leadership in Jerusalem, there is no mention of turning away from Judaism, only of opening the community to Gentiles.
The Vikings eventually did convert to Christianity, so I would say the answer is yes.
Yeah, under Christianity and the NT, I don’t see any conflict with non-Jews following God. Christianity seems to drastically shift the acceptance of other cultures from what was prior. In the OT, it seems like the attitude is like “well, I guess you can follow our God if you want, but He really only thinks Jews are worthy.” Then along comes Jesus and the NT is very different in that all people are expected to follow God as He is the only God and all others are false.
Even now, if someone converts to Judaism, how equal is that person compared to lifelong Jews? Would Jews whose family has always been Jewish view that converted person as an equal to themselves. Would God view the convert the same as the other Jews? Or is the converted person more of a 2nd class follower? Christianity seems like it’s 100% accepting of someone converting. It seems like as soon as they accept Jesus, they are a Christian just like all the other Christians and are eligible for all the benefits and graces of God. How does it compare to someone who converts to Judiasm? And is the same for a Jewish convert both today and in the time before Jesus?
‘God chose these particular people to follow this particular set of rules’ is in no way the same concept as ‘God only thinks these people are worthy.’
The concept that God might have given different people different rules, without this denigrating the ones who didn’t get a specific set, does seem to be odd to many Christians. But it’s pretty common in Judaism.
ETA: I think it’s possible, though I might be wrong, that what you’re trying to figure out is where the concept came from that there’s only one correct religion, and everybody ought to be following it. I doubt that’s a question with a really simple answer; but to the extent that there is an answer, I think it might be that it comes from Christianity. I’m not a religious scholar, however, and I might be wrong about that also.
Completely equal.
If anything, they might be regarded as “more Jewish” than someone who grew up Jewish and only casually (or not at all) follows Jewish custom and law. The conversion process weeds out anyone not serious and converts often wind up knowing more about the details, nuances, and history than those who grew up in the religion.
Aside from the occasional dick present in any large group, yep. Someone who has completed the conversion process is 100% Jewish.
Yep, definitely. That’s why the offspring of a woman who converts prior to their birth are just as Jewish as any other Jew (children born before her conversion are still gentile unless they convert).
If they weren’t, King David might have been a gentile. Which would have been awkward, what with him being King of Israel and Judea and all.
Not at all.
According to the book of Ruth, it was the same back then as it is today (Ruth was the great-great-grandmother of King David and a convert to Judaism. And the Jews devoted an entire book of the Bible to her and still hold her great esteem. Darn few Jewish women of any sort, convert or not, get that). A converted Jew is a Jew.
Which is one reason the conversion process is not encouraged and a bit involved - once a person is converted they are considered completely and totally Jewish. They only want serious, dedicated people to join the tribe.
What I thought when reading that:
(An enemy ruler checks the sacred book of a chosen people and wonders why their god will not get rid of the ‘chosen ones’ because of any blasphemous act prohibited, saving the enemy ruler time and soldiers. God then does that.)
The source is the usually NSFW Oglaf webcomic, link goes to IMGUR and this comic is one of the few safe for work ones.
First I recommend reading the five part column “Who Wrote The Bible?” (which I can’t seem to find right now.)
Second, Judaism does very much regard all humans as G-d’s children. In the book Do They Keep Kosher On Mars, Sol The Answer Man informs us that the general consensus amongst Jewish sages is that if there is inteligent life on other planets they are G-d’s children too and we can expect that the Lord has revealed Himself to these ETs and given them Commandments.
I’d also like to point out that Israel’s Holocaust memorial has an avenue of righteous gentiles. Plaques and statues there commemorate folks like Schindler and King Christian II of Denmark. There is no dispute that these fine human beings are as worthy of G-d’s reward as any Jew.
Certain commandments set Jews apart from other peoples. That was doubtless part of their purpose. If the commandments you follow prevent you from eating food from a gentile friend’s house, or drinking their wine, etc you will maintain a separate Jewish identity.
Finally, there’s an ancient folktale about just how G-d chose the Jews. He asked every other nation and got a firm ‘no’. Then, He suspended a mountain in the air above Israel and asked if they would accept His covenant.