Why don't Jews like Jesus?
December 17, 2005 7:24 PM   Subscribe

What is the deal with the Jews and Jesus? If Jesus was a jew, why are the Jewish not Christians, and seem so touchy about that issue? Christmas vs. Hanuka. Jesus on the cross, etc. Don't they acknowledge him the way Christians do? Or am I wrong? Always seems to invoke an eye rolling when I see Jesus mentioned to a Jewish person on TV...why?

I am obviously ignorant about religious history but I do not understand why there is such a difference between Jewish and Christian beliefs. I really do not want to read a ton of boring details on the intrawebs about how Moses led the people in the desert and he tied his sandles with his hands crossed in order to ...blah blah blah.

I guess I am looking for an IMDB movie type review about what the deal is - short attention span style.
posted by SparkyPine to Religion & Philosophy (99 answers total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
 
Jesus was a Jew, and all of his early followers were Jews. The Jews who began the Christian faith did so because of a belief that Jesus was the messiah, the son of God. They believe that Jesus dying on the cross represented a new covenant with God, and that Jesus is the path to salvation. Jews, on the other hand, think that Jesus was just a man, and that his existence didn't change the relationship between man and God that was established in the old testament. This is a very basic explanation, and I'm sure someone else can fill in with more details. I doubt this is a difficult subject to research, though.
posted by ludwig_van at 7:29 PM on December 17, 2005


This should be interesting.

Simple. He's not the king of the jews. To the jews, he's not the messiah, nor even a prophet.

Y'know that "new testament?" To jews, It's a book of fiction, the way the book of mormon is.

By the way - Jesus? He was a Jew, not a Christian. Bonus, He was probably very dark skinned.

Bonus, the Wikipedia Link

Direct quote from there:
To most Jews, Jesus is simply irrelevant, a non-important figure in a different religion (much as Muhammad might seem to many Christians), known due to their being immersed in a Christian-oriented society rather than through religious significance.

posted by filmgeek at 7:31 PM on December 17, 2005


My understanding is this: Jesus was a Jew who started to teach a system of values to other Jews. Some of these Jews started to 'follow' his beliefs and teachings. His resurrection (or the legend of his ressurection) after his death lead to a subset 'cult' among his Jewish followers who then became different enough from their fellow Jews' beliefs to be considered having a different religion.

Again, in my understanding, most of the Jews held to their pre-Jesus beliefs, and are the ancestors of Jews today. Those who followed Jesus' teachings and began worshiping him are the first Christians.

But I'm no religious scholar, and I'm also an athieistic admirer of Jesus' values.
posted by jeff-o-matic at 7:34 PM on December 17, 2005


If Jesus was a jew, why are the Jewish not Christians

That makes no sense to me, if Jesus was Jewish... shouldn't your question be why aren't Christians Jewish?

I talked to a jewish friend once about the differences in faith out of curiousity... from what she said the main difference is they believe Jesus was just another prophet, and not really the son of God.
posted by banished at 7:34 PM on December 17, 2005


I think the main part of the question is *WHY* don't the Jews recognize Jesus as the Messiah? Do they have a basis for their rejection? Christians can point to fufilled profecy, miracles, ect.. but what do the Jews point to to counter this?
posted by Jomoma at 7:35 PM on December 17, 2005


See here.
posted by MadamM at 7:36 PM on December 17, 2005


The Jews point to the same things atheists, agnostics, pagans, and a bunch of other people point to: it's not sufficient proof.
posted by maudlin at 7:40 PM on December 17, 2005


That's like asking why Christians aren't Moonies. Reverend Moon shows up, says he's the Second Coming of Christ. Doesn't mean the Christians have to believe it.
posted by johngoren at 7:40 PM on December 17, 2005


Interestingly, Jesus is revered (although not worshipped) as a significant prophet in the Muslim faith. Perhaps this has something to do with the growth of Christianity in the centuries before Muhammad came along; I'm not well-versed enough in theology to know for sure.

Moreover, crucifixion was a very common method of execution in the Roman empire during Jesus's time. So even if this type of persecution would merit some kind of historical respect in Jewish history, such respect would certainly be diluted by the hundreds or thousands of other Jews who suffered the same fate in those days.

The foregoing doesn't apply to Jews for Jesus, who are arguably neither Jews nor for Jesus, though the organization so befuddles me that I can't be sure.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 7:43 PM on December 17, 2005


*WHY* don't the Jews recognize Jesus as the Messiah?

By that logic, why don't you recognize mathowie as King of Swaziland?
posted by Saucy Intruder at 7:46 PM on December 17, 2005


To most Jews, Jesus is simply irrelevant, a non-important figure in a different religion (much as Muhammad might seem to many Christians), known due to their being immersed in a Christian-oriented society rather than through religious significance.

True. As someone who went full-time to a conservative Jewish day school, I don't think I ever heard anyone ever even say his name.
posted by captainscared at 8:01 PM on December 17, 2005


It's already been said, but I'll also reiterate: Christians see Jesus as God Himself (well, except Mormons and I suppose a few other sects). Jews do not. Christians see Jesus as The Messiah and the fulfillment of the covenant. He is also King of the Jews. It is important to note that back in the day, the Jews (namely those we hear of: Saduccees and Pharisees) expected The Messiah to be on in the vain of King David; someone who would lead the Jewish people against the Roman empire, whom all hated eachother, much like David did back in the day (though, in an ironic twist of fate, Jesus did help to turn the tide of the Roman Empire). All of this, the Jews do not see Jesus as being.
So, yup, it boils down to Jews see Jesus as just a prophet. Christians see Him as more in basically every sense you can think of.
posted by jmd82 at 8:04 PM on December 17, 2005


Jews view Christians I would suppose in much the same way that Christians might view a cult like the Branch-Davidians. Sure, David Koresh claimed to be the second coming of Christ, but no one really believed him and he's come and gone now and Christianity has been unchanged. Same thing with Jehovah's Witnesses, who claimed the second coming happened but most Christians just kind of yawned and went about their business.

So many of the Jewish faith ignored Jesus because he was (to them) just one in a long sucession of self-proclaimed Messiahs that they didn't believe in (a process that goes on to this day within some sects of the Orthodox Jewish faith especially).

I think the reason there is some antagonism there has to do with the fact that historically Christians have tended to slaughter and defame Jews for "rejecting Christ." Such systematic killing tends to make for a little bit of wariness.

That, and on a more mundane level, no one likes to be told that they are version 1.0 . . . Even the terms "New Testament" and "Old Testament" I imagine could be quite offensive to those in the Jewish Faith. I prefer using the terms "Jewish Testament" and "Christian Testament" so as not to imply a built-in superiority between the two. It's just so (perhaps inadvertantly) smug to disregard another person's faith as "The Old Convenant," as if that implies that their time has come and gone.
posted by jasonlatshaw at 8:19 PM on December 17, 2005


Also, to speak to the "touchiness" issue... There have been "Jews Killed Jesus" accusations that go around. The website religioustolerance.org, speaking about The Passion of the Christ, says this:

"Through most of the history of Christianity, Christian Churches taught that all "the Jews" -- whether they lived in the 1st century or 20th century or sometime in between -- were responsible for Yeshua's death. This belief is no longer current. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, abandoned this position in the mid 1960's. However, with thousands of years of tradition behind it, one might expect that the belief is still circulating among part of the public."

I don't know if I know any Jews that haven't had someone tell them that their people were responsible for killing Jesus, at least once. Usually kids say stuff like this, but it's not always kids. This belief or misbelief has been responsible in part for many anti-Semitic actions against Jews, so they can sometimes get touchy if people press too hard on the Jesus button. The TV eye-rolling reaction seems to me to be an over-simplification of a not-super-complicated issue. Jesus was Jewish but people who thought he was the son of God were the people who became Christians.
posted by jessamyn at 8:20 PM on December 17, 2005 [1 favorite]


Response by poster: So the Jews never did get their Messiah? Or are they still waiting? I mean, we're running out of time with armageddon coming and all.

Seriously, tho, as a brainwashed Catholic I never once considered that there were Jewish people who, at the time, never bought into Jesus the Christ. How interesting...and confusing.
posted by SparkyPine at 8:21 PM on December 17, 2005


The real question is how can Christians claim to follow Christ, when Christ was far more Jewish than most Christians. Switching the Sabbath Day. Dumping the Jewish notion of Sabbath. Completely jettisoning kashrut.

Also, Christianity dumps the whole Jewish notion of the Messiah. Why isn't Jesus the Messiah? Because the world remains in shambles. Sham!

You would think that Christ would have begun Reform Judaism. Or, that Christians would be Reform Jews.

Or something like that.

Shavua tov to all, and to all a good night!
posted by ParisParamus at 8:23 PM on December 17, 2005


And to follow up on Jessamyn's post, there have been numerous times throughout history - the Crusades being a notable example - when those who refused to accept the divinity of Jesus were tortured and killed.

I was told, by childhood public school teachers, that I was going to hell because I hadn't accepted Jesus. That made me a little "touchy".
posted by judith at 8:23 PM on December 17, 2005


"Bonus, the Wikipedia Link"

It's as if a Paul and Matthew edited the Wikipedia entry on Judaism so that it meshed with their conclusions about Christ.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:27 PM on December 17, 2005


Excellent discussion of the religious issues above. From a cultural perspective, I can tell you that Jews have had to take a *LOT* of crap from Christians throughout the ages. Of course, these days, at least in most of the west, the persecution isn't so blatant as in the past. However, even when I was in school, Christian kids would give me crap and taunts about not believing in Jesus. Plus, many of my ancestors were killed by people who believed in Jesus, so Jews feel the sting of persecution when people such as yourself wander into this area and start throwing around "What's the big deal?" type statements.

I once read an article that said that when Christians see a Hanukkah menorah they say, "Oh, how pretty!" and when Jews see a christmas tree they think of the holocaust. That's (kind of) a joke, but the essence under it is true - that Jews have been persecuted in big and small ways because people thought we should just get over it and believe in Jesus.
posted by jasper411 at 8:28 PM on December 17, 2005


Banished: The whole subject of why Christians aren't Jewish was a very bg topic in the early church. Peter and a group of the original apostles thought believers should obey Jewish law; Paul and others thought they should not. The Council of Jerusalem, as related in the book of Acts, decided that non-Jewish converts did not have to effectively become Jews. That was the true beginning of the split between Christianity and Judaism.
posted by lhauser at 8:37 PM on December 17, 2005


I love Christmas trees. I just wish "you people" wouldn't chop them down. Cutting down trees is against Jewish law
posted by ParisParamus at 8:38 PM on December 17, 2005


SparkyPine, a related issue is that the very earliest Christians probably would've told you they were Jews. The first great crisis of the Christian church came with the schism (then agreement) between Peter (who argued that the disciples should concern themselves with preaching the gospel to the Jews, who were God's people) and Paul (who said Christ came to save everyone and redeemed everyone from all the rules and regulations of the Old Testament and thus focused his ministry on gentiles). It's only when you understand about non-Pauline Christianity that a concept like "Jews For Jesus" doesn't sound so weird.

My piggyback question: since Jesus says in the Gospels that Peter is the rock upon which he'd found his church and entirely neglects to mention Paul, are there any schools of thought that argue that Paul infiltrated the church to subvert/pervert it?
posted by kimota at 8:39 PM on December 17, 2005


The funny thing is I would often ask Christians who tried to evangelize me why, since Jesus was a Jew, they weren't Jews also. But I wasn't really being serious, just trying to scare off the lightweights. So, I'm kinda wondering how serious this question is too.

But, that said, it's because as 'King of the Jews', the messiah was expected to overthrow Herod and the provincial Roman government and transform Palestine back into an independent Jewish state. That's kinda what you had to do at that period of time if you wanted to be King. When he got crucified instead, it seemed pretty obvious, by rules similar to the old Throw-the-potential-witch-off-a-cliff test the Puritans used, that Jesus was not the messiah. And since his resurrection myth pretty much went 'He came back, showed up to this guy Paul, then a couple more people and then he disappeared, honest.', let's just say that's enough of a big fish story to even set off a Pharisee's BS detector.

In fairness, when the Temple was razed in 70 AD or so, Christians took it as an affirmation of the opposite interpretation, that he had been the king, but by rejecting him, the protection of the convenant had been removed from them.

The big cultural difference is that evangelism is seriously frowned upon among Jews, while it ranges from required to accepted among Christians. Now, there are good doctrinal reasons for that, stemming from the idea that the Jewish convenant is for Jewish people, while the Christian convenant is for all people. But, because of that, whenever the talk of Jesus, Xmas trees, etc. lo, it just sounds like Christians are trying to sell them something.
posted by boaz at 8:48 PM on December 17, 2005


So the Jews never did get their Messiah? Or are they still waiting? I mean, we're running out of time with armageddon coming and all.

I don't believe that Jews buy the Hal Lindsey timeline with regard to the end of the temporal world. Correct, though, Jews are still waiting for the Messiah, practically by definition. There are differing views on the importance of this, but it's certainly not as important a part of the Jewish religion as it is Christianity.

Seriously, tho, as a brainwashed Catholic I never once considered that there were Jewish people who, at the time, never bought into Jesus the Christ. How interesting...and confusing.

I don't mean to snark, but the hell? Who did you think was persecuted during the Spanish Inquisition? Did you pay any attention in school, Monday or Sunday? Or perhaps you're just not being clear.

And, yes, there are millenialist Jews, and "Jews for Jesus" who are an odd not-quite-Christian sect of Judaism.
posted by dhartung at 8:51 PM on December 17, 2005


The Messiah, according to the Jews, needs to fufill certain criteria that Jesus did not. There's also some complex reasons as to why the political situation at the time accepted the Judeo-Christian God through Christianity. I've heard that Jews regard Jesus as a minor prophet, but I can't google enough to find if this was true or heresay.
posted by geoff. at 8:53 PM on December 17, 2005


PS Jews for Jesus was started by a Baptist -- I don't think it was a grassroots Jewish campaign or anything. Almost a subversive kind of evangelicalism.
posted by geoff. at 8:54 PM on December 17, 2005


I can't think of anyone who I want to yell at more than one of those JFJ idiots at Grand Central.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:59 PM on December 17, 2005


As an added data point: From what I understand, Islam was built on top of Christianity, in that the Old and New Testaments are both religious works in Islam, plus the Qu'uran. Islam accepts Jesus as a prophet, but sees Mohammed, who came later, as more relevant.

So you could just as well ask why Christians aren't Muslim, since they accept most of the same body of work as holy -- just with the pesky exception of that most-recent prophet thing.
posted by occhiblu at 9:02 PM on December 17, 2005


On a related note, what's up with Christian Jews?
posted by fatbobsmith at 9:03 PM on December 17, 2005


The Messiah, according to the Jews, needs to fufill certain criteria that Jesus did not.

I never knew this! I'd assumed this thread was going to go so very badly, and it's been really interesting! One thing from geoff.'s link:
The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father -- and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David!
posted by Aknaton at 9:23 PM on December 17, 2005


IAAC. A significant portion of Jewish scripture, what we (Christians) consider the 'Old Testament' is prophecy about a then-future messiah, noting an absurd number of circumstances that would be fulfilled in his arrival, presence and death that would be so insanely improbable that even completing something like 100 of the circumstances would be in the exponentials:1. From as best as anyone can tell, Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled pretty much* every single prophecy and has so many absurdly deep parallels, knew an enormously extensive amount of information about the heavenly realm(s), and completed every facet of Jewish prophecy that he has been deemed the messiah.

* some prophecies, such as the belief he would be a great military leader, are re-prophecied in Revelation and other books, wherefrom we get the idea of the 2nd Coming.

Jesus Christ (that is, Jesus, The Christ/Messiah) came from the descendants of Adam, along the bloodlines of the Hebrews like Abraham, and thru to the then-current Jews (tribe of Judah) of the time. Jesus (English translation), or Yeshuwah (Hebrew) is comparable to the vowel-less Hebrew word for God, YHWH. Originally only the Israelites (which had 12 tribes, one of which was Judah) had a relationship with God as the Chosen People, but Christ seperated that wall and allowed all people including the Gentiles (non-Israelites/everyone else) into the same opportunity. The reason Christians are not Jews, per se, is because Jews are primarily of a specific family bloodline, detailed throughout much of the OT. But Christ has adopted the Gentiles into the family, although we're all technically related thru Adam.

Pretty much the first 4 books of the New Testament is the story of Christ on earth and how he fulfilled each prophecy cited and the rest are either prophetic, historical accounts of the early church's growth or are correspondence from Christians in the early Christian church between churches.

Christ was crucified because of a debatably misunderstood claim that Christ was God Himself, when the wording of the actual exchange is frankly (IMHO) questionable as to whether he actually claimed it or not, but that's the reason he was killed so gruesomely. Christ's sinless life (in the eyes of God) replaces those who wish Christ's eligibility for heaven to replace their own ineligibility as a final sacrifice on behalf of all people ever. but the Jews discount Christ as sinless because he broke a lot of Jewish laws and customs (such as working on the Sabbath), depsite such laws being in conflict with God's law. Christ held God's law completely, and was sinless according to God's standard, but the Jews do not recognize this as so, while it is essentially the core structure of the Christian trust in Christ in the first place.
posted by vanoakenfold at 9:35 PM on December 17, 2005


The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father -- and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David!

According to Jewish custom of the time, a father who adopted a son could not disinherit him (although he could disinherit a blood-borne son), whereas the son was officially in the line of inheritance according to the law, so Jesus, being adopted by Joseph, was in the line of King David. Mary herself was a Jew, also.
posted by vanoakenfold at 9:39 PM on December 17, 2005


All this talk about the "historical" aspects and such is simply window-dressing -- pretty, but not much to do with the primary difference, which to my atheist (and largely uninformed) mind is this: Christians believe that Jesus was the "son of God," and they are only able to reach heaven by accepting Jesus as their savior for their sins. Jews do not believe this: they believe in one God who has not borne any direct offspring.

How close am I?
posted by davidmsc at 9:43 PM on December 17, 2005


PP: The real question is how can Christians claim to follow Christ, when Christ was far more Jewish than most Christians. Switching the Sabbath Day. Dumping the Jewish notion of Sabbath. Completely jettisoning kashrut.

Because as the Son of G-d, he made a new covenant with G-d, and those who followed Him didn't have to follow the old covenant (e.g. kashrut). Jesus himself broke a lot of the Jewish laws (ate with tax collectors, worked on the Sabbath, etc). (nominal xtian, in practice deist.)

I have no idea why it annoys people when I remind them that Jesus was a Jew; or when I mention that Mary was *not* a blue-eyed blonde. :)
posted by jlkr at 9:51 PM on December 17, 2005


Response by poster: Ok, I think I get it. It's the debate over who's the king that makes it so touchy. I'll scratch Elvis off the list.

Oh, and dhartung, I saw the Monty Python sketch...it was very funny. I think the show was on Sundays, too.
posted by SparkyPine at 9:59 PM on December 17, 2005


just to make something clear: jews do not view jesus as a prophet. not major, not minor. just a person who might or might not have existed.
posted by bokononito at 10:10 PM on December 17, 2005 [1 favorite]


I have a similar question. Does Jesus represent the point of departure between Judaism and Christianity's common roots? If so, do Jews value/believe in the Old Testament? It was pre-Christ, after all. And if Christians pay attention to the Old Testament, why don't they pay attention to the Torah? My impression is that the Torah is also older than the New Testament but I could easily be wrong there.
posted by scarabic at 10:18 PM on December 17, 2005


Just to clarify: Jesus is not thought of as a prophet in Judaism. I have heard this before, and the only thing that begins to explain this claim is the idea that Jews must think something about Jesus. But this is not true. I would go so far as to say that most people who don't have a stake in Jesus for their religious beliefs (which is to say anyone who is neither Christian nor Muslim) are not even sure a historical Jesus even existed. That is to say, even after ruling out all the magic stuff, there may not even exist a historical figure who did the things ascribed to Jesus.
posted by mzurer at 10:21 PM on December 17, 2005


"If so, do Jews value/believe in the Old Testament?"

Huh? That's what being Jewish means? The Old Testament is the ONLY testament for Jews ( Albeit filtered through the commentaries). Huh?
posted by ParisParamus at 10:22 PM on December 17, 2005


Torah=Old Testament=Pentateuch
posted by ParisParamus at 10:24 PM on December 17, 2005


scarabic, the Old Testament consists of the 5 Books of the Torah and (I think) a bunch of other pre-Christian documents. Jewish Law continued to develop (and still does develop) using these documents as their basis, but incorporating generations and generations of commentary and interpretation. The Talmud is a document that compiles these intepretations and serves as the basis for practical Jewish law beyond the explicit rules laid down in the Torah.
posted by mzurer at 10:28 PM on December 17, 2005


davidmsc: Well, it's pretty obvious that "jews believe something different" The historical reasons why are why the question was asked.
posted by delmoi at 10:30 PM on December 17, 2005


Scarabic, do you mean "do *Christians* value/believe in the Old Testament"? Because Old Testament = Hebrew Bible, which (obviously) Jews value and believe in. It's a *major* part of Judaism. Also, the Torah is a component of the Old Testament (see more in the link I gave).
posted by needs more cowbell at 10:30 PM on December 17, 2005


A genuine question here as a supplement: are there extant writings that address any perceived anxiety among Jewish communities over the emergence of Christianity?

It occurs to me (though this might well be cod-psychology) that if I were a Jew in those early centuries, I might well be asking my rabbi: 'Okay, the Temple is in ruins, and we're in exile again. There are branches of the Jesus Movement springing up all over the place. Are you quite sure we didn't miss the boat here?'

My instinct is to think that keeping Jewish communities from collapse as they're gradually eclipsed by these proselytising upstarts would require either tremendous insularity or tremendous faith.
posted by holgate at 10:33 PM on December 17, 2005


I don't think there was much coexistence between Jews and Christians for about 500 years. There really weren't many Christians until then.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:41 PM on December 17, 2005


(Fourth or Fifth Century Roman Empire)
posted by ParisParamus at 10:43 PM on December 17, 2005


(Constantine made Christianity the Official Religion of the Roman Empire (TM) in 312, I think? Anyway, earlier than the fifth century.)
posted by occhiblu at 10:46 PM on December 17, 2005


That makes sense, Paris: I'm now reading about the main diaspora communities in places like Alexandria and Babylonia, the latter outside the reach of the Roman Empire. But you do have the Constantinian laws in the early 300s CE which institutionalised Christianity and put into place the kind of social and civic restrictions on Jews that survived long into the medieval world.

I suppose that would be the rationale for Jews not to feel as if they'd made the wrong theological choice: the upstart sect is now dominant because it's an imperial cudgel. But I honestly don't know, and would be glad to find out more.
posted by holgate at 10:55 PM on December 17, 2005


"I never once considered that there were Jewish people who, at the time, never bought into Jesus the Christ"

Do you realize that in your own religion it is explicit in the Bible that it was Jewish leaders who turned Jesus in to Pilate?

Your problem is that you think it's a historical fact that Jesus performed many miracles (being the major evidence for his divinity). This is far from a fact - even Jesus' existence is not fully assured. Jews and other religions will deny that it happened or point out that even if this were the case previous prophets (Moses, Elijah, and Elisha) performed miracles in the Bible. Of course, the latter interpretation would also severely doubt the accuracy of the New Testament: no prophet would falsely call himself the Son of God or any of the other claims the Jews reject.

Your viewpoint is odd (though not that unusual). The utter lack of corroboration for all religions is the seed of the concept of faith, which is viewed today in the West as perhaps the key part of religious experience.

bokononito: I think it depends on who you talk to. Muslims view Jesus as a prophet too (called Isa by them), and the Messiah, though the word has a different meaning to them.
posted by abcde at 11:06 PM on December 17, 2005


(Of course there are claims other than miracles which Jews reject in much the same way)
posted by abcde at 11:09 PM on December 17, 2005


Also, consider the differing notions of 'the Messiah' in Christianity and Judaism. 'Messiah' does not mean 'the Son of God' to Jews. In fact, that's idolatry, identifying a man as God.

Also, there are significant portions of Christian culture that are either stolen or borrowed from Pagan, non-Jewish sources, ie. the influence of Hellenic thought and philosophy ('the Word (Logos) was God,' etc.), the similarities between the supposed life story of Jesus and the Roman god Mithra, etc.

I highly recommend reading From Jesus To Christ, by Paula Fredricksen.
posted by geekhorde at 11:24 PM on December 17, 2005


Twas the night before Chanukah....shavua tov, and to all a good night...
posted by ParisParamus at 11:25 PM on December 17, 2005


Also, I think SparklyPine may not actually know that the Spanish Inquisition was a real event. (Still, I'll defend him by noting he never did imply there have been no Jews after Christianity - the fact that there are is actually a premise of the question).
posted by abcde at 11:37 PM on December 17, 2005


Also, although these religions have similar textual bases, in terms of how they are lived, they are very very different. The primary holidays of the Jewish year relate to the creation of the world, an annual day of atonement, giving thanks for harvests, the completion and wholeness of the textual revelation, redemption from slavery Egypt, and the acceptance of religious law at Sinai. Beyond these, there are also the commemorations of persecutions of Jews in history: domination by Ptolemaic Syrian Greeks (Chanukah), civil discrimination within the Persian Empire (Purim), destruction of the second Temple by Romans (Ninth of Av), and Holocaust Rembrance Day (Yom HaShoah).

These make up a narrative life through the year that is very very different from the holidays of the Christian calendars, which relate to the lives of Jesus, Mary, and the saints, such as Christmas, Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, Easter, Pentecost, Ascension, et cetera.

Similarly, Islam's major celebrations commemorate events in the lives of the Prophet Muhammad, the ancestor Ishmael, and within the Shiite community, the descendents of Muhammad.

I am not trying to imply that Muslims worship Muhammad or that Jews worship Moses or anything ridiculous like that... The point is merely that though there are theological and textual traditions and concepts that connect all three, on a daily and annual basis, the religions are expressed in such very different ways that it really doesn't make much sense to try to figure out who "should really be" who, or argue over why they aren't.

They are all incredibly different religious practices.
posted by jann at 11:51 PM on December 17, 2005


Actually, I was just grossly misinterpreting his joke. The parenthetical stands though.
posted by abcde at 11:51 PM on December 17, 2005


abcde, seriously, it does not depend on who you talk to. Jews do not consider Jesus a prophet. What Muslims believe about Jesus isn't really relevant.
posted by mzurer at 12:02 AM on December 18, 2005


mzurer: I guess I was emphasizing that they don't believe as a point of canon he's not a prophet (there's no denial of future prophets in the Old Testmanet as far as I know). Further, some more casual Jews (probably just due to today's pluralist tenor) do believe he was a misquoted and overrated prophet like in Islam. The way I phrased it does make it look like I thought there was a meaningful segment that believed it seriously, though; sorry.
posted by abcde at 12:37 AM on December 18, 2005


Er... "Old Testament."
posted by abcde at 12:40 AM on December 18, 2005


Interesting comparison, jann.

Christianity threw out a lot of the history-keeping, social-law-debating stuff. Judiasm's calendar is about the evolution of a people; Christianity's calendar is about freezing in time the memory of one person: select snippets and stories.

And interesting, too, the worship of a human being -- and Jesus was fully a human: he was not a god during his ministry. And come to think of it, I think the whole god-among-men thing were going to be believeable, he wouldn't die.

I mean, how awesome would that be: Jesus, alive today, priorizing and solving our problems by telling us what God would prefer. We'd still be free to choose: we'd just know how much we're sinning. The whole gay marriage thing would have been solved approximately 2006 years ago...

Too, there's the difference between the Jews' "God's chosen people" and Christians' "People chosing Christ." It indicates an interesting mental twist on the whole who's-who in the pecking order. Personally, I think the Jewish concept is more awesome. I mean, seriously, how cool is it to say "Hey, I'm one of the one's God's gonna save." Wow.

I get a kick out of the whole Jesus worship thing. It's just so clearly not what Christ would have wanted. It would be idoltry in his eyes. He was a human fucking being. He knows God doesn't want humans to worship other humans.

If I were going to pick a monotheastic religion, I'm afraid I'd have to pick Judaism. They worship god directly, they debate the meaning of the Torah continuously it slowly adapts to the times, they generally don't expect non-believers to bend over backwards to accomodate them, and they get saved after they die. Sounds like a winner to me.

However, it's too much work. I'm gonna stay with the complete and abolute loss mental, emotional, conscious, spiritual, whatever can't-touchy-idea-you-prefer being. Your "you" goes out like a meteor: destroyed to subatomic energies.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:46 AM on December 18, 2005


absolute loss of one's
posted by five fresh fish at 12:47 AM on December 18, 2005


I'm seriously, absolutely boggled by the sheer ignorance of non-Christian (and for that matter Christian) religion here.

Just as an aside, "when the Messiah comes" is a Yiddish expression for NEVER.

"Christmas vs. Hanuka"

Hannukah is a minor holiday. The big deal for Jews is Pesach (Passover). In Christian-majority countries, Jews make more of a fuss over Hannukah because the Christians are all-Christmas all the time and we need something to do lest we be overwhelmed.

Most important message for you, SparkyPine: fish don't see the water they swim in. You need to get out more, and educate yourself.

"Don't they acknowledge him the way Christians do? Or am I wrong?"

No, Jews don't acknowledge him at all. They don't even think about him unless Christians are insisting that they have an opinion. Yes, you are wrong. Again, your sheer ignorance blows my mind. This is, after all, the fundamental point of departure between Jews and Christians.

All I can think is that the bullshit around "Judeo-Christian values" and the smog of the so-called Jews-for-Jesus is confusing you.

The last person I met as thoroughly confused as you about this was a Sikh. He didn't even know what a Jew was. For all you comparative religious types, I had to start drawing analogies with Parsis. That was one interesting taxi ride.

"A significant portion of Jewish scripture, what we (Christians) consider the 'Old Testament' is prophecy about a then-future messiah."

Well yeah, according to Christians, who have diligently looked for (ie twisted, mistranslated etc etc) such passages to support their doctrine. Jew of course do not read their books in the same way as Christians. To Jews, Christians and their Bible interpretation are like those freaks who see coded messages saying that Francis Bacon wrote the works of Shakespeare.

""Jews for Jesus" who are an odd not-quite-Christian sect of Judaism"

The issue here is that Judaism does not recognise apostates as being Jewish. So the (former) JFJs can insist on still being Jewish as much as they like, but the community they originally sprang from rejects them. They're kind of like Lesbians Who Love Men Now And Can Joe Come To Our Next Potluck. Or something. The nerve of those guys.

You'll note that no Baptist is dumb enough to start Muslims for Jesus, partly because that wouldn't fulfil their end-time wankfest, and partly because "... the penalty prescribed by Shari'a (Islamic) law is execution for men and life imprisonment for women. Drunkards and mentally ill persons are excluded from this punishment because they are considered to be not responsible for their statements." Which means apart from the drunks and the fruitcakes there isn't much time for the new guys to put a dollar in the collection plate.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 1:24 AM on December 18, 2005


Judiasm's calendar is about the evolution of a people; Christianity's calendar is about freezing in time the memory of one person
...
Too, there's the difference between the Jews' "God's chosen people" and Christians' "People chosing Christ."


Wow, five fresh fish. I never thought of it like that... the difference between Jews and Christians is a difference between "a people" and "a person"*. In so many ways, it makes a lot of sense... even in an OT/NT comparison, you can get that sort of vibe. The OT is more history of the Hebrews, where the NT is more a history of Jesus and his followers. (I hope I'm not overgeneralizing too much here.)

Thanks for helping me understand that. Not sure what I'll do with it, but it's a great idea to think about.


*-person vs. God/god vs. hybrid is subject to debate, I guess...individual, at any rate.

posted by SuperNova at 1:33 AM on December 18, 2005


i_am_joe's_spleen: The big deal for Jews is Pesach (Passover).

Well... I've always thought and heard that as much or more of a big deal for Jews is Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur -- the High Holy Days, in fact. Of course, Passover is right up there too. Much like Easter is for Christians -- each faith has two really big times of the year, with each holiday having its own importance.
posted by SuperNova at 1:37 AM on December 18, 2005


Here's another hoot of a thought that just passed through my head: the megachurches frequently have cafes, bookstores, some even have franchises in them.

Moneychangers in the temple. And they don't even see it.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:30 AM on December 18, 2005


A couple of notes to earlier contributers. Constantine became emperor in 312 C.E. He converted to christianity on his deathbed in 327 C.E. (Much contention exist among classical scholars regarding Constantine's conversion) In 313 C.E. the edict of Milan was passed which simply stated that the Roman Empire was tolerant of all religions. It isn't until 382 C.E. that Theodosius the First made nicene christianity the official religion of the empire, which by the way is when the roman empire became the holy roman empire.

It is also commonly held among biblical scholars that Paul is responsible for much of the spreading of christianity. And it is the Pauline view of christianity that largely exists today. It must be remembered that very shortly after the purported events described in the gospels (lated 1st century early second) that there were a number of other views of christ and how christianity (if it can be called such in this period) The epistles are largely concerned with correction 'errors' of belief in various parts of the empire. These various views of christianity existed until the Catholic church, gained enough politcal power to begin stamping out "heresy".

some of the alternative views that still continue to exist today are eastern orthodox and coptic. There is also a wealth of texts that were rejected as "canon" that have completely different views of Jesus and his role as the "messiah"
posted by nosophoros at 2:39 AM on December 18, 2005


fff, SuperNova, yes, exactly.

Jewish holidays always emphasize that the individual is part of larger community, the history of that community, and that community's special evolving relationship with God, the world, and itself/its religion.

Christianity, especially Protestantism, puts more weight on the individual's relationship to a deity/personality, and presents the narrative life of that being (and associated personalities) as the focal point of devotion.

Theologically, Christianity also focuses more on the individual consequences of sin (Heaven versus Hell), while Judaism focuses on the social consequences of iniquity and injustice (war, famine, exile, decadent excess, poverty, and crumbling of social cohesion).

Basically, Christianity says, "Devote yourself to this God-person, and be a good person, or your eternal soul will suffer forever," while Judaism says, "God wants you all and warns you all to be good individuals and be a good society, the whole of you, or you, your loved ones, and all your people will suffer forever."

Some definite similarities there, but, you know, big differences, too.
posted by jann at 3:20 AM on December 18, 2005


Basically, Christianity says, "Devote yourself to this God-person, and be a good person, or your eternal soul will suffer forever,"

To the contrary -- Christianity says you can't be good enough, because you're already hellbound. Unless you replace your record of goodness for eligibility for heaven ("righteousness") with Christ's record of goodness as eligibility for heaven, it no workie. At no point does it declare you must be act good to get into heaven, and oodles of times declares that no person can get into heaven by relying on their own goodness.

"As it is written, there is none righteous, no not one." (-Romans 3:10)
"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (-Romans 3:23)
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?" (-1 Corinthians 6:9)
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ." (-Romans 6:23)
"For they, being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." (-Romans 10:3)
"For God made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us: that we might be made the righteousness of God through Christ." (-2 Corinthians 5:12)
"For Christ also has once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive again by the spirit." (-1 Peter 3:18)
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth (puts trust of Christ's goodness in place of our own for eligibility for heaven) in him shall not perish but have everlasting life." (-John 3:16, parenthesis mine)
"For Christ brings an end to the law of righteousness for everyone that believeth." (-Romans 10:4)
"That if thou shalt admit with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead (thus being rightly eligible for heaven because he didn't deserve to die but was made alive again), thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth admittance is made unto salvation (-Romans 10:9-10, parenthesis mine).
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (-Romans 10:13)

Simply trusting Christ's righteousness to replace one's own as the merit for heaven (that is, Christ's merit in place of ours), one is saved and heavenbound. "Christian" meaning "little Christ" whereas one's heavenly access is credited solely to Christ's work, and zero percent one's goodness. At no point is relying on one's own good record of obedience considered an advisable suggestion by Christianity.
posted by vanoakenfold at 3:55 AM on December 18, 2005


Here's a dumb, related question -- who, exactly, are the Jews for Jesus trying to convert?

I saw 'em out on the Vegas strip a few weeks ago, handing out literature and whatnot. I can't imagine that they were trolling just for Jews... but maybe they do? (Frankly, I didn't want to get into it with 'em at the time...)

Can non-Jews join the Jews for Jesus?
posted by ph00dz at 4:55 AM on December 18, 2005


who, exactly, are the Jews for Jesus trying to convert?

I'm pretty sure they are aiming to convert Jews. Have you ever looked at their pamphlets? They use lots of Yiddish words ("It's meshuggah not to accept Christ as your personal savior!") and swarmed my college campus (GWU) last year which has a sizable Jewish population. There's a reason they weren't stationed a few blocks up at Georgetown....
posted by puffin at 6:34 AM on December 18, 2005


At no point does it declare you must be act good to get into heaven, and oodles of times declares that no person can get into heaven by relying on their own goodness.


We've gotten way off of the topic of the original question, but it's probably worth noting at this point that this is a major point of contention between Protestants and Catholics. Protestants generally accept the doctrine of Sola fide as outlined by vanoakenfold above; Catholics do not. As far as "at no point," see the Wikipedia article for a more balanced view, including quotes from the bible which seem to support sola fide, and quotes from the bible which seem to refute it.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 7:04 AM on December 18, 2005


Just to clarify nosophorus' comment: Constantine was baptized on his death bed, but at least nominally converted to Christianity in 312. I say 'at least nominally' since apparently the Christian leaders couldn't get him to stop praying to the sun; I'm not sure why it took him so long to be baptized.)
posted by kimota at 7:44 AM on December 18, 2005


Christian leaders couldn't get him to stop praying to the sun

Constantine indeed encouraged the worship of the syncretic Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") deity, a late-Western Roman Empire consensus deity. The Sun worship is the main reason why Westerners celebrate Sunday as a holy day.

Later Christian rulers wanted to retcon the Constantine story to make it seem that they grabbed power earlier than they did. So around 800 CE they forged the Donation of Constantine, a document purporting to give them primacy in religious matters throughout the Empire. Partly, this was also intended as a way for the new barbarian Frankish rulers of the conquered territories what used to be the western provinces of the Empire to claim dominance over the still unconquered Eastern Roman Empire, centred at Constantinople. It didn't work and the Great Schism eventually split Christianity into Eastern and Western factions.
posted by meehawl at 7:55 AM on December 18, 2005


Boker tov!
posted by ParisParamus at 8:02 AM on December 18, 2005


Christianity says you can't be good enough, because you're already hellbound.

Which I think is one of the major differences of opinion between Judaism and Christianity. To Judaism, Salvation through Christ is a solution to a largely non-existant problem. Judaism doesn't seem to be overly concerned with the afterlife, because it's in His hands and He has already made multiple promises to look after His people. It's not just the carrot they find unconvincing, but the big stick as well.

I think fundamentally one of the reasons why Judaism and Christianity don't get on very well is that they pose some very different relationships between God and Humanity.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:07 AM on December 18, 2005


The evangelical group, "Jews for Jesus" is a phrase with an internal contradiction, an oxymoron. As was mentioned earlier, Jews generally don't proselytize and don't like being proselytized. "Jews for Jesus" are offensive on both counts.
posted by redneck_zionist at 8:26 AM on December 18, 2005


So, I'm kinda wondering how serious this question is too.

Yeah, I have to admit this question sounds kind of trollish to me. I know there's a lot of ignorance around, but "Why are Jews so touchy?" sounds like the poster either just got off a spaceship or is stirring the shit.
posted by languagehat at 8:50 AM on December 18, 2005


i_am_joe's_spleen: I'm seriously, absolutely boggled by the sheer ignorance of non-Christian (and for that matter Christian) religion here.

It reminds me of growing up Protestant in a very Catholic town--my friends used to ask me just what it was I believed. To them, Catholic = Christian and I must be something else. I'm not generalizing about all Catholics (I went to a Catholic high school where I had a great time), I'm just saying that a lot of folks learn about their church and nothing else.

I've enjoyed reading this thread. The question is timely (for me) as I just read Judaism Meets Christianity for the First Time--Again, an article by Rabbi Irving Greenberg -- some of you may find it interesting, too. I guess Rabbi Greenberg is a bit controversial and most of his work is about interfaith dialogue.
posted by jdl at 9:07 AM on December 18, 2005


That's funny, jdl. I find that in America in general people think that Christian equals Protestant. For instance, saying the Old Testament is the Hebrew Bible. Jews don't belive in the Apochrypha and nor do Protestants, but the Bible I grew up with certainly includes those books in the OT. So it isn't the same. Or claiming that "Christians" don't believe in salvation through works. As was pointed out above, what is really meant is Protestants don't believe in it.

Also, great job on making what could have been a crap thread awesome everyone.
posted by dame at 11:12 AM on December 18, 2005


"Well... I've always thought and heard that as much or more of a big deal for Jews is Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur -- the High Holy Days, in fact. "

SuperNova is right, of course.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 11:33 AM on December 18, 2005


do Jews value/believe in the Old Testament?

As I understand it, when Christians took Jewish scripture and compiled it into the Old Testament, they moved things around a little. The sequence of the Old Testament books was changed to create a narrative that makes Jesus' arrival a more logical next step. Jews read the same books in a different order -- and have since long before Christianity existed.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 11:51 AM on December 18, 2005


Is that why the Christian Sabbath is on the first, not the seventh day? SHAM!
posted by ParisParamus at 12:57 PM on December 18, 2005


Moneychangers in the temple. And they don't even see it.

Uh, have to correct a point here. Christian churches are simply meeting halls. They are NOT temples. Under the New Covenant, our BODIES are now the temple, as we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit when we become believers("born again.") It's okay to have a coffee bar or a book table in the foyer. Heck, there are such things as house churches, where people simply meet in homes-which is what they mostly did in the First Century. What I am trying to tell you is a church building is NOT a "sacred place" like the OT temples and tabernacles were (Tabernacle of Moses, Tabernacle of David, Temple of Solomon, etc etc.)
posted by konolia at 2:22 PM on December 18, 2005


Interesting FWIW, doing commerce on the Sabbath is not part of Judaism--irrespective of place.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:58 PM on December 18, 2005


a church building is NOT a "sacred place"

Does this extend to Catholics too? It seems that the whole point of taking communion is to sanctify the body, but I don't think anyone would put a Starbucks in a cathedral.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 4:21 PM on December 18, 2005


It depends what you mean by "sacred," by the way. Certainly Jews will treat the sanctuary where they pray as special, but it's not like the Temples were treated in Jerusalem. And one can pray communally anywhere, so...
posted by ParisParamus at 4:38 PM on December 18, 2005


I'm not sure I'm gonna buy that story, Konolia. Seems to me Jesus didn't actually destroy the temple facility. Didn't pull down the walls. Was real upset about the money-making from selling crap at the temple, and I think upset with some of the ostentatiousness of it, the luxury of the fabrics and "veneer," but not upset about the community gathering-place and group worship.

Jesus kicked ass on the asshats that hung around the temple, leeching off The Lord.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:56 PM on December 18, 2005


I wouldn't say that it really does, Saucy Intruder. Catholics keep Eucharist that's already been blessed in a tabernacle in the sanctuary; the idea is that Christ is present there, and thus it's a holy place. It might not be holy in quite the same sense that the Temple was, but to a Catholic, a church is definitely something more than just a hall or meeting house. In one sense, believers' bodies are "the Temple", but a certain amount of reverence is still necessary in a church where people come together to pray and where bread and wine are turned into the Body of Christ. I've certainly never run across a Catholic church with a bunch of stores inside. Like dame says, a lot of Americans talk as if Christian meant Protestant, but it doesn't.
posted by ubersturm at 6:02 PM on December 18, 2005


sorry guys, most important Jewish holiday? the Sabbath. It's right there in the ten commandments. The other holidays are important too - but nothing is as central to Jewish observance as Shabbos:

Shabbat is the most important ritual observance in Judaism. It is the only ritual observance instituted in the Ten Commandments. It is also the most important special day, even more important than Yom Kippur. This is clear from the fact that more aliyoth (opportunities for congregants to be called up to the Torah) are given on Shabbat than on any other day.
from : http://www.jewfaq.org/shabbat.htm
posted by sfz at 6:38 PM on December 18, 2005


I've certainly never run across a Catholic church with a bunch of stores inside.

You have got to be kidding, right? I am not Catholic, but I'm Protestant. I see this frequently in Catholicism, and it -- er, it makes me upset. Yes.

Seriously, go into any cathedral, or even any Catholic worship space that is large enough. There will be a big gift shop with insanely overpriced tat. Sometimes they sell religious books, which I suppose fills a niche, but usually they sell all kinds of T-shirts and blankets and just crap with the cathedral's name on it.

I've seen it in lots of cathedrals I've been in, and Google says there are about 25,400 results for "cathedral shop." Not "cathedral gift shop," not "cathedral store," nothing about any kind of worship space that doesn't have a bishop's fancy throne (that's what a cathedral is).

Yes, there are lots of Catholic churches with big, insane, overpriced stores inside. It really, really makes me want to break out Matthew.
posted by booksandlibretti at 6:38 PM on December 18, 2005


Umm... I've been to quite a few Catholic churches in my time, and I've _never_ seen a gift shop. T shirts? Blankets? Are you sure you have the right denomination?

Note that it looks like all of the cathedrals on the first page of the results of your search are Episcopalian or Anglican, not Catholic. [Same with the ones on the second page too, it appears... I don't think it's worth pouring through even more church webpages to further confirm the trend.] Those Protestant denominations are closest to Catholicism, true, and they have bishops with "fancy thrones," but they're still not Catholic. Try adding "Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" to your search, and you'll see the number of results drop by a few orders of magnitude. A fair number of those results go to shops that sell Catholic stuff, but aren't Catholic themselves. Looking at the first few pages, the only Catholic cathedral shop I see listed in the US is St. Louis. [shrugs] Neither personal experience nor google seem to agree with your assertion that there are lots of Catholic churches with "big insane overpriced stores inside."
posted by ubersturm at 7:09 PM on December 18, 2005


(Well, when you're this far Protestant, the other end of the scale telescopes a bit....)

You're right that I should've subtracted Anglican/CoE. If I do as you suggested and just do catholic "cathedral shop", the number does drop to 550. But to be fair, I think Google is leaving out a good deal. Probably the best-known for doing this is St. Patrick's Cathedral, the big Catholic one in New York. But its gift shop? Not online at all. As far as I can find, this is St. Patrick's only webpage. I'm also familiar with other cathedrals that have shops that don't seem to be represented online. I have to think this is at least somewhat representative, in that there are other cathedrals (or other kinds of worship space, remember!) with gift shops but without websites.

And there are only 195 dioceses in the US (a list), so there can only be 195 American cathedrals. And still 550 hits for specifically Catholic cathedral shops worldwide, although not all the shops are represented online.
posted by booksandlibretti at 7:32 PM on December 18, 2005


I'm not trying to say that no Catholic church anywhere has ever had a gift shop inside the building. However, I don't think that it's particularly common, and certainly not to the extent to which you imply it is. Again, note that few of the hits for "catholic 'cathedral shop'" actually go to shops located in the cathedrals of Catholic churches, Quite a few of them seem to point to articles about religion, or to stores that happen to sell some Catholic stuff but are nondenominational or Protestant [usually Anglican or Episcopalian.] Sure, I bet not every shop has a webpresence. But that assumption works on Protestant cathedrals too, and there are still twenty thousand or so more hits [despite the fact that there are more Catholics than Protestants worldwide.] I also doubt that running a "big insane overpriced store" would be financially plausible for an average parish, unless the building itself was a huge tourist draw, so I don't think there are many parochial gift shops being missed in our little census. All in all, the numbers still suggest to me that stores located inside cathedrals are much more a Protestant thing than a Catholic thing. I tend to take fff's view of stores in churches, so I rather hope that it's not a growing trend.

Anyways, this is getting a bit far off topic. Sorry, all.
posted by ubersturm at 7:57 PM on December 18, 2005


Just to chime in briefly: often Catholic churches that are tourist desintations as much as they are churches have gift shops. However, average Catholic churches do not. Protestant megachurches, which are not tourist draws do. To me there is a vast difference between the two: it's one thing to get money from tourists to help with the gigantic upkeep on a cathedral and another to have a coffee shop in your home church. But I find a lot distateful about Protestantism, so I'm biased.
posted by dame at 10:07 PM on December 18, 2005


Could Christians just agree on what this Jesus fellow represents already? It'd make it easier for us Jews to figure out what to dislike. ;)
posted by boaz at 7:02 AM on December 19, 2005 [1 favorite]


Re: Passover vs. the Sabbath vs. Yom Kippur

SFZ's argument about the importance of the Sabbath is a valid one, and worth pointing out, and he's probably right if your definition of "holiday" is "any holy day." However, if by "holiday" you mean "holy day that comes once a year," then Yom Kippur would certainly outweigh Passover from a theological point of view.

Yom Kippur--the day of atonement--represents your last chance to truly repent for all the sins of the past year, thereby repairing your relationship with God. Passover is a celebration of one particular historical event--the exodus from Egypt. It's not hard to see which of those is more theologically significant.

However, I have read that Passover is the most commonly celebrated Jewish holiday, statistically speaking. I would hypothesize that this is precisely because Passover is a more secular holiday--it is essentially a celebration of freedom, and of the survival of the Jewish people against all odds, which is something that secular Jews as well as religious Jews can get behind. Yom Kippur, however, is all about the religious aspect, and is therefore less likely to be celebrated by your average ethnically Jewish agnostic.
posted by yankeefog at 8:03 AM on December 19, 2005


Oops. I just realized my post contributed to thread drift a little. SparkyPine, you've gotten a lot of great answers, but I want to add one more, which I personally think is the most important difference between the Christian and Jewish views of the Messiah.

As this helpful about.com page explains, Jews believe that the Messiah will "usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says [in the book of Isah]: 'Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore.'"

There is still hatred, oppression, suffering, and disease in the world. Ergo, the Messiah hasn't arrived.
posted by yankeefog at 8:12 AM on December 19, 2005


Does this extend to Catholics too? It seems that the whole point of taking communion is to sanctify the body, but I don't think anyone would put a Starbucks in a cathedral.

Actually, sort of.

St. James Cathedral here in Seattle runs an espresso cart in between Masses on Sundays. It's run by the church, however, and all money goes back to the church. If I recall, they even get their coffee beans from a monastary on Vashon Island, right outside of the city.
posted by spinifex23 at 11:05 AM on December 19, 2005


I think Futurama sums this all up more succinctly than anything else I've heard:

Fry: So you guys don't believe in Robot Jesus?
Robot Jew: We believe that Robot Jesus was built, and that he was a very well-programmed robot, but he was not our messiah.

posted by mike9322 at 12:36 PM on December 19, 2005


uberstom: I tend to take fff's Christ's view of stores in churches, so I rather hope that it's not a growing trend.

At least, if I interpret the NT version of events correctly. Personally, I could not care less if churches sell stuff.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:39 PM on December 19, 2005


« Older How do I adapt to a pregnancy-induced heightened...   |   Playing Music on my Mac Keyboard? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.