AspieMartian wrote:
To Helek-Aphel - First, I hate "prooftexts" - when someone grabs some one-liner out of the Bible, out of context, and goes, "See!" The Bible's way too complex to be treated like that. Second, all that section in Gal means is Paul's affirming to the Galantians that, as Christians and living in the New Covenant of Christ, they are still of the faith of Abraham. That does not mean Christians are Jews by another name. In the larger context of the New Testamant, we know what Acts of the Apostles records about the conflicts between the new Gentile Chrisitans and Jewish converts and how the Apostles quickly recognized and taught that Christians have an religious identity distinct from Judaic traditions, one that did not put "unnecessary burdens" on gentile Christians. This is why the Apostles, especially Peter and Paul, taught Chrisitans are not required to observe Jewish rituals and holidays.
Because Christians do have a distinct religious identity from the Jewish people, I don't think it's appropriate to assume we have "rights" to consider ourselves Jewish. It's rather insulting to the Jewish people and all their valid reasons for seeing themselves as distinct, for starters. Moreover, that Jesus was Jewish, and yes, raised as a faithful observer of the Judaic faith, does not mean we as Chrisitans should do the same. Jesus made a New Covenant with the Father for ALL people, not just the Jews. Read the Gospels, espeicially John!! Read Acts!! This debate was settled (or so we thought) 2000 years ago!! !
First off, I know it's a prooftext, and I know that prooftexts are invalid logic.
This wasn't a debate until now, so invalid logic is, as I understand casual conversation, perfectly permissible.
I have read the entire New Testament, including the Gospels and Acts, and I have studied the background of the New Testament at a college level, so I know the whole argument about Christians observing the law.
One group of people , the Judaizers, claimed that Gentile converts to Christianity must obey the whole of the law, including circumcision.
The position of Peter and James was that Gentile converts did not need to be circumcised, but should at least follow a core set of laws forbidding sexual immorality, the eating of blood, etc.
The position of Paul was that Gentiles rejected Christ if they became Jews.
The position of the Antinomians was that we are allowed to do absolutely anything. The law is completely void.
Christianity did begin as a "heretical" sect within Judaism. It split out of Judaism for one main issue. The main issue back then was whether the Gentile Christians needed to be circumcised. These days, for health reasons, practically everyone who can be circumcised does get circumcised.
I'm not equating the two religions. I acknowledge that there is, by all technicality, distinction between the two religions, but the Christian faith did come out of the Jewish faith. For those of us who wish to emphasize the Jewish roots of the Christian faith, I see no reason why we cannot. We still acknowledge that following the Jewish traditions is not necessary. It is merely a matter of preference.
As far as insulting the Jewish people is concerned, I have no intention of doing so, and I feel that my observance of Christianity as a Jewish faith praises the Jews because they can realize that they are more accepted than they thought they were. Why would someone willingly follow customs that the person is completely opposed to?
Concerning celibrating Jewish holidays, I believe that neither Christmas nor Easter are actually Christian holidays. They come from Pagan tradition. It makes more sense that a person following a faith that has its roots in Judaism to celebrate a Jewish holiday rather than a Pagan one.
As a final statement, I never claimed he had any "right". I claimed that he had "reason".
06 Dec 2007, 7:41 pm
