Origins Of The Bible
FilthyLarry
Join Date: 2003-08-31 Member: 20423Members
Join Date: 2003-08-31 Member: 20423Members
<div class="IPBDescription">divine inspiration or competing faiths ?</div> I have voiced my suspicions that the Bible has been influenced by several competing faiths in earlier threads. Keep in mind that whether you are Christian or not, the Bible does make mention of the Israelites worshipping "false" gods such as Baal. So clearly there is evidence of Israelite exposure to other religions from the 'good book' itself.
Furthermore, even in today's world there is evidence of the influence that religious practices of one faith has on another. I know of several Christians using a traditional Buddhist tool of meditation to explore themselves. So it is seems that exposure to other ideas usually seems to result in at least some intermingling of thoughts eventually.
I know there is already a thread about the accuracy of the Bible, and although this is somewhat related I think it deserves a topic of its own because it is not so much about whether the tales in the Bible have a scientific backing for their truth (accuracy) , but whether those tales are in fact copied from earlier religions.
I have discovered a very thought provoking article that makes mention of the Ugarit-Bible connection.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
1. Introduction.
The ancient Canaanite city-state of Ugarit is of utmost importance for those who study the Old Testament. The literature of the city and the theology contained therein go a very long way in helping us to understand the meaning of various Biblical passages as well as aiding us in deciphering difficult Hebrew words. Ugarit was at its political, religious and economic height around the 12th century BCE and thus its period of greatness corresponds with the entry of Israel into Canaan.
Why should people interested in the Old Testament want to know about this city and its inhabitants? Simply because when we listen to their voices we hear echoes of the Old Testament itself. Several of the Psalms were simply adapted from Ugaritic sources; the story of the flood has a near mirror image in Ugaritic literature; and the language of the Bible is greatly illuminated by the language of Ugarit. For instance, look at M. Dahood’s brilliant commentary on the Psalms in the Anchor Bible series for the necessity of Ugaritic for accurate Biblical exegesis. (N.B., for a more thorough discussion of the language of Ugarit, the student is advised to take the course titled “Ugaritic Grammar” offered by this institution).
In short, when one has well in hand the literature and theology of Ugarit, one is well on the way to being able to comprehend some of the moststament. For this reason it is worthwhile that we pursue this topic.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The complete article can be found here. <a href='http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm' target='_blank'> Article </a>
So what do you guys think ? Were the ideas in the bible simply an adaption or a mish-mash of older ideas ? What about the new Testament ?
Furthermore, even in today's world there is evidence of the influence that religious practices of one faith has on another. I know of several Christians using a traditional Buddhist tool of meditation to explore themselves. So it is seems that exposure to other ideas usually seems to result in at least some intermingling of thoughts eventually.
I know there is already a thread about the accuracy of the Bible, and although this is somewhat related I think it deserves a topic of its own because it is not so much about whether the tales in the Bible have a scientific backing for their truth (accuracy) , but whether those tales are in fact copied from earlier religions.
I have discovered a very thought provoking article that makes mention of the Ugarit-Bible connection.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
1. Introduction.
The ancient Canaanite city-state of Ugarit is of utmost importance for those who study the Old Testament. The literature of the city and the theology contained therein go a very long way in helping us to understand the meaning of various Biblical passages as well as aiding us in deciphering difficult Hebrew words. Ugarit was at its political, religious and economic height around the 12th century BCE and thus its period of greatness corresponds with the entry of Israel into Canaan.
Why should people interested in the Old Testament want to know about this city and its inhabitants? Simply because when we listen to their voices we hear echoes of the Old Testament itself. Several of the Psalms were simply adapted from Ugaritic sources; the story of the flood has a near mirror image in Ugaritic literature; and the language of the Bible is greatly illuminated by the language of Ugarit. For instance, look at M. Dahood’s brilliant commentary on the Psalms in the Anchor Bible series for the necessity of Ugaritic for accurate Biblical exegesis. (N.B., for a more thorough discussion of the language of Ugarit, the student is advised to take the course titled “Ugaritic Grammar” offered by this institution).
In short, when one has well in hand the literature and theology of Ugarit, one is well on the way to being able to comprehend some of the moststament. For this reason it is worthwhile that we pursue this topic.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The complete article can be found here. <a href='http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm' target='_blank'> Article </a>
So what do you guys think ? Were the ideas in the bible simply an adaption or a mish-mash of older ideas ? What about the new Testament ?
Comments
But who knows, maybe the Ugarit borrowed stuff from the Israelites? Dates are iffy, you got biblical archaeologists claiming they found the walls of Jericho that are 6000 B.C and other people claiming they found this and that. Not a lot of realiable information these days, because the dates seem to confuse with each other, accordingly with the bible. I honestly think that making comparisons from both religions doesn't defer the main idea in which the Israelites believed in, an almighty God. Many years ago, who knows when, God called out Abraham, and Abraham listened to him. Thus the nation of Israel was truly born under his name. This all happened of course along time before the proverbs or psalms were written. It is also likely that during this period in Canaan, bad kings ruled Israel and were drawn in to other religions, people followed, and then probably entwined their paagan beliefs with that of the Almighty God.
But who knows what really happenned back then, who knows what is really true and false. In my opinion, when looking from a different angle, the bible is quite an amazing accomplishment of events written down to an amazing accurate degree. Maybe I am wrong, but that is why we have biblical archaeologists out in the field to prove what is right.
The New testament, in my opinion, is alot more accurate than the old testament. There are four gospels and each writes down the events in a way that is believable and understandable. The fact that there were four different sources telling the same story, and that each gospel was unique in its own interpetation, is quite amazing. These gospels were found to be written some 30 years after Jesus's death. The way that the authors of the New testament recorded the life of Jesus is quite believable, because he isn't presented in a fashionable way, like a prince in a riding chariot. Betrayal, crucifixion, who would want to write down a story like this to falsify people's hopes, if it wasn't for there mere desire to tell the true story behind Jesus Christ?
What is also amazing is how archaeologists have found traces of the name of Pontius Pilate on stone pillars dating back to the era of Jesus, and a stone ossuary with the name James, brother of Jesus son of Joseph. Also, there are ossuaries of Caiaphus, the head of the Sanhedrin Council, which condemmed Jesus to death, and Alexender, son of Simon of Cyrene, who are both mentioned in the book of Mark. Even more weird, was the discovery of the Jesus ossuary with title inscribed, Jesus son of Joseph, Mary, Jude, who was one of his brothers.
Who knows, maybe these are tombs of someone else; the media is tight over matters of such importance like these, that is why they are not very well known amongst the world, because of wildfire criticisim and such.
But who knows, maybe the Ugarit borrowed stuff from the Israelites? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm glad you found it interesting. There is so much information out there that I had no idea existed. This research is proving to be very thought-provoking.
I think the Ugarit and Israelites had a cultural exchange of some sort. Here's another bit of that article
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
In the Old Testament Baal is named 58 times in the singular and 18 times in the plural. The prophets protested constantly against the love affair the Israelites had with Baal (cf. Hosea 2:19, for example). The reason Israel was so attracted to Baal was that, first of all, some Israelites viewed Yahweh as a God of the desert and so when they arrived in Canaan they thought it only proper to adopt Baal, the god of fertility. As the old saying goes, “whose land, his god”. For these Israelites Yahweh was useful in the desert but not much help in the land.
There is one Ugaritic text which seems to indicate that among the inhabitants of Ugarit, Yahweh was viewed as another son of El. KTU 1.1 IV 14 says:
sm . bny . yw . ilt
“The name of the son of god, Yahweh.”
This text seems to show that Yahweh was known at Ugarit, though not as the Lord but as one of the many sons of El.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It seems to suggest that there was some mutual exchange of ideas.
Not to mention, that the New Testament was more or less, all accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus. (Note: Four Gospels), so if you're talking about that, it would be very possible for there to be a mish-mash of historical information on his teachings in other areas, especially if they were small portions derived from the books of Paul.
Now it would be inaccurate, I believe, to account any phrases to a certain group, or even say "adapt".
Psalms is a book of poetry, praise and wisdom. Of course, wisdom is not unique to any particular people group, for wisdom is the knowledge of experiences and time.
To say something like "Be slow to anger" and to disenfranchise the origins to the book in which the phrase was found just because it was used elsewhere is just flat out illogical.
Also keep in mind, that as a society, especially in relation to today, it still would be very possible for the exchange of styles of art, types of music, and literature.
Take for example, the contemporary world, people in close areas can be very similar in style/literature/language yet this has no ties to theology or philosophy, since both theology and philosophy are independent of style and are unique to themselves and only relate to periods of time in which they may be defined (Note : Jesus Christ came during a specified time, and is the defining factor in Christianity, ergo it could be possible to define Christianity's roots to a time period, but one could not tie it to the dominate type of architecture during that period), not necessarily art of the time, although theology may be portrayed through art, art wouldn't define aspects of theology now would it ?
Also note, that whilst you may claim of sharing of "religions" influence eachother, this isn't necessarily true, it influences people, true, but not necessarily theology, Buddhism was used as an example, and meditation, that may be true to a person, but not a theology, and is completely unique to an individual, and even then, doesn't justify to an adaptation of their religion (Especially if an individual claimed to be practicing "Christianity" yet believed in Buddhist ideals, certainly a claim wouldn't define an individuals because their actions of the Buddhist faith would most definetly claim otherwise, <This also begins the product of 'modernized/contemporarized religions' which become their own religions, and not a revolution or transformation of another>)
In short, and all summed up. Styles may be influenced by different cultures, however, theology is independent from style, style only portrays a thought, it doesn't define it, <b>although it is the physical representation of the metaphysical.</b>
I think you guys both raise good points such as problems with determining exactly who influenced / copied ideas from whom, and the fact that people can independently achieve a reasonable pool of common wisdom.
I'm going to try dig some more and see if I can formulate a more precise commentary on that article I found, and perhaps find additional sources of information.
My instincts tell me that there is alot more here than meets the eye. I am an ex-christian, so I am naturally biased against the Bible, but at the same time still interested in the text that is a part of my history.
It is difficult to put yourself in the place of a person who lived that long ago. Difficult to imagine the mindset of someone who would potentially sacrifice their own child to some forgotten deity.
I can only imagine what it must be like to literally believe that someone controls the "rain switch" for your crop, and that he demands you do x,y and z to make him happy. Perhaps this sheds some light on the extreme behaviour; the extreme sacrifice that people would do in the name of religion.
If you were this superstitious, what would happen if you found yourself in a different land, with different gods. Would you be tempted to worship those gods to cultivate their favour ? Cleary some Israelites did exactly this.
If you were a prophet of X at this time, and you wanted to make sure that X was the only god that your people worshipped, how would _you_ go about doing this ? One way would be to present a universally popular package deal, where X is more powerful than the other gods Y and Z. If great things are written about the others then those great things must be true for X as well, not so ? Perhaps you would even be tempted to use literature that describes those beings for your own X; in this way X would seem more appealing to the people who are used to worshipping Y and Z.
All of this is just theory on my part of course. Is it plausible though ? I think we need to dig dipper than what is handed down by our parents, we must examine things for ourselves. Being raised in a Christian environment I understand how hard it is to even think that what has been taught at a young, impressionable age, could be inaccurate - or outright untrue.
Prove A : Christ never existed.
OR
Prove B : He never performed any miracles nor was he sinless.
Otherwise, it's not really possible to dismiss Christianity, because it is the product of history, not a concoction of one's mind.
Prove A : Christ never existed.
OR
Prove B : He never performed any miracles nor was he sinless.
Otherwise, it's not really possible to dismiss Christianity, because it is the product of history, not a concoction of one's mind. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I concur with your A and B. I would however suggest that there are still more ways such as:
Prove C : Discredit Christ's Source. He claimed to be the son of God (the Israelites' god) and therefore if you can show that YahWeh was/is no better than Baal or any other god mentioned then much of the Bible is automatically discredited, including Christianity.
Certainly, assuming all that actually took place though. Which is quite an assumption considering:
i) Someone claims to fall pregnant a virgin
ii) The child of that someone claims to be the son of God !
Looking at that objectively I think it understandable that some are going to have doubts. I think sometimes we are too used to simply taking those at face value and not really grasping the immensity of those claims.
How would we as a society today react to someone saying something like that ?
First off, it seems we are doubting the credibility of Jesus. Through out the Old testament there is something close to several hundred (possibly even a thousand) prophecies made about the Messiah. And Jesus fulfilled them all. Even those over which he had absolutely no control, including his family line and place of birth.
Two common arguements are then made - first of all, that Jesus was an opportunist. He was born inline with the prophecies, realised this and decided to capitalise on in, and set about fulfilling these prophecies. This arguement is pretty easily answered by quoting a few prophecies, but in the time honor and noble tradition of skulkbait, I will leave absolutely no evidence to support my claim. I will get back to you on that however.
The other arguement is revisionist history. Christ came, Christ lived, and then people made up stories about him to fit in with those hundreds of prophecies. Answer - When the New Testament scriptures had written, it was too early to start rewriting history. People would have been able to challenge it, especially the Jews, point out the obvious frauds. It has even been suggested that the New Testament was written within living memory of Christ, though some dispute that.
And as to ugariat - from what I read the article made no mention of any laws copied verbatim, no "sayings of ugariat gods" that were copied the same. I can certainly imagine a Jewish poet haxoring a really cool poem he once read and adapting it to apply to his God, but thats just cultural influence on styles of writing and reading. The article doesnt actual make the link of "Judaism is copied from the Ugariats", it simply states that obviously the Jews were very much influenced in writing styles by them.
As for the story of the Flood, if that story is indeed true then it would stand to reason that just about every civilization would have its own flood story. As we see has happened, almost every culture has a flood story lurking in its past. No one is claiming that the Australian Aboriginal flood story was haxed from the Ugariats, yet they have one too.
Sorry, Sirus, but that's just not true: Christianity is mainly founded on Judaistic teaching <i>reinterpreted by Jesus</i>. To show the difference: During the infamous 'Homosexuals and the Bible' debate, we came to a point when we more or less agreed that a statement from the Old Testament could not necessarily be taken as binding, as it could be either law (and thus religiously binding), or tradition, and thus taken out of effect by Jesus acts. Now, if we only looked at Jesus' statements in the New Testament (in which he never condemns homosexuality specifically, but only sexual sins) and ignored Judaistic religious teaching, the argumentation you too followed wouldn't hold water anymore.
Thus, it is indeed meaningful to the understanding of Christianity whether and in how far Judaistic teaching was influenced by outside sources. This would not even discredit Christianity in its whole - it would merely mean a shift of emphasis in certain aspects.
Now, I'm absolutely convinced that Judaistic (and later Christian) teaching was, like any other cultural aspect of any culture ever to come to existance, exposed to outside influences. I'd like to take Rines example of the flood stories as prove.
First, we should keep in mind that most historicans agree that the story of Noah referrs to a local flood that pretty much overwhelmed the whole of the land between Euphrat and Tigris (which is, as we all know, the origin of the Judiastic culture).
Yes, there are reports of floods throughout the world, but it is more likely that most referr to other local catastrophes, although a vocal group of historicans claims that the mentioning of 'fiery snakes' (=dragons) all around the planet connected with such disasters hints at an even older event involving the strike of a small asteroid.
Anyway, concerning Nohas specific flood, we can find astonishing similiarities between this story and passages in the Babylonian Gilgamesh epos (which also happens to take place between Euphrat and Tigris). Seeing that Gilgamesh outdates any Judaistic story by a millenium, it seems quite likely to me that Noahs story as we see it today is the Judaistic version of the events described in the Epos. Thus, we see an older report influencing a nowadays Biblical story.
Does this discredit the Bible, Christianity, or this specific part of its teachings? No, but it shows what is historically absolutely obvious: That there were cultures before and contemporary to Judaism, and that, like any culture and religion, it was influenced by them as much as it influenced others. Some will now draw the 'Jewish isolationism' trump, claiming that Judaistic religion always defined itself <i>against</i> other contemporary and older religions, and thus not drawing influence from them. I'd argue that the intention of not becoming similiar to another culture bears at least as much influence as taking up traits of it, as such a behaviour means specifically avoiding aspects of a foreign culture - which is in itself an action influenced by said culture. Also, one should keep in mind that there were times in history when the Jewish culture was 'established' in a working nation, and thus not as defensive as usual in our times.
Prove A : Christ never existed.
OR
Prove B : He never performed any miracles nor was he sinless.
Otherwise, it's not really possible to dismiss Christianity, because it is the product of history, not a concoction of one's mind. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
For an interesting viewpoint of 'B' try <a href='http://www.usbible.com/Jesus/ten_commandments_and_jesus.htm' target='_blank'>Possible_Sins</a>
As for the story of the Flood, if that story is indeed true then it would stand to reason that just about every civilization would have its own flood story. As we see has happened, almost every culture has a flood story lurking in its past. No one is claiming that the Australian Aboriginal flood story was haxed from the Ugariats, yet they have one too. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's the thing though. The bible is supposed to be the flawless word of God/YahWeh right ? So why would Yahweh suffer the indignation of having some "borrowed/modified" poetry - that used to describe Baal of all things - to describe Himself ? Do you still claim this was divinely inspired ?
I'm not saying the Israelites came up with no material of their own. However it seems clear that the Israelites had a love affair with many of the gods around them. And that only through time and much grief did they seem to head towards monotheism.
Additionaly, there is evidence that more than just poetry was "borrowed". <a href='http://members.rogers.com/davidsteinberg/ugarit.htm' target='_blank'>source</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The united Israelite kingdom under Solomon borrowed its administrative system[2] and the Wisdom tradition of education administrators from the Egyptians. A “smoking gun” is found in the biblical Book of Proverbs which probably started out as a Wisdom textbook. Proverbs 22:17-24:22 “…is modeled on an Egyptian work, The Instructions of Amen-em-ope. This may have been composed as early as the thirteenth century B.C., but was still being copied centuries later and may well have been studied during his training by an Israelite scribe of the prophetic period.”
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As for the flood story, I see this as a lose/lose situation for your side. If the Israelites simply borrowed the Ugarit Story and added/modified, this is no longer the word of YahWeh right ? If they came up with the story on their own, then what makes the cult of Yahweh any different than any of the other people that claimed such a story ?
Also, I feel we have to keep in mind the following. Yahweh demands sacrifices/gets angry/ sets rules just like pretty much any other god of that area/time. Again, what makes Yahweh different than the others ?
1 Kings 18 gives an interesting account of a challenge between those who worship Baal and those that worship YahWeh. The deal is to see which god can send down fire. Amazingly enough those that worship YahWeh are the winners and guess what ? All those that worship Baal are slaughtered. Nice and tidy, no witnesses to say that anything different happened.
Note of childlike thinking: perhaps Eden was Atlantis and Atlantis was wiped out by the flood, which is almost depicted in the histories of many cultures across oceans and continents.
So who is to say what is right or wrong? In my opinion, many things like the story of the flood were borrowed and passed down from generation to generation, like Nem said. There must be some truth in the story of the flood, since many cultures embrace it.
Do you know that the Sphinx in Egypt could possibly be older than 10,000 BC? That it was also worn down and eroded by rain and water, which could in turn be linked to the flood, or the possibility that the desert was a lushish environment? There are so many theories and subject matter out there. The truth is often tangled in assumptious ideas and science. Relating moments in history like the Ugarit to the flood; having someone debunk it as false; then people argueiing that the flood is Jewish in origion; there is no conclusion. We can argue forever and get nowhere, but it is better to deem the possibilities than saying what should be true or not. Of couse most of you know this, already.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Oct 2 2003, 10:17 AM --></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Oct 2 2003, 10:17 AM )</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Christianity is mainly founded on Judaistic teaching reinterpreted by Jesus.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, Jesus didn't merely reinterpet Judaistic teaching, he flipped the whole old testament upside down and baffled all the Judaistic scholars (pharisees and saducees).Thus his <hint><hint> execution. Now I'm not saying that he wasn't influenced by the Judaistic Principles and Laws, but he was sure apt into saying things no one else would have dared to utter.
<!--QuoteBegin--FilthyLarry+Oct 2 2003, 01:58 AM --></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Oct 2 2003, 01:58 AM )</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Certainly, assuming all that actually took place though. Which is quite an assumption considering:
i) Someone claims to fall pregnant a virgin
ii) The child of that someone claims to be the son of God !
Looking at that objectively I think it understandable that some are going to have doubts. I think sometimes we are too used to simply taking those at face value and not really grasping the immensity of those claims.
How would we as a society today react to someone saying something like that<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Assuming that Jesus never lived in the year 0, and that the crusades and such never happenned, probably the same way the people back then treated him. This is also assuming we didn't upgrade our humanistic views into today.
But if someone did happen to come today with the same powers and charisma of Jesus, he would probably be the anti-christ, save that of his looks.
Prove A : Christ never existed.
OR
Prove B : He never performed any miracles nor was he sinless.
Otherwise, it's not really possible to dismiss Christianity, because it is the product of history, not a concoction of one's mind. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very well put in a moderate way. I like that.
Jesus doesn't just reinterpret the Old Testament, he was the fulfillment of God's prophecies. He came with the "Law", the judgement of mankind now that there was a savior. He brought a new law, and an <b><u><i>expanded law.</b></i></u>
He did use the Old Testament though, especially when teaching lessons.
Jesus was simply the promised savior that came after the Old Testament was written, as promised.
Therefore, Christianity is based on Jesus, without Jesus, it wouldn't have existed. So Christianity is very much based on Jesus, in addition to the same foundations of Judaism, because Jews believe in the same God, Yahweh, or YHWH, but they don't believe Jesus was the savior that God promised he would send.
<!--QuoteBegin--MATT+5,17--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MATT @ 5,17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Jesus states literally that he did <i>not</i> "come" with the law, but that he is only going to "fulfill" (and thus reinterpret) the law and the prophets, both sources from the Jewish religion. The Old Testaments influence on Christianity does thus necessarily extend the frame of his "teaching lessons".
Notice the Ten Commandments.
Jesus now expanded upon that you no longer have to physically commit adultery to break the law, but doing it in your heart is the same as doing it physically. And guess what ? When you honestly hate someone, that's like killing someone in your heart.
And he did fulfill the Law of the Prophets. There was an already established law, Jesus didn't reiterate it all, it was already known, but he built further upon it. Most likely because there was a direct saviour.
For those too lazy to jump back, I said that Jesus was basing himself on Judaistic teaching, as you admit yourself, and reinterpreting (Or expanding. Or fulfilling. Or whatever other word you want to use.) it. Thus, Christianity isn't solely centered around Jesus, but also around the teaching that's the foundation of his teaching. Thus, considering the sources of <i>that</i> teaching is meaningful to Christianity, as well.
Any disagreement here?
I just needed to be <i>very</i> literal.
My point, is that Christianity is based on Judaistic teachings, yes, yes, but without Jesus, Christianity would be Judaism. Christianity, is based completely on Jesus under the fact that in addition to all the Judaistic teachings. I wasn't trying to establish a lack of God the Father (Reference to Trinity, YHWH may not necessarily just mean God the Father)
For those too lazy to jump back, I said that Jesus was basing himself on Judaistic teaching, as you admit yourself, and reinterpreting (Or expanding. Or fulfilling. Or whatever other word you want to use.) it. Thus, Christianity isn't solely centered around Jesus, but also around the teaching that's the foundation of his teaching. Thus, considering the sources of <i>that</i> teaching is meaningful to Christianity, as well.
Any disagreement here? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And that is why any true Christian will start off as Orthodox, then become a Qubahlist, then a Zionist. Heh, honestly organized relegion boggles me, why exactly can't you gain spiritual enlightment without committing yourself to any one particular relegion, they all have things to offer you know.
So it's the same religion. Modern Day Judaism, Post-Christ, is simply what it was back then, with the absence of all of Christ's teachings, who was promised to come.