I didn’t say that “Christianity” itself quotes the Old Testament for purposes of bigotry, but that the fact that some Christians do even when said bigotry contradicts Jesus’s teachings, which is indisputable, is proof that Judaism is indeed packaged into Christianity in a certain form. And the point of view under which it can be called Judaism for export is really quite simple: Judaism considers Hebrews to be the Chosen People and everyone else is just out of luck. At best, you can marry into the religion. Jesus comes along and in a manner of speaking opens up access to the Hebrew God for anyone willing to follow him, regardless of their bloodline. Hence Judaism for export. Christianity quite literally took several Jewish ideas, such as their creation myth, and packaged them with a new doctrine that allowed them to be exported to other peoples.
Let’s not throw around words like antisemitism with such carelessness. There is bigotry in the Old Testament, such as the infamous Leviticus 20:13. Mentioning this is neither an attack on an entire race of people nor an implication that bigotry is somehow exclusive to Judaism, which just for the record, it most certainly is not. I’m trying to have a good faith conversation comparing different belief systems, and I don’t have the filthy habit of judging a human being’s worth from their religion, or worse, from their ethnicity.
There’s bigotry in the New Testament too, and great wisdom in the Old. Neither is without merit or flaw. The idea that the NT is insufficient for finding bad ideas that one must trawl back into the OT for such things is fundamentally what I was critiquing.
I think it’s fair to say that some Jewish text is incorporated into Christianity, but the interpretation is generally not the same. Christians may see themselves as practicing a logical extension of the worship of the God of Abraham, but from a Jewish perspective they’re doing their own thing.
Objectively I think that holds. A rabbi could explain it better I’m sure, but Christianity is quasi-polytheistic, often iconoclastic, and importantly rejects pretty much all Jewish law, supplanting it with the particular interpretations of one rabbi who is also the son of God but is also God himself.
I didn’t say that “Christianity” itself quotes the Old Testament for purposes of bigotry, but that the fact that some Christians do even when said bigotry contradicts Jesus’s teachings, which is indisputable, is proof that Judaism is indeed packaged into Christianity in a certain form. And the point of view under which it can be called Judaism for export is really quite simple: Judaism considers Hebrews to be the Chosen People and everyone else is just out of luck. At best, you can marry into the religion. Jesus comes along and in a manner of speaking opens up access to the Hebrew God for anyone willing to follow him, regardless of their bloodline. Hence Judaism for export. Christianity quite literally took several Jewish ideas, such as their creation myth, and packaged them with a new doctrine that allowed them to be exported to other peoples.
Let’s not throw around words like antisemitism with such carelessness. There is bigotry in the Old Testament, such as the infamous Leviticus 20:13. Mentioning this is neither an attack on an entire race of people nor an implication that bigotry is somehow exclusive to Judaism, which just for the record, it most certainly is not. I’m trying to have a good faith conversation comparing different belief systems, and I don’t have the filthy habit of judging a human being’s worth from their religion, or worse, from their ethnicity.
There’s bigotry in the New Testament too, and great wisdom in the Old. Neither is without merit or flaw. The idea that the NT is insufficient for finding bad ideas that one must trawl back into the OT for such things is fundamentally what I was critiquing.
I think it’s fair to say that some Jewish text is incorporated into Christianity, but the interpretation is generally not the same. Christians may see themselves as practicing a logical extension of the worship of the God of Abraham, but from a Jewish perspective they’re doing their own thing.
Objectively I think that holds. A rabbi could explain it better I’m sure, but Christianity is quasi-polytheistic, often iconoclastic, and importantly rejects pretty much all Jewish law, supplanting it with the particular interpretations of one rabbi who is also the son of God but is also God himself.