Talk:Christianity and Judaism

message: Just noticed that under the heading "Common Christian views of Judaism", the following text appears:
"Some Christians who view the Jewish people as close to God seek to understand and incorporate elements of Jewish understanding or perspective into their beliefs as a means to respect their "parent" religion of Judaism, or to more fully seek out and return to their Christian roots. Christians embracing aspects of Judaism are sometimes criticized as Biblical Judaizers by Christians when they pressure Gentile Christians to observe Old Testament teachings rejected by many [modern Christians]."
The text in brackets redirects to a page entitled "Cafeteria Christianity", which, according to the page "... is a derogatory term used by some Christians, and others, to accuse other Christian[s]..."
The definition of "Cafeteria Christianity" clearly requires its placement in this article to be baised towards a particular theological dispute within Christianity. 
I am going to go ahead and remove this link as it is:
1. A very clear bias against a particular opinion.
2. Factually incorrect.
-According to the page on Cafeteria Christianity, this term appeared in 1986.
-We know that the rejection of Jewish rites was proposed by 
      -Ignatius (100 CE)
      -The Synod of Elvira (306 CE)
long before the term Cafeteria Christianity existed.
3. Shows a clear bias towards Christianity in the United States, as that is where the term orginiated.
4. Has no citiation
The paragraph itself in the article is of low quaility and will probably have to be replaced, as it does not respect several opinions on the subject.
jamiles1000  —Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cafeteria Christianity" 

message: While I find the section Sin being very interesting, it doesn't succeed in contrasting the Jewish and the Christian views against each other. As far as I can see the Jewish opinion is in accord with the Christian view, the other way around I know less about, but specifically the statement:
:There is almost always a "way back" if a person wills it. (Although texts mention certain categories for whom the way back will be exceedingly hard, such as the slanderer, the habitual gossip, and the malicious person)
seems very similar to the "Catholic" (vs. the Donatists) claim that apostasy is always reversible, a claim which is shared by at least Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans and Orthodox churches. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the real difference in "sin" concepts is that the Christian sin (not the Catholic specifics, they're just a Catholic speciality not shared by other Christianities) counterparts het — "to go astray" — but that this het is a more or less continuous distance from God (?) in Judaism, remediable by following the traditions and the rabbis, while in Christianity it is a digital state (on/off) that can only be broken by "salvation" which is mostly interpreted as a submission under Jesus.  The difference is the mode of remedy: in Judaism it is an adherence to a praxis, in Christianity it is generally (but not universally) regarded an emotional submission, lacking an immediate connection with acts and behavior. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 09:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: More sin!

message: Next to last paragraph in Sacred Texts claim:
:Some Christians (see also Dual-covenant theology) agree that Jews who accept Jesus should still observe all of Torah, based on warnings by Jesus to Jews not to use him as an excuse to disregard it,[23] and they support efforts of those like Messianic Jews to do that, but other forms of Christianity oppose all observance to the Mosaic law, even by Jews, which is sometimes known as Antinomianism[clarification needed].
Non-observation of a religious law may certainly be called "Antinomianism" by some, but Antinomianism is not a religious objective term, it is an academic expression exclaiming something like "lawless scum"! So also these non-observing groups must have some detractors, criticisingly called those groups: "you scum!!" What group is that? I can easily imagine the following candidates:
* Jews are calling some Christian groups "Scum!!", or
* other Christians are calling some Christian groups "Scum!!".
Which is it? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See Antinomianism#Antinomian_Controversies_in_Lutheranism and Luther#Anti-Antinomianism for more details. 75.15.203.103 (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

text: So to answer your question directly, some Christians call other Christians Antinomian. Judaism does not consider Christianity to be Antinomian as long as they follow the Noahide Laws which apply to all humans. 75.15.203.103 (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Also, if you want a Jewish view of Antinomianism, see Jewish Encyclopedia: Antinomianism, and for a Catholic view see Catholic Encyclopedia: Antinomianism. 75.0.8.252 (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Antinomianism

message: Hi, I'm Wikipedia's pilot347 and i believe that no human should be denied life. If you abort a baby, you have killed a person, and a baby at that!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilot347 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a forum discussion for expressing your personal opinions, unless those opinions regard the article named Christianity and Judaism. Questions and opinions that can be used for improving the article are however welcome. As for Hell, life is often a Hell for many, so we don't need an extra one. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not aborting children 

message: Iam deleting the this sentence of the text in the concepts of god part. It stands in absolut opposition to the introductional sentence and is wrong by logic.
"Some Jewish and Christian philosophers hold that due to these differences; based on these differences, Christianity and Judaism do not believe in the same God at all."
the introductional sentence:
"Traditionally, both Judaism and Christianity believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, for Jews the God of the Tanakh, for Christians the God of the Old Testament, the creator of the universe."
I also remark that the text of the tanakh and the old testament are identic
In Judaism the name is "Tanakh", in Christianity the name is "old testament"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiago84 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concepts of God 

message: According to the hatnote,
:This article is about widely diverging views between two religions. For the values held in common, see Judeo-Christian.
But the article Judeo-Christian is not a discussion of the values held in common.  Rather, (and arguably appropriately, given its title), it is a discussion of the history and use of that particular phrase itself.
Can I therefore suggest that, as (in my view, correctly) Judeo-Christian is not doing the job advertised in the hatnote, then the hatnote needs to be changed; and more significantly, this article needs to step up to the plate.  
If this article, Christianity and Judaism, is to live up to its title (and also be much more in line with wiki's policy against WP:POVFORK), then the proper function of this article, given its title, should be to be the top-level introduction to all aspects of relationships and comparison between Christianity and Judaism -- including, but not necessarily limited to, what may be common ground between the two faiths; where the two faiths may differ, both broadly and in detail; and also the historical nature of relations between the two faiths.  For comparison, that is roughly the scope that Christianity and Islam and Islam and Judaism set themselves.
To make room for all of that, some of what is currently in the article probably needs to be condensed, or spun out to subsidiary articles, WP:SUMMARY-style.  And of course, the detail of the most of what is not yet in the article no doubt similarly would be spun out summary-style.
But I think it would be only for the good, if WP could create a go-to article introducing all sides of the relation between Christianity and Judaism, a jumping-off point to all sorts of more detailed treatment, but on this page placing agreement and disagreement set out side by side.  Jheald (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has a standing need to be merged into Judeo-Christian. This has already passed discussion but has not been done. See the top of this page: Talk:Judeo-Christian. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 20:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Check the talk page archives on both pages (eg here).  The merge was discussed at length, and at length was agreed to be inappropriate.  (One of the problems had been that the AfD which came to the merge decision hadn't even been mentioned on the Talk:Judeo-Christian page). We checked with an admin what the appropriate thing to do was, and their advice was that if consensus had changed, the AfD result could be set aside.  Strictly, after all, AfD is a decision to delete/not delete.  Merge counts as not delete.  But check the talk page archives for the full discussion.  I've raised at Template talk:Afd-merge from the desirability of creating a new template Template:Afd-merge-from not done to cover a situation such as this.  Jheald (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Interestingly, the view you yourself expressed was:  "Do not delete nor merge. --Carlaude (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Jheald; this article should never be merged with "Judeo-Christian." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote, and focus of this article 

message: I noticed the third from last sentence in the last paragraph, and last one talking about Catholicism, in this subsection at least, if it is neutral, seems not so.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality in Subsection 5.4-"Right Action-Abortion" 

message: I find the page to have a very narrow minded view on the Christian and Jewish historical relationship. Firstly, the page claims that Christians have persecuted Jews for centuries and thus has made their relationship very tensional. Although Christians have done many bad things towards Jews, the same can also be said on Jewish crimes against Christians. Christians, especially Jewish converts to Christianity, were persecuted by the Jews for centuries until Constantine made Christianity a licit religion. Secondly, Christians and Jews have enjoyed many moments were they were not fighting each other and tolerated and respected each other. Many Popes went out in defence of Judaism and spoke against and condemned Jewish persecution. After the Protestant reformation, Jews were allowed back into England after being banished for centuries. I think it's important to give a more nuanced perspective of the historical relationship between Judaism and Christianity were not only the bad is mentioned.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NorwegianCross (talk • contribs) 07:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over simplified portrait of Jewish-Christian historical relations  

message: The section on inter-relationship concentrates on anti-Semitism and Christian hostility towards Jews. This is misleading. Christianity has a generally positive attitude towards Jews. Conversely Jews have a generally negative attitude towards Christianity. To the extent that one hates the other, it is Jews hating Christians, not the other way around. Some of this ought to be reflected in the article.122.59.140.215 (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia only summarizes (without addition or interpretation) professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources.  If you can point to statements in this article that are not reliably sourced, they could be removed.  If you have statements that are based on reliable sources, we can attempt to give it due weight in proportion to all other sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inter-relationship 

message: Regarding this section: "Examples of this are certain commandments that God states explicitly shall abide "for ever" (for example Exo 31:16-17, Exo 12:14-15), or certain practices which God prohibits as abominations, but which are not prohibited by most Christian denominations."  
Are there any other citations available for this that would be less problematic?  The claim appears to be that Christians do not honor the Sabbath or celebrate Passover.  The Sabbath is obligatory in every denomination (with exceptions for saving life, etc) while the latter is celebrated as part of Christian culture in almost all denominations, with most celebrating it as Palm Sunday by sharing unleavened bread.  The dates are different and the exact practices vary widely.
Perhaps some other citations would more clearly illustrate the point being made - that a practice the Torah described as eternal is ignored by Christians.  If there aren't any though, I would leave the article as it is, since the point being made is the Jewish perspective on the Christian Testament rather than arguing the merits of a theological claim.
65.50.81.169 (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic Citation? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Christianity and Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723215712/http://www.christianindex.org/1657.article to http://www.christianindex.org/1657.article
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the beginning of the article it says, "Christians believe in individual salvation from sin through repentance and receiving Jesus Christ as their God and Savior through Faith in Christianity." This might be a good representation of Protestant Christianity, but it is different from the view believed by Orthodox, Catholic and Armenian Christians. We believe in both individual and collective salvation. And we believe that salvation is a process called "Theosis" (Deification) which is participation in the very life of God. We also believe that a life according to faith and good works is inseparable from faith, and is therefore part of the process of salvation or Theosis.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:302:D195:6170:FC74:2360:DC13:A29F (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misrepresentation of Christianity 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Christianity and Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060928080259/http://www.huc.edu/news/mi.html to http://www.huc.edu/news/mi.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141023183108/https://www.aleph.org/faq.htm to https://www.aleph.org/faq.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080117214825/http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=21820&sec=59&con=35 to http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=21820&sec=59&con=35
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090319205218/http://www.chiefrabbi.org/thoughts/vayigash5766.pdf to http://www.chiefrabbi.org/thoughts/vayigash5766.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128101917/http://noahide.org/article.asp?Level=493&Parent=88 to http://www.noahide.org/article.asp?Level=493&Parent=88
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the "Heaven and Hell" subsection, someone has provided a quote from Maimonides, which equates women to "children and the ignorant". This is a quote DIRECTLY following a sentence concerning modern Judaism and its beliefs, yet a blatantly sexist, misogynistic quote is used. Modern Judaism does not believe women are ignorant or infantile. I will be updating this section with a more appropriate quote shortly. JointCompound (talk) 06:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quoting Maimonides