Judeo-Christian view of reason and faith vs. Greco-Roman view of reason and faith?
339017
Ahhh but there is much more to that than just saying "belief in one God" or "belief in many Gods". First, comparing these two views is basically viewing the Renaissance. Greco-Roman belief may have been pagan, but it believed that we had the ability to reason; or the ability to learn. In essence, the focus of faith was in the ability of mankind, particularly the capability of what the human mind could accomplish. Aristotle and his works would be the best example of this type of thought. \n In the Judeo-Christian view, reason is provided to us by God and it is faith in God that enables us to use our ability to reason. (If you want more explanation on this, you should really read Thomas Aquinas' work) Aquinas believed we had the ability to reason, but it was only through faith that men had the ability to begin with. \nFor more information, you could look at why the Renaissance was so important to human history. That should provide you with the answer your looking for. If you still are having problems understanding or not getting what you need from this, feel free to email me...tell me what you need, and I should be able to help you out. Good luck
183054
I would say the Christian mythology is outstanding because it is more about humanity. Others such as the Greek are vastly superior in many respects but they lack that certain human touch which many people cherish. Nevertheless, all religions (mythologies) are profitable for enlightenment. Master Jesus used the advanced concept of parables (storytelling) to enlighten his students.
205562
I TOTALLy agree with you in that the two concepts are mutually exclusive.  A belief in God (as depicted in the Bible) has ABSOLUTELY NO ROOM for macroevolution.  Similarly, a belief in macroevolution has NO PLACE for God.  \n\nSome individuals try to merge the two, saying that God used macroevolution as THE CREATION MACHINERY. That's like Jews or Muslims saying Jesus was a good man, a great teacher but not the Messiah. THERE'S NO MIDDLE GROUND.  GOD OR EVOLUTION? MESSIAH OR MADMAN?  The choice is yours.\n\nIncidentally, macroevolution has never been proven, either.  BOTH must be accepted on FAITH!!!!
286041
Here it is another 15 year old sermon from an unbeliever . . . and for an unbeliever . . . I am more familiar with the scriptures and historical documents than some of these believers.\n\nWHO IS JESUS CHRIST?\n\nSince Jesus Christ (Yeshua the Messiah) walked this earth as a human 2,000 years ago, there has been a controversy over who he really was. The Bible tells us in many places that there is only one true God (Deu. 6:4; Mal. 2:10; Mark 12:32; Rom. 3:30; Jam. 2:19; etc.). So where does Yeshua fit into the Godhead? \n\nMost modern Christians have been taught that Jesus is the second co-equal "person" in a triune Godhead composed of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. However, many (if not most) Christians don't really understand the Trinity. Other believers today, perceiving problems with the Trinity doctrine, have adopted a belief in the "Oneness" of God which is similar to the ancient doctrine of Modalism. \n\nBefore we can truly understand who the Messiah is, we need to look at the historical background of first-century Jewish religion and subsequent philosophical/religious doctrines that arose to explain his identity. This is going to examine the beliefs of first-century Jews regarding the Godhead and present the succeeding theories put forth to define who Yeshua is. Then we will discuss by harmonizing the Scriptures with this information to better understand what the Bible really says about the identity of the Messiah. \n\nFirst, let's start by looking at what first-century C.E. Jewish religion believed about the Godhead. There has been a tendency by scholars to define first-century orthodox monotheistic Judaism in rather restrictive terms. Jewish literature or beliefs from that time frame that seem to stray from the accepted norm have been reinterpreted to accommodate Trinitarianism or used to prove that Judaism was derived from the polytheistic religions surrounding Israel. \n\nRegarding how modern scholars tend to view first-century Jewish religion as either totally monotheistic or essentially polytheistic, University of Manitoba Professor Larry W. Hurtado wrote: \n\nI suggest that on both sides of the issue . . . there has been a tendency to proceed deductively from a priori presumptions of what monotheism must mean, instead of building up a view inductively from the evidence of how monotheism actually operated in the thought and practice of ancient Jews. There seems to be an implicit agreement on both sides that more than one transcendent being of any significance complicates or constitutes a weakening of or threat to monotheism. Those who see first-century Jewish religion as monotheistic tend, therefore, to downplay the significance and attributes given by ancient Jews to any transcendent beings other than God. For these scholars often, ancient Jewish monotheism must mean that the descriptions of such beings are largely rhetorical. Though I am convinced regarding some examples, I am not sure that the descriptions are always purely rhetoric . . . \n\nThose on the other side of the issue tend to emphasize the honorific ways in which transcendent beings other than God are described and the prominent positions they occupy in the religious conceptions reflected in ancient Jewish texts, alleging that first-century Jews were not really monotheists after all. It is clear that ancient Jews were not characteristically monists or unitarians, but does this mean that they were not monotheists? That is, on both sides there is a tendency to proceed as if we can know in advance what "monotheism" must mean, which turns out to be a very modern, monistic form of monotheism, and can accordingly evaluate ancient Jewish texts and beliefs as to whether or how closely they meet an a priori standard of "pure" monotheism. ("What Do We Mean by 'First-Century Jewish Monotheism'?," Journal for the Study of the New Testament) \n\nAs the above quote shows, Profe
1005902
To think that they are all similar is to distort and edit their message.  They are all very different, aside from the fact that they all claim to believe in the same God:  The one and only true God.\n\nAside from this they are quite different, although they are closely linked historically.\n\nJudaism is by far the oldest:  We don't know how long ago that some early Israelites began to believe in one unearthly god named "Yahweh" instead of all of the many earthly gods that other cultures worshiped.\n\nBut we know they started writing down what would become the "Old Testament" around 800 BCE.\n\nThen, about 800 years later in 30 CE, a firebrand reformist Jew arrived on the world stage.  He cast demons out of people and healed the sick and taught that God was about to bring His kingdom to earth soon.  This man was named Yeshua bar Yehosef (Jesus to you and me).  He had a profound effect on everyone who knew him and when he came to Jerusalem to preach at the Temple, he alarmed the Jewish and Roman authorities so much that they feared revolt (High Priest Caiaphas feared a religious "revolt", while Procurator Pontius Pilate feared a civil disobedience uprising at best, and a military uprising at worst).  Jesus was executed but his movement changed and grew into what we now call Christianity.\n\nThen, almost 600 years later, in 610 CE, an Arab man named Mohammed* claimed that the Archangel Michael visited him in a city called Mecca and had begun to recite to him the final message to mankind from God.\n\nThe Archangel Michael is an important figure in both Judaism and Christianity.  And from the beginning, Mohammed's teachings claimed to be a continuation and a completion of the work "Yahweh" had begun with the prophets of Judaism and with Jesus of Nazareth.\n\nMuslims think that Jesus is just a man, not God Himself in human form.  They think that Jesus was very important and was "anointed" by God to perform God's work -- but they don't think Jesus died for our sins.  In fact, Mohammed's ideas about what Jesus taught and what the life of Jesus meant are very different from orthodox Christianity.\n\nWhen Muslims speak of "Allah", they mean the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  They mean the same God who parted the Red Sea for Moses and the same God that Jesus called "Father".\n\nHowever, to think that Islam unifies all three of these religions, you must first discard just about everything Jesus says in the Gospels.\n\nHere are just a few examples of the conflicts between Jesus' teachings and the teachings of Islam:\n\n-- Jesus rejected laws about food, saying that what came OUT of your mouth makes you "unclean", not what you put IN your mouth.  Islam still maintains the old food taboos against pork, shellfish, and other foods very carefully.\n\n-- One of Jesus' first miracles was to turn water into wine.  The gospels show Jesus drinking wine all the time (though he never drank to get drunk).  And, BTW, this was not grape juice:  without refrigeration grape juice quickly becomes a fly-infested sticky mess.  Islam condemns all consumption of alcohol.\n\n-- More importantly, Jesus tells us not to fight with the evil man, but rather to fight him with kindness.  Jesus NEVER preached war but only love and understanding and compassion.  Jesus spoke angrily against those who did unjust and wicked things, but he never advocated killing them.  Islam, however, claims that Allah wants people to be killed for all kinds of reasons.  It is true that you can be a Christian and still support war and the death penalty -- just don't say that Jesus wants it.  War and retribution may be necessary in this world, but they are all part of our original sinful condition.\n\nSHORT ANSWER:  These religions are linked by history but all have very different and conflicting beliefs not only about morality and about God, but even about what real historical
953920
False dilemma. Both religions are false. One is more violent than the other. However, its not an either/or choice. You can have your own stupid reasons for believing either. The most illogical choice would be both!
999958
Christianity is like Judaism plus some extras.  Plus, Christians believe that after Christ came, the traditional Jewish law of sacrifices and certain other laws were no longer needed; they served a purpose, but Christ fulfilled that purpose once and for all (to atone for sins).  So there are parts of it that Christians also accept and believe, like the 10 commandments and the one God, but they also believe in the divinity of Jesus and his death and resurrection as the ultimate sacrifice.
708699
I think you'll find most Christians believe in both.\n\nIt's just the fundamentalist nutters who think you have to choose between them.\n\nAnd I bet you start a flood of drivel from them, mate - be prepared!
477062
no\nthere are three distinctions.  jews, gentiles, and the church (christians)\njews- physical desendents of abraham\nchurch- believers on Jesus as God\ngentiles (or nations)- everyone else
1031234
You have to consider them as two different books, some religions believe one over the other. (Jewish people don't believe in the New Testament,only the Old for ex.) So choose the one you think makes more sense and run with it.
1156078
Arianism was one of the early heresies of the church.  The way I understand it, there was a great debate in the early church about both Christ's humanity and his divinity.  The orthodox view that developed out of these disagreements was a balanced view that stated both the humanity and the divinity of Christ without emphasizing one too much at the expense of the other.  Arius, whom you referenced in your question (couldn't follow the link), was probably the most notable proponent of a Christology that denied the divinity of Christ.  The Council of Nicaea in 325 addressed the controversy; the council resoundingly declared Arius's view heretical and adopted a creed still spoken today in many Christian churches that very clearly refers to the disagreement ("begotten, not made, one in being with the Father").
164554
I'm not a rabbi, but I am Jewish, and I can tell you that the concept of the trinity is not part of Jewish doctrine.\n\nAccording to Judaism, there's one God, not divided in any way, period.  Hope that helps!
1057677
Ugggh, homework? It's summer soltice!  Give us a break!  \nI take issue with this article's assumptions, which are very general.  First the author makes the statement that Christianity's two prime articles of faith are "revelation and Crucifixion."  There are major divisions amongst Christianity itself on the person of Jesus Christ, the saving nature of his life, death, resurrection, teachings. And the question of whether or not he is the definitive and only saviour for all people of all times, is not universally agreed on by all Christians.  \nThe role of the Crucifixion is also not understood uniformly across the board by all Christians.  The question has long been asked and debated, "how is Jesus' death and crucifixion redemptive?" Is it? Redemption, atonement, sacrifice, are all traditional understandings, but theology has always had several understandings of and interpretations of soteriology, and Christology.\nInterestingly enough the earliest Christian art showed nothing of the crucifixion...\nBut I'm off the hook since your author inists that "no man" this and "no man" that...
5182
A historical/anthropological answer might go along the lines of:\n\nHomosexuality was rife in Greek and Roman societies as it was in many other pagan societies. The early Judeans opposed Greek and Roman oppression and occupation and responded by targeting the fabric of their society by making Laws or interpreting laws (e.g. idol worship became blasphemous, homosexuality became an abomination and women were not to be treated as slaves - tho the Bible records periods when this was not the case - and some traditions continued to view women as second class citizens).\n\nThen came the Christian era.\n\nThis semi-monotheistic faith saw the bible as a pic-n-mix. One minute the Law dictated to Moses at Mount Sinai is what makes you a sinner and you dont need the Law anyway cos belief in Jesus is all that is required, the next your actions and behaviour are all important when certain things offend Paul (e.g. women and homosexuals).\n\nIf it werent for Pauline Christianity, Christianity today would either follow the Law more closely like Judaism (and thus still be a sect of Judaism) or it would have only two rules (love God and your neighbour) and no Law.\n\nThe reason for this schism is the dilemma that faced Paul. On the one hand, Paul sought to form a new religion (after his attempts to 'convert' Jews were unsuccessful) but also needed the "old" one for legitimacy (it was the one God of Israel that gave the Law at Mount Sinai, how could Paul - a mere mortal - cancel the Law of God given to man at Mount Sinai? Interestingly in the original Greek texts, one way Paul got around this was to express that he was the reincarnation of Jesus and therefore also the son of God).\n\nIf you want to read more on whether it was Jesus or Paul who invented Christianity, see the links below.\n\nFinally, I'd like to say that whatever people believe about your sexuality, it is just their belief. You should stick two fingers up to them and get on with your life. There's a reason you were created the way you were - it's just a shame these religions can't appreciate that. However, that is their limit, not yours.
1152651
Yes! Finally after months someone makes sense! Original christianity (not bible version) was polytheistic. Jesus taught Gods! His father in heaven is supreme god (like Brahma), then there's son of god (cosmic christ), then there's the goddess Sophia, and the creator god (Ialdaboath), and many more gods. There is mention of 35 aeons (these are very high god/goddess pairs). This is what Jesus taught and even the NT gives away Jesus' polytheism. The orthodox christians wanted "one god" so they invented "the mystery of the holy trinity". Jesus was a Pagan polytheist, and there are extra-biblical scriptures which clearly state this.
857342
I would think, for Jews, there is sufficient reason to be Jewish, and not sufficient reason to be Christian.  Part of the sufficient reason to be Jewish is being born into it (for most Jews) and believing in one God, rather than the metaphorical, hypothetical, and mystical Trinity.  The reasons you mentioned certainly contribute to wanting to keep to the Jewish community.
1056402
A great question.  I suspect tha answers have a lot to do with the evolution of Christian doctrine, because I don't believe Jesus viewed his message that way - Jesus focused on love and forgiveness, and on enjoying the gift of God we call life.\n\nCertainly the earliest Christians followed Jewish traditions, which were not necessarily negative.  The Apostle Paul focused on what he considered the abundant grace of God, particularly in allowing the Gentiles (non-Jews) into the Kingdom of God.  For Paul, born and raised a strict jew, this was an amazing thing.\n\nThe Jews were known in Roman times to oppose the licentiousness of many Romans (you recall how we got our word "orgy" from the Romans?), so it's easy to see how the early Christians maintained this opposition to much of the sexual immorality of the times.  Rome also had a barbaric streak in it - we only have to consider the gladiator fights to the death in the name of entertainment to see how Christians would be opposed to much of the prevailing world order.\n\nAs Christianity became the state religion in 325, under Emperor Constantine, the church began to assert their power.  Theology now mixed with politics, and the threat of damnation became more real, using excommunication to intimidate believers into following the established orthodoxy.  Excommunication later became Inquisition after the Crusades, and the Catholic Church taught heavily that nonconformists risked damnation.  Of course, this was as much to maintain their power as it was about theological and moral purity.\n\nToday, there are many Christians who see God as loving and forgiving, and some don't even believe in hell at all.  A Christian is not someone who subscribes to a certain set of doctrines; a Christian is someone who has placed their faith and trust in God as revealed in Jesus, who Christians follow as their savior.  Christianity is not a monolithic group of people who hold to the same beliefs - the Reformation changed all of that, and today Christianity continues to evolve and mature as a faith.\n\nI wonder what motivates your question - do you believe in a loving God, or do you question whether you are lovable, just as you are?  Christians believe God loves us, not because we are good at obeying God (none of us really are, if we're at all honest), but because He created us, and wants to have a spiritual relationship with us.  The heart of the Gospel, the good news, is that God loves us just as we are, and forgives each and every wrong we have ever committed or will commit.  Our trust in God and His son Jesus is sufficient for our forgiveness.\n\nFor those who do not believe in Jesus, I am not their judge.  The same loving God who forgives me and judges me will also judge them, and He loves them no less than He loves me.  I trust His judgment for them as well.\n\nI hope this helps!  If you want, feel free to drop me an email for more info - I'm a Sunday School teacher, and love to help others learn more about the faith.\n\nBlessings and peace to you!