You wake up

You wake up

The entire christian community has admitted that Jesus is not the messiah and that Jews were right

how do you pay reparations?

They wouldn't be Christians anymore if they do that.

exactly they'd become noahides

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahidism

>Christ is the ultimate authority on earth with regards to his own school that he founded?
That would be relevant if he actually wrote anything.

I don't understand why Christianity needs to constantly seek validation from the Torah.

Jesus was the Christ, but there's plenty of other theological arguments as to why, other than the Judaic understanding which the early Christians conceptualized

but you need at least the Book of Job to understand why Jesus was sent

Attached: p01gn560.jpg (1920x1080, 212K)

Why the Book of Job when you have the Good News of John? Why do people claiming to be Christians always make reference to Judaic scriptures? Yes it's by a couple of centuries older than Christianity and much more developed and mature theologically, but that doesn't have anything to do with Christianity.

>I don't understand why Christianity needs to constantly seek validation from the Torah
because "Christianity" started out as "Judaism"

Judaism didn't develop it's standart canon by at least the 2nd century AD.

the Torah is only the first five books of the Tanakh btw

ok "Christianity" started out as "part of the spectrum of religious traditions associated with the ethnic group now known as the Jews". Is that better?

The Torah was quoted the most in Jesus's time, and early Christians always made reference to it, claiming Jesus fulfilled the law. Some christians make reference to it today as well to try and justify Jesus as the Mesiah

Yes but even so, Christianity started out as an Apocalyptic movement, arguably from within the school of John the Baptist, which itself was another school of thought within Judaic tradition.

Supersessionism exists y’know

Incoherent

Attached: 0686efd0b8442ca7a4e06887371ec478b8bccaf07686a92f0dd2819d8b625bff.jpg (966x1000, 324K)

Why keep it around as canon then?

Not sure. I personally believe that Jesus did split the convenant but that can be argued about forever.
Best girl

>which itself was another school of thought within Judaic tradition
That's what I'm saying.

It doesn't matter. Real Christians don't own a Bible and have probably never read it. They read Thomas of Aquin instead.

According to Erhman, early Christians kept the Judaic texts because it made their faith look more old and legit.

And to be honest when you look at the size of the texts that priests carry around them during mass it does look like the beliefs held in that book were for a very long time around.

Attached: Joia-Mare-Preafericitul-Părinte-Patriarh-Daniel-a-oficiat-Sfânta-Liturghie-la-Catedrala-Patriarhal (1024x683, 164K)

Thanks.
Erhman is pretty good even as a Bible critic.

Attached: C1F2D105-8B77-4F56-9FDA-3024D88EB809.jpg (375x375, 21K)

Oh, my apologies. I just thought you were one of those people that considered Christianity a splinter group from Judaism, as if that was ever a monolithic entity.

By comparison, i think what's usually understood as " Judaism " actually resembles more like the development of Vendata. As in a faith centered around some sacred writings with authority but with no "official" formally recognized status which is enforced. It's just too bad there's no other word for it that doesn't appropriate it to some specific ethnic group

And within this example Christianity went through the same process as Jainism and later Buddhism, i.e branching off from religious writings with no formally enforced status that had a very broad and loose understanding in the first place.

Gibberish will always be gibberish, no matter how many times it's been revised.

*Tips fedora*

Judeo Christians are ethnic Jews (whatever that means) who became Christians. Only a faggot retard would claim the West is at all "judeo."

That sounds so retarded it's beyond belief. Not saying you're retarded, but the general idea that you can pin down an entire history of religion ideas onto a single group of people.

It's like claiming everything the Vedas ever spawned belongs to Ethnic Indians.

NT wouldn't actually change that much since the apostles quote many texts that aren't considered Biblically canon. Some of them never were (at least by any Catholic or traditional Protestant church). So none of the citations would lose their credence at all, assuming truth can still arise from uninspired text

the entire thing becomes farcical more than it already is, absolutely peak brainlet to think this would be a good idea

Such a preposterous thing would allow retarded evangelical feel-good churches to flourish. Now they wouldn't feel guilty about the OT, they would no longer feel they would have to somehow justify the "mean" parts of the OT (which are already justified) to fit their heretical wishy-washy inclusive theology. With the OT gone, Christ would no longer be who he really was. At that point, anyone could make Christ out to be whoever they want him to be, because he's no longer the messiah of the Jews.

>rehashing 1,875 year old heresies
It will look like Marcionism.

Attached: no way out.jpg (804x887, 111K)

Has Marcion ever been refuted? Besides being called an heretic and such

>OT is de-canonized
>NT can't really exist without it
>Holes in the NT actually can't be defended anymore
>God is invalidated
>Life is pointless
>Pursue violent, hedonistic lifestyle

He was never accepted as the Christ of the jews, so that point is moot.

>God is invalidated
>NT can't really exist without it

How, exactly?

>Holes in the NT actually can't be defended anymore

Aside historical scribal interference with the text, what holes are you talking about?

>Refuted

It's because of him that today we call it the Old and New testaments. Also if it wasn't for his contributions the christian biblical canon wouldn't exist.

Just treat the OT the way Muslims treat the Bible, i.e. it's divinely inspired but corrupted. So you can cite when it suits your purposes but reject it when it doesn't.

Literally every single theological concept found in the hebrew bible is understood and comprehended differently and uniquely in the christian bible

It'd make no sense without the idea of original sin which is based on a reading of the OT. There'd be no explanation for why Jesus would need to die for humanity's sins inherently even if we led good lives . Leading to an idea that god made us sinful and hellbound on purpose without even giving the excuse of a primeval transgression. Or the fact that god spent most of history waiting to send the savior for very little reason. Hell its the reason for why evil in the world exists, without it that just makes god seem more cruel. All of these don't exactly paint a very flattering picture of Jesus's spiritual teachings or the big guy upstairs when you think about it, unless you're going to some kind of weird Gnosticism.

Fr. Matthew Rapheal Johnson thinks this will happen in the not-so-distant future. He thinks the Old Testament is so explicitly politically incorrect (defences of slavery, "misogyny," racism, hierarchy) that mainline protestants and Novus Ordo Catholics will just get rid of it. He does make some good points though, the Gideons having only New Testaments in hotel rooms, modern protties diregarding anything offensive to modern sensibilities by saying that "we aren't under the law any longer" and the resurgence of crypto-Marcionsim from ignorant prots all do make this seem possible.

>Literally every single theological concept found in the hebrew bible is misunderstood and comprehended incorrectly without the Christian bible

You mean comprehended in a unique way. That's what made it Christianity and that's what made it different from other sects around it. Christian theology and ideas can sit on it's own feet without needing the approval or reference point of Judaism.

I'm saying that the Old Testament is fulfilled in the new. It takes on deeper meanings and many of its mysteries are partially or fully explained. There are theological problems that cannot be answered in Orthodox Jewish thought which are easily explained in Christian thought.

>Christian theology and ideas can sit on it's own feet without needing the approval or reference point of Judaism.
How? The New Covenant implies an older covenant. How many times is the Old Testament referred to by the New Testament authors or the Holy Fathers? How can Christ validate his claim to being the Messiah if the prophecies He fulfills are rejected as being Jewish instead of Christian? I'm assuming by Judaism you mean the Temple based Judaism that existed until the time of Christ, not the Synagogue based Judaism that diverged from Christianity. If it's the latter then you're right, we don't need to refer to modern Talmudic Judaism. This is what idiot protestants do when they use the Masoeretic text instead of the Septuagint and its stupid and wrong.

Attached: LL TrinityPuzz.jpg (562x713, 196K)