deathbird

What was the appeal of Plex anyway?

Rabbis are teachers, and Jesus was often called "teacher" by his followers. I believe the Aramaic word for teacher is something like "Rabboni". I'm using the term in a loosely descriptive fashion for Jesus too I guess. Granted the 2nd Temple was still standing so it was the priestly era and not the rabbinical era, but yeah, rabbi, why not. There are schools and social networks that maintain traditions and connections but the hierarchy as I understand it is pretty flat in the rabbinical system, which was only maybe in a proto form in Jesus's time.

As for the OT, yeah it's a pretty good source to fish out awful things, but I think it gets a bad rap for that so I always bristle at the assertion or implication that it's the "bad" part of the Bible. It's got a lot of good stuff in it. By volume probably more than the NT. The truth of the matter is that the whole book is self contradictory and problematic in parts with a number of good ideas sprinkled in. You'll only get something useful and moral out of it with thoughtful interpretation and careful exegesis. And I do happen to think Judaism does that well mostly.

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.

It feels to me like there's an inconsistency between calling Christianity "Judaism for export", and saying that it quotes the Old Testament for the purposes of bigotry. Or maybe it just feels antisemitic, even if not deliberately so. I mean it's not like there isn't bigotry in the New Testament, or radical acceptance in the Old.

But also I don't think you can argue that Christianity is a mere extension of Judaism and at the same time argue that it shouldn't utilize Jewish text.

Jesus did not really claim to be part of succession of Jewish prophets based on the text in the New Testament. In the first three Gospels one could certainly describe him as a prophet, though by the fourth he was definitely being described as God. That in itself makes it far more like mithran cults than Judaism.

And while a lot of what he taught was consistent with Jewish thought, a lot of it was contrary to Jewish thought and practice too, even explicitly so. And later writings by Paul, which for better or worse are canonical to the vast majority of Christians, pull the religion further away from Judaism.

Now Greco Roman gods didn't need prophets, because they had more formal roles that played similar functions: priests and oracles. Christianity on the other hand has prophets, saints, martyrs, and priests. Judaism on the other hand had priests, occasional prophets, then later rabbis. Notably Christian prophets prophesy about Jesus's return or his goings on in heaven, while Jewish prophets were mostly telling people to get back into their covenant and stop marrying foreigners, usually promising freedom from whatever country was currently conquering them at the moment as a reward. Notably people claiming to be Jewish prophets do not get a lot of traction in Jewish communities these days, and have not for millennia.

I mean you can't deny that Jesus was Jewish, but he was an eccentric Jew, and the people who became his hangers on created a religion that did not look like the religion he mostly practiced. Certainly not one that looks like Judaism of today.

Christianity says Jesus is god, uses multiple images of their God, but also multiple gods through their Trinity / triune God head work around, centers mostly around devotion and worship through novel praise rather than rule following and study. It often focuses on a personal relationship with the godhead. Judaism doesn't do this stuff, but it's not out of place in pagan traditions.

I mean Jesus was literally conceived by the Holy Spirit entering into Mary, like Zeus going into countless mortal women to make half-God children. I mean I guess it wasn't technically sex because that would be tasteless, but certainly all the Jewish prophets I can think of were conceived through two human people having sex.

None of that's to say there's anything per se "wrong" with Christianity, but there's a reason it exists alongside modern Judaism and not instead of it.

Like shouldn't they just be suing the customers directly for a bazillion dollars at this point?

So you're saying you have a choice in ISPs? Sounds pretty cool.

Based af

I've seen plenty of teachers/professors reporting GenZers demonstrating concerningly diminished discipline, resilience, and interest, particularly when it comes to reading. My personal observations of GenZ discipline are mixed, but I'm not in education.

Would be good to see high-quality studies on the matter.

Aye, perhaps not in the "Judeo-Christian" sense, but a religion nonetheless.

But actually it strikes me that "Judeo-Christianity" is more about theme or literature than form. The Christians claim a common God with the Jews, but that's mostly it. In form Christianity seems more Greco-Roman than Judaic to me.

"Greco-Romo-Christan" maybe?

Well then you're back to Ecclesiastes. Everything in its season etc.

Idk, I was just trying to put the best argument forward, but l'm not really a fan of the New Testament in part because of its inconsistency.

Yeah, the way you said it my first thought was "Tibetan".