Judaism doesn’t have exclusive ownership over the old testament. They are an important part of the Christian canon too.
Heck, you don’t even give enough of a shit to refer to the scripture by the Jewish name. If you really cared perhaps you should start by calling it the Torah, the name “old testament” is nonsensical when you remove the new testament.
You should stop complaining about people “appropriating” your culture when you’re already giving it away freely anyways.
What a strangely aggressive take. The old testament in Christianity is more equivalent to the Tanakh in Judaism, of which the Torah is a part. The film tells the story of one of the highest of high holidays in all of Judaism, so it does make sense to call it a Jewish movie first and foremost.
After all calling a Christmas movie Jewish just because Jesus was a Jew would be silly.
I appreciate you, I actually didn’t know that set of books could be referred to as the Tanakh. I knew calling it the Torah would be a bit of an overstep.
Even if Christians claim it as part of their religion and have been appropriating it for “2000 years”, it’s still neither right nor accurate. I view it as further attempts to make Christianity seem more like the right choice and ease conversion for Jews which really really REALLY bothers me. It’s right up there with calling Jews white. We’re not.
Whether we’re white or not depends on how convenient it is for someone else 🤣
I live in a very Jew-friendly area so thankfully nobody’s attempting outright conversions, but there’s always the consistent commentary of Christianity being the default that just hits be the wrong way.
He started out as aggressive. Christians aren’t appropriating Jewish culture lol. Also OP watch Martin Scorsese’s movies as they all have Catholic themes.
I found awsamation’s appeal to emotion specifically to be a bit aggressive, which is why I had decided to respond.
Messianic Judaism and the concept of celebrating Pesach and Yom Kippur as Christians are examples of Jewish appropriation. In general, I see much less straight appropriation these days, and much more the concept that we should rejoice that Judaism doesn’t have to exist anymore as Christianity is Judaism v2, which only serves to erase Jewish culture.
I didn’t make any appeals to emotion, I just pointed out their own hypocrisy. If you want people to believe that you actually think Jewish culture is being appropriated by Christianity, the very least you need to do is not use Christian terminology when there exists widely known Jewish terminology for the same thing. If you don’t know enough about Judaism to know the name Torah, then you have no right to complain about the interaction between Christianity and Judaism.
And of course Christianity believes that Judaism is unnecessary now. Just like Mormons believe the Christianity is unnecessary because they have the v3 update. It doesn’t erase Judaism, heck the thing that started this whole thread was the fact that Jewish scripture is included directly in the Bible. The old testament stories are the same either way. The only difference is whether you believe that Jesus was the savior who fulfilled the law and brought the new law, or if you believe that the messiah hasn’t come yet. But those stories still point to a future savior.
Responding to everything here so that we’re not bouncing between 2 different threads.
Appeal to emotion – “Heck, you don’t even give enough of a shit to refer to the scripture by the Jewish name. If you really cared perhaps you should start by calling it the Torah, the name ‘old testament’ is nonsensical when you remove the new testament.” The language you used implies they don’t care about the argument and that the lack of care is what counteracts an argument instead of facts.
Perpetuating the “Judaism is unnecessary now” narrative is part of what breeds antisemitism and makes for more hate crimes. Jews are literally seen as “Christ-killers”, and therefore literal murderers of God, in many Christian communities. This lead to normalized persecution of Jews over the course of the last 1500 years. The whole of Catholicism/Christianity is much larger than just the Mormon community, so it tends to have much more of an impact. Look up Jewish Decide for more info.
While I agree that the “Old Testament” is meaningless in relation to Judaism, you’re trying to pick apart an argument on semantics which didn’t sit right with me. Why not demand that Exodus be called Shemot? That is the proper Judaic term after all. Exodus technically refers to the Old Testament.
As for the Christmas reference – literally replace ‘the birth of Christ’ with ‘the story of Passover’. Sure it’s something that Christians learn about, but it’s not something seen as Holy as it is in Judaism. The vast majority of Christians do not really celebrate Passover, just as Jews don’t celebrate Christ or Christmas.
The language you used implies they don’t care about the argument and that the lack of care is what counteracts an argument instead of facts.
I only threw in that line as counter to their closing sentence of “stop helping the Christians appropriate my culture.” I find it hard to believe that this supposed Christian appropriation actually bothers them very much if they themselves default to the Christian terminology. If you insist on calling my argument an appeal to emotion, then I will insist that I was only countering their prior appeal to emotion.
Perpetuating the “Judaism is unnecessary now” narrative is part of what breeds antisemitism and makes for more hate crimes.
By that same logic, every single religion in the world perpetuates hate crimes against every single other religion. The Judaism/Christianity relationship isn’t special because literally every religion that isn’t Judaism inherently includes the idea that Judaism is unnecessary. Just the same as how Judaism inherently includes the belief that every religion except Judaism is unnecessary.
Why not demand that Exodus be called Shemot?
Because prior to this interaction, I (a Christian) have no recollection of ever hearing the term Shemot before. If they had called it Shemot that would’ve been even better. But as it stands, the term Torah is very basic in the context of understanding Jewish terminology
Sure it’s something that Christians learn about, but it’s not something seen as Holy as it is in Judaism. The vast majority of Christians do not really celebrate Passover, just as Jews don’t celebrate Christ or Christmas.
That all comes down to the difference in their views of Christ. If you believe that Christ was not the messiah, then you have no real reason to celebrate him. If you do believe that Christ was the messiah, then you have incentive to celebrate important events in his life and less incentive to celebrate the feasts which were only instituted in order to point to him.
Why would I celebrate the passover, a feast that points to the sacrifice of the coming messiah, when I could just celebrate the life of that messiah instead.
I think the best comparison I can think of is something like world war 2. We don’t celebrate D day, or the battle fo the bulge, or the battle of Midway. Because instead we can celebrate remembrance day. Why celebrate every major battle when you could celebrate them all at once in the winning of the war?
Or if you’re Jewish, you celebrate those battles because you don’t believe the war is over yet.
The important detail isn’t which exact term for Jewish scripture will most closely match the old testament in Christianity. The important detail is that “old testament” as a name is meaningless in reference to Jewish scripture, because the term only has meaning if you consider the new testament as equally valid scripture.
So they’re arguing that referring to Moses in a Christian context is “appropriating” Jewish culture, while doing the exact same thing themselves in the exact same comment. If they actually cared at all they’d have known that using any Jewish name for the scripture would’ve served their point better than “old testament”.
As for the Christmas thing, it doesn’t make sense to call a Christmas movie Jewish because if you actually follow Judaism then the birth of Christ isn’t something worth celebrating to you. Any Christ as the savior narrative goes directly against what Judaism believes about Christ. And any Christmas movie without Christ as a savior narrative, might as well be considered non-religious.
Appropriation is very much a Christian context - you guys are the original Microsoft taking everything from somewhere else and then literally trying to extinguish the competition.
The Torah being referred to as old testament happens because otherwise you end up with confounded looks by Christians who can’t seem to grasp that religion is diverse and older than 2000 years or so.
That explanation would’ve been a lot more convincing if it was included before I called them out for using the Christian name.
“They used the Christian name because otherwise nobody would’ve understood” sounds a lot like a desperate attempt to cover for having a Christian show them up about knowing the basic terminology of Judaism while they complain about Christians “appropriating their culture”.
A culture which by the way, Christians have just as much claim to. And Muslims as well. Turns out that all of the Abrahamic religions actually have a legitimate claim to these scriptures.
Judaism doesn’t have exclusive ownership over the old testament. They are an important part of the Christian canon too.
Heck, you don’t even give enough of a shit to refer to the scripture by the Jewish name. If you really cared perhaps you should start by calling it the Torah, the name “old testament” is nonsensical when you remove the new testament.
You should stop complaining about people “appropriating” your culture when you’re already giving it away freely anyways.
What a strangely aggressive take. The old testament in Christianity is more equivalent to the Tanakh in Judaism, of which the Torah is a part. The film tells the story of one of the highest of high holidays in all of Judaism, so it does make sense to call it a Jewish movie first and foremost.
After all calling a Christmas movie Jewish just because Jesus was a Jew would be silly.
I appreciate you, I actually didn’t know that set of books could be referred to as the Tanakh. I knew calling it the Torah would be a bit of an overstep.
Even if Christians claim it as part of their religion and have been appropriating it for “2000 years”, it’s still neither right nor accurate. I view it as further attempts to make Christianity seem more like the right choice and ease conversion for Jews which really really REALLY bothers me. It’s right up there with calling Jews white. We’re not.
Whether we’re white or not depends on how convenient it is for someone else 🤣
I live in a very Jew-friendly area so thankfully nobody’s attempting outright conversions, but there’s always the consistent commentary of Christianity being the default that just hits be the wrong way.
He started out as aggressive. Christians aren’t appropriating Jewish culture lol. Also OP watch Martin Scorsese’s movies as they all have Catholic themes.
I found awsamation’s appeal to emotion specifically to be a bit aggressive, which is why I had decided to respond.
Messianic Judaism and the concept of celebrating Pesach and Yom Kippur as Christians are examples of Jewish appropriation. In general, I see much less straight appropriation these days, and much more the concept that we should rejoice that Judaism doesn’t have to exist anymore as Christianity is Judaism v2, which only serves to erase Jewish culture.
I didn’t make any appeals to emotion, I just pointed out their own hypocrisy. If you want people to believe that you actually think Jewish culture is being appropriated by Christianity, the very least you need to do is not use Christian terminology when there exists widely known Jewish terminology for the same thing. If you don’t know enough about Judaism to know the name Torah, then you have no right to complain about the interaction between Christianity and Judaism.
And of course Christianity believes that Judaism is unnecessary now. Just like Mormons believe the Christianity is unnecessary because they have the v3 update. It doesn’t erase Judaism, heck the thing that started this whole thread was the fact that Jewish scripture is included directly in the Bible. The old testament stories are the same either way. The only difference is whether you believe that Jesus was the savior who fulfilled the law and brought the new law, or if you believe that the messiah hasn’t come yet. But those stories still point to a future savior.
Responding to everything here so that we’re not bouncing between 2 different threads.
Appeal to emotion – “Heck, you don’t even give enough of a shit to refer to the scripture by the Jewish name. If you really cared perhaps you should start by calling it the Torah, the name ‘old testament’ is nonsensical when you remove the new testament.” The language you used implies they don’t care about the argument and that the lack of care is what counteracts an argument instead of facts.
Perpetuating the “Judaism is unnecessary now” narrative is part of what breeds antisemitism and makes for more hate crimes. Jews are literally seen as “Christ-killers”, and therefore literal murderers of God, in many Christian communities. This lead to normalized persecution of Jews over the course of the last 1500 years. The whole of Catholicism/Christianity is much larger than just the Mormon community, so it tends to have much more of an impact. Look up Jewish Decide for more info.
While I agree that the “Old Testament” is meaningless in relation to Judaism, you’re trying to pick apart an argument on semantics which didn’t sit right with me. Why not demand that Exodus be called Shemot? That is the proper Judaic term after all. Exodus technically refers to the Old Testament.
As for the Christmas reference – literally replace ‘the birth of Christ’ with ‘the story of Passover’. Sure it’s something that Christians learn about, but it’s not something seen as Holy as it is in Judaism. The vast majority of Christians do not really celebrate Passover, just as Jews don’t celebrate Christ or Christmas.
I only threw in that line as counter to their closing sentence of “stop helping the Christians appropriate my culture.” I find it hard to believe that this supposed Christian appropriation actually bothers them very much if they themselves default to the Christian terminology. If you insist on calling my argument an appeal to emotion, then I will insist that I was only countering their prior appeal to emotion.
By that same logic, every single religion in the world perpetuates hate crimes against every single other religion. The Judaism/Christianity relationship isn’t special because literally every religion that isn’t Judaism inherently includes the idea that Judaism is unnecessary. Just the same as how Judaism inherently includes the belief that every religion except Judaism is unnecessary.
Because prior to this interaction, I (a Christian) have no recollection of ever hearing the term Shemot before. If they had called it Shemot that would’ve been even better. But as it stands, the term Torah is very basic in the context of understanding Jewish terminology
That all comes down to the difference in their views of Christ. If you believe that Christ was not the messiah, then you have no real reason to celebrate him. If you do believe that Christ was the messiah, then you have incentive to celebrate important events in his life and less incentive to celebrate the feasts which were only instituted in order to point to him.
Why would I celebrate the passover, a feast that points to the sacrifice of the coming messiah, when I could just celebrate the life of that messiah instead.
I think the best comparison I can think of is something like world war 2. We don’t celebrate D day, or the battle fo the bulge, or the battle of Midway. Because instead we can celebrate remembrance day. Why celebrate every major battle when you could celebrate them all at once in the winning of the war?
Or if you’re Jewish, you celebrate those battles because you don’t believe the war is over yet.
The important detail isn’t which exact term for Jewish scripture will most closely match the old testament in Christianity. The important detail is that “old testament” as a name is meaningless in reference to Jewish scripture, because the term only has meaning if you consider the new testament as equally valid scripture.
So they’re arguing that referring to Moses in a Christian context is “appropriating” Jewish culture, while doing the exact same thing themselves in the exact same comment. If they actually cared at all they’d have known that using any Jewish name for the scripture would’ve served their point better than “old testament”.
As for the Christmas thing, it doesn’t make sense to call a Christmas movie Jewish because if you actually follow Judaism then the birth of Christ isn’t something worth celebrating to you. Any Christ as the savior narrative goes directly against what Judaism believes about Christ. And any Christmas movie without Christ as a savior narrative, might as well be considered non-religious.
Appropriation is very much a Christian context - you guys are the original Microsoft taking everything from somewhere else and then literally trying to extinguish the competition.
The Torah being referred to as old testament happens because otherwise you end up with confounded looks by Christians who can’t seem to grasp that religion is diverse and older than 2000 years or so.
That explanation would’ve been a lot more convincing if it was included before I called them out for using the Christian name.
“They used the Christian name because otherwise nobody would’ve understood” sounds a lot like a desperate attempt to cover for having a Christian show them up about knowing the basic terminology of Judaism while they complain about Christians “appropriating their culture”.
A culture which by the way, Christians have just as much claim to. And Muslims as well. Turns out that all of the Abrahamic religions actually have a legitimate claim to these scriptures.
Whataboutism won’t save you.
Which is why that potential whataboutism was only one sentence tacked onto the end of my comment, while the rest of my comment was a direct rebuttal.
Only focusing on the easiest points to argue against won’t save you.