Yes, Hume assumes a skeptical position and his problem is critique of naive empiricism (along with his problem of induction which is a classic defeater for empiricism). He demonstrates that observation of what is alone can't tell you what is good, preferable, desirable, etc. There is an epistemological gap between knowledge of how things are and how they should be. So everyone has to appeal to some other paradigm that informs morality. The problem is, atheists and materialists can't justify the existence of a moral standard because their paradigm only accepts empirical observation and sense data. Their position always reduces to moral relativism where nothing is inherently good or bad, but everything is a matter of personal preference.
So for moral realists, the question ultimately is what is the standard for morality and how do we have knowledge of it. I'd argue only the Orthodox Christian worldview can give a coherent, consistent and holistic worldview that can justify and answer those questions. In essence:
- metaphysics: God is the ultimate good and we're created in His image with free will that allows us to choose the good.
- epistemology: we know what's moral through divine revelation and through our communion with God in His Church (participation in the divine energies).
The reason why our intuition and reason alone is insufficient to have that knowledge is our fallen nature which inclines our free will away from God, thus being deceived into choosing evil/sin.
You can't be serious.
The point is we can't induce moral principles by observing nature. This is the naturalist fallacy aka the is/ought problem of Hume. I can look at nature through a darwinian will to power worldview or a Christian worldview and arrive at completely different conclusions.
The creator has also given us a conscience, rationality and intuitive common sense by which to discern what is right.
All of those are subject to interpretation though. Yes, we have the moral law on our hearts but we're also fallen, weak minded, sinful, susceptible to delusion and deception, etc. We can only discern what's right with God's help and by following His commandments.
Great! But you think that Jew, a proper noun, should be lowercase, even though lowercasing is registered in dictionaries as offensive? And would lowercase Judaism not be just grammatically improper? (It's literally a proper noun.) And would you use other racial terms judged offensive? Obviously it's common on this forum, but I bring it up since I'm talking about stumbling blocks.
Granted it's not grammatically correct, but the rest is tone policing. It's not meant to be offensive. I'm not a native speaker and my language doesn't capitalize nouns. That's how I've always written jews, arabs, indians and other ethnic groups. I'm writing informally here and I consider this pedantry.
The first "they" could have antecedent as "Rabbinical [J]udaism". The second "they" cannot, so it must be either "the Pharisees and the Sadducees" or a generic reference, but you imply it's not a generic. And it's wasn't "the Pharisees" or "the Sadducees" as a collective who did it, but some of them, seeing as many Pharisees became Christians or were sympathetic (Hillel, Gamaliel, Nicodemus, Joseph, Paul, Acts 21:20). When the Bible uses a collective like this it's clear in context that it means some, but in English a collective like "the Pharisees crucified Messiah" is easily mistaken as being a delegated group activity attributable to all members rather than an activity of individuals. So, since you affirm you don't want to say it was all Jews, I suggest continuing sensitivity to whether your words might be mistaken that way.
I said "they" refers to the pharisees and their tradition which brought about what we now call Judaism. Again you're being pedantic and I have to qualify everything I say - yes, not all pharisees went after Jesus. I'm obviously talking about those who did and formed their sect in opposition to Christ. Again, I'm not writing an academic paper here and even if my exposition is not without fault, I believe it manages to get what I mean across when understood within context.
"False Jews" is not the text. Perhaps you've fallen into a trap laid for some by intending to mean Jesus's words "which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie". Since Jesus says they're not Jews, they're not Jews. That leads to people objecting that many Rabbinical Jews are not Jews at all. In their own self-authoritative opinion.
Yes, I meant that passage. It still means the same so whatever. You're arguing over semantics.
But Jesus always upheld the right of the Jewish nation to decide who was a Jew, and in general people-groups have the right to self-identify and to determine who is and who isn't a member (to say otherwise would be to say Americans can't enforce their border). So we don't get the right to "other" the Ashkenazi Jews, for instance, and say they're not Jews.
Is this why Israel requires proof of jewish ancestry and DNA testing to get a citizenship? Go try to self-identify and see how it goes. The whole point of being jewish is "othering" non-jews aka gentiles. This is a constant theme in the OT.
Today's Ashkenazi have both Semitic and external (probably Khazarian) lineage, and the Jewish polity at large accepts this, and we don't get to say they made an error 1,000 years ago because that would be one nation (us) warring against another.
Sure, they decide the legal notion because it's their state. But it doesn't change the fact that many of them are probably not descendent from the tribes of Jacob and are not jews/Isrealites in the sense used in the Bible.
All non-Christians are generic heretics for not having come to Christ, and all non-Christians "crucified Christ" in the same sense I did; but that is not what people mean when they make Rabbinical Jews a special case. They mean that Judaism is itself as a system opposed to Jesus Christ, and the facts I've observed on the ground is that Judaism as a system tries very hard to take no position for or against Jesus Christ and to avoid taking such a position at great lengths. Even the separate allusion to Jews not wanting to mark with an "X" out of conscience is an avoidance of a position out of developed conscience and not an opposition. So, it's true the Rabbinical Jews are "heretics" in the same sense that all men are without Christ, but the fact that their Scriptures describe the true God in great detail indicates that we shouldn't preclude the idea that they might find the true God who is in Jesus by following the same Scriptures we use.
Yeah right. They never expressed anti-Christian sentiments - it was the evil Christians historically that prosecuted them for no reason at all. Or maybe the reason you don't find explicit evidence that they hate Christ and blaspheme Him is because they are wary of being caught in the act? They are careful about doing it in public but many jews who converted admit blaspheming Christ is a usual occurrence in their gatherings (they admit much more too). They're known to spit at the sound of our Lord's name. The reason they don't want to draw a cross or an X is because the sign of the cross repulses them and they know it has power. Satan and the demons squeal before the cross. Antichristian attitudes among the jews are well documented by the Church and by laypeople throughout history. The entertainment industry which is ran by jews mostly is full of antichristian sentiments and propaganda. Have you seen the Paris Olympics ceremony? Let's be real here.
So we don't get to diss the modern Jews when we remember how many OT Jews are saints in heaven watching us right now; instead we wait to point out our criticisms until we have established entree to speak where we will be heard and understood. That is done by demonstrating our ability to respect all Jewish history and treat the Jewish nation considerately: in fact, tongue in cheek, to treat them as considerately as any other goy (nation, Gen. 25:23).
You sound like an ADL lawyer dude. Come on. Don't conflate the Abrahamic hebrew tradition (which is Christianity) with the sect of Judaism. No Christian has a duty to respect judaizers who misinterpret Scripture and twist the truth. The Church Fathers didn't mince words too and would be considered "anti-semitic" by today's standards. Jews are not like the pagan nations because they know the one true God and His Son incarnated as a jew. They apostatized and rejected their own Messiah (I'm talking about the ones that did aka rabbinical Judaism) - this is what makes them distinct and why their judgment is different.
Now, I see the side issue is also interesting to you. I don't see the Torah laws "transformed" from legalism to liberty.
You're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about liberty. The transformation that occurs is the result of the fulfillment of the OT rituals and symbols in the real body of Christ. All the symbols - circumcision, baptism, Temple worship, sacrifice, mana, Israel of God, etc were actualized in the God-Man. Worship is obedience and God requires to be worshipped as He has instructed us. Temple worship was appropriate until the Church was established.
Therefore he didn't "transform" it (but many people were so steeped in idolatry that restoration of their original did look like transformation). To the faithful Jews, of which up to a million accepted his message within the generation, he made it safe to keep the original Torah again.
If He didn't transform Mosaic law, then why don't we observe it as the jews do but worship in a different manner? It was impossible to observe the original Torah after the Temple was destroyed. The faithful became the Church and worshipped according to the NT, not the Torah.
As a Christian who teaches the Hebrew roots I know Messianics who argue it is proper for Christians to slaughter and eat a lamb for Passover at home (not at the church altar because that is not the law), and, while it would be an affront for someone not in the body of Christ to do so, I can't tell them they're sinning when they in good conscience eat lamb for Passover in exactly the same way Jesus himself did.)
I'm from Eastern Europe and slaughtering and eating lamb is an well known Pascha tradition. I don't see what the problem would be - it's a feast and we celebrate that way. It's not a sacrificial lamb of course and it has nothing to do with worship.
This leads to the objection: Something changed at the cross, so certain things "good" before are "bad" after. I don't see that being the change. The things that were bad after the cross were bad for not being from the heart, in the same way they were bad before the cross. The change was that the body of Christ was wide-open to Gentiles, and at the first Orthodox Council (Acts 15) it was recognized that Gentiles had the laws of Noah and not of Moses. Both legal systems point to the same God via the same requirement of trusting in the Anointed as God reveals him; they just apply to different nations. The Messianic Jews continued, as I showed, to keep the Torah as perfectly as it could be kept, and the Gentiles continued to honor the generic statement of the Ten Words (given to all nations) that the Council stated, which is one formulation of the Laws of Noah. So when the church's demographic became largely Gentile the operative demonstration of righteousness among them was (as always) the Laws of Noah, or effectively the Ten Words; but in our day the question of operative demonstration of righteousness, via changed heart, is being shifted back to recognizing that Jews are free to keep the Laws of Moses unto Jesus, just as Moses that great saint did.
It's not good vs bad - all of God's law is good and just. It is about what is appropriate for the time and the place. What was appropriate for Adam wasn't appropriate for Noah. What was appropriate for Noah wasn't appropriate for Moses, etc. Once God became flesh and was resurrected, the world was made anew so everything changed. Christ was the second Adam and He restored the pre-fallen human nature, defeating death and opening our path to eternal life in God. The jews of Acts 15 were part of the Church and they were allowed to continue OT worship but that was provisional and circumstantial and only applied to the very early days of the Church. Paul says there are no jews or gentiles but everyone is one in Christ. We all share the same faith, rituals and sacraments.
Like circumcision, the physical does not necessarily deny the spiritual, while if there is no circumcision of the heart then both are denied.
Never said that. I said the physical was fulfilled and transcended in Christ and the spiritual was left.
Actually, in Acts 3-4 the very Jews who called for Jesus's death became hundreds out of the first 5,000 members of your Orthodox Church. I've posted the exegetical proof but I trust you see it on plain reading (I don't think Tradition would interpret it differently than plainly).
I never said all jews crucified and rejected Him. Obviously the great majority of the first Christians were jewish and many of those probably went against Christ at first (like Paul did). By "them" I'm referring to the pharisees and the sadducees who later consolidated the hebrew sect that we now call Judaism. As far as the Church goes, those people are heretics and don't worship the same God as Christians do.
However, many nations have various national covenants for good or ill in the Bible, and the Jewish people have some of the best and the worst of the covenantal promises, and their preservation is pretty good evidence that they have a national promise from God to remain a people forever just like Egypt has the same national promise from God to remain forever.
Yes, it seems that jews will be there until the end. But most of today's jews are what Scripture calls false jews. The ashkenazi are not even semitic and have nothing to do with the jews of the Bible. This delves into a very complex question of what makes one a jew and how is this proven. In the OT we see that jews had to present written geneology. Even by the time of Jesus jews have already lost their records and the genealogies of Matthew and Luke serve as proof that He was the Messiah.
Side point, circumcision doesn't disregard Romans unless it is used as a work for independent merit. The good works we do, whether they look like Jewish law (e.g. baptism) or not, can only be done in gratitude for what we have received by grace and Christ's merit. There's a lot tied to that but it's tangential to your point.
The problem is not that circumcision is jewish in origin - all Christian sacraments are because the tradition itself is jewish. The problem is that physical circumcision, just like baptism, was transformed in the NT. Same goes for laws pertaining to cleanliness and dietary laws. Continuing the jewish tradition is ignoring the fulfilling and transformation of the law and traditions brought by Christ. It's not putting things in their right place and order. An extreme case of this is observing the Sabbath as the holyday when Christ was resurrected in the first day of the week. After the Church was established at Pentecost, circumcising your children is denying the circumcision of the Spirit basically. This could even be red as blaspheming the Spirit... Imagine sacrificing a lamb at the Church altar in accordance with OT law? Would that be appropriate after Christ gave us the ultimate sacrifice? This is what circumcision is in essence.
u/guywholikesDjtof2024 you may want to read
Sure, as long as you understand what's being said.
Judaism is premised on Christ not being the messiah, you know that right? Rabbinical judaism is the tradition of the Pharisees and the Sadducees developed after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD and codified in the Oral Torah (the Mishnah and later the Babylonian Talmud). Do you know why they pray at the Western Wall? For the rebuilding of the Temple and the coming of the Messiah who will rule over Israel and the world.
There are two small problem with this plan if you're a Christian:
First, as we mentioned the Messiah already came and they rejected Him and crucified Him. I think every Christian not completely brainwashed by zionist dispensationalist propaganda is aware of that.
Second, the Kingdom of Israel, the Heavenly Jerusalem, is in fact the Church of Christ and not a political entity or an ethnostate. You see that dual covenant theory contradicts the teaching of the Church. Why? Because God's covenant with the jews was fulfilled with the coming of the Messiah.
The whole point of the OT and "the chosen people" was to bring about the Messiah. After that we the Church became the chosen people of God. This is why Christ is called not only the second Adam, but the second Jacob, because His 12 apostles gave rise to the new spiritual "tribes" around the world - not based on biological or ethnic inheritance, but as spiritual adopted children of God. This is why in Romans Paul says our circumcision is of the heart by the Spirit and not of the flesh. And still Protestants circumcise their children according to the jewish law disregarding Romans, as if God hasn't adopted us as His spiritual children. Paul made another allegory in Romans about this - jews are the olive branch that has been cut off and the Church of believers is the wild branch that was grafted and inherits eternal life in the Kingdom, previously promised to the jews.
Does God have a plan for the jews? Some Church Fathers speak of jews converting before the second advent. But there's no "separate dispensation" for the jews - they will either repent and come to the Church or they will be condemned to hell (the same choice stands before any jew or gentile at all times).
Yes, it's fake abstracted liberal Christianity used for political purposes and has nothing to do with the real Christian tradition. It's been propped up for a reason. I've been over how and why they did it here and the books that reveal their agenda. Rockefeller is very instrumental to this movement (I know, what a shocker).
Remember what Jesus said: If you love me you will keep my commandments. Most of today's fake Christians are at war with Christ, promote and excuse sin and degeneracy, blaspheme and outright hate Him.
Did I reply to you? I was referring to the link posted by SwampRangers.
Agreed but appeal to nature is a fallacy. Why don't you show pictures of animals eating their progeny? Most of the time nature is vicious and cruel, not cuddly.
We're not beasts after all. But yes, that lady on the picture is an obvious psycho. You can see the demon peeking through her peepers.
True Christianity is the way. Obviously, anything can be subverted. If you can't discern between co-opted Christian zionism and the apostolic Church established by Christ Himself, the problem is on you.
Is it enough to call yourself a Christian in order to be a Christian? Can I call myself ma'am and become a woman all of a sudden?
It makes sense. I've not red into it, but knowing the true faith makes it easy to discern how demonic such a cult is.
It's a pagan symbol related to Sun worship and it's obviously satanic. This is apparent from the last few paragraphs that claim that ultimate reality is physical and impersonal. As Christians we believe God created everything, including the laws of physics and His providence is all-encompassing. God's divine energies are also called the uncreated light. Darkness is the absence of light - it has no ontological (real) existence. It is caused by a shadow, closing one's eyes and moving away from the light by your own will. Saying darkness precedes the divine light makes no sense because nothing precedes God.
The Black Sun is ultimately a death cult, worshipping the created universe and death that is bound to be destroyed in the apocalypse, and worship of nothingness (hence the black hole and space talk). But we already know that if you don't follow Christ who is the life and the way, you're choosing death. Everyone outside of Christ's Church ultimately worships death. This is what Satan wants.
Tl;Dr it's new age esoteric neopagan nihilist bs (which explains the Nietzsche quote).
What's that? Do you go engage in apology of the Talmud and judaism as if they don't teach JC is a false prophet born of a whore?
Correct, there's a reason why Jubilees is considered apocryphal and not part of the Bible cannon.
That's a lot of words to answer a simple question and in the end you didn't answer but went on a tangent and weaseled out. Do you follow Jesus's commandment and eat His flesh and drink His blood or do you ignore that, forfeiting eternal life and condemning yourself to death instead? Is this a hard saying for you too? Does it offend you?
I can give you a hundred more examples like this and expose how inconsistent, reductionist and arbitrary your exegesis is.
It seems you pick and choose the parts of it you like and go with them. Almost as if you're doing your own free interpretation that aligns with extra-biblical assumptions you hold (the protestant exegesis tradition and your own biases) and you're not truly following the text...
Most commandments are self evident, there are few which need interpretation. Is "thou shalt not steal" a head-scratcher?
Thanks for proving my point once more. Yes, even this commandment is not self-evident and absolute. In cases of true necessity for survival, taking what is needed is not “theft” in the moral sense, because life is more fundamental than property.
Same goes for other such commandments. You realize the same God that commanded Thou shall not kill in Ex. 20:13, also said in Ex. 21:12, “He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.” The Holy Spirit authored both these statements and they are not in conflict. Rather, these texts teach that the sin/crime of murder is wrong, and that a lawful magistrate killing a murderer is, in fact, virtuous. So yes, even this straightforward command is interpreted contextually. Even if you reject the death penalty which God institutionalized, it is obvious to anyone that killing can be justified if it's in self-defense or when protecting the ones you love.
Do you see now how much deeper everything in Scripture is and how your literal, legalist and limited understanding of it is leading you in the wrong direction away from what God intended? This is where pride and putting your faith in your own reason as the ultimate authority and ability to discern leads you.
You won't get away from this mess by being clever.
Let's see an example from John 6:
I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”
52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is [k]food indeed, and My blood is [l]drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”
59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.
60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a [m]hard saying; who can understand it?”
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples [n]complained about this, He said to them, “Does this [o]offend you?
Since you hold that the meaning of God's words are as self-evident as a stop sign and are abundantly clear and straight forward. Do tell, do you eat the flesh and drink the blood of our Lord to get eternal life as He commanded?
Trent follows what the Vatican teaches - ecumenism (Nostra aetate), open borders and socialism (Gaudium et spes), skittles (Fiducia Supplicans), promotion of covid jibby-jabs (Vatican issued commemoration coin), climate change scam and sustainable goals (Fratello Sole) and dual covenant theory/rejecting conversion of jews (The Gifts and the Calling of God Are Irrevocable).
Trad caths like you are going against the Pope and are in a contradiction. Maybe it's time to jump ship and come to Orthodoxy?
You're disporven by the fact of us disagreeing on what certain Scripture passages mean. Do you even logic?
You're mentally and spiritually unwell. No sane person would come up with this idiocy. Christ is the Church. You're blaspheming God and you're doing it knowingly. Very sad.
I'm sorry you're so lost dude. I'll pray for you to come to your senses.
You're obviously looking for the truth. You won't find it in the interpretations of delusional heretics online who twist the word of God. You'll only find it in the living Body of Christ Himself. If you're open to being challenged come to divine liturgy and talk to a priest. Maybe you'll be even more convinced the Church is wrong but at least you'd know what you're rejecting instead of dealing with hearsay and prejudices.
By going against the Church you're condemning your soul. Even if there is the slightest suspicion you may not know it all and be wrong about it, it's worth investigating. That's all I have to say. God bless you.
Can God communicate to man, yes or no? If so can he enshrine that in scripture in language people can understand? Is the English language, or any language, sufficient to transmit important ideas? If not why are we having this conversation at all?
How come people read the same text and come to completely different beliefs? How do you determine who's interpretation is correct? Why do you assume you specifically hold the correct interpretation? This is a problem of epistemology and hermeneutics, not theology.
If Jesus says call no man father, but my church has a tradition calling priests father, in direct violation of this clear declaration, do you require an interpreter to tell you you cannot do that?
Do you know what word-concept fallacy is? Do you think for example the word "kid" points to the same concept every time it's used or is it context dependent? You didn't answer if you called your biological father father? I'm pretty sure you did and according to your interpretation you violated God's commandment.
You trust the words coming from a human, but don't think the words coming from God can transmit the idea properly. How dangerous is that? Very.
Dude... I'm worried you're too low IQ to argue about this stuff. Every Christian appeals to Scripture. The point of contention is who holds the authority of interpretation. Catholics believe it's ultimately the Pope. The Orthodox - the Church. You believe it's ultimately you and anyone who reads the Bible. Are you not human just like the Pope?
For the last time, NO TEXT INTERPRETS ITSELF. No text is self-evident but is interpreted through a paradigm that comes with many assumptions that are not found in the text. If the Bible was self-interpreting we'd all agree on what the text means. What part of this reasoning is hard for you?
He claimed it was Kremlin and KGB that was behind the marxist push in the West which was a boldfaced lie. In reality USSR was very nationalistic and had long abandoned the internationalist ideas of Lenin and Trotsky of spreading communism globally. It was the western government and intel agencies, CIA, Rockefeller, globalist NGO's, think thanks and Wall Str. that pushed those policies.
Why did he say we need to bring religion back to the forefront?
Globalist technocrats and socialists aren't against religion. They view religion as a tool for social and political control. They are behind the ecumenical movement - the union of all religions into a one world religion of the future. They're also behind theosophy and perennialism. Fabian socialists like H.G. Wells, Lionel Curtis and the Huxleys promoted this idea in their books. There's a very important 80's elite textbook called Changing Images of Man where the role of religion and spirituality is discussed in shaping future Brave new world society.
This is why Rockefeller created the World Council of Churches along with Riverside interfaith "Church" that has statues of Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed along with Thomas Jefferson. All Protestant churches (Anglican included) are infiltrated by the CIA and Rockefeller. Same goes for the Vatican and the Ecumenical Patriarchate (Eastern Orthodoxy). This is why they promote liberal ideas, open borders globalism and skittles stuff.
Meanwhile the elites promote Islam and Eastern religions too, again as tools for control, subverting traditional civilization and social reform. It's a very long and complex subject.
In other words, he posited a dialectic where the Soviets were the bad guys because it was too conservative and wasn't socially progressive, individualist, pluralist and liberal.
It was to illustrate they aren't fighting for a good cause, they're being lied to.
No, he hammered the point that communism is bad because it's authoritarian and suppresses individual liberty contrasting it to the liberal democracies of the west. He promoted classical liberalism even if he cautioned against surging marxist ideas in western societies. In reality, all forms of liberalism are bad, not just the radical ones on the far left spectrum. His message in essence was: "I've seen first hand where leftism and socialist ideas lead. You've got it good here, just don't let the commies to power". As if the policies of the US after WWII were not dictated by Frankfurt school operatives and the social revolution of the 60's wasn't socialist in nature.
Bezmanov completely laid into the boomer cold war narrative of the free capitalist democratic west vs. the authoritarian communist east. We see the resurgence of this RAND Corp propaganda with "Russia vs the free world".
Look, I appreciate your comment but we can argue about those points all day long and I really don't have the time to do that so I'll cut to the chase.
Here's the core of my argument: Jews within Judaism (excluding the secular jews) believe Christians are much worse than pagans/gentiles idolaters. They believe we worship the one true God as them, but that we have perverted the word of God and have spread our blasphemous heresy all over the world. Just put yourself in their shoes. If they truly love God above anything else, there's literally no bigger sin than being a Christian. No matter how hard you try to ease the dialectical tension between Judaism and Christianity and to appeal to communality in history, faith and rituals - if anything, this semblance enrages them even more because it's so much worse to pervert the truth and mix it with lies than to outright deny it and to prop up some obvious falsehood. You can't massage the glaring contradiction of Christ being God vs Christ being a false messiah away with words. This issue decides who is worships God and who's the worst heretic and blasphemer to ever exist.
This is the Judaism perspective. Keeping this in mind, it's absurd to claim Judaism and it's theological teaching isn't hostile towards Christianity. There's no point in arguing about minutia when the big picture tells you all you need to know.