Christians/Jews - Who should be more concerned?

Lestat · #1 09-09-2007, 01:24 AM

I find it absolutely astounding that two religions which emanate from the same holy book could disagree on such a monumental thing as whether or not Christ was the Son of God. I mean, this doesn't strike me as a minor detail. It's incredibly important. So how could one side have gotten it wrong? Is there a logical way to figure out who is more likely to be right? Can Bay's Theorum be applied?

The Christians obviously have information that the Jews don't have (even if it is wrong). When analyzing data and making an informed decision, isn't it better to have ALL the information even if some of it isn't correct? Something told the Christians that Christ was the Son of God. This would concern me if I were Jewish. It means they were privvy to something my people were not. Were the Jews absent one day? Did they miss a memo?

In short, I think I'd be more worried about being on the wrong side if I were Jewish. But I still prefer my position of agnosticism, because clearly... Either each religion is privvy to information that all others are not, or they all should be viewed with skepticism.

Siegmund · #2 09-09-2007, 01:57 AM

I'm not sure the Christians would enjoy the result of applying Bayes's Theorem. Consider the number of people who have claimed to be the son of God over the millennia -- and the warnings in the Bible that there would be false prophets! -- and the odds are not looking so hot for Jesus being The One, just because he said he was.

The Jews aren't missing any information: there were Jews around listening to Jesus's sermons... some converted after seeing him in person, some did not... modern Jews can examine all the evidence (the New Testament) and decide if it looks like the genuine article or not. It's the same memo on the same day.

More generally - "When analyzing data and making an informed decision, isn't it better to have ALL the information even if some of it isn't correct?" No, unless each piece of information comes with a warning as to how likely it is to be correct. In general, it's far easier to draw sensible conclusions from a list of N facts, all known to be truthful, than it is to draw a list from N+1 facts N of which are truthful but we dont know which ones (or even N+2 facts, N+1 of them truthful.)

Siegmund · #3 09-09-2007, 02:05 AM

As a followup question, about religions that "emanate from the same Holy Book" -- I am curious how you would compare the Jews and the Christians' disagreement over whether whether the New Testament belongs in the Holy Book over the Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox debate over whether the histories of the Maccabees belong in the Old Testament? Was Baruch a true or a false prophet? There is a pretty long list of writings that some people think are part of the Bible and others aren't.

It is perhaps not so amazing that a disagreement could arise as to whether or not to admit Jesus to the canon too.

Lestat · #4 09-09-2007, 08:28 AM

Thanks siegmund, this is actually pretty helpful.

I assumed more information is always better. For instance, when astromoners or astro-physicists observe the universe, I thought it's always better that they have all possible data (even if some of it might be tainted due to instrumental failure or limitations), in order to make the most accurate predictions and/or discoveries, rather than be "missing" information.

Wouldn't a scientist rather extrapolate what he can from ALL known data, rather than definitely know he's missing some?

Maybe you've already answered that and I don't quite understand.

Lestat · #5 09-09-2007, 08:30 AM

Hmm. I'm not familiar with the Maccabees or Baruch. I think it's so incredibly hard to try and pinpoint any reasonable degree of accuracy from such old writings. It's why I can believe none of it (or very little). Certainly not to base my entire world view on.

metsandfinsfan · #6 09-09-2007, 10:00 AM

It is pretty simple from the Jewish point of view. The old testament list things that are supposed to happen when the messiah comes. These things did not happen, so the Jews believe Jesus isn't the Messiah. If he isnt the messiah after claiming to be, he probably isnt the son of god either. The old testament also warns of false prophets

Lestat · #7 09-09-2007, 10:29 AM

If you happen to know offhand, what things were supposed to happen when the Messiah came?

My main point is that it's a huge discrepency and one that seems absurd to me. You're going off the same book, believe in the same God, yet one group thinks God sent Jesus his only Son, and the other group, what... Completely misses that? If you can't be sure about this tidbit of information, how can you be sure about any of it?

metsandfinsfan · #8 09-09-2007, 12:20 PM

this article is interesting on the subject

http://skeptically.org/newtestament/id21.html

David Sklansky · #9 09-09-2007, 05:17 PM

Couldn't you ask the same question about Christians and Mormons?

ALawPoker · #10 09-09-2007, 05:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I find it absolutely astounding that two religions which emanate from the same holy book could disagree on such a monumental thing as whether or not Christ was the Son of God. I mean, this doesn't strike me as a minor detail. It's incredibly important. So how could one side have gotten it wrong? Is there a logical way to figure out who is more likely to be right? Can Bay's Theorum be applied?

The Christians obviously have information that the Jews don't have (even if it is wrong). When analyzing data and making an informed decision, isn't it better to have ALL the information even if some of it isn't correct? Something told the Christians that Christ was the Son of God. This would concern me if I were Jewish. It means they were privvy to something my people were not. Were the Jews absent one day? Did they miss a memo?

In short, I think I'd be more worried about being on the wrong side if I were Jewish. But I still prefer my position of agnosticism, because clearly... Either each religion is privvy to information that all others are not, or they all should be viewed with skepticism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what it suggests is that literal interpretations of religions and gods are not accurate in the first place.

What evidence DID Christians have to believe Jesus was the son of God? What evidence did Jews have to believe that this God exists in the first place? If there is good evidence going into a certain belief, you won't see such conflict of belief, because one side's reasoning can be logically demonstrated and it eventually leaves the other side with no room to disagree.

But when the core assumption is maybe a faulty one in the first place, it leaves room to guess and wish for what might be the best extension, because neither extension will stem back to any underlying logical truth anyways.

Religions make an attempt to quench our lust for the unexplained, and I don't really have a problem with them. But I think people would be better off if they accepted the fact that the unexplained is sometimes inexplicable, and you shouldn't assume that A or B is literally correct just because you crave some answer and prefer it to be spelled out rather than open to your own interpretation.