The Trinity

[popaface]

Because I can't post on the Remidial Christian Thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=128407), I've decided to put my post here instead:

There are various explanations to the mechanics of the Trinity which come from an orthodox position. St Augustine saw the Holy Spirit as the bond of love between the Father and the Son, yet he also had a psychological analogy for the doctrine of the Trinity which emphasized the absolute oneness of God (something bordering on the heresy of Modalism), the Cappadocians saw all persons of the Trinity as conjoined in a mutual, equal relationality of persons.

Traditionally, the East began with the Threeness of God and moved towards the Oneness of God and the West began with the Oneness of God (following St Augustine) and moved towards the Threeness of God from thence. I personally find the Eastern understanding of the Trinity far more convincing and in a far greater historical continuity with the developments of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Early Christian theology did not begin in a vacuum, it began with the figure of Jesus of Nazareth, a Jew. That Christianity began simply and evolved beyond recognition is very much a myth of contemporary historians. Christianity began as a Judaism and pieced together Christ into an already very developed ritual and mythical milieu. A very standard form of Judaism in the Second Temple period before 70CE (and even during the early second century), was a binatarian understanding of God. This is most evident in the Palestinian-Genesis Targum and Philo of Alexandria. Binatarianism stated that there was two powers in heaven, two personalities, two gods, it stems from ancient caoskumpf Jewish theologies which began from a basically polytheistic beginning; there was El the Most High and the demi-god YHWH. In the Palestinian Genesis-Targum, they spoke of H.Shem and the Memra of H.Shem; that is God and the Word of God. This interesting observation leads very many scholars to suggesting that the only thing radical about documents such as the Gospel of John is that the Word becomes incarnate in Jesus Christ, not that there is a Word who was what God was (Jn 1).

That's one particularly interesting observation about the pre-history of the Trinity. The other which stems from the same methodological beginning is that early Christian pneumatology, for the first few centuries began with a presupposed Jewish context: Creator Pneumatology, Wisdom Pneumatology, Angelomorphic Pneumatology, Consort Pneumatology, etc., in their original Jewish expressions and their continuing presence in Christianity. Jewish pneumatology is the accepted theological idiom for Christian reflection on the Holy Spirit – the fact of a dominant Jewish-Christian pneumatology – comes to an end with the generation of Tertullian and Origen.

As such we can see the continuation of angelomorphic pneumatologies in the Gospel of Matthew, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse, the Gospel of John, Justin Martyr and in Jewish texts like DSS and LXX and various Targumim.

So doctrines like the Trinity most certainly have a pre-history in Judaisms before Christ. As can be seen in Jewish pneumatologies, which look very familiar to us Christians, the Holy Spirit, is Creator, gives Wisdom, abides as an Angelic presence to those persecuted, and is Consort to the afflicted.

Later, developing Trinitarian theologians saught to understand the Trinity in itself, and as such they came to write distinctions between Immanent and Economic Trinities, that is God in Godself and God as Experienced. The East and West have differing ideas here as well, Karl Rahner, for instance, who was the voice behind Vatican II, is well noted for the claim "The Immanent Trinity is the Economic Trinity", God experienced is God in Godself. That is that the incomprehensible God is God by sharing, bestowing, diffusing, expressing Godself. The gift of existence and grace that God imparts to the world is not produced by efficient causality, largely extrinsic to God; the gift is nothing other than God's own self. Thus, the theological presupposition of Rahner, is that there is an essential unity between oikonomia and theologia; there is no deus absconditus who lurks behind deus revelatus. Or, stated more simply: Theology is inseparable from soteriology, and vice versa.

The East still has a difficulty with this theological premise. For Eastern theologians, the distinction between oikonomia and theologia still remains. The famous Eastern theologian Gregory Palamas, in his third Triad, defending the Messalians (or Cathars in the West), contains a famous distinction between divine essence and divine energies, very reminiscent of neo-platonic philosophy; Plotinus' One and the three Emanations as well as later Christian apophatic mystical theology in the Cappadocians, Pseudo-Dionysius and Maximus the Confessor. In short, Gregory claims that while the divine essence is utterly unknowable and imparticipable, the creature participates in the uncreated divine energies.

Indeed, very many Orthodox communions (Greek, Russian and Romanian) assume that Palamism was an authentic expression of the whole of the Orthodox tradition. As such the union between the oikonomia and theologia simply cannot be maintained in Eastern Christianity, (on a side note: this ontological difference between East and West is the reason of the Filioque controversy, though I have heard some Eastern theologians claim that the Filioque can be accepted of the Economic Trinity though not the Immanent Trinity).

It’s very true that the Eastern Church has more often emphasized Apophetic theological mysticism and the West has emphasized Kataphatic theology, (knowing God kat auton). I personally cannot see apophaticisim without kataphaticism, even in texts like the Cloud; it is still so obvious that there is a sense of know-ability of God in the sacraments as well as in contemplation, and even in texts such as Ignatius’ Exercises, there is a sense that God is above the contemplations; that’s simply my opinion.

The place of the Holy Spirit in historical theology has been one of extreme downplay, theologians have long been more enthralled by the Tri-personal-unity of the Trinity with particular emphasis on the Father and the Son rather than the Spirit. Which is sad, however, from this brief historical survey of the doctrine, one can easily see just how important the Holy Spirit was in earliest Christian thought.

Allan

[barnasha]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Allan.

Most arguments and positions seem to be tailored to support the divination of Jesus and Christian Messianic worship, rather than an intrinsic knowledge or understanding of the teachings of Jesus.

The concept of "a" "son of God" who is the single divine representative of heaven on earth is extremely discordant with the culture of the hebrews, so it seems to come from another source, namely the hellenized and romanized 'christainity' which evolved well after the 1st and 2nd centuries CE.

All of this can be seen as an attempt to usurp the power of heaven here on earth, by putting a 'vicar of christ' in a position of worldly power, something quite antithetical to the teachings of the prophets, Joshua of Nazareth the Anointed included.

we can see the great logical leaps that are taken to make peter the first representative by reading well into an allegory used by Jesus.... (on this rock i build my church)

if it wasn't one misunderstanding, itd be another...

[Shadow Phoenix]

The concept of "a" "son of God" who is the single divine representative of heaven on earth is extremely discordant with the culture of the hebrews, so it seems to come from another source, namely the hellenized and romanized 'christainity' which evolved well after the 1st and 2nd centuries CE.

Got a reason why I should believe this?

All of this can be seen as an attempt to usurp the power of heaven here on earth, by putting a 'vicar of christ' in a position of worldly power, something quite antithetical to the teachings of the prophets, Joshua of Nazareth the Anointed included.

Wow. So the Trinity was all a plot of the RCC.....

The things you learn.....

we can see the great logical leaps that are taken to make peter the first representative by reading well into an allegory used by Jesus.... (on this rock i build my church)

What the RCC does with the role of Peter doesn't interest me. The role of Christ is far more important.

if it wasn't one misunderstanding, itd be another...

Yes. It'd be the misunderstanding of his opponents, kind of like the way Muhammad included Mary in the Trinity.....

[barnasha]

Got a reason why I should believe this?

'sons of God' (plural) is normal notion in hebrew theology/culture. it never meant a unique representative of God on earth


when did the idea of a "single" (only) son of God come about? (may I pre-emptively point out that greek scholars have said John 3:16 should not be translated as 'only begotten')

[Shadow Phoenix]

'sons of God' (plural) is normal notion in hebrew theology/culture. it never meant a unique representative of God on earth

A review of a passage like Prov. 30:4 is in order.


when did the idea of a "single" (only) son of God come about? (may I pre-emptively point out that greek scholars have said John 3:16 should not be translated as 'only begotten')

Do tell which Greek scholars.

[popaface]

Barnasha, that's absolutely incorrect.

Christianity did not begin from very simple beginnings and evolve into something irrecognisable. It did not begin with simple social justice preaching by an illiterate Jewish peasant and then become embellished by early Christians a few centuries later. This is quite literally the implications of German romanticism of the 19th century, not the contemporary trend of NT or OT scholarship. It's an idealization of the "primative" in biffurcation to the "embellished". Nothing real about it. Think of these two portraits of history:
1. Judaisms was a very complex cultural and mythical milieu and Christianity was a tiny, simple, primative movement within it that deconstructed all the imagery and systems of the complex faith only to become a very complex cultural and mythical and ritualistic milieu in its own right only some 40 years later.
2. Judaisms in the first century were very very complex cultural, political and religious systems with sacraments and rituals and liturgies centred on Temple systems and Christianity was a movement within it that began complex and always remained complex and diverse throughout the centuries and millennia afterwards.
Now, seriously, which one do you consider to be more realistic? Scenario one is not only very strange, it's also a usurpation of the very complex Judaisms, it leads to a very strange understanding of rabbinical Judaism (which is not parent to Christianity, but rather sibling). Scenario one is basically Marcionism!

I also don't buy the Judaism / Hellenism dichotomy. In all respects, Judaism(s) is a form or species of Hellenism which developed in the 2nd century BCE. Notions like "Logos" theology are well engraved in Judaisms in the first century, just read Philo or the Palestinian Targumim. Notions like Spirit of Truth (a la John 14) exist in Qumran literature. A growing trend in NT studies (which developed out of a small clique in the SBL) is one which attempts to place the first few centuries of Christian history in light of the very complex cultural context. I personally stand with these growing numbers of scholars; read some literature on early High Christologies, Two Powers in Heaven and Jewish-Christian studies. These studies give a lot more background and foreground to early Christian literature.

"Son of God" for instance is a strange example, Psalm 2 for instance, is a hymn written for the inauguration of the King who is called "son of God". We know from Jewish pseudepigrapha that all the claims made by Jesus and all the claims made of Jesus in the early Christian movement were fundamentally Jewish. We also don't really need to suppose that "Jewish" and "Hellenistic" were two completely different universes. Palestine was a fundamentally Hellenized Roman colony, it wasn't a Jewish, Israeli nation. (I'm not so sure that it ever was).

Allan

[barnasha]

Barnasha, that's absolutely incorrect.

Christianity did not begin from very simple beginnings and evolve into something irrecognisable. It did not begin with simple social justice preaching by an illiterate Jewish peasant and then become embellished by early Christians a few centuries later. This is quite literally the implications of German romanticism of the 19th century, not the contemporary trend of NT or OT scholarship. It's an idealization of the "primative" in biffurcation to the "embellished". Nothing real about it. Think of these two portraits of history:
1. Judaisms was a very complex cultural and mythical milieu and Christianity was a tiny, simple, primative movement within it that deconstructed all the imagery and systems of the complex faith only to become a very complex cultural and mythical and ritualistic milieu in its own right only some 40 years later.
2. Judaisms in the first century were very very complex cultural, political and religious systems with sacraments and rituals and liturgies centred on Temple systems and Christianity was a movement within it that began complex and always remained complex and diverse throughout the centuries and millennia afterwards.
Now, seriously, which one do you consider to be more realistic? Scenario one is not only very strange, it's also a usurpation of the very complex Judaisms, it leads to a very strange understanding of rabbinical Judaism (which is not parent to Christianity, but rather sibling). Scenario one is basically Marcionism!


I appreciate the thorough response. For some reason, I find myself at a lack of understanding, or at least a lack of certainty, as to the point(s) you are making.

What is incorrect and why?

You seem to disagree with something but I can't make absolutely certain your rationale. Based on the latter part of the above excerpt I think you have misunderstood what I said, which is most likely my fault.

From where did the term Christianity come, and to what does it refer?



I also don't buy the Judaism / Hellenism dichotomy. In all respects, Judaism(s) is a form or species of Hellenism which developed in the 2nd century BCE. Notions like "Logos" theology are well engraved in Judaisms in the first century, just read Philo or the Palestinian Targumim. Notions like Spirit of Truth (a la John 14) exist in Qumran literature. A growing trend in NT studies (which developed out of a small clique in the SBL) is one which attempts to place the first few centuries of Christian history in light of the very complex cultural context. I personally stand with these growing numbers of scholars; read some literature on early High Christologies, Two Powers in Heaven and Jewish-Christian studies. These studies give a lot more background and foreground to early Christian literature.


What dichotomy?

I am not saying Jesus or Paul were teaching Greek or Roman teachings, or anything in the bible is inherently "Hellenized" - what is Hellenized and Romanized is the traditions and interpretations which arose in and originate from those respective cultures, which we inherit today as modern Christianity.

Are you contending Roman and Greek culture had no influence on modern Christianity?


"Son of God" for instance is a strange example, Psalm 2 for instance, is a hymn written for the inauguration of the King who is called "son of God". We know from Jewish pseudepigrapha that all the claims made by Jesus and all the claims made of Jesus in the early Christian movement were fundamentally Jewish. We also don't really need to suppose that "Jewish" and "Hellenistic" were two completely different universes. Palestine was a fundamentally Hellenized Roman colony, it wasn't a Jewish, Israeli nation. (I'm not so sure that it ever was).

Allan

Which example; what is strange about it? What does your example of 'son of God' in the bible show? I'm not sure what you're getting at here, most likely my fault.

[John Goddard]

'sons of God' (plural) is normal notion in hebrew theology/culture. it never meant a unique representative of God on earth

when did the idea of a "single" (only) son of God come about? (may I pre-emptively point out that greek scholars have said John 3:16 should not be translated as 'only begotten')

It came about here with David's promise for a Messiah with an everlasting kingdom, who is God's ruler on the earth:

2 Samuel 7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

2 Samuel 7:14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son...

Psalms 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

[barnasha]

It came about here with David's promise for a Messiah with an everlasting kingdom, who is God's ruler on the earth:

2 Samuel 7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

2 Samuel 7:14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son...

Psalms 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.


Psalms 2:7 does not in any way imply David is the "only" "son" of God.... i dont think anyone here takes the position that David is the "only" "son" of God.


Incidentally, the "Messiah" is to be a "son" of David, not a "son of God" (in this excerpt at least)

[John Goddard]

Psalms 2:7 does not in any way imply David is the "only" "son" of God.... i dont think anyone here takes the position that David is the "only" "son" of God.

Incidentally, the "Messiah" is to be a "son" of David, not a "son of God" (in this excerpt at least)

2 Samuel 7:14 "I will be his father, and he shall be my son" is God telling David that this son of his will have an everlasting kingdom, and God will adopt him as his own.

So yes there are many sons of God (Romans 8:14), but the one that is Messiah here is most powerful one ruling over all other men in the stead of God.

It doesn't have to mean he is a deity, but it means that he has God's authority to make or break all other humans who would also be children of God.

[barnasha]

2 Samuel 7:14 "I will be his father, and he shall be my son" is God telling David that this son of his will have an everlasting kingdom, and God will adopt him as his own.

So yes there are many sons of God (Romans 8:14), but the one that is Messiah here is most powerful one ruling over all other men in the stead of God.


fair enough, but that doesn't make him the "only" son of God, just the most exemplary - in this particular prophecy at least.


It doesn't have to mean he is a deity, but it means that he has God's authority to make or break all other humans who would also be children of God.

right, but what i was asking for is how the idea of a single "son of God" came about, and what you're describing is a 'more powerful', not a 'single', son of god.

[John Goddard]

fair enough, but that doesn't make him the "only" son of God, just the most exemplary - in this particular prophecy at least.

right, but what i was asking for is how the idea of a single "son of God" came about, and what you're describing is a 'more powerful', not a 'single', son of god.

Well what you describe following is about what I just said, which in that sense makes him the single Son of God who is mediator between God and man, 1st Timothy 2:5. Which is still agreeable with previous Hebrew texts especially 2 Samuel 7:14.

The concept of "a" "son of God" who is the single divine representative of heaven on earth is extremely discordant with the culture of the hebrews, so it seems to come from another source, namely the hellenized and romanized 'christainity' which evolved well after the 1st and 2nd centuries CE.

But if you mean, exactly when this special Son of God became more than that as a demigod type of figure, that I don't know.

[barnasha]

Are you saying the existence of this particular text is representative of the whole of hebrew theology? i mean this seems to be a prophetic thing, not a slice of how the term 'son of God' is used generally.

case in point: we can find the same term used applied in other ways in the bible, too.

[popaface]

I appreciate the thorough response. For some reason, I find myself at a lack of understanding, or at least a lack of certainty, as to the point(s) you are making.

What is incorrect and why?

You seem to disagree with something but I can't make absolutely certain your rationale. Based on the latter part of the above excerpt I think you have misunderstood what I said, which is most likely my fault.

From where did the term Christianity come, and to what does it refer?

What dichotomy?

I am not saying Jesus or Paul were teaching Greek or Roman teachings, or anything in the bible is inherently "Hellenized" - what is Hellenized and Romanized is the traditions and interpretations which arose in and originate from those respective cultures, which we inherit today as modern Christianity.

Are you contending Roman and Greek culture had no influence on modern Christianity?



Which example; what is strange about it? What does your example of 'son of God' in the bible show? I'm not sure what you're getting at here, most likely my fault.

My arguments were directed at this post of yours:
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Allan.

Most arguments and positions seem to be tailored to support the divination of Jesus and Christian Messianic worship, rather than an intrinsic knowledge or understanding of the teachings of Jesus.

The concept of "a" "son of God" who is the single divine representative of heaven on earth is extremely discordant with the culture of the hebrews, so it seems to come from another source, namely the hellenized and romanized 'christainity' which evolved well after the 1st and 2nd centuries CE.

All of this can be seen as an attempt to usurp the power of heaven here on earth, by putting a 'vicar of christ' in a position of worldly power, something quite antithetical to the teachings of the prophets, Joshua of Nazareth the Anointed included.

we can see the great logical leaps that are taken to make peter the first representative by reading well into an allegory used by Jesus.... (on this rock i build my church)

if it wasn't one misunderstanding, itd be another...
The problem I have with it is the clear misunderstanding of the Judaisms of Jesus' day and the biffurcation of Judaisms and Hellenisms. It's not obvious to me that those were two different entities, they were intertwined entities which evovled and shaped each other alongside one another.

Plus, there was a very clear "son of God" theology in Judaisms in Jesus' day. I've mentioned "Logos" or "Memra" theology before, if not hear in other threads yes. Either way, in the first century after Christ, there was still a "Two Powers in Heaven" theology in Judaism. It was only declared heretical in the second century CE. Really, the only thing different about Christianity was that it appropriated these titles for Jesus.

Allan

[barnasha]

Plus, there was a very clear "son of God" theology in Judaisms in Jesus' day.


what was that?

[RBerman]

what was that?

Here's (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=124528) an excellent thread in the Mormon subforum that reviews the Jewish understanding of sonship language throughout the OT.

[barnasha]

thanks for that link.

I still hope to have a more concise answer in the context of this argument from popaface (or anyone else who is willing to discuss)

[RBerman]

The concept of "a" "son of God" who is the single divine representative of heaven on earth is extremely discordant with the culture of the hebrews, so it seems to come from another source, namely the hellenized and romanized 'christainity' which evolved well after the 1st and 2nd centuries CE.
Granted that "son of God" was a category of person in Jewish thought rather than a unique individual. Are you arguing that the Jews of Jesus' day were not expecting a particular and singular Messiah to arise and deliver them?

[barnasha]

Are you arguing that the Jews of Jesus' day were not expecting a particular and singular Messiah to arise and deliver them?

are you arguing/asserting that all subscribed to this messianic prophecy? and that it overshadows any instance of 'son of God' to mean 'son of God' as it means in that prophecy?

it may not be a hard argument to make.... just curious.

[popaface]

Barnasha, for your consideration, one example:

But if there be any as yet unfit to be called a son of God, let him press to take the place under God's First-Born, the Word (ho Logos), who holds the eldership among the angels, an archangel as it were. And many names are his for he is called: the Beginning, the Name of God, Word, the Man after His Image, and 'the One that sees', namely Israel.

This is Philo of Alexandria (Conf. 146). One can easily read "Jesus" into Philo's description of "God's First-Born".

Allan

[RBerman]

are you arguing/asserting that all subscribed to this messianic prophecy? and that it overshadows any instance of 'son of God' to mean 'son of God' as it means in that prophecy?

it may not be a hard argument to make.... just curious.
I don't understand the distinction you are trying to draw between "Messiah" and "son of God." which prophecy is the "that prophecy" of which you speak?

[John Goddard]

I don't understand the distinction you are trying to draw between "Messiah" and "son of God." which prophecy is the "that prophecy" of which you speak?

Maybe 2 Samuel 7:14, saying the Son of David who is Messiah will also be known as the Son of God.

I don't understand either unless he is trying to find out when the Church turned that into an understanding of Trinity incarnation, something more than adoption as with everyone else who is called Sons of God too.

[barnasha]

what is to not understand?

'child/son of God' and 'anointed' (Messiah/Christ) are two different terms with two different kinds of applications and histories, admittedly with some overlap.

[John Goddard]

what is to not understand?

'child/son of God' and 'anointed' (Messiah/Christ) are two different terms with two different kinds of applications and histories, admittedly with some overlap.

The overlap exists in part at 2 Samuel 7:14. Is that what you wanted to know, where in the OT it says Messiah is said to be a special Son of God who rules over other humans?

Or are you wondering when it came to mean that Messiah was a demigod, or fully man fully God, etc.

[popaface]

what is to not understand?

'child/son of God' and 'anointed' (Messiah/Christ) are two different terms with two different kinds of applications and histories, admittedly with some overlap.

That's the territory of early Christology. Yet, I wouldn't say that "child/son of God' and 'anointed' are mutually exclusive in all other senses; nor would I say that Jews were expecting a single "messiah" figure, "messiah" obviously translates as "anointed" so just like there were concepts of many "sons of God" though some people might have had a favourite: Judas Maccabeaus or David or Moses or Melkizedek, so too were there many "messiahs", and people would have had favourites: David, Judas, etc. Further, they would have used both "Son of God" and "Messiah" to talk about their favourites and would have used terminology like "after the order of Melkizedek" and "Son of David" and "One like Moses" to describe their contemporary Messiah, whom they believe in.

Allan

[RBerman]

what is to not understand? 'child/son of God' and 'anointed' (Messiah/Christ) are two different terms with two different kinds of applications and histories, admittedly with some overlap.
I suppose this is about to turn into a "glass half full/glass half empty" discussion about the degree of overlap, especially by the first century AD.

[barnasha]

That's the territory of early Christology. Yet, I wouldn't say that "child/son of God' and 'anointed' are mutually exclusive in all other senses;


agreed

nor would I say that Jews were expecting a single "messiah" figure, "messiah" obviously translates as "anointed" so just like there were concepts of many "sons of God" though some people might have had a favourite: Judas Maccabeaus or David or Moses or Melkizedek, so too were there many "messiahs", and people would have had favourites: David, Judas, etc. Further, they would have used both "Son of God" and "Messiah" to talk about their favourites and would have used terminology like "after the order of Melkizedek" and "Son of David" and "One like Moses" to describe their contemporary Messiah, whom they believe in.

Allan

This sounds sensible to me

[popaface]

Excellent!

Then we are in agreement that although these terms can say something quite different, (for instance "sons of the gods" means something quite different in Genesis than "children of God" in John, and indeed, "children of God" in John than "Son of God" in John), we can fundamentally see that there is a concept of uniqueness when it comes to the messiah.

"Son of God" when it comes to a Messiah figure (kingly, priestly, or prophetic) does not mean the same thing as "sons/daughters of God/gods" when it comes to generalities. These are terms which have been given a deep and different sense in the Christian form of Judaisms.

I hope that we are in agreement that these terms stem from a thoroughly Jewish context. Though, I would argue that Judaisms itself is a form or species of Hellenism.

Allan

[carelinks]

Allan, thanks for your thoughts on this thread. Yes, I too see similarities between some Jewish theology and elements of trinitarian theology. However, in my view, on these points they are both mistaken in that they are adrift from Scripture. Rather than copy and paste my stuff on this , as it's perhaps only of interest to a few, here's the link: http://www.realchrist.info/4-4.html

I argue there that the [in my opinion, false] doctrine of the Trinity in part arose from an accomodation of apostate Jewish theology into Christianity.

[popaface]

This theology was declared apostate by Judaism during the second century. It was normative theology during the first century and it was never declared heretical by Christianity. It was only declared heretical in Judaism in the second century because of its similarity with Christianity. This was also the period in which the Catholic Deuterocanonical books were dis-included in the Jewish canon because of their close similarities with Christianity. I maintain that Rabbinical Judaism and Christianity are better understood as siblings than anything else.

Allan