OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[Yigal Chripun]

Don wrote:

>
> You seem to be assuming that modern Judaism is identical to
> first-century Judaism. It clearly isn't. In particular, (1) the
> destruction of the temple required significant "breaking of backward
> compatibility" (not to anywhere near the same extent as Christianity, of
> course), and (2) Orthodox Judaism recognizes the Talmud, which was
> written down later than the New Testament.
>
> Also Christianity retains the Tanakh(Old Testament) word-for-word and
> regards it as authoritative. This put strict limits on the extent of
> possible divergence.
>
> So to some extent it's a relationship like:
>
> |
> |Tanakh
> |
> / \_
> | \_
> / \_
> / \
> Judaism Christianity
>
> Also Islam inherits concepts from the Talmud, as well as things from the
> New Testament, so it's not a "single inheritance" situation at all. It's
> as messy as C++ code involving virtual inheritance.
>
> Actually it'd be pretty interesting to model it in code <g>. The Tanakh
> (Old Testament) involves a number of virtual functions and a lot of
> code. Christianity and modern Judaism inherit all of the code from it,
> Islam only inherits the interfaces.

First off, Thanks for the analogy to OO concepts, thumbs up! <g>

to answer your post:
I didn't assume that modern Judaism is identical to first-century 
Judaism, and regarding the Talmud, That's not part of the Bible but 
rather just one book that contains interpretations by many famous Rabbis 
to the Bible.
Judaism is of course not a root of the above graph and was influenced by 
other cultures like the ancient Egyptians.

All I was trying to say is that *today* the difference between Judaism 
and Christianity is so huge that it's meaningless to say Judeo-Christian 
world-view. there simply is no such thing *today*.