Expert: Griff Ruby - 9/10/2009

Question
QUESTION: Hello, Mr. Ruby,

We often hear about Judeo-Christian values in the US, and also about Christian values.  I would like to know what Christian values are, specifically as opposed to Judeo-Christian values.

ANSWER: If you are looking for some difference between "Christian values" and "Judeo-Christian values," I doubt that there would be much difference at all.  The other thing to consider here is that these phrases are often used in the political arena, as for example when a candidate runs on a "Christian" or "Judeo-Christian" values platform, or for example certain substantial demographic groups that have increasingly found themselves disenfranchised in recent years, e. g. the old "moral majority" and the like.
In such a case, I suppose "Christian values," as distinct from the other would include everything the other does but then add what few details Christianity added, such as more direct concern for the poor, "going the extra mile" and express desire to spread the Gospel.
Aside from such minor differences, both would be about the ten commandments, allowing for belief in God in the public forum, upholding morals and decency, respecting religious holidays and special days (such as Sundays (or Saturdays) every week in which people would not be obliged to work, in which we are taught that there is a God and that God does not want us to kill or steal or commit adultery or lie or disobey parental authority, that parents should have a deciding say in what gets taught in the public schools, abstinence programs for the youth, and in general the opposition of many points pushed by a leftist Communist atheistic media and political machine that are destructive to the Family and to society at large (such as the pro-abort, the pro-fetal stem cell experimentation, the pro-gay, the pro-socialism, and so forth).


---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Dear Mr. Ruby,

Thank you for that answer.  I would definitely like to explore this subject and a range of other issues regarding Christianity.  However, this website does not allow more than one or two followup questions, and I have many.  I've been eager to discuss my questions with an expert, and you seem to answer in a very clear and concise way.  Would it be possible to email you directly?

Thanks again.  
Bruce
My email: trazom8@aol.com

*****

ANSWER: I know that I have a "signature line" that reads "How deeply would you like to explore this?" since often I can provide about an order of magnitude (on average) more information on the topic of a question given than I have time or room for in my first response.
In this case however, I have precious little else to present.  This is a question of political groups and politics in general, and of matters of secular public policy, and the application of vague terms to various groups and groupings of persons who share certain civic concerns.
Of the specific concerns I could have a lot more to say, but as to these terms, you have pretty much already heard it all.
If you have some specific question about some particular group or some particular issue generally of concern to those who share "Christian" or "Judeo-Christian" values, then feel free to ask about that.  And I don't consider what subtle differences as could be posed between the two to be of much real consequence.  If you can name some other particular issue (and especially of some real importance, in public matters) that really should be different between "Christian" and "Judeo-Christian" values, then by all means, name it.


---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Hi, Mr. Ruby.

Thanks for your answer.  My followup is a relatively simple question.  When I read the Bible recently, I noticed that in Deuteronomy it states:

Deuteronomy 4:2 – “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor shall you subtract from it, to observe the commandments of Hashem, your God, that I command you.” and,

Deuteronomy 13:1, 32 – “The entire word that I command you, that shall you observe to do; you shall not add to it and you shall not subtract from it.”

If those statements of God are to be taken seriously, how can there be a "New" Testament or anything else besides the original Hebrew scriptures?  There seem to be at least two very distinct commandments directly from God ruling out any addition to the original.  I'm confused about that.  The argument that the New Testament was somehow included in those commandments and had just not yet been revealed does not seem logical since the original Hebrew scriptures existed for many centuries before Jesus' birth, and by definition, calling the New Testament "New" strongly implies that it is "in addition to."  Furthermore, there are many new things in the New Testament that contradict commandments in the original Hebrew scriptures, clearly demonstrating that the New Testament is "adding to" the original scriptures, thus violating the commands found in Deuteronomy.  

Thanks in advance for your answer.

Bruce

*****

Answer
Good!  Now, we're getting somewhere.  The commandment speaks of "adding" to God's revelation.  By mandating such a thing as called out in Deuteronomy 4:2, is God therefore resolving not to communicate another word to humanity?
If that were the case, then (to follow it really to the full), there could not even be a Deuteronomy 4:3, because that is adding to what was written as of the close of Deuteronomy 4:2.  And again, if one wants to allow (or claim) that the whole book of Deuteronomy was written all at once (for example, on behalf of the whole Torah), then you still have to contend with all of what was added by the Prophets, and again in the Writings.  Did Joshua or Isaiah or Malachi or Ezra or the writer of 1 & 2 Chronicles "add" to the revelation contained in the Torah?
Well, I'll grant that none of them thought of adding to the Torah itself, but nevertheless their writings comprise part of the Tanakh.  If you really wanted to have only the Torah as the holy book, the Samaritans would be the place to look, for they exist even to this day (though there are only about 700 of them, virtually all living in Israel, and even still offering animal sacrifices on Mount Gerizim).
So in that sense, it is not that nothing can be added to Sacred Scripture, but rather that fallen mankind is not to be adding his own sinful/limited/human/fallen corruptions to the Word of God, nor subtracting anything Divine from it.  Therefore, there is nothing in principle wrong with there being yet further holy writings within the Tanakh, or beyond it.  And for that matter, there was also some number of other Jewish holy books, originally written mostly in Greek, by and for the Jewish Proselytes found throughout much of the world at the time of Christ, a kind of fourth category after the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (or Psalms).  When the Jewish Scriptures were first translated into Greek (the "lingua franca" of the day) by 70 Jewish scholars, they had no qualms about including these books as well in the Septuagint.  Why these books have since fallen into disuse among the Jews I really don't know.
But do we accuse the Jews back then of having "added" them, or might we not with equal validity accuse those since of having "subtracted" them?
Behind all this of course is the real question, namely of the fact that the Christian Law differs in some content from the Jewish Mosaic Law the preceded it.  Is that possible?  Does that mean that God changed His mind?  Yet bear in mind that even within the Jewish Law, there have been in fact several different "Laws" in sequence, each differing from the ones before and the ones to follow.  To Adam, even the eating of meat was forbidden.  But to Noah eating meat was permitted.  And not until the Law of Moses was there any law to establish the particulars of Temple worship, and now, without a Temple, without an identifiable High Priest of Israel, without Israel as a theocratic state, without animal sacrifices, how many of the 613 laws of the Torah can even be followed today?
And do we not add to laws when we go beyond what they state, even for obvious and wise reasons?  For example, the Law merely states that "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk."  That sounds simple enough.  But for fear of even the remotest risk of violating it, a whole system of eating meat and dairy products only in separate meals, and even having two sets of silverware in a properly kosher kitchen, have all expanded from that.  And I admit that we Catholics do the same thing (or something similar) when we not only avoid actual sins, but even near occasions of sins.  Our Law might only say not to get drunk, but because we know that if we walk past a certain favorite bar we will walk in, and having walked in we will order drinks, and having ordered them we will drink them and get drunk, we "add" the "Law" to ourselves that we therefore shall not even walk in front of that favorite bar.
Given that Providence itself has made following of much of the Law permanently impossible, the prophecies pertaining to the Messiah, the expiration of the Seventy Weeks (of Daniel) at that time, and that the differences could be like the differences between the Law of Moses and the Law as imposed upon Adam, is it really so impossible that Christianity might indeed be where God has chosen to act?  We can either doubt because Jesus did not overthrow the ancient Romans, or we can believe because the Gospel finally in time won over and converted the Romans.  Granted there have been bad Christians, even as there must also have been bad Jews, but the failure is not the Law (either one, both having come from God) but in ourselves.  And as to the bits that the two Laws do not have in common, who can say that helping the poor isn't more important than abstaining from eating pigs or shellfish, or that baptism (that applies to men and women equally) is not superior to circumcision (that only men can do as clear evidence of belonging to the Covenant)?