Prim: But one thing it is not is a belief in three gods.
Alatar, nice example!
I understand 3-in-1 = 1 as a theological point, but this is not an interpretation of the word 'one' anticipated by the shema. As a practical matter Villans cannot profess both expressions of faith without ... (I will adopt Frelga's more diplomatic language) ... without contradicting himself.
Jn
Jews for Jesus
Thank you, Jn.
All the people who likewise agree that the concept of God in the Shema and the concept of God in Christianity are not inconsistent.
I did speak in general terms, but of course, it's more specific. One subset of Jews who have a certain experience wish to continue calling themselves Jews because that experience has caused them to understand something as consistent that they previously viewed, and which Jews who have not had that experience currently view, as logically impossible. For you, the assertion that they can define Judaism as consistent with Christianity is an assertion that Judaism as defined by all the rest of the Jews does not exist.
No, I don't understand. But I guess it isn't really an issue if you acknowledge that it is just peculiarly for you that this makes Judaism cease to exist. I had thought you were making a larger case. But if you are not trying to convince anyone else that this is the case, then I apologize for even arguing with you!
I had not thought you were saying, this is the way it feels/looks/seems to me, I had thought you were saying, by doing this, they are in fact accomplishing this.
Thank you, Frelga.
We believe God is One. Jews have an understandable misconception about a Christian God being three. This no doubt results from clumsily trying to express the inexpressible. He is not three; He is One. The same One.
I would be totally comfortable reciting Shema. I'm not sure I could call it the MAIN declaration of my faith, because it leaves a great deal out. I mean, I'd not want to be restricted to reciting that only.
Alatar, I must say your relaxed attitude is like a breath of fresh air in this particular thread.
I meant my comments to be taken generally. If something someone believes doesn't make sense to us, we can decide they are a liar, or we can decide that even if it doesn't make sense to us, it makes sense to them.It is Harold Vallins who is lying when he says he believes two contradictory things simultaneously.
You can say he has the right to give Jewish words any meaning he wishes, but then who will be able to talk with him?
All the people who likewise agree that the concept of God in the Shema and the concept of God in Christianity are not inconsistent.
All Jews save those who accept Christ.I said: "But you cannot say that a Christian is a Jew or that any Christian can claim to be a Jew no matter what they believe and have that just be all right because it is factually incorrect and logically impossible, unless one first denies that Judaism exists at all as something in its own right."
And you answered: "No, I would say, unless one first denies that your precise definition and undestanding of Judaism is the one that everyone must use."
If I stood alone having invented this definition then your statement would be true. But this is not just how I define Judaism, it is how all Jews define Judaism <snip>
No one is denying your self definition. It seems, though, that you wish to deny self-definition to the set of people who, while Jewish come to accept Jesus and still see themselves as Jews because what is seen as logically impossible by Jews who have not had this experience no longer seems logically impossible to them.You cannot deny the self-definition of an entire People without implicitly denying their existence in the form in which they claim to exist.
I realize that you do not understand why I view it this way, and I'm not sure anything I could say would make it clearer, but for me the assertion that anyone can define Judaism any way they wish is an assertion that Judaism as it defines itself does not exist.
I did speak in general terms, but of course, it's more specific. One subset of Jews who have a certain experience wish to continue calling themselves Jews because that experience has caused them to understand something as consistent that they previously viewed, and which Jews who have not had that experience currently view, as logically impossible. For you, the assertion that they can define Judaism as consistent with Christianity is an assertion that Judaism as defined by all the rest of the Jews does not exist.
No, I don't understand. But I guess it isn't really an issue if you acknowledge that it is just peculiarly for you that this makes Judaism cease to exist. I had thought you were making a larger case. But if you are not trying to convince anyone else that this is the case, then I apologize for even arguing with you!
I had not thought you were saying, this is the way it feels/looks/seems to me, I had thought you were saying, by doing this, they are in fact accomplishing this.
Thank you, Frelga.
We believe God is One. Jews have an understandable misconception about a Christian God being three. This no doubt results from clumsily trying to express the inexpressible. He is not three; He is One. The same One.
I would be totally comfortable reciting Shema. I'm not sure I could call it the MAIN declaration of my faith, because it leaves a great deal out. I mean, I'd not want to be restricted to reciting that only.
Alatar, I must say your relaxed attitude is like a breath of fresh air in this particular thread.
-
nerdanel
- This is Rome
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:48 pm
- Location: Concrete Jungle by the Lagoon
In which I oversimplify everyone’s position, and probably demonstrate a marked lack of understanding of all.
Although I find Jn’s arguments to have a lot of emotional appeal, I also find myself persuaded somewhat by Cerin, hal, and Faramond.
There are three ways to conceptualize this, I guess, all of which feature a pivot point at roughly two thousand years ago. In all, let’s accept ancient Judaism as unitary, before the Common Era. First, we could say that CE brought a split into two equal branches, now known as “Judaism” and “Christianity”. Second, we could say that CE brought a fork, with Christianity being the “true fork” of ancient Judaism, correctly interpreting Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, and what we today call Judaism being those who “missed the boat” – who unfortunately have failed to see that Jesus is Lord, Savior, and Messiah. (My impression is that this is the position of some, but not all, Christians.) Third, we could say that CE brought a fork, with what we today call Judaism being the “true fork” – correctly interpreting that Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah, and what we today call Christianity being, if not a “false fork”, a fork born of an incorrect interpretation of ancient Jewish Messianic teaching. (My impression is that this is the position of some Jews.)
Where does that leave me? I understood what Whistler was saying in the first place. Christians can call themselves “Jews”, and in so doing, mean that they believe in ancient Judaism, believe that Jesus was the fulfillment thereof, and that he modified ancient Judaism in a way that means that Christianity is a sort of “modern Judaism”. I think that hal and Cerin are getting at something roughly similar. (Please correct me if I’ve misunderstood you.)
At the same time, I’m almost positive I understand what Jn and Frelga and Impy are saying. What is referred to as “Judaism” today is most certainly not what Whistler, hal, Cerin, and others believe. This “Judaism” is also born from ancient Judaism, and continued directly from ancient Judaism – by which I mean, traditional Judaism does not acknowledge that there has been any modification of the duties of observant Jews since the time of the Torah – except as modified by the (supposedly temporary) absence of the Temple.
Given this, it is somewhat strange and baffling to hear people who do not adopt “Judaism’s” theology proclaim that they are actually Jewish! That their beliefs are a perfection of Judaism! That in embracing a religion that we call “Christianity”, their Judaism has become complete!
Say what?
On one level, it feels (emotionally, not logically) as astounding as me walking in and saying, “Hi, I’m Jnyusa.” I’m not the same age as (the poster commonly known as) Jn, I’m not the same race as Jn, I’m not in the same field as Jn, I don’t have the same philosophy as Jn, I don’t have the same posting style as Jn, but nonetheless. I kind of just feel like co-opting her name – saying that who I am is what it really means to be “Jnyusa.” The poster originally known as “Jnyusa” probably doesn’t appreciate me co-opting her identify, and moreover, my having the audacity to proclaim that *I* know how best to be Jnyusa – even better than she who has always been Jnyusa.
On an emotional level, that is how alien and how bizarre it seems to this non-Jew and longstanding fan of Judaism, the notion of Christians being any sort of Jews, forget about “perfected” Jews. BTW, don't poke holes in the analogy. It already has any many holes as Swiss cheese. The point is that that is how it *feels* to me to have JFJ or Christians claim to be Jewish, or to claim that their religion is based on the true Jewish Messiah.
But, shaking off my emotional reaction, and trying to recall my Catholic upbringing, I understood how Christians can potentially view their religion as the very culmination of what ancient Judaism was. Although I object vigorously to Christians calling themselves “Jews” given that this word has a modern definition which they do not and cannot fit, I think it makes little sense to take offense to them viewing themselves as evolved from ancient Judaism, and their tradition deriving from the fact that they believe that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. That is, after all, the heart of their religion...isn't it? (Factually, I think this misinterprets what the Jewish Messiah was intended to be, but that is a debate for another, undoubtedly even more intense thread.)
This discussion has made me recall my personal interpretation of the Jewish idea that there are many paths to the Divine. (Note: I don’t mean to claim that my personal interpretation is in any way a “Jewish” interpretation.)
If we accept the idea that there is Something better than us – whether it is God in the religious sense, or simply a larger, spiritual ideal of Good – I think it is not difficult to accept that we as humans living here on Earth cannot fully conceptualize it. Nor can religions, as human constructs themselves, IMO. Rather, each religion contains many grains of Truth, and speaks uniquely to different people. I believe that religion is a tool, a gateway to the Divine (or to Good), and each person will find a different tool (or tools) to be more useful than others. Others – atheists and agnostics – will find no tool at all to be preferable – these people prefer to work with their bare hands, we might say.
When viewed in this light, the objective truth of each piece of religious doctrine matters less. And this is, in fact, my view. For example, as a matter of debate, I’m perfectly willing to argue over whether Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. But, from another perspective, I couldn’t care less who Jesus was or is. (something I’ve previously said on this board) To me, whether he is or is not the “Jewish messiah” is less important than the two facts that:
(1) Billions of people’s lives through the centuries have been immeasurably touched for the better by the belief that he is (and derivative beliefs). Undoubtedly, many of those people have lived far better, far more moral lives, because they held this belief.
(2) For countless others (of whom I am one), the idea of Jesus as a Messiah or as God or as Savior of Sins or as any of these other concepts does absolutely nothing to bring them closer to the Divine. Simply put, this religious doctrine is not a tool that they can use. But there may be other tools that people in this group can use to bring them closer to God (yes, this is an explicit and resounding rejection of the idea that no one can come to God except through Jesus), and they are free to use them. Or, they might find that they come closest to Good by working with their bare hands, by identifying as atheists and agnostics with a developed moral code.
I don’t know whether this makes much sense, since it's an idea that I had seven years ago and forgot about until today. But it seemed somewhat related, so I thought I’d post it. This is also how I can accept the first position I outlined at the top of this post - that CE brought a split of ancient Judaism into two equal branches now known as Judaism and Christianity. That is, without passing judgment on the objective rightness or factual accuracy of either modern religion, that both are valid tools to reach the Divine that will have different appeal to different people.
To conclude this rambling post:
Hal – to me, there is something more offensive about telling someone that they are “going backwards” than telling someone that you disagree with their decision to leave a religion. The latter seems to be a simple matter of disagreement; I think I should leave, and someone else thinks I should not leave. The former implies a sort of moral regression that I find far more insulting.
Also, thanks to Prim and Anthy for understanding and empathizing with people who have different perspectives.
Although I find Jn’s arguments to have a lot of emotional appeal, I also find myself persuaded somewhat by Cerin, hal, and Faramond.
There are three ways to conceptualize this, I guess, all of which feature a pivot point at roughly two thousand years ago. In all, let’s accept ancient Judaism as unitary, before the Common Era. First, we could say that CE brought a split into two equal branches, now known as “Judaism” and “Christianity”. Second, we could say that CE brought a fork, with Christianity being the “true fork” of ancient Judaism, correctly interpreting Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, and what we today call Judaism being those who “missed the boat” – who unfortunately have failed to see that Jesus is Lord, Savior, and Messiah. (My impression is that this is the position of some, but not all, Christians.) Third, we could say that CE brought a fork, with what we today call Judaism being the “true fork” – correctly interpreting that Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah, and what we today call Christianity being, if not a “false fork”, a fork born of an incorrect interpretation of ancient Jewish Messianic teaching. (My impression is that this is the position of some Jews.)
Where does that leave me? I understood what Whistler was saying in the first place. Christians can call themselves “Jews”, and in so doing, mean that they believe in ancient Judaism, believe that Jesus was the fulfillment thereof, and that he modified ancient Judaism in a way that means that Christianity is a sort of “modern Judaism”. I think that hal and Cerin are getting at something roughly similar. (Please correct me if I’ve misunderstood you.)
At the same time, I’m almost positive I understand what Jn and Frelga and Impy are saying. What is referred to as “Judaism” today is most certainly not what Whistler, hal, Cerin, and others believe. This “Judaism” is also born from ancient Judaism, and continued directly from ancient Judaism – by which I mean, traditional Judaism does not acknowledge that there has been any modification of the duties of observant Jews since the time of the Torah – except as modified by the (supposedly temporary) absence of the Temple.
Given this, it is somewhat strange and baffling to hear people who do not adopt “Judaism’s” theology proclaim that they are actually Jewish! That their beliefs are a perfection of Judaism! That in embracing a religion that we call “Christianity”, their Judaism has become complete!
Say what?
On one level, it feels (emotionally, not logically) as astounding as me walking in and saying, “Hi, I’m Jnyusa.” I’m not the same age as (the poster commonly known as) Jn, I’m not the same race as Jn, I’m not in the same field as Jn, I don’t have the same philosophy as Jn, I don’t have the same posting style as Jn, but nonetheless. I kind of just feel like co-opting her name – saying that who I am is what it really means to be “Jnyusa.” The poster originally known as “Jnyusa” probably doesn’t appreciate me co-opting her identify, and moreover, my having the audacity to proclaim that *I* know how best to be Jnyusa – even better than she who has always been Jnyusa.
On an emotional level, that is how alien and how bizarre it seems to this non-Jew and longstanding fan of Judaism, the notion of Christians being any sort of Jews, forget about “perfected” Jews. BTW, don't poke holes in the analogy. It already has any many holes as Swiss cheese. The point is that that is how it *feels* to me to have JFJ or Christians claim to be Jewish, or to claim that their religion is based on the true Jewish Messiah.
But, shaking off my emotional reaction, and trying to recall my Catholic upbringing, I understood how Christians can potentially view their religion as the very culmination of what ancient Judaism was. Although I object vigorously to Christians calling themselves “Jews” given that this word has a modern definition which they do not and cannot fit, I think it makes little sense to take offense to them viewing themselves as evolved from ancient Judaism, and their tradition deriving from the fact that they believe that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. That is, after all, the heart of their religion...isn't it? (Factually, I think this misinterprets what the Jewish Messiah was intended to be, but that is a debate for another, undoubtedly even more intense thread.)
This discussion has made me recall my personal interpretation of the Jewish idea that there are many paths to the Divine. (Note: I don’t mean to claim that my personal interpretation is in any way a “Jewish” interpretation.)
If we accept the idea that there is Something better than us – whether it is God in the religious sense, or simply a larger, spiritual ideal of Good – I think it is not difficult to accept that we as humans living here on Earth cannot fully conceptualize it. Nor can religions, as human constructs themselves, IMO. Rather, each religion contains many grains of Truth, and speaks uniquely to different people. I believe that religion is a tool, a gateway to the Divine (or to Good), and each person will find a different tool (or tools) to be more useful than others. Others – atheists and agnostics – will find no tool at all to be preferable – these people prefer to work with their bare hands, we might say.
When viewed in this light, the objective truth of each piece of religious doctrine matters less. And this is, in fact, my view. For example, as a matter of debate, I’m perfectly willing to argue over whether Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. But, from another perspective, I couldn’t care less who Jesus was or is. (something I’ve previously said on this board) To me, whether he is or is not the “Jewish messiah” is less important than the two facts that:
(1) Billions of people’s lives through the centuries have been immeasurably touched for the better by the belief that he is (and derivative beliefs). Undoubtedly, many of those people have lived far better, far more moral lives, because they held this belief.
(2) For countless others (of whom I am one), the idea of Jesus as a Messiah or as God or as Savior of Sins or as any of these other concepts does absolutely nothing to bring them closer to the Divine. Simply put, this religious doctrine is not a tool that they can use. But there may be other tools that people in this group can use to bring them closer to God (yes, this is an explicit and resounding rejection of the idea that no one can come to God except through Jesus), and they are free to use them. Or, they might find that they come closest to Good by working with their bare hands, by identifying as atheists and agnostics with a developed moral code.
I don’t know whether this makes much sense, since it's an idea that I had seven years ago and forgot about until today. But it seemed somewhat related, so I thought I’d post it. This is also how I can accept the first position I outlined at the top of this post - that CE brought a split of ancient Judaism into two equal branches now known as Judaism and Christianity. That is, without passing judgment on the objective rightness or factual accuracy of either modern religion, that both are valid tools to reach the Divine that will have different appeal to different people.
To conclude this rambling post:
Hal – to me, there is something more offensive about telling someone that they are “going backwards” than telling someone that you disagree with their decision to leave a religion. The latter seems to be a simple matter of disagreement; I think I should leave, and someone else thinks I should not leave. The former implies a sort of moral regression that I find far more insulting.
Also, thanks to Prim and Anthy for understanding and empathizing with people who have different perspectives.
I won't just survive
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh
When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh
When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
Marry me, TP?
Or have I already asked you? I do tend to lose track....
"What do you fear, lady?" Aragorn asked.
"A cage," Éowyn said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
"A cage," Éowyn said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
Cerin: But I guess it isn't really an issue if you acknowledge that it is just peculiarly for you that this makes Judaism cease to exist. I had thought you were making a larger case. But if you are not trying to convince anyone else that this is the case, then I apologize for even arguing with you!
It's not an issue for me either if you acknowledge that it is just peculiarly for you that that these people are Jews. If you are not trying to convince anyone else that these people are Jews, then I too apologize for even arguing with you!
tp, great summary!
It would seem outrageous to me to deny the spiritual kinship and common roots of Judaism and Christianity. I do not disagree with anyone who says that Christianity sprang from Judaism and continues to reflect a great many Jewish beliefs, traditions, morality.
Jn
It's not an issue for me either if you acknowledge that it is just peculiarly for you that that these people are Jews. If you are not trying to convince anyone else that these people are Jews, then I too apologize for even arguing with you!
tp, great summary!
It would seem outrageous to me to deny the spiritual kinship and common roots of Judaism and Christianity. I do not disagree with anyone who says that Christianity sprang from Judaism and continues to reflect a great many Jewish beliefs, traditions, morality.
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
Cerin, Shema is meant to be the MAIN declaration of faith. Theology of Judaism in a nutshell. Which, now that I think about it, answers TP's erstwhile question - what Jews need to believe to be considered Jews in a religious sense. Shema is it.Cerin wrote:I would be totally comfortable reciting Shema. I'm not sure I could call it the MAIN declaration of my faith, because it leaves a great deal out. I mean, I'd not want to be restricted to reciting that only.
As a Jew, there's nothing I need to add and indeed nothing I CAN add. As a Christian, it is essential that you add your belief in Jesus as your Savior or nobody would know that you are Christian.
I do know that Christians believe that Three is One. For (please forgive me a Pratchett reference, which I just can't resist) a given value of One. BTW, Jewish authorities were divided on the subject of whether to consider Christianity a monotheistic religion, but not willing to make too much fuss.
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
That's fine by me!It's not an issue for me either if you acknowledge that it is just peculiarly for you that that these people are Jews. If you are not trying to convince anyone else that these people are Jews, then I too apologize for even arguing with you!
(I hate to think you thought I was trying to convince you they were Jews after you had made it known how distasteful the thought was to you.)
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Frelga wrote:I do know that Christians believe that Three is One. For (please forgive me a Pratchett reference, which I just can't resist) a given value of One.
They have my sympathies. I can't imagine trying to parse out the Trinity if one didn't actually have to.Frelga wrote:BTW, Jewish authorities were divided on the subject of whether to consider Christianity a monotheistic religion, but not willing to make too much fuss.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
It isn't often I sympathize with you, halplm, as you know.halplm wrote:See, i don't think that beliefs should lead to being offended. I don't consider the fact that someone believes differently to be offensive.
If somone says It's foolish to believe something I believe, THAT is something I get offended by. But if someone says, "I don't believe like you do, i believe like this..." then I will disagree, but I will not get offended.
I'm honestly trying to understand how MY beliefs can be OFFENSIVE to others.
I understand them being different. I understand disagreeing with them. I understand wishing I agreed with you rather than disagreeing. I do not understand me being offensive.
But I sympathize with you here.
And everyone else on this thread.
I disagree with almost everything you and Cerin have said, but I'm not offended by anything you've said. I "disagree" with much of what several other people on this thread say.
Puzzled, yes. Bewildered, yes. But not offended.
I have my own set of beliefs, my own "philosophy". Nothing anyone says here invalidates what I think or believe. I might think some people are mistaken, but it isn't my right or my duty to set them straight.
I think that is where offense COULD lie.
Not saying anyone here is guilty of that. But maybe some read it that way.
Dig deeper.
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46178
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
WARNING! HIGHLY SENSITIVE POST AHEAD I want to make it clear up front that this post is not in any way directed at any of the individual posters here. I am not trying to imply then anyone here has any kind of negative agenda or any agenda at all except to try to explain their own beliefs as honestly as possible, which I respect very much. Rather, it is an attempt to explain that "gut reaction" that I mentioned earlier. I beg your indulgence.
As many of you know, I am Jewish by heritage, but I have never been religious. Nonetheless, I am sensitive to the history of persecution of the Jewish people. Of my people. That history extends back millenia, but over the past 1000+ years most of it has been generated by people who are Christian, or at least call themselves Christian (ignoring for a moment the Israeli-Arab conflicts of the past half decade). As is true of others here, the bulk of my family was exterminated by people who called themselves Christians (though of course they were not acting as Christians). Growing up in my early years in highly WASPish town in eastern Long Island, I experienced a surprisingly high amount of overt anti-Semitism (including other children chasing me around throwing pennies at me calling "jew-begger, jew-begger"). Later in my child when I moved to a town in western Long Island that was predominantly Jewish, there were a number of instances of anti-Semitic hate crimes (primarily but not entirely involving vandalism).
Part of the history of Christian persecution of Jews involved attempts at forcing Jews to convert to Christianity, and to eliminate them if they refused. There is a long a painful history of Christians insisting (sometimes violently) that Jews are WRONG and must acknowledge it or face the consequences.
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that anyone here is trying to force anyone else to change their beliefs. If just trying to explain why even such a non-religious Jew as I am would have such a visceral reaction to some of the things that I have read here. I beg everyone to take this post in the spirit it is intended. There has been tremendous progress made in recent years in interfaith relations, and I don't mean to downplay that. But, just as I believe that it would be foolish to disregard the history of slavery and oppression of African-Americans in address race relations in America today, I also believe that it would be foolish to disregard the history of Christian persecution of Jews in discussing these issues.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
-
Impenitent
- Throw me a rope.
- Posts: 7262
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:13 am
- Location: Deep in Oz
TP, your theory parallels my "many spokes to the wheel" philosophy.
Last edited by Impenitent on Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
nerdanel
- This is Rome
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:48 pm
- Location: Concrete Jungle by the Lagoon
Voronwë...a very poignant, meaningful post. Some of my unexpressed thoughts were a pale shadow of what you wrote (re: the painful history of Christian persecution of Jews)...but I feel they needed to be expressed in this thread, and by someone who is Jewish. Thank you for doing so.
Impy, to the contrary - after seeing you post in the many threads we now have about Jewishness...I feel that I have come to see more of you, and appreciate you more than I had before (I feel like we hadn't really posted "together" before, even though we have been in a lot of threads together in the past.
) I am glad that you posted here and hope you continue to do so. Your perspective is a valuable one, and I hope you will not withdraw for any other reason than if you need a break.
vison...I appreciate your understanding, too, of different perspectives than your own.
Cerin, I understand that you were, as always, explaining your viewpiont in a very methodical and sensical fashion, and I definitely took something from it.
Frelga, if you are saying that the Shema is the answer to what a Jew would need to believe to be religiously Jewish...do you mean that a Jew would need to have that as their central statement of faith? My understanding was that this is in fact true for religious Jews, and saying "central statement of faith" would exclude adherents of other religions who might otherwise be comfortable with the statement, but not as a central expression of their beliefs.
[ETA Frelga, I know you know this, but for others who might not, a nitpicky thing about the Shema, from another member of the TMI Department. The expression of faith is not just the first line that Frelga quoted, Sh'ma yisrael, adonai eloheinu, adonai echad - but includes Deuteronomy 6:4-9, Deuteronomy 11:13-21, and Numbers 15:37-41. AFAIK, when saying the Shema, the entire prayer is generally said. But the central line is the first.)
Anthy - I can't remember whether or not you have, but consider me to have accepted.
Impy, to the contrary - after seeing you post in the many threads we now have about Jewishness...I feel that I have come to see more of you, and appreciate you more than I had before (I feel like we hadn't really posted "together" before, even though we have been in a lot of threads together in the past.
) I am glad that you posted here and hope you continue to do so. Your perspective is a valuable one, and I hope you will not withdraw for any other reason than if you need a break.vison...I appreciate your understanding, too, of different perspectives than your own.
Cerin,
I understand that you were, as always, explaining your viewpiont in a very methodical and sensical fashion, and I definitely took something from it.Frelga, if you are saying that the Shema is the answer to what a Jew would need to believe to be religiously Jewish...do you mean that a Jew would need to have that as their central statement of faith? My understanding was that this is in fact true for religious Jews, and saying "central statement of faith" would exclude adherents of other religions who might otherwise be comfortable with the statement, but not as a central expression of their beliefs.
[ETA Frelga, I know you know this, but for others who might not, a nitpicky thing about the Shema, from another member of the TMI Department. The expression of faith is not just the first line that Frelga quoted, Sh'ma yisrael, adonai eloheinu, adonai echad - but includes Deuteronomy 6:4-9, Deuteronomy 11:13-21, and Numbers 15:37-41. AFAIK, when saying the Shema, the entire prayer is generally said. But the central line is the first.)
Anthy - I can't remember whether or not you have, but consider me to have accepted.
I won't just survive
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh
When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh
When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46178
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
-
nerdanel
- This is Rome
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:48 pm
- Location: Concrete Jungle by the Lagoon
*looks up from following Anthy around her state*Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:You are after all in the right state.Anthy - I can't remember whether or not you have, but consider me to have accepted.
They have same-sex marriage in Arizona now? Oh, you meant Massachusetts. You do know Anthy's already married. So you're saying it's the right state to commit bigamy, now?
I guess those right-wingers were right...legalize gay marriage, and look what happens. 
(Thank you. I needed a laugh so badly today!
)I won't just survive
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh
When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh
When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
TP, I can't remember if I ever asked you to marry me, and trigamy is probably a bit much even for someone from Massachusetts. And I'm terrified of you, which would probably pose some difficulties. But, like,
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
Voronwë, your post is both understood (to the degree that one can understand such things without having experienced them) and very much appreciated. It is entirely understandable that a member of a historically persecuted minority would play "connect-the-dots" throughout such a discussion, wondering what ulterior agendas may be present where.
-
truehobbit
- Cute, cuddly and dangerous to know
- Posts: 6019
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:52 am
- Contact:
Phew, such a lot of new posts since I last looked, I'm afraid I can't do all justice as I'd like to.
Still, I'd like to refer to a few things because I think my post has been quite misunderstood. I was not agreeing with the man saying that "Christians are better Jews" (not only because that would be nonsense, but also because I don't think that's what he said!) - I was only defending his decision to call himself a Jew in spite of believing in some basic Christian tenets.
I'll try to make it clearer why I think he can say so, and I hope it's clear that I'm not trying to know better than Jews what a Jew is, but to point out some of the distinctions where so far only the similarities have been pointed out.
On the way from Judaism to Christianity a giant step was made away from the Jewish culture.
Any Jew who would want to convert to Christianity would have to make that step, too, in a way - which is what I meant by the "baggage" of Christianity.
I can understand that someone who grew up as a Jew, hears about Jesus as Messiah and decides for himself to accept that, still doesn't want to leave his Jewishness behind in order to become a Christian.
I agree very much with what Jewel said about the Jewish roots of Christianity - excellent explanatory post! - but I still think there's more between Jews and Christians than just acception or rejection of Jesus as Messiah.
Now, of course that means he is not a main-stream Jew anymore - but I can still understand his claim for Jewishness.
Yes, I'd probably say that this person was an idiot, but I don't think this is anything to get upset about.
Actually, I think this is exactly what all the Christian confessions are telling each other all the time - and we all just take it with a chuckle.
We did use to kill each other over that, but I think we realised that didn't make sense (and I believe that the remaining confessional wars on this planet are about nationality more than confession).
But there's no denying, I think, that someone who is "Orthodox" calls himself so, because he believes that all the other Christian confessions have it wrong and they have it right.
I've repeatedly mentioned that amusing instance on TORC where someone said: "Tolkien was a Catholic? But I thought he was a Christian!"
I find this funny, but I know that at the root of this is an ingrained Protestant belief that Catholics have Christianity all wrong! I just don't mind them thinking so, because I happen to think that they have it wrong!
The point is just that (hopefully) neither of us thinks the other has it so badly wrong as to not be a Christian anymore.
I think the question is where to draw the line. I think even Christians draw the line at very different places depending on their confession. I don't doubt that there are still confessions out there who believe that Catholics are the Anti-Christ. So, of course I agree that I can't tell Jews where they should draw the line.
However, let's get away from whether he is a Jew or not and ask whether he is a Christian.
Now, this may be very much the view of someone from a very old and stuffy confession - but, to me, it takes more than accepting Jesus as the Messiah to make you a Christian in the practical sense of the word.
tp posted somewhere on this board about the process to convert to Judaism, and from what I understand, just saying "I believe in all the Jewish doctrines" would not make you a Jew or would it? I remember you said you'd have to be immersed in a ritual bath and only then would you be a Jew.
Well, we have a similar thing in Christianity - it's baptism.
From what I've read, Jews for Jesus don't seem to know baptism. For me, as a Catholic, this settles the question: if the man is not baptised he is not a Christian in the proper sense of the word!
Still, I'd like to refer to a few things because I think my post has been quite misunderstood. I was not agreeing with the man saying that "Christians are better Jews" (not only because that would be nonsense, but also because I don't think that's what he said!) - I was only defending his decision to call himself a Jew in spite of believing in some basic Christian tenets.
I'll try to make it clearer why I think he can say so, and I hope it's clear that I'm not trying to know better than Jews what a Jew is, but to point out some of the distinctions where so far only the similarities have been pointed out.
This is one thing I was referring to in my post.tinwë wrote: In Acts, which is essentially the sequel to the Gospel of Luke and tells of the beginnings of the Church, there is a debate between Paul and the leaders of the church in Jerusalem as to whether or not one must become a Jew in order to be a Christian, specifically centering around the need for circumcision. It was decided that it was not necessary, only an abbreviated version of the Noahide Laws - “pollution of idols, fornication, things strangled, and blood". The fact that the Church, from that point on, flourished in Gentile cultures while largely fading out in the Nazarene, or Jewish, sects, leads me to believe that Christians, for the most part, are not Jews.
On the way from Judaism to Christianity a giant step was made away from the Jewish culture.
Any Jew who would want to convert to Christianity would have to make that step, too, in a way - which is what I meant by the "baggage" of Christianity.
I can understand that someone who grew up as a Jew, hears about Jesus as Messiah and decides for himself to accept that, still doesn't want to leave his Jewishness behind in order to become a Christian.
I agree very much with what Jewel said about the Jewish roots of Christianity - excellent explanatory post! - but I still think there's more between Jews and Christians than just acception or rejection of Jesus as Messiah.
This is another aspect that I think goes in the direction of what I was thinking: I think it's possible that a Jew decides to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, and still believe that eating porc is impure, for example - the main point of my post was that I do think it's possible that someone accepts one part of the Christian faith and still retains all the other aspects of his Jewish faith.Jny wrote:It is factually wrong that Jesus did away with Jewish dietary law (per Scripture)
Now, of course that means he is not a main-stream Jew anymore - but I can still understand his claim for Jewishness.
So, yes, in these things the man is not Jewish - are these the defining elements of what makes one a Jew, then? (Just trying to understand what the main criteria are - it seems that Frelga and tp disagree?)One cannot simultaneously believe that Jesus was and was not God. One cannot say the shema and then claim that God is three people.
Prim, this brings me to another aspect I've been thinking of.Prim wrote:Hal, may I be theoretical? Suppose a Mormon came to you and said, "My faith is the fulfillment of the promise of Christianity. Only people in my faith are true Christians; my faith replaces what you call Christianity. You don't know what Christianity is, and if you call yourself a Christian, you're wrong."
Honestly, wouldn't you hate that, even if you didn't accept the validity of any of those points? I mean, who is this person to tell you what your lifelong faith is and what it means? Who is this person to claim that she knows what that faith is and you do not—to tell you that you are not Christian?
Yes, I'd probably say that this person was an idiot, but I don't think this is anything to get upset about.
Actually, I think this is exactly what all the Christian confessions are telling each other all the time - and we all just take it with a chuckle.
We did use to kill each other over that, but I think we realised that didn't make sense (and I believe that the remaining confessional wars on this planet are about nationality more than confession).
But there's no denying, I think, that someone who is "Orthodox" calls himself so, because he believes that all the other Christian confessions have it wrong and they have it right.
I've repeatedly mentioned that amusing instance on TORC where someone said: "Tolkien was a Catholic? But I thought he was a Christian!"
I find this funny, but I know that at the root of this is an ingrained Protestant belief that Catholics have Christianity all wrong! I just don't mind them thinking so, because I happen to think that they have it wrong!
The point is just that (hopefully) neither of us thinks the other has it so badly wrong as to not be a Christian anymore.
I think the question is where to draw the line. I think even Christians draw the line at very different places depending on their confession. I don't doubt that there are still confessions out there who believe that Catholics are the Anti-Christ. So, of course I agree that I can't tell Jews where they should draw the line.
However, let's get away from whether he is a Jew or not and ask whether he is a Christian.
Now, this may be very much the view of someone from a very old and stuffy confession - but, to me, it takes more than accepting Jesus as the Messiah to make you a Christian in the practical sense of the word.
tp posted somewhere on this board about the process to convert to Judaism, and from what I understand, just saying "I believe in all the Jewish doctrines" would not make you a Jew or would it? I remember you said you'd have to be immersed in a ritual bath and only then would you be a Jew.
Well, we have a similar thing in Christianity - it's baptism.
From what I've read, Jews for Jesus don't seem to know baptism. For me, as a Catholic, this settles the question: if the man is not baptised he is not a Christian in the proper sense of the word!
but being a cheerful hobbit he had not needed hope, as long as despair could be postponed.